September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1 

## Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

**Meeting September 8** 
**- 9**  **, 201 1**  **Hotel Encanto 705 S**  **Telshor Boulevard Las Cruces, New Mexico** 


### M **EETING** 

### S **UMMARY**



### T **HURSDAY** 

### , **S EPTEMBER**  

### 8 **, 2011**  **Welcome and Introductions** Diane Austin, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Bo ard (GN EB) ; Mark Joyce, EPA, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (OFACMO), GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO) ; and Sharon Thomas, Mayor Pro Tem, Las Cruces, New Mexico Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona), GNEB Chair , welcomed the participants and the Mayor Pro Tem of Las Cruces to the meeting. Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for GNEB, also welcomed the Mayor Pro Tem and other s presenters for the meeting. Additionally, he thanked the planning committee for arranging the field trip and helping with other arrangements for the meeting, as well as mem

bers of the EPA Region 6 Border Office staff for their assistance . He noted that Cynthia Jones

- Jackson, Acting Director of OFACMO, was un able to attend and he offered her regrets.
Dr . Sharon Thomas (Mayor Pro Tem , Las Cruces, New Mexico), welcomed the Board to Las Cruces, and noted that GNEB’s visit afforded the region an opportunity to highlight its focus on renewable energy. Renewable e nergy is a large part of the city’s sustainability program, and she was pleased to learn that one of the major efforts of GNEB is to develop an environmentally sustainable framework. Dr. Thomas explained that the most severe local problem is soil that has been disturbed by construction projects. Las Cruces received an EPA grant with help from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) . Using the grant, Las Cruces hired an expert who helped craft an ordinance that will be voted on soon. Las Cruces now has an EPA grant to work on abatement measures particular to this region and several pilot projects to examine ways to contain the blowing dir t. Additionally, with help from EPA, remediation efforts at a local Superfund site got under way. A few years ago, Las Cruces was chosen to be part of the EPA T echnical A ssistance P rogram and was tasked to develop a vision for the city; EPA Region 6 was very active in the effort as part of the EPA

-U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

- Department of Transportation (DOT) partnership. A robust green infrastructure conference, which eventually became a regional conference, resulted from this effort. Las Cruces currently is pursuing a HUD sustainable communities grant. Dr

. Thomas said she has a particular interest in transportation, and the EPA

- HUD

- DOT partnership understands how transportation, housing , and economics intersect. She admired GNEB’s dedication to sustainability and noted that the Board brings competence to address the sustainability issues fac ed along the border, and the Las Cruces community is pleased to have GNEB meet here. She looks forward to working with GNEB on many projects, and invited Board members to a presentation on sustainability that evening by William Goran, who works with the mi litary at Fort Bliss.2 September 8

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

Discussion Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ]), GNEB member, commented that the Board had serious discussions on sustainability the previous day. Dr. Teresa Pohlman (Department of Homeland Sec urity [DHS]), GNEB member, asked about Las Cruces’ greatest challenge in sustainability. Dr . Thomas responded that Las Cruces had grown dramatically in the last two decades, and new and old members of the community do not think the same way about sustainab ility . Among the old members, there is some resistance to change. For example, the city council wanted to put solar panels on city hall when it was built, but that was not accepted. The compromise was that it was built solar

-panel ready. The biggest challe nge is educating the public about the benefits of renewable energy

. Mr. Nathan Small (New Mexico Wilderness Alliance), GNEB member, commented that GNEB members had a chance to meet with representatives of strong growth industries on the previous day’s fi eld trip. He asked Dr. Thomas to comment on economic opportunities in renewable energy within the community. Dr. Thomas replied that unemployment in the area was high, and former agricultural workers needed new positions and training to work in the renewab le energy sector

. A group called Help New Mexico has been teaching migrant and seasonal workers how to install solar panels. The area is making progress in attr acting the renewable industries and is trying to work toward “economic gardening,” which is help ing unemployed workers start their own businesses and enabling them to move into the se industries. Las Cruces also is helping migrant and seasonal workers with its sustainable communities grant. Mr. Niemeyer asked if it had taken much time to educate me mbers of the city council on renewable energy issues. Dr. Thomas replied that she and Mr. Small had worked hard to get people elected who want to work together on these issues. A large component run by the progressive voter alliance has tried to find candi dates who are educated on environmental issues. She noted that there may be some attempts to decrease the number of progressive members on the council during the municipal election in November. Ms. Cecilia Aguillon (Kyocera Solar, Inc.), GNEB member, asked Dr. Thomas if she saw a role for the city council to work with the local credit unions to provide back

- stop loans or encourage the banking community to support some of these efforts. Dr. Thomas responded that a few people in the community had been worki ng with the banks to help them understand that the extra cost for renewable energy is worth the money, but it has been a challenge. Additionally, as a member of the government, she wants to see the schools and county government take the lead in installing solar power, but there are problems with the regulatory commission and the utility companies. The city government has not been able to enter into Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), and a power struggle has arisen at the state level. Las Cruces has decided t o make its own investment in solar energy , even though it does not qualify for tax rebates. Dr. Pohlman stated that the F ederal G overnment currently has some legislation in Congress to create more empowerment of PPAs for federal, state and local governments. In addition , the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are placing emphasis on PPAs. Ms. Aguillon commented that the federal Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB s ) program was helpful in Cali fornia and might be something Dr. Thomas could look into in New Mexico. Dr. Austin thanked Dr. Thomas for attending the meeting and responding to member’s questions , and then asked the me mbers of the audience to introduce themselves.September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

**Economic Opportuni ties**  **in the U.S.**
**- Mexico Border Region**  Pris cilla C. Lucero, Executive Director, Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments (SNMCOG) Ms. Lucero asked how many GNEB me mbers were familiar with the Councils of Governments and worked with them in the region. Several members raised their hands in acknowledgment. Ms. Lucero represents four counties and nine local governments, and has worked with them for more than 24 years

. She now is seeing developments in her community that she did not think were possible 20 years ago. In addition to the local governments, she also represents local colonias , water districts, school districts , and soil and water conservation districts. Funding sources for SNMCOG include state appropriations, the U.S. Department of Commerce through the Economic Development Administration (EDA) , the New Mexi co Department of Transportation , and the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority, which is the state housing division. SNMCOG conducts projects on water, wastewater, legislative issues, transportation planning, housing development, education and outreach, and economic and community development. One initiative unique to the region was started by U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D

-NM) , the Southwest New Mexico Energy and Green Jobs Task Force in April 2 010. He has tasked his staff to get the counties to work on development of the area. Southwest New Mexico is known for having many assets in the renewable energy field , and the area is being considered by a large number of solar, geothermal , and wind energy companies. The Green Jobs Task Force has numerous participants

—including businesses, local government representatives, and state and federal agencies

— working together. Educational systems are included in the Task Force because the work force must be trai ned to conduct renewable projects in the area. The Green Jobs Task Force has established various committees to examine different aspects of development, such as developing a mission statement to a regional vision, education and outreach, and how projects a

re documented for grant assistance. The Green Jobs Task Force, per its mission, “will serve as an open, effective, and ongoing forum through which a broad range of stakeholders will address regional challenges in developing, prioritizing and implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives, and creating jobs on a sustained basis in Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna counties in New Mexico. Three communities out of 40 selected nationally ( Silver City, Deming and Luna County) have been accepted to a workshop sponsored by the Community Energy and Strategic Planning Academy. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted the Task Force opportunities to build stronger economies at two pilot sites. Grant County received an EDA grant to conduct an economic development strategic plan, so now the county is willing to take a portion of that plan and develop goals, objectives and strategies for renewable energy. When preparing the energy impact statement for the Academy workshops, Ms. Lucero has had the opportunity to examine the electric and gas usage and what communities are really doing to foster energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. There has been quite a bit of activity in her communities. Specifically, in Grant County, there is a partnership between the county and Silver City that opened an office of sustainability. As the result of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, the office has remained open and many projects have b een conducted, including a PPA for the water and wastewater system. She also is seeing more funding opportunities for local governments for water and energy conservation. One project Ms. Lucero takes pride in is the receipt of EPA funds by the C ity of Deming to remediate a brownfields site, which has since become an industrial park. Discussion D r. Greg Eckert (Department of the Interior), GNEB member, asked about the participation of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

. Ms. Lucero replied that they had not been participating as stakeholders with the renewable energy field, but they are active within city and county governments. In Grant County, there is federal and Gila National Forest land, and BLM and USFS are trying to make some of that land available for development.4 September 8

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

Mr. Luis Ramirez (Ramirez Advisors Inter

-National), GNEB member, noted that he did not see staff from utilities listed as participants in the Gre en Jobs Task Force. Ms. Lucero stated that getting utility participation had been a struggle. L ocal utility companies are not very involved in local meetings. Mr. Ramirez stated that in Arizona, the discussion of green jobs would not have been started without the utilities at the table. Ms. Lucero stated that they have been invited to participate and she would like to see more involvement from the utility companies. Dr. Antonio Zavaleta (University of Texas at Brownsville), GNEB member, commented that in Cameron County, Texas, there are at least 100 recognizable colonias

. He noted that there is not much activity on green projects in the C ouncil of Governments in that county . Does SNMCOG have projects to self

empower the colonias so that they can come to meetings and advocate for their needs ? Ms. Lucero replied that because there is trust from coloni as in her area now, it is easier to convince them to participate and realize that there are opportunities in the renewable energy field where residents can be employed. Dr. Pohlman mentioned that there are many types of renewable energy, and asked which provided the best opportunities . Ms. Lucero answered that , from her experience, the best opportunities were in solar energy . Mr. Larry Starfield (EPA Region 6), GNEB member, noted that at the previous meeting, GNEB had heard about negative impacts from all renewable energy sources . He asked if Ms. Lucero could share examples of how to create renewable energy projects without negative impacts on the environment. Ms. Lucero said she was not involved day

- to

- day in exami ning economic opportunities, but the lo cal governments have been attempting to do it right and ensure that there is proper planning. The C ity of Deming, for example, has many economic prospects that are attempting to locate there, but they chose to plan and ensure that they had the appropriate industrial park with all the needed infrastructure before encouraging businesses to locate there. Mr. Robert Apodaca (U SDA), GNEB member, asked if , from the state perspective, proper incentives had been provided to encourage industries to come to the are a . Ms. Lucero responded that more work needs to be done on incentives as well as educating the community about renewable energy. Ms. Linda Smrkovsky, Deming Luna County Economic Development, Inc., noted that New Mexico lagged behind in renewable energy, but when requests for proposals (RFPs) for renewable energy projects were released in s outhern New Mexico, Deming did not provide any options on land without a PPA in place. She said that New Mexico has become more educated in the past few years

. Ms. Lucero thanked the Board for its work , and then invited GNEB me mbers to visit her region. Jo Anne Shelby, Plant Manager, Compass Manufacturing Services Ms. Shelby thanked the Board for the opportunity to present at this meeting , and noted that her company wa s trying to create green jobs, as well as other jobs. Compass Manufacturing , located in Deming, New Mexico, currently has 105 employees . It opened for business in April 2007 with 15 employees. The company manufactures wire harnesses for public transportati on buses, which have a made

- in

- U.S.A. content requirement. The Compass plant’s owner wanted to use renewable energy, so 1,010 2 k W solar panels were installed on a 77,000 square foot plant. The plant is energy efficient, including the air conditioning and glass, and Compass is preparing to replace the lighting in the plant using funding from a federal grant. Ms. Shelby said that she spent a great deal of time searching for grant opportunities, and found it difficult for a manufacturer to find relevant inf ormation on such grants on government websites. Ms. Shelby said that she recently installed some solar panels on her own home because of the performance of the panels at the plant. She does not believe people are informed enough about solar energy to un derstand its importance. The Compass plant is completely driven by solar energy , has noSeptember 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 5

electrical bills, and the installation will be paid off in 4.8 years. With more help and education available, more manufacturers would use renewable energy. She believe s that the government should play a role in that education. Discussion Dr. Zavaleta asked if the Compass plant produced more energy than it used. Ms. Shelby confirmed that it did, and the plant sold the additional energy back to the PNM Electric Company

. Ms. Aguillon agreed that it is frustrating that utilities do not promote solar programs , and asked for effective ways to promote solar energy to manufacturers and the public. Ms. Shelby replied that a company like Compass could be used to educate other companies about the monetary benefits that are possible from solar installation and then help them with the process

. Ms. Sally Spener (International Boundary and Water Commission), GNEB member, informed Ms. Shelby that the Board was working on a report to the President and Congress about renewable energy in the border region for which a series of recommendations would be developed. She noted that from Ms. Shelby’s presentation, she understood that the business community needs more help in converting to ren ewable energy sources. Perhaps the Board could recommend that the government sponsor workshops targeted at helping small businesses learn about the benefits of renewable energy and how to apply for grants and other assistance. Ms. Shelby replied that works hops are important, but outreach must be conducted before they are held; the businesses must be contacted directly. Ms. Spener suggested working through local chambers of commerce. Ms. Lucero commented that agencies need to do more than hold workshops; the y need to do some “hand holding.” This is particularly true for small businesses in rural areas. Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department), GNEB member, noted that it was unfortunate that the D irector for the Energy C onservation and M anagement D ivision of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department was unable to speak at the meeting because he has a program that partners with citizens, businesses , industries and schools on clean energy infrastructure that would have been of interest to the Board . Mr. Ruiz was unsure whether he was active in rural areas. There is recognition within New Mexico state agencies that there are issues in s outhern New Mexico, including problems with colonias , and outreach to these communities is needed. The assistance is there , and h e hopes that outreach would make it more useful

. Dr. Eckert asked if renewable energy was helping Compass to remain competitive. Ms. Shelby responded that the tax credit and lack of energy bills has helped the company re tain jobs , including jobs making harnesses for hybrid and natural gas bus es. Mr. Luis Olmedo (Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.), GNEB member, thanked Ms. Shelby for her presentation, and said that it makes sense for manufacturers to invest in renewable energy installation. Mr. Niemeyer asked how much money Compass expected to save through energy efficiency. Ms. Shelby responded that more than 50 percent would be saved on the lighting efficiency alone. Mr. Jose Angel (California River Basin Region Water Quality Control Board), GNEB member, related Ms. Shelby’s comments on outreach to his California experience on grants for water. Stakeholders who qualified for some of these grants were not applying because there was confusion as to which agency was in charge of administering the grants. The Water Quality Control Board formed a task force that went into the community to do outreach. The grants were consolidated into a one

- stop shop, and the task force held workshops in rural areas. These efforts resulted in increase d participation. Mr. Starfield expressed surprise that a payback period of 4

- 5 years for installed solar panels did not sell itself to every company in the United States. He asked if there was any help from the Department of6 September 8

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

Energy (DOE) or wheth er Compass itself calculated the benefits and payback period. M s. Shelby was not aware of any information or assistance available from DOE. Mr. Starfield replied that it he thought DOE had some tools that could be used to calculate savings based on square footage and days of sunlight. Ms. Smrkovsky commented that the DOE website is very difficult to navigate for someone who does not know much about renewables. She noted that New Mexico had been helpful in providing workshops, but because of budget cuts, thi s no longer happens. Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control), GNEB member , stated that many green initiatives are only successful because of government financial assistance. In light of the economy, could businesses be encouraged to use renewable energy through tax relief alone instead of grants? Ms. Shelby replied that tax relief could work, and that grants may not be needed, and many manufacturers may not be able to complete all of the paperwork necessary to receive a grant. Mr. Ramirez asked how Compas s met its energy needs when the sun was not shining. Ms. Shelby answered that the company stores energy to meet those needs, but there are times when the company uses more energy and has an energy bill . Mr. Ramir ez asked about the solar rebate and whether it was easy to deal with the utility. Ms. Shelby said the rebate was 12 cents per kilowatt hour for 20 years, and that PNM was very helpful to Compass. Linda Smrkovsky, Executive Director, Deming Luna County Economic Development, Inc. Ms. Smrkovksy commented that she had worked with PNM for 25 years. The renewables mandate for New Mexico is 10 percent by 2020. PMN built the plant to meet the requirements, and is very receptive to businesses and industrial interests, but is not particularly responsive to residential needs

. The utilities were invited to the Green Jobs Task Force, but PNM no longer has a large presence in the Luna County area. The New Mexico Energy and Economic Development partnership has brought the four s outhwest New Mexico counties to the table. The Luna County commissioners were meeting September 8th to approve a me morandum of understanding (MOU) that touches on economic development, and commissioners in the other counties will vote on similar measures. The MOU will lead to marketing of the area on a regional basis to be competitive with other areas of the United States and to support renewables. Counties must work together to get regional funding. Many utility companies, when considering a region, look at available land and water rights as well as wind and geothe rmal resources

. In terms of renewables, there is a biosystems greenhouse in Luna County that is waiting to get online with El Paso Electric (EPE). A PPA has been in place, and the facility has been com plete for more than a month now, but it is not yet connected to EPE. The grand opening is scheduled for November 8, 2011 , and a substation was built for EPE to expedite the process. The company was going to break ground on a new location in September 2010, but just began constructi on in July 2011 because of all the regulatory issues they encountered. The company received a $54 million USDA loan and a $50 million grant from DOE. The $50 million dollar grant was split between two agencies that could not agree on which would be the lea d in overseeing the money. In May 2011, unemployment in Luna County was 21.9 percent, but now it is down to about 14 percent because green chilies are in season and there is work at the processing plant. Trying to get businesses to locate to the community is difficult because of the high rate of unemployment. She stressed that private businesses need grants to help fund the expensive retrofitting of old buildings. There is a definite need for grants or combination grants/loans

. She mentioned that Sapphire Energy bought 2,500 acres in Luna County, and is a good partner. Luna County also has been working with one biofuels company interested in moving into an industrial park that was a former brownfields site. SunZia is one of the transmission lines plannin g to go through Luna County; the Southline is the other, which will be right next to the border. Ms. Smrkovsky stated that w orkforce investment funds have notSeptember 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

been used effectively in New Mexico but they are needed desperately

. For example, s ome of the fun ds were used to train massage therapist s in Luna County, who then were unable to get jobs. She hopes that things will improve in the future. Luna County wants to see companies create more local jobs; for example, the county does not want Sapphire Energy t o do all of its research and development elsewhere. Ms. Smrkovsky noted that a gencies often do not have much of a presence in rural areas, and these areas are constantly trying to attract jobs and improve the quality of life of their residents. Area school s have been very responsive, and have green teams that include both students and teachers. Rural communiti es now are interested in working regionally. Working with renewables ha s been an educational process in all four southern New Mexico counties. Discussion Dr. Pohlman asked if renewable energy audits were the biggest problem in Luna County. Ms. Smrkovsky responded that there was no one in Luna County who could conduct a renewable energy audit or a lead paint assessment. She noted that mandates are iss ued that have to be met, but rural areas often lack the resources and skills to meet the mandates. Dr. Pohlman commented that this topic might make a useful recommendation. Renewable energy audits are critical to determining the potential of an area, and s hould be made more accessible. **Community Impacts in the U.S.**
**- Mexico Border Region**  Jeremy Turner, Executive Director, New Mexico Renewable Energy Transmission Authority (RETA) Mr. Turner noted that Mr. Robert Apodaca was the newest RETA board member. RE TA was statutorily created in 2007 because of a lack of transmission infrastructure in New Mexico

. Itis inappropriate to blame the utilities for the lack of transmission because if utilities were given the opportunity to recover the cost of transmission and build out, they likely would create transmission infrastructure. The utilities in the border region are n ot in a position to build it out

. RETA is one of eight state

- level transmission authorities; each was created to finance transmission, but they were not given many of the tools necessary to accomplish that. Only three of these authorities continue to meet, and only two

—Wyoming and New Mexico

—

have issued debt to date. RETA has a six

- me mber voting board and three e mployees. Wyoming issued $35 million in bonds in 2005, but since that time the state has not been in a position to issue additional bonds , although Wyoming has a deeper economic base to support development than some of the border states. RETA was able to issue $50 million in revenue bonds in 2010 for a 100 megawatt wind farm project in New Mexico. This is the first opportunity for RETA to be able to make a positive development impact on that community. With out being able to get the renewable energy source into the market, however, it is a dif ficult proposition to develop renewables. The utilities must follow a process managed by the F ederal G overnment. RETA now is starting to transition into an opportunity where the state authorities can make a drastic impact. Several years ago, New Mexico S tate Senator Tim Keller, in Senate Memorial 44, directed RETA to coordinate with other agencies to develop a map with renewable energy resource zones and potential transmission corridors and identify barriers to entry into transmission in the state. RETA reached out and went through a l arge stakeholder process and tried to identify the areas with the least environmental impact and the least impact on the military installations that could still meet developers’ needs in bringing renewables into the grid. The Senate Memorial 44 Final Report now is available on the RETA website. A small addendum will be posted on the website shortly. The report i dentified areas where corridors could be built, although RETA has no authority to get people to use them. By going through this process, it was discovered that most people do not want new transmission and many people want some of what already exists taken down , but that is not a feasible alternative. RETA would like to see other states go through a8 September 8

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

similar process. Arizo na has its own siting authority. RETA would like to see proper siting encouraged in all of the border states. The public regulat ory commission in New Mexico has siting authority over transmission lines. Additionally, RETA contracted with Los Alamos National Lab oratories last year t o put together a plan to export megawatts of renewable energy out of New Mexico, and develop a 20

-year plan for the state

. Itis a high

- level study that needs a lot of additional funding. Within the first 7 months, RETA was able t o enter into more than 35 percent of the 20

-year build out in the form of MOUs to start implementing this plan. RETA would like to see other states do something of a similar nature. The goal is to better utilize the existing infrastructure and start cleaning up the U.S. power network. This plan calls for about $ 1.3 billion in investments over the next 20 year s , and provides better interconnection with the different grids in the country. The plan starts by putting something in place that can work regardless of changes in the political environment. Several projects are under study in New Mexico: the Centennial West is a line from New Mexico to California wi th a RETA MOU that is probably 5 to 6 years away from construction ; the Lucky Corridor line in northern New Mexico has a RETA MOU, and addresses the Los Alamos study; the Southline is from New Mexico to Arizona; SunZia also goes from New Mexico to Arizona; and the Tres Amigas Superstation is an effort to interconnect the three grids in the United States. Transfer capability now is 600 megawatts, which is not significant . The utilities do an excellent job of managing this because the United States rarely has blackouts. When moving to a green economy, RETA and other state agencies need to help the utilities. RETA’s next step is Power N etwork NM, which involves stepping into the role of a developer. In March 2011, RETA entered into a n MOU with GS Global Infrastructure Partners II (GSIP) to jointly develop a collector system in Central New Mexico. GSIP typically i nvest s in ports of entry, toll roads, and projects of that nature. This is the first time GSIP has invested in a developer. The two are moving forward to develop a 200

- mile long 345 kV line with an initial carrying capacity of 1,500 megawatts. This coul d reach the four corners region so that it could be exported to other markets. RETA has a tremendously long way to go on this project. This is a first step. RETA already has reached out to potential customers and has received bids back for 1.5 times the line’s potential. The goal is to have the project online by 2013

- 2014. RETA is using the Los Alamos Study to validate certain project s and release proposals, and is trying to identify developers that will create something that makes sense both economically and environmentally. The cost of the line is about $400 million, but the resulting developments and renewables are in excess of $ 2 billion in the first phase. If RETA is successful, this type of project will be conducted several times over. RETA is trying to establis h an entity that forms a longer range vision as an example for the other border states to create wealth and jobs through clean energy development. Discussion Mr. Apodaca noted that RETA is working well with utilities within the state, and is ready to move forward. Ms. Spener explained that the Board’s report has some recommendations about the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) transmission infrastructure program (TIP), which also has borrowing authority. She asked how Mr. Turner viewed that program. Mr. Turner responded that WAPA’s TIP was an excellent program . WAPA invited RETA to speak at its conference. He pointed out that one problem is that the underlying economics of some of these projects need to be changed, or the projects will not be built. In addition, the TIP program requires environmental documentation, which can take a great deal of time. Within the coming months, however, they may have something more workable in place. Referring to the presentation from Compass, which me ets all of its energy needs through photovoltaic (PV) solar energy, Mr. Joyce asked if there w as more of an emphasis on distributed generation, and if it would lessen the need for some of the transmission lines. Mr. Turner replied that it would. RETA is aSeptember 8

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

proponent of energy efficiency. All of the transmission line eff orts are meant to bring lines into the region to export power. Currently, n one are under construction, and it would be useful to strengthen the existing infrastructure rather than build new li nes. Distributed generation and energy efficiency are some of the best ways to prevent the need for new construction of lines. Dr. Cyrus Reed (Sierra Club), GNEB member, asked who paid for transmission in New Mexico. Mr. Turner responded that if a renew able developer wanted to connect into the existing infrastructure, the developer must bear the cost. The customers on the other end of the line ultimately pay for the lines. The New Mexico rate payers do not pay for it. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC ) Order 1000, however, is encouraging the W estern United States, most of which is not part of a regional transmission organization, to join together and examine cost recovery across regions. Mr. Small commented that the Board had visited with Sapphire Energy employees the previous day, and they identified the land use component as one of the ir top challenges. Noting that RETA has expanded its role , he asked if that was in part to address land use issues

. Mr. Turner answered that RETA ’s role as a dev elop er is part of a first

- of

- its

- kind partnership. RETA’s role is starting to become more defined in leading an effort to encourage development. The project that RETA is working on with Power Network has been studied for the past 5 years, but no single developer could bear the entire cost. RETA is bringing multiple partners to the table to spread the risk and cost over four to five parties. RETA does have the power of imminent domain, but does not want to use it, and is creating a rule for how it could be u sed as a last resort. This process should be completed by the end of October 2011. Mr. S tarfield asked how RETA deal s with environmental impacts for the transmission line , and whether Mr. Turner could share information on the right way to locate a transmission line. Mr. Turner responded that RETA has done outreach with different environmental groups. There could be the potential to change leg islation, to change RETA’s role , and to establish funding to allow the environmental review on established corridor s. This would put RETA in a better position to encourage developers to locate in one of those areas . RETA has no formal arrangement with SunZia, but at this time, what Arizona has in its siting commission is a good step from an environmental standpoint. Mr. Niemeyer asked if the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ( PRC ) handled transmission lines before RETA was created , and why RETA was established . Mr. Turner responded that the PRC still has siting authority over those lines of more than 230 kV and with connections to generators larger than 300 me gawatts. RETA is not subject to the PRC, but do es talk with commissioners. E ither siting authority needs to take place under RETA or the PRC ’s role needs to be expanded to do a better job of holistically loo king at the state. Arizona has separation of siting authority and rate cases for utilities; this would be a good model for New Mexico. Mr. Turner confirmed that RETA was established to plan and finance transmissi on and storage projects. It was created out of frustration regarding the lack of transmission build out, and started out as a financing entity. Dr. Pohlman asked if the new FERC O rder needed to be amended. Mr. Turner responded that he had not read the FERC O rder in its entirety, and thought the u tility representatives could comment on this topic. Karyn Stockdale, Executive Director , New Mexico Audubon Society Ms. Stockdale thanked the Board for inviting her to speak, and explained that she ran the state office of the National Audubon Society, which works o n education and public policy. Conservation priority areas include restoration of species and identifying areas as “important bird areas” with critical habitats and species. Audubon also conducts citizen surveys, including the Christmas bird count. Birdwatchers have an economic impact, contributing $36 billion annually to the U.S. economy. In New Mexico, as published in a report last year, Audubon came to understand that especially in s outhern New Mexico, where there is a diverse number of spe cies, there is a direct link between birdwatching in protected areas and economic benefit to the communities.10 September 8

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

Audubon and many other national conservation groups agree that renewable projects should be conducted in a “smart from the start” manner. They w ant to see more investment in renewable energy and a national transition away from older energy source s . They also want the country to address some of the impacts already being seen. In the past 40 years, birds have shifted their habitats northward, likely in response to climate change. The main conservation concerns include sensitive biological resources, fragmentation of habitats, migratory corridors, avoidance of vertical structure in the prairies, changes in air pressure , and collisions. Siting considerations include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other sensitive wildlife impacts, protected lands including cultural sites, and restricted lands and airspace. A co mprehensive analysis is needed because a cumulative impact from past historic usage is likely

. Audubon has been working directly with BLM to examine siting issues and with RETA on siting of new transmission lines. Disturbed and impacted lands should be considered for development of renewa bles and transmission lines, as should lands with low resource values, brownfields sites, and lands near urban areas that already may have infrastructure in place. Audubon also has worked with the New Mexico Wind and Wildlife Collaborative, which includes 14 wind power companies, a few state and federal agencies, and about seven conservation groups, to ensure that many concerns can be addressed in advance. There are few regulatory processes in place on wind energy , so the group has developed best management practices. In October 2011, the groups’ work will be unveiled publicly via the web. The Solar Energy Zone project involved much collaboration as well. More conversations among the solar industry and conservation groups will occur in the near future once t he wind project has been rolled out. Audubon supports the mitigation hierarchy of Avoid

– Minimize

–Restore

–Mitigate/Offset. Before building renewables projects or transmission, developers should use a science

-based process to identify, incorporate and impl ement this hierarchy across a region or site based on potential impacts and goals for species and habitats. Opportunities for success are numerous; Audubon sees the need to ensure that there is not a choice between jobs and the environment. If issues are addressed early, projects are more likely to succeed with a faster timeline. Stakeholders must be engaged early, and must see that there will be a finished work product. Discussion Dr. Reed commented that the Sierra Club had attempted something similar to Audubon’s partnership several years ago, but it did not work. He asked if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) also was developing best management practices. Ms. Stockdale answered that FWS has many projects and ongoing working groups, but never deve loped a finalized product on the best management practices. They were , however, at the table with Audubon. FWS now, with the backing of many wind power companies, has been looking at a corridor for wind development and transmission through eastern New Mexi co, west Texas, and all the way to Canada. There are so many process pieces under way that it is difficult for a developer to understand what the best science is out there. Sometimes these meetings and plans can take years . FWS ’ habitat conservation plan will be completed in the winter of 2013. Dr. Reed asked if it was a good idea to create a habitat conservation plan for that large an area, or will plans be conducted regionally. Ms. Stockdale agreed that there were pros and cons. The benefit , because the a ssessment s tarted out with whooping cranes and there are so few left, will be that the species is examined through an entire range. The downside is that there are hundreds of other species in the territory , so it is difficult to draw the boundaries. If FWS had the staff and funds to address them all at once, that would be most desirable, but it does not have those kinds of resources. Ms. Aguillon asked if the Audubon S ociety was working with the state legislature and the public utilities commission to pro mote more distributed generation as opposed to large

- scale installations. Ms. Stockdale replied that Audubon was minimally involved. Other conservation groups have this as their mission and have more resources to apply to that, so Audubon has relied on its partners to fill that role.September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 11

Mr. Joyce asked if the guidance Audubon would be releasing contained best management practices for developers when considering sites. Ms. Stockdale confirmed that it would . Mr. Joyce asked if Audubon mapped out areas o f more concern and less concern. Ms. Stockdale answered that the Western Governors Association (WGA) created a number of maps in the past 2 years, but a few resources had never been illustrated. The New Mexico Game and Fish Department has a sandhill crane management plan, but no one had mapped the plan. The plan will be on the website, as well as links to the WGA maps. Ms. Stockdale confirmed that Audubon worked with all wildlife, not just birds. Mr. Gillen noted that Ms. Stockdale mentioned that some species are moving farther north, and attributed that to climate change. Is that quantifiable, and if so, should observation efforts move north ? Ms. Stockdale responded that the California office has a large science team that has been analyzing these trends. The guiding question has been whether the areas that Audubon is fighting to protect now will be the important areas 100 years from now. Some complicated GIS work correlating the Christmas bird count data with U.S. Geological Survey data on what is happening with temperature and precipitation has been the primary basis of Audubon’s work. This needs to be applied across the country, and will be conducted during the next 5 to 10 years. Mr. Gillen asked if these data covered all species

. Ms. Stockdale replied that Audu

bon’s data was just for birds, but it had been working with other partners on issues with other wildlife. Mr. Starfield asked if Audubon could share the list of best management practices today. Ms. Stockdale responded that it lists specific species and h abitats. Each one is limited to three pages with additional references. They start out with what is known about the species, then go into the state of the science on that species, and then into the mitigation hierarchy. Dr. Eckert asked if the guideline s were connected to the FWS wind energy guidelines. Ms. Stockdale confirmed that there was a connection. At times , there were best management practices that had to rely solely on federal wind energy guidelines because there was not enough of a consensus in the group to be more specific. In 80 percent of the guidelines, the group went further because of concerns specific to New Mexico. Clay Doyle, Vice President of Transmission and Distribution, and Ricardo Acosta, Director of Resource Planning and Delivery

, El Paso Electric Company (EPE) Mr. Acosta noted that EPE had been serving the local community for 110 years and had 372,000 retail and wholesale customers. Because of the growth in Las Cruces, EPE has been making updates to its infrastructure, and will make more than $1 billion in capital investments in its service area through 2020. Total megawatt generation is 1,815, including 26 megawatts of renewable energy (25 are owned by other parties and bought by EPE). By next year, there should be close to 50 megawatts of renewable energy, focusing mainly on solar and biomass. Advantages of solar power include the lack of emissions, availability during peak summer demand, ability to integrate with existing generation, and the cost is free. Disadvantages include large land requirements, lack of power at night, reduced output on cloudy and dusty days, limited and costly storage, and the requirement for traditional generation backup. Biomass advantages are that it is a high efficiency fuel with low emissions. The disadvantages are that the location of the power plant needs to be near the fuel source, the technology is unproven in terms of large

- scale dairy farm use , and biomass also requires traditional generation as backup. EPE is not looking to develop wind resou rces because the service area is not a high wind corridor. Information provided by the Electric Power Research Institute shows that the cost of solar energy is beginning to compete with natural gas generation, and even nuclear and coal energy . EPE is committed to supporting the development of renewable energy projects in its New Mexico and Texas territories , but must consider the impacts on rate payers, ongoing advancements in renewable energy technologies, and whether a project is feasible in the region.12 September 8

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

State renewable portfolio standards (RPS) require electricity providers to meet collective renewable capacity requirements based on their market share of energy sales in Texas , which is approximately 2 percent. In New Mexico, renewable energy credits (RECs) must reach 20 percent by 2020, and standards require a diverse mix o f renewable sources. EPE’s voluntary renewable energy (VRE) tariff enables customers to support the use of electric energy produced by renewable energy resources such as solar, wind and biomass. The funds are banked for future projects. Some of EPE’s current projects include: the Hueco Mountain Wind Ranch (1.32 MW); the El Paso Zoo project (6.5 kW wind and solar combined); the Southwest Environmental Center (11.57 MW hours/year); th e Camino Real Landfill Project (1

- 3 MW); and Solar PV S ystems at Newman and Rio Grande Power Plants (260,000 kW hours/year). EPE’s planned renewable projects include the Hatch Project (5 MW); the NRG Solar Project (proposed 20 MW); and the SunEdison Solar Project, in two facilities, Las Cruces and Chaparral, New Mexico (proposed 22 MW total). EPE also is building smaller projects in the El Paso area. A solar PV system will be built in September 2011 at two locations in greater El Paso (33 kW and 53 kW) , and another PV project, now in discussion phases, would be built at El Paso Community College. A 2 MW system will be located at the Newman power plant, and this will be online in 2012. Discussion Ms. Spener commented that the VRE tariff program had a very low rate of participation. Mr. Acosta stated that it was 100 percent subscribed for a while because there was not much renewable energy to sell, but that EPE did try to advertise and expand the program. Dr. Reed asked how the larger scale solar installa tions affected rates. Mr. Acosta responded that these costs would be incurred by the New Mexico subscribers, but a reasonable cost threshold is applied in which rates are not to increase by more than 2 percent. Dr. Reed commented that the other way to get RECs to meet New Mexico’s or Texas’ RPS would be with onsite solar power and customers bearing part of the cost . Dr. Reed asked if a feed

- in tariff or rebate was available

. Mr. Acosta replied that EPE ha s a small and medium customer program from 10 to 100 kW in which EPE will purchase RECs from the project s to meet the RPS. Mr. Doyle added that EPE has a net

- metering program so that individual customers can install PV on their homes or businesses and EPE will pay them for the kW hours they produce whether they use them or not. Dr. Reed asked how much energy the program produced, and Mr. Acosta answered that it produced approximately 1 MW. Mr. Doyle added that if EPE went above the REC requirement, it could cause a problem with regulators. Mr. Starfield expressed curiosity about the large

- scale solar installations in terms of assessment of potential impacts, and asked if there was much discussion with the local community. Mr. Acosta responded that the programs were the result of requests for proposals that w ere sent out, and the companies had to demonstrate that all environmental permitting was in place. Mr. Niemeyer commented that he had heard that private installations had to fight to get the reimbursement increased for power sold back to the grid through a contested case hearing. The impression he got was that EPE was not big on renewable energy. Mr. Doyle responded that EPE was a supporter of affordable renewable energy, and in a low

- income area such as its territory, had to keep the cost of power low. T here are not a lot of residential solar systems, and all rate payers help to subsidize them. Mr. Niemeyer thanked Mr. Doyle for raising the issue of affordability because the Board must consider the cost of renewable energy. Do the charts on cost per kilow att hour take into account transportation and other costs? Mr. Acosta responded that EPE’s analysis looked at carbon taxes for coal and other factors to ensure comparison on a fair basis. Dr. Zavaleta asked about the average cost to retrofit a 2,500 square foot home for solar power. Mr. Doyle responded that the total cost was decreasing . Mr. Acosta stated that it would cost approximately $15,000September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 13

for a 3 kW system. Dr. Zavaleta added that in Cameron County, the poverty rate for rate payers is above 50 perc ent. Can the E l Paso Housing Authority get involved in this project? Mr. Acosta said that Habitat for Humanity examined putting solar panels on the homes they were building, but the cost was too high

. Dr. Zavaleta noted that there is a large range of appli cations for so lar power, but that the extreme needs of the impoverished rate payers should be considered. Mr. Angel commented that $15,000 is in line with what even the poor were paying over 4 to 5 years for electricity. Mr. Small mentioned that there was little financing available on the individual level. EPE’s investment in solar is increasing greatly, however, and more projects are moving forward. How does EPE determine costs for solar energy payoffs? Conventional energy costs are rising and the cost for PV is decreasing. Additionally, in terms of the additional costs borne by rate payers who do not participate in the VRE, if the cost is cents per month, the relative impact should be quantified. E conomic difficulties could be outlined in terms of inc reased cost. Mr. Doyle replied that he could return and give a presentation on how the utility works in terms of resource allocation. There are solar resources that will generate 20 MW, but a solar generation resource is not the same thing as a gas generator, which can be turned on and run all day. The renewable energy is different in terms of how it can be applied. Solar energy is present when the sun is shining. The same investment can be made for a gas generator, but a gas generator produces at 90 percent capacity. If a customer is dependent on 1 MW of wind, it may not be there. It is physically impossible at this time to have a utility that is 50 to 100 percent renewable. Mr. Acosta noted that different scenarios were examined to deal with the cost and a ccount for the variability of solar and wind energy. Ms. Aguillon commented that there are worldwide markets in the renewable s sector . She asked about a program with 12 cents per kilowatt hour

. The price of solar energy has decreased significantly; is th ere a trigger mechanism by which EPE will reduce that rate as the cost decreases? Mr. Acosta said that every year a renewable plan must be filed with the New Mexico Commission for the next 2 years. The price can be adjusted at that time. Mr. Ramirez rais ed the issue of cross

-border energy opportunities, and asked whether Mr. Turner’s group was limited to transmitting renewable energy. Mr. Turner answered that RETA has a renewable requirement that 30 percent of transmission has to be from renewable resourc es . The initial 1 ,500 MW for RETA’s project is all renewables, but because the line is interconnected with the utility, it will be used for other power. In GNEB’s report, the Board should consider that New Mexico passed renewable energy financing districts , which is an opportunity for homeowners to put renewable energy in their houses and be able to roll that into their property tax

. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will not allow a first lien but if this w as allowed, there would be a drastic spike in renewables. On the transmission, EPE is pushing legislation to open private activity bonds to make the states eligible for them. Once a price on a wind farm is locked in, it remains in place for 30 years and is not subject to the volatility of natural gas. Private ac tivity bonds are a financing tool in which a public body is eligible to finance what would typically be considered private investments at tax exempt interest rates. Mr. Acosta, addressing the question on cross

border energy, stated that there was no cross

- state or cross

-border market in Texas and New Mexico. The RPS RECs have to be generated in the specific states. Mr. Ramirez asked if in terms of transmission line construction, Mexico was a consideration. Mr. Acosta responded that a number of private devel opers are considering building in Mexico. Mr. Doyle added that Mexico is on a different grid than New Mexico and Texas, and the machines are not synchronous with those in the United States. The cost to convert their equipment would be significant. **Public Comments**  Maria Elena Giner Ms. Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), stated14 September 8

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

that she was presenting the results of an ongoing climate action planning process in Baja California, Sonora, and Coahuila. This was achieved with Border 2012 funds. Additionally, she would present a White P aper on what opportunities exist in the energy efficiency, renewables, and transportation sector s . The inventories for the six Mexican border states are what define the source o f greenhouse gas (GHG). The vast majority of the GHG emissions in all six states are coming from residential, commercial, and industrial consumption. Some come from transportation, and some, espec ially in Coahuila, come from industrial processing and minin g. The Mexican border states constitute 21 percent of Mexico’s emissions. Mexico has a goal of reducing its GHGs by 30 percent, but by 2025, the border states could constitute 31 percent of the country’s GHGs. An advisory group was formed in each of the st ates, and workgroups were formed by sector, which formulated 134 public policies, 43 of which are repeated across three states. BECC is in the process of working in Sonora for quantification that will provide the cost

-benefit of each policy option, the amo unt of GHG emissions, identification of projects , and identification of social justice issues. Part of this effort will be to train the Mexican federal government. With respect to renewable energy, energy efficiency , and transportation project opportuniti es in the U.S.

- Mexico border region, the White Paper describes the current deficit in the U.S.

- Mexico border region because of limited resources for project development and lack of capacity building in the public and public

-private sectors. The White Paper brings forward information on green jobs. The largest permanent job generators are the landfill and the biomass. Solar energy production generates jobs, but they are temporary. In the case of the energy efficiency projects, for every $1 million invested , 13 potential jobs are created. In a California study, about 1.5 million full

- time equivalent jobs with a total payroll of $45 billion were generated from energy efficiency s avings of $56 billion from 1972 to 2006. The White Paper also lists green jobs av ailable in renewable energy and transit, as well as potential projects in street lighting, energy efficiency, truck stop electrification and anti

- idling, and housing. The state technical assistance priorities, based on a BECC survey, are listed for the bo rder states in both countries. The states were asked for their best strategies to address their energy consumption patterns. A cross - section of agencies was interviewed, additionally, for their state priority projects. These are listed in the White Paper a s well. BECC has certified three renewable energy projects out of a list of 20. This does not mean that some of the projects are not going to other entities and private developers. The first project was certified about 3 years ago and it involved retrofitting 1,500 to 2,000 homes with renewables. Most job generation opportunities are for installation at the home. Another project was certified in Nyland, California. This was conducted by a private developer, and will provide 1.5 percent of the RPS. Another project in Tucson is in public comment and would supply the city with 25 MW of renewable energy and Tucson Electric with 1.5 percent of the RPS. The projects are very time and research intensive, but the impact is not as direct as if the projects were cond ucted on homes. The utilities are driven by the RPS . Ms. Giner agreed to e

- mail the White Paper to Board members by Monday, September 12, 2011. Discussion Dr. Reed asked if BECC and the North American Development Bank (NADB) could finance these projects and let the entities conducting them pay back the loan from their savings. Ms. Giner answered that the municipal lighting in Ciudad Juarez now was charged as a percentage of the overall energy consumption of the city. More importantly, the city does not have technical assistance to do an energy audit, and that is something BECC can offer. The city is being courted by many entities and the decision is difficult for city officials. Additionally, it is not known how long tax credits for renewables will be in p lace.September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 15

Mr. Ramirez asked if BECC/NADB would be available to pay for the energy audits for a municipality on the Mexican side of the border. Ms. Giner said funds were available for both sides of the border. BECC has a technical assistance program, and is trying to choose the more motivated project sponsors. Mr. Ramirez noted that the representative from Compass was challenging the Board to expand its definition of green job s . As a manufacturing company that makes wire harnesses for hybrid buses, Compass bec ame a green firm by installing solar energy that powers the entire plant. Ms. Giner noted that BECC was trying to educate its board that there are permanent jobs and temporary jobs in construction

. **Discussion of the 14th GNEB**  **Report** Mr. Joyce announced that Dr. Austin was named as GNEB Chair by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Dr. Austin stated that the 14 th GNEB report draft was 180 pages and it needed to be shortened to 60 or 70 pages in length, but the time spent preparing the material was not wasted . The information provided is background for the Board members to understand what is known about the topic. The Board must clearly define its message, so that members can streamline the document. Dr. Austin asked if there is anything in the report that i s objectionable to a member because of its claims or tone. Mr. Niemeyer mentioned the issue of climate change. There are ways to work around it, such as referring to “temperature change.” On page 15, line 1 states that “a recent report indicates that the most pronounced and observed climate change in the United States...” and this could be altered to read, based on comments from Mr. Niemeyer, Dr. Reed and Mr. Gillen: “observed temperature and precipitation changes...are occurring in the border region. Most projections for 21st century forecasts indicate

.... ” Dr. Eckert stated that it was in fact climate change, and climate and weather must be distinguished. He does not know of any models that show anything other than average annual increases. Dr. Zavaleta did n ot agree that this change was specific to the border region, and suggested referring to the American Southwest. Mr. Angel supported the changes suggested. Noting that this was not the main focus of the report, Dr. Austin asked if the section was needed. Ms . Spener asked if Texas could include a statement of dissent on that one point. There were a few are as of inaccuracy in the report, and she wondered if these should be addressed in today’s discussion. Mr. Gillen noted an issue on page 15 under Energy Sec urity and Transmission. In the first sentence, he suggested striking “and although America holds about 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves, Americans,” and changing the next word “consume” to “consuming.” Dr. Austin asked if these were critical is sues needed to frame the report. Ms. Aguillon said it should be deleted because so much material needs to be eliminated anyway. Mr. Olmedo suggested removing the discussion of climate change rather than referencing it with a different twist. Mr. Niemeyer added that language that does not use the phrase “climate change” could be employed to express the same ideas. The report must be done by consensus, and he could not support the original language because he represents the State of Texas , which does not re gard climate change as a fact. Dr. Reed asked how the climate change topic might be raised in a manner acceptable to all members. If the point is that hotter, drier climates could lead to increased energy demand, that point is relevant to a report on renew able energy. Causes of climate change are not relevant. Dr. Austin stated that this was a useful approach. The Board needs to figure out what it is trying to say with this report and build its case for t he recommendations. Dr. Eckert suggested that the B oard work within the objectives on page 7, lines 34

- 37. Dr. Austin asked if the report needed to include a long argument to justify why it was examining renewables. Mr. Niemeyer responded that it should include an argument if it can be stated concisely ; so me cogent arguments for renewable energy should be made because policy makers might pay attention to them. Ms. Aguillon did not think a justification was needed because the Board was asked to examine the topic by CEQ.16 September 8

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

Mr. Apodaca asked if the goal of the report was to capture the issues, or make recommendations on how to move forward. Dr. Austin responded that GNEB would move into that discussion next. Ms. Spener stated that the Board will have to cut mercilessly to reach the desired 60

- 70 page length ; s he suggested keeping page 7, and then jump ing to page 16, section 7. It is not necessary to explain why renewable energy is important. The state policies should be deleted, as should the discussion on climate change. Mr. Starfield commented that the report needs to include three or four sentences about why renewables are important ; otherwise the reader will just come away with the impression that there is something wrong with every type of renewable energy. Mr. Angel stated that climate change is just one o f the many reasons that renewable energy is needed ; a case should be made for these reasons in the report. Mr. Niemeyer said he thought that both positive and negative impacts would be included in the impacts section, but the current draft contains mostly negative impacts

. On page 56, line 10, on low

- flow generation, it must be stated that low

- flow energy on either dam will only be available by call of the Texas Watermaster. Additionally, on page 107, in the box on the Environmental Health Coalition , line 20 reads as if it were taken directly from a press release. Mr. Joyce noted that the box was included to illustrate the economic opportunities of developing renewables and the jobs they can create. Dr. Austin suggested that the section might not make it into the final report, so the language did not yet need to be discussed. Mr. Niemeyer stated that on page 33, lines 5

- 6 state that “available groundwater resources will be exhausted within 30 years” in El Paso, which is not true. Ms. Spener had the same comment. Dr. Reed suggested that pages 30

- 33 be deleted. Ms. Spener suggested that , in the background section, Mr. Angel, Mr. Starfield , and Mr. Niemeyer condense pages 8

- 16 into one page. Dr. Austin commented that there was consensus that there will be a page on why renewables are important. Mr. Starfield will be the lead on that section. Mr. Joyce noted that energy efficiency was discussed in the introduction, but is not dealt with in the report. Ms. Spener agreed that energy efficiency was barely addre ssed in the report, and that its mention in the introduction should be deleted . Dr. Austin asked if there were any more issues that need to be re visited

. Mr. Gillen noted that page 32, line 16 mentions the “bombing of the World Trade Center.” The World Trade Center was attacked, not bombed. Dr. Reed mentioned that this section could be condensed. Mr. Niemeyer mentioned that the first two paragraphs on page 36 would be a good lead in for why renewables are important. Dr. Austin asked the Board to step b ack and determine the basic objective of the report. This will help me mbers determine the recommendations to be made, and then consider how many of the sections lead to the recommendations. The objective of the report is stated on page 7, lines 34

- 37. Is the Board satisfied with this language? Dr. Zavaleta suggested that the objective read “to examine the issues associated with availability of renewable energy in the border region.” Mr. Joyce added that the Board’s charge was to develop recommendations on the development of renewable energy and the potential for economic development and environmental improvement that the development of renewable energy could bring to the border region. What is the potential for developing renewables that would bring about enhanced economic opportunities, better jobs, and an improved environment in the border region ? Mr. Apodaca commented that the objective s of the report w ere to identify why renewable energy is important in the border region, identify the positive and negative impacts of renewable energy, and capture recommendations on how to move renewable energy forward in the border region. Mr. Starfield agreed, but recommended that the report state that renewable energy is important to this nation for multiple reasons, an d then list them . Given that, the objective of this report is to discuss responsible waysSeptember 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 17

to take advantage of renewable energy resources in the border region. Mr. Joyce commented that the resource maps are intended to convey why the border region is important for renewables. Mr. Gillen commented that the minimum wage in each of the border states was discussed, and it appears that Texas was being criticized for having a lower minimum wage. Dr. Austin responded that if the text on wages remains after secti ons are deleted , Mr. Gillen’s concern will be addressed. Mr. Ramirez mentioned that lines 6

- 15 on page 7 state why the Board is examining renewable energy

. The first four or five paragraphs on the page perhaps should be deleted because they may contradic t the new objective. Mr. Joyce stated that this report is about potential environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy development in the U.S. border region. Dr. Reed added that the Board had to discuss unique opportunities on the border. He did not know if there was a way to avoid discussing energy efficiency because it must be done in conjunction with the use of renewable energy. Dr. Pohlman suggested that a line be added that states GNEB recognizes that renewable energy will be maximizing energy efficiency and that that two are compl e mentary. A recommendation can be made without having a lengthy dissertation in the text. Mr. Niemeyer apologized that he had not drafted a section on energy efficiency. He had distributed a page on energy efficienc y to the Board members, and suggested it could be put in the overview section. Ms. Spener commented that the report should be focuse d on special opportunities on the border, and she was unsure that energy efficiency was different on the border than elsewhe re in the country. Ms. Aguillon stated that one way to include energy efficiency in the report was to focus more on distributed generation. All of the groups the Board met with yesterday were trying to promote energy efficiency in low

- income homes. Mr. Sma ll added that the mention of energy efficiency had to be specific to its link with renewable energy applications. A broad statement could be made that “the Board believes it is understood that energy efficiency offers tremendous benefits along a wide range of areas. This report will discuss energy efficiency as it relates to specific renewable energy efforts in the border region.” A big explanation is not needed at the beginning, but it can be discussed with renewable energy types. Dr. Austin noted another point of consensus is that the Board should acknowledge at the beginning that energy efficiency matters and will be discussed only in the context of renewables. Mr. Angel commented that energy efficiency was an essential part of the portfolio in California

. Dr. Austin asked for key recommendations regarding energy efficiency. The recommendations section, which begins on page 166, does not contain all of the recommendations in this report. These were the ones that were specifically identified as recommendations. Dr. Pohlman noted that energy audits, communication from the F ederal G overnment, education from the F ederal G overnment, and implementation were raised in presentations. There are four or five broad areas for recommendations. The Board may not want t o get as specific as recommending that the importance of the new FERC O rder be emphasized. Another specific issue is the liens for solar projects from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. One more general recommendation was made

—federal efforts should be coordinate d and a master strategy should be developed. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that there should be a recommendation on improved public outreach. He attempted to use the DOE website, and agreed it was not user friendly. Ms. Aguillon suggested that a more general recommendation on the FERC topic was that the F ederal G overnment should help with regulatory barriers. Additionally, the role of the F ederal G overnment should be examined after the tax credits expire. Dr. Eckert noted that the mantra for the natural resource comm unity is “smart from the start” in terms of siting. That will suffice for a general recommendation. Mr. Ramirez suggested that a long

- term approach be recommended on investments in renewable energy. Dr. Reed added that the report should include a rec ommend ation about the BECC/NADB and its role in renewable energy. Ms. Spener stated that this Board has consistently lamented reduced funding for BECC/NADB, and Commissioner Drusina is concerned that the need for water and wastewater projects is so great that su

pporting their renewable energy efforts could diminish their ability to provide support for these water projects. Dr. Austin stated that the report could note that BECC funding is not adequate, so it must be ensured that dealing with renewables does not take away from the rest of its work. Mr. Apodaca asked if the Board should recommend one or two potential renewable projects wi thin the border region. Mr. Starfield commented that careful development could be recommended in terms of18 September 8

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

siting and avoiding sen sitive habitats. Additionally, the use of contaminated land should be encouraged. Installations should be located at federal facilities and universities. The Board could ask DOE to develop some portfolios for retrofitting an existing facility with solar pa nels and mention the payback period. The Board ought to recommend some sensitivity to the local community that is hosting the renewables, and something to pay the community back for granting a permit. Dr. Pohlman had made the recommendation about use of fe deral property for siting renewable energy installations because of a Presidential memo issued this year. Mr. Small commented that lending institutions were not in the habit of providing financ ial support for renewable energy, and they needed to be encouraged to see the benefits of renewables. Additionally, he drafted a section on biofuels. Dr. Austin noted that this issue would be addressed. Dr. Eckert asked if the Board wanted further recommendations on supporting more decentralized renewable energy. Mr. Angel added that it depended on what type of renewable was under discussion

— some only will be large scale. Mr. Starfield held that the F ederal G overnment was not adept at communication and education. He suggested rephrasing the recommendation to say that the F ederal G overnment should support the communication and education efforts of councils of governments, chambers of commerce, and mayors. Dr. Pohlman disagreed , stating that the Federal Energy Management Program at DOE has plenty of money for commun ication and education. Mr. Olmedo suggested including a recommendation that renewable projects should create long

- term jobs. Dr. Austin noted that the Board should be focused on those projects that have environmental benefits, and those that create jobs should be prioritized. Mr. Ramirez stated that research and development should be encouraged. Dr. Austin asked how many recommendations the Board wanted to include in the report , and how they should be organized. Mr. Evaristo Cruz ( 

### Ysleta del Sur Pueblo ) , GNEB member , asked if there was a way to quantify the recommendations so that the Board could track the implementation of the recommendations by the F ederal G overnment. Ms. Spener noted that on pages 172

- 173, there was a general and then specific recomme ndation related to energy. Previous reports had “Recommendations at a Glance” in the front, and these were more general, with specific recommendations appearing later in the report. This is important, in case readers do not read anything other than that se ction. Mr. Small commented that the opening of the p rivate activity bonds is a specific recommendation. Dr. Austin responded that it mi ght fit under one of the more general recommendations

. She asked for suggestions on the most effective way for members to process the recommendations

. Mr. Niemeyer suggested going through the specific recommendations together to determine where they belong under the general recommendations. Dr. Pohlman stated that one recommendation would be to obtain more training from federal, local , and state governments. The more specific recommendation would be that training i s needed for energy audits. Mr. Joyce commented that recommendations are most useful if they are clear, specific and actionable, but if the recommendation woul d require significant new resources, the likelihood it will be implemented is low. Dr. Reed commented that a specific recommendation could be the allocation of funding for coordination between BECC/NADB and other parties to offer trainings on energy audits to public entities. Dr. Austin agreed that the energy audits fall into the communication/outreach/training section of recommendations. Mr. Angel stated that training on long

- term jobs should be the focus. Mr. Gillen suggested that the Federal Energy Man agement Program should give the money to the states in block grants for education. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that funds should be given to the states. Dr. Pohlman added that DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) could be asked to provide training ;September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 19

sh e did not agree that states should get the money because NREL has a lot of capacity and ability to call on private consultants to provide education. She believed the Board should ask that these programs be emphasized. Mr. Olmedo noted that sometimes there is too much training. In Imperial County, there is a surplus of solar installers and no jobs. Dr. Austin commented that both the state s and NREL could provide training. Mr. Cruz stated that Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Weatherization block grants are now being made available by DOE, and the grants include training components. Noting that a DOE representative was not present, Mr. Starfield mentioned that some of DOE’s programs did not penetrate the local level. He thought DOE should be consulted ab out these recommendations before the report is finalized. Mr. Joyce explained that the official DOE represent ative would no longer be on the Board. Mr. Chris Lawrence from DOE was going to attend but had a scheduling conflict. The Board organized the spe cific recommendations under the general recommendations so that they could be discussed the next day at length once the exact wording had been determined. Mr. Gillen noted that , so far, the Board had listed all of the recommendations under the following categories: education or outreach, finance, and land use. The local community issue could fall under land use. Dr. Reed stated that like the green bank, the idea of a national RPS was in some of the recent Congressional bills. Mr. Small mentioned that there are four different standards that have been developed to different degrees within the states and if there was a national RPS, then there might be national results. Itshould be an observation based on the facts. Ms. Aguillon stated that the recommendati on was too political and should not be included. Ms. Spener added that there may be utilities with limited renewable resources, and if there was a national standard, it could not be achieved without large transmission lines. Mr. Niemeyer noted that this topic appeared in the text of the report. It could be stated that there are pros and cons to the national RPS. Mr. Small thought that the general recommendation could be included. Dr. Pohlman suggested the report state that there might be merit to a national RPS, and each state could recommend more specifics that come under that umbrella. Mr. Olmedo stated that the border region constantly deals with bad air quality, and much of the development causing the pollution is being subsidized. There needs to be some kind of protection for these communities, and projects that contribute to poor air quality should not be allowed. The projects should be seen as more of a privilege than a right. Dr. Austin commented that the recommendation was that projects be placed in areas that would not contribute to non

- attainment. Mr. Starfield stated that the Clean Air Act allows a coal plant to operate in non - attainment areas, so the Board could not recommend prohibiting that placement of renewables in those areas. Ms. Aguillon st ated that one of the recommendatio ns is to focus on decentralized, distributed generation. Ms. Spener asked if the Board wanted to make a recommendation f or dec entralized development. The report could state that the Board has particular concerns about larg e - scale projects ; this is certainly within GNEB’s purview. Mr. Ramirez commented that one of the lessons learned is not to depend on any one source o f energy, and it is not the Board’s mandate to pick winners and losers with respect to type s of renewable energy. He would not support a recommendation to move away from utility scale installations in favor of decentralized installations. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Dr. Reed said it would be difficult to recommend centralized over decentralized installations; if impacts are the concern, the recommendation should focus on siting, and the Board could recommend that the FWS guidelines be utilized for siting wind installations . Dr. Eckert pointed out that there was not a specific recommendation about de centralized energy ; it was merely raised as a discussion point. Dr. Austin commented that this is an area where some recommendation is desired, but the specific recommendation has not yet been crafted. Mr. John Wood (Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority), GNEB member, noted that having been in local government, often local action, not national action, needs to be taken. The Board needs to recommend that the F ederal G overnment either keep their distance or assist in certain projects being conducted by local governments or private enterprise. Mr. Joyce commented that the impacts section was supposed to note the environmental impacts of large

- scale solar development , and the economic opportunities section would discuss jobs and the nature of jobs. With di stributed systems , the intent is to have a c ad

re of installers that have high

-paying jobs for a long period of time. The facts may be able to speak for themselves without a strong recommendation for one over the other. Mr. Angel commented that20 September 8

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

some of the large

- scale projects have significantly more potential for environmental impact than a residential PV installation. Dr. Austin suggested that the recommendations would guide the Board in deciding what supporting material needs to be retained in the report. There needs to be more discussion of positive impacts. The current categories for recommendations are: education and outreach, financing, and land use. There also ha s been a recommendation to establish a baseline to measure impacts. Dr. Eckert said tha t if a plan was being discussed, there must be some means of determining if the goal is being achieved, so metrics need to be addressed somehow. Dr. Reed noted that it was difficult to think about a plan across four states and three electric grids. It coul d be suggested that BECC/NADB conduct an assessment. Another issue that has not been addressed is the interconnection between the U.S. grids and the grids in Mexico. Ms. Aguillon suggested that this topic not be addressed because the focus of the report is on renewables on this side of the border. Dr. Austin thought there was consensus on leaving this out of the recommendations, but Mr. Ramirez stated that to leave it out of the report entirely would be a glaring omission. Dr. Austin asked the Board to arti culate the recommendation. Mr. Niemeyer suggested the report state that the effects of cross

-border energy transmission need to be studied. Dr. Zavaleta stated that it was not uncommon for reports such as this to include a recommendation for continued coop eration and study between the countries on cross

-border energy transmission. Mr. Olmedo did not think the recommendation should be included in the report, adding that the United States should not pursue cross border transmission. Mr. Niemeyer thought the r eport should state that cross

-border transmission needs to be studied more carefully. Dr. Austin noted that specific recommendations under each category have not been addressed. Dr. Pohlman agreed to draft the section on a master plan for the border regi on. Mr. Starfield noted that Audubon had stated that before a project is begun, a plan should be developed in consultation with the stakeholders. A master plan for the border region, however, would be very difficult to achieve. Mr. Angel agreed and support ed the idea that a plan for each project be developed. Mr. Wood asked if the WGA had the ability to develop a master plan that will affect their states. Dr. Austin thought that was possible. Dr. Pohlman noted that there are very specific definitions of “u nderutilized”; the General Services Administration has one, and she will e

- mail it to the Board members for tomorrow’s discussion. Dr. Austin tasked members to write the text around the general recommendations and to address the specific recommendations. She asked that those assigne d prepare the recommendations and e

- mail them to her during the evening so that she could assemble them into one document for the next morning’s discussion. Dr. Austin recessed the meeting for the day at 5:53 p.m. 

### F **RIDAY** 

### , **S EPTEMBER**  

### 9 **, 2011**  Dr. Austin welcomed members and attendees to the meeting, and thanked them for their work on the report recommendations during the previous night. She then introduced Dr. Duncan Wood. Duncan Wood, Professor, Instituto Tecn o lógico Autó nom o de M é xico, Senior Advisor for the Renewable Energy In itiative, Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Dr. Wood noted that the work being conducted at the Wilson Center focuses on renewable energy resources on the Mexican side of the border. The work conducted in 2010 identified the enormous potential that exists in Mexico for geothermal, wind and solar energy as well as biofuels. One of the major conclusions was that one of the largest opportunities for Mexico was in exp orting renewable energy to the United States. The Mexican G overnment has estimated that a 25 kilometer by 25 kilometer block of Sonora, Mexico, if completely covered with solar panels, would produce more than enough electricity for all of Mexico.September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 21

Much of this area is desert, so there is potential for solar installations, but the cost must be considered as well as legal and constitutional issues. Mexico has very impressive wind resources; for example, the Mexican G overnment estimates that Mexico has 71, 000 MW of potential. The wind resources in Oaxaca in particular are highly valued and already are under heavy development. Oaxaca may have as much as 33,000 MW of wind energy potential. Development of renewable energy in Mexico is b eing led by the private sector. Oaxaca leads the way in Mexican wind energy resources, but Baja California and Tamaulipas follow closely behind. Baj a California now is under development, but projects are small so far. The potential is to export between 3,000 to 5,000 MW of energy to the United States. Northern Mexico has high solar installation levels, b ut the high cost of developing has been a major obstacle and the government has shown little support. Small

- scale solar development has been seen, which is supported through gove rnment programs. It is estimated that only 3 percent of the Mexican pop ulation does not have access to the grid, but that is still 5 million people, so these off

- grid resources are important. A Wilson Center project is examining the impact on development i n remote areas. In terms of biofuels, the possibility of greater ethanol production is being examined. In Mexico, ethanol production is focused on white corn and jatropha. The most interesting development in N orthern Mexico has been methane capture from trash. The United States’ and Mexico’s history of cooperation in renewable energy began in the 1990s focusing on rural applications. It then spread rapidly to examine the potential for commercial exploitation of wind energy in Oaxaca and La Rumorosa. Geo thermal cooperation has an even longer history, going back to the 1970s. The Wilson Center’s research is trying to evaluate the gains from renewable energy at the border. Economic benefits include direct creation of temporary and permanent jobs, indirect creation of temporary and permanent jobs in the service sector, local and state government energy savings through self

- supply projects that are passed along to taxpayers, electricity subsidies for local inhabitants, electricity supply to off

- grid communities, and infrastructure investment. The second area of research by the Wilson Center is examination of the knowledge spillover and development of human capital through renewable energy. This includes knowledge and information netw orks, specialization in in stitutes of higher education, creation of research and training centers, and increased interaction between government, business, and civil society. Thirdly, social participation is being studied, and includes communication among government, business and lo cal populations ; ensuring that the local community becomes a stakeholder ; a cceptance of projects as a driver of local development ; and lessons from Oaxaca. The experience of Oaxaca has not been all positive. Many firms that invested in wind energy in Oaxac a did not deal well with the local communities. Potential employment in wind energy is six jobs per MW of turbine production. For every job created in manufacturing, installation and operation of wind energy, at least one more is created in research, fin ancing and consulting services. In Northwest Mexico, cross

-border energy generation, such as in cross

-border energy farms, is being discussed. Tamaulipas, under the previous administration, had enormous interest in building wind energy resources, but the interest has decreased. Continuity is a problem in Mexico because of the frequent changes in a dministrations. Discussion Ms. Aguillon noted that Dr. Wood had not addressed distributed generation. Dr. Wood responded that solar thermal energy has been a success story across Mex ico. Currently, the Mexican G overnment is not willing to discuss subsidies for PV solar energy. It comes down to a question of cost, and President22 September 8

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

Calderon has not been willing to spend much money. There is interest in the private s ector and some in state government, but not at the federal level. The Wilson Center has just released a book on renewable energy in Mexico, available online , which discusses the potential for PV and thermal solar energy . Dr. Reed asked about the Wilson C enter’s recommendations on initiating cross

-border electricity generation. Dr. Wood responded that there are very minimal transmission connections, and in places where wind and solar energy should be developed, lines do not exist. The question that remains is who should pay for the transmission lines. Mexicans say that the D epartment of Energy is dragging its feet, but the D epartment of Energy says that things are progressing. There likely will be another solution, such as states on either side of the border negotiating among themselves. A second barrier is a fear on the part of American businesses to cross the border and expose themselves to unstable conditions in Mexico. Another barrier is a lack of infrastructure development in the border states in Mexico . Finally, there is a lack of awareness about the benefits of renewable energy in Mexico. The economic and employment benefits are not widely known. It takes initiative from a state

- level government in Mexico to move things forward. Dr. Zavaleta commente d that people in Mexico will not invest in anything until they know who will become the next president. Local governor s have very little authority. He asked about the common name for jatropha. Dr. Wood responded that jatropha was the common name for the shrub that produces inedible nuts and can grow anywhere with water. The nuts are high in oil content and can produce biodiesel. The first crop is available within 6 months of planting.
Mr. Ramirez asked Dr. Wood to expand on the comment that Mexico was loo king for jobs rather than electricity generation. Additionally, one of the obstacles for U.S. companies to export electricity has been the current conditions within the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) that do not allow it to enter into long

- term PPA s. Dr. Wood clarified that based on the cost of renewable energy generation, and what is occurring with shale gas in the United States, renewable energies will not be competitive in terms of price within the next 10 to 15 years. Mexico already has a surplu s of electricity production, although it is distributed poorly

. The Calderon Administration promised to produce a certain number of jobs per year. The fact that f

ewer Mexicans now are crossing the border to seek jobs in the United State s means that more jobs must be produced in Mexico; this is where renewable energy is relevant . In terms of the broader economic development, the knowledge, infrastructure and human capital spillovers are what will provide a boost to Mexican development from renewable energy. On the second comment, CFE has limitations on its negotiating capacity and has to buy the cheapest source of electricity defined by the constitution. Private companies now produce close to 14 percent of electricity in Mexico, and then can sell to CFE. The best opportunity would be to get private firms to build cross

-border transmission lines. Mr. Angel asked if Dr. Wood could speak to the transboundary enviro nme ntal impacts of some of these projects. Dr. Wood answered that environmental standards and regulations on both sides of the border would have to be aligned. The standards in Mexico now are similar to those in the United States, and there is less bureaucracy on the Mexican side of the border. There have been interesting discussions in the wind energy sector on the placement of turbines and the gradual harmonization of norms between the two countries. It must be determined which renewable energy works in which particular area. Mr. Ruiz noted that one of the hindrances mentioned to the movement toward renewables was the lack of awareness of benefits of renewable energy in Mexico. Have there been any recommendations put forward by the states in the Border Governors Conference regarding this issue? Dr. Wood commented that in terms of awareness, public ed ucation has not been a significant feature. Mexico still sees itself as a hydrocarbon nation, and all the energy debates in the media are about oil.September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 23

**Discussion of Next Meeting and Other Business** December Meeting Mr. Joyce thanked Dr. Wood and the Wils on Center for offering to host the release of the GNEB report for a second year. The Chair of CEQ has been invited, as has the EPA Administrator and Michelle DePass, the Assistant Administrator for International and Tribal Affairs. Representatives from the Mexican embassy also will be invited. The event will be held from 2 :00 to 4 :00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 14, 2011. Resources are scarce at the Agency, so it was difficult to get the travel budget for this meeting approved. The meeting in December will b e held at EPA because of funding issues. GNEB will meet at EPA on the morning of December 14, move to the Wilson Center for the afternoon, and meet again in EPA space on the next day . Substantively, the future work for the Board will be discussed, as will ways in which the Board can continue to do its work given the severe resource constraints at EPA

. Ms. Spener mentioned that at the previous meeting, it was discussed that those dates were bad for many of the Board members. She expressed concern about attendance at the meeting. Mr. Joyce responded that there had not been significant objections about the dates, and they were locked in because of the availability of the Wilson Center. Dr. Austin noted that the minutes from the last meeting captured the conve rsation on the topic, and it was mentioned that these were bad dates for many Board members. Ms. Spener added that the members were not polled on the dates via e

-mail. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that he had not seen an e

- mail on the topic. Report Process The B oard members have until the end of this month to finalize the draft of the report, which then goes back to the contractor for editing

. After it is edited, the report will be sent back to the Board for review

. At that point, editorial changes can be suggest ed by the Board memb ers and can be incorporated by the contractor. On the teleconference, the Board will vote to approve the report. The teleconference will be held during the week of October 24, 2011. A sheet will be circulated; members should block out any dates and times that they are not available. Draft Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) Letter Mr. Niemeyer included the letter to be distributed in members’ meeting packets. Mr. Ramirez made a motion to discuss the letter and Mr. Ang el seconded the motion. Ms. Spener commented that she had not seen the letter before the meeting. Mr. Niemeyer responded that it had been distributed to members 15 days in advance of the meeting. The letter states that the TEIA agreement should be final ized because it is important to the border, and lists all the times GNEB has mentioned the agreement in the past. Perhaps there is no political will for the agreement to be finalized, but it is important for stakeholders. Ms. Spener asked what was meant by “mining of shared aquifers, which the Congressionally

- mandated Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program (TAAP) seeks to address.” She believed that TAAP’s purpose was to characterize the transboundary aquifers. There has been some mischaracterization of the purpose of the program in Mexico. It could state “usage of transboundary aquifers.” Mr. Ramirez made a motion to accept the letter as modified. Mr. Joyce assumed that the federal members of the Board would recuse themselves . The non - federal members vo ted to approve the letter unanimously with an abstention by Ms. Spener.24 September 8

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

**Discussion of 14th GNEB**  **Report** Dr. Austin compiled everyone’s contributions on the report’s recommendations into a single document. The first step will be for members to review the recommendations and ensure that they are in agreement with the intent of the recommendation s. Members also should determine if additional recommendations need to be included. Ms. Spener added that the three recommendations on hydropower, as follows, had not been included: Support installation of low

- head or low

- flow power generation at federal hydroelectric power plants; the F ederal G overnment should continue to upgrade existing federal hydroelectric power plants to ensure efficient, reliable, cost

- effe ctive generation; and streamline federal permitting so that low

-head generation can be done at irrigation canals. These could fit under land use, and will not have a negative impact because the recommendation concerns taking facilities that already are there and using them more efficiently and effectively. Mr. Angel agreed that these were common sense recommendations. Under planning and land use, recommendation A would be changed from “The Board recommends that each RE project should be carefully planned to ensure that any negative impacts are identified, and minimized ,” to “The Board recommends that each RE project should be carefully planned to ensure that any negative impacts are avoided, mitigated and offset.” Ms. Aguillon commented that if people put solar PV systems on their roofs, there would not be an impact. This recommendation assumes large

- scale installations. Mr. Gillen countered that this rec ommendation could be appropriate even for a residential project if a development has rules about what c an be visible from the road. Mr. Small noted that adding “ i f applicable” is one way to address this issue. Another is to say it is subject to municipal law. Dr. Eckert added that i t might depend on the level of federal permitting. Mr. Joyce suggested changing the text to each “large

- scale” RE project. Ms. Aguillon stated that a large

- scale development produces more than 20 MW , and everything below that level is distributed generation. Large scale also could be called utility scale. Mr. Ramirez commented that e ven a 20 MW solar farm still could have impacts to the parcel of land on which it is located. Mr. Niemeyer suggested the text read “RE projects” period . “Projects” means something that is substantial. Even small ones could have an impact. Mr. Wood add ed that the term “c ommercial projects” could be used to identify s omething that will be used on the property for a commercial operation or that will be sold into the market. Mr. Cruz stated that when the recommendation was discussed before, it was suggeste d that the regulator should make use of existing policies such as NEPA. Mr. Eckert thought more specifics could be added. Dr. Austin suggested bringing language from the bullet below on impacts to the top. This is more than what is required by NEPA. The recommendation that “ Local and State governments should be encouraged to site energy or industrial projects away from residential areas to reduce potential impacts,” was deleted. Mr. Small agreed it should be removed because it would be a mistake to add a dditional hurdles to renewable energy that do not affect fossil fuels. Ms. Spener concurred. In Texas, someone can put an oil well in yo ur back yard legally, so renewable energy sources should not be pre cluded. Ms. Aguillon suggested that the Board e ncoura ge distributed generation in a manner that complies with the community, state and federal laws. Distributed generation should be considered before transmission lines. Dr. Austin noted that the Board chose not to recommend anything more restrictive than what can be done with conventional energy. Mr. Small added that industrial

- scale solar development over several thousand acres can have a more significant impact on land than oil and gas development. Mr. Angel noted that he was concerned about adding more r estrictions than those imposed by the F ederal G overnment. Dr. Austin stated that the consensus was that GNEB did not want to have the F ederal G overnment regulate renewables in a more restrictive manner than it regulate s other sources of energy. Mr. Niemeye r stated that d evelopers of these projects want some uniformity. Mr. Small mentioned that on federal land, thereSeptember 8

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

could be “solar enterprise zones

. ” On the federal level, GNEB could recommend that the government follow the solar enterprise zones or a simila r model that streamlines renewable energy development. Mr. Eckert will try to collect information from BLM and distribute it to the Board to see if it is helpful. Mr. Starfield said he could not remember EPA ever issuing a permit for a renewable projec t. The point of this recommendation is to say that many problems can be avoided by planning early and well. The report should include some recommendations that make g ood common sense; n ot every recommendation must require a federal action. Mr. Angel noted that the F ederal G overnment can provide incentives that help facilitate the process. Mr. Olmedo stated that renewable energy should have to meet standards at least equal to those for conventional energy. Dr. Austin asked if the report should include recommendations that were not specific to the F ederal G overnment. The recommendation “Renewable energy (RE) projects that produce long

- term jobs/have environmental benefit should be prioritized ,” was deleted, and an energy efficiency comment will be inserted in its place. Ms. Spener stated that this recommendation means prioritiz ing landfill gas , and PV is at the bottom of the list. Ms. Aguillon said that this was true with large

- scale installations, but with distributed generation, it is the opposite. D r. Au stin asked if there would be enough data in the report to say that distributed generation provides long

- term jobs. Ms. Aguillon responded that there are data on the number of jobs, but perhaps not on the longevity of jobs. She will determine if this information is available. Dr. Austin asked if the Board wanted to priori tiz e long

- term jobs. Mr. Niemeyer stated that the Board should promote solar energy and the jobs will follow

. Mr. Angel said that environmental benefits must be considered. Mr. Small commented that there are 300 households in EPE ’s service area with solar PV installed , and that probably between 14 and 18 workers installed these systems . The market’ s surface is only being scratched. With distributed generation , there will be a significantly higher number of jobs. Landfills and biogas have been shown to have the most significant number of long

- term jobs, but there are few landfills. Ms. Giner agreed that landfills have long

- term jobs. In a city, a landfill project will be an important job creation opportunity. Mr. Starfield commented that in the original draft, there was a discussion of energy efficiency . There should be a sub

-bullet that says “Combine energy efficiency into each of these projects.” Dr. Austin did not see a conflict with adding this sub

-bullet. The text that reads “Where renewable energy development involves disturbance of lands,” should be added to “apply best practices and best available data to facility siting at both facility and landscape scales” and “including utilit y - scale projects” should be added. The specific reference to the NatureServe’s Biotics database should be removed from the recommendation “Use conservation databases, such as NatureServe’s Biotics, to identify potential occurrences of rare or threatened species and /or rare or sensitive biological communities and ecosystems, such as wetlands and riparian zones, in project areas.” Regarding the recommendation “Evaluate cumulative impacts of not only individual facilities but of multiple facilities across ecological landscapes,” Ms. Spener commented that i f a NEPA analysis is being conducted, an evaluation also is being conducted. Dr. Eckert responded that BLM did not follow NEPA because it looks at the cumulative impacts of one facility ; there is a big di fference when there are thousands of facilities. Mr. Olmedo commented that there can be a different understanding of cumulative impacts in different communities. Dr. Austin noted that no member objected to leaving the recommendation in the report.26 September 8

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

The re commendation “Avoid boundary areas of Protected Areas, such as designated wilderness o r National Park Service units,” was changed to “pay special attention to boundary areas...

. ” Ms. Spener suggested that it would be beneficial if the National Park Service had PV panels within their parks. Dr. Austin agreed that the Board should not recommend avoiding these areas, but could recommend that developers should be aware of them. The following text will be deleted: “Key practices to address the human landscape are:  Engage neighboring communities and develop and implement Community Relations plans.
 Identify and mitigate noise and light pollution from facilities

.  Route service roads away from neighborhoods. The Board recommends that RE project designers show a preference to locate projects on:
 C ontaminated or already

- disturbed land (e.g., Brownfields)

.  Under

-utilized portions of f ederal facility installations

. ” The numerous bullets under the recommendation “ The GNEB recommends that the F ederal G overnment build a domestic renewable energy program that is ‘ smart from the start ’ to include: ” should be deleted unless they are not addressed elsewhere. Mr. Starfield noted that many of the bullets besides DOE

- and D epartment of Interior (D OI)

- specific recommendations already are covered in the planning section. Dr. Austin asked if the Board wanted to strike the bullets completely or put some of the recommendations elsewhere in the report. There should be some recommendation s on a scale above the project level. A specifi c statement can be included about federal agencies working together and trying to examine some of these issues at a higher level. Mr. Small stated that the Board could make the following recommendation: “ Cooperate on all renewables across the entire spec trum.”
Mr. Starfield suggested that Mr. Small write up that comment and send it to Mr. Starfield who will add it to the section. Dr. Austin proposed that the DOE and DOI roles be moved to the education section, and that the recommendation on strategic planning be deleted. In the following recommendation, “reusable” was changed to “renewable” and “ and sustainable ” was deleted: “ The GNEB r ecommends that substantial effort be made by the F ederal G overnment to communicate and inform local governments an d their populations concerning the development and use of **reusable and sustainable**  energy re sources in the border region. To that effect , the following should be accomplished: ” The recommendation “ USDOE s hould develop an education campaign for local banks and credit unions to encourage them to offer lending products in border regions, which could easily spread to the rest of the country ,” was deleted. “USDOE could” was deleted from the following recommendation “USDOE could p artner with state government, local government, Councils of Government, and Chambers of Commerce in Border communities to disseminate this information. ” Dr. Austin noted a number of recommendations refer to DOE , but no one from DOE was present at the meeting to comment on the text of those recommendations

. Mr. Carlos Rincon (EPA Region 6) said that there are many opportunities for outreach and education from parties other than DOE. Mr. JoyceSeptember 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 27

suggested that discussion of recommendations specific to DOE be delayed until DOE has a chance to comment on them. The recommendation “ Additional training s hould be provided on

... ” was deleted. On the BECC/NADB recommendation “While the BECC must continue to prioritize technical assistance for its core mission for water supply, wastewater treatment and solid waste management, a special concentrated effort should be made to expand technical assistance on both sides of the border for medium

- and small

- sized renewable energy projects, especially those that combine electric generation with energy savin gs and ef ficiency , ” text should be added to describe the types of projects that BECC should take on, but the specific areas of focus should be deleted. Dr. Austin suggested that some of the specifics be incorporated into the report text. The specific amount of funds was removed from the following recommendation: “ The Congress should consider an extra infusion of $15 million to support the BECC in this effort and increase the capacity of the BECC/NADBANK and of the local government agenc ies along the U

. S

. - Mexico border.” The words “$15 million” were deleted and replaced by “funding.” Mr. Niemeyer stated that it had been a long while since GNEB had recommended dollar figures. Given the budget situation, if Congress adds funds in one place, they sub tract t hem elsewhere. Ms. Giner said that once a project is developed, t here is plenty of money for it, but developing projects i s the challenge. Dr. Austin noted that the point to make is the importance of technical assis tance for project development. She a sked if the following recommendation would be a problem for Ms. Spener : “Use existing funds and utilize our technical assistance programs to continue efforts in developing projects in medium and small communities so that implementation funds can be leverag ed from the various sources available.” Ms. Spener replied that she will check on the acceptability of this language

. The following three paragraphs will be moved into the text of the report: “The BECC should undertake a regional assessment of the oppor tunities to promote small

- scale renewable projects along the border, including what projects, resources and efforts currently exist at the federal, state and local levels so that there is coordination and education. The BECC/NADBANK should consider earmarking a portion of its capital as a revolving green bank to support renewable energy production, manufacturing and renewable energy savings projects. E armarking a small portion of their existing capital and focusing it on this sector, could lead to “marketing” opportunities to highlight such changes. Project developers of renewable systems should be encouraged to utilize the BECC certification process, even if they are not planning to seek NADBANK financing as a way to assure their projects meet basic certification criteria.” The dollar figure was removed from the following recommendation: “A further recommendation would be to issue CREB s

—Clean Energy Renewable Bonds

—for public power, rural electric cooperatives and governmental entities along the border and flow them through the NADBANK and BECC for oversight and management. A fund of $500 million for the border could encourage the development of renewable energy in the border area and assure that proper environmental, community development and financial sustainability are considered.”28 September 8

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

Ms. Aguillon was unsure whether the recommendation “encourage research and development,” should be included. Mr. Niemeyer thought it important to recognize that there still is research that needs to be done, but this could be included in the text of the report. Dr. Austin agreed with this approach. Dr. Austin asked if the following recommendation should be included: “The United States and Mexico should explore ways to interconnect the electric grids of each nation while ensuring that such endeavors result in enhanced economic development and sustainable growth initiatives in each country. Both countries have reaffirmed their commitment to this endeavor through the establishment of the Cross

Border Electricity Task Force to address the economic and technical constraints for cross

-border energy projects. Furthermore , that both nations should continue to analyze ways in which the asynchronous operation of the two grids can be overcome. The interconnection of the systems may offer advantages to each grid by enhancing the reliability of each system and offering opportunities for the buying and selling of energy to and from each country.” Ms. Aguillon stated that it could not be ignored because the idea already is under study. Mr. Angel responded that the Board was not suggesting that the countries stop studying the issue. Mr. Niemeyer suggested that the recommendation state that the issue of interconnecting grids between the United States and Mexico, including the technical is sues and the environmental constraints, needs to be studied and evaluated carefully. Dr. Zavaleta thought the Board should encourage continued discussions between the two countries on environmental and energy issues. Mr. Gillen asked if the United States had a greater opportunity to affect environmental issues around a power plant in Mexico if it would be buying the power. He added that unions are against transboundary transmission lines. Mr. Niemeyer added that Mexico has different environmental standards than the United States and once one is connected to the grid, the source of the energy is unknown. Dr. Austin confirmed that GNEB should state that this is an issue that requires attention

. Mr. Starfield suggested that the focus of this report is on renewable energy in the United States, but the Board recognizes that there are important issues regarding cross

-border projects and encourages ongoing discussions by the appropriate agencies. In the recommendation “ Fix the uncertainty with so

- called Prope rty Assessed Clean Energy Districts. Whether through legislation, such as recently introduced in the Congress, or by administrative rulemaking, the federal government must establish national rules whereby localities can move forward on financing mechanisms to allow individuals to invest in renewable and water and energy savings technologies long

- term,” the phrase “ Whether through legislation, such a s recently introduced in the Congress, or by administrative rulemaking, ” was deleted

. Mr. Starfield noted th at if legislation is discusse d, the federal members cannot sign on to that section of the report. Mr. Joyce commented that , in the past, federal agenc y representatives have recused themselves only from advice letter s . The following recommendation needs rewording: “ In addition, after December 31, 2012, we would suggest ending the business incentive tax credit and converting it to a production tax credit. We favor tax credits that encourage actual production of renewable energy as opposed to simple investment (see below).” As written, Mr. Starfield would need to add a footnote that the federal members of the Board recuse themselves from this recommendation

. Ms. Spener was troubled by the idea of the federal agency me mbers recusing themselves for some recommendations. The recommendation could state “The BoardSeptember 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 29

recommends that tax credits are a useful tool for promoting renewable energy.” Dr. Austin agreed that language should be used that would not necessitate recusal of the federal members. Regarding the r ecommendation “ The ITC h as served an important purpose, particularly with the added funding available through the stimulus to encourage investment in renewable energy, but it is an expensive program and does not assure that the investments are efficient and produce long

- term e nergy production. Instead, the f ederal g overnment should phase out the ITC in December 31, 2016 , and instead provide an appropriate PTC for these systems, which include solar technologies, small

- scale wind, geothermal, fuel cells, CHP, geothermal heat pumps and microturbines. Although some of these technologies are less energy production systems and more energy saving technologies, a PTC can be given based on the amount of energy saved through adoption of these technologies,” Mr. Niemeyer suggested that the Board state that it recognizes that “this is expiring at a certain date and that it would merit the F ederal G overnment to look into performance

-based financial incentives.” Dr. Austin suggested that the recommendation “ Continue the C REBs for governmental entities and consider allocating a portion to the NADBANK for the border area ,” could instead state that the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB s ) program should be refinance d . Mr. Joyce agreed that the Board should not go into specifi cs about Congress. The following recommendation was deleted: “Congress should issue a new round of CREB s for the 2012

- 2015 period with a particular focus on local government and rural electric cooperatives. For the U

. S

. - Mexico border region, Congress could earmark a portion of CREBs through the BECC

-NADBANK to market the program and provide additional oversight and public input. We would suggest a minimum of $500 million in CREB s be earmarked for the border region.” Dr. Austin stated that the recommendation on the Private Activity Bonds must be supported by material in the text of the report. The recommendation “Federal agencies should mount an education campaign with local banks and credit unions to offer lending products in border regions, which coul d easily spread to the rest of the country,” was moved to the education section. The following recommendations were deleted:

 “Climate Action Planning supported by a dedicated local revenue stream and new s tate/ f ederal programs to fund related projects

. ”

 “ Mandate Building/Electrical Codes to ensure energy (water) efficiency in new structures and develop incentives to offset upfront extraordinary costs.”

 “Support research and development initiatives aimed at improving the affordability of technologies at the local and residential level

. ”

 “ Enhance programs to incentivize energy efficiency and local/residential level (tax credits; local utility programs)

. ”

 “ Provide additional incentives within prioritization schemes for projects considering energy (water) saving opportunities

. ”

 “ Propose new funding programs ( maybe a Border Energy Fund).”30 September 8

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

Ms. Spener suggested recommending that a model federal building code be developed. Mr. Gillen noted that the International Building Code is a model code. Dr. Austin stated that this could be placed in the body of the text. **Adjournment** No public comments were offered at 1:30 p.m. Dr. Austin adjourned the meeting at 2:11 p.m.September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 31 

### Action Items  Ms. Maria Elena Giner will e

- mail the BECC White Paper that she discussed in publi c comments to Board members by Monday, September 12, 2011

.  Mr. Starfield will write a page on why renewables are important, condensing pages 8

- 16 into a page

.  D r. Eckert will try to collect information from BLM and distribute it to Board members to see if it is helpful for the report

.  Ms. Aguillon will determine if data are available on the longevity of jobs created by distributed generation.  Mr. Small will write a recommendation on federal agency cooperation on renewables and send it to Mr. Starfie ld who will add it to the report

.32 September 8

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

### Good **Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)** 

**Meeting Participants Nongovernment, State, Local**  **, and Tribal**  **Members of the Board Diane Austin, Ph.D.**  **, Chair** Associate Research Anthropologist Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University of Arizona Tucson, AZ **Cecilia E. Aguillon** Director, Market Development and Government Relations KYOCERA Solar, Inc. San Diego, CA **Jose Angel** Assistant Executive Officer California River Basin Region Water Quality Control Board

– Co lorado River Basin Region Palm Desert, CA **Evaristo Cruz** Director Environmental Management Office Ysleta del Sur Pueblo El Paso, TX **Veronica Garcia** Deputy Director, Waste Programs Division Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Phoenix, AZ **Gary G illen**  President Gillen Pest Control Richmond, TX **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 Comi te Civico Del Valle, Inc. Brawley, CA **Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.** Conservation Director Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter Austin, TX **Thomas Ruiz, M.S.** Border/Environmental Justice Liaison Office of the Secretary New Mexico Environment Department Las Cruces, NM **Nathan P. Small** Conservation Coordinator New Mexico Wilderness Alliance Las Cruces, NM **Luis E. Ramirez Thomas** President Ramirez Advisors Inter

-National, LLC Phoenix, AZ **John Wood** Representative Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority Brownsville, TX **Antonio Noé Zavaleta, Ph.D.** Director Texas Center for Border and Transnational Studies University of Texas at Brownsville Brownsville, TXSeptember 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 33

**Federal Members of the Board and**  **Alternates** Department of Homeland Security **Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.** Director Occup ational Safety and Environmental Programs Office of Chief Administrative Officer Management Directorate Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC Department of the Interior **Greg Eckert , Ph.D.**  National Park Service Fort Collins, CO Environmental Protection Agency **La rry**  **Starfield** Deputy Regional Administrator EPA Region 6 Dallas, TX International Boundary and Water Commission **Sally Spener** International Boundary and Water Commission El Paso, TX 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 **David Kennedy** Assistant Administrator, NOS NOAA Silver Spring, MD **Acting Designated Federal Officer**  **Mark Joyce**  Acting Designated Federal Officer Good Neighbor Environmental Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, DC **EPA Participants Stephanie McCoy**  Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach **Carlos Rincon, Ph.D.** EPA Region 6 **Debra Tellez** EPA Region 6 **Other Participants**  **Ricardo Acosta** El Paso Electric Company **Christopher Brown** New Mexico State University **Clay Doyle** El Paso Electric Company **Maria Elena Giner** Borde r Environment Cooperation Commission **Melanie Goodman** The Office of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D

-NM) **Priscilla C. Lucero** Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments **Lauren Oertel** Texas Commission on Environmental Quality **Dara Parker** The Office of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D

-NM) **Gina Posada** Texas Commission on Environmental Quality **Daniel Reynolds** Doña Ana Community College **Linda Smrkovsky** Deming Luna County Economic Development , Inc. **Karyn Stockdale** New Mexico Audubon Society **Sharon Thomas** City of Las Cruce s, New Mexico34 September 8

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

**Duncan Wood** Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Contractor Support **Mary Spock , M.S.**  Writer/Editor The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. Gaithersburg, MDSeptember 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 35 

## G **ood N**  **e ig** **hb or**  **E n** **vi r**  **o n**  **m e**  **n t**  **a l B**  **o a** **r d**  **H o**  **tel En**  **c a**  **n to**  **de Las**  **Cru c**  **e s**  **705 Sou t** **h Tel**  **s hor**  **B lvd**  **Las Cru**  **c e**  **s ,**  **N ew**  **M ex**  **i c**  **o 88011**

**575**
**- 522** 
**- 4300**  

## A **GEND A** 

**Thur s**  **day, Sep**  **t ember**  **8th** 8:00 a. m . **Regi s**  **tra t** **ion** 8:30

- 9:00 **Wel c**  **o me**  **and In** **t r**  **o du**  **c t** **i o**  **ns Mark J**  **oy c**  **e** As s o c iate D i r e c to r and Acting D es i gnated F e de r al Offi c er O ffi c e o f Fede r al A d v i s ory C o mmit t ee M an a g ement and Outr each US E nv i ro nmental Pr o t ecti o n A g enc y **Cynt h**  **ia Jones**
**-**

**Jac k**  **s o**  **n** Acting D i r ect o r O ffi c e o f Fede r al Ad v i s ory C o mmit t ee M an a g ement and Outr each US E nv i ro nmental Pr o t ecti o n A g enc y **D ia**  **n e**  **Au s**  **t in**  Acting Chair G oo d Ne ighbor E nv ir o nmental Boa r d **Sharon Th**  **o mas**  M ay o r Pro Tem Las C r uc es, N ew Me x i c o 9:00

- 10:30 **E c**  **o no**  **m ic**  **O p**  **po r** **t u**  **n it** **ies in**  **t he**  **U S** 
**- Mex**  **ic o**  **B o**  **rder Regi**  **o n**  **Pri c**  **i l**  **la C. Lu**  **c ero**  Exec u t iv e D i r ect o r S o u thw est New M e x i c o C o u nc il of G ov e r nments36 September 8

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

### Jo **Anne She**  **l b**  **y** Pla nt M anager C o mp a s s M anu fa c t u r i ng S e rv i c es **L i**  **nda S**  **mrk ov**  **s ky**  Exec u t iv e D i r ect o r D eming Lu n a C o u nty E c o nomic D e v el o p ment, Inc . 10:30

- 10:45 **Break** 10:45

- 12:15 **Commun i**  **ty Impa**  **c ts**  **i n**  **t h**  **e US** 
**- Mex**  **ic o**  **B o**  **rder Regi**  **o n**  **Jeremy Turner**  Exec u t iv e D i r ect o r New M e x i c o Rene w ab le E ne rgy Tran s miss ion Autho r ity
**Kar y**  **n S**  **t o**  **c kda**  **l e**  V ic e Pre s ide nt and Ex e cu t iv e D i r ect o r New M e x i c o Aud ubon S o c ie ty **C l**  **ay Do**  **y le**  V ic e Pre s ide nt o f Tr a n s mi s s ion and D i s tr ibu t ion El P a s o Ele c tr ic C o mp any 12:15

- 12:45 **Pub l**  **ic Commen**  **t s**  12:4 5

- 2:00 **Lun c**  **h**
2:00

-3:30 **D i**  **s c**  **u s**  **s ion**  **o f 1**  **4 t** **h** 

### Report 3:30

-3:45 **Break** 3:45

- 6:00 **D i**  **s c**  **u s**  **s ion**  **o f 14**  **t h**  

### Report 6:00 p. m . **Adjourn**September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 37



### F**ri d**  **a y** **, Sep**  **t ember**  **9th** 

# Meeting **Day 2** 
8:30

- 9:00 **D un**  **c an**  **Wo o**  **d** Pro fe ss or, In s t it u t o Te c nol ógi c o Au t ó no mo de M é x i c o S enior Ad v i s o r fo r the Rene w ab le E ne rgy Initiativ e M e x i c o In s t it u t e o f the W oo d r o w Wil s o n Int e rnati o nal Cent er fo r Sc hola r s 9:00

- 9:30 **D i**  **s c**  **u s**  **s ion**  **o f Next**  **Mee t** **i n**  **g and O**  **t h**  **er B**  **u si**  **ne s**  **s** Wa s hington, D C

– D e c emb er 14

- 15
9:30

- 11:00 **D i**  **s c**  **u s**  **s ion**  **o f 14**  **t h**  

### Report 11:00

- 11:15 **Break**
11 :15

- 1:30 **D i**  **s c**  **u s**  **s ion**  **o f 14**  **t h**  

### Report 1:30

- 2:00 **Pub l**  **ic Commen**  **t s**  2:00 p. m . **Adjourn**