ENERGY & UTILITIES
Test acceptability
before breaking ground.
Energy companies, grid operators, local utility operators: test your siting, pricing, transition and governance decisions against coherent populations of residents, consumers and political stakeholders.
THE THESIS — CARDINAL PROMISE
An energy project is no longer decided by its engineering. It's decided by the gap between what technicians decide and what territories accept.
Our system lets you measure that gap before the public inquiry.
CASE STUDY, ENERGY COMPANY, OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT
“ How do you site a 500 MW offshore wind farm off a tourist coastline without triggering local opposition that blocks the project for five years? ”
Simulated on 1.6 million residents, tourism professionals and coastal inhabitants · 22 typologies of relationship to landscape and energy · 9 scenarios of siting and compensation tested
The project is technically excellent: among the best wind resources in Europe, optimal grid connection, solid environmental file. It represents EUR 1.4 billion in investment and 8% of the regional renewables target. But two precedents in the region were blocked after legal challenges from associations, costing 4 years of schedule and triggering a depreciation of the project's value.
The energy company must decide: optimal siting 12 km offshore (visible but profitable), 25 km (barely visible but 22% lower yield), or 18 km (a compromise with a reinforced compensation scheme). The public inquiry is scheduled in 18 months. What will actually happen on the ground?
What the system revealed
The contestation isn't about landscape, it's about identity.
The most mobilizable opponents aren't defending a landscape, they're defending a territorial identity: the idea of a preserved coastline that structures their local narrative. A technical argument about the relative invisibility of the turbines at 18 km doesn't reach that dimension. Public recognition of the territorial identity, combined with a local governance scheme for the project, reduces opposition from 71% to 34%.
Tourism professionals are divided, but not the way you'd think.
"Traditional" hoteliers and restaurateurs (couples over 55, senior clientele) reject the project. "New generation" hoteliers (spa, eco-tourism, 35-50 clientele) are in favor: the wind farm becomes "a marker of a modern territory" in their client pitch. Communication that activates the latter flips 40% of local professional discourse within 6 months.
Economic compensation is necessary, but insufficient.
A massive compensation scheme (a EUR 25 million territorial fund over 25 years) increases acceptability by only +12 pts. A modest compensation scheme (EUR 5 million) combined with local co-governance (municipal representatives on the project committee, annual financial transparency, a land reserve for municipal projects) increases acceptability by +34 pts. It's not money that's missing, it's recognition of local power.
What Imagine All The People did that no one else could have done
Our system interviewed 4,400 synthetic residents, professionals and stakeholders across the 22 identified typologies, tested 9 siting scenarios combined with 14 compensation schemes in variable combinations, and projected opposition and mobilization trajectories over the 18 months preceding the public inquiry. The strategy "siting at 18 km + local co-governance + modest targeted fund" dominates 8 of the 9 technical scenarios.
No legal public consultation can interview 4,400 profiles before the announcement. No sociological research firm can test 14 compensation schemes in simulation. No conventional citizen consultation can project mobilization 18 months out.
- PROJECTED ORGANIZED OPPOSITION
- 71% → 34%with recommended strategy
- RISK OF PUBLIC INQUIRY BLOCKAGE
- −68%
- 4-YEAR DELAY COST AVOIDED
- EUR 180 milliondepreciation and financial cost
APPLICATIONS
Three uses for energy and utilities.
Siting & infrastructure
Test the acceptability of an infrastructure project, wind farm, high-voltage line, storage site, production unit, in the affected territories. Identify receptive segments, pockets of opposition, and the compensation schemes that shift the balance.
Pricing & transition
Anticipate reactions to a tariff change, a shift in operating contract, a transition policy (electric vehicles, low-carbon heating, energy sobriety). Detect friction points by customer segment, calibrate support messaging.
Governance & reputational risk
Model reactions to a sensitive governance decision: change of ownership, concession extension, management of an industrial incident. Identify the publics that shift, the segments to protect, the gestures that rebuild trust.
METHODS
Three ways to test a decision.
Comparing what a synthetic-population simulation brings against existing methods.
| AI PERSONAS | TRADITIONAL SURVEYS | IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE |
|---|---|---|
| SCALE | ||
| 5 to 10 fixed personas | 500 to 2,000 respondents | Up to 10 million coherent individuals |
| DYNAMICS | ||
| Frozen characteristics | Pre-written questions, static answers | Agents that ask, probe and brainstorm |
| TIME HORIZON | ||
| Assumed current state | Snapshot of the present | Projection of future consequences |
| DEPTH | ||
| One synthetic answer | Aggregated statistical tables | Individual dialogue + collective analysis |
| DATA & SOVEREIGNTY | ||
| Limited demographic data · US public cloud | Personal data collected at scale · Public cloud | Zero personal data · Infrastructure in France · On-premise possible |
OTHER CASES
Three other decisions tested in the sector.
ENERGY COMPANY: STRUCTURAL TARIFF INCREASE
"How do you announce a structural tariff increase to residential customers without triggering mass attrition to competitors?"
Simulated on 2.4 million residential customers · 16 profiles of relationship to the supplier · 5 strategies tested · projection over 18 months
Attrition isn't decided at the moment of announcement: it's decided at the first bill. A bill-control scheme combined with the announcement transforms acceptance (24% → 62%). Counter-intuitively, vulnerable customers identified upfront become the most loyal at 18 months, driven by recognition of the support received.
- ATTRITION RATE AT 18 MONTHS
- 7% vs 15%
- VULNERABLE CUSTOMER RETENTION
- 96%
ENERGY GROUP: THERMAL PLANT CLOSURE
"How do you manage the scheduled closure of a thermal plant in its host territory?"
Simulated on 1.1 million residents and stakeholders · 14 profiles of relationship to industrial activity · 4 reconversion strategies · projection over 60 months
The reconversion project announcement must precede the closure announcement to flip the symbolic reading (34% → 62% acceptance). A costed, contractual employee scheme dominates an indicative one (78% vs 41% buy-in). Co-producing the project with local elected officials in a tripartite committee transforms an imposed decision into a negotiated territorial agreement.
- EMPLOYEES REDEPLOYED
- 92%
- TERRITORIAL POLITICAL SUPPORT
- 82%
GRID OPERATOR: NEXT-GENERATION METERS
"How do you roll out a new generation of smart meters without reactivating historical opposition?"
Simulated on 3.8 million households · 15 profiles of relationship to technology · 5 configurations tested · projection over 36 months
Explicit acknowledgment of the first rollout's difficulties shifts acceptance from 42% to 68%. A perceived-choice scheme (standard mode, enhanced privacy, programmable shutoff), with equivalent regulatory content, divides effective refusal by 3. The schedule must be sized to absorb media flashpoints rather than suffer them.
- EFFECTIVE REFUSAL RATE
- 1.4% vs 3%
- ROLLOUT ACCEPTANCE
- 42% → 68%
METHOD — ENERGY & UTILITIES
A fifteen-minute study.
How a test runs on our system, from the brief to the delivered study.
1
You formulate your decision
A question in plain language, phrased the way you would phrase it in the executive committee. No formalism required.
2
The system builds the populations
Target segments are reconstructed from public aggregates and industry data. No personally identifying data enters the system.
3
The agents interview, discuss, brainstorm
The system runs the interviews itself, probes friction points, and proposes alternative scenarios you had not considered.
4
You explore the study
You talk with individual voices, challenge the reasoning, change the decision and watch the impact in real time.
Your next decision
Which decision do you want to explore?
Describe your need. We can point you to the right level of support.
