In this game, credibility is key

                                    

Innovest, a financial analyst firm, recently released a report on Sierra Pacific Resources, ripping its plans to continue the development of two coal-generated power plants in Nevada.

As it turns out, Innovest's report was less than credible. The report's author failed to even talk to anyone at Sierra Pacific. And as pointed out by Stephanie Tavares in a great In Business Las Vegas article, it is full of holes, miscalculations and fuzzy assumptions.

Innovest won't even say who paid for the report.

Here's what we know: the report followed the party line of many special interest groups, who claim that coal has no place in America's future.

As we've discussed here before, they fail to consider all of the facts. The lack of objectivity in the report (and frankly the timing of the release of similar reports in other parts of the country) have even caused some to think that maybe Innovest's client could (I said could because, as I said, Innovest won't say who they did the study for) be a natural gas company that is simply trying to increase market share for natural gas and therefore drive up fuel prices.

More than anything, the article proves that the press can still be a great watchdog. But it also serves as a lesson: there are two sides to every story - including the energy debate - and it is important to consider both of them.