Right. The typical payback for most of the FBI projects would be 10 to 12 years, and that would be a 10- to 12-year contract. In order of magnitude, a $10-million project would pay back a million dollars a year, and at the end of 10 years we're done, and that building continues to have reduced energy bills for the life of the equipment, another 15 to 20 years.
That has been traditionally how it goes. We are seeing, though, some longer contracts now. We've seen them as long as 35 years. The longer the contract, the deeper the retrofit. Typically, most of the projects done to date would have achieved savings in the 20% to 25% range for that 10- to 12-year payback. The government now is looking to go much deeper than that, with a 40% target. It can be done, but not with that 10-year term. It would need an extension of that term, and I think that's part of the challenge .
We actually made a presentation to the federal building initiative a week and a half ago, suggesting that they alter their RFP process to focus on greenhouse gas emissions, and this isn't going to happen quickly. If that's what you want, ask for it in an RFP and judge people on how much your greenhouse gas emission reductions would be. It has to be cost-effective. It has to be certainly a positive, net present value.
We've seen the FBI program. It's interesting. When it first started off, it was mainly to save money. Then it was to save energy, just because that was a good thing, and we believe now, with the current interest and Canada's commitments, it should really be focused on carbon. The advantage is you're getting all three. You're going to save money, you're going to reduce energy, and you're going to address carbon. You're also going to be hiring a lot of people. It's very labour-intensive, and that's what that Empire State Building project really confirmed.