In Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v An Coimisiún Pleanála [2026] IEHC 205, Humphreys J dismissed a challenge to a decision of An Coimisiún Pleanála (Commission) to approve a 600 MW gas‑fired power plant and 120 MW battery storage facility in Co. Kerry.
The ruling offers further clarity on climate obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended), how greenhouse gas emissions should be treated in Environmental Impact Assessment, and how Appropriate Assessment is to be understood where minor losses of Annex I habitats occur. It also underscores the importance of raising all relevant objections during the planning process rather than waiting to deploy them in litigation. Humphreys J reiterated that “[j]udicial review is not generally a second chance to dream up new issues” that were not already raised in the planning process.
Project Background
This project has a lengthy litigation history, culminating in the quashing of the Commission’s refusal to grant permission for the development in 2024 (Shannon LNG Limited v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 555). The Commission subsequently granted permission on 13 March 2025. See our previous insights on this proposed development here, here and here.
The permission includes a ten‑year construction window and a condition limiting operational use to 31 December 2050. It specifies that the plant may be used only as backup to intermittent renewable energy, unless fresh permission is obtained to permit use for other purposes.
Climate Law: Section 15 and the Treatment of GHG Emissions
The case considered the Commission’s obligation to act consistently, “insofar as practicable”, with the climate objectives identified in Section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended). The Court summarised its own conclusions in the recent judgment in Coolglass Wind Farm Limited v An Bord Pleanála [2026] IESC 5 (see our previous article here), emphasising that this duty is legally enforceable. Consistency with climate objectives exists across a spectrum of lawful outcomes, and practical considerations moderate the duty in a given context. Humphreys J also referenced his findings in Doyle v an Coimisiún Pleanála [2026] IEHC 156 (see our article here).
Humphreys J accepted that the Commission was entitled to evaluate the project in the context of a wider system, within which the proposed development will operate. Even though the plant would generate gross emissions, it was considered capable of displacing more carbon-intensive sources of power generation and helping stabilise the electricity system during periods of low wind and solar output. This “displacement” argument was included in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) and accepted by the Inspector.
Humphreys J noted that “[n]et zero by 2050 does not mean zero use of gas right now (or even necessarily at that point – the grid still needs to be stabilised). Some combination of different energy sources is going to be necessary to stabilise the grid and to supply actual energy needs pending the delivery of massively increased renewables.”
Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE), in contrast, provided expert evidence that the EIAR had incorrectly calculated emissions. Humphreys J held that evidence introduced at such a late stage could not undermine a planning decision, unless FIE could show that errors were apparent on the face of the record (which it had not).
He also made clear that neither carbon budgets nor sectoral emissions ceilings are directly covered by section 15. The section does not refer to these limits, and planning authorities are not required to convert national climate budgets into caps for individual projects.
Finally, Humphreys J found no failing in the Commission’s explanation of how the decision was consistent with section 15, noting that the conditions imposed, including the time limit to 2050 and the restriction to backup electricity use, were expressly linked to climate objectives.
Environmental Impact Assessment and Climate Effects
A separate ground of challenge related to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), with FIE alleging that the emissions methodology included was incorrect or incomplete. Humphreys J rejected this argument. In relation to commercially confidential modelling inputs which had been redacted, he noted that confidentiality is acknowledged by article 10 of the EIA Directive.
Ultimately, Humphreys J found that no error by the Commission in conducting the EIA had been demonstrated. He found that the Commission reached a reasoned conclusion in respect of the EIA, and that the onus was on the applicant to displace it, which it had not done.
Appropriate Assessment: Annex I Habitat Loss
A further challenge related to the temporary loss of approximately 165 m² of Annex I Estuary and Reef habitat arising from the installation of an outfall pipe. The Inspector concluded that the loss was extremely small relative to the vast extent of the habitat in the Shannon estuary and that it would be re‑established following construction and, certainly, after decommissioning of the development.
FIE sought to rely on the judgment in Sweetman v An Bord Pleanala C258/11 to argue that any loss of priority habitat automatically constitutes an adverse effect on integrity. Humphreys J rejected that interpretation. Sweetman concerns cases involving lasting or irreparable destruction; here, the loss was negligible and temporary. It was open to the Commission to conclude on the facts that the project did not run foul of the Habitats Directive.
Practical Implications for Developers and Authorities
This judgment confirms that efficient gas plants, which replace more carbon-intensive power generation sources and help stabilise the electricity system, remain a key part of Ireland’s climate transition strategy. It also reiterates that the onus is on Judicial Review applicants to prove any alleged inadequacies in the environmental assessments to obtain relief.
For planning authorities and applicants alike, the case underscores that climate duties under section 15 require structured reasoning rather than rigid assessments, and that decision‑makers retain a wide margin of evaluation provided they can explain how the decision aligns with the broader transition pathway.
Contributed by Hannah Faul
