Skip to content
Conservative Energy Network at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Conservative Energy Network

To champion secure, reliable, affordable, clean American energy.

$2.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
10
States reached
$592k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$12MPublic Benefit$2.3MEducation$63k
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k7 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.4M
$209,690
Median grant
10
States reached
$5.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Conservatives for Clean Energy$592,000
The Western Way$415,000
Conservative Texans for Energy Innovation$373,321
Ohio Conservative Energy Forum$210,361
Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum$209,690
Michigan Conservative Energy Forum$205,040
Iowa Conservative Energy Forum$135,500
Indiana Conservative Alliance$129,079
Wisconsin Conservative Energy Forum$123,738
Pennsylvania Conservative Energy Forum$55,846
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 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 48% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum: $210k → 11%MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $268k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-AUSTIN: $63k → 10%JOSEPH RAINEY CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY INCORPORATED: $135k → 14%IOWA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $220k → 5%MICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $242k → 16%WISCONSIN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $360k → 10%CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $1.0M → 8%The Western Way: $415k → 8%THE WESTERN WAY: $575k → 12%INDIANA CONSERVATIVE ALLIANCE FOR: $151k → 5%INDIANA CONSERVATIVE ALLIANCE FOR: $133k → 16%OHIO CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $239k → 15%MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $198k → 11%MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $215k → 14%CONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY: $379k → 10%Iowa Conservative Energy Forum: $136k → 5%MICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $211k → 16%WISCONSIN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $180k → 10%CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $901k → 8%THE WESTERN WAY: $350k → 12%Indiana Conservative Alliance: $129k → 5%INDIANA CONSERVATIVE ALLIANCE FOR: $77k → 16%OHIO CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $235k → 15%EARTH STEWARDSHIP ALLIANCE: $86k → 7%MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $214k → 14%Conservative Texans for Energy Innovation: $373k → 10%MICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $207k → 16%WISCONSIN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $137k → 10%CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $755k → 8%THE WESTERN WAY: $250k → 12%INDIANA CONSERVATIVE ALLIANCE FOR: $62k → 16%OHIO CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $232k → 15%MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $80k → 14%Michigan Conservative Energy Forum: $205k → 16%Wisconsin Conservative Energy Forum: $124k → 10%CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $735k → 8%Ohio Conservative Energy Forum: $210k → 15%MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $63k → 14%MICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $200k → 16%WISCONSIN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $93k → 10%CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $724k → 8%OHIO CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $197k → 15%MICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $190k → 16%Conservatives for Clean Energy: $592k → 8%OHIO CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $133k → 15%CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $160k → 8%OHIO CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $129k → 15%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

MN
WI
MI
IA
IN
OH
PA
CA
CO
VA
NC
DC
TX
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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$14M · 12 repeat orgs$282k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
5

Total granted

$14M
$282k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-19%
+920%

Still filing today

75%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentSocial SciencePublic BenefitEducationOther
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

  • CF
    CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY INC
    7× · 2018–2024 · $4.9M · revenue +181% · 89% of their budget
  • MC
    MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +10% · 89% of their budget
  • AL
    AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
    2× · 2017–2019 · $27k · revenue +37%

Funded once

  • JR
    JOSEPH RAINEY CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICYgraduated
    2× · 2018–2019 · $135k · revenue +920% · 53% of their budget
  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS FOUNDATION NO 1graduated
    one grant, 2020 · $63k · revenue ×194,726
  • CF
    CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS FORUMgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $50k · revenue +99%
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
Texas Clean Energy Coalition
—
2
Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future

CCEF works with policymakers and stakeholders across the nation to promote policies that secure affordable, reliable, and increasingly efficient and clean energy. Commonsense, market-driven energy policies will create local jobs, spark…

—
3
Conservative Energy Network

To champion secure, reliable, affordable, clean American energy.

Environment
4
The Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions

Our mission is to strengthen and sustain our global environment for future generations by expanding economic freedom and accelerating free enterprise innovation.

—
5
Fresh Energy

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

Environment
6
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
7
Californians for Energy and Science

To provide californians with accurate, science-based information about energy and climate issues, enabling informed decision-making for our state's energy future. we believe that through education and transparent research, we can help…

Education
8
California Energy Alliance

The California Energy Alliance (CEA) unites representatives of a broad range of organizations concerned about energy and the build environment. As a member-based organization, CEA works to improve California's energy future and migration…

Public Safety & Disaster
9
Climate Parliament Inc

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

International
10
Our Energy Policy Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources
—
12
Nw Energy Coalition

The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions Forum; the most unlike its peers is The Western Way Organization. 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

15 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. 15 of the 17 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.

8
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/15
Grantees still filing
9/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY INC: $4,908,447 · EnvironmentCONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY INCThe Western Way Organization: $1,590,000 · EnvironmentThe Western Way OrganizationMINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $1,287,711 · EnvironmentMINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUMPennsylvania Conservative Energy Forum: $1,056,299 · EnvironmentPennsylvania Conservative Energy ForumWisconsin Conservative Energy Forum Inc: $894,851 · EnvironmentWisconsin Conservative Energy Forum IncCONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY INNOVATION: $752,717 · EnvironmentCONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY INNOVATION+3 more: $240,350 · EnvironmentOHIO CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM ATTN TONY ZARTMAN: $1,374,922 · OtherOHIO CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FOR…MICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $1,255,236 · OtherMICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY…INDIANA CONSERVATIVE ALLIANCE FOR: $551,734 · OtherINDIANA CONSERVATIVE ALLIANC…IOWA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $355,944 · OtherIOWA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FOR…+1 more: $63,078 · OtherJOSEPH RAINEY CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY: $135,000 · Social ScienceAMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL: $27,000 · Public BenefitTHE REASON FOUNDATION: $24,000 · Education
Environment$10,730,375Other$3,600,914Social Science$135,000Public Benefit$27,000Education$24,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY INC: $4,908,447 over 7y, 89% of budgetThe Western Way Organization: $1,590,000 over 4y, 97% of budgetOHIO CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM ATTN TONY ZARTMAN: $1,374,922 over 7y, 99% of budgetMINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $1,287,711 over 8y, 89% of budgetMICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $1,255,236 over 7y, 69% of budgetPennsylvania Conservative Energy Forum: $1,056,299 over 6y, 83% of budgetEARTH STEWARDSHIP ALLIANCE: $180,350 over 4y, 27% of budgetJOSEPH RAINEY CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY: $135,000 over 2y, 53% of budgetCITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS FORUM: $50,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTHE REASON FOUNDATION: $24,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN CONSERVATION COALITION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 3.1% 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 Energy FoundationUnited States Energy …Conservatives for a C…
The Energy FoundationCA17.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Energy Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future

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

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Conservative Energy Network?

    Find your warmest path to Conservative Energy Network 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 17 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 Conservative Energy Network’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