In the aftermath of the Los Angeles Fires, Angelenos will understandably want to assess how their city government performed in the crisis and expect improvements as appropriate. News reports indicate there was a lack of water available for firefighters and power lines remained electrified in burning areas. Therefore, a full unbiased accounting of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (DWP) actions as it relates to the fires will be necessary. A DWP watchdog exists called the Office of Public Accountability (OPA), but it unfortunately does not currently function as an effective government oversight office.
The creation of the OPA was approved with a resounding 78% of voter support in 2011. According to the official ballot argument in favor of establishing the office, it is designed to “increase the LA Department of Water and Power’s accountability and responsiveness to its customers.”
Let’s start with the positive. The office exudes beneficial structural characteristics that promote objectivity and independence, which gives the OPA relatively free rein to conduct oversight of the DWP without fear of reprisal. In particular, the OPA’s budget is separate from the DWP’s budget and the OPA reports to, but is not directed by, the DWP Board. Also, the OPA’s executive director is selected for a 5-year term, an aspect that helps insulate the organization from politics.
Despite several structural strengths, the OPA’s current operations require improvement:
First, the measure voters approved explicitly empowers the office to accept complaints. However, no formalized complaint process exists. A formalized complaint process could help individual ratepayers report DWP related experiences during emergencies, like the Palisades Fire, as well as resolve more ordinary customer service challenges, like billing issues. It could also illuminate broader customer service trends, like the average dollar amount of bill errors among complainant’s bills determined to be incorrect as well as how long these bills take on average to be corrected.
Second, the OPA is granted broad authority to write reports on rate-related matters, yet this practice is underutilized. Any report that assesses whether ratepayers are getting a good value for their money should be fair game. Therefore, the OPA ought to use this authority to write a formal after-action report related to the fires from an independent and objective perspective, which will inform ratepayers, DWP executives, and city policymakers. When not responding to incident-based crises, the OPA could prepare reports about DWP programs and policies of public concern. For example, an analysis of annual water and power expenses incurred by LA-based small, medium, and large businesses could be compared to neighboring cities to better understand the City of Los Angeles business climate as it pertains to utility bills. As another example, a review of the DWP’s online billing system could determine whether the DWP and ratepayers are adequately protected from data breaches and financial loss posed by cyberattacks.
Third, the OPA is not particularly accessible. You can’t be responsive to ratepayers if you aren’t first accessible to them. As a result, Angelenos are unlikely to even conceive of the OPA as a resource in the wake of the fires. The website does not even include the most basic features we expect of our institutions: There’s no mission statement or vision statement. There’s no annual report summarizing the office’s accomplishments. Even a compilation of simple data, such as the estimated cost savings for ratepayers and the number of infrastructure improvements associated with the implementation of OPA recommendations, is missing.
Fourth, staffing problems plague the office. The only current full-time employee is the soon-to-be retired executive director even though the city approved nine positions for FY25. Organizations thrive thanks to cumulative knowledge obtained over time. A nearly empty office likely means the next batch of staff will lack institutional knowledge to draw on. Also, there will probably be a dearth of active policies and procedures in place. While it is disconcerting (and unusual) to see an accountability-focused agency hollowed out in this manner, it will enable new leadership to finally develop the office into what voters intended without roadblocks from entrenched staff.
Plentiful resources exist to help the OPA build out its oversight capabilities. The OPA should consider adopting best practices from comparable entities in the ratepayer advocacy field, like the California Public Utility Commission’s Public Advocates Office, as well as government auditing guidance, such as the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.
In addition to resource management during fires, a litany of other challenges are facing the DWP, including elevated debt levels, enhancing the local water supply, and maintaining affordable and reliable service during the energy transition. However, the OPA cannot successfully hold the DWP accountable on these and other matters unless it dramatically improves its own organizational health.
Resolving the shortcomings of the OPA was already years overdue prior to the Los Angeles fires. The OPA must immediately implement operational improvements to become an effective oversight agency capable of promoting excellence in the functioning of the utility both on ordinary days and during historic emergencies.
Ben Goldblatt is a government oversight expert with a background in budget analysis, investigations, and consumer protection. He previously worked for a national bank where he monitored the financial performance of government entities, including public water utilities.