On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the delegation from Sustainable Energy Ireland. We look forward to the presentation. When it is finished, members will ask questions.
Report on Ireland’s Low Carbon Opportunity: Discussion with Sustainable Energy Ireland.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
We thank the joint committee for giving us this opportunity to discuss Ireland's low carbon opportunity. I am accompanied by Mr. Brian Motherway, head of strategy and innovation, and Ms Katrina Polaski who looks after our low carbon technology programmes.
SEI's vision is to see Ireland become a recognised global leader in sustainable energy and for us to be at the forefront of the transformation of society away from carbon intensity and dependence on fossil fuels. We see this as an opportunity to improve our lives, develop significant new enterprise opportunities and play our part in the global climate change challenge. We have a mandate from the Oireachtas to work in this area and are determined to take a central position in facilitating and driving this transformation.
The study we are presenting is the first complete, cross-cutting analysis of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions and the opportunities for reduction in all sectors. It is the most detailed study of its kind carried out in Ireland and adds important new information to our understanding. It builds on a methodology developed by McKinsey Consultants that has been applied in a number of other countries. We specifically tailor the report to Irish circumstances. In the process of preparing the study over 100 people have been involved in the detailed consultation process, including all of the major stakeholders and some seven Departments which underlines the cross-cutting nature of these issues.
This is also an opportunity for us to record our thanks to all of those who gave of their time and expertise to help in the study. I thank the ESB which co-funded the study with us. It is important to note that the intention was to present an overview across all sectors so that the emphasis is on breadth rather than on depth. If we look at any individual opportunity there is an agenda for further analysis and some action. The study helps us to compare sectors across agriculture, transport and so on, and bring them all together literally on one page. Perhaps I can invite Mr. Brian Motherway to present the main findings of the report.
Mr. Brian Motherway
The results of the study are drawn up in the form of a cost curve of carbon abatement opportunities where each saving opportunity is represented as a rectangle and where the width of the rectangle represents the amount of carbon abatement potential in the timeframe studied and the height of the rectangle represents the cost of abating that carbon in terms of euro per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent debated. This can be seen in the curve in the presentation put before members of the committee.
The study looks at each abatement out there, be it retrofitting buildings, industrial lighting, plug-in hybrid cars, agricultural opportunities, etc. Each one is examined in terms of how much it can abate and what the costs associated with that abatement will be. It focuses on technical opportunities rather than behavioural opportunities. Behavioural opportunities such as modal shift, change in behaviour in homes will be the subject of further study and will ultimately add to the abatement potential opportunities identified in this work. While our full report deals with the issue in considerably more detail, the cost curve we put in front of members to illustrate the results of the finding presents the abatement opportunities in 2030 for carbon abatement in all sectors of society. We will obviously focus our comments on energy-related issues but there are opportunities across all sectors that are given in more detail in the full report.
The headline results of the cost curve is that Ireland can save up to 28 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 against what will happen if we do not take advantage of these opportunities. It is particularly noteworthy that more than 40% of the opportunities come at what is described in economics language as "negative cost", that is, they save more than they cost to deliver because of the energy savings that accrue over time. This is obviously an important point to be noted when much of the language around this debate uses words such as burden and cost, whereas it must be remembered that opportunity and financial savings are very much at the heart of the agenda for Ireland.
The cost analysis does make economic assumptions. The curve we present before members as an illustrative example assumes the future price of oil at $60 per barrel and an equivalent in gas and other fossil fuel prices. This is quite a conservative estimate for a future price of oil. Obviously, other estimates of oil price, particularly higher oil prices, which many believe are likely, will lead to an even more positive economic case for all of the items on the curve since the savings in terms of avoided energy costs and avoided fossil fuel imports will amount to a considerably greater economic case for the opportunities.
The study demonstrates that significant carbon savings can be made and that opportunities are available in all sectors of society, from buildings to power generation, from transport to agriculture. Clearly all sectors must be involved in the solution to our carbon reduction challenge and a full societal engagement is central to this. It is important to note in the cost analysis that we are focusing purely on costs per tonne of carbon dioxide. Each opportunity has other cost and benefit elements, particularly relating to job creation, energy security and fuel poverty alleviation. Therefore, it is important that these cost curves be seen as an input into policy decision making and analysis of the opportunity but not a complete basis on which to make such decisions without considering other factors.
If I may, I will draw attention to two aspects of the analysis that we consider are particularly relevant. The first is on the issue of energy efficiency. More than 40% of the opportunities come in at an economic analysis that says that availing of those opportunities will save more money than it costs to implement them. This is because they relate mostly to areas of energy efficiency such as upgrading buildings, replacing out of date lighting and other energy efficient opportunities where considerable financial savings accrue over the lifetime of those investments. We reject the assertion that is sometimes heard that these savings opportunities will be captured simply through price setting and the market will deliver them automatically. By definition, this cost curve shows that is not the case given that all those substantial opportunities exist on the basis of greater savings and costs and yet they are not currently being fully exploited. There are many reasons these measures are not tackled. We see this every day in SEI in our work with home owners and businesses. Often people do not realise what is possible or do not know where to go for advice or proven solutions. Another key issue in energy efficiency is that while many of these measures save money over their lifetime they do entail spending upfront in return for savings later. Clearly, in these economic times that can be a difficult ask for any actor.
In short, we need to implement new ways to capture the efficiency potential reaffirmed in this study. SEI is working closely with our parent Department on a number of policies and programmes to do this and I will make further mention of that later.
On the issue of technology innovation, which I know is a subject of interest to this committee, it is clear that every opportunity on these cost curves relates to technological innovation, thus linking this agenda very firmly to the goal of building a cleaner and smarter Ireland.
Each rectangle on the curve offers the potential for technology growth and job creation. Even those that show a positive cost in terms of their carbon abatement, all exhibit wider social and economic benefits such as reducing our import dependence or greening our power supply. They include opportunities such as ocean energy, next-generation biofuels and electric vehicles — in short, what clean tech is made of and on which Ireland's enterprise agenda is very much focused. The solutions to Ireland's carbon challenge involve innovation in products and services that can create jobs and wealth in Ireland. Importantly, the solutions to Ireland's challenges are also the solutions to every other countries' similar carbon challenges. This means that Irish businesses that develop products and services for carbon reduction will find not only markets in Ireland but markets all over the world.
The State, that is bodies such as SEI and the enterprise agencies, has a vital role to play in supporting the development of these technologies and the companies which can exploit them.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
I think the mission is clear. There is a huge opportunity to become a global leader in many of the innovations and delivering the goods and services that will be central to society in the coming decades. We have started a process of unprecedented transformation. We need to move now and work together to deliver the prize.
A key feature is the need for system adaptability. This was spoken about earlier, the idea that all actors, the Government Departments, the agencies, universities and individuals, would work together towards seizing this great prize. The risks of not moving now, of delaying action, are very considerable. This may mean finding new ways to work together. The experience of preparing this study has brought home to us that working with many experts and shareholders is itself a learning experience. It is not inappropriate to express our appreciation for the generous support from many quarters.
We have very significant competitive advantage in the clean tech revolution. Our scale should allow us to innovate quickly. We are already seen by many global companies as a potential test-bed location for new technologies such as ocean energy and electric vehicles. The nature of many of the new clean tech solutions are exactly where our enterprise strengths lie, in areas such as information technology, software, sensors in communications and knowledge-led services. We are perfectly positioned to capture this leadership position. Our natural advantage due to our extraordinary renewable resource, our major potential in wind, the fact that there are no better sites in wave energy in Europe or the world, and our potential in bio-energy and direct solar energy because of our benign climate together represent an extraordinary opportunity on this island.
The issue of system adaptability spans many areas and we concede that our collective track record here is not perfect. We come across perceptions in the business sector that Government and State bodies are not quick enough in adapting to the changing needs of business. Issues like grid access and planning permission are key to enabling entrepreneurs and attracting international enterprises, and it is vital that we continue to focus on our ability to address those issues quickly and in a transparent way. We need to retrieve the element of agility in our response we may have had previously.
Sustainable Energy Ireland may have been uniquely positioned to carry out the low carbon opportunity study. With our mandate from the Oireachtas to develop Ireland's sustainable energy knowledge base through, for instance, our modelling and statistical work and our research programmes, these are important components in providing an evidence basis to policy. It is clear also from this work that a key attribute of the carbon agenda is that it reaches across many sectors and we believe that the experience of covering all types of energy supply and use and the competence to work at policy level and to deliver programmes are important matters that may be useful in the future. That is only part of the equation. We are determined to use the breadth of our knowledge and reach to support the delivery of cleantech innovation to ensure the enterprise opportunities are realised and that we can advance the smart society.
I will briefly illustrate our range of activities because some have an immediate impact while it will be some time before we see others. An illustration of the short-term benefits would be the programmes in warmer homes and the home energy saving schemes which will improve up to 40,000 houses this year. That is directly supporting approximately 3,000 jobs and over that number of improved houses we will see savings of approximately €400 million over the lifetime of those buildings.
In the medium term we can point to our business programmes because those are helping businesses invest in proven energy efficient solutions which will deliver an excellent return on investment for many years to come. We have worked directly with close to 2,000 Irish businesses in the past two years ranging from the largest to the smallest enterprises, and every single case has seen the delivery of savings in energy use. That work is protecting jobs but it is also preparing businesses to compete in the new low-carbon context. It is interesting that independent research has shown that for every €1 we spend in this sector working with businesses, approximately €6 of energy savings are delivered to the Irish economy.
On the long-term benefits, we can point to the development and deployment of both electric vehicles and ocean energy, two key technologies for our long-term energy future. We recently announced support of €4.3 million for ten Irish companies developing ocean energy technologies and we are making progress in realising the national wave energy test site off Belmullet.
We believe we can confidently point to programmes having a significant impact across the economy. Sustainable Energy Ireland and the cleantech agenda have never had higher priority but there is much more to do. We are giving much attention to how we can move to a scale that would have a greater impact commensurate with the current challenges. Energy efficiency is an example of where a scale is critical. Mr. Motherway pointed to the size of the opportunity and the positive economic benefits. We are proposing to Government a strong new programme of efficiency actions using new finance sources and levering market actors to carry out building upgrades in both the residential and workplace areas on a scale which is considerably beyond that achieved to date.
There is a broad consensus that the opportunity exists to act now, create employment in this country and, something which is by no means irrelevant, replace our euro that are going abroad to a small number of producer countries with jobs in this country. If we can upgrade the Irish building stock where it is needed, the calculation is that the energy saving benefits will outweigh the costs by about €16 million and the employment generated would be in terms of tens of thousands.
I suspect that the committee agrees with the general thrust that Ireland's transition to a low carbon society will be a defining project for our generation and that the imperative for action is urgent. The report released earlier today affirms that sense of urgency and priority that the issue now requires and we welcome that. We welcome also the attention the report got in creating the conditions for a whole of Government approach, and a whole of society engagement with the issue, which is important.
We are working across a spectrum of modes from policy analysis to programme delivery, supply issues to demand issues, and engaging with the Government to engaging with the general public. We are proud, I hope justifiably, of what has been achieved in the first seven years of the existence of the authority. We benchmark ourselves as a lean and efficient organisation delivering significant economic benefits to Ireland as well as supporting, through analysis, research and advice, the huge transformation process Ireland is now embarking on as opposed to a new low carbon future. We are ambitious for Ireland and are eager to play our part in delivering on that ambition.
The representatives are welcome. This is a useful presentation. Some of us had the opportunity to discuss it in more detail in the SEI offices.
I wish to make a number of points. The McKinsey curve, or the graph model on the abatement potential versus the abatement cost, is a useful model this climate change committee should update and use on a regular basis because it itemises all of the technologies and opportunities and measures them against their abatement potential and cost. It should be a strong indicator in terms of where Government should target its resources. From a personal point of view it is disappointing to see battery electric vehicles on the right hand side but there is a reason for that, namely, electric vehicles are very expensive because they are prototypes rather than mass produced. I raise that because that is an example of the way this model will change. We will see movement in different technologies on a quarterly basis as new opportunities arise. For example, if we begin to mass-produce electric vehicles, they will appear towards the centre rather than on the far right-hand side of that graph. Anyone who has had an opportunity to read the report will have noted a model based on a more realistic price for oil of €80 a barrel, whether it involves plug-in hybrids or a switch from vehicles being a cost to electric vehicles being a cost-effective way of reducing carbon. One of the difficulties in climate change discussions is the lack of a visual model that shows the potential opportunities of developing this technology, the cost of such vehicles and what they could do for Ireland. This model is helpful. It is generally accepted as a way forward, although it is not perfect by any means. One could question some of the conclusions reached in terms of the cost of delivering on areas such as peat to wind, afforestation and so on, but it is a very good starting point.
In order to monitor the progress of the SEI, it would be interesting to examine a similar model next year and the year after. That would enable us to gauge the technologies that are performing and reducing costs, those that are not and the new technologies coming on board, of which advantage must be taken. Such visual modelling is a useful way of gauging what is and is not working. It would assist in explaining to people, who are not familiar with the climate change lingo and detail, the reason the Government is concentrating on efficiency programmes, whether in the area of electricity, the greener home scheme or the warmer home scheme. It is concentrating on those areas because those are most cost effective in terms of abatement. This model clearly show that. It justifies the expenditure on the programmes the SEI operates in those areas. That is useful.
I have a few questions for the witnesses. Does the operation of the former warmer homes scheme, now the home energy saving scheme, cover the element of ensuring homeowners get value for money in terms of the cost of installation of a new boiler or the cost of whatever work the grant has been paid for? As I have said to the witnesses previously, I have a concern that, with the provision of grants in this area, we have not ensured that service providers, in some cases, deliver the service as cheaply as it can be delivered in terms of competition between service providers. When a service is grant aided, there is a danger that the cost involved increases. For example, grant aid of 40% might be awarded for a house improvement measure, but the price of carrying out that work might increase by approximately 20%, therefore, the homeowner is only effectively being awarded grant aid of 20% of the cost involved when the actual grant aid should be far higher. Some homeowners are being ripped off in regard to this scheme. The cost involved for them is slightly less than it would be at competitive rates because of the grant aid for the work, but the State and taxpayers are paying for more than they should be paying for in this respect. As well as providing grant aid to encourage people to undertake this work, we need to ensure that the service providers carry out the work as cheaply as possible and that there is effective competition in the market. That is a concern on which I would like some reassurance.
In regard to medium-term benefits, I note the independent research indicates that every €1 spent by SEI results in more than €6 of energy savings to the economy. I am not sure what SEI is indicating in terms of energy savings to the economy. The witnesses might indicate the findings of the independent research in this respect, as that is an impressive figure we could use.
The development of electric vehicles is a hobbyhorse of mine. I have spoken to a number of the ocean energy companies that SEI is assisting and the feeback from them is quite positive. I would like the institute to push forward in that direction. Companies such as Wavebob are hugely frustrated at the level of difficulties encountered in bringing electricity ashore. The Foreshore Acts, which require amendment, pose a difficulty in that respect. However, Wavebob has a positive interaction with SEI, which should be recognised. If it is possible, SEI should put pressure on the Department to get its act together in terms of grid connection and site locations for wave energy projects. That, as opposed to the move from the prototype to commercialisation of this technology, seems to be the major stumbling block in this area. Wavebob seems to be confident that it can deliver on that. Its main concern is getting grid connection for the next stage of the prototype, a three quarters sized model which is still a huge apparatus. It is talking about going to Portugal or Scotland, but most likely Portugal, to test the next sizing up of its model. If that happens, it will represent a major missed opportunity for Ireland being seen as the testbed for this technology. Wavebob may well be enticed to provide the full-scale model off the coast of Portugal rather than off the coast of Ireland. That may happen because we cannot give it proper connection to the grid for the testing, which seems ridiculous. The ocean energy unit within SEI and the Marine Institute and all its expertise, along with the Government, needs to provide solutions for this. That issue needs to be flagged.
I would like some feedback from the witnesses as to what the institute is doing to promote the development of electric vehicles in Ireland. Anyone who watched the RTE news last night would have been seen a broadcast detailing the advances being made in other countries in Europe, which were highlighted at a motor show in Brussels yesterday, in terms of fuel cell technology and plug-in vehicles as well as hybrids. The world is moving on. We have been saying for a long time that Ireland can take the lead and become a testbed for technology in regard to electric vehicles. For various reasons, including the fact that we are an island, we can do that. However, my concern is that we are not doing it nearly quick enough. The idea that we will have a pilot project with perhaps 1,200 charging points in some part of the country is a nonsense. The idea behind the development of electric vehicles is that unless there are economies of scale and unless people can use electric vehicles, as they would their cars, we will never get the massive shift we need from combustion engines to electric vehicles. The idea of having a small pilot project with 1,100 or 1,200 charging points defeats the whole purpose. If we are to have a pilot project, Ireland should be a pilot project for the EU in testing the technology for electric vehicles. I would like to hear the witnesses' response to that. We need to be much more ambitious on this issue, otherwise we will be a follower of this technology in five or six years' time when everyone else is using it.
Deputy McManus and I had lunch with the new US Under-Secretary of State for Energy, Dr. Kristina Johnson, who, as a matter of interest, lectured in Trinity and played cricket for Ireland; although she is American, her grandparents were Irish. She told us that funds were available for testing various things. She said that perhaps she could consider Ireland as a testbed for some of the projects the US is examining, which would present opportunities for us. She would not be a bad contact for the witnesses to make through the ambassador in Washington. We had lunch with Dr. Johnson in the ambassador's residence. She is very well disposed towards this country and would be only too pleased to help in whatever way she could.
The delegates are very welcome. I must congratulate them as the institute has not been in existence very long but it has been effective. However, the message is that nothing we do is effective enough if we are still climbing the mountain. Could our guests discuss the climate change strategy, what changes must be made and what we must do as we approach 2012? How should we deal with setting out the strategy that is appropriate to our current position?
Everybody is in favour of working together and people have had to listen to us talking about that at length regarding the political structures that must be put in place. Will our guests comment on, for example, the possibility of Sustainable Energy Ireland, SEI, and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, being merged? It is a small matter but it bothers me that there are two websites for the public, one run by the SEI and the other run by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I accept they are slightly different, and I have had that argument with the Minister. However, it raises the issue of whether we can work more smartly by, as the witness said, working together. Perhaps our guests would discuss that possibility of structural change.
An extremely important point was made about energy efficiency, that it cannot simply be left to the market. Could our guests discuss how far we can go with this? I believe we could go further and be far bolder in terms of retrofitting and so forth. A simple example Professor Lewis showed me in his office was how he had changed the light bulbs. It was a simple measure that resulted in a big reduction in costs. All agencies and Government Departments could do the same but there is an initial cost involved which is not always available. We need to be bigger and bolder in our approach to energy efficiency and retrofitting. Perhaps Professor Lewis would discuss that.
In addition, could he discuss research into how we can become even more energy efficient beyond what we are doing at present? I understand that even if we do everything possible now, it will not be enough. We must find new ways — given his background, Professor Lewis is probably at the leading edge of this research — and innovation in energy efficiency. Does he have some insight into that?
Professor Lewis mentioned the test site at Belmullet for ocean energy. At least 18 months ago we went to the Marine Institute and there was talk about this. I was a little concerned that, again, progress was very slow. I do not know if the licence has been granted or if there has been progress on it. Perhaps Professor Lewis could update the committee. It raises the issue of what are the bottlenecks. The Chairman has been eloquent about the Foreshore Act and this type of blockage does not appear to be an aberration. Will Professor Lewis discuss the bottlenecks that exist in terms of grid development or grid connections? It is worrying. We have set a very ambitious energy target for renewables and I am concerned we will not reach that target because we are not doing the right things now, be they legislative, funding or technical.
One of the journalists at the press conference today raised the issue of employment. There is a danger that we tend to get a little starry eyed about job creation. Has anybody carried out hard analysis of this, in so far as one can? Much of what Professor Lewis is doing is extremely important because it is evidence based. He has done the research on it. Has that work been carried out with regard to the potential job creation? It is important that we know as much as possible, not only for arguing our case but also to ensure we attract and develop the jobs.
This committee has sought submissions and has just finalised a report on our energy needs after 2020. Some submissions are available on the website now. I do not know if the witnesses have had an opportunity to look at the website but if they have, perhaps they would comment on it. We tend to be focused on 2020 or even shorter timeframes but we must move beyond that because there is still work to be done in that regard.
I do not intend to talk to Professor Lewis about climate change law; he has probably suffered enough.
Does Professor Lewis wish to respond to those points before I call Deputy Cuffe?
Professor J. Owen Lewis
My colleagues and I will try to do so. Deputy Coveney's remarks were quite important on the marginal abatement cost curve and its power as a tool. What I wish to emphasise, and it was implicit in Deputy Coveney's remarks, is that it is more a process than the particular curves being of themselves of any ultimate importance, because they are caught at a stage in time with particular assumptions about fuel prices, carbon brand and the price of electric vehicles. If we get better information tomorrow or next month on that, it is a transparent process as we can substitute those prices and re-run the thing and see what it points to then. Mr. Brian Motherway showed curves for €120 per barrel and one gets very different answers for that as well.
It is really important that we focus on both sides. There was an implication that it was understandable that we focused on the money saving side now or the side that makes economic sense today. Parallel with that, however, and not at some later stage we must focus on the other side as well and select in a strategic way which areas we will prioritise. We cannot afford to defer looking at ocean energy or advancing electric vehicles until some time in the future, when we will be behind everybody else. That idea of having a balance within the spectrum of technical options is important. I do not think the Deputy and I disagree.
I agree with Professor Lewis on that.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
With regard to the questions about value for money and how much competition there is in the market, it depends on the different stages. We have seen how a market has been created for greener homes, with 25,000 installations in Irish houses. Were the early stages of that market perfectly competitive? That is an open question. It is a far more competitive market now and we certainly see that in the energy efficiency area. Brian may wish to add something about the value for money. It is a very important aspect.
Mr. Brian Motherway
This is something we have emphasised from the start. Obviously, with the warmer homes schemes, we procure the contractors directly and do it on a price competitive basis. We keep prices as low as possible. In the home energy saving scheme we watch it very closely. We talk to the contractors and the people we grant aid and monitor the prices. However, two points should be made. When somebody wishes to upgrade their boiler or attic insulation in the home energy saving scheme, the amount of money we offer them is fixed according to the technology they select. They therefore have the full incentive to drive down the price by looking for competitive quotes. We see that happening, particularly as there has been such a strong response from the contractors. There are so many contractors trying to do business in that space that the anecdotal evidence is that home owners who seek alternative quotes see healthy competition in action in terms of driving down prices. We are watching this closely but, to date, the view from talking to actors in the market is that prices are staying down and there is much competition on the supply side.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
The next question is definitely for Brian. It is about the evidence for the €6 return for €1 with regard to support for investment in energy efficiency and the business programmes.
Mr. Brian Motherway
Deputy Coveney asked what we meant by the return to the economy. It simply means that when we spend money on advice and training programmes and encouraging and advising businesses on how to reduce their energy costs, the savings accrue to the economy, that is, most of them accrue to the businesses themselves. We refer to the economy as a whole because we work in both the public sector and the private sector. Some of those savings come back directly to the Exchequer and many of them come to the private actors. We have worked with more than 2,000 businesses in recent years, which are the ones that are saving money as it is off the bottom line in their energy bills. The strategic benefits, in terms of reduced imports and competitiveness gain to Ireland Inc., clearly accrue to the State as a whole.
What is "independent research"? Is it just anecdotal evidence?
Mr. Brian Motherway
No. We commissioned work whereby we sent people out to talk to a large number of businesses. It is one thing to count by how much businesses have reduced their energy, but we are more interested in what our impact was. We are not taking credit for every euro saved by business, we are taking credit for the ones we can directly attribute to our intervention. We go out and talk to businesses, we survey large and small ones in different sectors, services and manufacturing. We talk to them about energy savings they have made and about how much we can legitimately claim to have influenced them. The research on our impact is quite thorough and in depth. We benchmark that internationally. There are various international metrics that we surpass in terms of business energy programmes across the world on what savings one would expect to accrue from a given amount of programme spending. We are happy to say that we fall very much into the higher end of that.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
Maybe we have not sung our own praises in this area, but Ireland is setting international standards for certified energy management in business and industry. We have seen world-class work being done and it is recognised as such. Irish operations, such as Pfizer, are setting standards for multinationals. The rest of the group wants to find out how they are doing this in Ireland. The Irish standard IS393 is becoming a European standard now. Next month we will host an international conference with people coming from all over the world to look at this area. Perhaps we do not mark these things sufficiently, but we are leading in this area.
Is the Power of One still in existence?
Professor J. Owen Lewis
Yes, it is.
It seems to have died off a bit. I am not as conscious of it as I was.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
The budget this year is very different from the budget spent in recent years. It is pretty carefully targeted. At the moment, for instance, it is working with home energy savings, emphasising to householders the need to improve energy performance in their homes.
I thought the best ones to educate us all were the kids. They would ask "Why are you leaving on the light on your computer?" That type of campaigning in schools is fantastic.
Mr. Brian Motherway
One of the reasons the Deputy may not have seen as much, is that we are emphasising more of that on the ground work than the headline advertising work. The Power of One is currently rolling out a transition year education programme whereby school children engage in energy projects. Some of them do policy research and campaigns in their schools. It is quite interesting and we get a positive response from children who are very much engaged in this.
As with the green flag concept, is there any way a plaque could be given to a school that engaged in such work?
There is something like that already.
Mr. Brian Motherway
There is an energy dimension to the green flag system, which is concentrated on a school reducing its energy usage. If they reduce it by a certain amount they will get the green flag. Meanwhile, our transition pack — which comes with recognition, including certificates and prizes — is more focused on students doing an innovative project. It is not about the school's energy use, it is more about undertaking research or doing a campaign in the school. There are prizes associated with it.
Some schools have gone even further than the green flag scheme. Pupils have brought the scheme to their own homes and have received awards within the schools for that. I have attended official launches of the green flag scheme, which includes some very good projects.
Deputy McManus had some points, which Professor Lewis should answer.
He did not get to me yet. He is still finishing with Deputy Coveney.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
Deputies McManus and Coveney each had a question concerning ocean energy, so perhaps I could take those together. Deputy Coveney spoke about the issues that individual companies are facing and we are trying to deliver the appropriate kind of support to young, entrepreneurial companies. There are stages in the support reflecting certain achievement levels that they need to demonstrate that technology has reached a certain stage so the next level of support is available. It is an applied research process, but there are differences between the companies. Some of them have already deployed devices which are generating electricity, while others are moving up from quarter-scale to half-scale. An important support in this area will be the strategic environmental assessment, which is now under way. It will look at mapping the sites and issues around the coastline. That will help with the whole process of site selection. There are discussions with EirGrid and the regulator about grid issues. I am not pretending they are solved by any means. That is also relevant to the wind energy roll out.
Is Professor Lewis aware that companies will move to other countries to progress the commercialisation of their products? It is a potential danger that other countries may get the benefit of the research, rather than Ireland.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
We are acutely aware of it. This is internationally competitive and we are working closely with IDA Ireland.
Ms Katrina Polaski
In recent months, the CER made a decision on grid connection for things that have been established as being for the public good. They gave a laundry list and basically everything other than large wind projects fell into that category. If one is moving to the next pre-commercial wave device it will not be a 5 MW one. Under the terms of the CER's decision, up to 5 MW can be connected without going through the gate process. Therefore there is an existing mechanism for that scale to come on stream. The CER has created it.
Is there any requirement for a foreshore licence?
Ms Katrina Polaski
The foreshore licence will still be a requirement, but I suppose we are talking about two separate things. There is the foreshore licence requirement and the requirement to get connection to the grid.
Yes.
Ms Katrina Polaski
The grid connection has been dealt with for under 5 MW. As I understand it, they have left it open for a larger scale as well, to have discussions to be able to go around the gate or grid connection process for things that are on that list of "public good" items. As regards getting the licence for the site location, in terms of SEI's involvement, we have our licence now.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
Since 6 October.
Ms Katrina Polaski
Given that we were establishing the site, in many ways we have put ourselves in the same position that all the developers had to be in as well. We have had to go through the pain that everybody else has gone through.
How long did that take?
Ms Katrina Polaski
A significant amount of time.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
Many months. It seemed to be imminent for longer than I could imagine. It was delivered eventually, however, thanks to our colleagues in Clonakilty who did that with a great deal of support from everyone.
That is the point, with respect. If it takes SEI that length of time, with all the contacts and expertise it has, and all the people willing to pull strings to make it happen, one can imagine how long it takes a foreign company coming to Ireland, a group of investors or a consortium of people in a co-operative. The thing is impossible for most unconnected people.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
That point was the other part of Deputy McManus's question. The licence is there and we are working on the development of the site with ESBI and Vattenfall. We are trying to get as much data as we can. We got a ship on site with the conclusions of the licence to get some data before the weather conditions prevented further work. It is to design the cable layouts, etc. so that we can roll out the next stage of that test site. We are acutely aware, as is all of our system, of the international competition in this area. There is no standing still. Scotland and Portugal are moving fast. We are working closely with the IDA to capture some of the enterprise opportunities in the offshore space, not only in the ocean.
I will ask Mr. Brian Motherway to say something about electric vehicles. I thank Deputy Coveney for the contact with Dr. Kristina Johnson. I have noted that.
Mr. Brian Motherway
We very much share the Deputy's ambition for electric vehicles. Ireland has all the right conditions to lead on this. If we do not lead, we will follow. This is the way this is going and it is time to act.
The pace needs to be as aggressive as possible while offering a smooth transition and positive experiences so that when they are ready, we roll things out as quickly as possible. There are steps in that regard. At this stage, it is a little like the foundations of a building where one does not see much rising above the surface. However, we are actively involved in a number of dimensions, including developing technical standards, and we are very much a part of the call that there should be international technical standards to ensure there is sufficient quality in everything from the vehicles to the charging points to the information technology and everything that goes with that. We are also working with a number of public bodies in terms of early action on the deployment of electric vehicles in public fleets. Within the coming months, we hope to see that moving out quickly. It is part of a suite of activities that go well beyond SEI's area, but pace is picking up and there are many opportunities.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
On the point of the collaboration with the US made by the Chairman, there is drafted a memorandum of understanding with the US Government specifically in the area of ocean energy which we hope will go to Government for approval soon. On that kind of co-operation, we hope with US Department of Energy support to get doctoral researchers funded by the US who want to work with our ocean energy development unit, which is a positive development.
There was much co-operation in the past between the marine institute in the US in that area of research.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
I ask Mr. Motherway to address Deputy McManus's question on climate change strategy.
Mr. Brian Motherway
Climate change runs to the heart of what we do. There are dimensions to energy policy such as energy security, affordability and competitiveness. As far as we are concerned, and there would not be much demurring from this, the next phase of the climate change strategy needs to see new scale and pace. The analysis we presented to the committee today forms the basis for some thinking on where that attention needs to be concentrated.
It is not a question of this analysis telling us which one out of ten areas on which to focus. One aspect it reminds us of is that every sector of society must be engaged, and carbon saving opportunities in every part of business, homes and agriculture must be exploited if we are to meet our targets and drive towards the low-carbon transition. One matter we want to ensure is kept on the table is the push on efficiency. Right now, it is the cheapest, most immediately available, most technically solidly proven carbon abatement opportunity available to Ireland. This study reaffirms other studies and our day-to-day experience that there is much efficiency potential that we are not capturing and that there are opportunities to be more aggressive in capturing such efficiency for all manner of reasons, be they the employment created, the money saved on imported energy or the carbon abated.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
That leads naturally into another question Deputy McManus raised concerning the scaling up of retrofitting. Recently we hosted a workshop where we brought in the head of energy efficiency from the IEA to tell us about international best practice in programmes to change this. I think of the home energy saving scheme as being a crucial initial step in developing expertise in getting the business models in the construction industry to deliver new kinds of services in new kinds of ways for householders. We mentioned a figure of 35,000 or 40,000 houses this year. I am conscious that there are 1.2 million houses to be upgraded. We will not do that on the basis of a grant scheme, etc. We must change this.
I very much welcome the initiatives of the ESB, for instance, in the halo scheme, and last week Bord Gáis announced an analogous scheme to support this area. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources published a consultation document recently on various options to move this, either by putting obligations on utilities to implement programmes, by establishing levies or by other means. There are a number of ways and some of them have been getting various levels of attention in different parts of the media. This is a real issue. There are not any immediate answers. There are no international stable models. Clearly, this is an issue on which we can work with the utilities and the Department in designing a successor to HESS to generalise this and also tackle non-domestic buildings to seize that opportunity.
Much of it is about coming up with new financial models which do not depend on the Exchequer for initial funding. There are interesting investment opportunities in this area if we can design the right models. There are precedents for these in such as energy services companies which can attract secure funding from the financial system to invest where there are returns over perhaps 15 years on a stable basis. The example I use is that if one is running a hospital, one knows one has wards which must be warm for the next 15 years. Can one identify someone with whom one shares the benefits as one improves the efficiency if one gives them the job of delivering warm wards rather than delivering oil, gas or whatever? The Health Service Executive is working on such issues and we will be supporting such areas.
Research on energy efficiency, which the Deputy mentioned, is very much needed in the technologies in that we need to come up with smarter systems. I would instance people in UCC who are doing work with support from Science Foundation Ireland to develop smarter buildings using controls and using the Irish lead in this area to apply this to make building energy systems smarter.
I am conscious we are proposing to make buildings in a way which is different from the way we have made them in the past. Where we make step changes in the way we make buildings, Deputy McManus and myself, who both have architectural backgrounds, know that there are risks involved. It is important we minimise the risk in these changes and we need research in this area as well.
The Deputy also raised an area which is a little delicate for me to address because it relates to structures my masters determine, such as relationships with the EPA, SEI, etc. We work closely with the EPA in several different spheres. It is for others to decide how best. I would be conscious that in our activities we sometimes must be clear about activities involving policing and controlling being a little different from ones involving the delivery of advice, support, the promotion of change, etc. However, our betters decide. Our interest is in advancing the mission and the mechanisms are up to others to decide.
The question on the basis for the numbers on employment is another one for Mr. Motherway.
Mr. Brian Motherway
It is something we are working on quite intensely at present because it is a key variable. It is no accident that it is controversial because it is extremely difficult to attribute solid numbers to these things. Much of this relates to definition, namely, how does one define a green job? As matters stand, someone we are supporting to insulate people's attics is very much employed in a green job. A couple of years ago, however, such employment was not thought of in that way. People tend to continue to think about green jobs as being those held by individuals who are employed by ocean energy companies or whatever. Green jobs now permeate society and are often jobs which used to be considered anything other than green.
It will not just be a case of creating brand new jobs but rather of realising that this is the direction in which employment trends are moving. In a few years' time, for example, there will be a move away from energy-intensive and carbon-intensive manufacturing towards low-carbon manufacturing and low-carbon goods and services. At some point, the jobs in this area of manufacturing will move to being green.
We are considering research being carried out internationally. It is sometimes difficult to monitor what is happening. However, in the case of a grant programme, for example, one can count the number of transactions that occur and the number of attics that are insulated and then obtain data on the number of jobs involved. It is more difficult to count the number of jobs that currently exist or that will exist in the future in areas such as the promotion of electric vehicles or ocean energy. Perhaps we might discuss this matter further with the committee when we have made more progress in respect of cracking the nut. We recognise that it is important to be able to count that and to use the figures to argue in favour of prioritisation, funding and programmes. The numbers are also important in the context of returning to monitor progress and success.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
A journalist recently asked me what is meant by green jobs and what will constitute a green job in 20 years' time. I replied — I may have been rather rash in doing so — that these will be the only kind of jobs that will exist at that point. If a job is not green, it will not exist. That is the scale of change with which many companies will be faced.
Someone who drives a bus that runs on natural renewable energy possesses a green job.
Mr. Brian Motherway
On the post-2020 position, we made a submission but I must confess that I did not realise all the submissions were accessible. I have not, therefore, seen the range of the submissions. That is something in which we are certainly interested.
During the earlier discussions, I mused about the references to the word "smart". I read an excellent article in The Economist last week which points out that everyone favours the smart grid but that no one refers to the dumb grid. In reality, many of the choices to be made are extremely simple. One would be the erection of more pylons so that we might connect more renewable energy to the grid. Another would be to put an interconnector in place. There is nothing enormously smart about this because all that is required is bricks and mortar, wires and metal. However, I digress.
I wish to discuss the usefulness of applying the McKinsey curve in the Irish context. This graph is technical in nature. It would be fascinating to examine a graph on which behavioural attitudes or regulatory or other issues were detailed on the vertical axis. The behavioural attitudes to which I refer relate to the measure that would be most acceptable to the general public. There have been many initiatives during the past year or so in respect of changes to the planning laws, changes to speed limits, teleworking, and green procurement. None of these are technical in their essence and it would be interesting to chart public acceptance in respect of them to discover that to which people are more favourably disposed.
The issue of speed limits is interesting. The limit of 100 km/h was recently raised to 120 km/h in certain areas. There is a dramatic increase in energy use and carbon emissions per kilometre once one's vehicle reaches these speeds. There is also a significant increase in the level of danger and of the likelihood of accidents being caused. This is one minor issue I would be interested in teasing out. I accept that it is beyond the competency of SEI to consider. However, I thought I would throw it into the mix because the McKinsey graph is purely technical in nature.
It is interesting to think outside the box to some degree in the context of the other changes that might be possible. One change that will come about involves the introduction of a carbon levy or tax. I do not know whether this will be €5, €10 or €20 but it will certainly change the technical McKinsey curve in respect of many of the measures relating to the non-traded sector. Some of those measures are in the ETS sector, while others are not and it would, therefore, be interesting to see the break-out from the McKinsey curve in this regard.
I looked at the McKinsey curve and asked myself what is and what is not happening. Most of the low-end activity is occurring. In respect of lighting, people would be mad not to change and those changes are taking place. The new build regulations have been improved and will be further improved. We are providing grant aid in respect of retrofitting. Much of the activity in respect of wind energy is also happening. I am relatively satisfied that much of the activity detailed on the left-hand side of the curve will happen.
Our guests referred to research and the issue of obtaining a six to one return over SEI's labour in and energy saving out. It would be interesting to expand this to the many efforts, such as the Power of One campaign, that are being taken to reduce carbon emissions. I have not seen any before-and-after testing in respect of the efficacy of the Power of One campaign but I would love to.
I agree wholeheartedly in respect of working closely with interest groups because this probably provides a better return. From discussing matters with groups such as Global Action Plan, GAP, which works with children in schools, I am aware that hand-holding at local level and creating links with the voluntary and community sector probably provides a better return than any number of 30-second television advertisements. I encourage our guests in respect of any work they are doing in this area. In addition, I would love to see the results of the work they have done in respect of the return on investment from their point of view.
The main point I wish to make is that it would be worth plotting public attitudes towards changes and also changes in behaviour. We can become somewhat lost in the rush towards electric vehicles and efficiencies in the transport sector. We must consider how we can reduce the need to travel in the first instance and how we might obtain public acceptance in this regard. The greatest scope for efficiency lies in the area of making dramatic reductions in the need to travel. Such reductions can be achieved by means of teleworking and the introduction of good planning measures. It would be worth investing more effort in framing such measures. I am aware that such effort was invested in respect of certain work that was carried out. However, perhaps this did not go far enough. If the ETS and non-ETS measures could be separated out of the McKinsey curve, it might aid the committee's deliberations in the context of what might be possible from this point on.
I apologise for my late arrival. I was attending another meeting which ran over time.
I wish to put a couple of questions regarding the short-term benefits of the warmer homes scheme, and so on. I commend the SEI on the work it does in trying to inform the public of the benefit of efficiencies in the home and the workplace. I sometimes feel that it is acting alone in trying to engage with the public on these important issues.
The warmer homes scheme has been relatively successful. However, I live in Waterford and the only contractor in the region who can install the insulation required under the scheme is based in Cork. I understand that huge backlogs are building up as a result, that access to the scheme is becoming difficult and that people are becoming frustrated. As with all schemes, in the initial phase a plethora of applications is received and it is difficult to ensure that they are processed as quickly as possible. The owners of private insulation companies which have been operating in this area for many years are frustrated that they cannot tender for the work involved. Reference was made to green jobs. A barrier has been put in place in respect of the creation of such jobs because the scheme, which is overseen by the SEI, has been set up by the Department in such a way that a community-based organisation is responsible for installing the insulation material. This first creates a regional barrier because people at my end of the region may not get the same level of service as those in the area in which the business is located. The second barrier is companies with people who are qualified and trained to implement such installation programmes would love to tender for this work but they are excluded. That is anti-competitive. The programme needs to be opened up to competition in order that grants can be rolled out to people who badly need them.
Reference was made to the involvement of utility companies in improving home energy efficiency. Due to the critical mass they can create and the large number of customers they have, could they create programmes to subcontract insulation, draught proofing and so on, which would also facilitate customers making staged payments over a longer period? Has this possibility been explored by them? This could result in two savings. First, the utility companies, which have access to large customer databases and clients, could build up the critical mass to make this competitive and, second, their billing systems would allow people who cannot afford it now to afford it over a longer period, which would result in savings for both the companies and the consumer. We can debate savings in the Dáil and Seanad and in committee meetings but we need to engage with householders to show them how they can save. Once we convince them that it is worth investing, we need to come up with practical mechanism with which they can engage and of which they can take advantage. If a grant scheme is not introduced, they should be able to pay over time through a dedicated company, if not a utility company, and, therefore, we should be more inventive about how we roll out the programme.
How can other public bodies such as local authorities be engaged? For example, an energy efficiency test could be conducted on all public libraries. In other words, buildings could be picked that would engage local authorities. This would make them aware and they could advertise the benefits. One gets the impression that nothing happens outside the State agency. An officer was appointed within the Houses of the Oireachtas to encourage the staff to do simple things such as switch off the light when they leave a room. This building should be the perfect example of how money could be saved. A programme could be implemented regarding public buildings to highlight where money can be saved. If 10% was slashed off the administrative budget for most Departments, they would find it. Money as well as energy could be saved. Perhaps SEI has done this previously.
The other issue is white goods in family homes. Would it be possible to advertise the benefits of using different dishwashers or washing machines and so on? People have ten-year old machines that use much more energy than new machines. Perhaps suppliers could be encouraged to introduce a scrappage scheme, which would have benefits. Senator Coffey referred to getting the people involved to make simple changes, for example, through a scrappage scheme and SEI could make them aware that they can save money and energy.
My two ideas relate to white goods and local authorities. All public libraries should be examined to ascertain how much could be saved by retrofitting them rather than using Dún Laoighaire-Rathdown County Council as a pilot project this year.
They can compete against each other to establish which is the most efficient.
Correct. A great deal can be done in this regard. It is proposed to introduce a carbon tax and a carbon fund. Fine Gael proposed in its Bill that the Taoiseach's new office of climate change should examine where the money from the carbon fund should go. It could be used to give something back to the public and in this way it could mean something to them rather than another form of taxation. They could see something happening as a result of it. We need to start thinking that way. A few small ideas such as this might help. I agree energy efficiency could be improved considerably.
Agriculture and land use is the other area in which there is a problem but we should not harp on about cattle. A recent report stated it is difficult to measure the carbon emissions of cattle and I do not know where the figures are coming from.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
I will address Deputy Cuffe's questions first. Although he did not ask a question about the smart grid, I would like to address it. He was inclined to say it was only about erecting pylons and cables. We are involved in the work on smart metering. The Chairman touched on the importance of providing better information to householders and so on. Both Deputy Cuffe and I know Mr. Sean Mulcahy, a distinguished engineer, who for years has pointed out the difference in the information provided to the driver of a modern car and that provided to householders. The grid of the future is different from the hierarchical nature of a highly centralised system with thousands of generators on a grid. A number of multinationals, Irish multinationals and tiny start up companies are working on how we can put intelligence in our dwellings and buildings coupled with intelligence in the utilities to come up with much more efficient solutions in order that, for instance, we can change the load profile, use a grid with wind energy delivering electricity at night, build storage into our dwellings, control hot water cylinders in a more intelligent way to help smooth the demand curve and avoid having to build more stations and so on. There is an opportunity for intelligence.
The only reason I mentioned this is that there is all this sage nodding of heads about the need for a smart grid. All those technologies are crucial but the steel and pylons are also needed. In some quarters politically there has been significant resistance to the replacement and reinforcement of the existing grid and that is crucial. We need all parties to buy into this politically.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
I could not agree more. The future we are talking about is unachievable without addressing the planning issues.
I also strongly agree with the Deputy on the need to measure. If we cannot measure, we cannot manage. We need to understand the effect of campaigns like the Power of One and to be able to measure the returns and changes, particularly crucial behavioural changes. Behavioural change has not been addressed in the curves because we do not have properly developed tools to reliably measure such change. However, the Deputy is right. These need to be measured. I have taken some interest in European research in this area, but it is not sufficiently developed. It is a concern that we are spending public money without knowing the most effective way to spend it. Therefore, I am encouraging my colleagues to do some work on developing measuring tools. Mr. Motherway may want to add to what I have said and speak about extending the curves.
Mr. Brian Motherway
We very much recognise the limitations and that they focus on technicalities for analytical reasons. We in SEI believe the behavioural opportunities are considerable and sometimes neglected in discussion. A quick point of information — the split between ETS and non-ETS opportunities is explained in the full report. We did not include it today to keep our presentation concise. However, in the full report, which is available on our website, we split the opportunities between the ETS and non-ETS sectors. I will send the Deputy the specific details on that.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
Senator Coffey raised the issue of the warmer homes schemes and how they are applied. In the early stages most of this focused on community based organisations which were selected via an evaluation process. We have the opportunity this year to ramp up the effort and have issued a call for tenders. We have conducted a selection process and this has selected a number of private organisations to augment the work of the community based organisations, with the intention of delivering 15,000 upgrades of houses this year.
Have tenders already been invited?
Professor J. Owen Lewis
Yes and contractors have been selected. I agree with what the Senator said on utilities programmes. The ESB, in its halo scheme, and Bord Gáis, announced they will use their muscle to support activity in this area. We are considering schemes like those working in other countries that we can operate in this area. Britain recently piloted a number of pay as you save schemes. In such schemes an independent audit of work required in the house is conducted. Then, through some financial mechanism, which in Britain is mainly local authority based, a charge is included in one's energy bill. The principle behind these schemes is that the savings will always be greater than the annual charge. Such schemes are a painless way to pay. That model will not work here because we do not have the same kind of structures, but we are looking at alternatives and at how best this could be done. Therefore, our workshop focused on coming up with designs appropriate to Irish conditions to move our schemes on to another scale altogether.
The Chair raised the question of working with local authorities. In the latter part of this year we had some additional funding for a programme entitled The Special Exemplary Energy Efficiency Programme. This worked mainly with public agencies and Government to come up with exemplary energy efficiency work. There is some support to private businesses also. I expect we will have a series of good news stories as a result of this programme. It is largely funded from budgets for employment stabilisation. Therefore, it is required that there is significant employment content in the work. While all our evaluation processes are rigorous, we have gone through a complex evaluation process under tight time constraints and now support approximately 80 projects. The money must be spent within the next month.
I was thinking of buildings used by the public, such as libraries, where awareness can be created at the same time as making positive improvements in the building. I suggest that working by selecting something like libraries one year and something else the following year would have a significant impact, rather than working on bits and pieces here and there.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
I will ask Mr. Motherway to come in on this because he has first-hand experience. Our experience is that we must work with the willing, for example, with local authorities. The major energy use for local authorities is pumping fresh and waste water. We have worked with a group from Kerry County Council which has done pioneering work on cost effective improvements to the efficiency with which it moves water. We have gathered a group of other local authorities around them and have brought in some leading-edge expertise to strengthen the work. We hope they will then provide the exemplars so that others will follow and wonder why if these authorities can make efficiencies, they cannot do the same and use less water. Is that a crude example of what is going on?
Mr. Brian Motherway
No, it is correct. Just as we advise businesses in the private sector on how to reduce energy use, we do the same in the public sector. This year we will send out our advisers to approximately 400 public buildings or bodies to provide advice on how to reduce energy and in some cases we will grant aid particular exemplar projects. Many, but not all, local authorities are focusing on efficiency, primarily for cost reasons, but also for environmental reasons. One area with a public dimension being focused on is public lighting. Some towns, including Tralee recently, have worked with us on new technologies for public lighting. Dublin city has done some nice exemplar work on public lighting and on energy efficient traffic lights. These, again, have a public engagement dimension.
We accept the point with regard to how this is being done and made visible so that others will follow. In all sectors of our work with both private and public business, we work and engage with those who come to us first and then try and spread the word. Publishing case studies and holding events to spread what works is and will continue to be an important component of our work.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
This also means that work on the policy front is better informed by engagement with what works in practice. These areas of work are complementary. On the issue of white goods labelling, there are programmes in place and these are being strengthened as a result of European directives in the area which require energy information labelling. I do not know about the scrappage scheme.
On the issue of agriculture, there is a problem with regard to emissions. This is difficult to tackle, but it provides an opportunity with regard to the area of bio-energy. Ms Polaski has been involved with some programmes in the area of micro generation and perhaps she can now say something in that regard.
Ms Katrina Polaski
I would like to make the committee aware of a pilot programme being run in SEI concurrently with a small release of a tariff for micro generation that is being managed by ESB customer supply and ESB networks. We have also taken on a programme to grant aid 50 micro generators, which include wind energy, solar, photo voltaic and small hydro projects. We define micro projects as those of 50 kW and below. We have contracted approximately 50 sites to date, from domestic to commercial and some small public sector entities. A number of agricultural sites are also included.
Wind in particular is an area of interest among the agricultural community. We have just started the programme. Projects will be built in the coming months and we will have a year's worth of data to analyse at the end. We have already learned a lot about it in the sense that we learned about the development of standards for the technologies and we are trying to establish similar types of lists as those developed for the greener homes programme. We had lists that gave information about which technologies and which installers met the established international criteria for quality and performance. We are learning a lot about this process and we are also developing those lists for micro-generation technologies. We hope those markets will be able to establish themselves with aid such as the refit scheme which is being piloted at the same time.
Are any projects available which would be of interest to the farming community? The president of the IFA has written to the committee to ask permission to talk about climate change before the Copenhagen conference. We will be talking about emissions with the IFA delegation.
Professor J. Owen Lewis
I thank the committee members for their questions.
I thank the delegates most sincerely for their courtesy and assistance. We appreciate the advice they have given the committee and look forward to further contact with Sustainable Energy Ireland on different issues in the future.
The delegates will note there are many committees sitting and the Seanad is also sitting. I must now return to the Dáil to deal with NAMA.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until Wednesday, 11 November 2009.