10 California bills that could shape daily life in the Bay Area

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2383 on Sept. 21, requiring electricity rate structures for qualifying data centers that prevent their added power-supply costs from being shifted to other customers, with a Jan. 1, 2028, deadline for community choice energy providers to adopt generation rates. Newsom also signed AB 2469 on Sept. 21, which sets conditions before cities and counties can approve new data centers or expansions that increase peak water use, requiring applicants to submit a water-supply assessment and a plan for periods of water scarcity. AB 2038, which would require insurers to offer at least three annual renewals and no less than 36 months of coverage after a qualifying disaster-related total loss, up from two renewals and 24 months, remained awaiting Newsom's decision as of Sept. 28, ahead of his Sept. 30 deadline to sign or veto bills.

Getting your Trinity Audio //trinityaudio.ai player ready... Keeping home insurance after a disaster. Finding health coverage during pregnancy. Knowing whether an apartment photo has been digitally altered. Alongside bills aimed specifically at Bay Area transit and housing, statewide measures passed by California lawmakers this year reach into decisions residents make at home, at work and for their children. Some have already been signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Others remained on his desk as of Sept. 28, two days before his deadline to act. SEE MORE: Search our 2026 California bills database https://wp.me/p7ShJJ-SYHQ Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills passed before Sept. 1 that were in his possession on or after that date. Bills he does not act on become law without his signature. Becoming law does not necessarily mean a measure takes effect immediately. Here are 10 measures to know, combining statewide changes with proposals affecting the South Bay and East Bay directly. Statuses reflect official records and signing announcements checked Sept. 28. 1. More time to keep home insurance after a disaster AB 2038 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2038 — Awaiting Newsom’s decision Homeowners rebuilding after a qualifying disaster-related total loss would receive a longer period of protection against losing their insurance. AB 2038 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2038 would require insurers to offer at least three annual renewals and no less than 36 months of coverage, up from two renewals and 24 months, subject to the law’s conditions and exceptions. It also would extend a separate wildfire protection from one year to two years after a declared emergency: Insurers could not cancel or decline to renew covered policies in designated ZIP codes within or next to the fire perimeter solely because the home is in an area where a wildfire occurred. For affected Bay Area homeowners, the change would mean more time with renewal protections during recovery. It would not freeze premiums or guarantee coverage regardless of other risks. 2. Making data centers cover more of their electricity costs AB 2383 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2383 — Signed Sept. 21 As San Jose pursues data-center development http://mercurynews.com/2026/09/02/bay-area-data-center-boom-backlash-regulation , a question for residents is who pays for the power needed to serve it. AB 2383 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2383 requires electricity rate structures for qualifying data centers designed to keep their added power-supply costs from being shifted to other customers. Its requirements include financial protections if a project falls through, closes early or uses less electricity than expected after a provider has committed to buying power for it. The law also covers generation rates offered by community choice energy providers, with a Jan. 1, 2028, deadline for those providers to adopt them. It does not promise an immediate reduction in household electricity bills; the practical effect depends on the rates and rules put in place. 3. More scrutiny of data centers’ water needs AB 2469 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2469 — Signed Sept. 21 Data centers also raise questions about water: how much they will need, where it will come from and who will pay for improvements to deliver it. AB 2469 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2469 , by Assembly member Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, establishes conditions before cities and counties can approve new data centers or expansions that increase peak water use. Applicants must provide information including a water-supply assessment and a plan for periods of water scarcity. They also must take responsibility for the full cost of water infrastructure improvements needed to serve the project, as determined by the water supplier. For South Bay communities weighing new data-center projects, the law adds requirements at the approval stage. It does not impose a blanket ban on construction. 4. A new health-insurance enrollment window during pregnancy AB 2066 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2066 — Awaiting Newsom’s decision AB 2066 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2066 , whose principal coauthor was then-state Sen. Aisha Wahab, now a member of Congress, would make pregnancy a qualifying event for enrolling in or changing individual health insurance outside the usual open-enrollment period. The proposal covers individual plans sold through Covered California and outside the exchange. It would give pregnant residents another opportunity to obtain coverage without waiting for the next annual enrollment window or the birth of a child. The change concerns access to enrollment, not free insurance or the elimination of deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs. It would not create a general right to switch an employer’s health plan. 5. Stronger checks on school employees’ misconduct histories SB 1083 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260SB1083 — Signing announced Sept. 27 SB 1083 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260SB1083 expands the information schools must seek and share about serious misconduct https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/16/should-california-force-schools-to-reveal-when-teachers-are-accused-of-sexual-misconduct/ when hiring for covered positions, including public-school jobs that do not require a credential and private-school jobs. The changes extend inquiries to credible complaints and investigations, rather than limiting them to matters used to support a substantiated investigation. Schools also must complete covered misconduct investigations even when an employee leaves the job. For families, the practical issue is whether an employee’s history follows them when they move between schools. The law also strengthens requirements involving contractors and background checks. Private schools must adopt written investigation policies by July 1, 2027, including procedures and employee rights; an allegation is not itself a finding of wrongdoing. 6. Limits on AI that tries to read workers’ emotions AB 1883 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB1883 — Awaiting Newsom’s decision AB 1883 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB1883 would generally bar employers from using artificial intelligence surveillance tools to recognize, infer or predict employees’ emotional states, or to collect data measuring activity in their nervous systems. The restrictions would apply to public as well as private employers. For workers, the proposal would draw boundaries around particular uses of AI at work, rather than prohibit all electronic monitoring or time tracking. The bill contains exceptions, including surveillance used to ensure safety and certain uses necessary to comply with federal requirements involving aviation, defense and related work. Violations could carry penalties of up to $500 each. 7. Disclosures when rental-listing photos have been altered AB 2025 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2025 — Signing announced Sept. 27 Renters comparing apartments online will get more information about images that have been digitally changed. AB 2025, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2025 by Assembly member Gail Pellerin, D-Santa Cruz, requires a clear disclosure https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/07/16/california-rental-ads-would-have-to-disclose-if-pictures-used-ai-under-new-bill/ on or next to covered altered images in rental advertisements, including images generated entirely by AI. When an existing photograph has been changed, the advertiser generally must also provide the original image or a link or QR code leading to it. Examples of covered changes include adding or removing appliances, changing flooring or altering the view outside a window. Routine adjustments such as correcting exposure or cropping are excluded when they do not change the representation of the property. The law addresses how a rental is presented; it does not regulate the asking rent. 8. Housing for VTA employees near transit AB 2263 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2263 — Awaiting Newsom’s decision AB 2263 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2263 , by Assembly member Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, would give the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority explicit authority to acquire property and develop housing that gives preference to its employees. Qualifying projects would be within a quarter-mile of an existing, planned or proposed transit facility. Employee rental and for-sale homes built under the bill’s provisions would be affordable to lower- or moderate-income households, with affordability restrictions lasting at least 55 years for rentals and 45 years for ownership units. VTA could also allow members of the public to occupy the housing, subject to applicable law, while retaining priority for its workers. The bill would provide development authority, not guarantee a particular number of homes or an opening date. Projects would still have to follow local land-use and zoning rules. 9. Faster review for a Santa Clara hospital campus AB 2231 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2231 — Awaiting Newsom’s decision AB 2231 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB2231 , by Assembly member Patrick Ahrens, D-Cupertino, would create an expedited environmental-review and court-review process for a qualifying hospital-campus construction project in the city of Santa Clara. The proposal calls for legal challenges to the environmental review or project approvals, including appeals, to be resolved within 270 days of the filing of the certified record with the court, when feasible. A project would have to meet the bill’s conditions, including labor requirements, and receive city certification for the streamlined process. Ahrens has argued that faster review would help deliver needed hospital facilities amid uncertainty over federal health care funding. The bill would neither approve construction on its own nor eliminate environmental review. The Judicial Council of California opposed an earlier version, arguing that the expedited court timetable would be difficult to meet and could delay other cases, according to a June Senate Judiciary Committee analysis. https://sjud.senate.ca.gov/media/2266 That version covered hospital projects in both Santa Clara and Emeryville; the final bill is limited to Santa Clara. 10. Expanded authority to dispose of abandoned RVs in Alameda County AB 647 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB647 — Awaiting Newsom’s decision AB 647 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260AB647 would expand an existing program for disposing of abandoned recreational vehicles in Alameda and Los Angeles counties and extend it through Jan. 1, 2032. In Alameda County, public agencies within the county and state agencies would gain authority to use the program, subject to its requirements. The measure concerns a process for disposing of qualifying vehicles after removal, with notice and hearing protections. It would not make every RV eligible for disposal simply because someone lives in it. Among the conditions, vehicles generally must be inoperable; an operable vehicle could qualify only if it was towed because it posed an environmental or public-safety hazard.