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** 



### M **EETING** 

### S **UMMARY**



### T **HURSDAY** 

### , **J UNE**  

### 16, **2011**
**Welcome and Introductions** Diane Austin , Acting Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB); C ynthia 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 Off icer 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 w as 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 rema in 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 me mbers 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.**
**- Mexic**  **o 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 dis proportionately 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 re sidents have chosen this area because to be close to nature. Federal agencies are unlawfully down

zoning previously protected public lands that were zoned to protect critical resources. Additionally, federal and state agencies are allowing large companies to take water from designated sole source aquifers. Ms. Tisdale mentioned numerous renewable energy projects in her area, including wind and solar projects that will each require new lines and substations; most of these projects impact private rural land . This “land rush” will have lasting impacts on the area; for example, the scraping of tens of thousands of acres of sensitive public land and intact habitat will increase erosion, dust storms, and respiratory diseases ; and groundwater will be siphoned off from stress ed desert aquifers that feed local wells, and local communities have no al ternate affordable water source. Much of the impacted area has been identified as globally significant

— a rare Mediterranean mosaic with abundant wildlife and critical wil dlife corridors. In addition, b illions 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 protec tions, 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. M edica l and scientific experts investigating wind turbine impac ts 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 conv ersion of prime farmland into industrial solar zones in violation of the Farmland Protection Act ; (2) c umulative impacts from multiple projects in condensed targeted areas surrounding rural low

- income communities ; (3) i ndustrial conversion of public lands adversely impacts recreation areas and tourism dollars for economically depressed rural communities ; (4) high levels of n oise and/or electrical p ollution are generated by wind turbines, solar inverters, transformers, substations, and transmission lines; an d (5) i ntermittent 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

- sp ectrum noise, electric al , and health studies.June 16

- 17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

 Support a moratorium on wind turb ine projects within a minimum 2

- mile radius of occupied buildings, sensitive receptors, and non

-participating p roperty lines, until valid dose

- response peer - reviewed studies h ave 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 independe nt testing of high frequencies. Can someone from a government organization discuss the current rules on high frequencies so that the Board has so me 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 th e 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, Califor nia. 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 G NEB 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 per sonal 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 su bsidies 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 t

he 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 t hat 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 Commi ssion (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 effici ency 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 ge othermal 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 an d 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 rene wable 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 per cent 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 emi ssions 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 i ncentives, 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 2,1 00 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 s tate policy activities. Geothermal technologies research includes resource assessments for adding electrical generation. More advanced toolsJune 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 in clude: 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 saf eguards 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 involv ed 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 p rojects 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 befor e CEC announces the availabili ty of research money for grants, it develops criteria for t echnically sound and environmentally useful projects. Among the criteria reviewed are the impacts on water and air, and the requirement for reducing GHGs. These are de lineated 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 g eothermal 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 signi ficant 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 wate r 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 throu gh 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 (D OE) 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 environment al 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 D OE. 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 crisi s 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. Sem pra 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 commissio ners 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 executive s. 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 th e 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 t o 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 CO 2 , which is vented to the atmosphere at the liquefaction plant.June 16

- 17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

 Liquefaction and shipp ing of LNG are energy intensive.  T he seawater LNG reheat system at Costa Azul uses large amounts of seawater in the once

through heating system

. For the Mexicali power plants, there are no air emission offsets , despite the poor air quality in Imperial County and Mexicali, and there is no requirement to report results of continuous emissions monitoring. With the Sempra Energía Sierra Juárez (ESJ) wind proposal, Mexican renewables are ineligible for U.S. tax credits, which for wind equate to about 3 cents/KWh. La Rumorosa developers have quoted wind capacity factors of 30 percent compared to the 35 to 40 percent from U.S. wind companies. The Sunrise Powerlink or some other transmission solution would be needed to move La Rumorosa wind to load centers. SDG&E has applied to contract for 450 MW of peaking gas turbines, an approximately $500 million investment to help address the intermittency of wind power. Another issue, specifically with DOE, is the idea of granting a “generator tie” to Sempra for wind generation. This would mean one corporation would be granted a private toll road status to any renewable energy development in Baja California. Data show there is no cost advantage to developing wind over solar energy. San Diego area wind turbines provide the least p ower 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

- s cale 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 no t 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. Po wers 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. Step hen 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 affe ct 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 Envir onment Board representing New Mexico. The State8 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 l arge 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 GN EB. **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 D iego ’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 econo mic 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 togethe r 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 compani es, 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 innovato r 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 s ecured $154 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds ( CREBS ), which is 19 percent of the total funding av ailable 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 so lar 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 savingsJune 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. Univer sities 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 biof uels 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 e xporting 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 re gion. Ms. Bicker replied that m uch 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 doll ars 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 adv ocates 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 a re 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 b iotechnology 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 partnere d 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 o f $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 creat e 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 that10 June 16

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

chemicals are not used, but that an exis ting 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 tradeo ffs 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, j obs are at the top of the list. If an alternative energy project is located in an e nvironmental 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 note d 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 co mmunities 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 “M ade 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 Ass ociation (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 chang e 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 effe ct 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 e quipment manufacturing and assembly, professional services, in stallation, 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 Californi a, 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 create d.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

- t ariff designed with social/economic justice issues (so homeowners and businesses can sell the electricity they generate back to util ities ) ; b etter and cheaper financing for energy efficiency and solar energy; l ocal hire provisions in utility contracts and government agency contracts ; and s olar and construction companies reaching out to nontraditional neighborhoods . California’s governo r 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 maj or 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 consumer s 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 su bject 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. Chri s topher Lawrence (DO E), 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 recommendatio ns, 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 M a cDougall, 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 s caling 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 se en in the small

- scale12 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 th eir 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 i ncrease in local energy demand, s lower than expected generating capacity , stage two electricity alerts, and roll ing 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 el ectricity 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 o ne 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 g oods 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: h elp customers save mon ey while assisting them in becoming energy independent ; s erve people without access to conventional power ; r aise the industry’s standards through leadership by example ; and c reate jobs in the community . Engineering is IES’ core strength, and the company ha s 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 s erve California ’s energy needs with continued renewable energy incentives , e nsure that the Cash Grants Program and tax credit remain available , se cure project financing to provide an attractive return on investment, examine Tradable Renewable Energy Credits benefits, and drive renewab le 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 Contro l), 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 inc entives. 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 n oted 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. Guti errez 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 Comment s**  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 sec tor. 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 publi shing 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 pape r 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 opportuni ties 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 im

portant 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. Thes e 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 note d 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 to14 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 b etween energy efficiency and renewable energy. Ms. Giner confirmed that this was correct, and that technical assistance was the other important message. In addition, c onservation should be the first approach. Mr. Small stated that the Board had h eard ab out the concerns and problems associated with the large

scale remotely sited renewable energy projects. Does BECC share those concerns? He thought there could be synergy between BECC and GNEB to highlight in more detail some of the potential problems with large scale installations

. Ms. Giner replied that, with the possible exception of California, she did not see many large renewable energy projects going forward in the United States because they are financially driven and there is too much price uncertainty. The federal incentives will be expiring in 2012. In Mexico, there is one energy provider, and the power purchase agreement is not competitively priced as it would be in the United States. Additionally, in Mexico, the ability for a power generator to use the transmiss ion 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, s erved 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 invo lved 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 Swampl and 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 mos t 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 h abitat 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 transmis sion 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 ofJune 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 cl imate. 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 w ill drive the response in the marketplace

. The P roperty A ssessed C lean E nergy ( PACE ) residential financing program has not been successful for a number of reasons . Financing mechanism s need to have incentives for tenants so that landlords will be incentivi zed 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 i n 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 th at 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 retrof

its. 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 r ecently o pened 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 in cludes 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 pro

jects that would otherwise be built in Imperial County. Sempra’s proposal would undermine several g oals of President Obama’s Administration, specifically facilitation of the export of Am erican 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 aff

ord 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 decisio n 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 l ack of a union for the Mexican electricians, and noted that the union movement in Mexico has changed consider ably 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 repre sentatives 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 ho w to manage the session on the GNEB report.
**Pol icy 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 , Californ ia 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 th ose 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 stat es 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 Renewable s 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 th e bulk of the new renewables. The RPS program require d 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 mo ving 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 ge t 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 w ill become law 90 days after the close of the current s pecial s ession of the C alifornia legislature . This will require a lot of work by the CPUC because it conflicts in s ome 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 legis lators. 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 tari ff 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 AuctionJune 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 b ringing RPS

- eligible projects to fruition include the high rate of pro ject termination or delay because of p ermitting (CEC and/or c ounty) , site c ontrol (e.g. , federal lands) , p roject financing , equipment supply and procurement , transmission limitations for some projects, developer experience , f uel supply , and c ontra cting enf

orcement. 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, mo st 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 b ut 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 expensi ve. In tier 5, there could be 35 to 40 cent s 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 require ment 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 i nterstate 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 g etting po wer from Nevada and Mexico because the energy has to go through the correct corridors to ensure that the power is actually coming into the state. Dr. Reed mentioned that he did not know how transmission works in California, and who pays for it. If a company wants to build a project in the desert, but there is no transmission line, does the developer or the company pay for the line? Mr. McAllister replied that the cost of transmission is rate

-based and is generally included in the rates of the utilities.
Mr. Drusina asked if there was an incentive for small businesses or for low income families to get the new solar power. Mr. McAllister said that California has a lot of policies, such as California Solar Initiative (CSI), that have managed to increase market penetration of small solar systems in general. In the case of CSI, there was a 10 percent set aside for lower income families. The amount of money involved is not large, so it does not go very far. In California , solar is largely a market

- driven opportunity. In general, lower income residents will not be offsetting expensive energy costs and will not see solar as cost

effective. F inancing and support tools are lacking for those customers who are in a marginal cost

- effective area. Ms. Aguillon added that there is an oppor tunity for utilities to get involved. T he leasing companies will not go to the low income areas because of a lack of creditworthiness, but the utility has excellent18 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 con duct 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 h ave to be combined at the customer level. If a solar c ontractor 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 Resou rces 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 ha s 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 1 990 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 fede ral 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 agr icultural 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 wil l 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 sol ar 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 i n 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 und er 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 transmis sion 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 stand

point. 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 a bout 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 jurisdict ions, 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 f ederal 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 5 00 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 Dieg o 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 generatio n 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 ec onomic 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 min ed 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 w ater consumption records are available, but it is not a20 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 constit ute 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 Cros s**  **- 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 que stion, 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 me mber. In DOE, the office that coordinates the work under the bilateral framework is the Of fice 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 cle an 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 President s 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 sh aring 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 th e 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 oft en 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. T he m eeting, co

- chaired on the U.S. side by the Departments of Energy and State, set an agenda for collaboration on bilateral and multilateral initiatives. T he group of senior leaders agreed to enhance cooperation on renewable energy technologies, smart grid implementation, carbon capture and sequestration, and GHG inv entories and adaptation measures. Mr. Lawrence noted that the second bilateral meeting was held in M exico City at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on May 18, 2011 . This second meeting provided an overview of areas where Mexico and th e United States are already cooperating and highlighted future areas for collaboration. Both sides agreed onJune 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 e xtensive cooperation between EPA and its Mexican counterpart SEMARNET (the Secretariat of Environmental and Natural Resources) in the development of Mexico’s Transporte Limpio program. This program is based on EPA’s Smart Way program and identifies products and services that reduce transportation

related emissions. It represents an excellent example of capacity building under the Framework, as it began as a training exercise for SEMARNAT and has developed into a fully functioning program through the cooperation with EPA. Transporte Limpio is seeking to harmonize its program with the U.S. and Canadian programs. Other areas of cooperation include: th e U.S. support to Mexico for refining and implementing its low

- emissi ons development strategy (LEDS); i mplementation of pilot projects to reduce emissions from deforestatio n 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 ye ar’s Cancun climate conference; c oordination of minimum appliance standards and discussion of Mexican appliance labeling eff orts similar to U.S. programs such as Energy Star ; c ooperation 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 a dvancement in the promotion of regional renewable energy markets between the two countries through the Cros s - Border Electricity Task Force.
Mr. Lawren ce 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 Me xico 

### ( SENER) , next steps to organize, select me mbers, 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 Am erican Carbon Storage At las 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 traini ng. 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 t o 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 maj or 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 instal l solar panels

. She asked for any help that Ms. Scarlata and Mr. Lawrence22 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 b een 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 mul titude 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 Am er ica’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.
Statem ent 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/Emis sion 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 conce rned 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 large st 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 movi ng 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 renewableJune 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 the ir 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 wi nd, 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 proj ects, 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 accomplis hed 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 th e 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, trib al 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 should24 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 mem ber, 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 Gro up, 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 C ommittee, reported that the group had organized me mbers’ 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 hydro electric 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). Th e 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 wh ere 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. Pohl man 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 g oing to try to pinpoint current or planned project s? 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 informat ion. 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 lev el. 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 onJune 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 st ate, 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 responde d 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 pr oceed. 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 r epresent 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 pl an 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 c osts 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 renew able 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 wil l 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 backgrou nd 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 me mbe rs 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 adde d 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 h eard 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 th at 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 a s 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 chap ters. Dr. Austin recessed the meeting for the day at 6:11 p.m.



### F **RIDAY** 

### , **J UNE**  

### 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 me mbers to introduce themselves.June 16

- 17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 27

Ms. Jones

- Ja ckson 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 ha d 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

- Ja ckson expressed her appreciation of the Board’s patience in this matter. Additionally, GNEB doe s 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 gett ing 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. T he purpose of this Board is to make recommendations to the President and Congress o n behalf of the border communities. Itwill 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 c onsensus 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 recomme ndation would be strongly considered. Mr. Angel asked if the Board appointed the Chair or if the Chair was appointed by EPA. Ms. Jones

Jackson replied that EPA appoints the Chair, but will take recommendations from the Board. Mr. Niemeyer noted that th e 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 sta

rting 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 f inal 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 a ttend. 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 the28 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 t o 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 afterno on of Monday December 12, so that members could fly in that morning. Alternatively, Dr. Austin suggested that the Board could meet on Monday and the press conference could be held on Tuesday, December 13. Mr. Niemeyer commented that past press conferences have been held in the morning; typically, reporters have an afternoon deadline, so the earlier it can be held in the day, the better. He thought Monday

Tuesday would work better than Wednesday

- Friday, and noted that previous press coverage of report releas es 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 me mbers could, once the report was released, attempt their o wn 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 iss ues have received a lot of coverage in Washington, DC; he thought DOE’s public affairs office mi ght 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 h ave 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 co nference 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

- Ja ckson 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 not ed 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 diffi cult 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 le vels 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 MeetingJune 16

- 17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 29

Mr. Joyce commented that Mr. Small and o thers 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 o f 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 a ll 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 me mbers 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. Itwould 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 C ruce s and E l Paso C ounty. 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. Ang el 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 printi ng. 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 cu ts 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 co lonias 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 Univ ersity. Dr. Austin added that it is important to the people in border communities to have the opportunity to express their concerns to the B oard. 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 me mbers 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, an d 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 distribute s 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 dis tributes 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 s ome of the GNEB activities. Sometimes the local media does not pick up on it, and it requiresJune 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 panel s of solar cylinders were installed that generate 32.76 kW

. The county also has opened a boat launc hing 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 provid ed 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 distributi on 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 E PA 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. M r. 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 Meeti ng 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 a sked 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 th ey 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. Austi n 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 a lert 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. Spene r 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 for32 June 16

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

10 years, but the funds must be appropriated annually. IBWC is involv ed 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 unders tanding 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

- Ja ckson 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 cl arification 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 criti cal 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 repo rt 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. N iemeyer 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 ha s been raised repeatedly, and should have been completed in 1997. The current Board of Governors Conference is addressing the issue. It is of maj or 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 significan t 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 Wa shington, 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 go ne 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 m em

bers 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 o ne 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 sectio n 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.o rg). 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. Austi n 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 th e 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 we re 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 po ssible 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 transboun dary 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 economi c 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 determi ne 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 feedsto ck 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 t ransmission 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 ener gy 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 purpo se 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 insta lled 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 Uni ted States. He suggested excluding substations from the mapJune 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. D r. 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 ar eas. 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 shoul d 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 bio fuels 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 transmi ssion 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 adop tion 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 map s 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

- chap ter 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 f ind 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 tr ansborder 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 c hapter 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 sh ould 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 eff

iciency 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 informati on 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 th e 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 discu ssing 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 no t have to produce. ” The Am erican Public Power Association published a resource in the past month that is a revie w 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 me mbers 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 ren ewables 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 M s. 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 inst allations 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 shoul d 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 D r. 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 b ecome 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 precip it ation 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 cann ot 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 sec tion. 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 l ess 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. J oyce 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 i s 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 p ossible. 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 additio ns 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 what38 June 16

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

additional material is needed. It would be ideal to have a near

- final dra ft 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 sub mit 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 w ill 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 me mbers 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 t eleconferences 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 th e 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 su ggestions 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 serv e 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 chapt er 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 me mbers 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 pos sible. 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 askJune 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 bene fits 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 chapt ers 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 specific ity 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 recommendatio ns could be finalized at the September meeting. Dr. Austin commented that the recommendations should be as clear as possible so that every Board me mber understands them and knows what they are voting on. Dr. Reed asked if it was appropriate to show pot ential 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 bor der, 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 d evoting 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 t ime 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 don e 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 a gendas 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 o ffered. 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. La wrence 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 publ ic 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. Aguillo n 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 s ections.  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 meeti ng 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 Bo ard**  **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** Pre sident 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 Cam eron 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 Man agement Directorate Department of Homeland Security Washington, DCJune 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 Agenc y **Larry Starfield** Deputy Regional Administrator EPA Region 6 Dallas, TX International Boundary and Water Commission **Edw ard Drusina**  Commissioner United States Section International Boundary and Water Commission El Paso, TX **Sally Spener** International Boun dary 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 Wieti ng**  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 Design**  **ated 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 Washingt on, 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 Coalition44 June 16

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

**Crystal Crawford** Del Mar, CA **Maria Elena Giner** Border Environment Cooperation Commission **Pablo G utierrez**  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 **Bi ll 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 Sc ientific Consulting Group, Inc. Gaithersburg, MDJune 16

- 17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 45 

## G **ood N**  **e ig** **hb or**  **E n** **vi r**  **o n**  **m e**  **n t**  **a l B**  **o a**  **r d** 

**The US**  **G rant**  **H o**  **tel 326**  **B r**  **o ad**  **w ay**  **San D**  **ieg o**  **, Ca l**  **ifornia 92101**  **619 /**  **232**
**- 3121**  

## A **GEND A** 

**Thur s**  **day, June**  **16**
8:00 a. m
. **Regi s**  **tra t**  **ion**
8:30

- 9:00 **Wel c**  **o me**  **and In**  **t r**  **o du**  **c t**  **i o**  **ns Mark J**  **oy c**  **e** As s o c iate D i r ect o r and Acting D es i gnated F e de r al Offi c er O ffi c e o f Fede r al Ad v i s or y C o mm it t ee M an a g ement and Out r each **Cynt h**  **ia Jones**
**-**

**Jac k**  **s o**  **n** Acting D i r ect o r O ffi c e o f Fede r al Ad v i s or y C o mm it t ee M an a g ement and Out r each
**D ia**  **n e**  **Au s**  **t in**  Acting Chair G oo d Neighbor E nv i r o nm ental Boa r d
9:00

- 10:30 **Envir o**  **nmen t**  **al Impa**  **c ts**  **o f Rene**  **w ab**  **l e**  **Ene r**  **g y**  **Development i**  **n t** **he**

**US**
**- Mex**  **ic o**  **B o**  **rder Regi**  **o n** 
**D o**  **nna Ti**  **s da**  **l e**  S ecr et a r y Prot ect o u r C o mmu n i t ies Fo u n d a t ion
**Pab l**  **o G**  **u t**  **i errez**  G e ot he r mal Pro gr am Te c hn i c a l Lead Cali f or n i a E n e rgy C o mm i s s ion46 June 16

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

### Bi **l l**  **P o**  **w ers**  P o w e r s E n g i n ee r i n g 10:30

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

- 12:15 **E c**  **o no**  **m ic**  **Benef i**  **ts o**  **f Ren**  **ew ab**  **l e**  **Energy D**  **ev e**  **l o**  **pment i**  **n t** **he U**  **S**
**- Mex**  **ic o** 

**B o**  **rder Regi**  **o n**  **L is**  **a Bi**  **c ker**  Pr es i dent and CEO Clean T ECH S an D ie g o **Kathy M**  **ac D**  **o ugall**  D i r ect o r o f Hu man Re s o u r c es Independe nt E n e rgy So l u t ion s , Inc
. **N i**  **c o**  **le C**  **ap r**  **e t** **z** D i r ect o r G r een E n e rgy / G r een Jobs Camp aign E nv i ro nm ental H eal t h C o aliti o n 12:15

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

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

- 3:00 **Poli c**  **y Is**  **s u**  **e s**  **As s**  **o c**  **i at**  **ed w**  **i t** **h t** **h e**  **D e**  **v e**  **l o**  **pment o**  **f Rene w**  **ab l**  **e En**  **e r**  **g y**  **i n**  **t h**  **e US** 
**- Mex**  **ic o**  **B o**  **rder Regi**  **o n**  **Andrew M**  **c Al**  **l i**  **s ter**  D i r ect o r o f P o li c y and S tr a t e gy Cali f or n i a Cent er fo r Sus t ai n a b le E n e rgy **Andy Horne**  D ep u ty C o u nty Exec ut i v e O ffi c er Nat u r al Resou r c es D e v el o p m ent
3:00

- 3:15 **Break**June 16

- 17, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Su mmary 47



### 3:15

-4:00 **Upda t**  **e o**  **n Cros**  **s -**  **Bo rder**  **E l**  **e c**  **tr i**  **c i**  **t y**  **Ta s**  **k F**  **o r**  **c e and**  **O t** **h er**  **I ss**  **ues** G e org i n a S ca r lata Bo r der Aff ai r s O ffi c er U. S

. D epa rt me nt o f St a t e Chr is to p h er La w r enc e Ele c tr i c ity Ind us tr y S p ec i ali s t U. S

. D epa rt me nt o f E ne rgy Rick Van Sc hoi k , D i r e cto r No rt h A m e r i c an Cent e r f o r Tran s bo r d e r S t u dies A r izona S t a t e U n iv e r s ity 4:00

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

### Report
6:00 **Adjourn**


# Meeting **Day 2** 

**F ri**  **d a** **y , June**  **17**
8:30

- 9:30 **D i**  **s c**  **u s**  **s ion**  **o f Next**  **Mee t**  **i n**  **g s**  **and O**  **t h**  **er B**  **u s**  **i n**  **e s**  **s** Las C r uc es, NM

– S ep t emb er Wa s h i n g ton, D C

- D e c emb er 9:30

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

### Report
11:00

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

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

### Report
1:30

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