Editorial: Is this the DWP reform we need?

Last December, an independent consultant hired to analyze the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power recommended a ballot measure to overhaul the governance of the nation’s largest public utility. It was the fifth attempt in less than two decades to reform the DWP, which has lurched from controversy to controversy. But something unusual happened this time: The City Council and mayor acted on the recommendation.

Earlier this year, Councilman Felipe Fuentes proposed a slate of changes that he said would result in a more transparent, efficient and accountable utility. Council President Herb Wesson then held eight meetings across the city to collect opinions on how to fix the DWP, as well as behind-the-scenes negotiations with the mayor, council members and others interests. The result, released last week, is a compromise proposal for the November ballot that offers a hodgepodge of fixes, some good, some worrisome.

But would these reforms actually solve the DWP’s biggest problems? The report released last year said the utility is unable to do a better job delivering water and power because managers answer to multiple layers of political and bureaucratic bosses. Those include Mayor Eric Garcetti, his five appointees on the Board of Water and Power Commissioners and the City Council, plus the Civil Service Commission and Personnel Department, which control hiring, and City Hall’s financial and legislative analysts, who scrutinize DWP’s proposals on behalf of the mayor and council. Intended to provide checks and balances for the $5-billion public utility, the multiple layers have instead yielded competing agendas and a lack of accountability. The results at the DWP include a new customer billing system that was rolled out before it was ready, a massive backlog of maintenance work, and concerns about the utility’s ability to evolve to meet green energy and water conservation goals.

It’s hard to tell whether the proposal would create clearer lines of authority so the people in charge recognize problems and take responsibility for fixing them. The measure aims to empower the Board of Water and Power Commissioners, which is charged with direct oversight of the utility, by enlarging it to seven members and requiring the City Council to ratify any attempt by the mayor to remove commissioners. That’s fine.

But the proposal would shorten the commissioners’ five-year terms to three years and give the City Council the power to remove them too with a supermajority vote. We’ve seen what can happen with term limits and frequent turnover among decision makers – there’s a loss of institutional knowledge and greater reliance on staff or lobbyists. If the goal is to have savvy, experienced and independent commissioners overseeing the DWP, then why give them such short terms and have them worrying about being fired by the council?

The answer is probably that the mayor doesn’t want longer terms for commissioners he can no longer yank at will, and the City Council also wants the power to oust commissioners. This is the tension that has plagued the DWP for decades. Elected officials are loath to loosen their grip over the DWP because Angelenos have so much at stake in the utility’s successes and failures. (Rate hikes, water main breaks, power outages – the DWP has a direct impact on residents’ lives.) But all that meddling, the layers of bureaucracy and the political interference weakens the utility and, ultimately, hurts ratepayers. In the effort to fix the DWP, the mayor and City Council shouldn’t break it even more.

There are some good ideas and necessary changes in the council’s proposed ballot measure. It would make it easier for the general manager and the board to approve business deals. It opens the door to changing Civil Services rules, ostensibly to make it easier for the utility to hire the specialized workers it needs. It would establish a new procedure for rate hikes. The DWP would have to prepare a strategic plan every four years, outlining the rate increases needed to pay for the planned projects and programs. Once the City Council and mayor approved the plan, the Board of Water and Power Commissioners would have the authority to raise rates within the plan’s limits of the plan with no additional council vote required. At the very least, such an approach could force policymakers to recognize and approve the costs of their policies.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook