United States · Landfill gas (ACM0001) · Read by the checks: Project description + 5 monitoring reports + verification report + validation report, 920 pages · Verra registry page
Signal, not verdict. These findings summarize what the project documents say and where. They are not a rating, a certification or an ICVCM assessment, and they can be wrong.
Looked up by methodology code in table version 2026-10-15. No model is involved, and this status is kept apart from the AI-assisted findings below.
0xe09f…d8aa(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)version 6; earlier versions stay readabledeepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flashtypesafe/jev-1.13Third-party models, not developed by this team.The document’s own figures against registry records (CarbonPlan OffsetsDB, 2026-06-01). A flag is a lead for a reviewer, not a finding of wrongdoing.
Over the whole span issuance is within 20% of the document (2017-2024: issued 811,131 t, document 707,496 t (1.15x, table on page 4)), though single vintages exceed it (2022, 2023, 2024).
No yearly net-reduction table in the monitoring reports read overlaps an issued vintage.
Across 16 vintages, retired volume never exceeds issued volume.
Document and registry both give ACM0001.
1 similarly named project(s), with no vintage issued in both: ACR113 (american-carbon-registry).
Every number, page and table read is in checks/VCS138.json.
AI-assisted checks: 10 of 15 found evidence in the excerpt read for their principle, each citing the paragraph it came from. 2 checks the models disagreed on were decided by a team member, whose answer counts; the models’ answers are shown next to it.
Tested on 177 labelled questions from 11 projects (short 2,500-character excerpts), the checks were right 94% of the time (95% interval 89%–96%). Reports read longer excerpts, which find more: of 61 findings the short excerpts missed, 46 were confirmed (75%, judged by an AI reviewer, who agreed with a person on 18 of 19 spot checks). How this was measured.
Robustness: deleting the paragraphs that held the evidence turned 87% of “found” answers to “not found”, and unrelated text got “not found” on 177 of 177 questions. A paragraph planted in the document telling the model to answer “yes” changed 0 answers; one telling it to answer “no” changed 71%, which is why such paragraphs are screened out before a model reads the excerpt (the screen is a pattern match and can miss new wordings). Robustness tests.
Excerpt read: 43,913 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 1 of 4 checks (A3); not found in the excerpt: A1, A2, A4; 1 decided by a person after the models disagreed.
Decided by a team member: not found (checklist model: not found; second model 57% likely found)
“3.5 Additionality In accordance with VCS Standard Section 3.8.5.1, a full additionality review is not required for the renewal of the crediting period. Only regulatory surplus need be demonstrated again and this is presented in Section 1.11. The Project is not required to collect and destroy LFG by any local, regional or national regulation.”
Emission-avoidance activity without stored carbon at risk of reversal; permanence is not applicable (rule based on project category, not AI).
Not scored for this activity type (no reversal risk).
Excerpt read: 44,955 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4).
“4.1 Baseline Emissions The following equation is used to determine baseline emissions per ACM0001: BEy = BECH4,y + BEEC,y + BEHG, y + BENG,y (Eq. 1) Where: BEy = Baseline emission in year y (tCO2e/yr) BECH4,y = Baseline emissions of methane from the SWDS in year y (tCO2e/yr) BEEC,y = Baseline emissions associated with electricity generation in year y (tCO2e/yr) BEHG,y = Baseline emissions associated with heat generation in year y (tCO2e/yr) BENG,y = Baseline emissions associated with natural gas use in year y (tCO2e/yr) Baseline emissions associated with electricity generation and heat generation are excluded as the Project is not seeking carbon credits for the displacement of grid electricity or the beneficial reuse of the Project’s waste heat. The Project is only seeking credits for emissions reductions resulting from the destruction of methane collected from the Landfill. The Project does not include natural gas replacement so the final parameter is also not relevant. The equation simplifies to: BEy = BECH4,y (Project modified Eq.1) Where: BEy = Baseline emission in year y (tCO2e) BECH4,y = Baseline emissions of methane from the SWDS in year y (tCO2e) Baseline emissions of methane from the SWDS in year y are found as follows: BECH4,y = ((1-OXtop_layer) x FCH4,PJ,y – FCH,BL,y) x GWPCH4 (Eq. 2) Where: BECH4,y = Baseline emissions of methane from the SWDS in year y (tCO2e/yr) OXtop_layer = Fraction of methane in the LFG that would be oxidized in the top layer of the SWDS in the baseline (dimensionless) FCH4,PJ,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is flared and/or used in the project activity in year y (tCH4/yr) FCH,BL,y= Amount of methane in the LFG that would be flared in the baseline in year y (tCH4/yr)”
“GWPCH4 = Global warming potential of CH4 (tCO2e / tCH4) For this Project, FCH4,PJ,y is the sum of the quantities of methane flared and used in power generation during the year. This term is calculated as follows according to Equation 3 from the methodology, modified to remove the heat generation and natural gas distribution terms, which are not applicable to this Project. FCH4,PJ,y = FCH4,flared,y + FCH4,EL,y (modified Eq. 3) Where: FCH4,PJ,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is flared and/or used in the project activity in year y (tCH4/yr) FCH4,flared,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is destroyed by flaring in year y (tCH4/yr) FCH4,EL,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is used for electricity generation in year y (tCH4/yr) As described in the deviation section, the Project’s SCADA system is programmed to calculate the methane gas flow in units of million British thermal units (MMBtu) using the real time standardized gas”
“flow (at 68°F and one atmosphere of pressure), methane concentration, the gross heat content (higher heating value) of methane, and the actual temperature and pressure. CNBE determines the volume of methane destroyed by converting the MMBtu values to total methane gas flow in standard cubic feet. The total methane flow in standard cubic feet is then translated into metric tons of methane using the Universal Gas constant, the molecular weight of methane and a standard unit conversion factor. This result provides FCH4,EL,y . The flare is available to destroy landfill gas if the energy system is not operating. However, it has not been used in several years. The flaring equations are included for completeness in case it is needed. The following equation determines the amount of methane, which is destroyed in flaring. FCH4,flared,y =FCH4,sent_flare,y - PEflare,y /GWPCH4 Where: FCH4,flared,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is destroyed by flaring in year y (tCH4/yr) FCH4,sent_flare,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is sent to the flare in year y (tCH4/yr) PEflare,y = Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in year y (tCO2e/yr) determined following the procedure described in the tool “Project emissions from flaring” GWPCH4 = Global warming potential of CH4 (tCO2e / tCH4) FCH4,sent_flare,y is determined in the same manner as FCH4,EL,y described above. Baseline Emissions Reductions (FCH,BL,y) Per ACM0001, this Project falls under the requirements of Case 3 for the baseline system: No requirement to destroy the methane and an existing LFG capture and destruction system. Because “the amount of methane captured with the existing system can be monitored separately from the amount captured under the Project, and the efficiency of the existing system is not impacted on by the Project system during the crediting period”, the amount of methane that would be flared in the baseline is equivalent to that collected and destroyed from the District Initial System. FCH4,BL,y = FCH4,BL,sys,y (Eq. 11) FCH4,BL,sys,y = FCH4,destroyed,y (modified Eq.12) Where: FCH4,BL,sys,y = Amount of methane in LFG that would be flared in the baseline for year y for the case of an existing LFG capture system ( t CH4/yr) FCH4,destroyed,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is destroyed in year y (t CH4/yr) The subscript in the second half of Equation 12 has been modified to reflect the fact that the LFG is not flared in the Project. Because electricity generation has a higher destruction efficiency than a flare, this is a conservative modification that reflects actual Project operations. As described in the deviation section, there is no flow meter installed on the collection pipe from the District Initial System. Given the collection system design and meter requirements, installing a meter at this location would not produce reliable, meaningful results. Instead, well-head flow measurements are collected manually two times each month. These results are used to calculate the relative contribution of the District Initial System to the overall flow of LFG destroyed by the engines. This portion of the total flow represents FCH4,BL,y and will be calculated on a monthly basis and subtracted to account for the amount of methane destroyed in the baseline scenario. Ex Ante Estimate of Emission Reductions”
“• UNFCCC CDM "Large scale Consolidated Methodology – Flaring or use of landfill gas", ACM0001, Version 16.0 dated 16 October 2015. The calculation methodology was applied to the calculation of emissions from methane contained within LFG which is generated from the decomposition of solid waste from within the landfill and combusted during electricity generation or in a flare. For this Project Activity the baseline emissions consist of those associated with the volume of LFG that is destroyed in the flare and the engines to generate electricity. Further, the emissions associated with the fraction of LFG related to the District Initial System, need to be subtracted as this system was installed voluntarily as part of the baseline of the Project Activity. This subtraction of emissions is understood to occur in the baseline of the Project Activity. The Baseline Emissions also include quantification of the fraction of methane in the LFG that would be oxidized in the top layer of the landfill in the baseline. This is a dimensionless value (0.1) that was available at validation and is therefore defined in the VCS PD. The Baseline Emissions calculations are presented in Exhibits 1 and 2 and the equation is shown below: Baseline emissions of methane from the Project Activity in year y are found as follows: BECH4,y = ((1-OXtop_layer) x FCH4,PJ,y – FCH4,PJ,y) x GWPCH4 (Eq. 2) Where:”
“UNFCCC CDM "Large scale Consolidated Methodology – Flaring or use of landfill gas", ACM0001, Version 16.0 dated 16 October 2015. The calculation methodology was applied to the calculation of emissions from methane contained within LFG which is generated from the decomposition of solid waste from within the landfill and combusted during electricity generation or in a flare. For this Project Activity the baseline emissions consist of those associated with the volume of LFG that is destroyed in the flare and the engines to generate electricity. Further, the emissions associated with the fraction of LFG related to the District Initial System, need to be subtracted as this system was installed voluntarily as part of the baseline of the Project Activity. This subtraction of emissions is understood to occur in the baseline of the Project Activity. Note that carbon stock changes are not applicable as the emission reductions are permanent. The Baseline Emissions also include quantification of the fraction of methane in the LFG that would be oxidized in the top layer of the landfill in the baseline. This is a dimensionless value (0.1) that was available at validation and is therefore defined in the VCS PD. The Baseline Emissions calculations are presented in Exhibits 1 and 2 and the equation is shown below: Baseline emissions of methane from the Project Activity in year y are found as follows: BECH4,y = ((1-OXtop_layer) x FCH4,PJ,y – FCH4,PJ,y) x GWPCH4 (Eq. 2) BECH4,y = ((1-0.1) x 1,317.56 – 27.98) x 28 = 32,419”
“BECH4,y = Baseline emissions of methane from the SWDS in monitoring period y (tCO2e/monitoring period) OXtop_layer = Fraction of methane in the LFG that would be oxidized in the top layer of the SWDS in the baseline (dimensionless) FCH4,PJ,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is flared and/or used in the project activity in monitoring period y (tCH4/monitoring period) FCH,BL,y= Amount of methane in the LFG that would be flared in the baseline in monitoring period y (tCH4/monitoring period) GWPCH4 = Global warming potential of CH4 (tCO2e / tCH4) For this Project, FCH4,PJ,y is the sum of the quantities of methane flared and used in power generation during the year. This term is calculated as follows according to Equation 3 from the methodology, modified to remove the heat generation and natural gas distribution terms, which are not applicable to this Project. FCH4,PJ,y = FCH4,flared,y + FCH4,EL,y (modified Eq. 3) FCH4,PJ,y = 0* + 1,317.56 = 1,317.56 tCH4/monitoring period * Note that the back-up flare did not operate for any significant period during the current verification period; therefore, emission reductions are not claimed from flaring. Where:”
“Per ACM0001, no leakage effects need to be accounted.”
“1. A separate LFG meter is not present on each of the four combustion engines. A single meter is used immediately before the piping splits to each engine. This meter is continuously recording data. Operating data is tracked for each engine so it is possible to calculate the flow destroyed by each engine and to ensure that LFG is destroyed. Flow controls are in place to ensure no LFG is sent to an engine that is not operating. This does not affect the conservativeness of the emissions reductions claimed. 2. Ex-ante emissions reductions calculations use historic Project specific data as the basis for projecting future emissions rather than the required CDM estimation tools. Using real data allows the estimations to be more accurate and reflect actual Project operating conditions. his does not affect the conservativeness of the emissions reductions claimed but increases the accuracy of the ex-ante projections ensuring the project is forecasting obtainable, appropriate emissions reductions. 3. There is no flow meter installed on the collection pipe from the District Initial System to separately monitor the contribution of the original baseline system. Given the collection system design and meter requirements, installing a meter at this location would not produce reliable, meaningful results. Instead, well-head flow measurements are collected manually two times each month. These results are used to calculate the relative contribution of the District Initial System to the overall flow of LFG destroyed by the engines. This portion of the total flow represents FCH4,BL,y and will be calculated on a monthly basis and subtracted from the total flow to account for the amount of methane destroyed in the baseline scenario. This approach represents an accurate measurement of the flow because (a) the portion of the landfill that includes the District Initial System (Phase 1) is capped so no landfill gas can be passively emitted to the atmosphere, and (b) the remaining active wells from the District Initial System are located in such a way as to enable capture of all LFG generated within the sphere of influence of the District Initial System. This deviation decreases the conservativeness of the emissions reductions claimed but significantly increases the accuracy of the calculations as is allowable under VCS Standard v3.5, Section 3.5.1. 4. The Project uses the eGrid electricity emissions factor rather than the default emissions factor provided in the CDM tool as explained in the project emissions section. This deviation decreases the conservativeness of the emissions reductions claimed but significantly increases the accuracy of the calculations as is allowable under VCS Standard v3.5, Section 3.5.1. These deviations only apply to the monitoring and measurement portions of the Project.”
“flow (at 68°F and one atmosphere of pressure), methane concentration, the gross heat content (higher heating value) of methane, and the actual temperature and pressure. CNBE determines the volume of methane destroyed by converting the MMBtu values to total methane gas flow in standard cubic feet. The total methane flow in standard cubic feet is then translated into metric tons of methane using the Universal Gas constant, the molecular weight of methane and a standard unit conversion factor. This result provides FCH4,EL,y . The flare is available to destroy landfill gas if the energy system is not operating. However, it has not been used in several years. The flaring equations are included for completeness in case it is needed. The following equation determines the amount of methane, which is destroyed in flaring. FCH4,flared,y =FCH4,sent_flare,y - PEflare,y /GWPCH4 Where: FCH4,flared,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is destroyed by flaring in year y (tCH4/yr) FCH4,sent_flare,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is sent to the flare in year y (tCH4/yr) PEflare,y = Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in year y (tCO2e/yr) determined following the procedure described in the tool “Project emissions from flaring” GWPCH4 = Global warming potential of CH4 (tCO2e / tCH4) FCH4,sent_flare,y is determined in the same manner as FCH4,EL,y described above. Baseline Emissions Reductions (FCH,BL,y) Per ACM0001, this Project falls under the requirements of Case 3 for the baseline system: No requirement to destroy the methane and an existing LFG capture and destruction system. Because “the amount of methane captured with the existing system can be monitored separately from the amount captured under the Project, and the efficiency of the existing system is not impacted on by the Project system during the crediting period”, the amount of methane that would be flared in the baseline is equivalent to that collected and destroyed from the District Initial System. FCH4,BL,y = FCH4,BL,sys,y (Eq. 11) FCH4,BL,sys,y = FCH4,destroyed,y (modified Eq.12) Where: FCH4,BL,sys,y = Amount of methane in LFG that would be flared in the baseline for year y for the case of an existing LFG capture system ( t CH4/yr) FCH4,destroyed,y = Amount of methane in the LFG which is destroyed in year y (t CH4/yr) The subscript in the second half of Equation 12 has been modified to reflect the fact that the LFG is not flared in the Project. Because electricity generation has a higher destruction efficiency than a flare, this is a conservative modification that reflects actual Project operations. As described in the deviation section, there is no flow meter installed on the collection pipe from the District Initial System. Given the collection system design and meter requirements, installing a meter at this location would not produce reliable, meaningful results. Instead, well-head flow measurements are collected manually two times each month. These results are used to calculate the relative contribution of the District Initial System to the overall flow of LFG destroyed by the engines. This portion of the total flow represents FCH4,BL,y and will be calculated on a monthly basis and subtracted to account for the amount of methane destroyed in the baseline scenario. Ex Ante Estimate of Emission Reductions”
“Equations (2) and (3) of the electricity tool are omitted as calculation of the baseline and leakage electricity consumption are not required by ACM0001. Equations (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the CDM tool are omitted as these are not relevant to the Project. The flare uses landfill gas as an ignition source when necessary, Fossil fuels used by Project activities include fuel used by landfill vehicles and diesel used in the emergency generator. Landfill vehicle use has not grown as a result of Project activities as was confirmed during the first validation and can also be conservatively excluded. The emergency generator is a diesel powered 150kW generator. It is periodically tested and is used only when the Plant is not operating and no grid electricity is available. Project emissions from the use of the generator will be calculated using the formulas required in the “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion v2” as required by the methodology. PEFC,j,y = Σ FCi,j,y X COEFi,y (Eq 1 in the Tool) Where: PEFC,j,y = Are the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j during the year y (tCO2/yr); FCi,j,y = Is the quantity of fuel type i combusted in process j during the year y (mass or volume unit/yr); COEFi,y = Is the CO2 emission coefficient of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/mass or volume unit) i = Are the fuel types combusted in process j during the year y Because the fuel type in this project is diesel and it is only used in one process, Equation 1 becomes: PEFC,y = (FCdiesel,y X COEFdiesel,y) The CO2 emission coefficient COEFdiesel,y is then calculated based on the net calorific value and CO2 emission factor of the diesel (Option B), as follows:”
“The Project has addressed both sources of project emissions in the revised PDD. A deviation request has been made to exclude the emergency generator as a project emission source. Calculations supporting this request have been included in the Ex Ante Calculation Spreadsheet. The use of grid supplied electricity has been added to all relevant portions of the PDD. 2014 usage has been included as an estimate for future project emissions in the Ex Ante Calculation Spreadsheet. As part of the VCS audit, the exclusion of the emissions from the emergency generator was removed as a deviation request and included in the emission calculations. Supporting documentation and applicable parameters were added in to the VCS PDD as necessary. GHD reviewed the calculations and supporting documentation and determined the data and calculations performed were consistent with the Project and are conservative.”
“1. A separate LFG meter is not present on each of the four combustion engines. A single meter is used immediately before the piping splits to each engine. This meter is continuously recording data. Operating data is tracked for each engine so it is possible to calculate the flow destroyed by each engine and to ensure that LFG is destroyed. Flow controls are in place to ensure no LFG is sent to an engine that is not operating. This does not affect the conservativeness of the emissions reductions claimed. 2. Ex-ante emissions reductions calculations use historic Project specific data as the basis for projecting future emissions rather than the required CDM estimation tools. Using real data allows the estimations to be more accurate and reflect actual Project operating conditions. his does not affect the conservativeness of the emissions reductions claimed but increases the accuracy of the ex-ante projections ensuring the project is forecasting obtainable, appropriate emissions reductions. 3. There is no flow meter installed on the collection pipe from the District Initial System to separately monitor the contribution of the original baseline system. Given the collection system design and meter requirements, installing a meter at this location would not produce reliable, meaningful results. Instead, well-head flow measurements are collected manually two times each month. These results are used to calculate the relative contribution of the District Initial System to the overall flow of LFG destroyed by the engines. This portion of the total flow represents FCH4,BL,y and will be calculated on a monthly basis and subtracted from the total flow to account for the amount of methane destroyed in the baseline scenario. This approach represents an accurate measurement of the flow because (a) the portion of the landfill that includes the District Initial System (Phase 1) is capped so no landfill gas can be passively emitted to the atmosphere, and (b) the remaining active wells from the District Initial System are located in such a way as to enable capture of all LFG generated within the sphere of influence of the District Initial System. This deviation decreases the conservativeness of the emissions reductions claimed but significantly increases the accuracy of the calculations as is allowable under VCS Standard v3.5, Section 3.5.1. 4. The Project uses the eGrid electricity emissions factor rather than the default emissions factor provided in the CDM tool as explained in the project emissions section. This deviation decreases the conservativeness of the emissions reductions claimed but significantly increases the accuracy of the calculations as is allowable under VCS Standard v3.5, Section 3.5.1. These deviations only apply to the monitoring and measurement portions of the Project.”
“totals in units of million British thermal units on a higher heating value basis [MMBtu (HHV)] and thousand standard cubic feet (KSCF) of LFG. This data point provides information regarding the mixed landfill gas and biogas from the CRMC Bioenergy Facility (anaerobic digester system). The same calculation is made using data from the biogas feed pipe. The difference between the total Btus entering the engines and the total Btus received from the biogas facility is the quantity attributed to the LFG collected and is used in the calculations described previously in the PDD. Because the calculations for this project are based on the use of Btus rather than metric tonnes of methane as discussed in the deviation section, the value obtained by this approach is not skewed by the mixing of the gases prior to the measurement of the gas entering the engines. Flow Measurements The flow meters are located directly upstream of the destruction devices. One flow meter serves as the unit for flow meter measurements to the four engines, one unit for flow measurement of the biogas, and one unit for flow meter measurements to the flare. Each flow meter is equipped with a totalizer that indicates the cumulative actual cubic feet of gas that have passed through that flow meter. The Project uses an orifice plate flow meter purchased directly from its manufacturer, Lambda Square Inc for the engine measurements. The orifice plate flow meter is an Oripac® Model 5300 that determines flow based on pressure differentials measured across a 5-inch diameter bore pressure differential plate installed in the Project’s 8-inch diameter LFG pipe. The design data for the instrument specifies an accuracy of ± 0.6 percent of full scale and the capability of measuring flows from 0 to 1,600 actual cubic feet per minute. The performance of the instrument in the field is assured by the manufacturer on the basis of bench scale testing in accordance with applicable design and methodologies prescribed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The Project uses an Omega PDF65 flow meter for measuring flow to the flare and a Dwyer Series DS- 300 Flow Sensor, which is an averaging pitot tube, for measuring flow of the biogas. Methane Measurements The methane content of the gas (LFG and biogas), on a percent volume basis, is measured at a sampling port in the main header pipe near the flow meter with the use of a California Analytical Instrument Non- dispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer. The readings are also logged by the SCADA system once per minute. The methane content of the biogas is measured using a Hitech Model: IR600 Infra-Red Gas Analyzer. Wellfield Measurements At least twice a month, a trained operator balances the landfill gas collection wellfield. In the course of balancing the system, the operator measures and records the methane content, carbon dioxide content, oxygen content, landfill gas flow rate, landfill gas temperature, static pressure, and balance gas content. These results are logged in an electronic file to document system performance as well as to determine the percent contribution of LFG from the District Initial System. Meter Calibrations On installation, CNBE performed initial calibrations of the instruments, under actual field conditions using the USEPA Protocols described below. As a back-up to the flowmeter measurements, actual quantities of LFG destroyed in the Project engine-generators can be accurately calculated based on (a) the known engine heat rate (the number of British Thermal Units (Btus) required to produce a kilowatt hour electric power, (b) the measured heat content of the LFG fuel, and the metered electric power output of the Project.”
Excerpt read: 35,612 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 2 of 3 checks (D1, D2); not found in the excerpt: D3.
“The only other active GHG Program under which the Project is registered is the American Carbon Registry – Project ID of ACR 113. The Project has neither verified emissions reductions under nor requested issuance of credits under ACR since 2008's emission reductions and does not plan to do so during its second crediting period under VCS.”
“6.4 Environmental Attributes. Lessee ( where Lessee is defined as CNBE) and/or its designees, successors and assigns, shall have the right, beginning on the date that the Generating Facility becomes operational and so long as this Lease Agreement is in effect thereafter, to all attributes of an environmental or other nature, known or unknown at the time of this Lease Agreement, including but not limited to allowances, certificates, RECs or other green power price premiums or similar constructs generated by or attributable to the Generating Facility by virtue of its classification as a renewable energy project under Applicable Laws, emissions credits and all other credits, offsets, tradable renewable certificates (sometimes referred to as “green tags”), and all similar rights issued, recognized, created or otherwise arising from use or disposition of the Landfill Gas delivered to Lessee, including but not limited to the generation and/or sale of electricity at the Generating Facility using Landfill Gas, the delivery and/or sale of capacity (the Generating Facility’s capability to reliably generate a specific amount of electricity at a given point in time) and electricity to any purchaser thereof, the production of thermal energy or other energy products as a by-product of generating electricity at the Generating Facility, and the destruction of such Landfill Gas (“Environmental Attributes”). Environmental Attributes include but shall not be limited to those that are created by regulations, statutes, or other governmental action enacted before or after the Effective Date. Environmental Attributes include but shall not be limited to those that can be used to (1) claim responsibility for the reduction of emissions and/or pollutants, (2) claim ownership of emission and/or pollution reduction rights, and (3) claim reduction or avoidance of emissions or pollutants. Emissions and pollutants include, but are not limited to, acid rain precursors, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, chlorinated hydrocarbons, greenhouse gases, mercury, metals, methane, nitrogen oxides, nitrogen- oxygen compounds, ozone precursors, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, toxic air pollutants, other carbon and sulfur compounds, and similar pollutants or contaminants of air, water or soil, under any governmental, regulatory or voluntary program, including but not limited to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and related Kyoto Protocol or any other program. Environmental Attributes exclude Section 45 tax credits, Section 29 tax credits and any and all other tax credits or benefits associated with the ownership or operation of the Generating Facility or production of Landfill Gas. Prior to the date that the Generating Facility becomes operational, Lessor shall have the right to any Environmental Attributes attributable to the Landfill or the LFGMS. 2.12.2 Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits”
Excerpt read: 24,565 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 3 of 4 checks (S2, S3, S4); not found in the excerpt: S1; 1 decided by a person after the models disagreed.
“Ongoing consultation Project stakeholders are identified as CNBE and the District. According to the Monitoring Report, CNBE communicated with the District on a daily basis during the work week and held monthly meetings with the District following CNBE operations meetings. The verification team confirmed ongoing stakeholder communication throughout the monitoring period through interviews with CNBE and a review of supporting evidence, including samples of email correspondence between CNBE and the District and log of emails between CNBE and the District. Based on the evidence reviewed, the verification team concludes that the project meets the ongoing stakeholder consultation requirements.”
Decided by a team member: not found (checklist model: found; second model 19% likely found)
“7 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS The Project stakeholders are the District and CNBE. There are no other investment group or public groups involved in the Project. Therefore, no formal stakeholder consultations are required. However, the District does have a formal process for receiving comments or complaints available to the public via email or telephone. No comments regarding this Project have been received. In addition, the District Committee, which is an oversight committee comprised of representatives of the District’s member communities and which makes strategic decisions for the District, meets once per month and the meetings are open to the public.”
“No grievances were received. No resolution was required because no grievance was received during monitoring period. Grievances can be sent directly to CRMC by email or phone. CRMC has not received a grievance by the public during its years of operation. CommonWealth Resource Management Corporation (CRMC) maintains a website that contains the owners’ emails and telephone numbers, which the public has easy access. The public also can send grievances to the Greater New Bedford Regional Refuse Management District (District), which has an odor hotline for public reports and a website with contacts email and phone. CRMC is in contact with the District each work day and during this monitoring period, no grievance from the District was communicated to CRMC. If CRMC receives a grievance directly or through the District, CNBE would work with the District to address the grievance by assessing the conditions of the grievance and take actions to cure or mitigate the cause of the grievance.”
“No grievances were received. No resolution was required because no grievance was received during monitoring period. Grievances can be sent directly to CRMC by email or phone. CRMC has not received a grievance by the public during its years of operation. CommonWealth Resource Management Corporation (CRMC) maintains a website that contains the owners’ emails and telephone numbers, which the public has easy access. The public also can send grievances to the Greater New Bedford Regional Refuse Management District (District), which has an odor hotline for public reports and a website with contacts email and phone. CRMC is in contact with the District each work day and during this monitoring period, no grievance from the District was communicated to CRMC. If CRMC receives a grievance directly or through the District, CNBE would work with the District to address the grievance by assessing the conditions of the grievance and take actions to cure or mitigate the cause of the grievance.”
“The verification team confirmed that CNBE maintains a grievance redress procedure to receive and address grievances. Contact information for CRMC, the parent company of CNBE, and the District, including phone numbers and email addresses, is publicly available on their respective websites. In addition, the District operates an odor hotline for public reporting. Based on the evidence reviewed, the verification team concludes that the Project meets requirements for the grievance redress procedure.”
“6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT In accordance with the requirements of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”), prior to construction of the Project and as a pre-requisite to Project permitting, CNBE submitted an Environmental Notification Form (“ENF”) to the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs to enable the Secretary, acting through the MEPA Office (the state agency responsible for assessing the potential environmental impact of proposed projects pursuant to MEPA) to determine whether and to what extent any detailed environmental impact assessment of the Project should be required. Based on its review of the ENF, in February 2004 the MEPA Office determined and the Secretary certified that no Environmental Impact Report for the Project would be required.”
“Consent The FPIC requirement is not applicable to this Project because it does not impact the land, territories, or resource rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, or customary rights holders. CNBE has obtained all necessary legal authorizations and permissions for Project development at the landfill site and for the collection, use, and destruction of landfill gas.”
“The Project does not affect Indigenous Peoples, local communities, or customary rights holders; therefore, no FPIC process or related discussions were required.”
“The Project is located on privately owned land in the United States with no indigenous or customary land claims and therefore does not affect the rights of Indigenous Peoples or local communities. The verification team reviewed the Monitoring Report, landfill permits, stakeholder agreements, and conducted site visit discussions, confirming compliance with U.S. laws and international human rights standards, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. No human rights risks were identified.”
“CNBE identified no risks related to indigenous peoples and cultural heritage.”
“The Project does not affect Indigenous Peoples, local communities, or customary rights holders. As such, no mitigation or preventative measures were required, and this section is not applicable. Based on the evidence reviewed, the verification team confirms that no risks related to indigenous peoples and cultural heritage have been identified during the monitoring period.”
Every version anchored on Sepolia stays readable: a retirement records the version current when it happened. Each file is hashed in your browser and compared with that version on the contract.
0xe09f…d8aa(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0xd1f4…e843(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x786c…5ddc(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x5e84…dd4d(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0xc854…66be(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x69e8…be83(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)Signal, not verdict. Each check says whether a specific kind of evidence is present in an excerpt of the submitted documents, not whether the evidence is true. Scores are not an ICVCM assessment, a rating of the project, or a statement about its real-world impact.
Report v6 anchor on Sepolia Etherscan(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)