Brewster Community Solar Garden Cooperative Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 455016871
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2021
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2021
- Location
- Brewster, MA, USA
- Phone
- 5086946884
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,880
- Expenses
- $4,882
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
People named in this filing
- RICHARD M WOLF (TREASURER)
- DANIEL RYAN (CHAIRMAN)
- CHARLES OLIVER (SECRETARY)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The cooperative was formed for the primary, if not sole, purpose of providing its members with the environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy at low cost. The activities of the cooperative include the purchase of net metering credits under a long term contract, and membership and collecting income from members to cover the cost of purchasing net metering credits for electricity.
What it reported doing in 2021
To purchase and redistribute energy, in the form of net metering credits, and energy-related services to its members, as patrons, on a cooperative, non-profit basis.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 95
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 12
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 87
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -69.5%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -11.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2021
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.