Editor’s note: several original source documents are available for download at the end of the article.
On May 6, El Paso voters will be voting on eleven charter amendment propositions. The city’s charter is its constitution. Any changes approved by the voters in May will update the underlining structure of the city’s governance. Among the proposed amendments is Proposition K. Proposition K was added to the ballot after a citizen-led petition drive collected enough signatures to place the charter amendment on the ballot. Two citizen-led organizations, Sunrise El Paso and Ground Game Texas led the effort to collect the signatures. The two groups submitted over 39,156 signatures on July 25, 2022. About 9,700 El Paso voter signatures were required for the ballot measure to be added to the ballot. The climate charter amendment was originally planned to be placed on the November 2022 ballot, but city council voted to postpone the placement in August because they did not have enough time to validate the signatures, according to city officials. On November 11, 2022, enough signatures were validated by the city clerk to add the climate charter amendment to the May 2023 ballot.
Although the focus on climate change is on the upcoming May 6 election, this is not the first time El Paso voters have voted in favor of a climate ballot measure. On November 8, 2022, El Paso voters voted for Proposition C, 51% to 49% (66,346/64,692). The difference in votes was 1,654 votes. It is generally accepted that the May municipal voter is better informed than the general election voter and the likely vote count should be significantly lower than in the November election. Voter outreach up to Election Day will likely impact whether the electorate votes for, or against Proposition K.
Proposition C allocated $5 million to the City to study and implement projects to help reduce the city’s impact on the climate. The voter-approved proposition also led to the appointment of Nicole Alderete-Ferrini as the city’s climate and sustainability officer. On May 6, El Paso voters will be voting on their second climate ballot measure. Several groups have stepped forward to argue that El Paso voters should vote against Proposition K, while the proponents for the ballot measure have intensified their get-the-vote-out movement in support of it.
This article examines the two sides of the debate about Proposition K and how it came to be added to the ballot.
How Proposition K Made Its Way To The Ballot Box
Miguel Escoto co-founded the Sunrise Movement to fight against the privatization of the El Paso Electric Company, according to the website of the proponents of Proposition K, in 2019. The El Paso activist group joined with the Sunrise Movement, a national organization pursuing national climate change. Sunrise Movement is a national non-profit established on April 18, 2017 with the stated mission to “make change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our government, and support leaders who stand up for health and well-being of all people,” according to its IRS filing.
Sunrise Movement is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). A 501(c)4 organization is a social welfare organization that is allowed to advocate politically. According to its 2019 IRS Form 990 (download) filing, the latest one available, the organization is led by Evan Weber. Weber, who co-founded Sunrise Movement, got his start from the 2011 Occupy Wall Street Movement. The Wall Street Movement, mostly led by 20-something-year-olds, started the “we are the 99 percent” narrative targeting the wealthiest one percent in America. Occupy was the seed for higher wage movements, Black Lives Matters and climate change youth movements that have followed the Occupy Wall Street model.
Incomplete Contributor Detail
Sunrise Movement did not provide the names, addresses and total contributions made to the organization on its Form 990 tax form. It’s 2019 IRS filing lists 40 individual contributions from a low of $5,000, which is the minimum the non-profit is required to list to a high of $1,623,601. However, the return fails to list the names and addresses of the contributors, instead labeling them as “n/a”.
However, it should be noted that the 2019 IRS Form available to El Paso News is from the organization’s website and the absence of detailed information may not reflect the one filed with the IRS. The IRS is backlogged on processing non-profit tax returns and has not posted the 2019 return for Sunrise on its website.
Nonetheless, the non-profit’s return shows that the 40 individuals contributed $3,538,891 of the $3,813,546 the organization reported that tax year. The local chapter of the Sunrise Movement is Sunrise El Paso.
El Pasoan Miguel Escoto is the co-founder of the El Paso chapter of the Sunrise Movement. Escoto is a graduate of St. Edward’s University. Escoto is also a field associate for Earthworks. Escoto argues that the climate issue is “a crisis of power” because local communities do not have enough autonomy over climate issues.
Escoto previously worked as a legal assistant to the Sierra Club’s New Mexico attorney, David Baake. Baake led the effort to block the 2019 El Paso Electric’s attempt to operate the Newman 6 power plant.
The Newman 6 Plant
On November 18, 2019, the El Paso Electric Company filed an application with the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission “to construct and operate Newman 6,” a 228-megawatt natural gas fired power plant, according to the commission’s post-hearing brief dated September 4, 2020. (download) The following year, the electric company was acquired by an investment fund of JP Morgan. The investment fund purchased El Paso Electric in July 2020 for $4.3 billion. The sale of the electric company was opposed by El Paso community leaders arguing that the city’s rate payers would suffer. This was in addition to the opposition against the Newman 6 power plant by a Chaparral neighborhood.
Opposition to the Newman 6 power plant emanated from the Chaparral neighborhood near the proposed location of the powerplant soon after it was announced. David and Ida García, who live within a mile of the proposed plan led the effort to stop the opening of the electric company’s proposed power plant.
On August 16, 2021, the various opposition groups, including the García’s, agreed to drop their opposition to the Newman plant in return for some concessions. One of the concessions (download) was the electric company’s $400,000 payment to fund a non-profit. The Community Project Fund would be administered by the Chaparral Community Coalition and the mutual agreement explicitly prohibited the Sierra Club from having any “decision-making authority.” Although the Newman 6 Settlement prohibited the Sierra Club from having any decision-making authority over the use of the $400,000 non-charitable settlement funds, Miguel Escoto’s relationship with attorney David Baake and Earthworks raises questions of whether the Sierra Club influenced the use of the settlement funds to fund Proposition K.
Proposition K Funded By El Paso Electric
The electric company’s settlement payment was used to fund Proposition K. After the electric company settled with the climate activists, the Chaparral Community Coalition met with Sunrise El Paso in the fall of 2021. They agreed to use part of the settlement of Newman 6 settlement funds to fund the initiative that would become the El Paso Climate Charter, which is Proposition K.
How much Ground Game Texas spent on the effort to collect the signatures for the ballot measure has not been reported. The latest financial report filed with the Texas Ethics Commission by Ground Game Texas PAC was filed on January 17, 2023. It lists expenditures of $12,390.47 but does not include any expenditures for the El Paso initiative.
How much was spent by Sunrise El Paso to collect the signatures is unknown. El Paso News asked for information from Ground Game Texas on Monday via email. As of press time we have not received a response from the organization.
However, the El Paso Times reported on February 18, 2022 that Ground Game Texas and Sunrise El Paso had budgeted $300,000 to pay for gathering the signatures to take the ballot measure to the voters. On Monday, the Texas Tribune reported that the Chaparral Community Coalition donated $100,000 of its settlement money towards Proposition K.
We could not confirm the source of the $100,000 donation by the Chaparral Community Coalition because Erin Douglas, the Texas Tribune reporter who reported the is out of the office until later this week.
How much of the estimated $300,000 budget from the $400,000 paid by the El Paso Electric Company is part of the Newman 6 settlement is unknown. El Paso News also requested information from Sunrise El Paso via email and as of press time we have not received a response.
The organization that received the electric company settlement money is the Chaparral Community Coalition for Health and Environment. According to the records of the New Mexico Secretary of State, the non-profit was established on June 14, 2022. Two of the non-profit’s directors are David and Ida García. The non-profit was established after the electric company agreed to pay $400,000 to settle the Newman 6 dispute. The IRS online records do not show any non-profit reports filed by any organization named the Chaparral Community Coalition for Health and Environment.
News reports state that the climate charter signature amendment petition gathering effort had allocated a budget of about $300,000 for the Proposition K effort. The Texas Tribune reported that the Chaparral Community Coalition for Health and Environment donated $100,000 towards the signature effort, however the source of the donation could not be independently confirmed by El Paso News.
Nonetheless, El Paso News could not find any financial disclosures for the funds expended on the signature collection effort. Both Ground Game Texas and the Sunrise El Paso did not respond to our request for information about how much they spent on the effort.
Texas voters in home rule cities like El Paso have the right to force an election through an initiative referendum petition like the climate measure added to the May ballot by Sunrise El Paso and Ground Game Texas. How much is spent on ballot measures is governed by state law. There are three types of organizations that can spend money towards a ballot measure. They are the General Purpose PAC (GPAC), the Specific Purpose PAC (SPAC) and a Social Welfare Organization, like the Sunrise Movement, which is the governing body of Sunrise El Paso.
According to the Texas Ethics Commission website, the Sunrise Movement and Sunrise El Paso have not filed campaign finance reports with the agency. According to Texas election law, a non-profit organization like Sunrise Movement must file a campaign finance report (TX.20.1(20)) for any funds spent on a ballot measure if the organization spent more than 25% of the total funds it has on political activity in Texas.
The latest financial information available to the public for the Sunrise Movement is its 2019 tax filing. According to that financial disclosure, Sunrise Movement received about $3.7 million for that tax year. For that period, Sunrise Movement reported spending $460,000 in political campaign activities. Sunrise El Paso did not become operational until after the tax filing. Because more current financial information is not available, we are unable to determine whether Sunrise Movement must file its political expenditures with the Texas Ethics Commission. Based on its 2019 IRS Form 900, it would not be required to do so.
Any PAC, corporation, labor union or any individual spending more than $140 towards a ballot measure must report the expenditure to the ethics commission (TX Election Code 254). On non-election years, the campaign finance reports are due semi-annually and a more frequent schedule is required on election years.
Proponents For Proposition K Argue New Jobs, Water Conservation And Solar Power
Other than the ballot language and advocacy for Proposition K, advocates for supporting a favorable vote for the climate charter amendment have not addressed how the charter will impact El Pasoans. The website for Sunrise El Paso argues that adopting Proposition K will “create jobs that protect laborers and [the] planet.” The advocacy website adds that the ballot measure will “conserve water,” add “solar power on City buildings,” reduce the “City’s contribution to climate change” and “prepare for climate disasters.”
The petition (download) that was used to gather signatures to add the ballot measure to the May 6 ballot stated that the proposed climate policy “would create jobs, conserve water, encourage solar power generation, and reduce the City’s contribution to climate change.” Additionally, the climate advocates argue that adopting Proposition K will “prepare for climate disasters, invest in a renewable energy future,” as well as “address pollution in our communities,” advance climate justice” and “lead other Texas cities by showing them what is possible.” The climate advocates add that the ballot proposition will “encourage publicly-owned electricity.”
Ground Game Texas argues that Proposition K will create jobs by requiring the city manager to “create an annual goal for the creation of climate jobs, as new “funding becomes available.” City operations are funded mostly by property taxes. The group also argues that El Paso “is one of the sunniest cities in the country” and only gets 5% of its electrical power needs from solar. Proposition K “will require that the City study how it can build solar power generation capacity.” The City would also be “required to add rooftop solar whenever possible” when the City “builds a new building or retrofits an existing one.”
Business Opposition: The Points Consulting Report
According to the Texas Tribune, the climate charter “has provoked fierce resistance and doomsday projections from business interests” in El Paso.
In response to the chamber’s report against Proposition K, proponents of the climate measure argue that Proposition K does not ban natural gas use or diesel trucks, rather Proposition K “creates a process” on city council policy that forces them to “consider the climate impact” of their public policy.
The El Paso Chamber of Commerce released a report about the potential impact Proposition K could create for the city’s economy on January 31. The report (download) created by Points Consulting argues that Proposition K “would come at a dire cost to El Paso’s citizens.” According to the chamber’s report, implementing the requirements of Proposition K would cost 170 thousand jobs by 2030 and 198 thousand by 2045. The report argues that the average El Pasoan “would suffer a loss” of $38 thousand in potential income.
According to chamber’s analysis, much of the pressure on the city’s economy will be the reduction of the production of energy. The report argues that economic growth is a factor of the growth in energy consumption by activities, both industrial and personal. In essence, if Proposition K limits the ability to increase energy production in El Paso, for whatever reason, the lack of available energy will be detrimental to the city’s economic growth leading to lower wages and loss of jobs.
The report “estimated a fair market value for EPE of $9.1B by 2030,” which is the earliest that the City could purchase the electric company because of contractual and regulatory hurdles that must be overcome, not to mention the likely resistance of the utility ownership to selling off its El Paso electric infrastructure. Although the $9.1B purchase price can be challenged by others, the fact remains that the purchase of the electric utility would be costly to El Paso’s taxpayers, whatever the amount turns out to be.
The report goes on to add that restricting the use of water on fossil-based industries would also impact the job market and the city’s economy as those industries, like Marathon Petroleum, would be forced to move out of the reach of the city’s water utility or close its operations, resulting in job losses.
The report goes on to make the claim that Proposition K would require El Pasoans to transition their households towards electrical use, removing all appliances that are powered by natural gas. However, it is unclear on how the authors of the report arrived at that conclusion as neither the climate advocates nor the language of the Proposition K ballot support ending access to natural gas in El Paso households.
The chamber report goes on to attempt to quantify the city’s staffing costs to implement Proposition K and what it argues would be increased energy costs.
The report agrees with the proponents of Proposition K that “new green jobs” would be created to fulfill the requirements of the ballot measure should voters approve it. The largest job segment to see growth, according to the report, would be those jobs installing and planning solar energy solutions.
In addition to the possibility that energy production is reduced in El Paso, the purchase of the electric company, as outlined by the ballot measure would “come at the cost of having to purchase EPE using taxpayer monies.”
The report goes on to argue that without Proposition k, carbon emissions in the El Paso community “have in fact been decreasing dramatically by any count over the past ten years.” The Newman plant, according to the report accounts for 61% of the community’s reduction of its carbon footprint.
Generally, the chamber’s report argues that Proposition K will be detrimental to El Paso’s economy by, what the authors perceive, are the forced implementation of climate-friendly activities over a short-term and the associated costs of forming a municipally owned electric utility while also implementing a public policy strategy of imposing climate regulations in El Paso.
The report notes that it is not advocating for nor against Proposition K, but rather it outlines what the authors believe are the “economic ramifications” of the proposed measure.
What Is The Electric Company’s Stance On Proposition K?
El Paso Electric issued a press release on March 6 stating that the company “does not support the municipalization efforts” of the proposed charter amendment.
Proposition K calls for taking over the El Paso Electric Company’s infrastructure in El Paso and making it municipally-owned electric utility.
According to the electric company, should the City of El Paso move to take control of the company’s electric generating and delivery infrastructure, it would “create two utilities” for El Paso area residents. El Pasoans who live within the city limits would be served by the city-owned electric utility and those in the county would continue to be served by the electric company.
The electric utility also argues that since the “majority” of its “power generation resides outside” of the city, “it is not clear” how a city-owned electric company would provide electricity to customers. The electric company suggests that taking over the utility would require the City to create an electricity generating plant for the city’s electrical power users, or purchase electricity of city residents from somewhere else.
In its 2021 Corporate Sustainability Report, (download) the electric company argues that it is pursuing a goal of carbon reduction towards 80% by 2035 and the goal of 100% by 2045. However, the electric company has not stated how it hopes to achieve the 100% goal because it is waiting on new technology to become available.
The electric company concludes in its March 6 press release that the climate charter amendment “is too limited and does not include the wide array of customer solutions and technologies available to affordably achieve” its goals.
What The Ballot Says
Regardless of the talking points from both sides of the Proposition K debate, it is the ballot language on the proposed measure that will govern how it is implemented by the city council should the measure be adopted in May.
The ballot language includes 13 action items that will become part of the public policy of the city should voters approve the measure on May 6. The measure would add Article IX to the City Charter. The measure creates a climate policy for the city with the goal of reaching 80% clean renewable energy by 2030 and 100% renewable energy by 2045.
The first requirement for the City would be the creation of a Climate Director to implement the requirements of Proposition K. The measure also calls for the creation of a Climate Department at the City. The proposed Climate Director will lead the Climate Department. The new department will be required to present to city council the climate impact their public policy decisions like zoning decisions, road construction/maintenance and the city budget, among other city actions will have on the climate.
The proposed measure would also require the City to publish an annual report on the City’s climate emissions. The measure also requires that the Climate Director develop an annual goal for the creation of climate jobs. The measure defines climate jobs as those jobs “that advance one or more of the City’s policy objectives” in reducing the city’s impact on climate change, “investing in an environmentally sustainable future,” and “advancing the cause of climate justice.”
The ballot measure states that climate justice ensures “that historically underserved communities do not bear a disproportionate share of the negative impacts of climate change.”
The May 6 ballot measure also calls for the city to create a solar energy plan for the city that would look to “develop internal capacity to generate energy” for the community through solar energy. It would also encourage the development of rooftop solar power generation on city facilities.
Although the proposal calls for reallocating existing City manpower and resources to begin focusing on energy policy, neither the proponents nor the proposed ballot measure speaks to how the new public policy initiatives will be funded.
In addition, the ballot measure seeks to set a goal of 80% clean energy by 2030 and 100% by 2045 for El Paso. In addition to the city’s new climate department, the measure calls for the creation of a Climate Commission for “overseeing the implementation and fulfillment of the city’s obligations under this measure.” The membership of the proposed committee will be appointed by the city council and the mayor.
One of the items the measure proposes is for the privatization of the local electric company, which the electric company opposes.
Water conservation measures, the elimination of impediments to renewable energy and climate disaster preparedness rounds out the requirements required by the ballot measure should voters approve it.
What Experience On Climate Legislation Has Shown: The El Paso Testing Ground
For the “youth-led climate activist group Sunrise Movement, the vote on Proposition K is the “testing ground” for a “model for enacting climate policies at the local level as global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.” Because El Paso is the “testing ground” for climate legislation there is not much historical data about the impact, for or against energy conservation and the cost to the community available to help determine its potential impact on El Paso voters.
The El Paso Chamber of Commerce report on Proposition K outlines several costs to the taxpayers. However, the costs outlined by the chamber report are assumptions made on incomplete data and experience by other communities. Should El Paso voters vote for Proposition k in May, it would make El Paso the leader in local climate public policy in Texas.
Although El Paso in some ways is leading the charge for climate change public policy at the municipal level, it is not unique in Texas nor in other parts of the world. However, El Paso could become the litmus test of the results of an activist-led public policy initiative should voters approve Proposition K. Ground Game Texas has said as much.
There is some research into climate change public policy at the municipal level we can examine to see what has happened and what can happen in El Paso.
In a 2022 paper on the role of municipalities (download) by the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, Jennifer Winter, an associate professor in The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary argues that cities like El Paso “can use bylaws and zoning powers to reduce emissions within their boundaries.” Proposition K will use these tools in its mandate to fulfill its goals.
More than 500 city council have declared a climate emergency and have directed their officials to “prioritize environmental considerations in local service delivery and program coordination.”
The City of Austin adopted the Austin Community Climate Plan in June 2015 setting the community-wide goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Dallas, for its part, has a “net zero energy” on new construction for 2030 and targets of 10% of the existing buildings in Dallas reducing energy use by 10% by 2030 and another 10% of existing buildings reducing energy use by 25%. This according to the Dallas Comprehensive Environmental and Climate Action Plan dated April 2020.
An April 2021 internship paper by Jesse Antwi-Kusi submitted to the Department of Political Science at the University of Windsor examined how the City of Athens in Ohio and the Town of Tecumseh in Ontario faired when both municipal governments enacted voluntary official plans to tackle climate change.
According to the scholastic paper, local climate change governance is accomplished in four ways. The first is self-governing. The second is governing through enabling and the third is governing by provision. The final one is governing by authority.
As is the case with the paper’s examination of the two cities, Proposition K, if enacted, would use the four modes of governance with an emphasis on governing by authority. The majority of climate change legislation is enabled by self-governance where public policy encourages energy efficiency but does not dictate it. Carbon use reduction is targeted in the local community but consequences for not meeting it are not part of the goal. Governing through enabling creates private-public partnerships to educate and advocate for climate awareness. Governing by provision makes the local government the provider of the services that impact the climate, like electric energy as well as the consumers by addressing climate change in the services, like housing, that the local government provides. Proposition K has envisioned this when it looks to privatize the electric company.
However, Proposition K looks to dramatically address climate change through governing by authority by empowering the El Paso City Council to regulate climate change through its powers of land use authority, public transportation and by developing strategic energy plans with the authority to enforce them.
Both cities examined by the Windsor paper have enacted much of the same processes as has El Paso over the years, including water conservation methods, public transportation schemes, walkable communities and the required recycling of waste. Unlike El Paso, both had adopted emission targets and developed local action plans to address climate change by the time the study had been conducted.
Antwi-Kusi’s paper found that the City of Athens, although having a robust climate change public agenda has faced a significant barrier in its implementation because of the “omission of a strong political and civic involvement” in climate change. Although the City of Athens has the tools to address climate change it lacks the buy-in of the local population. The local government and population do not see climate change as a priority.
The Canadian town of Town of Tecumseh approached climate change by prioritizing investments in projects that benefited the community, addressing public transportation with “clean” vehicles “while helping to grow the town’s economy and create jobs.” Proponents of Proposition K argue that the ballot measure will create jobs.
However, the Town of Tecumseh faced funding limitations on its climate change legislation when federal funding ran out. Although the City of Athens and the Town of Tecumseh “are independently showing that they are policy leaders in climate change policy making,” they face “greater financial burden.”
The paper concluded that local governments had flexibility in coordinating climate change at the local level but faced funding constraints in implementing them appropriately. In the case of the American city, City of Athens, the added burden of the lack of buy-in by the local community and the local government was a further impediment to the local-level climate change legislation. Without local buy-in and coordination with higher-level officials in the state and national levels, local government climate legislation provides “flexibility” but are insufficient and unsustainable without coordination with high-level governments, especially because of the lack of adequate funding to sustain them.
An April 2022 by the National Bureau of Economic Research titled “Climate Regulatory Risk and Corporate Bonds” adds an interesting anecdote to the discussion of the possible consequences of climate legislation. Although the paper did not look at local government activities on climate change, its conclusions on the credit ratings of companies located in states with stricter environmental regulations suggests that companies with a “significant carbon footprint” are “associated in general with lower credit ratings.” The paper’s findings suggest that stricter environmental controls forces companies to reduce their carbon footprints in order to pay lower interest rates on their commercial loans.
Commercial lenders seem to factor the environmental profiles of the companies when assessing credit risk when making loans if the companies are in jurisdictions with stricter environmental controls. The evidence presented by the paper suggests that El Paso companies with high carbon footprints would pay higher interest rates to continue to operate, should Proposition K be approved by the voters.
Plan El Paso Is A Cautionary Tale For Proposition K
Fundamental changes in public policy in El Paso have historically been controversial. One of the longest-running and most controversial public policy initiatives is the long-running battle to preserve vulnerable communities like Segundo Barrio from gentrification. The battle for Duranguito that was recently settled by a newly elected activist city council is the latest example of the controversial Plan El Paso.
Underlining the controversy over Duranguito is the displacement of poorer neighborhoods for economic development. Although Proposition K, other than job growth, does not make claims of economic development through displacement, much of El Paso’s experiences with Smart Growth is a precursor to what can happen if Proposition K is adopted and its tenets displaced by future elected officials or activist political operatives. El Paso started on the path towards Smart Growth in 2000 under an activist mayor, Ray Caballero and his staff, Veronica Escobar and Susie Byrd.
Under the El Paso version of Smart Growth, the public policy’s goal was to create friendly walkable communities in hopes of ending automobile dependency. In many ways, Smart Growth was the beginning of addressing climate change by a younger generation.
In 2011, Veronica Escobar argued in the Borderzine that “downtown blight places an economic cost on everyone.” The use of blight was intentional because words like blight have “the power to harm,” argued Brookings in 2020. Blight was used to describe vulnerable communities like Duranguito to displace the poorer neighborhoods to make way for economic prosperity.
The problem with Smart Growth is that it does not give low-income communities a choice, it simply forces them out. Public policy, no matter how well-intentioned, can lead to the cost of displaced communities through forced economic costs that become too burdensome for the lower income populations of the community.
Proposition K envisions several costs but does propose a plan on how those costs will be paid. It is assumed that the taxpayers will pay the costs, although the proponents of the climate charter argue that the costs will be offset by new jobs without articulating how that will be accomplished and by how much. Like Smart Growth, although well-intentioned, a hijacked Proposition K using language like “polluter” or a danger to the climate can hurt vulnerable communities. Proposition K’s inherent enforcement tools can expose vulnerable communities who are ill-equipped to defend themselves.
The poor in El Paso will be the first to feel the pressure from the costs associated with Proposition K because even if job growth does occur, the residents that will likely benefit from the job growth will be the younger higher educated workforce displacing the poor more vulnerable in the community.
The climate charter is on the May 6 ballot. It is listed as Proposition K. Early voting starts on April 24 and Election Day is May 6.
We need your help!
In-depth articles like this one require resources in time and research. We make our content free to readers like you but we have costs associated with bringing you this article. We ask for your donation to help us to keep bringing you unique content like this to allow you to understand the public issues facing your community. Your donations are the only revenues we receive for content like this. Without donations we will be forced to start charging for important content like this.
Download Original Source Documents
Download In The Matter of El Paso Electric Company, Post-Hearing Brief-in-Chief.
Download Ordinance 019437, Proposition K.
Download The Sunrise Movement 2019 Form 990.
Download The Newman Settlement Agreement.
Download The Climate Petition.
Download The El Paso Electric 2021 Corporate Sustainability Report.
Download The El Paso Climate Charter Economic Impact Assessment.
Download The Municipal Role In Climate Policy.
Download The Chamber of Commerce Powerpoint Presentation.
the road to perdition is often paved with good intentions.
Comments are closed.