Turning Point Wants to Control SRP?
We’ve known for 6 months that Turning Point USA intends to participate heavily in the SRP board election.
But what’s the motivation?
According to this article, it is to “out-register Democrats” in an effort to defeat who they are calling “radical environmentalists”.
This is neither a surprise, nor accurate.
First, this is a non-partisan election. So, why are they trying to make it partisan?
Second, TP has never been active in SRP hearings. They don’t have expertise in complex utility policy.
Watch an SRP board hearing, the board members who TPUSA describes as having a “radical agenda” are consistently putting forward ideas that are anything but radical. They’ve asked:
That SRP not raise the monthly service charge from $20 to $30.
For more transparency in the bonding process.
That SRP inform all eligible SRP voters of their property right to vote.
The truly radical agenda is coming from TP.
They have been lobbying APS, the ACC and the legislature, demanding that they re-open old coal plants, and shut down all renewable projects.
Remember, coal and gas are significantly more expensive now than renewables plus batteries —not to mention the water they waste.
The motivation is power…
…and not the energy kind.
At it’s core TPUSA is a campaign management company with a really good volunteer recruitment, and an executive team with salaries in the tens of millions.
They need to win big in one election in order to grow their business for the next election.
The SRP board election is simply their training ground for the 2026 midterms, according to people close to last year’s Mesa recall election. (TP spent over $1 million to recall one city council member.)
If they win a majority at SRP they will prove to big national donors that their techniques should be replicated nation-wide.
Should our trusted local power utility be a stepping stone for such an ideological group?
And for those who say that there is a similar amount of money coming from clean energy groups, I say, “I only wish.”
In my quarter century in public policy, I’ve only seen environmental money over $1 million coming from that direction once, for the 2018 Prop 127 ballot measure. And never since.
I don’t agree with everything proposed by “the green groups.” But at least you can negotiate with them. Everybody I’ve spoken with who has encountered TP in policy making bodies will tell you they are quiet the opposite.
If you want low rates, water conservation and data center accountability, that should concern you.
What is the “Turning Point Slate” agreeing to?
Legally, the people on the TP-approved list of SRP candidates cannot coordinate with TP directly right now.
Under the law, coordination was allowed to happen up until the point that they became candidates. As such, each of these candidates probably got a personal meeting with TP leadership months ago, even if they can’t coordinate now.
It is obvious that TP agreed to do all of the heavy lifting to build name ID for the candidates, with very expensive sign campaigns, and more to come.
Each of these candidate is trading their professional independence for this support.
Make no mistake. They will have to pay the piper.
What if the piper wants them to re-open coal plants that were being retired, or to undermine relationships with unions that work with SRP, or to eliminate same sex benefits for SRP employees?
Some board and council members may have deep financial and familial ties to TPUSA, which we will only learn about long after this election. But there are other board members for whom TPUSA’s involvement is simply a vehicle for re-election.
I’m not sure they know what they are signing up for.
And if they do know, then all the more reason not to support them.