Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Back to house energy and digital infrastructure. We are continuing our conversation about building energy co working group. I'm rep Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Chris Morrow, Windham Windsor, Bennington. Richard Bailey, Lamoille two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Christopher Howland, Bram

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Kleppner,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Chittenden thirteen, Burlington.

[Speaker 0]: Great. And in the room. Hi. I'm Sarah Morrow from the Association General Contractors.

[Andrew Brewer (DRM, on behalf of home builders and architects)]: Andrew Brewer with DRM on behalf of the home builders and architects.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Alrighty.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And I'm Scott Campbell, representative and also chair of the Building Energy Code Working Group this year. So this is where we left off, about recommendations from the clinical report. Just as a sort of broad, in broad strokes, I want to read a paragraph from the conclusion, which says that, as in previous years, there was majority agreement that energy codes are a subset of building codes and ultimately should be administered consistently, as well as recognition that Vermont's current housing crisis and high cost of construction makes moving in that direction difficult. Therefore, as in the past, there was disagreement on how and when Vermont can achieve that goal. But the wide disagreement was that the overall goal of increasing energy code compliance, perhaps even more than energy efficiency, is deeper engagement with education and training to improve the quality, durability, safety, health, and comfort of the market buildings. The overall sense of the groups. See. Previous So recommendations included a lot of the same things, moving enforcement and authority having jurisdiction for energy codes to Division of Fire Safety, Having a role for the energy efficiency utilities, that is EVT, BED, and VGS, in assisting with code compliance by providing incentives and also perhaps expertise, even staffing. There was also agreement that using some RGGI money for doing that in this last year's working group would be a good idea.

[Speaker 0]: Scott, sorry. You said 400 k as an annual?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. No. Just a one time. Oh, Previous groups had agreed on adopting residential building code as an important recommendation. This year, there was a slight vote against that. I'll talk about it on the next slide. There was also support for setting up some sort of advisory group, a task force or something to support Division of Fire Safety in the transition to enforcing or administering at least energy codes and assisting, in this year's case, OPR in improving the builder registry, residential contractor registry, and certifications and all of that. That's mentioned on the next slide here as well. And then also centralizing where the energy certification compliance certificates are housed. There was wide agreement on that all three years. And this year, we also talked about expanding and incentivizing training, especially this year, we talked about the energy module as something that is already set up actually in statute that is required of licensed professions and trades. And so making that more relevant to those people in those trades, instead of just talking about the statute, again, is difficult for people to make a connection to. And then clarifying against authority. This is, I mentioned this this time, but I think I have in the past. Our first year, the legal counsel for the Public Service Department had told us that, he questioned anyway, whether there is a direct line of authority from the legislature, from the state government to municipalities to be able to administer and enforce energy codes. Some municipalities have taken it upon themselves to do so, but again, whether there is authority for them to do that is unclear according to VSD's council. There is also an effort this year on the party of Energy Futures Group to work through the Energy Action Network. As you may know, they put together the, whatever that thing is called, the- Data report. The data report, the booklet every year. And they have also a series of what they call action teams to work on various problems. And one of them this year that Energy Future's group is looking on is assisting municipalities that want to set up an enforcement mechanism for energy codes to help them do that help them set up a consistent system. There different systems in different municipalities. However, the concern that there might be different systems in different municipalities led a lot of folks, a majority of folks on the working group this year not to support that. Me check my back in a second. One, right, right. So these are strategies not recommended. Pardon me, my screen is covered, so I have to look at my paper

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: copy here.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Adopting the residential building code was not supported by a narrow vote, four in favor, five against.

[Speaker 0]: Scott, the folks who abstained?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, they were. So this working group included realtors, league of cities and towns, other people who are sort of outside of the direct, directly being affected by decisions whether building codes should be

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So they felt they shouldn't weigh in.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's right. That was the reason why they abstained. Yes, the building code issue was mostly concerns expressed by people who voted against it, that putting into statute a date surfer when building codes had to be adopted was a problem they had. DFS and public service, I think they're just representing the administration's view that they don't want to add any more regulation to building. The people who supported having a building construction code believes that we just need to have a standard of care that everyone can refer to. Builders, consumers, but also insurance companies. Also, when there's a dispute, it goes to court. Courts need some standard to be able to refer to, to decide whether who's in the right, who should prevail and when there's a conflict. Their view is that some, not just financial regulation or standard, or protection, I guess, a better way of putting it, but also something technical about these are the requirements for doing appropriate construction. Yes, Bram?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: To your point of view on the best sequencing in terms of increasing compliance with the current energy residential energy code versus creating a residential building code?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think ultimately that having a building code is a baseline that we should have, a building construction code. And energy code, I personally would like to see energy code incorporated into the building code, so therefore there would be an unfortunate mechanism through that path. On the other hand, recognizing that that's pretty difficult to do at this time, not only with this administration, but also with concerns about just how much construction costs have gone up in the last few years, and recognizing that you can have all the laws you want, but most of the laws are complied with voluntarily anyway. Looking for mechanisms to increase voluntary compliance is another thing that's worth doing. The bill that I'm going to present later, I actually haven't even got it back yet, sometime in the next few weeks, I hope, is going to look to try to implement strategies that will increase voluntary compliance. So, I think the building code issue is probably a two or three year process by itself, but in the meantime, tandem, we can still implement strategies to increase voluntary compliance increase compliance voluntarily. Yeah. And and, you know, I'm wondering about with

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: building code, if one were to make it advisory or voluntary, that wouldn't address the concerns people have about adding bureaucratic complexity and adding cost to building and so forth. We'd have to spend the time and money to develop the code, but at least then

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it wouldn't be there. Well, there's not very much. Well, there's some that we could spend because the model code would need to be modified somewhat for Vermont's situation. The other codes that we have, the fire code, electric code, other codes that we have, and the energy code. So there's some expense there, but it's not a huge expense. I

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: was just asking whether it made sense to adopt it

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: a volunteer. Well, there is no actually enforcement of codes on single family housing. There's no sort of mechanism to that. So adopting a resident doesn't mean it will be enforced. It just means there's a standard of care to refer to. It's not necessary to adopt an enforcement mechanism to adopt a code. It just means that the state has a code that applies to single family rentals and duplexes, which currently are technically not covered by a code. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Got it. Thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: In fact, if you have a question, representative. But

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I thought you said in that that international code book has an energy code supplement in it. Yes. And

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: and the way I understand it, and I'm not an expert on the code, but the way I understand it is the codes are are updated every three years, all the codes. And the previous update of the energy code is incorporated in the current update. That's whatever current update is of the residential building code.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Is it 2020?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. It's

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: It's 2024.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Let me just I think it's 2024. 2018, 2021, 2024. Think it's 2024. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Well, looks like it was a close Yeah. Was a close vote.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: On the next item, it's probably explicit authority to enforce energy codes, was not as close to both. There were concerns, I think, mostly about disparate regulations around the state. The people who were advocating for that authority were not able to convince the other people that actually this would be, there already is a disparate system of code enforcement in the municipalities that do enforce energy codes. I don't need valid ones for doing that. But this would be an opportunity if the EAN action team is able to come to agreement on this, this would be an opportunity to standardize how municipalities are Air Force News codes. And also, the R base code is is not adapted to each municipality. It's the same it's it's a singular code. It's just what are the forms? What are the processes? You know? What what what are the how do you do it? What could be standardized, and we could make it easier for builders to run the state, working differently at values around the state. Anyway, we'll see what happens with that. And then, EU, Energy for Sensing and Utility expertise to support Energy Code compliance, again, a post vote. I don't really know why people proposed that. Was a little bit puzzled at the time. Continuing to use for a lot of energy codes in RVs and CVs. This was controversial. The architects in particular, but architects and builders both, advocated for just using the model codes, the International Energy Code, with minimal updates. One of the updates that everybody sort of agreed we really would want is a mechanical ventilation requirement, which is one the major elements that's in the 2024 version of ARGIES and not in the 2020 version of ARGIES. Because you need mechanical ventilation. Here we are, we're in stuffy right now. It's true in almost every house that's built, that we're actually building more airtight houses and better insulated houses, so we really need to evaluate them for people's health. Anyways.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah, so on that point, because of the Governor's executive order, does that mean that having mechanical ventilation required would be something that a municipality would do as a stretch code? It's possible. And should do as

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: a stretch code. That's right. Yeah. There I and I think it is actually the twenty twenty stretch code also if I remember correctly. So yeah. I mean, it

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: For commercial.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No, for residential.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: And also for residential.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Residential. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Can you tell us what might cost that is? Incremental increase?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think it's one of the major costs differences between the upgrade between 2020 and 2024. Because it's a system probably it's an air handling system typically in the basement, and then got ductwork through several rooms and ductwork outside. So, there's, I don't know, 10,000. Know.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: And it's hard to add later.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes, it's hard to add later because it's hard to run ductwork.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah, we've been doing it in our house. A lot of closets have been

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That's right. How you can convert it from a water system to an air system. No. Just adding ductwork for ventilation.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Well, right. Yeah. Yeah. It

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: does. What we did with

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: If you have an air system with ductwork, then it makes it a little easier. Because if

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: you have port of hot water, you've got no headroom down in your cellar, and no headroom in your 1st Floor for the ductwork. But once you've got the ductwork, you're just capturing the heat exchanger. That's what it is. And then

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So it makes the case to have the house a little looser.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Well, no. Yeah. There's

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: there's a saying, you you wanna you wanna build it tight and ventilate it right. You'd rather have the point is you'd rather have controlled ventilation than uncontrolled ventilation. With a house that breathes, with a house that's leaky, you get too much ventilation in the winter because you have air leaking out the top, air pouring in the bottom, and not enough ventilation, especially in the shoulder seasons. In the summer, typically people have windows open. But in the shoulder seasons, you don't want the 50 degree or 45 degree air outside to come inside, then you're shutting the house up, but you don't have enough stack effect, don't have enough temperature differential to drive enough ventilation that you would get in the winter when you don't really want all that ventilation. It's much better to control the ventilation than not to control. That's the reason for mechanical ventilation. But yes, is a cost in terms of electricity, and it's also a cost in terms of air, because you're exhausting heated air and bringing in unconditioned air. That's the reason why an air to air heat exchanger or a heat recovery ventilation system is the way to do it, because then you minimize your thermal losses. But you still have you still have electrical costs, is that a question? Yes?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So when people weatherize really effectively an existing home, is there a requirement or strong recommendation that you get a ventilation system?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, going back to my days in the 90s working in the weatherization assistance program, we always put in bath fans as at least some ventilation. A lot of times they have no ventilation at all. And I think that that is still the fallback standard in the weatherization program. At least put in an exhaust fan to drive a little bit of ventilation. But I I wanna make do a time check too. How how much time do I have now? Until

[Speaker 0]: till three. Well, no.

[Andrew Brewer (DRM, on behalf of home builders and architects)]: Caledonia is Kelly says you're 91. I'd rather have to keep going, frankly.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Is Kelly coming?

[Andrew Brewer (DRM, on behalf of home builders and architects)]: She she's in the. She said she only needs five minutes. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, great. Okay. So keep going, Scott. I mean, you're the

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Andrew Brewer (DRM, on behalf of home builders and architects)]: Yeah. You could bump me till later too. Tomorrow or next week.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I mean, floors at three. Next year. Yeah.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: We're not I'd

[Speaker 0]: like to get ten minutes between committee and floor.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay, good. So ductwork is a great thing. I will say that when I was last doing my house twenty years ago, my last house I designed and did, realized that actually, the first thing you want to design is ductwork. Before you even design where the walls are, you want to design the ductwork. The next thing you want to design is the pipes, and the last thing you want to design is where the electric switches go. But anyway, I just think we're aggressive over there. All right. I do have a couple of bills in process that I still haven't gotten officially back from Ledge Council yet. One is to enhance voluntary compliance with the energy codes. It would adopt a timeline for a residential building code, then would also establish a task force, the purpose of which would be to assist OPR and DFS on contractor registry updates and identifying voluntary certifications, and doing all of the vetting, and finding who are the appropriate entities to do credentialing and all that sort of thing. The second pillar is on enforcement, which is probably not going to go anywhere, but I thought be be given that every off session committee that I've worked with has the majority of of stakeholders have recommended that we had just got to make DFS the sole authority having jurisdiction for all building codes, including energy codes. I just thought that I should have a bill that does that, something that we could maybe talk about at the same time as we talk about the other bill, just to sort of air the issues, and perhaps just makes a foundation for a future effort. The last thing I'll mention is the governor's executive order from September he entitles Promoting Housing Construction and Rehabilitation. The first item, first of, I don't know, eight sections in the order was to amend the statute requirements about using twenty twenty four RVs and CVs, and allow builders to use either twenty twenty four or twenty twenty RVs or CVs. The wording of the executive order was, I think, a little sloppy in that it seemed to apply that compliance with either twenty twenty four or twenty twenty was optional. And actually, it's not optional because applying with energy curve is required. I don't think that would I think the intention was to say that it's optional. I think it was just how the wording went. The wording went, encouraged voluntary compliance with 2020 or 2024. Wording was a little problematic. Yes.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Go ahead. Just quickly. So Act two fifty projects would have mechanical ventilation because it's the I twenty twenty stretch think that is correct.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Public service has initiated a rulemaking process. I talk about that in the next slide.

[Speaker 0]: That was my question is where things stand

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: with the executive order. Yeah. Let's let's keep on

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: to it. So this just points out that the energy codes are actually mandatory. This is the quoting chapter and verse here in statute about residential construction shall be in compliance The attorney general's opinion that was requested by the legislature speaker and President of Tim observed that to the extent that the provisions of the executive order intend to announce new legal standards different from those in statute or current rule, they exceed the governing authority. However, the public service has started rulemaking, and the Secretary of State's office has filed a hearing notice. The notice was filed at the end of last year, and the hearing will be held on February 2 regarding implementing the governor's Prohibition of the governor's executive election as regards to energy

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: goods. I'm just wondering why it's the secretary of state.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Up is the ICOG. Intergovernmental Committee on the Administrative will separate things. So I think that's why. That's how it starts with.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I see.

[Speaker 0]: I'm sorry. Say, what's the safe harbor? Was that

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, the first bubble here, I didn't mention it. The Vermont Builders and Remodelers Association, Andrew can speak to if you'd like more questions, has requested, after the governor's executive order came out, requested safe harbor provision be added to the statute because some silvers had taken the executive order as the executive order, this is what the law is now, and had already filed certificates based on the twenty twenty arguments. And now they're questioning whether they're going to be liable for adhering to twenty twenty four RVs. So there was a request to add an item instead of sheet that would basically have indemnified builders who had had made that choice. So if I know if there's more in that You got it.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Is that for both res and commercial or just

[Andrew Brewer (DRM, on behalf of home builders and architects)]: commercial? Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: There were Andrew actually sent some language that he's just proposing for we're talking about, and maybe that's something that should be done with the compliance bill. That's I think that's something that we'll talk about when we get around talking about the compliance bill. So let's see. I think that's

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: it. Wow.

[Speaker 0]: Wow. Yeah. Scott, thank you. That was very helpful. I so next steps here that I heard, know we're gonna hear from Kelly. So may why don't we do that? Let's turn it over to our next witness.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure.

[Speaker 0]: And then we can quickly talk about next steps.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Sounds like she's Hello. Hi. Hi.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: Apologies. I am not well. So I'm gonna try to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: get

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: through brief comments and they're gonna be even briefer because Scott did such a good job summarizing the working group and the report and but I will send my written comments and happy to follow-up. If you don't mind, I'm gonna stay up off camera as well because you don't need to.

[Speaker 0]: That's fine. If you could just identify yourself for the record. Thanks for being flexible with the time of your testimony.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: Sure. Kelly Launder, the Assistant Director of Efficiency and Energy Resources Division in the Public Service Department. And just to dive in, is the third year that the department has participated in, well as provided administrative support to the Building Energy Code working group. It's been a very resource intensive group to oversee. We've had three department staff and one lawyer, as Scott mentioned, as well as hiring a contractor to assist with facilitation and writing of the first two required reports. The department no longer had the federal funds available to hire a contractor this year, so it was fully staffed by the department. Let's see. I'm going to skip around because, like I said, Scott did such a good job. I'll just jump right to department's viewpoint on the final report. Generally, we support the recommendations included in the final report that encourage code compliance without significant additional costs, which include setting up a task force to provide support to OPRs, residential contractor registry, and development of voluntary certifications, modifying the energy module currently required for certain trades and professions to focus more on the energy code requirements that would be relevant to them. And then energy efficiency utilities having some kind of role in code compliance as they have through outreach, technical assistance and trainings. Although in the report, we suggested that their roles be settled in what you've already heard about the demand resource planning process, which establishes the budgets and the performance targets for the energy efficiency utilities, we are going through right now. Any questions so far? I'm going to keep

[Speaker 0]: moving Yeah. Okay.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: As I think Scott mentioned, the department does not agree with the main recommendation to designate the Division of Fire Safety as the authority having jurisdiction over the energy codes. For many reasons that's discussed in the report, and particularly the financial impacts that would have on the housing market. I also wanted to comment on something Scott said as far as how difficult or simple it would be to adopt an energy code to go into the residential building code. Because even at the 2020 version, we've done a lot of modifications. The Division of Fire Safety feels like it would be actually a pretty big lift to, you know, go through what's in there now and modify to be consistent between the two. Just wanted to point that out.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Kelly, can I ask you a question about that?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Sure.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So, your comment is about DFS being concerned about doing what PSD does now, that is incorporating Vermont's energy goals into the RVs and CVs?

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: Oh, I think they definitely would be concerned about that. I don't wanna put words to my throat as well, but, no, I'm saying that if we if we took the existing, like, twenty twenty RVs, that couldn't be easily just folded into the residential construction code because we don't follow that scheme when we develop the energy codes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. Okay. I just want to clarify that. Thank you.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: Sorry if you also hear me putting my cough drop in my mouth so I can try to get through those. The department also feels obviously, and again, Representative Campbell mentioned this at a time when the state has significant challenges and priorities to address like housing and education reform and healthcare and affordability, and also the department focusing on the energy efficiency DRP proceeding, we would not support continuation of this working group and did not support moving forward with the majority of the recommendations as noted in our dissenting comments in the report. That's pretty much what I had. All the Building Energy Code working group materials, including the agenda minutes, minute recording, meaning recording, sorry, and the final report are all available on our website. And it's in a I have the link in my written testimony that I'll send after this if people want that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'll just add that the final report is quite short. It's really only 10 pages long, plus the cover page and the table of content. So it's really in charge of reading the comments descending from the recommendations that the majority is approved.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: Yeah. Thanks, Scott. Yeah, I forgot part of what I cut out was that we did decide to try to focus because the two first two reports were so lengthy and done by a contractor, which did a great job. It has a lot of the background information and a lot of more in-depth information about the recommendations. So we really tried, especially given that the department had to do this with their own staff to only add new information on top of those first two reports.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. Think

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: they're a lot more comprehensive this year. Need more reading at night.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: There is an appendix in the back that summarizes the first two years, 'twenty three and 'twenty four, and then also has an update if work has been done to further those recommendations, and then also summarizes this year's recommendations. So that's probably a good place to get a summary of the whole.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Great.

[Speaker 0]: Great. All right. Thank you so much. Please feel better. Thanks for, again, for being flexible and for joining us, and, we will be in touch.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: Okay. Great. Yep. Please let me know if there's any additional information. I could provide and sorry. I'm

[Speaker 0]: not Yeah. And you'll

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: you'll submit

[Speaker 0]: that's okay. And you'll submit comments when you're feeling better.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: Yep. Great. I have a good I'll submit it tonight.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Get well, Kelly.

[Kelly Launder (Public Service Department)]: Thank you very much.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Alright. So, Scott, you've got two bills coming.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yep. So

[Speaker 0]: I think we'll table

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Will you do

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: where you go?

[Speaker 0]: Table this until

[Andrew Brewer (DRM, on behalf of home builders and architects)]: this an hour, but I prefer to have some time to Do want we can

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: do it right for a minute? Not for five minutes.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Great.

[Andrew Brewer (DRM, on behalf of home builders and architects)]: Yeah. I'd rather come back when I do it. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Sounds

[Andrew Brewer (DRM, on behalf of home builders and architects)]: good. Okay? Yeah. Okay? Yeah. I joked about tomorrow. Don't make it tomorrow. We

[Speaker 0]: will not.

[Andrew Brewer (DRM, on behalf of home builders and architects)]: See you, ladies. Alright.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you so much. And, Alex, we can go offline.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: K.

[Speaker 0]: See you guys on the floor, and we're done.