Lara Ettenson summarized the following process choices for the EMWG final report:

- • Option 1: Submit a summary of discussion points including definition proposal(s) – but don’t include specific options or a list of which organizations support which options
- • Option 2: Create two or three options and let people sign up in support of their position

#### Next Steps to Finalize the Underserved Definition

The initial feedback by those who voiced their preference in the meeting was for option 2: create positions for defining underserved and have WG members state their preference.

## SEGMENT OBJECTIVE

Lara Ettenson provided background on the sub-WG proposal, including survey questions regarding key verb choice, inclusion of economic growth opportunities, and community engagement. She explained the logic of one integrated objective: to avoid conflicting objectives and allow PAs to select whichever metric(s) best apply. WG members debated the merits of both sides and agreed with the approach of one integrated objective.

Emma Tome, California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposed an alternative. After discussing the tradeoffs of specificity vs broad language and where and how to specify target communities, the WG agreed to the following revised text: “For hard-to-reach, disadvantaged, and/or underserved individuals, households, businesses, and communities: address disparities in access to energy efficiency programs and workforce opportunities*; promote resilience, health, comfort, safety, and/or energy savings; and reduce energy-related greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions.”

High-level summary of discussion:

- • There is broad support for “workforce opportunities” (more so than “economic growth opportunities”). One WG member suggested the clarification of adding beneficiaries of end-use services
- o adding a footnote to define “workforce opportunities” to the effect of “workforce o adding a footnote to define “workforce opportunities” to the effect of “workforce opportunities include opportunities for workers as well as for companies/non-profit for those eligible in this segment”
- • The WG agreed that we while didn’t need to include community engagement in the Objective (the language around addressing disparities covers that portion) but still have not settled on whether there should be a Metric with a target, or whether “community engagement” should instead be an indicator or best practice

######## Next Steps to Finalize the Objective

The sub-WG will consider defining workforce opportunities, appropriate inclusion of community engagement, and/or refining the Objective language more broadly.

## PRIORITY METRICS

#### Sub-WG Proposal on Metrics

Lara Ettenson presented seven metrics, two indicators, and handful of best practices that could be adapted to serve as indicators. She explained that the sub-WG did not have time to fully discuss the metrics on health- safety-comfort, economic opportunities, and how to capture important aspects of equity (e.g., community engagement). Sub-WG members determined they could support two indicators (benefits per $, and climate benefits).

High-level summary of comments made by one or more WG members:

- • Some of the proposed metrics are more like interventions
- • WG needs to ensure metrics don’t have the unintended consequence of competing against each other
- • Concern about GHG benefits potentially coming at the cost of directly serving target populations
- • Consider adding metric for % (not just #) of target population, i.e. # HH, that receives benefits