Energy Innovation Reform Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461491204
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fairfax, VA, USA
Phone
5712575265
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$795,594
Expenses
$937,999
Assets
$1,057,641
Liabilities
$50,784

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SAMUEL THERNSTROM (DIRECTOR & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SAMUEL THERNSTROM (DIRECTOR & CEO): $399,403 total reported compensation
  • PAUL SAUNDERS (DIRECTOR & SENIOR ADVISOR): $234,891 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To educate the public and advocate for a broad energy policy that values the investment in new technologies.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education and advocacy:1. Undertook multiple analyses of decarbonization pathways and policies for the electric power sector.2. Studied the economic and environmental impact of different policy options for reducing emissions3. Engaged in extensive and ongoing outreach to a broad range of key stakeholders across the political and civic spectrum to communicate the findings from out research and to build a strong case for pragmatic policy options.4. Pursued various internationally oriented projects. Assessed russia's role in the global energy economy after its invasion of ukraine. Studied u.s. - korea cooperation on clean energy supply chains, including solar photovoltaic systems and electric vehicle batteries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 66.1%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 67.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.3% of revenue deployed · 66.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $620K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $399K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.