Ventura County orders feasibility study on not‑for‑profit municipal utility after outage debate

The Ventura County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted unanimously to direct county staff to prepare a feasibility study on creating a not‑for‑profit municipal utility district (MUD) to serve county residents.

Supervisor Matt Garrell introduced the motion and framed it as a fact‑finding step rather than immediate policy change: “This is not a formal policy change. It is simply an analysis … to evaluate costs, evaluate benefits, and evaluate the legal requirements,” he said, adding that the item is intended to identify options after “frustration with Southern California Edison” over outages and communications during recent wind and fire events.

Why it matters: Supervisors and residents repeatedly described power outages and public‑safety power shutoffs (PSPS) as a pressing local problem that has caused safety and economic harm. The study will compile options, likely including the steps required to form a municipal utility district, potential consultants, a timeline and estimated upfront costs for further board consideration.

What the board asked staff to study: Supervisors asked the CEO’s office and county counsel to return with a roadmap of legal steps, the likely costs to retain consultants, implications for existing regional providers (including Clean Power Alliance), the role of cities and special districts, LAFCO requirements, and how liabilities and financing would be handled. The study will not obligate the county to form a utility or to hire consultants; it is expressly limited to fact‑finding.

Debate and public comment: Supporters of the study said it was a reasonable next step to gather information about alternatives to a single investor‑owned utility after safety and communication problems during recent storms. Supervisor Garrell said he had discussed the idea with county counsel and staff “for now, well over a year and a half” and described residents’ reports of poor communication, delayed line hardening and unmet promises.

Southern California Edison (SCE) pushed back during public comment and in a formal statement to the board. Natalie Yanez, SCE government‑relations manager, said the company uses PSPS only “as a tool of last resort,” that crews found damaged equipment that could have started fires, and urged the county to “partner with us” rather than pursue a utility takeover. “Forming a municipal utility is a risky, expensive and lengthy process,” she said, warning it could shift liability to the county and raise rates by reducing access to capital markets.

Opponents in public comment included the Ventura County Taxpayers Association and other residents who cautioned that a government utility might mean higher costs and greater financial risk for local taxpayers. Ryan Grau, executive director of the association, said government utilities do not always outperform private ones and warned the county would assume concentrated liability if a utility failed.

County CEO Syvette Johnson said staff can return with available paths forward and that developing detailed cost estimates will require outside consultants and additional work. Several supervisors asked staff to include immediate, pragmatic steps to reduce PSPS impacts on vulnerable residents while the study is prepared.

Vote: The board approved the study direction unanimously.

Next steps: The board directed staff to return with options on the scope, consultant cost estimates for the first phase of analysis, likely timelines and recommended stakeholder engagement, including coordination with Clean Power Alliance and affected cities.