A Supreme Court decision has exposed a refusal by two state agencies to address sustainability targets, writes Billy MacInnes
Blogs
Image: Pixabay
Way back in the dim distant past, the Irish government passed a piece of legislation called the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. You may be forgiven for not remembering much about this act because, it appears, neither does An Coimisíún Pleanála (formerly An Bord Pleanála) nor the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities (CRU).
Here’s why it’s relevant. Last year, the High Court ruled in favour of Statkraft which had appealed a decision by An Coimisíún Pleanála to deny permission to develop a 13 turbine wind farm in Timahoe, Co Laois. Permission for the Coolglass wind farm was rejected in 2024 because the Laois County Development Plan did not allow wind farms in the area and the planning board ruled the development plan took precedence over national climate policy.
In his ruling in January last year, High Court judge Richard Humphreys overturned that decision, pointing to requirements in Section 15 (1) of the 2015 Act for relevant state bodies to “have a regard to” the most recent approved national mitigation plan, the furtherance of the national transition objective and the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.
Referring to Section 17 (1) in the 2021 amendment to the Act, he said the language had been strengthened with the requirement of state bodies to perform their functions “in a manner consistent with” the obligations set out in Section 15 (1).
He ruled that the then An Bord Pleanála had failed to exercise its powers in a manner compliant with the climate objectives and policies set out in Section 15 (1). The judge also cited evidence of “a significant shift since end-2022, whereby the board now effectively refuses to materially contravene development plans in support of renewable energy” with an “effectively fixed approach” that failed to meet its obligations under the 2015 act.
About now you’re probably wondering why I’m talking so much about planning for a wind farm when this blog is supposed to be focused on IT. It’s a fair question. Here’s why it matters.
On 4 February, the Supreme Court upheld most of Judge Humphrey’s ruling, dismissing the appeal by An Coimisiún Pleanála, concluding it had failed to perform its function because it “was required to consider whether the climate benefits of the project required or justified the grant of permission notwithstanding the material contravention of the development plan”.
Enter the CRU
Which brings us to data centres. Oisín Coghlan, director of Friends of the Earth, told RTE that the ruling has implications for the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU).
“Today’s judgement also seems to contradict the CRU’s position that it doesn’t have authority to regulate emissions from large energy users such as data centres,” he argued. “In fact, under the climate law it has a duty to use its existing powers in a manner consistent with reducing emissions. That seems to me to leave its recent positions on data centres wide open to legal challenge.”
Coghlan was referring to the CRU’s position, set out in its Large Energy Users Connection Policy decision paper in December 2025. In the paper, the CRU claimed “the current provisions under the Climate Action Act do not provide a sufficient legal basis to allow the CRU to explicitly mandate specific emissions reduction and offsetting measures (e.g. to require that connection applicants put in place arrangements to ensure that emissions associated with a demand connection are fully abated from the time of connection or on a set trajectory)”.
The CRU made specific reference to the 2025 High Court ruling and Section 15 (1) of the Act, but argued it did not consider “that the Climate Action Act confers a statutory function on the CRU to set a connection policy other than in line with the CRU’s other existing statutory functions”.
Planning and environmental lawyer Fred Logue told RTE that the Supreme Court ruling “clarifies that if something is manifestly inconsistent with carbon budgets or sectoral ceilings it will have to be refused”.
Separately, Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan told The Journal that the CRU’s existing data centre policy was “legally untenable”, accusing it of surrendering to “energy-hungry multinationals”.
Claiming the CRU’s decision in December had been seen as “reopening the floodgates” to data centres, she argued it would “allow data centres shape electricity demand and emissions for decades. That places it squarely inside the climate framework, whether it likes it or not.”
Whatever your views on data centres (and wind farms for that matter), it does seem bizarre regulatory bodies are arguing they are unable to consider climate-based issues when the government has passed a law that essentially requires them to take decisions “in a manner consistent with” the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.
Accepting the argument that, despite the 2015 Act and the 2021 amendment, bodies like the CRU and An Coimisiún Pleanála have no role to play in considering the impact of their decisions on reducing carbon emissions, is essentially arguing that they have an opt-out from the consequences of their decisions on the State’s climate objectives.
When you put it like that, it doesn’t seem to be much of an argument. The Supreme Court seems to agree.