Skip to content
The American Public Power Association at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The American Public Power Association

Purpose statement: empower community-owned utilities to deliver superior services through advocacy, education, and technical programs.vision statement: affordable and reliable power for all.

$906k
Granted FY2024still arriving
18
Grants FY2024still arriving
12
States reached
$188k
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$3.0MHousing & Shelter$1.8MPublic Benefit$1.2MEducation$179kCommunity Improvement$175kScience & Tech$7k
02FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 18 grants below total $875,562, the rows itemized in this filing. The $905,569 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $30,007 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

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $320k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $543k
$37,500
Median grant
12
States reached
$44M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY$187,500
CITY OF PASADENA$125,000
TAUNTON MUNICIPAL LIGHTING PLANT$93,750
CITY WATER LIGHT AND POWER$86,250
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT$50,000
NORTHERN WASCO COUNTY PEOPLE'S UTILITY DISTRICT$38,750
MA MUNICIPAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO$37,556
NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT$37,500
CITY OF PALO ALTO$37,500
MISSOURI RIVER ENERGY SERVICES$31,250
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD #1$30,704
ENERGY NORTHWEST$30,000
WISCONSIN PUBLIC POWER INC$29,100
IOWA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL UTILITIES$20,808
UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS$13,600
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 72% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITY AUTHORITY: $122k → 28%TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD: $58k → 10%OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT: $50k → 12%MN MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION: $68k → 11%NORTHERN CA POWER AGENCY: $100k → 6%CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT OF WATER & POWER: $125k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $71k → 16%NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY: $188k → 9%CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD: $45k → 16%FLORIDA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY: $48k → 13%KISSIMMEE UTILITY AUTHORITY: $190k → 13%IOWA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL UTILITIES: $42k → 10%WISCONSIN PUBLIC POWER INC: $58k → 10%TILLAMOOK PEOPLE'S UTILITY DISTRICT: $85k → 12%NORTHERN WASCO COUNTY PEOPLE'S UTILITY DISTRICT: $55k → 16%FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION: $52k → 16%GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSION: $94k → 20%UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS: $41k → 8%CITY OF LOGAN: $63k → 12%AMERICAN MUNICIPAL POWER: $85k → 15%CITY OF TACOMA WASHINGTON: $125k → 9%CITY WATER LIGHT AND POWER: $86k → 11%MISSOURI RIVER ENERGY SERVICES: $94k → 5%TOWN OF STOWE: $56k → 9%BURLINGTON ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT: $44k → 10%TAUNTON MUNICIPAL LIGHTING PLANT: $94k → 11%NORTHERN CA POWER AGENCY: $48k → 6%CITY OF SANTA CLARA: $128k → 8%BURBANK WATER & POWER: $42k → 14%NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY: $156k → 9%WISCONSIN PUBLIC POWER INC: $54k → 10%TILLAMOOK PEOPLE'S UTILITY DISTRICT: $48k → 12%NORTHERN WASCO COUNTY PEOPLE'S UTILITY DISTRICT: $39k → 16%AMERICAN MUNICIPAL POWER: $70k → 15%CITY OF TACOMA WASHINGTON: $63k → 9%MA MUNICIPAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO: $96k → 17%CITY OF SANTA CLARA: $124k → 8%NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY: $83k → 9%WISCONSIN PUBLIC POWER INC: $43k → 10%TOWN OF BELMONT: $115k → 8%MA MUNICIPAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO: $52k → 17%CITY OF PALO ALTO: $41k → 8%NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY: $51k → 9%WISCONSIN PUBLIC POWER INC: $40k → 10%CITY OF WESTERVILLE: $45k → 15%CITY OF SANTA CLARA: $104k → 8%HOLYOKE GAS & ELECTRIC: $39k → 17%CITY OF SANTA CLARA: $53k → 8%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

VT
WA
MN
IL
WI
NY
MA
OR
SD
IA
IN
OH
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
VA
AZ
AR
TN
NC
SC
OK
AL
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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.9M · 44 repeat orgs$1.5M to everyone else

44 repeat relationships: 16 still active in FY2024, 28 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

44
42

Total granted

$4.9M
$1.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+85%

Still filing today

5%
5%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $99k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationPublic BenefitOther
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

  • NY
    NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY
    4× · 2021–2024 · $478k
  • CO
    CITY OF SANTA CLARA
    4× · 2017–2020 · $409k
  • SM
    SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTIL DIST
    4× · 2020–2023 · $268k

Funded once

  • KU
    KISSIMMEE UTILITY AUTHORITY
    one grant, 2023 · $190k
  • CO
    CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT OF WATER & POWER
    one grant, 2021 · $125k
  • NT
    Navajo Tribal Utility Authority
    one grant, 2020 · $122k
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

4 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. 4 of the 88 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)
4/4
Grantees still filing
4/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY: $477,651 · OtherNEW YORK POWER AUTHORITYCITY OF SANTA CLARA: $408,725 · OtherCITY OF SANTA CLARASACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTIL DIST: $268,373 · Other+83 more: $5,178,054 · Other+83 moreUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $7,000 · Public Benefit
Other$6,332,803Education$10,000Public Benefit$7,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetIOWA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL UTILITIES: $109,204 over 4y, 1.0% of budgetMINNESOTA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION: $99,339 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $7,000 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 IOWA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ↗
  • Who funds MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION ↗

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.

Center for Technology…Project Bread-The Wal…Firehouse Subs Public…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Center for Technology and Civic LifeIL14.7× affinity7 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Center for Technology and Civic Life · Project Bread-The Walk for Hunger Inc · Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift 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 The American Public Power Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The American Public Power Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%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 · 0–20%
    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 88 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 American Public Power Association’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