Midstate Electric Cooperative
Legal name: Midstate Electric Cooperative Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 930389023
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2017
- Location
- La Pine, OR, United States
- Phone
- (541) 536-2126
- Rating
- 46
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $50,111,672
- Expenses
- $50,111,672
- Assets
- $116,096,129
- Liabilities
- $73,326,396
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- James Anderson (General Manager): $623,811 total reported compensation
- Jami Steinhauer (Accounting Manager): $371,128 total reported compensation
- Pat Barker (Working Foreman Area Coordinator): $355,629 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Midstate Electric Cooperative delivers safe, reliable, and cost-effective energy services while providing outstanding service to our members and communities. Voices for Cooperative Power Midstate Electric Cooperative belongs to a statewide association called ORECA (Oregon Rural Electric Cooperative Association). Its role, on behalf of Oregon cooperatives, is to lobby lawmakers and state officials for legislation that supports our mission against mandates that jeopardize cooperative values. MEC will be actively involved working with other Oregon electric cooperatives through ORECA to remind lawmakers about the importance of affordable and reliable electricity. We can’t do this alone. Learn about how your voice can make a positive impact on our community by visiting our Voices for Cooperative Power page.
What it reported doing in 2025
Distribution of electricity to members: 18,214 members
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 - 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: 71
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 32
- 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th 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 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.32; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $624K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.1M reported
- Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 19 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.