“U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions totaled 2,530 million metric tons in the first six months of 2016. This was the lowest emissions level for the first six months of the year since 1991…” (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2016).

“The new policy and market design also provides a substantial boost to Mexico’s clean energy efforts: more than half of the 120 GW of new power generation capacity installed to 2040 is renewables-based.” (International Energy Agency, 2016).

“Uruguayan firm Jiménez de Aréchaga, Viana + Brause has helped Crédit Agricole and Caixabank grant a US$100 million loan to wind farm project company Vientos de Pastorale” (Latin Lawyer, 2017).

“The Borrower intends to design, construct, finance, furnish, install, test, commission, operate and own a 100 MW solar power generation facility located in Location [X] (the “Project”). Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, Bank [A] agrees to make, and the Borrower agrees to accept, a loan for the Project in a principal amount not to exceed two hundred million Dollars (USD$200,000,00.00).”

Regardless of their specialization or research focus area, lawyers (and law students) are regularly immersed in legal analyses that involve not only isolated numbers or units, but also numerical statements that often escape their basic legal training.

Understanding, using, and contesting numerical propositions in arguments, questions, offers, and/or counteroffers in the energy and environmental realm is difficult. It’s even more difficult for energy and environmental lawyers, in part because many law and policy discussions in these areas deal with complex concepts (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels use) in addition to quantified impacts (e.g. total number of greenhouse gas emissions measured in gigatonnes). Lawyers often tend to “copy/paste” numerical statements in briefs, research papers, newsletters, contracts, and several other legal documents. The numerical information contained in such statements usually lacks context and content and, thus, is not easy to digest by the relevant audience.

Mr. Rob A. James’ (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP) presentation at Stanford Law School’s Environmental Law & Policy Colloquium held on January 25, 2017, addressed many of the difficulties that lawyers typically face when dealing with numbers and units within the energy/environmental space. Mr. James’ presentation “Numeracy for Energy and Environmental Lawyers,” provided insights and lessons about the topic, including the following:

• Before using and/or contesting numerical propositions, energy and environmental lawyers should first understand the (i) physical dimension (e.g. what is energy?), (ii) unit of measure (for example, kilowatt-hour [kWh] as the unit to measure energy output); (iii) order of magnitude (e.g. a hundred? A million? A Quad?); and (iv) connection between relevant units (for instance, 1 kWh = 3.6 x 10⁶ Joules [J] or 3412 British thermal units [Btu]).

• Energy and environmental lawyers must support plain figures and units with financial, political, and technological considerations. Moreover, figures and units must be assessed vis-à-vis specific timeframes (both retroactive and prospective) and alternatives (for example, analyzing coal-fired power plants shut down in 2015 vis-à-vis natural gas-fired-power plants retired during the same period). That is, energy and environmental lawyers should contextualize any numerical statement they present.

• Lawyers should not use energy/environmental-related numerical facts just to make a point or pretend that they have a solid scientific background. Put in Mr. James’ own words, “lawyers sometimes suffer from the ‘Ghostbusters’ syndrome”:

In summary, it is essential for us (as energy and environmental lawyers) to recognize that random equations or cherry-picked statistics are pointless if our target audience is not able to relate to numerical facts, particularly since they are usually full of flashy figures, units, locations, periods, and technologies. Instead, we must provide a daily life basis of comparison to our numerical propositions in order for them to be accessible, approachable, and understandable by everyone.

In other words, when a lawyer (or law school student) writes or speaks about a multi-hundred million dollar investment in a multi-hundred megawatt clean energy generation facility, his/her remarks will certainly be meaningless if the author or the audience (or both) do not understand, for instance, what a megawatt means, how many homes/industrial plants will consume the associated electricity output, or how much the customer will pay or save as a result of the corresponding clean energy generation facility. Accordingly, unless we want to be identified as lawyers suffering from the Ghostbusters syndrome, it is of the utmost importance that we convey a more readable message to our audience when referring to energy and environmental issues (and numbers), whether in a courtroom, classroom, or transaction pre-closing meeting.