California Energy Commission staff are requesting that the commission certify the 2025 Energy Code for residential buildings, according to materials from the agency's September business meeting. This certification aims to affirm that California's new rules meet or surpass the federal model code for energy efficiency.
The 2025 Energy Code was formally adopted in August 2024 and is slated to take effect on January 1, 2026. A detailed analysis of its potential effects, outlined in a 2025 Energy Code Impact Analysis Report made public on August 13, 2026, projects significant benefits for the state. The report estimates that the new standards will result in approximately $4.8 billion in statewide energy cost savings over a 30-year period. Additionally, the code is expected to avoid the release of about 4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over the same three decades, contributing to California's environmental objectives.
This certification effort is rooted in federal law, which requires states to review their residential energy codes after a determination by the U.S. Department of Energy. Following this review, states must certify whether their specific codes meet or exceed the national model code. The materials indicate that California faces a deadline of December 30, 2026, to complete this certification process, underscoring the urgency of the staff's request.
The nature of the certification action itself was addressed in a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) memorandum included in the commission's packet. This memorandum clarifies that the certification is not considered a "project" under CEQA. It is characterized as an administrative step that is not anticipated to cause physical environmental changes. The memorandum further explains that even if the action were to be subjected to CEQA review, it would qualify for the statute's common-sense exemption, reinforcing its classification as a procedural rather than an impactful undertaking.
While the request for certification was presented in the September business-meeting materials, those materials do not indicate whether the commissioners took a vote on the certification during the meeting. The available public record also does not specify if the commission decided to defer action on the matter to a future date. Consequently, the immediate outcome of the staff's formal request for certification remains unconfirmed following the September meeting.
