Proposal methodology
Systems methodology

Methodology: Site selection & system design

This page records the filters, layers, and partnership logic behind every HVB proposal so that circuits stay accountable, inclusive, and ready for real-world deployment.

How the ten proposals were chosen

A repeatable method, not a hunch

Every HVB proposal runs the same gauntlet: map the region’s feedstocks and infrastructure, apply coverage rules that keep the network balanced, score each candidate across four dimensions, and shortlist only what is ready to defend. This page shows that method — and how all ten proposals scored.

10Proposals shortlisted
8Counties, NYC → Capital Region
4Scoring dimensions
25–50Miles between proposals
The pipeline

From the whole valley to ten sites

Four stages take a region-wide picture down to a defensible shortlist.

Map the region

Layer every feedstock source atop the infrastructure that could move and process it.

Set coverage

Space proposals 25–50 miles apart, cap two per county, span NYC to the Capital Region.

Score the matrix

Rate each candidate on four dimensions — ready, watch, or neutral.

Shortlist ten

Keep the strongest, best-distributed candidates and document the reasoning.

Stage 1 · Mapping & visual inspection

Feedstock and infrastructure, on one map

We overlay where organic material comes from with the infrastructure that can move and convert it. The layered atlas lets us toggle those layers and test whether the paper map matches the ground.

Feedstock layers

Where the organics are.

Agricultural Institutional Municipal organics Food-waste generators Biosolids / WWTP Invasive aquatic biomass

Infrastructure layers

What can move and process them.

Transfer stations Rail corridors Compost yards Pipe corridors WWTPs Landfills Waste-to-energy
Visual inspection matters because a mapped compost site may still be yard/wood-only or locked in a legacy contract — the walk-through flags those realities before we build a pilot around it.
Stage 2 · Coverage logic

Rules that keep the network balanced

Coverage stretches from New York City to the Capital Region to connect the densest demand corridors — governed by three rules.

25–50 miles apart

Dense enough for shared logistics, while respecting the 25-mile radius the Excess Food Waste Law assumes for collection partners.

Two per county, max

Spreads investment, prevents any county from being overtaxed, and keeps operational support feasible.

NYC → Capital corridor

Anchors the Hudson Valley story to the region’s densest demand and its regulatory context.

Stage 3 · The scoring matrix

Four dimensions, ten proposals

Every candidate is scored on the four dimensions below. The matrices summarize subjective judgment, so we explain each rating on the proposal’s own page — open any row to read the reasoning.

Industrial & hauling

Access to trucks, rail, or barges, plus co-located industrial partners and an existing logistics footprint.

Feedstock variation

Volume, seasonality, contaminants, and how many feedstock types (ag, biosolids, invasive, municipal) sit in one radius.

Pyrolysis potential

Thermal backbone, biochar demand, and synergy between thermal conversion and AD digestate.

Space & circular expansion

Available acreage and synergies with composting, storage, digestate polishing, or ag extensions.

Ready — strong fit Watch — design needed before confirming Neutral — neither advantage nor concern
Proposal Industrial
& hauling
Feedstock
variation
Pyrolysis
potential
Space &
expansion
Monticello Transfer StationSullivan County Ready Watch Ready
Taylor-MontgomeryOrange County Ready Ready Ready Watch
Beacon Recycling & TransferDutchess County Ready Watch Watch
WeCare Denali RocklandRockland County Ready Ready Ready
Ulster County RRAUlster County Ready Watch Ready
Delaware County SWMCDelaware County Watch Ready
Westchester County WWTPWestchester County Ready Watch Watch
Wheelabrator WestchesterWestchester County Ready Ready
Dutchess County R&RDutchess County Ready Ready
Colonie Solid Waste LandfillCapital Region Ready Ready Ready

Reading the matrix: hauling is nearly universal — 9 of 10 sites are ready — so it rarely decides a shortlist. Feedstock variety is the scarcest strength: Taylor-Montgomery is the only site that pairs several streams (agricultural, biosolids, and invasive biomass) in one radius. Pyrolysis readiness and room to expand both cluster at the landfill- and campus-scale sites, with Colonie, WeCare Denali, and Wheelabrator leading on both.

Cross-cutting · Equity

Environmental justice, plotted early

EJ regions are plotted near every proposal so planners can see exposures, burdens, and opportunity areas — supporting inclusive outreach and a seat at the table for the communities most affected by today’s waste system. Screening follows New York’s CP-29 thresholds.

Urban screen

≥40% minority population and ≥23% poverty flags a community for EJ screening.

Rural screen

≥10% minority population and ≥25% poverty flags a rural community for screening.

Trust by design

Odor and traffic plans up front, public monitoring commitments, and clear boundaries on excluded streams.

Local soil value Waterway protection Health & transparency Jobs & training Fewer truck miles
Cross-cutting · Capacity building

Two audiences, two tracks

We tailor capacity-building materials, governance touchpoints, and engagement cadences so each audience gets what it needs without redundant meetings.

General stakeholders

Strategic alignment, funding, and region-wide coordination.

  • Regional planners
  • Funders
  • Municipal leadership

Specific stakeholders

Day-to-day operations, contamination control, and equipment.

  • Site operators
  • Haulers
  • On-site technicians
The output

What the method produced

Ten circular-biogas proposals, distributed across the valley. Open any one for its site-selection rationale, partner lanes, and diagrams.

Go deeper

The documents behind the method