· Public charity
Electric Power Research Institute Inc
Organization's mission and most important activities electric power research institute (the institute or epri) conducts research and development relating to generation, delivery and use of electricity for the benefit of the public.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $106k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $420k
- $250k+1 grant · $400k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY | $400,000 |
| STANFORD UNIVERSITY | $150,000 |
| DREXEL UNIVERSITY | $115,457 |
| THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE | $80,000 |
| THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA | $75,000 |
| GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION | $35,750 |
| UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN | $25,000 |
| IEEE INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND TECHNOL | $15,714 |
| THE GRIDWISE ALLIANCE INC | $15,000 |
| AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGI | $15,000 |
| SMART GRID NORTHWEST | $6,000 |
| AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY INCORPORAT | $5,500 |
| THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS (IEEE) | $5,500 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–22, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +78% since the first grant, against +46% for the ones you funded once.
23 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 18 since wound down; 7 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, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $258k 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
- USUC SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION7× · 2017–2023 · $2.4M · revenue +78%
- CMCarnegie Mellon University6× · 2017–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +15%
GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION INC5× · 2017–2021 · $220k · revenue +116%
Funded once
- TUTHE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $95k · revenue +46%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVISone grant, 2022 · $80k
- FAFOUNDATION AT NJ INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $60k · revenue +74%
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.
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Founded in 1889, the national association of regulatory utility commisioners (naruc) is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the state public service commisions who regulate the utilities that provide essential services such…
To advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.
The university of virginia investment management company (uvimco) is organized to invest funds on behalf of the rector and visitors of the university of virginia (the university or uva) and university-associated organizations (uaos).
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
See schedule ouniversity corporation for atmospheric research (ucar), on behalf of, and in cooperation with its member university members, is engaged in the management of long-term atmospheric and related research and educational…
Agu's mission is to advance and support an inclusive community of earth and space scientists and partners dedicated to discovery and solutions to societal challenges. agu seeks to catalyze discovery and solutions to scientific and societal…
Acec research institute serve as the leading source of knowledge and thought leadership for creating a more sustainable, safe, secure, and technically advanced built environment. identify, fund, and provide industry wide research forecasts…
To provide essential value to our members, their careers, our partners, and the public, asce will: facilitate the advancement of technology; encourage and provide the tools for lifelong learning; promote professionalism and the profession;…
Foster an international, industry-wide collaborative community that delivers innovative applied research, and develops the means for stakeholders to leverage/implement the research.
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Georgia Tech Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Smart Grid Oregon. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 41 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
44 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. 44 of the 54 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 UC SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Carnegie Mellon University ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds DREXEL UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE GRIDWISE ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH & EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION AT NJ INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds LEHIGH UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING FUND ↗
- Who funds MRIGlobal ↗
- Who funds BAYLOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds NEW BUILDINGS INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE UC DAVIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Smart Electric Power Alliance ↗
- Who funds THE FIRE PROTECTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds United States Nuclear Industry Council ↗
- Who funds University of Illinois Foundation ↗
- Who funds PLUG IN AMERICA ↗
- Who funds Resources for the Future Inc ↗
- Who funds NORTH AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR FREIGHT EFFICIENCY INC ↗
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: Climateworks Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Johns Hopkins University · Breakthrough Energy Foundation · The Energy Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Northeastern University · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · T Rowe Price Program for Charitable Giving Inc · The Ayco Charitable Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc
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 Electric Power Research Institute Inc 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.
- New Buildings Institute — 100% of income from government
- The Fire Protection Research Foundation — 50% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc — 1% of income from government
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.