Los Angeles residents and businesses will face higher electricity bills as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power transitions to 100 percent clean energy, according to a report from the City of Los Angeles Office of Public Accountability.

According to the report, monthly bills could rise 7.7% annually over the next few years if the city sticks to its goal of 100% clean energy by 2035. The report deemed those costs “unreasonable” for customers and recommended postponing the 2035 goal.

The median monthly electric bill for an apartment or home is $65.81, according to the DWP. The city is also proposing an increase to sewer fees, which are listed on the same bill.

Fred Pickell, a ratepayer advocate at the Office of Public Accountability, the city's independent department that oversees DWP rates, expressed concern that in its rush to meet the 2035 target, DWP could adopt outdated technology, which could lead to even higher costs in the long run.

One example is the DWP's introduction of battery storage, which helps sustain solar power generation – a technology that is expected to change over the next decade.

The DWP aims to achieve 100% clean energy by 2035, phasing out coal and gas and increasing wind, solar, geothermal and even green hydrogen.

The 2035 goal, part of an effort to reduce global-warming carbon emissions that contribute to deadly heat waves, raging wildfires and more, was first announced in 2021 by then-Mayor Eric Garcetti.

California has a similar mandate, but it doesn't expire until 2045.

DWP bills are expected to rise due to a new system for distributing clean energy, new technology such as “smart” thermostats, and increased staffing, according to the Public Accountability Office.

Pickell acknowledged that his report relied on information from the DWP's 2022 plan for urban energy supply over the coming decades.

The 2024 version of the plan is due to be released later this year and is likely to include changes to utilities' cost forecasts.

The Public Accountability Office report also doesn't take into account billions of dollars in federal funding available to utility companies under the Controlling Inflation Act of 2022, which is intended to help households save on their energy bills.

Pickell acknowledged that the report did not include the potential costs to the planet and human health impacts of delaying the long-held 2035 target.

Still, Pickell expressed concerns about the DWP's efforts to meet the 2035 target. He has voiced those concerns before but never so explicitly. In his report, Pickell, who retires later this year, quoted President Eisenhower: “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.”

“Obviously, people want to reduce carbon as quickly as possible,” Pickell told The Times, “but Los Angeles could have a bigger impact if we could convince people that it's cost-effective and can be done quickly. Whatever we do, we shouldn't just rush blindly toward 2035.”

DWP released a statement from Simon Zewdu, the utility's senior deputy general manager for electricity systems.

Mr Zewdu said the DWP was “fully committed” to achieving affordable, 100% clean energy by 2035.

Mayor Karen Bass voiced support for the 2035 goal during her annual State of the City address in April, saying she was “proud of Los Angeles' continued global leadership on climate change.”

Mayor Bass' office did not respond to a request for comment about the report, which was sent to city leaders last month.

If the city were to postpone the deadline until 2045, the state standard, rates would rise 4.8 percent annually from that year, the report said, calling the increases “modest.”

In the 2035 scenario, the increase could be even higher than 7.7% per year, depending on how DWP decides to transition to clean energy.

In contrast, Pickell said DWP electricity rates have risen about 4% to 4.5% annually over the past two years.

The projections include an expected 2.5% annual inflation increase, as well as increases due to the state's transition to clean energy.

Tony Wilkinson, chairman of DWP's Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee, said city leaders are touting the 2035 goal without disclosing the cost.

He fully supports achieving 100 percent renewable energy, but questioned whether it would be cheaper to wait until, say, 2038.

“The sooner the technology is deployed, the higher the costs will be,” he said.

Environmental leaders said they valued some of the report's recommendations, such as the need to put more money into electrifying transportation and buildings.

But they rejected an extension to 2035. Julia Dowell, a senior campaign organizer for the Sierra Club, said it was “absolutely critical” that the deadline be met.

“Failing to rapidly decarbonize will worsen Los Angeles' air pollution, the worst in the nation, and its associated health impacts,” she said, “and also increase the likelihood of future climate disasters.”

Andrea Vega, an organizer with Food & Water Watch, said fossil fuel use has “huge public health costs” and that Los Angeles needs to focus on investing in programs to mitigate rate increases.

Critics also said the report doesn't take into account some of the savings drivers could enjoy by not having to buy gasoline, for example.

Lorraine Lundquist, an associate professor at California State University, Northridge's Institute for Sustainability Studies, said the report “ignores the enormous costs of continuing to burn fossil fuels.”

“The wildfires currently ravaging the state have revealed the enormous costs of maintaining the status quo,” she said.