Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act of 2026
Sponsored By: Representative Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]
Introduced
Summary
Environmental transparency for AI data centers. This bill would require a rapid EPA-led study and yearly public reporting to measure energy, water, pollution, and lifecycle impacts of AI hardware and facilities.
Show full summary
- Families and local communities would get more local detail and chances to weigh in. The EPA must hold public hearings in each EPA region within 1 year and make reports publicly available when allowed.
- AI data center operators would face annual reporting on energy use, water, emissions, electronic waste, noise and light, and other impacts. The EPA could require corrective action and may impose penalties if reports are not filed within 6 months of the due date.
- Researchers, standards groups, and policymakers would gain a NIST-led consortium to develop measurement methods, open tools, and mitigation recommendations. The consortium must include equal stakeholder representation with at least 3 Tribal and 3 city or county members and would inform a joint report to Congress within 2 years after reporting rules are finalized.
Personalized for You
How does this bill affect your finances?
Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
3 provisions identified: 2 benefits, 0 costs, 1 mixed.
EPA study on AI environmental impacts
This bill would require the EPA Administrator, working with DOE, NIST, OSTP, Interior, and FERC, to complete a study on AI's environmental and energy impacts and send it to Congress within one year of enactment. The study would examine lifecycle impacts, design and siting choices, disaster resilience, and both potential positive and negative environmental effects. The study would forecast changes over 2‑year, 5‑year, and 10‑year horizons after study completion. The EPA would solicit public comments and hold at least one public hearing in each EPA region while conducting the study.
NIST consortium for AI environmental measurement
This bill would require the Director of NIST, in consultation with EPA and DOE, to convene a multi‑stakeholder consortium to identify measurements, methods, standards, and tools for reporting AI's environmental and energy impacts. The consortium would aim to enable consistent lifecycle reporting, develop or catalog open‑source measurement tools where technically feasible, and recommend ways to mitigate harms and promote positive environmental uses of AI. It must have equal representation across stakeholder groups and include at least three representatives each from geographically distinct Tribal communities and from cities or counties where AI data centers reside. Not later than two years after the EPA finalizes reporting requirements, EPA, DOE, and NIST would submit a joint report to Congress summarizing the consortium's findings and recommending legislative or administrative actions.
New reporting for large AI data centers
This bill would define a large AI data center as a site (or connected sites) with peak power over 50 megawatts that runs AI training, inference, fine‑tuning, or deployment at scale. It would require those covered entities to submit annual reports to the EPA after the EPA finalizes reporting rules. Reports would include energy (grid, onsite, backup), power usage effectiveness and performance per watt, energy reuse, carbon intensity per task, water use, local air and water pollution, electronic waste, and local noise and light impacts. The EPA would solicit public comments on draft rules and, if reports are not filed within six months of a due date, could require corrective action and impose penalties based on facility size and length of noncompliance. The EPA would, to the maximum extent practicable, make reported information publicly available except for information exempt under FOIA section 552(b)(4).
Sponsors & CoSponsors
Sponsor
Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]
VA • D
Cosponsors
Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44]
CA • D
Sponsored 6/8/2026
Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12]
NC • D
Sponsored 6/15/2026
Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]
NY • D
Sponsored 6/15/2026
Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]
CA • D
Sponsored 6/15/2026
Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5]
IL • D
Sponsored 6/15/2026
Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
OR • D
Sponsored 6/23/2026
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
TN • D
Sponsored 6/23/2026
Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]
NY • D
Sponsored 6/23/2026
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
DC • D
Sponsored 6/23/2026
Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]
PA • D
Sponsored 6/23/2026
Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]
VA • D
Sponsored 6/23/2026
Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12]
MI • D
Sponsored 6/23/2026
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]
MA • D
Sponsored 6/24/2026
Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
OR • D
Sponsored 6/24/2026
Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]
IL • D
Sponsored 6/25/2026
Rep. Grijalva, Adelita S. [D-AZ-7]
AZ • D
Sponsored 6/29/2026
Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8]
CA • D
Sponsored 7/6/2026
Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30]
TX • D
Sponsored 7/9/2026
Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]
CA • D
Sponsored 7/21/2026
Rep. Schneider, Bradley Scott [D-IL-10]
IL • D
Sponsored 8/20/2026
Roll Call Votes
No roll call votes available for this bill.
View on Congress.gov