Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his constructive contribution throughout the debate both in the Chamber and here.

On costs, we have €30 billion in the national development plan assigned for this purpose, including investments in retrofitting, the grid and so on. It includes the climate action fund. There is significant money being set aside to achieve this. We have learned that we must be more innovative in using some of the money. This relates to the Deputy's final question. We rely largely on subsidies given to individuals to undertake retrofitting, but that model will not deliver the scale and aggregation we need to achieve.

We must think in terms of targeting wider areas, aggregating and scaling up work, using smarter procurement for more cost-effective professional advice and installation work and developing smarter finance and easier payment methods. We recognise that we need to use our money more innovatively. Almost €4 billion has been set aside in that area and we must ensure that we use that in a targeted way which has the greatest impact and delivers quicker than the current model.

In delivering this, we had to consider a range of policy instruments for every sector. We cannot expect the Exchequer to fund all change. We had to ask in which cases regulatory changes are appropriate as a means of creating an obligation for people to make those changes. This approach tends to be adopted where the case for not making the change is very weak and the changes are necessary because they stand out as sensible both economically and in terms of climate. That is why we are discussing the options of obliging employers with more than 20 parking spaces to have electric charging facilities, requiring new homes to be built to a net zero energy standard and eliminating the use of oil boilers from 2022. In some cases, we are making decisions to impose requirements where the cost must be borne by the people. We will choose those areas sensitively and they will evolve over time and recognise the difficulties that will be encountered, for example, supply chain issues.

It is important that carbon pricing is recognised as a means of changing the payback period for people contemplating changes. If there is a trajectory for carbon prices, people will choose to adopt changes earlier than would otherwise be the case. Everyone who has considered this challenge and advised on it, including the Climate Change Advisory Council, has recognised that. Incentives also have a role. That can often be important, particularly in introducing people to technologies they might not otherwise consider. Significant supports have been available for deep retrofitting, the adoption of electric vehicles and so on. A mixture of policy tools will have to be developed and adapted over time to shape the share-out of cost. In addition, money raised through a carbon price will be available for disposal. The Minister is consulting on how that might best be done. This offers an opportunity.

Approximately 75% of the measures we have chosen pay for themselves. They would be good for the country, even if there was no climate crisis. It is important to recognise that. There is not a net cost to all these measures, some of which are very justifiable, especially in areas such as electric vehicles, retrofitting work and elements of agriculture. The selection of measures and their sequencing were based on a recognition that some of them will be economic today, while in the case of others, for example, batteries, technology will bring down the price at a certain point such that they become economic. This is an evolving area where we must adapt policy and ensure it is delivering the targets. There is no perfect foresight where we can see a curve with a series of fixed elements for which an exact share-out of the sort the Deputy suggests is available.

The just transition should be integral to the implementation of the plan. Having the NESC issue strong advice that will be core to the implementation of the plan, which will be run from the Taoiseach's office and my office, is the right way to do it. It makes the NESC integral to the plan. We will have to use the new opportunities creatively, for example, retrofitting and microgeneration, to ensure they recognise areas of pressure, including the bioeconomy and the renewables sector, to which the Deputy referred. We will need to use the regional enterprise funds, the urban and rural funds and climate action funds in a way to support the transition.

The decision on achieving 70% renewables was very important. The Deputy is correct that we will need detailed planning to achieve this and that planning is being undertaken. We can absorb up to 65% renewables on the grid at the moment and we are developing plans to push that figure up to 75% and subsequently to 90%. We must make changes in the grid's capacity to make much higher shares of renewables possible.

The committee has been conscious that we must adapt the Foreshore Act to provide for offshore wind capabilities. The Deputy is absolutely right that detailed planning is needed and that is already under way. The plan will extend to dividends for the community. We anticipate community gain and participation and the first round of the renewable energy share, RES, scheme will include a pot to be allocated to community bids.

The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, has done a great deal of work on how much it costs to retrofit homes and how one incentivises people to retrofit their homes and come together to have work done. The authority has developed sustainable energy communities and various grant schemes, including the warmer homes scheme which provides grants of up to 100%. As the Deputy will have seen, while it costs approximately €14,000 to undertake external wall insulation in a typical home, cavity wall insulation costs approximately €2,000. There are significant differences in the cost of improving the fabric of a home depending on the starting point. Heating control systems cost around €1,000 but they have a rapid payback in terms of the impact on heating bills. Grants are also available for heat pumps and solar installation.

We have a fair idea of the costs involved in retrofitting homes and different houses will have a different menu to choose from. The ambition is that 500,000 households, or approximately 30% of the 1.75 million homes in the country, will have made significant investment in the fabric of their houses by 2030. I acknowledge that this requires people to change what they regard as the priority for their home. They will have to view future-proofing their homes for the changes taking place around the globe as beings as important as other items on which they spend money in their homes. The State will have to change its approach achieve this because the current model is not fit for purpose.