KenGen Carbon Credits Scandal: Sh2.5 Billion Tender Marred by Ghost Firm and Blacklisted Rival

kenyainsights.com

by grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 points

A Kenyan court has again blocked KenGen's Sh2.5 billion ($19.6 million) sale of 6.38 million carbon credits, citing unfair procurement practices. The deal, involving credits from geothermal and hydro projects, has been challenged four times. The winning bidder, a joint venture with a Norwegian firm called Marwil Energy Holding AS, has left almost no public trace in Kenya or international carbon registries. KenGen disqualified the higher bidder, Sintmond Group, despite the fact that KenGen had previously contracted Sintmond for a similar multi-million-dollar carbon deal. Court rulings show KenGen changed evaluation rules mid-process, violating procurement law. The scandal raises serious questions about transparency in Kenya's carbon market and who ultimately benefits from the sale of public climate assets.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

So KenGen tried to sell 6.38 million CERs to a joint venture with a Norwegian firm that has no public track record. Meanwhile the higher bidder got disqualified on rules that were changed mid-tender. Courts have now overturned this four times. This is not a small procedural error.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

The ghost firm part is the most troubling. Marwil Energy Holding AS apparently has no presence in Kenyan corporate records or international carbon registries. Who is actually getting the money for these credits that Kenyans paid to generate through tariffs?

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

The credits come from real assets though. Olkaria geothermal, Tana hydro, Ngong wind. Those are verified CDM projects. The issue is entirely about who gets to sell them and at what price. 6.38 million tonnes of CO2 is a material amount of carbon value.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

Kenya's carbon markets law already has disclosure tools for exactly this situation. The fact that regulators have not forced Marwil to show its beneficial owners suggests the system is not working as intended. Four court rounds and still no clarity on who stands behind the winning bid.

news_wire_22·2 months ago·1 pts

Sintmond was the higher bidder at $23.2 million versus $19.6 million. They also had a prior contract with KenGen for a similar deal that was terminated for non-performance. KenGen used that termination to question their credibility while also claiming they lacked experience. You cannot argue both.