 Rwy'n gweithio ar weithio hynna yn hawddus gwybod. Rwy'n gweithio ar景od arain sydd eraill yn allan defnyddio'r ysgol yn hyn sydd. Rwy'n gweithio ar gweithio ar gweithio ar gweithio ar gweithio'r mheiddiwydol, sydd cymrydden,� er mwyn i'r llwerdol ar y gallwn cyflawn. Efallai rydyn ni'n gweithio ar gweithio ar gyfer, ac yn effeithu, yn ddim yn dweud, rydyn ni'n allan yn i chi bod chi'n gweithio, rydyn ni'n Evlodau Llythydd hynny yn elen â'r seishon Ychydig o'r cyr MOD yn llawer o'r cyfnoddfa'r cydydd, nid yw'r ddweud o'ch cymdeithasol yn hynny'n cymdeithasol yn dda'n mynd i'ch gael i'r cyllid. Ond efallai, y cyrraedd Cymru o'r cyrraedd cyfnoddfa'r cyfnoddfa'r cyllid yn ymgyrch ar gyfer mae'r cyfrannu ac ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, felly mae'n mynd i'n golygu i'r cynniadau cyfnoddfa'n cyfrannu, efallai mae'n cael ei gynhyrchu ar y gyfer y cyrraedd. Energy efficiency is about theory vs practice and I will have to turn to that a few times, and energy efficiency offers the cheapest, easiest, most immediately available carbon savings to a very large amount of carbon savings, yet we don't seem to get that in print. To be driving everything we do in energy policy in theory given that the economics and the policy drivers are strong. Cywisas brewing yn bageswir issued I still tends to focus a little on the supply side little more on electricity than other dimensions. In theory the economics of energy efficiency are wonderfully beautiful, but in practice we don't see delivery rates we we don't see activity rates in the market that should reflect that. A lot of what we do in energy efficiency in SAAI and the government as a whole is trying to bridge that gap between what we think should be happening and what looks good on paper versus what happens when you get out there into somebody's attic or somebody's boiler room mae'r Tyfl gesblyd a dwi'n ateb yn ddweud â'r grannu. Yn ddedw i, dyna'r ddiwedd yn ffordd ymlaen nhw'n gweld allu'r diolch sian Leader of Energy of Energy o'r Ysglaen Pwysgol yn y dda chi'n mynd i'w gweld cael ei gwneud ei'n mwyaf unrhyw oherwydd, nhw'n fawr o'r lluniau sydd yn y rhan yw gweld. Mae Welchenau y Prifysgol yn sicr i loans yn ymgyrch o'r erbyd â'r rhaid yn cyd-i-sigl That makes it very interesting to us in the policy world. It really represents a significant proportion, particularly of energy-related emissions. Of just a point I want to make on this is that if you think about carbon reduction, say in transport, and you think about the long-term perspective, the 2050 goals we have, most of the technologies that will deliver the transport reductions haven't barely been imagined yet, and the cars that are involved and the vehicles certainly won't be built for some decades, y表 sy'n mynd i'r hynny, mae'n bwysig y byddwyd yn cyflasio ar gyfer 80-90% rhan o'r hwn yn tali a 20-50s. Felly, yn bwysig y bydd yn cywir o'r angenrif iawn, os ydych chi'n gweld am y cyfrannu adrodd ac yn gymorthol drwsgwrdd hwnnw yma. A dyma'r cyfrannu cyfrannu yn y bwysig y funded yma hwnnw yn rhan iawn. Un o gyfaf ydi'r bobl yn y ffocws am y cyfrannu gwneud, ond oni'n kanrybu rydyn ni'n mynd i'n gweld am y methu o'r rhan o'r prydig, gyda'r cyfnodd y gweithio ni wedi bod yn ddechrau'r cyhoedd. Ond rai'n oedd gwneud i gyd yn amdadech y gweithio ffordd i gael ei gweithio ar y cyfnodd y cyfnodd, ac i gŵn ddau i'r cyfnodd, a'r cyfnodd y gweithio ar y cyfnodd y cyfnodd yn fwyaf arlau'n gweithio'r cyfnodd. Yr un ddechrau sy'n gallu gwneud i'w rhaid i gael ar y dyfodol, ac mae'n mynd i sicrhau sy'n gallu gael ar y gweithio'r cyffredig. The shady bits here are the curve you tend to see that we produced about three years ago about the marginal abatement cost curve for Ireland looking at 2030. The shady bits are oil at $60 a barrel, so let's forget about that. Please, when I send it to you, start using the $120 curve, which is the white bits on this one. That's where we are, that's where we're going to remain. Neil will remember the debates when we produced these curves that actually some people thought we were silly using a baseline as high as $60 and it was quite a fight to get people to talk about $120 and now look where we are today, look where we're going. One of the interesting things about the shift in the curve when you go from $60 oil price, and I'm saying $60 oil price is an equivalent in gas price, assumed, when you go from $60 to $120, the amount of abatement opportunity that comes at no or negative costs, i.e. it saves more than it actually costs to do it over its lifetime, raises from about 10 million tonnes for about 16 million tonnes just by changing the oil price. And that's even before you get into some of the technological developments over here on the right that have happened in the last couple of years that will will marriage further updating of these curves. And of course a lot of it goes on in the non ETS sector, which again remains interesting for its own reasons. Focusing on buildings a bit. In broad terms, this curve identifies about 9 million tonnes of carbon equivalent savings by 2030. Looking at the $120 curve, you can see how much it comes at a negative or low cost. And let's talk about one of our theories versus practising things, because I know some of the economists in the room will challenge some of the assumptions about what an abatement cost curve does. And you can raise things like transaction costs and discount rates. That's all true, but I really don't think transaction costs change a 200, a minus 200 figure into a positive figure. And I think because we're talking about energy saving here, we're talking about investing in better light bulbs, better boilers, all that kind of thing. And they pay over a number of years and they ultimately, in the most cases, pay more than they cost in the first place. And I think when we talk about the focus on the carbon price as a driver, if energy prices as they stand now don't seem to be driving people to the huge amounts of untapped efficiency potential that are out there in the market, I don't think adding 10 or 20 euros to the ton of carbon dioxide is going to flip that. There's something deeper going on. There's a theory versus a practice dimension here between what economic theory says should be the return versus what happens in the real world due to what you call it, market failure, market barriers, whatever else. And we'll explore some of that because really what we're talking about in energy efficiency is economically positive investment that's not happening out there. And when I talk about economically positive investment, and I'll give some examples later, but we regularly see every day of the week an industrial site turning down a project with a three-year payback because they don't have the money. So in other words, somebody is saying, I've got an investment with a guaranteed rate of 33% per annum over 10 years, so I was going to make all that money out of it, but I can't seem to raise the money right now to do it. That's the kind of market failure we're talking about when we talk about energy efficiency. And that's the fundamental problem we're facing here. It is quite different to some of the sectors for that reason. Now, what's driving us to actually get something done on energy efficiency in the short term we're talking, as in this decade, we're talking about better energy, the national programme for reducing energy and hence emissions in buildings domestic and non-domestic. A lot of activity there at the moment. Our goal is to upgrade, let's say, about a million buildings domestic and non-domestic between now and the end of the decade. If we do that, it'll knock about 3.5 million tonnes per annum out of our CO2 inventory just to that efficiency, and it'll save about 6 billion euros over its lifetime more than it costs. So we're not talking about x euros a ton in terms of costs or burden or penalty. We're talking about an investment that might cost of the order, yes, of up to maybe 10 billion euros public and private to deliver those savings, but the lifetime savings will be more of the order of 16 billion euros. So there's an economic gain to that. Lots of jobs, I say 5,000 to 10,000, but I think that's a bit small really. That's how many are out there at the moment at the scale we're at now, but the potential for more jobs in retrofit is really very substantial indeed. That's the people now, men and women, going into attics to insulate them, insulating walls, all that kind of thing. But I'm not counting, for instance, the fact that we have worked with businesses in the last three years that employ over 200,000 people and they've collectively reduced their energy bills by 300 million euros. So I think some of those 200,000 jobs are a little bit safer than they were a couple of years ago. And I'm not counting the export potential of this. So there's opportunities all over the world for people who are ahead of the curve on retrofit, on energy efficiency, on some of the technologies. In two weeks from now, we have a conference gathering people from 45 countries around the world coming to Ireland to see what Ireland is doing in advanced energy management in industry. We really have a global reputation in that sector and there's a massive opportunity for construction firms, technology firms, energy and environment consultants to be exporting their expertise and their knowledge all around the world. And I think the potential for this sector is very substantial. There's more happening than some of you might think. While I was prefacing by saying we should be doing an awful lot more, but last year in the Irish economy a quarter of a billion euros was spent upgrading buildings from an energy perspective. And I think in the current economic climate that's a pretty substantial amount of money going out there. That was driven by government grants and I'll talk a bit about the role of grants in a minute. But over the last three or four years supports administered by us but paid for by you, the taxpayer have upgraded about 200,000 homes in various programmes and in various sectors of the economy and things like that. They typically have a payback of five to eight years. Some stuff is cheap and pays quickly, some stuff is deeper and takes longer. And broadly speaking, every euro government spends on better energy homes saves Irish society five euros ultimately in terms of the energy gains, the environmental gains, the employment gains, things like that. Why aren't we doing more? Well a big problem here which I'll come back to is it costs money, you know. So this at the moment we use grants as a driver. I almost think by proxy to overcome some of the market barriers. But if I just use the non-domestic example at the moment, if I see a large hotel that has a project, they spend a couple of hundred thousand a year on energy, they have a project that if they invested in a new heating system it would pay for itself in three years and continue paying for itself for another five or ten years and reduce the energy costs of that hotel very significantly. Right now they struggle to make the investment and then they have other concerns about am I the first to do this and will the technology work, will the returns, all that kind of stuff. We give certain amount of grants into that sector and we reduce the cost by a certain amount. But I don't think us moving a payback from let's say three years to 2.7 years takes us over some fundamental hurdle. I think it must be largely to do with the fact that we're providing a kind of a state certification if you like. We're standing over the project and saying we think it's a good project. We're helping them find the right kind of contractors and the right kind of advisers. So all of those non-market dimensions are as important as the grant itself which makes the grants sometimes seem inexpensive way to do it because what I'm saying is is there another way of doing that that actually doesn't involve quite so much capital on behalf of the Exchequer and that's exactly the debate we're having at the moment. Can we drive the market to the extent of growth that we have seen very substantial growth in the last couple of years but can we do that on a basis that where the Exchequer doesn't pay the cost because ultimately we are talking about economically very sound investments and in those cases one has to question what is the role of state investment at the large scales it's at the moment. That's 2020. If you look at 2050 there's absolutely no reason and I don't think anyone should dispute this but if you do let me know and we can talk about it but there's no reason why our residential sector can't be 90% decarbonised by 2050. First of all any building built today should be pretty close to carbon neutral and I'd be asking your architect why not because the technologies are all pretty mature it doesn't cost a lot of the building stage and you're building a building that's going to last for some decades so really I think there's very little excuse not to be building very close to carbon neutrality right now and therefore zero energy. Funnily the rump of 10% when you get to 90% is actually nearly all water heating because that's the one thing that so far you can't actually defy the laws of physics around where you can insulate and design building fabric and passive solar and all that kind of thing to any degree because there's plenty of energy out there for you to capture and hang on to. Ultimately if you want to get water warm in your home you have to put energy into it and that becomes interesting from a point of view of things like electrification, solar, heating on roofs lots of things where we have to start looking at other other ways of doing it. I focused a bit on the domestic sector I do want to say that just taking as example last year we gave out grants of 11 million euros to the non-domestic sector 85 projects in every sector that was lately we were in VECs we were in a couple of hospitals we were in supermarkets we were in power stations all kinds of places the savings to society from 11 million euros and grants is 11 million euros this year the grants we gave it last year our savings society the same amount this year the payback is about four years on that investment so in other words we gave out 11 million the organizations we worked with put in another 40 million so the total spend on this sector was 50 million euros last year pays for itself in five years generating 10, 12 million euros a year Tip of the iceberg we were we had I don't know quadruply subscribed is that what can I do with that we had four times as many projects requests for funding as we could afford last year the other three quarters are sitting there hopefully some of them got done clearly some of them didn't get done if you're one of those come back to us this year because we've just launched this year's fund and again we're seeing very strong interest in the commercial and public sector from people realizing there's plenty of low hanging fruit in terms of energy savings in the non-domestic sector and I'm focusing today because it's our that's the theme on carbon and energy type savings but we're trying to become more sophisticated on what we really mean by lease cost because even if you have some challenges back there and then in the marginal abatement cost cuts you know are there all the cost truly measured and all that we're actually much better at measuring the cost than we are at the benefits which remains a challenge because the whole heap of benefits that we barely understand how to measure what are the health benefits of taking a quarter of a million households at a fuel poverty which should be one of our main folks is at the moment what are the educational benefits from people living in more comfortable and healthier environments in their homes what are the employment benefits how do you measure a reduced dependency on imported fossil fuels from the fact that we're actually using less fossil fuels you know all of those things are difficult to quantify and sometimes you end up with a kind of a skewed pitch then where where you can put the costs very very clearly up front you can't measure all the benefits and if we want to truly make the best policy decisions and even if our driver is least cost decision making we better make sure we're properly measuring all the costs and all the benefits so we can make the most informed decision making now that's the price so how do we make it happen theory versus practice if you ask people I'm going to just use the example of homes here just by way of proxy the issues are much the same in the other sectors if you ask people why do you invest in your home or why do you think about investing in your home in terms of upgrading your insulation or your heating system and things like that people tend to mention a number of factors and energy saving gets mentioned comfort some people mention environment things like that but really when you delve into that in detailed research which I won't go into the details of but maybe you can trust me on it what drives most people is the tangible benefit of comfort and health it's about looking after my family giving them a healthy environment feeling comfortable in my surroundings there's a certain degree of understanding that I will save money but you can imagine that's less tangible particularly let's say if you're using oil to heat your home it's quite hard to get a grasp on I've just upgraded my home and maybe then for the truck will come in October as opposed to September and you know it's quite intangible the really tangible bit is the comfort benefit in terms of the house feeling warmer literally the day the guys leave from doing the work environment does get mentioned but in a way when you look into the research in a way that people say oh yes by the way it's environmental benefit but very few people upgrade their homes to make an environmental contribution per se other things are driving it there is a dimension there but it remains a weaker motivator from most people then maybe it will need to be in the future we want to drive the kind of level of investment and I should also acknowledge that the couple of hundred thousand homes we've achieved success in are relatively like retrofits so the people spending maybe three or four thousand euros capturing the low hanging fruit but really not doing the kind of deep retrofits we'll need them to do if we want to decarbonise that sector by 2050 and that means we will need to move beyond let's say the simple positive NPVs when you want to decarbonise a house that exists by 90% you don't get a five-year payback and so you've got to start moving into different equations different motivators and things like that so looking to where we need to go then right now as I said we're driven by grants grants are very powerful and they do as I said I want to make that clear they return much more benefit to the state than they cost well to the society anyway and that so they're not bad value at a societal level but they are expensive in a time when capital is constrained and you do need to think about given that I don't believe most of the motivation comes from the check per se but actually all the wrapping around it is there a way achieving at least most of that motivation or some of that motivation without such a heavy cost to the exchequer having said that when you look at the cost of meeting our carbon mitigation targets in other sectors the money we spend is actually pretty small as a value return compared to some of the other things we might be facing if we want to achieve carbon targets targets this decade and beyond so we are looking at moving into more financial dimensions and pay as you save is the most beautiful example of theory versus practice on the planet you can explain it in one sentence try and get into the second sentence and you'll be here for some days and I will just point out that we're very committed to it because I understand what it can achieve but nobody in the world has come close to achieving a pay as you save model at any scale yet a couple of trials in the states with a couple of hundred homes some have gone well some have gone badly in the UK right now 70 full-time civil servants are working to design pay as you save Sarah's got slightly fewer than that on her team they've been at it for about three years they are it's getting harder and more complex and one recent paper issued by DEC itself said that we could expect up to a 97% fall off in retrofit activity when we transition into the green deal next year so that's the practice so if we want to do it here we've got to do it right and for me that means that absolute focus on the consumer and on behaviour so forget about the the financial models and the institutional stuff if you can create a system where people want to borrow money to to upgrade their homes and the five-year payback the money will flow what you've got to design is something that people will actually participate in and the fact that it looks beautiful on a spreadsheet and on a graph and if you just could sit down at a homeowner and explain the MAC curve to them isn't exactly going to get a million people to sign up to investing in kind of 10-year loan models or you know 10,000 euro upgrades in their homes so we've got to focus on designing something that people actually want to buy the other major change is the role of the utilities and most of the major utilities have now signed voluntary agreements with ourselves to work on their energy efficiency obligations in a collaborative manner that's got huge power they've got brand value they've got market reach they've got a lot of intelligence they've got a lot of good ideas so leveraging the power of the utilities out there and I don't just mean the big ones we're also working with the oil companies the solid fuel companies the whole range of them I think that's going to be a major step forward in how we actually deliver this on the ground we've got to get to scale even if we do a million homes we can achieve this decade's targets without too much difficulty at the rate we're going little bit of uplift make sure we have some models in place but if you want to get to the scale where you're really retrofitting all buildings of all kinds over the coming decades we've got to take a couple of step changes up finances at the core of that and the scale of finance involved in that is kind of scary but scale actually makes finance more interesting one of the big things at the moment now you could probably convince a pension fund to invest in retrofit because it's a 10 year low risk reasonable return kind of model but they don't want to invest in something that's 100 million or 200 million they say come to me when you're talking about billions and that's where pay as you save has to kind of build mass and scale maybe act as an intermediary for connecting large long term finance with small little lots of little projects direct provision they had this model that a lot of countries talk about where you kind of industrialise retrofit it's going on in Austria at the moment and I think it's something about moving from each consumer doing its bit to some kind of mass scale and I think there are models like say some of the words the GAA is doing on community retrofit that I think are quite interesting you take it from a consumer proposition just something a little bit different however I just can't quite picture a truck heading down a street spraying external wall insulation stuff both sides of it as it does terrace by terrace I think industrialisation still has a lot of social barriers in terms of how you actually involve people in that how you sign everybody on a street or in a community up to something to get those kind of economies of scale and the benefits from doing it at a large scale so I think there's a role for the carrot and the stick here and I think you look at that in the UK where you now talk about maybe you can't at the moment the thing is you can't build a sunroom without upgrading your attic and I think that makes sense in theory in practice I don't know how exactly that's going to be enforced and whether people will buy into it or not there is something about for instance would you link your Bior rating to property tax for instance or something like that but I didn't suggest that somebody else down the back suggested that and just driving people in to give it more than just saying let's not just assume everyone wants to do the right thing or let's not assume everyone sees the economics the way we do there's definitely a role for nudges and other things like that to try and make people do things that we see as societally good but right now people aren't doing and I just want us to end by saying don't neglect the behavioural dimension the mac cars don't include behaviour change they don't so they'll include people shifting to biofuel buses or electric vehicles but they don't include people not driving so much or switching from the car to the bicycle or something because both economists and engineers and sometimes policy makers are kind of bad at the people stuff they're kind of bad at how do I convince people to actually turn their lights off instead of talking about putting new light bulbs in or how do I talk about them shifting mode in transport or whatever else and also it's kind of open ended because really the saving opportunity for modal shift is effectively everything if we could get everyone onto the bicycle then nobody's driving their car so it becomes quite a hard thing to measure and a hard thing to enact but particularly when we're talking about energy use in buildings we're talking about me switching on my heating we're talking about this building we're talking about hospital schools it's all about behaviour and if we neglect that we're not going to achieve anything people are at the heart of using energy in buildings and surely that's where the solution lies thank you very much