Skip to content
Climate Power at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Climate Power

CLIMATE POWER is working to ensure political, social, and economic progress on climate by winning the politics of climate.

$39M
Granted FY2024still arriving
33
Grants FY2024still arriving
11
States reached
$25M
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, FY2023 to 2024.

Environment$51MPublic Benefit$355kCommunity Improvement$205kPublic Safety & Disaster$130kHealth$43kYouth Development$43kEducation$40kArts & Culture$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 33 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k20 grants · $345k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $806k
  • $250k+5 grants · $38M
$25,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION$25,000,000
CLIMATE POWER ACTION$10,200,000
CERES INC$1,759,380
CROOKED IDEAS$800,000
CROOKED MEDIA$350,000
TRIPLECHECK$177,581
TIDES ADVOCACY$130,000
VOTE SAVE AMERICA$128,053
AMERICAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS INSTITUTE$100,000
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS$85,000
CLIMATE GROUP INC$75,000
SACHAMAMA INC$60,000
DEMOCRATIC MAYORS ASSOCIATION$50,000
SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION$30,000
YOUNG GIFTED & GREEN$30,000
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 (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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%CERES INC: $1.8M → 16%DREAMORG: $10k → 10%NEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE: $7k → 10%SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS: $85k → 14%SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $30k → 17%DEMOCRATIC MAYORS ASSOCIATION: $50k → 14%SACHAMAMA INC: $60k → 13%WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS: $10k → 10%FORWARD TOGETHER WISCONSIN CO: $10k → 17%YOUNG GIFTED & GREEN: $30k → 17%SOLFUSION: $18k → 13%GREENLATINOS: $10k → 12%CORAZON LATINO INC: $30k → 7%CLIMATE CRITICAL: $10k → 19%CERES: $880k → 16%EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE: $10k → 10%TIDES ADVOCACY: $130k → 10%ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA ASSOCIATION: $20k → 14%CLIMATE GROUP INC: $75k → 17%FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $25.0M → 14%SACHAMAMA INC: $25k → 13%CROOKED MEDIA: $350k → 14%FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $12.0M → 14%MY BODY PAC: $25k → 14%CLIMATE POWER ACTION: $10.2M → 14%RISE ACTION FUND: $30k → 14%VOTE SAVE AMERICA: $128k → 14%CROOKED IDEAS: $800k → 14%CLEAN ENERGY FOR AMERICA ACTION: $25k → 14%AMERICAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS INSTITUTE: $100k → 14%COMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND: $25k → 14%LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $13k → 14%WE DON'T HAVE TIME INC: $13k → 14%TRIPLECHECK: $178k → 14%TRIPLECHECK: $102k → 14%NORTH FUND: $20k → 14%NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC JOURNALISTS: $10k → 14%CORAZON LATINO INC: $17k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WI
NY
MA
PA
CA
CO
VA
MD
TN
DC
GA
FL
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$40M · 5 repeat orgs$12M to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 27 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
1

Total granted

$40M
$7k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12M went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24
EnvironmentPublic BenefitEducationCivil RightsPhilanthropyPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • FF
    FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $37M · revenue +910%
  • CI
    CERES INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $2.6M · revenue -23%
  • T
    triplecheck
    2× · 2023–2024 · $280k · revenue -20% · 100% of their budget

Funded once

  • NC
    NEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE
    one grant, 2023 · $7k
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
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
2
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
3
Climate Power

Climate power is working to ensure political, social, and economic progress on climate by winning the politics of climate.

Environment
4
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.

Education
5
Coalition for Green Capital D/B/a American Green Bank Consortium

Cgc operates as a nonprofit financial institution that invests directly and through partners to transform financial markets by using public and private investing to accelerate the deployment of projects that strengthen the grid, reduce…

Environment
6
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
7
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
8
Fresh Energy

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

Environment
9
Cdp North America Inc

Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…

Environment
10
Clean Energy Group Inc

Clean energy research and advocacy. Clean Energy Group promotes effective clean energy policies, develops low carbon technology innovation strategies and promotes new financial tools to strengthen the economy and stabilize climate change.

Environment
11
Work on Climate

Supporting industry transformation towards climate-positive and make green careers transitions and driving the adoption of green workforce development practices broadly.

Environment
12
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc; the most unlike its peers is New Pennsylvania Project. 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

25 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. 25 of the 35 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/25
Grantees still filing
5/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $37,000,000 · Public BenefitFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION+2 more: $45,000 · Public BenefitCLIMATE POWER ACTION: $10,200,000 · OtherCLIMATE POWER ACTION+13 more: $1,075,009 · Other+13 moreCERES INC: $2,639,070 · EnvironmentCROOKEDORG: $800,000 · Environment+8 more: $250,000 · EnvironmentSACHAMAMA INC: $85,000 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUNDATION: $30,000 · PhilanthropyAmerican Sustainable Business Institute Inc: $100,000 · Community ImprovementCORAZON LATINO INC: $47,320 · Public Safety & DisasterRISE ACTION FUND: $30,000 · EducationForward Together Wisconsin: $10,000 · EducationLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $12,500 · Civil RightsNew Pennsylvania Project: $10,000 · Civil Rights
Public Benefit$37,045,000Other$11,275,009Environment$3,689,070Philanthropy$115,000Community Improvement$100,000Public Safety & Disaster$47,320Education$40,000Civil Rights$22,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $37,000,000 over 2y, 20% of budgetCERES INC: $2,639,070 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetCROOKEDORG: $800,000 over 1y, 70% of budgettriplecheck: $279,956 over 2y, 100% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $130,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican Sustainable Business Institute Inc: $100,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $85,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSACHAMAMA INC: $85,000 over 2y, 9.5% of budgetTHE CLIMATE GROUP INC: $75,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetCORAZON LATINO INC: $47,320 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRISE ACTION FUND: $30,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA ASSOCIATIONINC: $20,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetNORTH FUND: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $12,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCLIMATECRITICALEARTH LTD: $10,000 over 1y, 9.3% of budgetEarth Island Institute Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetForward Together Wisconsin: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetNew Pennsylvania Project: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGreenLatinos: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDREAMORG: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

United States Energy …The Partnership Proje…Tides AdvocacyResources Legacy FundSixteen Thirty FundFund for a Better Fut…Advocacy Action Fund …Our American Future A…Energy Action FundAmerica VotesOpen Society Action F…Environmental Defense…
United States Energy FoundationCA19.1× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Energy Foundation · The Partnership Project Inc · Tides Advocacy · Resources Legacy Fund · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Fund for a Better Future Inc · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Our American Future Action · Energy Action Fund · America Votes · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated

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 Climate Power funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Climate Power. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Ceres Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Climate Power?

Find your warmest path to Climate Power 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 35 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 Climate Power’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