Why Title 24 reports get rejected at plan check

A rejected energy report costs a plan-check cycle, which in most California jurisdictions means weeks. Nearly all of them come down to five causes.

1. The model does not match the drawings

By far the most common. Glazing areas, orientation, insulation values or equipment efficiencies disagree between the report and the plan set. Usually because the design changed after the report was produced and nobody re-ran it.

Plan checkers compare the two directly. If the window schedule says one thing and the model assumed another, it comes back.

2. A ECC-verified measure was not flagged

The compliance model depends on a measure requiring field verification, and nothing in the submittal acknowledges it. Some jurisdictions catch this at plan check — which is the good outcome. The bad outcome is that nobody catches it until final inspection.

3. Wrong code cycle

The report was modelled against the previous cycle when the permit application date puts the project on the current one. This is not a correction; it is a rebuild, and often a design change too.

4. Wrong climate zone

Assigned by ZIP code, not by city, and several California cities span more than one zone. An assumed zone eventually produces a wrong report.

5. Missing CALGreen

A complete and correct Part 6 energy report submitted with no Part 11 CALGreen documentation at all. Both live inside Title 24, both are commonly required at submittal, and the second is routinely forgotten.

What to check before submitting

• Does the report reflect the current plan set, including the last revision?
• Does the permit application date match the code cycle modelled?
• Is the climate zone confirmed against the project ZIP?
• Are ECC-verified measures listed, and does the contractor know about them?
• Is CALGreen documentation included if the jurisdiction requires it?
• Are registered copies included where registration is required?

If you have already been rejected, send us the correction letter and the report — including reports we did not produce. Correction letters are often terse to the point of being cryptic, and knowing what a reviewer is actually asking for is most of the work.