California Energy Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823040711
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
6507668750
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$265,000
Expenses
$254,635
Assets
$28,851
Liabilities
$156

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nica C Tanaka (Executive Director)
  • Dion Abril (President)
  • Bernie Kotlier (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nica C Tanaka (Executive Director): $106,453 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The California Energy Alliance (CEA) unites representatives of a broad range of organizations concerned about energy and the build environment. As a member-based organization, CEA works to improve California's energy future and migration toward a Zero Net Energy horizon. CEA focuses on the promotion and realization of deep energy savings, sustainable energy generation, and integration. The Alliance actively participates in the development and implementaton of progmatic, environmentally and economically sound building energy standards and other initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2025

The purposes of the California Engergy Alliance are to improve California's energy future, and to advance the migration towards a "Zero Net Energy" horizon. Zero Net Energy (ZNE) refers to buildings and other facilities in which the net amount of energy produced by the facility's own renewable energy sources is equal to the value of the energy consumed by that facility. CALENERGY will support California's vision for a sustainable energy future by advancing the implementation of deep energy savings, renewable energy generation and integration. CALENERGY intends to unite representatives from a broad range of organizations dedicated to clean energy progress in and around the built environment. CALENERGY intends to actively participate in the development and implementation of pragmatic, environmentally and economically sound energy policies, regulations and initiatives that lead to the realization of a sustainable California.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 66% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 90
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.2%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 54.3%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.9%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -16.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.2% of revenue deployed · 54.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $138K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.