Corn Belt Energy

Legal name: Corn Belt Energy Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370228808
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bloomington, IL, US
Phone
309-662-5330
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$88,250,529
Expenses
$88,250,529
Assets
$240,916,473
Liabilities
$125,796,594

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Don Taylor (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Don Taylor (President): $668,980 total reported compensation
  • Ryan Campbell (VP Electric Distribtuion): $335,103 total reported compensation
  • Leonard Joe Priestley (VP Utility Services): $273,172 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to enhance the quality of life of our members and support the communities we serve, by cooperatively providing reasonably priced energy with exceptional service. Corn Belt Energy Corporation distributes electricity to over 38,000 households and businesses throughout 18 counties. As a not-for-profit energy cooperative, Corn Belt Energy is owned by the members it serves and is committed to providing reliable, affordable energy. Governed by 11 directors who are themselves residential members, Corn Belt also supports energy efficiency, education, and safety initiatives. Learn More.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide electric services to over 35,000 homes and businesses throughout 18 counties in Central Illinois including Bureau, Champaign, De Witt, Ford, Henry, Kendall, Knox, La Salle, Livingston, Logan, Macon, Marshall, McLean, Piatt, Putnam, Stark, Tazewell, and Woodford counties.

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: 73
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • 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: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

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 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.73; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -32.6% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $669K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $15.8M reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.