What Now? Opportunities remain for local government building code changes after AB 130
August 14, 2025The California Legislature recently adopted AB 130, a broadly-sweeping bill with many implications for cities and counties. One key provision of the bill affects local governments’ ability to adopt changes to the state building standards for residential buildings. Beginning October 1, 2025, the law prohibits any local changes to building standards affecting both new and existing residential buildings unless the changes fit into one of several exceptions. This article will discuss how local governments may be able to leverage those exceptions to adopt local modifications to the state building standards, including measures for fire safety and reach codes.
Background on the Triennial State Building Code Update Process
The state building standards, which are codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, are proposed by various state agencies for adoption and publication by the California Building Standards Commission (“CBSC”). The CBSC adopted the latest updates to the state standards in 2025, and these will go into effect statewide on January 1, 2026.
Local governments are obligated to adopt and enforce the state building standards. Most cities and counties adopt the updated standards every three years, following the CBSC’s schedule. Additionally, local governments have historically been authorized to adopt local modifications to the state building standards, as long as they make findings that the changes are necessary due to local climatic, topographical, or geological conditions. Changes to state energy standards also require local findings about cost-effectiveness and energy savings.
AB 130 halts any further state agency changes to the residential building standards for the next six years, and it also prohibits local changes to residential building standards for that same time period, unless the changes fit into one or more exceptions in the law. Helpfully, the bill provides that when the CBSC determines whether a modification meets the criteria in the exceptions, it may “rely on a statement by the local agency to that effect.” (HSC § 17985.7(d)(1)). As a result, a local government planning to make local changes based on one of these exceptions should adopt express findings stating that its changes satisfy the exception’s requirements.
Exception for Existing Local Modifications
The first exception in AB 130 applies to local changes that are “substantially equivalent to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of September 30, 2025.” (HSC § 17958(b)(1)). This exception will allow local governments with currently-existing local modifications to readopt substantially similar measures after October 1, 2025.
Given that most ordinances do not go into effect until 30 days after they are adopted, many local governments may find that they simply do not have time to both adopt a new local modification to the building standards and have it go into effect by September 30, 2025. This will be especially true for local governments that are contemplating adopting a local reach code that modifies the state energy standards. Such reach code measures require approval from the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) before they go into effect. That approval process can be time-consuming, and likely will not be feasible before September 30, 2025.
However, this exception will allow local governments to readopt local building code changes in the next code update cycle that are substantially similar to ones they adopted in the previous code cycle. For that reason, local governments should keep this exception in mind when considering whether to retain local changes made in 2022.
Exception for Emergency Standards
The second exception in AB 130 applies to changes and modifications that the CBSC deems “necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.” (HSC § 17958(b)(2)). A local government relying on this exception should support its determination that the standards are necessary as emergency measures. Interestingly, this is the only exception in the bill that refers to the Building Standards Commission’s determination of necessity for the local standards, rather than to the local government’s rationale for the changes.
Exceptions for Home Hardening
The next set of exceptions in AB 130 pertain to home hardening: the third exception is for local changes that “relate to home hardening,” and the fourth is for “building standards [that] relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to Section 13869.7.” (HSC § 17958(b)(3), (4)). “Home hardening” is not defined for purposes of AB 130, but in other contexts in California law it is defined as “the replacement or repair of structural features that are affixed to the property with features that are in compliance” with the requirements in the state building standards for exterior wildfire exposure.
These exceptions use the broad term “relate to” in requiring that the local changes “relate to home hardening.” Accordingly, local governments may be able to argue for a broad interpretation of these exceptions as applying to local modifications to building standards that make buildings more fire-resistant, even if they don’t directly fit within the definition of “home hardening” in the statute, as set out above.
Exception for Reach Code Measures That Align with the General Plan
AB 130’s fifth exception applies to “changes or modifications [that] are necessary to implement a local code amendment that is adopted to align with a general plan approved on or before June 10, 2025, and that permits mixed-fuel residential construction consistent with federal law while also incentivizing all-electric construction as part of an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy.” (HSC § 17958(b)(5)). In practical terms, the best interpretation of this exception is that it applies to local modifications to the state building codes contained in a reach code (the “local code amendment”) when that reach code (1) aligns with a general plan approved before June 10, 2025; (2) permits mixed-fuel construction, incentivizes all-electric construction, and is consistent with federal law; and (3) is part of an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reductions strategy.
The requirement in this exception that a reach code “align with” a local general plan is akin to a requirement that the reach code be consistent with the general plan. Courts typically defer to a local government’s determination that its actions are “consistent” with its general plan. As a result, local governments should enjoy wide latitude in making a determination that their reach code aligns with their general plan. Additionally, because the language in the exception is so broad, a reach code need not align with a provision in a general plan that specifically discusses reach codes or building electrification. Instead, it should suffice that a reach code is consistent with general plan policies designed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; to reduce air pollution; or to encourage energy efficient development, as just a few examples.
The next requirement in the exception essentially requires that the reach code incentivizes, but does not require, building or appliance electrification. This requirement is apparently designed to ensure that any local code amendment is consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s 2024 decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, which found that a Berkeley ordinance prohibiting the installation of gas piping in new buildings was preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act. AB 130 is a separate state-level limitation on residential building code adoption, but it essentially ensures that a reach code stay within the legal confines established by the California Restaurant Association decision.
Most reach codes being considered for the 2025 Code cycle should satisfy these requirements. For example, a reach code that requires electric-readiness would encourage electrification, but not require it. Similarly, an AC to heat pump reach code would encourage the electrification of a building’s HVAC system, but it would not require it. The other federal legal limit is that a reach code may not require the use of appliances that are more efficient than federal minimum standards require. Again, most reach codes currently being considered should satisfy this requirement.
Finally, a local government using this exception should make an express finding that its reach code is adopted as “part of” an adopted “greenhouse gas reduction strategy.” This term is not defined in the law, so a local government will likely have leeway interpreting it. A city or county with an adopted climate action plan may certainly rely on that plan to satisfy this requirement. Adopting a resolution stating that the reach code is adopted as “part of” the greenhouse gas reduction strategy in the CAP will bolster the conclusion that the reach code fits within the strategy.
However, even local governments without an adopted greenhouse gas reduction strategy should be able to satisfy this requirement, since the law does not require that such a strategy take any particular form or have been adopted by a particular date. These cities or counties could consider adopting some official resolution, ordinance, or plan before or at the time they adopt a reach code, which establishes a policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This policy could identify reductions in emissions from buildings, along with any other measures the local government wants to include, as a part of that greenhouse gas reduction strategy. Their reach code can then be accompanied by a resolution stating that it is “part of” that adopted greenhouse gas reduction strategy.
Exception for Administrative Changes
The final exception in AB 130 is for local modifications related to administrative changes, including those that reduce the time for post-entitlement permits, changes to fee schedules, and the like. While this exception would not apply to changes to the substantive requirements in the state building standards, it may nevertheless be useful for local governments aiming to make the type of administrative changes discussed in the bill. (HSC § 17958(b)(6)).
Conclusion
Despite stricter limits on local changes to residential building standards after AB 130, there are still multiple paths forward for local governments to make such changes. Accordingly, cities and counties should explore whether one of the exceptions in this new law could apply to the local changes they hope to make.
For more information, please contact Lauren Tarpey.