CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
ScoredCARLandfill Gas Capture/CombustionMAINE, USRegistry: Crediting endedGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Tri-Community Recycling and Sanitary Landfill

Developer: 3Degrees Group, Inc

CAR-448 ↗

#346of 552 in Methane#991of 1689 in United States#649of 948 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)

Crediting ended

The crediting period has ended. Credits already issued exist; no new ones will be issued unless the crediting period is renewed.

Climate Action Reserve: “Completed”

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.6 / 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%.

Scored2026-09-20medium confidenceLatest verified monitoring: 2015-12-31

evidence:10/10registry documents analyzed · 3red flags

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

Analysis

The Tri-Community landfill gas capture project in Maine has a verified additionality assessment (combined test confirmed by SCS Engineers) and a defined monitoring protocol under CAR's Landfill Reporting Project Protocol v2.0. However, the verification report identified material misstatements requiring corrective action, the baseline is project-specific and modeled rather than measured, and no leakage treatment is documented. A contradiction between the issuance record (0 ERR) and the verification report (4,091 tCO₂e) further complicates the credit-quantity picture.

Red Flags

3 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

Detailed Analysis

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

Evidence

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

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology approved for some versionsCAR U.S. Landfill Protocol

    The Integrity Council approved some versions of this protocol and not others: check which version the project uses before claiming CCP quality.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

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

    Source: project sector

  • 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

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.

Registry labels last checked:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2010
4,0913193,772
Total4,0913193,772

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].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceGeneral Methodologyv2.1
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 →