Central Georgia Electric Membership Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 580187885
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Jackson, GA, US
- Phone
- 770-775-7857
- Rating
- 49
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $184,487,080
- Expenses
- $184,470,419
- Assets
- $543,657,278
- Liabilities
- $425,087,743
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GEORGE L WEAVER (PRESIDENT/ C)
Highest reported compensation
- GEORGE L WEAVER (PRESIDENT/ C): $766,324 total reported compensation
- AMBER IVEY (CAO): $525,152 total reported compensation
- BEN THOMASON (COO): $503,290 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Providing reliable, affordable electric service while staying true to the seven cooperative principles and its core values of community and accountability.
Central Georgia Electric Membership Corporation (CGEMC) is a member-owned electric cooperative providing reliable, affordable electric service across 17 counties in central Georgia, including Bibb, Butts, Clayton, Fayette, Henry, Jasper, Jones, Lamar, Monroe, Morgan, Murray, Newton, Pike, Putnam, and Spalding. Guided by the seven cooperative principles and core values of community and accountability, CGEMC offers residential and commercial energy solutions, rebates, and community programs such as Project SHARE and youth leadership initiatives. The cooperative has earned a customer satisfaction award based on data modeled by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) in 2026.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% 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
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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: 0%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.95; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $184.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $766K · 19 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $10M reported
- Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.