Skip to content
Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$3.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$1.0M
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Public Benefit$1.9MCivil Rights$1.0MEnvironment$756kCommunity Improvement$320kHealth$50kSocial Science$14k
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $2,926,200, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,993,808 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $67,608 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 · FY2024

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $89k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $831k
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.0M
$140,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 78% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%CONSERVATIVE VALUES PAC: $75k → 10%MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $39k → 14%Change Research: $14k → 10%RED PAC: $991k → 10%Strategic Political Management LLC: $66k → 14%FIRST TUESDAY STRATEGIES: $46k → 16%STATE GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP: $50k → 14%IOWA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $8k → 10%Private Property Rights Institute: $1.0M → 10%Conservatives For Clean Energy: $164k → 8%RESTORE NC INC: $25k → 12%Vista Strategies: $180k → 12%OHIO CONSERVATIVES FOR LAND AND: $20k → 15%RED PAC: $405k → 6%MultiState Associates LLC: $140k → 7%Pelican Institute: $45k → 23%MINNESOTA ENERGY FORUM ACTION: $25k → 14%CONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY: $304k → 10%STATE GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION: $50k → 14%NC Sustainable Energy Association: $30k → 8%Cygnal: $50k → 7%Conservative Texans for Energy Innovation: $143k → 10%STATE GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP: $35k → 14%North Star Opinion Research Inc: $88k → 7%CONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY: $14k → 10%REPUBLICAN STATE LEADERSHIP: $15k → 14%CONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY: $10k → 10%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
MI
MA
IA
OH
CA
VA
NC
SC
DC
LA
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 100% of Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 25% of the giving stays in MI; by stated purpose, 0%.

Conservatives for a Clean Energy Futurelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

49%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 4 repeat orgs$2.0M to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
8

Total granted

$2.0M
$253k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-58%
+45%

Still filing today

50%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 39% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.8M went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentPublic BenefitCivil RightsOther
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

  • RP
    RED PAC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1.4M
  • CT
    CONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY INNOVATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $446k · 92% of their budget
  • SG
    STATE GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION
    3× · 2020–2023 · $135k · revenue -58%

Funded once

  • CV
    CONSERVATIVE VALUES PAC
    one grant, 2023 · $75k
  • FT
    FIRST TUESDAY STRATEGIES
    one grant, 2022 · $46k
  • MC
    MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM
    one grant, 2020 · $39k · revenue -16%
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
Fresh Energy

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

Environment
3
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
4
Wisconsin Conservative Energy Forum Inc

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…

Environment
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
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
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
Lean in Energy
Education
9
Rocky Mountain Policy Group

Promoting a strong state economy with limited government taxes and regulation.

—
10
Our Energy Policy Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Conservative Energy Network

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

Environment
12
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.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservatives for Clean Energy Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 22 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
4/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RED PAC: $1,396,434 · OtherRED PACPrivate Property Rights Institute: $1,015,000 · OtherPrivate Property Rights InstituteVista Strategies: $180,000 · OtherVista StrategiesMultiState Associates LLC: $140,000 · Other+11 more: $430,659 · Other+11 moreCONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY INNOVATION: $446,000 · EnvironmentCONSERVATIVE TEXANS…CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY INC: $164,000 · EnvironmentCONSERVATIVES FOR C…MINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $39,000 · EnvironmentMINNESOTA CONSERVAT…NORTH CAROLINA SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION: $30,000 · EnvironmentSTATE GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION: $135,000 · Public BenefitPELICAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: $45,000 · Public BenefitRESTORE NC INC: $25,000 · Civil Rights
Other$3,162,093Environment$679,000Public Benefit$180,000Civil Rights$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPrivate Property Rights Institute: $1,015,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetCONSERVATIVE TEXANS FOR ENERGY INNOVATION: $446,000 over 2y, 92% of budgetCONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY INC: $164,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetSTATE GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION: $135,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetPELICAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: $45,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetMINNESOTA CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM: $39,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION: $30,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetRESTORE NC INC: $25,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetMINNESOTA ENERGY FORUM ACTION: $25,000 over 1y, 100% 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.

Conservative Energy N…Energy Action Fund
Conservative Energy NetworkMI13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Conservative Energy Network · Energy Action 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 Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
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, FY20–24
    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 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.

    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 22 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 Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future’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