Egyptian Electric Cooperative Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370259803
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Murphysboro, IL, USA
Phone
800-606-1505
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,587,414
Expenses
$48,193,994
Assets
$110,807,345
Liabilities
$52,572,577

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael S Hermetz (Executive Vice President/General Manager)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michael S Hermetz (Executive Vice President/General Manager): $550,252 total reported compensation
  • Brad Austin (Engineering Manager): $285,924 total reported compensation
  • Jeremy Thies (Operations Supervisor): $230,929 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

EECA will never endorse any candidate or party either by statement of endorsement or monetary contributions. Individual directors, officers, management staff, and employees are encouraged to be politically active and advocate for the betterment of the cooperative and membership, but they shall not use their position with EECA to endorse either political

What it reported doing in 2024

Egyptian Electric Cooperative Association is an electric distribution cooperative whose primary mission is to provide reliable and cost effective electric service to approximately 15,000 member/owners in Southern Illinois. The revenue generated from the sale of electricity to its members is used primarily to purchase wholesale power from Southern Illinois Power Cooperative, a generation and transmission cooperative, and to provide the necessary distribution and general plant facilities to distribute that electricity to its members and maintain those facilities and service support systems.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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 - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. 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: 58
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 42
  • 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: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: -1.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.3; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -60% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 12 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $44.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $550K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.3M reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.