Tips & Tricks for a successful HORIZON-CL3-2026-01-INFRA-02 proposal

Opening

06 May 2026

Deadline

05 November 2026

Keywords

INFRA

RIA

green transition

battery production

urban and peri-urban areas

Security challenge

green roofs

EV charger

EUCI/SEN

smart sensors

Your microfluidic SME partner for Horizon Europe

We take care of microfluidic engineering, work on valorization and optimize the proposal with you

HORIZON-CL3-2026-01-INFRA-02: Security challenges of the green transition in urban and peri-urban areas

Solar panels, EV chargers, battery production, green roofs, and smart sensors are being deployed in cities throughout Europe. All good for the climate. However, nobody has fully mapped new security hazards associated with such a concentration of connected, energy-dense technologies in the densely populated urban areas. The Commission is interested in a single RIA project exploring precisely that: what breaks, what can be attacked, what catches fire and how the operators and first responders ought to prepare.

Download the MIC Horizon Europe 2026/2027 Calls Calendar:

Discover more!

Administrative facts: what do we know about the HORIZON-HLTH-2026-01-DISEASE-03 call?

Which call is it, and when is the opening and the deadline?

Call name: Civil Security for Society 2026
Call identifier: HORIZON-CL3-2026-01
Destination: Resilient Infrastructure
Topic: HORIZON-CL3-2026-01-INFRA-02
Opening date: 06 May 2026
Deadline: 05 November 2026
Type of action: Research and Innovation Action (RIA)

What about the budget and estimated size of the project?

Overall topic budget: EUR 4.00 million
Number of projects expected to be funded: 1
Budget per project: around EUR 4.00 million

What are the key eligibility and evaluation conditions?

Standard Horizon Europe thresholds apply (General Annex D).
At least 3 relevant practitioners must be beneficiaries, from EU Member States or Associated Countries. Practitioners can be critical infrastructure operators, authorities responsible for infrastructure resilience, civil protection authorities, or safety/security first responders.
Target TRL at the end of the project: TRL 5.
Eligible costs take the form of a lump sum.
Security sensitive: some activities may involve classified background or produce EUCI/SEN results.
Transfer of ownership or exclusive licensing of results can be objected to by the granting authority up to 4 years after the action ends.
Copernicus and/or Galileo/EGNOS must be used if the project relies on satellite data.
Gender dimension: only if relevant to the research objectives.

Scientific range: what does the Commission expect from the HORIZON-CL3-2026-01-INFRA-02 grant?

What outcomes are expected?

The Commission hopes that by the conclusion of this project they will have a clear understanding of the new security threats that green technologies ultimately pose to the urban and peri-urban context. No theoretical overview. They desire instruments which the operators and first responders can practically employ in gauging, detecting and suppressing dangers associated with these technologies. The evaluation methods of safe deployment should be walked away by the authorities, and the research should be incorporated in the societal acceptance and awareness of the safety aspects of the green transition.

What is within scope?

Green and grid-interactive roofs and walls, solar power installations, EV charging stations, energy storage systems, smart sensors, surveillance systems, green transportation, nature-based construction materials, and infrastructure associated with them (physical and cyber risks).
Explosions and fires of batteries, toxic spills, electric shocks, structural collapse, toxic waste, information leaks, land disturbances, adverse environmental effects, social and local tensions.
Threats from malicious access, software manipulation, data tampering, and misuse of management systems that could lead to health harm, loss of life, environmental or economic damage (whether criminal, vandalism, hybrid attack or otherwise).
Resource dependencies and supply chains security of green technologies, in accordance with the principle of European strategic autonomy.
Recommendations tailored to diverse communities across socio-economic profiles, ages and genders.
In this case, generic resilience frameworks are not funded by the Commission. They would prefer that the analysis should be based on the details on the implementation of green tech in the actual situation in urban and peri-urban areas.

What are the specifically proposed research directions?

Detect and assess novel security threats posed by green technologies accreted in urban settings, such as interactions between legacy infrastructure.
Design instruments to quantify urban and peri-urban security environments that have changed as a result of the green transition.
Check on the countermeasures available against the safety and security threats of the green tech incidents.
Test effects of incidences of new and emerging technologies, such as environmental and climate risk
Offer operational guidelines, management suggestions and rescue plans to first responders and authorities.
Establish evidence-based safety and security policy to future-proof green technologies and encourage trust in people.

Scientific strategy: How can you enhance your chances of being funded through HORIZON-CL3-2026-01-INFRA-02?

Which scientific options are the most important?

Physical and cyber risks are covered. Don’t pick one. Both have been explicitly mentioned in the Commission text, and the one-track proposal is not going to score well with scope coverage.
Test your risk measurement with actual urban environment. Table top analysis will not do it at TRL 5. It should be demonstrated or proven in at least one representative environment.
Identify map dependencies between the old infrastructure and the new green technologies. Herein lie the interesting security issues, and as we have observed, it is also the place where proposals are likely to be thin.
Add a dimension of supply chain. The strategic autonomy dimension is not the window dressing. Cluster 3 evaluators are concerned with it.
Discuss acceptance of research, not dissemination work. The work programme requests the evidence-based policies that can be utilized by different communities.
Neglect not the malicious access situations. Vandalism, Hybrid attacks, Criminal misuse of linked green systems. It is a civil security call and the evaluators will wish to view the threat side and not only the accidental risk side.

Consortium & proposal-writing plan: what works best with this type of Security RIA?

A single project is going to be funded. It means that every point of your proposal is more important than in calls where two or three grants are expected. There is no room to relax with sloppy work packages.
There must be three practitioner beneficiaries. Consider urban civil protection organizations, infrastructure providers who operate district energy systems or EV charging systems, potentially a fire department with a history of battling battery fires. Early receipt of such letters of commitment is not a choice.
Probably between eight and twelve partners. Sufficient to encompass the physical risk expertise, cybersecurity expertise, the urban planning expertise, the first responder viewpoint and at least one or two sites to validate.
A novel SME, sensor technology, risk modelling tools, or cybersecurity solutions would help make the consortium stronger and send a message to the evaluators that the project can be exploited.
Bringing in a partner who has a working experience with battery storage incidences or EV charging grid vulnerability, would be a plus. These are the situations that will be featured in the headlines and that will be sought by reviewers.
The lump sum form implies that your budgetary breakdown must be airtight on submission. No renegotiation later. Be careful with planning your work packages and cost tables (this one surprises people during CL3 calls).

How would microfluidics contribute to this topic?

Traditional laboratory approach to risk analysis of the environment is slow, equipment intensive and difficult to be used in the field. Microfluidic platforms transform that equation. They take the analysis to the location where an incident occurs or where a risk must be evaluated immediately.

Suppose a battery storage unit spills in an area of residence. A microfluidic sensor can be used to identify and measure toxic substances in soil or water samples in situ, in minutes without transmitting any information to a laboratory. It is the type of speed required by first responders.
The presence of microfluidic gas sensors within urban networks maintains continuous, low-cost air quality monitoring in the area surrounding green infrastructure. Risk models receive real-time environmental data into your consortium.
Portable lab-on-chip can be used to screen water contamination by construction materials or toxic waste. You measure several polluters simultaneously, you have the same result twice, the gadget can fit into a backpack.
In the case of the cyber-physical risk mapping, the microfluidic platforms along with IoT connectivity will provide you with a distributed sensing layer that is directly connected to your digital twin or risk dashboard. The data resolution is higher than that provided by fixed-station monitoring.

Microfluidics is not going to substitute your whole set of analytical tools, but given a proposal that suggests field-proven risk assessment instruments at TRL 5, they are a viable, small, and plausible technology construction block. Your proposal receives an actual demonstration item, and the assessors observe an easy way out of research into operational service.

The MIC already brings its expertise in microfluidics to Horizon Europe:

H2020-NMBP-TR-IND-2020

Tumor-LN-oC

Microfluidic platform to study the interaction of cancer cells with lymphatic tissue

H2020-LC-GD-2020-3

LIFESAVER

Toxicology assessment of pharmaceutical products on a placenta-on-chip model

H2020-LC-GD-2020-3

ALTERNATIVE

Environmenal analysis using a heart-on-chip tissue model

FAQ - HORIZON-CL3-2026-01-INFRA-02

What is it that HORIZON-CL3-2026-01-INFRA-02 requests?

The issue is aimed at the security risks that arise when the cities and their immediate environment implement green-transition technologies. Consider hydrogen refuelling stations within high-density neighbourhoods, colossal battery storage in the vicinity of residential structures, the emergence of district heating, or even EV charging centres in underground parking lots. The Commission seeks ideas that would diagnose these new vulnerabilities, come up with tools to track the change in the urban environment, investigate when they occur, and enhance societal acceptance and physical resilience. This is no energy subject, the lens is civil security.

What kind of action does it take in terms of funding and how much money is at stake?

INFRA-02 is a Research and Innovation Action (RIA). That is 100% funding rate to all forms of organisations including, private companies. The overall budget allocated to this subject is EUR 4 million and one project is likely to be financed. With only one grant available, the proposal needs to be exceptionally well targeted. The call is open since 6 May 2026, and the deadline to submit is 5 November 2026.

What type of consortium does the Commission envision?

Security practitioners are the constantly present beneficiaries of the INFRA topics in Cluster 3. According to the trend in all three 2026 INFRA topics, there will be a mandatory minimum of 2 to 3 practitioner organisations in at least 3 EU Member States or Associated Countries. In this regard, the practitioners usually encompass critical infrastructure operators, local authorities dealing with the resilience of cities, civil protection agencies, or national entities that manage critical entities under the CER Directive.

In addition to practitioners, the most robust consortia will include urban security researchers, risk assessment experts, engineers knowledgeable on green-transition technologies (hydrogen, batteries, solar, heat pumps), social scientists capable of working with the issue of public acceptance, and at least one innovative SME with a near-market tool.

What are the main anticipated outcomes that the evaluators are going to examine?

The call leads to four result areas, based on the MIC topic summary, and Destination introduction. To start with, a strict definition and categorization of security risks unique to a green-transition infrastructure within urban and peri-urban environments. Second, operational devices to quantify, monitor and visualize urban environments changing with the implementation of new technologies. Third, better incident investigation and forensic capabilities following a security incident involving green-transition assets. Fourth, evidence and approaches that contribute to the creation of societal acceptance and community resilience of these new technologies.

A proposal which addresses one or two of these pillars will not score high. A plausible work plan to handle the four.

Which green-transition technologies should proposals focus on?

The topic text is purposely general. It does not restrict proposals to a single technology. The most convincing proposals will however select those scenarios that have true security implications on dense populated areas. Hydrogen generation, storage and distribution is the best candidate due to the explosion and leakage possibilities in the restricted urban areas. BESS systems are large-scale battery energy storage systems that are associated with thermal runaway and toxic gases. New cascading failure paths can occur due to district heating or cooling networks. Photovoltaics installed on rooftops and facades pose electrical fire hazards in inaccessible areas. The only trick is to prove your decision by the actual data of urban exposure instead of making the choice of the technology random.

What are the implications of this subject on the CER Directive and the EU policy framework overall?

The Resilient Infrastructure destination directly facilitates the use of the ProtectEU European Internal Security Strategy and European Preparedness Union Strategy. The proposals must show that they are aware of the Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive that requires Member States to identify critical entities and make them resilient. The green transition introduces new types of assets that might be subject to CER obligations, and your suggestion can position itself as the source of the knowledge base and tools that national authorities require to meet those obligations. Coherence of policies is mentioning alignment with the European Green Deal, the Fit for 55 package, and the REPowerEU plan.

Does it have a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) target?

The anticipated TRL outcome can be estimated as 2 to 6 as an RIA. You are not supposed to present market-ready stuff, but you are supposed to do more than desk researches. The functional prototypes that have been tested in simulated or other relevant environment will score high. Proposal that remains purely at the conceptual plane, without any validation or demonstration activity, will be feeble when evaluated by the Implementation criterion.

Are proposals to have demonstrations or pilot activities?

Yes. Throughout the 2026 INFRA topics, the Work Programme requests consortia on multiple occasions to discuss how they will plan or execute demonstrations, testing, or validation of developed tools and solutions. In the case of INFRA-02, it would be to apply your risk identification process or your monitoring system or incident analysis framework, to a theatrical or a realistically simulated urban situation. The presence of at least two pilot cities or urban test areas in various Member States would enhance the scientific validity as well as the geographical representativeness of your findings.

What is the mid-term practitioner assessment, and why?

The 2026 Work Programme of Cluster 3 presents a recurring demand: the proposals are to project a mid-term deliverable where the practitioners working on the project will evaluate the interim project outcomes. This is not a sham. It is an indicator of the Commission desire to identify the misfit between the results of the research and the need of operations early. Make it a separate milestone in your Gantt chart with written practitioner feedback report. Feedback that loop, use to modify later work packages. Evaluators will verify that this mechanism is not a token mention, but a real embedded mechanism.

What about the acceptance of the proposal in society and the human aspect?

INFRA-02 clearly states that societal acceptance is one of the anticipated results. This implies that the integration of social sciences and humanities (SSH) is not a choice. Consider the risk work on how people perceive the risks associated with green transition, community involvement approaches, the strategies of communicating risks, and the governance frameworks that enable the urban residents to trust the new infrastructures. The introduction of the Work Programme indicates that both the technology and the societal aspects should be dealt with in a balanced manner in the proposals. Only a technical proposal will miss points.

what is the microfluidics angle, is it within this topic?

It has a niche yet believable role. Microfluidic chips could be stationed on-site to provide quick measurement of leaks, chemical or dangerous emissions caused by accidents at the green-transition plants. Consider a hydrogen leak incident in the area of a battery storage site: a portable, microfluidic sensor, which measures the concentration and contamination of gases in minutes, is connected to the incident examination and risk mapping goals of this call. The technology is also used to monitor longitudinal urban environment, which provides data to the outcome of the tools to measure urban changes. Position microfluidics is an enabling element of a larger toolkit and not the main story of the proposal.

What are some of the pitfalls to avoid by the applicants?

The largest risk is to write the energy research proposal rather than civil security proposal. The evaluators are security experts and the Destination is Resilient Infrastructure not Clean Energy. Reframe each work package with the security perspective: what is the threat, what is vulnerability, what is consequence, what is mitigation. The second error is the decorative approach towards the urban dimension. Determine which cities, which neighbourhoods, which population densities, which regulatory contexts. Third, underestimate the single-project rivalry: there is only one grant at hand, and each paragraph should deserve it. Fourth, generalized sentences on the topic of stakeholder engagement that do not mention actual practitioner partners and their specific position will not fly. Fifth, keep in mind that a lump-sum funding can be (check in the final call documentation); in this case your budget table should be realistic and internally consistent initially as there is no ability to report costs later.