$550 Billion In Welfare Payments for Dirty Energy

Governments around the world spent $550 billion on energy subsidies last year, mostly to keep down the price of dirty energy from oil and coal. The Financial Times broke the story today based on an advance copy of an International Energy Agency study.

In fact, that number represents only half the story. The $550 billion in direct government welfare payments for the oil and coal industries does not include all of the indirect government subsidies that these industries receive. It does not include the cost of soldiers protecting oil fields in Iraq; or the cost of treating respiratory illnesses caused by particulate emissions; or the cost of free liability insurance for oil and coal companies (in the form of limitations on their liability for harm to third parties); or the cost to individuals who lose their livelihoods when oil gushes uncontrollably into the Gulf of Mexico or the Niger Delta.

But let's stick with the very tangible number of $550 billion in cold, hard cash for now. What would happen if we took that $550 billion away from oil and coal, and invested that cash in clean, sustainable energy technologies instead?

Just taking the welfare payments away from the oil and coal industries would have a tremendous impact on the level of investments in clean, sustainable energy technologies. Think about it for a moment. You are considering an investment in a new technology. But the existing technology that you want to compete against receives $550 billion in direct government welfare payments every year to keep its price artificially low. So your new technology will not only have to be better than the existing technology, it will also have to be a half trillion dollars less expensive. That is a high hurdle for anyone considering an investment in new technologies.

Take away that half trillion dollars in government welfare payments, and now you have a level playing field. That alone removes a hurdle and provides an incentive to investors in new technologies.

And if you actually shift that half trillion dollars from the oil and coal companies to investments in clean, sustainable energy technologies, you can start a green revolution.

As an added benefit, the clean, sustainable energy technologies will not require these subsidies forever. Give a man a welfare payment to buy oil today and he'll be back for another welfare payment tomorrow. But give him the same payment to buy solar panels, and he'll have energy for a lifetime.

John Howley
www.HowleyGreenEnergy.com
Orlando, Florida

How Monitoring Dramatically Reduces Energy Costs

One of the most cost-effective ways to reduce energy costs is to monitor energy consumption in one minute increments and watch the trends over time. Almost every building will immediately find quick and easy ways to reduce energy costs by 5% or more. And knowledgeable professionals can often use the data to drive down energy costs by 20% or more and improve facility comfort and performance at the same time.

Let's take an actual example. Forward Energy Solutions recently subscribed to Continuous Energy Management & Optimization (CEMO) from Davies Energy Systems. The process involved two steps: (1) installing a real-time energy monitoring system from Noveda Technologies; and (2) having Davies Energy's engineers analyze the data and develop better ways to manage and optimize facility energy usage.

Here is the minute-by-minute display of electricity consumption that Foward Energy Solutions saw after just one day:


Notice the two distinct sets of spikes in energy consumption. The first occurred just before 4:00 a.m. when no one was in the building. The next set of distinct spikes started at 7:00 a.m. and continued until 5:00 p.m. Each of the spikes lasted only a minute or less and were not noticed by the people in the building. But over time they amounted to a significant increase in kwh consumption. They also may increase the peak demand charges on the company's monthly electric bill.

The culprits were quickly identified. A small refrigerator was malfunctioning and spiking the consumption at 4 a.m. An air-conditioning system in need of repair was causing the spikes during regular business hours.

Catching these types of problems generates immediate savings by reducing kwh consumption and peak demand charges. The avoided costs will continue to be realized each and every month into the future, often adding up to thousands of dollars in energy savings.

Identifying these types of problems early on also avoids the cost of more expensive repairs down the line. Without monitoring, no one would have noticed the air-conditioning problem until it stopped cooling the building -- most likely on the hottest day of the year. At that point, the company would have already wasted money on unnecessary energy costs, plus it would be facing the higher cost of repairing or replacing the air-conditioning system on an emergency basis. Not to mention the loss of employee productivity in a sweltering office until the repairs could be made.

Francis X. Lamparello, P.E., the Chief Technology Officer at Davies Energy Systems, says that he finds these types of issues in almost every building. But these problems are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to saving energy. "Buildings are living, breathing entities that must be monitored and adjusted on a continuous basis," he says. "For example, maintaining proper air pressure inside the building can keep warm air from entering in the summer, and letting in more cool outside air on a sunny Fall day can give you 'free cooling' to offset the heat caused by the sun shining on the windows." All of these energy saving solutions, he points out, are free or inexpensive once you have real-time monitoring and expert advice on how to manage the facility.

What's next for Forward Energy Solutions? Now that they have the data, they are working with Davies Energy on a number of additional ways to drive down their energy costs. More on that in later blog posts.

John Howley
Orlando, Florida

The Power of Green Thinking (and Small Green Acts)

A friend invited me to join a Facebook group called the Carbon Conscious Consumer (C3) Campaign. The group has a simple agenda: To promote "6 easy steps that anyone can take to reduce our carbon emissions."

Many people scoff at such lists of "easy" ways to save the planet. Thomas Friedman, for example, worries in his book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," that the "amount of time, energy, and verbiage being spent on making people 'aware' of the energy-climate problem, and asking people to make symbolic gestures to call attention to it, is out of proportion to the time, energy, and effort going into designing a systemic solution." He points out that the energy problems we face are huge -- if you convert global energy consumption into oil equivalents, we are consuming 420 million gallons per hour. We need game-changing technologies and policies, not just six easy ways to go Green.

I agree. So why did I join the C3 group and invite my friends to join too?

Because our daily thoughts and actions drive our national policies and investments.

Think about the 1980's and 90's. Does it surprise you that a nation of people who drove SUVs and built McMansions elected politicians in both parties who did not think about climate change or how our oil consumption was subsidizing despotic regimes? This is not an ideological issue. Very few people in either political party thought much about energy efficiency when buying cars and homes in the 80's and 90's. That thoughtlessness was an important driver of our national energy policies during those decades.

Since then, we have become more aware of energy and the environment as a result of a few extraordinary events. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the realization that the terrorists came from countries subsidized by our oil purchases. The escalation of oil prices a couple of years ago. The current Great Recession. The debate over global warming.

Those of us who lived through gasoline and home heating fuel shortages during the oil embargo of the 1970's know too well how transitory these trends can be. How do we sustain our interest in sustainability?

By changing the way we act. People who act every day in small Green ways will enter the polling booths with a completely different mindset than people who drove their gas guzzling SUVs to the polls.

Besides, we must do something while we wait for the game-changing technologies. The six simple steps will have a meaningful impact.

Let's take just one of the six simple steps: Breaking the bottled water habit.

World consumption of bottled water has increased by 70% since 2001 to more than 200 Billion litres. Of that amount, Americans bought more than 33 Billion litres. That's a lot of plastic bottles that need to be manufactured, filled with water, shipped to warehouses and stores, cooled in stores or home refrigerators, and recycled or thrown into landfills where they will take up to 1,000 years to decompose. Each stage of this process uses much more energy than running tap water through a filter.

Will reducing or eliminating all this waste solve our energy and environmental challenges? No. But it's a start. And an American public that thinks about how much energy and other resources are consumed to produce a bottle of water is one that will think about energy and environmental issues when choosing its leaders.

That's why I joined the Carbon Conscious Consumer (C3) Campaign and am promoting the group to my friends. Because thinking and acting Green in our daily lives will make a difference today, and it is the only way we will build a public consensus to invest in the game-changing policies and technologies we need for the long term.

John Howley
Orlando, Florida

More Important Than Copenhagen

I told you so.

Four months ago, I predicted that, "Those looking for simple solutions to climate change will be very disappointed by the absence of firm emission reduction targets in Copenhagen later this year. . . . But at the same time, [the US and China] will pursue a second path of cooperation towards achievable solutions with or without an agreement on targets." See US and China Forge a New Path on Climate Change.

That is exactly what the US and China did in Copenhagen yesterday.

Why? Because nothing this important and this complicated ever gets resolved by a committee.

Consider for a moment the race to put a man on the moon. Thomas Friedman and others have said that this should be our model for the Green energy revolution.

I agree. But we did not get to the moon by holding international conventions and listening to dictators and despots like Iran's Ahmadinejad, Zimbabwe's Mugabe, and Venezuela's Chavez lecture us on the evil nature of our plans to be the first to put a man on the moon. Nor did we wait until we could reach the lowest common denominator consensus with Russia, China and 180 other nations on how and when to put a man on the moon.

If we had followed the path of seeking international consensus before we went to the moon, then we probably never would have achieved the goal.

So, now that we have gotten Copenhagen out of our system, let's get down to the serious work of pursuing the Green energy revolution the old fashioned way. With vigorous competition among nations to be the most energy efficient and energy independent economies in the world.

Walmart has given us a good first step. The company has sent out a Sustainability Index survey to 100,000 of its suppliers. The survey asks each supplier to provide information about their carbon footprint, energy and water usage, plans and goals to reduce their carbon footprint, energy consumption and water usage, and other factors that affect the sustainability of their operations. For now, Walmart will review this data internally. But it plans in later stages to release the data to consumers and possibly even disclose a ranking of individual products based on a Sustainability Index for the product and the company that manufactured it.

If you were a factory owner in China, what would provide a better incentive for you to reduce your carbon footprint and use of energy and water? (a) An international treaty that committed China to nation-wide carbon reduction targets over a 20 or 30 year period? Or (b) a Walmart Sustainability Index that made your products unsellable to the world's largest retailer unless you reduced your own company's carbon footprint and use of energy and water?

Forget Copenhagen. We need barriers to entry that will make it difficult for producers around the world to sell their products unless they are made using non-polluting energy sources and sustainable manufacturing practices.

We also need to alter the economics of energy at home. Yes, solar and wind are more expensive than most carbon-emitting alternatives right now. But only because those carbon-emitting alternatives do not pay the full cost of their pollution. If we make coal and oil companies include in their pricing the cost of eliminating their products' emissions (either with cap and trade or a carbon tax), then solar, wind and other non-emitting alternatives would seem very inexpensive by comparison.

Lastly, we need to use government funding and regulations to promote sustainable energy based on the long-term benefits -- just as we did when we used government funds to finance space exploration.

Imagine, for example, if all new construction and renovations in the US had to be "net zero" in terms of direct and indirect carbon emissions. By "net zero" I mean that the amount of energy used by a facility from non-carbon-emitting sources like solar and wind is equal to or exceeds the amount of energy from carbon-emitting sources. This could be accomplished by a combination of building codes requiring higher levels of efficiency in buildings (which many local governments are already imposing) and subsidies for investments in solar, wind and other non-carbon-emitting energy sources.

Yes, this would cost us in the short term. But think for a moment about the competitive advantage this would give us in the longer term. What if five or ten years from now our factories used highly efficient buildings that required less energy, and that energy was supplied by solar and wind plants that had ZERO fuel costs. Our factories would have a tremendous competitive advantage over factories in China and elsewhere that continued to use power generated by coal and petroleum fuels.

I hear all those out there who say that climate issues are different because they transcend borders. But space travel transcended borders too. And we did not succeed with space travel by waiting for everyone to agree. We went out and did it.

John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey

Distributed Generation? Try Distributed Storage.

One of the hot topics in renewable energy is "distributed generation." If every home and business would install some solar panels or small wind turbines to generate their own electricity, then any excess electricity could be sold back to the grid. Build enough small solar photovoltaic systems and windmills, the theory goes, and we won't have to build as many coal-fired power plants.

Those who support this concept make analogies to the internet, where the computing power and brainpower of numerous individuals and their personal computers can be harnessed via distributed computing and wikis and social networks into something really big and powerful.

Will the same concept work with “distributed generation” of electricity?

Not exactly.

Asa an energy efficiency measure, putting solar panels and wind turbines on individual facilities is a very good idea. It will reduce the need for that facility to draw power from the grid. But for large scale production of electricity and selling back to the grid, distributed generation does not provide the quality control and economies of scale necessary for the efficient generation and distribution of electricity. Let’s look at those two issues:

Power Quality. The internet works by allowing everyone to post whatever information they want, without any initial filter on quality. That won't work on the electric grid.

An efficient power distribution system requires that power quality (voltage, harmonics, etc.) be maintained at all times. That is difficult enough to accomplish with highly variable generation sources such as wind and solar. Every time the wind dies down or clouds start to cover the solar panels in one geographic area, the grid would have to find power elsewhere to maintain adequate voltage levels. That is a very difficult and complicated task when you are dealing with large wind and solar farms. It is even more difficult when the wind and solar power is being supplied by thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of different sources, each with its own variations in power quality.

Economies of Scale. Building small windmills and solar photovoltaic arrays is not very cost efficient. The number of workers required per megawatt -- and the gasoline they will use going from one site to another -- makes this a very inefficient process. And what about maintenance? Can we really afford a renewable energy system that requires maintenance crews to take care of generation capacity that is located at hundreds or thousands of different locations?

Does that mean our electric power systems will continue to be centralized? Yes, but only on the generation side. On the storage side, distributed networks may offer an excellent solution to the problem of matching generation with demand.

The biggest inefficiency in our current electric power system is caused by the need to build excess generation capacity to meet peak demand. Many electric utilities have generators that are used less than 40% of the time. They exist solely to provide extra power when it is needed -- like from 7 am to 7 pm when every office building has its lights, computers, fax machines and HVAC systems turned on. And on that very hot August day when everyone turns on their incredibly inefficient window air-conditioning units at the same time.

Power companies must build enough generating capacity to handle the highest possible peak demand for electricity. When we operate substantially below peak capacity (like, almost every night of the year), that peak capacity goes wasted.

The real problem is not generation, but storage. If we could use that generating capacity at night and store the electricity for the next day, then we would have a truly efficient system.

Fran Lamparello, my good friend and business partner, sees the future of energy storage by looking at the past. Fran has spent his entire working life in different aspects of the energy industry, from designing building controls systems to running a home heating oil distribution business. He envisions a time in the near future when the electric utilities will address energy storage the same way the home heating oil industry did. At the customer's home or business.

By putting storage tanks at each customer's home or business, the oil companies turned their customers into a "distributed storage" network. It was a very efficient system. The distributor could buy home heating fuel during the off season when prices were low, and then store it until the winter. The distributor did not have to pay for storage of large fuel inventories because it could store that inventory at the customer's home or business. Properly sized, an oil tank at the home or business also reduced the number of trips that had to be made to deliver fuel to the customer.

Fran and I predict that you will see the same type of distributed storage system with electricity. As the efficiency and cost of fuel cells and other storage mechanisms for electricity improve, you will see utilities offering to put that storage mechanism on site at the customer's location. It may be in the form of electric cars as Tom Friedman predicts in his book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," or it may be in the form of fuel cells.

The real value of the internet model for electricity is not “distributed generation.” It is “distributed storage.” Do not put a solar panel on every roof. Put a hydrogen fuel cell in every backyard or basement! Or an electric car in every garage!

John Howley
Manila, Philippines

Free Cooling?

A data center that requires no air-conditioning?

Google has figured out a way to do it. And it is so simple. Locate your data center in a place like Belgium where you can use outside air as “free cooling.”

The concept of “free cooling” – bringing in outside air to cool the inside of a building -- is not new. Building managers in the US and elsewhere have been doing it for decades. By controlling dampers to balance the mix of inside and outside air, building managers can use the “free” outside air to better control temperature, humidity, and air pressure inside buildings without spending money on electricity.

Actually, all of us have done this at one time or another. Like on a Fall day when the sun hitting our windows makes it a little too warm inside, even though the air outside is cool. Instead of turning on the air-conditioning, we just open the window a little. Same concept. “Free” cooling.

All Google has done is take this very basic principle of facility energy management and apply it to complex data centers by adding a dash of information technology and off-shoring. The equipment in data centers generate a lot of heat. By locating them in a cooler climate and carefully managing the amount of cool fresh air coming into the building, Google can control the temperature without needing electricity to generate air-conditioning.

Belgium does have a few days per year (maybe about 7) when the outside air temperature is not cold enough to cool a data center. Google will monitor the weather and outside temperatures. If it gets too warm in Belgium, Google will simply shut down some equipment there (which will reduce the amount of heat being generated inside the data center) and shift some of the work load to other data centers around the world until the weather in Belgium returns to normal.

Now, in complex buildings like data centers, the cooling is not entirely "free." First, you need a building management system to monitor operating conditions inside the building and external data such as weather. Then you need to use the brainpower of facilities engineers to manage the system. But that little bit of data analysis and brainpower leads to tremendous reductions in both energy costs and carbon emissions.

Pretty good results for essentially opening windows.

John Howley
Manila, Philippines

We Are The Solution

Last week I gave a presentation on “Energy Efficiency Best Practices” to more than 100 CEOs of multinational corporations. The presentation began with a disclaimer. I did not intend to talk about alternative energy. I would focus, instead, on energy efficiency. On how companies can dramatically reduce their energy costs -- without changing what they do -- simply by using existing technologies to make their facilities run more efficiently.

Just to be clear, the first slide in my presentation said: “Focus on Efficiency.” Then I ended with the same slide: “Focus on Efficiency.”

What happened during the Q&A session? No one asked about energy efficiency. Instead, every one asked about alternative energy. What about electric cars? What about fuel cells? What about biofuels? What about cellulose? What about solar? What about wind?

Why were they asking about alternative energy? Because we all want to find the magic new technology that will make energy both environmentally friendly and inexpensive. Then we won’t have to do anything ourselves.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no Luddite. In fact, I firmly believe that over time very smart scientists and engineers will make major breakthroughs that will eliminate our dependence on carbon-based fuels. Just in my lifetime, the microprocessor has revolutionized communications, media, data processing, medical diagnostics, and virtually every aspect of our lives. Once discovered, similar types of breakthroughs in energy and power generation will relegate carbon to the same dustbin of history as the rotary telephone.

But continuing to waste energy while waiting for alternative energy breakthroughs is a bit like continuing to spend recklessly while waiting to hit the lottery. It might happen someday. Maybe not. Even if it does, who knows when.

In the meantime, we have such a simple solution…….and it is us. Simply by taking very basic steps, we can reduce our energy consumption by 20% or more without altering our lifestyles or business practices. And we can do that today with existing technologies that have very short paybacks.

So, please, a little focus on efficiency.

John Howley
Hong Kong

The Economics of Energy Conservation

I remember watching President Jimmy Carter on television during the OPEC Oil Embargo. He was wearing his Mr. Rogers sweater, sitting in front of a fireplace, and telling the country that we all must conserve energy. His message was plain. Energy conservation means making sacrifices, like turning down the thermostat and putting on sweaters to keep warm in front of a fire.

Being fond of comfortable wool sweaters, wood fires and the notion that a little personal sacrifice could help eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, I was taken with President Carter's message. Unfortunately, President Carter's approach to energy conservation was not sustainable. You cannot heat the clean rooms in semiconductor manufacturing plants with fireplaces in the winter, nor can you cool hospital operating rooms by opening windows in the summer. Most big energy consumers -- factories, hospitals, office buildings and other commercial and industrial enterprises -- were not going to solve the energy crisis or our dependence on foreign oil by going back to a simpler time or by doing less.

We soon found out that even personal sacrifice would last only so long. Once the immediate crisis of the embargo ended, our society lost its sense of urgency about conservation. Within a few years we had discovered the joys of driving gas guzzling SUVs.

Fast forward 30 years to where we are today, the early 21st Century. Al Gore and others have focused our attention on global warming and the need to reduce carbon emissions. At the same time, we are facing another energy crisis caused by rising energy costs. Oil above $100 a barrel. Electricity rates going through the roof.

This time we are talking about energy conservation in terms of becoming more efficient. Major corporations and venture capitalists have jumped on the bandwagon, asserting that conservation is not just good for our environment, but it is also good for business. For example, the President and CEO of Wal-Mart noted in a recent interview that his company is pursuing energy efficiency because it is good business -- consistent with the company's founding principles -- to cut costs by becoming more efficient:

“We looked at what Sam Walton started and how he developed the company. It was by eliminating waste, bringing in efficiencies. And by thinking about sustainability from our standpoint, it really is about how do you take cost out, which is waste, whether it's through recycling, through less energy use in the store, through the construction techniques we're using, through the supply chain. All of those things are simply the creation of waste. We found it's consistent with the entire model we've had since Sam opened the first store.” H. Lee Scott Jr., President and CEO, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., quoted in “Waste Not”, The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2008.

Even altruistic environmentalists have made their arguments for conservation based on what is most cost effective. For example, the Canadian Chapter of the World Wildlife Federation has focused on the cost-saving benefits of energy efficiency: “Energy efficiency investments such as building retrofits are one of the lowest-cost and most effective options for reducing greenhouse emissions.” WWF-Canada Backgrounder, March 24, 2008.

How do businesspeople determine whether energy conservation measures are "cost effective"? They simply compare the financial returns available from investments in energy conservation projects with returns available from other types of investments. This requires nothing more than an analysis of (a) how long it will take for the financial savings generated by an investment in the energy conservation project to equal the cost of that investment, known as the PayBack Period; (b) how long those financial savings will continue in the future; (c) what those savings equate to in terms of a percentage return, known as the Internal Rate of Return; and (d) an adjustment for the company's cost of capital, depreciation on any equipment that is installed as part of the conservation project, and other factors.

For example, if replacing an incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb (CFL) costs an average of $2.00 (including labor) and will result in a reduction of $2.00 per year in the cost of electricity, then the CFL pays for itself in one year and the PayBack Period is one year. If the CFL will last 10 years, then each investment of $2.00 in CFLs today will generate financial savings of $20 over the life of each new bulb. A very rough Internal Rate of Return is close to 100% because your $2.00 investment is generating 100% return ($2.00 per year). Put another way, to match the return on your investment in CFLs, you would have to invest in something else that generated almost 100% per year.

The actual Internal Rate of Return is less than 100% because you have to factor in your cost of capital -- that is, how much did it cost you to earn or borrow the original $2.00 investment -- and other factors such as depreciation of any equipment installed as part of the conservation projects. But for our purposes, it is sufficient to understand that energy efficiency investments with one-year PayBack Periods are extraordinary investments that cannot be matched by almost any other investment, at least not without taking on much more significant risks.

The Internal Rates of Return for investments with two-year and three-year PayBack Periods are also extraordinary. If an investment pays for itself within 2 years, then it is generating financial savings equal to 50% of its cost each year. And if an investment pays for itself within 3 years, then it is generating financial savings equal to 33% of its cost each year. Depending on how long the savings will last (10, 20 years or more), the cost of the company's capital, etc., investments with two-year and three-year PayBack Periods usually will generate Internal Rates of Return in the range of 30% to 45%.

Since energy efficiency investments carry very little risk (and a lot of side benefits), any energy efficiency investment that generates an Internal Rate of Return of 30% to 45% makes good business sense. It is almost impossible to get that type of return on your investment anywhere else without taking on significant risks.

The bottom line: A CFO will almost always invest in energy efficiency projects that have PayBack Periods less than three years, because Internal Rates of Return over 30% are hard to find without taking on significant risks. And a CFO is almost compelled to invest in energy efficiency projects that have PayBack Periods in the two-year range, because low-risk Internal Rates of Return over 40% are almost impossible to find.

The Internal Rate of Return for energy efficiency investments with four-year PayBack Periods are also good. A four-year PayBack Period means the investment is generating savings equal to 25% of the investment every year. Even after discounting for cost of capital, the Internal Rate of Return should be in the 15% to 20% range. This is still very good considering the relatively low risk of energy efficiency investments compared to the types of risk that must be taken to obtain returns of 15% to 20% in other investments.

In addition, energy efficiency investments generate other types of returns that make them much more valuable than pure financial investments. These side benefits include reducing carbon emissions, generating good will as a "green" company, reducing maintenance costs on equipment that now runs more efficiently, etc.

PayBack Periods longer than four years are more difficult to justify on financial considerations alone. Depending on cost of capital, a five year PayBack Period will generate an Internal Rate of Return that often is in the same range as what the company can earn by reinvesting in its own business. The energy conservation project then starts to compete with other internal capital needs. Do we conserve energy? Or do we expand our plant so we can grow into an important new market? The energy conservation project can still win out, but not on financial considerations alone.

What are the implications when companies make their energy efficiency decisions based on Internal Rates of Return? I've already gone on too long for today, so I'll save that for another blog entry. In the meantime, I look forward to your comments and questions on this primer on the economics of energy conservation.

John Howley
Hong Kong

Energy Efficient Business Attire

One hot August day, I organized a luncheon in New York City where the President of the Philippines gave a speech to about 150 bankers and business leaders. When I say it was hot, it was a day that defined sweltering. You could see the heat waves rising from the asphalt.

Arriving early to make sure everything was ready, I found that the luncheon hall had been refrigerated (air-conditioned would be a gross understatement) to feel like a walk-in freezer. The manager explained that he had turned the air-conditioning on full blast two hours earlier to get the room so cold. He said this was his standard practice during the summer months because people are pretty hot after walking a few city blocks wearing wool suits. "Don't worry," he assured me. "They'll be so hot when they get here that the room will warm up to a reasonable temperature very quickly."

Sure enough, as 150 over-heated people in business suits started offsetting the deep freeze of air-conditioning, the room temperature reached a very comfortable equilibrium.

Precisely at the appointed hour, the President of the Philippines walked in wearing a Barong Tagalog, the official formal wear of the Philippines, over crisply pressed black pants and black dress shoes shined to military perfection. Made of pina cloth that had been hand loomed from fibers of pineapple plant leaves, the President's formal Barong Tagalog was suitable for a groom at his wedding or, more appropriately, a President's State of the Union address to the Philippine nation. At the same time, the garment's sheer, loosely fitting fabric made the President one of the most comfortably dressed people in New York City that day.

As the President gave his speech on economic policy in the Philippines, I noticed more than a few men in suits tugging at their collars or patting their brows with handkerchiefs. Apparently, they were still a bit warm despite the heavy refrigeration in the room. The President, however, looked cool and comfortable as he spoke for almost an hour and took questions from the audience.

Sometime during the speech, my thoughts turned to the role of the Barong Tagolog in energy conservation. Why do we still wear wool business suits and ties in August? Or July? Or any other time when the temperature exceeds 80 degrees? Frankly, the President looked much more formal than anyone else in the room. He was also by far the most comfortable person there. And if we had all dressed as appropriately for the weather as he did, the facility manager could have cut his air-conditioning bill at least in half that day.

Think about it. Would we turn up our thermostats so we could wear shorts and t-shirts when it is freezing outside? Then why do we continue to wear inappropriate clothing that requires us to over-cool our buildings when it is hot outside?

John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey