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.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

SLB partners with renewables company to develop next-gen geothermal systems

geothermal partnership

Houston-based energy technology company SLB and renewable energy company Ormat Technologies have teamed up to fast-track the development and commercialization of advanced geothermal technology.

Their initiative focuses on enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). These systems represent “the next generation of geothermal technology, meant to unlock geothermal energy in regions beyond where conventional geothermal resources exist,” the companies said in a news release.

After co-developing EGS technology, the companies will test it at an existing Ormat facility. Following the pilot project, SLB and Nevada-based Ormat will pursue large-scale EGS commercialization for utilities, data center operators and other customers. Ormat owns, operates, designs, makes and sells geothermal and recovered energy generation (REG) power plants.

“There is an urgent need to meet the growing demand for energy driven by AI and other factors. This requires accelerating the path to clean and reliable energy,” Gavin Rennick, president of new energy at SLB, said in a news release.

Traditional geothermal systems rely on natural hot water or steam reservoirs underground, limiting the use of geothermal technology. EGS projects are designed to create thermal reservoirs in naturally hot rock through which water can circulate, transferring the energy back to the surface for power generation and enabling broader availability of geothermal energy.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates next-generation geothermal, such as EGS, could provide 90 gigawatts of electricity by 2050.

Baker Hughes to provide equipment for massive low-carbon ammonia plant

coming soon

Houston-based energy technology company Baker Hughes has been tapped to supply equipment for what will be the world’s largest low-carbon ammonia plant.

French technology and engineering company Technip Energies will buy a steam turbine generator and compression equipment from Baker Hughes for Blue Point Number One, a $4 billion low-carbon ammonia plant being developed in Louisiana by a joint venture comprising CF Industries, JERA and Mitsui & Co. Technip was awarded a contract worth at least $1.1 billion to provide services for the Blue Point project.

CF, a producer of ammonia and nitrogen, owns a 40 percent stake in the joint venture, with JERA, Japan’s largest power generator, at 35 percent and Mitsui, a Japanese industrial conglomerate, at 25 percent.

The Blue Point Number One project, to be located at CF’s Blue Point ammonia production facility, will be capable of producing about 1.4 million metric tons of low-carbon ammonia per year and permanently storing up to 2.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Construction of the ammonia-making facility is expected to start in 2026, with production of low-carbon ammonia set to get underway in 2029.

“Ammonia, as a lower-carbon energy source, is poised to play a pivotal role in enabling and accelerating global sustainable energy development,” Alessandro Bresciani, senior vice president of energy equipment at Baker Hughes, said in a news release.

Earlier this year, British engineering and industrial gas company Linde signed a long-term contract to supply industrial gases for Blue Point Number One. Linde Engineering Americas is based in Houston.

Houston expert asks: Is the Texas grid ready for the future?

Guets Column

Texas has spent the past five years racing to strengthen its electric grid after Winter Storm Uri exposed just how vulnerable it was. Billions have gone into new transmission lines, grid hardening, and a surge of renewables and batteries. Those moves have made a difference, we haven’t seen another systemwide blackout like Uri, but the question now isn’t what’s been done, it’s whether Texas can keep up with what’s coming.

Massive data centers, electric vehicles, and industrial projects are driving electricity demand to unprecedented levels. NERC recently boosted its 10-year load forecast for Texas by more than 60%. McKinsey projects that U.S. electricity demand will rise roughly 40% by 2030 and double by 2050, with data centers alone accounting for as much as 11-12% of total U.S. electricity demand by 2030, up from about 4% today. Texas, already the top destination for new data centers, will feel that surge at a greater scale.

While the challenges ahead are massive and there will undoubtedly be bumps in the road (some probably big), we have an engaged Texas legislature, capable regulatory bodies, active non-profits, pragmatic industry groups, and the best energy minds in the world working together to make a market-based system work. I am optimistic Texas will find a way.

Why Texas Faces a Unique Grid Challenge

About 90% of Texas is served by a single, independent grid operated by ERCOT, rather than being connected to the two large interstate grids that cover the rest of the country. This structure allows ERCOT to avoid federal oversight of its market design, although it still must comply with FERC reliability standards. The trade-off is limited access to power from neighboring states during emergencies, leaving Texas to rely almost entirely on in-state generation and reserves when extreme weather hits.

ERCOT’s market design is also different. It’s an “energy-only” market, meaning generators are paid for electricity sold, not for keeping capacity available. While that lowers prices in normal times, it also makes it harder to finance backup, dispatchable generation like natural gas and batteries needed when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.

The Risks Mounting

In Texas, solar and wind power supply a significant percentage of electricity to the grid. As Julie Cohn, a nonresident scholar at the Baker Institute, explains, these inverter‑based resources “connect through power electronics, which means they don’t provide the same physical signals to the grid that traditional generators do.” The Odessa incidents, where solar farms tripped offline during minor grid disturbances, showed how fragile parts of this evolving grid can be. “Fortunately, it didn’t result in customer outages, and it was a clear signal that Texas has the opportunity to lead in solving this challenge.”

Extreme weather adds more pressure while the grid is trying to adapt to a surge in use. CES research manager Miaomiao Rimmer notes: “Hurricane frequencies haven't increased, but infrastructure and population in their paths have expanded dramatically. The same hurricane that hit 70 years ago would cause far more damage today because there’s simply more in harm’s way.”

Medlock: “Texas has made significant strides in the last 5 years, but there’s more work to be done.”

Ken Medlock, Senior Director of the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute, argues that Texas’s problem isn’t a lack of solutions; it’s how quickly those solutions are implemented. He stresses that during the January 2024 cold snap, natural gas kept the grid stable, proving that “any system configuration with sufficient, dispatchable generation capacity would have kept the lights on.” Yet ERCOT load has exceeded dispatchable capacity with growing frequency since 2018, raising the stakes for future reliability.

Ken notes: “ERCOT has a substantial portfolio of options, including investment in dispatchable generation, storage near industrial users, transmission expansion, and siting generation closer to load centers. But allowing structural risks to reliability that can be avoided at a reasonable cost is unacceptable. Appropriate market design and sufficient regulatory oversight are critical.” He emphasizes that reliability must be explicitly priced into ERCOT’s market so backup resources can be built and maintained profitably. These resources, whether natural gas, nuclear, or batteries, cannot remain afterthoughts if Texas wants a stable grid.

Building a More Reliable Grid

For Texas to keep pace with rising demand and withstand severe weather, it must act decisively on multiple fronts, strengthening its grid while building for long-term growth.

  • Coordinated Planning: Align regulators, utilities, and market players to plan decades ahead, not just for next summer.
  • Balancing Clean and Reliable Power: Match renewable growth with flexible, dispatchable generation that can deliver power on demand.
  • Fixing Local Weak Spots: Harden distribution networks, where most outages occur, rather than focusing only on large-scale generation.
  • Market Reform and Technology Investment: Price reliability fairly and support R&D to make renewables strengthen, not destabilize, the grid.

In Conclusion

While Texas has undeniably improved its grid since Winter Storm Uri, surging electricity demand and intensifying weather mean the work is far from over. Unlike other states, ERCOT can’t rely on its neighbors for backup power, and its market structure makes new dispatchable resources harder to build. Decisive leadership, investment, and reforms will be needed to ensure Texas can keep the lights on.

It probably won’t be a smooth journey, but my sense is that Texas will solve these problems and do something spectacular. It will deliver more power with fewer emissions, faster than skeptics believe, and surprise us all.

-----------

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.