The Government has committed to radically reducing Ireland’s dependence on fossil fuels. Yet forces continue to work against this essential goal. A recent example is the granting of planning permission for a new large power plant on the Shannon Estuary.
Fuelled by natural gas, this plant will have two-thirds the capacity of Moneypoint, the coal-fired power station being retired after four decades.
Viewed in isolation, this project might appear to be consistent with climate goals: Gas-fired power can ramp up and down quickly to balance intermittent renewables, and natural gas has lower carbon intensity than coal. The emissions from a unit of electricity generated at a new gas plant would be around half those of Moneypoint.
New fossil power generation can, in theory, not be in conflict with Ireland’s climate law, as long as it is used to replace coal rather than meet new demand, and to meet peaks in demand that renewables cannot. The same logic underpins the government’s decision to develop a state-led liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal: that it will serve only as an emergency backstop, not to meet growing demand.
But these projects do not exist in isolation. It is worth asking: what mechanisms are in place to constrain the use of this infrastructure in line with the climate law, and imperative to cut fossil fuel use rapidly? And do they outweigh the powerful incentives – financial, political, and institutional – that will push for its use?
Take the example of the newly approved power plant. It is one part of a broader development proposed by Shannon LNG, a subsidiary of US company New Fortress Energy, which also includes a commercial LNG terminal and a large data centre campus. If developed, this project would spell booming demand and use for a fossil fuel that is more carbon intensive than coal.
There is no sign of a co-ordinated policy effort to limit the full buildout or operation of these developments. In fact, several of the policies to constrain developments like this put in place during the last government have been lifted.
The Government’s recent decision to move ahead with a state-led LNG terminal revoked the 2021 Policy Statement on the Importation of Fracked Gas, which had opposed LNG infrastructure and pledged support for an international phase-out of fracking.
That policy had a real impact: An Bord Pleanála cited it in refusing permission for the Shannon LNG terminal. But that refusal was overturned in the High Court in 2024, and the case continues. With the policy now withdrawn, one of the key constraints on LNG infrastructure has been removed.
If imported LNG is sourced from fracked gas in the US, as is highly likely, any theoretical climate benefit from switching from coal to gas largely disappears. Methane leakage during fracking and the emissions associated with liquefaction and shipping mean the life-cycle emissions can approach or exceed those of coal.
Where the barriers to LNG imports are being lifted, and where fossil fuel demand from data centres is enabled rather than constrained, it is hard to maintain the pretence that new gas infrastructure will be used only as backup
A similar dynamic is playing out with electricity demand. The Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU) recently published its policy on connecting Large Energy Users – mainly data centres – to the electricity grid. While many expected the policy to require data centres to procure or develop new renewable capacity to meet their demand, the CRU decided that the Climate Act does not give it a clear legal mandate to impose such emissions-related requirements. Instead, new data centres must now provide on-site dispatchable generation – most likely powered by gas.
This raises broader questions about the implementation of the Climate Act. Section 15 requires that all public bodies perform their functions in a manner consistent with climate obligations. If a regulator as central as the CRU does not interpret this as a mandate to constrain emissions through its policies, what does that imply for other state bodies?
With a view of this bigger picture – with restrictions on LNG imports and data centre gas demand lifted – it is difficult to believe that new fossil fuel infrastructure is intended as a backup only.
Seen in this broader context, where the barriers to LNG imports are being lifted, and where fossil fuel demand from data centres is enabled rather than constrained, it is hard to maintain the pretence that new gas infrastructure will be used only as backup.
Indeed, projections for future gas use already exceed what is allowable under Ireland’s carbon budgets. The strongest driver of this growth is data centres, which are increasingly seeking direct connections to the gas grid. A direction to Gas Networks Ireland under Eamon Ryan’s tenure as minister for energy, to halt the permitting of new gas connection agreements to data centres, is unlikely to hold weight for much longer.
Geopolitical pressures further complicate the picture. Ireland, like many countries, is under pressure to approve new data centres to serve global tech interests, and to facilitate LNG exports from the United States, which are being aggressively promoted under the new US administration.
If we continue to invest in securing yesterday’s energy system, the greatest cost may be the missed opportunity to build tomorrow’s. Investing in fossil fuel infrastructure under the banner of energy security risks delaying or diverting the investment needed to deliver a genuinely secure and sustainable energy system based on renewables, electrification, grid expansion and efficiency.
This same issue arises beyond the energy sector. Public bodies responsible for transport, food and land use also continue to support policies and investments that increase emissions – such as expanding road infrastructure or reinforcing emissions-intensive agricultural practices. If Section 15 of the Climate Act is not interpreted as a clear legal obligation to align all public functions with climate goals, then the credibility of Ireland’s decarbonisation pathway is at risk. The Climate Change Advisory Council’s recommendation to review and, where necessary, amend the mandates of all public bodies is therefore increasingly urgent.
The fundamental question remains unanswered: once fossil fuel infrastructure is built, what enforceable constraints will ensure it is used only as a last resort?
Without a clear, legally grounded plan for how fossil fuels will be phased out, and how state bodies will be held accountable for that trajectory, the promise of clean energy remains undermined by the reality of ongoing fossil investment. The government must urgently introduce enforceable policies and accountability mechanisms to ensure that investments today do not compromise tomorrow’s climate and energy security.
Hannah Daly is professor of sustainable energy at UCC