Tribunal upholds disclosure of hydrogen heating environmental information

The First-tier Tribunal has delivered a significant judgement reinforcing the principle of environmental information transparency following the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero's unsuccessful appeal against disclosure requirements. The decision in [2025] UKFTT 1025 (GRC) establishes important precedent regarding the application of Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) exceptions.

Background to the dispute

The case originated from a request seeking assessments or reports concerning the future availability and cost of hydrogen for home heating, covering documents produced since January 2021. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero refused disclosure under Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR, claiming the material remained in the course of completion.

The Information Commissioner subsequently ruled against this refusal, prompting the Secretary of State's tribunal appeal. Judge Sanger, alongside Members Cosgrave and P. Taylor, heard arguments concerning whether the requested information qualified as environmental information and whether legitimate exceptions applied.

Tribunal's analysis of environmental information status

The tribunal confirmed that the requested information constituted environmental information under Regulation 2(1) EIR. This classification triggered the presumption favouring disclosure unless compelling grounds for withholding could be demonstrated.

Central to the tribunal's reasoning was the distinction between ongoing processes and completed documents within those processes. The panel emphasised that even where broader policy development continues, individual documents must be assessed for completeness on their own merits. The tribunal determined that the withheld information represented "completed pieces of work" rather than unfinished materials.

Secretary of State's unsuccessful arguments

The appeal rested on two primary contentions. First, that disclosure risked public misunderstanding of ongoing evaluations, potentially affecting policy formation during government deliberations on hydrogen's strategic role in domestic heating. Second, that the documents qualified as "internal communications" meriting protection under EIR provisions.

The tribunal rejected both arguments, finding that public access to environmental information serves fundamental democratic principles of informed discourse. The decision reflects established jurisprudence prioritising transparency over speculative concerns about public misinterpretation.

Precedential significance of prior disclosures

A pivotal factor in the tribunal's decision was the Department's previous disclosure of related documents from the same request. This partial disclosure created a compelling case for releasing remaining materials unless specifically distinguishable circumstances justified differential treatment.

The tribunal noted that selective disclosure without clear justification undermines the coherent application of information access rights. This approach aligns with established principles requiring consistent treatment of comparable requests.

Government transparency obligations

The judgement reinforced governmental duties regarding transparency and information accuracy. The tribunal emphasised that public authorities bear responsibility for ensuring citizens can access relevant environmental information, particularly regarding policy areas with significant public interest implications.

The decision reflects broader judicial recognition that environmental information access serves essential oversight functions in democratic governance, enabling informed public participation in environmental policy debates.

Practical implications

The tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal entirely, mandating disclosure within thirty calendar days of the judgement. This timeframe reflects standard practice for information disclosure orders whilst allowing reasonable implementation periods.

The ruling establishes that completion-based exceptions require careful analysis of individual documents rather than blanket application to entire policy areas. This approach may influence future departmental disclosure decisions and appeal strategies.

The case demonstrates the courts' continued support for robust environmental information access rights, reinforcing that governmental preference for confidentiality cannot override statutory disclosure obligations without substantial justification. The decision serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between legitimate confidentiality interests and public information rights, with transparency generally prevailing absent compelling contrary evidence.