While I agree in principle with most of what FOI director general Ray Muscat wrote in his article on energy and water issues (July 29), I do not agree that the current system of capping of utility charges to large enterprises should be maintained.

First of all, heavy industrial consumers in Malta already benefit from a disproportionately low electricity tariff when compared to SMEs and domestic consumers.

Moreover, the capping mechanism effectively exempts heavy consumers of electricity from paying the surcharge.

These companies only pay a fixed sum (i.e. the capped amount) which is a pittance when compared to what they would pay if the capping mechanism were removed, especially now that the surcharge has almost doubled to 95 per cent.

The capping mechanism is effectively a subsidy which is paid by Enemalta, which in turn has to increase its tariffs on other consumers (including the domestic sector) to make ends meet.

It is therefore a very discriminatory measure, and I am baffled at how the trade unions and the MLP have not grasped the anti-social element of this measure, which has now been around for the last four to five years.

However, I am an engineer and an environmentalist, not a social scientist, a trade unionist or a politician.

Therefore, my main bone of contention to maintaining the status quo is that by exempting these companies from "feeling the pinch" of the surcharge (which reflects the international oil prices, or at least, ought to), these companies are failing to invest in energy-saving practices or renewables - not because they don't want to, but because perverse subsidies make it uneconomical for the same companies to do so.

Given that benchmarking of energy-efficiency projects is calculated against the artificially low electricity tariff paid by these companies, it is very difficult to justify any energy efficient project, even if it is top-class, sustainable, innovative, examplary, you name it. In economic terms, it simply does not have a reasonable payback period that would excite a company's board of directors.

The end result is that these companies will continue to demand huge amounts of electricity, which in turn necessitate that our power stations will continue to burn huge quantities of oil, churning out emissions which the taxpayer (yet again) will have to pay for.

Some years ago I circulated a proposal among high-ranking officials at Malta Enterprise and Enemalta on how to encourage heavy industry in Malta to invest in energy efficiency, thus reducing costs and also helping Enemalta to make ends meet.

The proposal is rather simple. A small surcharge (<5%) should be imposed on heavy consumers; the money collected from this surcharge should go into a fund which would then commission certified energy auditors to undertake audits at the companies' premises and factories.

The auditiors would draw up a Top-10 list of energy-saving measures for the particular company, complete with information about the respective investment costs and savings for each measure. With this report in hand, the companies could then go back to the fund and get a soft loan so as to finance the investment and implement the energy-efficient investment(s) of their choice.

The overall result would be a significant all-round reduction in energy consumption to benefit the same companies and the country in general.

A win-win scenario, if there ever was one. The measure would also kick-start the introduction of a variety of innovative, eco-efficient technologies in Malta and develop a pool of energy auditors, which does not exist at present.

Given that energy efficiency is now on everyone's lips, I hope that my proposal now finds more fertile soil.