Skip to content
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

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.

$8.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$6.3M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Environment$9.1M
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $6,978,950, the rows itemized in this filing. The $8,455,150 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,476,200 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.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $29k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $243k
  • $250k+2 grants · $6.7M
$175,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$30M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTER FOR GREEN MARKET ACTIVATION$6,317,450
RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE$390,000
WINDWARD FUND$175,000
RESILIENCE RISING NA$67,500
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND$29,000
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%RESILIENCE RISING NA: $68k → 12%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $845k → 17%WORLD WILDLIFE FUND: $201k → 14%ENERGY INNOVATION REFORM PROJECT: $5k → 7%RESILIENCE RISING NA: $11k → 12%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $382k → 17%ZERO EMISSIONS TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION EDUCATION FUND: $81k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $118k → 17%CENTER FOR GREEN MARKET ACTIVATION: $6.3M → 14%WINDWARD FUND: $175k → 14%RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE: $390k → 14%WORLD WILDLIFE FUND: $29k → 14%ENERGY FUTURES INITIATIVE INC: $238k → 14%WORLD WILDLIFE FUND: $29k → 14%ENERGY FUTURES INITIATIVE INC: $214k → 14%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: $1.5M on the FY2025 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)$1.5M · 100% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SUPPORT FOR ICVCM

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.

24%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.1M · 4 repeat orgs$6.8M to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
2

Total granted

$2.1M
$86k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+716%

Still filing today

75%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 1% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.7M went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentScience & TechCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +56%
  • EF
    ENERGY FUTURES INITIATIVE
    2× · 2021–2022 · $451k
  • WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC
    3× · 2021–2025 · $259k · revenue -10%

Funded once

  • ZE
    ZERO EMISSION TRANSPORTATION ASSOCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $81k · revenue +716%
  • EI
    ENERGY INNOVATION REFORM PROJECTgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +100%
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
Fresh Energy

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

Environment
2
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
3
Rocky Mountain Institute

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

—
4
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc

We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…

Environment
5
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
6
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.": - count it: our work is…

International
7
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
8
Ceres Inc

Ceres is a nonprofit advocacy organization working to accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more just, and resilient world. through education and research, we make the business case for action on the most pressing sustainability…

Environment
9
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
10
Western Resource Advocates

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization fighting climate change and its impacts to sustain the environment, economy, and people of the West. As the region's go-to experts for more than three decades,…

Crime & Legal
11
Environmental Defense Action Fund

To advocate for legislation and policies that protect the environment.

Environment
12
Refrigerant Emissions Elimination Forum

We inspire and drive business action on refrigerant emissions as a means to transform the broader refrigerant landscape toward zero climate and environmental impact.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated; the most unlike its peers is World Wildlife Fund 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CENTER FOR GREEN MARKET ACTIVATION: $6,317,450 · Science & TechCENTER FOR GREEN MARKET ACTIVATIONENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $1,345,236 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND I…Resources for the Future Inc: $390,000 · EnvironmentResources for the Future IncWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $259,438 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INCWINDWARD FUND: $175,000 · EnvironmentWINDWARD FUNDZERO EMISSION TRANSPORTATION ASSOC: $80,750 · Environment+1 more: $5,000 · EnvironmentENERGY FUTURES INITIATIVE: $451,250 · OtherRESILIENCE RISING NA: $78,500 · Community Improvement
Science & Tech$6,317,450Environment$2,255,424Other$451,250Community Improvement$78,500

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 budgetCENTER FOR GREEN MARKET ACTIVATION: $6,317,450 over 1y, 86% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $1,345,236 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetResources for the Future Inc: $390,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $259,438 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetZERO EMISSION TRANSPORTATION ASSOC: $80,750 over 1y, 12% of budgetENERGY INNOVATION REFORM PROJECT: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Center for Climate and Energy Solutions Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Center for Climate and Energy Solutions Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%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
    0get no government money at all
    1report 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, FY20–25
    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.

    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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Center for Climate and Energy Solutions’ 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