Garkane Energy Cooperative, Inc.

Legal name: Garkane Energy Cooperative Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870133588
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Loa, UT, United States
Phone
800-747-5403
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$33,854,612
Expenses
$31,926,141
Assets
$113,888,026
Liabilities
$57,397,767

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Daniel McClendon (CEO/General Manager)
  • Ronald W Cazier (President)
  • Tracy Potter (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Daniel McClendon (CEO/General Manager): $288,234 total reported compensation
  • Bryant Shakespear (COO/Engineering Manager): $261,348 total reported compensation
  • Marcus V Lewis (CFO): $181,260 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Garkane Energy is a member-owned cooperative, whose mission is to provide superior, responsive customer service, while cultivating a culture of safety in a manner that builds trust among its members and employees alike.

What it reported doing in 2024

The taxpayer did not have separate program service expenses. All expenses listed in Part IX - Statement of Functional Expenses were listed under Column C, Management and General Expenses. There were no expenses listed in Column B, Program Service Expenses. The total for Part IX - Statement of Functional Expenses, Column B, Program Service Expenses and the total for Part III - Statement of Program Service Accomplishments equal and are both zero.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

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: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 58
  • 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; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 5.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.57; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • 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 $288K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $382K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.