June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

June 16-17, 2011

US Grant Hotel

326 Broadway

San Diego, CA 92101

MEETING SUMMARY

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011

Welcome and Introductions

Diane Austin, Acting Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB); Cynthia Jones-Jackson, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach (OFACMO); and Mark Joyce, EPA, OFACMO, GNEB Acting Designated 

Federal Officer (DFO)

Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona), Acting Chair for GNEB, welcomed members to the meeting 

and noted that after the introductions and a review of the agenda, the Board will hear the morning’s 

scheduled presentations. 

Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting Designated Federal Officer for GNEB, explained that he 

worked with several federal advisory committees that report to the President and Congress or the EPA 

Administrator. He told the Board that he looked forward to the discussion of the GNEB 14th report. He 

thanked the planning committee for identifying presenters for this meeting and for organizing the 

previous day’s field trip. GNEB members then introduced themselves. 

Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson (EPA, OFACMO) thanked and welcomed the Board members and added her 

gratitude for the work of the planning committee. Dr. Austin also thanked the members of the planning 

committee for organizing the field trip and the meeting. She noted that GNEB members had taken the 

charge to complete their work on the draft report seriously, and she was confident that there would be a 

more complete draft report for discussion at the September meeting. She stated that, because of the full 

agenda, presentations would be kept to 20 minutes and questions and answers limited to 10 minutes. If 

questions remain after the 10-minute period, members should write their questions down; they will be 

collected and given to the presenters who can respond via e-mail. She mentioned that members also could 

pose their questions to the presenters during breaks. Dr. Austin stated that a reception for the GNEB 

members will be held at 6:00 p.m., so the Board cannot work past that time. 

Dr. Austin then introduced the first presenter, Ms. Donna Tisdale. 
2 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

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

Unintended Consequences?

Donna Tisdale, Secretary, Protect Our Communities Foundation

Ms. Tisdale explained that she is a lifelong border resident from a farming family. Low income 

communities in the Imperial Valley already are being disproportionately affected by large-scale 

renewable energy projects, but residents in these areas love where they live and do not plan to leave. The 

area has been targeted as the renewable energy hub, but the residents do not support this development. 

The residents have chosen this area because to be close to nature. Federal agencies are unlawfully downzoning previously protected public lands that were zoned to protect critical resources. Additionally, 

federal and state agencies are allowing large companies to take water from designated sole source 

aquifers. 

Ms. Tisdale mentioned numerous renewable energy projects in her area, including wind and solar projects 

that will each require new lines and substations; most of these projects impact private rural land. This 

“land rush” will have lasting impacts on the area; for example, the scraping of tens of thousands of acres 

of sensitive public land and intact habitat will increase erosion, dust storms, and respiratory diseases; and 

groundwater will be siphoned off from stressed desert aquifers that feed local wells, and local 

communities have no alternate affordable water source. Much of the impacted area has been identified as 

globally significant—a rare Mediterranean mosaic with abundant wildlife and critical wildlife corridors. 

In addition, billions of dollars are being redistributed from tax and utility rate payers to for-profit 

corporations, many of which are foreign owned; and developers are undermining and gutting local land 

use and community plans and protections, and negatively affecting home values. 

The impact on wildlife is significant. Additionally, sites sacred to American Indians are being slated for 

use in energy development projects. Critical resources, heritage, and legacies are being lost, damaged, 

destroyed, or removed on a massive scale. These resources should be designated as Properties of 

Religious and Cultural Importance.

Most experienced health, noise, sleep, and other problems. Medical and scientific experts investigating 

wind turbine impacts recommend a minimum of a 1.25 mile setback with 2 miles or more in hilly open 

terrain to protect public health and safety. Concentrated turbine projects cannot meet these safe setback 

recommendations. Additional concerns include: (1) 30 to 40 year conversion of prime farmland into 

industrial solar zones in violation of the Farmland Protection Act; (2) cumulative impacts from multiple 

projects in condensed targeted areas surrounding rural low-income communities; (3) industrial conversion 

of public lands adversely impacts recreation areas and tourism dollars for economically depressed rural 

communities; (4) high levels of noise and/or electrical pollution are generated by wind turbines, solar 

inverters, transformers, substations, and transmission lines; and (5) intermittent energy generates dirty 

electricity, or electromagnetic pollution, which has been linked to a variety of illnesses and cancer. 

Because of these numerous concerns, Ms. Tisdale asked that GNEB consider making the following 

recommendations to the President and Congress: 

 Focus efforts on energy conservation and point of use renewable energy projects that do not need 

extensive infrastructure upgrades and eminent domain. 

 Stop the fast tracking and funding of these large-scale projects, the use of priceless and 

irreplaceable desert groundwater, and the destruction of sensitive habitat, cultural resources, and 

rural communities.

 Support negatively affected residents and communities.

 Initiate and fund unbiased, scientific third-party full-spectrum noise, electrical, and health studies. 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

 Support a moratorium on wind turbine projects within a minimum 2-mile radius of occupied 

buildings, sensitive receptors, and non-participating property lines, until valid dose-response 

peer-reviewed studies have been completed.

 Help impacted tribal residents who are suffering from the Kumeyaay turbines. The Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services and Housing Authority have independent trust 

responsibilities that should not be ignored.

Discussion

Dr. Cyrus Reed (Sierra Club), GNEB member, commented that one of Ms. Tisdale’s recommendations 

was more independent testing of high frequencies. Can someone from a government organization discuss 

the current rules on high frequencies so that the Board has some context for the recommendation? He had 

never heard of the recommended 2-mile setback between a turbine and development. Dr. Austin stated 

that one of the first things GNEB would do that evening is to identify what additional information is 

needed for the report. She asked if anyone could respond to Dr. Reed’s question. Mr. Jose Angel 

(California River Basin Region Water Quality Control Board), GNEB member, appreciated Ms. Tisdale’s 

concerns because there had been a few solar projects in Ocotillo, California. He asked about the water 

demands for these projects. Ms. Tisdale responded that the developers have had trouble finding water and 

using farm water creates problems; using recycled water affects the drains, wetlands, and Salton Sea 

levels. Finding water for the renewable energy projects is a difficult task, and some geothermal projects 

use 4,000 acre feet of water per year. 

Dr. Teresa Pohlman (Department of Homeland Security [DHS]), GNEB member, thanked Ms. Tisdale for 

her presentation, and asked if GNEB could receive some of the studies she had discussed. Dr. Pohlman 

added that DHS and the Department of Defense (DoD) are examining the disruption of radar by wind 

turbines. 

Ms. Cecilia Aguillon (Kyocera Solar, Inc.), GNEB member, said that, in her personal opinion, the noise 

was incredibly high from the single panel tree that the group saw on its field trip the previous day. 

Ms. Tisdale mentioned that it took 173 of those panels to create one megawatt (MW) of energy. 

Ms. Aguillon stated that renewable energy is a global endeavor, and the trend in Europe is toward smaller 

scale installations on rooftops, for example. She wondered if this move to smaller projects has been 

spurred in part because of the concerns Ms. Tisdale mentioned. Ms. Tisdale commented that smaller 

rooftop installation projects are not popular in the United States because such systems cut into the profits 

of the utility companies. In the 1980s, a number of rooftop solar projects were installed in Germany 

because there were government subsidies for them. The same thing could be done in the United States, 

and it would save people money on their energy bills.

Mr. Luis Olmedo (Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.), GNEB member, stated that he was familiar with Ms. 

Tisdale’s work and the number of volunteer hours she devoted on it. One major problem is that the solar 

installation developers are not committed to creating sustainable jobs. Ms. Tisdale said she had testified at 

the planning commission hearings on the solar installation. She raised the issue that the company was 

trying to be exempted from the sales tax, but was providing no benefit to the county. County staff did not 

have the financial or technical expertise to deal with these projects, and there was concern, but the 

supervisors wanted the project to go forward.

Mr. Larry Starfield (EPA Region 6), GNEB member, stated that fossil fuel plants can also have harmful 

effects on the environment in ways not mentioned by Ms. Tisdale, so it’s important to explore 

alternatives. Is there a way to encourage the use of alternative energies, such as wind and solar, that 

would have less impact on human health and the environment? Ms. Tisdale asserts that there may be 

violations associated with the renewable energy projects in Imperial County, but if that were not the case, 

would the renewable energy installations still be a problem? 
4 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Ms. Tisdale replied that although no one in the area opposed the turbines when they were installed in 

2005, she could not ask anyone to accept them in their community now, after experiencing their effects. 

Some residents 5 miles from the turbines are kept awake at night by the noise. Her community would 

prefer small rooftop solar installations or small low profile solar fields. 

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

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

Pablo Gutierrez, Geothermal Program Technical Lead, California Energy Commission

Mr. Gutierrez explained that the California Energy Commission (CEC) was created in 1974 by the 

California legislature. The CEC has five major responsibilities: (1) licensing thermal power plants 50 

MW or larger; (2) forecasting future energy needs and keeping historical energy data; (3) promoting 

energy efficiency through appliance and building standards; (4) planning for and directing state response 

to energy emergencies; and (5) developing and supporting research and development of renewable energy 

technologies. The CEC has authority over solar thermal and geothermal power projects greater than 50 

MW, but does not have authority over photovoltaic, wind, nuclear, or hydroelectric power plants. CEC is 

the lead state Agency for review and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

He noted that power plants must complete a multitude of steps before they are awarded a license. 

California’s short- and long-term energy driver is the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction 

goal. At the same time, California needs to maintain reliable and affordable energy supplies while using 

less carbon intensive energy sources. In April 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed the renewable portfolio 

standard into law requiring all retail sellers of electricity and all publicly owned utilities to procure 

renewable energy resources at set target points (20% by December 31, 2013, up to 33% by December 31, 

2020). The CEC policy has recognized an electricity “loading order” as the preferred sequence for 

meeting electricity demands. The loading order is as follows: energy efficiency and demand response, 

renewable resources, and clean and efficient natural gas-fired power plants. As of 2009, California’s 

electricity supply consisted of almost 46 percent natural gas and nearly 11 percent from renewables. 

California’s electrical grid produces more than 296,000 gigawatt hours per year that is transported through 

32,000 miles of transmission lines. In 2009, California produced 69 percent of its own electricity, and 

imported 7 percent from the Pacific Northwest and 24 percent from the Southwest. The installed capacity 

of the 1,008 power plants totals 69,709 MW. 

The state faces severe infrastructure challenges including transmission and distribution congestion, 

ensuring adequate electricity supplies while reducing GHG emissions and increasing renewable energy 

resources and variable resources such as wind and solar. The state is trying to remove some of the 

following barriers to geothermal development: environmental permitting delays, financing, exploration 

costs, loss of incentives, supply shortages, lack of information, and lack of access to transmission. CEC’s 

geothermal program mission is to promote the research, development, demonstration and 

commercialization of California’s enormous geothermal energy resources. Since 1980, the geothermal 

program has provided funding for projects with more than 174 public and private entities, and in 2011, 

four grants were awarded. California’s large geothermal base consists of 2,565 MW of installed capacity 

and 49 power plants, and 2,100 MW running capacity. Thirty projects with the potential to increase 

installed capacity from 712 to 738 MWs now are under development. Additional potential from known 

geothermal resources is estimated up to 4,600 MW and undiscovered resources may provide an additional 

3,200 to 25,000 MW. 

Installed capacity in the California-Mexico region totals 625 MW, which is more than one-third of the 

installed capacity in California; 16 plants are operating in Imperial County. Thirteen geothermal prospects 

have been documented in the Imperial Valley for a total of 3,263 MW. CEC must continue to support 

geothermal activities by encouraging continued research on geothermal technologies, research focused on 

energy policy goals, and geothermal industry participation in state policy activities. Geothermal 

technologies research includes resource assessments for adding electrical generation. More advanced tools 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 5

and techniques for exploration and resource assessment are needed. Research focused on energy policy 

goals would include: improved environmental protection, improved subsurface exploration, innovative 

water use, life-cycle analysis, evaluation and analysis of co-located resources (with solar or wind), and 

energy storage. 

Discussion

Ms. Tisdale asked whether plumes of steam from the geothermal plant near the Salton Sea could be 

captured to generate more electricity. Mr. Gutierrez responded that it would be possible, but many of the 

power plants are 30 to 35 years old, and run inefficiently. How companies operate the plants is beyond 

CEC’s monitoring purview. 

Mr. Olmedo noted that geothermal energy had received millions of dollars in fines in the past few years 

for releasing toxic materials, and asked if Mr. Gutierrez had any information to share on environmental 

safeguards for geothermal facilities. Mr. Gutierrez stated that enforcement actions generally are the 

responsibility of the county, but CEC can and should make note when facilities are out of compliance. 

Additionally, the Department of Toxics should be involved in any hazardous waste enforcement, but CEC 

does not have an enforcement arm. 

Mr. Starfield commented that the fourth slide in the presentation stated that CEC was the lead agency in 

California for review and ongoing compliance. Does the CEC oversee projects to ensure that they are 

done right? Additionally, the presentation discussed grants given by CEC. As a condition of these grants, 

does CEC examine whether there will be any benefit to the community from the grant? Mr. Gutierrez 

commented that before CEC announces the availability of research money for grants, it develops criteria 

for technically sound and environmentally useful projects. Among the criteria reviewed are the impacts on 

water and air, and the requirement for reducing GHGs. These are delineated in the request for proposals. 

With regard to the question on CEC oversight of projects, facility siting involves CEQA and there is some 

monitoring of construction. The enforcement, however, is quite limited. 

Mr. Edward Drusina (International Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC]) GNEB member, asked 

what geothermal research was taking place in Mexico, and if there are any cooperative efforts at sites 

located along the border. Mr. Gutierrez responded that cooperation between the two countries is at the 

colleague level rather than the research level. CEC does not have a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) with the Mexican government. He mentioned that the CEC executive staff would be more 

knowledgeable about these interactions. 

Mr. Angel noted that geothermal projects produce several waste streams including brines, and depending 

on the constitution of these brines, they are regulated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control or 

by the Water Quality Control Board. In Imperial County in particular, the Water Quality Control Board 

regulates the majority of the geothermal plants. The brine needs to be managed and contained, because it 

is a threat to many bird species. He stated that there is oversight of the geothermal facilities. With respect 

to CEQA review and compliance, Mr. Angel noted that the reduction of office staff from 50 to 30 has 

made it difficult to review environmental documents; the staff may not have the capacity or the clinical 

expertise to review some of the documents. Water is a significant concern, and is one of the major factors 

in determining which projects will move forward in Imperial County. This county has very little 

groundwater and almost all of the water comes from the Colorado River. Most of the 3.2 million acre feet 

of water in Imperial County is allocated to agriculture. 

Dr. Reed commented that the CEC did not have licensing authority for photovoltaic solar, wind, and 

hydroelectric. Are there licensing requirements for these types of development in California, or is there

another agency responsible for licensing these facilities? Mr. Gutierrez answered that those licensing 

requirements either were at the federal or local levels. Dr. Reed asked whether interconnection 

agreements were handled with the grid operator or through the CEC. Mr. Gutierrez replied that CEC did 

not get involved in the interconnection process; it is examined during the licensing process. 
6 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

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

Bill Powers, Powers Engineering

Mr. Powers explained that his presentation title was based on 10 years of experience working as a citizen 

watchdog in the region on energy projects. Within the past year, Presidents Obama and Calderon have 

established a Department of Energy (DOE) task force with its counterpart in Baja California. They 

charged the task force with promoting development of cross-border energy transfer and renewable energy 

transfer, specifically wind energy from Baja California. The task force lacks an environmental component 

and public information on task force members is not available. The U.S. Government does not support 

making Baja California a renewable energy development center for California. A letter to Sempra Energy 

from Senators Feinstein and Boxer stated that adding power from Mexico to the transmission line would 

limit the line’s ability to deliver renewable power from Imperial County. A proposed link between 

Sempra’s existing line and the U.S. transmission line is seeking a Presidential permit through DOE. Shell, 

Sempra, and BP are the major players involved in the project. Sempra Energy also owns San Diego Gas 

and Electric (SDG&E).

The border region has gone through three waves: the first was that the United States made the U.S.-

Mexico border region an energy hub for natural gas-fired power plants. In the early 2000s, there were 12 

to 16 gas plants proposed just over the border to feed power into the United States. That scheme fell apart 

when the U.S. gas and power market crashed after the energy crisis in 2001.

In the Mexicali hub, the DOE presidential permits are for 1,200 MW but only 600 MW are on each line 

that feeds into the Imperial Valley substation. The original SDG&E transmission plan was to build a 

predecessor to the power link that would connect to the substation in Imperial County and ultimately feed 

into the Los Angeles basin. In 2004, Sempra Energy told a trade journal that they were in Mexico because 

of low-cost labor, quick permitting, and more lax environmental rules for facilities. Sempra had a vision 

of energy maquiladoras. At the same time, InterGen’s Shell plant was shut down as a result of InterGen 

misleading the government into believing that the plant’s export turbines were fitted with pollution 

control devices. It cannot be assumed that U.S. and international corporations in Baja California are going 

to be good corporate citizens. In 2006, Sempra paid a $350 million settlement for running gas trades to a 

Rosarito, Baja California power plant to drive up Southern California natural gas prices during the 2001 

energy crisis. Also in 2006, Sempra was fined $70 million for violating the terms of its 10-year electricity 

contract with the state, and in 2009, Sempra paid a $1.1 million settlement for misleading California 

utility commissioners on the viability of a southern route for the Sunrise Powerlink transmission line (the 

alternative route would have run the line through California’s largest state park); $200,000 of the 

settlement was allocated for ethics training for senior executives. Mr. Powers suggested that an effective 

monitoring regime would be preferable to this training. 

Sempra’s 10-year, $7 billion electricity supply contract with California ends in September 2011. The 

Mexicali power plant will have no captive buyer when the contract ends. Sempra buys liquefied natural 

gas (LNG) from BP Tangguh (Indonesia) for about $6 per million Btu under a 20-year contract. This has 

turned out to be a poor business decision because the cost of LNG from Indonesia is 50 percent higher 

than the current domestic price of natural gas in the United States. Shale gas has helped lower the U.S. 

domestic natural gas price and gas prices are expected to remain low for the foreseeable future. When the 

state contract ends, there is a question of what to do with the Mexicali power plant and the Costa Azul 

LNG terminal. In October 2008, a CEC analysis identified the Costa Azul LNG facility as the future 

regional natural gas-fired power plant energy hub. 

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

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

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

plant.
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

 Liquefaction and shipping of LNG are energy intensive.

 The seawater LNG reheat system at Costa Azul uses large amounts of seawater in the oncethrough heating system.

For the Mexicali power plants, there are no air emission offsets, despite the poor air quality in Imperial 

County and Mexicali, and there is no requirement to report results of continuous emissions monitoring. 

With the Sempra Energía Sierra Juárez (ESJ) wind proposal, Mexican renewables are ineligible for U.S. 

tax credits, which for wind equate to about 3 cents/KWh. La Rumorosa developers have quoted wind 

capacity factors of 30 percent compared to the 35 to 40 percent from U.S. wind companies. The Sunrise 

Powerlink or some other transmission solution would be needed to move La Rumorosa wind to load 

centers. SDG&E has applied to contract for 450 MW of peaking gas turbines, an approximately $500 

million investment to help address the intermittency of wind power. Another issue, specifically with 

DOE, is the idea of granting a “generator tie” to Sempra for wind generation. This would mean one 

corporation would be granted a private toll road status to any renewable energy development in Baja 

California. Data show there is no cost advantage to developing wind over solar energy. San Diego area 

wind turbines provide the least power in the summer months, when the demand for electricity is the 

highest, while solar photovoltaic power is reliably available on hot summer afternoons when electricity 

demand, and the cost of power, is highest.

California now is moving away from large-scale remote renewable energy projects to local projects. Too 

many projects, however, are being conducted on undeveloped lands in both the United States and Mexico, 

instead of on retired agricultural lands or brownfields. A 1,000 MW Solar Millenium project (Blythe 

Solar) will disturb 7,000 acres of undisturbed public land. EPA’s “RE-Powering America’s Land” 

initiative should help to site renewable energy on potentially contaminated land and mine sites. 

In conclusion, the U.S.-Mexico border region should not be an energy export zone. The border region is 

used by U.S. energy companies: as a shield from U.S. regulatory oversight while gaining full access to 

the U.S. market, to avoid U.S.-level environmental compliance while gaining full access to the U.S. 

market, and to avoid paying U.S. labor rates. Additionally, Mexico absorbs a high environmental impact 

while gaining little economic development. 

Discussion

Ms. Tisdale asked Mr. Powers to comment on public utilities’ oversight and recent accidents. Mr. Powers 

responded that he had been battling the transmission line for 10 years, but that he was not impressed by 

helicopters dropping transmission towers without notice. In general, there is a lack of oversight in both 

the United States and Mexico. 

Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ]), GNEB member, thanked 

Mr. Powers for his presentation, and noted the value of holding meetings in the border region to hear the 

local perspective. Many of the issues raised in the presentation were related to recommendations that 

GNEB made last year in the Board’s call for renewal of the Transboundary Environmental Impact 

Assessment (TEIA) agreement through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Projects are 

conducted in Mexico that affect the environment in the United States, and the reverse also is true. This 

should have been completed by January 1, 1997. Mr. Niemeyer has yet to see the outcomes from the 

interagency working group that is addressing recommendations from last year’s GNEB report. Texas has 

been asking for this since 1996; these presentations certainly support the need for the agreement. 

Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department), GNEB member, told Mr. Powers that he 

served on the Border Governors Conference Environment Board representing New Mexico. The State 
8 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Department will be receiving a letter soon from that Board asking the State Department and other 

agencies to examine the TEIA issue. 

Dr. Reed asked if the Department of Interior (DOI) guidelines to locate large renewable energy projects 

mentioned by Mr. Powers in one of his slides were final. Mr. Powers answered that the letter from the 

California Desert and Renewable Energy Working Group that was sent to DOI at the end of December 

2010 would be useful to GNEB. 

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

Clean TECH San Diego

Lisa Bicker, President and CEO, Clean TECH San Diego

Ms. Bicker explained that Clean TECH San Diego’s role is to focus on economic development of clean 

technology in the San Diego region. Clean TECH San Diego was created in 2007 to support job creation, 

build a common agenda among the region’s diverse clean technology stakeholders, and prepare for and 

benefit from California’s proactive regulatory policies. Clean TECH’s mission is to accelerate the San 

Diego region as a world leader in the clean technology economy. Clean TECH is a public-private 

partnership and a nonprofit entity. A number of public sector entities participate in Clean TECH, but it 

primarily is driven by the private sector. 

Ms. Bicker identified several reasons why San Diego was quick to advance its clean energy economy. 

There are world class research institutes in the greater San Diego region and it has a history of building 

economic clusters—the clean technology cluster is a natural extension of the existing high technology, 

biotechnology, and defense clusters. There are 767 clean technology companies in San Diego and the 

research institutes in the region are located close together and share intellectual property and employees. 

Clean TECH works to leverage all of these assets. San Diego is home to more than 75 research institutes, 

five of which were founded in the last 2 years, including the San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology

(SDCAB), which is focused on creating an economic engine around biofuels. 

San Diego also has a history of building successful clusters. The region has more than 3,000 information 

technology and wireless companies, almost 300 defense and security companies, and more than 600 life 

science and biomedical companies. Both small and large companies are prospering in the San Diego area, 

and it shows higher growth in average number of patents published and granted than other regions in 

California and Boston. In addition, San Diego is successful in attracting venture capital dollars, leading in 

number of venture capital deals funded in the first quarter of 2011. 

Almost 800 Clean TECH companies are based in the San Diego region, including more than 300 

innovator companies and more than 400 market enabler companies. There is strong activity in solar, 

transportation, batteries, energy storage, and biofuels. San Diego is known as the number one solar city in 

California because of the high rate of photovoltaic (PV) rooftop installations (100 MW installed). The city 

also has a growing solar manufacturing base that is critical to growing the region’s economy, including 

companies such as Kyocera Solar that have made a strong commitment to the San Diego region. A French 

company, Soitec Solar, just selected San Diego for the site of its manufacturing facility, which will add 

500 new high tech jobs. 

The San Diego area secured $154 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS), which is 19 

percent of the total funding available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 

2009 and run through the Internal Revenue Service. The CREBS program allowed local governments to 

access no- or low-interest bonding capacity so that they can own and operate their own solar plants and 

place solar installations on government buildings. The financing opportunities will create new jobs and 

approximately 20 MW of new solar power projects. The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) 

launched its latest CREBS project just a few weeks ago, hiring a local installer that uses union manpower 

and when possible, American-made products. UCSD expects to realize $1.8 million of energy savings 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 9

during the next 20 years. This is an example of a creative financing mechanism offered by the Federal 

Government, with the state playing a role and the private sector reaping benefits.

San Diegans also are early adopters of electric vehicles. Of the 20,000 Nissan Leafs available nationwide, 

2,000 applications were submitted by San Diegans. Universities are experimenting with using solar power 

as the charging apparatus for electric vehicles. San Diego hosts 39 clean transportation companies that 

employ 1,000 people and contribute $92 million to the San Diego payroll, and there are more than 30 

biofuels companies in the region. Additionally, San Diego, as a border city, has tremendous international 

relationships, which is an important strategic advantage for the city in the clean technology sector because 

other countries are looking for avenues for exporting or importing their products. 

Discussion

Ms. Aguillon thanked Ms. Bicker for helping GNEB to arrange the biofuels site visit the previous day. 

Ms. Bicker noted that Ms. Aguillon is a member of Clean TECH San Diego, an important thought leader 

in the community, and part of the reason San Diego is seen as a leader in the clean technology economy. 

Dr. David Henkel (University of New Mexico), GNEB member, asked what kind of future demand model 

was used to examine growth of renewable energy in the region. Ms. Bicker replied that much of 

California is driven by an aggressive policy agenda, and two trends in particular drive demand: policy 

and technology innovation. In San Diego, there is a focus on securing and protecting research and 

development dollars and protecting universities. One in three biotechnology companies was founded by a 

University of California professor, so maintaining a fluid relationship between universities and the 

economic sector is critical. 

Mr. Olmedo noted that on the previous day’s tour the issue was raised that the jobs created for large scale 

solar tend to be short term. Much of the manufacturing of solar panels in the United States is being carried 

out in San Diego. He asked how Imperial County residents could be better advocates for themselves to 

ensure that there is creation of sustainable jobs. Ms. Bicker answered that it was a challenge for the 

region, and Clean TECH San Diego sees its purview as reaching into Baja California and Imperial 

County. These geographic areas are assets. It is frustrating when someone has been trained for a green 

job, but there are no jobs available. Clean TECH is focused on smart job training, and is the beneficiary of 

a grant from the California Department of Labor for training programs. The biotechnology area was 

chosen as it is a growing area and it is important to ensure that as companies move from research and 

development into production and commercialization, there will be a San Diego-based skilled work force 

available. Clean TECH partnered with UCSD to create five new training certificates. One certificate is for 

post-graduates, but three are at the community college level and are geared toward the Imperial Valley 

work force. This program is geared toward bringing employers to the table, and Clean TECH believes it 

will have a higher success rate than with dislocated workforce training. 

Dr. Reed asked whether the CREBS were grants or loans. Ms. Bicker responded that they were 

allocations, so the city of Chula Vista received an allocation of $19 million and needs to get bonding 

capacity. CREBS are no- or low-interest bonding capacity, and the city would issue bonds and use them 

to own and operate PV rooftop installations. Dr. Reed commented that several years ago San Diego 

attempted to create a loan program for energy efficiency and solar but he did not believe that it had gone 

forward. Ms. Bicker replied that three independently owned utilities have on-bill financing for energy 

efficiency technologies, but it is a gap that the same tools are not available for solar energy. The Mayor of 

San Diego and other mayors have been examining creative approaches to providing additional financing 

for energy efficiency. 

Mr. Niemeyer asked for definitions of the terms “clean” and “green.” Does clean mean that chemical use 

is minimized, or that no hazardous chemicals are used? Ms. Bicker answered that the goal is to 

accomplish the same objective with cleaner resources or by using less energy. That does not mean that 
10 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

chemicals are not used, but that an existing practice is being improved. When she discusses the clean 

technology economy, she means companies that are building technologies or using technologies in a new 

way. Mr. Niemeyer commented that there is no perfect energy supply, because there are tradeoffs for 

everything. The report needs to have a balanced approach, and the current draft reflects that balance.

Mr. Starfield noted that when discussing economic benefits, jobs are at the top of the list. If an alternative 

energy project is located in an environmental justice or low income community, are the companies giving 

any thought to how they can help communities in ways other than jobs, such as providing solar panels so 

the community members can reduce their energy costs? Ms. Bicker said that she was not aware of such 

examples, but she liked the concept. She cautioned that San Diego is, in some respects, a smaller market 

without a lot of big projects. Mr. Starfield noted that EPA often works with local emergency planning 

commissions and the companies that work with into them, to all contribute a small amount to a project for 

the community’s benefit that is larger than what any individual participant might be able to fund; he 

suggested that perhaps such a type of model would be useful. Ms. Aguillon noted that, before the solar 

initiative, there were approximately 400 companies doing business in California; now, there are more than 

1,400. Ms. Bicker added that Clean TECH sought to measure jobs, direct economic activity, and indirect 

economic activity. Dr. Austin noted that the idea of companies giving back to the communities is taken 

for granted in the oil and gas and mining industries and agreed that the idea that companies involved in 

alternative energy had not developed mechanisms for giving back to communities was fascinating; 

companies should consider this part of what it takes to do business in a community. 

Mr. Olmedo asked if most of the solar panel manufacturing is being conducted in Mexico and then the 

panels are brought into the United States to be completed and labeled “Made in the USA.” Ms. Aguillon 

answered that Kyocera has twin plants, and everything that is done in Mexico also is done in the United 

States. 

Small-Scale Solar for Social, Economic and Environmental Justice

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

Ms. Capretz told GNEB that she would present the perspective of low income, underserved communities 

on the local clean industry. The Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) has been in San Diego for 30 

years and builds grassroots campaigns to improve the health of children, families, neighborhoods, and the 

natural environment in the San Diego/Tijuana region. EHC is part of the state-wide organization 

California Environmental Justice Association (CEJA). 

Environmental justice communities have high pollution levels, high asthma incidence, high poverty 

levels, and high unemployment. Although unemployment is declining in San Diego, it is not in the 

communities EHC serves. As climate change and ensuing extreme weather events occur, EHC’s

communities are going to be the least able to adapt. EHC is an urban environmental organization, and its 

communities do not have many green areas or parks. The abundant concrete creates the heat island effect 

and community members often lack air conditioning and transportation to get to cooling centers. With 

climate change, the pollution in these communities is likely to increase. 

The solution to these problems could be in opportunities presented by the green energy economy: clean 

air, clean infrastructure, jobs, healthy homes, revitalized neighborhoods, and an influx of money into the 

community. Local solar power means permanent jobs such as equipment manufacturing and assembly, 

professional services, installation, and system monitoring. EHC communities have benefitted from ARRA 

funds and training programs and centers. Often, however, there are no jobs available for people who 

complete training programs. San Diego is the number one solar city in California, but there are no solar 

panels installed in EHC’s communities, because this technology is still accessible only to the wealthy. 

SDG&E built a large transmission line out to the desert and is thus far meeting most of its renewable 

energy goals with remote large-scale solar installations, and 99 percent of the total energy is generated 

outside the county. A 200 MW solar plant in Imperial Valley is expected to create 300 jobs during the 18-

month construction phase, but only five permanent jobs will be created. 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 11

EHC is given a seat at the table at many policy discussions at the local level and state level. EHC wants: 

a feed-in-tariff designed with social/economic justice issues (so homeowners and businesses can sell the 

electricity they generate back to utilities); better and cheaper financing for energy efficiency and solar

energy; local hire provisions in utility contracts and government agency contracts; and solar and 

construction companies reaching out to nontraditional neighborhoods. California’s governor has 

confirmed his commitment to 12,000 MW of local renewable systems as part of an economic 

development plan, and to integrating social, environmental, and economic justice issues into the 

implementation plan. 

Discussion

Dr. Reed asked how a utility makes money from a small-scale solar installation. Are there models where 

utilities would own small-scale installations and sell the energy? Ms. Aguillon said that there were two 

major reasons the governor moved to the small scale: (1) the renewable energy goal had already been met 

on paper, and (2) local job creation. Utilities can make money with the feed-in-tariff. Dr. Reed added that 

models that can work for community members but also utilities should be examined. Ms. Capretz replied 

that utilities can make money with both small- and large-scale installations. Dr. Reed commented that the 

border region in the United States contains four states with four different kinds of markets, so effects on 

utilities may differ. Ms. Aguillon added that because of the differences, it is impossible to have a national 

energy policy. 

Dr. Henkel asked Ms. Capretz what kind of engagement is used with low income potential consumers 

when discussing lower scale projects. Ms. Capretz replied that there is ongoing outreach with the 

communities, which includes going door to door to educate the local residents about climate change and 

green energy, and holding training sessions at the organization. There are training sessions for promotoras

on becoming a community leader and on subject matter. EHC communities want to invest in the green

economy. Dr. Henkel asked how EHC was funded. Ms. Capretz answered that EHC received some 

government funding, but most of its funding came through private foundations. 

Mr. Christopher Lawrence (DOE), GNEB member, mentioned that the Board might want to examine 

New Jersey, which is the second leading state in the country for solar deployment. New Jersey has 

various rebates and incentives for small-scale solar installations. 

Dr. Pohlman noted that there is a clear nexus between GNEB and the Environmental Justice Working 

Group, and that might be a section in the report. Mr. Olmedo complemented the work that EHC was 

conducting in San Diego and throughout the state. 

Mr. Nathan Small (New Mexico Wilderness Alliance) GNEB member, commented that the border states 

present a fractured environment in terms of energy policy and political leadership. He noted that 

California leads the way in policy. He suggested that as the Board thinks about its recommendations, it 

should consider the connections of community-based groups (or Clean TECH San Diego) with other 

states. Ms. Bicker said that her group was regionally focused. Some members’ activities are not limited to 

the San Diego region, and although the group is sensitive to that, Clean TECH’s goal is to protect jobs in 

the San Diego area. It does, however, share policy models and generic assets with other states. 

Independent Energy Solutions

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

Ms. MacDougall noted that the name “Independent,” when the company was created more than 11 years 

ago, meant that the company intended to be independent of all energy sources so that it would be 

completely off grid, but that is not the case today. The company focuses on projects that are 4 MW or 

less, but it is scaling up to be able to support the next step. She indicated that jobs follow successful 

industry, industry follows policy, and policy creation that is incentivized is what is seen in the small-scale 
12 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

solar boom in the San Diego region. In 2009, 11.6 percent of energy came from renewable sources, but 

California’s goal is 33 percent by 2020. The market-based incentives have made IES successful. The 

company does not serve the residential market, but the military, industrial, and commercial markets. The 

rebates are critical to keeping the solar and renewable energy market growing in the San Diego region. 

The California Public Utilities Commission took over the incentive process, and their goal is to reach 

1,940 MW of installed solar capacity by 2016. 

Renewable energy is needed in the San Diego area because of unanticipated increase in local energy 

demand, slower than expected generating capacity, stage two electricity alerts, and rolling blackouts. 

Renewable energy also can help to stabilize electricity prices, provide environmental benefits, meet peak 

usage coverage, and provide electricity for high demand areas. As solar energy becomes more affordable, 

and as the average price of electricity increases, the solar industry will be more interested in participating 

on the smaller scale. San Diego is the perfect place for a small industry to be located, because there is 

access to a trained workforce and manufacturing facilities. 

IES is one of 181 solar companies in the local region, employing 25-85 full-time employees depending on 

the project pipeline. During the last 3 years, IES generated $13.8 million in annual revenue, spent $1.3 

million on local labor, and purchased $8.2 million of goods for projects. IES is just one of the many small 

companies in the San Diego area so the benefits to the region of these renewable energy companies is 

substantial. 

IES is an environmentally friendly company whose purpose is to: help customers save money while 

assisting them in becoming energy independent; serve people without access to conventional power; raise 

the industry’s standards through leadership by example; and create jobs in the community. Engineering is 

IES’ core strength, and the company has developed a strong partnership with the utilities. IES provides 

best practices project management, construction management, construction licenses, field installation, and 

field service. The environmental impact of IES’ work, with an average commercial project size of 914 

kW, is the production of approximately 1.45 million KWh per year, and the accompanying carbon dioxide 

emissions reduction of 1,135 tons in the first year. To secure continued environmental impact, IES will 

serve California’s energy needs with continued renewable energy incentives, ensure that the Cash Grants 

Program and tax credit remain available, secure project financing to provide an attractive return on 

investment, examine Tradable Renewable Energy Credits benefits, and drive renewable energy goals 

beyond 2020.

Discussion

Ms. Aguillon commented that IES had created permanent jobs during its 11 years in business. 

Ms. MacDougall noted that the reduction in incentives have had an impact on the industry. 

Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control), GNEB member, asked whether longer-term financial incentives by 

the government would create more demand for photovoltaic energy. Ms. MacDougall stated that the 

incentives through the utilities have declined and it would be helpful to resurrect those incentives. She 

noted, however, that there is no mechanism for funding projects in the commercial/industrial setting that 

makes sense for business people. Mr. Gillen stated that the Board had heard about incentives that are 

given for 1 year at a time while a company is working on a 5-year project, for example. Longer-term 

incentives are needed to allow better financial planning and management for these projects. 

Ms. MacDougall commented that wind projects are longer term. Small-scale solar projects take months

rather than years, but when the return on investment is examined, the benefit from a long-term incentive 

is important. Ms. Bicker added that this is critical from a private-sector perspective because certainty is 

valued. 

Mr. Robert Apodaca (U.S. Department of Agriculture), GNEB member, commented that he had not heard 

much about the transmission or the distribution capacities with respect to renewable energies. 

Ms. MacDougall said she could take ask her technical team to develop a response. Ms. Aguillon noted 

that distributed generation works to reduce transmission and distribution issues.
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 13

Dr. Reed asked if IES receives its products from different manufacturers. Ms. MacDougall said that IES 

had preferences based on size, location, and footprint. 

Mr. Gutierrez stated that California faces a serious constraint on its transmission and distribution systems. 

Several studies have been conducted by the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, and those reports 

are available on the CEC website. 

Public Comments

Maria Elena Giner

Ms. Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), stated 

that the BECC was created because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and has 

certified 184 projects to date, which total $4.2 billion. About 65 percent of that work has been in the water 

and wastewater areas. Because of these projects, BECC has developed a certain amount of credibility 

among state and local governments. BECC now is working on two documents that could be useful for the 

next GNEB report. The first one concerns a project on climate change with the six Mexican border states. 

In October, GHG inventories for these states were published, and the inventories demonstrate that 

between 70 and 80 percent of the emissions are coming from fossil fuels. More than 30 percent are 

coming from residential/commercial/industrial emissions, and between 20 and 50 percent are coming 

from the transportation sector. Mexico has a clear federal policy on climate change and has published a

document that sets clear goals for the Mexican Federal Government. Currently, Mexico’s goal is, by the 

end of 2012, to have climate action plans for all the states in Mexico. They will identify where the GHGs 

are and if they are coming from the energy sector. Mexican states will be moving forward on renewable 

energy, energy efficiencies, efficient public transportation, and landfill and methane capture. It would be 

helpful for GNEB’s recommendations to support some of these initiatives. 

BECC also is publishing a white paper to demonstrate the importance of providing technical assistance 

funds to stakeholders for the development of projects. Companies come to BECC stating that they have 

technologies to improve energy efficiency or tools for public planning, but states and communities do not 

have the capacity or resources to evaluate what would be best for their state or community. The paper 

describes the U.S.-Mexico border region and the limited amount of funding available for technical 

assistance. Ms. Giner stated that once a project is developed there are many who want it funded, but 

securing funding for development is difficult. BECC provides about $40 million of technical assistance, 

and 90 percent of that funding has evolved into built projects. The paper emphasizes the success BECC 

has had with its technical assistance program, and cites existing documents that describe green jobs. It is 

estimated that for every $1 million invested in energy efficiency projects, about 13 jobs are generated. A 

study in California that examined the 34-year period from 1972 to 2006, found that 1.5 million full-time 

equivalent jobs were generated with the energy efficiency savings realized during that period. 

In the renewable energy area, the biggest job generating opportunities are in solar energy and landfill gas. 

Landfill gas, when captured, generates more permanent jobs than the other sectors because of the 

associated operation and maintenance. The study also conducted a survey of the 10 border states to 

identify their important issues, and energy efficiency keeps rising to the top. Ms. Giner stressed noted that 

conservation should be performed before projects are built. In most communities, the two largest energy 

consumers are the water utilities and public lighting. These are two applications on which cities can work 

to reduce their energy consumption. If a city that had 1.3 million streetlights were to replace old lighting 

with LED technology, this would be the equivalent of removing 150,000 vehicles. The study also noted 

that energy efficiency will require the lowest investment and provide the highest return. 

BECC conducted a study on climate change in conjunction with Arizona State University (ASU) to 

identify issues important to the states. The need for capacity building was mentioned consistently by the 

states. Ms. Giner stated that communities are not able to develop projects, but private-sector entities may 

be developing projects that could help those communities. She suggested that BECC may be able to 
14 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

provide information to GNEB that might support the different sections of the Board’s report. If the Board 

can share the report outline with BECC, she will look for and provide that information. 

Dr. Pohlman asked Ms. Giner if she wanted GNEB to emphasize the synergy between energy efficiency 

and renewable energy. Ms. Giner confirmed that this was correct, and that technical assistance was the 

other important message. In addition, conservation should be the first approach. 

Mr. Small stated that the Board had heard about the concerns and problems associated with the largescale remotely sited renewable energy projects. Does BECC share those concerns? He thought there could 

be synergy between BECC and GNEB to highlight in more detail some of the potential problems with 

large scale installations. Ms. Giner replied that, with the possible exception of California, she did not see 

many large renewable energy projects going forward in the United States because they are financially 

driven and there is too much price uncertainty. The federal incentives will be expiring in 2012. In Mexico, 

there is one energy provider, and the power purchase agreement is not competitively priced as it would be 

in the United States. Additionally, in Mexico, the ability for a power generator to use the transmission 

lines is not well developed, so the timeline is long. No private developer wants to take on those risks. The 

wind energy project in Baja California was driven by the Federal Government and the state. BECC is 

working on a solar project now in Nogales with EPA funding, and that project is grant and community 

driven. 

Mr. Angel agreed with Ms. Giner that conservation and efficiency were important. He thought the Board 

should bear that in mind when developing its recommendations. 

Ms. Ann Marie Wolf (Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.), GNEB member, thanked 

Ms. Giner and commented that the report was lacking a section on efficiency and conservation. 

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva (Department of Transportation), GNEB member, asked if the GHG inventories would 

be available on BECC’s website. Are the inventories geographically based, or industry-based. Ms. Giner 

replied that the GHG inventories were available on the BECC website in both Spanish and English, and 

they were conducted at the state level. One of the handouts Ms. Giner distributed contains a graph that 

compares the inventories. They are tier one inventories, which are based on fuel consumption in the 

states. 

Crystal Crawford

Ms. Crystal Crawford, a resident of Del Mar, California, served on the city council there for 12 years and 

just retired last December. She also was the city’s representative on the San Diego Association of 

Governments (SANDAG) and the region’s representative on the California Biodiversity Council. She 

became involved in cross-border issues in 1999. She was raised in the bayou area of Louisiana, which is 

swampland. She noted the interest in sustainable practices, and stressed the point that mistakes should not 

be repeated. In the 1930s, California passed the Swampland Reclamation Act, which stated that 

swampland should be filled so that it can be used for something productive. Now that 90 percent of the 

coastal wetlands in California have been filled or impinged, we have learned that the wetlands are some 

of the most valuable habitats. She stressed that the location of wind, solar, and other renewable energy 

projects should be determined based on a thorough examination of unintended consequences to the 

environment. California is a biodiversity hotspot; there are more threatened and endangered species in the 

San Diego/Imperial County/Northern Baja California region than in any other place in the United States. 

Critical habitat areas intersect with wind, solar, and geothermal projects. From the comments heard today, 

it seems as though there are real concerns about the size of these projects, and their impacts on this critical 

habitat. The goal would be to avoid the problems experienced with the Sunrise Powerlink project and the 

potential problems with locating a transmission line in these desert areas. The desert habitat is as 

important in this part of the country as the wetland areas are in Louisiana. 

GNEB is familiar with the cross-border challenges in coordinating with the various agencies involved in 

both countries. Regulatory hurdles also exist in coordinating all the energy policy agencies. The city of 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 15

Del Mar wanted to install photovoltaic cells on top of the water reservoirs, but that energy cannot be 

willed to other buildings because of the current regulatory climate. There have been efforts to change this 

but that change has not occurred yet. Although the United States may not be in a position to have a 

national energy policy, the government needs to lead by providing the policy, incentives, and standards 

that will drive the response in the marketplace. The Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) residential 

financing program has not been successful for a number of reasons. Financing mechanisms need to have 

incentives for tenants so that landlords will be incentivized to create efficiencies in their buildings. Many 

of the existing programs focus only on owners. 

Dr. Austin commented that she has seen pictures that show oil rigs right in front of people’s homes during 

the period of rapid growth of the oil industry in California and noted the similarities to the photos the 

Board had seen of wind installations located right near people’s homes.

Micah Mitrosky

Ms. Mitrosky stated that she is the environmental organizer with the International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 569 representing San Diego and Imperial counties. IBEW represents 

750,000 electricians throughout the United States and Canada, and locally represents 2,500. Local 569 has 

been a pioneer in the use of green technologies and believes that the green economy holds exceptional 

potential to create skilled career opportunities as well as combat climate change. Local 569’s 

apprenticeship program includes skills needed for solar, wind, and geothermal projects as well as energy 

efficiency retrofits. Additionally, the union hall and training center are both solar powered and energy 

efficient, many staff members drive hybrid vehicles, and the installation of an electric vehicle charging 

station is being finalized at the training center. Local 569 recently opened the only state-certified 

electrical training facility. Unemployment in Imperial County is 28 percent, which is the highest in the 

country. With responsible green energy project siting that includes appropriate environmental review, the 

green economy can be both economically and environmentally sustainable. Unfortunately, the Sempra 

Energy proposal jeopardizes Imperial County’s green future. Sempra has proposed to build a 1,250 MW 

cross-border transmission line. The proposal currently is being evaluated by DOE, which would be 

responsible for issuing a Presidential permit for the project to move forward. The transmission line will 

allow Sempra to connect energy projects over the border with California’s grid. This would displace 

green energy projects that would otherwise be built in Imperial County. Sempra’s proposal would 

undermine several goals of President Obama’s Administration, specifically facilitation of the export of 

American jobs, increased dependency on imported energy, and deliverance of energy to California from 

projects not meeting our stringent environmental and labor standards. The electricians’ union in Mexico 

was dismantled about 1 year ago, and the Mexican electricians are rallying to get it reinstated. Imperial 

County cannot afford to outsource even one construction job. IBEW opposes Sempra’s cross-border 

transmission line, and is urging DOE to reject this plan to export green jobs out of Imperial County. She 

asked GNEB to share this information with legislators and other decision makers in Washington, DC. 

Mr. Olmedo commented that projects like Sempra’s transmission line seem to follow a long history of 

industry-led projects. GNEB can weigh in on these projects and ensure that there is a balanced evaluation 

process. 

Dr. Henkel noted that Ms. Mitrosky’s presentation reinforced what the GNEB members saw during the 

site visit yesterday. He appreciated her mentioning the lack of a union for the Mexican electricians, and 

noted that the union movement in Mexico has changed considerably since 1920. Ms. Mitrosky responded 

that the electricians in Mexico must continue fighting to reinstate their union because corporations are 

exploiting the differences in environmental and labor laws over the border. IBEW has been in contact 

with representatives from the Mexican electricians’ union. The California State Association of Electrical 

Workers passed a resolution opposing the cross-border line as well as the efforts in Mexico to dismantle 

the Mexican union. More information is available on the IBEW website at http://www.ibew569.org/. 
16 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Dr. Austin thanked Ms. Mitrosky for her comments and the previous day’s tour. She then asked the 

Committee Chairs to meet with her during the break to discuss how to manage the session on the GNEB 

report. 

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

Region

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

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

Mr. McAllister commented that he had a great deal of experience with energy efficiency and small-scale 

renewables, particularly solar. CCSE runs many of the programs in the southern part of the state that 

address those technologies. This presentation will examine larger scale projects, and policy issues around 

these and cross-border renewable energy development. CCSE does a lot of work at the statewide level, 

and work for many government agencies administering their programs. CCSE also provides technical 

assistance to both the public and private sectors. 

Mr. McAllister noted that small-scale systems with less than 1 MW typically are installed under net 

energy metering, which is a policy driver. Approximately 20 states currently have net energy metering 

laws. Onsite energy is offset if some excess is to be sold to the utility, but it is a retail offset. It is cost 

effective, because people can offset expensive energy by generating solar on their roofs for less than it

would cost to buy the same energy from the utility. This market is growing, but net energy metering 

systems are not automatically eligible for California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). There is 

exponential growth of small installations across the State of California. About 65 percent of the Nation’s 

small-scale PV systems are installed in California. CCSE developed a tool to help people estimate the size 

and cost of their systems. 

A second policy driver is the California RPS, which will drive the bulk of the new renewables. The RPS 

program required investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators 

to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1 percent of their retail sales 

annually, until they reach 20 percent by 2010. There are various pathways for systems to be installed and 

credited toward the RPS. Currently in California, 20 percent of the retail energy sellers must procure 20

percent renewable energy by 2010. Not all of the utilities met the goal, but the rules allow them to keep 

moving until they do. A ruling by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in January 2011, 

allowed 25 percent of the RPS compliance to be met with purchased renewable energy certificates 

(RECs). The utility procurements for RPS-eligible renewables are prioritized and negotiated. Many 

contracts are signed, and some projects are under development. Barriers may prevent some of the 

contracts from becoming actual projects. These projects would get the level of renewable energy to 33 

percent RPS. Over time, the marketplace has matured, and many bids are being placed. Wind and solar 

are the dominant technologies. Within solar, PV has taken center stage during the past few years. At the 

same time, a law has been passed to make 33 percent of energy from renewables the law by 2020. It will 

become law 90 days after the close of the current special session of the California legislature. This will 

require a lot of work by the CPUC because it conflicts in some ways with the existing law, particularly in 

the definition of “delivering energy,” and the treatment of existing REC contracts. There is a question as 

to whether there might be opportunities to develop solar and wind energy across the border in Mexico and 

sell RECs to the California market. It is unclear whether the utilities would be required to buy those 

RECs. As soon as the 33 percent RPS law passed, there was talk about getting to a 40 percent RPS, and 

Governor Brown is interested, as are some legislators. In 2012, there may be a push for a law to reach 40 

percent RPS. 

There are a wide variety of programs that are “in front of the meter” and they sell their energy to the 

utilities directly, making them RPS eligible. These include: a feed-in tariff with distributed generation up 

to 5 MW with a 750 MW statewide cap; all three electric utilities in the state have gotten their programs 

approved for procuring systems hardware or power that would be RPS eligible; the Renewables Auction 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 17

Mechanism (RAM) for larger systems up to 20 MW per project; contracts for qualifying facilities in 20 

MW blocks; and Governor Brown’s 20 GW renewables goal, 12 of which are distributed. 

Barriers to bringing RPS-eligible projects to fruition include the high rate of project termination or delay 

because of permitting (CEC and/or county), site control (e.g., federal lands), project financing, equipment 

supply and procurement, transmission limitations for some projects, developer experience, fuel supply, 

and contracting enforcement. The last four issues are particularly relevant for binational projects. 

Discussion

Dr. Henkel asked if there were any parallel organizations on the other side of the border with which 

CCSE could work. Mr. McAllister answered that in Mexico, most of his experience had been with 

industrial facilities trying to create energy efficiencies. The environment in Mexico is not as structured or 

as well regulated. Because there is a state-owned utility, CCSE must work with those institutional entities 

to get alignment. The big question is what the enforcement looks like in practice. CCSE does not have 

any statutory authority; it informs the energy commission and the public utilities commission of what the 

marketplace needs. There is a community in Mexico that is knowledgeable about this topic, and efforts 

should start there. 

Mr. Greg Eckert (Department of the Interior), GNEB member, asked about the pricing structure for net 

metering. Mr. McAllister responded that net metering was not a sales transaction but an offset transaction, 

so it was not exactly retail. If a consumer had an energy bill of $200 per month and installed solar PV, the 

first and second tier utility rates would be low-cost energy. The next tiers are 3, 4, and 5, which are much 

more expensive. In tier 5, there could be 35 to 40 cents per kilowatt hour energy. If solar is installed on a 

net-metered basis, the consumer is offsetting his own consumption onsite, starting at tier 5. In California, 

until very recently, there has not been a requirement that a utility buy excess power; that will change with 

a new requirement that utilities compensate consumers for that energy, but it will only amount to a few 

cents per kilowatt hour. 

Dr. Reed asked about the current rule in California in terms of interstate RPS with some energy produced 

in California and some imported from other states, and about the current rule for importing from Mexico. 

Mr. McAllister replied that this has been a controversial topic, and there is a lot of gray area. As of 

January 2011, 75 percent of the RPS billable energy must be delivered energy. Whether or not it has to be 

from California depends on the definition of “delivery.” If it is just across the border in Mexico with a 

dedicated line, or if there is a clear contractual relationship from the plant, it would qualify as delivered. If 

it does not qualify as delivered, it would be reduced to the 25 percent that are REC purchases, which can 

originate anywhere. 

Ms. Aguillon noted that California is getting power from Nevada and Mexico because the energy has to 

go through the correct corridors to ensure that the power is actually coming into the state. Dr. Reed 

mentioned that he did not know how transmission works in California, and who pays for it. If a company 

wants to build a project in the desert, but there is no transmission line, does the developer or the company 

pay for the line? Mr. McAllister replied that the cost of transmission is rate-based and is generally 

included in the rates of the utilities. 

Mr. Drusina asked if there was an incentive for small businesses or for low income families to get the new 

solar power. Mr. McAllister said that California has a lot of policies, such as California Solar Initiative 

(CSI), that have managed to increase market penetration of small solar systems in general. In the case of 

CSI, there was a 10 percent set aside for lower income families. The amount of money involved is not 

large, so it does not go very far. In California, solar is largely a market-driven opportunity. In general,

lower income residents will not be offsetting expensive energy costs and will not see solar as costeffective. Financing and support tools are lacking for those customers who are in a marginal cost-effective 

area. Ms. Aguillon added that there is an opportunity for utilities to get involved. The leasing companies 

will not go to the low income areas because of a lack of creditworthiness, but the utility has excellent 
18 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

credit. The utility could produce a solar farm with several MWs near the substation and conduct virtual 

net metering for the renter of the multi-family low-income unit so that the net metering would be tied 

directly to that unit. Mr. McAllister added that community solar is something that has been implemented 

in Sacramento, so if renters want to contribute to the green economy they can opt to buy that power. For 

low-income individuals, another option is energy efficiency. CCSE’s message has always been that 

energy generation and conservation have to be combined at the customer level. If a solar contractor 

ignores energy efficiency, opportunities will be missed. Policies should be designed that make both 

happen at the local level. 

Renewable Energy Development: Imperial County, California

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

Mr. Horne said he would discuss utility-scale renewable energy generation, and a case study of policy 

issues relevant to the county and many other parts of the border region. Imperial County has the largest 

geothermal resource in the world, and development of this resource as well as wind and solar energy are 

proceeding rapidly. Imperial County refers to itself as the “Persian Gulf of Renewables.” 

Mr. McAllister covered the RPS regulations, but another law of interest that also has a renewable energy 

nexus is the California Global Warming Solution Act, which sets California GHG emission standards for 

the next 50 years. GHGs should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2025, and reduced 80 percent below 1990 

levels by 2050. If California is going to achieve those targets, projections show that 50 percent of all 

energy sources will have to be renewables. 

Imperial County covers about 3 million acres, half of which is federal land. There has been much 

speculation about the availability of federal land for renewable energy use. Some geothermal 

development in the eastern county is on federal land, but the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had 

difficulty in getting the permitting process perfected to allow new projects to move forward. A greater

amount of renewable development has been focused on some of the private land, primarily farm land, and 

that is one of the big issues for the county. Natural Resources Development (NRD) conducted several 

workshops because of this issue. About 540,000 acres of land in the county has been farmed, and is 

irrigated with water imported from the Colorado River; there are proposals for 12,000 acres of solar 

development on agricultural land. During the review of how to address the impact of solar development 

on agricultural land, the building of a solar farm on actively farmed land was addressed. If the farmer 

decided to plow the field or burn it, what impact would that have on the neighboring solar facility and 

how would that be addressed? NRD has been advising the solar installers that the farmers were there first, 

and the solar installations would have to adapt their maintenance programs to accommodate for that fact. 

This area has been primarily an agricultural community for the past 110 years, and that likely will not 

change, but the goal is to diversify the economic base while not unnecessarily affecting the existing 

farming operations. The California legislature granted the solar industry a large property tax incentive, 

i.e., not paying property tax on their solar panels, but there still will be demand on local services. The 

state needs to find a way to mitigate for those demands given that the tax revenues will not be as large as 

those from the geothermal industry, which is the largest property tax payer in the county. Currently, 18 

solar projects are in process in the county, totaling approximately 2,000 MW, and a $10 billion capital 

investment. 

Many projects are being sited near the geothermal plants because of the transmission resources located 

near there in the northern part of the county. In south Imperial County, large projects are being proposed, 

including a 2,000 acre project. This location is being selected because of its proximity to the Imperial 

Valley substation, which is where the Sunrise Powerlink will originate. There are 17 existing geothermal 

power plants creating 600 MW of baseload power, including 10 new projects in the permitting process 

that would produce another 55 MW. Two wind energy projects are in development, although wind is only 

a viable resource in select areas of the county.
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 19

Challenges to renewable development include transmission, financing, water issues including the Salton 

Sea levels, land use, labor issues, and environmental and cultural resources. The Sunrise Powerlink, now 

under construction, originates at the Imperial Valley substation to bring renewable power from Imperial 

County to the San Diego area. A number of wind projects are being proposed on the Mexican side that 

will come across the border and connect to the transmission grid. Imperial Irrigation is separate from the 

rest of California, and has its own transmission grid. It faces different challenges, and will be 

accommodating some of the new generation projects being developed. 

Discussion

Dr. Henkel asked about the existence of formal right-to-farm legislation, whether there had been a change 

during the past 10 years or so in farm employment, and the size of an average farm in the region. 

Mr. Horne responded that no right-to-farm legislation existed, but there was a right-to-farm ordinance in 

the county, primarily to deal with land use related to urban development. Geothermal energy installations 

coexist quite well with agriculture in the county, but the solar development is far more intensive from a 

land use standpoint. The farmers who have solar installation leases on their land are more open minded 

about converting their land. The county encouraged applicants for solar projects to look for land that was 

less productive. Produce crops are grown in Imperial County in the winter, and taking this cropland 

would cause job displacement; taking 1,000 acres of field crops out of production would eliminate five to 

seven agricultural jobs, and 1,000 acres of produce land could employ 500 people. In terms of farm size, 

the average field size is about 80 acres, and the average farm operation is approximately 1,000 acres. 

Dr. Reed asked why NRD did not ask local leaders where the corridors would be and attempt some land 

use planning. He also asked about the status of BLM contracts in the area. Mr. Horne replied that it was 

too late for NRD to get involved in the project development; it would cost approximately $2 million for 

the county to update its general plan to accommodate renewable energy development within the 

jurisdictions, and the county could not afford to do so. Regarding the second question, two large projects 

were proposed on BLM land; one faced a lawsuit from a tribe and a federal judge issued a restraining 

order prohibiting the project from going forward. BLM has continued to work on this without any 

resolution, and the developer has ceased funding that project. There have been other problems in the State 

of California; one project was stopped because of desert tortoise issues after it had been approved by CEC 

and BLM, but construction of that project has resumed. Some other projects have been halted because of 

cultural resource issues and federal lawsuits. 

Dr. Pohlman commented that the report needs to allow for some opportunity-cost model in which there is 

a tradeoff between using farm land for solar farms versus agricultural use. There is a need to assess the 

balance between the two. There is the opportunity cost lost if renewable energy installations are not 

placed in certain areas, but on the other hand, if 500 farming jobs are lost, contributing to the region’s 

already high unemployment.

Mr. Olmedo asked if there were any opportunities for projects with long-term job sustainability. 

Mr. Horne answered that there was a “mega region” concept in which San Diego County, Imperial 

County, and northern Baja California were considered a region for economic development. 

Manufacturing jobs in northern Baja California, for example, benefit the entire region. Until Imperial 

County reaches some critical mass of generation projects, there likely will not be interest in panel 

manufacturing activity, but this could occur with the projects in development. NRD has conducted some 

studies and all projects have to conduct an economic impact analysis. Jobs created must offset jobs lost, 

but there are significant other benefits from these projects that have been identified. One of the goals is to 

attract projects that create long-term jobs. The geothermal industry, for example, has many high-paying 

permanent jobs. Lithium can be mined in the area, and the dollar amount of the minerals extracted could 

exceed the power production. 

Mr. Starfield asked if it was relatively easy for the county to identify distressed land versus untouched 

land. Mr. Horne responded that crop history and water consumption records are available, but it is not a 
20 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

simple task. Some of the land that is being developed has not been farmed for 10 years or more, so this is 

a net benefit, because the land is unproductive. Soil types and natural drainage that constitute the profile 

of the farm land are not easily quantified. Mr. Starfield commented that solar farms take up a lot of land, 

and asked if the county ever takes the revenues from the facilities and feeds it back into the community? 

Are there any connections between the community and the projects besides jobs? Mr. Horne said that he 

did not want to downplay the revenues to the county, but there was no organized program that required 

that a certain amount of energy be given to the community at reduced rates. Unemployment in Imperial 

County is about 30 percent, so 1,000 jobs could be created if all the potential projects are built. 

Geothermal jobs are well paid and stable, so the benefits to the community in terms of job creation are 

significant. 

Update on Cross-Border Electricity Task Force and Other Issues

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

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

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

Ms. Georgina Scarlata (Department of State), noted that she was giving the presentation on behalf of Ms. 

Rachel Poynter, Border Coordinator at the U.S. Department of State, who could not be at the meeting. If 

Ms. Scarlata could not answer a question, she would follow up with Ms. Poynter to obtain the answer. 

Mr. Lawrence commented that he was attending the meeting on behalf of Mr. Gilbert Bindewald, GNEB 

member. In DOE, the office that coordinates the work under the bilateral framework is the Office of 

Policy and International Affairs. He could refer members to the correct party if he could not answer 

questions directly. 

Ms. Scarlata stated that Presidents Obama and Calderon announced the U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Framework 

on Clean Energy and Climate Change during President Obama’s April 2009 visit to Mexico. This 

initiative garnered much buy-in from the Mexican government because President Calderon had previously 

served as energy secretary. The two leaders agreed on the importance of promoting clean energy and 

combating climate change, and the Bilateral Framework establishes a mechanism for facilitating common 

efforts to develop clean energy economies, including through political and technical cooperation and 

information exchange. The two Presidents also announced the Cross-Border Electricity Task Force during 

President Calderon’s May 2010 State Visit to Washington, DC. The task force falls under the auspices of 

the Bilateral Framework. 

Objectives of the Bilateral Framework include information sharing and capacity building on clean energy 

and energy efficiency technologies and modernization of electricity grids with the goal of development of 

domestic as well as cross-border renewable energy generation. Two additional benefits of the Framework 

are: (1) the vibrant dialogue and collaboration with the Mexican government on this issue, illustrating the 

breadth and depth of our bilateral relationship, beyond just cooperation on security issues, and (2) the 

opportunity for Mexico to better understand the difference in powers and authorities between the U.S. 

federal government and state governments, as U.S. states often hold more power than their Mexican 

counterparts in setting policy on renewable energy generation and regulation. U.S. federal efforts often 

are slower and more complicated because the states have a direct role in this initiative.

The U.S. Department of State hosted the first meeting of the Bilateral Framework in Washington, DC, on 

January 26, 2010. The meeting, co-chaired on the U.S. side by the Departments of Energy and State, set 

an agenda for collaboration on bilateral and multilateral initiatives. The group of senior leaders agreed to 

enhance cooperation on renewable energy technologies, smart grid implementation, carbon capture and 

sequestration, and GHG inventories and adaptation measures.

Mr. Lawrence noted that the second bilateral meeting was held in Mexico City at the Ministry of Foreign 

Affairs on May 18, 2011. This second meeting provided an overview of areas where Mexico and the 

United States are already cooperating and highlighted future areas for collaboration. Both sides agreed on 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 21

the importance of widening and deepening existing cooperative arrangements and seeking potential new 

opportunities for collaboration. Ms. Scarlata added that the importance of the Bilateral Framework is that 

many agencies already were working with their Mexican counterparts on a variety of levels, but the 

framework offers a bilateral forum in which all these efforts can be coordinated and highlighted by senior 

leadership. 

Ms. Scarlata pointed out key areas of cooperation under the Framework. These include extensive 

cooperation between EPA and its Mexican counterpart SEMARNET (the Secretariat of Environmental 

and Natural Resources) in the development of Mexico’s Transporte Limpio program. This program is 

based on EPA’s Smart Way program and identifies products and services that reduce transportationrelated emissions. It represents an excellent example of capacity building under the Framework, as it 

began as a training exercise for SEMARNAT and has developed into a fully functioning program through 

the cooperation with EPA. Transporte Limpio is seeking to harmonize its program with the U.S. and 

Canadian programs. Other areas of cooperation include: the U.S. support to Mexico for refining and 

implementing its low-emissions development strategy (LEDS); implementation of pilot projects to reduce 

emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD); cooperation in working toward a successful 

outcome at the 17th Conference of the Parties meeting on Climate Change (COP-17), that will move 

forward on the actions agreed to at last year’s Cancun climate conference; coordination of minimum 

appliance standards and discussion of Mexican appliance labeling efforts similar to U.S. programs such as 

Energy Star; cooperation on energy efficiency in the hemisphere under the Energy and Climate 

Partnership of the Americas, and globally with the Major Economies through the Clean Energy 

Ministerial process; analysis of electricity system maturity and identification of strategies to implement 

Smart Grid technologies; and advancement in the promotion of regional renewable energy markets 

between the two countries through the Cross-Border Electricity Task Force. 

Mr. Lawrence stated that the Cross Border Electricity Task Force’s goal is to promote regional renewable 

energy markets between the two countries. During May 2011 meetings between DOE and the Secretaría 

de Energía de Mexico (SENER), next steps to organize, select members, and manage the activities of the 

Task Force Steering Committee and Working Groups were discussed. Key areas of cooperation of the 

Task Force include wind energy, including the just-concluded MOU between DOE’s National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory and Mexico’s Electricity Research Institute (IIE), and the development of a North 

American Carbon Storage Atlas of carbon sources and sinks, with Canada, to be delivered in 2012.

Ms. Grijalva noted that she worked on the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee (JWC), which is 

attempting to find an emissions reductions strategy for border crossings. Mexico is interested in modeling 

the border crossings, and the JWC is trying to figure out how to provide training on the new EPA model, 

and how to pay for this training. Ms. Scarlata noted that the proposal sounded interesting, and 

recognizing that resources were limited, commented that she could not say if the United States Agency 

for International Development (USAID) had money available, but could ask. 

Dr. Henkel asked if there was a parallel or supportive set of connections with environmental planning and 

environmental impact assessment. Mr. Lawrence inquired if Dr. Henkel was asking in the context of the 

Cross-Border Electricity Task Force, and if so, during the forum there was some discussion of comparing 

the environmental regulations and determining how to respect both sets of laws when moving forward in 

the cross-border market. Regulatory and policy considerations regarding the environment are being taken 

into consideration. Federal agencies, when dealing with permitting issues, have to abide by the National 

Environmental Policy Act and any other legislative requirements. 

Ms. Aguillon commented that it was exciting to hear that U.S. agencies are working closely with IIE and 

Mexican agencies. She had been trying to encourage SENER and major parties to demand certified 

products in Mexico, because there are many low-grade products being resold. She asked SENER to 

consider adopting the CEC requirements to identify quality products. Additionally, there is no 

certification required to install solar panels. She asked for any help that Ms. Scarlata and Mr. Lawrence 
22 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

could give, and noted that the Secretary of SENER said he was working on the issues. Ms. Scarlata 

answered that standardization and the use of quality products are issues that have been raised in the 

bilateral meetings. The Mexican government is working to learn how the United States ensures that only 

high quality products are produced and used. Noting that the current Mexican administration is only in 

office for another 18 months, Ms. Aguillon asked what will happen with renewable energy after the 

administration change. Ms. Scarlata replied that an election would be conducted in Mexico next year, but 

it remained to be seen what would happen with these issues. Because everyone is facing budget cuts, it is 

worthwhile to do as much work as possible now before an Administration change. 

Dr. Reed noted that GNEB had heard a multitude of perspectives on cross-border transmission and 

viewing the border as a potential resource for renewables. Has the task force identified a goal or definitive 

needs for cross-border transmission? Mr. Lawrence responded that those issues were discussed at the 

Cross-Border Electricity Forum, and the forum report is available to the public on the Institute of 

America’s website (http://www.iamericas.org). The two Presidents wanted the two countries to cooperate 

on transmission, technology development, and technology sharing. These issues are raised in both the 

market and policy sections of the forum report. 

Statement from the Secretary of Agriculture

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

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

renewable energy industry: 

“The Administration supports efforts currently underway in the Senate to reform and modernize 

tax incentives and other programs that support biofuels. However, today’s amendments are not 

reforms and are ill advised. They could lead to job loss and pull the rug out from under industry, 

which will lead to less choice for consumers and greater dependence on foreign oil. We need 

reforms and a smarter biofuels program, but simply cutting off support for the industry isn’t the 

right approach. Therefore, we oppose a straight repeal of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax 

Credit (VEETC) and efforts to block biofuels infrastructure programs.” 

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

Destination: Transmission/Emission Transition

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

Mr. Van Schoik stated that on behalf of the member universities of the North American Consortium for 

Transborder Studies (NACTS), he thanked GNEB as an important voice for the research conducted by 

academics. He learned much by attending the GNEB meeting. He also serves as the Arizona 

representative for the Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research Policy, and in that role has been 

concerned about these issues for 15 years. With NACTS, he works for USAID on a number of issues with 

subnational actors such as border governors and legislators, mayors, and attorneys general on issues such 

as waste tires. Arizona State University has the largest solar test facility in the world, and a large algae 

development and test facility. 

The transmission/emission transition is worth the effort because it not only changes the emissions 

inventory for the border region, but also affects cooperation between the two countries. NACTS has been 

asked to analyze the effort to transition to renewable energy, especially in the transboundary venue, to 

determine if it is worth the investment. Many people are thinking about this issue. Among the public, 

there is both the realization that climate change is real, and a willingness to pay for renewable energy. If 

renewable energy development is allowed to progress naturally, there will be some, but it will be the 

model of the past and it will be slow. A blueprint for moving forward on renewables is necessary. By 

2050, it will be possible for one-half of the energy portfolio for the border region, the United States, and 

perhaps the world to be renewables. The vision NACTS is considering is 10 GW of new renewable 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 23

energy in the border region, 1 GW being exchanges between the two countries at about a dozen 

interconnects. There are nine interconnects now, and that number should be doubled. About 100,000 new 

jobs could be created during the next 30 years, so by 2050, one out of every 200 jobs might be related to 

renewable energy. A large number of actions by various authorities, and products, projects, policies, and 

processes are necessary to move to this vision of 40 years from now. What do the actors need to do, and 

what is their authority? The roles, relationships, and responsibilities among the actors are very important, 

as are the resources that each of them brings to the table. 

The relevant actors can begin to move forward on the different products and projects, such as wind, solar, 

and biomass projects; a methane project at a confined animal feeding operation; and the infrastructure to 

connect all of those as well as the involvement of both the public and private sectors. The Energy Policy 

Act enables regional transmission siting authority. The border is a prime place for a renewable regional 

transboundary transmission siting authority. Finally, the drayage fleet is ideal for using renewable fuels 

because it is a highly polluting fleet of vehicles. A recent study identified 50,000 miles of new 

transmission costing nearly $1 trillion in the United States alone. NACTS identified that 500-1,500 miles 

will be in the border region. How can the footprint of this new transmission be minimized? How can the 

relevant actors collocate projects, or imagine renewable energy clusters? How can the five mega cities of 

the border region be served? It has been suggested many times that brownfields are excellent 

development spots. Collocation of projects as well as transmission can be accomplished on the farms and 

factories and also along the canals and power lines to make renewable energy clusters. TEIAs are critical 

for the projects to move forward, and there is a role for the Federal Government as well as the state 

governments. 

Discussion

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

Mr. Ruiz noted that the Governor of New Mexico had signed the letter on behalf of the 10 state Border 

Governors Conference Environmental Worktable and it was ready to be sent the next day.

Discussion of the 14th GNEB Report

Dr. Austin informed GNEB members that the Board would break into committees and review the initial 

charge and the progress that was made, identify what remains to be done, and determine if there are gaps 

that need to be addressed. The committee chairs then will give a brief overview of the discussions, and the 

Board as a whole will identify gaps and either begin the conversation on recommendations or determine if 

there are some areas that will not be covered because a consensus cannot be reached. The committees will 

meet for 30 minutes. Members who have not yet served on a committee should join one. The Board broke 

up into committees. 

Upon return to the plenary session, Dr. Austin asked each of the chairs to inform the Board of the steps 

the committee is taking and the gaps identified. 

Mr. Niemeyer, Chair of the Background Chapter Committee, noted that the group realized that some of 

the topics listed in the outline were not addressed, including energy security, tribal issues, and the role of 

the private sector. Mr. Evaristo Cruz (Ysleta del Sur Pueblo), GNEB member, will draft some text on 

tribal issues. Mr. Luis Ramirez Thomas (Ramirez Advisors Inter-National), GNEB member, can perhaps 

draft text on the role of the private sector. Ms. Scarlata will add a few lines to the section on framework to 

discuss the financing market in Mexico, which is different from that in the United States. Information on 

how to work with tribes is missing. The committee plans to fact-check some of the information from 

Ms. Tisdale’s presentation, because a very different perspective was heard from Mr. Horne. The 

committee will eliminate some issues, such as the Mexican framework, and will add a table that shows “at 

a glance” who does what in the United States and Mexico. For example, are nuclear power plants 

permitted by the county or the State of California? Water must be discussed, and energy efficiency should 
24 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

be included in the report. The no action alternative will be rephrased, because whether or not anything is 

done, something will happen with renewable energy. There should be a discussion of who is making the 

decisions, which perhaps could be a case study or sidebar. There will be a table discussing enforcement 

and permitting. Additionally, the state sections are diverse, and cover some of the same topics, so it can 

be noted that the states have some similarities and some differences, which can be summarized. 

Ms. Donna Wieting (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), GNEB member, commented 

that the research and data needs to support decisions and management should be addressed. Dr. Austin 

added that she hoped the latter was a recommendation for the whole report. Mr. Lawrence mentioned that 

the North American Energy Working Group, which includes Canada, the United States, and Mexico, 

developed a table that contained the regulatory frameworks for all three countries. It could be somewhat 

out of date, but about 85 percent of the information could be used. Additionally, with regard to tribal 

efforts, DOE has a tribal energy office and a larger Indian Affairs office. A tribal energy summit was held 

several weeks ago, and reports from this summit could be useful in preparing that section. 

Dr. Pohlman, Chair of the Renewable Energy Committee, reported that the group had organized 

members’ thoughts into five areas: hydroelectric, solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. The group 

wanted to compile a list of projects that are located along the border. The format will be based on the 

hydroelectric projects. A good start has been made on the chapter, and the committee will have help from 

an intern to pull some information together. Mr. Lawrence has volunteered to get some information from 

DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The group has agreed to a definition of the 

border, which is 60 miles or 100 kilometers on either side. The committee agreed that both current and 

future projects need to be mapped. There will be maps for each of the five areas of renewable energy 

showing where these projects are concentrated on the border and in the country as a whole. The 

committee also identified a need for geographic information systems (GIS) data behind the GIS maps so 

that the maps can be manipulated. Data already are available, and some will be downloaded from the 

Internet by the intern. Mr. Drusina added that biomass examples would be used in the text and the entire 

state of the states along the border will be used to discuss renewable energy rather than just the border 

strip. Dr. Pohlman commented that the committee was wrestling with using the border region only, but 

decided to include the entire states because the other option would eliminate major sources of electricity 

such as the Hoover Dam. 

Mr. Joyce noted that originally this chapter was supposed to include resource maps for solar, hydro, and 

geothermal; it sounds like this group is doing work that overlaps with the Economic Opportunities 

Committee. He explained that the chapter was supposed to document the potential resources. Is the group 

going to try to pinpoint current or planned projects? Dr. Austin commented that the committee initially 

planned to identify the projects as well as the resources to discuss the impacts. There should be 

coordination between this group and the Economic Opportunities Committee so that their efforts are 

complementary. Dr. Pohlman added that the NREL information was not as comprehensive as was 

thought. Some of the information that will come from DOE will be useful and will supplement this 

information. Mr. Angel commented that the information from NREL is on a state level, but they also have 

information on a county level, mainly focused on potential and not projects on the ground. Mr. Lawrence 

said it was important for the Board to be using the same geographic domain. It makes sense to examine 

whole counties even if they exceed the border area slightly, such as Pima County. For example, data on 

projects that had requested interconnection to the California ISO system would be available at a county 

level. Mr. Drusina added that the proposal was that every county that has any portion within the border 

region would be counted in its entirety. 

Mr. Joyce noted that the group was contemplating the development of a list of projects that have applied 

for permits, which is far different from detailed maps of potential for renewable energy along the border. 

Mr. Angel also understood that the group would be including maps showing the potential for renewables, 

with the exception of geothermal. NREL’s data is not user friendly on a county-by-county basis through 

the weblinks. There is sufficient information based on the output maps, however, that can be queried on 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 25

the county basis. Mr. Joyce added that there was a difference between listing planned projects and an 

assessment of the potential for other resources in the area. 

Ms. Aguillon, Chair of the Economic Opportunities Committee, mentioned that the group received 

excellent information from Drs. Reed and Henkel on distributed generation and utility scale. The group 

will focus on market opportunities, jobs, and economic impacts to the region. Utility prices are increasing 

for everyone, and environmental regulations are becoming tighter. The value of the public utilities is 

something that needs to be examined, as well as cross-border potential opportunities. Collocation of 

renewable technologies will be discussed. Construction, manufacturing, wholesale distribution, and 

services jobs availability will be examined. The group will discuss revenues to the region such as sales 

taxes, permit fees, and payroll taxes. Attracting investment also will be covered. Finally, the group 

discussed biofuels, and Mr. Small volunteered to write a section on opportunities in this area. Dr. Reed 

noted that he did include overall, by state, what resources are available and a list of some of the ones in 

the queue. It does not matter what chapter it goes in, but it must be included somewhere in the report. 

Mr. Joyce asked where the overall potential will be captured. Dr. Pohlman responded that the Renewable 

Energy Committee would do a map for the potential for each of the five areas. 

Mr. Lawrence asked if the Board could move to have the master list of all the counties that will be 

analyzed so everyone is on the same page. It was agreed that such a list could be distributed to the Board. 

Mr. Olmedo, Chair of the Impacts Committee, noted that the group had an aggressive timeline to bring 

together the different parts of the chapters including solar, biomass, geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, and 

transmission. Today’s presentations served as further examples of issues that might be included in the 

chapters. The committee thought the best next step would be to set up a schedule of meetings that will 

begin in 2 weeks. Within 2 weeks of this meeting, the committee members will take the time to review all 

the information that has been collected, which amounts to 30 pages or so. Once members familiarize 

themselves with the information and the impacts, they will be better able to analyze how to proceed. 

Many of the impacts are similar among the different technologies, and we need to go back and make 

further recommendations. By mid-July, members will have a more in depth treatment of the impacts. 

Dr. Austin asked if the group had identified any gaps in their chapters. Mr. Olmedo replied that gaps were 

not identified. 

Dr. Austin asked who would not be present at tomorrow’s meeting because she wanted to make sure they 

had a chance to speak. Mr. Drusina said that Ms. Sally Spener would be present to represent the IBWC. 

Dr. Pohlman noted that during the presentations, she developed five suggestions for the report. There are 

a lot of disparate efforts for renewable energy, and GNEB might recommend that there be a strategic plan 

or overarching master plan for renewable energy for the United States, and could recommend that they 

use the border as a pilot area. She also suggested that the opportunity/cost model be examined in the 

economic opportunities chapter, for example, weighing the opportunities and costs of the projects being 

considered and quantifying impacts to communities. Along with that, the group could examine the nexus 

with environmental justice. A suggestion for this group: the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is 

surveying federal renewable energy projects, but it is not known when the report will be released; perhaps 

EPA has some contacts at GAO that can be queried about the report. Mr. Joyce responded that if the 

report is on projects that the Federal Government is managing or implementing that is one case, but if it 

discusses any project that the Federal Government is involved in because of permitting or location on 

federal land, that is another case. Mr. Lawrence added that he had heard of the report, but was not 

involved with it. Dr. Pohlman responded that these are federally managed projects, and she agreed to send 

more information to the group. 

Mr. Olmedo informed the Board that Ms. Wolf will be leading the discussion on impacts during 

tomorrow’s session. The Impacts Committee will take the next step and create some recommendations as 

well. 
26 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Dr. Austin noted that Friday’s agenda included discussion of the next meeting dates, and GNEB has been 

requested to take up the issue of TEIAs. After that, the Board would continue to work on the report. 

Ms. Aguillon raised the issue of energy efficiency, and whether that would be a chapter. Also, solar 

thermal should be discussed, because it displaces natural gas or electricity. Dr. Reed suggested that 

Friday’s agenda include a discussion on how energy efficiency would be included in the report. He asked 

if the biofuels section would cover transportation as well as fuels used to make electricity. Mr. Joyce 

thought there would be discussion of conservation and energy efficiency in the background section. 

Mr. Niemeyer noted that these topics had never been in the outline for the background section, but it did 

not matter where it was included, as long as it was covered in the report. Dr. Reed recommended that the 

Board think about this issue overnight and come back tomorrow with lucid thoughts. Dr. Aguillon 

suggested that it be included in both the resources and economic impacts sections. 

Dr. Austin agreed that the report could not be released without including energy efficiency. The Board 

members should think about this as well as their own sections to prepare for tomorrow’s session. 

Mr. Lawrence commented that typically the word biofuels was used for transportation resources, and 

biomass was used for generation of electricity. Dr. Austin added that this could also be discussed the next 

day. 

Mr. Starfield commented that energy efficiency was not a specific charge but a recommendation that any 

project should have an energy efficiency component to it. He mentioned three things that he had not heard 

in the discussion. One item was the inclusion of substations and transmission lines on the map. Another 

point not mentioned was the advantages of locating facilities on land that has been mined, contaminated, 

or distressed, and the importance of a database of land evaluation. The last point was to discuss incentives 

and how those can play a role. Ms. Aguillon thought incentives should be addressed in the 

recommendations. Mr. Starfield responded that when market opportunities are discussed, policies that 

create those opportunities also must be discussed. He asked about the process for developing the 

recommendations. 

Dr. Austin stated that tomorrow’s discussion would start off with identifying any gaps in the sections, and 

determining where additional items, such as energy efficiency, belong in the report. The draft report 

includes the committee’s recommendations in the text. As the chapters evolve, they should set up the 

recommendations. 

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

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

Friday’s session.

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

preamble to the chapters. 

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

FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 2011

Discussion of Next Meeting and Other Business

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

additional audience members to introduce themselves. 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 27

Ms. Jones-Jackson thanked the GNEB members for their hard work conducted before and at this meeting. 

She noted that EPA took a sizeable budget cut for 2011 and 2012, and as a result, the two DFO positions 

previously open had been eliminated. Mr. Joyce would continue as the acting DFO for GNEB, while 

OFACMO prepares Ms. Ann-Marie Gantner (EPA, OFACMO) to become the DFO. Ms. Jones-Jackson 

expressed her appreciation of the Board’s patience in this matter. Additionally, GNEB does not have a 

permanent Chair; EPA has invited Dr. Austin, who is the Acting Chair, to serve as the Interim Chair, at 

least through the completion of this report. Dr. Austin accepted the position as interim chair. 

Ms. Wolf asked about the process for getting a permanent chair for the Board. May the Board recommend 

that Dr. Austin be selected as the permanent Chair instead of the Interim Chair? Mr. Joyce responded that 

OFACMO has been waiting to appoint a permanent chair until a permanent DFO is appointed, and 

because it will be some time before this occurs, things are in flux. OFACMO will look into getting 

approval to appoint an official Chair for GNEB. Dr. Austin asked that there be a conversation about all 

the responsibilities of the Chair. She noted that GNEB reconvened with many new members in March 

after a long hiatus. Because there is a report due in December, members have had to devote a lot of time 

to GNEB. Members have arranged meetings and tours and put together sections of the report, which is a 

great deal of work. The purpose of this Board is to make recommendations to the President and Congress 

on behalf of the border communities. It will take a great deal of work during the next several months to 

ensure that the Board is ready for the September meeting and that the report would be ready for release in 

December.

Mr. Niemeyer did not understand why appointing a Chair was related to the assignment of a permanent 

DFO. Chairs have been chosen because they could facilitate the discussions and build consensus among 

the members. He did not see the need to wait for a new DFO to appoint a permanent chair. He would like 

to make a recommendation that Dr. Austin be appointed the permanent Chair because she has done a 

good job of guiding the Board so far. Could the Board send a letter to the EPA Administrator making this 

recommendation? Mr. Joyce responded that the letter would not serve any purpose; OFACMO staff will 

follow up with Dr. Austin after the meeting. Ms. Jones-Jackson added that the Board’s recommendation 

would be strongly considered. 

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

Mr. Niemeyer noted that the Board could help get Dr. Austin appointed as Chair by making a 

recommendation to that effect. Ms. Jones-Jackson answered that she would take the recommendation 

under advisement. 

Mr. John Wood (Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority), GNEB member, mentioned that he had 

served on the Board for a long while and his term was ending in December. He believed Dr. Austin would 

make a good permanent Chair, and asked that OFACMO staff consider her for that position. 

December Meeting

Mr. Joyce suggested starting with the meeting in December. He has held discussions, along with 

Ms. Gantner, with the Wilson Center, which would be happy to host an event similar to the one last year, 

including a press conference, the second week in December. The meeting could be held on December 15-

16, Thursday and Friday, with the press event on the previous Wednesday, December 14, 2011. Mr. Joyce 

will follow up with the Wilson Center after this meeting. Mr. Starfield asked what the Board would do on 

Thursday and Friday if the final report is announced and released on Wednesday. Mr. Joyce responded 

that the Board would start to work on the next report. Dr. Austin commented that for academic members, 

those dates fall during the week of finals. Mr. Ruiz noted that he likely could attend. Ms. Aguillon stated 

that she had to attend a California Solar Energy Industry Association Board meeting on those dates. 

Ms. Sally Spener (IBWC), GNEB alternate member, noted that Mr. Drusina had a Colorado River Water 

Users Association meeting that week. Mr. Joyce said he thought the Wilson Center was only available the 
28 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

second week in December, and the report must be conveyed to the President by the end of December to 

meet the statutory requirements of the Board. 

Dr. Austin asked all GNEB members to notify Mr. Joyce of any conflicts with the December dates by 

Wednesday, June 22, 2011. If it appears that December 14-16, 2011 is a problem for too many members, 

Mr. Joyce will determine if it would be possible to hold the press conference on the afternoon of Monday 

December 12, so that members could fly in that morning. Alternatively, Dr. Austin suggested that the 

Board could meet on Monday and the press conference could be held on Tuesday, December 13. 

Mr. Niemeyer commented that past press conferences have been held in the morning; typically, reporters 

have an afternoon deadline, so the earlier it can be held in the day, the better. He thought MondayTuesday would work better than Wednesday-Friday, and noted that previous press coverage of report 

releases had been poor. There was good coverage, however, when the dean of the Spanish language press 

corps attended in Washington and there was discussion of the border fence. Dr. Reed asked if Board 

members could, once the report was released, attempt their own press strategies. Mr. Joyce stated that 

such action would be encouraged. The hope is that all Board members will use their individual networks 

and professional organizations to publicize and disseminate the report. Mr. Lawrence commented that 

energy issues have received a lot of coverage in Washington, DC; he thought DOE’s public affairs office 

might be helpful in publicizing the report. 

Mr. Joyce noted that he and Ms. Gantner would follow up with the Wilson Center to see if they have any 

flexibility. Dr. Austin asked if anyone had conflicts the week of December 5, 2011. Dr. Henkel said he 

had a conflict December 6-8, 2011. Dr. Austin noted that the beginning of the first or second week of 

December might work better than the latter part of those weeks. 

Mr. Lawrence asked if the meeting had to be held at the Wilson Center, and if so, if the Center was only 

needed for the press conference. DOE has a great deal of conference space, and it would not cost EPA 

anything to use the space, but attendees would have to clear security. He could check the availability of 

conference space for those weeks in December. Mr. Joyce responded that the meeting did not have to be 

held at the Wilson Center, but the Center has an extensive Mexico program and will help conduct 

outreach for their event. As far as the meeting space goes, EPA is looking for every means possible to 

save money. Because the GNEB meetings must be open to the public, the meeting space must be easily 

accessible and in a safe area. EPA has an excellent conference facility in Crystal City, but it is constantly 

booked. He thanked Mr. Lawrence for the offer of DOE space. 

Mr. Wood commented that members on the West Coast may not be able to fly in the day of the press 

conference if it is held in the morning. Ms. Jones-Jackson replied that OFACMO took that into 

consideration. In the event that the Board is meeting on a Monday, she will authorize members from the 

West Coast to fly in on Sunday. Mr. Joyce commented that hotel stays, however, would be held to two

nights because of the budget situation. 

Dr. Austin mentioned that some of the members are willing to share rooms and asked if this was a 

possibility. Mr. Joyce stated that there might be liability issues associated with sharing rooms. 

Mr. Niemeyer noted that he often had to work late in the hotel room after meetings, so sharing a room 

would not be reasonable. He had attended two meetings in Washington at which the GNEB report was 

unveiled in federal buildings. Because of security measures, it was difficult for the press to attend, and the 

same is true of the Wilson Center, which is inside the Ronald Reagan Building. Reporters would not need 

to go through security lines if the press conference was held at a hotel. 

Dr. Austin commented that there are levels of accessibility. To get into the US Grant hotel, the public 

does not have to pass through security, but many border residents would not feel comfortable coming into 

such a luxurious hotel. 

September Meeting
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 29

Mr. Joyce commented that Mr. Small and others had created a preliminary list of thoughts on the Las 

Cruces meeting. If members fly into El Paso, there must be a way to transport them to Las Cruces. In the 

past, transportation was arranged in shifts. The field trips and site visits are not part of the meeting, but 

are an extra if people have time to accommodate them. The EPA El Paso border office may be able to 

help with transportation. If members have ideas about transportation, they should share them. 

Ms. Grijalva noted that there was a shuttle service that goes to Las Cruces from El Paso. Mr. Joyce said 

that the idea was to stop for the site visits and field trips on the way from the airport. Ms. Grijalva asked 

why members could not be picked up at the hotel. Mr. Small stated that shuttles could be reserved for 

most of the day, and there are other transportation options that can be explored. In the sample field trip 

itinerary, there is a cluster between IBWC and a number of the biofuels sites, Sapphire Energy, and solar 

installations. These are all 15 minutes to an hour away from the El Paso Airport. Members’ schedules will 

have to be coordinated to try to get everyone to arrive at the airport around the same time, or more likely 

in two shifts for those interested in participating in the field trips. The field trip locations will be in the 

Las Cruces city limits. Ms. Grijalva thought it would be better to pick members up at the hotel. Mr. Joyce 

said this would mean transporting everyone twice. OFACMO wants to minimize the cost in terms of cabs 

and rental cars. Mr. Small added that because many of the field trip options are near the freeway that 

members would take from El Paso, it would be best to pick members up at the airport. The organizing 

committee would have boxed lunches available. The members then would go through the tour and be 

transported to the hotel once the tour is completed. 

Dr. Austin pointed out that the field trip sites should be selected based on what the Board can learn from 

the tour. Mr. Small noted that the IBWC, because of the work conducted on the levees, would be a good 

tour for the field trip. Within a one-half mile cluster, there are three sites available to tour: a 100 kW 

commercial installation of solar PV, the research and development facility for Sapphire Energy, and 

undeveloped BLM land with two solar environmental impact statement (EIS) zones that have been 

prioritized. He suggested that BLM staff could be present to talk about the solar proposals. 

Mr. Lawrence suggested a visit to New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. Mr. Small replied that the 

university is very close to the hotels where the members would be staying. The solar installation on the 

convention center also will be functioning by September. 

Ms. Wolf noted that by September, much of the text of the report will be written. It would be interesting 

to see the facilities, but she would prefer seeing what life is like along the border and what is unique about 

this area along the border. She suggested that the planning committee consider what makes Las Cruces 

unique as well as some of the problems that the citizens are facing. This might lead to thoughts for the 

next report. She was not sure that visiting another university would provide local insight. 

Ms. Spener reminded members of the report written several years ago on natural disasters, and IBWC has 

been conducting significant work with its flood control project. IBWC also has been looking at 

environmental restoration projects in the Las Cruces area and has identified a number of sites. She was 

unsure whether it would be practical to visit any of these sites, but it could be discussed. Mr. Drusina had 

visited the irrigation district that uses Rio Grande water; there are some small-scale hydroelectric power 

installations on some of the irrigation canals that might be appropriate for the topic of the report. She will 

determine if this can be incorporated into the field trip; alternatively, it could be the topic of a 

presentation at the meeting. 

Dr. Reed mentioned that El Paso Electric serves Las Cruces and El Paso County. It has added a lot of 

programs on energy efficiency and solar installations, and is serving a low-income population. This might 

be of interest as part of the tour or as a presentation topic. A utility dealing with two states that have

different rules on the efficiency of renewables gets to the heart of some border issues. 

Mr. Niemeyer noted that water-intensive crops are grown near Las Cruces, even though it is a desert 

location. Water usage must be discussed in the report. 
30 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

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

local community. 

Ms. Grijalva commented that a lot of water rationing now is being conducted in Las Cruces, and this is a 

useful topic for discussion. She asked if there were dates set for the September meeting. Mr. Joyce 

responded that the meeting should be held as early in September as possible, because the report must be 

completed by November 1, 2011, so that there is time for layout, translation, and printing. A great deal of 

work must be conducted between now and the September meeting, and time will be needed at the meeting 

and after the meeting to revise the report. A public teleconference will be needed to approve the report. 

Mr. Small stated that the tour route could go north along the freeway or New Mexico Route 28, which 

goes by a number of the colonias and by the irrigation land. The planning committee can work with the 

route to ensure that members will see some of the local communities. There are a number of groups who 

are active in the southern county, and they can be notified early of the Board meeting so they can offer 

public comment or make presentations at the meeting. The water situation in Las Cruces is significant; 

there have been drastic cuts in the water for farming this year. Because Las Cruces is a relatively small 

community, many players can be involved in the meeting. It would be useful to get materials to people 

ahead of the meeting, because if the tour is extensive, there may be information overload. 

Mr. Ruiz thought it was important that Board members visit one of the colonias that has been affected by 

industry and examine its relationship with its industrial neighbors. He would much rather visit a colonia 

than New Mexico State University. 

Dr. Austin added that it is important to the people in border communities to have the opportunity to 

express their concerns to the Board. They should be given this opportunity whenever possible. In 

addition, it is important that the Board members learn as much as possible about border issues before they 

discuss the topic of the next report at the December meeting. 

Dr. Austin asked for dates when members were unavailable in early September. Dr. Henkel was 

unavailable from September 8-10, 2011. Mr. Eckert noted that September 14-16, 2011, was not good for 

him. Ms. Wolf confirmed that those dates were bad for her as well. Dr. Austin asked about the latter part 

of the week of September 5 (which is Labor Day), and several members stated that they were unavailable 

that week. She said that the group would return to the discussion later, and thanked the planning 

committee for all the work it already had done. 

Member Report-Outs

Dr. Austin stated that she would like to reinstate Board member report outs at the meetings, in which 

members report on their activities since the last meeting. This would be useful for new members. 

Mr. Niemeyer brought some copies of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Border 

Initiative. It is a good summary, and is updated every several months in both English and Spanish. It is 

not printed, but is available on the TCEQ website as a “ready to print” document. 

Ms. Wolf stated that members should distribute copies of the report once it is released. She distributes 

copies to all the local and national officials in southern Arizona and northern New Mexico. She prepares a 

summary of the report, including the recommendations, and then goes to visit the relevant officials. She 

takes the report to other committees on which she serves and gives presentations. Occasionally, the local 

press will call and ask questions about the report. In the past, she has made a real effort to get the report 

distributed throughout Arizona and in northern Sonora. 

Mr. Wood said he also distributes the report to local elected officials and different local entities, and even 

into Mexico City and northern Mexico. Occasionally he speaks before small groups, and mentions this 

report and some of the GNEB activities. Sometimes the local media does not pick up on it, and it requires 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 31

additional effort to spur interest. When he was serving on the County Commission, the county used 

ARRA funds to place 1,036 panels on the roof of a county building, generating 243 kW. On another 

county building, 36 panels of solar cylinders were installed that generate 32.76 kW. The county also has 

opened a boat launching ramp into the ship channel with solar panel lights installed. 

Mr. Gillen noted that he does not live in the border region, but Mr. Mike Dorsey provided him with a 

PowerPoint presentation and he amended it to discuss border security as a hook to get people’s interest. 

He attends meetings of rotary clubs and women’s clubs and gives the presentation, which includes border 

environmental issues, to educate the public.

Dr. Austin commented that the Board membership purposely includes representatives from the nonprofit 

sector, state governments, local governments, the private sector, and academics. There is no outreach 

budget for GNEB reports, so the members are responsible for the outreach. Each member must work with 

his/her own networks to publicize and distribute the reports. The date for the rollout will be difficult 

because it falls around the holidays. Members should begin to think about their distribution lists. 

Ms. Gantner stated that once the reports are received, she will e-mail members and ask for their orders. 

Dr. Austin reminded members that they could not lobby in Washington as members of GNEB. Mr. Joyce 

noted that OFACMO has been advised by the EPA General Counsel that as long as Board members are 

acting in their own personal capacity and not representing the Board, it is fine to share copies of the 

report, but not to attempt to influence a member of Congress about any content or Board business. 

Mr. Lawrence asked if there were restrictions on what federal agencies could do with the report. 

Mr. Joyce said that there were no restrictions other than the standard ones placed on federal employees 

regarding interactions with Congress. 

March 2011 Meeting Minutes

Dr. Austin thanked everyone who had sent her comments on the draft minutes for the March meeting. The 

minutes need to be discussed and approved. Ms. Wolf made a motion to approve the March minutes, and 

Mr. Wood seconded the motion. Dr. Austin asked if any discussion was needed. Mr. Niemeyer asked if 

his comments had been incorporated. Ms. Gantner assured members that all comments sent to her had 

been incorporated, and that the minutes had been posted online. She asked members to notify her if they 

think she missed their comments, and she will incorporate them. The minutes were approved with no 

opposition and abstentions by Mr. Eckert and Dr. Reed who were not present at the March meeting. 

Dr. Austin thanked the SCG contractor and Ms. Gantner for the outstanding job on the minutes. The short 

time it took to discuss the minutes attested to the fact that the quality of the minutes is high. 

Mr. Joyce noted that there is a requirement that the minutes be certified within 90 days of the meeting. If 

the next meeting will be held more than 90 days after the previous meeting, the minutes will have to be 

circulated by e-mail for approval. 

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

Program

Dr. Austin noted that Dr. Sharon Megdal at the Water Resources Research Center has submitted a request 

to the Board. The presentation submitted by Dr. Megdal was included in the members’ packets. There 

was not a specific request for action, but she just wanted to alert the Board about activities of the 

Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program (TBAAP), which is receiving no financial support on the 

U.S. side for the current fiscal year or the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2011. The presentation’s 

conclusions are that there has been some progress in terms of collaboration, but the concern is that there is 

no funding. Dr. Austin commented that although GNEB does not tend to make specific funding 

recommendations, the Board should be aware of the situation. 

Ms. Spener noted that the TBAAP was authorized through the Department of Interior. The U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) is the lead federal agency, and USGS did receive authorization for funding for 
32 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

10 years, but the funds must be appropriated annually. IBWC is involved because it has been helping to 

establish the relationships between Mexican and U.S. researchers on the project. IBWC has found that 

when a U.S. groundwater map is examined, everything across the Mexican border is blank because there 

is not a good understanding of the transboundary aquifers. The San Pedro and Santa Cruz Aquifers in 

Arizona are among several being studied through this program. Funding for this program is likely to be 

cut. IBWC will be having a public meeting in Bisbee, Arizona, on July 14, 2011, at which time it will 

give a report on the work that has been done on the San Pedro Aquifer. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson said that she had to leave, and she wanted to let the members know before she left that 

all of their recommendations would be taken under consideration and that OFACMO staff would get back 

to the Board. She thanked members for all of their work, and Ms. Patti Krebs (Industrial Environmental 

Association [IEA]), GNEB member, for the reception the previous evening. 

Mr. Niemeyer asked for clarification regarding Dr. Megdal’s request. Dr. Austin responded that the 

request was for the Board to examine the TBAAP situation. Mr. Niemeyer commented that the Board 

may have written an advice letter on the topic earlier. Perhaps a letter needs to be written to the President 

urging him to take leadership of this issue. He would draft the letter if the Board believes it is worthwhile. 

Dr. Henkel agreed that Mr. Niemeyer’s suggestion was useful, and he wanted to acknowledge the fact 

that there are other transboundary aquifers that are threatened. The Board should inform Dr. Megdal that 

the member believe that this is an important issue on which the Board will continue to work. 

Ms. Krebs said that IEA had made several attempts to address transboundary air quality issues in the San 

Diego region; she thought there had been more success in Texas, but transboundary issues go across all 

media (hazardous waste, air quality, and water), and perhaps could be the subject of the next report. 

Mr. Niemeyer added that this issue is raised at all types of meetings. Canada, Mexico, and the United 

States should have concluded an agreement by January 1, 1997, and this needs to be addressed. 

Ms. Spener noted that there were two issues: the TEIA and the status of the TBAAP. She was a little 

unclear as to which the letter would address. In the previous report, GNEB expressed support for the 

TBAAP. Dr. Austin noted that is the reason Dr. Megdal contacted the Board. 

Mr. Niemeyer agreed that something could be done in the next report, but he did not think the issue 

should wait until December 2012. The Board could prepare a letter about TEIA that discusses the issue of 

water supplies on the border, the fact that a lot remains unknown, and that TBAAP is underfunded. It is a 

critical resource for millions of border residents. Mr. Joyce commented that the Board has a tremendous 

amount of work to do to complete the report by December. He reminded the GNEB members that, last 

year, the Board was working on a comment letter and the report simultaneously, which delayed the 

completion of both. GNEB does not have much flexibility in the scheduling this year, and he did not want 

the members’ energy diverted from the report. Mr. Angel asked how much time it would take to draft a 

letter. Mr. Niemeyer said he could draft the letter in 45 minutes. 

Ms. Wolf made a motion that Mr. Niemeyer draft a letter on the TEIA process for the Board’s 

consideration as a comment letter. The motion was seconded. Dr. Austin noted that it can take 

considerable time to draft a comment letter when the Board members are in disagreement, so she asked 

Mr. Niemeyer for a brief summary of the letter he envisioned. Mr. Niemeyer said it would be a letter to 

the President from GNEB stating that the TEIA is an issue that has been raised repeatedly, and should 

have been completed in 1997. The current Board of Governors Conference is addressing the issue. It is of 

major concern to border residents on both sides of the border, and major problems could have been 

preempted before they became a major concern if it had been completed. As part of that, the TBAAP 

would be referenced. Ms. Spener agreed that this issue had been discussed for a long time, and one of the 

reasons it has not happened is that there are difficulties regarding how it would be implemented. A 

number of federal agencies would want to weigh in on the challenges. It may not be easy to get it 

approved. The TEIA has no requirement for mitigation, and that is an area in which there was some 

discussion. It might be best to wait until the substance of the report has been completed and more time 

can be spent on considering these issues. 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 33

Mr. Gillen asked what GNEB expected to accomplish by sending the letter. Mr. Joyce was concerned that 

the report would take a significant amount of the Board’s time. Mr. Niemeyer stated that when Senator 

Jeff Bingaman proposed this project, he was concerned about transboundary aquifers. He was hoping for 

$5 million in funding over a period of 10 years, and he received only $500K. These are aquifers that 

affect border residents. Mr. Niemeyer wanted to emphasize the whole process of TEIA and not just 

transboundary aquifers; the letter also should emphasize the fact that an agreement was supposed to be 

reached in 1997 regarding notification, assessment, and mitigation of any projects in one country that 

could affect the environment of another. It is now 14 years later, and an agreement still has not been 

reached. If the Board does not continue to bring this to the ear of important people in Washington, 

nothing will be accomplished. He could get a letter to the Board within a week. He thought it was 

important to bring this issue to the attention of the President. 

Ms. Wolf stated that this was not a funding issue, but a border issue that has gone on for a long time, and 

the agreement needs to be implemented. 

Dr. Reed suggested that Mr. Niemeyer draft the letter. The Board members can comment on the letter and 

a decision can be made at the next meeting regarding whether to submit the letter. He agreed that the 

letter could not take significant time away from the report. 

Dr. Austin noted that there was a motion and a second for Mr. Niemeyer to write the letter and circulate it 

to the Board for review. Ms. Wolf stated that a teleconference could be held to discuss the letter so that it 

can be approved at the September meeting. Mr. Joyce commented that if it is Board advice, a notice must 

be placed in the Federal Register 15 days in advance of the teleconference. Mr. Niemeyer stated that 

federal members could recuse themselves if necessary. The motion was approved with no opposition and 

abstention by Mr. Lawrence. 

Discussion of 14th GNEB Report

Dr. Austin asked if anyone had identified items that are missing from the report. Ms. Aguillon noted one 

hole, which was an introduction on economic impacts. Should this be part of the background or should it 

be in the economic impacts section. Dr. Austin thought GNEB needed to determine what needs to be 

included in the report and where it goes. If the committee working on an issue writes a section because 

those members know it best, but it belongs in the background section, members should communicate that 

to the editor who will pull the pieces together. Could the Economic Impacts Committee write the section 

on economic impacts to be incorporated into the background section? Ms. Aguillon agreed that she could 

pull the information together, because it was available on the Database of State Incentives for Renewable 

Energy (DSIRE) website (http://www.dsireusa.org). Mr. Niemeyer stated that the background section will 

cover a great deal of information and he thought the best approach would be to make it as thorough as 

possible. If it becomes too long, material can be moved to other sections as needed. 

Dr. Austin asked if energy efficiency should be a separate chapter. She also asked if sections on policy 

and regulatory frameworks should be included in the background or in other sections. 

Dr. Henkel commented that a general map was needed at the beginning of the report locating the 

renewable energy resource areas, perhaps borrowing from the Western Governors Association map from 

2009. This would be important to any reader, and would provide a reason to read the rest of the document. 

Additionally, he asked about the length of the report, because it will affect the level of detail used by 

authors. 

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

group would create one. 
34 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Ms. Spener commented that DOE funds were allocated for the development of low head turbines, and 

they are used to run pumps in some pilot projects in the irrigation district. She will incorporate some 

language on that. Mr. Drusina mentioned the Nogales International Outfall Interceptor as a possible 

candidate for power production, and solar power at federally controlled areas that are near transmission 

distribution systems. Something else that should be stated clearly in the report is a description of the 

permitting requirements for a transboundary line. Mr. Lawrence noted that the background section 

includes a paragraph on that topic and he could expand it. 

Dr. Reed stated that the background section already includes some information about policies, and that 

could be expanded. In the economic impact section, the policies that have been drivers in opening up the 

markets could be mentioned. He suggested that the maps include both terrestrial wind and off coast wind. 

Dr. Reed also asked whether the report would cover only biomass or biofuels as well. Mr. Joyce stated 

that only biomass should be addressed in the report, not transport fuels. Dr. Austin commented that there 

are complicated equations that tie offshore wind back to onshore impacts, so GNEB must be careful when 

determining what offshore wind would be attributed to the border. Mr. Wood said that the Texas General 

Land Office (GLO) has leased some offshore areas to private enterprise to build wind turbines. They have 

studied the offshore impacts as well as the potential onshore impacts. Mr. Lawrence added that within the 

energy efficiency/renewable energy program at DOE, there is a wind and hydro program, so there is some 

research being conducted on small hydro. There is a $50 million budget for offshore wind research, and 

he could determine what research and development is being done. With regard to biomass on the border, 

power plants and feedstocks should be discussed, including how they will affect water and land use 

availability. DOE is conducting work on biomass that includes a feedstock assessment update with GIS 

data at the county level. He cautioned that addressing biomass could be like opening Pandora’s Box. 

Mr. Apodaca asked if transportation and distribution would be covered in the background section. 

Dr. Austin responded that transmission had disappeared from the Board’s discussions. Which committee 

is dealing with transmission? A map of generating stations and existing lines would be useful regardless 

of where it is placed in the report. 

Mr. Angel mentioned that offshore energy maps are available from NREL, but are not available 

exclusively for the border areas. On the renewables themselves, he asked how it was decided that 

hydroelectric was renewable. Mr. Joyce stated that it was considered part of the renewable suite. He asked 

if the resource chapter would include a map showing the potential for solar, wind, hydroelectric, and 

geothermal energy. If the map also shows where plants and projects are being considered, it may be too 

much information to convey on one map. The purpose of this section is to educate the reader as to why 

renewables can play such a large role in the energy mix in the border region. Mr. Angel suggested that 

only the potential should be identified on the map. 

Dr. Reed noted that hydroelectric was always included in the definition of renewable energy, but there 

will not be any large hydroelectric projects in the border region. 

Ms. Wolf stressed the importance of ensuring the map in the report is accurate and up to date. The 

Resource Committee thought that the maps from NREL did not have sufficient data. 

Mr. Lawrence commented that the qualification of hydroelectric for RPS depends on the state. It may be 

necessary to say “State A defines a renewable as x, y, and z.” In terms of resources, it was determined the 

previous day that maps for the resources would be included in the report. The location of proposed 

capacity would be provided on a county-by-county basis. Alternatively, in the Appendix, there could be a 

list of all the counties and proposed installed solar, wind, and so on. The text could state that in 

California, there are 3,000 MW of proposed solar. He asked for clarification on transmission. Was GNEB 

referring to transborder transmission, or transmission along the border area? Mr. Apodaca confirmed that 

he was discussing the U.S. side of the border. DOE has data on where the lines cross the border, but there 

are concerns about showing even the approximate location of substations, because they can become 

targets for those who want to harm the United States. He suggested excluding substations from the map 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 35

and providing only approximate locations of the transmission lines. BLM has information on projects 

they are evaluating right now, as well as other projects that they are considering permitting. Dr. Austin 

said that GNEB was taking on a large topic, and when thinking about recommendations, the Board must 

consider federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The background section will contain a chart that lists what 

is covered by each in the various areas. Case studies can be used to show some of the jurisdictional issues 

for one place. 

Mr. Small mentioned that biofuels were discussed at the March meeting, and asked if they still should be 

included in the report. Dr. Reed was unsure whether they should be included in the report, but the report 

could mention that there are some projects out there in which biofuels could be useful. Mr. Lawrence said 

that from the land use perspective, biofuels should be included, but GNEB should only discuss advanced 

biofuels development and avoid the food versus fuel issue. Ms. Aguillon agreed that biofuels should be 

mentioned as a renewable technology in the border region. Mr. Angel and Mr. Niemeyer thought that 

biofuels should be mentioned in passing but minimal space should be devoted to the discussion. 

Dr. Austin commented that it was important to acknowledge biofuels as a renewable technology, but the 

Board should not get into mapping all the biofuels or feedstocks. Biofuels could be mentioned in the 

economic opportunities section, as well as the impact section. Mr. Eckert noted that it would be easy to 

examine the potential productivity of various areas for growing biofuels along the border. 

Mr. Joyce mentioned that at one point there was much concern about transmission and environmental 

impact; will this still be addressed in the impacts chapter? Mr. Apodaca responded that it would be 

mentioned in the impacts section, but he thought it needed to be highlighted at a higher level because 

transmission impacts the adoption of solar and wind technology. 

Mr. Niemeyer stressed the importance of printing the maps in full color. The effect of the maps will be 

lost if the report is not printed in full color. GNEB also needs to begin thinking about the photographs and 

other graphics that will be used. Maps need to be put together, and this takes considerable time. Mr. Joyce 

confirmed that the intent is to produce a full color report like last year’s, but perhaps without as many

photographs. He assured the members that the maps would clearly convey information to the readers. He 

urged members to identify graphics, maps, and photographs between now and November 1, because the 

earlier these items are sent to the contractor, the earlier they can start working with them. 

Dr. Austin commented that the previous report was 80 pages long. The Board should consider if there will 

be appendices and how to address references. Mr. Joyce agreed that it was important to cite references, 

and perhaps endnotes could be used on a chapter-by-chapter basis, which might be cleaner than footnotes 

on each page. It is important to have the appropriate level of citation so that the reader can refer to the 

original source material if desired. Dr. Austin noted that it is easier to remove references than find them, 

so she encouraged everyone to include citations for all information used. If someone else created the 

maps the Board is using, they must be given credit. 

Dr. Reed pointed out that, in the transmission line discussion, only the details of the transborder 

interconnection are needed. He asked whether there would be a list of references at the end of the 

document or whether a reference would be repeated at the end of each chapter in which it was cited. 

Mr. Lawrence thought that endnotes after each chapter would be cleaner than footnotes at the bottom of 

the page because footnotes can take up too much space. Ms. Wolf commented that this was a research 

report, and she was citing her sources down to the page number. At this point, she thought sources should 

be listed as they would in an academic paper. Dr. Austin agreed that everyone should give as much detail 

as possible at this point; it can be revised in the future when the reference format decision is made. 

Mr. Joyce noted that past reports have included an acknowledgments section; it is important to 

acknowledge the assistance given to the Board by various organizations and individuals. Members should 

keep track of individuals and organizations they consult regarding the substance of the report. 

Dr. Henkel noted that some of the impact questions are controversial, so it is important to cite them 

specifically. Mr. Angel agreed that endnotes would be less disruptive than footnotes. 
36 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Dr. Austin pointed the members to the topic of energy efficiency and how it should be handled in the 

report. Ms. Aguillon commented that in terms of economic impacts, there are two markets: the utility 

scale market and distributed generation. Within distributed generation, there are wholesale and retail 

markets. Energy efficiency and solar hot water are married to the distributed generation. She does not 

have a lot of information on energy efficiency products and markets, but believes that they fall within the 

distributed generation part of the economic impacts. Dr. Reed agreed that GNEB should deal with energy 

efficiency where it melds together with renewables and that is on the distributed piece. The Sierra Club 

uses an organization called the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and they 

have information on policy and jobs; DOE has a lot of information as well. He though it could be 

included in the distributed renewable section instead of in a separate chapter. Dr. Austin asked that the 

group think about whether a case study or sidebar would fit into the section. Dr. Henkel suggested that the 

economics section could examine what municipalities use for conventional lighting and conventional 

treatment of water. New building codes could be examined on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Wolf saw energy 

efficiency as a sidebar or information box as well as being included in the economic impacts section, 

pointing out that conservation and energy efficiency are the primary and most affordable ways to reduce 

energy use along the border. Ms. Wieting thought that text discussing energy efficiency more generally 

could be included in the background section; Mr. Niemeyer agreed to draft this section. 

Ms. Aguillon asked if Dr. Reed could draft the section on energy efficiency for the economic impacts 

chapter and coordinate with DOE to ensure that the information is correct. 

Mr. Lawrence quoted DOE’s Secretary who said that “the cheapest kilowatt is the one you do not have to 

produce.” The American Public Power Association published a resource in the past month that is a review 

of 21 types of programs, including energy efficiency, and how utilities have implemented them. The name 

of the report is Energy Services That Work. In terms of environmental impacts associated with 

transmission, the Board should avoid discussing specific projects because there are open regulatory 

proceedings surrounding some of them. Dr. Austin noted that none of the impacts are listed at a project 

specific level. Ms. Wolf did not agree with avoiding the mention of specific projects, stating that there are 

ample public documents about the transmission line proposed for the Santa Cruz area in Arizona. The 

transmission line is proposed through one of the last riparian areas. She thought it would be irresponsible 

not to mention this as it is one of the top transmission issues now occurring. If necessary, federal 

members can recuse themselves from the report. Mr. Lawrence said he would have to consult DOE 

general counsel to see what could be discussed. 

Mr. Starfield assumed that the report would say that renewables are an improvement over fossil fuels, but 

there are still significant impacts that must be considered, and therefore the option of reducing the need 

for energy through energy efficiency would be beneficial. A 2007 study by the ACEEE mentions that a

combination of energy efficiency and renewables would not require the use of conventional energy in 

Texas for 15 years. The number one choice should always be energy efficiency. 

Mr. Mike Ortega (Cochise County Administrator), GNEB member, agreed with Ms. Wolf’s comments on 

the transmission line in Santa Cruz. To ignore it would be a disservice. In southeast Arizona, transmission 

lines have been proposed along the interstate system that would have environmental impacts as well as 

effects on military installations that are very important in the area. Mr. Lawrence restated his concerns 

about mentioning specific projects.

Dr. Austin asked members about other “hot button” issues that the Board probably would never reach 

consensus on and should not waste time debating. Additionally, is there any issue that was not raised that 

a member believes should be included in the report? Dr. Austin asked if the report should address jobs 

and workforce policies, worker protections, and wages. Dr. Henkel thought these could be included in the 

economic impacts section. Both a review based on the North American Industrial Classification System 

and the policies of the various workforce solutions departments in the four states could be addressed. 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 37

Dr. Austin asked if this should be mentioned in the background section as well. Dr. Henkel noted that 

some of the text could be used in the background section. 

Ms. Wolf commented that no one had mentioned communicating with the utilities. She had contacted 

Tucson Electric Power and Dr. Henkel would like to speak with them as well. The utility supplies power 

to all four border states. 

Mr. Gillen said there was some discussion of climate change in the background section that caused him 

concern. It states that “The border region will become warmer and dryer over the next century.” He would 

like to add the words “Some reports indicate that” to the beginning of the sentence. Also in that section, a 

1.5 degree increase in temperatures is compared to a 1960 to 1979 baseline period; is that the only 

baseline period available? It further states that projected declines in spring precipitation for communities 

along the Mexico border could be as much as 40 percent, but no source is cited. If there is no credible 

reference and the information cannot be verified, the report should not include the statement.

Ms. Wieting commented that this was a summarization of longer documents. She agreed that a reference 

was needed. The text comes from a regional climate impacts document created by the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other agencies. Mr. Niemeyer added that the section 

Mr. Gillen mentioned was provided by Alison Krepp of NOAA, and she did not provide a reference. Does 

the issue of climate change need to be qualified? It must be addressed in a way that makes everyone 

comfortable. 

Ms. Spener noted that Mr. Drusina had similar questions about the background section. He has a number 

of comments on various parts of the text. How should members communicate these comments to the 

authors? Additional explanations are needed in the background section; for example, it cannot be assumed 

that people know the states in which various communities are located. 

Ms. Wieting stated that she would be happy to discuss the climate change section. Although there is no 

doubt in her mind that climate is changing, she recognized that different communities talk about these 

issues in different ways. These issues can be discussed in scientific terms based on the data and 

information available, and less incendiary terminology can be used. 

Dr. Reed noted that he does not usually talk about climate change; instead he notes that certain resources 

do not create carbon dioxide emissions that the scientific community believes lead to global warming. 

Mr. Joyce added that he was certain that someone had been studying the flora and fauna in the region that 

can document substantive changes that have occurred in the species during the past 2 decades. If that 

research has appeared in peer-reviewed journals and is just being cited, he does not see an issue with this. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that, in his state, there are at least eight lawsuits against the Federal Government over 

global warming and climate change. One phrase that most are comfortable with is “climate variability.” 

He suggested that if someone has questions about a chapter and the author is unknown, questions should 

be sent to the Committee Chair for that chapter. 

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

manner. 

Dr. Austin indicated that dates for the September and December meetings had not been identified. 

Mr. Joyce stated that OFACMO staff would follow up with Board members about the dates for both 

meetings, which need to be set as soon as possible. In terms of the process for the report, the timetable is 

ambitious. After these revisions are incorporated, there will be a single working draft that will be 

managed by the contractor. The contractor will edit the text of the report so it reads as if it was written by 

one author. The Board will have to agree on when the next set of revisions will be ready to transmit to the 

contractor. The first order of business is to come to a consensus on how soon members believe they can 

incorporate the additions and revisions discussed at this meeting. Ideally, if that is done soon enough, 

there could be a teleconference before the September meeting to talk through that draft and see what 
38 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

additional material is needed. It would be ideal to have a near-final draft for discussion at the September 

meeting so that the final version can be completed by November 1, 2011. Dr. Austin stated that she 

already has numerous comments to give to the committees. She asked the members who had comments 

on the current text to submit them to the Committee Chairs as soon as possible. She also asked the 

committees that had not yet submitted draft text to get that completed. Mr. Joyce stated that it is important 

to get a complete working draft as soon as possible; otherwise, members will be commenting on text that 

may have been revised already. 

Ms. Wolf stated that the Impacts Chapter Committee would try to get all revisions and changes finished 

by July 7. They will review the draft on a conference call on July 14, and then complete the rewrite by 

July 28. Dr. Austin asked if any other committee had a time table to report. Mr. Niemeyer stated that he 

would create one for the background section. He asked that comments on the background section be 

submitted to him. Mr. Angel commented that the Resources Committee was planning on a 2-week 

turnaround. Mr. Joyce stressed the importance of each committee submitting as complete a draft as 

possible by Monday, August 1, 2011, so that it can be provided to the contractor. Dr. Austin added that 

the goal is to get a compiled draft out to the members by the middle of August. That should give the 

members time to read the draft before the September meeting. Every committee also needs to have a least 

one conference call before sending the draft to the contractor. It would be useful for the conference call 

schedule to be distributed to all members because there is a lot of crossover, and certain individuals will 

be on multiple calls. She asked each Committee Chair to provide the date of the committee’s 

teleconferences to OFACMO staff by June 22, so that those dates can be placed on the schedule and 

distributed to all Board members. As committees are developing their drafts, they should consider maps, 

graphics, and photographs that should be included in the report. Also, the Chairs should provide 

information on case studies and who will be writing them. 

Dr. Austin noted that the final point to be discussed at this meeting was determination of how to move 

ahead with recommendations. Some committees already have drafted some recommendations. Currently, 

there are recommendations in each chapter. Should there be a committee to pull all the recommendations 

together and write them in a final form? This task will require a great deal of time. She asked for any 

suggestions or ideas on how the recommendations could be addressed in the report. Mr. Gillen asked if it 

would be appropriate for each committee to submit a set of issues or recommendations to the 

Recommendations Committee. Dr. Austin stated that ideally, at the time the text is being sent to the 

contractor, the recommendations could be sent to the Recommendations Committee. The contractor will 

be working on the text for a few weeks, which will allow the GNEB members some time to address the 

recommendations. 

Dr. Austin suggested that the recommendation committee be small, consisting of three or four people 

only. It could include members who do not have much work to do in writing chapter sections. 

Ms. Grijalva commented that she would be happy to review the whole document, but noted that she was 

not an energy expert. Dr. Austin stated that everyone would be asked to review the entire report; she 

asked Ms. Grijalva if she would serve on the committee to pull together the recommendations. 

Ms. Grijalva agreed to serve on that committee. Mr. Niemeyer also volunteered to serve on the 

Recommendations Committee. 

Mr. Lawrence asked if each chapter’s authors should propose recommendations and send them to the 

Recommendations Committee. Dr. Austin agreed that the chapter authors should draft the 

recommendations and send them to the Committee Chairs who will consolidate them and send them to 

the Recommendations Committee. The Recommendations Committee will pull all the recommendations 

together and send them to the Board members for review. 

Mr. Joyce commented that this is a report to the President on what GNEB thinks that the Federal 

Government should be doing about renewable energy generation and use in the border region. It should 

be actionable and as detailed as possible. General recommendations are not helpful. Dr. Austin added that 

in addition to specific suggestions, members should think about 5 to 10 years from now, and ask 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 39

themselves if they would be able to live with the recommendation. If a recommendation benefits only a 

certain group, or is not based on solid data, it will not be actionable. Keep in mind that the Board does not 

report to states. The background chapter will be critical in delineating the purview of the Federal 

Government versus the states. Mr. Joyce added that as the authors are thinking about the 

recommendations, they should consider that requests for more funding will not be helpful given current 

realities. 

Ms. Aguillon asked if the Board could recommend that a certain bill would be helpful if passed. 

Mr. Joyce noted that Congress makes the laws, but the report could note that a certain bill might be 

helpful for the continued support of the Administration. Dr. Austin emphasized the importance of 

providing data and solid arguments in the chapters to support the recommendations. The chapter must 

build the case for any recommendations on the topic. 

Ms. Aguillon asked for an example of a useful recommendation. Ms. Grijalva suggested that “we would 

encourage the President make a clarification on this issue,” would be useful language. Mr. Lawrence 

mentioned that it also might be helpful to recommend that the Administration define its stance on issue X 

and then act appropriately on that determination. Mr. Joyce added that as much detail and specificity as 

can be provided would be useful. GNEB is an advisory committee that can state its advice and its opinion. 

Dr. Austin suggested that members take some time to look at the previous reports and read the 

recommendations. She hoped that the recommendations could be finalized at the September meeting. 

Dr. Austin commented that the recommendations should be as clear as possible so that every Board 

member understands them and knows what they are voting on. 

Dr. Reed asked if it was appropriate to show potential resources on the Mexican side on the map. 

Mr. Joyce answered that the statutory language of the Board is clear and states that the GNEB should 

make recommendations for the betterment of those living north of the border. What happens south of the 

border, however, affects what happens north of the border. Dr. Reed asked specifically if the potential 

resources south of the border should be included. Dr. Austin responded that in terms of the resource 

potential, if the data are available, the information should be included. Ms. Scarlata mentioned that the 

Department of State has an energy officer who works at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City who can 

provide that information. 

Mr. Joyce suggested that the Board review the key deliverables. Committee Chairs will send their best 

drafts to the contractor by August 1, 2011. Dr. Austin noted that September and December meeting date 

options will be sent to members by the week of June 27, 2011. 

Before Ms. Krebs left the meeting, Mr. Joyce thanked her for her help with planning this meeting and for 

organizing the reception the previous evening. Referring to the agenda for the September meeting, he 

stressed the importance of blocking out as much time as possible for discussion of the report. 

Mr. Gillen suggested devoting the first day, which is the full day, to the report discussion and having the 

speakers on the second day. That would maximize the time spent on discussing the report. Members 

always need to leave early on the second day and that will cut into the time devoted to discussing the 

report. Dr. Austin shared Mr. Gillen’s concern, and said that she will seriously consider his suggestion.

Dr. Austin noted that there was a public comment period scheduled from 1:30 to 2:00 p.m., and asked 

what should be done if the meeting adjourns before that time. She suggested that any member who was 

available to stay in the event that there were public comments should do so. Ms. Grijalva suggested that 

perhaps the public comment period could be scheduled earlier on the agendas for future meetings to avoid 

this problem. Mr. Joyce responded that public comment was scheduled on both days so that members of 

the public would have ample opportunity to comment. He said he would be present to receive public 

comments if any were offered. Dr. Austin stated that she would be available as well.
40 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Mr. Angel indicated that the Planning Committee tried to engage the local utilities but was not successful. 

Perhaps a large utility representative could speak at the September meeting. Mr. Lawrence commented 

that El Paso Electric had two Presidential permits for transboundary transmission lines, so it might be 

useful if an El Paso Electric representative could talk about those projects. 

Dr. Austin adjourned the meeting at 12:44 p.m. No public comments were offered at 1:30 p.m.
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 41

Action Items

Action Items

 Ms. Scarlata will determine whether USAID has money available for training on border crossing 

modeling and she will inform Ms. Grijalva. 

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

energy projects. 

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

background section of the report. 

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

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

 Dr. Reed will draft the section on energy efficiency for the economic opportunities section, 

coordinating with DOE.

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

sections.

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

 OFACMO staff will follow up with Board members about the dates for both the September and 

December meetings as soon as possible. September and December meeting date options will be sent 

to members by the week of June 27, 2011.

 Each Committee Chair will provide the date of his/her committee’s teleconferences to OFACMO 

staff by June 22.

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

 Each Committee Chair will send the best draft of his/her committee’s chapter to the contractor by 

Monday, August 1, 2011.
42 June 16-17, 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., Acting Chair

Associate Research Anthropologist

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Cecilia E. Aguillon

Director, Market Development and Government

Relations

KYOCERA Solar, Inc. 

San Diego, CA

Jose Angel

Assistant Executive Officer

California River Basin Region Water Quality

Control Board – Colorado River Basin Region

Palm Desert, CA

Evaristo Cruz

Director

Environmental Management Office

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

El Paso, TX 

Gary Gillen

President

Gillen Pest Control

Richmond, TX 

David Henkel, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

University of New Mexico

Community and Regional Planning Program

School of Architecture and Planning

Phoenix, AZ 

Patti Krebs 

Executive Director 

Industrial Environmental Association

San Diego, CA 

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.

Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias 

Coordinator

Intergovernmental Relations Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX 

Luis Olmedo

Executive Director

Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.

Brawley, CA

Mike Ortega

Cochise County Administrator

Board of Supervisors 

Bisbee, AZ

Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.

Conservation Director

Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter

Austin, TX

Thomas Ruiz, M.S.

Border/Environmental Justice Liaison

Office of the Secretary

New Mexico Environment Department

Las Cruces, NM

Nathan P. Small 

Conservation Coordinator

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance

Las Cruces, NM

Ann Marie A. Wolf

President

Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.

Tucson, AZ 

John Wood

Representative

Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority

Brownsville, TX

Federal Members of the Board and 

Alternates

Department of Homeland Security

Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.

Director

Occupational Safety and Environmental 

Programs

Office of Chief Administrative Officer

Management Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 43

Department of the Interior

Greg Eckert

National Park Service

Fort Collins, CO

Department of State

Georgina Scarlata

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

Environmental Protection Agency

Larry Starfield

Deputy Regional Administrator

EPA Region 6

Dallas, TX

International Boundary and Water Commission

Edward Drusina

Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Sally Spener

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service

Robert M. Apodaca

Assistant Chief – West

USDA/NRCS

Albuquerque, NM

Department of Commerce – National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration

Donna Wieting

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

Silver Spring, MD 

Department of Transportation

Sylvia Grijalva

Federal Highway Administration

Phoenix, AZ

Department of Energy

Christopher Lawrence

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach 

Washington, DC 

EPA Participants

Alheli Baños-Keener

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

David Fege

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

Ann-Marie Gantner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach 

Washington, DC 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Acting Director

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

Douglas Liden

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

Lorena Lopez-Powers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

Other Participants

Lisa Bicker

Clean TECH San Diego

Nicole Capretz

Environmental Health Coalition
44 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Crystal Crawford

Del Mar, CA

Maria Elena Giner

Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Pablo Gutierrez

California Energy Commission

Andy Horne

Natural Resources Development

Kathy MacDougall

Independent Energy Solutions, Inc.

Andrew McAllister

California Center for Sustainable Energy

Micah Mitrosky

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Bill Powers

Powers Engineering

Caridad Sanchez

Office of Senator Barbara Boxer, CA

José Tellechea

North American Development Bank

Donna Tisdale

Boulevard, CA

Rick Van Schoik

Arizona State University

Contractor Support

Mary Spock, M.S.

Writer/Editor

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD 
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 45

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

The US Grant Hotel

326 Broadway

San Diego, California 92101

619/232-3121

AGENDA

Thursday, June 16

8:00 a.m. Registration

8:30-9:00 Welcome and Introductions

 Mark Joyce

Associate Director and Acting Designated Federal Officer

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

 Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

 Diane Austin

Acting Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

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

US-Mexico Border Region

 Donna Tisdale

Secretary

Protect our Communities Foundation

 Pablo Gutierrez

Geothermal Program Technical Lead

California Energy Commission
46 June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

 Bill Powers

Powers Engineering

10:30-10:45 Break

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

Border Region

 Lisa Bicker President 

and CEO Clean TECH 

San Diego

 Kathy MacDougall

Director of Human Resources

Independent Energy Solutions, Inc.

 Nicole Capretz

Director

Green Energy/Green Jobs Campaign

Environmental Health Coalition

12:15-12:45 Public Comments

12:45-2:00 Lunch

2:00-3:00 Policy Issues Associated with the Development of Renewable Energy in 

the US-Mexico Border Region

 Andrew McAllister

Director of Policy and Strategy

California Center for Sustainable Energy

 Andy Horne

Deputy County Executive Officer

Natural Resources Development

3:00-3:15 Break
June 16-17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 47

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

Issues

 Georgina

Scarlata Border

Affairs Officer

U.S. Department

of State

 Christopher

Lawrence Electricity

Industry Specialist 

U.S. Department of

Energy

 Rick Van Schoik, Director

North American Center for Transborder Studies

Arizona State University

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

6:00 Adjourn

Meeting Day 2

Friday, June 17

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

Las Cruces, NM – September

Washington, DC - December

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

11:00-11:15 Break

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

1:30-2:00 Public Comments

2:00 Adjourn