Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454244605
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Valley City, OH, USA
Phone
2163537344
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,100,200
Expenses
$12,172,709
Assets
$11,132,859
Liabilities
$252,309

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SERGIO KNAEBEL (PRESIDENT)
  • INGRID VILA-BIAGGI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ALEXANDRA BUCHANAN (CEO/BOARD SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALEXANDRA BUCHANAN (CEO/BOARD SECRETARY): $259,028 total reported compensation
  • SARAH WEEKS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $252,690 total reported compensation
  • ABHISHEK SINHA (PETROCHEMICAL ENERGY FINANCE ANALYST): $213,913 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable energy economy.

What it reported doing in 2025

To conduct analysis and publish and release studies on energy issues; resource planning; power plant economics and financing; the financial and economic risks of energy alternatives; water and energy; and coal and oil reserves, exports, and prices.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.1%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 19.4%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.1% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $10.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $259K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $453K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.