Title 24 Plan-Check Corrections & Energy Report Revisions

Who this is for: an energy comment needs an accountable response

Title 24 Lab is a provisional brand for California energy-documentation support. This service is for owners, architects, designers and permit coordinators who have received energy-related plan-check comments and need to reconcile the submitted drawings, model and compliance documents. It is also useful when an architect changes the design after a report was prepared. The starting point is the actual reviewed package, not whichever PDF was saved most recently.

A correction letter may combine a documentation error, missing evidence and a design change. Those do not automatically belong to one fee tier. The checklist below helps you describe the cause before requesting work; intake confirms the scope rather than treating every resubmittal as a flat-fee revision. If the project is still establishing its original design rather than responding to a reviewed package, start with new-construction modeling and reports instead.

Before uploading: which correction or revision tier fits?

Compare the reviewer’s comments with the plans and specifications supplied for the original report. Ask what changed, who changed it and whether the underlying model can be revised or must be rebuilt. These are the same three tiers shown on pricing and the private project-intake form; they are not three different prices for the same task.

1. Our modeling/report error in city plan check — Free

   Did Title 24 Lab prepare the report, and does the comment identify our modeling or reporting error against the design information we were given? Send the letter and original inputs so the discrepancy can be traced. Correcting our error is free. A reviewer asking a question does not, by itself, prove who caused it; distinguish an incorrect report input from a later product or drawing change.

2. Architectural / design revision — $75 flat

   Did the client or architect change plans after the report, with a revision to the existing model rather than a full rebuild? Identify the changed windows, assemblies, equipment or other affected inputs and supply the revised drawings. The architectural/design revision tier is $75 flat. It does not cover a major redesign simply because the request arrives as a plan-check resubmittal.

3. Full remodeled model / major redesign — Custom quote; intake required

   Does the larger resubmittal require a full remodel or rebuild of the energy model? Choose the full-model-remodel / major-redesign option in intake. Supply square footage, unit count, the change narrative and available plans/model files. This is a custom-quote request, not the $75 tier, and no fixed total is assigned. If the extent of rebuilding is uncertain, describe the uncertainty rather than selecting a low fixed fee.

What to send from the correction letter and reviewed package

Send the complete correction letter, including its issue date and numbered comments, plus the exact report and drawing revision reviewed by the city. For each energy comment, identify the sheet or form referenced, the proposed response and the person responsible for confirming the design. The comment-response guide provides a reusable matrix; the code-cycle guide helps separate application timing from the date a correction was issued. Use the detailed intake checklist to organize the supporting plans and equipment evidence. If the comment names a certificate or legacy testing term, use the CF1R/CF2R/CF3R permit-stage guide and HERS-to-ECC transition guide to identify the missing evidence before ordering work. For a converted dwelling, the ADU scope checklist helps distinguish new conditioning from altered existing space.

• +Include every energy-related comment and any cross-referenced architectural, mechanical or electrical comment; do not crop away its context.
• +Identify the accepted permit application date, applicable edition and relevant reviewer correspondence. A 2026 correction letter does not automatically switch an older permit to the 2025 Energy Code.
• +Supply the submitted CF1R or applicable nonresidential documents, current plans, window schedules and equipment specifications, with revision identifiers.
• +Provide the editable model and original supporting inputs if available. Flag unavailable source files early; do not assume a PDF alone contains everything needed to rebuild a model.
• +Mark what has changed since the report: conditioned area, dwelling units, openings, assemblies, equipment, orientation or modeling boundary. Identify unchanged items too.
• +Include registration information and the registered document when applicable. Use private PDF/DWG/ZIP uploads, and avoid unrelated personal or sensitive information.

Worked example: three comments on one residential resubmittal

Fictional example—not a client project or a statement of local rules: a proposed detached residential ADU is being reviewed under the 2025 California Energy Code. Its selected compliance measures require ECC field verification. The city returns three energy comments. The applicant freezes the reviewed files as the baseline and asks the designer and documentation preparer to work from one agreed revision set. No climate-zone assignment, required product rating or permit outcome is assumed here.

1. Comment E1: CF1R U-factor/SHGC does not match the window schedule

   The reviewer points to different fenestration U-factor and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) values on the CF1R and architectural window schedule. Energy-document action: compare the submitted model, original specifications and current selected windows; correct our input error or evaluate the changed product, rerun the model when needed and regenerate affected output. Designer action: confirm the intended products and coordinate the window schedule, opening identifiers and relevant notes. Resubmittal evidence: the response identifies the revised CF1R and window-schedule sheet. Do not just edit a PDF value or lower a scheduled rating to make the paperwork appear consistent without a supported design decision.

2. Comment E2: provide the registered CF1R for the ECC-verification scope

   The reviewed attachment was an unregistered draft even though this fictional scope requires registered documentation. Energy-document action: reconcile the final design first, coordinate the applicable responsible signatures and registration steps, and supply the registered CF1R copy from an approved ECC registry when registration is required. Designer/applicant action: replace the draft in the permit package and retain the correct registered revision, rather than submitting a sample or a superseded attachment. Resubmittal evidence: the response points to the registered document and identifying information. This design-stage correction does not perform ECC field verification or produce a completed CF3R; registry fees and field work remain separate.

3. Comment E3: modeled HVAC efficiencies are absent from the mechanical sheets

   The CF1R relies on equipment efficiencies that the mechanical sheets do not identify. Energy-document action: confirm the specified equipment and efficiency metrics used in the model; revise and rerun the model if the actual selection differs. Designer action: coordinate the mechanical schedule, applicable efficiency values and required measures with the selected design. Report preparation is not a substitute for mechanical design. Resubmittal evidence: the response identifies the corrected mechanical sheet and matching CF1R/model revision. Do not invent an equipment selection, assume an unsupported efficiency or treat a missing plan note as proof that a system was installed or tested.

What the coordinated resubmittal should make easy to check

For the fictional example, the final response matrix has three rows: comment identifier, cause, energy-document action, drawing action, responsible party and revised document reference. Keep the selected windows, HVAC inputs, required measures and applicable registration consistent across those rows. If one change affects another comment, resolve that dependency before calling the package final. The number of comments does not determine the fee tier; whether we are correcting our error, revising changed plans or rebuilding the model does.

The CEC 2025 single-family compliance manual, Chapter 2: Compliance and Enforcement describes plan checking for consistency between construction documents and CF1R features, including fenestration U-factor/SHGC, HVAC efficiencies and required measures. It also explains that, when registration is required, the permit CF1R must be a registered copy from an approved ECC registry. Missing or inconsistent information can lead to corrections and another resubmittal. See the CEC 2025 single-family forms resources for applicable document pathways. These are high-level expectations, not a claim that every project uses the same forms or that registration alone secures approval.

Title 24 Lab’s documentation scope can include the correction matrix, revised compliance output, an assumptions/change record and response notes tied to the coordinated revisions. The lead designer and responsible disciplines retain ownership of their drawings. The applicant submits the agreed package using the reviewing authority’s instructions, and the authority decides whether comments are resolved. Keep the handoff between CF1R, CF2R and CF3R responsibilities clear: design documentation, installation certification and ECC verification are distinct stages.

Timing, exclusions and the next useful step

Timing depends on complete inputs, the extent of the model revision and decisions still needed from the design team. Do not treat a saved intake request as acceptance or a production start. Published optional rush means next-business-day production after complete inputs, not unconditional 24-hour delivery; the published rush surcharges remain on pricing and exclusions. Production timing is separate from city staffing, review queues and permit issuance, none of which Title 24 Lab controls. No new standard turnaround or approval guarantee is offered here.

This is energy-report preparation and coordination support, not mechanical/architectural design, legal advice or permit approval. ECC field testing, acceptance testing, registry fees, CALGreen documentation and AHJ permit fees are excluded from the published preparation prices. A missing certificate belonging to an installer or verifier cannot be solved by presenting CF1R preparation as completed field work.

For changes that need option comparisons or a model rebuild, review energy modeling. For a commercial tenant-improvement comment, use the tenant-improvement NRCC checklist instead of assuming the residential CF1R example applies. Confirm the edition using the CEC 2025 Energy Code resources and the project’s application history. Then start a private correction or revision request with the complete letter, reviewed files and chosen scope. If the cause or rebuild scope is unclear, say so in the notes before work is agreed.

Typical scope

• +Review of the correction letter and existing documentation
• +Revised documentation where needed
• +Comment-by-comment response notes

Documentation deliverables

Typical report-preparation outputs to confirm in the project scope; not a promise of field services or permit approval.

• +A correction matrix connecting each energy comment to a responsible party and affected document.
• +Revised compliance output where the verified inputs require it; not merely edited PDF labels.
• +Response notes referencing the coordinated plan/report revisions.
• +A list of unresolved reviewer questions, missing model inputs or construction-stage certificates needing a different responsible party.

Not included / not implied

• -Permit approval is decided by the building department; documentation does not guarantee approval.
• -Construction-stage installation certificates and ECC verification are separate responsibilities; field testing and installer certification are not included in report preparation.
• -CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11) documentation, permit processing and acceptance testing are separate scopes, not implied by a Part 6 energy report.
• -Structural, mechanical design or legal advice.

Questions