ARPA-E NOFO Guide 2025: Grants and SBIR/STTR for MAGNITO, ROCKS, QC3, SCALEUP and Other High‑Impact Energy R&D Programs

If you build things that change how energy is made, moved, stored, or chemically transformed — and you want money to do the heavy lifting — ARPA‑E’s current suite of Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs) is one of the few places where big technical risk meets actual federal money. This is not a “small grant to buy coffee” portfolio. We’re talking about programs that seek radical improvements: magnets stronger than anything known (MAGNITO), quantum algorithms that outpace classical chemistry codes by 100x (QC3), order‑of‑magnitude improvements in ore characterization (ROCKS), high‑throughput catalytic discovery (CATALCHEM‑E), grid converter hardware (DC‑GRIDS), seaweed farming at industrial scale (HAEJO), super‑hot geothermal tools (SUPERHOT), bioenergy crop engineering (PERSEPHONE), and more.

Below you’ll find a practical, no‑fluff roadmap that pulls the many ARPA‑E NOFOs into a single, readable playbook. Read this if you want to know which opportunity fits your team, how to package an application reviewers can’t ignore, which documents you actually need ready right now, and how to avoid the mistakes teams make when they try to be clever instead of clear.

At a Glance: Key Programs and Deadlines

Note: ARPA‑E updates NOFO documents frequently. Always check the official FOA page for the most recent templates and deadlines.

What This Opportunity Offers

ARPA‑E funds high‑risk, high‑reward energy research that private industry is unlikely to finance because the technical and commercial paths are uncertain. The agency provides two main flavors of funding here: traditional Grants (for research teams in universities, labs, or non‑profit settings) and SBIR/STTR awards (aimed at small businesses). SCALEUP Ready is an exception — it focuses on bridging the gap between ARPA‑E‑funded bench demonstrations and commercial scale.

Beyond cash, winning teams gain three practical advantages. First, ARPA‑E expects audacious goals and offers flexible award structures tailored to the problem (single‑phase, short durations for SPARKS; larger, multi‑year programs for QC3 or CATALCHEM‑E). Second, you get access to a network of technical program officers and other funded teams — a resource more useful than it sounds because ARPA‑E program officers often know the specific technical and commercialization hurdles in intimate detail. Third, successful projects often attract industry follow‑on investment. ARPA‑E’s brand signals technical credibility; investors notice when a project crosses ARPA‑E milestones.

Different NOFOs aim at different stages: MAGNITO and QC3 push discovery and proof‑of‑concept at the frontier of materials and algorithms; ROCKS and DC‑GRIDS focus on hardware and field‑deployable sensing and power electronics; CATALCHEM‑E and the catalyst RFI are explicitly about compressing decades of manual experimentation into automated, AI‑driven loops. SCALEUP Ready is the pragmatic sibling: it supports projects that already have ARPA‑E pedigree and need money to grow to a pre‑pilot or pilot scale.

If you can meet the technical metrics (those program‑specific numbers in the NOFO — e.g., QC3’s 100x speed/accuracy/size improvement target), ARPA‑E will give you room to chase them.

Who Should Apply

ARPA‑E is not for incremental work. If your idea solves the same old problem a little better — don’t waste your time. But if you’re proposing a novel approach with quantifiable and audacious performance targets, read on.

• Academic teams: Apply to grants when you have deep technical expertise and preliminary data. For MAGNITO or PERSEPHONE, a strong materials or plant science lab plus engineers and a commercialization partner makes you competitive.
• Small businesses and startups: SBIR/STTR tracks exist for most programs. If you’re a small company with a prototype or a feasible commercialization plan, SBIR/STTR is the route. Use the SBIR/STTR templates and pay attention to VCOC/Vets requirements where applicable.
• Multidisciplinary consortia: Many calls explicitly expect teams spanning AI/ML, hardware (HTE or instrumentation), domain science, and commercialization experience. For CATALCHEM‑E or the Net Zero catalyst RFI, you’ll need chemists, automation hardware providers, and data scientists at a minimum.
• Industry partners and national labs: Industry can be partners or customers; SCALEUP Ready often expects engagement from investors or manufacturers who can take a scaled result forward.
• International collaborators: Many NOFOs allow foreign collaborators, but the lead and funding recipient must be US‑based. HAEJO explicitly encourages collaboration with Korean entities for cultivation expertise.

Real example: a startup that pairs a university lab’s automated synthesis rig with a small business that builds HTE hardware and an industrial catalysis partner to test prototypes at kilogram scale would fit CATALCHEM‑E well.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application

This is where most applicants fail: they write for perfection instead of persuasion. Here’s what actually works.

1. Start with the metric and work backwards. ARPA‑E programs are metric‑driven. State the metric in plain language at the top of your technical volume (e.g., “We will demonstrate a 100x reduction in wall‑clock time for reaction screening for feedstock X compared with SoA”). Then show the plan that gets you there.

2. Build a story from risk to mitigation. Reviewers are trained to spot unaddressed risk. Identify the three biggest technical risks, then attach a mitigation plan to each. For example: risk — “quantum circuits will not scale”; mitigation — “we will implement resource‑efficient encoding and validate with hardware estimates and 1–4 qubit tests on available machines.”

3. Make the reviewers’ job easy. Use clear figures, short captions, and a logical experiment roadmap. If your methods section reads like a shopping list, you lose credibility. Use a Gantt chart or timeline demonstrating milestones and go/no‑go decision points.

4. Show the team is complementary and realistic. Don’t list 15 PIs. Instead, list a core PI, a senior scientist, an industry integrator, and a commercialization lead. Spell out percent effort. For SCALEUP applications, include lettered commitments from facilities or manufacturers who will host scale tests.

5. Budget like a scientist, not a dreamer. ARPA‑E will fund practical prototypes and scale work, not speculative salaries. Align personnel, materials, and test costs with milestones. If you ask for $1M but budget only $5K for equipment that’s clearly required, reviewers will wonder what you don’t understand.

6. Use templates precisely. ARPA‑E provides technical volume templates, budget workbooks, and summary slide templates. Use them. The review process checks that you followed formatting and page limits. Don’t make them hunt for key info.

7. Respond to reviewer comments smartly. If you get a chance to reply, treat it as a focused conversation. Acknowledge weaknesses and add concrete fixes, not defensive blur. Use the provided “Replies to Reviewer Comments” template.

8. Plan for data management and reproducibility. For programs producing databases (e.g., CATALCHEM‑E), show your plan for data normalization, metadata and public release. ARPA‑E likes clear paths to industry adoption and open science when appropriate.

Collectively, these moves shift your application from “interesting idea” to “credible program.”

Application Timeline (Work Backwards from Full Deadline)

Treat official deadlines as immovable. Then add your institution’s internal deadlines.

• 12–16 weeks before deadline: choose program and confirm eligibility. Meet with sponsored research office and your PI team. Request budget templates from your grants office.
• 10–12 weeks: draft specific aims / project summary. Request letters of support early — industry or facility letters take time.
• 6–8 weeks: complete technical volume and figures. Run internal technical reviews with colleagues outside your domain.
• 4 weeks: finalize budget and institutional signoffs. Upload SF‑424, business assurances, and public summary drafts.
• 2 weeks: dry run submission into ARPA‑E eXCHANGE to check file formats. Get a final proofread focused on clarity.
• 48–72 hours before deadline: submit. Never wait to the last day.

For ongoing NOFOs (SCALEUP Ready), you still need a strict timeline. Rolling calls reward teams who treat “ongoing” like a timetable — submit when your data are polished and the commercialization path is clear.

Required Materials — What to Prepare Now

ARPA‑E typically wants a consistent set of documents. Prepare these early to avoid last‑minute panic.

• Technical Volume / Project Narrative: The meat of the application. Use the program template and address the program’s explicit technical metrics.
• Budget Justification & SF‑424 (and SF‑424A): Work with your SPO to ensure correct indirect rates and compliant line items.
• Summary Slides / Public Abstract: A concise, non‑proprietary one‑page summary and one slide that encapsulate the project goals and metrics.
• Biographical Sketches and Current & Pending Support: Focus on relevance to the proposed work.
• Letters of Support / Facilities Commitments: Specific, short letters that commit resources or test facilities. Vague praise is useless.
• Replies to Reviewer Comments template (if responding to reviewer period).
• Business Assurances & Disclosure forms; SBIR/STTR applicants: VCOC certification where needed.
• Data management plan or plan for dataset generation (for programs generating databases).
• For SCALEUP: project plan workbook and commercialization evidence (purchase orders, LOIs from manufacturers).

Tip: Create a “submission checklist” early and tick off each form. That sheet saves lives.

What Makes an Application Stand Out

Reviewers fund applications that are audacious yet plausible. Here’s how to craft that balance.

• Clear, quantitative targets. Don’t promise “better magnets.” Promise “a material with Bsat X T and energy product Y MJ/m^3," and explain how you’ll measure it.
• Demonstrated capability. If you’ve run pilot tests or proof‑of‑concept experiments, show the data. For QC3, even small hardware validation on existing quantum machines strengthens the claim.
• Integrated teams. A single institution with every listed skill looks suspicious. Cross‑organizational teams — a university lab, a manufacturing partner, and a small company — tell reviewers you thought about deployment.
• Milestones that gate progress. Include go/no‑go decisions tied to objective metrics.
• Societal and commercial pathways. Explain who would buy or license the technology and why. For SCALEUP, prove you have a customer or supply chain that could carry the technology forward.

Common Mistakes to Avoid (and How to Fix Them)

1. Vague metrics. Fix: state exact numbers, measurement methods, and acceptance thresholds.
2. Over‑ambitious scope. Fix: break work into achievable milestones and show contingency plans.
3. Weak letters of support. Fix: ask partners for specific commitments (equipment hours, testbed access, purchase orders).
4. Jargon heavy narrative. Fix: simplify; write so a competent scientist outside your subfield can summarize the project in two sentences.
5. Late budget signoff. Fix: start budgeting with your institution’s grants office early. Don’t guess indirect rates.
6. Poor figure quality. Fix: produce crisp, labeled images with short captions. Use diagrams for workflows and decision gates.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can I include international collaborators? A: Yes, but the award must go to a US institution. International partners can participate but usually cannot receive direct ARPA‑E funds. Explicitly state roles, IP arrangements, and any cost‑sharing.

Q: What if the NOFO documents update after I start my application? A: Always use the latest NOFO and template. ARPA‑E posts modifications; check dates on templates and update immediately if a new template is released.

Q: How much preliminary data do I need? A: Enough to show feasibility. ARPA‑E funds high risk, but the reviewers must believe you can execute. Even small pilots or validated simulations help.

Q: What are the evaluation criteria? A: Programs vary, but expect technical merit, feasibility, team capability, and pathway to impact (commercialization or national benefit). Some calls are explicitly metric‑driven — meet those metrics.

Q: Are SPARKS awards capped? A: Yes. SPARKS projects are single phase, ≤18 months, and ≤$500K total project cost. They exist to test truly new ideas quickly.

Q: Will ARPA‑E give reviewer comments? A: Yes, applications typically receive summary reviewer comments and may offer a reply period. Use this to strengthen resubmissions.

Q: Can I submit multiple proposals to different NOFOs? A: You can submit to multiple NOFOs, but check each NOFO’s rules about concurrent submissions and PI commitments.

How to Apply / Next Steps

Ready to act? Follow these concrete steps today:

1. Pick the NOFO that matches your technical aim. Reread the program’s explicit technical metrics.
2. Download the latest NOFO and all templates from the ARPA‑E eXCHANGE page (link below). Save the template timestamps.
3. Register your team in ARPA‑E eXCHANGE if you haven’t already. Registration can take a few days.
4. Schedule a meeting with your institutional grants office this week. Confirm indirect rates and internal approval timelines.
5. Draft a one‑page project summary and a one‑slide technical snapshot. Circulate to an honest colleague outside your field and revise for clarity.
6. Line up letters of support and facility commitments now. These take the longest.
7. Email program staff with technical questions; ARPA‑E posts FAQ responses weekly. Use [email protected] for portal questions and ARPA‑E‑[email protected] for NOFO questions.

Get Started

Ready to apply? Visit the official ARPA‑E NOFO portal and find the specific FOA documents and templates for each program listed above:

Apply now: https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/#FoaIda9f6c0f8-cc97-4b18-b98d-684f180efaea

For technical questions about submission on ARPA‑E eXCHANGE, contact: [email protected]
For NOFO or programmatic questions, contact: [email protected]

If you want, I can help you draft a tight one‑page aims document for one of these NOFOs — pick the program and give me your core idea, and I’ll turn it into a crisp technical snapshot reviewers will actually read.