Glenn R. George, PhD

Glenn R. George is a seasoned advisor and expert witness in the global power and utilities, oil and gas, mining, manufacturing, water, chemical/petrochemical, transport, and related infrastructure sectors. Drawing on his background as an engineer, economist, and business manager, he applies deep expertise in strategy, policy, regulation, technology, finance, and risk assessment to business challenges facing companies, regulators, and investors. His areas of specialization include regulatory design, M&A support (involving over time more than 30,000 MW of capacity), asset valuation, risk assessment, electric vehicle infrastructure, and energy efficiency, together with  power generation (renewable, fossil, and nuclear), transmission, and distribution. His consulting work addresses regulatory strategy, transactions, and new business models, while his litigation support work focuses on complex commercial litigation and international arbitration (both commercial and investor-state) related to contract disputes and construction delays and cost overruns in the energy and infrastructure sectors.

Prior to joining Bates White, Dr. George was managing director at NERA and a partner with KPMG. He has also held senior positions at Nomura Securities International (as co-head of energy) and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Before entering the consulting field, Dr. George served in leadership, policymaking, and program management positions in the US government in the areas of nuclear facility operations; Congressional liaison; export controls; and warship design, procurement, regulation, and operation. He is a registered professional engineer in the District of Columbia.

Dr. George is an active member of numerous organizations, including the American Economic Association, American and International Bar Associations, American Nuclear Society, and American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In 2011 he was awarded the American Nuclear Society Presidential Citation for his response to the Fukushima accident.

PhD, Public Policy (with a focus on energy economics and regulation), Harvard University

Certificate, Nuclear Engineering, Bettis Reactor Engineering School, US Department of Energy

MBA (with Distinction), Cornell University

BS, Engineering (with Distinction), Cornell University

EXPERT Q&A SERIES

Dr. George discusses disputes in the international arbitration arena.

Dr. George has provided economic consulting as a testifying expert and consulting economist on diverse matters, including the following:

• Testified at trial on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Nigeria v. P&ID, an $11 billion international arbitration matter in the High Court of England and Wales.
• Submitted written testimony on behalf of the claimant in Elevolution–Engenharia, S.A. v. Mauritania, an international arbitration matter. The case involves a canceled contract to rebuild a highway in Mauritania. 
• Retained on behalf of the claimant in Mesa SpA v. Número Um-Reparação de automóveis SA and TOPCHALLENGE SGPS, S.A., an international arbitration matter under ICC rules. The claimant alleges violation of terms (including regarding non-competition) of the master franchise agreement for MIDAS automobile repair shops in Portugal. Testimony quantified claimed damages and responded to counterclaim damages. 
• Provided expert testimony and consulting on behalf of Uganda in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, a matter at the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Developed an exhaustive critique of the damages methodology employed by economists for the DRC purporting to value various heads of damages, including civilian lives lost as a result of the conduct of Ugandan soldiers.
• Provided lead commercial due diligence support to the US Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Program Office in connection with a $3.7 billion loan guarantee expansion granted to the Vogtle 3 and 4 nuclear construction project in September 2017.
• Expert testimony and analytical support on behalf of ATK/EnergySolutions in a prominent procurement dispute against the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in the Supreme Court of the UK (ATK v. NDA, UKSC 34). The matter involved a GBP 6.1 billion contract to decommission nuclear facilities in the UK. As lead expert witness, helped develop detailed cost estimates for decommissioning a large number of nuclear sites, foregone fees from the contract, and lost profits from future opportunities in the global decommissioning market, all within a complex but-for analysis. The case settled.
• Served as “preferred provider” of economic and regulatory consulting services to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority related to the New York State Reforming the Energy Vision initiative. Analyzed the impact of new technology, business models, and regulatory mechanisms on local electric power distribution companies in New York state and elsewhere, with a focus on the value of distributed energy resources.
• Expert witness on behalf of applicant before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. At issue in the rate case was the applicability of the Operating Ratio method of rate regulation as an alternative, for utilities possessing a high capital turnover ratio, to the Rate Base/Rate of Return methodology. Recommended an improvement to the Operating Ratio method to make it applicable to a broader array of utility rate cases. The case settled.
• Expert witness on behalf of defense in HEAL Utah, et al. v. Kane County Water Conservancy District, et al., in Utah District Court for the 7th District of Utah (No. 120700009). Plaintiffs sought relief, which would have been tantamount to a government expropriation of nuclear power plant development rights associated with a tract of land. Addressed market demand for future power plant output in light of public policies favoring nuclear technology despite its complexity and political sensitivity. The Court rejected the claim in toto and accepted the testimony given on behalf of the defendant.
• Expert witness on behalf of defense in the matter DOCA Company, as Successor to Caldon Company Limited Partnership v. Advanced Measurement and Analysis Group Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, in US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 04-1951). Addressed the claimed quantum of damages due to alleged foregone future sales of a particular complex industrial technology, the technical performance of which was uncertain. The quantum calculation assessed the global market for that technology in a counterfactual scenario, despite technical and regulatory uncertainty in many jurisdictions, and forecast sales revenue and margins in a complex discounted cash flow calculation.
• Expert witness on behalf of defense in Arbitration under the International Commercial Arbitration Act (Ontario), Between Cameco Bruce Holdings II Inc., et al., and British Energy Ltd., et al. Case involved sale of a nuclear power plant in Canada and the cross-border sale of a government-owned nuclear power plant in Canada. Addressed the condition of certain key components and systems at the time of sale; the adequacy of disclosure of those conditions pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement; the appropriateness of the operator’s corrective actions; and the potential impact on plant operation, projected life, value, and quantum of damages in a series of but-for scenarios. At the heart of the dispute was the technical performance of the facility at the time of sale and the impact of that performance on enterprise value.
• Expert witness on behalf of defense in Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. United States, in the US Court of Federal Claims (COFC No. 04-0033C). The case involved one of the largest damage claims against the US government, involving Indian Point power plant. Addressed both liability for and quantum of damages. The quantum calculation involved estimating the diminution in enterprise value as a result of the US government’s alleged breach of a contract. At issue was (in an elaborate but-for scenario) the potentially higher cost of capital (and concomitant decrease in asset value) as a result of a perceived increase in regulatory risk and the possibility of government intervention in a politically charged situation. The court denied the claim in toto, citing Dr. George’s testimony 17 times in the decision.