1) Choose your “why”
Funding follows narratives: climate, water, waste diversion, soil health, EJ. Pick the lead story.
- CLCPA alignment
- Food waste diversion
- Water + biosolids (flagship narrative) — Open with Why this matters (cost, emissions, local control, legitimacy) and land on What pilots can do so your water/biosolids story stays strategic across policy framing and pilot packaging.
- Soil health + carbon
2) Package the pilot
A grant application is a logic machine. Your pilot must have inputs, outputs, and stakeholder proof.
- Site + sponsor
- Partner lanes
- Benefits stack
- Permitting + EJ
3) Build momentum
Letters of support, municipal intent, and partner readiness are often the real gating items.
- Partner pledge
- Speaking + advocacy
- Grant calendar habits
Key policy anchors
Foundational documents that shape the “rules of the game” for climate + waste + EJ in New York.
Why RNG viability matters
RNG viability completes the decarbonization story: methane reduction plus waste diversion need the interconnection upgrades (pipeline tie-ins and utility offtake) that let this fuel reach markets.
Incentives and market signals
These are “why now” documents. They help justify economics and unlock partners (developers/operators).
Biomethane / fuels policy
Soil & carbon policy
Practical framing
For grant packaging: choose 1 “primary” funding story and 2–3 “secondary” co-benefits. Too many narratives can make a proposal feel unfocused.
Funding pathways
HVB’s approach: build pilots that are already shaped like grant applications, so the funding step is predictable.
Municipal + state grants
Often the best anchor lane for public infrastructure (waste, water, organics) when a municipality can sponsor.
- Grant cycles + eligibility discipline
- Letters of support as momentum engine
- Community engagement baked in
Developer-led delivery
For project developers/operators: policy signals help justify offtake, tipping fees, and co-benefits.
- Bankability narrative
- Permitting & EJ awareness
- Partner readiness
Hybrid models
Public sponsor + private delivery + community legitimacy. Often the winning structure for pilot feasibility.
- Clear roles + responsibilities
- Transparent benefits stack
- Repeatable template
Case reference: 2021 GIGP application
HVB has done this before: a grant-driven pilot package (Wappingers Falls) with letters of support and an engineering report. Use it as an example of what “grant-ready” looks like.
FAQ
A few honest questions worth answering early.
Are these documents up to date-
Some are historical references. This page is designed as a local “policy library” and a packaging tool. When a pilot is active, we verify current program rules and timelines.
What should a municipality do first-
Identify a sponsor, pick a site candidate, and define the top 1–2 outcomes (e.g., hauling cost + organics diversion). Then submit a pilot intake so partner lanes can be assembled.
What if a community is opposed-
Treat that as data. A “no surprises” process can reveal whether the site is wrong, the benefits are unclear, or trust needs to be rebuilt before any proposal moves forward.
Want help mapping policy to your site-
Start with a pilot intake. We'll align your project to the right policy story and partner lanes.
Methods & transparency
We publish assumptions, sources, and system boundaries. Claims are tied to primary references.