People's Solar Energy Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843011433
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pittsfield, MA, USA
Phone
2039163490
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Utilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,580,199
Expenses
$1,039,554
Assets
$2,595,766
Liabilities
$569,094

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MMAKGANTSI MAFOJANE (EXECUTIVE DI): $170,401 total reported compensation
  • MILLARD OWENS (CO-DIRECTOR): $147,918 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

People's solar energy fund, inc. Provides non-extractive financing, technical assistance and bulk-purchasing discounted services to build a scalable system of support for community-led and community-owned solar projects. The emphasis is on projects benefiting low- or moderate-income communities and communities of color, contributing to cleaner and more affordable energy, job creation, community asset development, and a more democratized energy system.

What it reported doing in 2024

Regranting in 2024, our vital mini-grants program supported early-stage solar project conceptualization and foundational work such as forming ownership entities, developing business plans, and accessing immediate application support for tax credits and grants. Project finance in 2024, psef encountered both significant opportunities for increased capital access, as well as new challenges-each enriching our investment and lending practices. Psef began redesigning our capital offerings to better align with members' needs, delivering varying forms of grants, loans, guarantees and technical assistance. Our goal is to empower members with the resources to overcome barriers to solar development, enabling the creation of sustainable, community-driven energy solutions. Psef focused on building the infrastructure necessary to scale from a pilot fund to an integrated capital fund tailored to support projects as they mature. This led to the development of new loan products, which not only provide vital early stage capital, but will also enable members to leverage additional federal funding such as tax credits. Policy, partnerships & outreach as an existing project collaborator of the energy democracy project (edp), psef collaborated with a network of organizations working to democratize energy for everyday people across the country. Psef participated in edp's governance committee, decolonization working group and as part of the federal funding working group our executive director participated as a panelist on edp's succeeding with federal funding: experiences from the field webinar in october. This collaboration has been instrumental in situating the work of psef members within the broader energy democracy movement. Psef also collaborated to launch the regenerative economies network-a movement committed to funding the just transition to a regenerative economy. Guided by democratic governance approach, the network supported an application to the epa's greenhouse gas reduction fund: clean communities investment accelerator program. Ultimately the application was not selected as an awardee, but through the process we strengthened relationships and committed to mobilizing support for community-centered projects. Technical assistance building on psef's resource commons approach, psef facilitated a range of technical assistance to support members at various stages of project development in 2024. This included grant application support and financial modeling to legal and policy support. Psef's financial modeling working group has developed a template financial model designed to assist members in modeling and evaluating the financial viability of community solar projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.9%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 67.3%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 72.4%; rating input score 72; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.2%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.5; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 43% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.9% of revenue deployed · 67.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $700K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $170K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.