California Electric Transportation Coalition
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680304008
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9164410702
- Rating
- 60
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,177,878
- Expenses
- $855,465
- Assets
- $670,765
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LAURA RENGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- LAURA RENGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $302,642 total reported compensation
- KRISTIAN CORBY (DEPUTY E.D.): $235,669 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 promote cleaner, healthier air through the development and use of zero-emission electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, electric mass transit buses, and rail.
What it reported doing in 2025
Legislative and regulatory effortscaletc successfully advocated for amendments to California's low carbon fuel standard (lcfs), a regulation promulgated by the California air resources board. Through caletc's effective advocacy, the air resources board adopted amendments that increase the stringency of the program, establish an automatic acceleration mechanism, increase the amount of credits that utilities can retain for programs and investments and establish a medium-and-heavy-duty statewide vehicle incentive.caletc attended California air resource board (carb) workshops and filed comments as appropriate. Additionally, caletc drafted strategies, talking points, and comment letters to carb board members and staff. Caletc also hosted caletc lobby day to advocate for strong zev funding in the budget.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 52
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 69
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 50.7%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Limited
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 27.4%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 62.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 50.7% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $603K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $303K · 9 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $141K reported
- Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.