01ECC is the current code-compliance terminology
ECC means Energy Code Compliance. For current California residential field-verification discussions, use ECC rather than treating “HERS testing” as the current program name. The useful translation for an owner reading older paperwork is ECC verification, formerly commonly called HERS testing. That translation identifies the kind of work; it does not tell you which certificate, test or code edition your project needs.
The California Energy Commission explains that field verification and diagnostic testing moved from the former Title 20 HERS framework into the Energy Code framework. Current planning uses the 2025 California Energy Code, effective for building permit applications on or after January 1, 2026. Part 6 is the Energy Code; the associated administrative provisions include Part 1. CALGreen, Part 11, is separate.
Keep two questions distinct: which Energy Code edition governs the permit, and which current provider/rater procedures apply to its verification? The CEC says the ECC Program supports all Energy Code versions when required for residential projects. Older-cycle reports can retain HERS terminology without turning a valid older permit into a 2025 project.
CEC Energy Code Compliance Program and transition questionsConfirm the application date and governing edition
02Separate code verification from whole-house ratings
Historically, HERS language appeared in both required code field verification and whole-house home energy ratings. These are not interchangeable deliverables. A voluntary rating may describe a home for another program or purpose; a required code-verification certificate documents a specified measure associated with a permit. Asking only for “a HERS report” can therefore send a homeowner toward the wrong service.
The CEC distinguishes the former field-verification portion from the whole-house rating context, which did not move into ECC in the same way. Use that distinction when comparing proposals. Ask whether the requested work is design compliance, installation certification, required field testing or a separate rating. Do not assume one appointment, report or invoice covers all four.
This guide addresses permit-related documentation and verification coordination, not a promise that Title 24 Lab performs ratings or field tests. The practical objective is to identify the missing evidence and its responsible participant before paying for an unrelated report.
CEC HERS Program: historical context and whole-house ratings
03What changed around registries, raters and document language
An ECC-Provider administers a residential data registry and trains, certifies and oversees ECC-Raters. An ECC-Rater performs the applicable field verification and diagnostic testing. The CEC sets the program framework but does not register individual project documents for homeowners or retain their certificates for public retrieval. Provider, rater, installer and design preparer are different roles even when their work connects through one project record.
For 2025-based software and forms, older references to HERS are replaced by ECC or field-verification terminology as appropriate. The CEC transition guidance also discusses training, certification and administrative changes, including effects on earlier-cycle projects. Do not reduce the transition to a cosmetic search-and-replace, or assume that someone qualified for an older edition is automatically qualified for every current measure.
For the homeowner, the useful change is a more precise conversation: identify the permit edition, required measures, provider record and appropriately qualified participant. For contractors, confirm how installation evidence connects to the verification record. For applicants, ensure that the package submitted for review is the applicable registered version when registration is required, not an unsigned draft downloaded from a forms list.
CEC single-family forms: registered and nonregistered pathwaysEnergy Code Ace: 2025 single-family forms and responsibilities
04Request triage decision tree
If a plan-check comment says HERS or ECC, do not order a generic test immediately. Copy the complete comment, including the referenced sheet or certificate. A missing design document and a missing construction test require different responses. Use this checklist with the reviewer’s actual request.
A useful clarification request is specific: “Our application record identifies the edition as [edition]. Comment [number] refers to [sheet/measure]. We have the attached [document and revision]. Is the outstanding item a registered design certificate, an installer certificate, a verification record or a drawing correction?” Replace the brackets with project evidence. This asks the reviewer to identify the gap without asserting that an acronym alone proves compliance.
- +Step 1 — Establish the permit record. Collect the application identifier, AHJ-recorded application date, accepted edition and current reviewed plans. An inspection or correction in 2026 does not by itself change a 2022-cycle permit to 2025.
- +Step 2 — Translate the comment into evidence. Does it request a registered CF1R, an installer’s CF2R, a verification CF3R, or consistency between drawings and a report? If the wording is ambiguous, ask the reviewer to identify the missing item before commissioning work.
- +Step 3 — Identify the measure and responsible person. Read the selected compliance features and verification requirements. Ask the installer about installation records and the qualified ECC-Rater about the relevant protocol and access. Do not infer a test solely from the project’s floor area.
- +Step 4 — Check registration and document lineage. Locate the provider/project identifier and the current certificate revision. Where ECC verification requires registered documents, a generic blank form or an unregistered preview is not the same as the registered project record.
- +Step 5 — Separate an error from a changed design. If equipment, windows or assemblies differ from the submitted package, coordinate the designer and energy preparer first. A passing test cannot resolve an unrelated drawing/model mismatch or prove that a different design was approved.
- +Step 6 — Agree the response and keep evidence. Name who will revise drawings, update compliance documents, certify installation, arrange verification and assemble the response. Retain the resulting records with the correction response rather than sending disconnected attachments.
Read the CF1R, CF2R and CF3R applicant guideUse a comment-by-comment plan-check response
05An older permit in a new program year
Illustrative worked example: a 400 sq ft single-family addition has an AHJ-recorded application date of December 18, 2025 and remains a valid 2022-cycle permit during construction in 2026. Its accepted design includes a measure requiring field verification. The area is example geometry, not a rule that every addition of this size needs the same test. A correction refers to “HERS documentation” for the duct-related measure.
The owner first collects the accepted CF1R, current mechanical sheets and available installer records. The team identifies whether the reviewer lacks a registered design certificate, an applicable CF2R or the corresponding CF3R. The installer confirms what was installed; an appropriately qualified ECC-Rater and provider confirm how this older-cycle project is handled in the current program. Existing HERS-labeled documents are not casually renamed.
If the actual equipment no longer matches the accepted schedule, the designer and energy preparer assess a coordinated revision before verification is treated as complete. The owner asks for the specific missing record, not a new 2025 model merely because construction occurs in 2026. Completed installation and verification evidence remain distinct from the design report.
Contrast a separate, illustrative application recorded January 12, 2026: it uses the 2025 Energy Code, matching software/forms and current ECC language. The project team checks the measures in that actual design and arranges the applicable registered documents and qualified participants. Similar floor area or equipment does not establish identical obligations across the two projects. The AHJ determines application-date treatment and the applicable permit requirements.
CEC 2025 Energy Code resources and effective dateEvaluate a changed design through energy modeling
06What to confirm before arranging verification
Create a short handoff record with the permit edition, property/project identifier, provider/project reference, controlling CF1R revision, required measures, installer and rater. Ask what site access and construction stages the applicable protocols require before work is concealed. This is coordination guidance, not a substitute for the CEC protocols or the rater’s project-specific instructions.
Confirm who will obtain signed installation records, schedule required verification and retain the final copies. Ask the provider or original project participants how to recover an existing record; the CEC is not an owner-facing certificate archive. If work was previously completed without the expected evidence, describe the gap honestly and request direction. Do not fabricate a past inspection or ask someone to certify unobserved results.
Send the current plans, comments and evidence together if the design documentation also needs help. A clear intake can distinguish a missing form from a model change. It does not automatically book field testing, establish a completion date, or guarantee the city’s review outcome.
Prepare the plans and evidence for an energy-consultant intakeProject-specific CF1R preparation and verification handoffs
07Common mistakes when responding to legacy wording
Do not alter a certificate heading simply to match the latest acronym. Do not assume an older rater qualification covers a new edition without checking it. Do not treat a supplier’s equipment sheet as installation certification, a CF1R as a passed field test, or a whole-house rating as the missing permit certificate.
Avoid forwarding only a screenshot of a comment or a certificate without its project identifier and revision. A reviewer cannot reliably reconcile unrelated fragments. Keep a small document index showing the accepted design, later substitutions, installer records and verification records. If the parties disagree about the requested evidence, ask the AHJ for clarification instead of commissioning repeated, differently named reports.
08Six practical HERS-to-ECC questions
These answers help identify the next conversation; they do not determine a particular project’s testing protocol or approval.
My contractor still says HERS testing. Is that automatically wrong?
The phrase is common legacy language, but ask what deliverable is meant. For current residential code field verification, use ECC and identify the actual measure, certificate and permit edition. A casual label alone does not tell you whether the missing item is a design report, installer certification, required verification or a separate whole-house rating.
Does my valid 2022-cycle permit need a new 2025 report?
Not merely because construction or verification occurs in 2026. Confirm the original application record and any later application or scope changes with the AHJ. The CEC says ECC supports older-code projects too, while older-cycle documents retain their terminology. Check current provider procedures without assuming that the permit edition changed.
Where can I obtain a missing registered certificate?
Start with the original preparer, builder, installer, rater or ECC-Provider and the project identifier. The CEC does not register individual projects or retain their compliance documents for public access. Identify which certificate and revision are missing; do not recreate a signature, fabricate a test result or substitute a blank sample form.
Does ordering an energy report include an ECC-Rater visit?
No. Design-document preparation, installation certification and field verification are separate responsibilities. Title 24 Lab’s report-preparation scope does not claim field testing or rater credentials. Ask who is arranging the required visit and registry coordination; review separate testing and registry costs rather than assuming they are included in the report.
What if required work was concealed before verification?
Tell the qualified rater and the AHJ what happened and provide the accepted documents and available evidence. They must determine the appropriate next steps for the actual measure and permit. This guide cannot authorize an alternative inspection method, waive testing or promise that photos will replace access required by the applicable protocol.
Is a HERS whole-house rating now an ECC certificate?
No. The CEC distinguishes the whole-house rating context from required code field verification. The legacy acronym appeared in different contexts; renaming a rating does not make it proof that a permit measure was installed or verified. Identify the purpose of the requested document before engaging the appropriate service.
09Choose the next step by the missing evidence
For design-report help, send the current plans, application record and complete comments through Get a Quote. Review the published residential/commercial pricing and exclusions before assuming that field testing, acceptance testing, registry fees, CALGreen or permit fees are included. These are separate from the report scope; no new rate or testing service is offered in this guide.
Educational information, not legal advice. The AHJ determines the applicable permit requirements, application-date treatment and local amendments; qualified project participants use the applicable CEC/provider protocols. No turnaround, inspection outcome or permit approval is guaranteed.
Get a Quote for design-document supportSee Pricing and separate-scope exclusionsWhat to send your energy consultant