Nuclear Energy Institute
Legal name: Nuclear Energy Institute Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521209124
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2027398000
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $59,363,463
- Expenses
- $57,505,562
- Assets
- $99,165,506
- Liabilities
- $43,871,111
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
66 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KORSNICK MARIA G (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- WENTZEL JOHN (VICE PRESIDENT)
- FLANNIGAN MICHAEL (VICE PRESIDENT)
- UHLE JENNIFER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- KOTEK JOHN F (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
- MCINTIRE JOHN D (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CIO)
Highest reported compensation
- KORSNICK MARIA G (PRESIDENT & CEO): $3,681,599 total reported compensation
- TRUE DOUGLAS (SVP & CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICE): $990,356 total reported compensation
- GINSBERG ELLEN (SVP & SECRETARY): $839,724 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Nuclear Energy Institute is the policy organization of the nuclear technologies industry, based in Washington, D.C.
What it reported doing in 2024
External affairs - communications with industry, federal government, state, and local policy makers, the media, opinion leaders, and the general public. Implementation of government relations policies, strategies, and plans approved and promulgated by nei and its members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 94% 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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 97
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 94.6%; rating input score 95; 46th 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: 3.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.72; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 53 of 56 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $3.7M · 66 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.5M reported
- Consistency: 15 of 17 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 42 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 26 filed related-organization links
- 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: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.