Quality Metrics Can Help Deliver Community Benefits
Essential considerations to craft and measure effective community benefit plans.
Millions of low-income and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) households in the United States face high energy burden and low energy security. To meet this challenge, many electric utilities are being asked to embrace new priorities. These emergent objectives often center on providing greater benefits to customers, such as reducing energy burdens for disadvantaged residents, offering options for customers to own their electric appliances and generation, improving local health with less carbon-intensive generation assets, and even investing in local economic development initiatives.
With the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, these emerging priorities have been codified as many programs (especially at the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture) require Community Benefits Plans (CBPs) as part of an application for grants and financing programs. Meeting the Administration’s Justice40 Initiative, which aims to ensure that 40% of the benefits of federal investments in climate and energy flow to disadvantaged communities, is a key criteria of a strong CBP.
A strong CBP describes how the applicant will partner with relevant local stakeholders to support community priorities, minimize and/or mitigate any known or potential future negative impacts, and ensure that residents and workers share in the benefits across the life cycle of the proposed project
RMI recently published a catalog of community benefit examples — a curated set of community benefit actions and programs that utilities and developers can reference to strengthen their CBP development. We chose from benefit examples in current CBPs and from benefits provided in past utility projects to show that meaningful benefits can be realistically implemented within funding program constraints. These best-practice examples address a range of community-driven priorities, represent communities across the country, and demonstrate ways to track and measure the impact of these benefits.
Still, even when a utility or developer engages deeply and meaningfully to develop a CBP, how will they know they have been successful? How can community stakeholders ensure that a project developer meets its obligations during planning, construction, and operations? In short, what mechanisms exist to hold project developers accountable to their commitments? In this article, we offer a set of 16 primary metrics that, while not exhaustive, are indicative of the most robust yet flexible ways to evaluate the ongoing impact of a project.
Metrics as a prerequisite for accountability
Many communities report that it can be difficult to ensure that a project developer follows through on the commitments it made at the CBP negotiating table. A robust set of metrics to evaluate progress against the goals and commitments laid out in a CBP are a first step in ensuring follow-through.
DOE’s Loan Program Office (LPO) offers a variety of low-cost lending programs to drive clean energy projects. LPO evaluates CBPs as a lever for de-risking projects, works with applicants to strengthen CBPs during the application and negotiation process, and requires annual reporting once it begins disbursing the loans. Quantitative metrics for CBPs could be included as part of the annual reporting and — by both providing guidance on how project developers should report on their progress and making those reports public — LPO can offer communities transparency into project development and CBP implementation.
However, it can be daunting to choose a manageable and impactful set of metrics, especially given the project-specific nature of measuring impact and the many potential actions that could be included in a CBP. Our 16 primary metrics can help LPO program applicants and awardees, especially utilities, understand how to measure the ongoing impact of their CBP actions and track progress. Tailoring these metrics to fit the localized context requires community input and feedback to ensure they reflect community needs. We believe these metrics are robust yet flexible: they can be tailored to fit the localized context of a project and could likely apply to a broad range of DOE programs beyond LPO. Most importantly, publicly reporting on these metrics not only helps project developers build effective partnerships with local communities, but also offers a way for communities to evaluate the enduring impact of a project.
The value proposition for applicants
Selecting and monitoring thoughtful metrics is a strategic opportunity for utilities and project developers to strengthen their relationships with the communities they serve and enhance positive impacts of project outcomes and overall favorability.
As detailed in our article on the business case for investing in high quality CBPs, a well-crafted CBP that includes thoughtful metric selection can mitigate project risks, particularly those related to permitting delays and denials, and community opposition and lawsuits. When project developers design robust CBP metrics and extend careful attention to monitoring and reporting on CBP metrics, they can ensure their commitments are transparent, further strengthening community ties and trust.
RMI’s performance mechanisms work suggests that even without explicit financial incentives, reputational incentives (the pressure to maintain a good standing with customers, regulators, and shareholders) still encourage utilities to improve their performance. Performance incentive mechanisms (PIMs), scorecards, and reporting metrics require utilities to report on their performance against key measures. Requiring utilities to publicly report their performance through such mechanisms, like those related to community engagement or environmental impact, can create an implicit incentive to perform well. Regulators often use these reports to assess a utility’s commitment to its service obligations and broader public policy goals, and strong performance can lead to more favorable attitude toward a given utility.
Measuring impact over time, in specific geographies, and among priority populations
The table below lists the 16 primary metrics; they are flexible, broadly applicable across project types and locations, and meaningful in their real-world impact. We developed these metrics from RMI’s own work including community engagement for clean hydrogen hubs, from DOE’s work, and from work by our peers, especially the Initiative for Energy Justice.
The goal was to develop metrics that are both easily understandable and comparable across different timescales, geographies, and stakeholders, and yet flexible enough to be applied to different project-specific contexts (recognizing that not all metrics may apply to all projects). These metrics also seek to achieve meaningful community engagement to build public buy-in for these projects. Without community support, many projects may be stalled or even halted entirely.
When setting project-specific goals and defining metrics, applicants and awardees should consider:
- What does success look like? Goals or targets can be defined in an absolute sense (e.g., number of workers hired from disadvantaged communities) or relative to how the metric changes over time (e.g., a decrease in utility shutoffs). Both absolute and relative goals are important in measuring success and should be established together with community partners.
- Where do the benefits accrue? If possible, identifying which specific places benefit (even down to the zip code or census tract level) from a given metric can measure targeted impact. This geographic focus also helps meet Justice40 requirements to measure financial investments and benefits in disadvantaged communities (DACs).
- Which priority community group(s) is the metric designed to benefit? The specific groups will depend on the local context of the given clean energy project and should be defined in collaboration with community and labor organizations. Examples include community members within a given distance from a project site, members of Tribal Nations, residents of disadvantaged communities, fossil fuel industry workers, and low- and moderate-income customers.
Finally, the table explains each metric and how to obtain data to measure it. Establishing baseline data — such as through community and labor surveys conducted after engagements — and adjusting or adding new metrics based on the local needs will be crucial for measuring a project’s success as it progresses from start to finish. Project developers should work with local partners — such as local, state, and Tribal governments; nonprofits; community-based organizations; educational institutions; and workforce organizations — to collect and measure historical and current data to demonstrate beneficial outcomes from project development.
The DOE guidelines for a strong CBP are intentionally flexible to suit the specific needs of projects and communities, but they must address each of the four key pillars:
- Meaningful Community and Labor Engagement: Projects should foster meaningful engagement with the community and labor organizations, ensuring that their voices are heard and that their needs are addressed. This includes seeking input, conducting consultations, and incorporating feedback throughout the project life cycle.
- Investment in America’s Workforce: CBPs should outline strategies to invest in the development and advancement of the local workforce. This may include job training programs, apprenticeships, and initiatives that enhance the skills and employability of individuals in the community.
- Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility: Projects should prioritize diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the workplace. This involves creating opportunities for underrepresented groups, addressing systemic barriers, and promoting equal access to employment and advancement.
- Justice40 Initiative: Community benefits plans should contribute to the Justice40 Initiative’s goal of ensuring that at least 40 percent of the overall benefits of clean energy investments flow to disadvantaged communities. This ensures that the benefits of clean energy development are shared equitably, addressing historical disparities and promoting social and economic justice.
RMI’s 16 Primary Metrics for Measuring the Impact from DOE and LPO Community Benefits Plans
Meaningful Community and Labor Engagement
| Metric | Benefit | Data Collection Method |
| Increase in percent of community recommendations that were meaningfully incorporated into final energy rules, policies, and decisions | Intentional two-way engagement with local community members and better public buy-in to projects with community-desired outcomes | Collect qualitative feedback from community members on whether their recommendations were considered and how they were incorporated. |
| Increase in number of binding Tribal agreements (e.g., informed consent and co-ownerships and/or revenue sharing models) for clean energy projects | Deep collaboration with Tribal nations for their increased energy independence (where relevant) | Evaluate whether commitments in each signed agreement with Tribal nations are being honored from the perspective of the Tribe. |
| Increase in participation from non-English-speaking groups, based on number of languages (per unique local context) and number of outreach modes to describe project characteristics, share opportunities to provide input, and support the use of specific benefit programs | Successful communication and engagement | Track increase in engagement from language accessibility using a follow-up survey or feedback session. Questions may include:
“Which methods of outreach (e.g., flyers, meetings, social media) did you find most effective?” “Did you feel adequately informed about opportunities to provide input on the project?” |
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility
| Metric | Benefit | Data Collection Method |
| Increase in appointments of trusted representatives to community advisory board for the project that reflect the demographics of the priority communities | Authentic representation on community advisory board | Collect board demographics via initial demographic survey and track retention. |
| Increase in compensation to trusted community advisory board members for their input and work | Meaningful compensation to support community members to participate on advisory boards | Collect data on similar programs to establish a fair compensation rate and record dollars paid to community board members based on their contributions. |
| Increase in percent of community board recommendations that were meaningfully incorporated into final rules, policies, and decisions | Collaborative decision-making and increased community buy-in | Collect feedback from community advisory board members on whether they feel their recommendations were incorporated.
Compare community board recommendations against the final rules and policies to assess alignment. |
Investment in America’s Workforce
| Metric | Benefit | Data Collection Method |
| Increase in dollars spent and number of participants in job training programs, apprenticeship programs, STEM education, tuition, scholarships, and recruitment | Establishment of comprehensive workforce training and apprenticeship programs in collaboration with other organizations | Track expenditures on training programs, scholarships, and recruitment initiatives.
Monitor enrollment and completion rates in training programs and apprenticeships. |
| Increase in number and percentage of workforce for all project labor hired from priority communities, distinguished by project activity (construction, operations, and maintenance) | Targeted hiring from project’s priority communities, with comprehensive training as appropriate | Track hiring and retention data, including the number and percentage of workers from priority communities, and categorize them by project activity.
Analyze the workforce demographics to ensure they align with the goals of hiring from priority communities. |
Justice40
| Metric | Benefit | Data Collection Method |
| Environmental exposure: Decrease in air pollutants (e.g., particulate matter ≤2.5, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide) in indoor and outdoor environments to reduce health risks like asthma | Reduction in pollutants in environment to improve public health | Use air quality sensors and monitoring stations to measure pollutant levels in indoor and outdoor environments, including by partnering with community-based air monitoring networks and databases like State of the Air. |
| Resiliency: Increase in number and size (MWh) of community resilience infrastructure deployed in DACs (e.g., distributed solar plus battery storage, community resilience hubs, microgrids) | Investment in resilient infrastructure in priority communities to improve disaster preparedness and response | Track the number of resilience infrastructure projects, including their size (in MWh) and location within DACs. |
| Decrease in power shutoffs/disconnections for low-income and/or medically vulnerable households (e.g., residents who are elderly, disabled, or utilize medical devices) | Electricity service protections for historically marginalized and underserved customers | Collect data from public utility commissions and utility disconnection data. |
| Investment in community priorities: Increase in dollars invested in local community priorities like affordable housing, water infrastructure, transit, education, social programs, and remediation | Investment in priority communities that lowers risks and increases benefits to improve quality of life | Track the amount of money spent on community priority projects.
Gather qualitative data from community members and advisory boards on their satisfaction with these investments and their perceived impact on quality of life. |
Justice40 and Meaningful Community and Labor Engagement
| Metric | Benefit | Data Collection Method |
| A1 – Energy Democracy: Increase in number and diversity of residents trained with technical assistance and knowledge transfer to support distributed clean energy adoption, including for residents in DACs | Technical assistance for residents to support their adoption or ownership of clean technologies, including specific programs designed to support renters | Track the number and diversity of participants in technical assistance and knowledge transfer programs.
Collect feedback from participants on the effectiveness of the training and their ability to adopt clean energy technologies. Monitor the adoption rates of clean energy technologies among trained residents over time. |
| A2 – Energy Democracy: Increase in dollar value and amount of distributed clean energy assets (MWh) adopted by residents within priority communities (e.g., residential and community-scale technologies like solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, and electric water heaters) | Increased access to and ownership of clean energy in project’s priority communities | Track the dollar value and amount of distributed clean energy technologies (e.g., solar panels, batteries) adopted in priority communities over an extended period.
Monitor changes in energy usage patterns to measure the impact of these technologies on local energy consumption. |
| B1 – Energy Burden: Increase in amount ($) and percent of financing, rebates, or other incentives (e.g., for energy efficiency and weatherization upgrades accessed by customer groups) | Effective development for inclusive financing and assistance programs, including specific programs designed to support renters | Track the amount of financing, rebates, and incentives developed for and used by each customer group. |
| B2 – Energy Burden: Decrease in share of household income spent on fuel and electricity due to inclusive financing and new technology adoption, including in DACs | Reduction in energy burden for all customers, especially low- and middle-income customers | Analyze changes in household energy bills over time to measure reductions in energy burden. |
These four metrics overlap between Justice40 and Meaningful Community and Labor Engagement because project developers will need to develop collaborative, robust programs to achieve desired Justice40 outcomes. The first pair (A1, A2) provides technical assistance to priority communities to achieve greater adoption and ownership of clean technologies. The second pair (B1, B2) creates effective inclusive financing and assistance programs to achieve lower energy burdens for priority customers.
Metrics that matter
By using and refining these 16 primary metrics, utilities and project developers can set measurable goals for supporting the priorities identified by the local communities they serve. And reporting on progress along these metrics offers transparency into how well the community benefits plan has been implemented across each stage of the project’s life cycle, from design to decommissioning. LPO programs could require awardees to adapt these metrics to their specific projects and, critically, to require reporting on progress to meeting the metrics they defined. Strong and robust metrics will equip utilities, clean energy and infrastructure project developers, policymakers, and other decision makers with the ability to uniformly and objectively assess and report progress toward equity and climate goals and empower communities and advocates to monitor and center transparency and accountability in a just, clean energy transition.