CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index

Re-assessment pending

Infra-Red Automatic Refrigerant Leak Detection Efficiency Project

Standard
VCS
Methodology
VM0001 (VCS)
Registry
VCS-440 ↗ · Registered
Country
United States
Credit type
Fugitive emissions from production and consumption of halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride
Developer
Therm Solutions, Giant Eagle
Worked comparison example (English)

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 2 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.5 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Analysed on 2 Sep 2026medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends:

evidence: 42/43 registry documents analyzed · 4 red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

How this analysis was made

Standard
Verra (VCS) How our current method reads projects of this standard
Methodology
Infra-red Automatic Refrigerant Leak Detection Efficiency Project Methodology No methodology-specific rules: the general rules apply. Read the general rules
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 2 Sep 2026 · 42/43 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

A VCS-registered fugitive refrigerant leak-detection project in the United States with a VVB-confirmed barrier additionality test and no inherent permanence risk, but undermined by an unaddressed 0% leakage deduction, 14 material findings, 14 corrective actions, and multiple cross-document contradictions. The project delivered exactly the claimed ERR for its monitoring period, and CORSIA eligibility is explicitly excluded, but the documentation quality and baseline specificity limit confidence in the credit's robustness.

Red Flags

4 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Gates applied

The gates applied to this score are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

On this page: the analysis of 2 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 43 registry documents (42 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Enter your email to pay with crypto

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label · read on 1 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    No ICVCM information

    No CCP label and no ICVCM decision found for this project's methodology.

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: methodology

    Covers: the project type, not a label on individual credits

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    No Article 6 authorization

    No corresponding adjustment: the host country can also count this reduction towards its own target.

    Source: registry label · read on 1 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2008
18,93018,9300
2009
28,02628,0260
2010
22,41222,4120
2011
19,24319,2430
2012
9,1349,1340
2013
25,92725,9270
2014
30,51920,51910,000
2015
10,2375,2814,956
2016
26,1013,39722,704
2017
16,292016,292
2018
22,449022,449
2019
21,1402,95918,181
2020
8,182818,101
Total258,592155,909102,683

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2013VM0001 v1.0since replaced by v1.2

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2014VM0001 v1.0since replaced by v1.2

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2015–2020VM0001version not confirmed in the document text

    monitoring report + verification report

  • VM0001: Active (Verra / Verified Carbon Standard) · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Contest this rating

Profile & governance

Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.