Previously, governmental guidelines for choice of discount rate allowed for differentiation of the rate based on the project’s systematic risk. After 2014, this was no longer allowed. This was in part because the risk adjustment proved to have low transparency and consistency across sectors. The guidelines now demand that the risk adjustment follows a return requirement that suits a large group of public-sector projects. We show that practitioners in the energy and environmental field deviate from the guidelines by making additional risk adjustments. In light of this, we point out weaknesses in the arguments for the revision in 2014. We also suggest how one can make consistent and transparent project specific risk adjustments.