Energy Association of Pennsylvania
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 231637082
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA, USA
- Phone
- 7179010600
- Rating
- 41
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,140,449
- Expenses
- $1,914,264
- Assets
- $598,164
- Liabilities
- $3,588
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANDREW TUBBS (PRESIDENT &)
Highest reported compensation
- DONNA CLARK (VICE PRESIDE): $404,485 total reported compensation
- ANDREW TUBBS (PRESIDENT &): $358,435 total reported compensation
- NICOLE LUCIANO (DIRECTOR OF): $138,096 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 purpose of the association is to formulate policy initiatives and positions on behalf of its electric and natural gas distribution company members regarding Pennsylvania regulatory and legislative issues, including but not limited to issues affecting members' interactions with the general assembly, the Pennsylvania public utility commission, and various other state governmental agencies. In addition to its advocacy role, the association helps its members better serve their customers by acting as a clearinghouse for information on best practices within the industries. The association also serves an educational function by sponsoring conferences on electric and natural gas operational and customer services issues that are attended by employees of members companies, out-of-state utilities, and government agencies. The association shall promote the mutual interests of its members by such lawful and ethical means as are consistent with the functions of a nonprofit business league. None
What it reported doing in 2025
Acted as a clearinghouse for information on best practices within the electric and natural gas industries.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 72
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 52.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $404K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.