DOE Energy Frontier Research Centers

DOE Energy Frontier Research Centers

Please see the full solicitation for complete information about the funding opportunity. Below is a summary assembled by the Research & Innovation Office (RIO).

Strategic Proposal

RIO has designated this funding opportunity as a Strategic Proposal, based on its potential for significant institutional impact. RIO’s research development team (RIO-RD) partners with PIs to provide enhanced support, coordination, and/or resources for strategic proposal efforts.

PIs selected for this limited submission opportunity will be contacted by RIO-RD to develop a proposal management plan that includes a timeline, team assignments, review(s) schedule, and submission process, and to organize a proposal kickoff meeting with all participants.

For questions regarding Strategic Proposals, please contact Mike Mitchell.

Program Summary

The DOE SC program in Basic Energy Sciences (BES) announces a re-competition of the Energy Frontier Research Center (EFRC) program. The purpose of this program is to bring together world-class teams of scientists from universities, DOE national laboratories, and other institutions to perform energy-relevant basic research with a scope and complexity beyond what is possible in single-investigator or small-group awards. These multi-investigator, multi-disciplinary centers accelerate transformative scientific advances for the most challenging topics in materials sciences, chemical sciences, geosciences, and biosciences. EFRCs integrate experiments, theory, computation, and AI/ML; develop innovative experimental and theoretical tools that illuminate fundamental processes in unprecedented detail; and create an enthusiastic, interdisciplinary, workforce of energy-focused scientists.

BES is soliciting applications in two general categories: BES Report Topics and Special Topics. Applications may respond to topics in both categories. Topic areas are open to both new and renewal applications, unless noted below.

BES Reports Topics

In the BES Reports Topics, applicants must address priority research directions and opportunities identified in one or more of the following reports:

• Foundational Science to Accelerate Nuclear Energy Innovation – New and renewal applications may respond to all priority research opportunities.
• Controlling Subsurface Fractures and Fluid Flow: A Basic Research Agenda – New and renewal applications may respond to all priority research directions. Subsurface topics related to critical minerals and materials, hydrocarbons, and/or enhanced geothermal are emphasized.
• Basic Research Needs for Next Generation Electrical Energy Storage – Renewal applications may respond to all priority research directions. New applications may respond only to PRD 2: Link complex electronic, electrochemical, and physical phenomena across time and space and/or PRD 3: Control and exploit the complex interphase region formed at dynamic interfaces.
• Basic Research Needs for Transformative Manufacturing – New and renewal applications may respond only to PRD 1: Achieve precise, scalable synthesis and processing of atomic-scale building blocks for components and systems, and/or PRD 5: Co-design materials, processes, and products to revolutionize manufacturing.
• Basic Research Needs for Microelectronics – New and renewal applications may respond to all priority research directions.
• BES Roundtable on Opportunities for Quantum Computing in Chemical and Materials Sciences – New and renewal applications may respond to all priority research opportunities. Applications that do not provide a clear path to overcome scaling and noise limitations of quantum hardware are unresponsive.
• BES Roundtable on Opportunities for Basic Research for Next-Generation Quantum Systems – New and renewal applications may respond only to PRO 2: Enhance creation and control of coherence in quantum systems and/or PRO 3: Discover novel approaches for quantum-to-quantum transduction. Proposals whose primary aim is the discovery, synthesis, or characterization of new quantum materials, without a direct and measurable transformative impact for quantum information science, are unresponsive.

Special Topics

In the Special Topics, applicants must address one or more of the following topics:

• Controlling Quantum Phenomena to Enable Unconventional Computing Paradigms
• Development and Workflow Integration of AI/ML Models for Materials and Chemistry Discovery Science
• Emergent Phenomena of Complex Chemical Systems
• Fundamental Science for Critical Minerals and Materials (CMM)

See the full solicitation for complete details.

Deadlines

• CU Internal Deadline: 11:59pm MT March 11, 2026
• DOE Pre-Application Deadline: 3pm MT April 1, 2026
• DOE Application Deadline: 9:59pm MT July 1, 2026

Internal Application Requirements (all in PDF format)

• Project Narrative (3 pages maximum) including: 1) Project Objectives: provide a clear, concise statement of the scientific mission of the proposed EFRC and four-year research goals to support the mission; 2) Background/Introduction: explain the importance of the proposed research described in the application and its potential scientific impact; 3) Proposed Research and Methods: provide detailed information about the proposed scientific research for the EFRC and the methods to be employed; 4) EFRC Management Plan: provide a clear, substantive overview of the management and organization of the proposed EFRC; 5) Team Distinction: An explanation of how the proposed team, capabilities, and/or approach distinguishes the proposed EFRC from the rest of the community; and 6) Scientific Impact: An assessment of the potential scientific impact of the proposed research and the need for an integrated, multi-disciplinary research team.
• Lead PI/EFRC Director Curriculum Vitae
• List of Partner Organizations
• Budget Overview (1 page maximum): A basic budget outlining project costs is sufficient; detailed OCG budgets are not required.

To access the online application, visit: https://cuboulderovcr.secure-platform.com/a/solicitations/7155/home

Eligibility

Applications for multi-institutional teams must ensure that the lead institution requests more funding from DOE than any other team member for the life of the award. The lead PI of a multi- institutional team must be an employee of the lead institution. Requests to change the institution receiving the greatest funding after an application is submitted will result in the application being declined unless the request is the result of the lead PI’s death, incapacitation, or relocation.

An individual may not be named as the PI (EFRC Director) on more than one pre-application or application. Directors of existing EFRC awards that do not have project end dates in 2026 cannot be named as the EFRC Director on any pre-application or application.

EFRC Directors must be in a permanent or indefinitely extensible position at the applicant institution, whether tenured or a staff appointment. Individuals in term-limited appointments, whether as adjunct, visiting faculty, fellows, or similar appointments, are not eligible to be proposed as an EFRC Director. EFRC Directors on university led applications must be in a tenured position. Individuals in part-time permanent positions are eligible to be proposed as an EFRC Director.

Individuals receiving more than half of their salary and benefits from a DOE/NNSA National Laboratory may not be named as the EFRC Director in an application submitted by an applicant other than a DOE/NNSA National Laboratory, regardless of any arrangement between the employing Laboratory and the applicant institution.

Limited Submission Guidelines

Applicant institutions are limited to no more than three pre-applications or applications as the lead institution.There is no limitation to the number of applications on which an institution appears as a subrecipient.

Award Information

• Award Amount: $3,000,000 to $4,500,000 per year
• Award Duration: Approximately 4 years

Review Criteria

The internal evaluation process will follow DOE’s criteria below.

1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project

• What is the scientific innovation of the proposed research?
• What is the likelihood of achieving valuable results?
• How might the results of the proposed work impact the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific fields of research?
• How balanced and comprehensive is the basic research plan presented in the application and to what extent does it support experimental, theoretical, computational, and AI/ML efforts?
• How does the proposed work compare with other efforts in its field, both in terms of scientific and/or technical merit and originality?
• For renewal applications only: To what extent has the scientific progress made by the EFRC since the beginning of the last project period in 2022 been commensurate with the level of support? Consider, for example, if and how the scientific results achieved by the center have significantly impacted the field in which the center is operating. How does the proposed work build upon the body of research performed in the prior award period to move the project in potentially impactful research directions?

2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach

• How logical and feasible are the research approaches?
• How does the proposed research employ innovative concepts or methods?
• How well justified and adequately developed are the conceptual framework, methods, and analyses, and how likely are they to lead to scientifically valid conclusions?
• How well does the applicant recognize significant potential problems and how appropriate are the alternative strategies to address these potential problems?
• What new facilities, capabilities, or approaches have the applicants proposed to develop in order to achieve the stated scientific goals? Comment on the distinctiveness of these advances and the impact that they are likely to have on the EFRC and its field of research.
• How well does the application justify the need for a well-integrated, collaborative EFRC? Consider, for example, whether the stated goals could be achieved by similar researchers working independently, or whether the research challenges to be addressed are those that are likely to be overcome most efficiently by a centrally-managed, well-integrated team.

3. Competency of Applicant’s Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources

• For renewal applications, what is the past performance and potential of the research team?
• How well qualified is the research team to carry out the proposed research?
• Are the research environment and facilities adequate for performing the research?
• How effectively does the proposed work take advantage of unique facilities and capabilities?

4. Strength of the EFRC Management Plan

• How effectively has the applicant presented a comprehensive management plan that includes a strong lead organization, a leadership structure with clear roles and responsibilities, and an empowered EFRC Director?
• How well does the organizational structure align with the proposed research efforts?
• How effective is the plan for information and data sharing within the EFRC?
• How effective is the plan for engagement of early career scientists including but not limited to recruiting, retaining, and mentoring?
• How well does the management plan address the evolution of the EFRC over time in such areas as research evaluation, adding or modifying research partners and projects, succession planning, sunsetting unproductive or completed research, and the handling of research misconduct.

5. Appropriateness of the Data Management and Sharing Plan

• To what extent does the Data Management and Sharing Plan (DMSP) enable data generated during the research project to be publicly shared and preserved in a timely and fair manner that enables validation and replication of results?
• How well do the selected digital repositories enable appropriate sharing of scientific data?
• Does the DMSP adequately justify any limitations of data sharing?
• Are there any weaknesses in the DMSP that should be addressed prior to the start of the project?

6. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget

• Are the proposed budget and staffing levels adequate to carry out the proposed research?
• Is the budget reasonable and appropriate for the scope?
• Does the budget (or allocation of time) provide for adequate commitment by senior contributors?
• To what extent, if any, do components of the project rely upon efforts by unpaid contributors, and what implications does this reliance have for project sustainability or risk?