Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
ScoredACRLandfill Gas Capture & CombustionILLINOIS, USRegistry: Crediting endedGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Des Plaines LFG to Energy

Developer: Sexton Energy

ACR-163 ↗

#65of 536 in Methane#295of 1661 in United States#181of 934 in American Carbon Registry (ACR)

Crediting ended

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

American Carbon Registry: “COMPLETED”

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.8 / 10 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%.

Analysis

The Des Plaines LFG-to-Energy project demonstrates a solid additionality case confirmed by the VVB via a barrier test, with a measured project-specific baseline and a reasonable 0% leakage deduction for a methane capture project. However, multiple contradictions across documents (ERR figures, additionality test type, baseline method) and the absence of safeguards, FPIC, and grievance-mechanism documentation limit confidence in the overall claim. The project is a straightforward methane-destruction activity with inherently low greenwashing risk, but data reliability and documentation completeness are moderate.

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

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 3 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 6 registry documents (6 analyzed).

€9+ VAT · 30-day pass · one-time, no auto-renewal

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons for 30 days (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day).

Price + VAT · By paying you accept the Terms of Use — 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

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology approved by ICVCMACR Landfill Gas Destruction

    The methodology meets the Core Carbon Principles; this project's credits do not carry the CCP label yet.

    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 Exhausted

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2003
2,0265000
2005
3,2663,2660
2006
61,16453,9640
2007
49,41913,0000
Total115,87570,7300

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].

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

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

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

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 →