Introduction
Utilities in the United States and Canada have increasingly focused on long-term organizational equity goals to ensure all energy users, particularly “priority” audiences who have not historically participated in or benefitted from energy efficiency to the same extent as others, are equitably engaged. However, a key challenge to achieving equity goals is measuring and tracking progress toward more equitable engagement. To this end, many energy efficiency organizations—assumed to be synonymous with utilities for the purposes of this study—have developed and implemented metrics that aim to assess baseline inequities, identify priority energy users, and measure ongoing progress in addressing inequities in program access and benefit.
The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) launched the CEE Center for Equity and Energy Behavior (the Center) in 2022 to support utilities in driving equitable participation in energy efficiency program offerings. CEE membership consists of 80 energy efficiency utility members directing approximately 70 percent of the USD $9 billion spent annually binationally on energy efficiency and demand response programs (CEE 2024). The Center aims to address the reality that income-eligible, low-English proficient, rural, Indigenous communities, renters, and other priority audiences, may not participate in—and benefit from—energy efficiency to the same extent as their counterparts.
Energy equity and justice are rooted in a widely recognized framework of recognition or structural, procedural, distributive, and restorative justice, defined in Table 1 (EEP 2022; Barlow, Tapio & Tarakegne 2022). Energy equity and justice are intertwined concepts. Weihang et al. (2025) defines energy justice as the idea that all individuals should have equal access to the benefits of clean and affordable energy, while energy equity translates these objectives into concrete targets and metrics. Barlow, Tapio & Tarakegne (2022) argue there is a considerable lack of consensus around definitions of energy justice, though reiterate the four established energy justice and equity tenets.
Table 1
Typology of Energy Justice Tenets (EEP 2022).
| ENERGY JUSTICE TENET | DEFINITION | EXAMPLE METRICS |
|---|---|---|
| Recognition | Identify historical structural and systemic disparities beyond a household’s immediate control that contribute to different types of vulnerability among priority communities. |
|
| Procedural | Reveal decision-makers and ensure those impacted by decisions are heard throughout design, implementation, and evaluation of energy programs and policies, with the necessary accountability mechanisms in place. |
|
| Distributive | Ensure that the investments, benefits and risks associated with energy efficiency are justly and fairly distributed, recognizing that priority communities often receive fewer benefits and more harms. |
|
| Restorative | Repair injustices arising from energy decision-making by ensuring that all potential harms and injustices that may arise are addressed, and prevention, mitigation, and restoration plans are implemented. |
|
To advance energy justice, equity efforts often focus on priority audiences, also referred to in the literature as “underserved,” “vulnerable,” or “hard-to-reach.” Audiences may include low-income communities, small businesses and enterprises, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), rural residents and businesses, non-native speakers, and multifamily renters, among others (Ashby et al. 2020a). A non-exhaustive search of the literature on utility programmatic and portfolio equity measurement practices reveals several common themes. Metrics for assessing progress on program engagement or organizational equity goals often focus on:
Identifying and defining priority populations (e.g., low annual income and high energy burden; share of household income spent on energy costs).
Determining disparate impacts of programs (e.g., program investment; energy savings; program participation rates). Metrics may be used to inform future investment decision-making.
Including representative voices in program design and delivery and identifying program impact (e.g., comparisons of participant and eligible population demographics; comparisons of program investment and savings) (Tarakegne et al. 2021; Levin et al. 2019). Metrics often align with the four energy justice tenets, as described in Table 1. Table 2 provides an example of a utility equity metrics framework.
Table 2
Typology of Implemented Metrics Framework following a Logic Model Process (Washington State Department of Commerce n.d.).
| METRIC TYPE | OBJECT OF MEASUREMENT |
|---|---|
| Impact or Goal | Overall impact to community intended to be measured. |
| Specific Actions | Actions to be taken towards meeting goals. |
| Input | Resources to be dedicated to or consumed by a program or specific action. |
| Output | Direct progress of program implementation or specific actions; tangible or intangible products that result from program activities. |
| Outcome | Data collected to assess the extent to which expected outcomes have been achieved. Outcomes are changes in the community expected to result from a set of specific actions. |
Equity metrics have been increasingly integrated into energy efficiency program evaluations, either voluntarily tracked or mandated to report within a jurisdictional regulatory context. In 2024, utility regulators drove energy equity efforts within 19 US states (Hanus et al. 2024). However, the majority of outcomes associated with these equity efforts were not tied to corresponding metrics, indicating a possible gap in practical and replicable processes to measure equity within the industry. Past literature reveals emerging practices (e.g., program design techniques to gather community input, creation of advisory boards to plan measurement efforts) through qualitative utility case studies (Levin et al. 2019).
This paper is the culmination of four years of research and utility member deliberations, from which CEE staff identified four members who have highly prioritized equity measurement. Case studies offer emerging lessons and strategies on metrics development, setting baselines and targets, engaging community and stakeholders, and operationalizing equity metrics to improve program design and delivery and better meet the needs of all energy users.
Methodology
The methodology of this study involves non-random sampling and is exploratory in nature. Using semi-structured interview transcripts, this paper describes in detail four organizations’ efforts to better measure equitable engagement of priority customers in energy efficiency programming. This series of case studies contributes to literature specific utility experiences, practical process insights, and perspectives to guide future equity measurement work across organizations.
In May 2025, CEE fielded a voluntary survey to 47 CEE members and received 28 responses—a nearly 60% response rate. The survey sought input on community outreach strategies and partnerships, regulatory equity mandates, equity measurement, community capacity building efforts, and priority audience engagement strategies. From the data and knowledge of existing members’ efforts, CEE reached out to members to inquire about interest in and relevance to the case study process given their extensive equity measurement work.
The authors conducted semi-structured interviews on planning and design, implementation, and a broader discussion on challenges, strategies, unintended consequences, and emerging lessons for implementing metrics (see Table 3 for case study overviews). These 90-minute interviews were conducted with utility staff from the following organizations across the United States:
Energy Trust of Oregon (December 16, 2025, and February 26, 2026)
Seattle City Light (December 17, 2025)
Cape Light Compact (January 21, 2026)
Rhode Island Energy (February 6, 2026)
Table 3
Cross-case Comparison of Equity Measurement Processes.
| PROCESS COMPONENT | ENERGY TRUST OF OREGON | CAPE LIGHT COMPACT | SEATTLE CITY LIGHT | RHODE ISLAND ENERGY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority Communities Tracked by Metrics | State-defined environmental justice communities (EJCs), based on income, health inequities, tribal status, rural and coastal status, limited infrastructure, and communities underrepresented and adversely harmed by environmental and health hazards (Office of Oregon Governor n.d.) | Income-eligible; small businesses; renters; low-English proficient; “Designated equity communities” (low-income and renter census tracts) | “Highly impacted communities (HICs)” and “vulnerable populations (VPs),” based on income, disability/health risk, limited English proficiency, and BIPOC self-attestation | State-defined EJCs, based on income, minority status, or percent of households that lack “English language proficiency” (RI DEM n.d.) |
| Outreach and Engagement | Surveys, workshops, and focus groups with low-income, rural communities; stakeholder engagement with community organizations, program implementors, utilities, renters, small businesses | Massachusetts-based equity working group of voting equity advisory councilors, utilities, local community action agencies, and environmental justice organizations | Presentations from staff in community spaces, representative commissions; tabling at community events with translation support | Rhode Island-based equity working group of community organizations, nonprofits, small businesses, resident advocacy groups, municipal and state entities, and other industry experts |
| Internal Capacity-Building Activities | Equity gap analysis; internal restructuring of equity advisory group and creation of cross-functional working groups to centralize reporting | N/A | Utilization of an equity analysis toolkit for evaluating equity progress throughout City of Seattle | Educational meetings with internal program managers; “Energy Fellow” internship focusing on data visualization techniques to inform teams of data trends and support program planning |
| Overall Metrics Theme(s) | Community partner support; outreach to priority communities; enhanced workforce development; increased access to energy efficiency upgrades and renewable projects | Community partner support; outreach to priority communities; enhanced workforce development; expanded language access; increased access to energy efficiency upgrades | Community partner support; outreach to priority communities; enhanced workforce development; expanded language access; increased access to bill assistance, energy efficiency upgrades, and renewable projects; improved community health | Increased access to energy efficiency upgrades |
The authors recognize several underlying limitations of this methodology. First, sampling, selection, and volunteer bias exist due to the availability and bandwidth of participating member organizations. Furthermore, the authors acknowledge the absence of direct interviews with community members—the intended beneficiaries of this work—in this study. Research instead relies on case study organizations’ own extensive, documented community outreach (located in referenced materials), which the authors believe offer valuable process insights. Finally, the novelty of this work across organizations limits the availability and comparability of outcome evidence; this exploratory study thus relies heavily on process data gathered from interviews. Acknowledging these limitations, the authors believe that case studies presented in this paper contribute to the literature emerging lessons and strategies for organizations interesting in replicating this work.
Energy Trust of Oregon
Background
Energy Trust of Oregon (Energy Trust) is an independent non-profit organization serving around 2.4 million energy users across Oregon and parts of Washington state. Over the last decade, Energy Trust has increasingly recognized that priority energy users are not participating at the same rate or seeing comparable benefits as others within their service territory. This recognition has led Energy Trust to prioritize equity as a structured, measurable, and transparent practice embedded into internal operations and program delivery.
Planning and design
Regulatory drivers
The passage of Oregon House Bill 3141 (HB 3141) in 2021 formalized statewide equity expectations into statue by requiring the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC)—the statewide utility regulatory agency—to establish annually reported, community-informed equity performance measures for Energy Trust. These metrics directly align with Energy Trust’s internal progression toward embedding equity across program design, outreach, and community partnerships.
Co-creation of equity metrics
HB 3141 mandated that equity metrics be developed through a public process, grounded in the lived experiences of environmental justice communities (EJCs)—defined based on income, health inequities, tribal status, rural and coastal status, limited infrastructure, and those communities underrepresented and adversely harmed by environmental and health hazards (Office of Oregon Governor n.d.). To support the OPUC, Energy Trust’s outreach managers and others helped recruit community partners for focus groups. Long-term outreach at Energy Trust aims to increase education, resources, and capacity for priority audiences, including many rural energy users. OPUC staff worked with a community-based organization (CBO) in one of Oregon’s lowest-income areas to conduct online and in-person surveys, facilitate workshops, and ensure geographic and demographic representation.
OPUC staff centered conversations around access issues, and community members revealed barriers of upfront costs, limited access to information, energy burden, lack of trust, and difficulty navigating program systems—insights that were foundational to informing Energy Trust’s equity goals.
Throughout 2022, OPUC staff led stakeholder engagement with CBOs, program implementers, utilities, residents, and small businesses. Stakeholders highlighted several themes that informed the equity metrics framework:
Energy programs must invest in trust-building, not just outreach.
Community voice should guide decisions, not merely inform them without influence.
Metrics must track qualitative experiences in addition to quantitative participation.
Diverse vendors and inclusive procurement are essential to equitable economic impact.
Accountability must extend to external vendors and partners, not just Energy Trust staff.
Outreach revealed equity as both an outcome and a practice. Staff concluded that long-term investment, collaboration, and continuous feedback mechanisms should be critical drivers of shared accountability and burden across staff and partners when operationalizing equity goals.
Gap analysis, internal readiness, and organizational reflection
Preparing to operationalize equity metrics required Energy Trust to understand internal capacity and organizational readiness. Teams engaged in a gap analysis using the Organizational Equity Reflection Tool (OERT), a self-assessment to evaluate how deeply equity is embedded in an organization’s structures, norms, and decision-making.1 OERT is one of many equity gap analysis tools (Tellez 2021). The authors assert that strengths of OERT include framework flexibility to adapt across organizational contexts, simplistic outlines for organizations to follow, and clear case study examples, while limitations include difficulties, particularly for teams less familiar with equity work, to evaluate their efforts among a relatively vague spectrum (e.g., “curiosity”, “commitment”).
Through this gap analysis, Energy Trust staff observed several insights for future direction of equity work:
Move from “doing more” to “doing things differently” by aligning resources with community priorities and shifting power towards those most affected by inequities.
Ensure that input received through engagement is both acted upon and transparently communicated back.
Improve internal cross-departmental alignment to prevent siloed equity efforts and strengthen organizational learning.
Measure harder-to-quantify impacts like trust, access, and long-term community benefit rather than simply program outputs (e.g., project counts and incentives).
Supporting this shift, Energy Trust reformed its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Committee, an internal advisory group that provides department-level insight, analysis, and feedback across the organization. A staffed internal equity consultant and advisory department then synthesizes cross-department insights and integrates those perspectives into centralized tracking and reporting structures. The authors posit that this centralized consulting model streamlines reporting for institutional accountability and supports enhanced visibility and understanding of equity initiatives, serving as a conduit between departments and leadership.
Implementation
Adopted equity metrics and organizational alignment
In December 2022, the OPUC approved the inaugural set of equity metrics, with targets intentionally designed to be achievable and measurable within a single year (see Table 4). This benchmark aligns with OPUC staff’s belief that, while long-term metrics should be mature and stable, early-stage metrics should allow for iterative development and baseline data collection.
Table 4
Equity Themes and Adopted Performance Measures (OPUC 2022).
| THEME | OPUC EQUITY METRIC (ADOPTED IN DECEMBER 2022) |
|---|---|
| Access to support for communities | Increased support (e.g., incentives, training, funding for energy efficient upgrades) to nonprofit organizations with a purpose to serve EJCs. |
| Access to information | Increased funding—for community ambassadors, education, and workshops—to support targeted outreach to EJCs. |
| Energy burden reduction | New or expanded low-cost (≤$500 co-pay) and no-cost offers created and launched. |
| Community reliability and resilience | Solar and solar-with-storage system projects supported for low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents in areas with limited infrastructure or high energy burden. |
Data collection and adaptations of metric targets
Energy Trust collects data on community partner contract funds, incentive dollars, quantitative counts of trainings and services provided, and staff time and cost associated with providing those services. Demographic information is collected—through an online form, a post-project survey, or general surveys—though often optional and incomplete.
Cross-functional working groups are responsible for advancing metrics and ensuring accountability. Annual audits, baseline data collection, and qualitative assessments such as community narratives and partner feedback complement quantitative metrics. Energy Trust is accountable to the public to illustrate progression towards OPUC-established annual targets and communicate barriers to investment and feasibility of goals.
Discussion
Challenges
Demographic data collection remains a challenge as it is optional for customers to divulge. Staff note that there are also many market-rate offerings available to all customers that LMI customers may participate in, but income status is not tracked at an individual level in these cases.
Staff also highlight varying degrees of internal understanding while conducting their baseline equity analysis. Energy Trust’s 2026–2030 operational plan includes change management processes to integrate equity throughout the organization, acknowledging internal and stakeholder feedback that equity cannot be siloed to one department (Energy Trust of Oregon 2025).
Staff recognize that increased visibility resulting from expanded community engagement and public reporting on equity goals may lead to increased scrutiny. As awareness of this work grows, so too might expectations around targets, opinions about metric selection, and calls for more ambitious targets.
Successes and emerging lessons
The authors argue that an early equity baseline analysis helped Energy Trust identify critical gaps and increased staff visibility of equity work by breaking down silos. Understanding systemic and structural areas in which equitable changes needed to be made was integral to the process of setting goals and evaluating progress. Staff observe that utilizing learnings from community outreach and engagement where possible helped root equity goals and metrics in community needs.
To address challenges surrounding increased scrutiny of metrics and targets, staff prioritize trust-building through clearly communicating how equity metrics were developed, what they were designed to measure, and what was realistically feasible to measure given data availability challenges. Staff are optimistic that this transparency will open space for nuanced conversations about the quality and development of this work. Staff practice “cultural humility”—listening to rather than talking down to communities—and aim to pair quantitative measures with qualitative storytelling, which they believe can further support understanding and credibility as the work matures.
Finally, staff work to set meaningful and achievable targets on these metrics, avoiding aspirational and unrealistic goals. Including community partner engagement throughout the planning process helped ensure that partners would receive the support needed to co-deliver services and achieve targets. Energy Trust’s long-term equity infrastructure includes multi-year funding strategies, workforce development pathways, and tools that support culturally responsive communications. While not formally evaluated for its success, this multi-layered approach aims to navigate the complexity of operationalizing equity in a regulated clean energy context.
Cape Light Compact
Background
Cape Light Compact (CLC) is an energy services organization serving approximately 210,000 energy users across Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. CLC is a Sponsor of Mass Save®, a collaborative of Massachusetts’ electric and natural gas utilities and energy efficiency service providers including Berkshire Gas, Cape Light Compact, Eversource, Liberty, National Grid, and Unitil.
The Massachusetts 2025–2027 Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Plan developed by Mass Save Sponsors aims to reduce energy burden and mitigate barriers to boost energy efficiency program participation. The plan identifies several communities throughout the state with at least 50% LMI customers and at least 35% renters, categorized as “Designated Equity Communities (DECs)” (Mass Save 2024). Sponsors collaborate on equity metrics by which to measure progress on equity efforts serving DECs and other priority segments.
Planning and design
Three-year plan development and co-creation of equity goals
In 2020, with statewide government agencies and an energy efficiency advisory group, Sponsors established an Equity Working Group (EWG) to increase focus on historically underserved populations. The EWG aims to “… utilize distributive justice principles in program design and implementation in order to remedy past underservice to ensure program equity moving forward” (MA EEAC 2025). The group includes voting equity advisory councillors, program administrators, representatives from local community action agencies, and environmental justice organizations, among others.
Members of the working group identified several priorities, including streamlining program participation through the creation of DECs, focusing on renters in DECs, and expanding language access and programming for deeper engagement of customers. Based on these priorities, the EWG recommended metrics and targets to inform equity investments, advance equity goals, and measure performance.
Setting baselines and targets
While baselines are determined based on previous program participation, Mass Save Sponsors prioritize procedural equity to set achievable yet substantial targets, working with stakeholders including vendors, working group members, government agencies, housing advocates, and environmental advocates.
Implementation
2025–2027 metrics and targets
Recommendations from the EWG have been operationalized in finalized metrics (see Table 5), intended to advance distributive justice (Mass Save 2024).
Table 5
CLC’s Equity Strategies and Adopted Metrics (Mass Save 2024).
| EQUITY STRATEGY | ADOPTED METRICS |
|---|---|
| Increased investment in priority communities |
|
| Enhanced program access for priority communities |
|
| Enhanced community partner programming |
|
| Equitable workforce development and increased supplier diversity |
|
| Operationalized language access and improved customer experience |
|
Data collection
CLC collects data from vendors on customer demographics, household information, and renter status for each home energy assessment request. However, this information is only as accurate as the data reported by end users. Reporting gaps serve as barriers to accurate data collection.
To promote transparency and increase accessibility, Mass Save Sponsors publicly report data on usage, savings, and incentives by county, also providing updates on progress towards goals through frequently updated dashboards (Mass Save 2024).
Discussion
Challenges
Staff reiterate difficulty in collecting accurate data for reporting on equity metrics. It can be tricky to balance not burdening an energy user with a complex program application and navigating sensitivity around reporting income while also gathering data crucial to evaluating metrics. A related challenge involves engaging, and subsequently evaluating participation from, moderate-income energy users who might not be aware that they qualify for increased incentives. Income-eligible customers might only apply for market-rate programs, and if a customer does not self-attest or income-qualify, CLC cannot report on this household as a participant for their moderate-income programs.
Successes and emerging lessons
Staff found that eliminating the income verification requirement for moderate-income customers to receive weatherization work can boost participation from this customer segment. Staff are optimistic that modifying income-qualification paperwork and streamlining eligibility processes through one centralized program application can reduce time and resource barriers to participation while also supporting data collection.
Additionally, in anecdotal conversations with community members, staff observe that nonparticipation in programming is often due to competing priorities such as caring for children or working multiple jobs. Operationalizing these conversations into qualitative metrics that can be consistently monitored is a future priority for CLC.
Seattle City Light
Background
Seattle City Light (SCL) is a community-owned, not-for-profit utility, providing electricity to nearly one million energy users across the City of Seattle, Washington. As a municipal department, SCL works to advance the city’s and state’s climate and equity goals. The utility’s internal Race & Social Justice team provides strategic direction and capacity-building resources to equip staff with the ability to embed equity into plans, investments, operations, and programs.
Planning and design
Community outreach and co-development of strategic equity priorities
Since 2021, SCL has developed a Clean Energy Implementation Plan (CEIP) every four years, outlining organizational progress towards meeting Washington’s clean energy and emissions targets. The 2026–2029 CEIP highlights progress towards equitably engaging highly impacted communities (HICs)—determined by census tract level socio-economic and public health indicators—and vulnerable populations (VPs). SCL defines VPs as populations who (1) are energy dependent due to a disability or health risk, (2) have limited English proficiency, and (3) are lower-income and/or BIPOC in franchise communities (Seattle City Light 2026).
Community and stakeholder engagement have been integral to the development of the CEIP and subsequent equity metrics. Prior to engagement, SCL staff reviewed recent reports to identify baseline community priorities and gaps in outreach. Outreach was conducted in coordination with broader efforts to inform SCL’s 10-year Strategic Plan, intended to avoid disjointed efforts leading to engagement fatigue and overburdening the same populations who SCL aims to more equitably serve.
Race & Social Justice staff coordinated internally to develop a thoughtful outreach and engagement plan. In partnership with the city’s Department of Neighborhoods (DON), staff identified existing opportunities and events coordinated by CBOs, City advisory councils, and commissions. Staff presented in community spaces, such as the Disability Commission, before the Indigenous Advisory Council, and tabled at several community events to gauge priorities and needs. Whenever necessary, SCL ensured adequate translation support from multi-lingual staff and DON Community Liaisons—contracted and compensated community leaders supporting citywide efforts who also participated in focus groups.
Outreach with communities was conversational; staff asked questions regarding community priorities, which included affordability, reliability, career opportunities, and language access.
Implementation
2026–2029 equity goals and metrics
SCL utilized a logic model to translate community feedback into potential program improvements by identifying overall outcomes, actions needed to get there, and metrics by which to measure progress towards these goals (Washington State Department of Commerce n.d.).
Through outreach and engagement, SCL adopted four goals to inform equity metrics: (1) Reduce household electric energy burden, (2) Improve community health outcomes, (3) Increase public participation in utility programs from HICs and VPs, and (4) Improve access to economic opportunities in the green energy sector (see Table 6) (Seattle City Light 2026).
Table 6
Seattle City Light’s Adopted Goals and Metrics (Seattle City Light 2026).
| GOALS | SPECIFIC ACTIONS | INPUT METRICS | OUTPUT METRICS | INTENDED OUTCOMES |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reduce Household Electric Energy Burden | Design/deliver an accessible community solar program |
|
| Decrease energy burden among income-eligible community solar participants |
| Increase participation in discount rate program |
|
| Decrease energy burden among discount rate participants | |
| Evaluate best case practices for fair rate development and cost attribution |
|
| Provide actionable strategies to apply fair rate development in future rate-setting processes | |
| Improve Community Health | Deliver transportation electrification investments that target HICs/VPs |
|
| Reduce MTCO2e in service area |
| Increase Program Participation from HICs/VPs | Increase number of utility assistance community partnerships |
|
| Partner with five new organizations to increase awareness and enrollment in utility assistance offerings |
| Develop and implement bi-annual Language Access Plan, a toolkit for expanding language access in departmental operations |
|
| Reduce barriers to participation for low-English proficient customers | |
| Recruit multifamily buildings, businesses, organizations to participate in programs |
|
| At least 200 buildings participate in energy efficiency programming | |
| Create a whole home energy program, directly supporting HICs/VPs and facilitating pathways to state and federal energy efficiency resources |
|
| Increase customer touchpoints with energy efficiency programs in HICs and VPs | |
| Improve Access to Green Jobs | Establish a green job pathway through a high school awareness campaign |
|
| Complete at least three high school green jobs events annually |
| Design/implement an internship program targeting youth in low-income households |
|
| At least five high school low-income program participants per year | |
| Engage women- and minority-owned contractors (WMBE) for EV charging certification program |
|
| Certify 20 WMBE contractors supporting equitable access to clean energy infrastructure opportunities |
Engaging change management: Seattle’s Racial Equity Toolkit
The City of Seattle created a Racial Equity Toolkit2 to raise awareness of equity work throughout internal teams, understand impacts on vulnerable audiences, and mitigate unintended consequences.
The toolkit walks teams through processes for setting outcomes, identifying stakeholders and the level of engagement from these groups, documenting strategies for enhancing racial equity and minimizing unintended consequences, and analyzing gaps in data. SCL’s Race & Social Justice team is currently updating the toolkit to outline a process by which to identify specific metrics, with the intention of building up staff capacity and expertise to develop and implement equity metrics among competing priorities.
Discussion
Challenges
SCL leverages internally reported data to measure progress on metrics. Even if broader collection of data would support more extensive tracking, SCL’s classification as a public organization requires them to remain cognizant of data sensitivities, which has been a primary barrier for metrics implementation.
Another key challenge has been time constraints. Since SCL had only two months to conduct community outreach, staff presented eleven times within those two months. Due to the short timeline, staff could not reach everyone.
Successes and emerging lessons
Staff observe that an intentional community outreach approach was an effective tool in both navigating time constraints and reducing burden on communities. Conversations between staff and community members touched on tangible themes, such as: “If the lights were to go out tomorrow, what are the biggest issues you would see and who would be most impacted?” Emphasizing relevant concerns—improved comfort, better air quality—rather than diving into technical program elements helped unveil community needs and priorities. Furthermore, SCL found that an equity analysis toolkit could support internal understanding and buy-in of equity work. Building internal capacity may also help teams create departmental-specific metrics and streamline data collection and reporting to better evaluate success.
Throughout this process, staff also found that creating metrics along themes that matter to the community can support a better understanding of community impact and build relationships with communities.
Rhode Island Energy
Background
Rhode Island Energy (RIE) is an electricity and natural gas provider serving over 770,000 energy users across the state of Rhode Island. Equitably serving all customers and ensuring historically underserved audiences can benefit from energy efficiency has been an organizational priority since RIE’s first energy efficiency plan in 2006. In recent years, Rhode Island has seen a statewide push towards expanding equitable energy efficiency access. While RIE is not mandated by the state to adopt formal equity metrics, stakeholder feedback, an internal commitment to advancing equity, and novel advancements in utilizing program participation data committed RIE to developing and adopting metrics.
Planning and design
Rhode Island’s “Equity Working Group”
RIE, in collaboration with a state agency and energy efficiency nonprofit, conducts ongoing community outreach and consultation with various representative statewide groups through its Equity Working Group (EWG). Since its creation in 2021, the EWG has worked to develop “actionable recommendations to inform the planning, design, and delivery of Rhode Island’s energy efficiency programs” to help RIE better reach priority energy users (GHHI 2025). The EWG has been central to the process of analysing, prioritizing, and adopting equity metrics.
The EWG includes CBOs, small businesses, non-profit organizations, community action programs, resident advocacy groups, municipal and state entities, and other industry experts. In recent years, RIE staff have pushed for a stronger grassroots community membership, involving nonprofits and community health workers.
The EWG convenes through listening sessions, offering stipends for community members that attend. Each meeting focuses on equity categories identified by the group, including participation barriers, multifamily barriers, pre-weatherization barriers, workforce development, microbusiness and small businesses, and language access. The group serves as a conduit for consistent feedback: RIE staff explain their efforts related to the selected topic area and gather community feedback. Community representatives voice concerns and priorities, which are translated into RIE’s annual energy efficiency plan.
Prioritization of metrics and equity strategies
In 2023, the EWG recommended over 60 equity metrics for RIE to consider formally adopting, informed by meetings throughout the year. RIE conducted a feasibility ranking of each metric, based on the following criteria:
(4 points) Data is tracked, and reporting is easily available
(3 points) Data is tracked/gathered at some level, reporting requires resources and effort
(2 points) Data is not tracked, but can be collected with resources and effort
(1 point) Data is not tracked and is currently difficult or impossible to collect
After hearing initial feedback on feasibility-ranked metrics from the EWG and other stakeholders, RIE held working sessions with the EWG, utilizing a collaborative virtual whiteboard tool to rank metrics on a higher versus lower impact matrix. Prior to this exercise, a representative from a non-profit research and advocacy organization presented to the group on considerations for selecting meaningful, tangible, and actionable metrics. Participants broke into several groups according to the previously identified equity categories (participation barriers, multifamily barriers, pre-weatherization barriers, workforce development, and microbusiness/small business). This plotting exercise allowed for direct feedback from everyone, including those who may not have spoken up in a whole group discussion.
To select finalized metrics to adopt in the first quarter of 2024, RIE considered the results of this exercise, stakeholder input, organizational priorities, and input from internal program managers received through educational meetings.
Implementation
Finalized metrics
Final metrics prioritize participation, measured with a focus on “environmental justice areas,” defined by the state based on income, minority status, and/or percentage of households that lack “English language proficiency” (see Table 7) (RI DEM n.d.).
Table 7
RIE’s Adopted Equity Metrics (RIE 2025).
| EQUITY CATEGORY | METRICS |
|---|---|
| Participation Barriers |
|
| Multifamily Barriers |
|
| Pre-Weatherization Barriers |
|
| Microbusiness and Small Business |
|
Setting baselines and targets
RIE has held off on setting targets for these metrics until gathering sufficient data to inform a baseline. Staff re-evaluate data annually and work towards better contextualizing metrics using data visualization, trend analysis, and supplemental data points. RIE’s “Energy Fellow” internship focuses on visualizing data (e.g., through “heatmapping”) to educate teams on equity metrics, data trends, and areas for prioritization.
Discussion
Challenges
Staff emphasize the extensive time and commitment necessary to adopt and implement equity metrics. The compressed timeline of an annual planning cycle can inhibit meaningful evaluation and enhancement of equity metrics. They found that navigating and aligning diverse and passionate stakeholder opinions required time, and listening to community voices to ensure their needs and perspectives were represented was essential.
Data tracking and collection to support these metrics could also be challenging and time-consuming. While RIE has a long-term goal of gathering all data consistently within an internal tracking system, they currently gather data from both their tracking system and program implementation partners’ tracking systems.
Successes and emerging lessons
RIE found the working group model to be useful in elevating community voices and gathering external stakeholder perspectives, supporting procedural equity. The EWG served as a feedback mechanism, not only on metric development, but on RIE’s programs and offerings as well. Furthermore, staff believe that overcommunicating on feasibility—emphasizing which metrics were possible versus not possible to adopt—was critical to maintaining trust throughout the process.
Staff reiterate that creating metrics that were meaningful to the organization’s operations, not simply regulators or stakeholders, was a key driver of conversations throughout the process. Staff also observe the importance of setting intentional targets. Since targets will likely undergo public scrutiny, staff believe collecting year-over-year data to inform a baseline—while challenging as data availability may change—can back up reasoning behind setting specific targets.
Conclusions and Emerging Lessons
Four organizations were selected as case studies for this analysis based on perceived value to peer program administrators around co-developing meaningful equity metrics to better measure progress on engaging priority energy users. The research holds methodological limitations such as non-random sampling and limited sample size, which may reflect systematic errors in the form of sampling, selection, and volunteer bias, as well as an absence of direct community engagement and limited outcome evidence. The authors believe the transparency with which planning and implementation processes are outlined may support replicability within other organizations, and therefore, this research presents a valuable contribution to the landscape of equity measurement literature.
Below is a synthesis of successes, challenges, and emerging learnings posited by the authors across case studies, along themes of co-creation of metrics, stakeholder engagement, and internal capacity-building activities. The authors believe these emerging learnings may support future equity measurement work within the energy efficiency industry.
Successes
Rooting equity goals and metrics in community needs: Conversations with community members should focus on individuals’ needs among competing priorities. SCL found that asking broader questions such as, “What is important to you that we could accomplish? What does your neighborhood need?” was effective.
Co-creating metrics: Organizations conducted extensive community and stakeholder outreach efforts to develop metrics. RIE’s Equity Working Group also served as a useful feedback mechanism for understanding program efficacy and building trust.
Leveraging outcomes as a starting point: Organizations found it useful to first identify long-term equity goals before adopting metrics to measure progress towards these goals. SCL utilized logic modelling to map intended outcomes, strategies to achieve these goals, and metrics by which to track progress.
Engaging in internal gap analyses: Understanding barriers or gaps in equity efforts before proceeding with community outreach, goal setting, and metric creation can boost efficacy of engagement. Energy Trust conducted a baseline equity analysis prior to developing strategic goals to better understand these barriers and gaps.
Challenges
Data gaps and complexity in data collection: Data is only as useful as what can be acquired, and utilities often must balance the need for reporting with avoiding complex applications that bog down the process. Understanding sensitivities around income and mitigating eligibility requirements where possible was an effective strategy for CLC.
Time constraints, bandwidth, and competing priorities: Interviewees highlight time as a barrier to metric development and implementation. Competing internal priorities and strict deadlines limited community outreach efforts. SCL navigated this by leveraging learnings from previous outreach before intentionally engaging communities where they saw gaps.
Takeaways
Listening and engaging communities: Community outreach can ensure equity goals and metrics meet the needs of all energy users. Deep engagement through listening sessions and working groups, while maintaining cultural humility, was critical to understanding barriers to access in all case studies.
Intentional coordination in engagement efforts: Leveraging existing partnerships where necessary and reviewing learnings from previous outreach efforts helps identify gaps and prevent engagement fatigue. Energy Trust and SCL aimed to avoid disjointed outreach and eliminate silos across organizations.
Transparency and visibility: While maintaining full transparency with data gaps may be challenging, organizations highlight the efficacy of transparent, user-friendly, accessible reporting where possible to help navigate various stakeholder opinions. RIE found that overcommunicating on feasibility of implementing metrics supported trust-building.
Meaningful and achievable targets; baselines backed by substantial data: While some equity goals may be long-term, short-term strategies and targets can drive realistic progress, being respectful of internal and community partner bandwidth. Energy Trust noted the importance of targeted resources to support community partners in reaching equity goals. RIE cautioned against rushing into setting targets until after gathering substantial data to support a baseline, given that targets may be scrutinized by stakeholders.
Both quantitative and qualitative metrics serve a purpose: Quantitative metrics only tell half the story, and qualitative metrics can add a human element to reporting. Energy Trust utilized qualitative assessments such as community narratives and community partner feedback to complement quantitative metrics.
These emerging insights may support organizations in better measuring their equity efforts in the energy industry. Future work would consider a larger breadth of organization types, conduct a more detailed evaluation comparing the effectiveness of metrics operationalization frameworks within each organization, directly involve interviews with priority communities, and explore comparable quantitative outcomes as this work develops. In continually developing and innovating equity measurement practices, organizations can better target resources towards ensuring that all energy users can equitably access and benefit from energy efficiency programs.
Additional File
The additional file for this article can be found as follows:
Intent to Impact: U.S. case studies on equity measurement in energy efficiency programming
PowerPoint Slides. DOI: https://doi.org/10.66506/essp.9-089-26.s1
Notes
[1] OERT was developed jointly by Learning for Action and the Public Equity Group. More information and access to the toolkit can be found at https://equitylearninglab.org/resources/#oertsection.
[2] The Racial Equity Toolkit can be accessed at https://seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CivilRights/RSJI/Racial-Equity-Toolkit-Fillable-RSJI-August–2012.pdf.
Ethics and Consent
The authors have obtained written consent from interviewees in this research. Interviewees participated in the creation of the case studies and gave consent on the final draft.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge staff from participating case study organizations for their time and expertise.
Data Accessibility Statement
This study is primarily based on data synthesized from interviews with utility staff. While the survey authors conducted and interviews themselves are not publicly available, secondary materials used to support the authors’ research are publicly available and cited within the reference list.
Author Contributions
Author 1: Writing—original draft (lead); Investigation (lead); Data Curation (lead); Writing—review and editing.
Author 2: Writing—original draft (supporting); Writing—review and editing; Resources.
Authors 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: Writing—review and editing; Resources.
Author 9: Writing—review and editing; Supervision.
Author 10: Writing—review and editing; Investigation.
Authors 11 and 12: Resources.
eceee paper ID
9-089-26