Zero emissions technologies for industrial process heating

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

The National Research Council (NRC) and the Natural Resource Canada (NRCan) aim to identify and promote cost-effective approaches for net-zero industrial processes that could include renewable energy integration, energy efficiency, electrification or other technologies that replace process heating requirements.

Challenge sponsor:
NRC and NRCan

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
July 18, 2024

Closing date:
September 5, 2024, 14:00 Eastern Time

Here are a few things you need to know before you get started on your application to this challenge:

This challenge is open to receive proposals in both Challenge Stream entries, Phase 1 (Proof of Feasibility) and Phase 2 (Prototype Development):
- If the solution proposed for this challenge is between 1 and 4 on the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Scale, please submit a Phase 1 proposal.
- If the solution proposed for this challenge is between 5 and 9 on the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Scale, please submit a Phase 2 proposal.
- Please note that applicants (offerors) can only apply to one Challenge Stream entry point. Proposals will only be considered for the phase selected.
We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters
Read through the official Grant Instructions and Procedures document

Challenge

Problem statement

Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industrial processes is critical to address climate change and promote sustainable development. Industrial process heating plays a significant role in global GHG emissions, accounting for approximately 10% of total emissions. This is mainly attributed to heating applications that rely on hydrocarbon fuel combustion for steam generation or direct heating. Various industries, such as food, iron & steel, chemicals, and pulp & paper, rely heavily on industrial heating. Current low-carbon alternatives are typically more expensive and less well-developed than fossil heating technologies. To accelerate the transition towards a zero emissions economy, there is a critical need for technological advancements that offer cost-effective alternatives to conventional fossil fuel-based heating technologies. These advancements would help reduce full lifecycle GHG emissions associated with industrial heating, including embodied carbon, while maintaining the efficiency and productivity of diverse industrial sectors. However, it is important to note that this challenge excludes hydrogen and biomass combustion heating technologies to avoid duplication with existing programs.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

Replace or reduce emissions by at least 50% or a minimum of 1,000 tonnes CO2/yr from current fossil-fuel based industrial process heating technologies
Cost-effectively address industrial-scale (exceeding 1 MWt) process heating requirements (excluding space heating) using technologies, products or process modifications that can
1. replace or reduce fossil-based industrial heat production,
2. recover industrial process heat to reduce overall heat requirements, or
3. replace or reduce the need for industrial heat by using alternative non-thermal technologies
Adopt low-carbon or net-zero emissions technology
Not involve alternative combustion technologies (i.e. biomass, hydrogen)

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

Be widely applicable in multiple industries or processes
Provide an environmentally safe solution that has no or the least possible impact on the environment
Meet (or will be able to meet) safety and certification requirements
Be applicable in a Canadian context (various associated seasons and harsh environmental conditions)
Demonstrate a low life-cycle carbon footprint

Background and context

The primary source of industrial heating is fossil fuel combustion either for direct heating or steam generation. There are several early-stage technology options that are being developed to replace current hydrocarbon combustion systems including industrial-scale heat pumps, heat recovery, electric heat, solar thermal, and thermal energy storage, as well as technologies that reduce or eliminate the need for industrial heating including reverse osmosis or forward osmosis to concentrate liquid products.

This challenge supports Goal 13 of the government's commitment to Sustainable Development Strategy as well as Canada's 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goal under the Paris Agreement to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Low-carbon industrial heating is a global issue and there are global opportunities for new technologies that meet this challenge. Other countries are also investing in these technologies. For example, the US Department of Energy launched the Energy Earthshot to cut industrial heating emissions by 85 Percent.

Maximum grant value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 1:

The maximum funding available for any Phase 1 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $200,000.00 CAD
The maximum duration for any Phase 1 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 6 months
Estimated number of Phase 1 grants: 3

Phase 2:

The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $1,500,000.00 CAD
The maximum duration for any Phase 2 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 24 months
Estimated number of Phase 2 grants: 1

Note: Selected companies are eligible to receive one grant per phase per challenge.

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of Phase 1 and Phase 2 awards will be made by Canada on the basis of factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities and availability of funds. Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Travel

No travel is anticipated.

Kick-off meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Progress review meeting(s)

Any progress review meetings will be conducted by telephone or videoconference.

Final review meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Eligibility

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

for profit
incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employees^{Footnote **}
research and development activities that take place in Canada
50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in Canada^{Footnote **}
50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of work^{Footnote **}
50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residence^{Footnote **}

Evaluation criteria

Phase 1

The Applicant (offeror) must complete the Challenge Stream Submission Form with a degree of information sufficient to enable Canada's assessment of the proposal against the criteria and the Evaluation Schema. The information must demonstrate how the proposal meets the criterion. The Applicant (offeror) may not add information to their submission at a later time.

Part 1: Phase 1 - Mandatory Criteria

Proposals must meet all Mandatory Criteria identified by achieving a "Pass" in order to proceed to Part 2. Proposals that do not meet all Mandatory Criteria will be deemed non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Scope

Describe the proposed innovation and demonstrate how it responds to the challenge. Include in your description the scientific and technological basis upon which the solution is proposed and clearly demonstrate how the solution meets all of the Essential Outcomes in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.

Question 1 a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass

The proposed innovation is within the scope for the challenge, and clearly addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the Challenge.

Fail

The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.

The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the challenge.

The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.

There is little to no scientific and/or technological evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet all Essential Outcomes.

Question 2: Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.

This section should include:

A description of the method of research
The solution objectives and an analysis of the results proving the feasibility of the solution
Data proving the solution's feasibility
Evidence to demonstrate the highest level of validation conducted (e.g. activities such as paper studies, analytic studies, components that are not yet integrated or representative, integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory, laboratory testing, simulated environment, field testing, debugging, etc.)
The type of environment(s) in which this was done and by whom, including title

Question 2: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRL 1 to 4 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.

Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 4 (inclusive) including:

There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment.
The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
The solution is demonstrated at TRL 5 or higher.
Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level.

Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

An invention^{Footnote *}, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.

Question 3a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.

Fail:

The proposed solution does not meet any of the ISC definitions of innovation
or
The proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).

Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

Describe in detail the competitive advantages and level of advancement over existing technologies. Where appropriate, name existing technologies as well as potential substitutes or competitors.

To demonstrate this, the proposal must include the following information:

Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.

Question 3b: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)

0 points/Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; or
The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.

5 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

12 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

20 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces; or
The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces.

Part 2: Phase 1 - Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 65 of 130 possible total points (50%) to be deemed responsive. Proposals that do not achieve the minimum pass mark will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

Demonstrate the scientific and technological basis of how the proposed solution addresses the Additional Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice. If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, text entered in this section will not be considered.

If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Applicants (offerors) will receive 10 points.

Question 1b: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points

Question 4: Phase 1 Science and Technology (S&T) Risks

Identify potential scientific and/or technological risks to the development of the proof of feasibility and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Question 4: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 5: Phase 1 Project Risks

Identify potential project risks to the development of the proof of feasibility and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Applicants (offerors) should address the following risks:

Human Resources
Financial
Project Management
Intellectual Property
Supply chain issues

Note: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.

Question 5: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 6: Phase 1 Project Plan

Demonstrate a Proof of feasibility Phase 1 project plan by completing the table in the Proposal Submission Form.

Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently
Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 1. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)

Question 6: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
Information is feasible for the Phase 1 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
Information provided demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 20 points

Question 7: Phase 1 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how the project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 1 by completing the table. A member of the implementation team can have more than one role.

Question 7: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan.10 points
Information provided demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 20 points

Question 8: Inclusivity

A key objective of the Innovative Solutions Canada program is to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the research and development of the proposed solution.

Applicants (offerors) should describe the policies, strategies, and/or procedures (e.g. recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, or other initiatives) that they currently have in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1 including an overview of the group(s); and which specific under-represented groups (women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ community, etc.).

Note: Do not provide any personal information of individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response.

Question 8: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that are in place or would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 10 points
If the Applicant (offeror) is registered on the Indigenous Business Directory, Modern Treaty or Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (CLCA) business list/directory, please provide this information as part of this criterion. A registered Indigenous Businesses will receive the maximum score for Question 8: Inclusivity. 20 points

Question 9: Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the funds throughout Phase 1. Applicants (offerors) should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

A good financial control in R&D refers to effective management and oversight of financial resources allocated to R&D activities, with the goal of maximising the return on investment and ensuring funds are used efficiently and effectively.

For example, this section could include (but not limited to):

Establishing clear budgets and financial plan
Regular monitoring
Developing systems for tracking and recording costs (salaries, equipment and supplies, overhead expenses, etc.)
Providing accurate and timely financial reports (including actual and projected costs) to stakeholders such as management, funders or researchers
Ensuring compliance with relevant financial regulations, policies and procedures

Question 9: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 1. 0 points
Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant (offeror) has some financial controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the funds in Phase 1. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage funds in Phase 1. 10 points

Question 10: Phase 2 Overview

Demonstrate an overview for the prototype development plan if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Responses should include:

key tasks
estimated cost for materials
human resources
project risks and mitigation strategies

Note: A more detailed project plan may be requested if selected for consideration to participate in Phase 2.

Question 10: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has contemplated an overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates an overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however it is vague and/or contains gaps. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has a defined overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 10 points

Phase 2

Part 1: Phase 2 - Mandatory Criteria

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Phase 2 Scope

Question 1 a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass

The proposed solution is within the scope for the challenge, and clearly addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the Challenge.

Fail

The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.

The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the challenge.

The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.

There is little to no scientific and/or technological evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet all Essential Outcomes.

Question 2: Proof of Feasibility and Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to prove the solution's feasibility and bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.
This section must include :
- A description of the method of research;
- The solution objectives and an analysis of the results proving the feasibility of the solution;
- Data proving the solution's feasibility;
- Evidence to demonstrate the highest level of validation conducted (e.g., activities such as paper studies, analytic studies, components that are not yet integrated or representative, integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory, laboratory test, simulated environment, field testing, debugging, etc.);
- The type of environment(s) in which this was done and by whom, including title.

Question 2: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRL 5 to 9 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL, proving the solution's feasibility.

and

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated the research and development activities that have taken place to prove the solution's feasibility and bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.

Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 5 to 9 (inclusive) including one or more of the following:

There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment and/or to prove the solution's feasibility.
The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
The solution is demonstrated at TRL 4 or lower.
The solution is demonstrated at higher than TRL 9.
Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level and only provides a vague description and overview of the R&D completed.

Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

An invention^{Footnote *}, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.

Question 3a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.

Fail:

The proposed solution does not meet any of the ISC definitions of innovation

or
The proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).

Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

Describe in detail the competitive advantages and level of advancement over existing technologies. Where appropriate, name existing technologies as well as potential substitutes or competitors.

To demonstrate this, the proposal must include the following information:

Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.

Question 3b: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)

0 points/Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; or
The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.

5 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

12 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches

or
The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

20 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces

or
The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces.

Part 2: Phase 2 - Point-Rated Criteria

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Applicants (offerors) will receive 10 points.

Question 1b: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points

Question 4: Phase 2 Science and Technology Risks

Identify potential scientific and/or technological risks to the prototype development and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 2.

Question 4: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 5: Phase 2 Project Risks

Identify potential project risks to the prototype development and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 2.

Applicants (offerors) should address the following risks:

Human Resources
Financial
Project Management
Intellectual Property
Material availability
Supply chain issues

Note to Applicants: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.

Question 5: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicants (offerors) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicants (offerors) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 6: Phase 2 Project Plan

Demonstrate a feasible Phase 2 project plan by completing the table in the Proposal Submission Form.

Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently;
Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 2. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)

Question 6: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 2 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
Information is feasible for the Phase 2 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
information provided demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 2. 20 points

Question 7: Phase 2 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how your project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 2 by completing the table provided.

Question 7: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 0 points
Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 10 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 20 points

Question 8: Inclusivity

A key objective of the Innovative Solutions Canada program is to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the research and development of the proposed solution.

Applicants (offerors) should describe the policies, strategies, and/or procedures (e.g. recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, or other initiatives) that they currently have in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 2 including an overview of the group(s); and which specific under-represented groups (women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ community, etc.).

Note: Do not provide any personal information of senior officials, individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response below.

Question 8: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 10 points
If the Applicant (offeror) is registered on the Indigenous Business Directory, Modern Treaty or Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (CLCA) business list/directory, please provide this information as part of this criterion as registered Indigenous Businesses will receive the maximum score for Question 8: Inclusivity.20 points

Question 9: Phase 2 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the funds throughout Phase 2. Applicants (offerors) should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

For example, this section could include (but not limited to):

Establishing clear budgets and financial plan
Regular monitoring
Developing systems for tracking and recording costs (salaries, equipment and supplies, overhead expenses, etc.)
Providing accurate and timely financial reports (including actual and projected costs) to stakeholders such as management, funders or researchers
Ensuring compliance with relevant financial regulations, policies and procedures

Question 9: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 2. 0 points
Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant (offeror) has some financial controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the funds in Phase 2. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage funds in Phase 2. 10 points

Question 10: Commercialization Strategy

Explain your plan to commercialize the solution after Phase 2 into the commercial marketplace and/or ISC's Pathway to commercialization.

Applicants (offerors) should address the following:

Any previous experience and record in commercialization (e.g., sales; marketing; IP protection; demographic/target market analysis; manufacturing; technology commercialization);
Additional funding commitments from private and/or non-ISC funding sources;
Previous investments secured outside of the ISC program.

Note: Information on the Innovative Solutions Canada Pathway to commercialization process can be found on the program's website.

Question 10: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has planned a realistic strategy for commercialization. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic strategy for commercialization, however there are gaps and/or elements of the strategy is vague. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has a clear, comprehensive and realistic strategy. 10 points

Questions and answers

Would this "process heating" that is used in refrigeration fit within the target energy process improvement that you are targeting?

The challenge is focused on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions rather than a reduction in energy usage. Defrosting of Industrial-scale refrigeration systems could fit within the parameters of this challenge but the applicants would need to provide clear evidence that the technology meets Essential Outcome #1 to replace or reduce emissions by at least 50% or a minimum of 1,000 tonnes CO₂/yr from current fossil-fuel based industrial process heating technologies.
Would Pyrolysis technologies meet the eligibility criteria for this challenge?

Pyrolysis technologies to produce heat would not be eligible for the challenge as they would be considered alternative combustion technologies. If the technology uses a non-combustion heating technology to replace the combustion of natural gas to preheat the biological material then the technology could fit within the parameters of the challenge. The bidder would need to provide clear evidence that the technology meets Essential Outcome #1 to replace or reduce emissions by at least 50% or a minimum of 1,000 tonnes CO₂/yr from current fossil-fuel based industrial process heating technologies.
We'd like to know the real definition of "space heating".

If the proposed technology heats the air for ventilation or space heating purposes then it does not fit within the parameters of the challenge as it does not directly produce industrial process heat. To meet the parameters of the challenge the bidder should clearly indicate how the technology reduces emissions from an industrial process. For reference, the definition of space heating is "heating of spaces especially for human comfort by any means (such as fuel, electricity, or solar radiation) with the heater either within the space or external to it" (Meriam-Webster).
Can you tell me what 'diverse industrial sectors' are applicable to this funding challenge?

All industrial sectors could be considered, i.e. chemical, cement, food, steel, mining, etc.

The technology needs to be applicable for industrial scale and useful in industrial facilities, such as cement plants, steelmaking process, food processing units, etc. The bidder would need to provide clear evidence that the technology meets Essential Outcome #1 to replace or reduce emissions by at least 50% or a minimum of 1,000 tonnes CO₂/yr from current fossil-fuel based industrial process heating technologies.
What do you mean by "Industrial Processes". Do you mean heating iron to make steel? Manufacturing plant ( ie: cellphones and cars), mining or meat packing plant?

The term industrial processes refers to procedures involving chemical, physical, electrical, or mechanical steps to aid in the manufacturing of an item or items, including the processes of heating to make iron or steel and manufacturing processes as described in the question.
If I mention all of the application this technology is intended I would realistically need to do a marketing plan for each type of application. The technology is not at this point just yet. I would like to give you specifics on how the technology will fit a specific need. How can I do this for your program application?

The application should only be one proposed solution per challenge which can apply to various industries. The application should provide details on how the technology fits with the specific Essential Outcomes including Essential Outcome #1 to replace or reduce emissions by at least 50% or a minimum of 1,000 tonnes CO₂/yr from current fossil-fuel based industrial process heating technologies.
We would like to apply for key technologies for gas monitoring in carbon emissions. Is it suitable for the application content requirements of Zero Emissions Technologies for Industrial Process Heating?

It is not clear how gas monitoring for carbon emissions could fit within the parameters of this challenge. The bidder would need to provide clear evidence that the technology meets Essential Outcome #1 to replace or reduce emissions by at least 50% or a minimum of 1,000 tonnes CO₂/yr from current fossil-fuel based industrial process heating technologies.
Inquiry pertaining to Phase 2

Phase 2 of the ISC Challenge allows firms to receive funding to "build and test a prototype" so the Bidder would need to show how the application meets the intent of Phase 2. For example, the project for "Testing/Introducing an efficient electric induction furnace" could be a good fit for the challenge if the firm is developing a new induction furnace. If the firm is simply installing an induction furnace that they have purchased then it does not fit within the intent of the challenge. However, please note that for a Phase 2 proposal, the firm would need to provide clear evidence that the technology is already at a minimum of TRL 5.
Inquiry pertaining to Question 10 of the Evaluation Criteria

This question requests that the Bidder provide a Commercialization Strategy that will "Explain your plan to commercialize the solution after Phase 2 into the commercial marketplace and/or ISC's Pathway to commercialization." If the intent is for the Bidder to use the innovation solely within their own operations then it does not fit the expectations under the Evaluation Criteria

For more information, questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@ised-isde.gc.ca.

All enquiries must be submitted in writing no later than ten calendar days before the Challenge Notice closing date. Enquiries received after that time may not be answered.

A glossary is also available.