Skip to content

· Public charity

Midwest Energy Research Consortium Inc

Driving innovation for the energy, power, and controls sector by synchronizing market insights, technology innovation and talent & start-up development into a new innovation engine for economic development and growth.

$397k
Granted FY2020
11
Grants FY2020
5
States reached
$54k
Largest
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 2020.

Science & Tech$886kEducation$147kFood & Nutrition$30kEnvironment$23k
02FY2020 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $309,223, the rows itemized in this filing. The $397,498 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $88,275 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 · FY2020

  • $10k–50k10 grants · $256k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $54k
$22,500
Median grant
5
States reached
$2.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY$53,600
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON$48,098
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE$40,025
AGRICYCLE GLOBAL INC$30,000
MESODYNE INC$25,000
ACCELERATE WIND LLC$22,500
ELEKTRIFI TECHNOLOGIES INC$20,000
OMEGA GRID LLC$20,000
CLOCWORKS INC$20,000
STEAM ENERGY LABS INC$20,000
UWM FOUNDATION$10,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 79% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%MESODYNE INC: $25k → 8%RADIANT PANEL TECHNOLOGIES LLC: $27k → 5%TERRAOAK INC: $20k → 7%SWITCHED SOURCE LLC: $28k → 21%ACCELERATE WIND LLC: $23k → 21%AGRICYCLE GLOBAL INC: $30k → 6%PURESINE LLC: $20k → 7%DEEPLIGHT SYSTEMS INC: $10k → 10%BLUE LINE BATTERY: $24k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON: $75k → 10%H2Q SOLUTIONS LLC: $20k → 17%EMERGY: $20k → 3%CLEARFLAME ENGINES: $30k → 7%OMEGA GRID LLC: $20k → 14%STEAM ENERGY LABS INC: $20k → 10%BLUE LINE BATTERY: $21k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON: $49k → 10%ADVANCED IONICS: $20k → 17%ARIS TECHNOLOGY LLC: $25k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON: $48k → 10%C-MOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: $10k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON: $37k → 10%IMPROOVMENT LLC: $20k → 17%CLOCWORKS INC: $20k → 10%UWM FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%CYBER POWERED HOME: $10k → 10%MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: $8k → 17%ELEKTRIFI TECHNOLOGIES INC: $20k → 10%PRESENT POWER SYSTEMS LLC: $20k → 17%EW PANEL LLC: $20k → 10%PRESENT POWER SYSTEMS INC: $20k → 17%SCIART LLC: $10k → 10%REVOLT LLC: $10k → 17%NOVOMOTO LLC: $31k → 10%STEMHERO LLC: $20k → 17%MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $6k → 17%PROCESS MACHINE & AUTOMATION INC: $10k → 17%ICONAC INC: $20k → 17%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

IL
WI
MI
MA
NV
IA
CO
MO
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

48%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$525k · 5 repeat orgs$561k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +46% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2020, 2 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
22

Total granted

$525k
$394k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%
+17%

Still filing today

20%
5%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 46% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $168k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • UO
    University of Wisconsin Madison
    4× · 2017–2020 · $208k
  • MU
    Marquette University
    4× · 2017–2020 · $123k · revenue +46%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
    3× · 2018–2020 · $109k

Funded once

  • NL
    NOVOMOTO LLC
    one grant, 2018 · $31k
  • CE
    Clearflame Engines Inc
    one grant, 2019 · $30k
  • SS
    SWITCHED SOURCE LLC
    one grant, 2018 · $28k
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
04the grantee network

3 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. 3 of the 35 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
3/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

University of Wisconsin Madison: $208,391 · OtherUniversity of Wisconsin MadisonUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN: $108,548 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSINBLUE LINE BATTERY: $44,500 · OtherPRESENT POWER SYSTEMS LLC: $40,000 · Other+28 more: $543,750 · Other+28 moreMarquette University: $123,297 · EducationMarquette Univ…THE UWM FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · EducationTHE UWM FOUNDA…MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: $7,650 · EducationMILWAUKEE SCHO…
Other$945,189Education$140,947

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMarquette University: $123,297 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UWM FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: $7,650 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.

  • Who funds Marquette University ↗
  • Who funds THE UWM FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Midwest Energy Research Consortium Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Midwest Energy Research Consortium Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 35 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Midwest Energy Research Consortium’s filings →

    More from the funding graph