California Clean Energy Committee

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262075656
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Davis, CA, USA
Phone
5307566141
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$140,152
Expenses
$295,374
Assets
$205,319
Liabilities
$1,190,236

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EUGENE WILSON (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • EUGENE WILSON (President): $66,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To advocate for energy efficiency and renewable energy in California.

What it reported doing in 2025

The California Clean Energy Committee is an environmental advocacy group that advocates for the adoption of clean energy resources and energy conservation in California. CCEC provides technical and legal support to local conservation groups. CCEC advocates nuclear energy as safe, economical and reliable base load power that continues regardless of weather conditions. CCEC provides financial and technical support to non-profit groups that perform important environmental and charitable services. California Clean Energy Committee follows technical, statutory, and regulatory developments in areas related to the committee's advocacy including but not limited to energy conservation, clean energy generation, energy storage technology, micro-grid system development, transportation demand management, automobile parking systems, smart growth land use planning, farmland preservation, freight transportation systems, greenhouse gas impacts and mitigation, workforce housing, and transit system development. CCEC focuses on policies that are economically and politically feasible for promoting clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. CCEC monitors new development proposals at local agencies across California for potential advocacy, allows public inquiries via its web portal, and participates in collaborative advocacy efforts with other environmental advocacy groups.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -110.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 5.8; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -23.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $227K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $66K · 2 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $288K reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.