Skip to content
International Sustainable Energy Foundat at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

International Sustainable Energy Foundat

International Sustainable Energy Foundation's mission is to promote an environmentally sustainable and climate friendly world by supporting climate action that contribute to preservation of the environment, including access for development, adaptation, air quality, climate finance, cities & urban planning, decarbonization, just…

$19M
Granted FY2023
20
Grants FY2023
7
States reached
$535k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01FY2023 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 20 grants below total $4,619,623, the rows itemized in this filing. The $18,739,041 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $14,119,418 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 · FY2023

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $40k
  • $50k–250k12 grants · $2.2M
  • $250k+7 grants · $2.4M
$200,286
Median grant
7
States reached
$48M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
World Resources Institute$535,135
International Council on Clean Transport$450,000
World Resources Institute$320,128
Purpose Foundaton$300,000
International Institute for Energy Conservation$277,109
International Institute for Energy Conservation$250,017
International Council on Clean Transport$250,000
Research Triangle Institute$220,000
Research Triangle Institute$207,514
The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy$200,286
The Asia Society$200,000
CEED Foundation$199,980
Environmental Defense Fund$194,856
University of California Davis$174,461
Research Triangle Institute$173,987
02The need
02

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 (FY23–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Carnegie Mellon University: $40k → 11%International Institute for Energy Conservation: $277k → 11%University of California Davis: $174k → 16%The Asia Society: $200k → 17%International Council on Clean Transport: $450k → 14%Research Triangle Institute: $220k → 11%Rocky Mountain Institute: $173k → 12%CEED Foundation: $200k → 8%International Institute for Energy Conservation: $250k → 11%University of California Davis: $140k → 16%Purpose Foundaton: $300k → 17%International Council on Clean Transport: $250k → 14%Research Triangle Institute: $208k → 11%The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy: $200k → 17%World Resources Institute: $535k → 14%Research Triangle Institute: $174k → 11%Environmental Defense Fund: $195k → 17%World Resources Institute: $320k → 14%Research Triangle Institute: $160k → 11%World Resources Institute: $154k → 14%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $22M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 10 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

India$19M · 89% · 171 grants

Stated purpose: Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Clean Electricity & Cooling to support projects that focus on renewable energy sources in India and/or clean sources for India's cooling needs. · Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Sustainable Food & Agriculture Initiatives to support projects that focus on the sustainability of a specific food industry (e.g., Dairy) and/or the process of growing food. · Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Sustainable Finance & Capacity building to support projects that define the financial needs of India's sustainable and renewable energy efforts and/or the necessary industrial capacity building required to achieve successful outcomes of those efforts.

Netherlands$634k · 3% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Sustainable Food & Agriculture Initiatives to support projects that focus on the sustainability of a specific food industry (e.g., Dairy) and/or the process of growing food. · Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Green Governance (Policy), Public Diplomacy & Legal to support projects that focus on Governmental/Provincial Sustainability Policies and how best to implement those policies and encourage collaborative effort across various stakeholders such as government offices and affected industrial contacts in India.

United Kingdom$578k · 3% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Clean Electricity & Cooling to support projects that focus on renewable energy sources in India and/or clean sources for India's cooling needs. · Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Sustainable Food & Agriculture Initiatives to support projects that focus on the sustainability of a specific food industry (e.g., Dairy) and/or the process of growing food.

Singapore$432k · 2% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Green Governance (Policy), Public Diplomacy & Legal to support projects that focus on Governmental/Provincial Sustainability Policies and how best to implement those policies and encourage collaborative effort across various stakeholders such as government offices and affected industrial contacts in India. · Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Sustainable Finance & Capacity building to support projects that define the financial needs of India's sustainable and renewable energy efforts and/or the necessary industrial capacity building required to achieve successful outcomes of those efforts. · Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Sustainable Food & Agriculture Initiatives to support projects that focus on the sustainability of a specific food industry (e.g., Dairy) and/or the process of growing food.

Switzerland$220k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Green Transportation Programs to support projects with a primary focus on the electrification of transportation vehicles (e.g., public transportation, freight, trucks, cars, mopeds, three wheels, delivery vans) in India.

Denmark$174k · 1% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Clean Electricity & Cooling to support projects that focus on renewable energy sources in India and/or clean sources for India's cooling needs. · Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Sustainable Finance & Capacity building to support projects that define the financial needs of India's sustainable and renewable energy efforts and/or the necessary industrial capacity building required to achieve successful outcomes of those efforts.

North America (Canada and Mexico)$140k · 1% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Clean Electricity & Cooling to support projects that focus on renewable energy sources in India and/or clean sources for India's cooling needs. · Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Green Governance (Policy), Public Diplomacy & Legal to support projects that focus on Governmental/Provincial Sustainability Policies and how best to implement those policies and encourage collaborative effort across various stakeholders such as government offices and affected industrial contacts in India.

Australia$119k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Sustainable Finance & Capacity building to support projects that define the financial needs of India's sustainable and renewable energy efforts and/or the necessary industrial capacity building required to achieve successful outcomes of those efforts.

Brazil$90k · 0% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Green Governance (Policy), Public Diplomacy & Legal to support projects that focus on Governmental/Provincial Sustainability Policies and how best to implement those policies and encourage collaborative effort across various stakeholders such as government offices and affected industrial contacts in India.

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03

Where the work is directed

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

About 84% of International Sustainable Energy Foundat’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

International Sustainable Energy Foundatlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 96% directed abroad (not shown)
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 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
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
2
Climate Institute

The climate institute is organized for the purpose of educating the general public and policy makers as to the gravity of potential climate change, exploring the policy implications of the latest scientific findings on climate modelling…

Environment
3
Climate Parliament Inc

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

International
4
The Climate Group Inc

Climate group advances climate action by mobilizing business and government leadership to drive systemic decarbonization across energy, transport, and industry, while engaging the public through large-scale convenings and global platforms.…

Environment
5
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
6
International Council On Environmental Economics and Development Union
Human Services
7
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
8
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions Inc

The nonpartisan center for climate and energy solutions works to secure a safe and stable climate by accelerating the global transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and a thriving, just, and resilient economy. for over 25 years,…

Environment
9
Alliance for Sustainable Energy Llc

The mission of the alliance for sustainable energy llc (alliance) is to operate the u.s. department of energy's national renewable energy laboratory to advance the science and engineering of energy efficiency, sustainable transportation,…

Science & Tech
10
The Breakthrough Institute

The Breakthrough Institute is a research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges.

Environment
11
Technology Policy Institute
International
12
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is World Resources Institute; the most unlike its peers is Ceed Foundation. 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

19 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
10/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $1,009,140 · InternationalWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTETHE ASIA SOCIETY: $200,000 · InternationalTHE ASIA SOCIETYTHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $700,000 · EnvironmentTHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL …CEED Foundation: $199,980 · EnvironmentCEED FoundationENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $194,856 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND…INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION: $527,126 · OtherINTERNATIONAL INSTITUT…UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $174,461 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN…Rocky Mountain Institute: $172,511 · OtherRocky Mountain Institu…Carnegie Mellon University: $39,752 · OtherResearch Triangle Institute: $901,511 · Science & TechResearch Triangle Inst…PURPOSE FOUNDATION: $300,000 · EducationINSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $200,286 · Public Benefit
International$1,209,140Environment$1,094,836Other$913,850Science & Tech$901,511Education$300,000Public Benefit$200,286

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $1,009,140 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetResearch Triangle Institute: $901,511 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $700,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION: $527,126 over 2y, 48% of budgetPURPOSE FOUNDATION: $300,000 over 1y, 6.9% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $200,286 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetTHE ASIA SOCIETY: $200,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCEED Foundation: $199,980 over 1y, 26% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $194,856 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $172,511 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCarnegie Mellon University: $39,752 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Climateworks Foundati…The William & Flora H…Rockefeller Philanthr…Climate Imperative Fo…The Energy FoundationUnited States Energy …John D and Catherine …New Venture FundSequoia Climate Found…World Resources Insti…The Heising-Simons Fo…Windward Fund
Climateworks FoundationCA26.2× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Climateworks Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Climate Imperative Foundation · The Energy Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · New Venture Fund · Sequoia Climate Foundation · World Resources Institute · The Heising-Simons Foundation · Windward 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 International Sustainable Energy Foundat funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from International Sustainable Energy Foundat. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to International Sustainable Energy Foundat?

    Find your warmest path to International Sustainable Energy Foundat 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 12 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $27M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on International Sustainable Energy Foundat’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