L.A. water rates could rise by 8% this year, DWP manager says
Customers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power could see water rate hikes of up to 8% in the coming year, the utility’s top executive said Tuesday.
DWP Interim General Manager Austin Beutner said his budget plan for the nation’s largest municipal utility would likely result in increases for the typical residential water customer of 4% to 6%. Those who use greater amounts could see rate hikes of 7% to 8%, he said.
Beutner, who also serves as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s first deputy mayor and jobs czar, will ask the DWP board to approve his proposed budget when members meet June 15. At least a portion of the proposed water rate increases will be presented to the five-member board in October, with a vote by the City Council scheduled for the following month, according to a budget report.
The proposal comes a few months after Villaraigosa and the council engaged in a bruising standoff over proposed increases in electric rates. At one point, the mayor’s appointees at the DWP threatened to withhold $73.5 million from the city’s budget unless the council approved their package of rates.
Beutner said that the DWP would be able to make a $257-million transfer requested by the council as part of this year’s general fund budget. He also said money from the upcoming water rate increase would help the DWP comply with water quality regulations and pay for repairs to its aging equipment and buildings, such as trunk lines and pumping stations.
While those rates are expected to go up, Beutner said the utility is trying to scale back a proposed series of electricity rate hikes originally planned for the 2010-11 fiscal year.
In February, DWP officials said they would need four consecutive electric rate hikes –--between 21% and 22% for business customers and 9% and 28% for residential customers, depending on where they live and how much power they consume. Beutner said his plan for electric rate hikes would be unveiled in two weeks.
The DWP has 1.4 million electricity customers and nearly 666,000 water customers.
Beutner’s proposed budget trims expenses by $263 million, with some of the savings coming from a reduction in construction contracts and energy efficiency programs, as well as a hiring freeze on nonessential employees.
“None of the cuts will impact the reliability, safety or the quality of the service,” Beutner said.
Beutner said he is also looking for ways of selling, leasing or developing some of its vast real estate holdings over the coming years.
-- David Zahniser at Los Angeles City Hall








Give DWP a break...they need more beer money.
Posted by: Mike | June 01, 2010 at 06:53 PM
The answer is always taxes, and fees for these morons. Austin, is another one of the Pint Size Mayor puppets and anyone that is associated with the mayor is corrupt.
Posted by: TAM | June 01, 2010 at 10:37 PM
Meanwhile, in the real world, businesses continue to cut costs to remain competitive. A monopoly like the DWP is a joke.
Posted by: MichaelB | June 02, 2010 at 06:59 AM
I think the Los Angeles public utility users are ignorant. Maybe you should learn a better language to communicate. Calling people names is just a reminder how of how uneducated you are regaring how to run a City as large as ours. Also, you might try buying electricity from Edison, which by the way is 25% higher than the Department of Water and Power charges you.
Posted by: Benny | June 02, 2010 at 09:17 AM
And the DWP will get this where? From who? Oh yeah. ARIZONA...but didn't the county just decide to boycott AZ?
Does the term 'completely corrupt' come to mind? Hey, Mayor-man--wanna give them MORE land and money? How much under the table are they all collecting?
Posted by: Hypatia | June 02, 2010 at 09:28 AM
LA DWP will reduce expenses (and increase revenue) by decreasing or eliminating energy efficiency programs?! It sounds like this DWP cost cutting initiative is anti-consumer and anti-environment. I would like to see a more thorough analysis by the LA Times regarding this kind of development.
Posted by: John Leddy | June 02, 2010 at 11:50 AM
I guess $1,000,000,000 in the bank isn't enough?!
Posted by: bobdohr | June 02, 2010 at 05:33 PM