[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6492829,"mediaKeyId","5811870-a82a0840d1555054a97e5f51e195560e","parentId",5811870,"title","Commission adopts 2025–26 reduced-risk pesticide list; one commissioner opposes","audioSeconds",1396,"startMs",4624000,"endMs",6020000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5811870-a82a0840d1555054a97e5f51e195560e&start=4624&end=6020","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5811870-a82a0840d1555054a97e5f51e195560e/thumbnail_4624000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6492829/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Commission-adopts-202526-reduced-risk-pesticide-list-one-commissioner-opposes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6492829-d69a36755eb7131fcfe768f38d76916d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770885525&Signature=J7lAG1~~3whix0mmXhn1Q9qOdfu2ZAKx3VAU50DhwwbKig4NMqQM9unyHnsT9GN4wRLu7skYqsXZFw4xERIAXgDcXbXm0U76T9LPF5vCtVWtZR664icyUR6o-kkNAB-5tTPlR6Q56NguMLfs8OAUeIFcg~LUv7vkAIWeDiC38TH2qxcOPz5efsTn09lgEYnqtGyIajQIr1Q0xX4Av8LUpchVITMhKW470A6nkMVmDeBHTpt8-NtE~fTwSa7hB~8oxkFRYAOXk5~WshPPE53neCCkezdqFkXlFvr-m74I7Xk4oyukBKn4F-Vz9B9VX2r~~RljTvZMNX3ng0vt-35jwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-09-22T00:00:00Z","article","The San Francisco Commission on the Environment voted to adopt the department’s 2025–26 reduced-risk pesticide list for municipal properties after a staff presentation and discussion on Sept. 22.

Doctor Shobha Iyer, integrated pest management (IPM) program manager at the San Francisco Environment Department, described the annual review process and proposed additions. The commission passed the resolution approving the list by recorded roll call: President Sullivan, Vice President Tompkins, Commissioner Ahn, Commissioner Bermejo, Commissioner Ryals and Commissioner Yuan voted aye; Commissioner Hunter voted no.

Why it matters: The IPM reduced-risk pesticide list governs permitted pesticide products for use on city-owned properties. Changes affect how parks, golf courses and other municipal properties manage invasive plants, rodents and pests while seeking to minimize hazardous pesticide use.

What the commission considered

Iyer told commissioners the IPM program has reduced use of the highest-hazard (tier 1) pesticides on city properties by about 99% since 2010 and expanded reliance on lower-hazard alternatives in recent years. She described the department’s annual convenings with city IPM professionals, a public hearing in August and a new citywide contract for pest-management services that includes IPM requirements.

The staff recommendation included adding three tier 1 products for narrowly defined uses: Advion WDG (an insecticide) for ant management, Drione (an insecticide) for tropical rat mites and yellow-jacket control when public safety is a concern, and Quicksilver (an herbicide) to manage moss on golf-course greens. The list also proposed two tier 2 additions (including Poa Cure for invasive grass on golf courses and a rodenticide called Cadet) and two tier 3 additions (an insect bait, Vion Microflow, and a rodent contraceptive called Evolv). Iyer said language for seven existing entries was clarified (product names, EPA registration numbers, ingredient details and use limits).

Commission discussion and dissent

Commissioner Hunter questioned retention of certain rodenticides and a golf-course herbicide (Turf Lawn) for Harding Park and said she was concerned about worker exposure and the precautionary standard. \"I don't think I'm going to be voting in favor of this item based off of what I just heard,\" Hunter said, citing concerns about the strength of the evidence and the city’s precautionary responsibilities.

Matt Pruitt, senior IPM specialist for Recreation and Parks, told the commission that the Turf Lawn use at Harding Park is targeted and limited to maintain playability at the PGA-level course and that applicators follow label protections and reentry intervals to limit exposure.

Vote and formal action

Motion: \"Adopt the 2025–26 reduced risk pesticide list (Resolution file 2025-06-COE).\" Mover: Commissioner Bermejo. Second: Commissioner Ralls. Outcome: approved; recorded roll call 6–1 (Hunter opposed). The resolution file referenced in the agenda was identified as 2025-06-COE.

Program context and next steps

Iyer emphasized that the IPM ordinance governs only pesticide use on city-owned properties and does not affect private or commercial uses of registered pesticides. The department will continue monthly IPM meetings, training for city staff, toxicological review of products and outreach to departments as the new list is implemented under the recently executed citywide pest-management contract.

Clarifying details presented to the commission

- IPM program founding year: 1996.
- Reported reduction: city departments reduced tier 1 pesticide use by about 99.2% from 2010 to 2024, according to staff slides.
- The city added narrowly defined uses for three tier 1 products and clarified language for seven existing entries.

The commission’s vote finalizes the list for municipal use; staff said they will continue training and work with departments to apply IPM practices that limit hazardous pesticide exposure while managing pests on city properties.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player","oneSentenceSummary","The San Francisco Commission on the Environment voted to adopt the 2025–26 reduced-risk pesticide list for city properties, adding a small set of products and clarifying product language; the motion passed 6–1 with Commissioner Hunter voting no and expressing concern about worker exposure and precautionary standards.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6492834,"SFPUC proposes new net-export valuation for rooftop solar, aims to fund electrification incentives",4059,594000,4653000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5811870-a82a0840d1555054a97e5f51e195560e&start=594&end=4653","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5811870-a82a0840d1555054a97e5f51e195560e/thumbnail_594000.jpg","/articles/6492834/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/SFPUC-proposes-new-net-export-valuation-for-rooftop-solar-aims-to-fund-electrification-incentives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6492834-d293444ea364b5c8e9b3df532878b049/orig.mp4?Expires=1770885525&Signature=DXKsEOUvRUVj08fKKwW8QRybELjTGxfZXV6jZm9nGoKdjv9Huq4PSSpl7SKFtwRu8ouFIJHijpy1Fv8e7r5dDMewP1zEINAS0zM5ZLACn6J-37dzLGNSXKwPxNssQYPU3D5MVcpI0eM6vSVYQ9AhREvQzf5g6dwAG8dS2ASOzdvY4HGLEpLR~kJ7fbgM~AFTSdOUzxg3BBEEywSBdTzltMDOJ3~OCHKi4e9Exf65yt12wXMNh3sUkXH3StYKx4sjTId08BMXK8RGK6YpHrf7J9G4XroqCdXo2710zjBdwYI0MU0GxtAmuoVueG2oSyHImcDHvDl4~Sg3jkEERHGC5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Francisco Public Utilities Commission staff proposed changes to how rooftop solar exports are credited that would reduce retail-rate payments for surplus midday generation and redirect savings into electrification and storage incentives, speakers told the San Francisco Commission on the Environment on Sept. 22.

The proposal, described by Andrew Bevington, manager of the Clean Power SF customer solutions team at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), would limit the new tariff to solar interconnections approved after April 2023 or customers on PG&E’s solar billing plan and compensate surplus exports using a CPUC “avoided cost” calculator rather than full retail rates. \"Under NEM we are now paying 12 times the wholesale energy market value of a kilowatt hour,\" Bevington said, summarizing the mismatch the SFPUC seeks to address.

The change aims to encourage customers to use more of the power they generate on-site — including through batteries and heat-pump technologies — instead of exporting surplus midday solar to a grid that increasingly has low wholesale prices during sunny hours, Bevington said. He said Clean Power SF would include an income-targeted adder for customers on the CARE/FERA programs and invest savings into programs such as a $1,200 bill credit for heat-pump water heaters and a residential battery incentive under development.

Why it matters: The vendor- and permitting-side context and how new export credits are calculated affect homeowner economics, industry jobs and the utility’s procurement costs. Clean Power SF staff said the change could save ratepayers about $300,000 in the first full year after adoption and grow to more than $1,000,000 annually as more customers take service under the new tariff.

Details and evidence from the meeting

Barry Hooper, senior green building coordinator at the San Francisco Environment Department (SFE), said the city has about 50 megawatts of residential rooftop solar and an additional 15 megawatts on commercial buildings, and that pairing solar with batteries produces the greatest resilience benefits. \"We've cut our carbon emissions from operating in the residential sector by 50% in the last 35 years,\" Hooper said, adding that the remaining residential emissions come from natural-gas use and that predictable low-cost electricity helps heat-pump adoption.

Bevington laid out the staff rationale with hourly demand and wholesale-price examples, showing that wholesale prices often fall to a fraction of retail during sunny midday hours while evening prices spike. The SFPUC proposal would pay export credits closer to the wholesale value (using the CPUC avoided-cost tool) for surplus energy exported to the grid, while the retail value would still apply to solar energy used directly on-site. \"If you use a kilowatt hour you generated, you don't have to purchase a kilowatt hour and import it,\" he said.

Bevington said the agency would keep a focus on equity by considering a roughly 4–5¢ per-kilowatt-hour adder for low-income customers and reserving program funds for electrification measures and storage incentives. He said Clean Power SF is revising the proposal based on input from a June public workshop and plans to bring a revised proposal to the SFPUC commission by the end of the year.

Industry perspective and permitting hurdles

Janine Cotter, co-founder of San Francisco design-build firm Luminalt, described local industry trends and permitting barriers. Cotter said San Francisco saw a long growth period after the GoSolarSF program launched around 2008, and that installations clustered in wealthier neighborhoods after the net-billing tariff and other market changes took effect. She also pointed to fire-department restrictions, extra local conditions that limit SolarAPP+ use, and new inspection requirements as factors that raised costs and slowed installations.

\"We're finding people putting in batteries without getting permits,\" Cotter said, and she described field constraints such as required sheetrocking of garages and additional detectors that add installation cost. Cotter also noted that many installers left the market after 2023 and that 2025 midyear permit counts were substantially below 2024 levels.

Commission questions and outreach

Commissioners asked about program outreach, local jobs, and whether the proposed export valuation would provide a time-varying signal (higher value in evenings/summer) to address the so-called duck curve. Bevington said summer evening values are higher and that staff plan targeted communications to help customers shift consumption (for example charging EVs or running dishwashers during midday) and to explain the new credits.

The presentation also noted that about 93% of utility accounts in San Francisco are served by Clean Power SF, and that PG&E’s solar billing plan and Clean Power SF’s proposal are related because customers receive generation compensation from Clean Power SF and distribution compensation from PG&E.

Background and next steps

The SFPUC held industry and public sessions in 2024 and 2025 to solicit feedback. Bevington said staff would incorporate public comments before taking a revised tariff to the SFPUC rate-fairness board and then to the SFPUC commission, targeting a commission consideration by year-end.

Community and policy context

Speakers emphasized equity protections for low-income customers, the role of behind-the-meter storage for resilience, and the importance of permitting and fire-safety procedures for safe battery deployment. Industry speakers urged streamlining and clarified that local workforce programs historically supported local hiring during earlier incentive eras.

Planning and implications

If implemented, the proposed valuation change would reduce export credits for new interconnections compared with the full-retail NEM model and use some of the resulting savings for customer-directed electrification and storage incentives. SFPUC staff projected initial ratepayer savings and outlined a set of programs intended to increase on-site use of solar and manage grid impacts.","San Francisco Public Utilities Commission staff proposed replacing retail-rate credits for exported rooftop solar with an avoided-cost-based valuation for new interconnections, while Clean Power SF and the city environment department discussed permitting, batteries and industry trends during a Commission on the Environment briefing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission adopts 2025–26 reduced-risk pesticide list; one commissioner opposes

SFPUC proposes new net-export valuation for rooftop solar, aims to fund electrification incentives