ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Expert: Demystifying SBIR grants for Houston energy transition startups

guest column

The potential SBIR rewards far outweigh the challenges, and with determination, your startup could be the next success story. Photo via Getty Images

Grants are everywhere, all the time, but often seem unobtainable for startups. Most companies tell me about their competitors winning grants but don’t know how to secure non-dilutive funding for themselves. It’s true that the SBIR program is competitive — with only 10 to 15 percent of applicants receiving awards — but with a little guidance and perseverance, they are most definitely obtainable.

An SBIR overview

The Small Business Innovation Research program was introduced on the federal level in 1982 with the purpose of de-risking early technologies. While most investors are hesitant to invest in a company that’s still in ideation, the SBIR program would provide an initial level of feasibility funding to develop a prototype. The program issues funds to companies without taking any equity, IP, or asking for the money back.

Since its inception, the SBIR program has funded over 200,000 projects through 11 different federal agencies, including, but not limited to, the Department of Defense, the National Institute of Health, and the National Science Foundation. Federal agencies with R&D budgets over $100 million dedicate at least 3.2 percent of their budget to the SBIR program to fund research initiated by small businesses.

Eligibility and application process

It is no surprise that only small businesses can apply for this non-dilutive funding. For SBIR purposes, a small business is defined as being a for-profit entity, smaller than 500 employees, 51 percent owned by US citizens or permanent residents, and not primarily owned by venture capital groups. This small business must also have the rights to the IP that needs de-risking.

To apply, the small business must have a specific project that needs funding. Normally, this project will have three specific aims that detail the action items that will be attempted during the funded period. Some agencies require a pre-application, like a letter of intent (DOE) or a project pitch (NSF). Others don’t have a screening process and you can simply submit a full application at the deadline. Most agencies published examples of funded or denied applications for you to review.

SBIR phases

Phase I of the SBIR program is the normal entry point for every agency. It takes your product from ideation, through a feasibility study, to having a prototype. While agencies provide various funding amounts, the range is between $75,000 to $300,000 for 3 to 12 months of R&D activities. Applications contain a feasibility research plan (around six pages), an abstract, specific aims, supporting documents, and a budget.

While some programs allow for Direct to Phase II (D2P2) applications, most don’t apply for Phase II until they have secured Phase I funding. This second phase allows companies with completed feasibility studies to test their new prototype at a larger scale. The budgets for this phase range from $600,000 to $3 million and span an average of two years. The research plan is twice as robust and a commercialization plan is also needed.

Tips for success

If you’re wondering if your technology would be a good fit for a certain program, you can start by looking at the SBIR website to see the previously funded projects. The more recent projects will give you an idea of the funding priorities for each agency. Most abstracts will allude to the specific aims, meaning you can get a sense of the research projects that were approved. If you regularly see an agency funding projects similar to yours, you can search sbir.gov/topics for that agency’s research topics and upcoming deadlines.

Your team is one of the most important aspects of the application. Since you will be reviewed by academic experts, it’s helpful to have a principal investigator on your project that has a history of experience or publications with similar technology. Keep in mind that this principal investigator must be primarily employed by your company at the time of the grant. If this individual is employed by a university or nonprofit research organization, consider taking the STTR route so you can utilize their expertise.

Preparing Phase I applications should take no less than eight weeks, and Phase II should take at least ten. Your first step should be read the entire solicitation and create action items. The early action items should be

  1. Completing government registrations, like SAM.gov
  2. Writing your abstract and specific aims
  3. Contacting the program manager or director for early feedback

Any bids, estimates, or letters of support may also take time to receive, so don’t delay pursuing these items.

Don’t stop trying

If you speak to any program officer, they will encourage you to keep applying. For resubmissions, you will have a chance to explain why your previous application was denied and what you’ve done to improve. Most companies receive funding on the resubmission. If you get the feeling that a specific agency isn’t the right fit, reach out to other agencies that may be interested in the technology. You may realize that a small pivot may open up better opportunities.

There are frequently published webinars from different agencies that will give overviews of the specific solicitations and allow for Q&A. If you feel stuck or are still concerned about getting started, reach out to an individual or group that can provide guidance. There are plenty of grant writers, some of which have reviewed for the SBIR program for different agencies, who can provide strategy, guidance, reviews, and writing services to provide different levels of help.

Securing SBIR funding can be a game-changer for startups. While the process may seem daunting at first, with the right approach and persistence, it’s very obtainable. Remember, each application is a learning experience, and every iteration brings you closer to success. Whether you seek support from webinars, program officers, or professional grant writers, the key is to keep pushing forward. The potential rewards far outweigh the challenges, and with determination, your startup could be the next SBIR success story.

------

Robert Wegner is the director of business development for Euroleader.

This article originally ran on InnovationMap.

From Your Site Articles
Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

What EPA’s carbon capture and storage permitting announcement means for Texas

The View From HETI

Earlier this month, Texas was granted authority by the federal government for permitting carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. This move could help the U.S. cut emissions while staying competitive in the global energy game.

In June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed approving Texas’ request for permitting authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for Class VI underground injection wells for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the state under a process called “primacy.” The State of Texas already has permitting authority for other injection wells (Classes I-V). In November, the EPA announced final approval of Texas’ primacy request.

Why This Matters for Texas

Texas is the headquarters for virtually every segment of the energy industry. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Texas is the top crude oil- and natural-gas producing state in the nation. The state has more crude oil refineries and refining capacity than any other state in the nation. Texas produces more electricity than any other state, and the demand for electricity will grow with the development of data centers and artificial intelligence (AI). Simply put, Texas is the backbone of the nation’s energy security and competitiveness. For the nation’s economic competitiveness, it is important that Texas continue to produce more energy with less emissions. CCS is widely regarded as necessary to continue to lower the emissions intensity of the U.S. industrial sector for critical products including power generation, refining, chemicals, steel, cement and other products that our country and world demand.

The Greater Houston Partnership’s Houston Energy Transition Initiative (HETI) has supported efforts to bring CCUS to a broader commercial scale since the initiative’s inception.

“Texas is uniquely positioned to deploy CCUS at scale, with world-class geology, a skilled workforce, and strong infrastructure. We applaud the EPA for granting Texas the authority to permit wells for CCUS, which we believe will result in safe and efficient permitting while advancing technologies that strengthen Texas’ leadership in the global energy market,” said Jane Stricker, Executive Director of HETI and Senior Vice President, Energy Transition at the Greater Houston Partnership.

What is Primacy, and Why is it Important?

Primacy grants permitting authority for Class VI wells for CCS to the Texas Railroad Commission instead of the EPA. Texas is required to follow the same strict standards the EPA uses. The EPA has reviewed Texas’ application and determined it meets those requirements.

Research suggests that Texas has strong geological formations for CO2 storage, a world-class, highly skilled workforce, and robust infrastructure primed for the deployment of CCS. However, federal permitting delays are stalling billions of dollars of private sector investment. There are currently 257 applications under review, nearly one-quarter of which are located in Texas, with some applications surpassing the EPA’s target review period of 24 months. This creates uncertainty for developers and investors and keeps thousands of potential jobs out of reach. By transferring permitting to the state, Texas will apply local resources to issue Class VI permits across the states in a timely manner.

Texas joins North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia and Arizona with the authority for regulating Class VI wells.

Is CCS safe?

A 2025 study by Texas A&M University reviewed operational history and academic literature on CCS in the United States. The study analyzed common concerns related to CCS efficacy and safety and found that CCS reduces pollutants including carbon dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. The research found that the risks of CCS present a low probability of impacting human life and can be effectively managed through existing state and federal regulations and technical monitoring and safety protocols.

What’s Next?

The final rule granting Texas’ primacy will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Once in effect, the Texas Railroad Commission will be responsible for permitting wells for carbon capture, use and storage and enforcing their safe operation.

———

This article originally ran on the Greater Houston Partnership's Houston Energy Transition Initiative blog. HETI exists to support Houston's future as an energy leader. For more information about the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, EnergyCapitalHTX's presenting sponsor, visit htxenergytransition.org.

Houston energy expert: How the U.S. can turn carbon into growth

Guets Column

For the past 40 years, climate policy has often felt like two steps forward, one step back. Regulations shift with politics, incentives get diluted, and long-term aspirations like net-zero by 2050 seem increasingly out of reach. Yet greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away.

This matters because the costs are real. Extreme weather is already straining U.S. power grids, damaging homes, and disrupting supply chains. Communities are spending more on recovery while businesses face rising risks to operations and assets. So, how can the U.S. prepare and respond?

The Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES) points to two complementary strategies. First, invest in large-scale public adaptation to protect communities and infrastructure. Second, reframe carbon as a resource, not just a waste stream to be reduced.

Why Focusing on Emissions Alone Falls Short

Peter Hartley argues that decades of global efforts to curb emissions have done little to slow the rise of CO₂. International cooperation is difficult, the costs are felt immediately, and the technologies needed are often expensive. Emissions reduction has been the central policy tool for decades, and it has been neither sufficient nor effective.

One practical response is adaptation, which means preparing for climate impacts we can’t avoid. Some of these measures are private, taken by households or businesses to reduce their own risks, such as farmers shifting crop types, property owners installing fire-resistant materials, or families improving insulation. Others are public goods that require policy action. These include building stronger levees and flood defenses, reinforcing power grids, upgrading water systems, revising building codes, and planning for wildfire risks. Such efforts protect people today while reducing long-term costs, and they work regardless of the source of extreme weather. Adaptation also does not depend on global consensus; each country, state, or city can act in its own interest. Many of these measures even deliver benefits beyond weather resilience, such as stronger infrastructure and improved security against broader threats.

McKinsey research reinforces this logic. Without a rapid scale-up of climate adaptation, the U.S. will face serious socioeconomic risks. These include damage to infrastructure and property from storms, floods, and heat waves, as well as greater stress on vulnerable populations and disrupted supply chains.

Making Carbon Work for Us

While adaptation addresses immediate risks, Ken Medlock points to a longer-term opportunity: turning carbon into value.

Carbon can serve as a building block for advanced materials in construction, transportation, power transmission, and agriculture. Biochar to improve soils, carbon composites for stronger and lighter products, and next-generation fuels are all examples. As Ken points out, carbon-to-value strategies can extend into construction and infrastructure. Beyond creating new markets, carbon conversion could deliver lighter and more resilient materials, helping the U.S. build infrastructure that is stronger, longer-lasting, and better able to withstand climate stress.

A carbon-to-value economy can help the U.S. strengthen its manufacturing base and position itself as a global supplier of advanced materials.

These solutions are not yet economic at scale, but smart policies can change that. Expanding the 45Q tax credit to cover carbon use in materials, funding research at DOE labs and universities, and supporting early markets would help create the conditions for growth.

Conclusion

Instead of choosing between “doing nothing” and “net zero at any cost,” we need a third approach that invests in both climate resilience and carbon conversion.

Public adaptation strengthens and improves the infrastructure we rely on every day, including levees, power grids, water systems, and building standards that protect communities from climate shocks. Carbon-to-value strategies can complement these efforts by creating lighter, more resilient carbon-based infrastructure.

CES suggests this combination is a pragmatic way forward. As Peter emphasizes, adaptation works because it is in each nation’s self-interest. And as Ken reminds us, “The U.S. has a comparative advantage in carbon. Leveraging it to its fullest extent puts the U.S. in a position of strength now and well into the future.”

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

UH launches new series on AI’s impact on the energy sector

where to be

The University of Houston's Energy Transition Institute has launched a new Energy in Action Seminar Series that will feature talks focused on the intersection of the energy industry and digitization trends, such as AI.

The first event in the series took place earlier this month, featuring Raiford Smith, global market lead for power & energy for Google Cloud, who presented "AI, Energy, and Data Centers." The talk discussed the benefits of widespread AI adoption for growth in traditional and low-carbon energy resources.

Future events include:

“Through this timely and informative seminar series, ETI will bring together energy professionals, researchers, students, and anyone working in or around digital innovation in energy," Debalina Sengupta, chief operating officer of ETI, said in a news release. "We encourage industry members and students to register now and reap the benefits of participating in both the seminar and the reception, which presents a fantastic opportunity to stay ahead of industry developments and build a strong network in the Greater Houston energy ecosystem.”

The series is slated to continue throughout 2026. Each presentation is followed by a one-hour networking reception. Register for the next event here.

View All Listings