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

Oxy opens energy-focused innovation center in Midtown Houston

moving in

Houston-based Occidental officially opened its new Oxy Innovation Center with a ribbon cutting at the Ion last month.

The opening reflects Oxy and the Ion's "shared commitment to advancing technology and accelerating a lower-carbon future," according to an announcement from the Ion.

Oxy, which was named a corporate partner of the Ion in 2023, now has nearly 6,500 square feet on the fourth floor of the Ion. Rice University and the Rice Real Estate Company announced the lease of the additional space last year, along with agreements with Fathom Fund and Activate.

At the time, the leases brought the Ion's occupancy up to 90 percent.

Additionally, New York-based Industrious plans to launch its coworking space at the Ion on May 8. The company was tapped as the new operator of the Ion’s 86,000-square-foot coworking space in Midtown in January.

Dallas-based Common Desk previously operated the space, which was expanded by 50 percent in 2023 to 86,000 square feet.

CBRE agreed to acquire Industrious in a deal valued at $400 million earlier this year. Industrious also operates another local coworking space is at 1301 McKinney St.

Industrious will host a launch party celebrating the new location Thursday, May 8. Find more information here.

Oxy Innovation Center. Photo via LinkedIn.


---

This story originally appeared on our sister site, InnovationMap.com.


Houston climatech company signs on to massive carbon capture project in Malaysia

big deal

Houston-based CO2 utilization company HYCO1 has signed a memorandum of understanding with Malaysia LNG Sdn. Bhd., a subsidiary of Petronas, for a carbon capture project in Malaysia, which includes potential utilization and conversion of 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per year.

The project will be located in Bintulu in Sarawak, Malaysia, where Malaysia LNG is based, according to a news release. Malaysia LNG will supply HYCO1 with an initial 1 million tons per year of raw CO2 for 20 years starting no later than 2030. The CCU plant is expected to be completed by 2029.

"This is very exciting for all stakeholders, including HYCO1, MLNG, and Petronas, and will benefit all Malaysians," HYCO1 CEO Gregory Carr said in the release. "We approached Petronas and MLNG in the hopes of helping them solve their decarbonization needs, and we feel honored to collaborate with MLNG to meet their Net Zero Carbon Emissions by 2050.”

The project will convert CO2 into industrial-grade syngas (a versatile mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen) using HYCO1’s proprietary CUBE Technology. According to the company, its CUBE technology converts nearly 100 percent of CO2 feed at commercial scale.

“Our revolutionary process and catalyst are game changers in decarbonization because not only do we prevent CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere, but we transform it into highly valuable and usable downstream products,” Carr added in the release.

As part of the MoU, the companies will conduct a feasibility study evaluating design alternatives to produce low-carbon syngas.

The companies say the project is expected to “become one of the largest CO2 utilization projects in history.”

HYCO1 also recently announced that it is providing syngas technology to UBE Corp.'s new EV electrolyte plant in New Orleans. Read more here.

Tackling methane in the energy transition: Takeaways from Global Methane Hub and HETI

The view from heti

Leaders from across the energy value chain gathered in Houston for a roundtable hosted by the Global Methane Hub (GMH) and the Houston Energy Transition Initiative (HETI). The session underscored the continued progress to reduce methane emissions as the energy industry addresses the dual challenge of producing more energy that the world demands while simultaneously reducing emissions.

The Industry’s Shared Commitment and Challenge

There’s broad recognition across the industry that methane emissions must be tackled with urgency, especially as natural gas demand is projected to grow 3050% by 2050. This growth makes reducing methane leakage more than a sustainability issue—it’s also a matter of global market access and investor confidence.

Solving this issue, however, requires overcoming technical challenges that span infrastructure, data acquisition, measurement precision, and regulatory alignment.

Getting the Data Right: Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up

Accurate methane leak monitoring and quantification is the cornerstone of any effective mitigation strategy. A key point of discussion was the differentiation between top-down and bottom-up measurement approaches.

Top-down methods such as satellite and aerial monitoring offer broad-area coverage and can identify large emission plumes. Technologies such as satellite-based remote sensing (e.g., using high-resolution imagery) or airborne methane surveys (using aircraft equipped with tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy) are commonly used for wide-area detection. While these methods are efficient for identifying large-scale emission hotspots, their accuracy is lower when it comes to quantifying emissions at the source, detecting smaller, diffuse leaks, and providing continuous monitoring.

In contrast, bottom-up methods focus on direct, on-site detection at the equipment level, providing more granular and precise measurements. Technologies used here include optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras, flame ionization detectors (FID), and infrared sensors, which can directly detect methane at the point of release. These methods are more accurate but can be resource and infrastructure intensive, requiring frequent manual inspections or continuous monitoring installations, which can be costly and technically challenging in certain environments.

The challenge lies in combining both methods: top-down for large-scale monitoring and bottom-up for detailed, accurate measurements. No single technology is perfect or all-inclusive. An integrated approach that uses both datasets will help to create a more comprehensive picture of emissions and improve mitigation efforts.

From Detection to Action: Bridging the Gap

Data collection is just the first step—effective action follows. Operators are increasingly focused on real-time detection and mitigation. However, operational realities present obstacles. For example, real-time leak detection and repair (LDAR) systems—particularly for continuous monitoring—face challenges due to infrastructure limitations. Remote locations like the Permian Basin may lack the stable power sources needed to run continuous monitoring equipment to individual assets.

Policy, Incentives, and Regulatory Alignment

Another critical aspect of the conversation was the need for policy incentives that both promote best practices and accommodate operational constraints. Methane fees, introduced to penalize emissions, have faced widespread resistance due to their design flaws that in many cases actually disincentivize methane emissions reductions. Industry stakeholders are advocating for better alignment between policy frameworks and operational capabilities.

In the United States, the Subpart W rule, for example, mandates methane reporting for certain facilities, but its implementation has raised concerns about the accuracy of some of the new reporting requirements. Many in the industry continue to work with the EPA to update these regulations to ensure implementation meets desired legislative expectations.

The EU’s demand for quantified methane emissions for imported natural gas is another driving force, prompting a shift toward more detailed emissions accounting and better data transparency. Technologies that provide continuous, real-time monitoring and automated reporting will be crucial in meeting these international standards.

Looking Ahead: Innovation and Collaboration

The roundtable highlighted the critical importance of advancing methane detection and mitigation technologies and integrating them into broader emissions reduction strategies. The United States’ 45V tax policy—focused on incentivizing production of low-carbon intensity hydrogen often via reforming of natural gas—illustrates the growing momentum towards science-based accounting and transparent data management. To qualify for 45V incentives, operators can differentiate their lower emissions intensity natural gas by providing foreground data to the EPA that is precise and auditable, essential for the industry to meet both environmental and regulatory expectations. Ultimately, the success of methane reduction strategies depends on collaboration between the energy industry, technology providers, and regulators.

The roundtable underscored that while significant progress has been made in addressing methane emissions, technical, regulatory, and operational challenges remain. Collaboration across industry, government, and technology providers is essential to overcoming these barriers. With better data, regulatory alignment, and investments in new technologies, the energy sector can continue to reduce methane emissions while supporting global energy demands.

———

HETI thanks Chris Duffy, Baytown Blue Hydrogen Venture Executive, ExxonMobil; Cody Johnson, CEO, SCS Technologies; and Nishadi Davis, Head of Carbon Advisory Americas, wood plc, for their participation in this event.

This article originally appeared 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.