Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680260751
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164427785
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,040,795
Expenses
$1,350,932
Assets
$282,556
Liabilities
$407,136

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • V John White (Executive Dir.): $175,960 total reported compensation
  • Kimber West (Dir. Operations): $136,863 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

CEERT designs and fights for policies that advance clean, renewable, energy and climate solutions for California and the West. CEERT's team of professional staff, active board members, expert consultants, and clean-technology and environmental affiliates carry out our work through a set of focused advocacy programs. We act as participants and intervenors before all the major governmental energy, climate, and air-quality agencies. CEERT is pressing for the necessary changes in grid operations, renewable procurement, and climate policies that will enable California to reach its groundbreaking new energy and greenhouse-gas reduction goals, and put the entire Western region on the path to a low-carbon electric system and a clean-energy future.

What it reported doing in 2024

During 2023, CEERT accomplished the following: CEERTs multi-year advocacy was instrumental in a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Decision adopting a Preferred System Plan that meets an unprecedentedly low 25-million metric ton greenhouse-gas emissions target for the power sector by 2035. This PSP portfolio will enable California to meet its ambitious climate and clean-energy goals, and to reduce GHG emissions on the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) grid by 85% in 2045 while achieving a level of 113% clean energy (including exports). CAISOs 2022-2023 Transmission Plan (TP) mapped a 2032 base scenario of 26,597 mega-watts (MW) in new clean generation, while a more far-reaching 2035 sensitivity scenario studied transmission needs for 70,489 MW of clean resources. CEERT successfully argued at the CAISO and CPUC that this sensitivity scenario be the base case for the 2023-2024 TP. We are now advocating for an even more aggressive base case in the 2024-2025 TP. Partnered with our affiliates Latino Equity Advocacy and Policy Institute and Golden State Clean Energy/Westlands Solar Park to realize the San Joaquin Valley's potential for 30,000 megawatts of new large-scale solar, bring the benefits of those projects to local communities, and secure residents full access to workforce training and employment programs. Worked closely with Comit Civico del Valle, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, and the Imperial Irrigation District to secure maximal development of new 24/7 geothermal generating plants by the Salton Sea, the extraction of lithium from geothermal brine, and community benefits and workforce training opportunities for Imperial Valley residents. With our allies in nearby states, furthered recent encouraging progress on the establishment of an Extended Day-Ahead Market and an eventual Regional Transmission Organization, both of which will result in improved renewables trading and cost savings across the West. Published three hard-hitting, widely distributed reports on key transmission expansion projects for California, especially in the Los Angeles Basin to reduce dependence on gas-fired power plants and in the Central Valley to greatly increase solar generation output. Began to push for increased adoption and use of grid-enhancing technologies, dynamic line rating, advanced power conductors, and high-voltage direct-current lines in advocating with state agencies for expanding transmission capacity in affordable ways.Worked to establish a Central Procurement Entity for long lead-time resources with system-wide benefits, including geothermal, offshore wind, and pumped hydro storage.In light of the states budget deficit, advocated that the CEC rescind operating subsidies from the general fund for the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility and outmoded gas-fired plants, and reallocate the funds to clean energy and demand-response infrastructure. Considerably advanced state plans for expanded transmission. In May the CAISO adopted its 2022-2023 Transmission Plan (TP), which detailed a ten-year 2032 base scenario of 26,597 MW in new clean generation. A more far-reaching 2035 sensitivity scenario studied transmission needs for 70,489 MW of new clean resources, encompassing 33,640 MW of solar, 12,301 MW of wind, 20,673 MW of battery storage, 2,000 MW of long-duration storage, and 1,746 MW of geothermal. CEERTs vigorous transmission advocacy at the CAISO and CPUC, and our three recent transmission reports, successfully argued that this sensitivity scenario be used as the base-case portfolio for the 2023-2024 TP. We are now advocating that an even more aggressive base-case be used for the upcoming 2024-2025 TP. Published three widely distributed reports on transmission: the first on planning and key projects in California; the second on the need to expand transmission into the Los Angeles Basin to improve reliability and reduce dependence on gas-fired plants; and the third on the need to expand transmission in the Central Vall

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.4%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.44; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.4% of revenue deployed · 75% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $104K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.