Brandon Lorenz

A New Tool For Estimating The Carbon Footprint of Your Products, And For Tackling LEED's Regional Material Credits

Brandon Lorenz — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:02:00 GMT

As many facility managers who have been through the LEED certification process know, projects that use locally sourced materials can earn LEED points.

The goal of course, is to reduce the environmental impact of construction materials — which are often large and bulky — when they are shipped long distances to a project site.

LEED-NC V3 allows up to two points for projects that use regionally sourced materials. LEED defines regional materials as those that have been extracted, harvested, recovered and manufactured within 500 miles of the project site.

For facility managers, establishing whether a product meets that threshold isn't always the easiest task in the world. It may require working with manufactures and consulting firms to establish the best local choices that don't also drive up project cost.

Now, MIT has created a new open source tool that could someday make that process much easier. It's called Sourcemap.

The goal of the project is to help consumers better understand the impact of their purchasing decisions by documenting the supply chain of everyday products they buy. Here's how it works: Sourcemap takes a product and breaks it down by all the parts used in the product.

By adding up the impact and location of all the separate parts, the site estimates the carbon footprint of the product throughout its life cycle (embodied, manufacturing, shipping, use and end-of-life). Because the site is open source, anyone can add a new product to the site once they register.

What's interesting is how the information is displayed: The sourcemap of a CFL, for example, shows how the supply chain crosses the globe, from the clear virgin glass made in China to the virgin Copper made in Chile.

Sourcemap is clearly in the Beta stages. But by tapping the power of the open source community — anyone can contribute — it could become a very powerful tool to better establish the carbon footprint of everyday products.

Kerry's Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act Faces The Future

Brandon Lorenz — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:16:00 GMT

With all the debate currently going on over health care reform, it's easy to overlook a couple of developments that relate to climate change.

First, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer, (D-Calif.) have introduced Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. This is the Senate companion measure to the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which passed the House on a narrow party-line vote earlier this year.

One of the provisions facility executives will be most interested is the language that would cut CO2 emissions. By 2020, the bill would cut carbon pollution to 20 percent below 2005 levels, according to a summary on Kerry's Web site. The final reduction would be 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

The devil is in the details of course. In any cap and trade plan companies would have to buy permits to emit pollution. Any company that would emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2 would fall under the regulations. What isn't clear is what would happen to revenue from the sale of permits — or whether some permits would be given away to start, which was a major point of contention when the House debated the Waxman-Markey bill.

A full version of the bill isn't yet on the THOMAS Web site. Until then, we'll have to wait to see how all these details shake out — which will be a major hint at what the bill's chances are.

If you are inclined to believe this kind of bill is necessary, there is one hopeful sign. It's clear Kerry and Boxer are going to point out that a cap and trade program was successfully used to reduce acid rain in the 1990's, and that the program didn't cause utility rates to go up, as it was predicted at the time by opponents.

A couple other recent events worth noting:

The EPA finalized a rule that will require facilities, fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually.

That 25,000 metric ton number is about equal to 2,300 homes, EPA says, so it shouldn't impact your typical low-rise suburban office building, for example. All together, EPA estimates 10,000 facilities will be covered. All of this action by the EPA stems from Mass. v. EPA Supreme Court decision that ordered the EPA to regulate CO2.

This was also a bad week for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been leading the charge against the regulation of CO2. Nike announced that it is resigning from the board of directors of the group. In a press release, Nike cited the Chamber's opposition to a climate change bill as the reason for its resignation.

Nike's action comes after three large utilities — Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric and PNM Resources — all announced they were severing ties from the Chamber for the same reason.

It's hard to imagine an industry that would be more dramatically forced to change its business practices than the utility industry. Coal power plants make up the single largest part of PNM's fleet, for example, so the utilities in question aren't all perfectly positioned for the transition to a lower carbon economy. What will be interesting to watch is whether other utility providers follow the lead of these three. If they do, it could provide enormous cover for moderate Senate democrats to vote for Kerry's bill.

Give Me Your Utility Rebate Horror Stories...

Brandon Lorenz — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:55:00 GMT

Most anyone who has been in the facility management world for a few years has probably dealt with a utility rebate program at one point or another.

I've not dealt with a rebate program for commercial buildings, but I did go through one last year for my home. Things came out fine in the end, but the process wasn't without its snags.

This led me to wonder: What kind of problems have you run into? Presumably the stakes are somewhat higher when you are talking about tens or hundreds of square feet and five- or six-figure rebate amounts.

So what are your utility rebate horror stories, and what did you learn? Post below your stories below. I'll collect the best ones for a special article that includes some tips from utility rebate program managers.

Energy Bill Isn't Dead, Just Delayed....

Brandon Lorenz — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:47:00 GMT

Everyone is talking about health care.

But don't let that absorb the fact that behind the scenes, both sides are still girding for a fight over climate change.

The House, of course, passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) earlier this year. Since then, the health care debate has pushed aside the energy bill in the Senate.

And the Senate is where the battle over the energy bill will be decided.

The short-term outlook for the bill is cloudy right now. Politically, the debate over health care has sucked all the oxygen out of the system.

That said, the energy bill isn't dead yet. There are two big pressure points still at play.

The first is the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. The conference is intended to set the stage for a post-Kyoto framework to limit CO2 emissions.

President Barack Obama campaigned to reduce the United States CO2 emissions last year, throwing his support behind the idea of a cap and trade bill. (So did John McCain, for that matter).

The House version of the bill passed by just one vote. The votes are just as tight in the Senate. And so with the negotiations looming in December, the last thing the Obama Administration wants to see is to have a very public failure in the Senate before Copenhagen.

What is more plausible is that Obama seeks to use Copenhagen to build support for a bill in the Senate in the weeks and months after December.

This brings to mind the second pressure point, which is the Supreme Court Decision Mass. V. EPA, which basically orders the EPA to regulate the CO2 emissions from autos. The EPA is working on these regulations independent of Congress.

But because the EPA process is administrative, it is more difficult for industry to weigh in. It's easy to imagine that auto industry lobbyists are arguing that singling out the auto industry to bear the burden of cutting CO2 emissions — especially now — is unfair. That's a powerful argument for Congress to act instead of leaving the matter to the EPA.

It's also easy to imagine that it will be months until the future of the energy bill is decided. So stay tuned.

New Survey of Facility Professionals Digs Into FM Gender Gap

Brandon Lorenz — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:42:00 GMT

Yesterday I had the pleasure of addressing a group of facility professionals from the Chicago IFMA chapter. While there, I spoke about the annual FacilitiesNet FM:Pulse survey, which is our look at how issues like compensation, job satisfaction and job security are affecting the FM world.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that the recession has dented FM pay. But when you slice the numbers a bit finer, some interesting trends emerge.

Last year our 2008 survey found that female facility professionals were averaging better raises than men. This seemed logical. With women making about $5,000 a year less than men, this appeared to be an effort by companies to erase that gap.

This year though, the situation was flopped. Women reported a median raise of 0 percent, whereas men reported a median raise of 1.96 percent. And still, the male facility professionals were averaging a salary that was $5,000 more than women. That means that for two years running the survey has shown women make about 7 percent less than male facility professionals.

This led one member of the audience to ask me: Was there something about women that explained the difference? Were they less likely to have credentials, for example?

After running the data, there are two things that jump out at me. First, men have slightly more industry experience than women (by five years). But women are slightly more likely to have a credential of some kind, and the two groups had roughly the same amount of time at their employers.

In terms of education, I didn't see a significant difference between women and men.

So the question is...is the difference in industry experience enough to explain the 7 percent gap in pay, even though women are more likely to have some kind of credential? You tell me. Sound off below.

Below is an early look at a chart that summarizes our data on male and female facility professionals. (Percentages in the education section don't add to 100 percent because of rounding). Look for a full report in the September issue of Building Operating Management and on FacilitiesNet.com.

	Women	Men
Age	49	51
Median Salary	$75,341	$80,000
Median Raise	0.00%	1.96%
Median Bonus	$6,500	$5,650
Respondents eligible for a bonus	39%	37%
Respondents with a credential	45%	42%
Industry experience	15 years	20 years
Tenure	10 years	9 years

Highest Education Level
High school or equivalent	3%	6%
Trade	3%	5%
Associates	9%	12%
Some College	27%	21%
Bachelors	37%	38%
Masters	18%	18%

Campus Administrator Talks About Making ESCOs Work

Brandon Lorenz — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:54:00 GMT

Last month in Building Operating Management, I interviewed a number of Energy Service Contractors (ESCOs) for a piece detailing how the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) and ESCOs were working together to reduce the carbon footprints of buildings around the world.

Those of you who work for educational or government organizations may have some familiarity with how an energy service contract works. The concept is basically this: A service provider identifies a series of energy efficiency upgrades. The provider guarantees the savings. The work is then financed over ten or 15 years, which allows the upgrades to be done without any capital investment. Instead of relying on capital funds, the upgrades are paid for by keeping the energy budget the same and diverting the savings to pay for the financing.

Still, energy service contracts are more common in some types of buildings than others. Municipal government, higher education and the federal government buildings are the most common building types to make use of energy service contracts, according to the story I wrote. Since, there are plenty of organizations that aren't familiar with performance contracting. I recently spoke to Betty Roberts, vice president of administration and fiance for the University of Central Missouri.

Roberts had never used an energy service contract before. She settled on an energy service contract earlier this year because the campus had funding constraints and a maintenance backlog and because the campus president had signed the American College And University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). Colleges that sign the ACUPCC put themselves on a path to going carbon neutral.

"Due to funding constraints and UCM’s focus on sustainability, highlighted by our President’s being a signatory to the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, the focus quickly narrowed to an ESCO," Roberts said.

The campus eventually decided on a $36.1 million energy service contract with Trane. The package took 20 months of work, which included defining unmet facility needs, getting support from the community, competitive bidding and conducting an investment grade audit to analyze paybacks, Roberts says.

The project includes $16 million in energy upgrades and $20 million in maintenance and repair work. Energy projects include a variety of lighting and water retrofits, window replacements and even a geothermal system. Other maintenance projects include roof repair, fire alarm upgrades and sprinkler upgrades.

"All of this is taking place without shutting down the campus," says Roberts.

It may seem strange to lump maintenance projects in with what are otherwise purely energy upgrades. But when undertaking an ESCO, think big. Let's face it: If you already have contractors crawling all over your buildings upgrading lights, HVAC systems or the BAS for example, you've already got a certain amount of disruption going on. So why not consider other projects?

One of the lessons from the article came from the Empire State Building Project. In that example, the owners carefully considered the sequence of work with their energy service contract and how energy upgrades would align with the existing maintenance and capital budget. By doing so, they could stretch their dollars further.

For those who, like Roberts, haven't used an energy service contract before, consider looking for organizations like CCI that can offer guidance, she says. Make sure that the contractors follow guidelines from CCI or are accredited by National Association for Energy Service Companies (NAESCO).

Roberts signed the contract with Trane April 9. The upgrades will take two years to complete, says Roberts, who says she would use an ESCO again.

Rating MyFacilitiesNet...

Brandon Lorenz — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:24:00 GMT

We're about halfway into our first year here at MyFacilitiestNet.com and I so this seems as good a time as any to ask to stop and take a look around.

So I'd like to ask you: What do you like best about My.FacilitiesNet.com. And along those same lines: If you could suggest one change to the site, what would it be?

Finally, do you consider the site a good tool for learning about facilities-related issues?

Please sound off in the comments below. Cheers!

University Disciplines Facility Staffer Amid Layoff Dispute: Lessons For The Rest Of Us

Brandon Lorenz — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:12:00 GMT

If you think your job is difficult now, just remember: It can always be worse. So the facility department at the University of Washington has learned after getting dragged into a bitter dispute on campus about surging tuition fees and declining services.

In May, the University's Board of Regents approved increasing tuition by 14 percent, the maximum allowed by law, according to the Seattle Times. A few weeks later, the University announced plans to lay off 17 custodians and switch up to 24 night custodians to daycleaning.

This is where things get ugly.

A group called the Anti-Budget Cuts Coalition picked up the cause, pointing out that many of the swing shift custodians work a day job or care for family members and would be significantly hurt by the move and the loss of the 60 cents an hour shift differential. Soon, a flyer began circulating on campus listing the pay of the department head compared to custodians and complaining about the condition of the campus' buildings. The University put a facility employee on paid leave while it investigated whether she released confidential information to the media.

Regardless of whom you side with, it's not hard to see that this situation could have been handled better. Nowhere in any of the coverage does it make mention that moving to daycleaning is green because it can reduce energy use, for example. More broadly though, this was an opportunity for the facility organization to demonstrate how it was protecting the University's assets by focusing on operational costs, which ultimately keeps tuition low. What it turned into was a debate about labor — not a good place for anyone to be.

Would such a conversation have changed the students' opinions? Probably not. But it would have put the issue in much better context for the rest of the community.

LED Lessons From Lightfair

Brandon Lorenz — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:12:00 GMT

Earlier this month, I visited the Lightfair International, the industry's largest trade show devoted to lighting. The big buzz this year was LEDs — light emitting diodes, also known as solid state lighting.

While waiting for the show floor to open one morning, I even listened to a lighting consultant who expounded — at length — about the virtues and drawbacks of using LEDs as growing lights in northern climates for various plants.

In short, everyone was talking about LEDs.

There were countless LED fixtures on display that were intended to replace to traditional HID streetlights. There were also a few companies selling LED high bay fixtures that are intended to replace HID units often used in gymnasiums.

Companies marketing such LED fixtures count energy savings and the long life of the products among the advantages.

I know from talking to readers that many facility managers look at the "latest and greatest" with a skeptical eye. As it is easy to get caught up in the buzz surrounding new technology, a few of the normal caveats apply: If you are considering LED technology in your facility, a small-scale test may be more appropriate before jumping into a large deployment.

Also, ask companies if they have references they can give you about prior projects they have worked on. And check them. Too often, I hear facility managers start working with a new manufacturers' products but never bother to check references. Would you hire a new employee without checking references?

The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

Brandon Lorenz — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:51:00 GMT

In case you missed it, the Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a draft outline of their alternative to the bill being considered by Democrats, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

The plan put forth by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is an alternative in the sense that it's being offered by the other side. But strictly speaking, it's not a true alternative to Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey's (D-MA) bill because it doesn't meaningfully address carbon emissions.

Both bills set a performance standard for carbon dioxide emissions for coal plants. And both have what amount to renewable portfolio standards. But that's where the similarities end.

For new coal plants that are given an operating permit between 2010 and 2014, the GOP plan sets a performance standard of 2,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour (MWH). That amounts to five more years of the status quo because coal plants average around 2,200 pounds of CO2 emissions per megawatt hour now, according to both the EPA and Clinton Global Initiative.

The plan lowers the standard in steps to 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWH by 2030.

The real reason this plan is a sham though is that it exempts all existing coal plants form regulation. The problem with the utility sector, from an emissions standpoint, is analogous to the energy problem the building sector faces: There is a huge base of existing utility plants in place that are not very particularly clean.

The Democrats' bill, it should be noted, sets a performance standard too, which is significantly more aggressive.

And so by only focusing on new plants, the GOP plan forgoes any possibility of making real improvement on CO2 emissions while creating the impression of change.

The alternative offered to renewable portfolio standards is similarly weak. The plan requires utilities to make "clean energy resources" 2.75 percent of their retail generation base in 2010 and 2011. It grows incrementally each year thereafter, to 12.75 in 2019 and 15 percent after 2019.

But the GOP definition of "clean energy" deserves some scrutiny. It includes a laundry list of generation sources, including cogeneration and nuclear, that the Waxman bill doesn't. It also considers "clean" any fossil fuel plant that sequesters 50 percent of its carbon emissions.

All of this will have the practical effect of not requiring the utilities to change how they operate to meet the plan's clean energy standard for years, especially since many states already have stricter renewable portfolio standards in effect.

This bill, as one can imagine, won't cause energy prices to skyrocket, largely because it won't force much change on the utilities. But in the near term, it won't do much to reduce greenhouse gas emissions either.

What The EPA Announcment On Greenhouse Gases Means For Buildings

Brandon Lorenz — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:04:00 GMT

In a major development today, the Environmental Protection Agency declared that greenhouses gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

Specifically, the agency issued a proposed endangerment finding that declared carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydoflourcarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride as harmful gases.

What does this mean? It puts the nation further on the path to regulating the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The only question is how the regulation would occur. The EPA's finding is the byproduct of a 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the court found that greenhouse gas emissions are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. Though the ruling dealt with motor vehicles, it has broad implications for utilities, and by expansion, facility executives who pay for electricity.

The EPA finding is the first step in what would be a long process to regulate greenhouse gasses administratively. As I've previously written, that's a process that's likely to be more expensive, more time consuming, and be applied much more broadly than if Congress acts to regulate greenhouse gases through legislation — factors that make it much more likely Congress takes control of the issue by passing its own legislation rather than let the EPA decide.

In the end, that's what the EPA's announcement is really about — adding pressure for Congress to act. Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced a bill last month to regulate greenhouse gases through a cap and trade program. But with a crowded agenda that includes saving the economy and reforming health care, there have been rumblings that a cap and trade program may not get passed this year.

Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, issued a statement that seeks to build on the momentum of today's decision:

"I applaud the EPA for officially recognizing that greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to our public health and welfare that, if unchecked, could have potentially serious impacts to our environment and well-being. Today's announcement is a major milestone for the U.S. and signals clearly that any further delay of action will only prove more costly for both our environment and our economy. All eyes are on Congress now as it considers legislation that will move the country toward a cleaner and more sustainable energy future."

One thing that seems highly unlikely is that buildings will be required to pay directly for the greenhouse gases they cause to be emited. The distinction here is key – don't fall for vendors who may scare you into thinking that you will be charged for the emissions you emit. Most buildings don't emit greenhouse gases directly. For most buildings a cap and trade plan means buildings would pay for the greenhouse gases they cause to be generated at the utility through higher utility rates.

For more on how a cap and trade program works, see the October issue of Building Operating Management.

Ways To Save Money

Brandon Lorenz — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:18:00 GMT

It's a cliché to say, but as the economy shrinks, facility managers are under the gun to show that they add value to the organization.

There are many different ways to do this of course.

One way is to be able to demonstrate to your managers that you are taking action to keep costs under control — and that you are doing so in a way that doesn't compromise the core mission of the organization.

To that end, we've been getting a lot of good tips in our Cost Cutting Sweepstakes contest. Our contest is looking for tips from you on how you are cutting costs in your organization. Each tip you enter is a chance to win a $100 gift card from Home Depot in May and June.

One user suggested removing the lights from vending machines. Another suggested making sure that drapes in hotel rooms are closed in the summer to shoulder width to minimize heat gain. Yet another suggested checking with the local fire inspector to remove unnecessary fire extinguishers. What are you doing to cut costs in your organization? Post them in our contest to win, and have your tip recognized in a future issue of Building Operating Management.

Questions On Greener Data Centers?

Brandon Lorenz — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:50:00 GMT

As an editor, I love moderating the Webcasts we host on FacilitiesNet.

Aside from having the chance to interact with some very knowledgeable industry consultants, it's also a great opportunity to take a pulse on where our readers stand on a particular topic.

Last week's Webinar on green data centers was no different. One thing that quickly struck me about the questions from the audience was how foundational they were.

Part of this illustrates a broader problem — data centers are one of the most energy intense spaces to manage, but there aren't any firmly established metrics yet to use for managing a data center.

Consider that there is no Energy Star specification for servers. Likewise, the Energy Star Label for Buildings doesn't work for data centers. The U.S. Green Building Council is still working on developing LEED for data centers. Industry terms like PUE are still in the early stages of promulgation.

It was no wonder then that the questions stuck to the basics. One audience member asked, for example why it matters where you put a data center if they almost never use outside air.

As our presenter correctly answered, the location of a data center has a tremendous impact on the efficiency of the cooling plant. And since many data centers aren't the most airtight, air leakage plays a role in energy use too, he said.

So for those who didn't attend the Webinar last week (you can watch the session for free) what kind of things would you like to know about when it comes to making your data center greener?

Saving Money, Property Management Style

Brandon Lorenz — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:33:00 GMT

In a down economy, facility managers need to think about saving money every way they can. And listening to an executive with a property management firm at NFMT in Baltimore, it wasn't hard to realize there are an awful lot of ways to save money.

To take just two examples he cited: For facilities that outsource their cleaning, make sure your cleaners are adhering to the scope of work called for in the contract. If the contract requires five cleaners to work for four hours each night, for example, do a night audit to make sure that is what is actually happening. If it you are only getting for cleaners for example, you're overpaying for that service.

Consider doing a night audit once a month to make sure HVAC and lights are off after hours. Often the setpoints get changed to run longer than needed. Also keep an eye out for plug loads at night. Copiers for example, should be shut off at night when possible as they still draw power in standby mode.

Some might wonder why a property management t firm would concern itself with such matters since energy costs are often passed through to the tenants. But as the property manager told me, that's an outdated view. When space is vacant for example, his firm pays for energy costs, so it pays to stay efficient. And ultimately, being able to show that energy costs are lower than the competition is an advantage too, he said.

Stimulus Bill Is Just A Down Payment

Brandon Lorenz — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:07:00 GMT

As expected, the House passed the economic stimulus plan late Wednesday. Dubbed H.R. 1, The American Recovery And Investment Act of 2009, the bill contains a number of provisions that to increase spending on facilities and energy research.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has some interesting numbers. The spending provisions include:

- $11.85 billion for the Department of Defense to repair and renovate facilities. This money is allocated in two separate portions of the bill. Included in this total is $1 billion to repair facilities managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and $350 million for the Defense Department to conduct energy research.

-$18.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. That includes $6.2 billion to expand existing weatherization programs and $7.9 billion for energy grants to the states.

-$8 billion to cover subsidy costs of federal loan guarantees for renewable energy systems and related transmission line projects.

-$6.5 billion for capital investments in the power grid.

-$4.5 billion to modernize the electrical grid.

-$8.7 billion to support energy efficiency and conservation in Federal buildings. Most of the money is earmarked to go to the GSA for repairs and construction, a nearly sixfold increase over current funding.

-$20 billion to renovate elementary and secondary schools.

The House bill is really just the starting point. The Senate is working on its own version of the bill. Whatever the outcome, the goal is to put more people to work. As it applies to facilities, the bill aims to do so by increasing spending on construction and renovation.

But will it work?

I'm not so sure. At more than $800 billion, H.R. 1 is the largest spending bill in U.S. history. But as the numbers above show, the proportion actually devoted to construction spending is much smaller.

Consider that $20 billion earmarked for school renovations. That money is divided out among the 50 states. Here's an example: An AP analysis shows that New Jersey would get $419.7 million for school renovation under the bill.

There are 2,430 public schools in New Jersey, according to the state. That comes out to about $172,000 per school in renovation funds, if it were parceled out equally (which is unlikely). That's barely enough to scratch the surface for a lot of schools.

Here's another way to look at it: Schools are expensive. At $150 per square foot of renovation cost, the $419.7 million allocated to New Jersey is enough to cover 2.78 million square feet of space. If the average classroom is around 700 square feet, that is enough money to renovate 3,971 classrooms.

Such scenarios are artificial measurements of course. It is highly unlikely that a facility manager would spend the money renovating just one or two classrooms in a building. What the scenarios do show is that however you look at it, the money in this bill isn't going to do much to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance in the nation's school system. A 2002 report estimated the national deferred maintenance backlog in schools at $226 billion. Think that number has gone down since then?

Whether this bill is one among several that will be needed to stimulate the economy is uncertain. What is clear is that when it comes to reducing the maintenance backlog, this bill is only a down payment. It almost makes one wonder what another $200 billion in school spending could do for the economy.