 Hello, everyone. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the importance of human behavior before handing over to the main act, which will be Jenny. So as a part of the six carbon budget suite of documents, there is a small note by me on what's called net zero after COVID, but since your behavioral perspective on how we get to net zero, particularly in the light of the COVID crisis we've just been through and how the enormous behavioral changes that has led to. In that document I put forward three principles which are pretty general and applicable in the context of any aspect really of getting to net zero, but certainly in the context of buildings. And one of those is the question of what's known as the power law of practice. So when we do something many times we get quicker, we get quicker in quite a reliable way. And this is actually not just true for people, psychologists such as myself tend to think about it in terms of people, but actually the same of course is very well known for technologies, organization efficiencies, the cost savings of computer chips. But of course we've seen this in wind, we've seen this in solar, we've seen this in batteries, and we're going to see this in the context of buildings as well. We don't know how quick the learnings are going to be, but at the level of those individuals learning how to manage their new power systems or energy, smart energy systems better, the industry learning to install and adjust and correctly use heat pumps, whatever or indeed as a broader scale, possibly the speed and efficiency with which hydrogen can be deployed across the economy. Whatever technology one's looking at, whatever aspect of behavior one's looking at, when things go to scale, of course they get cheaper, they get more efficient. At a more individual level, something else that's very important is the second point which I label status quo effects. We have a great tendency to like what we're used to, and what we're used to at the moment will be for many of us gas, and gas is going to not be the preferred option, at least natural gas will not be the preferred option in the future. So if we're going to make a switch away, then we'll have a natural resistance to that. And I think one thing that's worth stressing is that the status quo effect works both ways. Once we've switched to a new technology, we tend to like that new technology, but making that switch can be quite difficult. And one important thing is that the status quo effect is somewhat forward-looking. As soon as we start to realize, oh, we're all going to be doing X shortly, X starts to seem like the status quo and can actually seem like the thing we all want to have. And we may be seeing that with electric vehicles now or in the next few years, rather than starting to seem like a rather strange new technology, they can start to seem like the default option. It'll be very interesting to see how far that's true of, for example, heat pumps, and perhaps also hydrogen. And the third point very briefly is the importance of social norms. So as we all intuitively know, engage in our daily lives, we don't just think about the consequence of our actions, whether for the climate or anything else. We're often thinking, what am I supposed to do? What's a good, sensible, well-regarded citizen such as me supposed to do in a situation like this? So I do my recycling because I'm sort of supposed to, and I'm slightly vague about quite what the implications are, but I know it's a good thing and I'm supposed to do it. And I think these things are very important in regards to people adopting and taking seriously the challenge of reducing carbon emissions from their homes and also, of course, in businesses too. It needs to be good practice. It needs to be something we're all trying to do automatically without needing any cajoling or pushing. In fact, we want there to be bottom-up pressure ideally from all of us to try to live in a more low-carbon way. And to the extent that these technological changes and behavioral changes that go along with them, preheating our homes, using our heating more efficiently, not wasting hot water, having our heating systems adjusted appropriately, all of these things, to the extent they become essentially normative, good things that everyone should do just like sort of washing one's hands and sort of putting one's bins out, then the more rapidly we're actually going to get traction in the behavioral change. So I'm going to stop there and hand over to, as I say, the main actress is Jenny, introducing the six carbon budgets transition to buildings. Brilliant. Thank you so much, Nick. I think a lot of those points really resonated with me, in particular the one about the power of expectation. I think it was really interesting to see Lawrence Tugliana, one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, make that point about how the power of expectation was such an important element of the Paris Agreement framework. And Mike, in fact, drew a parallel with the carbon budget framework. So it's really interesting to hear you talk to that more broadly. Now, better crack on. I've got about 20 minutes of slides, so we should have plenty of time for questions. Now, to, I guess, to just introduce, set the scene a bit, we all know that buildings are one of the most fascinating challenges here, an area where public engagement attitudes will have a huge role to play, which is why it's great to hear Nick talk about some of those aspects just now. And that's why we're so happy that you've joined us this morning in such great numbers. The prize is, of course, huge. We are talking not just about cracking what is referred to often as the biggest challenge for net zero. We're talking about doing so, bringing with us millions of people and putting in place a policy framework that can support them, that can support in particular vulnerable and low income people. And in doing so, can help raise millions of people out of fuel poverty, can improve the air that we breathe, can improve the comfort of our homes, and, and of course, deliver homes which are suitable for net zero and, of course, a changing climate. So without further ado, we'll have four sections. So I'll briefly set out the context. We'll then take a look at the pathways. The third section is then around costs, which are worthy of discussion, because as we know, they are significant. And finally, we'll look very briefly at just a few elements of our outline policy framework. Okay. So our advice for setting the sixth carbon budget, which we published last Wednesday, is founded on five scenarios. We look at two scenarios, first with favorable conditions, one widespread engagement, which has very high levels of public engagement, as you might expect. And that means that people are willing to undertake home renovations at a rapid pace, change their behaviors, do the kinds of things Nick's just been talking to us about. We also look at another scenario with favorable underpinning conditions, which we term widespread innovation. And that's a world where, as you'd expect, we'd see high levels of innovation. In particular, these lead to lower electricity prices, which make electrification much more attractive. But it also means that we can wear more optimistic around the potential for improvement in heating technology efficiency, for instance. Then in the middle, you can see we've got headwinds. And as represented on this diagram, that's a world where you don't encounter either of those two favorable conditions. And we see that as a world where government in turn has to push harder on some areas, such as heavy infrastructure. And in particular for buildings, that's a hydrogen-focused scenario. Looking across the piece, then, what we tried to do is introduce a fourth scenario, which we call tailwinds. This is essentially the maximum possible ambition. So this says, okay, what if you combine the best case scenario on engagement, on innovation, and we're optimistic across the board in terms of what we can achieve? What's the fastest rate we could progress this and move to that series? And then finally, the one which I'll spend most of the time talking to you today is the balanced sixth carbon budget pathway. This is our essentially central scenario, the one that looks to keep this broad range of range of options in play and is informed by the different worlds that we've explored. Now, before we go into buildings, I thought it would be helpful for us to flash up this critical chart. This shows the headline, the sixth carbon budget here in purple. And that is the budget which spans 2035. It is therefore the key milestone on the path to net zero. And as you can see here, the advice we published last week is absolutely momentous. You only have to go back 18 months in time for us to be in a world where the UK had a legally binding target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. And so what we're talking about here is effectively bringing that forward by a whole 15 years. So let's now unpack what we think this means for UK buildings. Now, I'd like to kick off before we delve into the detail by talking about some of the high level principles behind our thinking. In particular, on one of the big questions around what the future heat mix might be for buildings on the gas grid, which are not suited to some of the other big solutions. So by way of background, there has been good agreement over the past five years on what we will call low regrets options. So those are things like getting on with new build now, the benefits of low carbon district heating in areas where you have a lot of demand for heat. So that's areas like cities, for instance, and also the value of high efficiency electric heating systems like heat pumps in homes which are not connected to the gas grid. Now, the issue is that that leaves you with around 20 million homes and other buildings on the gas grid, where it is not clear currently what the exact mix might be in terms of future heating solutions. So the way that we've broken that down is first of all, to recognize that the first fundamental step is energy efficiency. You see this across all the pathways developed by us and the broader research community. And essentially, that's because unless you do the energy efficiency first, the scale of the problem is simply too big. There have also, there's also been a lot of back and forth about the costs of electrification and how that might compare to the costs of shifting to low carbon hydrogen, for instance, and converting the gas grid. But when we looked at this a few years ago, we found that there isn't actually a big difference in costs when you're looking at the UK wide perspective. Now, critically, that doesn't mean that the costs locally won't be very different. So the costs of hydrogen will obviously be lower where you have local infrastructure for supplying the hydrogen, and there will be parts of the country which simply we do not think can convert to hydrogen cost effectively. But looking at the broad picture, the UK wide perspective, our position is that costs are not a major differentiator. And that puts us in this interesting position where we think that actually public support and attitudes will play a much more important role in determining the shape of our future heat mix. Now, I also wanted to head off a point around hydrogen being a silver bullet. It is true that if we can produce hydrogen at very significant, at a very significant scale, then converting the gas grid over to hydrogen may well be a preferred solution in some areas. However, at the Committee on Climate Change, we look at the whole energy system. And our argument is that we need to look at areas of the energy system where you don't have other alternatives. So certain uses in industry, for instance, need to be catered for first. You might also want to think about heavy transport, so things like trucks, but also shipping. Now, when you then look at the implications of converting substantial, if not the bulk of the energy system over to hydrogen, the kinds of numbers you come out with really do stretch limits of plausibility. So if you were to look at converting all gas demand to heat, then we think that implies something like 100 to 150 gigawatts of gas reforming and CCS if you go down that route. Or conversely, if you were to try and do all through electrolysis, so using offshore wind, for instance, to generate hydrogen in this way, then again, you're looking at something really, really significant like 300 gigawatts of offshore wind. And importantly, any combination of those two is also, we think, really quite implausible. And on that basis, we think it's really important to therefore plan for a range of solutions. Now, our view, therefore, is that electrification is likely to remain the primary root to decarbonisation. Hydrogen could provide a really useful service in terms of flexible supply, and it also may be a preferred route in certain areas of the country, particularly once a co-located with, for instance, industry and carbon capture and storage. And then finally, so yes, this point that solutions can vary by region, and therefore there is a job for government to put in place a framework to facilitate that whilst recognising that there are still important constraints in terms of local resources, infrastructure, aside from local consent. I'll now speed up, but I think it was really important to cover that important background and make sure that that's clear. Okay, so this then shows us emission pathways for buildings through to 2050. You can see the different scenarios that I talked to. So in particular, purple is our balanced pathway through to 2050. And then you can see that actually the tailwinds in yellow and the green widespread engagement are going faster. So all scenarios get to net zero emissions for buildings by 2050. But actually, as I said, tailwinds and widespread engagement go faster. So around four years faster, sorry, six years faster getting to net zero by 2044. And that I think is, is again, really interesting. So it's this insight around how critical public engagement and public support is, and the material impacts that it can have in terms of how easy it is to achieve this. And finally, there is a range across different pathways in 2035. So that ranges 45% to 65% with the slowest rate achieved in the headwind scenario, i.e. the hydrogen scenario. Okay, now this snapshot shows us the uptake of energy efficiency measures. So what we're looking at here are millions of homes which adopt different measures. So you can see here in the bottom rung in gray, you have by 2050 in fact all existing homes undertaking behavioral measures. And then on top of that, we also have a whole range of other insulation measures coming in. So you have floor cavity wall, solid wall, quite a lot of lofts there, which are the light green roof, and then other efficiency measures. So typically, what we're looking at is if the 28 million homes, about 15 million, so just over half get one of these big measures, so the loss, the walls, all the floor insulation, and then essentially all of the homes receive a lagging of hot water tanks. There's quite a lot of draft proofing and then widespread behavioral change. In our balanced pathway, this then enables a shift to high efficiency electric heating, so heat pumps. So this shows existing residential buildings. And as you can see, first of all, you have new homes that are leading the way here through the 2020s backed by the future home standard, which the government is introducing at a UK level, and equivalent Scottish regulations. And that then helps to build the market critically. And you can then see that we have existing homes off the gas grid, which take the lead, followed by existing homes on the gas grid with the market in those homes really starting to take off from the latter half of the next decade. It's a balanced pathway, so there's a big role for electrification, which of course we can talk to you more. But we also importantly argue that we need to keep hydrogen in play. And as I mentioned, this is something which is cross economy, so we need to look across CCS industry and transport and to give you an idea of the range. So our balanced pathway that I mentioned still has 11% of homes on hydrogen heating, those receiving hybrid heat pumps. Whereas in our headwind scenario, that actually goes all the way up to 71%. But even in that world, you still have 13 million heat pumps, which are essentially in new build. So you can see that really we are talking about a mix here. So our policy, our recommendation to government off the back of this is that we essentially need to really be supporting the development at a growing scale through the 2020s. And importantly, we need to be looking at essentially taking a very simple step, which is hydrogen ready boilers. These are pretty much exactly like your existing gas boiler cost possibly up to 100 pounds more. And but what they do really importantly is they are much easier to switch over to hydrogen. So we think that if we essentially require hydrogen ready boilers from 2025, then that means that come the middle of the 2030s, if we're looking to roll out hydrogen at scale, that will be much less expensive and much easier. So again, without going into too much of the detail here, these are the trials, including some of the ones which the government has has booked in already as part of the 10 point plan. The hydrogen ready appliances coming into force in 2025 in our timeline, that then supports and enables further decisions and zoning for hydrogen pilots, and then potentially enables you to roll out hydrogen at scale in the 2030s, which will come to in some of the future slides. Okay. Now I've mentioned, I've mentioned costs being very important. When we did the net zero work, we found that buildings was one of the most expensive parts of the economy to decarbonize. So whilst the overall costs of meeting net zero are we now think under 1% of GDP, there are really important implications around where these costs fall. So we'll now look at some of these costs in more detail, and I will briefly talk about how we might afford those. Okay. So this shows us the costs for existing buildings. And essentially what you have here are annual investment costs from 2020 through to 2050. And those are the colored bars that you can see there. So just I'm packing this a little bit, you can see that there's a big program of energy efficiency investment over the next 10 to 15 years. This is very much in line with government policy. And then you can see again this this familiar pattern of this shift to low carbon heating, which starts on the gas grid, and sorry off the gas grid, and then moves on to the gas grid from the latter half of the 2020s. And when we take a step back then and look at these costs, essentially what we're talking about is a very significant investment program over the next 30 years. This is an investment program which of course can have a really important economic stimulus effect. But there are very important considerations around how we pay for this cost and in particular how we can support lower income households. Now the final thing to mention on this chart is the net operating costs. So these you can see in the dashed black line. And these are essentially the the cost savings that you get from shifting in this case to low carbon district heating and to heat pumps. So we actually think those will be cheaper to run in the future. And that's partly because they're more efficient and it's partly because we think that the cost of electricity should come down. So just looking at that specific bit, this shows this the same familiar black dash line, the net operating costs, and this unpacks some of those cost savings. So you can see that a big part of this is lighting and appliances, and then you can see the other energy efficiency measures which we've talked to along with behavior and actually this wedge here, low carbon heating, which is this shift to to forms of heat generation which are which are cheaper to run. Okay, I've mentioned some of the benefits up front. I've talked about economic stimulus. What this does is shows you what this means in practice. So this was work that we did with the construction industry training board. It uses numbers from our balance pathway. And it shows you that there will be a range of jobs created associated with this major investment program spanning a whole cross section of the construction and electrical trades plumbing trades and totaling we believe over 200,000 jobs. And those are as steady jobs through the the subsequent decades. Finally, I just wanted to wrap up this section with this quote. So essentially this is the message which is in the executive summary. And what we're saying here is that we can design policy to ensure that vulnerable customers benefit from lower energy bills given the lower operating costs which result improvements in energy efficiency of homes and heating systems. And I can unpack the specifics a bit perhaps in the questions but essentially we're looking at extending the current funding envelope for fuel, fuel poor homes which are a few billion a year and extending that current levels we think would enable you to do this. So it would enable you to cover the costs of the program for those homes and mean that those people those households actually do see lower energy bills. Okay, final section, the outline policy framework. So broadly we have four areas that we recommend. One is around setting clear signals. Second is around making low carbon heat financially attractive. The third is a whole set of enabling measures which which really make this much much easier to do first and foremost a good source of information at household level but also support for skills. And then we've got a final category which we label getting on with it. And that is essentially looking at things like local area energy planning and the really critical role that that can play in terms of driving the transition and supporting investments in infrastructure. So the first one to talk to you here setting clear signals. Now this is some of the area which as you'd expect has had the most media interest. So our pathways are built on a starting point which is current government policy, current commitments to standards in particular on new build homes and for homes not connected to the gas grid where the government has committed to phase out the installation of high carbon fossil fuel boilers in the 2020s. And essentially what we've done is built on this. So we start with the future home standard. We then look at the government's ambition to raise all homes up to EPCC. So the government's actually committed to do this by 2030 and then recently has published proposals to bring it forward to 2028 for private rented buildings. So our position is that's fantastic. Let's do the same for social rented buildings. There's then a gap for the two thirds of homes which are what we call owner occupied. So we've looked at a couple of options here. One is some standards on lenders and the other is standards point of sale and we also have included dates for what we think would be ambition in line with delivering net zero. And then finally in terms of the low carbon heat side. So we've looked at the current government's commitment to phase out oil. We've picked a date of 2028 and then we look at a similar commitment for gas which we've adopted a 2033 date and again it was very very gratifying and a relief thing to see that the government today in the energy white paper is committed to do something along these lines by the middle of the 2030s. Okay in terms of making low carbon heat financially attractive one of the recommendations that we have is around rebalancing policy costs which are currently skewed towards electrically heated homes and of course are our electricity bills for the rest of us. So this chart actually illustrates this. It shows two things. So it shows what we call policy costs. These are costs for supporting low carbon generation renewables which are currently placed on our energy bills on the electricity side. So you can see that in the pink wedge here and essentially what we're looking at are two heating bills. So one for a gas boiler and one for an air source heat pump that's the ASHP. And so you can see that even if you just look at the purple and the pink already these these low carbon support policy costs are making a difference. Now the other thing we look at is carbon costs and essentially we have a carbon cost on electricity which is this orange wedge here on the ASHP. We do not currently see a carbon cost on our gas bills and that's why I've got a dashed line here in orange. So what we're saying is that if you were to take account of these things then that would actually make your job an awful lot easier. And what we could do is take the pink wedge on the ASHP and shift some of that onto the gas boiler bill here. So it's really levelling the playing field a bit and you could in fact do that without most of us seeing an impact on our bills because we actually all of us pay for electricity demand. So three steps for keeping costs down. The first is cost minimisation and you can do that by setting clear standards. The second we've seen here which is potentially rebalancing policy costs and then the third is once you've undertaken those two things thinking about targeted use of subsidies. Okay just two more slides left. So I talked about really important enabling measures and I do want to talk just briefly about what we think could be transformational for information at a household level. Now this has been identified for years as a real problem. Currently we have energy performance certificates. They are based on model data. There are huge problems with them not being robust enough so mystery shopper exercises whereby someone with a given household goes out and gets a number of EPCs done. Highlight that you can actually get quite a range of different EPC ratings for the same home so that they really aren't very robust. And actually the climate assembly earlier this year highlighted this as one of the real areas where they want better information and they think this could be a big part of the solution. So we have part of the solution already on the table. Government has introduced this new certification which is called PAS2035. That introduces the role of the retrofit coordinator, essentially a project manager for the household. So someone who comes in and can deal with all the different suppliers and contractors and this person is also trained to put in place what's called a home retrofit plan. And this is a bespoke plan which is obviously informed by a conversation between the householder and this qualified individual and which enables us to tailor the approach at a household level to open up the conversation to things like aesthetics, to comfort, to factor in the plans that the householder probably has already in terms of upgrades and renovations that they're planning. And we think this is a really important step of the process. So essentially you can see here at our starting point of EPCs we think that moving to this PAS2035 home retrofit plan is a really critical first step, which as I said gives you this tailored approach. Also it's a staged plan and you get the project management from the retrofit coordinator and they can also signpost you to things like finance which I think could be really helpful. Sorry, there we go. Okay so then the next step and the final step, building on this is moving towards digital green building passports. These were recommended by the Green Finance Institute and essentially what we're talking about there is having a digital logbook which no longer uses model data but actually tells householders how their household is performing, accurately what benefits they're seeing from any improvements they've put in place and allows you to keep a log of other things as well and talk about the broader set of things you want in place such as resilience measures. And the Green Finance Institute has argued and this is the reason why we've taken this on board as well that these green passports can play a really important role in terms of unlocking green finance but also they can help make standards enforceable. Okay and then the last piece of the jigsaw that I mentioned is getting on with it in particular local area energy planning and really our thinking on this has been informed by really excellent work by others such as the energy systems catapult and also by off-gem and the center for sustainable energy and essentially there are two pieces of logic here one if we are going to have a range of solutions up and down the country and in particular things like heat networks in a first instance then you really need to have those decisions informed by good source of local information and local area energy planning enables you to do that. Secondly as I mentioned we think that public support and opinion is a really critical piece here so this kind of process enables you to do that and thirdly this is a really important one it provides a source of information for the electricity networks so the dno's who as we surveyed are currently in serious need of more clarity at a local area level to enable them to invest ahead of need over the next decade and otherwise essentially we're looking at much higher costs for achieving some of this so some of the options government's already talking about zoning for heat networks and pathfinder cities we actually have argued that it would be really helpful for base and off-gem to undertake a big study and actually look at identifying some prime areas for hydrogen or conversely for electrification over the next few years and that could then feed into discussions already in that time frame. We also think there's good scope for a next set of local area energy plans and then rolling those out for after 2025 and then finally I think there's also an interesting conversation around whether you could have a heat delivery body this is a proposal by the cbi and essentially it's looking to address the gap that you see between national level decision-making regional decision-making and local decision-making and play a really important coordination role. Okay so that's it you'll be pleased to hear in terms of slides