Skip to main content
ACRIndustrial Process EmissionsOHIO, USGeneral Methodologyv2.1

A-Gas V3

ACR-584 ↗

#222of 345 in United States#101of 147 in American Carbon Registry (ACR)

4.6/ 10
Integrity
5.5
Transparency
4.5
Claim Safety
3.5
Documentation
4.5

Audit Analysis

A-Gas V3 is an HFC refrigerant reclamation project in Ohio with a VVB-confirmed combined additionality test and a technology-based permanence profile, but the verification report surfaced five material findings including a 5.05% calculation error and invoice discrepancies. The most serious concern is that the verified emissions reductions for a single monitoring year equal the entire ten-year ex-ante estimate, implying the project delivered roughly 1,000% of the pro-rata expectation, which raises substantial over-crediting risk. Two cross-document contradictions (baseline method and crediting period dates) further erode confidence in the data.

Red Flags

  • Verified ERR of 16,515 tCO₂e for a single 12-month monitoring period equals the full 10-year ex-ante lifetime estimate of 16,515, meaning the project delivered ~1,000% of the pro-rata expectation (1,651.5 tCO₂e) for the elapsed period — a 10× over-delivery that is not explained in the available documents.
  • The verification report identified a 5.05% calculation error in total-weight columns and discrepancies in sales-invoice tank/cylinder quantities, both of which directly affect the ERR figure.
  • The PDD describes the baseline as 'jurisdictional' while the validation report (one week later) classifies it as 'project-specific'; the more recent validation report is privileged, but the inconsistency undermines baseline confidence.
  • Leakage is set at 0% and labelled 'deemed negligible' with no quantitative justification or sensitivity analysis in the extracted record.

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2019
2,9542,9540
2020
13,561013,561
Total16,5152,95413,561

Risk Indicators

Additionality

Combined test, VVB-confirmed

Permanence

Technology-based, no reversal risk

Leakage

0% deemed negligible, no quantified justification

Baseline

Project-specific, not yet due for reassessment

Safeguards

Mentioned but FPIC not conducted, grievance mechanism not stated

Double-claim

CORSIA and CCP status not stated

Where to buy

+ Know where to buy this?

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

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis ProvenanceScored2026-09-12General Methodology v2.1

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

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

Does not modify the score.

[email protected]

Pipeline re-run with new documents

Have updated documentation not yet included? You can request a new run of the pipeline with the new inputs.

Submit Documents