2014 ANNUAL REPORT

ii

Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonpartisan organization that conducts economic research and analysis to help leaders make better decisions and craft smarter policies about natural resources and the environment. RFF brings together respected economists and leading environmental researchers from around the world to develop solutions that balance the need for both economic growth and environmental stewardship. www.rff.org/annualreport

iii

Contents

A Message from the President 1

RFF by the Numbers: 2014 2

Leading Research Excellence 3

Convening Our Community 7

Engaging in Global Issues 11

Enriching Policy Dialogues 13

Resources Magazine 16

Supporters 17

Financial Statements 19

Board of Directors 21

Experts and Staff 22

How You Can Help 24

1

Separating fact from fiction in today’s policy debates takes more than an eye for detail and an ear for the truth. It requires a network of independent experts—committed to cutting through the noise—focused on developing smart solutions to address societal, economic, and environmental needs. It takes Resources for the Future.

Let’s face it: When historians reflect on our era, the story that’s told will be one of profound environmental, economic, and political gridlock, exacerbated by ideological divides and cynical partisanship. Yet here at RFF, something fascinating is happening. More and more individuals and institutions are turning to our experts for knowledge, counsel, and research-based insights that help them interpret the opportunities and challenges presented by today’s environmental, energy, and climate policy issues. In this polarized environment, RFF’s role as a credible, trusted source of information is more necessary than ever before.

As we share this annual report, we applaud and are sincerely grateful to the visionary donors who make our work possible and believe that environmental and natural resource policies around the world can and should be better. Many RFF supporters maintain that economic growth and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are willing to make an investment in the prospect of balancing such goals by supporting an independent research institution that strives to do just that.

In 2015, major decisions are expected from various levels of government that will shape the ongoing management and use of our natural resources. Recognizing that these decisions will have effects that ripple across generations to come, RFF experts will be there, providing data and analysis to decisionmakers, conducting stakeholder outreach and discussions, hosting public seminars, and maintaining our role as technical advisors to regulators and policymakers.

As we do so, we send our thanks to you and others who generously provide the financial and intellectual resources that enable RFF to conduct this vitally important—and increasingly rare—work.

“In this polarized environment, RFF’s role as a credible, trusted source of information is more necessary than ever before.”

WelcomeA MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

President Resources for the Future

2 2

13,000People received RFF’s monthly newsletter, RFF Connection

210Blog posts were written for Common Resources

1,350People attended RFF’s public seminars and events

182Individuals, corporations, foundations, and other institutions supported RFF

3,100Viewers tuned in for RFF’s live event webcasts

4,100Facebook and Twitter users followed RFF

24Academic seminars were hosted by RFF experts

68Researchers and staff made up the RFF team

142Research projects were tackled by RFF experts

17,000People visited Common Resources, RFF’s blog

54RFF publications were produced by RFF experts

14,000Subscribers received Resources magazine

RFF by the NumbersA YEAR IN REVIEW 2014

3

Leading Research ExcellenceHIGHLIGHTS OF THE CRITICAL RESEARCH CONDUCTED AT RFF IN 2014

4

Climate Policy

Analyzing Policies to Reduce Power Plant Emissions

In June, the US Environmental Protection Agency released the Clean Power Plan—a proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s existing power plants, using the agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

In anticipation of such a proposal, RFF experts

had examined the potential impacts of and possible approaches for implementing the rule. The American Economic Review published “The Costs and Consequences of Greenhouse Gas Regulation under the Clean Air Act” by RFF’s Dallas Burtraw, Joshua Linn, Karen Palmer, and Anthony Paul in early 2014 (also an RFF discussion paper). The authors compared the costs and benefits of policy options that put a price on carbon emissions, finding that the most cost-effective option is one that keeps the revenue within the electricity sector.

RFF’s Anthony Paul and Sophie Pan examined the details of the Clean Power Plan in “EPA’s Clean Power Plan: Breaking Down the Building Blocks.” They demonstrate the actual emissions reductions that would be achieved by each of the “building blocks” of the proposal and show possible futures for emissions reductions if any of the building blocks fail to survive legal challenge.

Disaster Aid

Investigating Options for Funding Disaster Recovery

Years have passed since Hurricane Sandy made landfall, but the storm’s economic and environmental impacts can still be felt along the East Coast. Congress initially approved approximately $50 billion in supplemental recovery funding—more than the annual expenditures of many federal agencies. However,

in “A New Era of Disaster Aid? Reflections on the Sandy Supplemental” and a related infographic, RFF’s Carolyn Kousky and Leonard Shabman show that affected households only received a fraction of the aid. Funds were used primarily to reimburse local governments, assist businesses, rebuild infrastructure, and support projects to reduce damages from future storms. The authors note that although risk mitigation is important, Congress should use a more deliberate approach for investing in such projects and not rely on funds designated as “emergency” spending.

In addition to emergency relief funds, flood insurance is another form of disaster aid provided at the federal level. In “Pricing Flood Insurance: How and Why the NFIP Differs from a Private Insurance Company,” Kousky and Shabman explain why the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is fundamentally different from private insurance policies,

which can collect higher premiums to cover payouts over the long run.

5

Natural Gas

Exploring the Risks and Benefits of Shale Gas Development

Shale gas development continues to divide stakeholders concerned about the economic and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Some concerns focus on how shale wells might affect communities and the value of nearby homes. Using data from New York and Pennsylvania, RFF’s

Lucija Muehlenbachs of the University of Calgary, Elisheba Spiller of the Environmental Defense Fund, and Christopher Timmins of Duke University examined these effects in “The Housing Market Impacts of Shale Gas Development.” They conclude that shale gas development can have significant negative impacts on nearby groundwater-dependent homes, although homes that depend on piped water experience small positive impacts from lease payments.

In a survey of the public in Pennsylvania and Texas, RFF’s Alan Krupnick and Juha Siikamäki found a broad base of support for shale gas development, despite concern about the potential environmental risks. In “Would You Pay to Reduce Risks from Shale Gas Development?” they write that although 59 percent of respondents said that they are supportive of development, survey participants in both states ranked concerns about the risks to groundwater and surface water highest among possible risks.

Water

Managing Water Resources in the United StatesThe development of new fossil fuel resources has increased water demand in the United States at a time when many western states are experiencing extreme droughts. RFF’s Yusuke Kuwayama and Alan Krupnick, and RFF’s Sheila Olmstead of the University of Texas, Austin, explored this issue in “Water Resources and Unconventional Fossil Fuel Development: Linking Physical Impacts to Social Costs.” Their report shows that, on average, unconventional fuel development does not use much more water than conventional. However, they emphasize that the specific location and timing of water use matters; it is possible for unconventional fuel projects to have significant localized negative impacts.

Kuwayama proposes another option that could help water-stressed regions better manage uncertain water supplies. In “Groundwater Markets: Managing a Critical, Hidden Resource,” he outlines what such a market might look like: A regulatory body could quantify existing groundwater rights and a broker would take on the role of “matchmaker” for buyers and sellers seeking to exchange those rights. This type of market could function in many places throughout the country, because groundwater use is typically unregulated in the United States.

6

Oil and Gasoline

Providing Recommendations on the Future of Fossil FuelsThe shale gas boom and tumbling gas prices have prompted US lawmakers to take a second look at several longstanding fossil fuel policies. RFF’s Joseph Aldy of Harvard University addresses one of these programs in “Money for Nothing: The Case for Eliminating US Fossil Fuel Subsidies.” He argues that special tax provisions that subsidize oil, gas, and coal companies have little effect on overall fossil fuel production, despite costing taxpayers $4.9 billion per year, and cutting them would lead to significant emissions reductions. He explains that the best prospect for eliminating these provisions might be found in comprehensive tax reform.

Another energy policy that received considerable attention in 2014 was the possibility of lifting the ban on US oil exports. RFF’s Stephen P.A. Brown of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and RFF’s Charles Mason of the University of Wyoming released “Lifting the Oil Export Ban: What Would It Mean for US

Gasoline Prices?” They find that lifting the ban would boost crude oil production and improve the efficiency of global refinery operations, while US gasoline prices would fall—despite fears to the contrary.

Economy and Environment

Measuring the Impacts of a Carbon Tax in the United StatesFollowing the election of a new prime minister in 2014, Australia became the first country to repeal a carbon tax, citing that households would save hundreds of dollars per year. The need for objective research on the subject became critical. RFF’s Roberton Williams, Hal Gordon, Dallas Burtraw, Richard Morgenstern, and Jared Carbone of the Colorado School of Mines released two discussion papers on how a US carbon tax might impact people by state and by income group.

In “The Initial Incidence of a Carbon Tax across Income Groups,” they explore how the revenue from such a tax might be used, and how the costs would be distributed across various income groups under three approaches. Their findings indicate that recycling the revenue through lump-sum rebates to the public would

be less regressive, but also less efficient. In “The Initial Incidence of a Carbon Tax across US States,” they note similar effects. Cutting capital taxes benefits states with large shares of capital income, lump-sum rebates favor low-income states, and cutting labor taxes results in a relatively even distribution of the costs across states.

7 7

Convening Our CommunityHIGHLIGHTS FROM SOME OF RFF’S MOST THOUGHT–PROVOKING EVENTS IN 2014

8

A Discussion of the Independent Risk Assessment for Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States. June 26, 2014. At this RFF seminar, authors of the independent risk assessment for the Risky Business Project and other experts highlighted the methods, data, original research, and key findings in the assessment. Pictured: RFF’s Molly Macauley, Trevor Houser of the Rhodium Group, and Robert Kopp of Rutgers University.

A Conversation with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy September 25, 2014. RFF President Phil Sharp and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy discussed the economics of critical environmental issues facing the nation.

Considering the Contributions of Forests in the Management of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. January 29, 2014. At a seminar co-sponsored with the Society of American Foresters, experts outlined how the responsible management of forests in the United States can help mitigate climate change impacts at a national and international scale. Pictured: David A. Cleaves of the US Forest Service.

1

2

3

3

2

1

9

7

6

4

5

4

5

6

7

Limits to Securitization: The Future of Insurance. June 4, 2014. Experts explored the challenges of insuring risky events, such as climate-related disasters, and emerging tools for better managing risk. Pictured: Peter Nakada of Risk Management Solutions, Inc. and RFF Board Member Bob Litterman of Kepos Capital.

Natural Resources, Ecology, and Public Policy: Time for Some Unconventional Ideas? May 28, 2014. Experts discussed how public policies shape the linkages among humankind, natural resources, and ecology in today’s era of the Anthropocene. Pictured: RFF’s Molly Macauley, Jack Bobo of the US Department of State, and RFF’s Joel Darmstadter.

Energy Revolution: Utilities Confront the Shifting Energy Landscape—A Conversation with Chris Crane, President and CEO, Exelon. May 13, 2014. Chris Crane joined RFF’s Phil Sharp for a conversation about the massive shifts affecting the energy industry and how they will shape the economy in years to come.

From the Gulf to the Arctic: What Have We Learned Since the Deepwater Horizon Spill? April 17, 2014. RFF hosted a dialogue on lessons learned from restoration in the Gulf of Mexico region and how they might be applied to the development of oil and gas resources in the Arctic. Pictured: Fran Ulmer of the US Arctic Research Commission, William Brown of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Mark Fesmire of the Bureau of Safety and

10

8

9

10

8

9

10

Environmental Enforcement at the US Department of the Interior, Beth Kerttula of the Center for Ocean Solutions at Stanford University, and Christopher Smith of the US Department of Energy.

Nobel Laureate Robert Engle: A Financial Approach to Environmental Risk. March 18, 2014. Robert Engle discussed financial strategies for hedging against future market volatilities caused by climate change.

Making Sense of EPA’s Proposed Rule for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Power Plants. June 5, 2014. Three days following the announcement of EPA’s Clean Power Plan, RFF convened experts to examine the new proposed rule and the challenges and opportunities that implementing the rule might bring. Pictured: Reid Harvey of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

The Shale Gas Debate: How Industry and Environmental Messages Stack Up. December 6, 2013. At this RFF briefing on Capitol Hill, experts revealed new survey results about the public’s perception of the potential risks associated with shale gas development, and how different sources of information affect those concerns. Pictured: RFF’s Juha Siikamäki and Alan Krupnick.

11 11

Engaging in Global IssuesHIGHLIGHTS OF RFF’S FOCUS ON POLICY SOLUTIONS AROUND THE WORLD

12

Carbon Trading and Shale Gas

ChinaAs China continues to reform its economy, it has also begun to address the environmental challenges that accompany economic growth. RFF’s Clayton Munnings, Richard Morgenstern, Zhongmin Wang, and Xu Liu looked at three regional pilot programs for carbon trading in China and made recommendations to improve their design as the country prepares for implementation of a national program in 2016.

In addition, the development of shale gas reserves in China could have a significant effect on China’s economy and environmental performance. RFF’s Zhongmin Wang and Alan Krupnick, with Lei Tian and Xiaoli Liu of the Energy Research Institute in Beijing, examined the US experience with shale gas development to offer insights on how China could overcome the inherent problems with exploiting its hard-to-reach shale reserves.

Energy and Climate Coordination

North AmericaEnergy production in Canada, Mexico, and the United States is evolving rapidly, providing an opportunity to reap both the economic and environmental benefits from trilateral coordination of energy and climate policies. RFF’s Alan Krupnick and Raymond Kopp, in partnership with the Mario Molina Center in Mexico and the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Canada, are exploring a number of issues, including onshore oil and gas regulations, enhanced integration of the electricity grid and competitive wholesale power markets, options for coordinated action on climate change, and fossil energy export strategies.

Fuel Conservation

IndiaIndia is also facing the environmental challenges associated with a growing economy, and its car market has expanded rapidly over the past 20 years. RFF’s Maureen Cropper, with Randy Chugh of the US Department of Justice, reviewed various policies that the country is considering to conserve fuel and reduce its dependence on foreign oil, finding that raising taxes on diesel fuel might be the most effective.

Biodiversity

Latin AmericaIn Latin America—a region stressed by poverty, political instability, and natural disasters—biodiversity conservation may not always be a priority. RFF’s Allen Blackman, Rebecca Epanchin-Niell, Juha Siikamäki, and Daniel Velez-Lopez provided a five-point action plan for policymakers, focused on building green agriculture, strengthening terrestrial protected areas, improving environmental governance, managing coastal and marine resources, and furthering biodiversity data and policy evaluation.

Emissions Trading

EuropeThe European Union’s Emissions Trading System operates in 28 countries and covers approximately 45 percent of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. However, an oversupply of emissions allowances has caused the allowance price to drop to levels that threaten the success of the program. RFF’s Dallas Burtraw examined an efficient policy solution: the adoption of a price floor. He argues that such a fix would lead to more predictable market outcomes and greater public support.

13 13

Enriching Policy DialoguesHIGHLIGHTS OF ANALYSIS BY RFF EXPERTS ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF 2014

14

Invasive Species

“Rather than a single strategy, a portfolio of approaches is required. The first is to keep invasives from arriving in the first place. . . . But even the best-designed inspection strategy will not be 100 percent effective.”

Rebecca Epanchin-Niell, Developing Policies to Combat Invasive Species

Sea-Level Rise and Shoreline Impacts

“More flexible property rights, such as rolling easements, have been suggested to allow for private use of the shore until inundation occurs. Such strategies—if they could be adopted—would allow for orderly retreat.”

Carolyn Kousky, Managing Shoreline Retreat in the United States: A Three-Part Strategy

The Midterm Review of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

“The next several years will be a key time for research that can enhance this evaluation and inform future policies to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions and oil use from the light-duty fleet. Major questions remain about consumer and manufacturer responses to the regulations and about how the costs and benefits of the rule should be estimated.”

Alan J. Krupnick, Joshua Linn, and Virginia D. McConnell, Research Questions for the Midterm CAFE Review

Arctic Offshore Drilling Regulations

“Can [the Department of the Interior] lead us beyond the level of minimum technical requirements to a mix of performance- and technical-based standards centered on safety? A lesson from the Deepwater Horizon spill was just that: the need for safety performance to figure prominently across the culture of our regulatory agencies.”

Molly Macauley, On Proposed Regulations for Arctic Offshore Oil Drilling

The Oil Export Ban

“The first step would be to allow crude oil exports to Mexico and the European Union, the latter having imported 30 percent of its crude oil from Russia in 2013. This step would thus lead to an increase in domestic activity and jobs.”

Jan Mares and Alan J. Krupnick, Lifting the Oil Export Ban: A Staged Approach

The United Nations Climate Summit

“Commitments to reduce emissions offered by each country should emanate from legally binding domestic policies that are capable of producing the reductions contained in the commitments.”

Raymond J. Kopp, Pursuing a Global Climate Treaty: Next Stop, New York

15

Energy Efficiency in 111(d)

“Incorporating state energy efficiency policies into Clean Air Act plans will make those policies federally enforceable and potentially limit a state’s flexibility with respect to changing or modifying the program in the future. Whether this is a deterrent or not remains to be seen.” Karen L. Palmer, Energy Efficiency in 111(d): The Role of End-Use Efficiency in State Compliance Plans

The Russia-Ukraine Conflict

“While, in years to come, expanded shipments [of liquefied natural gas] from the United States, Qatar, Australia, and other countries will undoubtedly result in the creation of a worldwide gas trading system (blunting would-be supply manipulation), for now, the natural gas card remains a conceivable option for Mr. Putin to play.” Joel Darmstadter, Russia and Ukraine: The Energy Dimension

Water Scarcity and Droughts

“Although people are generally willing to pay much less for water used to flush toilets or irrigate parks than for drinking water, investment in providing this lower-value recycled water may be economically justified if the cost of treating wastewater to greywater or landscape irrigation standards is much lower than the cost of treatment to potable quality.” Yusuke Kuwayama, Getting Past the “Yuck” Factor: Challenges for Public Acceptance of Recycled Water

Climate Change Opinions

“Our surveys suggest that Americans have been overwhelmingly ‘green’ on climate change issues for many years, despite a barrage of natural disasters, media events, and campaign speeches that one might have imagined would impact such opinions.” Jon A. Krosnick, Nuri Kim, and Bo MacInnis, What Americans Think about Climate Change

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

“These so-called tax expenditures—which are effectively equivalent to government spending—subsidize oil, gas, and coal companies by about $4.9 billion annually. In return, however, there is virtually no change in US production.” Joseph E. Aldy, Money for Nothing: The Case for Eliminating US Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Shale Gas Risks

“The public in two very different states is supportive of sustainable shale gas development and willing to pay, through higher natural gas prices, to reduce some of the risks that sustainability implies. The government can use this information to examine how stringent its regulations should be by comparing these monetary benefits of risk reductions as the public sees them to regulatory costs.” Alan J. Krupnick and Juha Siikamäki, Would You Pay to Reduce Risks from Shale Gas Development? Public Attitudes in Pennsylvania and Texas

16

Resources is RFF’s flagship magazine, first published in 1959. In 2014, Resources featured articles by more than 35 leading experts, including the following:

• What Americans Think about Climate Change

• Can Product Labels Nudge Energy Efficient Behavior?

• Private Funding for Public Parks: Assessing the Role of Philanthropy

• Reflections on the Oil Shock of 40 Years Ago

• Getting to an Efficient Carbon Tax: How the Revenue is Used Matters

• Forever Ours? The Challenges of Long-Lived Environmental Problems

Read more: www.rff.org/resources.

RESOURCES MAGAZINE

16

17

INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY FOUNDATIONS

Chairman’s Circle $50,000 and above

Gregory Alexander

Anthony Bernhardt

W. Bowman Cutter

Heising-Simons Foundation

Linden Trust for Conservation

Robert Litterman

Merck Family Fund

S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation

The G. Unger Vetlesen Foundation

President’s Circle $25,000 and above

Paul F. Balser

Larry Birenbaum

W. Bowman Cutter

Samuel Freeman Charitable Trust

Christopher J. Elliman

C. Boyden Gray

Council $5,000 and above

Christopher C. Aitken

James K. Asselstine

Vicky A. Bailey

David Blood

Kristin L. Breuss

Red Cavaney

Preston Chiaro

John M. Deutch

Elaine J. Dorward-King

John Evangelakos

Linda J. Fisher

Kathryn S. Fuller

Edward F. Hand

Robert & Ardis James Foundation

Sally Katzen

Knobloch Family Foundation

Raymond J. Kopp

Rubén Kraiem

Richard E. Kroon

Jan W. Mares

Steven W. Percy

William Pizer

Robert P. Rotella Foundation

John W. Rowe

Roger W. Sant

Henry B. Schacht

Phil Sharp

Lisa A. Stewart

Edward L. Strohbehn Jr.

Associates $250 and above

Anonymous

Merribel S. Ayres

Harold Brown

Dallas Burtraw

Barbara Bush

Trudy Ann Cameron

John M. Campbell

Emery N. Castle

Joel Darmstadter

Sandy Dean

Mohamed T. El-Ashry

Richard Epstein

Robert S. Epstein

Markus Fromherz

William Fulkerson

Kathryn Gabler

Lea Harvey

William Hildreth

R. Glenn Hubbard

Stephen D. Kahn

Donald M. Kerr

Robert A. Kistler

Howard Klee

Thomas E. Lovejoy

Kelly McKemy

Wilhelm Merck

George G. Montgomery

Daniel H. Newlon

Edward L. Phillips

Bernard J. Picchi

Mark A. Pisano

Paul R. Portney

Nicholas E. Powers

Helen Raffel

William K. Reilly

Richard Schmalensee

Bruce Smart

Helen Marie Streich

Michael L. Telson

John E. Tilton

Victoria J. Tschinkel

Chris G. Whipple

LEGACY SOCIETY AND FRIENDS OF FIRST WEDNESDAYS

Catherine G. Abbott

John F. Ahearne

Paul F. Balser

Emery N. Castle

Thomas D. Crocker

J. Clarence Davies

Margaret W. Fisher

Maybelle Frashure

Kenneth D. Frederick

Robert W. Fri

Darius W. Gaskins

Robert E. Grady

Debbie Groberg

Winston Harrington

Jeffery Horn

Donald M. Kerr

Thomas J. Klutznick

Richard Morgenstern

Steven W. Percy

Paul R. Portney

William D. Ruckelshaus

Clifford S. Russell

Helen Marie Streich

Edward L. Strohbehn

Victoria J. Tschinkel

SupportersRFF is sincerely grateful to the following supporters for their generous contributions during 2014.

18

CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS

Chairman’s Circle $100,000 and above

Duke Energy*

Exelon

Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc.

Weyerhaeuser

President’s Circle $50,000 and above

BP America

Chevron Corporation

Electric Power Research Institute

Green Diamond Resource Company

Rio Tinto

Southern Company

United Technologies Corporation

Warburg Pincus*

Council $25,000 and above

American Gas Association

American Honda Motor Company

BASF

CF Industries

Cheniere

Conoco Phillips

DrillingInfo*

EQT*

Hess Corporation

Lockheed Martin Corporation

The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

The Salt River Project

Schlumberger Ltd.

Shell Oil Company

Southern California Edison

TD Bank

Toyota

Associates Less than $25,000American Forest and Paper Association

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Consolidated Edison Company of New York

DMV.org

Edison Electric Institute

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.*

Microsoft Corporation*

Mitsubishi Corporation

National Alliance of Forest Owners

Pioneer Natural Resources

Raytheon Company*

Southwestern Energy

Stout and Teague

Venable LLP

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Westport Innovations, Inc.

FOUNDATIONS

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The Energy Foundation

Generation Foundation

The Curtis & Edith Munson Foundation

New Venture Fund

The New York Community Trust

Next 10

Rockefeller Family Fund

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Smith Richardson Foundation

Tinker Foundation

US Endowment for Forestry and Communities

OTHER INSTITUTIONS

Asian Development Bank

Bipartisan Policy Center

Biotechnology Industry Organization

Cornell University

Deustche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

Health Canada

University of Gothenburg

Inter-American Development Bank

IVL, Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd.

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

National Academy of Sciences

The Nature Conservancy

Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth

Statistics Norway

Wageningen University

The World Bank

World Health Organization

World Wildlife Fund—US

GOVERNMENT

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Science Foundation

The State of California Air Resources Board

US Army Corps of Engineers

US Department of Agriculture (Forest Service)

US Department of Agriculture (National Institute of Food and Agriculture)

US Department of Defense

US Department of Energy

US Department of Health and Human Services

US Department of Transportation (Federal Transit Authority)

US Environmental Protection Agency

US Geological Survey

*Matching gift donor

19

ASSETS 2014 2013

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash and equivalents $205,653 $50,000Grants and contract revenue receivable 1,133,062 1,348,984Contributions receivable 1,526,222 1,664,517Other receivables 600 788Other assets 224,747 217,473

Total current assets 3,090,284 3,281,762

Contributions receivable, net of current portion 485,854 587,490

INVESTMENTS

Investments at fair value 62,358,875 48,040,529Investment in Land, LLC - 8,900,000

Total investments 62,358,875 56,940,529

Fixed assets - net of accumulated depreciation 6,532,143 6,844,141Assets held under charitable trust agreements 377,197 373,046

Total assets $72,844,353 $68,026,968

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS 2014 2013

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Tax-exempt bond financing, current portion $270,000 $260,000Grants and awards payable 77,483 67,750Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 1,722,902 1,612,343Postretirement benefits, current 51,005 53,045Deferred Revenue 677,079 598,563

Total current liabilities 2,798,469 2,591,701

Tax exempt bond financing, net of current portion 4,890,000 5,160,000Postretirement benefits, net of current 548,609 463,763

Liabilities under split-interest agreements 239,544 237,323

Funds held for others 238,925 146,231

Total long-term liabilities 5,917,078 6,007,317

Total liabilities $8,715,547 $8,599,018

NET ASSETS

Unrestricted 54,765,593 49,532,008Temporarily restricted 2,879,306 3,583,035Permanently restricted 6,483,907 6,312,907

Total net assets 64,128,806 59,427,950

Total liabilities and net assets $72,844,353 $68,026,968

Financial Statements

RevenueIn fiscal year 2014, RFF’s operating

revenue was $10.1 million,

69.6 percent of which came from

individual contributions, foundation

grants, corporate contributions,

and government grants. RFF

augments its income by an annual

withdrawal from its reserve fund

to support operations. At the end

of fiscal year 2014 the reserve fund

was valued at $62 million.

Year ending September 30th

20

CHANGES IN UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS 2014 2013

REVENUE

Individual contributions $1,879,229 $2,494,226Foundation grants 640,787 1,488,922Corporate contributions 1,188,627 2,300,150Government grants and contracts 2,288,735 2,036,023Other institution grants 1,062,788 972,491Rental income 1,808,727 2,023,711Investment income net of fees 1,267,477 1,567,343Other revenue 8,563 13,017

Total operating revenue $10,144,934 $12,895,884

EXPENSES

ProgramsResearch 7,923,039 8,600,249Academic relations 135,543 185,195Communications 1,340,984 1,255,065Other direct 69,729 221,535

Total program expenses 9,469,295 10,262,044

Fundraising 1,088,990 1,114,947Management and administration 1,833,008 1,795,025Building operations and maintenance 1,283,367 1,261,596

Total functional expenses $13,674,660 $14,433,612

Change in unrestricted net assets from operations (3,529,726) (1,537,728)

NON-OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)

Realized and unrealized gains (losses) on investment transactions 4,051,294 2,807,881Realized gain on sale of investment in Land, LLC 4,179,289 24,581,087

Increase (decrease) in unrestricted net assets $4,700,856 $25,851,241

Net assets at beginning of year $59,427,950 $33,576,709

Net assets at end of year $64,128,806 $59,427,950

ExpensesRFF research and educational

programs continued to be vital in

2014, representing 69.2 percent

of total expenses. Management

and administration combined with

fundraising expenses were only

21.4 percent of the total. The balance

is related to facilities rented to other

nonprofit organizations.

LEADERSHIP

Richard L. Schmalensee (Chair)Howard W. Johnson Professor and Dean Emeritus, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Phil SharpPresident, Resources for the Future

MEMBERS

James AsselstineTyler Hill, Pennsylvania

Vicky A. BaileyPresident, Anderson Stratton Enterprises, LLC; and Principal, BHMM Energy Services, LLC

Paul F. BalserCo-Founder, Ironwood Partners, LLC

Anthony BernhardtNorthern California Director, Environmental Entrepreneurs

Trudy Ann CameronRaymond F. Mikesell Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, University of Oregon

Red CavaneyAlexandria, Virginia

John M. DeutchInstitute Professor, Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Elaine Dorward-KingExecutive Vice President of Sustainability and External Relations, Newmont Mining Corporation

Daniel EstyClinical Professor of Environmental Law and Policy, Yale Law School

Linda J. FisherVice President and Chief Sustainability Officer, Dupont Environment and Sustainable Growth Center

C. Boyden GrayPartner, Boyden Gray and Associates

David G. HawkinsDirector, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council

Rick R. HolleyChief Executive Officer, Plum Creek

Peter R. KaganManaging Director, Warburg Pincus, LLC

Sally KatzenSenior Advisor, Podesta Group

Rubén KraiemPartner, Covington and Burling, LLP

Robert B. LittermanChairman, Risk Committee, Kepos Capital

Richard G. NewellDirector, Duke University Energy Initiative; and Gendell Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University

Henry SchachtManaging Director and Senior Advisor, Warburg Pincus

Robert N. StavinsAlbert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Joseph L. StiglitzProfessor of Economics, Business, and International Affairs, Columbia University School of Business

Mark R. TercekPresident and CEO, The Nature Conservancy

Susan F. TierneySenior Advisor, Analysis Group

CHAIR EMERITI

W. Bowman CutterSenior Fellow and Director, Economic Policy Initiative,The Roosevelt Institute

Darius W. Gaskins, Jr.Partner, Norbridge, Inc.

Robert E. GradyManaging Director, Cheyenne Capital Fund

Lawrence H. LindenFounder and Trustee, Linden Trust for Conservation

Frank E. LoyWashington, DC

Board of DirectorsAs of October 2014

21

22

LEADERSHIP

Phil SharpPresident

Edward F. HandVice President, Finance and Administration

Lea HarveyVice President, Development, and Corporate Secretary

Molly K. MacauleyVice President for Research and Senior Fellow

Peter NelsonDirector of Communications

RESEARCH

Francisco AguilarGilbert F. White Postdoctoral Fellow

Joseph E. AldyVisiting Fellow

Allen BlackmanThomas Klutznick Senior Fellow

James W. BoydSenior Fellow and Director, RFF Center for the Management of Ecological Wealth

Timothy J. BrennanSenior Fellow

Stephen P.A. BrownVisiting Fellow

Dallas BurtrawDarius Gaskins Senior Fellow

Ziyan ChuResearch Associate

Roger M. CookeChauncey Starr Senior Fellow

Maureen L. CropperSenior Fellow

Joel DarmstadterSenior Fellow

J. Clarence DaviesSenior Fellow

Alexander EgorenkovResearch Assistant

Rebecca Epanchin-NiellFellow

Carolyn FischerSenior Fellow

Brian FlanneryCenter Fellow, RFF Center for Energy and Climate Economics

Arthur G. FraasVisiting Fellow

Robert FriVisiting Fellow

Leonard GoffResearch Assistant

Hal GordonSenior Research Assistant

Marc HafsteadFellow

Winston HarringtonSenior Fellow

Kristin HayesAssistant Director, RFF Center for Energy and Climate Economics

Jacqueline Ho

Research Assistant Mun Ho

Visiting Fellow

Raymond J. KoppSenior Fellow and Co-Director, RFF Center for Energy and Climate Economics

Carolyn KouskyFellow

Kailin KroetzFellow

Alan J. KrupnickSenior Fellow and Co-Director, RFF Center for Energy and Climate Economics

Yusuke KuwayamaFellow

Benjamin LeardFellow

Joshua LinnSenior Fellow

Antung Anthony LiuFellow

Randall LutterVisiting Fellow

Anna Malinovskaya Research Assistant

Joseph MaherPostdoctoral Fellow

Chuck MasonVisiting Fellow

Jan MaresSenior Policy Advisor

Virginia D. McConnellSenior Fellow

Katrina McLaughlinResearch Assistant

Richard D. MorgensternSenior Fellow

Lucija Anna MuehlenbachsVisiting Fellow

Clayton MunningsResearch Associate

Lucy O’KeeffeResearch Assistant

Sheila M. OlmsteadVisiting Fellow

Karen L. PalmerSenior Fellow and Research Director

Sophie PanResearch Assistant

Anthony PaulCenter Fellow, RFF Center for Energy and Climate Economics

Nigel PurvisVisiting Fellow

William RaichResearch Assistant

Nathan RichardsonVisiting Fellow

Skyler RoeshotResearch Assistant

Heather L. RossVisiting Fellow

Stephen W. SalantVisiting Fellow

James SalzmanGilbert F. White Postdoctoral Fellow

Francisco Santiago-AvilaResearch Assistant

Roger A. SedjoSenior Fellow and Director, RFF Forest Economics and Policy Program

Samantha SekarResearch Assistant

Leonard A. ShabmanResident Scholar

Daniel ShawhanVisiting Fellow

Jhih-Shyang ShihFellow

Experts and StaffAs of October 2014

23

Hilary SigmanVisiting Fellow

Juha SiikamäkiSenior Fellow and Associate Research Director

Kenneth A. SmallVisiting Fellow

Alexandra ThompsonResearch Assistant

Peter VailResearch Assistant

Margaret A. WallsSenior Fellow and Research Director

Zhongmin WangFellow

Roberton C. Williams, IIISenior Fellow and Director, Academic Programs

Michael WolosinVisiting Fellow

Hang YinResearch Assistant

UNIVERSITY FELLOWS

John F. AhearneSigma Xi

John M. AntleOregon State University

Jesse H. AusubelThe Rockefeller University

Gardner M. Brown, Jr.University of Washington

Mark A. CohenVanderbilt University

Partha DasguptaUniversity of Cambridge

Robert T. DeaconUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

Hadi DowlatabadiUniversity of British Columbia

Lawrence H. GoulderStanford University

W. Michael HanemannUniversity of California, Berkeley

Charles D. KolstadStanford University

Jon A. KrosnickStanford University

Simon LevinPrinceton University

John A. ListUniversity of Chicago

Anup MalaniUniversity of Chicago

Wallace E. OatesUniversity of Maryland

William A. PizerDuke University

Stephen PolaskyUniversity of Minnesota

Paul R. PortneyUniversity of Arizona

James N. SanchiricoUniversity of California, Davis

V. Kerry SmithArizona State University

Brent L. SohngenOhio State University

Robert N. StavinsHarvard University

Thomas SternerUniversity of Gothenburg

John E. TiltonColorado School of Mines

Jonathan B. WienerDuke University

JunJie WuOregon State University

COMMUNICATIONS

Jeannine AjelloDigital Strategy Manager

Sarah AldyEditor, Resources

Lauren CasertaOutreach Coordinator

Dave CohenPress Secretary

Scott HaseManager, Institutional Outreach

Christine TolentinoEvents Coordinator

Shannon Wulf TregarDeputy Director for Public and Government Affairs

Adrienne YoungManaging Editor

DEVELOPMENT

Angela BlakeDevelopment Assistant

Key HillSenior Director of Development

Khadija HillDevelopment Officer

Emily McLaughlinDevelopment Officer

Mike ViolaDevelopment Operations Officer

Dana YanochaDevelopment Officer

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

Julie AlleyneResearch Division Manager

Jane Bergwin-RandGrants and Contracts Administrator

Michael BrewerMailroom and Purchasing Assistant

Chris ClotworthyLibrarian

Karen FurmanStaff Assistant

Mara ParrishHuman Resources Manager

Charlotte PinedaSenior Staff Assistant

Claudia RiosAccounting Manager

Tiffany SmithHuman Resources Assistant

Marilyn M. VoigtExecutive Assistant to the President

Lester WilkersonPayroll-Project Accounting Clerk

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Aris AwangDatabase Programmer/Analyst

Danish BaigDesktop Support Analyst

Nauman MemonIT Manager

John ValdezDesktop Support Analyst

WWW.RFF.ORG/SUPPORT 24

Mail your gift to RFF Attn: RFF Development Office 1616 P Street NW Washington, DC 20036

Give online Use the secure Network for Good website at www.networkforgood.com or the Giving Library at www.givinglibrary.org.

Participate in the Combined Federal Campaign Support RFF using CFC code 19241.

Provide matching gifts Check with your employer to see if it offers a matching gift program for personal charitable donations. RFF’s Tax ID number is 53-0220900.

Make a planned gift Include RFF in your will or estate plans, or give gifts of stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.

How You Can Help

In 1952, RFF pioneered the field of environmental and natural resource economics. Today, RFF helps decisionmakers strengthen both the environment and the economy.

If you believe that environmental challenges deserve independent investigation and innovative, practical solutions, become an RFF supporter today.

With a tax-deductible contribution to RFF, donors receive various benefits throughout the year, including a subscription to Resources magazine, research updates, and invitations to special events.

1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036

www.rff.org