EKOenergy label is not fully equivalent to Green-e certification?

Sounds like the reviewer is going by the letter of the law in that EKOenergy is approved for European projects but not necessarily for others. EKOenergy is accepted for projects in Europe by the European ACPs. By extension it would make sense to me that EKOenergy elsewhere should be granted equivalency assuming that they follow the same rules worldwide. If they do follow the same rules then you should be able to demonstrate equivalency. You could do a comparison of the EKOenergy standard for Europe and the version you used. If they are identical it would make no sense that it would not apply to your project too. You could also go back to Green-e and compare what you used to it. Here is how to demonstrate equivalency with Green-e.  Projects not using Green-e certified products must demonstrate the alternative’s equivalency to the quality standards established for Green-e Energy and Green-e Climate products: 

• Green-e Energy National Standard v2.1, Sections II, III (excluding G), IV (excluding A), and V
• Green-e Climate National Standard v2.0, Sections 4, 5, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, and 7

The accounting process and standards must be equivalent to Green-e products and address the following:

• Verifiable chain of custody
• Verifiable age of renewable energy
• Tracking of GHG reductions from eligible projects
• Mechanism to prevent double-counting
• Third party–verified retail transaction

For carbon offsets, retirement of an eligible credit alone is not equivalent to Green-e Climate certification. Hopefully you can pretty easily demostrate some sort of equivalency. 

The USGBC has confirmed numerous times and for many projects that EKOenergy is a valid alternative for Green-e worldwide. It's a pity they still need to confirm this in a publicly available text. I hope this will happen soon, as this will remove doubts and the need for ad-hoc decisions. EKOenergy started as a European ecolabel for renewable energy, in the same way as Green-e is active in the USA. That's why EKOenergy is only mentioned in the European ACP. Both ecolabels are non-profit, and focus  on speeding up the energy transiation. Since 2015, EKOenergy has become  active outside Europe. The label is now active in over 80 countries and works with the same criteria everywhere! So yes, if EKOenergy qualifies for LEED in Europe, the only logical conclusion is that EKOenergy qualifies for LEED in other countries also. We are thankful to LEED for the recognition. But the constant focus on  "equivalency" is not helpful or fair. In reality, such an approach undermines the hard work of labels like ours. If EKOenergy and Green-e are available, why do we allow others to prove there are "equivalent" solutions? Imagine someone would start a business to prove that a building is not  LEED certified but "LEED-equivalent." That wouldn't sound very efficient/helpful to me and would undermine the amazing work of all LEED experts. Users of EKOenergy-labelled energy not only purchase 100% renewable  electricity, they also contribute to the realisation of many sustainable development goals and help us, as a non-profit organisation, to promote renewable energy worldwide, also in underserved communities in low- and middle-income countries. Check out our website, or feel free to contact us for more information. Thanks to all EKOenergy users! Together, we make a concrete and measurable impact!