AB 2044 amends California’s building‑standards review process to make adoption contingent on a completed statement of estimated cost of compliance and a written agency analysis justifying the rule under specified criteria. The California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) must refuse approval when the required cost estimate (with underlying assumptions) is missing and is directed to give substantial deference to the adopting agency’s factual findings while retaining limited review authority.
The bill also imposes a time-limited moratorium — October 1, 2025 through June 1, 2031 — on considering, approving, or adopting proposed building standards that affect residential units, with enumerated exceptions (emergencies, certain State Fire Marshal amendments, incorporation of model-code updates and errata, accessibility alignment with federal minimums, and standards taking effect on or after January 1, 2032). For stakeholders who draft, review, or rely on building codes, AB 2044 tightens pre-submission analytic requirements and creates a significant pause on most residential regulatory changes, shifting both analytic and scheduling burdens upstream to agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires agencies to include a completed estimated cost-of-compliance statement (with assumptions) and a justification analysis when submitting building standards to the CBSC; the CBSC must decline approval if the cost estimate is missing. It also establishes a moratorium on most residential code changes from Oct 1, 2025 to June 1, 2031, with specific carve-outs.
Who It Affects
State agencies that adopt building standards, the California Building Standards Commission, the State Fire Marshal, builders and developers, housing providers and residential construction interests, and accessibility and safety stakeholders who track code updates.
Why It Matters
The bill puts cost transparency and documented agency justification at the front of the code-adoption pipeline, which can slow or reshape regulatory proposals and increase upfront analytic work for agencies. The residential moratorium freezes most code changes for roughly five and a half years, altering timelines for compliance, product approvals, and local enforcement tied to state code updates.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2044 rewrites how state building standards reach the California Building Standards Commission for approval. Before an agency may send a proposed or adopted building standard to the CBSC, the agency must follow rulemaking procedures and attach a completed statement of estimated cost of compliance that includes the assumptions used to derive that estimate.
The commission is barred from approving or adopting any standard submitted without that completed cost statement.
The bill requires agencies to submit a written analysis that justifies their proposal against a set of enumerated criteria: no duplication, staying within enabling statutory authority, advancing the public interest (defined to include health, safety, resource and seismic considerations, and environmental and accessibility consistency), reasonableness (not arbitrary or capricious), reasonable public cost relative to benefits, clarity, incorporation of national/model standards where appropriate, consistent formatting, and, for fire‑safety provisions, prior State Fire Marshal approval. Where national standards are absent or inadequate, agencies must explain why and document that rationale.On review, the CBSC mostly limits itself to the administrative record generated by the adopting agency and must give great weight to the agency’s factual determinations; the commission may only overturn those facts if it explains that they are arbitrary, capricious, or substantially unsupported.
If the commission reaches that conclusion, it must return the standard to the adopting agency for reexamination. The statute clarifies special rules: provisions principally protecting health and safety are not treated as factual determinations subject to the deference rule, while energy- or resource-conserving standards must have their cost/benefit treated as factual under the deference framework.Finally, AB 2044 inserts a targeted moratorium covering proposed building standards that affect residential units from October 1, 2025 through June 1, 2031.
The bill lists eight specific exceptions, including emergency health-and-safety measures, State Fire Marshal amendments to certain wildfire interface standards, adoption tied to particular statutory research or code sections, updates necessary to incorporate the latest model codes into the triennial California Building Standards Code (including errata), federal-aligned accessibility updates, and standards scheduled to take effect on or after January 1, 2032.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The CBSC must refuse to approve or adopt any proposed or adopted building standard submitted without a completed statement of estimated cost of compliance that includes the assumptions used to calculate it.
Agencies must include a written analysis justifying the proposed standard against nine specific criteria (e.g.
no duplication, within statutory authority, public-interest justification, cost reasonableness, incorporation of national standards).
The CBSC must give great weight to an adopting agency’s factual determinations and may only overturn them with written findings that they are arbitrary, capricious, or substantially unsupported.
AB 2044 establishes a moratorium (Oct 1, 2025–June 1, 2031) on considering, approving, or adopting building standards affecting residential units, except for enumerated carve-outs like emergencies, model-code incorporation, certain State Fire Marshal amendments, and federal accessibility alignment.
If the commission finds an agency’s factual determination unsupported, it must return the standard to that agency for reexamination rather than unilaterally revising the record.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Pre-submission cost estimate and procedural compliance
This subsection makes submission to the CBSC conditional on agencies following administrative procedures and attaching a completed statement of estimated cost of compliance—explicitly including the assumptions used. Practically, agencies cannot rely on a placeholder or incomplete cost analysis; missing or incomplete cost documentation is a jurisdictional bar to CBSC approval. Agencies will need templates or internal processes to produce consistent, auditable cost statements before transmission.
Nine-point justification test agencies must satisfy
When submitting standards, agencies must provide a written analysis that addresses nine specific criteria: nonduplication, statutory authority, public-interest justification (with enumerated public-interest considerations), non-arbitrariness, reasonable public cost relative to benefits, clarity, incorporation (or documented absence) of national/model standards, formatting consistency, and State Fire Marshal approval for fire/panic measures. That forces agencies to structure their rulemaking memos around these elements and to document choices about national standards or absence thereof.
Record-limited review and deference to agencies
The commission’s review is largely limited to the record produced by the adopting agency, and CBSC must give great weight to the agency’s factual determinations. The commission can overturn facts but must make written findings demonstrating arbitrariness or lack of evidentiary support, and then return the standard to the adopting agency for reexamination. That raises the bar for CBSC to substitute its judgment and channels disputes back to the originating agency rather than the commission remaking the record.
Special rules for health, energy, fire safety, and statutorily required adoptions
The bill carves out that standards principally protecting health and safety are not treated as factual determinations under the deference rule, meaning CBSC exercises broader substantive authority for those measures. Conversely, energy- and resource-conserving standards require cost/benefit treatment as factual determinations. If a statute directly requires an agency to adopt a standard, the CBSC will not reexamine whether that adoption is in the public interest, narrowing CBSC review in statutorily mandated cases.
Time-limited moratorium on residential code changes with enumerated exceptions
This long subsection imposes a moratorium from Oct 1, 2025 through June 1, 2031 on CBSC consideration, approval, or adoption of proposed building standards that affect residential units, subject to eight listed exceptions. The carve-outs include emergency health-and-safety actions, certain State Fire Marshal amendments to Wildland‑Urban Interface Code provisions, adoptions tied to specific research or statute sections, necessary incorporation of model-code updates and errata for the triennial code, accessibility updates to align with federal minimums, and standards set to take effect on or after Jan 1, 2032. The list attempts to balance a near-term freeze with discrete operational needs for safety, model-code maintenance, and federal compliance.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residential occupants and tenants — benefit from a temporary pause on most state-level code changes that could raise housing costs or impose new retrofit requirements, giving developers and residents certainty about near-term standards.
- Cost‑conscious policymakers and fiscal analysts — gain mandatory, documented cost estimates and assumptions up front, improving transparency into projected compliance burdens.
- Accessibility and federal-compliance advocates — receive a clear pathway for federal-aligned accessibility updates to proceed during the moratorium, reducing uncertainty about meeting minimum federal standards.
- Local jurisdictions and enforcement agencies — gain a narrower set of state-driven code changes to track during the moratorium window, which may reduce near-term administrative churn.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies that draft building standards — must produce completed cost-of-compliance statements and detailed nine-point analyses, increasing analytic work, recordkeeping, and likely legal exposure.
- The California Building Standards Commission — faces administrative burden vetting completeness of cost statements and managing returns of standards for reexamination, which may slow overall code processing.
- Builders, manufacturers, and product suppliers — face a timing shift: some code-driven product approvals and market-entry opportunities will be delayed; conversely, other updates (like model-code incorporations) may be rushed into narrow windows.
- Housing providers and developers — while the moratorium may delay costly requirements, it also extends uncertainty about when new standards will come into force, complicating long-term project planning and financing assumptions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: increasing upfront cost transparency and analytic rigor to protect consumers and inform policymaking versus preserving the ability to adopt and update safety- and performance‑critical building standards in a timely manner; tightening pre-submission requirements reduces arbitrary rulemaking but risks delaying necessary code changes and shifts analytic burdens (and costs) onto agencies and, indirectly, regulated parties.
AB 2044 elevates cost-transparency and agency justification as gatekeeping requirements for code adoption, but it leaves several implementation questions unanswered. The bill requires a 'statement of estimated cost of compliance, including related assumptions,' but it does not prescribe a standard methodology, confidence interval, or analytic format.
That gap invites divergent agency practices, inconsistent cost comparisons across proposals, and potential litigation over whether an estimate is 'completed.' Agencies with limited analytic capacity will either expend resources to build modeling capability or face repeated returns of proposals for rework.
The moratorium’s narrow exceptions create operational complexity. For example, the statutory carve-out allowing incorporation of model-code updates into the triennial code could force agencies to prioritize which updates qualify as 'necessary' to incorporate model codes versus which changes are barred by the moratorium.
The tension between giving the CBSC 'great weight' to agencies and reserving authority to find determinations 'arbitrary and capricious' also sets up procedural friction: CBSC may defer on factual findings but still exercise substantial oversight on legal/interpretive issues, potentially shifting disputes into administrative litigation and increasing procedural delays. Finally, the interplay with federal mandates — especially accessibility requirements — may produce timing conflicts if federal deadlines demand state action that the moratorium otherwise forestalls.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.