Arizona Competitive Power Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 861029015
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 6023694368
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Business and Industry
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $699,112
- Expenses
- $655,960
- Assets
- $225,597
- Liabilities
- $8,067
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Highest reported compensation
- GREGORY D PATTERSON (Director): $393,333 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promote open competition in electric power
What it reported doing in 2025
The Arizona Competitive Power Alliance advocates for open and competitive energy markets at the Arizona Corporation and Salt River Project. The Alliance participates in Integrated Resource Planning efforts, Utility rate cases and various Corporation Commission Workshops. Our members make presentations on both Summer and Winter Preparedness from the supplier perspective and advocate for competitive procurement, balanced portfolio standards and adequate reserve margins. These efforts help to ensure that Arizona has adequate electrical power that is low cost, reliable, efficient, diverse and clean.In addition to resource planning, the Arizona Competitive Power Alliance participated in the Arizona Public Service rate case on behalf of Independent Power Producers. The Arizona Competitive Power Alliance is working with other stakeholders to form a day-ahead energy market with the CAISOs EDAM model or the SPP Markets Plus model. We are working with stakeholders to strengthen the Energy Imbalance Market with a view toward transitioning those markets to a full Regional Transmission Organization. Our Director spoke at the CAISO EDAM conference in Las Vegas and participated in the Joint CREPC/WIRAB meetings.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 62
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.8%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 93%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 97.2%; rating input score 97; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.2%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 60%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 86.8% of revenue deployed · 93% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 35 of 36 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $393K · 1 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.