Isle Au Haut Electric Power Company

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010311701
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Isle Au Haut, ME, USA
Phone
4156992746
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Local Benevolent Life Insurance Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$192,976
Expenses
$176,605
Assets
$557,334
Liabilities
$141,644

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • George Cogan (President)
  • Nick Filler (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Sam Chamberlin (Secretary)
  • Bill Chamberlin (Director)
  • George Cogan (President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Distribution of electric power services at lowest possible cost using green sources if possible to residents of Isle au Haut.

What it reported doing in 2025

On the operations front we continued to provide high-reliability service to members despite significant feeder downtime due to weather events. For six major feeder outages lasting a total of 64 hours island-wide outages were generally kept under 30 minutes each. We also negotiated a 4 year fixed price contract for hydropower which will stabilize the primary input to our power costs until 2030. On our management team we streamlined our structure when our GM left creating roles of Operations Manager and Administrative Manager. This reduced total payroll expense in Q4. On our major capital project we made significant progress on the new undersea cable after passing the NEPA environmental review and obtaining a notice to proceed from NBRC. This allowed us to procure and take delivery of the new undersea cable in July.

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

SUPPORTED - 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: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.9%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 43.6%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.16; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.9% of revenue deployed · 43.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $77K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 38 of 41 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.