Skip to content
Aspen Global Change Institute Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Aspen Global Change Institute Inc

Agci advances global change science and solutions by furthering interdisciplinary understanding and nurturing community to catalyze science-informed action.

$23M
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$4.4M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Environment$114MPublic Benefit$15M
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $11,829,628, the rows itemized in this filing. The $22,546,411 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,716,783 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$3,817,499
Median grant
4
States reached
$25M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC$4,387,500
COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM$3,817,499
INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY$1,875,000
THE REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT$1,749,629
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 27% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATION: $80.8M → 10%CENTER FOR ENERGY EFFECIENCY AND RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES: $110k → 12%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $100k → 17%COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM: $4.2M → 14%THE REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT: $1.7M → 12%INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $4.6M → 10%INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $3.5M → 17%COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM: $3.8M → 14%THE REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT: $1.5M → 12%INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $4.4M → 10%INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $3.5M → 17%COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM: $1.8M → 14%THE REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT: $775k → 12%INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $2.0M → 10%INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $2.6M → 17%COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM: $1.3M → 14%THE REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT: $15k → 12%THE ENERGY FOUNDATION: $1.5M → 10%INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $2.2M → 17%COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM: $864k → 14%INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $1.0M → 10%INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $1.9M → 17%INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION: $1.5M → 14%INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $480k → 10%INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $1.5M → 17%COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM: $1.5M → 14%ENERGY FOUNDATION CHINA: $300k → 10%THE ECONOMIST GROUP LIMITED: $60k → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Grants abroad, by region: $11M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$11M · 100% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CRUX PROJECT RESEARCH

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

37%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$49M · 5 repeat orgs$81M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +150% since the first grant, against +37% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
4

Total granted

$49M
$81M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+150%
+37%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’19’20’22’23’24
EnvironmentPublic BenefitOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY
    7× · 2018–2024 · $15M · revenue +172% · 42% of their budget
  • TI
    THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC
    7× · 2018–2024 · $14M · revenue +150% · 25% of their budget
  • C
    CLASP
    7× · 2018–2024 · $13M · revenue +301%

Funded once

  • CI
    CLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $81M · revenue +228% · 98% of their budget
  • CF
    Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies
    one grant, 2018 · $110k · revenue -45%
  • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue +37%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
The Climate Group Inc

Climate group advances climate action by mobilizing business and government leadership to drive systemic decarbonization across energy, transport, and industry, while engaging the public through large-scale convenings and global platforms.…

Environment
2
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
3
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
4
Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources
—
5
Climate Parliament Inc

Researching policy ideas on climate and clean energy in India, engaging legislators and business leaders to discuss those ideas.

International
6
Rocky Mountain Institute

Transform the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all.

—
7
International Council On Environmental Economics and Development Union
Human Services
8
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions Inc

The nonpartisan center for climate and energy solutions works to secure a safe and stable climate by accelerating the global transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and a thriving, just, and resilient economy. for over 25 years,…

Environment
9
Fresh Energy

Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.

Environment
10
Watttime Corporation

To raise awareness about the potential to reduce environmental harm by shifting electricity use to particular times; to encourage the development and spread of common protocols for this practice.

Science & Tech
11
Global Energy Monitor

Global Energy Monitor develops and analyzes data on energy infrastructure, resources, and uses. We provide open access to information that is essential to building a sustainable energy future.

Environment
12
Climate Institute

The climate institute is organized for the purpose of educating the general public and policy makers as to the gravity of potential climate change, exploring the policy implications of the latest scientific findings on climate modelling…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Climate Imperative Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 9 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATION: $80,758,699 · EnvironmentCLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATIONTHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $13,994,586 · EnvironmentTHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INCCLASP: $13,498,203 · EnvironmentCLASPREGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT: $4,029,734 · Environment+2 more: $210,000 · EnvironmentINSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $15,196,000 · Public BenefitINSTITUTE FOR…THE ENERGY FOUNDATION: $1,835,309 · Other+1 more: $60,000 · Other
Environment$112,491,222Public Benefit$15,196,000Other$1,895,309

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATION: $80,758,699 over 1y, 98% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $15,196,000 over 7y, 42% of budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $13,994,586 over 7y, 25% of budgetCLASP: $13,498,203 over 7y, 20% of budgetREGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT: $4,029,734 over 5y, 18% of budgetTHE ENERGY FOUNDATION: $1,835,309 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetCenter for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies: $110,000 over 1y, 5.8% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The William & Flora H…Sequoia Climate Found…Climateworks Foundati…The Heising-Simons Fo…Climate Imperative Fo…Wellspring Philanthro…United States Energy …Combined Jewish Phila…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
The William & Flora Hewlett FoundationCA17.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Sequoia Climate Foundation · Climateworks Foundation · The Heising-Simons Foundation · Climate Imperative Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · United States Energy Foundation · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Aspen Global Change Institute Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Aspen Global Change Institute Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Aspen Global Change Institute Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Aspen Global Change Institute Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 9 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Aspen Global Change Institute’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home