The city's January 2026 AI ordinance covers government departments only. No SF legislation targets private companies' environmental footprint — a gap Sacramento is trying to fill with four bills, after Newsom killed the predecessor. OpenAI and Anthropic publish no audited emissions or water-use data.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors finalized an AI transparency ordinance in January 2026 — a bill requiring city departments to catalog their AI tools, assess worker and bias impacts, and report to a central registry. It said nothing about the private companies whose infrastructure decisions are drawing criticism in communities from Ohio to the Central Valley.

That gap is now a public argument. In a June 24 SF Examiner forum column, writer Michael Redmond argues the city has been living a convenient fiction: presenting itself as a climate-conscious city while hosting companies whose hardware choices — gas-powered data centers, water-draining compute facilities — get made out of sight and attributed to someone else's backyard. Redmond proposes requiring any AI company seeking city contracts, tax preferences, or public partnerships to disclose data-center capacity, water use, emissions footprint, and grid effects.

No such ordinance is pending at City Hall. The January 2026 law, co-sponsored by then-Supervisor Hillary Ronen, Dean Preston, Aaron Peskin, and Connie Chan, addressed government AI use. SF's subsequent citywide AI governance framework, released in May 2026, focused on equity and security in city services — not private industry accountability. The city's 2011 commercial building energy-benchmarking ordinance applies to non-residential properties over 10,000 square feet, but no enforcement against AI facilities has been documented.

The accountability fight is in Sacramento. Four bills are advancing this session:

  • AB 2619 (Papan, D-San Mateo): requires data centers to disclose water use to water suppliers and local governments when seeking business licenses.
  • AB 2469 (Papan): bars data center approvals without water and environmental disclosure; prohibits siting in overdrafted groundwater basins.
  • SB 886 (Padilla, D-San Diego): mandates a PUC tariff on data center customers; cleared the Senate Energy Committee 12–4 in March 2026.
  • SB 887 (Padilla): requires CEQA environmental review for data centers; cleared the Senate Environmental Quality Committee 4–1 in March 2026.

The governor's track record here: Newsom vetoed Papan's 2025 predecessor, AB 93, citing reluctance to impose "rigid reporting requirements." Tech and business groups are again opposing the 2026 versions.

The disclosure problem isn't just legislative. Anthropic, which leases headquarters at 500 Howard Street, has pledged 70% renewable electricity by 2026 but has published no audited energy mix, per DitchCarbon. OpenAI, headquartered at 1455–1515 Third Street in Mission Bay, has disclosed no Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions figures. The International Energy Agency estimates the AI industry will emit 320 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030 — a number that comes from the IEA, not from the companies generating the models.

A February 2026 UC Berkeley Center for Law, Energy and the Environment report found a "patchwork of policies and regulations" governing California data center oversight, with local governments described as lacking guidance on the issue.

What to watch: whether any SF supervisor moves to extend accountability to private companies; whether Newsom signs or vetoes the 2026 state bills; and whether OpenAI or Anthropic volunteer environmental disclosures before any law compels them.