RE-volv
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 451035583
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025, Form 990-N 2013
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- (415) 579-3251
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,154,771
- Expenses
- $2,176,316
- Assets
- $9,802,518
- Liabilities
- $7,567,242
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANDREAS KARELAS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- CAMI THOMPSON (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $175,704 total reported compensation
- ANDREAS KARELAS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $159,923 total reported compensation
- MAI HA (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT): $149,425 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
RE-volv's mission is to advance sustainable economic development in underinvested communities through clean energy solutions.
What it reported doing in 2025
Re-volv is an equity-informed, clean energy access organization that helps nonprofits in underinvested communities across the country go solar, while raising awareness about equitable climate solutions and training the next generation of clean energy leaders. To date, re-volv has developed and financed over 135 nonprofit solar projects, saving them more than $45 million on electricity bills and collectively serving nearly 400,000 in their communities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 54.2%; rating input score 54
- Program expense ratio: 73.6%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 31%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.5; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.77; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 26.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 22.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 29.9% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 54.2% of revenue deployed · 73.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.