In a recent letter to the editor, Marco Cremona rightly drew attention to the fallacy of supplying electricity at a low (capped) tariff to heavy industrial consumers so that they benefit from a disproportionately low electricity tariff which effectively exempts them from paying the surcharge.

Such subsidies simply send the wrong message to the high consuming industry. Not only does capping the surcharge discourage conservation - it positively encourages blatant over-use of energy.

One example suffices. At a recent seminar held at a large hotel, the proceedings took place in a conference room which was cooled to arctic conditions by an estimated 12,000 watts of air conditioning. The room temperature was so cold that participants who arrived huffing and puffing from the heat had to put their jackets on again within five minutes and delegates who did not bring a jacket complained about the cold!

As if this was not enough, the conference room had 20 ceiling spotlights and eight wall bracket lamps, each with two bulbs; these remained lit throughout because the curtains were tightly drawn so that no light was admitted from two large windows.

In this day and age it is absurd to use artificial lighting when more than enough daylight is available. An adjoining larger room which was used briefly for initial registration of delegates and coffee breaks was also over-cooled, the curtains were half drawn and ceiling spotlights and wall lamps were kept blazing throughout.

Had there been no subsidy on electricity, the hotel administration would doubtless think twice before indulging in such energy extravagance.

In a Discussion Document submitted to the MCESD in July, the Malta Employers' Association defended their patch by recommending retention of the capping mechanism for large enterprises.

Their recommendation is wrong for exactly the same reason they maintained - in the very same document - that the subsidy for needy families should not be increased: because "it encourages wasteful consumption, tax evasion and it also disincentivises... installing energy saving appliances".

Surely this argument applies equally - if not more so - to large enterprises because the potential for waste of these large enterprises is so much greater. Therefore, the subsidy to large enterprises should be phased out.

This can be done in a step-wise fashion in order to allow time to absorb the impact of the increased energy price and permit the enterprises to adapt to the new conditions, possibly by installing energy generating appliances as well.

Another letter hit the nail on the head by rightly maintaining that capping for heavy consumers raises the question of discrimination against small enterprises and the domestic user. This is a very valid point.

The bottom line is that everyone - including large enterprises - should develop a culture of conservation through greater awareness of the importance of energy-saving measures. The only way to promote such awareness is through charging realistically for energy without favour or discrimination. This is of paramount importance because, in terms of carbon emissions and pollution, more can be achieved through energy conservation measures than can ever be achieved through renewable energy.

Therefore, energy conservation must be encouraged across the board, not only in the home and small enterprises but also in other settings as large industry and, not least, in public buildings - it must not be forgotten that our government buildings and offices are also serious energy sinners.