The resignation of the chief executive of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power comes at a delicate moment for Los Angeles. Leadership transitions at major utilities are never just personnel changes. They happen while billions of dollars in infrastructure decisions continue moving forward, often with little public attention.

That is why this moment should raise a simple question for ratepayers. Will this transition bring greater transparency and accountability, or will it create an opening for risky and expensive energy decisions to move ahead quietly?

Los Angeles is in the middle of a historic shift in how it produces electricity. The city has committed to reaching 100 percent clean energy by 2035. That transition will require massive investment in new power sources, storage systems, and grid upgrades. The stakes are enormous. Ratepayers will ultimately foot the bill for whatever choices the utility makes today.

Trust in those decisions is essential. Unfortunately, trust in LADWP has been fragile for years.

Public records requests routinely take months to fulfill. Key details about major projects often surface only after advocates, journalists, and researchers dig through environmental filings and procurement documents. For a publicly owned utility, that lack of transparency is deeply troubling.

A public utility should be more accountable than a private corporation. Too often the opposite seems true.

One example is the proposal to repower the aging gas plant at the Scattergood Generating Station with hydrogen fuel. Supporters describe hydrogen as a modern solution that will help Los Angeles cut emissions while maintaining reliability. The reality is far more complicated.

Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an energy carrier that must be produced using electricity or fossil fuels. Producing so called green hydrogen requires large amounts of renewable electricity and significant quantities of water. Both are scarce resources in Southern California.

Those constraints matter. LADWP imports most of its water from hundreds of miles away. Adding industrial scale hydrogen production to the region’s energy system would increase pressure on water supplies that are already stretched thin by drought and climate change.

The financial costs could be just as serious. Hydrogen infrastructure is expensive. New pipelines, storage systems, and power plant modifications can quickly run into the billions of dollars. If those investments fail to deliver the promised climate benefits, ratepayers will be left holding the bill.

Los Angeles should be cautious about locking itself into decades of costly infrastructure based on technology that remains uncertain.

The leadership transition at LADWP makes this moment even more sensitive. When a major utility loses its top executive, oversight can weaken. Staff continue advancing projects while elected officials focus on the search for a replacement. Important procurement decisions may move forward with limited public debate.

That is how cities sometimes find themselves locked into long term contracts before the public fully understands the consequences.

Los Angeles cannot afford that outcome. The energy transition should be guided by careful analysis and open public discussion. Instead, too many decisions continue to happen behind closed doors.

Fortunately, the city has better options.

Solar power, battery storage, energy efficiency programs, and demand response have already proven their ability to reduce emissions and improve reliability. Distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar and virtual power plants can reduce the need for large centralized facilities while keeping more economic benefits in local communities.

These solutions are not speculative. They are already working across California.

A smarter strategy would focus on accelerating these proven tools while carefully evaluating more experimental technologies such as hydrogen. That approach would reduce financial risks and allow the city to adapt as new technologies mature.

Leadership changes create uncertainty, but they can also create opportunity. A new leader at LADWP could reset the relationship between the utility and the public it serves. That begins with transparency.

Ratepayers deserve timely access to information about major energy projects. They deserve clear explanations of how those projects affect water supplies, electricity prices, and climate goals. And they deserve assurance that the city is investing in solutions that are reliable, affordable, and grounded in reality.

Los Angeles owns its utility. That means LADWP ultimately belongs to the public, not the bureaucracy that manages it.

The next chapter for LADWP should begin with a commitment to openness and accountability. Without that foundation, even the most ambitious clean energy plans will struggle to earn the public trust they need to succeed.