Community Clean Energy Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 923931635
IRS 990 coverage: 2023–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Phone: 2026820556
Rating: 64
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue: $1,653,214
Expenses: $2,064,747
Assets: $533,970
Liabilities: $0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

ABIGAIL HOPPER (DIRECTOR (UNTIL 3/24)): $1,328,032 total reported compensation
SEAN GALLAGHER (CHAIR): $550,888 total reported compensation
LISA BERWIN (TREASURER): $473,124 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

What it reported doing in 2024

The goal of the community clean energy coalition is to increase the influence and political power of the solar, storage and aligned industries, building support at the community level to enable rapid deployment of these critical technologies. This independent organization is the first to meet the public engagement needs of a rapidly growing group of clean industries, including solar energy, storage, and electricity infrastructure. The ccec is an aggressive advocate for solar and storage, particularly in communities where clean energy development is under heated debate. The coalition drives the narrative where solar is being covered in the media, talked about in social media and debated in local seats of power, and is a source of information, data, education and perspective about the benefits of solar and storage.

Operating model

Revenue model: Earned-program. 100% 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 - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 89
Transparency & Controls: 60
Accountability: 37
Sustainability: 20
Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
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; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

Operating margin: -24.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 90.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: -59% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
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.
High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.