Turn policy signals into fundable project steps
The goal is not “reading PDFs.” The goal is to align pilots with what New York is already rewarding: emissions reduction, organics diversion, water quality, soil health, and environmental justice.
Align pilot proposals to CLCPA, food waste, and EJ priorities so every submission lands in high-impact fund flows.
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.