Skip to content
The Energy Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Energy Foundation

THE ENERGY FOUNDATION's mission is to achieve greenhouse gas emissions neutrality, world-class air quality, energy access, and green growth through transforming energy and optimizing economic structure.

$58M
Granted FY2024still arriving
14
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$550k
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$199MHousing & Shelter$2.1MCrime & Legal$290kEducation$192kPublic Benefit$135kHealth$125kCommunity Improvement$80kHuman Services$75kOther$0
02FY2024 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 14 grants below total $3,225,597, the rows itemized in this filing. The $58,494,831 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $55,269,234 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

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $49k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $1.2M
  • $250k+5 grants · $2.0M
$220,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$142M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC$550,000
PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE$492,477
INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY$360,000
REGENTS OF THE UC AT BERKELEY$300,000
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS$300,000
THE STATE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS FOUNDATION$233,750
ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE - BOULDER CO$220,000
BAY AREA COUNCIL FOUNDATION$190,620
INNOVATION CENTER FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION$185,000
JACKSON HOLE CENTER FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS$175,000
INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES$120,000
THE REGENTS OF UC SAN DIEGO$50,000
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES$28,750
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY$20,000
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 (FY17–24, $2.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 83% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CASA FAMILIAR INC: $50k → 11%CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF STOCKTON: $75k → 12%IDEAS FOR US INC: $13k → 13%MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: $75k → 10%CASA FAMILIAR INC: $20k → 11%CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF STOCKTON: $50k → 12%PUBLIC ALLIES: $16k → 16%NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER: $220k → 8%BAY AREA COUNCIL FOUNDATION: $191k → 10%NATIVE AMERICAN VOTERS ALLIANCE EDUCATION PROJECT: $50k → 14%NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER: $120k → 8%BAY AREA COUNCIL FOUNDATION: $19k → 10%NATIVE AMERICAN VOTERS ALLIANCE EDUCATION PROJECT: $10k → 14%HOURCAR: $85k → 14%THE TIDES CENTER: $475k → 10%THE TIDES CENTER: $445k → 10%THE TIDES CENTER: $385k → 10%STRATEGIC CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZING AND POLICY EDUCATION: $50k → 14%STRATEGIC CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZING AND POLICY EDUCATION: $50k → 14%STRATEGIC CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZING AND POLICY EDUCATION: $50k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
VT
NH
WA
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
VA
MD
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
OK
LA
AL
GA
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $56M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

East Asia and the Pacific$55M · 97% · 186 grants

Stated purpose: TO ENHANCE AIR QUALITY · TO ADVANCE CLIMATE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING · TO SUPPORT LOW-CARBON TRANSPORTATION, TO SUPPORT GREEN ENERGY TRANSITION, TO SUPPORT THE DECARBONIZATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$1.7M · 3% · 7 grants

Stated purpose: TO SUPPORT THE DECARBONIZATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR · TO SUPPORT GREEN ENERGY TRANSITION · TO SUPPORT ENGAGEMENT ON CARBON NEUTRALITY

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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$181M · 295 repeat orgs$13M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +97% since the first grant, against +37% for those funded once.

295 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 287 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

295
187

Total granted

$181M
$12M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+97%
+37%

Still filing today

93%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $633k 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
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementEducationPublic BenefitCivil RightsInternationalOther
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

  • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC
    7× · 2017–2023 · $5.9M · revenue +41%
  • SM
    SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION
    3× · 2017–2019 · $5.6M · revenue +270%
  • REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT
    5× · 2017–2022 · $5.2M · revenue +8%

Funded once

  • CE
    CLEAN ENERGY BUYERS ASSOCIATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $400k · revenue +172%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
    one grant, 2022 · $350k
  • CE
    Clean Energy Project Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $300k
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
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
2
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
3
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
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
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
6
Climate Catalyst Inc

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

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
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
9
Climate Jobs National Resource Center Action Fund Inc

To advocate for a clean energy economy at the scale climate science demands, create good union jobs, and create more equitable communities.

Environment
10
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
11
Climate Leadership Council Inc

To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.

Environment
12
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Research and Policy Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Henry M Paulson Jr Institute. 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

464 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. 464 of the 497 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.

66
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
210
Early backer (in before they grew)
443/464
Grantees still filing
368/464
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $5,888,000 · EnvironmentSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $5,553,000 · EnvironmentREGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT: $5,158,000 · EnvironmentThe Partnership Project Inc: $4,670,000 · EnvironmentAdvanced Energy Institute: $4,595,800 · EnvironmentConservative Energy Network: $4,134,666 · Environment+101 more: $84,080,793 · Environment+101 moreREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY: $3,925,532 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERS…Rocky Mountain Institute: $3,803,968 · OtherRocky Mountain Institu…SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $2,180,000 · OtherSOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL…ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $2,092,000 · OtherROCKEFELLER PHILANTHRO…TIDES CENTER: $1,305,000 · Other+47 more: $22,691,682 · Other+47 moreYale University: $1,900,000 · EducationBERKELEY LAB FOUNDATION: $1,608,000 · EducationPresident and Fellows of Harvard College: $1,513,824 · EducationCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $1,407,000 · EducationNew York University: $1,250,000 · EducationPACE UNIVERSITY: $1,035,000 · EducationR STREET INSTITUTE: $785,000 · EducationDUKE UNIVERSITY: $658,500 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $477,441 · EducationGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $420,000 · Education+3 more: $994,989 · EducationGREAT PLAINS INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INC: $1,866,050 · Community ImprovementTHE GREENLINING INSTITUTE: $728,333 · Community ImprovementTHE ADVANCED POWER ALLIANCE: $480,000 · Community ImprovementOMA EDUCATIONAL & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE: $410,000 · Community ImprovementCLEAN ENERGY BUYERS ASSOCIATION: $400,000 · Community ImprovementINNOVATION NETWORK FOR COMMUNITIES INC: $325,865 · Community ImprovementPOWERSWITCH ACTION: $290,000 · Community ImprovementInterwest Energy Alliance: $253,000 · Community ImprovementCITIZENS UTILITY BOARD OF MICHIGAN: $250,000 · Community ImprovementINSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: $814,491 · Public BenefitCITIZENS ACTION COALITION EDUCATION FUND INC: $651,000 · Public BenefitCONSUMER REPORTS INC: $581,824 · Public BenefitPUBLIC CITIZEN FOUNDATION INC: $550,771 · Public BenefitConsumer Federation of America: $375,000 · Public BenefitTHE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK: $282,270 · Public BenefitGEORGIA WATCH: $275,000 · Public BenefitILLINOIS PIRG EDUCATION FUND INC: $265,000 · Public BenefitOHIO CITIZEN ACTION EDUCATION FUND: $253,200 · Public BenefitACCELERATOR FOR AMERICA: $250,000 · Public BenefitGreater New Orleans Housing Alliance: $225,000 · Public BenefitTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $2,140,000 · InternationalWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $983,282 · InternationalINSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES: $700,000 · InternationalTHE ASIA SOCIETY: $350,004 · InternationalUNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC: $300,000 · InternationalWestern Resource Advocates: $2,304,000 · Crime & LegalNATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER INC: $688,433 · Crime & LegalVIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $473,400 · Crime & Legal
Environment$114,080,259Other$35,998,182Education$12,049,754Community Improvement$5,003,248Public Benefit$4,523,556International$4,473,286Crime & Legal$3,465,833

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%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $5,888,000 over 7y, 1.4% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $5,553,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetREGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT: $5,158,000 over 5y, 21% of budgetThe Partnership Project Inc: $4,670,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetAdvanced Energy Institute: $4,595,800 over 3y, 40% of budgetConservative Energy Network: $4,134,666 over 3y, 57% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $3,803,968 over 8y, 1.5% of budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $3,525,000 over 8y, 6.9% of budgetCenter for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies: $3,044,284 over 3y, 60% of budgetENERGY ACTION FUND: $3,000,000 over 3y, 10% of budgetSOUTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT: $2,724,600 over 3y, 52% of budgetWESTERN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $2,643,630 over 3y, 4.8% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY: $2,507,250 over 3y, 24% of budgetWestern Resource Advocates: $2,304,000 over 3y, 9.3% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST: $2,207,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetSOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $2,180,000 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC: $2,150,000 over 3y, 18% of budgetTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $2,140,000 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetRESOURCE MEDIA: $2,140,000 over 3y, 19% of budgetROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $2,092,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetYale University: $1,900,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $1,875,000 over 3y, 23% of budgetGREAT PLAINS INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INC: $1,866,050 over 3y, 15% of budgetVote Solar: $1,822,513 over 3y, 13% of budgetINNOVATION CENTER FOR ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY: $1,767,000 over 6y, 68% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $1,720,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetCUB CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FUND: $1,680,000 over 3y, 25% of budgetSIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION: $1,675,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetBERKELEY LAB FOUNDATION: $1,608,000 over 4y, 37% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $1,575,000 over 3y, 3.7% of budgetPresident and Fellows of Harvard College: $1,513,824 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetFRESH ENERGY: $1,439,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $1,407,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR MARKET TRANSFORMATION: $1,360,000 over 3y, 18% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION: $1,335,000 over 3y, 19% of budgetTIDES CENTER: $1,305,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCERES INC: $1,281,168 over 3y, 3.8% of budgetNew York University: $1,250,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHEAST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE: $1,240,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetGridLab Inc: $1,236,000 over 2y, 20% of budgetCLEAN GRID ALLIANCE (FNA WIND ON THE WIRES): $1,219,388 over 3y, 32% of budgetAcadia Center: $1,169,000 over 3y, 27% of budgetSECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY FOUNDATION: $1,150,000 over 3y, 11% of budgetTHE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE: $1,117,700 over 3y, 90% of budgetINTERSTATE RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNCIL: $1,100,000 over 3y, 30% of budgetBlueGreen Alliance Foundation: $1,065,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetSolar United Neighbors Inc: $1,050,626 over 3y, 12% of budgetPACE UNIVERSITY: $1,035,000 over 3y, 0.1% 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 …Natural Resources Def…Environmental Defense…Energy Action FundClimateworks Foundati…Movement Strategy Cen…The Partnership Proje…Windward FundClimate Imperative Fo…The McKnight Foundati…Rockefeller Family Fu…Resources Legacy Fund
United States Energy FoundationCA344.6× affinity270 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Energy Foundation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · Energy Action Fund · Climateworks Foundation · Movement Strategy Center · The Partnership Project Inc · Windward Fund · Climate Imperative Foundation · The McKnight Foundation · Rockefeller Family Fund Inc · Resources Legacy 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 Energy Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Energy Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 140%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 13%
  • Green & Healthy Homes Initiative Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Institute for Sustainable Communities: 100% of income from government
  • New Buildings Institute: 100% of income from government
  • Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships: 100% of income from government
  • Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Applied Economics Clinic Inc: 22% of income from government
  • Trustees of Tufts College: 13% of income from government
  • Yale University: 12% of income from government
  • President and Fellows of Harvard College: 7% of income from government
  • Forth Mobility Fund: 7% of income from government
  • National Consumer Law Center Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Oceantic Network Inc: 0% of income from government
  • Ceres Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
14get no government money at all
35report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
5rely 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 497 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’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