Which Title 24 Forms Do I Need? CF1R, PRF, NCB, ALT and NRCC

02Project-to-document decision matrix

Use this matrix to prepare a conversation, not to download a blank form and assume the permit package is complete. The CEC single-family forms catalog and Appendix A identify the document families below. The applicable edition, complete eligibility conditions, compliance method and registration requirements still need to be established for your project.

Residential design-document helpNonresidential form families explainedUpload plans to confirm the document scope

03Five questions before choosing a form

First identify the reviewing building department and obtain its recorded building-permit application date. Current guidance uses the 2025 California Energy Code for applications on or after January 1, 2026. An earlier application can remain in an older cycle; permit issuance, drawing dates and construction start are not substitutes for confirming the recorded application date with the AHJ.

Then describe the building and affected work separately. A commercial tenant space inside a residential building is not automatically a single-family project. An existing unconditioned garage becoming living space is not simply an equipment change. Write down what exists, what changes, and which areas or systems the permit covers before comparing certificates.

• +Which AHJ is reviewing the work, and what application date and code edition has it recorded?
• +Is the affected building single-family, multifamily, nonresidential or mixed-use?
• +Is this new construction, an addition, a conversion, an alteration or a combination?
• +Will compliance be demonstrated prescriptively or through approved performance software?
• +Does the selected design include measures requiring registration and separate verification?

Which Energy Code applies?Unsure whether Part 6 is triggered?

04PRF versus NCB, ADD and ALT: method before abbreviation

CF1R is a design-stage certificate family. PRF identifies performance compliance: approved software evaluates the defined project and generates the corresponding records. A performance report is not obtained by renaming a prescriptive PDF. Its project boundary, envelope and system assumptions must reflect the drawings and the supported input data.

NCB, ADD and ALT distinguish prescriptive project scopes. Their exact forms have eligibility conditions; the title alone is not a universal exemption or a complete checklist. Addition size, altered components, verification features and the applicable edition can affect the choice. Confirm borderline conditions in the current forms and governing requirements with the responsible project team and AHJ rather than guessing a universal cutoff.

For additions, distinguish the need for documentation from the modeling boundary. Addition-alone and existing-plus-addition analyses ask different questions about the submitted scope. Choosing the lowest-looking form number does not establish the correct path. For remodels, identify whether a component certificate is sufficient or whether a broader model is actually being commissioned.

Prescriptive versus performanceAddition modeling boundariesEnergy-modeling scope

05Registration is a separate question from finding a PDF

The CEC single-family catalog separates forms for projects that do not require field verification from registered pathways where verification is required. A downloadable non-registered form is not a workaround for a design that requires ECC measures. Confirm those features early and determine how the correct registered design document will be included in the permit submittal.

ECC means Energy Code Compliance in current 2025-cycle terminology. HERS may remain on older-cycle plans or legacy searches; that does not justify relabeling an older permit without review. Our scope is design-phase documentation preparation and coordination, not registry operation, field testing or acceptance testing. Registry/document-registration fees remain separate.

CF1R, CF2R and CF3R responsibilitiesHERS-to-ECC context

06Illustrative example: one addition, two possible starting conversations

ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY. An owner sends proposed addition plans with a window schedule and planned heat pump. The designer has not selected a compliance method or marked the existing-versus-new boundary. Asking for “an ADD form” is premature: the consultant first needs the permit scope, existing conditions relevant to the chosen path and the application-date/code-cycle confirmation.

If the team selects an eligible prescriptive addition pathway, the applicable ADD/NCB documents and verification conditions must be checked. If performance analysis is appropriate, software-generated CF1R-PRF documentation must correspond to that defined scope. Neither outcome follows from the project nickname. If the drawings later substitute windows or equipment, update the affected energy assumptions and coordinated sheets rather than submitting inconsistent versions.

Addition and remodel report preparationRecover from a plan-check documentation request

07What to upload for a useful document-scope answer

Send the current plan set and the actual document request if one exists. Identify uncertainty plainly: an unknown application date, provisional equipment choice or unresolved occupancy is more useful than an unsupported assumption. A screenshot of a correction can provide context, but include it in a PDF for the current PDF/DWG/ZIP upload route and send the complete letter when available.

• +Project address, AHJ, recorded application date if known, occupancy and project type.
• +Existing/proposed plans, conditioned areas and dwelling units within the proposed report scope.
• +Window/door schedules, envelope assemblies, HVAC and water-heating information where relevant.
• +Earlier energy documents, correction comments and a marked list of changes if revising work.

Complete what-to-send checklistPublished pricing—not separate form-number menusWho can upload on whose behalf?Upload plans / Get a Quote

08Six questions about choosing Title 24 documents