· Public charity
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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 78% of Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 12 grants below total $2,926,200 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $2,993,808 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $67,608 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k3 grants · $89k
- $50k–250k7 grants · $831k
- $250k+2 grants · $2.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Private Property Rights Institute | $1,015,000 |
| RED PAC | $991,434 |
| Vista Strategies | $180,000 |
| Conservatives For Clean Energy | $164,000 |
| Conservative Texans for Energy Innovation | $142,500 |
| MultiState Associates LLC | $140,000 |
| North Star Opinion Research Inc | $88,000 |
| Strategic Political Management LLC | $66,166 |
| Cygnal | $50,000 |
| Pelican Institute | $45,000 |
| NC Sustainable Energy Association | $30,000 |
| Change Research | $14,100 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 78% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 100% of Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 25% of the giving stays in MI; read by stated purpose it is 0% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
4 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 39% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.8M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- RPRED PAC2× · 2023–2024 · $1.4M
- CTCONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY INNOVATION2× · 2023–2024 · $446k · 92% of their budget
- SGSTATE GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION3× · 2020–2023 · $135k · revenue -58%
Funded once
- CVCONSERVATIVE VALUES PACone grant, 2023 · $75k
- FTFIRST TUESDAY STRATEGIESone grant, 2022 · $46k
- MCMINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUMone grant, 2020 · $39k · revenue -16%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.
The mission of the Forum is to spur a dialogue and provide a vehicle for individuals, organizations, and businesses to join the conversation about Wisconsin's energy future. The Forum believes that an all of the above energy policy, with…
Researching policy ideas on climate and clean energy in India, engaging legislators and business leaders to discuss those ideas.
To research and develop centrist policy ideas.
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…
Promoting a strong state economy with limited government taxes and regulation.
To champion secure, reliable, affordable, clean American energy.
Our mission is to strengthen and sustain our global environment for future generations by expanding economic freedom and accelerating free enterprise innovation.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservatives for Clean Energy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Restore Nc Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 22 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Private Property Rights Institute ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY INNOVATION ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY INC ↗
- Who funds STATE GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PELICAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM ↗
- Who funds NORTH CAROLINA SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA ENERGY FORUM ACTION ↗
- Who funds RESTORE NC INC ↗
- Who funds OHIO CONSERVATIVES FOR LAND AND ENERGY FREEDOM ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Conservative Energy Network · Energy Action Fund
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future?
Find your warmest path to Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future 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.