THE CALL FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THE U.S. HAS FINALLY HIT MAIN STREAM!

www.honzon.com Egg ChairCF026 Swan ChairCF027 Womb ChairCF078 Bocca sofa CF6040 Brno Flat ChairCF007 Chaise Lounge ChairCF005 Barcelona ChairCF004 Corona Chair CF017 Eames Lounge ChairCF024 Chair LC7CF023 Wassily Chair CF024 Rohe Chaise Longue CF038 Ball Chair CF066 Heart Shaped Cone Chair CF084 Vitra Verner Panton Cone Chair CF0158 Cup Lounge Chair CF603 OX Lounge Chair with Ottoman CF051 Retro designed Aluminum Executive Lounge Chairs and Ottoman CF0114 Management Chairs as Designed by Charles Ray Eames CF0123 Meso Chair (PK22) CF222 Chair PK20 CF220 Basculant Chair CF006 Le Corbusier Sofa CF009 Knoll Sofa CF029 Marshmallow Style Sofa CF001 Hanging Eero Aarnio Eye Ball Chair CF068 Eye Ball Chair CF069 Eames La Chaise CF071 Eileen Gray Daybed CF019 Sofa LC5 CF025 Le Corbusier Sofa LC3 CF302 Le Corbusier Petite Corner Sectional CF032 Kubus Josef Hoffmann Armchair and Sofa CF008 Le Corbusier Grande Corner Sectional CF033 Le Corbusier Petite Chaise Sectional CF030 Cube Stool CF080 Isamu Noguchi Coffee Table CF012 Eileen Gray End Table CF013 Barcelona Coffee Table CF014

There must have been a lag in the posting. The line should read, "...it would have the equivalent effect of reducing the annual output of forty, 500 megawatt coal fire plants from the electrical grid with the environmental benefits that go along with the carbon output reduction." To answer Tried in Texas's posting, the bottom line IS what America should be looking at. Unlike other investments in green technology, high performance daylighting is very low hanging fruit as a building owner that chooses to remain inefficient will continue to pay the utility for his energy usage. Energy usage is paid with expense dollars which directly flow from bottom line profit dollars. One of my favorite statements is, "It's not in the budget," as this is the point where we show our customers that it is already coming from your budgets, just not the capital budget. It comes from the operational expense budget which is where the lost profits lie. If daylighting or any energy efficiency can be paid for in less than 5 years (not the typical MBA, 2 year or less mentality) then the ROI in a straight line return is 20% of pure profit. Most businesses don't make that kind of profit, you can't get that in the stock market, Bernie Madoff was only paying 18%, and if a bank paid 20%, the stock market would be obsolete. I realize the economy is difficult these days and people are looking at ways where they can trim their pennies to stay afloat. However, if businesses would do the math first, they will find there is a wealth of opportunity for increasing profits through efficiency that if they used their cost of money at 9% or less over a 5 year term, they will find at today's cost of energy, there is immediate return on investment for efficiency projects in most markets in the U.S. today. After all, as I always say... There's no greater efficiency than off!

the bottom line is what corporate america looks at. going green costs todays dollars saving tomorrows dollars is difficult to justify. It''''s just not in the budget, is the favorite tag line today

In the sentence "it would have the equivalent effect of reducing the annual output forty," Is there a word missing. Not understanding what the reduction would be. Please clarify. Thanks.