Chugach Electric Association

Legal name: Chugach Electric Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920014224
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Anchorage, AK, United States
Phone
(907) 563-7494
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$366,259,489
Expenses
$367,157,220
Assets
$1,938,323,142
Liabilities
$1,713,876,167

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ARTHUR MILLER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • ARTHUR MILLER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $696,641 total reported compensation
  • SHERRI HIGHERS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $513,768 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW CLARKSON (CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER): $455,572 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We provide safe, reliable and affordable electricity through superior service and sustainable practices, powering the lives of our members. Chugach is pleased to provide reliable, affordable power to more than 90,000 members from Anchorage to the northern Kenai Peninsula, and from Whittier on Prince William Sound to Tyonek on the west side of Cook Inlet. We have many services that make it easy to power your home and to do business with your member-owned cooperative. Residential Service Start a residential electric account with Chugach Electric by completing the Application for Residential Service online. Chugach requires applicants for electric service to provide proof of identity and payment of a membership and connect fee to establish electric service.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule o

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.8%; rating input score 98; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.28; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th 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: 86.3% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $697K · 19 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $102.9M reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 21 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.