Tips & Tricks for a successful HORIZON-CL5-2027-03-D5-04 proposal
Opening
15 December 2026
Deadline
Keywords
Cluster 5
fleet demonstration
zero emission bus
shared charging
2ZERO Partnership
road transport
long distance mobility
intercity bus
climate neutrality
Your microfluidic SME partner for Horizon Europe
We take care of microfluidic engineering, work on valorization and optimize the proposal with you
HORIZON-CL5-2027-03-D5-04: Demonstration of zero emission coaches and buses in long distance operations (2ZERO Partnership)
Can smarter charging compensate for an inflexible coach timetable?
Reliable service needs enough charging time built into the timetable, including room to recover from delays. In a simulation based on Rotterdam’s urban bus network, Abdelwahed and colleagues found that updating charging schedules during operation improved performance, but did not eliminate energy shortfalls in the winter scenario. Further changes to trip schedules or operating arrangements were needed. [1]
This modelled result identifies a planning constraint to investigate in long-distance demonstrations. For HORIZON-CL5-2027-03-D5-04, vehicle range, charging access and timetable flexibility need to be assessed together, alongside passenger comfort and connections with other transport services.
Download the MIC Horizon Europe 2026/2027 Calls Calendar:
Discover more!
Administrative facts: what do we know about the HORIZON-CL5-2027-03-D5-04 call?
Which call is it, and when is the opening and the deadline?
- Call name: MOBILITY
- Call identifier: HORIZON-CL5-2027-03
- Destination: Clean and competitive solutions for all transport modes (Destination 5)
- Topic: HORIZON-CL5-2027-03-D5-04, zero emission coaches and buses in long distance operations
- Opening: 15 December 2026
- Deadline: 14 April 2027, 17.00 Brussels time
- Type of action: Innovation Action
What about the budget and estimated size of the project?
- Overall MOBILITY call budget: EUR 131.00 million
- Topic budget: EUR 13.50 million
- Number of projects expected: 1
- EU contribution per project: around EUR 13.50 million
What are the key eligibility and evaluation conditions?
- General Annexes A to G apply, with two topic exceptions
- Minimum consortium: three independent legal entities from three different Member States or Associated Countries
- Award thresholds: 3/5 per criterion and 10/15 overall
- Satellite data: if you use earth observation, positioning or navigation services, Copernicus and Galileo/EGNOS must be used
- TRL 7-8 at the end of the project, any starting TRL accepted
- The granting authority may object to a transfer of ownership or exclusive licensing of results, up to 4 years after the action
- Reporting to the 2ZERO partnership KPIs is expected
- No JRC participation and no clustering obligation appear in the topic fiche
Scientific range: what does the Commission expect from the HORIZON-CL5-2027-03-D5-04 grant?
What outcomes are expected?
By the end of the grant, long distance zero emission coaches should run reliably and enter the regular service of transport operators. Replication beyond the demo partners is expected too, with recommendations and shared best practice. Comfort and intermodality count as outcomes here, which is unusual for a Cluster 5 mobility topic.
What is within scope?
- Long distance people mobility: regional, national and cross border
- Buses and coaches, any zero emission powertrain
- At least 5 vehicles on several operational routes, average 500 km or more in extra urban patterns
- Shared charging solutions usable by several operators and other vehicle types
- Grid impact, rush hour at charging stations, seasonal demand
- Interior design and passenger experience, based on user needs
- New business models, fleet management, legal barriers
Urban only demonstrations are out. The call treats the city case as solved.
What are the specifically proposed research directions?
- Affordable solutions with viable business cases, not just technical proof
- The switch between long distance and urban legs, intermodal hubs, park and ride
- Optimised charging schedules against driving time regulations
- Cross border trips, where charging standards and operator practices diverge
- Links with other 2ZERO projects on buses and heavy duty vehicles
The fiche is dense but not prescriptive on technology. Room to pick your powertrain and defend it.
Scientific strategy: how can you enhance your chances of being funded through HORIZON-CL5-2027-03-D5-04?
What scientific choices matter most?
- Secure the vehicles first. Five coaches on real routes is a procurement and homologation problem before a research one.
- Pick routes already commercially operated. Evaluators trust a line with paying passengers more than a test corridor.
- Treat charging as the core scientific question. Weight, range and charging window are coupled, and the call says so repeatedly.
- Quantify grid impact with the network operator, not with a model alone.
- Do not underinvest in the comfort work package. It looks soft, it is scored.
- Cross border operation is where most consortia stay vague. We would put a concrete bilateral corridor in the proposal.
Consortium & proposal-writing plan: what works best with this type of call?
- Somewhere between ten and fifteen partners, a couple more if you cover several countries. Single project, large budget, so it has to look credible on day one.
- Must have: a vehicle manufacturer, two or three operators, a charging infrastructure provider, a grid or energy partner.
- Add a public authority or regional transport organiser. They open route access and help on legal barriers.
- If you can bring an innovative SME on components, monitoring or data tools, do it. Evaluators read SME participation as a sign the results will reach the market. There is more on that in our note on working with the MIC on Horizon Europe proposals.
- Write the demonstration plan as a timetable, not as ambition. Routes, vehicles, kilometres, dates.
What should other operators be able to reuse from the demonstration?
Demonstration results should help other operators assess whether the proposed service could work on their own routes. A useful replication package would connect measured performance with the conditions that produced it: route characteristics, passenger load, weather, charging availability and operating schedules.
Reporting average energy consumption alone would provide limited guidance. Recording variation between journeys, charging delays and vehicle availability would help operators assess service reliability under their own operating conditions. Clearly identifying measured results, modelled estimates and assumptions would make these comparisons more transparent.
Practical outputs could include reusable scheduling methods, charging-infrastructure requirements and an operating-cost model with adjustable local inputs. Documenting responsibilities between vehicle suppliers, transport operators, charging providers and energy partners would also clarify what implementation requires.
Together, these outputs would support decisions about replication, including the technical adaptations, infrastructure investment and operational changes needed at a new location.
The MIC already brings its expertise in microfluidics to Horizon Europe:
H2020-NMBP-TR-IND-2020
Microfluidic platform to study the interaction of cancer cells with lymphatic tissue
H2020-LC-GD-2020-3
Toxicology assessment of pharmaceutical products on a placenta-on-chip model
About the author
Julia Sepulveda Diaz, PhD
Chief Executive Officer, Microfluidics Innovation Center
Julia holds a PhD in glycobiology and neurobiology from Université Paris-Est Créteil. Before moving into microfluidics, she spent several years as a postdoctoral researcher at the Paris Brain Institute, on Parkinson’s disease, neuroinflammation, and the role of heparan sulfate in protein aggregation. Today she leads the Microfluidics Innovation Center as CEO, steering its researchers and engineers and its collaborative research and innovation projects.
FAQ — Long-distance zero-emission bus and coach operations
These questions examine practical choices in energy planning, shared charging and passenger service. Battery-electric examples concern that technology and do not prescribe the powertrain for every demonstration.
How should an operating energy reserve be defined?
Base the reserve on route-specific demand and its variation, including weather, passenger load and available charging alternatives. Urban-fleet measurements illustrate why average consumption alone can miss higher-demand operating days; their numerical margins should not be transferred directly to coaches. [2]
Why can actual charging power differ from a charger’s rating?
The vehicle and battery can limit the power accepted, and a charger may share power between vehicles. Urban-bus monitoring identified reduced charging power at high battery state of charge. Planning should therefore use the relevant charging profile. [2]
What is the difference between depot and opportunity charging?
Depot charging takes place at the vehicle’s operating base, often during longer parked periods. Opportunity charging replenishes energy during the service day. Their combination should be assessed against available stopping time, battery capacity and the next assigned journey. [2]
How can heating and cooling affect usable range?
Cabin heating and cooling consume energy that must be included in the vehicle’s operating budget. Measurements on airport and city buses showed that demand varied with outdoor temperature, equipment and control settings. Coach-specific conditions still need assessment. [3]
How should comfort be assessed alongside energy consumption?
Record cabin conditions and passenger feedback alongside heating and cooling energy. Compare control strategies under comparable conditions. A city-bus study reduced climate-control energy use while retaining the passenger-compartment temperature target; this does not establish a universal saving for coaches. [3]
How can a shared charging hub’s grid impact be evaluated?
Record the timing and magnitude of the hub’s electrical demand, including simultaneous charging. Compare these profiles with the site’s connection capacity and other loads. Daily electricity consumption alone does not describe peak power demand.
What should operators agree before sharing a charging hub?
A practical agreement should define access, booking and priority rules, available power, status information and fault reporting. Testing how these arrangements handle overlapping arrivals would help assess whether the hub can support each operator’s timetable.
How should intermodal performance be assessed?
Follow the passenger’s complete connection: arrival punctuality, transfer time, walking distance, accessibility and onward-service availability. Assess missed connections and assistance needs alongside vehicle performance, using passenger feedback to identify improvements at transfer points.
What should a charging-disruption plan specify?
Identify feasible alternative charging opportunities, vehicle substitutions and dispatch decisions, with clear triggers for action. Test these options against the actual timetable and available resources. Their effectiveness depends on how much operational flexibility remains. [1]
How can operating costs be compared fairly?
Use the same service output and assessment period. Include vehicles, energy, infrastructure, maintenance and operational staffing, with explicit assumptions about utilisation and replacement. Reporting costs per vehicle-kilometre and passenger-kilometre can distinguish operational performance from occupancy effects.
References
[1] Abdelwahed, A.; van den Berg, P. L.; Brandt, T.; Ketter, W. A real-time decision support system to improve operations in electric bus networks. Decision Sciences. 2025;56(2):193–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12633
[2] Klaproth, T.; Berendes, E.; Lehmann, T.; Kratzing, R.; Ufert, M. Empirical Energy Consumption Estimation and Battery Operation Analysis from Long-Term Monitoring of an Urban Electric Bus Fleet. World Electric Vehicle Journal. 2025;16(8):419. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj16080419
[3] Heß, L.; Dimova, D.; Piechalski, J. W.; Rusche, S.; Best, P.; Sonnekalb, M. Analysis of the Specific Energy Consumption of Battery-Driven Electrical Buses for Heating and Cooling in Dependence on the Technical Equipment and Operating Conditions. World Electric Vehicle Journal. 2023;14(5):126. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj14050126