Georgia Energy Cooperative
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 582664429
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Tucker, GA, US
- Phone
- 770-270-7500
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Utilities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $131,314,285
- Expenses
- $131,314,285
- Assets
- $61,326,370
- Liabilities
- $30,426,101
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
33 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PETE NETTLES (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- PETE NETTLES (CEO): $615,121 total reported compensation
- JOHN E WINSKIE III (VP - POWER S): $462,234 total reported compensation
- ART WENDA (VP - FINANCE): $339,667 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Georgia Energy Cooperative provides long-term power supply services by procuring future energy resources, managing power supply contracts, and planning for future energy needs on behalf of its Member EMCs.
Georgia Energy Cooperative (GEC) is a member-owned, not-for-profit power supply cooperative headquartered in Tucker, Georgia. It provides long-term power supply services by procuring future energy resources, managing power supply contracts, and planning for future energy needs on behalf of its 15 member electric membership corporations (EMCs). GEC serves over 287,000 members across Georgia, with more than 390,000 meters connected and over 52,000 miles of energized lines. The cooperative was formed by a group of EMCs that desired to continue working together in a traditional cooperative structure after the 1997 restructuring of Oglethorpe Power Corporation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% 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: 82
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 31
- Growth: 20
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: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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; 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: 0.47; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 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: 30 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $131.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $615K · 33 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.