Cinneadh
Mr. F & ESB Networks DAC [the ESB]
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-147429-Z9J2D8
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-147429-Z9J2D8
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the ESB has established that it did not hold information coming within the scope of the appellant’s request in accordance with article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations.
17 September 2025
1. On 01 February 2024, the appellant made an AIE request to the ESB as follows;
I wish to request under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations, in electronic format;
The location (in GIS format - Shapefile of point locations) of all issues that resulted in site visits by ESB crews (or contractors working on behalf of ESB) to assess damage and effect repair to the ESB transmission network as a result of Storm Isha and Storm Jocelyn (January 2024) in County Leitrim.
Information to include the nature of the issue (e.g. fallen or windblown trees)
Please provide a Schedule of Records with your decision.
Could you please provide an acknowledgement of this request and contact details for the party assigned to deal with it.
Can you please include my reference in the Subject Bar of any correspondence on this request.
2. The ESB delivered its original decision on 14 February 20024, advising that searches carried out yielded no records in relation to the request and that no changes were made on the GIS system due to “issues that resulted in site visits by ESB crews (or contractors working on behalf of ESB) to assess damage and effect repair to the ESB transmission network as a result of Storm Isha and Storm Jocelyn (January 2024) in County Leitrim ” and that ESB Networks DAC’s GIS system is not used for assessing damage or effecting repairs due to storms.
1. On 14 February 2024, the appellant sought an internal review of his request, stating that the decision maker appeared to have misinterpreted his request, and his request was “for the location of the issues ” and if the ESB did not have that information in the requested GIS format that the ESB was “free to provide it in an alternative format .”
3. In its internal review decision delivered 12 March 2024, the ESB stated that it had enquired into the searches made and was satisfied the original request was misinterpreted as the search had been limited to the GIS system. The ESB carried out further searches, however it stated that no records in relation to the request exist.
4. The appellant appealed to my Office on 15 March 2024, stating that the ESB had failed to demonstrate that all reasonable steps had been taken to identify the information requested and that no details had been provided as to what searches were undertaken.
5. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and the ESB Networks DAC. In addition, I have had regard to:
a. the Guidance document provided by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the AIE Regulations (the Minister’s Guidance);
b. Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
c. the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention); and
d. The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
6. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered.
7. In accordance with article 12 (5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of this Office is to review the public authority’s internal review decision and to affirm, annual or vary it.
8. The scope of this review is solely concerned with whether the ESB was justified in refusing access to environmental information coming within the scope of the appellant’s request on the grounds that no relevant information was held by or for the ESB under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
9. While the AIE Regulations do not explicitly provide that the burden of proof rests with the public authority in relation to justifying a refusal to make information available, the Commissioner considers that the scheme of the Regulations, and of Directive 2003/4/EC upon which the Regulations are based, makes it clear that there is a presumption in favour of release of environmental information.
The ESB
10. In submissions to this Office dated 19 August 2025, the ESB acknowledged that the searches carried out in respect of the Original Decision were limited, as the request was interpreted as a request for GIS data only. The ESB stated in response to the internal review request, that additional searches were carried out and input was sought from the relevant subject matter experts – specifically the Networks Performance Manager, Asset Information Manager and the National Distribution Control Centre Manager. The ESB stated that “if faults on the Transmission Network occurred, and records relating to same existed, these individuals would be aware of them and where to search for them .” The ESB explained that searches were specifically focused on the 110kV, 220kV and 400kV transmission networks, as these voltage levels define the transmission system in Ireland and the AIE request specifically referred to the transmission network.
11. The ESB advised that each subject matter expert undertook searches within their respective areas of responsibility, which included searches of the following data repositories:
• CRO Station Alarm Logs: Examined Excel logs for alarms triggered for the relevant period[s].
Faults on the transmission network are monitored and managed by EirGrid, the Transmission System Operator (“TSO”). When a fault occurs that requires site attendance, EirGrid contacts the Control Room Operators (“CROs”) in ESB Networks’ National Distribution Control Centre (NDCC). The CROs then create a Station Alarm in the Network Management System (NMS), which is dispatched to the relevant Network Technician via Dispatch. Every such alarm results in a site visit. This process ensures that all transmission faults requiring ESB attendance are recorded and actioned systematically. Based on the analysis of CRO Station Alarm logs and confirmation from subject matter experts, we are confident that no transmission faults occurred in County Leitrim during Storm Isha or Storm Jocelyn. No station attendance requests were received from EirGrid for Leitrim during this period.
• List of transmission damage from EirGrid for the relevant period[s].
EirGrid uses an internal Event Management System to track faults, which are then communicated to ESB Networks for operational response. During storm events or when foot patrols are required Fault data from EirGrid is shared with ESB Networks via email. During significant weather events updates are supplemented by verbal communications. The transmission fault list reviewed primarily covered Storm Isha (21 January 2024). It also encompassed the period during which Storm Jocelyn occurred (22–23 January 2024).
• SAP Fault Management System: Searched by date range (January–March 2024), location (County Leitrim), and voltage level 110kV–400kV - (i.e. the transmission system).
The SAP system is used to identify any records that might reflect fault-related activity on the transmission network. SAP is primarily a financial and resource planning system, and while it does not directly record faults, it allows users to raise work items—known as “orders”— against assets. These orders indicate that time, materials, and costs were incurred due to a fault or for routine maintenance. No orders were recorded for Co. Leitrim, however, during storm events, bulk financial data is typically used instead of individual work orders, so SAP’s fault-related entries are limited in that context.
12. The ESB also stated;
“There are only three transmission stations located in County Leitrim— Corderry 110kV, Garvagh 110kV, and Gilra 110kV. The searches carried out using these key words/names would return any details relating to the station and/or the transmission line it serves, none of which appeared in the records reviewed, confirming that no transmission faults or alarms were recorded in Co. Leitrim during the relevant period. Nearby stations (not located in Leitrim), but which are part of high-voltage transmission circuits passing through Leitrim, were also searched for. These include Srananagh 220kV, Carrick-on-Shannon 110kV, and Flagford 220kV. While a small number of events were recorded in relation to these locations, none related to network faults, damage, or required attendance by ESB, and therefore did not satisfy the information requested… Each of these searches confirmed that no faults were recorded on the ESB transmission network in County Leitrim during Storm Isha or Storm Jocelyn. Therefore, following these searches, which I consider were appropriate and adequate in light of the information requested, I am satisfied that no records exist because no issues to the ESB transmission network as a result of Storm Isha and Storm Jocelyn occurred in Co. Leitrim.”
13. The ESB also provided technical information in respect of its emergency storm response and “distribution network ” which operates at higher voltages and how that differs from transmission network operations, concluding that the nature of storm response means that detailed, location specific records are not created or retained in the same was as for planned works.
The appellant
14. In the appellant’s request for an internal review, he stated that the decision maker appeared to have misinterpreted his request which was for the “location of the issues ” and if the ESB did not have that information in the requested GIS format, it was free to provide it in an alternative format. He also stated that he assumed the ESB was not trying to claim that there were no issues as that would not be credible. The appellant suggested that the Internal review decision maker contact him in order that he could be confident that the correct searches were being undertaken.
15. In the appellant’s appeal to this Office dated 15 March 2024, he argued that the ESB had failed to demonstrate that all reasonable steps had been taken to identify the information requested and that no details had been provided as to what searches were undertaken. He also stated that he was “at a loss to understand how the ESB was able to identify and rectify issues with the power network if they have no information as to where the issues were .”
16. Upon receipt of the ESB’s submissions, the Appellant stated that it appears that the ESB has “a different terminology for what constitutes the transmission network ” than what he understands it to be. He also stated that he considered it reasonable for an ordinary member of the public “to consider any power cable that transfers power from one point to another to be part of the transmission network ”. He also surmised that the ESB only considers cables rated 110kV or greater to be part of the transmission network. The appellant also clarified that he was looking for information related to power outages to people's homes and businesses which tends to be from damage to smaller scale infrastructure and he questioned if those lower voltage cables are not part of the transmission network, how does the ESB describe them.
17. The appellant also criticised the ESB for failing to clarify his request and stated that in response to the acknowledgment of his request on 01 February 2023, he wrote "If the decision maker has any queries I would be happy to answer them ." He stated that no queries were made, or clarifications sought by the ESB in respect of his request.
18. Article 7 (1) of the AIE Regulations requires public authorities to make available environmental information that is held by or for them on request, subject to the provisions of the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, if a public authority wishes to refuse access to environmental information held by or for it, it must do so under an exemption provided for in the AIE regulations.
Article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations
19. In this case, the appellant contends the ESB should hold information relevant to his request. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider, where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information or any further environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned. It provides as follows;
“Where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it.”
Duty to give reasons
20. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case, but as a general guide, I set out below the type of information that my Office would generally expect to be set out in a decision where a public authority is relying on article 7(5) of the regulations:
I. an outline of exactly which areas/units etc. of the organisation were searched for the information;
II. an explanation of how searches were carried out (i.e. manually, by computer, by name, by key words). Keywords should be recorded and provided in the decision as appropriate;
III. details of the individuals consulted in connection with the search;
IV. a description of the searches carried out to cover the possibility of misfiled/misplaced records;
V. details of guidelines, practices, procedures and arrangements in relation to the storage, filing, archiving, retention and destruction of the type of information requested in this case;
VI. the basis on which the public authority has concluded that it does not hold any information within the scope of the appellant’s request and that no such information is held by any other person or body on its behalf.
21. Article 7(5) of the AIE regulations allows a public authority to refuse a request if it does not hold the requested information. In order for a public authority to successfully rely on this provision, it must, amongst other things, provide evidence that it carried out adequate searches for the environmental information requested. The requirement under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations for a public authority to clearly set out the actions it has taken in response to a request is not only necessary for this Office in its considerations but also gives confidence to the appellant that suitable search procedures were conducted in response to their request.
22. The duty to give reasons for the refusal of requests arises not only by virtue of the AIE Regulations and Directive but is also recognised generally as a core principle of administrative law and a fundamental element of constitutional justice (see, for example, Meadows v Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 3 and Balz & Anor v An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2019] IESC 90). Both of these judgments, in the same way as the AIE Regulations, make it clear that where a requester has all or part of a request refused, they are entitled to be provided with clear reasons for that refusal.
23. This duty arises so that the requester can take a view as to whether they consider refusal justified, or whether they wish to exercise their entitlement to have the refusal reviewed, whether at internal review stage or through an appeal to this Office.
24. In its submissions to this office, the ESB outlined the steps undertaken with respect to searches for information relevant to this AIE request. I have carefully examined the steps that the ESB says it took to ensure all information relevant to the request has been identified which include consultation with various subject matter experts and specific searches carried out. It is the ESB’s contention that no records exist, falling within the scope of this request as “no faults were recorded on the ESB transmission network in County Leitrim during Storm Isha or Storm Jocelyn .”
25. It is the appellant’s position that the ESB did not take a broad interpretation of his request and confined its searches to cables rated 110kV or greater to be part of the transmission network, arguing that it failed to demonstrate that all reasonable steps had been taken to identify the information requested and that no details had been provided as to what searches were undertaken.
26. In light of the appellants clarification in his correspondence with this Office dated 01 September 2025, that he is looking for information “related to power outages to people's homes and businesses which tends to be from damage to smaller scale infrastructure ” it appears to me that the information he is looking for is outside the scope of his original request.
27. The appellant in his Original request, sought “the location (in GIS format - Shapefile of point locations) of all issues that resulted in site visits by ESB crews (or contractors working on behalf of ESB) to assess damage and effect repair to the ESB transmission network as a result of Storm Isha and Storm Jocelyn (January 2024) in County Leitrim .” As a result of his clarification in his Internal review request regarding the format of the information, the ESB broadened its search, however this extended search remained limited to the “transmission network ” as clearly identified by the appellant. Whilst I appreciate the appellants clarification to this Office that he was seeking information regarding homes and businesses, this information was not made clear within his original request, internal review request or appeal to this Office.
28. I am satisfied that the ESB did not fail in is obligation to assist the appellant in the making of the request nor should it be criticised for failing to seek further clarification from the appellant, where, on the face of the request, there was nothing to suggest the appellant required assistance. A plain reading of the request would suggest not only familiarly with the AIE request regime on the part of the appellant but also a technical familiarity with the ESB’ various networks and the format in which data the ESB may hold.
29. Considering the circumstances of this appeal, I am persuaded based on the information before me, that the ESB has taken sufficient steps to determine that it does not hold environmental information relevant to the appellant’s request and accordingly, was justified in refusing the request based on article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations.
30. It is notable in this case that the while I am satisfied with the information provided by the ESB to this Office following queries raised by the Investigator, the internal review decision provided to the appellant lacked sufficient detail to address the issues raised. I remind the ESB of their duty to give reasons, most crucially at internal review decision stage, when issuing decisions under the AIE regime. Had greater detail been provided to the appellant at the internal review decision stage, it may well have avoided this appeal to my Office.
31. In all the circumstances, in particular the ESB’s explanation regarding its interpretation of the scope of the appellant’s request and the searches carried out, I am satisfied that the ESB has taken sufficient steps to determine that it does not hold environmental information relevant to the appellant’s request and accordingly was justified in refusing the request based on article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations. For the sake of completeness, I note the appellant has the option to submit a fresh request for information beyond the scope of his original request should he wish to do so.
32. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I hereby affirm the decision of the ESB under article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations.
33. A party to the appeal or any other person affected by this decision may appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than two months after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
______________________
Julie O’Leary
On behalf of Commissioner for Environmental Information