CAC’s Kerwin Olson: Dueling energy proposals bear monitoring at Indiana State House; How will they impact you? January 31, 2013Posted by Laura Arnold in 2013 Indiana General Assembly, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), Uncategorized.
Tags: Citizens Action Coalition Executive Director Kerwin Olson, Indiana Gasification LLC, Indiana HB 1515 (2013), Indiana Rep. Suzanne Crouch (R-Evansville), Indiana SB 510 (2013), Indiana SB 560 (2013) utility transmission, Indiana Sen. Doug Eckerty (R-Yorktown)
add a comment
Dear IndianaDG Readers:
In any attempt to bring you a variety of viewpoints on energy and utility issues that will impact renewable energy and distributed generation, please find below a pieve written by Kerwin Olson who is the Executive Director of Citizens Action Coalition.
Just a friendly reminder, SB 560 will be heard this morning (1/31/2013) in the Senate Utilities Committee starting at 9 am. You can watch on-line. Please visit this previous post for details http://wp.me/pMRZi-12b.
As of last night there were three proposed amendments circulating which may or may not be offered to SB 560.
Laura Ann Arnold
Published: January 31, 2013 3:00 a.m.
Dueling energy proposals bear monitoring
The fate of monthly utility bills and the future of Indiana energy policy will be a hot topic of discussion in the Indiana General Assembly.
Once again, the proposed coal-to-gas plant to be built in Rockport by Indiana Gasification will be the subject of legislation. Two companion bills, SB 510 (authored by Sen. Doug Eckerty – R, Yorktown) and HB 1515 (authored by Rep. Suzanne Crouch – R, Evansville) promise to protect consumers from what are certain to be excessive charges for the substitute natural gas to be produced by the proposed facility. By making this the law of our state, captive Hoosier ratepayers will be protected from being gouged by an Enron-like scheme that promises hefty returns for a privately held, out-of-state hedge fund.
Conversely, SB 560 (authored by Sen. Brandt Hershman, R, Monticello) guarantees that captive gas and electricity ratepayers will face enormous bill increases; the legislation eliminates regulatory protections to which captive consumers are entitled. SB 560 will shift almost all of the costs and risk of operating a monopoly utility company to captive ratepayers and away from voluntary investors. Additionally, SB 560 would allow the monopoly utilities to raise rates virtually automatically and would further reduce regulatory oversight by placing unreasonable time restrictions on both the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor to review requests by the monopoly utilities to raise your rates. Should SB 560 become law, monopoly utility profits will become excessive as the utilities will have little incentive to control costs while the more expensive, risky and obsolete technologies will continue to be chosen over cheaper, cleaner and less risky alternatives.
Every branch of government is being asked to do more with less. The public is struggling with stagnant and diminishing wages, while monthly electric bills have increased nearly 50 percent over the last decade, and the cost of living continues to soar, especially for essentials such as food and health care. Meanwhile, the monopoly electric and gas utility companies in Indiana are working hard to undermine regulatory oversight and are attempting to deregulate their monopoly revenue and profits. They are asking your elected officials for a raise, and they want it to come from your checkbook. While everyone else is being forced to tighten their belts and the working class and vulnerable populations struggle to survive, the monopoly utilities parade around the halls of government with unfettered access working to increase their monopoly revenue and profits at the expense of the public.
It should be interesting to observe the now Republican-dominated General Assembly and a newly elected governor with no Statehouse experience navigate the two paradigms. Will they allow the monopoly utilities with their deep pockets to control the agenda and the future of Indiana energy policy, or will they stand up for consumers, keep the utilities in check and protect the public interest? We’ll learn the answer during what promises to be a long and contentious 2013 General Assembly session. Stay tuned.
Kerwin Olson is executive director of Citizens Action Coalition in Indianapolis. He wrote this for Indiana newspapers.
AP: Indiana Senate Pro Tem David Long (R-Ft. Wayne) seeks gas plant contract review for Indiana Gasification LLC January 25, 2013Posted by Laura Arnold in 2013 Indiana General Assembly, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC).
Tags: Indiana Gasification LLC, Indiana Gasification project manager Mark Lubbers, Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis), Indiana Sen. Doug Eckerty (R-Yorktown), Indiana Senate Pro Tem David Long (R-Ft. Wayne)
add a comment
Associated Press January 24, 2013 published in the Indianaapolis Business Journal
Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long said Thursday the state needs to review its plans to buy synthesized natural gas from a $2.8 billion plant slated for construction in Rockport.
The Fort Wayne Republican said “the world has changed” since lawmakers first approved a plan that guarantees Indiana Gasification LLC has a buyer for its product over the next 30 years — a prospect that looked good a few years ago when natural gas prices were high but has caused some lawmakers to second-guess that deal with an infusion of new gas on the market because of increased fracking.
“Obviously, just the fact the world has changed since this idea came into being requires us to take another look at it,” Long said, calling for either the regulators on the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission or state lawmakers to review the deal.
He stopped short of saying it should be revoked.
“I’m not willing to say that just yet, but I think we all have questions given the price of natural gas is so much lower now due to the fracking and everything ‘s that’s going on around the country,” he said. “What looked like it had a real potential when the price of gas was so much higher, now we have to bring the question whether it makes sense.”
The statements from Long and others seeking to review the deal has placed Indiana Gasification on the defensive in a continuing battle with the southern Indiana utility Vectren, which has argued the project would cost Indiana ratepayers more than $1 billion because of a spike in rates from the more expensive synthetic natural gas.
“If the Legislature has read the IURC order, which covers shale gas comprehensively, and feels there is a reason to renege on the process they established, it will be viewed as a very negative sign,” said Indiana Gasification project manager Mark Lubbers, referring to the IURC’s prior approval of the deal. The state’s Court of Appeals overturned that approval last year, sending the issue back to the Legislature and the IURC.
“We have trusted that the state was good for their word,” Lubber said. “This isn’t a game; we would be investing $750 million of our money and borrowing another $1.9 billion we will be obligated to repay. We regarded Indiana as a stable committed partner. Being so easily frightened into second guessing is not the kind of thing you want to see when you are investing nearly $3 billion.”
Sen. Doug Eckerty, R-Yorktown, has introduced legislation that would restructure a 30-year contract agreed to between the Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification. House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said Thursday he supports reviewing the deal.
Courier-Press: Official with Rockport coal-to-gas plant says contract changes would kill the deal January 22, 2013Posted by Laura Arnold in 2013 Indiana General Assembly, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), Vectren.
Tags: Indiana Gasification LLC, Indiana Rep. Eric Koch (R-Bedford), Indiana Rep. Suzanne Crouch (R-Evansville), Indiana Sen. Doug Eckerty (R-Yorktown), Indiana Sen. Jim Merritt Jr. (R-Indianapolis), Leucadia National Corp., Rockport-Leucadia coal gasification plant.
add a comment
Dear IndianaDG Readers:
The Leucadia Indiana Gasification plant proposed for Rockport, IN is likely to be a “hot potato” this session of the Indiana General Assembly. Sen. Eckerty has introduced SB 510. The digest for SB 510 is as follows:
Substitute natural gas contracts. Defines “guarantee of savings” with respect to retail end use customers of substitute natural gas (SNG). Amends the definition of “purchase contract”. Defines “savings shortfall”. Requires the Indiana finance authority (IFA) to submit a final purchase contract, including amendments, and any other agreements with a producer of SNG to the utility regulatory commission (IURC). Requires the IFA to determine on a three year cycle if retail end use customers are provided a guarantee of savings or a savings shortfall under a purchase contract. Requires the IFA to electronically submit its findings to the IURC. Requires the IURC to verify and approve the findings and, if there is a savings shortfall, order a producer of SNG to provide a refund.
There appears to be a delay still in House Bills appearing in the system, therefore, Rep. Crouch’s bill is still not available from the Indiana General Assembly website. Eventually, you should be able to find the bill she has introduced HERE.
Also be sure to read the second article from the IBJ for more background on this issue.
When there is more information about this issue you will be able to read it here.
Laura Ann Arnold
By Eric Bradner, Evansville Courier & Press, Posted January 18, 2013 at 5:57 p.m., updated January 18, 2013 at 10:06 p.m.
INDIANAPOLIS —State lawmakers’ attempts to rework the deal Indiana struck with developers of the proposed Rockport coal-to-gas plant would kill the nearly $3 billion project, one of its top officials said Friday.
As a shale gas boom drives down natural gas prices, two Republican lawmakers say they question the wisdom of the Indiana Finance Authority’s 30-year contract to buy and then resell the plant’s synthetic gas at a fixed rate.
Both have filed bills that would drastically alter its terms. The bills would trigger the ratepayer protection mechanisms included in the contract every three years, rather than waiting until the end of the deal.
That would stop the plant in its tracks, said Mark Lubbers, a former
Gov. Mitch Daniels aide who is helming the Rockport effort for Leucadia National Corp.
“Any ‘true-up’ of savings before the end of the contract term makes the project unfinanceable,” he said.
The House and Senate utility committees could consider the two measures at a rare joint meeting, the chairmen of those committees told the Courier & Press on Friday.
“We can tell you that we have had many conversations regarding the Rockport coal gasification plant with our Senate and House colleagues. We’re currently considering holding a joint hearing on the issue, although no final plans have been set,” Sen. Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis, and Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, said in a joint statement.
Lubbers meanwhile doubled down on what he said is a rock-solid deal for Hoosier gas customers over the long term, saying Indiana needs a second plant — this one in Lake County — that would convert petroleum coke, rather than coal.
“Two plants would provide better consumer protection and keep even more Hoosier energy spending in Indiana,” Lubbers said.
His stance sets the stage for what could emerge as a critical battle in the opening weeks of the first term of new Gov. Mike Pence, who has not taken a stance on the project.
In 2009 lawmakers gave the Indiana Finance Authority the green light to hammer out a 30-year contract with Leucadia’s Indiana Gasification LLC to buy its synthetic natural gas and then resell it through the state’s utilities.
That deal, signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels, set a rate of between $6 and $7 per MMBtu for the life of the contract. It would have utilities tie 17 percent of ratepayers’ bills to that Rockport price, rather than their open market rate.
It appeared to be a steal when natural gas prices topped $13 per unit as recently as 2008. Since then, though, a nationwide shale gas boom has sent prices plummeting to near $3 per unit now.
And now that Daniels is gone, some lawmakers are looking for ways out of the deal.
“The market has changed, conditions have changed, and so we need to take a fresh look at this situation and there needs to be some changes that will protect the ratepayer,” said Rep. Suzanne Crouch, R-Evansville.
Crouch and Sen. Doug Eckerty, R-Yorktown, filed the bills that the utility committee chairmen are considering granting a joint hearing.
The Indiana Finance Authority’s deal required Leucadia’s Indiana Gasification LLC to set $150 million aside in an escrow account to reimburse ratepayers for any losses at the end of the 30-year deal.
The measures Crouch and Eckerty are pushing would shorten that window, requiring Indiana Gasification to pay ratepayers back for any losses every three years — a move that would harm Indiana Gasification’s bid for a federal loan guarantee.
Opponents of the Rockport plant include Evansville-based
Vectren Corp., which estimates the deal could cost Indiana ratepayers $1 billion in extra gas prices over its first eight years, and a host of environmental groups.
“When this thing was conceived, it was a good idea. Natural gas was volatile, there was an unknown long-term supply, and we were just coming off three or four years of the most volatile natural gas prices we’d seen in 25 years,” said Mike Roeder, Vectren’s vice president of government affairs and communications.
“The concept made a ton of sense, and so no legislator should feel any guilt about a vote from back then because it was a reasonable idea. But what has changed is shale gas.”
Lubbers, who has argued that recent years’ volatility in natural gas prices make the case for a project with fixed rates, said he will continue defending the project if state lawmakers consider the two bills this year.
“On the one hand, we are always grateful for a platform to talk about the plant and the contract. It is extraordinary public policy — the first time consumers have ever been guaranteed savings for any energy product; the first time consumers have ever had a lien on energy utility assets; a huge step forward in clean coal technology. It is a big idea and makes Indiana a real leader,” he said.
“On the other hand, after an 18-month negotiation that produced more consumer protection than the legislature or we ever envisioned, and an 11-month (Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission) consideration resulting in unanimous approval of the contract, to have it politically challenged by a self-interested utility is disappointing.”
The state’s contract with Indiana Gasification is also the subject of a court battle.
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the state’s utility regulatory commission’s approval of the deal last year, pointing to a problem that the Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification said would be easily fixed.
But Vectren has sought to use that opening to force the deal back onto the starting blocks, requiring it to be vetted and approved by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission all over again.
Chris O’Malley, January 15, 2013, Indianapolis Business Journal
The company that plans to build a $2.8 billion synthetic gas plant in Indiana could face another hurdle if a bill introduced by a state senator is successful at the Statehouse.
Under the legislation, state utility regulators could order Indiana Gasification LLC to make refunds to gas customers every three years if the price of synthetic gas it produces from coal is greater than the market price of natural gas over the period.
Senate Bill 510, by Sen. Doug Eckerty, R-Yorktown, is aimed at alleviating concerns raised by consumer groups and some lawmakers about legislation passed in 2010 that helped enable the plant proposed for Rockport, near the Ohio River.
That legislation allowed the Indiana Finance Authority to act as a purchasing intermediary for synthetic gas produced at the plant. The authority would sell the gas on the open market. Whether gas customers would receive discounts, or see their bills increase, would depend on whether the authority made or lost money on its sales.
It’s estimated that Indiana Gasification could produce gas between at a cost of $6 and $7 per MMBtu, a common measurement used by the energy industry.
When the Rockport plant was proposed, natural gas was selling for around $13 per MMBtu, Eckerty said in a prepared statement Tuesday. Butwith an abundant supply of natural gas now available, the fuel recently was selling at $3.10.
“With these changes in mind, many state officials – including myself – believe it is not in Hoosiers’ best interests for the state to put taxpayers at risk by subsidizing substitute natural gas,” Eckerty said.
Natural gas prices have plummeted in recent years, with mass extraction of natural gas from shale deposits. Evansville-based gas and electric utility Vectren projects the synthetic gas made at the proposed plant would cost customers $1 billion in the first eight years, or up to $375 for an average retail customer.
Critics say under the current contract with the state, natural gas customers may not see Indiana Gasification’s promised $100 million in savings until the end of the 30-year contract.
Legislators who passed the original measure did not intend for such savings to be realized so late, said Kerwin Olson, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition.
“This is a good proposal. It clarifies the Legislature’s original intent,” Olson said of the new bill. “It helps to erase the generational discrimination.”
Indiana Gasification has found fault with opponents’ insistence that natural gas prices will remain low over the long-haul, noting that natural gas prices historically have been volatile.
That volatility is a certainty was citied by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission in its approval of the deal.
Indiana Gasification also insists that the proposed plant will diversify the state’s supply of gas and help lessen volatility.
Currently, the gas supply contract between Indiana Gasification and the Indiana Finance Authority is mired in litigation.
Last October, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed regulator approval of the gas-purchasing contract deal, but on narrow grounds. It found the legislation authorizing the purchases never was intended to result in certain industrial customers’ sharing in the costs or benefits of the purchases, as would residential customers.
Indiana Gasification said a simple, 37-word deletion of language in the contract would satisfy the court. But Vectren has filed an objection, arguing that the contract was essentially made null and void by the court last October and that the regulatory process should start over again.
The proposed plant operator counters that Vectren already lost on many of its arguments and that the tactic is meant to cause delays that could jeopardize financing of the project.
Eckerty’s bill could potentially void the disputed contract between Indiana Gasification and the state finance authority “because it makes retroactive changes to current statute that would modify the terms of that contract,” said a bill analysis by Indiana Legislative Services Agency.
Indiana Gasification officials did not immediately offer comment on the bill.
In Indiana, debate over how ‘trackers’ shape future energy system | Midwest Energy News January 21, 2013Posted by Laura Arnold in 2013 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized.
Tags: Ed Simcox with the Indiana Energy Association, Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) Executive Director Jesse Kharbanda, Indiana SB 560 (2013) utility transmission, Indiana utility cost trackers, Kerwin Olson Citizens Action Coalition
add a comment
This article from Midwestern Energy News discusses SB 560 on utility transmission introduced by Sen. Brandt Hershman. There is no official word yet about when this bill will be scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Utility Committee. Continue to watch this blog for details!
Transmission lines near Walnut, Indiana. (Photo by Patrick Finnegan via Creative Commons)
New legislation in the Indiana Senate would ensure a healthy, guaranteed profit in perpetuity on utility investments in wires, telephone poles, substations, and other parts of the transmission and distribution infrastructure, and ratepayer advocates and environmentalists are crying foul.
If such a measure becomes law, they say, it will burden low-income ratepayers with unnecessarily high bills and further entrench centralized, coal- and gas-based electricity generation, placing distributed, renewable generation at a disadvantage.
At issue in the new legislation is an important but esoteric provision of utility law called a cost tracker. When states allow trackers, they bypass rate cases, a key step in which state utility regulators scrutinize the books of monopoly electric utilities on behalf of the customers who are forced to buy their electricity.
The state then allows a line item to be added to utility bills for a specified purpose—in this case, for costs incurred when utilities replace or maintain power poles, wires and the like. In Indiana, trackers typically guarantee utilities a profit of between 8.5 and 12 percent on costs of a particular type, and ratepayers supply the company with that guaranteed profit.
The electricity bills that Indiana residents pay are a sum of the utility’s rate and the various line items.
Over the years, the state’s five investor-owned utilities—Duke Energy, Indiana Power and Light, Vectren, Nipsco, and Indiana Michigan Power, have persuaded state legislators to let them recoup most of their costs through trackers, including the cost of coal, natural gas, uranium and other fuel, the cost of scrubbers and other pollution controls, the cost of energy-efficiency efforts, and now the cost of wires, poles, transformers and other parts of the transmission and distribution network.
Because the state’s utilities are allowed a variety of trackers, their rates are not an accurate reflection of what customers actually pay. So when an Indiana utility says that its rates are rising only 2-3 percent per year, that’s technically correct, said Kerwin Olson, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition, an Indianapolis-based ratepayer advocacy group. But it’s also misleading, Olson said, because “customers don’t pay rates, customers pay bills.”
What’s more, Olson said, “utilities don’t like rate cases” and try to avoid them because they’re expensive to litigate, and because they allow the public utility commission, and the interested public, to examine their books and question whether costs they’re trying to get reimbursed for are costs they actually incurred.
That’s nonsense, said Ed Simcox, president of Indiana Energy Association, a trade group that represents the state’s investor-owned utilities.
Trackers are routine in Indiana and other states, he said, and they’re legitimate ways to recoup costs. The tracker for transmission and distribution infrastructure, in particular, is a legitimate way for companies to recoup costs to repair and replace aging infrastructure, he added.
A benefit for whom?
The tracker for transmission and distribution is important for reliability, Simcox said.
There are some very basic needs that the system has, he said. “They include pipe in the ground for gas companies, half-century-old wooden poles to string power lines and aging transformers that need to be replaced,” Simcox said. A lot of this will be done in the foreseeable future—over the next 10 years.
Moreover, Simcox said, the expenses recouped by trackers “have to be approved by the commission. That’s something these advocates wouldn’t tell you. The commission has the ability to open the books of the company at any time.”
Having trackers even benefits ratepayers, Simcox maintained. By guaranteeing revenue, it “enhances the position of the company in the financial community.” That means that utilities can pay lower interest rates when they borrow money for capital improvements, which in turn saves money for ratepayers, who reimburse the companies for their costs, he said.
Olson maintains that utilities are simply feathering their nest at the expense of ratepayers.
“Utility rate increases are the most regressive taxes you can have on the general population. They hit the poor the hardest,” Olson added.
Moreover, trackers are simply a different way for utilities to get guaranteed revenue to maintain a reliable electrical system. Whether the companies open their books in rate cases or use trackers to pay for it, utilities still need to do their job and provide reliable electricity.
“They’re going to do that stuff anyway because they have to,” Olson said.
Charging ratepayers for coal’s costs
Guaranteeing cost recovery for transmission lines could perpetuate an electrical system that produces far more climate-warming greenhouse gases than it might, said Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council.
“If you replace the transmission and distribution infrastructure on a 1:1 basis or build in anticipation of new central power plants, you’re reinforcing the current system,” he said.
That current system in Indiana is one of the most coal-reliant in the nation. In 2010, the most recent year for which data was available, the state generated 90 percent of its electricity by burning coal, far more than the U.S. average of 48 percent, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.
And according to a report [PDF] from the Environmental Integrity Project, Indiana was the fourth-largest greenhouse gas emitter overall in the United States in 2010, emitting more than three times the carbon dioxide of New York and California, which are far more populous.
Trackers are one of several ways Indiana’s utilities perpetuate the current system, Olson said. Utilities have had such dominion over the Indiana legislature, he maintained, that if the current bill passes they will have guaranteed that ratepayers pay fully for the costs of coal to burn; pollution controls that keep coal plants in compliance with federal environmental rules, and the costs of wires and infrastructure to move electricity from central plants to the populace.
“Essentially they have a tracker from coalmine to light switch,” Olson said.
Indiana latest to see proposed ban on UN environmental proposals, ‘Agenda 21’; Rep. Neese (R-Elkhart) introduces ban January 14, 2013Posted by Laura Arnold in 2013 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized.
Tags: Indiana State Rep. Tim Neese (R-Elkhart), Indiana State Se. Dennis Kruse (R-Auburn), United Nations 'Agenda 21'
1 comment so far
Written by Tom Lobianco Associated Press 4:25 PM, Jan 13, 2013
A decades-old, innocuous-sounding United Nations document has quickly become a rallying point for those on the right who fear the U.S. government will be overthrown by the U.N., and Indiana is the latest state to join the debate born of the tea party.
‘Agenda 21’ calls for better management of global resources and better care for the environment, amid concern over how global warming will harm people. And, as a U.N. document, it has no power inside the U.S. aside from being a recommendation.
But with the rise of the tea party and help from people like former Fox News host Glenn Beck and conservative radio talk show host Alex Jones, the proposal has become a symbol of an assumed attempt for the U.N. to establish a global empire.
The battle is slowly moving from the fringes of the right into statehouses across the nation. Indiana is one of five states that will ponder a ban on implementing the proposal this year. Alabama and Tennessee became the first states to approve bans last year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
State Rep. Tim Neese, an Elkhart Republican and author of a proposal to ban implementation of the UN document, doesn’t see it in quite the same terms as tea party members who have adopted this as a core battle. But he does see it as a broader issue, one that concerns the protection of private property rights and Indiana’s state sovereignty.
“I don’t see it as a battle with environmentalists, as long as people have the ability to choose,” he said. “So when any type of special interest tries to — through a policy whether it be a legislative body or local or state official — to mandate that a specific type of material has to be used. That’s where I think the Agenda 21 policy is going beyond what is neutral.”
Neese’s proposal was sent to the House committee on interstate and international cooperation, where it has a chance to be heard this session. A companion measure filed by Sen. Dennis Kruse, an Auburn Republican, was sent to the Senate rules committee, where it is likely to die.
The General Assembly will have plenty of property control and sovereignty issues to deal with this session, all proposed by Republicans. One measure would allow gold and silver to be used as currency in Indiana, another would bar federal officials from apprehending someone without consent of the local sheriff and a Senate proposal would grant Indiana the power to nullify federal law, specifically the federal health care law.
Of course, the only thing that ultimately grants a state power is the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment.
These “Agenda 21” measures are unlikely to develop legs, given that Indiana’s legislative leaders are looking to skirt as many hot-button issues as possible this session, focusing instead on the budget, education and jobs.
Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, said he’s surprised to see the “Agenda 21” proposal from lawmakers he’s previously worked with on other issues, “when they have been pragmatic and foresighted on tackling here-and-now challenges.”
“Indiana faces real environmental challenges with real economic impacts, like the blue-green algae problem, which is hurting our recreational sector and drinking water supplies,” Kharbanda said.
Environmental struggles have almost always consisted of charges that regulations will destroy economic growth and cost American jobs. Only recently have conservative Republicans’ arguments morphed into the threat of a global takeover of the United States.
Beating that drum is Beck and his new novel, named “Agenda 21.” In it, the U.N. creates a global government, abolishes the United States and forces Americans to run on treadmills to generate clean electricity for the New World Order.
“This is a massive movement, and its real intentions are being masked with environmental issues. The bad news is this was set up by those who want to establish a global government system,” Beck said in June 2011 on his Fox show, shortly before it was cancelled.
“Once they put their fangs in our community, they will suck all the blood out of it and we will not be able to survive.”
Before anyone can sink their “fangs” into the U.S., they’ll have to deal with a highly partisan and highly dysfunctional Congress. They would also have to get in line behind continued budget battles and another fight over raising the debt ceiling.
Washington has enough trouble with the basics these days without wading into other policy areas — like energy and the environment.