> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.nunexus.org/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Common Ground: A Conversation with Benjamin Dierker
- URL: https://www.nunexus.org/common-ground-a-conversation-with-benjamin-dierker/
- Published: 2026-09-24T14:01:01.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-26T06:13:01.000Z
- Author: Charlotte Tam
- Tags: Interviews & Profiles

As Executive Director of the [Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure (Aii)](https://www.aii.org/?ref=nunexus.org), Benjamin Dierker oversees the think tank's independent research and educational content on innovation in infrastructure and public policy. Dierker operates at the intersection of economics, law, and public policy, building a career around distilling the practical realities that determine public policy and the systems essential to modern life, such as energy, construction, and transportation.

Dierker joined Aii shortly after its launch as a public policy intern while in graduate school at Texas A&M University. His first book, [*Holding Back Disaster: Protecting Lives and Infrastructure Through Excavation Damage Prevention*](https://www.routledge.com/Holding-Back-Disaster-Protecting-Lives-and-Infrastructure-Through-Excavation-Damage-Prevention/Landes-Dierker/p/book/9781041351214?ref=nunexus.org), co-authored with Scott Landes, was published by Routledge in August 2026 and is now available.

When we spoke via Zoom on August 27th, I asked Dierker about his book and the perspective that informed it. Our conversation would keep returning to the central economic ideas of trade-offs and incentives, and how governance is the art of aligning interests between stakeholders.

As a student, Dierker was "building a step by step process to go work for a think tank." After his undergraduate program, he pursued a Master of Public Administration because he "knew ultimately everything we do as citizens, consumers, policymakers—whatever role we are in—we are weighing incentives." He later attended George Mason Law School, drawn to its combined Economics and Law program.

For Dierker, most things reduce to economics. "The economics perspective can be blended in, not just in analyzing the law or how the Constitution is set up—the framework—but how those overarching systems define the incentives that we act upon." Dierker shared with me that the question of how we ought to weigh "trade offs in a system governed by laws" steers his work: "what I have done at Aii is try to bring that economics, law, and public policy analysis to infrastructure."

## Two Cans, a String, and a Power Plant

After watching Dierker and his co-author Scott Landes on [*Digging Deep: An OKIE811 Podcast*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRi9XFd6fyY&ref=nunexus.org), I was curious to hear more about the systems-wide perspective that inspired their book.

"Very often people think of infrastructure as singular, siloed pieces of our society," Dierker said. "They might picture the roads or the bridges. They might picture the cell towers or picture the transmission towers. Maybe if they're really thinking deeply, some think about wastewater or water systems. But very often they're not actually thinking of that as one whole system."

Dierker said that "you are physically connected to a power plant, like in the same way that kids playing with two cans and a string are actually physically connected by a string, there are physical wires. There's no way the electrons could get to you if you weren't physically connected to the power plant."

That interdependence can create resilience, but sometimes a single mistake can create extensive failures. "If somebody at any point in that system breaks the line, you're disconnected from the power," he stated, plainly.

Speaking on behalf of Aii, Dierker asserted his preference for performance-based regulation over prescription-based. "Performance-based describes what you're trying to achieve and lets people innovate," he expressed. "Be entrepreneurs, try to think, and create new things."

Renewable energy illustrates the tension. Lawmakers "want more renewable energy…and they think by subsidizing solar and wind, they'll get more of it," but a single wind farm must navigate land acquisition, permitting and siting, and the supply chain for materials, equipment, and construction. "It's going to be thirty years before you actually connect power. And we're talking about data centers and all the things potentially coming on scene, at scale in two to three years. You can't do a thirty year process. So, we've got to kind of help them see where permitting reform and concurrent development across the entire system is needed."

## Spray Paint On Our Common Ground

Dierker focused on the importance of "aligning interests, stakeholders all being at the same table at the same time… on the same page before things can happen." I asked him about his process for distilling complexity and driving progress while dealing with various stakeholders and backgrounds.

"I think there is no system that's too complicated for people to understand because we all interact with the system," Dierker said. "You have a relationship with power. So, what we do is start with that. What's the most common ground we have if we're introducing a complicated topic?"

Referencing *Holding Back Disaster*, Dierker said "damage prevention is not a phrase that 90% of the population has ever heard, or used. But it's like, *the phrase* for this industry—the 811 or the Call Before You Dig… When I talk to policymakers, they have never heard of that. They don't know what it is. But very often they are the legislative committee, they write the rules for it, or they regulate it in some way."

Dierker shared his specific formula for translating practical realities. "I always start with the same thing. Have you ever walked down the sidewalk and seen spray paint on the ground? And then they have an instant connection to it."

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/70/7b/707bb3cf-395b-47cb-8844-82edcc029098/content/images/2026/09/IMG_6504.jpg)

**Utility markings at the corner of Columbus Avenue and Ruggles Street on Northeastern's campus. (Photo by Matthew Graves)*

Dierker then explains what the colors of spray paint designate. Orange is telecom, yellow is natural gas, and red is electric. "Maybe the next time they go outside, they actually look around at the world, and now they're starting to relate to the infrastructure in ways they never have," he said, hopefully. "Find the common ground that you have some familiarity with this topic already."

From there he asks what his audience actually wants. *"What are your interests? Do you want your insurance premiums reduced? Do you want your water to work?"* In the utility sector, people tend to act as [*homo economicus*](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.9.2.221&ref=nunexus.org) because they "want to spend less money, make more profit." But the deeper interest, he said, is "the power to move between points and not have disruption."

## Balancing Tradeoffs and Tension Between Regulation and Technological Change

New technologies can evolve quicker than the rules governing them. I asked Dierker if there was a disconnect between technology and its regulatory oversight, and what he thought should be done about it.

Earlier in our conversation, Dierker had shared that railroad regulations "have been there for twenty or thirty years," referencing the [Federal Railroad Administration's Track Safety Standards 49 CFR 213.233](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/part-213/subpart-F/section-213.233?ref=nunexus.org). This regulation covers visual track inspections by qualified persons, which may be conducted on foot or from a slow-moving vehicle. He noted that while he has no issue with the process, "automated track inspection in the track geometry is hundreds of times more precise than humans can get."

"Technically, railroads can use that technology anyway," Dierker clarified. "No one's stopping them from using more technology. But it's a trade off. You can't invest in capital and labor." With limited resources, there is no incentive to adopt more efficient technology "until the regulation allows a different balance between labor and capital, and then you create the resources to do that." That's why Aii is focused on policies that promote rather than restrict technological innovation and application.

Consider the example of hydrogen production. Dierker referenced the [Aii Expert Panel Matching Tech Progress with Regulatory Flexibility](https://www.aii.org/aii-expert-panel-matching-tech-progress-with-regulatory-flexibility/?ref=nunexus.org) and explained that hydrogen types carry color designations by production method: blue for hydrogen made from natural gas, green for hydrogen made with renewable energy. Turquoise is the exception: "it does use natural gas, but it doesn't produce CO2\. So it's actually 'greener' than the green but uses natural gas." Produced through methane pyrolysis, the gas is split into solid carbon and hydrogen. The regulation measures at the meter, which cannot tell the difference.

The result inverts the regulation's purpose. With "hydrogen gas, there's no CO2\. So the whole point of that regulation, which would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, doesn't apply to that model. So you could have a company actually being penalized by the regulatory regime while actually doing more work than the regulatory regime ever envisioned to reduce CO2 emissions."

## Data Centers, Democracy, and Demand

I inquired about the [Aii Expert Panel on the Data Energy Triangle, Challenges and Opportunities for Fiber, Electric, and Data Infrastructure](https://www.aii.org/aii-expert-panel-on-the-data-energy-triangle-challenges-and-opportunities-for-fiber-electric-and-data-infrastructure/?ref=nunexus.org), which I had found illuminating. It's no surprise that data centers have been increasingly politicized. A [University of Pennsylvania poll](https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/opposition-to-local-data-centers-rises-sharply-annenberg-survey-finds/?ref=nunexus.org) found that 61% of Americans somewhat or strongly oppose data center construction in their area while only 14% are supportive. Almost four in 10 Americans believe AI will have a negative impact on the nation over the next decade, which is more than double the amount who believe it will be positive.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/70/7b/707bb3cf-395b-47cb-8844-82edcc029098/content/images/2026/09/unknown-2.PNG)

**Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Institutions of Democracy survey, June 16–July 19, 2026.*

The skepticism extends across political affiliations: 69% of Democrats, 54% of Republicans, and 53% of Independents oppose local construction. The same wariness attaches to AI's perceived effects on personal privacy, employment, and household utility costs. Medical research was the only area the survey found Americans expect AI to improve.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/70/7b/707bb3cf-395b-47cb-8844-82edcc029098/content/images/2026/09/unknown-1.PNG)

**Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Institutions of Democracy survey, June 16–July 19, 2026.*

I asked Dierker to clear up misconceptions about data centers: "We've had data centers for a lot of years. That's not a new concept. The concept right now is that scale." There have been data centers "since long before the internet, but there hasn't been generative AI and all the things that use tons of bandwidth as much as right this second."

Dierker understands how concerns around data centers are politically salient to individuals, but he similarly asserts that individuals themselves are responsible for the rise of data centers and subsequent politicization. "I will ask things that I could Google or just thought about for 10 seconds, but I'm using the prompts and I'm spending some time. That's all sending signals to the market to develop more, put more data out there… We are all guilty of the reasons for this increase in demand."

He noted how AI is everywhere, from search engines to email inbox AI summaries, from classrooms to courtrooms. The issue is not building or maintaining data centers: “The question is, can we double, triple, or quadruple the number of and the pace we're building them, all of a sudden.”

He compared the backlash to the nuclear controversy of the late twentieth century. "We know how to build nuclear. It's safe. Efficient. But people got scared of it, and so for fifty years, we didn't build any." The same dynamic now attaches to data centers. "Data centers aren't dangerous. People just don't want them… It becomes more of a public perception thing than an infrastructure thing." With engagement requirements and [National Environmental Policy Act](https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act?ref=nunexus.org) review, building something that the public is already a little skeptical of "becomes this huge project," and "all of that gets extra attention."

The data center water consumption debate follows the same shape. Dierker noted how parts of arguments from *both* sides will be riddled with bias from particular interest groups. Some argue data centers [don't use as much water as someone might be concerned about](https://andymasley.com/writing/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake/?ref=nunexus.org); others point to ["water-guzzling data centers."](https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-centers-and-water-consumption?ref=nunexus.org) Dierker stated that "the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of both of those," and that "a lot of it comes back to land acquisition, siting, permitting, environmental review." He went on to state that "if we had an overarching regulatory culture that enabled building anything more efficiently, you wouldn't have a big fight when new buildings had to go up."

## Educating Students and Policymakers in the AI Age

Dierker and NU Nexus share the fact that we inhabit the intersection of education and governance. I asked Dierker: what do you think the application or implications of AI are for governance and education?

"I think AI is a tool that we can leverage, but we have to manage \[it\]," he said. On generative language models specifically: "If you are letting it do your work for you, you are losing critical thinking… and there's been [tons of studies](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2026/07-08/ai-job-skills-thinking?ref=nunexus.org) on that. That's also true if you're managing it and using it for the right type of application, it can be really helpful and efficient." He mentioned "taking complicated material and creating handouts for students or policymaker briefs" as a legitimate use case. He notes that Aii doesn't use AI for its own materials.

> **"We create all our stuff originally."**

On the theme of education for AI governance and ethics, I informed Dierker that one of the inspirations behind NU Nexus was one of [Northeastern's first AI courses in the social sciences](https://www.nunexus.org/northeasterns-first-ai-courses-in-the-social-sciences-are-here/), POLS 4580: AI, Politics, & the Economy. I asked how he thinks we, as students and citizens, can collectively promote safe, resilient and efficient infrastructure.

"I think people have to care enough and know enough about the world they live in. When I drive across town, I'm looking at very different things than my wife or than you probably do," Dierker said. "If I drive in a neighborhood that doesn't have overhead lines, I notice that because I think about buried infrastructure. So to me, that kind of sticks out. But everyone doesn't need to. That's extreme… Most people don't think about it at all."

Again, Dierker mentioned the systems-wide perspective as an essential lens for viewing everything we engage with as citizens. "There has to be a level of care and engagement with the subject matter, and *everything* is a subject matter. We all use infrastructure, whether it's energy or water infrastructure, telecommunications, broadband. We couldn't be having this conversation without data centers and without the electric grid."

As we wrapped up our conversation, another important consideration that arose was "caring enough to look at and invite neutral parties." Dierker shared that "in the damage prevention space, I've seen it where a large company will come in, educate a bunch of lawmakers and they see a legislative victory. But it doesn't help the industry. It doesn't help the wider infrastructure landscape. It helps *that* company. That's why they came in to lobby."

A lawmaker unaware of the 811 system and its stakeholders is an easy target for a fast pitch. "Anyone can explain anything quickly and make you think, *oh, we should change that, you're right,*" Dierker said. On the other hand, a lawmaker with a broader, more informed perspective and support from neutral voices might ask more thoughtful questions, such as "*okay, I see why you want that, but doesn't it push against these two other interests?*"

As students, citizens, and stakeholders, it is our responsibility to ask these questions. We can achieve common ground in an increasingly polarized world by putting ourselves in the shoes of others, inquiring about what their interests are, and collaboratively determining a practical route to how they can be actualized. If politics is the art of the possible, then we must begin by realizing how banal our individual goals are and how they are best achieved by embracing our similarities rather than rejecting our differences.

---

*Benjamin Dierker is the executive director of the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure. He can be found on* [*LinkedIn*](https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamin-r-dierker/?ref=nunexus.org)*, and more about his work is at* [*aii.org*](https://www.aii.org/?ref=nunexus.org)*.*

*Charlotte Tam is the Editor of Interviews & Profiles at NU Nexus. She is a third-year undergraduate at Northeastern studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.*