I think it's hard to separate the amount, because, for example, if you're renovating your house and it's time to replace your furnace, let's say, with a more efficient furnace, what we're looking to departments to do is if they just bought a furnace five years ago, not to replace it right away. They should replace it when the life cycle of the furnace is done. When they then buy the super efficient furnace versus the efficient furnace, let's say there's a 5% difference there in the capital spend, but they'll make it up in the O and M. So we're tagging then not that 5% capital but the savings in the O and M as green, if you will.
It would be a relatively exhaustive exercise to do that across all of the capital plans of departments. We are, however, working with partners to look at what is the difference in greener buildings. We're working with folks like the Green Building Council and other partners, but the delta depends—there are different climate zones in Canada, different types of buildings. The retrofit of the St. Clair office tower in Toronto, for example, over a 25-year life cycle is about 4% more capital, but you make it up. If you look at a 40-year life cycle, you break even or get close to breaking even over a 25-year life cycle.
There are individual examples we've seen that aren't actually.... Usually it's more capital and there are also productivity benefits. A better building could mean better productivity from workers, lower absenteeism rates, etc. There are different studies out there on that as well.