September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

September 8-9, 2011

Hotel Encanto

705 S Telshor Boulevard

Las Cruces, New Mexico

MEETING SUMMARY

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2011

Welcome and Introductions

Diane Austin, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB); 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 others 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 members of the EPA Region 6 Border Office staff for their assistance. He noted that 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director of OFACMO, was unable 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 energy 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 dirt. 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 Technical Assistance Program 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 faced 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 military 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 Security [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 sustainability. 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 challenge 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 field 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 renewable 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 

attracting the renewable industries and is trying to work toward “economic gardening,” which is helping 

unemployed workers start their own businesses and enabling them to move into these 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 members 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 candidates 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 working 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 to make its own investment in solar energy, even though it does not qualify for tax rebates. 

Dr. Pohlman stated that the Federal Government 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 (CREBs) program was helpful 

in California 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 members of the audience to introduce themselves. 
September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

Economic Opportunities in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

Priscilla C. Lucero, Executive Director, Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments (SNMCOG)

Ms. Lucero asked how many GNEB members 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 Mexico 

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 2010. 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 trained 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 are 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 been 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 City of 

Deming to remediate a brownfields site, which has since become an industrial park. 

Discussion

Dr. 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 Green Jobs Task Force. Ms. Lucero stated that getting utility 

participation had been a struggle. Local 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 Council of Governments in that county. Does SNMCOG have projects to selfempower the colonias so that they can come to meetings and advocate for their needs? Ms. Lucero replied 

that because there is trust from colonias 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 examining economic opportunities, but the local governments have 

been attempting to do it right and ensure that there is proper planning. The City 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 (USDA), GNEB member, asked if, from the state perspective, proper incentives had 

been provided to encourage industries to come to the area. 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 southern 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 members 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 

was 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 transportation 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 kW 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 information 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 understand its importance. The Compass plant is completely driven by solar energy, has no 
September 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 believes 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 

renewable 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 workshops 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; they 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 Director for the Energy Conservation and Management Division 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 southern New Mexico, including 

problems with colonias, and outreach to these communities is needed. The assistance is there, and he 

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 retain jobs, including jobs making 

harnesses for hybrid and natural gas buses. 

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 increased 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 of 
6 September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Energy (DOE) or whether Compass itself calculated the benefits and payback period. Ms. 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, this 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 Compass 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. Ramirez 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 southwest New 

Mexico counties to the table. The Luna County commissioners were meeting September 8th to approve a 

memorandum 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 geothermal 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 complete 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 construction 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 lead 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 planning to go through Luna County; the Southline is the other, 

which will be right next to the border. Ms. Smrkovsky stated that workforce investment funds have not 
September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

been used effectively in New Mexico but they are needed desperately. For example, some of the funds 

were used to train massage therapists 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 to do all of its research and development elsewhere. Ms. Smrkovsky noted that agencies 

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 schools have been very responsive, and have green 

teams that include both students and teachers. Rural communities now are interested in working 

regionally. Working with renewables has 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 issued 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 should 

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. RETA was statutorily 

created in 2007 because of a lack of transmission infrastructure in New Mexico. It is 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 not 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-member voting board and three employees. 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. 

Without being able to get the renewable energy source into the market, however, it is a difficult 

proposition to develop renewables. The utilities must follow a process managed by the Federal 

Government. RETA now is starting to transition into an opportunity where the state authorities can make 

a drastic impact. 

Several years ago, New Mexico State 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 large 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 identified 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 a 
8 September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

similar process. Arizona has its own siting authority. RETA would like to see proper siting encouraged in 

all of the border states. The public regulatory commission in New Mexico has siting authority over 

transmission lines. Additionally, RETA contracted with Los Alamos National Laboratories last year to 

put together a plan to export megawatts of renewable energy out of New Mexico, and develop a 20-year 

plan for the state. It is a high-level study that needs a lot of additional funding. Within the first 7 months, 

RETA was able to 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 years, 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 with 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 Network NM, which involves stepping into the role of a developer. In March 

2011, RETA entered into an MOU with GS Global Infrastructure Partners II (GSIP) to jointly develop a 

collector system in Central New Mexico. GSIP typically invests 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 could 

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 projects 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 establish 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 meets all of its energy needs through photovoltaic 

(PV) solar energy, Mr. Joyce asked if there was 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 a 
September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 9

proponent of energy efficiency. All of the transmission line efforts are meant to bring lines into the region 

to export power. Currently, none are under construction, and it would be useful to strengthen the existing 

infrastructure rather than build new lines. 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 renewable 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 Western 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 their 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 

developer 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 used as a 

last resort. This process should be completed by the end of October 2011. 

Mr. Starfield asked how RETA deals 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 

legislation, to change RETA’s role, and to establish funding to allow the environmental review on 

established corridors. 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 

megawatts. RETA is not subject to the PRC, but does talk with commissioners. Either siting authority 

needs to take place under RETA or the PRC’s role needs to be expanded to do a better job of holistically 

looking 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 

transmission 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 Order needed to be amended. Mr. Turner responded that he had not 

read the FERC Order in its entirety, and thought the utility 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 on 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 southern New 

Mexico, where there is a diverse number of species, 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 want to see more investment in renewable energy and a national 

transition away from older energy sources. 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 comprehensive 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 renewables 

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 the 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 implement 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 developed 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 Mexico, 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 assessment 

started 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 Society was working with the state legislature and the public utilities 

commission to promote 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 of 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 Audubon’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 habitats. 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 guidelines 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 resources 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 of 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); the Camino Real Landfill Project (1-3 MW); and Solar PV Systems 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 installations 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 has a 

small and medium customer program from 10 to 100 kW in which EPE will purchase RECs from the 

projects 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 were 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. There 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 kilowatt 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 $15,000 
September 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 percent. Can the El 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 applications for solar 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. Economic difficulties could be 

outlined in terms of increased 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 account for the variability of solar and wind 

energy. 

Ms. Aguillon commented that there are worldwide markets in the renewables sector. She asked about a 

program with 12 cents per kilowatt hour. The price of solar energy has decreased significantly; is there 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 raised 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 resources. 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 was 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 

activity 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 crossborder 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 developers 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), stated 
14 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 Paper on what opportunities exist in the energy efficiency, renewables, and transportation sectors. 

The inventories for the six Mexican border states are what define the source of 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, especially in Coahuila, come from 

industrial processing and mining. 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 states, 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 amount 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 opportunities 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 savings of $56 billion from 1972 to 2006. The White Paper also lists 

green jobs available 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 border 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 as 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 conducted 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 

place. 
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 jobs. As a manufacturing company that makes wire harnesses for hybrid buses, 

Compass became 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 14th 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 is 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 not 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 areas 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 Security 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 issues 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 regard 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 renewable 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 the recommendations. Dr. Eckert suggested that the Board 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; some 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; she 

suggested keeping page 7, and then jumping 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 of 

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 addressed 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 

revisited.

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 back and determine the basic objective of the report. This will help 

members 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 objectives of the report were 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, and then list them. Given that, the objective of this report is to discuss responsible ways 
September 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 sections 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 contradict 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 complementary. 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 efficiency to the Board members, and suggested it could 

be put in the overview section. Ms. Spener commented that the report should be focused on special 

opportunities on the border, and she was unsure that energy efficiency was different on the border than 

elsewhere 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. Small 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 Federal Government, education from the Federal 

Government, and implementation were raised in presentations. There are four or five broad areas for 

recommendations. The Board may not want to get as specific as recommending that the importance of the 

new FERC Order 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 coordinated 

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 Federal 

Government should help with regulatory barriers. Additionally, the role of the Federal Government 

should be examined after the tax credits expire. Dr. Eckert noted that the mantra for the natural resource 

community 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 recommendation 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 supporting 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 within the 

border region. Mr. Starfield commented that careful development could be recommended in terms of 
18 September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

siting and avoiding sensitive 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 panels 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 federal 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 financial 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 Federal Government was not adept at communication and education. He 

suggested rephrasing the recommendation to say that the Federal Government 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 communication 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 Federal Government. Ms. Spener noted that on pages 172-173, there was a 

general and then specific recommendation 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 section.

Mr. Small commented that the opening of the private activity bonds is a specific recommendation. 

Dr. Austin responded that it might 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 is needed for energy audits. 

Mr. Joyce commented that recommendations are most useful if they are clear, specific and actionable, but 

if the recommendation would 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 Management 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

she 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 states 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 about these recommendations before the 

report is finalized. Mr. Joyce explained that the official DOE representative 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 specific 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. 

It should be an observation based on the facts. Ms. Aguillon stated that the recommendation 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 stated that one of the recommendations is to focus on decentralized, distributed 

generation. Ms. Spener asked if the Board wanted to make a recommendation for decentralized 

development. The report could state that the Board has particular concerns about large-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 of energy, and 

it is not the Board’s mandate to pick winners and losers with respect to types 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 

decentralized 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 Federal Government 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 distributed systems, the intent is to 

have a cadre 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 that 
20 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 

has been a recommendation to establish a baseline to measure impacts. Dr. Eckert said that 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 could 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 articulate 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 cooperation 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 crossborder transmission. Mr. Niemeyer thought the report 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 region. 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 supported 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 “underutilized”; 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 assigned 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. 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 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 Tecnológico Autónomo de México, Senior Advisor for the Renewable 

Energy Initiative, 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 exporting renewable energy to the 

United States. 

The Mexican Government 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 Government 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 being led by the private sector. Oaxaca leads 

the way in Mexican wind energy resources, but Baja California and Tamaulipas follow closely behind. 

Baja 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, but 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 government programs. It is estimated that only 3 percent of the Mexican 

population 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 in 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 Northern 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. Geothermal 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 networks, specialization in institutes 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 local populations; ensuring that the local community 

becomes a stakeholder; acceptance 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 Oaxaca 

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, 

financing 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 administrations. 

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 Mexico. Currently, the Mexican Government is not 

willing to discuss subsidies for PV solar energy. It comes down to a question of cost, and President 
22 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 sector 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 Center’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 Department of Energy is dragging its feet, but 

the Department 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 commented that people in Mexico will not invest in anything until they know who will 

become the next president. Local governors 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 looking 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 PPAs. 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 surplus of electricity production, although it is 

distributed poorly. The Calderon Administration promised to produce a certain number of jobs per year. 

The fact that fewer Mexicans now are crossing the border to seek jobs in the United States 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 environmental 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 education 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 Wilson 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 be 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 

conversation 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 Board 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 suggested by the Board members 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. Angel 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 finalized 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 voted 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 recommendations. 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 

Federal Government should continue to upgrade existing federal hydroelectric power plants to ensure 

efficient, reliable, cost-effective 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 recommendation 

could be appropriate even for a residential project if a development has rules about what can be visible 

from the road. 

Mr. Small noted that adding “if applicable” is one way to address this issue. Another is to say it is subject 

to municipal law. Dr. Eckert added that it 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 even 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 added that the term “commercial projects” could be used to identify something 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 suggested 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 additional hurdles to renewable energy that do not affect

fossil fuels. Ms. Spener concurred. In Texas, someone can put an oil well in your back yard legally, so 

renewable energy sources should not be precluded. Ms. Aguillon suggested that the Board encourage 

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 restrictions than those imposed by the Federal Government. Dr. Austin 

stated that the consensus was that GNEB did not want to have the Federal Government regulate 

renewables in a more restrictive manner than it regulates other sources of energy. Mr. Niemeyer stated 

that developers of these projects want some uniformity. Mr. Small mentioned that on federal land, there 
September 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 similar 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 project. 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 good common sense; not every recommendation must 

require a federal action. Mr. Angel noted that the Federal Government 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 Federal Government. 

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 prioritizing 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. Dr. Austin 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 prioritize 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 utility-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 if 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 difference 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 recommendation “Avoid boundary areas of Protected Areas, such as designated wilderness or 

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:

 Contaminated or already-disturbed land (e.g., Brownfields).

 Under-utilized portions of federal facility installations.”

The numerous bullets under the recommendation “The GNEB recommends that the Federal Government 

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 

Department of Interior (DOI)-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 recommendations on a scale above the project level. A 

specific 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 spectrum.”

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 recommends that substantial effort be made by the Federal Government to 

communicate and inform local governments and their populations concerning the development and use of 

reusable and sustainable energy resources in the border region. To that effect, the following should be 

accomplished:”

The recommendation “USDOE should 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 partner 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. Joyce 
September 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 should 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 savings and efficiency,” 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 agencies 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 subtract them elsewhere. 

Ms. Giner said that once a project is developed, there is plenty of money for it, but developing projects is 

the challenge. 

Dr. Austin noted that the point to make is the importance of technical assistance for project development. 

She asked 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 leveraged 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 opportunities 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. Earmarking 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 CREBs—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 CrossBorder 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 issues 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 Property 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 as recently introduced in the 

Congress, or by administrative rulemaking,” was deleted.

Mr. Starfield noted that if legislation is discussed, the federal members cannot sign on to that section of 

the report. Mr. Joyce commented that, in the past, federal agency representatives have recused themselves 

only from advice letters.

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 

members recusing themselves for some recommendations. The recommendation could state “The Board 
September 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 recommendation “The ITC has 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 energy 

production. Instead, the federal government 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 Federal Government to look into performance-based financial incentives.”

Dr. Austin suggested that the recommendation “Continue the CREBs for governmental entities and 

consider allocating a portion to the NADBANK for the border area,” could instead state that the Clean 

Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) program should be refinanced. Mr. Joyce agreed that the Board 

should not go into specifics about Congress. 

The following recommendation was deleted: “Congress should issue a new round of CREBs 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 CREBs 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 could 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 state/federal 

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 public 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. 

 Dr. 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. Starfield 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 – Colorado 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 Gillen

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

Comite 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, TX
September 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

Occupational 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

Larry 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 Service

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

Border 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 Cruces, New Mexico
34 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, MD 
September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 35

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Hotel Encanto de Las Cruces

705 South Telshor Blvd

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011

575-522-4300

AGENDA

Thursday, September 8th

8:00 a.m. Registration

8:30-9:00 Welcome and Introductions

 Mark Joyce

Associate Director and Acting Designated Federal Officer

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and

Outreach

US Environmental Protection Agency

 Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and

Outreach

US Environmental Protection Agency

 Diane Austin

Acting Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

 Sharon Thomas

Mayor Pro Tem

Las Cruces, New Mexico

9:00-10:30 Economic Opportunities in the US-Mexico Border Region

 Pricilla C. Lucero

Executive Director

Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments
36 September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

 Jo Anne Shelby

Plant Manager

Compass Manufacturing Services

 Linda Smrkovsky

Executive Director

Deming Luna County Economic Development, Inc.

10:30-10:45 Break

10:45-12:15 Community Impacts in the US-Mexico Border Region

 Jeremy Turner

Executive Director

New Mexico Renewable Energy Transmission Authority

 Karyn Stockdale

Vice President and Executive Director

New Mexico Audubon Society

 Clay Doyle

Vice President of Transmission and Distribution

El Paso Electric Company

12:15-12:45 Public Comments

12:45-2:00 Lunch

2:00-3:30 Discussion of 14th Report

3:30-3:45 Break

3:45-6:00 Discussion of 14th Report

6:00 p.m. Adjourn
September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 37

Friday, September 9th

Meeting Day 2

8:30-9:00 Duncan Wood

Professor, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México

Senior Advisor for the Renewable Energy Initiative

Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International

Center for Scholars

9:00-9:30 Discussion of Next Meeting and Other Business

Washington, DC – December 14-15

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

11:00-11:15 Break

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

1:30-2:00 Public Comments

2:00 p.m. Adjourn