Energy Savers Network Incorporated
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 822587352
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Asheville, NC, USA
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $33,142
- Expenses
- $59,246
- Assets
- $18,600
- Liabilities
- $44,704
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Harold Bradley Rouse (Executive Director)
People named in this filing
- Harold Bradley Rouse (Executive Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The primary purpose of Energy Savers Network is to reduce the energy cost burden for low-income residents of Buncombe County NC and surrounding counties by reducing their energy consumption and by providing energy education.
What it reported doing in 2024
Energy Savers Network went through a transformation in late 2024 from having its service provided through a separate entity to providing this service as a standalone entity. In 2024 we were able to weatherize over 25 homes and we were able to provide health and safety as well. Most of our efforts went to the weatherization of these homes as well as building capacity for future work.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 89% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 18
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 60.8%; rating input score 61
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -78.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.4; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 60.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $36K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.