Skip to content
Watttime Corporation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Watttime Corporation

To raise awareness about the potential to reduce environmental harm by shifting electricity use to particular times; to encourage the development and spread of common protocols for this practice.

$5.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$1.7M
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, FY2020 to 2025.

Environment$11MEducation$74k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $3,897,849, the rows itemized in this filing. The $5,130,937 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,233,088 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $34k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $663k
  • $250k+3 grants · $3.2M
$197,859
Median grant
7
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GLOBAL ENERGY MONITOR$1,668,890
ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE$1,111,244
CTREES$420,367
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY - SCHOOL OF$197,859
DUKE UNIVERSITY$174,973
GLOBAL FISHING WATCH INC$170,500
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY$120,000
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY$34,016
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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 80% 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: $120k → 11%THE EARTH GENOME: $1.0M → 8%CARBONPLAN: $252k → 10%CTREES: $420k → 14%THE FOUNDATION FOR AGRICULTURAL INTEGRITY: $200k → 11%GLOBAL FISHING WATCH INC: $171k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $74k → 21%SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY - SCHOOL OF: $198k → 21%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $175k → 11%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $1.5M → 12%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $133k → 6%THE EARTH GENOME: $390k → 8%CARBONPLAN: $70k → 10%GLOBAL ENERGY MONITOR: $1.7M → 14%WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $100k → 11%GLOBAL FISHING WATCH INC: $35k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $34k → 21%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $1.1M → 12%THE EARTH GENOME: $350k → 8%GLOBAL ENERGY MONITOR: $625k → 14%THE FOUNDATION FOR AGRICULTURE INTEGRITY: $200k → 14%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $673k → 12%THE EARTH GENOME: $100k → 8%GLOBAL ENERGY MONITOR: $327k → 14%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $509k → 12%CTREES: $285k → 14%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $202k → 12%CTREES: $270k → 14%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $100k → 12%CTREES: $195k → 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

MI
NY
PA
CA
CO
MO
MD
NC
DC

Grants abroad, by region: $1.2M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$1.2M · 100% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: CLIMATE TRACE

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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$11M · 8 repeat orgs$725k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +3% since the first grant, against -9% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
2

Total granted

$11M
$233k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+3%
-9%

Still filing today

88%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $493k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationPhilanthropyInternationalOther
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

  • Rocky Mountain Institute
    6× · 2020–2025 · $4.1M · revenue +183%
  • GE
    Global Energy Monitor
    3× · 2023–2025 · $2.6M · revenue +3%
  • C
    CTREES
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +29%

Funded once

  • JH
    JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATOR
    one grant, 2021 · $133k
  • WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue -9%
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
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
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
Collaborative Earth Institute

We are scientists and engineers, humanists and designers. Coming together across disciplinary and cultural boundaries, we form focused teams to discover and co-create pathways to social and ecological regeneration.

Science & Tech
4
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
5
Genomic Data Initiative
Science & Tech
6
Ceres Inc

Ceres is a nonprofit advocacy organization working to accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more just, and resilient world. through education and research, we make the business case for action on the most pressing sustainability…

Environment
7
The Urban Land Institute

Shape the future of the built environment for transformative impact in communities worldwide. we are a global network of professionals in every sector of real estate development and land use, from private enterprise to public service.

Environment
8
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
9
Earth & Space Research

Increase societal understanding of the earth system through scientific research and education.

Science & Tech
10
Verra

Verra drives transformational action on climate change and sustainable development through high-integrity standards that mobilize finance and deliver real impact.

Environment
11
Ocean Genome Atlas Project

The Ocean Genome Atlas Project OGAP aims to collect, classify, sequence and map the genomic information of organisms representing at least 80 of the extant marine species worldwide. Deploying a fleet of advanced but cost effective research…

Science & Tech
12
Climate Change Truth research

Present Netzeroco2 manuscript at climate change conferences and lead a 35 PhD team to debunk climate change garbage of the IPCC cctruth.org

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Earth Genome; the most unlike its peers is The Foundation for Agricultural Integrit. 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

11 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. 11 of the 13 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
4/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Global Energy Monitor: $2,620,568 · EnvironmentGlobal Energy MonitorTHE EARTH GENOME: $1,854,752 · EnvironmentTHE EARTH GENOMECTREES: $1,169,867 · EnvironmentCTREESCarbonPlan: $321,312 · Environment+1 more: $205,500 · EnvironmentRocky Mountain Institute: $4,079,307 · OtherRocky Mountain Institute+3 more: $360,847 · Other+3 moreTHE FOUNDATION FOR AGRICULTURAL INTEGRIT: $400,000 · PhilanthropyST LOUIS UNIVERSITY: $197,859 · EducationDUKE UNIVERSITY: $174,973 · EducationWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $100,000 · International
Environment$6,171,999Other$4,440,154Philanthropy$400,000Education$372,832International$100,000

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 budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $4,079,307 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetGlobal Energy Monitor: $2,620,568 over 3y, 6.5% of budgetTHE EARTH GENOME: $1,854,752 over 4y, 37% of budgetCTREES: $1,169,867 over 4y, 6.8% of budgetTHE FOUNDATION FOR AGRICULTURAL INTEGRIT: $400,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetCarbonPlan: $321,312 over 2y, 6.4% of budgetGLOBAL FISHING WATCH INC: $205,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetST LOUIS UNIVERSITY: $197,859 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $174,973 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCarnegie Mellon University: $120,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $100,000 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Watttime Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Watttime Corporation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    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 13 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Watttime’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