- b. Although Equity segment programs can contribute to Resource Acquisition program participation in the short and long term, Equity segment programs are not required to do so.
- c. The Equity Support Segment should build and enable the foundation for future long-term energy savings that align with Commission and California climate policy.

High-level summary of discussion:

- #3a: crisp up the language; consider revising to “…develop their own additional Equity metrics…” ; could be misleading as-written since implementers are required to track KPIs, and could be interpreted that the intent for metrics to be discretionary
- #3b: “Equity segment programs are not required to do so” merits further discussion and may be non-consensus
- 4. Reporting
- a. PAs should begin tracking and reporting on all applicable Equity metrics during program years 2022-2023.

High-level summary of discussion:

- Presumes data is available, reliable, doesn’t violate privacy rules, etc.
- Consider crisping up language to clarify that intent is for 2022-2023 as “road- testing” years
- Open question of whether Equity metrics apply to programs that aren’t classified under the Equity segment
- Regarding how this would impact existing programs: PAs will need to categorize existing programs in the BBALs, and implementers would need to start gathering data in 2022
- 5. Target setting
- a. Option 1: PAs should not set targets for Equity segment metrics until data has been collected during the first 2 program years (or a baseline has been set)—e.g., in 2023 advice letter for 2024-2027. PAs could present targets for EMWG proposed metrics during the 2023 true- ups for the 2024-2027 cycle.
- b. Option 2: PAs should include targets with their Equity segment metrics with the Business Plan/4 Year Application filings.

High-level summary of discussion:

- • Targets may need to change as we learn from first few years
- • Likely non-consensus

#### Next Steps to Finalize Principles

- • Principle #3a: consider crisping up language to clarify that segment-level metrics are not discretionary and that implementers still need KPIs
- • Principle #3b: merits further discussion, and may be non-consensus
- • Principle #4: consider clarifying intent that 2022-2023 are “road-testing” years
- • Principle #5: likely to be non-consensus, though did not conduct formal testing
- • All Principles: the language will be crisped up first at the 9/21 MSMWG meeting and then through the 9/21 EM sub-WG, time permitting

## FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS – UPDATE UNDERSERVED DEFINITION AND ON

Katie Abrams summarized that Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) and Hard-to-Reach (HTR) have already been defined, but that Underserved remains defined and the WG needs to decide what approach to take, if any, to defining it in the final WG report.

Lara Ettenson, NRDC, reminded WG members that NRDC proposes aligning with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Environmental Social Justice (ESJ) Action Plan Definition, and noted that Program Administrators (PAs) can submit additional target customers that are not captured by the ESJ definition. A WG member proposed a possible reporting requirement for PAs to explicitly state what underserved groups each program targets.