Your Climate Solutions Expert: carbon offsets, renewable energy credits, and carbon tracking services

Don’t believe everything you read, but believe this

Posted by The NativeEnergy Team on Apr 29, 2010
Tags: carbon projects, greensburg wind farm, wind energy

NativeEnergy has been an innovator in the carbon markets for a decade. We take pride in helping to get projects built that otherwise would not go up. The Greensburg Wind Farm is the latest example of a Help Build™ project, and it is by far the largest we and our customers helped bring to life.

The project began delivering electricity to the grid in March, and we will be hosting a dedication in Greensburg, Kansas, on April 30. The story of Greensburg is an inspiration.

Recently, the Christian Science Monitor posted an online article that raises questions whether the Greensburg Wind Farm truly needed the payments from NativeEnergy and its customers to be built. This suggestion that we haven’t been square with people troubles us enormously.

In the article, the author failed to include any reference to the clear and unequivocal evidence that we provided to him – evidence that was verified by a qualified, independent third party – demonstrating that our customers’ contributions were essential to the development of the project. Curiously, he appears also not to have asked the developer, John Deere Renewables, about the crucial role that we and our customers are playing in making the project financially doable. As a result, the piece could leave the reader with an incorrect conclusion.

Let’s be clear: With our customers, we help build renewable energy and carbon projects that need our help. We help build projects that provide economic and social benefits to the communities in which they are located. The Greensburg Wind Farm project is the latest example. Any suggestion to the contrary is nonsense … at best.

P.S. If you would like to see this evidence for yourself, take a look at the financial additionality analysis in the project design document, and the independent third party’s validation of that analysis in its validation report.

Believe this, part 2

We took our objection to the Christian Science Monitor, stating that we believe the evidence demonstrated that the article they published was inaccurate. In response, the Monitor posted a “clarification” in the story about NativeEnergy on its web site. That clarification reads:

[Editor's note: It has been called to our attention that NativeEnergy has obtained certification from First Environment, a qualified carbon offset certification organization, in connection with the Greenburg, Kansas, wind farm project.]

In this case, “certification” (actually validation) includes a determination that the project was not financially or economically attractive without the promise of offsets revenues and is therefore additional. Just as we said all along.

In addition, a related piece, WGHB Boston also has placed a correction on its website.

We welcome the Monitor’s acknowledgment that the reporting in its piece fell short of including all the relevant facts. We remain disappointed that we had to beat on their door to get them to pay attention to information that we provided them and the author back on March 19. WGBH, on the other hand, didn’t omit critical facts in their possession, but rather simply made a mistake, promptly corrected it, and even apologized. Thanks to all at WGBH. Seriously. Thank you. 

Write a comment

  • Required fields are marked with *.