Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 272312832
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Phone
- 4043488017
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $458,027
- Expenses
- $703,932
- Assets
- $262,673
- Liabilities
- $18,525
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NATHAN SHANNON (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- NATHAN SHANNON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $131,816 total reported compensation
- JASON MCGRADE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $105,313 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Smart energy consumer collaborative is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with a mission to serve as a trusted source of information on consumer's views of grid modernization, energy delivery and usage, and to help consumers understand the benefits of smart energy.
What it reported doing in 2024
Research: in 2024, secc released four pieces of research and one companion white papers seeking to better understand smart energy consumers their perceptions, attitudes and needs and then leverage this understanding to formulate actions that utilities and other energy service providers can take to better serve and engage with their customers. In addition, secc produced four customer engagement case studies that profiled how energy utilities in the u.s. Are making significant strides in educating and engaging their customers about how to better control their energy use, the resulting utility costs and the benefits of shifting their consumption. All of these resources were put together by a volunteer-based research committee consisting of members who helped shape secc's research agenda, reviewed detailed findings and discussed the implications and presentation of those findings.secc released the most current version of its annual 2024 state of the consumer report, a meta-analysis of secc's 2023 research agenda that provides six big-picture themes on the needs and wants of today's energy consumers. The report t is a meta-analysis of secc's consumer research from the previous year that provides a big-picture look at the needs and wants of today's energy consumers. The report begins with an overview of the key findings and takeaways from previous studies on electrification, renewable energy and the smart grid. The second half of the report shares three key themes on energy consumers that emerged from this research. The 2024 state of the consumer report is designed to help industry stakeholders including utilities, consumer advocates, solution providers and regulators better understand today's consumers and develop programs, services and technologies that meet their needs more effectively.secc released its customer satisfaction and the smart grid report explored whether consumers are engaging with the electricity usage information delivered by smart grid technologies and whether they are generally seeing the benefits promised by grid modernization. Based on a nationally representative survey of 1,500 consumers, the report investigated consumer support for grid, awareness of and interest in detailed electricity usage information, satisfaction with and trust of their electricity providers, and more.secc released its understanding the smb landscape: new needs and concerns report examined the energy-related needs of small and medium-sized businesses (smbs) across the united states and provides recommended next steps for customer engagement. Based on a 15-minute online survey of 750 energy decision-makers at businesses with fewer than 500 employees, the report found that 47 percent of smbs characterize electricity as a "moderate" business expense, while an additional 18 percent said that it is a "large" expense.secc released its modern energy messaging: transactions to relationships report focused on gaining clarity around the types of energy-related messages consumers are currently receiving and which messages are most likely to motivate them to act. Based on a 20-minute online survey of 1,500 americans who make household energy decisions, the report found that consumers are most likely to recall energy messages from their electricity providers.secc introduced in the summer of 2023, this research series is designed to quickly capture americans' thoughts on timely energy-related topics via brief, nationally representative surveys. In 2024, we completed three snapshot surveys: electric vehicles: exploring consumers' cost concerns fielded to a nationally representative sample of 1,539 respondents in late march, this survey found that 54 percent of consumers who don't currently own an ev are open to owning one in the future. However, costs continue to be a significant impediment to adoption, particularly purchase price. Computing consumer interest in ai as artificial intelligence (ai) increasingly becomes part of the energy landscape, this
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 14
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 68%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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: 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -53.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 68% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $479K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $132K · 23 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.