Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

June 16-17, 2011

US Grant Hotel

326 Broadway

San Diego, CA  92101

Meeting Summary

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Welcome and Introductions

Diane Austin, Acting Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB);
Cynthia Jones-Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and
Outreach (OFACMO); and Mark Joyce, EPA, OFACMO, GNEB Acting Designated
Federal Officer (DFO)

Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona), Acting Chair for GNEB,
welcomed members to the meeting and noted that after the introductions
and a review of the agenda, the Board will hear the morning’s
scheduled presentations. 

Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting Designated Federal Officer for
GNEB, explained that he worked with several federal advisory committees
that report to the President and Congress or the EPA Administrator. He
told the Board that he looked forward to the discussion of the GNEB 14th
report. He thanked the planning committee for identifying presenters for
this meeting and for organizing the previous day’s field trip. GNEB
members then introduced themselves. 

Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson (EPA, OFACMO) thanked and welcomed the Board
members and added her gratitude for the work of the planning committee.
Dr. Austin also thanked the members of the planning committee for
organizing the field trip and the meeting. She noted that GNEB members
had taken the charge to complete their work on the draft report
seriously, and she was confident that there would be a more complete
draft report for discussion at the September meeting. She stated that,
because of the full agenda, presentations would be kept to 20 minutes
and questions and answers limited to 10 minutes. If questions remain
after the 10-minute period, members should write their questions down;
they will be collected and given to the presenters who can respond via
e-mail. She mentioned that members also could pose their questions to
the presenters during breaks. Dr. Austin stated that a reception for the
GNEB members will be held at 6:00 p.m., so the Board cannot work past
that time. 

Dr. Austin then introduced the first presenter, Ms. Donna Tisdale. 

Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the
U.S.-Mexico Border Region

Unintended Consequences?

Donna Tisdale, Secretary, Protect Our Communities Foundation

Ms. Tisdale explained that she is a lifelong border resident from a
farming family.  Low income communities in the Imperial Valley already
are being disproportionately affected by large-scale renewable energy
projects, but residents in these areas love where they live and do not
plan to leave. The area has been targeted as the renewable energy hub,
but the residents do not support this development. The residents have
chosen this area because to be close to nature. Federal agencies are
unlawfully down-zoning previously protected public lands that were zoned
to protect critical resources. Additionally, federal and state agencies
are allowing large companies to take water from designated sole source
aquifers. 

Ms. Tisdale mentioned numerous renewable energy projects in her area,
including wind and solar projects that will each require new lines and
substations; most of these projects impact private rural land. This
“land rush” will have lasting impacts on the area; for example, the
scraping of tens of thousands of acres of sensitive public land and
intact habitat will increase erosion, dust storms, and respiratory
diseases; and groundwater will be siphoned off from stressed desert
aquifers that feed local wells, and local communities have no alternate
affordable water source. Much of the impacted area has been identified
as globally significant—a rare Mediterranean mosaic with abundant
wildlife and critical wildlife corridors. In addition, billions of
dollars are being redistributed from tax and utility rate payers to
for-profit corporations, many of which are foreign owned; and developers
are undermining and gutting local land use and community plans and
protections, and negatively affecting home values. 

The impact on wildlife is significant. Additionally, sites sacred to
American Indians are being slated for use in energy development
projects. Critical resources, heritage, and legacies are being lost,
damaged, destroyed, or removed on a massive scale. These resources
should be designated as Properties of Religious and Cultural Importance.

Most experienced health, noise, sleep, and other problems. Medical and
scientific experts investigating wind turbine impacts recommend a
minimum of a 1.25 mile setback with 2 miles or more in hilly open
terrain to protect public health and safety. Concentrated turbine
projects cannot meet these safe setback recommendations. Additional
concerns include:  (1) 30 to 40 year conversion of prime farmland into
industrial solar zones in violation of the Farmland Protection Act; (2)
cumulative impacts from multiple projects in condensed targeted areas
surrounding rural low-income communities; (3) industrial conversion of
public lands adversely impacts recreation areas and tourism dollars for
economically depressed rural communities; (4) high levels of noise
and/or electrical pollution are generated by wind turbines, solar
inverters, transformers, substations, and transmission lines; and (5)
intermittent energy generates dirty electricity, or electromagnetic
pollution, which has been linked to a variety of illnesses and cancer. 

Because of these numerous concerns, Ms. Tisdale asked that GNEB consider
making the following recommendations to the President and Congress: 

Focus efforts on energy conservation and point of use renewable energy
projects that do not need extensive infrastructure upgrades and eminent
domain. 

Stop the fast tracking and funding of these large-scale projects, the
use of priceless and irreplaceable desert groundwater, and the
destruction of sensitive habitat, cultural resources, and rural
communities.

Support negatively affected residents and communities.

Initiate and fund unbiased, scientific third-party full-spectrum noise,
electrical, and health studies. 

Support a moratorium on wind turbine projects within a minimum 2-mile
radius of occupied buildings, sensitive receptors, and non-participating
property lines, until valid dose-response peer-reviewed studies have
been completed.

Help impacted tribal residents who are suffering from the Kumeyaay
turbines. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services and
Housing Authority have independent trust responsibilities that should
not be ignored.

Discussion

Dr. Cyrus Reed (Sierra Club), GNEB member, commented that one of Ms.
Tisdale’s recommendations was more independent testing of high
frequencies. Can someone from a government organization discuss the
current rules on high frequencies so that the Board has some context for
the recommendation? He had never heard of the recommended 2-mile setback
between a turbine and development. Dr. Austin stated that one of the
first things GNEB would do that evening is to identify what additional
information is needed for the report. She asked if anyone could respond
to Dr. Reed’s question. Mr. Jose Angel (California River Basin Region
Water Quality Control Board), GNEB member, appreciated Ms. Tisdale’s
concerns because there had been a few solar projects in Ocotillo,
California. He asked about the water demands for these projects. Ms.
Tisdale responded that the developers have had trouble finding water and
using farm water creates problems; using recycled water affects the
drains, wetlands, and Salton Sea levels. Finding water for the renewable
energy projects is a difficult task, and some geothermal projects use
4,000 acre feet of water per year. 

Dr. Teresa Pohlman (Department of Homeland Security [DHS]), GNEB member,
thanked Ms. Tisdale for her presentation, and asked if GNEB could
receive some of the studies she had discussed. Dr. Pohlman added that
DHS and the Department of Defense (DoD) are examining the disruption of
radar by wind turbines. 

Ms. Cecilia Aguillon (Kyocera Solar, Inc.), GNEB member, said that, in
her personal opinion, the noise was incredibly high from the single
panel tree that the group saw on its field trip the previous day.
Ms. Tisdale mentioned that it took 173 of those panels to create one
megawatt (MW) of energy. Ms. Aguillon stated that renewable energy is a
global endeavor, and the trend in Europe is toward smaller scale
installations on rooftops, for example. She wondered if this move to
smaller projects has been spurred in part because of the concerns Ms.
Tisdale mentioned. Ms. Tisdale commented that smaller rooftop
installation projects are not popular in the United States because such
systems cut into the profits of the utility companies. In the 1980s, a
number of rooftop solar projects were installed in Germany because there
were government subsidies for them. The same thing could be done in the
United States, and it would save people money on their energy bills.

Mr. Luis Olmedo (Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.), GNEB member, stated
that he was familiar with Ms. Tisdale’s work and the number of
volunteer hours she devoted on it. One major problem is that the solar
installation developers are not committed to creating sustainable jobs.
Ms. Tisdale said she had testified at the planning commission hearings
on the solar installation. She raised the issue that the company was
trying to be exempted from the sales tax, but was providing no benefit
to the county. County staff did not have the financial or technical
expertise to deal with these projects, and there was concern, but the
supervisors wanted the project to go forward. 

Mr. Larry Starfield (EPA Region 6), GNEB member, stated that fossil fuel
plants can also have harmful effects on the environment in ways not
mentioned by Ms. Tisdale, so it’s important to explore alternatives. 
Is there a way to encourage the use of alternative energies, such as
wind and solar, that would have less impact on human health and the
environment? Ms. Tisdale asserts that there may be violations associated
with the renewable energy projects in Imperial County, but if that were
not the case, would the renewable energy installations still be a
problem? 

Ms. Tisdale replied that although no one in the area opposed the
turbines when they were installed in 2005, she could not ask anyone to
accept them in their community now, after experiencing their effects.
Some residents 5 miles from the turbines are kept awake at night by the
noise. Her community would prefer small rooftop solar installations or
small low profile solar fields. 

Dr. Austin introduced the next presenter, Mr. Pablo Gutierrez.

Policy Issues Associated With the Development of Renewable Energy in the
California-Mexico Region

Pablo Gutierrez, Geothermal Program Technical Lead, California Energy
Commission

Mr. Gutierrez explained that the California Energy Commission (CEC) was
created in 1974 by the California legislature. The CEC has five major
responsibilities:  (1) licensing thermal power plants 50 MW or larger;
(2) forecasting future energy needs and keeping historical energy data;
(3) promoting energy efficiency through appliance and building
standards; (4) planning for and directing state response to energy
emergencies; and (5) developing and supporting research and development
of renewable energy technologies. The CEC has authority over solar
thermal and geothermal power projects greater than 50 MW, but does not
have authority over photovoltaic, wind, nuclear, or hydroelectric power
plants. CEC is the lead state Agency for review and compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He noted that power plants
must complete a multitude of steps before they are awarded a license. 

California’s short- and long-term energy driver is the state’s
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goal. At the same time,
California needs to maintain reliable and affordable energy supplies
while using less carbon intensive energy sources. In April 2011,
Governor Jerry Brown signed the renewable portfolio standard into law
requiring all retail sellers of electricity and all publicly owned
utilities to procure renewable energy resources at set target points
(20% by December 31, 2013, up to 33% by December 31, 2020). The CEC
policy has recognized an electricity “loading order” as the
preferred sequence for meeting electricity demands. The loading order is
as follows:  energy efficiency and demand response, renewable resources,
and clean and efficient natural gas-fired power plants. As of 2009,
California’s electricity supply consisted of almost 46 percent natural
gas and nearly 11 percent from renewables. California’s electrical
grid produces more than 296,000 gigawatt hours per year that is
transported through 32,000 miles of transmission lines. In 2009,
California produced 69 percent of its own electricity, and imported 7
percent from the Pacific Northwest and 24 percent from the Southwest.
The installed capacity of the 1,008 power plants totals 69,709 MW. 

The state faces severe infrastructure challenges including transmission
and distribution congestion, ensuring adequate electricity supplies
while reducing GHG emissions and increasing renewable energy resources
and variable resources such as wind and solar. The state is trying to
remove some of the following barriers to geothermal development:
environmental permitting delays, financing, exploration costs, loss of
incentives, supply shortages, lack of information, and lack of access to
transmission. CEC’s geothermal program mission is to promote the
research, development, demonstration and commercialization of
California’s enormous geothermal energy resources. Since 1980, the
geothermal program has provided funding for projects with more than 174
public and private entities, and in 2011, four grants were awarded.
California’s large geothermal base consists of 2,565 MW of installed
capacity and 49 power plants, and 2,100 MW running capacity. Thirty
projects with the potential to increase installed capacity from 712 to
738 MWs now are under development. Additional potential from known
geothermal resources is estimated up to 4,600 MW and undiscovered
resources may provide an additional 3,200 to 25,000 MW. 

Installed capacity in the California-Mexico region totals 625 MW, which
is more than one-third of the installed capacity in California; 16
plants are operating in Imperial County. Thirteen geothermal prospects
have been documented in the Imperial Valley for a total of 3,263 MW. CEC
must continue to support geothermal activities by encouraging continued
research on geothermal technologies, research focused on energy policy
goals, and geothermal industry participation in state policy activities.
Geothermal technologies research includes resource assessments for
adding electrical generation. More advanced tools and techniques for
exploration and resource assessment are needed. Research focused on
energy policy goals would include:  improved environmental protection,
improved subsurface exploration, innovative water use, life-cycle
analysis, evaluation and analysis of co-located resources (with solar or
wind), and energy storage. 

Discussion

Ms. Tisdale asked whether plumes of steam from the geothermal plant near
the Salton Sea could be captured to generate more electricity. Mr.
Gutierrez responded that it would be possible, but many of the power
plants are 30 to 35 years old, and run inefficiently. How companies
operate the plants is beyond CEC’s monitoring purview. 

Mr. Olmedo noted that geothermal energy had received millions of dollars
in fines in the past few years for releasing toxic materials, and asked
if Mr. Gutierrez had any information to share on environmental
safeguards for geothermal facilities. Mr. Gutierrez stated that
enforcement actions generally are the responsibility of the county, but
CEC can and should make note when facilities are out of compliance.
Additionally, the Department of Toxics should be involved in any
hazardous waste enforcement, but CEC does not have an enforcement arm. 

Mr. Starfield commented that the fourth slide in the presentation stated
that CEC was the lead agency in California for review and ongoing
compliance. Does the CEC oversee projects to ensure that they are done
right? Additionally, the presentation discussed grants given by CEC. As
a condition of these grants, does CEC examine whether there will be any
benefit to the community from the grant? Mr. Gutierrez commented that
before CEC announces the availability of research money for grants, it
develops criteria for technically sound and environmentally useful
projects. Among the criteria reviewed are the impacts on water and air,
and the requirement for reducing GHGs. These are delineated in the
request for proposals. With regard to the question on CEC oversight of
projects, facility siting involves CEQA and there is some monitoring of
construction. The enforcement, however, is quite limited. 

Mr. Edward Drusina (International Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC])
GNEB member, asked what geothermal research was taking place in Mexico,
and if there are any cooperative efforts at sites located along the
border. Mr. Gutierrez responded that cooperation between the two
countries is at the colleague level rather than the research level. CEC
does not have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Mexican
government. He mentioned that the CEC executive staff would be more
knowledgeable about these interactions.  

Mr. Angel noted that geothermal projects produce several waste streams
including brines, and depending on the constitution of these brines,
they are regulated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control or by
the Water Quality Control Board. In Imperial County in particular, the
Water Quality Control Board regulates the majority of the geothermal
plants. The brine needs to be managed and contained, because it is a
threat to many bird species. He stated that there is oversight of the
geothermal facilities. With respect to CEQA review and compliance, Mr.
Angel noted that the reduction of office staff from 50 to 30 has made it
difficult to review environmental documents; the staff may not have the
capacity or the clinical expertise to review some of the documents.
Water is a significant concern, and is one of the major factors in
determining which projects will move forward in Imperial County. This
county has very little groundwater and almost all of the water comes
from the Colorado River. Most of the 3.2 million acre feet of water in
Imperial County is allocated to agriculture. 

Dr. Reed commented that the CEC did not have licensing authority for
photovoltaic solar, wind, and hydroelectric. Are there licensing
requirements for these types of development in California, or is there
another agency responsible for licensing these facilities?  Mr.
Gutierrez answered that those licensing requirements either were at the
federal or local levels. Dr. Reed asked whether interconnection
agreements were handled with the grid operator or through the CEC. Mr.
Gutierrez replied that CEC did not get involved in the interconnection
process; it is examined during the licensing process. 

Energy and Environment in the California-Baja California Border Region:
 Race to the Bottom?

Bill Powers, Powers Engineering

Mr. Powers explained that his presentation title was based on 10 years
of experience working as a citizen watchdog in the region on energy
projects. Within the past year, Presidents Obama and Calderon have
established a Department of Energy (DOE) task force with its counterpart
in Baja California. They charged the task force with promoting
development of cross-border energy transfer and renewable energy
transfer, specifically wind energy from Baja California. The task force
lacks an environmental component and public information on task force
members is not available. The U.S. Government does not support making
Baja California a renewable energy development center for California. A
letter to Sempra Energy from Senators Feinstein and Boxer stated that
adding power from Mexico to the transmission line would limit the
line’s ability to deliver renewable power from Imperial County. A
proposed link between Sempra’s existing line and the U.S. transmission
line is seeking a Presidential permit through DOE. Shell, Sempra, and BP
are the major players involved in the project. Sempra Energy also owns
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E).

The border region has gone through three waves:  the first was that the
United States made the U.S.-Mexico border region an energy hub for
natural gas-fired power plants. In the early 2000s, there were 12 to 16
gas plants proposed just over the border to feed power into the United
States. That scheme fell apart when the U.S. gas and power market
crashed after the energy crisis in 2001.

In the Mexicali hub, the DOE presidential permits are for 1,200 MW but
only 600 MW are on each line that feeds into the Imperial Valley
substation. The original SDG&E transmission plan was to build a
predecessor to the power link that would connect to the substation in
Imperial County and ultimately feed into the Los Angeles basin. In 2004,
Sempra Energy told a trade journal that they were in Mexico because of
low-cost labor, quick permitting, and more lax environmental rules for
facilities. Sempra had a vision of energy maquiladoras. At the same
time, InterGen’s Shell plant was shut down as a result of InterGen
misleading the government into believing that the plant’s export
turbines were fitted with pollution control devices. It cannot be
assumed that U.S. and international corporations in Baja California are
going to be good corporate citizens. In 2006, Sempra paid a $350 million
settlement for running gas trades to a Rosarito, Baja California power
plant to drive up Southern California natural gas prices during the 2001
energy crisis. Also in 2006, Sempra was fined $70 million for violating
the terms of its 10-year electricity contract with the state, and in
2009, Sempra paid a $1.1 million settlement for misleading California
utility commissioners on the viability of a southern route for the
Sunrise Powerlink transmission line (the alternative route would have
run the line through California’s largest state park); $200,000 of the
settlement was allocated for ethics training for senior executives. Mr.
Powers suggested that an effective monitoring regime would be preferable
to this training. 

Sempra’s 10-year, $7 billion electricity supply contract with
California ends in September 2011. The Mexicali power plant will have no
captive buyer when the contract ends. Sempra buys liquefied natural gas
(LNG) from BP Tangguh (Indonesia) for about $6 per million Btu under a
20-year contract. This has turned out to be a poor business decision
because the cost of LNG from Indonesia is 50 percent higher than the
current domestic price of natural gas in the United States. Shale gas
has helped lower the U.S. domestic natural gas price and gas prices are
expected to remain low for the foreseeable future. When the state
contract ends, there is a question of what to do with the Mexicali power
plant and the Costa Azul LNG terminal. In October 2008, a CEC analysis
identified the Costa Azul LNG facility as the future regional natural
gas-fired power plant energy hub. 

Environmental impacts from the Costa Azul LNG terminal include the
following: 

The GHG burden of LNG imports is about 25 percent higher than for
domestic natural gas. 

The Indonesian raw field gas is rich in CO2, which is vented to the
atmosphere at the liquefaction plant.

Liquefaction and shipping of LNG are energy intensive. 

The seawater LNG reheat system at Costa Azul uses large amounts of
seawater in the once-through heating system.

For the Mexicali power plants, there are no air emission offsets,
despite the poor air quality in Imperial County and Mexicali, and there
is no requirement to report results of continuous emissions monitoring. 

With the Sempra Energía Sierra Juárez (ESJ) wind proposal, Mexican
renewables are ineligible for U.S. tax credits, which for wind equate to
about 3 cents/KWh. La Rumorosa developers have quoted wind capacity
factors of 30 percent compared to the 35 to 40 percent from U.S. wind
companies. The Sunrise Powerlink or some other transmission solution
would be needed to move La Rumorosa wind to load centers. SDG&E has
applied to contract for 450 MW of peaking gas turbines, an approximately
$500 million investment to help address the intermittency of wind power.
Another issue, specifically with DOE, is the idea of granting a
“generator tie” to Sempra for wind generation. This would mean one
corporation would be granted a private toll road status to any renewable
energy development in Baja California. Data show there is no cost
advantage to developing wind over solar energy. San Diego area wind
turbines provide the least power in the summer months, when the demand
for electricity is the highest, while solar photovoltaic power is
reliably available on hot summer afternoons when electricity demand, and
the cost of power, is highest.

California now is moving away from large-scale remote renewable energy
projects to local projects. Too many projects, however, are being
conducted on undeveloped lands in both the United States and Mexico,
instead of on retired agricultural lands or brownfields. A 1,000 MW
Solar Millenium project (Blythe Solar) will disturb 7,000 acres of
undisturbed public land. EPA’s “RE-Powering America’s Land”
initiative should help to site renewable energy on potentially
contaminated land and mine sites. 

In conclusion, the U.S.-Mexico border region should not be an energy
export zone. The border region is used by U.S. energy companies:  as a
shield from U.S. regulatory oversight while gaining full access to the
U.S. market, to avoid U.S.-level environmental compliance while gaining
full access to the U.S. market, and to avoid paying U.S. labor rates.
Additionally, Mexico absorbs a high environmental impact while gaining
little economic development. 

Discussion

Ms. Tisdale asked Mr. Powers to comment on public utilities’ oversight
and recent accidents. Mr. Powers responded that he had been battling
the transmission line for 10 years, but that he was not impressed by
helicopters dropping transmission towers without notice. In general,
there is a lack of oversight in both the United States and Mexico. 

Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ]),
GNEB member, thanked Mr. Powers for his presentation, and noted the
value of holding meetings in the border region to hear the local
perspective. Many of the issues raised in the presentation were related
to recommendations that GNEB made last year in the Board’s call for
renewal of the Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA)
agreement through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Projects
are conducted in Mexico that affect the environment in the United
States, and the reverse also is true. This should have been completed by
January 1, 1997. Mr. Niemeyer has yet to see the outcomes from the
interagency working group that is addressing recommendations from last
year’s GNEB report. Texas has been asking for this since 1996; these
presentations certainly support the need for the agreement. 

Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department), GNEB member, told
Mr. Powers that he served on the Border Governors Conference Environment
Board representing New Mexico. The State Department will be receiving a
letter soon from that Board asking the State Department and other
agencies to examine the TEIA issue. 

Dr. Reed asked if the Department of Interior (DOI) guidelines to locate
large renewable energy projects mentioned by Mr. Powers in one of his
slides were final. Mr. Powers answered that the letter from the
California Desert and Renewable Energy Working Group that was sent to
DOI at the end of December 2010 would be useful to GNEB. 

Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico
Border Region

Clean TECH San Diego

Lisa Bicker, President and CEO, Clean TECH San Diego

Ms. Bicker explained that Clean TECH San Diego’s role is to focus on
economic development of clean technology in the San Diego region. Clean
TECH San Diego was created in 2007 to support job creation, build a
common agenda among the region’s diverse clean technology
stakeholders, and prepare for and benefit from California’s proactive
regulatory policies. Clean TECH’s mission is to accelerate the San
Diego region as a world leader in the clean technology economy. Clean
TECH is a public-private partnership and a nonprofit entity. A number of
public sector entities participate in Clean TECH, but it primarily is
driven by the private sector. 

Ms. Bicker identified several reasons why San Diego was quick to advance
its clean energy economy. There are world class research institutes in
the greater San Diego region and it has a history of building economic
clusters—the clean technology cluster is a natural extension of the
existing high technology, biotechnology, and defense clusters. There are
767 clean technology companies in San Diego and the research institutes
in the region are located close together and share intellectual property
and employees. Clean TECH works to leverage all of these assets. San
Diego is home to more than 75 research institutes, five of which were
founded in the last 2 years, including the San Diego Center for Algae
Biotechnology (SDCAB), which is focused on creating an economic engine
around biofuels. 

San Diego also has a history of building successful clusters. The region
has more than 3,000 information technology and wireless companies,
almost 300 defense and security companies, and more than 600 life
science and biomedical companies. Both small and large companies are
prospering in the San Diego area, and it shows higher growth in average
number of patents published and granted than other regions in California
and Boston. In addition, San Diego is successful in attracting venture
capital dollars, leading in number of venture capital deals funded in
the first quarter of 2011.   

Almost 800 Clean TECH companies are based in the San Diego region,
including more than 300 innovator companies and more than 400 market
enabler companies. There is strong activity in solar, transportation,
batteries, energy storage, and biofuels. San Diego is known as the
number one solar city in California because of the high rate of
photovoltaic (PV) rooftop installations (100 MW installed). The city
also has a growing solar manufacturing base that is critical to growing
the region’s economy, including companies such as Kyocera Solar that
have made a strong commitment to the San Diego region. A French company,
Soitec Solar, just selected San Diego for the site of its manufacturing
facility, which will add 500 new high tech jobs. 

The San Diego area secured $154 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds
(CREBS), which is 19 percent of the total funding available through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and run through
the Internal Revenue Service. The CREBS program allowed local
governments to access no- or low-interest bonding capacity so that they
can own and operate their own solar plants and place solar installations
on government buildings. The financing opportunities will create new
jobs and approximately 20 MW of new solar power projects. The University
of California, San Diego (UCSD) launched its latest CREBS project just a
few weeks ago, hiring a local installer that uses union manpower and
when possible, American-made products. UCSD expects to realize $1.8
million of energy savings during the next 20 years. This is an example
of a creative financing mechanism offered by the Federal Government,
with the state playing a role and the private sector reaping benefits.

San Diegans also are early adopters of electric vehicles. Of the 20,000
Nissan Leafs available nationwide, 2,000 applications were submitted by
San Diegans. Universities are experimenting with using solar power as
the charging apparatus for electric vehicles. San Diego hosts 39 clean
transportation companies that employ 1,000 people and contribute $92
million to the San Diego payroll, and there are more than 30 biofuels
companies in the region. Additionally, San Diego, as a border city, has
tremendous international relationships, which is an important strategic
advantage for the city in the clean technology sector because other
countries are looking for avenues for exporting or importing their
products. 

Discussion

Ms. Aguillon thanked Ms. Bicker for helping GNEB to arrange the biofuels
site visit the previous day. Ms. Bicker noted that Ms. Aguillon is a
member of Clean TECH San Diego, an important thought leader in the
community, and part of the reason San Diego is seen as a leader in the
clean technology economy. 

Dr. David Henkel (University of New Mexico), GNEB member, asked what
kind of future demand model was used to examine growth of renewable
energy in the region. Ms. Bicker replied that much of California is
driven by an aggressive policy agenda, and two trends in particular
drive demand:  policy and technology innovation. In San Diego, there is
a focus on securing and protecting research and development dollars and
protecting universities. One in three biotechnology companies was
founded by a University of California professor, so maintaining a fluid
relationship between universities and the economic sector is critical. 

Mr. Olmedo noted that on the previous day’s tour the issue was raised
that the jobs created for large scale solar tend to be short term. Much
of the manufacturing of solar panels in the United States is being
carried out in San Diego. He asked how Imperial County residents could
be better advocates for themselves to ensure that there is creation of
sustainable jobs. Ms. Bicker answered that it was a challenge for the
region, and Clean TECH San Diego sees its purview as reaching into Baja
California and Imperial County. These geographic areas are assets. It is
frustrating when someone has been trained for a green job, but there are
no jobs available. Clean TECH is focused on smart job training, and is
the beneficiary of a grant from the California Department of Labor for
training programs. The biotechnology area was chosen as it is a growing
area and it is important to ensure that as companies move from research
and development into production and commercialization, there will be a
San Diego-based skilled work force available. Clean TECH partnered with
UCSD to create five new training certificates. One certificate is for
post-graduates, but three are at the community college level and are
geared toward the Imperial Valley work force. This program is geared
toward bringing employers to the table, and Clean TECH believes it will
have a higher success rate than with dislocated workforce training. 

Dr. Reed asked whether the CREBS were grants or loans. Ms. Bicker
responded that they were allocations, so the city of Chula Vista
received an allocation of $19 million and needs to get bonding capacity.
CREBS are no- or low-interest bonding capacity, and the city would issue
bonds and use them to own and operate PV rooftop installations. Dr. Reed
commented that several years ago San Diego attempted to create a loan
program for energy efficiency and solar but he did not believe that it
had gone forward. Ms. Bicker replied that three independently owned
utilities have on-bill financing for energy efficiency technologies, but
it is a gap that the same tools are not available for solar energy. The
Mayor of San Diego and other mayors have been examining creative
approaches to providing additional financing for energy efficiency. 

Mr. Niemeyer asked for definitions of the terms “clean” and
“green.” Does clean mean that chemical use is minimized, or that no
hazardous chemicals are used? Ms. Bicker answered that the goal is to
accomplish the same objective with cleaner resources or by using less
energy. That does not mean that chemicals are not used, but that an
existing practice is being improved. When she discusses the clean
technology economy, she means companies that are building technologies
or using technologies in a new way. Mr. Niemeyer commented that there is
no perfect energy supply, because there are tradeoffs for everything.
The report needs to have a balanced approach, and the current draft
reflects that balance.

Mr. Starfield noted that when discussing economic benefits, jobs are at
the top of the list. If an alternative energy project is located in an
environmental justice or low income community, are the companies giving
any thought to how they can help communities in ways other than jobs,
such as providing solar panels so the community members can reduce their
energy costs? Ms. Bicker said that she was not aware of such examples,
but she liked the concept. She cautioned that San Diego is, in some
respects, a smaller market without a lot of big projects. Mr. Starfield
noted that EPA often works with local emergency planning commissions and
the companies that work with into them, to all contribute a small amount
to a project for the community’s benefit that is larger than what any
individual participant might be able to fund; he suggested that perhaps
such a type of model would be useful. Ms. Aguillon noted that, before
the solar initiative, there were approximately 400 companies doing
business in California; now, there are more than 1,400. Ms. Bicker
added that Clean TECH sought to measure jobs, direct economic activity,
and indirect economic activity. Dr. Austin noted that the idea of
companies giving back to the communities is taken for granted in the oil
and gas and mining industries and agreed that the idea that  companies
involved in alternative energy had not developed mechanisms for giving
back to communities was fascinating; companies should consider this part
of what it takes to do business in a community.  

Mr. Olmedo asked if most of the solar panel manufacturing is being
conducted in Mexico and then the panels are brought into the United
States to be completed and labeled “Made in the USA.” Ms. Aguillon
answered that Kyocera has twin plants, and everything that is done in
Mexico also is done in the United States. 

Small-Scale Solar for Social, Economic and Environmental Justice 

Nicole Capretz, Director, Green Energy/Green Jobs Campaign,
Environmental Health Coalition

Ms. Capretz told GNEB that she would present the perspective of low
income, underserved communities on the local clean industry. The
Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) has been in San Diego for 30 years
and builds grassroots campaigns to improve the health of children,
families, neighborhoods, and the natural environment in the San
Diego/Tijuana region. EHC is part of the state-wide organization
California Environmental Justice Association (CEJA).   

Environmental justice communities have high pollution levels, high
asthma incidence, high poverty levels, and high unemployment. Although
unemployment is declining in San Diego, it is not in the communities EHC
serves. As climate change and ensuing extreme weather events occur,
EHC’s communities are going to be the least able to adapt. EHC is an
urban environmental organization, and its communities do not have many
green areas or parks. The abundant concrete creates the heat island
effect and community members often lack air conditioning and
transportation to get to cooling centers. With climate change, the
pollution in these communities is likely to increase.  

The solution to these problems could be in opportunities presented by
the green energy economy:  clean air, clean infrastructure, jobs,
healthy homes, revitalized neighborhoods, and an influx of money into
the community. Local solar power means permanent jobs such as equipment
manufacturing and assembly, professional services, installation, and
system monitoring. EHC communities have benefitted from ARRA funds and
training programs and centers. Often, however, there are no jobs
available for people who complete training programs. San Diego is the
number one solar city in California, but there are no solar panels
installed in EHC’s communities, because this technology is still
accessible only to the wealthy. SDG&E built a large transmission line
out to the desert and is thus far meeting most of its renewable energy
goals with remote large-scale solar installations, and 99 percent of the
total energy is generated outside the county. A 200 MW solar plant in
Imperial Valley is expected to create 300 jobs during the 18-month
construction phase, but only five permanent jobs will be created. 

EHC is given a seat at the table at many policy discussions at the local
level and state level. EHC wants:  a feed-in-tariff designed with
social/economic justice issues (so homeowners and businesses can sell
the electricity they generate back to utilities); better and cheaper
financing for energy efficiency and solar energy; local hire provisions
in utility contracts and government agency contracts; and solar and
construction companies reaching out to nontraditional neighborhoods.
California’s governor has confirmed his commitment to 12,000 MW of
local renewable systems as part of an economic development plan, and to
integrating social, environmental, and economic justice issues into the
implementation plan. 

Discussion

Dr. Reed asked how a utility makes money from a small-scale solar
installation.  Are there models where utilities would own small-scale
installations and sell the energy? Ms. Aguillon said that there were two
major reasons the governor moved to the small scale:  (1) the renewable
energy goal had already been met on paper, and (2) local job creation.
Utilities can make money with the feed-in-tariff. Dr. Reed added that
models that can work for community members but also utilities should be
examined. Ms. Capretz replied that utilities can make money with both
small- and large-scale installations. Dr. Reed commented that the border
region in the United States contains four states with four different
kinds of markets, so effects on utilities may differ. Ms. Aguillon added
that because of the differences, it is impossible to have a national
energy policy. 

Dr. Henkel asked Ms. Capretz what kind of engagement is used with low
income potential consumers when discussing lower scale projects. Ms.
Capretz replied that there is ongoing outreach with the communities,
which includes going door to door to educate the local residents about
climate change and green energy, and holding training sessions at the
organization. There are training sessions for promotoras on becoming a
community leader and on subject matter. EHC communities want to invest
in the green economy. Dr. Henkel asked how EHC was funded. Ms. Capretz
answered that EHC received some government funding, but most of its
funding came through private foundations. 

Mr. Christopher Lawrence (DOE), GNEB member, mentioned that the Board
might want to examine New Jersey, which is the second leading state in
the country for solar deployment. New Jersey has various rebates and
incentives for small-scale solar installations. 

Dr. Pohlman noted that there is a clear nexus between GNEB and the
Environmental Justice Working Group, and that might be a section in the
report. Mr. Olmedo complemented the work that EHC was conducting in San
Diego and throughout the state. 

Mr. Nathan Small (New Mexico Wilderness Alliance) GNEB member, commented
that the border states present a fractured environment in terms of
energy policy and political leadership. He noted that California leads
the way in policy. He suggested that as the Board thinks about its
recommendations, it should consider the connections of community-based
groups (or Clean TECH San Diego) with other states. Ms. Bicker said that
her group was regionally focused. Some members’ activities are not
limited to the San Diego region, and although the group is sensitive to
that, Clean TECH’s goal is to protect jobs in the San Diego area. It
does, however, share policy models and generic assets with other states.


Independent Energy Solutions

Kathy MacDougall, Director of Human Resources, Independent Energy
Solutions (IES), Inc. 

Ms. MacDougall noted that the name “Independent,” when the company
was created more than 11 years ago, meant that the company intended to
be independent of all energy sources so that it would be completely off
grid, but that is not the case today. The company focuses on projects
that are 4 MW or less, but it is scaling up to be able to support the
next step. She indicated that jobs follow successful industry, industry
follows policy, and policy creation that is incentivized is what is seen
in the small-scale solar boom in the San Diego region. In 2009, 11.6
percent of energy came from renewable sources, but California’s goal
is 33 percent by 2020. The market-based incentives have made IES
successful. The company does not serve the residential market, but the
military, industrial, and commercial markets. The rebates are critical
to keeping the solar and renewable energy market growing in the San
Diego region. The California Public Utilities Commission took over the
incentive process, and their goal is to reach 1,940 MW of installed
solar capacity by 2016. 

Renewable energy is needed in the San Diego area because of
unanticipated increase in local energy demand, slower than expected
generating capacity, stage two electricity alerts, and rolling
blackouts.  Renewable energy also can help to stabilize electricity
prices, provide environmental benefits, meet peak usage coverage, and
provide electricity for high demand areas. As solar energy becomes more
affordable, and as the average price of electricity increases, the solar
industry will be more interested in participating on the smaller scale.
San Diego is the perfect place for a small industry to be located,
because there is access to a trained workforce and manufacturing
facilities. 

IES is one of 181 solar companies in the local region, employing 25-85
full-time employees depending on the project pipeline. During the last 3
years, IES generated $13.8 million in annual revenue, spent $1.3 million
on local labor, and purchased $8.2 million of goods for projects. IES is
just one of the many small companies in the San Diego area so the
benefits to the region of these renewable energy companies is
substantial. 

IES is an environmentally friendly company whose purpose is to:  help
customers save money while assisting them in becoming energy
independent; serve people without access to conventional power; raise
the industry’s standards through leadership by example; and create
jobs in the community. Engineering is IES’ core strength, and the
company has developed a strong partnership with the utilities. IES
provides best practices project management, construction management,
construction licenses, field installation, and field service. The
environmental impact of IES’ work, with an average commercial project
size of 914 kW, is the production of approximately 1.45 million KWh per
year, and the accompanying carbon dioxide emissions reduction of 1,135
tons in the first year. To secure continued environmental impact, IES
will serve California’s energy needs with continued renewable energy
incentives, ensure that the Cash Grants Program and tax credit remain
available, secure project financing to provide an attractive return on
investment, examine Tradable Renewable Energy Credits benefits, and
drive renewable energy goals beyond 2020.

Discussion

Ms. Aguillon commented that IES had created permanent jobs during its 11
years in business. Ms. MacDougall noted that the reduction in
incentives have had an impact on the industry. 

Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control), GNEB member, asked whether
longer-term financial incentives by the government would create more
demand for photovoltaic energy. Ms. MacDougall stated that the
incentives through the utilities have declined and it would be helpful
to resurrect those incentives. She noted, however, that there is no
mechanism for funding projects in the commercial/industrial setting that
makes sense for business people. Mr. Gillen stated that the Board had
heard about incentives that are given for 1 year at a time while a
company is working on a 5-year project, for example. Longer-term
incentives are needed to allow better financial planning and management
for these projects. Ms. MacDougall commented that wind projects are
longer term. Small-scale solar projects take months rather than years,
but when the return on investment is examined, the benefit from a
long-term incentive is important. Ms. Bicker added that this is critical
from a private-sector perspective because certainty is valued. 

Mr. Robert Apodaca (U.S. Department of Agriculture), GNEB member,
commented that he had not heard much about the transmission or the
distribution capacities with respect to renewable energies.
Ms. MacDougall said she could take ask her technical team to develop a
response. Ms. Aguillon noted that distributed generation works to
reduce transmission and distribution issues.

Dr. Reed asked if IES receives its products from different
manufacturers. Ms. MacDougall said that IES had preferences based on
size, location, and footprint. 

Mr. Gutierrez stated that California faces a serious constraint on its
transmission and distribution systems. Several studies have been
conducted by the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, and those
reports are available on the CEC website.  

Public Comments

Maria Elena Giner

Ms. Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC), stated that the BECC was created because of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and has certified 184 projects to
date, which total $4.2 billion. About 65 percent of that work has been
in the water and wastewater areas. Because of these projects, BECC has
developed a certain amount of credibility among state and local
governments. BECC now is working on two documents that could be useful
for the next GNEB report. The first one concerns a project on climate
change with the six Mexican border states. In October, GHG inventories
for these states were published, and the inventories demonstrate that
between 70 and 80 percent of the emissions are coming from fossil fuels.
More than 30 percent are coming from residential/commercial/industrial
emissions, and between 20 and 50 percent are coming from the
transportation sector. Mexico has a clear federal policy on climate
change and has published a document that sets clear goals for the
Mexican Federal Government. Currently, Mexico’s goal is, by the end of
2012, to have climate action plans for all the states in Mexico. They
will identify where the GHGs are and if they are coming from the energy
sector. Mexican states will be moving forward on renewable energy,
energy efficiencies, efficient public transportation, and landfill and
methane capture. It would be helpful for GNEB’s recommendations to
support some of these initiatives. 

BECC also is publishing a white paper to demonstrate the importance of
providing technical assistance funds to stakeholders for the development
of projects. Companies come to BECC stating that they have technologies
to improve energy efficiency or tools for public planning, but states
and communities do not have the capacity or resources to evaluate what
would be best for their state or community. The paper describes the
U.S.-Mexico border region and the limited amount of funding available
for technical assistance. Ms. Giner stated that once a project is
developed there are many who want it funded, but securing funding for
development is difficult. BECC provides about $40 million of technical
assistance, and 90 percent of that funding has evolved into built
projects. The paper emphasizes the success BECC has had with its
technical assistance program, and cites existing documents that describe
green jobs. It is estimated that for every $1 million invested in energy
efficiency projects, about 13 jobs are generated. A study in California
that examined the 34-year period from 1972 to 2006, found that 1.5
million full-time equivalent jobs were generated with the energy
efficiency savings realized during that period. 

In the renewable energy area, the biggest job generating opportunities
are in solar energy and landfill gas. Landfill gas, when captured,
generates more permanent jobs than the other sectors because of the
associated operation and maintenance. The study also conducted a survey
of the 10 border states to identify their important issues, and energy
efficiency keeps rising to the top. Ms. Giner stressed noted that
conservation should be performed before projects are built. In most
communities, the two largest energy consumers are the water utilities
and public lighting. These are two applications on which cities can work
to reduce their energy consumption. If a city that had 1.3 million
streetlights were to replace old lighting with LED technology, this
would be the equivalent of removing 150,000 vehicles. The study also
noted that energy efficiency will require the lowest investment and
provide the highest return. 

BECC conducted a study on climate change in conjunction with Arizona
State University (ASU) to identify issues important to the states. The
need for capacity building was mentioned consistently by the states. Ms.
Giner stated that communities are not able to develop projects, but
private-sector entities may be developing projects that could help those
communities. She suggested that BECC may be able to provide information
to GNEB that might support the different sections of the Board’s
report.  If the Board can share the report outline with BECC, she will
look for and provide that information. 

Dr. Pohlman asked Ms. Giner if she wanted GNEB to emphasize the synergy
between energy efficiency and renewable energy. Ms. Giner confirmed that
this was correct, and that technical assistance was the other important
message. In addition, conservation should be the first approach.  

Mr. Small stated that the Board had heard about the concerns and
problems associated with the large-scale remotely sited renewable energy
projects. Does BECC share those concerns? He thought there could be
synergy between BECC and GNEB to highlight in more detail some of the
potential problems with large scale installations. Ms. Giner replied
that, with the possible exception of California, she did not see many
large renewable energy projects going forward in the United States
because they are financially driven and there is too much price
uncertainty. The federal incentives will be expiring in 2012. In Mexico,
there is one energy provider, and the power purchase agreement is not
competitively priced as it would be in the United States. Additionally,
in Mexico, the ability for a power generator to use the transmission
lines is not well developed, so the timeline is long. No private
developer wants to take on those risks. The wind energy project in Baja
California was driven by the Federal Government and the state. BECC is
working on a solar project now in Nogales with EPA funding, and that
project is grant and community driven. 

Mr. Angel agreed with Ms. Giner that conservation and efficiency were
important. He thought the Board should bear that in mind when developing
its recommendations. 

Ms. Ann Marie Wolf (Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.), GNEB
member, thanked Ms. Giner and commented that the report was lacking a
section on efficiency and conservation. 

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva (Department of Transportation), GNEB member, asked
if the GHG inventories would be available on BECC’s website. Are the
inventories geographically based, or industry-based. Ms. Giner replied
that the GHG inventories were available on the BECC website in both
Spanish and English, and they were conducted at the state level. One of
the handouts Ms. Giner distributed contains a graph that compares the
inventories. They are tier one inventories, which are based on fuel
consumption in the states. 

Crystal Crawford

Ms. Crystal Crawford, a resident of Del Mar, California, served on the
city council there for 12 years and just retired last December. She also
was the city’s representative on the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) and the region’s representative on the California
Biodiversity Council. She became involved in cross-border issues in
1999. She was raised in the bayou area of Louisiana, which is swampland.
She noted the interest in sustainable practices, and stressed the point
that mistakes should not be repeated. In the 1930s, California passed
the Swampland Reclamation Act, which stated that swampland should be
filled so that it can be used for something productive. Now that 90
percent of the coastal wetlands in California have been filled or
impinged, we have learned that the wetlands are some of the most
valuable habitats. She stressed that the location of wind, solar, and
other renewable energy projects should be determined based on a thorough
examination of unintended consequences to the environment. California is
a biodiversity hotspot; there are more threatened and endangered species
in the San Diego/Imperial County/Northern Baja California region than in
any other place in the United States. Critical habitat areas intersect
with wind, solar, and geothermal projects. From the comments heard
today, it seems as though there are real concerns about the size of
these projects, and their impacts on this critical habitat. The goal
would be to avoid the problems experienced with the Sunrise Powerlink
project and the potential problems with locating a transmission line in
these desert areas. The desert habitat is as important in this part of
the country as the wetland areas are in Louisiana. 

GNEB is familiar with the cross-border challenges in coordinating with
the various agencies involved in both countries. Regulatory hurdles also
exist in coordinating all the energy policy agencies. The city of Del
Mar wanted to install photovoltaic cells on top of the water reservoirs,
but that energy cannot be willed to other buildings because of the
current regulatory climate. There have been efforts to change this but
that change has not occurred yet. Although the United States may not be
in a position to have a national energy policy, the government needs to
lead by providing the policy, incentives, and standards that will drive
the response in the marketplace. The Property Assessed Clean Energy
(PACE) residential financing program has not been successful for a
number of reasons. Financing mechanisms need to have incentives for
tenants so that landlords will be incentivized to create efficiencies in
their buildings. Many of the existing programs focus only on owners. 

Dr. Austin commented that she has seen pictures that show oil rigs right
in front of people’s homes during the period of rapid growth of the
oil industry in California and noted the similarities to the photos the
Board had seen of wind installations located right near people’s
homes. 

Micah Mitrosky

Ms. Mitrosky stated that she is the environmental organizer with the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 569
representing San Diego and Imperial counties. IBEW represents 750,000
electricians throughout the United States and Canada, and locally
represents 2,500. Local 569 has been a pioneer in the use of green
technologies and believes that the green economy holds exceptional
potential to create skilled career opportunities as well as combat
climate change. Local 569’s apprenticeship program includes skills
needed for solar, wind, and geothermal projects as well as energy
efficiency retrofits. Additionally, the union hall and training center
are both solar powered and energy efficient, many staff members drive
hybrid vehicles, and the installation of an electric vehicle charging
station is being finalized at the training center. Local 569 recently
opened the only state-certified electrical training facility.
Unemployment in Imperial County is 28 percent, which is the highest in
the country. With responsible green energy project siting that includes
appropriate environmental review, the green economy can be both
economically and environmentally sustainable. Unfortunately, the Sempra
Energy proposal jeopardizes Imperial County’s green future. Sempra has
proposed to build a 1,250 MW cross-border transmission line. The
proposal currently is being evaluated by DOE, which would be responsible
for issuing a Presidential permit for the project to move forward. The
transmission line will allow Sempra to connect energy projects over the
border with California’s grid. This would displace green energy
projects that would otherwise be built in Imperial County. Sempra’s
proposal would undermine several goals of President Obama’s
Administration, specifically facilitation of the export of American
jobs, increased dependency on imported energy, and deliverance of energy
to California from projects not meeting our stringent environmental and
labor standards. The electricians’ union in Mexico was dismantled
about 1 year ago, and the Mexican electricians are rallying to get it
reinstated. Imperial County cannot afford to outsource even one
construction job. IBEW opposes Sempra’s cross-border transmission
line, and is urging DOE to reject this plan to export green jobs out of
Imperial County. She asked GNEB to share this information with
legislators and other decision makers in Washington, DC. 

Mr. Olmedo commented that projects like Sempra’s transmission line
seem to follow a long history of industry-led projects. GNEB can weigh
in on these projects and ensure that there is a balanced evaluation
process.  

Dr. Henkel noted that Ms. Mitrosky’s presentation reinforced what the
GNEB members saw during the site visit yesterday. He appreciated her
mentioning the lack of a union for the Mexican electricians, and noted
that the union movement in Mexico has changed considerably since 1920.
Ms. Mitrosky responded that the electricians in Mexico must continue
fighting to reinstate their union because corporations are exploiting
the differences in environmental and labor laws over the border. IBEW
has been in contact with representatives from the Mexican
electricians’ union. The California State Association of Electrical
Workers passed a resolution opposing the cross-border line as well as
the efforts in Mexico to dismantle the Mexican union. More information
is available on the IBEW website at http://www.ibew569.org/. 

Dr. Austin thanked Ms. Mitrosky for her comments and the previous
day’s tour. She then asked the Committee Chairs to meet with her
during the break to discuss how to manage the session on the GNEB
report.   

Policy Issues Associated with the Development of Renewable Energy in the
U.S.-Mexico Border Region

Policy Issues Associated with the Development of Renewable Energy in the
U.S.-Mexico Border Region

Andrew McAllister, Director of Policy and Strategy, California Center
for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) 

Mr. McAllister commented that he had a great deal of experience with
energy efficiency and small-scale renewables, particularly solar. CCSE
runs many of the programs in the southern part of the state that address
those technologies. This presentation will examine larger scale
projects, and policy issues around these and cross-border renewable
energy development. CCSE does a lot of work at the statewide level, and
work for many government agencies administering their programs. CCSE
also provides technical assistance to both the public and private
sectors. 

Mr. McAllister noted that small-scale systems with less than 1 MW
typically are installed under net energy metering, which is a policy
driver. Approximately 20 states currently have net energy metering laws.
Onsite energy is offset if some excess is to be sold to the utility, but
it is a retail offset. It is cost effective, because people can offset
expensive energy by generating solar on their roofs for less than it
would cost to buy the same energy from the utility. This market is
growing, but net energy metering systems are not automatically eligible
for California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). There is
exponential growth of small installations across the State of
California.  About 65 percent of the Nation’s small-scale PV systems
are installed in California. CCSE developed a tool to help people
estimate the size and cost of their systems. 

A second policy driver is the California RPS, which will drive the bulk
of the new renewables. The RPS program required investor-owned
utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators
to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by at
least 1 percent of their retail sales annually, until they reach 20
percent by 2010. There are various pathways for systems to be installed
and credited toward the RPS. Currently in California, 20 percent of the
retail energy sellers must procure 20 percent renewable energy by 2010.
Not all of the utilities met the goal, but the rules allow them to keep
moving until they do. A ruling by the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) in January 2011, allowed 25 percent of the RPS
compliance to be met with purchased renewable energy certificates
(RECs). The utility procurements for RPS-eligible renewables are
prioritized and negotiated. Many contracts are signed, and some projects
are under development. Barriers may prevent some of the contracts from
becoming actual projects. These projects would get the level of
renewable energy to 33 percent RPS. Over time, the marketplace has
matured, and many bids are being placed. Wind and solar are the dominant
technologies. Within solar, PV has taken center stage during the past
few years. At the same time, a law has been passed to make 33 percent of
energy from renewables the law by 2020. It will become law 90 days after
the close of the current special session of the California legislature.
This will require a lot of work by the CPUC because it conflicts in some
ways with the existing law, particularly in the definition of
“delivering energy,” and the treatment of existing REC contracts.
There is a question as to whether there might be opportunities to
develop solar and wind energy across the border in Mexico and sell RECs
to the California market. It is unclear whether the utilities would be
required to buy those RECs. As soon as the 33 percent RPS law passed,
there was talk about getting to a 40 percent RPS, and Governor Brown is
interested, as are some legislators. In 2012, there may be a push for a
law to reach 40 percent RPS.   

There are a wide variety of programs that are “in front of the
meter” and they sell their energy to the utilities directly, making
them RPS eligible. These include:  a feed-in tariff with distributed
generation up to 5 MW with a 750 MW statewide cap; all three electric
utilities in the state have gotten their programs approved for procuring
systems hardware or power that would be RPS eligible; the Renewables
Auction Mechanism (RAM) for larger systems up to 20 MW per project;
contracts for qualifying facilities in 20 MW blocks; and Governor
Brown’s 20 GW renewables goal, 12 of which are distributed.  

Barriers to bringing RPS-eligible projects to fruition include the high
rate of project termination or delay because of permitting (CEC and/or
county), site control (e.g., federal lands), project financing,
equipment supply and procurement, transmission limitations for some
projects, developer experience, fuel supply, and contracting
enforcement. The last four issues are particularly relevant for
binational projects. 

Discussion

Dr. Henkel asked if there were any parallel organizations on the other
side of the border with which CCSE could work. Mr. McAllister answered
that in Mexico, most of his experience had been with industrial
facilities trying to create energy efficiencies. The environment in
Mexico is not as structured or as well regulated. Because there is a
state-owned utility, CCSE must work with those institutional entities to
get alignment. The big question is what the enforcement looks like in
practice. CCSE does not have any statutory authority; it informs the
energy commission and the public utilities commission of what the
marketplace needs. There is a community in Mexico that is knowledgeable
about this topic, and efforts should start there. 

Mr. Greg Eckert (Department of the Interior), GNEB member, asked about
the pricing structure for net metering. Mr. McAllister responded that
net metering was not a sales transaction but an offset transaction, so
it was not exactly retail. If a consumer had an energy bill of $200 per
month and installed solar PV, the first and second tier utility rates
would be low-cost energy. The next tiers are 3, 4, and 5, which are much
more expensive. In tier 5, there could be 35 to 40 cents per kilowatt
hour energy. If solar is installed on a net-metered basis, the consumer
is offsetting his own consumption onsite, starting at tier 5. In
California, until very recently, there has not been a requirement that a
utility buy excess power; that will change with a new requirement that
utilities compensate consumers for that energy, but it will only amount
to a few cents per kilowatt hour. 

Dr. Reed asked about the current rule in California in terms of
interstate RPS with some energy produced in California and some imported
from other states, and about the current rule for importing from Mexico.
Mr. McAllister replied that this has been a controversial topic, and
there is a lot of gray area. As of January 2011, 75 percent of the RPS
billable energy must be delivered energy. Whether or not it has to be
from California depends on the definition of “delivery.” If it is
just across the border in Mexico with a dedicated line, or if there is a
clear contractual relationship from the plant, it would qualify as
delivered. If it does not qualify as delivered, it would be reduced to
the 25 percent that are REC purchases, which can originate anywhere. 

Ms. Aguillon noted that California is getting power from Nevada and
Mexico because the energy has to go through the correct corridors to
ensure that the power is actually coming into the state. Dr. Reed
mentioned that he did not know how transmission works in California, and
who pays for it. If a company wants to build a project in the desert,
but there is no transmission line, does the developer or the company pay
for the line? Mr. McAllister replied that the cost of transmission is
rate-based and is generally included in the rates of the utilities. 

Mr. Drusina asked if there was an incentive for small businesses or for
low income families to get the new solar power. Mr. McAllister said that
California has a lot of policies, such as California Solar Initiative
(CSI), that have managed to increase market penetration of small solar
systems in general. In the case of CSI, there was a 10 percent set aside
for lower income families. The amount of money involved is not large, so
it does not go very far. In California, solar is largely a market-driven
opportunity.  In general, lower income residents will not be offsetting
expensive energy costs and will not see solar as cost-effective.
Financing and support tools are lacking for those customers who are in a
marginal cost-effective area. Ms. Aguillon added that there is an
opportunity for utilities to get involved. The leasing companies will
not go to the low income areas because of a lack of creditworthiness,
but the utility has excellent credit. The utility could produce a solar
farm with several MWs near the substation and conduct virtual net
metering for the renter of the multi-family low-income unit so that the
net metering would be tied directly to that unit. Mr. McAllister added
that community solar is something that has been implemented in
Sacramento, so if renters want to contribute to the green economy they
can opt to buy that power. For low-income individuals, another option is
energy efficiency. CCSE’s message has always been that energy
generation and conservation have to be combined at the customer level.
If a solar contractor ignores energy efficiency, opportunities will be
missed. Policies should be designed that make both happen at the local
level. 

Renewable Energy Development:  Imperial County, California

Andy Horne, Deputy County Executive Officer, Natural Resources
Development (NRD) 

Mr. Horne said he would discuss utility-scale renewable energy
generation, and a case study of policy issues relevant to the county and
many other parts of the border region. Imperial County has the largest
geothermal resource in the world, and development of this resource as
well as wind and solar energy are proceeding rapidly. Imperial County
refers to itself as the “Persian Gulf of Renewables.” 

Mr. McAllister covered the RPS regulations, but another law of interest
that also has a renewable energy nexus is the California Global Warming
Solution Act, which sets California GHG emission standards for the next
50 years. GHGs should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2025, and reduced 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050. If California is going to achieve
those targets, projections show that 50 percent of all energy sources
will have to be renewables. 

Imperial County covers about 3 million acres, half of which is federal
land. There has been much speculation about the availability of federal
land for renewable energy use. Some geothermal development in the
eastern county is on federal land, but the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) has had difficulty in getting the permitting process perfected to
allow new projects to move forward. A greater amount of renewable
development has been focused on some of the private land, primarily farm
land, and that is one of the big issues for the county. Natural
Resources Development (NRD) conducted several workshops because of this
issue. About 540,000 acres of land in the county has been farmed, and is
irrigated with water imported from the Colorado River; there are
proposals for 12,000 acres of solar development on agricultural land.
During the review of how to address the impact of solar development on
agricultural land, the building of a solar farm on actively farmed land
was addressed. If the farmer decided to plow the field or burn it, what
impact would that have on the neighboring solar facility and how would
that be addressed? NRD has been advising the solar installers that the
farmers were there first, and the solar installations would have to
adapt their maintenance programs to accommodate for that fact. This area
has been primarily an agricultural community for the past 110 years, and
that likely will not change, but the goal is to diversify the economic
base while not unnecessarily affecting the existing farming operations.
The California legislature granted the solar industry a large property
tax incentive, i.e., not paying property tax on their solar panels, but
there still will be demand on local services. The state needs to find a
way to mitigate for those demands given that the tax revenues will not
be as large as those from the geothermal industry, which is the largest
property tax payer in the county. Currently, 18 solar projects are in
process in the county, totaling approximately 2,000 MW, and a $10
billion capital investment.  

Many projects are being sited near the geothermal plants because of the
transmission resources located near there in the northern part of the
county. In south Imperial County, large projects are being proposed,
including a 2,000 acre project. This location is being selected because
of its proximity to the Imperial Valley substation, which is where the
Sunrise Powerlink will originate. There are 17 existing geothermal power
plants creating 600 MW of baseload power, including 10 new projects in
the permitting process that would produce another 55 MW. Two wind energy
projects are in development, although wind is only a viable resource in
select areas of the county.

Challenges to renewable development include transmission, financing,
water issues including the Salton Sea levels, land use, labor issues,
and environmental and cultural resources. The Sunrise Powerlink, now
under construction, originates at the Imperial Valley substation to
bring renewable power from Imperial County to the San Diego area. A
number of wind projects are being proposed on the Mexican side that will
come across the border and connect to the transmission grid. Imperial
Irrigation is separate from the rest of California, and has its own
transmission grid. It faces different challenges, and will be
accommodating some of the new generation projects being developed.  

Discussion

Dr. Henkel asked about the existence of formal right-to-farm
legislation, whether there had been a change during the past 10 years or
so in farm employment, and the size of an average farm in the region.
Mr. Horne responded that no right-to-farm legislation existed, but
there was a right-to-farm ordinance in the county, primarily to deal
with land use related to urban development. Geothermal energy
installations coexist quite well with agriculture in the county, but the
solar development is far more intensive from a land use standpoint. The
farmers who have solar installation leases on their land are more open
minded about converting their land. The county encouraged applicants for
solar projects to look for land that was less productive. Produce crops
are grown in Imperial County in the winter, and taking this cropland
would cause job displacement; taking 1,000 acres of field crops out of
production would eliminate five to seven agricultural jobs, and 1,000
acres of produce land could employ 500 people. In terms of farm size,
the average field size is about 80 acres, and the average farm operation
is approximately 1,000 acres.  

Dr. Reed asked why NRD did not ask local leaders where the corridors
would be and attempt some land use planning. He also asked about the
status of BLM contracts in the area. Mr. Horne replied that it was too
late for NRD to get involved in the project development; it would cost
approximately $2 million for the county to update its general plan to
accommodate renewable energy development within the jurisdictions, and
the county could not afford to do so. Regarding the second question, two
large projects were proposed on BLM land; one faced a lawsuit from a
tribe and a federal judge issued a restraining order prohibiting the
project from going forward. BLM has continued to work on this without
any resolution, and the developer has ceased funding that project. There
have been other problems in the State of California; one project was
stopped because of desert tortoise issues after it had been approved by
CEC and BLM, but construction of that project has resumed. Some other
projects have been halted because of cultural resource issues and
federal lawsuits. 

Dr. Pohlman commented that the report needs to allow for some
opportunity-cost model in which there is a tradeoff between using farm
land for solar farms versus agricultural use. There is a need to assess
the balance between the two. There is the opportunity cost lost if
renewable energy installations are not placed in certain areas, but on
the other hand, if 500 farming jobs are lost, contributing to the
region’s already high unemployment.

 

Mr. Olmedo asked if there were any opportunities for projects with
long-term job sustainability. Mr. Horne answered that there was a
“mega region” concept in which San Diego County, Imperial County,
and northern Baja California were considered a region for economic
development. Manufacturing jobs in northern Baja California, for
example, benefit the entire region. Until Imperial County reaches some
critical mass of generation projects, there likely will not be interest
in panel manufacturing activity, but this could occur with the projects
in development. NRD has conducted some studies and all projects have to
conduct an economic impact analysis. Jobs created must offset jobs lost,
but there are significant other benefits from these projects that have
been identified. One of the goals is to attract projects that create
long-term jobs. The geothermal industry, for example, has many
high-paying permanent jobs. Lithium can be mined in the area, and the
dollar amount of the minerals extracted could exceed the power
production. 

Mr. Starfield asked if it was relatively easy for the county to identify
distressed land versus untouched land. Mr. Horne responded that crop
history and water consumption records are available, but it is not a
simple task. Some of the land that is being developed has not been
farmed for 10 years or more, so this is a net benefit, because the land
is unproductive. Soil types and natural drainage that constitute the
profile of the farm land are not easily quantified. Mr. Starfield
commented that solar farms take up a lot of land, and asked if the
county ever takes the revenues from the facilities and feeds it back
into the community? Are there any connections between the community and
the projects besides jobs? Mr. Horne said that he did not want to
downplay the revenues to the county, but there was no organized program
that required that a certain amount of energy be given to the community
at reduced rates. Unemployment in Imperial County is about 30 percent,
so 1,000 jobs could be created if all the potential projects are built.
Geothermal jobs are well paid and stable, so the benefits to the
community in terms of job creation are significant. 

Update on Cross-Border Electricity Task Force and Other Issues

U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change

Georgina Scarlata, Border Affairs Officer, U.S. Department of State 

Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Industry Specialist, U.S. Department
of Energy 

Ms. Georgina Scarlata (Department of State), noted that she was giving
the presentation on behalf of Ms. Rachel Poynter, Border Coordinator at
the U.S. Department of State, who could not be at the meeting. If Ms.
Scarlata could not answer a question, she would follow up with Ms.
Poynter to obtain the answer. Mr. Lawrence commented that he was
attending the meeting on behalf of Mr. Gilbert Bindewald, GNEB member.
In DOE, the office that coordinates the work under the bilateral
framework is the Office of Policy and International Affairs. He could
refer members to the correct party if he could not answer questions
directly. 

Ms. Scarlata stated that Presidents Obama and Calderon announced the
U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change
during President Obama’s April 2009 visit to Mexico. This initiative
garnered much buy-in from the Mexican government because President
Calderon had previously served as energy secretary. The two leaders
agreed on the importance of promoting clean energy and combating climate
change, and the Bilateral Framework establishes a mechanism for
facilitating common efforts to develop clean energy economies, including
through political and technical cooperation and information exchange.
The two Presidents also announced the Cross-Border Electricity Task
Force during President Calderon’s May 2010 State Visit to Washington,
DC. The task force falls under the auspices of the Bilateral Framework. 


Objectives of the Bilateral Framework include information sharing and
capacity building on clean energy and energy efficiency technologies and
modernization of electricity grids with the goal of development of
domestic as well as cross-border renewable energy generation. Two
additional benefits of the Framework are: (1) the vibrant dialogue and
collaboration with the Mexican government on this issue, illustrating
the breadth and depth of our bilateral relationship, beyond just
cooperation on security issues, and (2) the opportunity for Mexico to
better understand the difference in powers and authorities between the
U.S. federal government and state governments, as U.S. states often hold
more power than their Mexican counterparts in setting policy on
renewable energy generation and regulation. U.S. federal efforts often
are slower and more complicated because the states have a direct role in
this initiative.

The U.S. Department of State hosted the first meeting of the Bilateral
Framework in Washington, DC, on January 26, 2010. The meeting,
co-chaired on the U.S. side by the Departments of Energy and State, set
an agenda for collaboration on bilateral and multilateral initiatives.
The group of senior leaders agreed to enhance cooperation on renewable
energy technologies, smart grid implementation, carbon capture and
sequestration, and GHG inventories and adaptation measures.

Mr. Lawrence noted that the second bilateral meeting was held in Mexico
City at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on May 18, 2011. This second
meeting provided an overview of areas where Mexico and the United States
are already cooperating and highlighted future areas for collaboration.
Both sides agreed on the importance of widening and deepening existing
cooperative arrangements and seeking potential new opportunities for
collaboration. Ms. Scarlata added that the importance of the Bilateral
Framework is that many agencies already were working with their Mexican
counterparts on a variety of levels, but the framework offers a
bilateral forum in which all these efforts can be coordinated and
highlighted by senior leadership. 

Ms. Scarlata pointed out key areas of cooperation under the Framework. 
These include extensive cooperation between EPA and its Mexican
counterpart SEMARNET (the Secretariat of Environmental and Natural
Resources) in the development of Mexico’s Transporte Limpio program.
This program is based on EPA’s Smart Way program and identifies
products and services that reduce transportation-related emissions. It
represents an excellent example of capacity building under the
Framework, as it began as a training exercise for SEMARNAT and has
developed into a fully functioning program through the cooperation with
EPA. Transporte Limpio is seeking to harmonize its program with the U.S.
and Canadian programs. Other areas of cooperation include: the U.S.
support to Mexico for refining and implementing its low-emissions
development strategy (LEDS); implementation of pilot projects to reduce
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD); cooperation
in working toward a successful outcome at the 17th Conference of the
Parties meeting on Climate Change (COP-17), that will move forward on
the actions agreed to at last year’s Cancun climate conference;
coordination of minimum appliance standards and discussion of Mexican
appliance labeling efforts similar to U.S. programs such as Energy Star;
cooperation on energy efficiency in the hemisphere under the Energy and
Climate Partnership of the Americas, and globally with the Major
Economies through the Clean Energy Ministerial process; analysis of
electricity system maturity and identification of strategies to
implement Smart Grid technologies; and advancement in the promotion of
regional renewable energy markets between the two countries through the
Cross-Border Electricity Task Force. 

Mr. Lawrence stated that the Cross Border Electricity Task Force’s
goal is to promote regional renewable energy markets between the two
countries. During May 2011 meetings between DOE and the Secretaría de
Energía de Mexico (SENER), next steps to organize, select members, and
manage the activities of the Task Force Steering Committee and Working
Groups were discussed. Key areas of cooperation of the Task Force
include wind energy, including the just-concluded MOU between DOE’s
National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Mexico’s Electricity Research
Institute (IIE), and the development of a North American Carbon Storage
Atlas of carbon sources and sinks, with Canada, to be delivered in 2012.

Ms. Grijalva noted that she worked on the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working
Committee (JWC), which is attempting to find an emissions reductions
strategy for border crossings. Mexico is interested in modeling the
border crossings, and the JWC is trying to figure out how to provide
training on the new EPA model, and how to pay for this training. 
Ms. Scarlata noted that the proposal sounded interesting, and
recognizing that resources were limited, commented that she could not
say if the   HYPERLINK
"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaid.gov%2F&ei=maEYTraUNs7PgAeWpdgo&usg=AFQjCNEEovS6i5
wNYVS0PBCaj6KuPLK6xg"  United States Agency for International
Development (USAID)  had money available, but could ask. 

Dr. Henkel asked if there was a parallel or supportive set of
connections with environmental planning and environmental impact
assessment. Mr. Lawrence inquired if Dr. Henkel was asking in the
context of the Cross-Border Electricity Task Force, and if so, during
the forum there was some discussion of comparing the environmental
regulations and determining how to respect both sets of laws when moving
forward in the cross-border market. Regulatory and policy considerations
regarding the environment are being taken into consideration. Federal
agencies, when dealing with permitting issues, have to abide by the
National Environmental Policy Act and any other legislative
requirements. 

Ms. Aguillon commented that it was exciting to hear that U.S. agencies
are working closely with IIE and Mexican agencies. She had been trying
to encourage SENER and major parties to demand certified products in
Mexico, because there are many low-grade products being resold. She
asked SENER to consider adopting the CEC requirements to identify
quality products. Additionally, there is no certification required to
install solar panels. She asked for any help that Ms. Scarlata and Mr.
Lawrence could give, and noted that the Secretary of SENER said he was
working on the issues. Ms. Scarlata answered that standardization and
the use of quality products are issues that have been raised in the
bilateral meetings. The Mexican government is working to learn how the
United States ensures that only high quality products are produced and
used. Noting that the current Mexican administration is only in office
for another 18 months, Ms. Aguillon asked what will happen with
renewable energy after the administration change. Ms. Scarlata replied
that an election would be conducted in Mexico next year, but it remained
to be seen what would happen with these issues. Because everyone is
facing budget cuts, it is worthwhile to do as much work as possible now
before an Administration change. 

Dr. Reed noted that GNEB had heard a multitude of perspectives on
cross-border transmission and viewing the border as a potential resource
for renewables. Has the task force identified a goal or definitive needs
for cross-border transmission? Mr. Lawrence responded that those issues
were discussed at the Cross-Border Electricity Forum, and the forum
report is available to the public on the Institute of America’s
website (http://www.iamericas.org). The two Presidents wanted the two
countries to cooperate on transmission, technology development, and
technology sharing. These issues are raised in both the market and
policy sections of the forum report. 

Statement from the Secretary of Agriculture

Robert Apodaca, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA)

Mr. Apodaca read a statement by USDA’s Secretary Tom Vilsack on votes
to undermine America's renewable energy industry:  

“The Administration supports efforts currently underway in the Senate
to reform and modernize tax incentives and other programs that support
biofuels. However, today’s amendments are not reforms and are ill
advised. They could lead to job loss and pull the rug out from under
industry, which will lead to less choice for consumers and greater
dependence on foreign oil. We need reforms and a smarter biofuels
program, but simply cutting off support for the industry isn’t the
right approach. Therefore, we oppose a straight repeal of the Volumetric
Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and efforts to block biofuels
infrastructure programs.” 

Mr. Apodaca commented that he would share any further information he
received with the Board. 

Destination:  Transmission/Emission Transition

Rick Van Schoik, Director, North American Center for Transborder
Studies, Arizona State University

Mr. Van Schoik stated that on behalf of the member universities of the
North American Consortium for Transborder Studies (NACTS), he thanked
GNEB as an important voice for the research conducted by academics. He
learned much by attending the GNEB meeting. He also serves as the
Arizona representative for the Southwest Consortium for Environmental
Research Policy, and in that role has been concerned about these issues
for 15 years. With NACTS, he works for USAID on a number of issues with
subnational actors such as border governors and legislators, mayors, and
attorneys general on issues such as waste tires. Arizona State
University has the largest solar test facility in the world, and a large
algae development and test facility. 

The transmission/emission transition is worth the effort because it not
only changes the emissions inventory for the border region, but also
affects cooperation between the two countries. NACTS has been asked to
analyze the effort to transition to renewable energy, especially in the
transboundary venue, to determine if it is worth the investment. Many
people are thinking about this issue. Among the public, there is both
the realization that climate change is real, and a willingness to pay
for renewable energy. If renewable energy development is allowed to
progress naturally, there will be some, but it will be the model of the
past and it will be slow. A blueprint for moving forward on renewables
is necessary. By 2050, it will be possible for one-half of the energy
portfolio for the border region, the United States, and perhaps the
world to be renewables.  The vision NACTS is considering is 10 GW of new
renewable energy in the border region, 1 GW being exchanges between the
two countries at about a dozen interconnects. There are nine
interconnects now, and that number should be doubled. About 100,000 new
jobs could be created during the next 30 years, so by 2050, one out of
every 200 jobs might be related to renewable energy. A large number of
actions by various authorities, and products, projects, policies, and
processes are necessary to move to this vision of 40 years from now.
What do the actors need to do, and what is their authority? The roles,
relationships, and responsibilities among the actors are very important,
as are the resources that each of them brings to the table. 

The relevant actors can begin to move forward on the different products
and projects, such as wind, solar, and biomass projects; a methane
project at a confined animal feeding operation; and the infrastructure
to connect all of those as well as the involvement of both the public
and private sectors. The Energy Policy Act enables regional transmission
siting authority. The border is a prime place for a renewable regional
transboundary transmission siting authority. Finally, the drayage fleet
is ideal for using renewable fuels because it is a highly polluting
fleet of vehicles. A recent study identified 50,000 miles of new
transmission costing nearly $1 trillion in the United States alone.
NACTS identified that 500-1,500 miles will be in the border region. How
can the footprint of this new transmission be minimized? How can the
relevant actors collocate projects, or imagine renewable energy
clusters? How can the five mega cities of the border region be served?
It has been suggested many times that brownfields are excellent
development spots. Collocation of projects as well as transmission can
be accomplished on the farms and factories and also along the canals and
power lines to make renewable energy clusters. TEIAs are critical for
the projects to move forward, and there is a role for the Federal
Government as well as the state governments. 

Discussion

Dr. Pohlman thanked Mr. Van Schoik for his strategic perspective. 

Mr. Ruiz noted that the Governor of New Mexico had signed the letter on
behalf of the 10 state Border Governors Conference Environmental
Worktable and it was ready to be sent the next day. 

Discussion of the 14th GNEB Report

Dr. Austin informed GNEB members that the Board would break into
committees and review the initial charge and the progress that was made,
identify what remains to be done, and determine if there are gaps that
need to be addressed. The committee chairs then will give a brief
overview of the discussions, and the Board as a whole will identify gaps
and either begin the conversation on recommendations or determine if
there are some areas that will not be covered because a consensus cannot
be reached. The committees will meet for 30 minutes. Members who have
not yet served on a committee should join one. The Board broke up into
committees. 

Upon return to the plenary session, Dr. Austin asked each of the chairs
to inform the Board of the steps the committee is taking and the gaps
identified. 

Mr. Niemeyer, Chair of the Background Chapter Committee, noted that the
group realized that some of the topics listed in the outline were not
addressed, including energy security, tribal issues, and the role of the
private sector. Mr. Evaristo Cruz (Ysleta del Sur Pueblo), GNEB member,
will draft some text on tribal issues. Mr. Luis Ramirez Thomas (Ramirez
Advisors Inter-National), GNEB member, can perhaps draft text on the
role of the private sector. Ms. Scarlata will add a few lines to the
section on framework to discuss the financing market in Mexico, which is
different from that in the United States. Information on how to work
with tribes is missing. The committee plans to fact-check some of the
information from Ms. Tisdale’s presentation, because a very different
perspective was heard from Mr. Horne. The committee will eliminate some
issues, such as the Mexican framework, and will add a table that shows
“at a glance” who does what in the United States and Mexico. For
example, are nuclear power plants permitted by the county or the State
of California? Water must be discussed, and energy efficiency should be
included in the report. The no action alternative will be rephrased,
because whether or not anything is done, something will happen with
renewable energy. There should be a discussion of who is making the
decisions, which perhaps could be a case study or sidebar. There will be
a table discussing enforcement and permitting. Additionally, the state
sections are diverse, and cover some of the same topics, so it can be
noted that the states have some similarities and some differences, which
can be summarized. 

Ms. Donna Wieting (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration),
GNEB member, commented that the research and data needs to support
decisions and management should be addressed. Dr. Austin added that she
hoped the latter was a recommendation for the whole report. Mr. Lawrence
mentioned that the North American Energy Working Group, which includes
Canada, the United States, and Mexico, developed a table that contained
the regulatory frameworks for all three countries. It could be somewhat
out of date, but about 85 percent of the information could be used.
Additionally, with regard to tribal efforts, DOE has a tribal energy
office and a larger Indian Affairs office. A tribal energy summit was
held several weeks ago, and reports from this summit could be useful in
preparing that section. 

Dr. Pohlman, Chair of the Renewable Energy Committee, reported that the
group had organized members’ thoughts into five areas:  hydroelectric,
solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. The group wanted to compile a list
of projects that are located along the border. The format will be based
on the hydroelectric projects. A good start has been made on the
chapter, and the committee will have help from an intern to pull some
information together. Mr. Lawrence has volunteered to get some
information from DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
The group has agreed to a definition of the border, which is 60 miles or
100 kilometers on either side. The committee agreed that both current
and future projects need to be mapped. There will be maps for each of
the five areas of renewable energy showing where these projects are
concentrated on the border and in the country as a whole. The committee
also identified a need for geographic information systems (GIS) data
behind the GIS maps so that the maps can be manipulated. Data already
are available, and some will be downloaded from the Internet by the
intern. Mr. Drusina added that biomass examples would be used in the
text and the entire state of the states along the border will be used to
discuss renewable energy rather than just the border strip. Dr. Pohlman
commented that the committee was wrestling with using the border region
only, but decided to include the entire states because the other option
would eliminate major sources of electricity such as the Hoover Dam. 

Mr. Joyce noted that originally this chapter was supposed to include
resource maps for solar, hydro, and geothermal; it sounds like this
group is doing work that overlaps with the Economic Opportunities
Committee. He explained that the chapter was supposed to document the
potential resources. Is the group going to try to pinpoint current or
planned projects? Dr. Austin commented that the committee initially
planned to identify the projects as well as the resources to discuss the
impacts. There should be coordination between this group and the
Economic Opportunities Committee so that their efforts are
complementary.  Dr. Pohlman added that the NREL information was not as
comprehensive as was thought. Some of the information that will come
from DOE will be useful and will supplement this information. Mr. Angel
commented that the information from NREL is on a state level, but they
also have information on a county level, mainly focused on potential and
not projects on the ground. Mr. Lawrence said it was important for the
Board to be using the same geographic domain. It makes sense to examine
whole counties even if they exceed the border area slightly, such as
Pima County. For example, data on projects that had requested
interconnection to the California ISO system would be available at a
county level. Mr. Drusina added that the proposal was that every county
that has any portion within the border region would be counted in its
entirety. 

Mr. Joyce noted that the group was contemplating the development of a
list of projects that have applied for permits, which is far different
from detailed maps of potential for renewable energy along the border.
Mr. Angel also understood that the group would be including maps
showing the potential for renewables, with the exception of geothermal.
NREL’s data is not user friendly on a county-by-county basis through
the weblinks. There is sufficient information based on the output maps,
however, that can be queried on the county basis. Mr. Joyce added that
there was a difference between listing planned projects and an
assessment of the potential for other resources in the area. 

Ms. Aguillon, Chair of the Economic Opportunities Committee, mentioned
that the group received excellent information from Drs. Reed and Henkel
on distributed generation and utility scale. The group will focus on
market opportunities, jobs, and economic impacts to the region. Utility
prices are increasing for everyone, and environmental regulations are
becoming tighter. The value of the public utilities is something that
needs to be examined, as well as cross-border potential opportunities.
Collocation of renewable technologies will be discussed. Construction,
manufacturing, wholesale distribution, and services jobs availability
will be examined. The group will discuss revenues to the region such as
sales taxes, permit fees, and payroll taxes. Attracting investment also
will be covered. Finally, the group discussed biofuels, and Mr. Small
volunteered to write a section on opportunities in this area. Dr. Reed
noted that he did include overall, by state, what resources are
available and a list of some of the ones in the queue. It does not
matter what chapter it goes in, but it must be included somewhere in the
report. 

Mr. Joyce asked where the overall potential will be captured. Dr.
Pohlman responded that the Renewable Energy Committee would do a map for
the potential for each of the five areas. 

Mr. Lawrence asked if the Board could move to have the master list of
all the counties that will be analyzed so everyone is on the same page.
It was agreed that such a list could be distributed to the Board. 

Mr. Olmedo, Chair of the Impacts Committee, noted that the group had an
aggressive timeline to bring together the different parts of the
chapters including solar, biomass, geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, and
transmission. Today’s presentations served as further examples of
issues that might be included in the chapters. The committee thought the
best next step would be to set up a schedule of meetings that will begin
in 2 weeks. Within 2 weeks of this meeting, the committee members will
take the time to review all the information that has been collected,
which amounts to 30 pages or so. Once members familiarize themselves
with the information and the impacts, they will be better able to
analyze how to proceed. Many of the impacts are similar among the
different technologies, and we need to go back and make further
recommendations. By mid-July, members will have a more in depth
treatment of the impacts. Dr. Austin asked if the group had identified
any gaps in their chapters. Mr. Olmedo replied that gaps were not
identified. 

Dr. Austin asked who would not be present at tomorrow’s meeting
because she wanted to make sure they had a chance to speak. Mr. Drusina
said that Ms. Sally Spener would be present to represent the IBWC. 

Dr. Pohlman noted that during the presentations, she developed five
suggestions for the report. There are a lot of disparate efforts for
renewable energy, and GNEB might recommend that there be a strategic
plan or overarching master plan for renewable energy for the United
States, and could recommend that they use the border as a pilot area.
She also suggested that the opportunity/cost model be examined in the
economic opportunities chapter, for example, weighing the opportunities
and costs of the projects being considered and quantifying impacts to
communities. Along with that, the group could examine the nexus with
environmental justice. A suggestion for this group:  the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) is surveying federal renewable energy
projects, but it is not known when the report will be released; perhaps
EPA has some contacts at GAO that can be queried about the report. Mr.
Joyce responded that if the report is on projects that the Federal
Government is managing or implementing that is one case, but if it
discusses any project that the Federal Government is involved in because
of permitting or location on federal land, that is another case. Mr.
Lawrence added that he had heard of the report, but was not involved
with it. Dr. Pohlman responded that these are federally managed
projects, and she agreed to send more information to the group. 

Mr. Olmedo informed the Board that Ms. Wolf will be leading the
discussion on impacts during tomorrow’s session. The Impacts Committee
will take the next step and create some recommendations as well. 

Dr. Austin noted that Friday’s agenda included discussion of the next
meeting dates, and GNEB has been requested to take up the issue of
TEIAs. After that, the Board would continue to work on the report. 

Ms. Aguillon raised the issue of energy efficiency, and whether that
would be a chapter. Also, solar thermal should be discussed, because it
displaces natural gas or electricity. Dr. Reed suggested that Friday’s
agenda include a discussion on how energy efficiency would be included
in the report. He asked if the biofuels section would cover
transportation as well as fuels used to make electricity. Mr. Joyce
thought there would be discussion of conservation and energy efficiency
in the background section. Mr. Niemeyer noted that these topics had
never been in the outline for the background section, but it did not
matter where it was included, as long as it was covered in the report.
Dr. Reed recommended that the Board think about this issue overnight and
come back tomorrow with lucid thoughts. Dr. Aguillon suggested that it
be included in both the resources and economic impacts sections. 

Dr. Austin agreed that the report could not be released without
including energy efficiency. The Board members should think about this
as well as their own sections to prepare for tomorrow’s session. 

Mr. Lawrence commented that typically the word biofuels was used for
transportation resources, and biomass was used for generation of
electricity. Dr. Austin added that this could also be discussed the next
day. 

Mr. Starfield commented that energy efficiency was not a specific charge
but a recommendation that any project should have an energy efficiency
component to it. He mentioned three things that he had not heard in the
discussion.  One item was the inclusion of substations and transmission
lines on the map. Another point not mentioned was the advantages of
locating facilities on land that has been mined, contaminated, or
distressed, and the importance of a database of land evaluation. The
last point was to discuss incentives and how those can play a role. Ms.
Aguillon thought incentives should be addressed in the recommendations.
Mr. Starfield responded that when market opportunities are discussed,
policies that create those opportunities also must be discussed. He
asked about the process for developing the recommendations. 

Dr. Austin stated that tomorrow’s discussion would start off with
identifying any gaps in the sections, and determining where additional
items, such as energy efficiency, belong in the report. The draft report
includes the committee’s recommendations in the text. As the chapters
evolve, they should set up the recommendations. 

Mr. Starfield said it might be possible to link to New Jersey as a
model. 

Dr. Pohlman noted that Mr. Joyce would give the Board the plan of action
and milestone dates during Friday’s session.

Ms. Aguillon commented that the Economic Opportunities Committee could
list the state incentives in the preamble to the chapters. 

Dr. Austin recessed the meeting for the day at 6:11 p.m. 

Friday, June 17, 2011

Discussion of Next Meeting and Other Business

Dr. Austin welcomed the Board members back to the meeting, and asked EPA
staff, contractors, and additional audience members to introduce
themselves. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson thanked the GNEB members for their hard work conducted
before and at this meeting. She noted that EPA took a sizeable budget
cut for 2011 and 2012, and as a result, the two DFO positions previously
open had been eliminated. Mr. Joyce would continue as the acting DFO for
GNEB, while OFACMO prepares Ms. Ann-Marie Gantner (EPA, OFACMO) to
become the DFO. Ms. Jones-Jackson expressed her appreciation of the
Board’s patience in this matter. Additionally, GNEB does not have a
permanent Chair; EPA has invited Dr. Austin, who is the Acting Chair,
to serve as the Interim Chair, at least through the completion of this
report. Dr. Austin accepted the position as interim chair. 

Ms. Wolf asked about the process for getting a permanent chair for the
Board. May the Board recommend that Dr. Austin be selected as the
permanent Chair instead of the Interim Chair? Mr. Joyce responded that
OFACMO has been waiting to appoint a permanent chair until a permanent
DFO is appointed, and because it will be some time before this occurs,
things are in flux. OFACMO will look into getting approval to appoint an
official Chair for GNEB. Dr. Austin asked that there be a conversation
about all the responsibilities of the Chair. She noted that GNEB
reconvened with many new members in March after a long hiatus. Because
there is a report due in December, members have had to devote a lot of
time to GNEB. Members have arranged meetings and tours and put together
sections of the report, which is a great deal of work. The purpose of
this Board is to make recommendations to the President and Congress on
behalf of the border communities. It will take a great deal of work
during the next several months to ensure that the Board is ready for the
September meeting and that the report would be ready for release in
December.

Mr. Niemeyer did not understand why appointing a Chair was related to
the assignment of a permanent DFO.  Chairs have been chosen because they
could facilitate the discussions and build consensus among the members.
He did not see the need to wait for a new DFO to appoint a permanent
chair. He would like to make a recommendation that Dr. Austin be
appointed the permanent Chair because she has done a good job of guiding
the Board so far. Could the Board send a letter to the EPA Administrator
making this recommendation? Mr. Joyce responded that the letter would
not serve any purpose; OFACMO staff will follow up with Dr. Austin
after the meeting. Ms. Jones-Jackson added that the Board’s
recommendation would be strongly considered. 

Mr. Angel asked if the Board appointed the Chair or if the Chair was
appointed by EPA. Ms. Jones-Jackson replied that EPA appoints the Chair,
but will take recommendations from the Board. 

Mr. Niemeyer noted that the Board could help get Dr. Austin appointed as
Chair by making a recommendation to that effect. Ms. Jones-Jackson
answered that she would take the recommendation under advisement. 

Mr. John Wood (Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority), GNEB member,
mentioned that he had served on the Board for a long while and his term
was ending in December. He believed Dr. Austin would make a good
permanent Chair, and asked that OFACMO staff consider her for that
position. 

December Meeting

Mr. Joyce suggested starting with the meeting in December. He has held
discussions, along with Ms. Gantner, with the Wilson Center, which
would be happy to host an event similar to the one last year, including
a press conference, the second week in December. The meeting could be
held on December 15-16, Thursday and Friday, with the press event on the
previous Wednesday, December 14, 2011. Mr. Joyce will follow up with the
Wilson Center after this meeting. Mr. Starfield asked what the Board
would do on Thursday and Friday if the final report is announced and
released on Wednesday. Mr. Joyce responded that the Board would start to
work on the next report. Dr. Austin commented that for academic members,
those dates fall during the week of finals. Mr. Ruiz noted that he
likely could attend. Ms. Aguillon stated that she had to attend a
California Solar Energy Industry Association Board meeting on those
dates. Ms. Sally Spener (IBWC), GNEB alternate member, noted that Mr.
Drusina had a Colorado River Water Users Association meeting that week.
Mr. Joyce said he thought the Wilson Center was only available the
second week in December, and the report must be conveyed to the
President by the end of December to meet the statutory requirements of
the Board. 

Dr. Austin asked all GNEB members to notify Mr. Joyce of any conflicts
with the December dates by Wednesday, June 22, 2011. If it appears that
December 14-16, 2011 is a problem for too many members, Mr. Joyce will
determine if it would be possible to hold the press conference on the
afternoon of Monday December 12, so that members could fly in that
morning. Alternatively, Dr. Austin suggested that the Board could meet
on Monday and the press conference could be held on Tuesday, December
13. Mr. Niemeyer commented that past press conferences have been held
in the morning; typically, reporters have an afternoon deadline, so the
earlier it can be held in the day, the better. He thought Monday-Tuesday
would work better than Wednesday-Friday, and noted that previous press
coverage of report releases had been poor. There was good coverage,
however, when the dean of the Spanish language press corps attended in 
Washington and there was discussion of the border fence. Dr. Reed asked
if Board members could, once the report was released, attempt their own
press strategies. Mr. Joyce stated that such action would be encouraged.
The hope is that all Board members will use their individual networks
and professional organizations to publicize and disseminate the report.
Mr. Lawrence commented that energy issues have received a lot of
coverage in Washington, DC; he thought DOE’s public affairs office
might be helpful in publicizing the report. 

Mr. Joyce noted that he and Ms. Gantner would follow up with the Wilson
Center to see if they have any flexibility. Dr. Austin asked if anyone
had conflicts the week of December 5, 2011. Dr. Henkel said he had a
conflict December 6-8, 2011. Dr. Austin noted that the beginning of the
first or second week of December might work better than the latter part
of those weeks. 

Mr. Lawrence asked if the meeting had to be held at the Wilson Center,
and if so, if the Center was only needed for the press conference. DOE
has a great deal of conference space, and it would not cost EPA anything
to use the space, but attendees would have to clear security. He could
check the availability of conference space for those weeks in December.
Mr. Joyce responded that the meeting did not have to be held at the
Wilson Center, but the Center has an extensive Mexico program and will
help conduct outreach for their event. As far as the meeting space goes,
EPA is looking for every means possible to save money. Because the GNEB
meetings must be open to the public, the meeting space must be easily
accessible and in a safe area. EPA has an excellent conference facility
in Crystal City, but it is constantly booked. He thanked Mr. Lawrence
for the offer of DOE space.  

Mr. Wood commented that members on the West Coast may not be able to fly
in the day of the press conference if it is held in the morning. Ms.
Jones-Jackson replied that OFACMO took that into consideration. In the
event that the Board is meeting on a Monday, she will authorize members
from the West Coast to fly in on Sunday. Mr. Joyce commented that hotel
stays, however, would be held to two nights because of the budget
situation. 

Dr. Austin mentioned that some of the members are willing to share rooms
and asked if this was a possibility. Mr. Joyce stated that there might
be liability issues associated with sharing rooms. 

Mr. Niemeyer noted that he often had to work late in the hotel room
after meetings, so sharing a room would not be reasonable. He had
attended two meetings in Washington at which the GNEB report was
unveiled in federal buildings. Because of security measures, it was
difficult for the press to attend, and the same is true of the Wilson
Center, which is inside the Ronald Reagan Building. Reporters would not
need to go through security lines if the press conference was held at a
hotel. 

Dr. Austin commented that there are levels of accessibility. To get into
the US Grant hotel, the public does not have to pass through security,
but many border residents would not feel comfortable coming into such a
luxurious hotel. 

September Meeting

Mr. Joyce commented that Mr. Small and others had created a preliminary
list of thoughts on the Las Cruces meeting. If members fly into El Paso,
there must be a way to transport them to Las Cruces. In the past,
transportation was arranged in shifts. The field trips and site visits
are not part of the meeting, but are an extra if people have time to
accommodate them. The EPA El Paso border office may be able to help with
transportation. If members have ideas about transportation, they should
share them. Ms. Grijalva noted that there was a shuttle service that
goes to Las Cruces from El Paso. Mr. Joyce said that the idea was to
stop for the site visits and field trips on the way from the airport.
Ms. Grijalva asked why members could not be picked up at the hotel. Mr.
Small stated that shuttles could be reserved for most of the day, and
there are other transportation options that can be explored. In the
sample field trip itinerary, there is a cluster between IBWC and a
number of the biofuels sites, Sapphire Energy, and solar installations.
These are all 15 minutes to an hour away from the El Paso Airport.
Members’ schedules will have to be coordinated to try to get everyone
to arrive at the airport around the same time, or more likely in two
shifts for those interested in participating in the field trips. The
field trip locations will be in the Las Cruces city limits. Ms. Grijalva
thought it would be better to pick members up at the hotel. Mr. Joyce
said this would mean transporting everyone twice. OFACMO wants to
minimize the cost in terms of cabs and rental cars. Mr. Small added that
because many of the field trip options are near the freeway that members
would take from El Paso, it would be best to pick members up at the
airport. The organizing committee would have boxed lunches available.
The members then would go through the tour and be transported to the
hotel once the tour is completed. 

Dr. Austin pointed out that the field trip sites should be selected
based on what the Board can learn from the tour. Mr. Small noted that
the IBWC, because of the work conducted on the levees, would be a good
tour for the field trip. Within a one-half mile cluster, there are three
sites available to tour:  a 100 kW commercial installation of solar PV,
the research and development facility for Sapphire Energy, and
undeveloped BLM land with two solar environmental impact statement (EIS)
zones that have been prioritized. He suggested that BLM staff could be
present to talk about the solar proposals. 

Mr. Lawrence suggested a visit to New Mexico State University in Las
Cruces. Mr. Small replied that the university is very close to the
hotels where the members would be staying. The solar installation on the
convention center also will be functioning by September.  

Ms. Wolf noted that by September, much of the text of the report will be
written. It would be interesting to see the facilities, but she would
prefer seeing what life is like along the border and what is unique
about this area along the border. She suggested that the planning
committee consider what makes Las Cruces unique as well as some of the
problems that the citizens are facing. This might lead to thoughts for
the next report. She was not sure that visiting another university would
provide local insight. 

Ms. Spener reminded members of the report written several years ago on
natural disasters, and IBWC has been conducting significant work with
its flood control project. IBWC also has been looking at environmental
restoration projects in the Las Cruces area and has identified a number
of sites. She was unsure whether it would be practical to visit any of
these sites, but it could be discussed. Mr. Drusina had visited the
irrigation district that uses Rio Grande water; there are some
small-scale hydroelectric power installations on some of the irrigation
canals that might be appropriate for the topic of the report. She will
determine if this can be incorporated into the field trip;
alternatively, it could be the topic of a presentation at the meeting. 

Dr. Reed mentioned that El Paso Electric serves Las Cruces and El Paso
County. It has added a lot of programs on energy efficiency and solar
installations, and is serving a low-income population. This might be of
interest as part of the tour or as a presentation topic. A utility
dealing with two states that have different rules on the efficiency of
renewables gets to the heart of some border issues. 

Mr. Niemeyer noted that water-intensive crops are grown near Las Cruces,
even though it is a desert location. Water usage must be discussed in
the report. 

Mr. Angel wanted to echo Ms. Wolf’s points, and stated that it would
be more useful to learn about the local community. 

Ms. Grijalva commented that a lot of water rationing now is being
conducted in Las Cruces, and this is a useful topic for discussion. She
asked if there were dates set for the September meeting. Mr. Joyce
responded that the meeting should be held as early in September as
possible, because the report must be completed by November 1, 2011, so
that there is time for layout, translation, and printing. A great deal
of work must be conducted between now and the September meeting, and
time will be needed at the meeting and after the meeting to revise the
report. A public teleconference will be needed to approve the report.  

Mr. Small stated that the tour route could go north along the freeway or
New Mexico Route 28, which goes by a number of the colonias and by the
irrigation land. The planning committee can work with the route to
ensure that members will see some of the local communities. There are a
number of groups who are active in the southern county, and they can be
notified early of the Board meeting so they can offer public comment or
make presentations at the meeting. The water situation in Las Cruces is
significant; there have been drastic cuts in the water for farming this
year. Because Las Cruces is a relatively small community, many players
can be involved in the meeting. It would be useful to get materials to
people ahead of the meeting, because if the tour is extensive, there may
be information overload. 

Mr. Ruiz thought it was important that Board members visit one of the
colonias that has been affected by industry and examine its relationship
with its industrial neighbors. He would much rather visit a colonia than
New Mexico State University. 

Dr. Austin added that it is important to the people in border
communities to have the opportunity to express their concerns to the
Board. They should be given this opportunity whenever possible. In
addition, it is important that the Board members learn as much as
possible about border issues before they discuss the topic of the next
report at the December meeting. 

Dr. Austin asked for dates when members were unavailable in early
September. Dr. Henkel was unavailable from September 8-10, 2011. Mr.
Eckert noted that September 14-16, 2011, was not good for him. Ms. Wolf
confirmed that those dates were bad for her as well. Dr. Austin asked
about the latter part of the week of September 5 (which is Labor Day),
and several members stated that they were unavailable that week. She
said that the group would return to the discussion later, and thanked
the planning committee for all the work it already had done. 

Member Report-Outs

Dr. Austin stated that she would like to reinstate Board member report
outs at the meetings, in which members report on their activities since
the last meeting. This would be useful for new members. Mr. Niemeyer
brought some copies of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) Border Initiative. It is a good summary, and is updated every
several months in both English and Spanish. It is not printed, but is
available on the TCEQ website as a “ready to print” document. 

Ms. Wolf stated that members should distribute copies of the report once
it is released. She distributes copies to all the local and national
officials in southern Arizona and northern New Mexico. She prepares a
summary of the report, including the recommendations, and then goes to
visit the relevant officials. She takes the report to other committees
on which she serves and gives presentations. Occasionally, the local
press will call and ask questions about the report. In the past, she has
made a real effort to get the report distributed throughout Arizona and
in northern Sonora. 

Mr. Wood said he also distributes the report to local elected officials
and different local entities, and even into Mexico City and northern
Mexico. Occasionally he speaks before small groups, and mentions this
report and some of the GNEB activities. Sometimes the local media does
not pick up on it, and it requires additional effort to spur interest.
When he was serving on the County Commission, the county used ARRA funds
to place 1,036 panels on the roof of a county building, generating 243
kW. On another county building, 36 panels of solar cylinders were
installed that generate 32.76 kW. The county also has opened a boat
launching ramp into the ship channel with solar panel lights installed. 


Mr. Gillen noted that he does not live in the border region, but Mr.
Mike Dorsey provided him with a PowerPoint presentation and he amended
it to discuss border security as a hook to get people’s interest. He
attends meetings of rotary clubs and women’s clubs and gives the
presentation, which includes border environmental issues, to educate the
public.

Dr. Austin commented that the Board membership purposely includes
representatives from the nonprofit sector, state governments, local
governments, the private sector, and academics. There is no outreach
budget for GNEB reports, so the members are responsible for the
outreach. Each member must work with his/her own networks to publicize
and distribute the reports. The date for the rollout will be difficult
because it falls around the holidays. Members should begin to think
about their distribution lists. Ms. Gantner stated that once the
reports are received, she will e-mail members and ask for their orders.
Dr. Austin reminded members that they could not lobby in Washington as
members of GNEB. Mr. Joyce noted that OFACMO has been advised by the EPA
General Counsel that as long as Board members are acting in their own
personal capacity and not representing the Board, it is fine to share
copies of the report, but not to attempt to influence a member of
Congress about any content or Board business. Mr. Lawrence asked if
there were restrictions on what federal agencies could do with the
report. Mr. Joyce said that there were no restrictions other than the
standard ones placed on federal employees regarding interactions with
Congress. 

March 2011 Meeting Minutes

Dr. Austin thanked everyone who had sent her comments on the draft
minutes for the March meeting. The minutes need to be discussed and
approved. Ms. Wolf made a motion to approve the March minutes, and Mr.
Wood seconded the motion. Dr. Austin asked if any discussion was needed.
Mr. Niemeyer asked if his comments had been incorporated. Ms. Gantner
assured members that all comments sent to her had been incorporated, and
that the minutes had been posted online. She asked members to notify her
if they think she missed their comments, and she will incorporate them.
The minutes were approved with no opposition and abstentions by Mr.
Eckert and Dr. Reed who were not present at the March meeting.
Dr. Austin thanked the SCG contractor and Ms. Gantner for the
outstanding job on the minutes. The short time it took to discuss the
minutes attested to the fact that the quality of the minutes is high.  

Mr. Joyce noted that there is a requirement that the minutes be
certified within 90 days of the meeting. If the next meeting will be
held more than 90 days after the previous meeting, the minutes will have
to be circulated by e-mail for approval. 

Update on the Arizona-Sonora Portion of the United States-Mexico
Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program

Dr. Austin noted that Dr. Sharon Megdal at the Water Resources Research
Center has submitted a request to the Board. The presentation submitted
by Dr. Megdal was included in the members’ packets. There was not a
specific request for action, but she just wanted to alert the Board
about activities of the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program
(TBAAP), which is receiving no financial support on the U.S. side for
the current fiscal year or the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2011.
The presentation’s conclusions are that there has been some progress
in terms of collaboration, but the concern is that there is no funding.
Dr. Austin commented that although GNEB does not tend to make specific
funding recommendations, the Board should be aware of the situation. 

Ms. Spener noted that the TBAAP was authorized through the Department of
Interior. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the lead federal agency,
and USGS did receive authorization for funding for 10 years, but the
funds must be appropriated annually. IBWC is involved because it has
been helping to establish the relationships between Mexican and U.S.
researchers on the project. IBWC has found that when a U.S. groundwater
map is examined, everything across the Mexican border is blank because
there is not a good understanding of the transboundary aquifers. The San
Pedro and Santa Cruz Aquifers in Arizona are among several being studied
through this program. Funding for this program is likely to be cut. IBWC
will be having a public meeting in Bisbee, Arizona, on July 14, 2011, at
which time it will give a report on the work that has been done on the
San Pedro Aquifer. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson said that she had to leave, and she wanted to let the
members know before she left that all of their recommendations would be
taken under consideration and that OFACMO staff would get back to the
Board. She thanked members for all of their work, and Ms. Patti Krebs
(Industrial Environmental Association [IEA]), GNEB member, for the
reception the previous evening. 

Mr. Niemeyer asked for clarification regarding Dr. Megdal’s request.
Dr. Austin responded that the request was for the Board to examine the
TBAAP situation. Mr. Niemeyer commented that the Board may have written
an advice letter on the topic earlier. Perhaps a letter needs to be
written to the President urging him to take leadership of this issue. He
would draft the letter if the Board believes it is worthwhile. Dr.
Henkel agreed that Mr. Niemeyer’s suggestion was useful, and he wanted
to acknowledge the fact that there are other transboundary aquifers that
are threatened. The Board should inform Dr. Megdal that the member
believe that this is an important issue on which the Board will continue
to work. 

Ms. Krebs said that IEA had made several attempts to address
transboundary air quality issues in the San Diego region; she thought
there had been more success in Texas, but transboundary issues go across
all media (hazardous waste, air quality, and water), and perhaps could
be the subject of the next report. Mr. Niemeyer added that this issue
is raised at all types of meetings. Canada, Mexico, and the United
States should have concluded an agreement by January 1, 1997, and this
needs to be addressed. 

Ms. Spener noted that there were two issues:  the TEIA and the status
of the TBAAP. She was a little unclear as to which the letter would
address. In the previous report, GNEB expressed support for the TBAAP.
Dr. Austin noted that is the reason Dr. Megdal contacted the Board. 

Mr. Niemeyer agreed that something could be done in the next report, but
he did not think the issue should wait until December 2012. The Board
could prepare a letter about TEIA that discusses the issue of water
supplies on the border, the fact that a lot remains unknown, and that
TBAAP is underfunded. It is a critical resource for millions of border
residents. Mr. Joyce commented that the Board has a tremendous amount of
work to do to complete the report by December. He reminded the GNEB
members that, last year, the Board was working on a comment letter and
the report simultaneously, which delayed the completion of both. GNEB
does not have much flexibility in the scheduling this year, and he did
not want the members’ energy diverted from the report. Mr. Angel asked
how much time it would take to draft a letter. Mr. Niemeyer said he
could draft the letter in 45 minutes. 

Ms. Wolf made a motion that Mr. Niemeyer draft a letter on the TEIA
process for the Board’s consideration as a comment letter. The motion
was seconded. Dr. Austin noted that it can take considerable time to
draft a comment letter when the Board members are in disagreement, so
she asked Mr. Niemeyer for a brief summary of the letter he envisioned.
Mr. Niemeyer said it would be a letter to the President from GNEB
stating that the TEIA is an issue that has been raised repeatedly, and
should have been completed in 1997. The current Board of Governors
Conference is addressing the issue. It is of major concern to border
residents on both sides of the border, and major problems could have
been preempted before they became a major concern if it had been
completed. As part of that, the TBAAP would be referenced. Ms. Spener
agreed that this issue had been discussed for a long time, and one of
the reasons it has not happened is that there are difficulties regarding
how it would be implemented. A number of federal agencies would want to
weigh in on the challenges. It may not be easy to get it approved. The
TEIA has no requirement for mitigation, and that is an area in which
there was some discussion. It might be best to wait until the substance
of the report has been completed and more time can be spent on
considering these issues. 

Mr. Gillen asked what GNEB expected to accomplish by sending the letter.
Mr. Joyce was concerned that the report would take a significant amount
of the Board’s time. Mr. Niemeyer stated that when Senator Jeff
Bingaman proposed this project, he was concerned about transboundary
aquifers. He was hoping for $5 million in funding over a period of 10
years, and he received only $500K.  These are aquifers that affect
border residents. Mr. Niemeyer wanted to emphasize the whole process of
TEIA and not just transboundary aquifers; the letter also should
emphasize the fact that an agreement was supposed to be reached in 1997
regarding notification, assessment, and mitigation of any projects in
one country that could affect the environment of another. It is now 14
years later, and an agreement still has not been reached. If the Board
does not continue to bring this to the ear of important people in
Washington, nothing will be accomplished. He could get a letter to the
Board within a week. He thought it was important to bring this issue to
the attention of the President. 

Ms. Wolf stated that this was not a funding issue, but a border issue
that has gone on for a long time, and the agreement needs to be
implemented. 

Dr. Reed suggested that Mr. Niemeyer draft the letter. The Board members
can comment on the letter and a decision can be made at the next meeting
regarding whether to submit the letter. He agreed that the letter could
not take significant time away from the report. 

Dr. Austin noted that there was a motion and a second for Mr. Niemeyer
to write the letter and circulate it to the Board for review. Ms. Wolf
stated that a teleconference could be held to discuss the letter so that
it can be approved at the September meeting. Mr. Joyce commented that if
it is Board advice, a notice must be placed in the Federal Register 15
days in advance of the teleconference. Mr. Niemeyer stated that federal
members could recuse themselves if necessary. The motion was approved
with no opposition and abstention by Mr. Lawrence. 

Discussion of 14th GNEB Report

Dr. Austin asked if anyone had identified items that are missing from
the report. Ms. Aguillon noted one hole, which was an introduction on
economic impacts. Should this be part of the background or should it be
in the economic impacts section. Dr. Austin thought GNEB needed to
determine what needs to be included in the report and where it goes. If
the committee working on an issue writes a section because those members
know it best, but it belongs in the background section, members should
communicate that to the editor who will pull the pieces together. Could
the Economic Impacts Committee write the section on economic impacts to
be incorporated into the background section? Ms. Aguillon agreed that
she could pull the information together, because it was available on the
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) website
(http://www.dsireusa.org). Mr. Niemeyer stated that the background
section will cover a great deal of information and he thought the best
approach would be to make it as thorough as possible. If it becomes too
long, material can be moved to other sections as needed. 

Dr. Austin asked if energy efficiency should be a separate chapter. She
also asked if sections on policy and regulatory frameworks should be
included in the background or in other sections. 

Dr. Henkel commented that a general map was needed at the beginning of
the report locating the renewable energy resource areas, perhaps
borrowing from the Western Governors Association map from 2009. This
would be important to any reader, and would provide a reason to read the
rest of the document. Additionally, he asked about the length of the
report, because it will affect the level of detail used by authors. 

Mr. Eckert noted that no one had started a summary on cumulative impacts
for the impact section, so the group would create one. 

Ms. Spener commented that DOE funds were allocated for the development
of low head turbines, and they are used to run pumps in some pilot
projects in the irrigation district. She will incorporate some language
on that. Mr. Drusina mentioned the Nogales International Outfall
Interceptor as a possible candidate for power production, and solar
power at federally controlled areas that are near transmission
distribution systems. Something else that should be stated clearly in
the report is a description of the permitting requirements for a
transboundary line. Mr. Lawrence noted that the background section
includes a paragraph on that topic and he could expand it.  

Dr. Reed stated that the background section already includes some
information about policies, and that could be expanded. In the economic
impact section, the policies that have been drivers in opening up the
markets could be mentioned. He suggested that the maps include both
terrestrial wind and off coast wind. Dr. Reed also asked whether the
report would cover only biomass or biofuels as well. Mr. Joyce stated
that only biomass should be addressed in the report, not transport
fuels. Dr. Austin commented that there are complicated equations that
tie offshore wind back to onshore impacts, so GNEB must be careful when
determining what offshore wind would be attributed to the border. Mr.
Wood said that the Texas General Land Office (GLO) has leased some
offshore areas to private enterprise to build wind turbines. They have
studied the offshore impacts as well as the potential onshore impacts.
Mr. Lawrence added that within the energy efficiency/renewable energy
program at DOE, there is a wind and hydro program, so there is some
research being conducted on small hydro. There is a $50 million budget
for offshore wind research, and he could determine what research and
development is being done. With regard to biomass on the border, power
plants and feedstocks should be discussed, including how they will
affect water and land use availability. DOE is conducting work on
biomass that includes a feedstock assessment update with GIS data at the
county level. He cautioned that addressing biomass could be like opening
Pandora’s Box. 

Mr. Apodaca asked if transportation and distribution would be covered in
the background section. Dr. Austin responded that transmission had
disappeared from the Board’s discussions. Which committee is dealing
with transmission? A map of generating stations and existing lines would
be useful regardless of where it is placed in the report. 

Mr. Angel mentioned that offshore energy maps are available from NREL,
but are not available exclusively for the border areas. On the
renewables themselves, he asked how it was decided that hydroelectric
was renewable. Mr. Joyce stated that it was considered part of the
renewable suite. He asked if the resource chapter would include a map
showing the potential for solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal
energy. If the map also shows where plants and projects are being
considered, it may be too much information to convey on one map. The
purpose of this section is to educate the reader as to why renewables
can play such a large role in the energy mix in the border region. Mr.
Angel suggested that only the potential should be identified on the map.


Dr. Reed noted that hydroelectric was always included in the definition
of renewable energy, but there will not be any large hydroelectric
projects in the border region. 

Ms. Wolf stressed the importance of ensuring the map in the report is
accurate and up to date. The Resource Committee thought that the maps
from NREL did not have sufficient data. 

Mr. Lawrence commented that the qualification of hydroelectric for RPS
depends on the state.  It may be necessary to say “State A defines a
renewable as x, y, and z.” In terms of resources, it was determined
the previous day that maps for the resources would be included in the
report. The location of proposed capacity would be provided on a
county-by-county basis. Alternatively, in the Appendix, there could be a
list of all the counties and proposed installed solar, wind, and so on.
The text could state that in California, there are 3,000 MW of proposed
solar. He asked for clarification on transmission. Was GNEB referring to
transborder transmission, or transmission along the border area? Mr.
Apodaca confirmed that he was discussing the U.S. side of the border.
DOE has data on where the lines cross the border, but there are concerns
about showing even the approximate location of substations, because they
can become targets for those who want to harm the United States. He
suggested excluding substations from the map and providing only
approximate locations of the transmission lines. BLM has information on
projects they are evaluating right now, as well as other projects that
they are considering permitting. Dr. Austin said that GNEB was taking
on a large topic, and when thinking about recommendations, the Board
must consider federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The background
section will contain a chart that lists what is covered by each in the
various areas. Case studies can be used to show some of the
jurisdictional issues for one place. 

Mr. Small mentioned that biofuels were discussed at the March meeting,
and asked if they still should be included in the report. Dr. Reed was
unsure whether they should be included in the report, but the report
could mention that there are some projects out there in which biofuels
could be useful. Mr. Lawrence said that from the land use perspective,
biofuels should be included, but GNEB should only discuss advanced
biofuels development and avoid the food versus fuel issue. Ms. Aguillon
agreed that biofuels should be mentioned as a renewable technology in
the border region. Mr. Angel and Mr. Niemeyer thought that biofuels
should be mentioned in passing but minimal space should be devoted to
the discussion. Dr. Austin commented that it was important to
acknowledge biofuels as a renewable technology, but the Board should not
get into mapping all the biofuels or feedstocks. Biofuels could be
mentioned in the economic opportunities section, as well as the impact
section. Mr. Eckert noted that it would be easy to examine the potential
productivity of various areas for growing biofuels along the border. 

Mr. Joyce mentioned that at one point there was much concern about
transmission and environmental impact; will this still be addressed in
the impacts chapter? Mr. Apodaca responded that it would be mentioned in
the impacts section, but he thought it needed to be highlighted at a
higher level because transmission impacts the adoption of solar and wind
technology. 

Mr. Niemeyer stressed the importance of printing the maps in full color.
The effect of the maps will be lost if the report is not printed in full
color. GNEB also needs to begin thinking about the photographs and other
graphics that will be used. Maps need to be put together, and this takes
considerable time. Mr. Joyce confirmed that the intent is to produce a
full color report like last year’s, but perhaps without as many
photographs. He assured the members that the maps would clearly convey
information to the readers. He urged members to identify graphics, maps,
and photographs between now and November 1, because the earlier these
items are sent to the contractor, the earlier they can start working
with them. 

Dr. Austin commented that the previous report was 80 pages long. The
Board should consider if there will be appendices and how to address
references. Mr. Joyce agreed that it was important to cite references,
and perhaps endnotes could be used on a chapter-by-chapter basis, which
might be cleaner than footnotes on each page. It is important to have
the appropriate level of citation so that the reader can refer to the
original source material if desired. Dr. Austin noted that it is easier
to remove references than find them, so she encouraged everyone to
include citations for all information used. If someone else created the
maps the Board is using, they must be given credit. 

Dr. Reed pointed out that, in the transmission line discussion, only the
details of the transborder interconnection are needed. He asked whether
there would be a list of references at the end of the document or
whether a reference would be repeated at the end of each chapter in
which it was cited. Mr. Lawrence thought that endnotes after each
chapter would be cleaner than footnotes at the bottom of the page
because footnotes can take up too much space. Ms. Wolf commented that
this was a research report, and she was citing her sources down to the
page number. At this point, she thought sources should be listed as they
would in an academic paper. Dr. Austin agreed that everyone should give
as much detail as possible at this point; it can be revised in the
future when the reference format decision is made. Mr. Joyce noted that
past reports have included an acknowledgments section; it is important
to acknowledge the assistance given to the Board by various
organizations and individuals. Members should keep track of individuals
and organizations they consult regarding the substance of the report. 

Dr. Henkel noted that some of the impact questions are controversial, so
it is important to cite them specifically. Mr. Angel agreed that
endnotes would be less disruptive than footnotes. 

Dr. Austin pointed the members to the topic of energy efficiency and how
it should be handled in the report. Ms. Aguillon commented that in terms
of economic impacts, there are two markets:  the utility scale market
and distributed generation. Within distributed generation, there are
wholesale and retail markets. Energy efficiency and solar hot water are
married to the distributed generation. She does not have a lot of
information on energy efficiency products and markets, but believes that
they fall within the distributed generation part of the economic
impacts. Dr. Reed agreed that GNEB should deal with energy efficiency
where it melds together with renewables and that is on the distributed
piece. The Sierra Club uses an organization called the American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and they have information on
policy and jobs; DOE has a lot of information as well. He though it
could be included in the distributed renewable section instead of in a
separate chapter. Dr. Austin asked that the group think about whether a
case study or sidebar would fit into the section. Dr. Henkel suggested
that the economics section could examine what municipalities use for
conventional lighting and conventional treatment of water. New building
codes could be examined on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Wolf saw energy
efficiency as a sidebar or information box as well as being included in
the economic impacts section, pointing out that conservation and energy
efficiency are the primary and most affordable ways to reduce energy use
along the border. Ms. Wieting thought that text discussing energy
efficiency more generally could be included in the background section;
Mr. Niemeyer agreed to draft this section. 

Ms. Aguillon asked if Dr. Reed could draft the section on energy
efficiency for the economic impacts chapter and coordinate with DOE to
ensure that the information is correct. 

Mr. Lawrence quoted DOE’s Secretary who said that “the cheapest
kilowatt is the one you do not have to produce.” The American Public
Power Association published a resource in the past month that is a
review of 21 types of programs, including energy efficiency, and how
utilities have implemented them. The name of the report is Energy
Services That Work. In terms of environmental impacts associated with
transmission, the Board should avoid discussing specific projects
because there are open regulatory proceedings surrounding some of them.
Dr. Austin noted that none of the impacts are listed at a project
specific level. Ms. Wolf did not agree with avoiding the mention of
specific projects, stating that there are ample public documents about
the transmission line proposed for the Santa Cruz area in Arizona. The
transmission line is proposed through one of the last riparian areas.
She thought it would be irresponsible not to mention this as it is one
of the top transmission issues now occurring. If necessary, federal
members can recuse themselves from the report. Mr. Lawrence said he
would have to consult DOE general counsel to see what could be
discussed.  

Mr. Starfield assumed that the report would say that renewables are an
improvement over fossil fuels, but there are still significant impacts
that must be considered, and therefore the option of reducing the need
for energy through energy efficiency would be beneficial. A 2007 study
by the ACEEE mentions that a combination of energy efficiency and
renewables would not require the use of conventional energy in Texas for
15 years. The number one choice should always be energy efficiency.  

Mr. Mike Ortega (Cochise County Administrator), GNEB member, agreed with
Ms. Wolf’s comments on the transmission line in Santa Cruz. To ignore
it would be a disservice. In southeast Arizona, transmission lines have
been proposed along the interstate system that would have environmental
impacts as well as effects on military installations that are very
important in the area. Mr. Lawrence restated his concerns about
mentioning specific projects.

 

Dr. Austin asked members about other “hot button” issues that the
Board probably would never reach consensus on and should not waste time
debating. Additionally, is there any issue that was not raised that a
member believes should be included in the report? Dr. Austin asked if
the report should address jobs and workforce policies, worker
protections, and wages. Dr. Henkel thought these could be included in
the economic impacts section. Both a review based on the North American
Industrial Classification System and the policies of the various
workforce solutions departments in the four states could be addressed.
Dr. Austin asked if this should be mentioned in the background section
as well. Dr. Henkel noted that some of the text could be used in the
background section. 

Ms. Wolf commented that no one had mentioned communicating with the
utilities. She had contacted Tucson Electric Power and Dr. Henkel would
like to speak with them as well. The utility supplies power to all four
border states. 

Mr. Gillen said there was some discussion of climate change in the
background section that caused him concern. It states that “The border
region will become warmer and dryer over the next century.” He would
like to add the words “Some reports indicate that” to the beginning
of the sentence. Also in that section, a 1.5 degree increase in
temperatures is compared to a 1960 to 1979 baseline period; is that the
only baseline period available? It further states that projected
declines in spring precipitation for communities along the Mexico border
could be as much as 40 percent, but no source is cited. If there is no
credible reference and the information cannot be verified, the report
should not include the statement. 

Ms. Wieting commented that this was a summarization of longer documents.
She agreed that a reference was needed. The text comes from a regional
climate impacts document created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and other agencies. Mr. Niemeyer added that the
section Mr. Gillen mentioned was provided by Alison Krepp of NOAA, and
she did not provide a reference. Does the issue of climate change need
to be qualified? It must be addressed in a way that makes everyone
comfortable. 

Ms. Spener noted that Mr. Drusina had similar questions about the
background section. He has a number of comments on various parts of the
text. How should members communicate these comments to the authors?
Additional explanations are needed in the background section; for
example, it cannot be assumed that people know the states in which
various communities are located. 

Ms. Wieting stated that she would be happy to discuss the climate change
section. Although there is no doubt in her mind that climate is
changing, she recognized that different communities talk about these
issues in different ways. These issues can be discussed in scientific
terms based on the data and information available, and less incendiary
terminology can be used. 

Dr. Reed noted that he does not usually talk about climate change;
instead he notes that certain resources do not create carbon dioxide
emissions that the scientific community believes lead to global warming.
Mr. Joyce added that he was certain that someone had been studying the
flora and fauna in the region that can document substantive changes that
have occurred in the species during the past 2 decades. If that research
has appeared in peer-reviewed journals and is just being cited, he does
not see an issue with this. Mr. Niemeyer said that, in his state, there
are at least eight lawsuits against the Federal Government over global
warming and climate change. One phrase that most are comfortable with is
“climate variability.” He suggested that if someone has questions
about a chapter and the author is unknown, questions should be sent to
the Committee Chair for that chapter. 

Ms. Scarlata raised the issue of cross-border transmission, which needs
to be addressed in a balanced manner. 

Dr. Austin indicated that dates for the September and December meetings
had not been identified. Mr. Joyce stated that OFACMO staff would
follow up with Board members about the dates for both meetings, which
need to be set as soon as possible. In terms of the process for the
report, the timetable is ambitious. After these revisions are
incorporated, there will be a single working draft that will be managed
by the contractor. The contractor will edit the text of the report so it
reads as if it was written by one author. The Board will have to agree
on when the next set of revisions will be ready to transmit to the
contractor. The first order of business is to come to a consensus on how
soon members believe they can incorporate the additions and revisions
discussed at this meeting. Ideally, if that is done soon enough, there
could be a teleconference before the September meeting to talk through
that draft and see what additional material is needed. It would be ideal
to have a near-final draft for discussion at the September meeting so
that the final version can be completed by November 1, 2011. Dr. Austin
stated that she already has numerous comments to give to the committees.
She asked the members who had comments on the current text to submit
them to the Committee Chairs as soon as possible. She also asked the
committees that had not yet submitted draft text to get that completed.
Mr. Joyce stated that it is important to get a complete working draft as
soon as possible; otherwise, members will be commenting on text that may
have been revised already. 

Ms. Wolf stated that the Impacts Chapter Committee would try to get all
revisions and changes finished by July 7. They will review the draft on
a conference call on July 14, and then complete the rewrite by July 28.
Dr. Austin asked if any other committee had a time table to report. Mr.
Niemeyer stated that he would create one for the background section. He
asked that comments on the background section be submitted to him. Mr.
Angel commented that the Resources Committee was planning on a 2-week
turnaround. Mr. Joyce stressed the importance of each committee
submitting as complete a draft as possible by Monday, August 1, 2011, so
that it can be provided to the contractor. Dr. Austin added that the
goal is to get a compiled draft out to the members by the middle of
August. That should give the members time to read the draft before the
September meeting. Every committee also needs to have a least one
conference call before sending the draft to the contractor. It would be
useful for the conference call schedule to be distributed to all members
because there is a lot of crossover, and certain individuals will be on
multiple calls. She asked each Committee Chair to provide the date of
the committee’s teleconferences to OFACMO staff by June 22, so that
those dates can be placed on the schedule and distributed to all Board
members. As committees are developing their drafts, they should consider
maps, graphics, and photographs that should be included in the report.
Also, the Chairs should provide information on case studies and who will
be writing them. 

Dr. Austin noted that the final point to be discussed at this meeting
was determination of how to move ahead with recommendations. Some
committees already have drafted some recommendations. Currently, there
are recommendations in each chapter. Should there be a committee to pull
all the recommendations together and write them in a final form? This
task will require a great deal of time. She asked for any suggestions or
ideas on how the recommendations could be addressed in the report. Mr.
Gillen asked if it would be appropriate for each committee to submit a
set of issues or recommendations to the Recommendations Committee.
Dr. Austin stated that ideally, at the time the text is being sent to
the contractor, the recommendations could be sent to the Recommendations
Committee. The contractor will be working on the text for a few weeks,
which will allow the GNEB members some time to address the
recommendations. 

Dr. Austin suggested that the recommendation committee be small,
consisting of three or four people only. It could include members who do
not have much work to do in writing chapter sections. Ms. Grijalva
commented that she would be happy to review the whole document, but
noted that she was not an energy expert. Dr. Austin stated that everyone
would be asked to review the entire report; she asked Ms. Grijalva if
she would serve on the committee to pull together the recommendations.
Ms. Grijalva agreed to serve on that committee. Mr. Niemeyer also
volunteered to serve on the Recommendations Committee. 

Mr. Lawrence asked if each chapter’s authors should propose
recommendations and send them to the Recommendations Committee. Dr.
Austin agreed that the chapter authors should draft the recommendations
and send them to the Committee Chairs who will consolidate them and send
them to the Recommendations Committee. The Recommendations Committee
will pull all the recommendations together and send them to the Board
members for review.  

Mr. Joyce commented that this is a report to the President on what GNEB
thinks that the Federal Government should be doing about renewable
energy generation and use in the border region. It should be actionable
and as detailed as possible. General recommendations are not helpful.
Dr. Austin added that in addition to specific suggestions, members
should think about 5 to 10 years from now, and ask themselves if they
would be able to live with the recommendation. If a recommendation
benefits only a certain group, or is not based on solid data, it will
not be actionable. Keep in mind that the Board does not report to
states. The background chapter will be critical in delineating the
purview of the Federal Government versus the states. Mr. Joyce added
that as the authors are thinking about the recommendations, they should
consider that requests for more funding will not be helpful given
current realities. 

Ms. Aguillon asked if the Board could recommend that a certain bill
would be helpful if passed. Mr. Joyce noted that Congress makes the
laws, but the report could note that a certain bill might be helpful for
the continued support of the Administration. Dr. Austin emphasized the
importance of providing data and solid arguments in the chapters to
support the recommendations. The chapter must build the case for any
recommendations on the topic. 

Ms. Aguillon asked for an example of a useful recommendation. Ms.
Grijalva suggested that “we would encourage the President make a
clarification on this issue,” would be useful language. Mr. Lawrence
mentioned that it also might be helpful to recommend that the
Administration define its stance on issue X and then act appropriately
on that determination. Mr. Joyce added that as much detail and
specificity as can be provided would be useful. GNEB is an advisory
committee that can state its advice and its opinion. Dr. Austin
suggested that members take some time to look at the previous reports
and read the recommendations. She hoped that the recommendations could
be finalized at the September meeting. 

Dr. Austin commented that the recommendations should be as clear as
possible so that every Board member understands them and knows what they
are voting on. 

Dr. Reed asked if it was appropriate to show potential resources on the
Mexican side on the map. Mr. Joyce answered that the statutory language
of the Board is clear and states that the GNEB should make
recommendations for the betterment of those living north of the border.
What happens south of the border, however, affects what happens north of
the border. Dr. Reed asked specifically if the potential resources south
of the border should be included. Dr. Austin responded that in terms of
the resource potential, if the data are available, the information
should be included. Ms. Scarlata mentioned that the Department of State
has an energy officer who works at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City who
can provide that information. 

Mr. Joyce suggested that the Board review the key deliverables.
Committee Chairs will send their best drafts to the contractor by August
1, 2011. Dr. Austin noted that September and December meeting date
options will be sent to members by the week of June 27, 2011. 

Before Ms. Krebs left the meeting, Mr. Joyce thanked her for her help
with planning this meeting and for organizing the reception the previous
evening. Referring to the agenda for the September meeting, he stressed
the importance of blocking out as much time as possible for discussion
of the report. 

Mr. Gillen suggested devoting the first day, which is the full day, to
the report discussion and having the speakers on the second day. That
would maximize the time spent on discussing the report. Members always
need to leave early on the second day and that will cut into the time
devoted to discussing the report. Dr. Austin shared Mr. Gillen’s
concern, and said that she will seriously consider his suggestion.

 

Dr. Austin noted that there was a public comment period scheduled from
1:30 to 2:00 p.m., and asked what should be done if the meeting adjourns
before that time. She suggested that any member who was available to
stay in the event that there were public comments should do so. Ms.
Grijalva suggested that perhaps the public comment period could be
scheduled earlier on the agendas for future meetings to avoid this
problem. Mr. Joyce responded that public comment was scheduled on both
days so that members of the public would have ample opportunity to
comment. He said he would be present to receive public comments if any
were offered. Dr. Austin stated that she would be available as well.

Mr. Angel indicated that the Planning Committee tried to engage the
local utilities but was not successful. Perhaps a large utility
representative could speak at the September meeting. Mr. Lawrence
commented that El Paso Electric had two Presidential permits for
transboundary transmission lines, so it might be useful if an El Paso
Electric representative could talk about those projects. 

Dr. Austin adjourned the meeting at 12:44 p.m.  No public comments were
offered at 1:30 p.m.



Action Items

Action Items

Ms. Scarlata will determine whether USAID   HYPERLINK
"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaid.gov%2F&ei=maEYTraUNs7PgAeWpdgo&usg=AFQjCNEEovS6i5
wNYVS0PBCaj6KuPLK6xg"   has money available for training on border
crossing modeling and she will inform Ms. Grijalva. 

Dr. Pohlman will send information to the Board on the GAO report on
federally managed renewable energy projects.  

Ms. Aguillon will draft an introductory section on economic impacts that
can be incorporated into the background section of the report. 

Mr. Lawrence will draft a description of the permitting requirements for
a transboundary line. 

Mr. Niemeyer will address energy efficiency in the background section. 

Dr. Reed will draft the section on energy efficiency for the economic
opportunities section, coordinating with DOE.

Dr. Henkel will draft a section on workforce issues for the economic
opportunities and background sections.

Board members will send their comments on current draft chapters to the
Committee Chairs.

OFACMO staff will follow up with Board members about the dates for both
the September and December meetings as soon as possible. September and
December meeting date options will be sent to members by the week of
June 27, 2011.

Each Committee Chair will provide the date of his/her committee’s
teleconferences to OFACMO staff by June 22.

Ms. Grijalva, Dr. Austin, and Mr. Niemeyer will serve on the
Recommendations Committee.

Each Committee Chair will send the best draft of his/her committee’s
chapter to the contractor by Monday, August 1, 2011.

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting Participants

Nongovernment, State, Local, and Tribal Members of the Board

Diane Austin, Ph.D., Acting Chair

Associate Research Anthropologist

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Cecilia E. Aguillon

Director, Market Development and Government

	Relations

KYOCERA Solar, Inc. 

San Diego, CA

Jose Angel

Assistant Executive Officer

California River Basin Region Water Quality

Control Board – Colorado River Basin Region

Palm Desert, CA 

Evaristo Cruz

Director

Environmental Management Office

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

El Paso, TX  

Gary Gillen

President

Gillen Pest Control

Richmond, TX  

David Henkel, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

University of New Mexico

Community and Regional Planning Program

School of Architecture and Planning

Phoenix, AZ  

Patti Krebs 

Executive Director 

Industrial Environmental Association

San Diego, CA 

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.

Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator

Intergovernmental Relations Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX 

 

Luis Olmedo

Executive Director

Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.

Brawley, CA

Mike Ortega

Cochise County Administrator

Board of Supervisors 

Bisbee, AZ 

Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.

Conservation Director

Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter

Austin, TX

Thomas Ruiz, M.S.

Border/Environmental Justice Liaison

Office of the Secretary

New Mexico Environment Department

Las Cruces, NM

Nathan P. Small 

Conservation Coordinator

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance

Las Cruces, NM

Ann Marie A. Wolf

President

Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.

Tucson, AZ  

John Wood

Representative

Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority

Brownsville, TX

Federal Members of the Board and Alternates

Department of Homeland Security

Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.

Director

Occupational Safety and Environmental Programs

Office of Chief Administrative Officer

Management Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Department of the Interior

Greg Eckert

National Park Service

Fort Collins, CO

Department of State

Georgina Scarlata

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

Environmental Protection Agency

Larry Starfield

Deputy Regional Administrator

EPA Region 6

Dallas, TX

International Boundary and Water Commission

Edward Drusina

Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX 

Sally Spener

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Robert M. Apodaca

Assistant Chief – West

USDA/NRCS

Albuquerque, NM

Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Donna Wieting

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, MD  

Department of Transportation

Sylvia Grijalva

Federal Highway Administration

Phoenix, AZ

Department of Energy

Christopher Lawrence

Department of Energy

Washington, DC  

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Washington, DC  

EPA Participants

Alheli Baños-Keener

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

David Fege

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

Ann-Marie Gantner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Washington, DC 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Acting Director

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

Douglas Liden

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

Lorena Lopez-Powers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

Other Participants

Lisa Bicker

Clean TECH San Diego

Nicole Capretz

Environmental Health Coalition

Crystal Crawford

Del Mar, CA

Maria Elena Giner

Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Pablo Gutierrez

California Energy Commission

Andy Horne

Natural Resources Development

Kathy MacDougall

Independent Energy Solutions, Inc.

Andrew McAllister

California Center for Sustainable Energy

Micah Mitrosky

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Bill Powers

Powers Engineering

Caridad Sanchez

Office of Senator Barbara Boxer, CA

José Tellechea

North American Development Bank

Donna Tisdale

Boulevard, CA

Rick Van Schoik

Arizona State University

Contractor Support

Mary Spock, M.S.

Writer/Editor

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD  

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

The US Grant Hotel

326 Broadway

San Diego, California  92101

619/232-3121

AGENDA

Thursday, June 16

8:00 a.m.	Registration

8:30-9:00	Welcome and Introductions

   Mark Joyce

Associate Director and Acting Designated Federal Officer

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

   Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

   Diane Austin

Acting Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

9:00-10:30	Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the

US-Mexico Border Region

   Donna Tisdale

Secretary

Protect our Communities Foundation

   Pablo Gutierrez

Geothermal Program Technical Lead

California Energy Commission



   Bill Powers

Powers Engineering

10:30-10:45	Break

10:45-12:15	Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the
US-Mexico

Border Region

   Lisa Bicker President and CEO Clean TECH San Diego

   Kathy MacDougall

Director of Human Resources

Independent Energy Solutions, Inc.

   Nicole Capretz

Director

Green Energy/Green Jobs Campaign

Environmental Health Coalition

12:15-12:45	Public Comments

12:45-2:00	Lunch

2:00-3:00	Policy Issues Associated with the Development of Renewable
Energy in the US-Mexico Border Region

   Andrew McAllister

Director of Policy and Strategy

California Center for Sustainable Energy

   Andy Horne

Deputy County Executive Officer

Natural Resources Development

3:00-3:15	Break

3:15-4:00	Update on Cross-Border Electricity Task Force and Other 

	Issues

   Georgina Scarlata Border Affairs Officer U.S. Department of State

   Christopher Lawrence Electricity Industry Specialist U.S. Department
of Energy

   Rick Van Schoik, Director

North American Center for Transborder Studies

Arizona State University

4:00-6:00	Discussion of 14th Report

6:00	Adjourn

Meeting Day 2

Friday, June 17

8:30-9:30	Discussion of Next Meetings and Other Business

Las Cruces, NM – September

Washington, DC - December

9:30-11:00	Discussion of 14th Report

11:00-11:15	Break

11:15-1:30	Discussion of 14th Report

1:30-2:00	Public Comments

2:00	Adjourn

  PAGE  4 		June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting Summary

June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  5 

  PAGE  48 		June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting Summary

June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  47 

