Skip to content
Energy Action Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Energy Action Fund

ENERGY ACTION FUND advocates for a clean and equitable energy future to tackle the climate crisis.

$20M
Granted FY2024still arriving
152
Grants FY2024still arriving
29
States reached
$1.1M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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$66MEmployment$600kPublic Benefit$370kCivil Rights$250k
02FY2024 · 152 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k50 grants · $1.5M
  • $50k–250k76 grants · $7.5M
  • $250k+25 grants · $11M
$68,000
Median grant
29
States reached
$29M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TIDES ADVOCACY$1,135,000
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC$720,000
CONSERVATION MINNESOTA VOTER CENTER INC$700,000
COUNTERSPARK INC$695,000
FAITH IN PLACE ACTION FUND$660,000
LOCAL JOBS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND INC$600,000
CONSERVATION VOTERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA$595,000
NEVADA CONSERVATION LEAGUE$540,000
PENNSYLVANIA UNITED$515,000
ASSOCIATION FOR ENERGY AFFORDABILITY INC$430,000
CONSERVATIVES FOR A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE$412,000
MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC$411,000
UTILITY ACTION ALLIANCE$350,000
WESTERN CONSERVATION ACTION$330,000
CONSERVATION VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA$325,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–24, $687k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 69% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%HEAT PUMP NATION INC: $80k → 11%CASA IN ACTION INC: $89k → 11%VOCAL-NY ACTION FUND INC: $25k → 20%CASA IN ACTION INC: $80k → 11%CITIZEN ACTION OF NEW YORK INC: $50k → 14%CASA IN ACTION INC: $60k → 11%MOVE MINNESOTA ACTION FUND: $75k → 14%NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER: $33k → 8%ARIZONA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS: $15k → 11%ASIAN PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK ACTION: $90k → 10%ASIAN PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK ACTION: $75k → 10%ASIAN PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK ACTION: $15k → 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

ME
WA
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CA
CO
NE
MO
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
NC
SC
DC
LA
GA
TX
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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$56M · 139 repeat orgs$11M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +48% since the first grant, against +7% for those funded once.

139 repeat relationships: 104 still active in FY2024, 35 since wound down; 42 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

139
108

Total granted

$56M
$7.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+48%
+7%

Still filing today

98%
87%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.9M went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementPublic BenefitHuman ServicesEducationOther
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

  • LO
    LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $6.1M · revenue +388%
  • TA
    TIDES ADVOCACY
    6× · 2017–2024 · $3.9M · revenue +130%
  • CM
    CONSERVATION MINNESOTA VOTER CENTER INC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $2.2M · revenue +79% · 74% of their budget

Funded once

  • CF
    CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $1.3M · revenue +74%
  • JF
    Jobs for Michigan
    one grant, 2023 · $500k · 27% of their budget
  • PE
    Potential Energy Action Network Inc
    one grant, 2022 · $400k · revenue -100%
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
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…

—
2
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
3
California Environmental Justice Alliance

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…

Environment
4
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
5
Clean Energy for America Inc

Clean Energy for Americas purpose is to engage with clean energy workers and advance the clean energy movement. CE4A highlights the feasibility and positive impact of a clean energy economy, educates policymakers and the general public on…

Environment
6
Policy Action for a Clean Tomorrow Inc

Clean Tomorrow advances policies that reduce climate emissions by turning policy ambition into action. We work to catalyze rapid change that will accelerate the innovation and growth of clean energy.

Environment
7
Cleaner Economy Coalition Inc

Driving american jobs and competitiveness by leveraging our cleaner economy and enabling u.s. manufacturers to lead in advanced energy technologies.

—
8
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
9
Conservative Energy Network

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

Environment
10
Alliance for Climate Transition Inc

ACT leads the just, equitable and rapid transition to a clean energy future and diverse climate economy.

Community Improvement
11
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
12
Climate Innovation Action Inc

To educate policymakers about climate policies generally and to directly advocate for specific legislation on climate change.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Life After Release Inc. 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

277 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. 277 of the 291 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.

45
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
99
Early backer (in before they grew)
273/277
Grantees still filing
161/277
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TIDES ADVOCACY: $3,945,500 · OtherTIDES ADVOCACYCONSERVATION MINNESOTA VOTER CENTER INC: $2,171,000 · OtherCONSERVATION MINNESOTA VOTER CENTER INCConservatives for a Clean Energy Future: $1,835,750 · OtherConservatives for a Clean Energy FutureNevada Conservation League: $1,518,000 · OtherSIERRA CLUB: $1,299,500 · OtherILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL GENERAL FUND: $994,000 · OtherCONSERVATION VOTERS OF SC: $980,000 · Other+81 more: $15,995,472 · Other+81 moreCounterspark Inc: $1,729,000 · EnvironmentCounterspark IncCERES INC: $1,382,500 · EnvironmentCERES INCENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA INC: $1,378,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA INCFAITH IN PLACE ACTION FUND: $815,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND: $749,000 · EnvironmentThe Partnership Project Action Fund: $740,000 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $611,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENT AMERICA INC: $548,125 · EnvironmentELECTRIFICATION COALITION ALLIANCE INC: $543,138 · Environment+47 more: $7,492,810 · Environment+47 moreLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $6,065,250 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION …WESTERN CONSERVATION ACTION: $1,418,531 · Civil RightsWESTERN CONSERVATION AC…CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS: $1,160,000 · Civil RightsCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTA…CONSERVATION COLORADO: $675,000 · Civil RightsPennsylvania United: $620,000 · Civil RightsBlack Environmental Leaders Action Fund: $487,370 · Civil Rights+19 more: $3,387,500 · Civil Rights+19 moreTHE MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ACTION FUND: $849,000 · Community ImprovementAdvanced Energy United Inc: $455,000 · Community ImprovementKEYSTONE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE: $413,000 · Community ImprovementInterwest Energy Alliance: $335,000 · Community ImprovementCLEAN ENERGY BUYERS ASSOCIATION: $200,000 · Community ImprovementTHE ADVANCED POWER ALLIANCE: $175,000 · Community ImprovementTHE GREENLINING INSTITUTE: $135,000 · Community ImprovementNEW JERSEY WORKING FAMILIES ALLIANCE CORP: $135,000 · Community ImprovementCHARGEVC INC: $127,500 · Community Improvement+8 more: $640,929 · Community ImprovementCENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND: $1,250,000 · Public BenefitTHE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK: $380,000 · Public BenefitFuture Energy Iowa: $300,000 · Public BenefitCLEAN AIR ACTION FUND: $166,500 · Public BenefitTAKEACTION MINNESOTA: $100,000 · Public Benefit+1 more: $60,000 · Public BenefitCASA IN ACTION INC: $274,000 · Human ServicesAsian Pacific Environmental Network Action: $180,000 · Human ServicesHEAT PUMP NATION INC: $80,000 · Human ServicesMOVE MN ACTION FUND: $75,000 · Human ServicesEVERGREEN ACTION: $75,000 · Human ServicesCITIZEN ACTION OF NEW YORK INC: $50,000 · Human ServicesSolon Center For Research And Publishing: $377,500 · Arts & CultureNew Jersey Policy Perspective: $75,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$28,739,222Environment$15,988,573Civil Rights$13,813,651Community Improvement$3,465,429Public Benefit$2,256,500Human Services$734,000Arts & Culture$452,500

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $6,065,250 over 7y, 3.1% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $3,945,500 over 6y, 3.0% of budgetCONSERVATION MINNESOTA VOTER CENTER INC: $2,171,000 over 4y, 74% of budgetConservatives for a Clean Energy Future: $1,835,750 over 6y, 91% of budgetCounterspark Inc: $1,729,000 over 6y, 84% of budgetNevada Conservation League: $1,518,000 over 6y, 41% of budgetWESTERN CONSERVATION ACTION: $1,418,531 over 7y, 17% of budgetCERES INC: $1,382,500 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA INC: $1,378,000 over 6y, 13% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $1,299,500 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetCENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND: $1,250,000 over 1y, 9.7% of budgetCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS: $1,160,000 over 3y, 26% of budgetILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL GENERAL FUND: $994,000 over 5y, 30% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS OF SC: $980,000 over 5y, 22% of budgetTHE MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ACTION FUND: $849,000 over 2y, 85% of budgetFAITH IN PLACE ACTION FUND: $815,000 over 5y, 39% of budgetLOCAL JOBS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND INC: $800,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND: $749,000 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetThe Partnership Project Action Fund: $740,000 over 2y, 7.1% of budgetOHIO CITIZEN ACTION: $720,000 over 5y, 28% of budgetCONSERVATION COLORADO: $675,000 over 7y, 16% of budgetAMERICA WORKS USA: $625,000 over 4y, 4.6% of budgetFEDERATION OF STATE CONSERVATION VOTER LEAGUES DBA NJ LEAGUE OF CONS VOTERS: $625,000 over 5y, 26% of budgetPennsylvania United: $620,000 over 3y, 7.2% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $611,000 over 4y, 6.8% of budgetENVIRONMENT AMERICA INC: $548,125 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetELECTRIFICATION COALITION ALLIANCE INC: $543,138 over 4y, 97% of budgetConservation Voters of Pennsylvania: $540,000 over 4y, 8.4% of budgetSolar United Neighbors Action: $500,000 over 4y, 40% of budgetJobs for Michigan: $500,000 over 1y, 27% of budgetBlack Environmental Leaders Action Fund: $487,370 over 4y, 92% of budgetClean Power Campaign: $487,250 over 4y, 38% of budgetAdvanced Energy United Inc: $455,000 over 2y, 7.5% of budgetSOUTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT: $446,000 over 6y, 5.0% of budgetASSOCIATION FOR ENERGY AFFORDABILITY INC: $430,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetNRDC ACTION FUND INC: $422,050 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetKEYSTONE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE: $413,000 over 7y, 47% of budgetCITIZENS UTILITY BOARD: $404,000 over 4y, 21% of budgetOHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ACTION FUND: $402,000 over 6y, 27% of budgetPotential Energy Action Network Inc: $400,000 over 1y, 7.9% of budgetVote Solar: $392,000 over 3y, 2.5% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO: $390,000 over 5y, 9.1% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORK: $387,000 over 6y, 4.0% of budgetTHE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK: $380,000 over 4y, 1.9% of budgetSolon Center For Research And Publishing: $377,500 over 3y, 20% of budgetPOWER COALITION FOR ELECTORAL JUSTICE: $350,000 over 2y, 33% of budgetUTILITY ACTION ALLIANCE: $350,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetCHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ACTION FUND INC: $340,000 over 4y, 58% 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 …Sixteen Thirty FundThe Energy FoundationNatural Resources Def…Tides AdvocacyLeague of Conservatio…All Hands on Deck Net…Western Conservation …Environmental Defense…America VotesNrdc Action Fund IncGreen Advocacy Project
United States Energy FoundationCA142.7× affinity95 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Energy Foundation · Sixteen Thirty Fund · The Energy Foundation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Tides Advocacy · League of Conservation Voters Inc · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Western Conservation Action · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · America Votes · Nrdc Action Fund Inc · Green Advocacy Project

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 250%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 13%
  • Ironbound Community Corporation: 100% of income from government
  • Work Environment Council of New Jersey Inc: 13% of income from government
  • Ceres Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
25get no government money at all
19report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely 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.

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 291 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 Energy Action’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