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

Houston-based co. closes acquisition of 50 percent stake in Texas cogeneration facility

M&A Moves

Fengate Asset Management announced the financial close on the acquisition of a 50 percent interest in Freeport Power Limited, which owns a 440-megawatt cogeneration facility in Freeport, Texas.

FPL is located near the Freeport Energy Center, which is a 260-megawatt cogeneration facility that is currently owned and managed by Fengate. The two facilities work to provide cost-effective power and steam to Dow’s Freeport site, which is the largest integrated chemical manufacturing complex in the Western Hemisphere.

“We are thrilled to have closed this acquisition, which aligns with our strategy of acquiring behind-the-meter cogeneration projects with strong industrial partners like Dow,” Greg Calhoun, managing director of Infrastructure Investments at Fengate, says in a news release.

Fengate was able to acquire interest in FPL under a strategic operating partnership with asset manager Ironclad Energy. The partnership with Ironclad was established in 2022 to acquire and operate cogeneration, district energy and other power generation projects throughout North America.

“This is our second acquisition with Fengate, and we look forward to continuing our partnership to optimize and expand the portfolio,” Christopher Fanella, president and CFO of Ironclad Energy, says in the release.

Fengate opened its first U.S. office in 2017 in Houston.

“Combined heat and power projects like FPL will continue to play an important role in the U.S. power industry – especially for hard-to-abate industrial sectors – to ensure reliability, efficiency and affordability,” adds in the release.

Houston energy leader on why the future of fuels is more than electric vehicles

guest column

Gasoline, diesel, bunker fuel, and jet fuel. Four liquid hydrocarbons that have been powering transportation for the last 100-plus years.

Gas stations, truck stops, ports, and airport fuel terminals have been built up over the last century to make transportation easy and reliable.

These conventional fuels release Greenhouse Gases (GHG) when they are used, and governments all over the world are working on plans to shift towards cleaner fuels in an effort to lower emissions and minimize the effects of climate change.

For passenger cars, it’s clear that electricity will be the cleaner fuel type, with most countries adopting electric vehicles (EVs), and in some cases, providing their citizens with incentives to make the switch.

While many articles have been written about EVs and the benefits that come along with them, they fail to look at the transportation system as a whole.

Trucks, cargo ships, and airplanes are modes of transportation that are used every day, but they don’t often get the spotlight like EVs do.

For governments to be effective in curbing transportation-related greenhouse emissions, they must consider all forms of transportation and cleaner fuel options for them as well.

43 percent of GHG emissions comes from these modes of transportation. Therefore, using electricity to reduce GHG emissions in light duty vehicles only accounts for part of the total transportation emissions equation.

The path to cleaner fuels for these transportation modes has its challenges.

According to Ed Emmett, Fellow in Energy and Transportation Policy at the Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES);

  • "Airplanes cannot be realistically powered by electricity, at least not currently, and handle the same requisite freight and passenger loads"
  • "The long-haul trucking industry [...] pushed back against electrification as being impractical due to the size and weight of batteries, their limited range, and the cost of adoption"
  • "Shipowners have expressed reluctance to scrap existing bunker fueled ships for newer, more expensive ships, especially when other fueling options, e.g. biofuels and hydrocarbon derivatives-for fleets can be made available"

Finding low-cost, reliable, and environmentally sound fuels for the various segments of transportation is complex. As Emmett suggests in his latest article;

"Hovering over the transition to other fuels for almost every transportation mode is the question of dependability of supply. For the trucking industry, the truck stop industry must be able to adapt to new fuel requirements. For ocean shipping, ports must be able to meet the fuel needs of new ships. Airlines, air cargo carriers and airports need to be on the same page when it comes to aviation fuels. In other words, the adoption equation in transitions in transportation is not only a function of the availability and cost of the new technology but also a function of the cost of the full supply chain needed to support fuel production and delivery to the point of use. Going forward, the transportation industry is facing a dilemma: How are environmental concerns addressed while simultaneously maintaining operational efficiency and avoiding unnecessary upward cost shifts for moving goods and people? In answering that question, for the first time in history, modes of transportation may end up going in multiple different directions when it comes to the fuels each mode ultimately chooses."

This is why many forecasts predict that hydrocarbon demand will continue through 2050, despite ambitious aspirations of achieving net zero emissions by that year. The McKinsey "slow evolution" scenario has global liquid hydrocarbon demand in 2050 at 92mmb/d versus 103 mmb/d in 2023. With their "continued momentum" scenario, oil demand is 75 mmb/d. Proportionally, global oil demand related to GHG emissions from transportation would decline 11-27 percent. The global uptake of EVs is the primary driver of uncertainty around future oil demand. In all the McKinsey scenarios, the share of EVs in passenger cars sales is expected to be above 90 percent by 2050.

The Good News

Despite the relatively slow progress expected for reducing GHG emissions in the global transportation sector, there are solutions emerging that lower the carbon footprint tied to traditional petroleum-based fuels. Emmett highlights some of the methods under study, noting that "sustainable biofuels sourced from cooking oils, animal fats, and agriculture products, as well as hydrogen, methanol, ammonia, and various e-fuels are among the options being tested. Some ocean carriers are already ordering ships powered by liquified natural gas, bio-e-methanol, bio/e-methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. Airlines are already using sustainable aviation fuel as a supplement to basic aviation fuel. Railroads are testing hydrogen locomotives. The trucking industry is decarbonizing local delivery by using vehicles powered by electricity, compressed natural gas, and sustainable diesel. Long-haul trucking companies are considering sustainable diesel as a drop-in fuel for existing equipment, and fuel suppliers are researching new engines fueled by hydrogen and other alternative fuels."

Most of these options will require a combination of increased government incentives, along with advancements in technology and cost reductions.

McKinsey's "sustainable transformation" scenario, which considers potential shifts in government regulations as well as advancements in technology and cost, suggests there is moderate growth in alternative fuels alongside growth in EVs. Mckinsey projects;

  • EV demand could grow to over 90 percent of total passenger car sales by 2050
  • EVs to make up around 80 percent of commercial truck sales by 2050
  • In aviation, low carbon fuels such as biofuels, synfuels, hydrogen and electricity are projected to grow to 49 percent by 2050.

According to McKinsey, the combination of these alternatives along with demand changes in power and chemicals could reduce global oil demand to 60 mmb/d in 2050. The shift to cleaner fuels, for modes of transportation other than EVs, is underway but the progress and adoption will take decades to achieve according to McKinsey’s forecasts.

Looking more closely at EVs, the story may not be as dire globally as it seems to be in the West. While the U.S. appears to be losing momentum on electric vehicle adoption, China is roaring ahead. New electric car registrations in China reached 8.1 million in 2023, increasing by 35 percent relative to 2022. McKinsey’s forecasts have underestimated global EV sales in the past, with China surpassing their estimates, while the U.S. lags behind. It’s clear that China is the winner in EV adoption; could they also lead the way to adopt cleaner fuels for other modes of transport? That is something governments and the transportation industry will be watching in the years ahead.

Conclusion

While we are not on a trajectory to meet the aspirations to reduce global GHG emissions in the transportation sector, there are emerging solutions that could be adopted should governments around the world decide to put in place the incentives to get there. Moving forward, the future of transportation fuels will be shaped by a mix of innovation, government policies, and what consumers want. The focus will be on ensuring that the transportation sector remains reliable, secure, and economically robust, while also reducing GHG emissions. But, decarbonizing the transportation sector is much more than just EV's – it's a broader effort that will require continued global progress in each of the multiple transportation segments.

------------

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 ran on LinkedIn on October 9, 2024.

Houston company secures $10M contract to deliver subsea well decommissioning solution

big deal

Houston energy services provider Expro was awarded a contract valued at over $10 million for the provision of a well decommissioning solution.

The solution will combine subsea safety systems and surface processing design that can enable safe entry to the well and management of well fluids.

“The contract reinforces our reputation as the leading provider of subsea safety systems and surface well test equipment, including within the P&A sector,” Iain Farley, Expro’s regional vice president for Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa, says in a news release. "It demonstrates our commitment to delivering best-in-class equipment, allied with the highest standards of safety and service quality that Expro is renowned for.”

Expro will provide from its global support hub in Aberdeen, a surface fluid management package and a market-leading 7-3/8 inch large-bore subsea test tree assembly (SSTTA). This will include surface tree and controls that can provide dual barrier and disconnect capability to facilitate re-entry into the subsea wells.

Expro has been supplying its subsea safety systems and well test equipment to the construction of many of the 52 wells now being plugged and abandoned.

“Having been involved in the development phase for many of these fields, we have gained a life of well experience that will be invaluable for this P&A campaign,” Farley adds. “Our expertise and know-how will help deliver key technical and commercial benefits for the client across the project.”

View All Listings