The Future Of Damages In Low-Carbon Energy Disputes: An Economic Perspective

For several decades, international energy arbitration has followed a relatively familiar pattern, centered on disputes involving fossil fuel projects, infrastructure, and long-term energy contracts. While the core economic questions remain consistent, disputes arising from the transition to a low-carbon economy are increasingly shaped by climate policy, technological change, ESG pressures, sanctions, and geopolitics. These developments are generating disputes that are structurally familiar but contain important twists in the economic questions they pose. From a quantum perspective, the low-carbon energy transition poses two main challenges: abandoning a business-as-usual baseline and separating transition risk from the effects of specific measures through realistic, climate-consistent counterfactuals.

In Global Arbitration Review’s The Guide to Energy Arbitrations Seventh Edition, Senior Managing Director Fabrizio Hernández and Managing Director Fabricio Nuñez published a chapter titled “The Future of Damages in Low-Carbon Energy Disputes: An Economic Perspective.” In their chapter, the authors examine which disputes have mattered most in practice and how that picture is expected to change in the coming decade, given the energy transition. They organize disputes into families united by their similar economic logic and salient quantum questions. The authors also identify cross‑cutting recurring themes across these dispute families and how to address them. Finally, the authors draw on practical implications for valuation and damages analysis in this evolving landscape.

The estimation of damages in energy transition disputes requires the application of well-established principles to disputes in which climate policy, technological change, financial and ESG pressures, and sanctions and geopolitics form part of the baseline against which causation and loss must be assessed. The authors explain that the central quantum task is to remove the breach, not the transition, by constructing counterfactuals that retain credible decarbonization paths, market volatility, and evolving regulation, while isolating the incremental effect of the disputed conduct on asset value. Quantum analysis begins with a legal characterization of the dispute to determine which developments fall within the investor’s assumed risk and which cross the line into a compensable breach. The authors emphasize that within that framework, damages experts assist tribunals by assessing causation, constructing transition consistent counterfactuals, applying familiar valuation tools, and analyzing mitigation and contributory fault.

The authors conclude that, consistent with their role in other arbitration contexts, damages experts should exercise professional skepticism in reviewing internal data and projections, cross‑check management forecasts against external evidence and historical performance where available, and apply reasonableness tests to corroborate the resulting damages estimates.

To download publication, please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.