California Title 24 reach codes, city by city
A local energy ordinance that exceeds the state code has to be approved by the Energy Commission, and the gap between what cities have codified and what the CEC has approved is wider than most people expect. Here is where 43 cities actually stand.
Eight codified amendments, two repeals, and 32 cities with nothing
A reach code is a local energy ordinance that goes further than Title 24 Part 6 — a city writing its own amendment into the Energy Code and enforcing it at its own counter. California lets cities do that, but not unilaterally. The California Energy Commission’s page on local ordinances puts the condition plainly: local jurisdictions wishing to enforce locally adopted energy standards that exceed the current energy code are required to apply to the CEC, and must demonstrate the ordinance saves more energy than the statewide standards and is cost effective. The CEC then publishes the approvals in one table, ordinance number and approval date attached.
This page is the cross-jurisdiction version of that table, built from the 43 California cities I have researched one at a time. For each I read the codified municipal code and both CEC approved-ordinance lists, and the result is not tidy. Some cities are approved. Some have a full chapter of Part 6 amendments printed in the municipal code and appear on no CEC list at all. One switched its own ordinance off until the CEC finishes. Two repealed theirs. The large majority have nothing, and that is the useful answer for most projects — what governs a CF1R there is the state code and the project’s climate zone, nothing more.
Five statuses, and why the difference matters
Sloppy writing on this subject says a city “has a reach code” and stops. That sentence covers five different situations, and they do not carry the same weight at plan check:
- Codified and CEC-approved for a named cycle — the ordinance is in the municipal code and on the CEC’s published table for the 2022 or the 2025 Energy Code.
- Codified, not on the CEC list. The text is real, printed and in force by the city’s own terms, but the CEC approval that an Energy Code amendment requires is not evidenced on the CEC’s table.
- Codified but expressly suspended. The ordinance contains its own clause saying it does not take effect until the CEC approval process is completed.
- Repealed. A rule that was real, sometimes CEC-approved, and is now gone from the code.
- No amendment. The adopting section takes Part 6 as published.
There is a second trap inside that second row. A local ordinance can be filed with the California Building Standards Commission under Health & Safety Code § 17958.7 — the general local-amendment route for building standards — without ever going through the CEC’s separate Energy Code approval. Two different bodies, two different processes. Oakland’s ordinance recites the first and appears nowhere in the CEC’s records for the second, and I am not going to resolve for you what that means at the counter.
Cities with a codified local energy amendment
Every row below comes from the city’s own codified municipal code and from the CEC’s approved-ordinance tables, read directly. Dates are the CEC’s approval dates and the ordinances’ own adoption dates, not my estimate of when a plan checker started asking. Saratoga takes two rows because its two reach codes sit at different statuses.
| City | What the local amendment does | Code cite | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Encinitas | Every single-family and multifamily addition or alteration at a permit valuation of $50,000 or more has to pick one measure off Table 150.2-H — heat pump water heater, heat pump HVAC, cool roof, R-38 attic, ducts, windows, PV plus electric-ready pre-wire and the rest — applied to the whole dwelling unit, not only the altered part. A U.S. DOE Home Energy Score of seven or higher is the documented off-ramp. | EMC § 23.12.080, adding Energy Code § 150.2(d) and § 180.5 (Ord. 2025-11, adopted 9/24/2025) | Codified and CEC-approved for the 2025 code — approved 1/21/2026 |
| Santa Cruz | Two live ordinances: efficiency measures on single-family additions and alterations of 350 sf or more, and a mechanical-cooling requirement for altered space-conditioning systems in existing nonresidential buildings. The chapter defines MAJOR ADDITION and MAJOR ALTERATION at that 350 sf threshold in a rolling one-year window. | SCMC ch. 18.15, §§ 18.15.030 and 18.15.040 (Ords. 2025-19 and 2025-22) | Codified and CEC-approved for the 2025 code — approved 1/21/2026 and 5/26/2026, the only city listed twice |
| Moreno Valley | Amends § 150.2 so an air-conditioner alteration, replacement or installation in an existing single-family dwelling pulls in energy conservation measures rather than staying a like-for-like swap. Two documented off-ramps keep an air conditioner legal: insufficient main-panel capacity proved with an Article 220.83 or 220.87 load calculation filed before permit, or a compliant heat pump that would have to be 12,000 Btu/h larger. | MVMC §§ 8.30.010 and 8.30.020, mirrored in the CALGreen chapter at MVMC ch. 8.38 (Ord. 1030, 8/19/2025) | Codified and CEC-approved for the 2025 code — approved 8/17/2026 |
| Carlsbad | Seven sections of Part 6 amendments, not one: solar or recovered service water heating at 40 percent on new nonresidential and 60 percent on new residential, a rewritten § 140.5, a nonresidential PV requirement at § 141.2, and a § 150.2(d) requiring one efficiency measure on residential additions and alterations at $60,000 valuation or higher, keyed to the building’s vintage. | CMC title 18, ch. 18.30, §§ 18.30.010–18.30.070 (Ord. CS-437 § 13, carried to the 2025 cycle by Ord. CS-498, 12/2/2025) | Codified in CMC ch. 18.30 but not on the CEC’s approved list for the 2025 code |
| Oakland | A source-energy compliance margin of 4.5 on new single-family and 8 percent on new low-rise multifamily; MERV 16 balanced filtered ventilation on new multifamily of two or more habitable floors; and, on residential alterations over $25,000 in construction valuation, an electrical panel readiness assessment plus any two of eight electrification-ready or insulation measures. | OMC ch. 15.06, §§ 15.06.3.6000, .6005 and .6010 (Ord. 13860, adopted 9/15/2025) | Codified in OMC ch. 15.06 but not on the CEC’s approved list for either cycle, and no Oakland filing appears in CEC docket 25-BSTD-04 — the approval question is open, so confirm status with the Bureau of Building |
| Santa Clara | A minimum-kW solar mandate written as a local amendment to Energy Code § 110.10: new nonresidential and high-rise residential under 10,000 sf get at least 3 kW of PV, 10,000 sf and over at least 5 kW, with a permanent solar hot water system of 40 sf collector area or more as the alternative. A separate CALGreen chapter carries the tiered EV requirements. The city states the reach codes reach newly constructed buildings only. | SMC § 15.36.030, with CALGreen at § 15.38.050 (Ord. 2081, 11/4/2025) | Codified in SMC ch. 15.36 but not on the CEC’s approved list for the 2025 code — the predecessor, Ord. 2056, is on the 2022 list |
| Sunnyvale | An air-conditioner alteration on an existing single-family dwelling in climate zone 4 has to install a heat pump as the primary heating source or take the full verified AC package — duct leakage, airflow, fan efficacy, refrigerant charge, attic to R-49 and ceiling-plane air sealing. A separate § 150.0(w) adds range, dryer and heat-pump-water-heater readiness to remodels, alterations and additions. | SMC §§ 16.42.040 and 16.43.070 (Ord. 3244-25, adopted 8/26/2025) | Codified but not on the CEC’s approved list for the 2025 code — Ord. 3244-25 was CEC-approved 11/12/2025 against the 2022 code, and Ord. 3260-26 makes supplemental findings expressly “prior to the California Energy Commission’s review” |
| Saratoga — electric readiness | Adds § 150.0(w) Electric Readiness for Alterations: electric-range pre-wiring where kitchen branch circuits or receptacles are added or altered, electric-dryer pre-wiring within three feet of a gas or propane dryer, and a 2.5′ × 2.5′ × 7′ heat-pump-water-heater space with a condensate drain and circuit where wall framing near a gas water heater is removed. § 150.2(b) is rewritten to require it. | Saratoga City Code § 16-51.020 (Ord. 414, adopted 11/5/2025) | Codified but not on the CEC’s approved list for the 2025 code |
| Saratoga — two-way air conditioning | On an air-conditioner install or replacement serving an existing single-family dwelling, the altered system has to comply with a heat pump as primary heating source or a verified air-conditioner efficiency package, in addition to §§ 150.2(b)1E and 150.2(b)1F. The codified section also carries a performance approach that the summaries usually miss. | Saratoga City Code § 16-49.030, switched off by § 16-49.010(b) (Ord. 414) | Codified but expressly suspended — § 16-49.010(b) says the energy-related CALGreen amendments “shall not take effect until the California Energy Commission approval process is completed” |
| San José | Ordinance 31081 required a new single-family building on the performance path to beat the TDV budget and hit a source energy compliance margin of at least 8 — at least 2.5 at 1,200 sf of conditioned floor area or less. The CEC approved it 10/3/2024 against the 2022 code. It is gone: chapter 24.12 now consists solely of § 24.12.100, adopting the 2025 Energy Code with no local amendments. | SJMC § 24.12.600, repealed and re-enacted as § 24.12.100 (Ord. 31257) | Repealed effective with Ordinance 31257, adopted 11/18/2025 |
| Chula Vista | CVMC 15.26.040 required energy-efficiency measures on additions to single-family homes and condominiums, and the CEC listed it under the 2019 cycle as “Energy Efficient Remodels & Additions.” What survives is a different animal: an outdoor lighting zones map adopted under Title 24 Part 1 § 10-114(c), amending state default lighting zones for parts of the city. That is a lighting-zone designation, not a Part 6 reach code. | CVMC 15.26.040, repealed by Ord. 3536 § 1, 2022; the live amendment is CVMC 15.26.020 (re-enacted by Ord. 3611 § 1, 2025) | Repealed effective 2022 — on no CEC approved list for the 2022 or 2025 code |
| Gilroy | The 2025 adoption ordinance’s Energy Code section reads, in its entirety, as the adoption of Appendix 1-A and Appendix 1-B. The one energy-adjacent local rule sits in CALGreen instead: a Level 2 EV Ready definition, § 4.106.4.1 amended to strike “attached” so detached private garages are covered, and one Level 2 EV Ready parking space per dwelling unit in new construction — which needs local Health & Safety Code findings, not CEC energy-ordinance approval. | GMC ch. 6 §(f), with the CALGreen amendment at §(k) (Ord. 2025-06, adopted 8/18/2025) | No local amendment to the Energy Code — GMC ch. 6 §(f) adopts it without amendment |
The status wording is deliberate. “Not on the CEC’s approved list” is a statement about the CEC’s published table, not a statement about whether a city will enforce its own code. Ask the building official.
One discrepancy worth naming
The CEC’s own row for Moreno Valley describes the ordinance as covering “existing nonresidential buildings.” The ordinance, the CEQA notice of exemption filed in docket 25-BSTD-04, and the codified MVMC 8.30.020 all say existing single-family dwelling units. Where they conflict, cite the codified section, not the CEC’s summary line.
Cities verified to have no Energy Code amendment
For these I read both CEC lists and, where the codified code was reachable, the adopting section itself. Fremont’s is the cleanest statement of the pattern: FMC § 15.44.020 adopts the 2025 California Energy Code “without amendments.” Watsonville’s chapter adopts it with the modifications “if any” set forth in the chapter, and the chapter sets forth none. Sacramento’s 2025 adoption ordinance creates amending chapters for the Building, Plumbing, Residential and Existing Building Codes and no Energy Code chapter at all. El Cajon and Escondido have no Energy Code chapter in their codified titles.
Anaheim, Bakersfield, Burbank, Corona, Downey, El Cajon, Escondido, Fontana, Fremont, Fresno, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Hollister, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Los Angeles, Modesto, Morgan Hill, Murrieta, Oceanside, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Stockton, Temecula, Torrance, Watsonville, Whittier.
One footnote on that list. The “Los Angeles” row on the CEC’s 2022 table, the 6/16/2023 cool-roofing entry under Ordinance 2022-0056, is the County of Los Angeles, confirmed through CEC docket 22-BSTD-07. It is not the city, and it is the single most-repeated error I run into on this subject.
And one city I will not put on either list. Long Beach appears on no CEC approved list, and its own 3/17/2025 code-adoption presentation lists adoption of an energy electrification reach code among separate ordinances under consideration — considered, not adopted, not approved. But the city’s code page does list a chapter 18.46, Energy Code, under local amendments and specialized building regulations, and the link it gives for that chapter opens the Housing Code chapter instead. I could not read what 18.46 contains, so I am not going to tell you it contains nothing. Ask the Building Bureau.
All-electric ordinances are a separate question
A city can require electrification without amending Part 6, and several do. San Francisco’s freestanding-ADU and major-renovation electrification rule lives in San Francisco Building Code § 106A.1.17 and the San Francisco Green Building Code — a local building-code and CALGreen path that never runs through the CEC. Los Angeles Ordinance 187,714 requires new buildings to be all-electric with a permit-application cutoff of April 1, 2023, exempting attached accessory dwelling units that use the primary dwelling’s existing gas piping, and not exempting detached ones.
Elsewhere the same rules have been switched off. San José’s natural-gas prohibition, SJMC chapter 17.845, is codified and inoperative by its own terms — § 17.845.010(E) makes it operative only if the Ninth Circuit’s decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley is overturned or the federal preemption statute is modified, and § 17.845.010(C) says the chapter is in no way to be construed as amending Part 6. Oakland’s building electrification page states in bold that the city has been legally directed to suspend the all-electric requirement in OMC 15.37, while its own ADU checklist still carries the requirement — two live official pages in direct conflict. Sunnyvale suspended its all-electric requirements by resolution in May 2024 and then repealed the underlying sections outright. None of that touches the Energy Code amendments in the table above, which are a different instrument entirely.
Why the list stopped growing
Two 2025 state bills changed the arithmetic. Fresno publishes the clearest summary I have found on a city site, in its joint 2025 code briefing with Clovis: AB 306 largely prohibits cities and counties from adopting new local amendments to residential building standards during the moratorium period and directs the Building Standards Commission to reject a filed residential modification that does not meet an exception, and AB 130 permits a local amendment only where the findings meet one of six criteria — substantial equivalence to something already in effect as of 9/30/2025, a Commission-deemed emergency, home hardening, general-plan alignment approved on or before 6/10/2025, administrative changes, or federal accessibility minimums. Clovis states in the same briefing that it has added no amendments since 2014 and does not plan to.
Sunnyvale’s staff report shows the deadline being raced: AB 130 restricts local amendments to the state construction codes for residential development effective October 1, 2025 for six years, and the city adopted Ordinance 3244-25 in August 2025 “as a subset of the Reach Codes” to land before that date. That is a large part of why the 2025 approved list is short.
What this changes on the report
Practically, four things. A local amendment can move the compliance target — Oakland’s 4.5 margin and San José’s former margin of 8 are numbers the model has to hit, not paperwork. It can pull work into scope that the state code would leave alone, which is what the Moreno Valley, Sunnyvale and Saratoga air-conditioner rules do to an ordinary change-out. It can add a plan sheet: Encinitas enforces its ordinance through a signed checklist that has to sit in the plan set with its location noted in the sheet index, and Santa Cruz requires an intake form at the front of the Part 6 documents. And it can add field verification that the state path alone would not have triggered.
So the first question on a project in one of the cities in the table above is which version of the ordinance governs the application date — the 2025 code took over for applications filed on or after January 1, 2026, and several of these ordinances were re-enacted inside the same window. If you are not sure, send the plans and the jurisdiction and I will read the codified section before I build anything. If an energy comment comes back citing a local section, answering it is included. My rate does not change by city, and neither does the part covered on the plan-check page: your city, not the state, is the office that approves the CF1R.
Prices
Flat fees, in writing before I start. No hourly, no bid package, no change-order games — the number on the quote is the number on the invoice.
Your first report with me
One per client, homes under 3,000 square feet. Full energy model, CF1R and CHEERS registration. It’s a test run — send one job and see how it goes.
Every model after the first
The standard rate once you’re a client — the second building, ADU plus main house, the next project that walks in. Back in 3 business days.
Over 3,000 square feet
Quoted from the plans before any work starts, same day.
24×36 plan-sheet set
Your CF1R laid out full size, matched to your drawing set. Comes back as a PDF you drop straight in.
Revisions
Two revisions included, plus questions any time. Past two I quote first, before I touch it.
Commercial / tenant improvement
Send the plans and you’ll have a flat quote back the same day. No deposit, no minimum.
One honest note
I’m not a licensed engineer or architect, and I don’t stamp drawings. On the CF1R I’m the documentation author — you stay the responsible designer. Nothing about your role on the job changes.
That’s on purpose. I’m not after your scope or your clients. I do one piece of the permit set — the piece that usually holds it up — and I do it fast.
Reach-code questions
If yours isn’t here, see the full FAQ or call and ask.
Is a reach code enforceable if the city is not on the CEC’s approved list?
I am not going to answer that for you, and you should be wary of anyone who does. What I can tell you is what the documents say. The CEC states that a jurisdiction wishing to enforce locally adopted energy standards exceeding the current energy code is required to apply to the CEC. Several cities — Carlsbad, Oakland, Santa Clara, Saratoga — have Part 6 amendments printed in their codified municipal codes and do not appear on the CEC’s published table for the 2025 code.
That gap is real and worth naming, but it is a question for the building official, not for a documentation author. Confirm with the building official before you design to the local rule or design past it.
My city’s ordinance says it takes effect after CEC approval. Is it in force now?
Saratoga is the clean example. Its two-way air conditioning reach code is codified at § 16-49.030, and § 16-49.010(b) says the energy-related amendments “shall not take effect until the California Energy Commission approval process is completed.” Saratoga is on neither CEC approved list. Its electric-readiness section, § 16-51.020, carries no such clause — but it is still an amendment to Part 6.
Read literally, one is switched off and the other is not conditioned. Whether the counter treats them the same way is a question for the Building Division, and I would confirm with the building official in writing before making a design decision either way.
Does a reach code change the CF1R itself, or is it a separate submittal?
Both happen, and which one depends on the city. Where the ordinance amends a compliance margin or a mandatory measure — Oakland’s source-energy margin, Santa Clara’s minimum PV size — it changes what the model has to hit, so it lands inside the energy calculations.
Where the ordinance runs off a menu of measures, cities tend to enforce it with their own paperwork on top. Encinitas requires a signed checklist included as a sheet in the project plans with its location denoted in the sheet index, expressly in addition to the Part 6 and CALGreen documentation. Santa Cruz requires a stamped intake form placed at the start of the project’s Title 24 Part 6 compliance documents.
My city is on neither CEC list. Does anything local still apply to the energy set?
Usually not to Part 6, but do not read that as nothing. Gilroy adopted no Energy Code amendments and still has a CALGreen amendment making one parking space per dwelling unit Level 2 EV Ready and extending the rule to detached private garages. Chula Vista’s only live energy-adjacent amendment is an outdoor lighting zones map adopted under Title 24 Part 1 § 10-114(c).
Submittal mechanics vary heavily too, and those are not reach codes at all — whether the CF1R has to be printed on the sheets, whether it has to be signed, how the file is named. Those sit on the individual city pages.
Can a California city adopt a new residential reach code right now?
Per Fresno’s own 2025 code briefing, AB 306 largely prohibits cities and counties from adopting new local amendments to building standards applicable to residential units during the moratorium period, and directs the California Building Standards Commission to reject a filed residential modification unless it meets the allowed exception conditions. AB 130 allows a local amendment only where the findings meet one of six specified criteria.
Sunnyvale’s staff report puts the effective date at October 1, 2025, running six years, and records the city adopting its reach-code ordinance in August 2025 to land ahead of it. Ordinances already approved are a separate matter — what is restricted is new ones.
Does a local energy ordinance change which climate zone my project is in?
No. The two are unrelated and get confused constantly. The climate zone is set by the CEC from the project address and drives what the state code requires. A reach code is a local ordinance layered on top of that.
A city can sit in one zone and have no ordinance, or straddle two zones and have had one. Chula Vista straddles — most of it is Climate Zone 7 and the 91914 area is Climate Zone 10 — and its Part 6 reach code was repealed in 2022. The zone question is answered by the address; the ordinance question is answered by the municipal code.
Send the jurisdiction with the plans.
Tell me the city and I will read the codified adopting section before I build the model, so the CF1R is written against the ordinance that actually governs your application date.