March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1 

## Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

**Meeting March**  **24 -**  **25 , 201**  **1 Mandar**  **i n**  **O rien** **t a**  **l 1330 Mar** **y la**  **n d**  **A v**  **enue, S**  **.W. Wa**  **s h**  **i ngt**  **o n,**  **D C 200**  **2 4** 



### D **RAFT** 

### M **EETING** 

### S **UMMARY**



### T **HURSDAY** 

### , **M ARCH**  

### 24, **2011 Welcome and Introductions**  Diane Austin, Acting Chair, Good Neighbor En vironmental 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) Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO) , a cting DFO, welcomed members and called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. E D T

. He thanked the participants for attending and announced that Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality , would be addre ssing the Board at 9:30 a.m. Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona), acting GNEB Chair, welcomed returning and new members to the meeting and noted that member introductions would begin before Ms. Sutley’s visit and be completed after her remarks. Ms. Cynthia Jones

- Jackson (EPA, OFACMO), thanked all members for attending, including the new me mbers she had met at the orientation on March 23rd, and the returning members , who she also thanked for their dedication. She commented that GNEB’s past work has be en excellent and she anticipated that the Board would continue that caliber of work . Serving as a nonpartisan advisory board to the President and Congress on environmental and infrastructure practices along the U.S. border with Mexico, this Board is tasked with providing recommendations on a broad range of environmental and economic issues. EPA is particularly excited that GNEB will be addressing the environmental and economic benefits of increased use of renewable energy in the border region. Board member s, audience members, and support staff introduced themselves. Dr. Austin thanked the staff at OFACMO for coordinating the meeting. Ms. Jo nes - Jackson then introduced Ms. Sutley. **Opening Remarks and General Discussion** Nancy Sutley, Chair, White House Counc il on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Ms. Sutley expressed her pleasure in addressing the Board; having served on GNEB herself, she understands that members are performing a great public service

. She thanked the Board for its excellent work on the 13 th Report ; CEQ appreciated the careful thought and input in the report

. GNEB works diligently to craft the recommendations in the reports, and the se reports provide a great service to the Administration as they are an important way to hear from communities along the border about the environmental p riorities in the border region. CEQ and other federal agencies take GNEB’s recommendations seriously. CEQ is bringing agencies that work on southwest border environmental2 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

issues together, and this interagency group has taken a careful look at the recommendations in the 13th GNEB report. She noted that the Board was beginning its work on the 14th report , which will focus on clean energy and its enormous potential to improve the economic and environmental health of the border region. The President believes that developing and promoting clean energy opportunities is essential to the world , our Nation, and the border region. In the State of the Union speech , he laid out a path for the United States to out

- educate, out

- innovate, and out

-build the rest of the world to secure a competitive position in the global economy , and clean energy is an important part of this plan. The jobs and industries of the future must be created by doing what our Nation does best: i nvesting in the creativity and imagination of its citizens. The President has challenged scientists and engineers to invent and develop new technologies, and s et a goal of generating 80 percent of America’s electricity from clean sources by 2035. The border region has enormous potential for solar, wind, and geothermal energy and CEQ believes that it is well

-positioned to be an important part of this clean energy revolution. In his budget, the President proposed more than $8 billion for clean energy research and development to h elp create new industries and jobs in these areas, which will be long

-term sustainable jobs in the United States. CEQ has been focused on energy efficiency, which is the cheapest and cleanest energy resource available. If the United States became 20 perc ent more energy efficient, it would save more than $ 200 billion annually. Energy efficiency will continue to be one of the most readily available ways to create jobs, save money, and reduce pollution. Many investments have been made in clean energy technol ogy, but the Administration also has been investing in the policies that will grow a sustainable energy efficiency market. CEQ has been examining an idea called “ recovery through retrofit ” for the residential market

. Retrofit technologies exist that can cu t homeowners’ energy use by an average of 40 percent

. This market, however, has never been successful because it is difficult to maintain. CEQ wants to examine ways to give homeowners and businesses the tools that they need to ensure that this market will grow and flourish. The Department of Energy (DOE) has developed a home energy score that provides information to homeowners about energy use and retrofit options. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) has developed a new power saver loan that will make it easier for homeowners to retrofit. CEQ has developed new workforce guidelines and protocols for energy upgrades to ensure that there is a well

-trained retrofit workforce. The Administration has made significant investment s in clean energy through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and is now beginning to see its benefits . A few years ago, the United States made 2 percent of the world’s advanced batteries for vehicles, and now because of the ARRA investment, the Nation will have 20 percent of the world market by next year, and as much as 40 percent by 2015. This increase is good for the development of advanced vehicles , for the auto industry , and for the communities that rely on it. Each time a factory opens, it becomes a lifeli ne for communities and supports hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly. In the border region specifically, DOE is working to develop best practices for energy conservation and alternative energy in states along the southwest border, and along with the Mexican G overnment and its utilities , is developing a plan to map out wind resources in strategic areas in Mexico. DOE also has been working with the Mexican G overnment on the deployment of technologies that will help to increase energy efficiency and reli ability

. CEQ has examined the 13th report carefully, and is working hard to ensure it is responding to some of the Board’s rec ommendations

. The border region contains a number of poor and largely minority communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental conditions and a lack of basic infrastructure. The border has specific challenges, as pointed out in the GNEB report, because of climate change. Climate change adaptation is an important issue, and border communities have to deal with associ ated problems such as a decrease in water availability and increased drought duration, changes in vegetation, and ch anges in habitat. CEQ has been working with a number of agencies to ensure that the F ederal G overnment is doing what it should to prepare fo r the impacts of climate change. CEQ has issued implementation instructions to give direction to federal agencies on how they should integrate climate change adaptation into their planning, operations, policies, and programs to ensure that federal resource s are invested wisely and programs will remain e ffective in the face of changing climate. In another are a with respect to climate, the F ederal G overnment has many scientific resources, data, and information, and sometimes does not share th ese effectively with those who really need it. CEQ received a lot of feedback from state, local, and tribal governments that information about climate change impactsMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

should be made available and more accessible so decisions can be made about how to limit risks and reduce t he long

-te rm costs of coping with climate

-related damages. The Border 2012 program is an important part of the F ederal G overnment’s efforts to achieve public health results in communities across the border; the program recognizes that we all share responsibility for a healthy border region. Ms. Sutley thanked the Board again for its hard work. Discussion Mr. John Wood (Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority) , GNEB member, commented that he had been on the Board for 4 years, and prior to Ms. Sutley’ s tenure at CEQ, GNEB did not have this level of engagement with C EQ

. He noted that Ms. Sutley and CEQ have invigorated the seasoned members of the B oard. GNEB members consider the content of the report potentially beneficial to CEQ, the President, and the Nation. Ms. Sutley said she appre ciate d that fact . Washington can seem a distant place to communities along the border , and the reverse is true as well. The Board brings a voice that does not otherwise exist for the F ederal G overnment, and tries to amplif y the voice s of communities along the border. Mr. Edward Drusina (International Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC]), GNEB member, stated that Ms. Sutley’s words were very encouraging. As the new IBWC Commissioner, he has been working closely with the B order Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB), and held a successful meeting recently with environmental interests from both sides of the border. He believes that GNEB has an excellent mixture of members to address border region issues. Mr. Luis Ramirez Thomas (Ramirez Advisors Inter

-National, LLC), GNEB member, commented that additional funding was needed for border infrastructure, and asked Ms. Sutley about her thoughts on nuclear energy. She responded that the President believes that nuclear is an important part of the energy mix , but clearly the events in Japan remind the Nation that safety is the most important factor when dealing with nuclear energy. The President has a sked the Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion (NRC ) to re double its efforts to ensure that the nuclear plants in the United States are safe. As the Nation seeks to develop additional clean energy resources, it must deal with their environmental and public health impact s . Energy use has consequen ces, and it is important to invest in energy efficiency . Nuclear energy’s future as a resource depends on the ability to produce it safely and ensure that there is no harm to communities as a result of its use. It is the responsibility of the F ederal G overnment to ensure this safety. Mr. Luis Olmedo (Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.), GNEB member, noted that it was a great honor to be part of GNEB. He has seen progress on the ground because of the work of this Administration. There is great concern about in frastructure, however, as budgets are declining and governments are shrinking. He sees great interest in renewable energy , but issues of permitting and streamlining remain, and some protections are being removed. Ms. Sutley replied that as renewables are b eing developed, their environmental impact must be taken into account. Communities must have a voice in this process. People who are developing these resources cannot do so at the expense of the environment, public health, and communities. The Department o f the Interior (DOI) and other agencies that have permitting responsibilities have been working with the S tate of California to share responsibility for permitting and approval, but the earlier communities can be engaged, the better. Dr. David Henkel (University of New Mexico), GNEB member, stated that many of the discussions about renewable energy have overlooked the way that poor communities perceive these as lesser sources of energy. In some cases, discussions about energy conservation and efficiency o verlook the rate of consumption that is presupposed ; the policies assume that poorer communities will reach the rate of consumption of society in general. He asked to what degree EPA or other agencies try to marry the analysis of new energy sources with as sessment of how rates of consumption can be reduced. Ms. Sutley answered that energy efficiency is a resource, and one that will vary depending on the accessibility of4 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

techniques to reduce energy use, and whether use is industrial, commercial, or residenti al. Not just in poor communities, but across the United States, h omeowners do no t underst and how their homes use energy and opp ortunitie s to reduce energy use. The home energy score is one possible tool to help homeowners understand h ow their homes perform relative to similar homes

. Opportunities exist for co mmunities and retrofit businesses to help homeowners reduce energy use. Community c olleges and trade unions are focusing a great deal of training on this , and that is why standards had to be developed. For low income communities, opportunities exist in energy savings but also in job creation . The F ederal G overnment’s role is to provide tools and set broad goals, but programs must be designed to meet community needs

. Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commissi on on Environmental Quality [TCEQ] ), GNEB member, noted that Commissioner Drusina mentioned BECC and NADB. He stated that in the 13 th report the GNEB was careful no tto request additional funds for border water and wastewater infrastructure , and wanted to know if there were going to be any increases in such funds in the future

. Ms. Sutley responded that the money that has been invested in water and wastewater infrastructure generally has been spent

. EPA, through ARRA, did give a substantial amount of money to states for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. The federal money is important; if the federal share of the total money that is invested in water and wastewater infrastructure is declining, EPA must set priorities for allocating the money that remains. This Board should continue to remind the government that there is a real need along the border. Ms. Cecilia Aguillon (Kyocera Solar, Inc.), GNEB member, commented that her company is challenged on two fronts: financing for low income housing, and the utility companies . Programs exist for energy efficiency, but they are difficult to find on the utilities’ Web page s . Can the Administration provide some help and guidance on how to deal with the utility companies as well as with the financing community so that renewable energy businesses can cooperate and collaborate with them? Ms. Sutley agreed that this is a key issue, because many decisi ons are made at the state level. The F ederal G overnment has to watch how these decisions are implemented when ex amining the financial implications of energy efficiency of distributed energy like solar . A number of agencies including CEQ have been in discussion with the National A ssociation of State Regulatory C ommissions. CEQ wants a serious discussion at the nation al level about the kinds of financial and rate

- making policies that will help to ensure a level playing field. California has been at the forefront in developing policies that protect utility shareholders and promote innovation. CEQ will need to focus on this issue

. Dr. Austin thanked Ms. Sutley for her presentation , and reviewed the agenda and background issues with the Board members. The first day’s schedule largely consists of presentations that relate to the topic of this year’s report. The s e will be followed by discussions among the Board members about the report. On the second day, GNEB will plan the June and September meeting dates and locations. Meetings on the border will allow people from those regions to share information with the Board about environmental issues in the community related to the report. The remainder of time on the second day will be spent discussing the report and delegating specific areas to various members. Mr. Joyce noted that , in advance of the meeting , all members had rece ived a draft discussion outline for the report, which is intended to form a basis of what would be discussed during the meeting. The outline contains three sections : (1) current border environmental issues; (2) renewable energy resources in the border reg ion; and (3) economic opportunities that renewables present for the border region. More affluent areas are more able to deal with environmental concerns in their communities, so the hope is that by creating economic opportunity, jobs and resources will be developed in these areas. This also will lead to a better environment with cleaner air and energy technologies. The economic section of the report would examine the entire spectrum of renewables from manufacturing through installation, maintenance, and training. By the end of the second day of the meeting, GNEB should have an expanded outline noting the major areas of the report and which members will be responsible for drafting the initial text. To have a report ready to transmit to the President by Decemb er 2011 , text must be finished by the first of November. The substantive body of the text must be available by the June meeting. The text will be edited and revised, and the September meeting will be the last opportunity for substantive issues with the rep ort to be raised . Additionally, the locations of the June and September meetings can be tied to theMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 5

report topic. GNEB must consider which communities present an opportunity to educate the Board on renewables while drafting the report. By June, it must be decided where the report will be released: in Washington, DC, or in a border community. Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control), GNEB member, mentioned that 6 years ago, reports were generally released at the Border Governors ’ Meeting, but many GNEB membe rs were not able to attend this meeting. He thought the report should be released at a location where the majority of Board members could attend. Mr. Joyce responded that the December meeting would be a full Board meeting. Ms. Ann Marie Wolf (Sonora Envi ronmental Research Institute, Inc.), GNEB member, wondered why the Board was not choosing its own topic as it had for the previous five years she had served on the Board. She noted pressing infrastructure and environmental health issues, and remained concerned that GNEB was not able to discuss and select the topic this year. Mr. Joyce replied that GNEB provides advice to the President and Congress, and EPA and the Board have worked for a number of years to create a relationship with CEQ. The way in which topics have been identified for the Board’s reports have evolved; GNEB now is working closely with CEQ to ensure that the Board is producing advice and recommendations on the topics that are the highest priority to CEQ and the Administration. This year’s top ic was deemed to be important for the EPA Admini strator, the Agency, and CEQ. An opportunity for discussion will be available later in the year about priorities for the 15th report; the ideas will be transmitted to CEQ, and CEQ then will ask the Board to p rovide advice and recommendations on a specific topic. Ms. Jones

- Jackson added that CEQ has been a tremendous advocate of GNEB and Ms. Sutley has taken a personal interest in the Board’s activities . This is the first year that Ms. Sutley encouraged other agencies to comment on GNEB’s recommendations. As a result, she is interested in having EPA and other agencies collaborate on bringing some of the recommendations to fruition. Ms. Sutley expres sed interest, on behalf of the President, in pursuing this topic . Members can raise other topics of interest that can be pursued in future reports. Mr. Evaristo Cruz (Environmental Management Office, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo), GNEB member, noted that information and data requirements for the topic would require input from DOE . DOE has data on energy efficiency grants and recipients are reporting on those projects now. He asked if it would be possible to interface some of the work with DOE to be consistent with that agency’s goals and objec tives. Mr. Joyce responded that it would be possible; there is an official DOE representative on the Board who is not present at the meeting. In preparation for this meeting, EPA has had discussions with representatives from the National Renewable Energy L aboratory, other parts of DOE, and other agencies. The intent is that the Board draw on expertise of all federal agencies working on these topics. Mr. Robert Apodaca (U.S. Department of Agriculture), GNEB member, understood that part of the objective of the Board is to produce a report and he has seen past reports . The various agencies at the table already have been tasked with implementing a number of recommendations from the Board . He asked what was being done to move the recommendations to the next stage. Ms. Jones

- Jackson replied th at she and Mr. Joyce served on CEQ’s S outhwest Interagency W orkgroup. CEQ is examining the different recommendations, and is willing to help select one or two projects stemming from the 13th report ; hopefully , something may be implemented by end of year

. C EQ will meet April 27, 2011, to discuss which of the one to three projects will be pursued. Mr. Joyce added that advisory committee recommendations are purely advisory in nature; agencies are not required to act on them and there is no deadline for implementation . Some recommendations made a decade ago have been implemented only in the past few years. Ms. Toni Rousey (EPA, OFACMO) added that CEQ takes all the recommendations very seriously; the interagency workgroup mentioned can be used as a forum to discu ss the issues and the border region in general. Mr. Niemeyer stated that meeting locations outside a major metropolitan area are difficult and costly to reach, but the Board me mbers are committed enough to attend meetings in these locations. He noted tha t there are many locations where the Board could actually see renewable energy technologies and that would be useful for preparing this report. Additionally, GNEB members should have copies of the6 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

President’s response to the recommendations from past reports to help members learn the impact of GNEB’s work. Lastly, the border emergency response report recommended that emergency response equipment be provided to Mexican responders, and within a year or two of that report , a program was started by the Departme nt of Defense (DoD) to provide the equipment and training

. **Air Quality and Climate Change Along the U.S. -**  **Mexico Border** Air Quality Impacts in the Border Region Sue Stendebach, EPA, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Senior Advisor on International Air Quality Ms. Stendebach described the border zones as uniquely varying in terms of geography, topography, geology, temperature, humidity, amount of sunlight, wind patterns, population, industry, and socioeco no mic factors. These variances define the types, s ources, distribution, and impacts of pollution in the particular area of study as well as the conditions for renewable energy. Major criteria emissions ’ sources in the border region include vehicles. Many vehicles in use in the border region emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (PM) , with diesel vehicles also emitting black carbon and carbon dioxide . New clean vehicles and ultra

- low sulfur fuels will lower these emissions in the United States, but Mexico will not have ultra

- low sulf ur diesel nationwide until late 2014 , although it is tightening its emissions standards. Energy generation facilities also release sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides among other pollutants. The current standard for ozone in the United States is 0.075 ppm 8

-hour standard. EPA has proposed a range of 0.060 to 0.070, with a final rule on the matter expected this summer. For PM 10 , the standard is 120 μg/m3 24

-hour standard and 50 μg/m3 annual standard. The border region has ozone monitoring stations along the border grouped in the large cities, and ozone concentration is highest in the Tijuana

- San Diego area, and lowest in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Ozone concentrations in many of the areas monitored have decreased since 2008. The PM 10 concentrations are highest in the Mexicali/Imperial Valley region, with levels exceeding 250 μg/m3 annually. An a sthma case study showed that Imperial County , California, has the highest rate of children’s asthma hospital admission s in the state . More than three times the stat e average were admitted to hospitals in 2003, and 85 percent of the admissions were Latino children. As of 2009, children in Imperial County still were three times more likely to be admitted to the hospital for asthma than the rest of the state. Populati on density in the border region is highest in the El Paso and San Diego regions, but overall is expected to grow, using a mid

-range estimate, to almost 20 million by 2030 from approximately 14 million in 2011. As a result, trade will increase substantially over time, increasing freight movement across the U.S.

- Mexico border. The number of northbound trucks increased to more than 4.8 million per year in 2008, but the number of passenger cars has decreased to 79 million from a high of almost 92 million in 200 5. Goods shipped by truck comprise more than 70 percent of U.S.

- Mexico trade, and increased trade will mean increased emissions along trade corridors and at points of entry (POEs). Under the proposed U.S.

- Mexico long

-haul trucking program , the Department of Transportation (DOT) leads would phase in a program opening the border to long

-haul trucks. Presidents Obama and Calderon have agreed to the program, but Congressional approval and a public comment period are needed. Mexican trucks and drivers must be c ertified for participation in the program, and Mexican truck engines must bear an EPA certification label for the year of manufacture. The problem remains that ultra

- low sulfur diesel will not be available in Mexico until November 2014, and it is necessary to maintain diesel particulate filters that reduce PM emissions by greater than 90 percent. An increase in long

-haul trucks likely would reduce the number of drayage trucks crossing the border. Thus , trucks would be cleaner, but over time, trade would likely increase such that the number of long

-haul trucks would outnumber the drayage trucks they replace. The United States needs to determine the correct combination of integrated mechanisms to decrease idling and increase security and safety.March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

The Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning recently hosted a workshop on greening transportation at the border that addressed anti

- idling at POEs. Additionally, in response to GNEB’s recommendation to address anti

- idling at POEs, EPA is working with this com mittee, CEQ, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) , and other agencies to explore viable approaches. Anti

- idling mechanisms also provide the opportunity to achieve co

-benefits, such as simultaneously decreasing criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. EPA Region 6 helps support local and binational planning and projects through the El Paso

- Juarez Joint Advisory Committee (JAC)

. The One Basin Resolution for the area will facilitate monitoring, vehicle inspection, and harmonization of standards, and the JAC has added metropolitan planning organizations to expand its ability to address emissions. El Paso now is in attainment for the ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA Region 9 assisted states and local gove rnments in and near non

- attainment areas in various ways, such as through school bus and heavy

duty truck retrofits, landfill methane recovery, and road paving. The one basin approach also is being considered for the Imperial Valley

- Mexicali area. Future challenges in the area include: (1) potential for El Paso to return to nonattainment (and new areas to fall into nonattainment) with the new 8

-hour PM standard; (2) Sunland Park is close to the current PM 2.5 standard; (3) security issues hamper technical support for air quality monitoring networks in El Paso; (4) as the ozone NAAQS standards are developed, international transport can be considered; and (5) if other border areas fall into nonattainment, binational cooperation models should be replicated. Additionally, actions including further road paving and control of agricultural burning must be taken

. Discussion Mr. Gillen asked what percentage of the population in Imperial Valley was Hispanic. Ms. Stendebach responded that she would find the answer for Mr. Gillen. Ms. Patti Krebs ( Industrial Environmental Association), GNEB member , noticed that water ports were not mentioned, and asked if that was because the emissions at ports were at much lower level s than at land POEs. Ms. Stendebach replied that th e water ports were an issue on both sides of the border. The United States has entered into an emissions control agreement with Canada, controlling emissions from ships. EPA also has a voluntary program for the trucks and cranes. Mexico has expressed a des ire to join this effort , but that will be many years down the line. Mr. Ramirez noted that a growing number of U

. S

. trucks are crossing into M exico to fill up with Mexican diesel because of the price difference ; she asked for EPA’s thoughts on that. Secondly, regarding promoting the use of long

- haul trucks , the biggest challenge is the waiting time at the border. The low

cost drayage trucks are used so that expensive trucks will not have to idle at the border. Addressing the wait times becomes the most si gnificant issue. Additionally, the w ait times for cars at the border are higher than ever even though the number of cars crossing has decreased. Finally, one way to reduce the number of trucks crossing the border is to increase the gross volume weight allo wed per axle. Currently , the United States allow s 80 ,000 pounds, and Mexico and Canada both allow much higher weights. A pilot program in Arizona allows trucks in the immediate border region to apply for a single entry permit at a higher weight within fede ral standards, and a tremendous impact is being seen, not only from a reduced number of trucks crossing the border , but also the cost savings associated with not having to offload freight. Ms. Stendebach said that she would defer to DOT regarding regulatio ns on weight. T he group that is working with CEQ, the Southwest Border Interagency Working Group and Customs/Border Patrol, DOT, and the Department of Commerce are addressing the wait times. Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department), GNEB member, said that it was good to see the JAC given credit for air quality improvements in the Paso del Norte region, and asked about the ch allenges with exploring a similar approach in the Mexicali area . Could JAC help with this? Ms. Stendebach noted there are numero us challenges; specifically, resource limitations on the Mexican8 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

side result in too few people to conduct the work in the environmental offices, and more local support is needed, including local government, busine sses, and citizens

. Mr. Olmedo note d that there are considerable challenges to improving air quality in Imperial Valley , and there is a lot of misinformation regarding international transport. How can EPA play a stronger role in dealing with counties that are n o t in compliance? Mr. William Luthans (EPA Region 6) responded that he had held conversations with colleagues in Region 9 about the transferability of the actions taken in the Paso del Norte region; that basin has been fortunate to have strong leadership. Mr. Olmedo asked about EPA enf orcement, and noted that although there was encouraging work and international opportunity, the United States needs to do more to enforce controls

. Although it is one binational airshed , there still are things that the United States can do to control air e missions

. The Climate Service: NOAA’s Plans for Improving the Delivery of Climate Services Richard Rosen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Senior Advisor for Climate Research, Climate Program Office Dr. Rosen stated that throughout planning for a climate service at NOAA, the importance of improving scientific understanding of climate variability and change and delivering climate information to users at regional and local levels is understood. Ju st over 1 year ago, the Secretary of Commerce and NOAA Administrator announced NOAA’s intent to establish the Climate Service office to create a single entity for climate assets and capabilities. Version 9 of the Climate Service Vision and Strategic Framework is now available. The vision for the service states that by providing science and services, the Climate Service envisions an informed society capable of anticipating and responding to climate and its impacts. The mission to promote a climate

-resilient society by improving understanding and prediction of changes in climate can only be accomplished in collaboration with public, private, and academic partners. The Climate Service strategic objectives include: improved scientific understanding of the changing climate and its impacts; assessments of current and future states of the climate system that identify potential impacts and inform science, service, and stewardship decisions; mitigation and adaptation choices supported by sustained, reliable, and timely climate services; and a climate

- l iterate public that understands vulnerabilities to a changing climate and makes informed decisions. The core capabilities of the Climate Service would be understanding and modeling, observing systems, making predictions, and service development and decisio n support tools. Initially, the Climate Service will focus on the societal challenges of sustainability of marine ecosystems, coasts and climate resilience, climate impacts on water resources, and changes in extremes of weather and climate. NOAA’s intenti on with the Climate Service is to establish a line office equivalent to other line offices such as the National Weather Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. The structure proposed in the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget includes an Office of Cl imate Research; Office of Observation, Monitoring , and Prediction; and Office of Service Development and Delivery. Regional climate inf

ormation is needed for decision making; therefore , partnerships will be needed at the local and regional levels. The key in bringing the partnerships together is the six Regional Climate Service Directors that NOAA established within the past 6 months. GNEB’s meetings held in the Southwest should take advantage of the Regional Directors in the South and West regions. A lon g history of collaboration exists between the United States and Mexico in the meteorological arena. One collaboration, between 2000 and 2008, involved a scientific exploration of the North American monsoon. In 2004 , there was a field campaign that involved scientists in the United States and Mexico and established a large number of new observing systems. The data sets from these systems also feed into the North American Drought Monitor, which is produced monthly in collaboration with the National Meteorologi cal Service of Mexico and the National Water Commission of Mexico, and provides information on the state of water conditions across North America. Along the border, NOAA uses aMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 9

variety of in situ and remotely sensed datasets that support climate change monitoring, such as river gauges in the Rio Grande Basin, and the modernized Historical Climate Network. In closing, Dr. Rosen listed several Web sites available for further information on climate in general and climate in the border region in particular. D iscussion Mr. Olmedo stated that he did no t see a connection between climate and public health or ecosystem health . Dr. Rosen responded that “climate and health” is major topic that has been brought to NOAA by the public health agencies, particularly the C enters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As part of an interagency activity called the Global Change Research Program, one of the working groups addresses climate and public health. If GNEB is interested in hearing more about that, NOAA can make arrangements for that working group to meet with the Board. Mr. L arry Starfield (EPA Region 6), GNEB member, commented that it was important for GNEB to understand the air quality impacts and climate issues, but for the purposes of the GNEB’s specific task , it would also be helpful to know how NOAA and EPA’s OAR fit in with energy efficiency and renewable energy. Dr. Rosen replied that NOAA has a memorandum of agreement with DOE’s National Renewable Energy L aboratory in Colorado; scientists are working very closely in the wind energy area especially because of NOAA’s capabilities in forecasting wind. Ms. Stendebach noted that she would provide information on OAR’s activities in renewable energy for the Board. Dr. Henkel asked if there is a parallel program like the Global Change Research Program that examines wildlife habitat. Dr. Rosen answered that , among the partners, DOI has been setting up regional centers , and there is a memorandum of agreement between NOAA and DOI on this topic

. **Public Comments** Dr . Austin called for public comments, and there were none. **Air Quality and Climate Change Along the U.S. -**  **Mexico Border (continued)** USGS Climate Change Related Work on the U.S.

- Mexico Border Diana Papoulias, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) , Research Biologist, Columbia Environmental Research Center Dr. Papoulias noted that USGS has seen a connection between the existing stressors in the border region and what could be an exacerbating stressor, climate change. To tie that to GNEB’s upcoming report on renewab le resources, the Board needs to be reminded that any resource development will have impacts. DOI is quite aware of how “not green” wind development and solar development are in many respects. USGS does not regulate, but provides science on various aspects of geology, biology, hydrology, and geography. Regarding the aspects of renewable resources, USGS is very cognizant of the impacts of wind and solar development on public lands. As a result of climate change, the border region will become drier and precipitation events may be fewer but with stronger intensity. The USGS border working group will be releasing a report shortly on the principal issues affecting the border area and the connection between climate change and these issues. Last year , DOI establis hed a series of eight climate science center s, two in the border region, to create and integrate models in ecology, habitat, and population with climate models. The centers will be tasked with developing methods to assess the vulnerability of climate chang e on species, habitats, and human communities, and standardized approaches for evaluating climate change for monitoring, data management, and decision support. The Southwestern S cience C enter already is staffed, and soon will be finalizing agreements with six academic partners ; the Southc entral S cience C enter will be staffed in 2012.10 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Additionally, DOI has begun to develop Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which are network partnerships working in unison to ensure the sustainability of America’s land, water, and biological and cultural resources by leveraging available resources. These will be tightly linked to the climate science centers. For the border work being conducted on the climate, DOI has established the Borderlands Environmental Health Initiati ve (BEHI), which was initiated with new funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) because of interest in how the data that DOI was collecting on fish and wildlife could be used to inform their work on human health. BEHI’s objectives are to maintain a portal where geospatial data could be brought together and “ made transboundary” by working with Mexican counterparts, and to facilitate research into the link between environmental health and human health. Scientists in the S anta Cruz Watershed are addressing ecosystem services in the binational watershed in terms of biophysical/ecological value, social/human well

-being, and economic/market land price. Contaminants in the Santa Cruz River continue to be an issue, and climate change will affect the concentration, degradation, and movement of emerging contaminants. Groundwater and contaminant transport modeling can be used to predict changes in water availability and movement of contaminants between groundwater and surface water based on different climate scenarios. Modeling floods in the Ambos Nogales area also has been conducted to provide information for city planners in those communities. Recently, USGS has been able to install more rain gauges so that data would be available in real time on online maps. DoD’s Northern Command is funding the project as part of a flood warning and modeling project in Nogales, Sonora. USGS is part of the T ransboundary A quifer A ssessment P roject (TAAP); with the loss of surface water, the groun dwater will be more important. The quantity and location of many aquifers in the Mesilla B olson currently are unknown, and TAAP will remedy this with upgraded models that can be tied to real

time water supply conditions to allow for supply and demand analy sis, pumping predictions, and effects of administrative rules for droughts or water rights. The Salt on Sea ecosystem is the largest lake in California and important in terms of the Pacific flyway. It is shrinking and increasing in salinity and contaminan ts, and that is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. At the same time, as the bottom lands have become more exposed, the winds in the area are moving the dust, which has both particulate s and contaminant s associated with it. The central border area is the source of dust (from unpaved roads in the colonias or unproductive agricultural land) that is frequently transported during high wind events. Different scales for evaluating effects and making mea surements exist, and USGS often is examining a fine resolution through high

resolution climate modeling for dust events. Discussion Mr. Ramirez asked if the flood model mentioned in the Ambos Nogales region is completed. Dr. Papoulias answered that work on the model is underway by the Water Science C enter in Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Ramirez asked whether the outreach at the local community level involved the cities or local entities such as stakeholders beyond the research entities . He also asked when the result s would be published. Dr. Papoulias noted th at USGS tried to get feedback through the BEHI, and there will be other mechanisms for feedback through USGS outreach, but there are n o forums specifically for interacting with the public. She offered to give Mr. Ramirez contacts to learn more. Mr. Ramirez said that information is necessary because the findings of the study will have a direct impact on the Nogales area. Dr. Rosen noted that NOAA should coordinate with USGS because the river forecast centers are part of the National Weather Service and respo nsible for making forecasts. They benefit from the research that isMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 11

being conducted at universities and other federal agencies. The Weather Service has a long history of working with local e mergency managers . Mr. Olmedo stressed the importance of collaborating with other departments. There is much concern with regard to contaminants and the exposed sea bed in the Salton Sea. At Imperial Valley, work is being conducted on the New River as well. In areas like Imperial County where renewables are the savior for economic development and job creation, the input of every agency is needed. Mr. Drusina noted that IBWC has reestablished a citizen forum in Arizona , which is very active, to address some of the question s that develop along the border

. IBWC works clo sely with USGS and will continue studying the watershed to try to ascertain what needs to be done to solve the problems

. A ging infrastructure such as the Nogales Wash must be considered

. Ms. Aguillon said that she was encouraged to see the list of the partners on the other side of the border

. Given that it takes both sides, is it possible for United States agencies to work with their counterpart agencies in Mexico so that both countries come to the table together? Dr. Papoulias answered that she was most familiar with the activities of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management in educating and assisting Mexican colleagues, conducting outreach about public land’s intrinsic value and values in terms of ecotourism, and the concept of sis ter cities and sister parks. The b order is an artificial boundary when it comes to wildlife. The Rio Grande is a border and many species of concern are moving through it

. There is shared concern about the stressors to the Rio Grande on both sides of the bo rder. Mexico and the United States often take different approaches, but the two countries are working together on those issues. Dr. Rosen added that there is a long history of strong collaboration between meteorological services across the border; that could serve as the model for extending the cross

-border engagement. Ms. Linda Lawson (Department of Transportation), GNEB member, noted that a joint working group between the United States and Mexico is coordinated by the FHWA and is addressing issues of “ gre ening the border”

. Mr. Jose Angel (California River Basin Region Water Quality Control Board) , GNEB member, asked if USGS has data on the impacts of green energy sources that can be shared with GNEB. Dr. Papoulias responded that USGS unfortunately did n ot have time to evaluate fully the impacts of the roads to the sites, the solvents used for wind mills, etc. These issues are examined during the proposals for the siting of these facilities but judgments are based on past experience, and there are many en ergy development disasters on the border continuing to contaminate the area and affect human health. Additionally, the lands being developed had been set aside for various public uses and many of them contain many species of concern. It will be important f or the Board’s report to address the many difficulties faced. Mr. Nathan Small (New Mexico Wilderness Alliance), GNEB member, commented that in Arizona , where 20,000 acre proposal s are being entered , it seems that there is a disconnect between the optio ns that are provided and the importance of energy, species, land, and water

. He asked if there was any work being conducted now or planned for the near future in which USGS is an active participant in shaping guidelines . Dr. Papoulias answered that having the financial support to conduct the proper monitoring would be important. Any development is going to have some impact. She hopes there will be a decision support system set up with opportunities for feedback and the ability to make changes when science i ndicates that movement is in the wrong direction. Mr. Olmedo thanked Dr. Papoulias for boldly stating the challenges; more agencies should be encouraged to discuss challenges, because until they are recognized they cannot be solved. He always thought the re was a difference between renewable and green energy and this presentation confirmed that thinking

. Dr. Papoulias responded that especially with the climate challenges, agencies need to be cognizant of what has happened in the past and what possibly can happen in the future. Ms. Aguillon added that distributed generation is an alternative . Has USGS looked into lessons learned from more mature green energy markets such as that of Germany ? In the p ast 3 years, Germany has12 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

stopped supporting the large

- scale development of green energy markets for environmental reasons and issues associated with the reliability of the grid. Itwould be helpful to examine lessons learned , but not from the solar industry, which is divided between large

- scale developers and smal ler installer s. Lessons learned must come from a third party that has the best interests of the public in mind. **Renewable Energy Resources in the U.S. -**  **Mexico Border** Hydroelectric Power

– A Renewable Energy Source at the U.S.

- Mexico Border Edward Drusin a, U.S. Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission Mr. Drusina explained that IBWC is responsible for applying the boundary and water treaties between the United States and Mexico and settling differences that arise in their application. IB WC applies 11 treaties between the two countries using “minutes” or formal agreements between the two nations. The goal of the 1944 Water Treaty was to provide for the satisfactory utilization of the waters of the Rio Grande, Colorado, and Tijuana Rivers. Itauthorized construction of three international storage reservoirs on the Rio Grande and specified the priority of uses of international water. The treaty also dictated that the IBWC study generating hydroelectric energy at the international storage dams on the Rio Grande , two of which have been built, and that the power be shared by both countries. Falcon Dam is located 75 miles downstream from Laredo, and has a power generation facility on both side s of the river. It is a “black start” plant used to restore power to the grid during outages. The Amistad Dam, located at Del Rio, TX

- Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila , also has a power plant in each country and can be used as a “black start” plant. These reservoir dams are 2,500,000 and 3,000,000 acre feet respectively, but produce far less power than the Parker reservoir because the power is generated seasonally for agricultural purposes. IBWC has studied the feasibility of installing low

- flow generating units at both power plants , and units have been proposed on the Mexican side at Amistad for $11.58 million and on the U.S. side at Falcon for $7.3 million. IBWC is preparing the Joint Report of the Principal Engineers this year to outline design and construction. Dam security is an issue because they are exposed areas and IBWC is the law enforcement agency at the facilities. Facility upgrades are planned , including fences, gates, locks, closed

- circuit television , and alarm syst ems. In addition, security program improvements are planned, including an increase in the num ber of guards, a new training program, and increased pay. The new USIBWC facilities will strive to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum certified as part of IBWC’s green energy initiative. Other aspects of the initiative involve i nvestigating the feasibility of wind turbine and photovoltaic solar systems . The initiative will serve as a significant launch point for a long

-term US IBWC sustainability program and a commitment to renewable energy initiatives

. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) markets and delivers federal hydroelectric power across 15 western states, and in 2008, hydropower provided 67 percent of U.S. renewable energy. WAPA markets the power from Falcon and Amistad Dams, among others. Hydropower is reliabl e, adaptable, has low outage rates, and generators are long lived. It was, however, negatively affected by a decade of drought. Projects are being developed to increase hydropower generation during drought, and the Federal G overnment should continue to support maintenance of aging hydropower facilities. Additionally, dam safety and security issues must be addressed. These issues should be mentioned in the GNEB report. Discussion Mr. Gillen asked whether Mr. Drusina believed a third reservoir would be cons tructed. Mr. Drusina responded that he did, although it may not be of the size of the others . He added that there are some initiatives being proposed that require further exploration. The potential is there, but with the economy as it is, it will be diffic ult to justify the up to $600 million it would cost to build the reservoir . Mr. GillenMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 13

asked whether , with current public attitudes, it would be possible to construct a reservoir that would decrease wildlife habitat. Mr. Drusina believed it would, because there is a public need and strong push to do something along those lines. IBWC will examine this issue principally from the stormwater benefit. TCEQ might look at the potential reservoir from a water quality standpoint. Dr. Antonio Noé Zavaleta (Univers ity of Texas at Brownsville), GNEB member, noted that the population and agricultural activities in the lower Rio Grande valley in Texas are supported by the water available at the Falcon and Amistad. He asked if there was a new hydropower technology that does not require the release of water over the dam. Mr. Drusina responded that the low

- flow turbine is the most viable technology . When water is released into the turbine, it is based on need. The private sector holds that this is the most efficient way t o generate power. Dr. Zavaleta asked about desalination plants, or electricity generating plants using ocean water . Mr. Drusina noted that he was involved with the Kay Bailey Hutchiso n desalination plant, and desalination is a viable alternative for improving water quality, but it takes a great deal of power to run the plants, and the cost is very high. Additionally, IBWC is open to tidal, solar, or wind energy, but is examining only solar and wind at this time. Dr. Teresa Pohlman (Department of Homeland Security [DHS] ), GNEB member, stated that the dams mi ght provide a good opportunity for a hybrid system in which a renewable photovoltaic system could take over when there are low water levels. Mr. Drusina suggested that GNEB members might want to plan a visit to the Amistad Dam. Mr. Edward Hoyt (Nexant) asked, g iven the age of the two facilities, if there are any plans to repower any of the existing facilities and extract more capacity. Mr. Drusina responded that some private consultants had visited the two sites to examine the turbines and the possibility of repowering, but the cost is high. The conditions of the turbines are exceptional. The IBWC is focusing on the low

- flow turbine. Mr. Hoyt asked if the low

- flow turbines would be deployed in the water course of the river. Mr. Drusina responded that they would be in the dam sites themselves. Mr. Apodaca expressed uncertainty as to whether DoD was included in any of the discussions about energy . DoD currently is addressing energy and water issues on the military bases and should probably be included at the table . Mr. Drusina added that the Kay Bailey plant is located on Fort Bliss property, but the military is getting its fair share of that water

. Mr. Joyce noted that DoD had not been included in discu ssions with GNEB, but that OFACMO could follow up with the d epartment
. Mr. Small asked if the low

- flow turbines could be scaled to smaller irrigation canals, and noted that a huge stretch of the river is independent from the two reservoirs. There is an i ncreasing interest in habitat restoration along those stretches of the river that are not near the reservoirs. He asked if any habitat restoration was under consideration and if there were opportunities for increased partnerships with non

governmental organizations (NGOs) or local governments on such projects. Mr. Drusina responded that IBWC has an environmental division that looks at every project conducted

. He encouraged Mr. Small to contact the IBWC environmental chief and the engineering chief. Ms. Sally Spener will provide Mr. Small the contact information. IBWC does consider environmental issues along the Rio Grande, and is mindful not to step out of compliance. In terms of using low

- flow turbines in irrigation systems, Mr. Drusina suggested that IBWC staff give Mr. S mall the contacts that IBWC used in its analysis of the dams. Mr. Drusina added that any GNEB member could contact him or other IBWC staff at any time. Renewable Energy in the U.S. Border Region

– Resources and Opportunities Edward Hoyt, Principal, Clean Energy, Nexant Energy Solutions Mr. Hoyt stated that Nexant was a global energy consulting firm with 30 corporate, representative, and project offices, and thousands of projects completed since its formation in 2000. Nexant deals with the entire energy chain from production to consumption (production, delivery, and end use.) Nexant’s partner 3Tier assists in assessing resources and manages a global data set for renewable energy to generate projections and s imulations for solar, wind, hydro , and precipitation.14 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Renewable energy resources in the border region include solar, wind, biomass/biogas, hydro, and geothermal; all five currently are being utilized, an d development activity is under way. Prospects for development in the future will depend on policy drivers, infrastructure and water availability, and permitting constraints. The solar resource in the border area is significant, both from direct normal irradiance (technology that tracks the sun) and global horizontal irradiance (stationary solar applications). Wind in the border region is more localized: the significant potential is at the western and eastern ends of the border, close to either the Pacific Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico. Biomass/biogas will be available near major population c enters because the major resource will be landfills. Hydro power is limited to the Rio Grande basin and some limited infrastructure in the West, and geothermal is located in the Southern Califo rnia and Baja California area. Project development activities at the western end of the border area include several wind projects in Baja California including a 10 megawatt (MW) facility currently in operation , with potential for facilities totaling 2,000 MW to be installed by various developers (some of this power w ould be exported to the United States.) In Tamaulipas, a large wind facility has been proposed (160 MW). A small wind farm outside of Monterrey, Mexico, will be going forward as well. In terms of solar development, the activity underway is concentrated in the western end of the border area. Financing is in place for an 800 MW facility in the Imperial Valley, and another 700 MW facility is in late stage development there . A few small installations totaling 35 MW also are under consideration in the San Diego area. In Arizona, two solar facilities have been proposed

— 1 50 MW and 240 MW , respectively

—in Yuma and Solana. Additionally, a small 20 MW hydro facility is in operation in Baja California. In terms of geothermal, there is a facility just south of the border that has been in operation for at least a decade. Constraints on power generation development in the border region include: regulatory and framework and incentive programs , transmission infrastructure and availability , land and environmental/social im pact considerations , and water availability. Discussion Mr. Zavaleta noted that a summary of renewable energy activities in Mexico should be included in GNEB’s next report. Ms. Krebs asked whether there had been any activity with combined heat and power as a bridge technology. Mr. Hoyt responded that such cogeneration is a resource that has been utilized in major industrial areas in particular ; it depends on the pattern of industrial activity in the area. For the most part, the industrial processes that are being used on the border do no t require a great deal of thermal energy, and for cogeneration to be of interest, there must be a requirement for thermal energy. Many of those facilities , however, do have backup power such as diesel generators. Monterrey , Mexico, for example, has significant cogeneration facilities

. Mr. Olmedo noted that Imperial County is a prime area for renewable energy, but there are considerable concerns. Imperial County is rich in natural resources that spur development of renewab le energy technologies, and with the need for jobs, the area often “rolls out the red carpet” for developers. The area tends to want to streamline protections, yet protections must be in place so that , while taking advantage of the renewable energy momentum, communities ensure that the technologies are sustainable both environmentally and economically. Mr. Hoyt responded that regardless of whether conventional or renewable energy technology is developed , there will be environmental impacts of greater or les ser degrees. Particular technologies will be deployed based on the availability of land and ability to permit facilities

. The process is rigorous on both sides of the border although the degree of enforcement of environmental protections differs. F or proje cts like wind energy , the preferences of the local communitiesMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 15

are taken into account. Progress has been made in th e last decade in addressing tho se concerns. Solar photovoltaic energy can be implemented in areas where environmental i mpact will be limited, such as in urban or settled areas, and these projects can create local jobs. Mr. Ruiz mentioned a map in the presentation showing potential wind power generation for the region, and asked whether it would be feasible in New Mexico. Mr. Hoyt replied that there was potential in New Mexico, but it is a relatively small market compared to the markets in other border states . Another point is that at the state policy level , New Mexico has not been as aggressive in its efforts to create the incentives for renewable installations. New Mexico also has the transmission limitation in its ability to sell power outside the state. Much work needs to be conducted to create an environment that will be attractive to the investment community. Mr. Starfield asked whether there was potential for more biogas projects at the many waste landfill sites along the border. The landfill facilities already are in place, and methane

- capture projects might offer the community the added benefit of reducing odor from local municipal landfill s . Mr. Hoyt answered that that biogas projects will not deliver thousands of megawatts ; the technology tend s to be in the 15 to 40 MW range , so the y would be appropriate only for smaller applications. Still, there should be considerably more in place than there are at the moment. One project in Monterrey is a 7 MW landfill gas project in which the municipality is the power purchaser. In the future , there may be potential to expand the capacity by changing the way municipal solid waste is handled, such as by using all the waste in gasification

. Mr. Starfield added that EPA , through its Superf und program , already has a number of projects that put solar panels on closed (capped) waste landfills ; similar opportunities along the border could be examined as well. Mr. Small stated that many of New Mexico’s industrial utilities have proposed a number of large p rojects that have not attracted funding and have not progressed. In terms of biomass, producing “green food” can be considered ; potentially using algae and brackish water so the water resources are not heavily depleted. He asked whether biomass would be an energy resource that could be “dropped in” ready for various transportation uses. Mr. Hoyt responded that he focus ed far more on the power sector as opposed to biofuels. The algae

-based production of biofuels is an emerging technology; during the next 10 to 15 years, it is likely that this will increase. Municipal governments can indicate that they will source a certain percentage of their fuel from suc h facilities. Potential exists for utilizing brackish water in areas along the border to advantage, but economics must be considered. **The Economic Potential of Renewable Energy Development in the Border Region** The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy in the Border States Todd Foley, American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), Senior Vice President on Policy and Government Relations Mr. Foley explained that ACORE is a non -profit organization created to advance renewable energy to the mainstream, and inc ludes power from solar, wind, hydro and ocean, biomass energy and fuels, geothermal, and waste

-to
- energy sources. Membership is diverse, and includes all sectors necessary to make renewable energy successful. ACORE has published and will regularly update t he report Renewable Energy in America: Markets, Economic Development and Policy in the 50 States , which includes two

page summaries for every state covering market activities, resource potential, and economic development. Overall, the renewable energy s ector is high growth and entrepreneurial, and attracts a great deal of investment. In 2010, the U.S. solar market grew 96 percent in a difficult economic environment. The wind market deployed 10 gigawatts of installations in 2009, representing 39 percent o f all new energy capacity that year. Much of the growth was built on the momentum in the sector, but also the stimulus package that was passed in Congress several years ago, the 1603 Treasury Cash Grant Program. Much investment has been made in renewable s in the United States, and continued growth is expected. Pew16 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Charitable Trusts published a report last year on U.S. investment in renewable energy and predicted an increase from $26.9 billion to $52.5 billion in by 2020. The four border states represented more than 35 percent of the Nation’s renewable energy capacity in 2010, and the area is well ahead of the rest of the country in deploying renewable energy . California’s key policies for renewable energy include the California Solar Initiative, which includes rebates and performance

-based incentives. The utilities have made a large investment in the state’s solar power, and there now are more than 17,000 direct and indirect jobs related to renewable energy in the state. Texas has the most renewable energy deployed in t he United States, which is mostly wind power, and contains the largest wind farm in the N ation . Total wind power is more than 10 gigawatts. Arizona serves as headquarters for leading solar energy companies like First Solar, Kyocera, and Stirling Energy Systems. New Mexico is home to 700 MW of wind energy capacity, with 300 MW under construction, though it does face challenges with transmission. Discussion Mr. Joyce thanked Mr. Foley for the wealth of information in his presentation, and for making ACORE’s report available to GNEB. Mr. Ramirez asked about future cost trends, and whether renewable energy would be cost competitive with more traditional sources of energy. Mr. Foley replied that renewable energy already was cost competitive , although it depended on local power rates . In California, peak rates for energy are some of the highest in the country, and solar already is cost competitive with grid power. Solar and wind energy already are fully cost

- com petitive compared to natural gas and nuclear. The power market is in transition , and some in the utility sector think that 40 to 60 percent of existing coal plants will be closed during the next 10 years. For now , solar and wind power are cost competitive, but there will be a rapid reduction in cost . Mr. Foley offered to provide GNEB with an additional slide that will provide more information on cost
. Mr. Ramirez noted that cost would seem to be one of the principal points for the GNEB report. Dr. Henkel stated that one of the challenges fo r GNEB is to determine where the resources and resource potentials exist within the border region because the general totals from the states can distort this. That kind of disaggregation will be helpful to the Board

. Dr. Austin asked if ACORE has this kind of information broken down below the state level. Mr. Foley said that ACORE did not have this information, but others have broken it down to the local level. Utilities have examined where resources make most sense, and where there is distribution level an d cost informatio n. Dr. Pohlman commented that DHS was working with DOE on regionalization, single points of failure, and energy security, so she suggested that a topic for the GNEB report might be looking at the aspect of energy security. Additionally, she recommended examining regionalization, such as how border states can leverage off of each other s ’ project s . Mr. Foley answered that e ach state is rich in renewable energy to different degree s , and some leveraging off each other is happening

. There is s ome regionalization taking place. Dr. Pohlman added that as an advisory board to the President, GNEB could recommend examining regionalization. Ms. Aguillon stated that GNEB should address the concern that some states want the energy to be localized in the ir own states. **Update on Border 2012 Program and Commission for Environmental Cooperation Activities** Michelle DePass, EPA, Assistant Administrator, Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA) Ms. DePass thanked the Board for their time and dedicati on on behalf of herself, Administrator Jackson, and EPA. Border 2012 is the only ground up, bilateral process on implementation of protection of human health and the environment on the border of Mexico and the United States . She noted that her office also is responsible for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) project

.March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 17

Ms. DePass wa s pleased that GNEB maintains independent partnerships with other key border regional programs , one of them being the Border 2012 program. Both GNEB and Border 20 12 continue to be a model of cooperation. The GNEB comb ines expertise and research to identify where an impact can be made. Border 2012 works to achieve tangible environmental and public health results in the U.S.

- Mexico border region by implementing programs and leveraging funds. With GNEB’s hard work and recommendations, the Border 2012 program can be further improved and be successful in creating positive environmental and health outcomes. She provided the Board with copies of the recently released report U.S.

-Mexico Environmental Program

- Border 2012: Program Highlights

- Fall 2010

. B order 2012 has six maj or goals : (1) reducing water contamination , (2) reducing air pollution , (3) reducing land contamination , (4) improving environmental health , (5) improving emergency preparedness and response, and (6) promoting environmental stewardship. During the last year, progress has been made in all six areas . Some border communities, h owever, still do not have access to clean drinking water
. Border 2012 has been working toward safe water management by supporting communities through its Trinational Tribal Partnership Initiative. Border 2012 cannot protect water resources alone, so beyond developing capacity in specific communities, it worked to restore binational community awareness and public participation in the Colorado/Rio Grande W atershed. Border 2012 also is collaborating with local stakeholders to improve pesticide collection through binational state level partnerships. Although the U

. S

. - M exico border zone is a center for int ernational commerce, communities on the border often face disproportionate environmental and health risks, so Border 2012 has partnered with the University of T exas at El Paso to find solutions that will improve air quality by examining options for improved binational traffic flow at the Bridge of Americas. This will help Border 2012 work with communities to determine the impact on air quality and pollution exposure . Border 2012 also is engaging industry in the area to improve recycling of electronics , and initial work has led to additional partnerships with binational universities and further expansion of safe and environmentally sound recycling procedures. A s a result of the collaboration with Canada and Mexico established by the Administrator, the work of the CEC has closely reflected U.S. priorities. In terms of greening the economy in North Ameri ca , the main objective is to improve private sector environment al performance. The CEC is attempting to target the work; in 2011

- 2012, CEC will establish a trilateral green building construction task force that will help to establish a common metric methodology to curb greenhouse gases from the construction sector, which in turn , will help to identify opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases in the construction of green buildings in North America. Additionally, activities related to the priority of healthy communities and the economy will be used as an avenue to create strong partnerships with indigenous populations across North America by identifying projects to support. CEC also is planning to help the three countries understand the transboundary movements of e

-waste and used electronics in North America. As the CEC t urned its attention to a low carbon economy, the priority of climate change is one of the three major themes. CEC and its North American counterparts are conducting an assessment of greenhouse gas data, inventories, and related information. In response to CEC direction, the United States recently proposed development and sustainability of an interactive online platform on which to share and discuss climate change

-related information among the three countries. As shared environmental needs and challenges grow, GNEB’s recommendations are critical to help the Agency continue to seek robust solutions. Ms. DePass again thanked the Board for its commitment to work with EPA. Discussion Mr. Olmedo commented that he had seen much progress in border communities during this A dministration. There still are c onsiderable challenges when dealing with tribal governments and nontribal governments . He mentioned a case where toxic waste was being disposed of on tribal land. EPA is taking a cautious approach, and although s t ate and local governments want to act , they are unsure of what to do

. Can EPA take more aggressive action on issues such as this that are harming border18 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

communities ? Ms. DePass replied that she had visited border communities where some problems were not be ing addressed because of jurisdiction al issues

. EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Cynthia Giles recognizes that this is a problem . EPA l ooks for opportunities to work with the tribe or community to bring about complianc e before enforcement is used, but the Agency w ould not hesitate to use enforcement when necessary. Mr. Starfield said that open dumps o f non -tribal toxic waste on tribal lands are a continuing problem. Region 6 recently held a meeting with representatives of 66 tribes and discussed enforcement and consultation issues , but not much funding is available to deal with the dumps. Cleanup is a priority, however, and EPA is collaborating with the tribes on better protocols for enforcement. Ms. DePass added that there is a question regarding the responsibilities of EPA and other agencies regarding these open dumps. Ms. Krebs noted that a number of her member companies are working with e -waste recyclers because they are concerned about liability and risk that any o f the ir e -waste might end up overseas. Some are adopting the Responsible Recycling ( R2 ) program. Is this adequate, or do the companies need a third

party certifier? Ms. DePass responded that EPA is co

- chairing an interagency task force on e -waste. The Pres ident has asked the group for a report by May 6, 2011 , on research and development, lifecycle analysis, and where the waste will go. EPA is involved in an in depth discussion about standards, certification, and disposal issues. More information will be available in 2 months. Mr. Ruiz stated that his region had experienced some success es under B order 201 2, and the bottom

-up approach should be maintained for the new program. Regarding the program’s timeline, the drafting committee has discussed a “no

- year” or 2

- year program rather than setting goals for 10 years at a time. Ms. DePass replied that accountability is important, and that it will take time to make changes along the border. In such a process, it is important to plan for a long

-term effort, and all ow for budget forecasting. Ms. Wolf asked about the content of the new program. Ms. DePass responded that she was very pleased that there was such a robust public comment period. Environmental justice will be a larger piece in the framework of B order 202 0 . The plan will have an 8

-ye ar framework

. Ms. DePass has charged staff to determine a way to improve communication and enhance involvement

. The work areas are the ones that have been highlighted in the past, so the goals will be similar; GNEB should infor m EPA if members believe that the program should be changed. Ms. Lisa Almodovar (EPA, OITA), mentioned that one goal on public health and environmental health might change, and a new goal on chemical safety may be created. The Border 2020 National Coordina tors’ Meeting will be held May 10

- 11, 2011, in San Antonio, Texas ; the goals and objectives will be discussed at that meeting

. Mr. Ramirez asked for guidance on how to better communicate the needs of the border region . The border does not always g et its fair share of resources, does not have political clout, and is facing budgetary challenges on every front. New requirements from DHS are having an impact on border communities as well

. Ms. DePass stated that the A dministrator has been clear that shorter

-te rm EPA appointees must do their jobs . Everyone wants clean air and clean water. Public health will be undergirding Border 2020. This region is important to the Nation’s economy and the lack of public health along the border has a significant impact on nati onal productivity. She emphasized that a healthy economy is impossible without healthy people. Mr. Niemeyer noted that one of the recommendations in the report was to revisit the transboundary environmental impact assessment. The Jo int Public Advisory Co mmittee of the CEC agreed with this recommendation at its meeting. This issue continues to arise, and until something gets done, there will always be complaints; nothing precludes the two governments from having an agreement. Ms. DePass responded that this is an issue that EPA hopes to address within the next year, but it is a difficult issue. Ms. Rachel Poynter (Department of State ) noted that the State Department had raised the issue in a meeting with CEQ , and she believes there is a willingness to review necessary aspects of such an agreement
.March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 19

Mr. Olmedo asked if Border 2020 would contain demonstration projects that last more than 12 months or could be conducted in multiple phases. He also asked if Border 2012 will have any focus on enforcement and f unding. Ms. DePass asked if Mr. Olmedo’s first question concerned moving a Border 2012 project into another funding stream at the Agency. Dr. Austin noted that there is such a focus in Border 2012 on pilot projects, and those projects that are successful have no possibility of other investment after the project ends . There are no resources available to send the people out to teach others about the project so many opportunities are lost. Mr. Luthans explained that this issue was a challenge for EPA, because the Agency must rely on statutory authority to provide grant money. Also, s ome of EPA’s funding streams are limited only to pilot projects. Ms. Almodovar added that it was an appropriation issue, but EPA has asked that each goal in Border 2020 include a capac ity building objective, so that there will be the capacity to pass on the knowledge gained for each goal . Ms. DePass stated that there also is an issue with communicating the projects in a way that is understandable, particularly how they are benefitting the border area. Perhaps there is a way that this information can be c ommunicate d to other institutions that have more flexibility in distributing resources. In response to Mr. Olmedo’s second question, Ms. Almodovar stated that the inclusion of enforcement in Border 2020 was still under discussion, because enforcement differs greatly in the United States and Mexico. The current thought is that each goal should have an enforcement component, but negotiations still are underway. Ms. Aguillon suggested that perhaps a reward for compliance c ould be used as well as enforcement. Mr. Niemeyer commented that the enforcement and compliance goals as currently written are about pollution prevention and have nothing to do with enforcement. Language that makes sense fo r compliance and enforcement needs to be added. Ms. DePass noted that it was important to keep Mexican partners in the negotiations. **The Economic Potential of Renewable Energy Development in the Border Region (continued)** Distributed Solar Energy: Opportunities for the U.S. Border Region Cecelia Aguillon, Kyocera Solar, Inc., Director of Market Development and Government Affairs, GNEB Member Ms. Aguillon identified some of the benefits of distributed solar energy . It provides clean energy, provi des peak shaving power that reduces the investment n eed for peaking plants, reduces cost volatility, reduces dependence on imported fuels, alleviates grid congestion, leverages ratepayers ’ funds ass igned to the subsidies, creates local high

-tech industries, and imp roves energy security through decentralization. Distributed generation creates jobs (about 2.5 per MW produced), generates tax revenues, decreases spending outside the economy for energy or fuel, and money saved can be returned to the local economy. Solar distributed generation requires certain policies to be in place to be successful. These polic ies can include net metering, in which the state allows turning the meter back; declining financial incentives ; and solar

- friendly electricity tariffs. Additionally, long

-term contracts for renewable energy credits are needed, as are renewable portfolio standards with distributed generation carve outs. In terms of financial incentives, tax credits and exemptions often are available. Rebates can be based on syste m cost or e xpected output, and performance

-based incentives and feed

- in tariffs also are available. Ms. Aguillon noted that other world models could be applicable to U.S. renewable energy. S tarting in 1994, Japan gave a large rebate of $9.5 per watt for th e first year. Over 10 years, Japan spent $1 billion on incentives, and the incentive program ended in 2005 , with more than a gigawatt installed in more than 200,000 homes and the largest number of solar manufacturers worldwide. In 2004, European models were created. Germany created a feed

- in tariff, and a portfolio in which wind was given 4 cents per kilowatt hour, solar was given 50 cents, and each other technology was given what they needed at the time with a ramp down on th e tariffs. More than 10 gigawatts were installed by the end of 2010, with more than 40,000 jobs created since 2000.20 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

In both countries, t

he border region has much in common in terms of potential for renewable energy. Similarities include solar resources, grid congestion issues, population growth, industry growth, pollution, low market penetration for solar, and a skilled and unskilled labor force. There are some differences, however . Uniform policies are possible in Mexico, but difficult in the United States; there is a central utility in Mexico versus thousands in the United States ; and the United States has more experience with solar policies than Mexico

. Recommendations for market development include the need for consistency and transparency in the market, and the fact that incentive programs should be based on system performance and last 5 to 10 years. Rebates should be available for residential and small commercial projects. Net metering and feed

- in tariff programs should be used to accelerate the market. Additionally , programs shoul d promote competition to be sustainable, and lessons should be learned from more mature markets. Effective policies such as these can promote investments in manufacturing, stability of material development, investments in research and development, price re ductions, and creation of a self

- sustaining industry. Discussion Dr. Henkel asked about the labor skills and training involved with the California operation as well as the hourly pay rate in the San Diego plant for new hires. Ms. Aguillon responded that for the production plant, no particular skill level is needed, but for installation, a minimum of 6 months training is needed. Plumbers, electricians , or construction workers could take a 2

-week course, but then should be mentored by someone who is in the business. The starting pay rate for the San Diego facility is approximately $10 per hour. Mr. Small stated that it is difficult to obtain financing; he asked Ms. Aguillon to discuss financing and any national activities being conducted that would provid e consistent funding streams. Ms. Aguillon responded that Sonoma County and Palm Desert in California have raised $500 million and have about 35 companies in each county. She met with Mr. Foley yesterday and they discussed the fact that ACORE should be working on financing. She suggested a revolving fund . T he German government making the loans on the feed

- in tariff was running out of funds but within 2 ye ars, the local banks began handling the financing. Perhaps there could be collaboration on financing with the utility, with a loan guarantee so the utility is not exposed. Ms. Aguillon added that creativity is needed. Renewables: The Story of Texas Stephen Niemeyer, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality , Border Affairs Manager, GNEB M ember Mr. Niemeye r stated that the State of Texas had a goal, set by the state legislature in 1999, to have 2,000 MW of new renewable generation capacity by 2009; projects that would attain that goal, however, were already under development by 2005. In 2005, the legislature set new biennial goals to reach 5,880 MW by 2015, and a target of 10,000 MW by 2020. Texas exceeded 10,110 MW by the end of 2010. Wind is the largest source of renewable energy in the state. As of December 2010, there are 10,000 MW of wind capacity in T exas, and when matched against countries, Texas is sixth in the world in wind capacity. In terms of biomass, as of December 2010, there was 125 MW of capacity statewide. Also in December 2010, there was a 25.4 MW statewide capacity for solar power, and a small hydropower capacity of 6 MW. Several thousand more MW of wind farms could be built in Texas, and great solar potential exists in some of these areas, but transmission is the biggest challenge for wind and solar electricity in Texas and across the Unit ed States. In 2005, the Texas Public Utility Commission created competitive renewable energy zones, mainly in West Texas and the Panhandle, so transmission lines could be built. Although people do not want transmission lines through their land, they do not tend to live where the wind blows. Nothing may happen with these lines for the next 3 to 5 years.March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 21

Legislation passed in 2009 allows “property

- assessed clean energy,” or PACE, in which cities can offer financing to homeowners for renewable energy and effic iency that will be recovered through assessments on property. Implementation of this legislation is being delayed by state and federal legal concerns. Mr. Niemeyer mentioned the Border Energy Forum organized by the Texas General Land Office that will be h eld in El Paso, October 27

- 28, 2011, and invited interested GNEB members to attend. Discussion Ms. Sally Spener (IBWC) noted that Mr. Drusina’s presentation had mentioned that in 2008, hydropower provided 67 percent of U.S. renewable energy. In Texas, more than 90 percent of renewable energy is wind, which shows remarkable potential for wind and other energy sources in the border region. She had received a notice from her power company, El Paso Electric, which allowed payment of extra money for wind power from the Hueco wind farm. The notice said that as of 2009, there were 526 Texas customers participating in this voluntary renewable energy program, which is a very small number

. Mr. Niemeyer responded that in Austin, people are willing to pay more for green energy. There are pros to wind energy but there also are some cons ; for example, wind does not blow steadily all the time, and the grid current has to be kept between 59.98 and 60.02 volts per second. Mr. Niemeyer mentioned added that two weeks ago, TCEQ Commissioner Rubinstein was unanimously confirmed by the Texas Senate. He provided copies of the TCEQ B order Initiative to GNEB members, and informed the m that it was on the Commission’s Web site as well. **Discussion of** 

**the Agenda and Other Business**  Dr. Austin noted that the first order of business for the next day was to discuss dates for the June, September, and December meetings. Members should consult their planners and identify the weeks where they have 3 consecutive days open in case there is a field trip. Mr. Joyce added the terms of several GNEB members end on Ju ne 9, 2011 ; the June meeting would have to be held before that date in order for these members to attend. Mr. Starfield asked how term lengths were decided and if it would be possible t o extend the terms of the retiring members until the end of the year. Mr. Joyce replied that Administrator Lisa Jackson and Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe established the term lengths

. He noted that s everal me mbers will have served 6 years, which is the maximum for EPA advisory committees. Ms. Wolf pointed out that the Board did not meet for nearly 1 year, so that the members in question really have served only for 5 years. Mr. Starfield suggested that , if there is agreement among the GNEB me mbers , a request to Mr. Perciasepe be prepared suggesting that the membership transition occur when the 14th report has been completed and the B oard begins to consider the 1 5th report

. Ms. Jones

- Jackson agreed that this could be done, and that she could discuss the matter with Mr. Perciasepe and Ms. Diane Thom p son. Dr. Austin called for a vote on sending this request to Mr. Perciasepe , and the call was moved and seconded. The members who are scheduled to retire in June abstained f rom voting

. T he motion passed unanimously. Dr. Austin explained that because the Board will not know the answer to the request in time to plan the Ju ne meeting, members should be prepared to discuss potential dates to meet prior to June 9 th

. Also, if anyone knows of major events on the border that would pose a conflict for members, please notify the Board and the DFO

. Dates and locations for the upcoming meetings need to be determined by the end of the current meeting. Subcommittees will be formed to plan the meeting. The June and September meetings will be held on the border, and the December meeting will be held in Washington, DC, or on the border. Mr. Joyce noted that the advantage to having the meeting in Washington is that it is easier to get senior officials such as Nancy Sutley to attend. The December meeting location and dates must be decided by June. Mr. Starfield pointed out that the GNEB is an advisory board to the President and22 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Congress. If the Board’s hope is to influence national policy, then it might be better to hold the December meeting in Washington, DC, where Executive Branch agencies and Congressional offices (as well as the national press) would be more likely to attend. If the meeting is held on the border, it is likely that only members of the local press will attend to cover the release of the report. Mr. Ramirez stated that the Arizona

- Mexico Commission meeting would be held June 2

- 4, 2011 , so that would not be a good time for the GNEB meeting. Dr. Austin stated that the other issue on the agenda is the 14th report. By the end of the meeting, an extended outline of the report should be developed . Mr. Olmedo asked whether the current outline should be subject to a vote . Mr. Joyce responded that the outline is an open question; as long as the Board in December h as a substantive report addressing the issues raised by Ms. Sutley and makes compelling recommendations to the President and Congress, the goal is met . Dr. Austin noted that the goal of the Board is consensus, and the report is developed through a consensu s process. Mr. Gillen commented that he had always been proud of the fact that the Board was independent. He would have preferred CEQ to offer GNEB two or three important topics from which the Board could choose. If through CEQ, the President states , ho wever, that renewable energy needs to be studied, it behooves GNEB to do that. Perhaps in the future, a number of topics could be presented to the Board. Mr. Joyce explained that it must be clearly stated what advisory committees are working on and who asked them to conduct the work ; this requires approval at senior levels. These groups are convening to provide recommendations to EPA, public monies are being used to support these advisory boards, and the groups are totally independent in terms of the advice that they offer, but not in terms of how they operate

. Mr. Starfield stated his hope that , in addition to the three areas in the outline, the report could also discuss the positive and negative impacts of renewable resources , including environmental, so cial, and economic effects. Mr. Joyce said that this would be useful. The report should be a balanced assessment of pros and cons. Itwould be a worthwhile goal for GNEB to provide recommendations that would help government and industry avoid previous mist akes. Mr. Angel thanked Mr. Starfield for mentioning the impacts. Dr. Austin noted that one of her previous concerns had been what is border specific about renewable energy . T he potential positives and negatives of increasing renewable energy development in the border region need to be determined. If the Board is being asked to provide a balanced assessment , what might this mean for the border? What will the future look like on the border with increased development , what does it look like now, and what po licies need to be in place to protect the communities ? GNEB’s job is to state what the Board members believe the increase in renewable energy means for the border. Mr. Small commented that , from the A dministration’s perspective, renewable energy resource s in the border region are among the greatest in the Nation

. Itis useful , however, to discuss the potential downsides of increased renewable energy development . The Board should consider h aving a specific focus on economic benefits for border co mmunities and border residents, and e mpowering border communities to be a resource for the entire N ation. Dr. Austin said that the border can be hel d up as an example for the Nation, but she firmly believed that environmental issues needed to be the focus of the rep ort rather than economic issues. Mr. Joyce commented that the Board’s enabling legislation was broadly focused. Dr. Henkel noted that there is an upside and downside to the discussion about renewable s , and a proper balance is critical. Board members brin g a local sens ibility, and together, are advocates for a context that the rest of the N ation does not have. GNEB is , by legislation , directed to focus north of the boundary, but still has neighbors below the boundary who must be considered when thinking ab out environmental health. Ms. Donna Wieting (NOAA) , GNEB alternate , said she had been struggling with the role of NOAA, especially in regards to the so cieoeconomic issues associated with renewables

. She would like moreMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 23

guidance on how she should be thinking about the relationship between socioeconomic issues and the environment, and whether that will be part of the report. Mr. Olmedo added that renewable energy creates jobs but it also sparks more conversation about environmental and economic issues. They need to be addressed together. Mr. Joyce responded that the s ocio economic issues are intertwined with the environmental ones. The question is how to have economic development in a way that results in a better environment. Dr. Austin asked if the Board tho ught additional expertise was needed from other areas in the Department of Commerce. Mr. Joyce commented that the intent is that federal and state rep resentatives will draw upon whatever expertise is available in their agencies as necessary for the B oard’s work. There are myriad re sources across the F ederal G overnment that can be tapped. It is hoped that members from the private sector will draw on their networks to help the Board in its work as well. 

### F **RIDAY** 

### , **M ARCH**  

### 25, **2011** Dr. Austin welcomed members and noted that the first topic of discussion would be locations and dates for the next three meetings. Then, members will break into groups by sector to discuss topics that need to be covered in the report. Once the topics are chosen, working groups will be f ormed . The working groups then will meet to discuss and make assignments. Several additional chairs are needed for these working groups . Mr. Niemeyer asked if the meeting minutes from last March were to be approved; Ms. AnnMarie Gantner (EPA, OFACMO) said that former GNEB Chair , Paul Ganster , had approved them

. **Discussion of Options for the**  **June, September, and December Meetings** Mr. Joyce recommended that the border meeting s should be held in areas where the Board could hear from people and visit faci lities that are dealing with renewable energy issues. Dr. Austin noted that meeting on the border not only allows GNEB me mbers to see local facilities, but also allows local people to come and speak to the Board. Possible locations for the meetings (and reasons) suggested by the members included:  San Diego/El Centro/Imperial County: Members from San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) could be invited, as could people from the Imperial Valley area, the University of California, San Diego, and gov ernment officials from Baja California. Geothermal and biofuel facilities are present
.  Las Cruces/El Paso: Sapphire research and development site; there are some commercial applications in the area, as well as medium

- sized solar installations; and the c ommercial algae site is 45 minutes away. Also, IBWC has projects in the area. New Mexico’s two senators have been active in the energy debate.  Laredo: W ind farms nearby, and the Falcon Dam is 75 miles from Laredo. Del Rio, Texas , and Brownsville, Texas , also were suggested, but were reconsidered and struck from the list. Mr. Joyce noted that the report would be in different phases of completion at the June and September meetings. He thought this should be taken into consideration in making the locati on selection

. Dr. Austin called for a vote on the June meeting location. Five members voted for San Diego/El Centro/Imperial County, 13 members voted for Las Cruces/El Paso, and 2 members voted for Laredo. The Ju ne meeting will be held in Las Cruces/El P aso. For the September meeting, 18 members voted for San Diego/El Centro/Imperial County and 2 voted for Laredo. The September meeting will be held in San Diego/El Centro/Imperial County.24 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Ms. Wolf noted that the past three meetings along the border were held at resorts, and were not conduci ve to public participation. She suggested that the planning committees look for facilities where the public would feel comfortable. Dr. Austin explained that planning committees were needed to develop field trip itineraries and identify speakers, as well as select the meeting venue. Mr. Olmedo mentioned that an Annual Environmental Health Leadership S ummit would be held in Imperial County on October 1, 2011, which includes an environmental justice tour the day before. Dr. Austin called for volunteers for the planning committee for the September meeting San Diego . T he committee will include Mr. Angel ( Co

- Chair), Ms. Aguillon (Co

- Chair), Mr. Olmedo, Ms. Wolf, Ms. Wieting, and Ms. Krebs . The planning committee for the June meeting in Las Cruces will include Mr. Small (Chair), Mr. Niemeyer (Co

- Chair), Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Apodaca, Dr. Henkel, Mr. Starfield, Ms. Spener, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Gillen. Dr. Austin commented that before the end of the meeting, the se committees should choos e a date for a conference call. Dr. Austin noted that meeting d ates must be chosen, and GNEB should first discuss dates that will not work for the se meeting s . She reminded the Board that six members’ terms would be expiring on June 9. Dr. Pohlman did not think that May 31

- June 3 should be chosen because that is the week of the Memorial Day holiday . She also was not available to meet the following week , June 6

- 10, 2011 . Mr. Angel commented that the last two weeks in June and the last week in September were not good for him because of events in California

. Ms. Spener mentioned that June 29

- July 1 is the Western Governors Association meeting, and that September 21

- 24 is a large Colorado River s ymposium. Mr. Cruz stated that tribal regional operations meetings were held the last week in June. Mr. Angel entered a motion to hold the meeting June 7

- 9 , 2011. Itwas seconded, a vote was taken, and 12 me mbers voted for the date, 4 against, and 1 abstained. A number of members from New Mexico were unavailable on tho se dates, however, and the Board reconsidered. Mr. Starfield said that perhaps the de cision about whether terms could be extended could be made quickly, and the meeting date could be finalized at that point. Mr. Angel rescinded his previous motion, and entered a motion to hold the meeting on June 15

- 17, 2011. Itwas seconded, and 16 votes were entered for the date with one abstention. Mr. Joyce noted that it would be ideal to decide on a date for the September meeting, but if a great deal more discussio n was needed it would be best to move on. Perhaps the September planning committee could caucus and come up with some potential dates. Mr. Russ F risb i e (IBWC) suggested that the Board examine the National Security Calendar to see if there were any events the southwest scheduled in December with which the Board could collaborate for that meeting . This would have the advantage of public presentation of the 14 th report taking place in the GNEB’s geographical area of focus and might encourage broader press co verage. **Discussion of the 14th Report** Dr. Austin suggested that the members break up into three to four groups, choose someone to write down the group’s ideas , and identify someone to share them with the larger group. The charge is to discuss the renewab le energy situation, its potential , and concerns in the border region. These groups are only formed to brainstorm idea s ; the real working groups will be determined once the topics have been narrowed down. The three groups will be: (1) state representative s; (2) federal representatives; and (3) private sector representatives (NGOs, private industry, and academia)

. After the breakout session, the Board members reconvene d and each group presented their findings of what should be included in the report as fo llows:March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 25

State G overnment Group 1. “Watergy”

—

relationship between water and energy 2. Environmental impacts of renewable energy

— regulatory constraints/consi derations, i.e., dry

- cycle power plants 3. Environmental consequences of not doing anything (“no a ction alternative”), i.e., what additional greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere 4. Best management practices (BMPs) for different renewable energy alternatives need to be highlighted 5. Benefits of renewable energy and energy efficiency

— what a re the benefits for communities that don’t already have renewable energy ? 6. If you can barely pay for basic needs, how can you afford renewable energy ?

— what’s in it for the average consumer , people on fixed incomes, and economically disadvantaged communities? 7. Pros and cons of large arrays versus photovoltaic arrays for individual use 8. Challenges with existing grid system

—transmission capacity 9. Lessons learned

—case studies 10. Emission credits for transboundary, interstate, and local efforts Federal A gencies Group 1. Institutional framework
 Federal role, process on both sides of the border 2. Role of federal financing
 Lessons learned (e.g. , Community Development Block Grant $, ARRA $) from existing funding programs
 Alternative funding/financing mec hanisms
 Ways to extend resources 3. Mine existing interagency work groups (e.g. , Southwest border, environmental justice); reports (e.g. , Institute of Americas) and commission what is missing 4. Role of private sector engagement 5. Coordination of federal reg ulations and policies: identifying conflicts; background on existing policies on renewables 6. Energy security’s relationship to h omeland security 7. Transmission issues across border 8. Add DOI, especially the Fish and Wildlife Service, to GNEB 9. Highlight existing examples of cross

-border cooperation (e.g. , agreements on hydropower generation) 10. Add additional renewable types including efficiencies , weatherization, biomass, and hydropower. Private S ector (NGO s /Industry/A cademia) Group 1. Private sector experiences
 Business and industry development of renewable energy
 Role of market forces as regulatory mechanisms
 Cost/ benefit of job creation/environmental impacts
 Financing, market development, transmission
 Inventory of projects 2 **.** Regulatory issu es  Regulatory difference s between states
 Cost comparisons of conventional and renewable sources  Minimum/maximum projections of energy costs
 Costs and efficiencies by renewable energy type26 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

3. Environment/Social/Economic Impact
 Regulation of renewable energy production o Health and safety safeguards o Enforcement o Lifecycle (production

– decommission)
 Technical advice to local communities in designing healthy public

-private partnerships o Business incentives and incentive ladders o Community

- corporate mutuality: community support and corporate good neighbors
 Protection of natural systems o Land and water health o Wildlife habitat
 Precautionary principle 4. Case study driven/illustrated
 Private sector successes in commercialization and deployment of renewable energy
 Success es in renewable energy , environment al protection , and benefits to communities
 Scale sensitivity o Jobs o Environmental impact o Quality of life Dr. Austin commended the groups for their work, and noted that the report would be fairly brief. She explained that th e report is intended to raise the issues and to summarize what has been addressed in renewable energy . Some of the issues have not been addressed , and the Board may recommend that those be addressed. Mr. Joyce pointed out that a more detail ed report would be more useful to Administration. The more information GNEB can convey about what the Board thinks the F ederal G overnment should do , the better. Dr. Austin commented that the Board might have to focus on fewer issues so that the report can contain more d etail. Mr. Ramirez stated that the largest source of pollution on the border is vehicle emissions , and he did not see that in the comments from the three groups . He asked about the spectrum of renewable energy that would be considered for the report, and added that vehicle emissions should be addressed some place in the report. Ms. Krebs agreed that vehicle emissions, the low sulfur fuel standard, and biofuel development are important topics for the report . Ms. Aguillon said that San Diego is c onverting its buses to natural gas to reduce vehicle emissions; this could be mentioned in the report . Mr. Joyce agreed that diesel emissions are a maj or component of air quality issues along the border , but he pointed out that those living in border communities need electricity and power generation also yields emissions . Mr. Wood thought it was important for the GNEB members to keep in mind the economic situation along the bo rder. Brownsville had to replace its fleet of buses, and they all are still diesel because th at is what the city could afford. Some areas do not have the financial means to select the greener alternative. Mr. Starfield was concerned that the outlines from the three groups covered many times the number of topics that the report can cover. GNEB is charged with examining the interaction between climate and the border that makes renewable energy possible , and providing recommendations on that possibility. Dr. Henkel stated that part of the discussion among the members focused on the inherited theme for the report, which c ame from CEQ ’ s response to GNEB’s previous report

. He suggested that p ollution can be examined by type, then the responses from the various kinds of renewable technologies can be examined. GNEB can determine which of these technologi es are affordable and at what level. The recommendations should fit to the realities of the communities. Mr. Olmedo pointed out that there is increased interest in renewable energy because of the subsidies. Renewables will no t solve the border’s air pol lution problems; in fact, renewable energy technologies could contribute more air pollution in regions along the border. He stressed the need to examine r enewable energy from a neutral perspective.March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 27

Mr. Joyce thought that a narrower and more targeted scop e for the report would be more useful than a broad and diffuse one. Mr. Gillen asked if the scope of the report should be narrowed to issues that are drive n by policy given that GNEB is advising the President and Congress

. Mr. Joyce agreed that it would be useful if the report offered suggestions that would be useful to Congress and the President. Ms. Poynter mentioned that states have a great deal of authority over renewabl e energy, so perhaps the report should address what the F ederal G overnment can do to facilitate work at the state level. There is intent at the federal level to ease restrictions. Dr. Austin noted some facts to move the group forward . A background section is needed to discuss why the border now is the focus of renewable energy develop ment and why the Board was addressing this topic. The lifecycle of the technologies has to be discussed as does affordability, transmission across the border, institutional framework, funding and financing, efficiency, and the role of the private sector. B MPs can be case studies. Dr. Pohlman suggested adding energy security. Mr. Starfield suggested th at the Board members discuss the areas for which they would like to make recommendations. GNEB can determine the impacts of various choices, and identify pol icies that it would like the Administration to adopt and promote. This would make it easier to determine what information needs to be collecte d. Dr. Pohlman suggested including a recommendation on policy regionalization to support current efforts on energy security. Mr. Olmedo was concerned about ensuring that the report reflected the Board’s independent opinion. He got the impression that GNEB was being led to give a certain opinion

. Dr. Austin encouraged Mr. Olmedo to add any topics that he believed had been omitted from the group outlines. Mr. Olmedo replied that he wanted to preserve the integrity of the Board. Mr. Gillen responded that Mr. Starfield had suggested that GNEB consider the recommendations to help guide the information gathering; he did not suggest that the recommendations be formed before the investigation. Oftentimes , in preparing a report, the GNEB will set out on a certain path, and as the Board moves forward it determine s that the path must be changed

. All of the recommendations in t he report will be supported by ample background material

. Mr. Gillen said that he has never seen any Board member’s opinion discarded. Ms. Spener suggested two points that should be covered in the report : the unique challenges and opportunities faced be cause of the border region (opportunities for wind and solar, challenges with hydropower); and the unique challenges and opportunities for working with Mexico. Mr. Niemeyer pointed out that in some of the previous reports , GNEB would write about the issu e , provide some background, and then include a case study illustrating best practices. The r ecommendations usually are presented at the beginning of each chapter. There were no foregone conclusions about the report, however, before it wa s started. Aside from the topic, the Board has the freedom to do whatever it wants in the report. Mr. Angel thought it was common sense to start with the end in mind. He suggested putting a placeholder in the report and employing a mechanism t o address regulatory enforceme nt and concerns. Dr. Pohlman thought it would be helpful to see the discussion written down in a document that could be revised. Dr. Austin noted that the process was very rushed this year, but the members must leave this meeting knowing what they are contributing to the report. Mr. Joyce agreed that the three outlines included a number of important issues, but he did not think they had been organized into a framework for the report
. He suggested returning to the outline sent to members before the meeting. Dr. Austin commented that there were still too many topics listed. Mr. Angel said the outlines looked somewhat like a puzzle, but he thought the members are beginning to speak in a common language. Ms. Spener said, in terms of breaking this report down into workable pieces, the outline given28 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

to GNEB might be more useful, but she was unsure how it would meld with the outline just developed. Mr. Small suggested grouping the topics into the outline. Mr. Gillen stated that everything the private sector group discussed would fit under item # 3 from the CEQ. Mr. Olmedo asked for Mr. Joyce ’s opinion on what type of product would make the best represent ation to Congress. Mr. Joyce responded that the focus of the report is economic opportunities driven by enviro nmental and socioeconomic concerns. The hope was that, in this report, the Board could examine renewables to address several issues: the impact on the local economy and the opportunity to create jobs , the use of renewable s to bring about environmental ben efit s, and any concerns associated with renewable energy . Mr. Joyce said he has always strived for absolute consensus among the Board members and did not expect this report to be any different . Mr. Olmedo said that different communities view tradeoffs diff erently; the border region will view that tradeoff between jobs and less pollution/better health differently than a more affluent community. Ms. Aguillon pointed out that any renewable energy technology company that was polluting the environment and riskin g the health of the local community would not be around long. The report provides a great opportunity to examine impacts

— both good and bad. Dr. Austin pointed out that the report should address what renewable energy means for the border region. Mr. Joyce n oted that the report should have a balanced, thorough discussion of benefits, costs, pros and cons, economic opportunities, and detrimental effects ; it also should provide recommendations , by the consensus of this Board , on what needs to be done to ensure that the positive impacts are achieved and the detrimental impacts are avoided. Mr. Niemeyer mentioned that, according to the outline , GNEB has been asked to examine the effects of air quality and climate change on the border region in more depth than in the past reports, and the potential for renewable energy resources along the border. 

### The outline circulated before the meeting states that the major emphasis of the report will be to highlight the opportunities for green jobs in economic development with a greater emphasis on what renewable energy would bring to the border. Mr. Joyce said that the outline presented to the Board was simply a starting point for the discussions , and the Board ha s moved past it. Mr. Niemeyer wondered if the Board just needed t o discuss the issues surrounding renewable energy. Dr. Austin thought that was the charge she heard from Ms. Sutley . Mr. Joyce added that the report should capture the context of the Board’s discussion of renewable energy. What are the socioeconomic impact s (p ositive and negative ) and what can the F ederal G overnment do to ensure that the positive impacts are maximized and any detrimental impacts are minimized? Mr. Apodaca suggested the possibility of creating three workgroups to focus on community impacts , economic impacts , and environmental impacts. Dr. Austin asked if other members had ideas on how to group the information together in a framework for the report . Mr. Joyce pointed out that some of the topics listed in the outlines are minor to the Board’s central intent. GNEB cannot address everything. The scope must be narrowed to a scale that will allow the report to offer recommendations and a substantial body of information to support them, as well as suggestions on what the F ederal G overnment can do t o ensure the positive economic, social, and environmental benefits of renewable energy while ensuring that the detrimental impacts do not occur. Ms. Aguillon suggested that national security be included as an impact. Mr. Small noted that national security also is a driver and one of the justifications for renewable energy. Mr. Cruz mentioned that many of the issues discussed also are faced by the federal and state regulatory agencies

. Dr. Austin wanted the Board to go one step further, and determine h ow the topics fit together to create a framework for the report . Mr. Angel noted that “large vs. small” was site specific and project specific. Dr. Austin asked those who suggested that t opic to comment on how it fit with the other topics. Ms. Aguillon sug gested that it was part of the impacts. The pros and cons of both “large” and “small” helped her company to come to a consensus. Mr. Angel added that it was t oo speculative to get intoMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 29

impa c ts at a project level. Dr. Austin suggested that “large” versus “s mall” be described as the difference between a large project and a small (distributed) project in the community, in economic terms , and in terms of environment al impacts

. Dr. Austin noted that e ach working group should seek case studies that supported th e findings and recommendations; these case studies could be used to make a point or highlight the issue under discussion. Ms. Wieting commented that in the 13th report, there were six recommendations on renewable energy; c ould the Board use those recomme ndations as a starting point and elaborate on them in this report ? Mr. Gillen responded that because the 13 th report was prepared for a new President, the Board took the opportunity to cover a wide array of issues . He would anticipate using some of the points raised in t he 13th report as discussion points. Ms. Wieting added that more focus could be placed on those recommendations. Mr. Gillen pointed out that many of the recommendations on renewable energy came from previous reports. Mr. Starfield commente d that there are two things that GNEB should address: (1) where the growth in renewable s ought to be encouraged, and (2) the best practices or policies for development

. He suggested four working groups to accomplish this: background, renewable resources, economic opportunities, and impacts. Ms. Krebs noted how the Economic Technology Advancement Committee in California prepared its report

— the Committee listed the technologies available today, examined how they could be applied based on who would benefit b y it (residential, commercial, institutional), and then examined the policies that would have to be in place to make the projects successful. Ms. Kreb s agreed to e - mail the report to Dr. Austin. Mr. Niemeyer stated that one exercise conducted for every report is to examine the previous reports ; the Board needs to complete this task. He added that he supported Mr. Starfield’s suggestion for the four working groups. Dr. Austin stated that there were two sets of potential working group frameworks under dis cussion. Mr. Cruz suggested the addition of a fifth working group on consequences to the four suggested by Mr. Starfield. Dr. Austin proposed organizing the topics under the working groups suggested by Mr. Starfield, and Ms. Poynter agreed. Ms. Poynter not ed that the one area missing in the outline was challenges. Ms. Krebs proposed that the report include the comment that lifecycle analysis be considered in the future , because the Board could not conduct lifecycle analyses on all of the renewable technol ogies. Dr. Austin said she envisioned a small diagram for each technology, perhaps bolding or circling those aspects that take place on the border. Mr. Luthans thought that lifecycle analysis might not be the correct term, because Mr. Starfield meant it in broader terms that could include obstacles and challenges. Mr. Small recommended putting the challenges in the recommendations section of the report. Mr. Olmedo noted that some of the categories would fit well under environmental justice. Dr. Austin commented that environmental issues should be covered in the background and institutional framework section. Ms. Aguillon pointed out that with regard to the lifecycle of photovoltaic panels, lessons can be learned from Germany. In Europe, there are plans for de commissioning the panel s . Mr. Angel added that the lifecycle differs for various renewable; he noted that both wells and turbines fail. Mr. Joyce noted that the Board members appear to favor Mr. Starfield’s propos ed outline and working groups and the issues identified during the breakouts fit into that proposal. Within this framework, the Board should determine who would be willing to address these different issues. Dr. Austin thought this would be a good approach for the Board to take. She noted , howe ver, that this approach would exclude efficiency, such as home retrofitting, for this report ; it also appears that transportation would not be30 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

considered. Mr. Small said he thought transportation had to be included, but with the scope limited to biofuels. The Board then placed the topics into the sections of Mr. Starfield’s proposed outline, and determined which members would work on each section. The results are as follows: **1. Background**  **(Mr. Niemeyer [Chair], Ms. Poynter/Ms. Georgina Scarlata, Ms. Al ison**  **Krepp/Ms. Wieting, Mr. Angel, and Mr. Ruiz)**   Best management  Case studies
 Unique challenges and how we work with Mexico, transboundary relationship
 Energy security
 Institutional framework (must be defined by the group)
 Regulatory and compliance **2. R** **enewable resources (Ms. Spener, Mr. Luthans, Mr. Angel, and DOE representative? [Chair**  **undecided])**  Life cycle analysis of each (biofuels, biogas, solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, waste to energy)
 Best management  Regulatory and compliance
 Case studies **3 .**  **Economic opportunities/issues (Ms. Aguillon [Chair], Mr. Gillen, Ms. Krebs, Mr. Small, and**  **Mr. Olmedo)**   Energy security
 Best management  Case studies
 Affordability
 Large/small
 Jobs and training
 Funding/finance
 Roles of private sector **4. Impacts**  **(Mr. Olme do [**  **Co -**  **Chair], Ms. Veronica Garcia [Co**  **- Chair], Ms. Wolf, Mr. Small,**  **Ms. Aguillon, Mr.**  **Wood, Mr. Apodaca, Mr. Angel, Mr. Luthans, and a DOI representative?)**  Energy security
 Community impact
 Best management  Regulatory and compliance
 Case studies
 Environment al impacts/socio economic impacts
 Unintended consequences
 Large/small **5. Challenges**  **(This section will include recommendations and findings of the report, which will be discussed in more detail at the June meeting once members have reviewed the draft text)**   Policy
 Best management  Practical recommendations
 Case studies
 Transmission? (place in report to be determined)March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 31

Dr. Austin instructed the working groups to select a date for a teleconference before leaving the meeting. Each group should provide the date f or the teleconference to Ms. Gantner. Each of the groups should have draft text by the June meeting. Prior to the June meeting, each working group will send its text to the entire Board for review. Groups should decide today what needs to be accomplished b efore the teleconference. Dr. Austin asked if there was a location online where working group reports and draft text could be posted. Mr. Joyce replied that there is a Web site for the Board. Ms. Gantner will send the teleconference call

- in number and info rmation to access the Web site to members by March 29, 2011. She also will send e

- mails out to the working groups when a member posts something on the Web site. The working groups then met separately to discuss their charges and make writing assignments

. Dr. Austin adjourned the meeting at 2:07 p.m.32 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 

### Action Items  Ms. Stendebach will send information on the percentage of the population in Imperial Valley that is Hispanic to Mr. Gillen.  Ms. Stendebach will provide information on OAR’s activities in ren ewable energy to the Board.  Dr. Papoulias will send Mr. Ramirez c ontacts to learn more about the flood model mentioned in the Am bos Nogales region.  OFACMO staff will follow up with DoD to see if th at agency can be represented on GNEB.  Ms. Spener will send Mr. Small contact information for the IBWC environmental chief and the engineering chief, and the contacts IBWC used in its analysis of the dams for information on low

flow turbines.  Mr. Foley will give GNEB an additional slide that provided information on the cost of wind energy.  Ms. Krebs will send via e -mail the Economic Technology Advancement Committee report to Dr. Austin

.  The working groups will meet via teleconference prior to the June meeting

.  Ms. Gantner will send the conference call

- in number for the working group teleconferences and information to access the Web site to GNEB me mbers by March 29, 2011.  Before the June meeting, each working group will post its text on the Web site for the Board to review.  Ms. Gantner will send e

- ma ils out t o the working groups when a member posts something new on the Web site.March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 33 

### 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 Bas in 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 **Veronica Garcia** Deputy Division Director Waste Programs Division Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Phoenix, AZ **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 **Luis E. Ramirez Thomas, M.S.F.S.** President Ramirez Advisors Inter

-National , LLC Phoenix, AZ **Thomas Ruiz, M.S.** Border/Environmental Justice Liaison Office of the Secretary New Me xico 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 Co unty Regional Mobility Authority Brownsville, TX **Antonio Noé Zavaleta, Ph.D.** Director Texas Center for Border and Transnational Studies University of Texas at Brownsville Brownsville, TX34 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

**Federal Members of the Board** Department of Homeland Security **Teres a 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 State **Stewart Tuttle** U.S.

- Mexico Border Affairs Coordinator Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs U.S. Department of State Washington, DC Environmental Protection Agency **La rry**  **Starfield** Deputy Regional Administrator EPA Region 6 Dallas, TX International Boundary and Water Commission **Edw ard Drusina**  Commission er United States Section International Boundary and Water Commission El Paso, TX Department of Housing and Urban Development **Stan Gimont** U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, DC Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation S ervice **Robert M. Apodaca** Assistant Chief

– West USDA/NRCS Albuquerque, NM Department of Commerce

– National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration **Donna W ie**  **ting** National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Silver Spring, MD Department of Ene rgy **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 Mana gement and Outreach Washington, DC **EPA Participants Lisa Almodovar**  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of International and Tribal Affairs Washington, DC **Geraldine Brown** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committ ee Management and Outreach Washington, DC **Michelle DePass** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator Office of International and Tribal Affairs Washington, DC **Jerry Ellis** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washin gton, DC **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, DCMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 35

**Debbie Lake -**  **Hinkle** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, DC **Bill Luthans** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Dallas, TX **Stephanie McCoy**  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, DC **Toni Rousey** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, DC **Sue S tendebach**  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Washington, DC **Other Participants Jon Andrew**  U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC **William Bresnick** Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC **Anthony J. Como** Department of Energy **Todd Foley** American Council on Renewable Energy **Russ Frisbie** International Boundary and Water Commission **Patricia Harrington** Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC **Victoria F**  **inkle** Inside EPA **Edw ard Hoyt**  Nexant Washington, DC **Lesley H unter**  American Council on Renewable Energy **Alison Krepp** National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Silver Spring, MD **John McCardle** Environment and Energy News **Diana Papoulias** U.S. Geological Survey **Rachel Poynter** U.S. Department of State Washington, DC **David Reese** Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC **Rick Rosen** National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Silver Spring, MD **Georgina Scarlata** U.S. Department of State Washington, DC **Sally Spener** International Boundary and Water Commission El Paso , TX **Nancy Sutley** Chair White House Council on Environmental Quality Washington, DC **Contractor Support Mary Spock** **, M.S.** Writer/Editor The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD36 March 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary **U .**  **S. E**  **N V**  **IR O**  **N M**  **E N**  **T AL**  **PRO T**  **E C** **T ION**  **AGE N**  **CY**


# Good **Nei g**  **h b**  **or En**  **v i**  **r o**  **n me**  **n t**  **a l**  **B o**  **a r**  **d**

**March 24 -**  **25, 2011**  **Mandar i**  **n O**  **rien t** **a l**  **1330 Mar y**  **la n**  **d A** **v enue,**  **S .W.**  **Wa s**  **h i**  **ngt o**  **n, D**  **C 200 2** **4** 

## A **G E**  **N D**  **A**

**T hu**  **r s**  **d ay,**  **M a**  **rc h**  **24, 2011** 8:30 am **R e**  **gist r**  **a t** **ion** 9:00

- 9:30 **W e**  **lc o**  **m e**  **a n**  **d I**  **n t**  **r o**  **du c**  **t io**  **n s**  Di ane Austin, A c tin g Ch air C y nth i a J on e s - J ac kson, A c ting D i re c tor, O F A C MO Mar k Jo y ce , G N E B A c ti ng D e si gn ated Fe d er al O f f ic er B o ard M ember Introdu c t ions 9:30

- 10:30 **O p**  **e n**  **i n**  **g R e**  **m a**  **r k**  **s a n**  **d G** **e ne**  **r al Dis**  **c u**  **ss i**  **on** N an c y S utl e y, Chair Whi t e House Coun c il on Environment al Qu al i ty 10:30

- 10:45 B re ak 10:45

- 11:45 **Air Q**  **u al** **i ty and**  **Cli m**  **a t**  **e Cha**  **n ge**  **Alo n**  **g the U.S**  **. -**  **Me xico** 

**Bo r**  **d e**  **r** S ue S tend eb ac h, S enior Advisor on I nter n ati on al Air Qu al i ty U.S. E P A O f

f ice of Air and Radi ati on Rich ard Ros en, S enior A dvisor f or Cl i mate Re s e ar c h N ati on al O c e anic and Atmosph eric Admini strati on Di ana P a poul i a s Re s earch B io l o gist U.S. G e olo gi c al S ur

v e y 11:45

- 12:00 pm **P ub**  **l i**  **c C**  **o mme**  **n ts**  12:00

- 1:30 Lun c hMarch 24

- 25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 37



### 1:30

- 2:30 **R e**  **n e** **w a**  **b le E**  **n er**  **gy R e**  **so u**  **rce s in**  **t h**  **e U.S**  **. -**  **Me x**  **i c**  **o Bo r**  **d e**  **r**

**R e**  **gion** Edward D rusin a , Co mm i ss i on er United S t ates Se c ti on Int e rn a ti on al B ound ar y and W ater Comm is s ion Edward H o y

t P rin c ipal Cle an En erg y S p ec ialist N e x ant I n c . D O E Spe aker T BD 2:30

- 3:30 **T h**  **e E**  **c o**  **n o**  **m ic**  **P o**  **t e**  **n tial of**  **R e**  **n e** **w a**  **b le**  **E n**  **er gy D**  **e v**  **e lo**  **p m**  **e n**  **t in**

**the Bo r**  **d e**  **r R** **e gion**  C ec i l ia A g

ui l lo n , Direc t o r Mar ke t D ev e lop m ent and Go v ernm ent Re lations K Y OCERA So l ar, In c . S teph en Ni em e yer B o rd er A f

f airs Mana g e r and Colon i a s C oordin ator T e x a s C omm is s ion on Environm ental Qu al i ty Todd F ol e y, S enior V i c e P r e sident on P ol ic y and Gov ernm ent Re lations Am eri can Coun c il on Ren ew a ble En erg y 3:45

- 3:45 B re ak 3:45

- 4:45 **Up d**  **a t**  **e on**  **Bo r**  **de r**  **2012 P**  **r o**  **g r**  **a m**  **a n**  **d C**  **o m**  **m is**  **s i**  **on f**  **or E**  **n viron**  **m e**  **n tal**  **C oo**  **p e**  **r a**  **t ion**  **A c**  **tiviti e**  **s** Mi c h e l l e D e P a ss, Ass i st ant Adm inis tra tor U.S. E P A O f

f ice of I ntern ati on al and Trib al A f f ai rs 4:45

- 6:00 **Discu s**  **sion o**  **f 1**  **4 t**  **h** 

### R**e p**  **o r** **t** 6:0 0 **Adjou r**  **n f**  **or t**  **h e**  **Day**

**F r** **i d**  **ay, M**  **a rc**  **h 25, 2011** 
8:00 am **R e**  **gist r**  **a t** **ion** 8:30 **Discussion o**  **f O**  **p tions**  **for J un**  **e, S**  **e p**  **te m** **b er**  **, a n**  **d D**  **ec e**  **m be**  **r**

**Mee tin**  **g s**  9:00 **Discussion o**  **f 1**  **4 t**  **h** 

### R**e p**  **o r** **t c**  **o n**  **tin u**  **e d** 38 March 11

– 12, 2010, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary



### 10:30 **B re**  **ak** 10:45 **Discuss i**  **on o**  **f 14**  **t h**  

### R**e p**  **o r** **t c**  **o n**  **tin u**  **e d**  1:30 pm **P ub**  **l i**  **c C**  **o mme**  **n ts**  2:00 **Adjou r**  **n**