Document ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0308-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2015-03-10T04:00Z

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

March 24 - 25, 2011

Mandarin Oriental

1330 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20024

Draft Meeting Summary

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Welcome and Introductions

Diane Austin, Acting Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB);
Cynthia Jones-Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and
Outreach (OFACMO); and Mark Joyce, EPA, OFACMO, GNEB Acting Designated
Federal Officer (DFO)

Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), acting DFO, welcomed members and called
the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. EDT. He thanked the participants for
attending and announced that Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, would be addressing the Board at 9:30
a.m. 

Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona), acting GNEB Chair, welcomed
returning and new members to the meeting and noted that member
introductions would begin before Ms. Sutley’s visit and be completed
after her remarks. 

Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson (EPA, OFACMO), thanked all members for
attending, including the new members she had met at the orientation on
March 23rd, and the returning members, who she also thanked for their
dedication. She commented that GNEB’s past work has been excellent and
she anticipated that the Board would continue that caliber of work.
Serving as a nonpartisan advisory board to the President and Congress on
environmental and infrastructure practices along the U.S. border with
Mexico, this Board is tasked with providing recommendations on a broad
range of environmental and economic issues. EPA is particularly excited
that GNEB will be addressing the environmental and economic benefits of
increased use of renewable energy in the border region. 

Board members, audience members, and support staff introduced
themselves. Dr. Austin thanked the staff at OFACMO for coordinating the
meeting. Ms. Jones-Jackson then introduced Ms. Sutley. 

Opening Remarks and General Discussion

Nancy Sutley, Chair, White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

Ms. Sutley expressed her pleasure in addressing the Board; having served
on GNEB herself, she understands that members are performing a great
public service. She thanked the Board for its excellent work on the 13th
Report; CEQ appreciated the careful thought and input in the report.
GNEB works diligently to craft the recommendations in the reports, and
these reports provide a great service to the Administration as they are
an important way to hear from communities along the border about the
environmental priorities in the border region. CEQ and other federal
agencies take GNEB’s recommendations seriously. CEQ is bringing
agencies that work on southwest border environmental issues together,
and this interagency group has taken a careful look at the
recommendations in the 13th GNEB report. She noted that the Board was
beginning its work on the 14th report, which will focus on clean energy
and its enormous potential to improve the economic and environmental
health of the border region. The President believes that developing and
promoting clean energy opportunities is essential to the world, our
Nation, and the border region. In the State of the Union speech, he laid
out a path for the United States to out-educate, out-innovate, and
out-build the rest of the world to secure a competitive position in the
global economy, and clean energy is an important part of this plan. The
jobs and industries of the future must be created by doing what our
Nation does best:  investing in the creativity and imagination of its
citizens. The President has challenged scientists and engineers to
invent and develop new technologies, and set a goal of generating
80 percent of America’s electricity from clean sources by 2035. The
border region has enormous potential for solar, wind, and geothermal
energy and CEQ believes that it is well-positioned to be an important
part of this clean energy revolution. In his budget, the President
proposed more than $8 billion for clean energy research and development
to help create new industries and jobs in these areas, which will be
long-term sustainable jobs in the United States. 

CEQ has been focused on energy efficiency, which is the cheapest and
cleanest energy resource available. If the United States became 20
percent more energy efficient, it would save more than $200 billion
annually. Energy efficiency will continue to be one of the most readily
available ways to create jobs, save money, and reduce pollution. Many
investments have been made in clean energy technology, but the
Administration also has been investing in the policies that will grow a
sustainable energy efficiency market. CEQ has been examining an idea
called “recovery through retrofit” for the residential market.
Retrofit technologies exist that can cut homeowners’ energy use by an
average of 40 percent. This market, however, has never been successful
because it is difficult to maintain. CEQ wants to examine ways to give
homeowners and businesses the tools that they need to ensure that this
market will grow and flourish. The Department of Energy (DOE) has
developed a home energy score that provides information to homeowners
about energy use and retrofit options. The Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) has developed a new power saver loan that will
make it easier for homeowners to retrofit. CEQ has developed new
workforce guidelines and protocols for energy upgrades to ensure that
there is a well-trained retrofit workforce. The Administration has made
significant investments in clean energy through the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and is now beginning to see its benefits. A
few years ago, the United States made 2 percent of the world’s
advanced batteries for vehicles, and now because of the ARRA investment,
the Nation will have 20 percent of the world market by next year, and as
much as 40 percent by 2015. This increase is good for the development of
advanced vehicles, for the auto industry, and for the communities that
rely on it. Each time a factory opens, it becomes a lifeline for
communities and supports hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly. 

In the border region specifically, DOE is working to develop best
practices for energy conservation and alternative energy in states along
the southwest border, and along with the Mexican Government and its
utilities, is developing a plan to map out wind resources in strategic
areas in Mexico. DOE also has been working with the Mexican Government
on the deployment of technologies that will help to increase energy
efficiency and reliability. CEQ has examined the 13th report carefully,
and is working hard to ensure it is responding to some of the Board’s
recommendations. The border region contains a number of poor and largely
minority communities that are disproportionately affected by
environmental conditions and a lack of basic infrastructure. The border
has specific challenges, as pointed out in the GNEB report, because of
climate change. Climate change adaptation is an important issue, and
border communities have to deal with associated problems such as a
decrease in water availability and increased drought duration, changes
in vegetation, and changes in habitat. CEQ has been working with a
number of agencies to ensure that the Federal Government is doing what
it should to prepare for the impacts of climate change. CEQ has issued
implementation instructions to give direction to federal agencies on how
they should integrate climate change adaptation into their planning,
operations, policies, and programs to ensure that federal resources are
invested wisely and programs will remain effective in the face of
changing climate. In another area with respect to climate, the Federal
Government has many scientific resources, data, and information, and
sometimes does not share these effectively with those who really need
it. CEQ received a lot of feedback from state, local, and tribal
governments that information about climate change impacts should be made
available and more accessible so decisions can be made about how to
limit risks and reduce the long-term costs of coping with
climate-related damages. 

The Border 2012 program is an important part of the Federal
Government’s efforts to achieve public health results in communities
across the border; the program recognizes that we all share
responsibility for a healthy border region. Ms. Sutley thanked the Board
again for its hard work.  

Discussion

Mr. John Wood (Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority), GNEB member,
commented that he had been on the Board for 4 years, and prior to Ms.
Sutley’s tenure at CEQ, GNEB did not have this level of engagement
with CEQ. He noted that Ms. Sutley and CEQ have invigorated the seasoned
members of the Board. GNEB members consider the content of the report
potentially beneficial to CEQ, the President, and the Nation. Ms. Sutley
said she appreciated that fact. Washington can seem a distant place to
communities along the border, and the reverse is true as well. The Board
brings a voice that does not otherwise exist for the Federal Government,
and tries to amplify the voices of communities along the border. 

Mr. Edward Drusina (International Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC]),
GNEB member, stated that Ms. Sutley’s words were very encouraging. As
the new IBWC Commissioner, he has been working closely with the Border
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American
Development Bank (NADB), and held a successful meeting recently with
environmental interests from both sides of the border. He believes that
GNEB has an excellent mixture of members to address border region
issues. 

Mr. Luis Ramirez Thomas (Ramirez Advisors Inter-National, LLC), GNEB
member, commented that additional funding was needed for border
infrastructure, and asked Ms. Sutley about her thoughts on nuclear
energy. She responded that the President believes that nuclear is an
important part of the energy mix, but clearly the events in Japan remind
the Nation that safety is the most important factor when dealing with
nuclear energy. The President has asked the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) to redouble its efforts to ensure that the nuclear
plants in the United States are safe. As the Nation seeks to develop
additional clean energy resources, it must deal with their environmental
and public health impacts. Energy use has consequences, and it is
important to invest in energy efficiency. Nuclear energy’s future as a
resource depends on the ability to produce it safely and ensure that
there is no harm to communities as a result of its use. It is the
responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure this safety.  

Mr. Luis Olmedo (Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.), GNEB member, noted that
it was a great honor to be part of GNEB. He has seen progress on the
ground because of the work of this Administration. There is great
concern about infrastructure, however, as budgets are declining and
governments are shrinking. He sees great interest in renewable energy,
but issues of permitting and streamlining remain, and some protections
are being removed. Ms. Sutley replied that as renewables are being
developed, their environmental impact must be taken into account.
Communities must have a voice in this process. People who are developing
these resources cannot do so at the expense of the environment, public
health, and communities. The Department of the Interior (DOI) and other
agencies that have permitting responsibilities have been working with
the State of California to share responsibility for permitting and
approval, but the earlier communities can be engaged, the better. 

Dr. David Henkel (University of New Mexico), GNEB member, stated that
many of the discussions about renewable energy have overlooked the way
that poor communities perceive these as lesser sources of energy. In
some cases, discussions about energy conservation and efficiency
overlook the rate of consumption that is presupposed; the policies
assume that poorer communities will reach the rate of consumption of
society in general. He asked to what degree EPA or other agencies try to
marry the analysis of new energy sources with assessment of how rates of
consumption can be reduced. Ms. Sutley answered that energy efficiency
is a resource, and one that will vary depending on the accessibility of
techniques to reduce energy use, and whether use is industrial,
commercial, or residential. Not just in poor communities, but across the
United States, homeowners do not understand how their homes use energy
and opportunities to reduce energy use. The home energy score is one
possible tool to help homeowners understand how their homes perform
relative to similar homes. Opportunities exist for communities and
retrofit businesses to help homeowners reduce energy use. Community
colleges and trade unions are focusing a great deal of training on this,
and that is why standards had to be developed. For low income
communities, opportunities exist in energy savings but also in job
creation. The Federal Government’s role is to provide tools and set
broad goals, but programs must be designed to meet community needs. 

Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ]),
GNEB member, noted that Commissioner Drusina mentioned BECC and NADB. He
stated that in the 13th report the GNEB was careful no tto request
additional funds for border water and wastewater infrastructure, and
wanted to know if there were going to be any increases in such funds in
the future. Ms. Sutley responded that the money that has been invested
in water and wastewater infrastructure generally has been spent. EPA,
through ARRA, did give a substantial amount of money to states for
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. The federal money is
important; if the federal share of the total money that is invested in
water and wastewater infrastructure is declining, EPA must set
priorities for allocating the money that remains. This Board should
continue to remind the government that there is a real need along the
border. 

Ms. Cecilia Aguillon (Kyocera Solar, Inc.), GNEB member, commented that
her company is challenged on two fronts:  financing for low income
housing, and the utility companies. Programs exist for energy
efficiency, but they are difficult to find on the utilities’ Web
pages. Can the Administration provide some help and guidance on how to
deal with the utility companies as well as with the financing community
so that renewable energy businesses can cooperate and collaborate with
them? Ms. Sutley agreed that this is a key issue, because many decisions
are made at the state level. The Federal Government has to watch how
these decisions are implemented when examining the financial
implications of energy efficiency of distributed energy like solar. A
number of agencies including CEQ have been in discussion with the
National Association of State Regulatory Commissions. CEQ wants a
serious discussion at the national level about the kinds of financial
and rate-making policies that will help to ensure a level playing field.
California has been at the forefront in developing policies that protect
utility shareholders and promote innovation. CEQ will need to focus on
this issue. 

Dr. Austin thanked Ms. Sutley for her presentation, and reviewed the
agenda and background issues with the Board members. The first day’s
schedule largely consists of presentations that relate to the topic of
this year’s report. These will be followed by discussions among the
Board members about the report. On the second day, GNEB will plan the
June and September meeting dates and locations. Meetings on the border
will allow people from those regions to share information with the Board
about environmental issues in the community related to the report. The
remainder of time on the second day will be spent discussing the report
and delegating specific areas to various members. 

Mr. Joyce noted that, in advance of the meeting, all members had
received a draft discussion outline for the report, which is intended to
form a basis of what would be discussed during the meeting. The outline
contains three sections:  (1) current border environmental issues; (2)
renewable energy resources in the border region; and (3) economic
opportunities that renewables present for the border region. More
affluent areas are more able to deal with environmental concerns in
their communities, so the hope is that by creating economic opportunity,
jobs and resources will be developed in these areas. This also will lead
to a better environment with cleaner air and energy technologies. The
economic section of the report would examine the entire spectrum of
renewables from manufacturing through installation, maintenance, and
training. By the end of the second day of the meeting, GNEB should have
an expanded outline noting the major areas of the report and which
members will be responsible for drafting the initial text. To have a
report ready to transmit to the President by December 2011, text must be
finished by the first of November. The substantive body of the text must
be available by the June meeting. The text will be edited and revised,
and the September meeting will be the last opportunity for substantive
issues with the report to be raised. Additionally, the locations of the
June and September meetings can be tied to the report topic. GNEB must
consider which communities present an opportunity to educate the Board
on renewables while drafting the report. By June, it must be decided
where the report will be released:  in Washington, DC, or in a border
community. 

Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control), GNEB member, mentioned that 6
years ago, reports were generally released at the Border Governors’
Meeting, but many GNEB members were not able to attend this meeting. He
thought the report should be released at a location where the majority
of Board members could attend. Mr. Joyce responded that the December
meeting would be a full Board meeting. 

Ms. Ann Marie Wolf (Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.), GNEB
member, wondered why the Board was not choosing its own topic as it had
for the previous five years she had served on the Board. She noted
pressing infrastructure and environmental health issues, and remained
concerned that GNEB was not able to discuss and select the topic this
year. Mr. Joyce replied that GNEB provides advice to the President and
Congress, and EPA and the Board have worked for a number of years to
create a relationship with CEQ. The way in which topics have been
identified for the Board’s reports have evolved; GNEB now is working
closely with CEQ to ensure that the Board is producing advice and
recommendations on the topics that are the highest priority to CEQ and
the Administration. This year’s topic was deemed to be important for
the EPA Administrator, the Agency, and CEQ. An opportunity for
discussion will be available later in the year about priorities for the
15th report; the ideas will be transmitted to CEQ, and CEQ then will ask
the Board to provide advice and recommendations on a specific topic. Ms.
Jones-Jackson added that CEQ has been a tremendous advocate of GNEB and
Ms. Sutley has taken a personal interest in the Board’s activities.
This is the first year that Ms. Sutley encouraged other agencies to
comment on GNEB’s recommendations. As a result, she is interested in
having EPA and other agencies collaborate on bringing some of the
recommendations to fruition. Ms. Sutley expressed interest, on behalf
of the President, in pursuing this topic. Members can raise other topics
of interest that can be pursued in future reports. 

Mr. Evaristo Cruz (Environmental Management Office, Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo), GNEB member, noted that information and data requirements for
the topic would require input from DOE. DOE has data on energy
efficiency grants and recipients are reporting on those projects now. He
asked if it would be possible to interface some of the work with DOE to
be consistent with that agency’s goals and objectives. Mr. Joyce
responded that it would be possible; there is an official DOE
representative on the Board who is not present at the meeting. In
preparation for this meeting, EPA has had discussions with
representatives from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, other
parts of DOE, and other agencies. The intent is that the Board draw on
expertise of all federal agencies working on these topics. 

Mr. Robert Apodaca (U.S. Department of Agriculture), GNEB member,
understood that part of the objective of the Board is to produce a
report and he has seen past reports. The various agencies at the table
already have been tasked with implementing a number of recommendations
from the Board. He asked what was being done to move the recommendations
to the next stage. Ms. Jones-Jackson replied that she and Mr. Joyce
served on CEQ’s Southwest Interagency Workgroup. CEQ is examining the
different recommendations, and is willing to help select one or two
projects stemming from the 13th report; hopefully, something may be
implemented by end of year. CEQ will meet April 27, 2011, to discuss
which of the one to three projects will be pursued. Mr. Joyce added that
advisory committee recommendations are purely advisory in nature;
agencies are not required to act on them and there is no deadline for
implementation. Some recommendations made a decade ago have been
implemented only in the past few years. Ms. Toni Rousey (EPA, OFACMO)
added that CEQ takes all the recommendations very seriously; the
interagency workgroup mentioned can be used as a forum to discuss the
issues and the border region in general. 

Mr. Niemeyer stated that meeting locations outside a major metropolitan
area are difficult and costly to reach, but the Board members are
committed enough to attend meetings in these locations. He noted that
there are many locations where the Board could actually see renewable
energy technologies and that would be useful for preparing this report.
Additionally, GNEB members should have copies of the President’s
response to the recommendations from past reports to help members learn
the impact of GNEB’s work. Lastly, the border emergency response
report recommended that emergency response equipment be provided to
Mexican responders, and within a year or two of that report, a program
was started by the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide the equipment
and training. 

Air Quality and Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 

Air Quality Impacts in the Border Region

Sue Stendebach, EPA, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Senior Advisor
on International Air Quality

Ms. Stendebach described the border zones as uniquely varying in terms
of geography, topography, geology, temperature, humidity, amount of
sunlight, wind patterns, population, industry, and socioeconomic
factors. These variances define the types, sources, distribution, and
impacts of pollution in the particular area of study as well as the
conditions for renewable energy. 

Major criteria emissions’ sources in the border region include
vehicles. Many vehicles in use in the border region emit large amounts
of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (PM), with diesel vehicles
also emitting black carbon and carbon dioxide. New clean vehicles and
ultra-low sulfur fuels will lower these emissions in the United States,
but Mexico will not have ultra-low sulfur diesel nationwide until late
2014, although it is tightening its emissions standards. Energy
generation facilities also release sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
among other pollutants.  

The current standard for ozone in the United States is 0.075 ppm 8-hour
standard. EPA has proposed a range of 0.060 to 0.070, with a final rule
on the matter expected this summer. For PM10, the standard is 120 µg/m3
24-hour standard and 50 µg/m3 annual standard. The border region has
ozone monitoring stations along the border grouped in the large cities,
and ozone concentration is highest in the Tijuana-San Diego area, and
lowest in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Ozone concentrations in many of
the areas monitored have decreased since 2008. The PM10 concentrations
are highest in the Mexicali/Imperial Valley region, with levels
exceeding 250 µg/m3 annually. 

An asthma case study showed that Imperial County, California, has the
highest rate of children’s asthma hospital admissions in the state.
More than three times the state average were admitted to hospitals in
2003, and 85 percent of the admissions were Latino children. As of 2009,
children in Imperial County still were three times more likely to be
admitted to the hospital for asthma than the rest of the state.  

Population density in the border region is highest in the El Paso and
San Diego regions, but overall is expected to grow, using a mid-range
estimate, to almost 20 million by 2030 from approximately 14 million in
2011. As a result, trade will increase substantially over time,
increasing freight movement across the U.S.-Mexico border. The number of
northbound trucks increased to more than 4.8 million per year in 2008,
but the number of passenger cars has decreased to 79 million from a high
of almost 92 million in 2005. Goods shipped by truck comprise more than
70 percent of U.S.-Mexico trade, and increased trade will mean increased
emissions along trade corridors and at points of entry (POEs). 

Under the proposed U.S.-Mexico long-haul trucking program, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) leads would phase in a program
opening the border to long-haul trucks. Presidents Obama and Calderon
have agreed to the program, but Congressional approval and a public
comment period are needed. Mexican trucks and drivers must be certified
for participation in the program, and Mexican truck engines must bear an
EPA certification label for the year of manufacture. The problem remains
that ultra-low sulfur diesel will not be available in Mexico until
November 2014, and it is necessary to maintain diesel particulate
filters that reduce PM emissions by greater than 90 percent. An increase
in long-haul trucks likely would reduce the number of drayage trucks
crossing the border. Thus, trucks would be cleaner, but over time, trade
would likely increase such that the number of long-haul trucks would
outnumber the drayage trucks they replace. The United States needs to
determine the correct combination of integrated mechanisms to decrease
idling and increase security and safety.

The Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning recently hosted a
workshop on greening transportation at the border that addressed
anti-idling at POEs. Additionally, in response to GNEB’s
recommendation to address anti-idling at POEs, EPA is working with this
committee, CEQ, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and other
agencies to explore viable approaches. Anti-idling mechanisms also
provide the opportunity to achieve co-benefits, such as simultaneously
decreasing criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. 

EPA Region 6 helps support local and binational planning and projects
through the El Paso-Juarez Joint Advisory Committee (JAC). The One Basin
Resolution for the area will facilitate monitoring, vehicle inspection,
and harmonization of standards, and the JAC has added metropolitan
planning organizations to expand its ability to address emissions. El
Paso now is in attainment for the ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM10
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA Region 9 assisted
states and local governments in and near non-attainment areas in various
ways, such as through school bus and heavy-duty truck retrofits,
landfill methane recovery, and road paving. The one basin approach also
is being considered for the Imperial Valley-Mexicali area. 

Future challenges in the area include:  (1) potential for El Paso to
return to nonattainment (and new areas to fall into nonattainment) with
the new 8-hour PM standard; (2) Sunland Park is close to the current
PM2.5 standard; (3) security issues hamper technical support for air
quality monitoring networks in El Paso; (4) as the ozone NAAQS standards
are developed, international transport can be considered; and (5) if
other border areas fall into nonattainment, binational cooperation
models should be replicated. Additionally, actions including further
road paving and control of agricultural burning must be taken. 

Discussion

Mr. Gillen asked what percentage of the population in Imperial Valley
was Hispanic. Ms. Stendebach responded that she would find the answer
for Mr. Gillen.

Ms. Patti Krebs (Industrial Environmental Association), GNEB member,
noticed that water ports were not mentioned, and asked if that was
because the emissions at ports were at much lower levels than at land
POEs. Ms. Stendebach replied that the water ports were an issue on both
sides of the border. The United States has entered into an emissions
control agreement with Canada, controlling emissions from ships. EPA
also has a voluntary program for the trucks and cranes. Mexico has
expressed a desire to join this effort, but that will be many years down
the line. 

Mr. Ramirez noted that a growing number of U.S. trucks are crossing into
Mexico to fill up with Mexican diesel because of the price difference;
she asked for EPA’s thoughts on that. Secondly, regarding promoting
the use of long-haul trucks, the biggest challenge is the waiting time
at the border. The low-cost drayage trucks are used so that expensive
trucks will not have to idle at the border. Addressing the wait times
becomes the most significant issue. Additionally, the wait times for
cars at the border are higher than ever even though the number of cars
crossing has decreased. Finally, one way to reduce the number of trucks
crossing the border is to increase the gross volume weight allowed per
axle. Currently, the United States allows 80,000 pounds, and Mexico and
Canada both allow much higher weights. A pilot program in Arizona allows
trucks in the immediate border region to apply for a single entry permit
at a higher weight within federal standards, and a tremendous impact is
being seen, not only from a reduced number of trucks crossing the
border, but also the cost savings associated with not having to offload
freight. Ms. Stendebach said that she would defer to DOT regarding
regulations on weight. The group that is working with CEQ, the Southwest
Border Interagency Working Group and Customs/Border Patrol, DOT, and the
Department of Commerce are addressing the wait times. 

Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department), GNEB member, said
that it was good to see the JAC given credit for air quality
improvements in the Paso del Norte region, and asked about the
challenges with exploring a similar approach in the Mexicali area. Could
JAC help with this? Ms. Stendebach noted there are numerous challenges;
specifically, resource limitations on the Mexican side result in too few
people to conduct the work in the environmental offices, and more local
support is needed, including local government, businesses, and citizens.

Mr. Olmedo noted that there are considerable challenges to improving air
quality in Imperial Valley, and there is a lot of misinformation
regarding international transport. How can EPA play a stronger role in
dealing with counties that are not in compliance? Mr. William Luthans
(EPA Region 6) responded that he had held conversations with colleagues
in Region 9 about the transferability of the actions taken in the Paso
del Norte region; that basin has been fortunate to have strong
leadership. Mr. Olmedo asked about EPA enforcement, and noted that
although there was encouraging work and international opportunity, the
United States needs to do more to enforce controls. Although it is one
binational airshed, there still are things that the United States can do
to control air emissions. 

The Climate Service:  NOAA’s Plans for Improving the Delivery of
Climate Services

Richard Rosen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Senior Advisor for Climate Research, Climate Program Office

Dr. Rosen stated that throughout planning for a climate service at NOAA,
the importance of improving scientific understanding of climate
variability and change and delivering climate information to users at
regional and local levels is understood. Just over 1 year ago, the
Secretary of Commerce and NOAA Administrator announced NOAA’s intent
to establish the Climate Service office to create a single entity for
climate assets and capabilities. Version 9 of the Climate Service Vision
and Strategic Framework is now available. The vision for the service
states that by providing science and services, the Climate Service
envisions an informed society capable of anticipating and responding to
climate and its impacts. The mission to promote a climate-resilient
society by improving understanding and prediction of changes in climate
can only be accomplished in collaboration with public, private, and
academic partners. 

The Climate Service strategic objectives include:  improved scientific
understanding of the changing climate and its impacts; assessments of
current and future states of the climate system that identify potential
impacts and inform science, service, and stewardship decisions;
mitigation and adaptation choices supported by sustained, reliable, and
timely climate services; and a climate-literate public that understands
vulnerabilities to a changing climate and makes informed decisions. The
core capabilities of the Climate Service would be understanding and
modeling, observing systems, making predictions, and service development
and decision support tools. Initially, the Climate Service will focus on
the societal challenges of sustainability of marine ecosystems, coasts
and climate resilience, climate impacts on water resources, and changes
in extremes of weather and climate. 

NOAA’s intention with the Climate Service is to establish a line
office equivalent to other line offices such as the National Weather
Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. The structure proposed in
the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget includes an Office of Climate
Research; Office of Observation, Monitoring, and Prediction; and Office
of Service Development and Delivery. 

Regional climate information is needed for decision making; therefore,
partnerships will be needed at the local and regional levels. The key in
bringing the partnerships together is the six Regional Climate Service
Directors that NOAA established within the past 6 months. GNEB’s
meetings held in the Southwest should take advantage of the Regional
Directors in the South and West regions. 

A long history of collaboration exists between the United States and
Mexico in the meteorological arena. One collaboration, between 2000 and
2008, involved a scientific exploration of the North American monsoon.
In 2004, there was a field campaign that involved scientists in the
United States and Mexico and established a large number of new observing
systems. The datasets from these systems also feed into the North
American Drought Monitor, which is produced monthly in collaboration
with the National Meteorological Service of Mexico and the National
Water Commission of Mexico, and provides information on the state of
water conditions across North America. Along the border, NOAA uses a
variety of in situ and remotely sensed datasets that support climate
change monitoring, such as river gauges in the Rio Grande Basin, and the
modernized Historical Climate Network. 

In closing, Dr. Rosen listed several Web sites available for further
information on climate in general and climate in the border region in
particular. 

Discussion

Mr. Olmedo stated that he did not see a connection between climate and
public health or ecosystem health. Dr. Rosen responded that “climate
and health” is major topic that has been brought to NOAA by the public
health agencies, particularly the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). As part of an interagency activity called the Global
Change Research Program, one of the working groups addresses climate and
public health. If GNEB is interested in hearing more about that, NOAA
can make arrangements for that working group to meet with the Board. 

Mr. Larry Starfield (EPA Region 6), GNEB member, commented that it was
important for GNEB to understand the air quality impacts and climate
issues, but for the purposes of the GNEB’s specific task, it would
also be helpful to know how NOAA and EPA’s OAR fit in with energy
efficiency and renewable energy. Dr. Rosen replied that NOAA has a
memorandum of agreement with DOE’s National Renewable Energy
Laboratory in Colorado; scientists are working very closely in the wind
energy area especially because of NOAA’s capabilities in forecasting
wind. Ms. Stendebach noted that she would provide information on OAR’s
activities in renewable energy for the Board. 

Dr. Henkel asked if there is a parallel program like the Global Change
Research Program that examines wildlife habitat. Dr. Rosen answered
that, among the partners, DOI has been setting up regional centers, and
there is a memorandum of agreement between NOAA and DOI on this topic. 

Public Comments

Dr. Austin called for public comments, and there were none.  

Air Quality and Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border (continued)

USGS Climate Change Related Work on the U.S.-Mexico Border

Diana Papoulias, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Research Biologist,
Columbia Environmental Research Center

Dr. Papoulias noted that USGS has seen a connection between the existing
stressors in the border region and what could be an exacerbating
stressor, climate change. To tie that to GNEB’s upcoming report on
renewable resources, the Board needs to be reminded that any resource
development will have impacts. DOI is quite aware of how “not green”
wind development and solar development are in many respects. USGS does
not regulate, but provides science on various aspects of geology,
biology, hydrology, and geography. Regarding the aspects of renewable
resources, USGS is very cognizant of the impacts of wind and solar
development on public lands. 

As a result of climate change, the border region will become drier and
precipitation events may be fewer but with stronger intensity. The USGS
border working group will be releasing a report shortly on the principal
issues affecting the border area and the connection between climate
change and these issues. Last year, DOI established a series of eight
climate science centers, two in the border region, to create and
integrate models in ecology, habitat, and population with climate
models. The centers will be tasked with developing methods to assess the
vulnerability of climate change on species, habitats, and human
communities, and standardized approaches for evaluating climate change
for monitoring, data management, and decision support. The Southwestern
Science Center already is staffed, and soon will be finalizing
agreements with six academic partners; the Southcentral Science Center
will be staffed in 2012. Additionally, DOI has begun to develop
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which are network partnerships
working in unison to ensure the sustainability of America’s land,
water, and biological and cultural resources by leveraging available
resources. These will be tightly linked to the climate science centers. 

For the border work being conducted on the climate, DOI has established
the Borderlands Environmental Health Initiative (BEHI), which was
initiated with new funding from the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) because of interest in how the data that DOI was
collecting on fish and wildlife could be used to inform their work on
human health. BEHI’s objectives are to maintain a portal where
geospatial data could be brought together and “made transboundary”
by working with Mexican counterparts, and to facilitate research into
the link between environmental health and human health. 

Scientists in the Santa Cruz Watershed are addressing ecosystem services
in the binational watershed in terms of biophysical/ecological value,
social/human well-being, and economic/market land price. Contaminants in
the Santa Cruz River continue to be an issue, and climate change will
affect the concentration, degradation, and movement of emerging
contaminants. Groundwater and contaminant transport modeling can be used
to predict changes in water availability and movement of contaminants
between groundwater and surface water based on different climate
scenarios. 

Modeling floods in the Ambos Nogales area also has been conducted to
provide information for city planners in those communities. Recently,
USGS has been able to install more rain gauges so that data would be
available in real time on online maps. DoD’s Northern Command is
funding the project as part of a flood warning and modeling project in
Nogales, Sonora. 

USGS is part of the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Project (TAAP);
with the loss of surface water, the groundwater will be more important.
The quantity and location of many aquifers in the Mesilla Bolson
currently are unknown, and TAAP will remedy this with upgraded models
that can be tied to real-time water supply conditions to allow for
supply and demand analysis, pumping predictions, and effects of
administrative rules for droughts or water rights. 

The Salton Sea ecosystem is the largest lake in California and important
in terms of the Pacific flyway. It is shrinking and increasing in
salinity and contaminants, and that is expected to continue in the
foreseeable future. At the same time, as the bottom lands have become
more exposed, the winds in the area are moving the dust, which has both
particulates and contaminants associated with it. 

The central border area is the source of dust (from unpaved roads in the
colonias or unproductive agricultural land) that is frequently
transported during high wind events. Different scales for evaluating
effects and making measurements exist, and USGS often is examining a
fine resolution through high-resolution climate modeling for dust
events. 

Discussion

Mr. Ramirez asked if the flood model mentioned in the Ambos Nogales
region is completed. Dr. Papoulias answered that work on the model is
underway by the Water Science Center in Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Ramirez
asked whether the outreach at the local community level involved the
cities or local entities such as stakeholders beyond the research
entities. He also asked when the results would be published. Dr.
Papoulias noted that USGS tried to get feedback through the BEHI, and
there will be other mechanisms for feedback through USGS outreach, but
there are no forums specifically for interacting with the public. She
offered to give Mr. Ramirez contacts to learn more. Mr. Ramirez said
that information is necessary because the findings of the study will
have a direct impact on the Nogales area. Dr. Rosen noted that NOAA
should coordinate with USGS because the river forecast centers are part
of the National Weather Service and responsible for making forecasts.
They benefit from the research that is being conducted at universities
and other federal agencies. The Weather Service has a long history of
working with local emergency managers. 

Mr. Olmedo stressed the importance of collaborating with other
departments. There is much concern with regard to contaminants and the
exposed sea bed in the Salton Sea. At Imperial Valley, work is being
conducted on the New River as well. In areas like Imperial County where
renewables are the savior for economic development and job creation, the
input of every agency is needed. 

Mr. Drusina noted that IBWC has reestablished a citizen forum in
Arizona, which is very active, to address some of the questions that
develop along the border. IBWC works closely with USGS and will continue
studying the watershed to try to ascertain what needs to be done to
solve the problems. Aging infrastructure such as the Nogales Wash must
be considered. 

Ms. Aguillon said that she was encouraged to see the list of the
partners on the other side of the border. Given that it takes both
sides, is it possible for United States agencies to work with their
counterpart agencies in Mexico so that both countries come to the table
together? Dr. Papoulias answered that she was most familiar with the
activities of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land
Management in educating and assisting Mexican colleagues, conducting
outreach about public land’s intrinsic value and values in terms of
ecotourism, and the concept of sister cities and sister parks. The
border is an artificial boundary when it comes to wildlife. The Rio
Grande is a border and many species of concern are moving through it.
There is shared concern about the stressors to the Rio Grande on both
sides of the border. Mexico and the United States often take different
approaches, but the two countries are working together on those issues.
Dr. Rosen added that there is a long history of strong collaboration
between meteorological services across the border; that could serve as
the model for extending the cross-border engagement. Ms. Linda Lawson
(Department of Transportation), GNEB member, noted that a joint working
group between the United States and Mexico is coordinated by the FHWA
and is addressing issues of “greening the border”.  

Mr. Jose Angel (California River Basin Region Water Quality Control
Board), GNEB member, asked if USGS has data on the impacts of green
energy sources that can be shared with GNEB. Dr. Papoulias responded
that USGS unfortunately did not have time to evaluate fully the impacts
of the roads to the sites, the solvents used for wind mills, etc. These
issues are examined during the proposals for the siting of these
facilities but judgments are based on past experience, and there are
many energy development disasters on the border continuing to
contaminate the area and affect human health. Additionally, the lands
being developed had been set aside for various public uses and many of
them contain many species of concern. It will be important for the
Board’s report to address the many difficulties faced.  

Mr. Nathan Small (New Mexico Wilderness Alliance), GNEB member,
commented that in Arizona, where 20,000 acre proposals are being
entered, it seems that there is a disconnect between the options that
are provided and the importance of energy, species, land, and water. He
asked if there was any work being conducted now or planned for the near
future in which USGS is an active participant in shaping guidelines. Dr.
Papoulias answered that having the financial support to conduct the
proper monitoring would be important. Any development is going to have
some impact. She hopes there will be a decision support system set up
with opportunities for feedback and the ability to make changes when
science indicates that movement is in the wrong direction. 

Mr. Olmedo thanked Dr. Papoulias for boldly stating the challenges; more
agencies should be encouraged to discuss challenges, because until they
are recognized they cannot be solved. He always thought there was a
difference between renewable and green energy and this presentation
confirmed that thinking. Dr. Papoulias responded that especially with
the climate challenges, agencies need to be cognizant of what has
happened in the past and what possibly can happen in the future.

Ms. Aguillon added that distributed generation is an alternative. Has
USGS looked into lessons learned from more mature green energy markets
such as that of Germany? In the past 3 years, Germany has stopped
supporting the large-scale development of green energy markets for
environmental reasons and issues associated with the reliability of the
grid. It would be helpful to examine lessons learned, but not from the
solar industry, which is divided between large-scale developers and
smaller installers. Lessons learned must come from a third party that
has the best interests of the public in mind.  

Renewable Energy Resources in the U.S.-Mexico Border

Hydroelectric Power – A Renewable Energy Source at the U.S.-Mexico
Border

Edward Drusina, U.S. Commissioner, International Boundary and Water
Commission 

Mr. Drusina explained that IBWC is responsible for applying the boundary
and water treaties between the United States and Mexico and settling
differences that arise in their application. IBWC applies 11 treaties
between the two countries using “minutes” or formal agreements
between the two nations. The goal of the 1944 Water Treaty was to
provide for the satisfactory utilization of the waters of the Rio
Grande, Colorado, and Tijuana Rivers. It authorized construction of
three international storage reservoirs on the Rio Grande and specified
the priority of uses of international water. The treaty also dictated
that the IBWC study generating hydroelectric energy at the international
storage dams on the Rio Grande, two of which have been built, and that
the power be shared by both countries. 

Falcon Dam is located 75 miles downstream from Laredo, and has a power
generation facility on both sides of the river. It is a “black
start” plant used to restore power to the grid during outages. The
Amistad Dam, located at Del Rio, TX-Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila, also has a
power plant in each country and can be used as a “black start”
plant. These reservoir dams are 2,500,000 and 3,000,000 acre feet
respectively, but produce far less power than the Parker reservoir
because the power is generated seasonally for agricultural purposes.
IBWC has studied the feasibility of installing low-flow generating units
at both power plants, and units have been proposed on the Mexican side
at Amistad for $11.58 million and on the U.S. side at Falcon for $7.3
million. IBWC is preparing the Joint Report of the Principal Engineers
this year to outline design and construction. 

Dam security is an issue because they are exposed areas and IBWC is the
law enforcement agency at the facilities. Facility upgrades are planned,
including fences, gates, locks, closed-circuit television, and alarm
systems. In addition, security program improvements are planned,
including an increase in the number of guards, a new training program,
and increased pay. 

The new USIBWC facilities will strive to be Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) platinum certified as part of IBWC’s green
energy initiative. Other aspects of the initiative involve investigating
the feasibility of wind turbine and photovoltaic solar systems. The
initiative will serve as a significant launch point for a long-term
USIBWC sustainability program and a commitment to renewable energy
initiatives. 

The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) markets and delivers
federal hydroelectric power across 15 western states, and in 2008,
hydropower provided 67 percent of U.S. renewable energy. WAPA markets
the power from Falcon and Amistad Dams, among others. Hydropower is
reliable, adaptable, has low outage rates, and generators are long
lived. It was, however, negatively affected by a decade of drought.
Projects are being developed to increase hydropower generation during
drought, and the Federal Government should continue to support
maintenance of aging hydropower facilities. Additionally, dam safety and
security issues must be addressed. These issues should be mentioned in
the GNEB report. 

Discussion

Mr. Gillen asked whether Mr. Drusina believed a third reservoir would be
constructed. Mr. Drusina responded that he did, although it may not be
of the size of the others. He added that there are some initiatives
being proposed that require further exploration. The potential is there,
but with the economy as it is, it will be difficult to justify the up to
$600 million it would cost to build the reservoir. Mr. Gillen asked
whether, with current public attitudes, it would be possible to
construct a reservoir that would decrease wildlife habitat. Mr. Drusina
believed it would, because there is a public need and strong push to do
something along those lines. IBWC will examine this issue principally
from the stormwater benefit. TCEQ might look at the potential reservoir
from a water quality standpoint.  

Dr. Antonio Noé Zavaleta (University of Texas at Brownsville), GNEB
member, noted that the population and agricultural activities in the
lower Rio Grande valley in Texas are supported by the water available at
the Falcon and Amistad.  He asked if there was a new hydropower
technology that does not require the release of water over the dam. Mr.
Drusina responded that the low-flow turbine is the most viable
technology. When water is released into the turbine, it is based on
need. The private sector holds that this is the most efficient way to
generate power. Dr. Zavaleta asked about desalination plants, or
electricity generating plants using ocean water. Mr. Drusina noted that
he was involved with the Kay Bailey Hutchison desalination plant, and
desalination is a viable alternative for improving water quality, but it
takes a great deal of power to run the plants, and the cost is very
high. Additionally, IBWC is open to tidal, solar, or wind energy, but is
examining only solar and wind at this time. 

Dr. Teresa Pohlman (Department of Homeland Security [DHS]), GNEB member,
stated that the dams might provide a good opportunity for a hybrid
system in which a renewable photovoltaic system could take over when
there are low water levels. Mr. Drusina suggested that GNEB members
might want to plan a visit to the Amistad Dam. 

Mr. Edward Hoyt (Nexant) asked, given the age of the two facilities, if
there are any plans to repower any of the existing facilities and
extract more capacity. Mr. Drusina responded that some private
consultants had visited the two sites to examine the turbines and the
possibility of repowering, but the cost is high. The conditions of the
turbines are exceptional. The IBWC is focusing on the low-flow turbine.
Mr. Hoyt asked if the low-flow turbines would be deployed in the water
course of the river. Mr. Drusina responded that they would be in the dam
sites themselves.  

Mr. Apodaca expressed uncertainty as to whether DoD was included in any
of the discussions about energy.  DoD currently is addressing energy and
water issues on the military bases and should probably be included at
the table. Mr. Drusina added that the Kay Bailey plant is located on
Fort Bliss property, but the military is getting its fair share of that
water. Mr. Joyce noted that DoD had not been included in discussions
with GNEB, but that OFACMO could follow up with the department. 

Mr. Small asked if the low-flow turbines could be scaled to smaller
irrigation canals, and noted that a huge stretch of the river is
independent from the two reservoirs. There is an increasing interest in
habitat restoration along those stretches of the river that are not near
the reservoirs. He asked if any habitat restoration was under
consideration and if there were opportunities for increased partnerships
with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or local governments on such
projects. Mr. Drusina responded that IBWC has an environmental division
that looks at every project conducted. He encouraged Mr. Small to
contact the IBWC environmental chief and the engineering chief. Ms.
Sally Spener will provide Mr. Small the contact information. IBWC does
consider environmental issues along the Rio Grande, and is mindful not
to step out of compliance. In terms of using low-flow turbines in
irrigation systems, Mr. Drusina suggested that IBWC staff give Mr.
Small the contacts that IBWC used in its analysis of the dams.
Mr. Drusina added that any GNEB member could contact him or other IBWC
staff at any time. 

Renewable Energy in the U.S. Border Region – Resources and
Opportunities

Edward Hoyt, Principal, Clean Energy, Nexant Energy Solutions

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

Renewable energy resources in the border region include solar, wind,
biomass/biogas, hydro, and geothermal; all five currently are being
utilized, and development activity is underway. Prospects for
development in the future will depend on policy drivers, infrastructure
and water availability, and permitting constraints. 

The solar resource in the border area is significant, both from direct
normal irradiance (technology that tracks the sun) and global horizontal
irradiance (stationary solar applications). Wind in the border region is
more localized:  the significant potential is at the western and eastern
ends of the border, close to either the Pacific Ocean or the Gulf of
Mexico. Biomass/biogas will be available near major population centers
because the major resource will be landfills. Hydro power is limited to
the Rio Grande basin and some limited infrastructure in the West, and
geothermal is located in the Southern California and Baja California
area. 

Project development activities at the western end of the border area
include several wind projects in Baja California including a 10 megawatt
(MW) facility currently in operation, with potential for facilities
totaling 2,000 MW to be installed by various developers (some of this
power would be exported to the United States.) In Tamaulipas, a large
wind facility has been proposed (160 MW). A small wind farm outside of
Monterrey, Mexico, will be going forward as well. 

In terms of solar development, the activity underway is concentrated in
the western end of the border area. Financing is in place for an 800 MW
facility in the Imperial Valley, and another 700 MW facility is in late
stage development there. A few small installations totaling 35 MW also
are under consideration in the San Diego area. In Arizona, two solar
facilities have been proposed—150 MW and 240 MW, respectively—in
Yuma and Solana. Additionally, a small 20 MW hydro facility is in
operation in Baja California. In terms of geothermal, there is a
facility just south of the border that has been in operation for at
least a decade. 

Constraints on power generation development in the border region
include:  regulatory and framework and incentive programs, transmission
infrastructure and availability, land and environmental/social impact
considerations, and water availability. 

Discussion

Mr. Zavaleta noted that a summary of renewable energy activities in
Mexico should be included in GNEB’s next report. 

Ms. Krebs asked whether there had been any activity with combined heat
and power as a bridge technology. Mr. Hoyt responded that such
cogeneration is a resource that has been utilized in major industrial
areas in particular; it depends on the pattern of industrial activity in
the area. For the most part, the industrial processes that are being
used on the border do not require a great deal of thermal energy, and
for cogeneration to be of interest, there must be a requirement for
thermal energy. Many of those facilities, however, do have backup power
such as diesel generators. Monterrey, Mexico, for example, has
significant cogeneration facilities. 

Mr. Olmedo noted that Imperial County is a prime area for renewable
energy, but there are considerable concerns. Imperial County is rich in
natural resources that spur development of renewable energy
technologies, and with the need for jobs, the area often “rolls out
the red carpet” for developers. The area tends to want to streamline
protections, yet protections must be in place so that, while taking
advantage of the renewable energy momentum, communities ensure that the
technologies are sustainable both environmentally and economically.
Mr. Hoyt responded that regardless of whether conventional or renewable
energy technology is developed, there will be environmental impacts of
greater or lesser degrees. Particular technologies will be deployed
based on the availability of land and ability to permit facilities. The
process is rigorous on both sides of the border although the degree of
enforcement of environmental protections differs. For projects like wind
energy, the preferences of the local communities are taken into account.
Progress has been made in the last decade in addressing those concerns.
Solar photovoltaic energy can be implemented in areas where
environmental impact will be limited, such as in urban or settled areas,
and these projects can create local jobs. 

Mr. Ruiz mentioned a map in the presentation showing potential wind
power generation for the region, and asked whether it would be feasible
in New Mexico. Mr. Hoyt replied that there was potential in New Mexico,
but it is a relatively small market compared to the markets in other
border states. Another point is that at the state policy level, New
Mexico has not been as aggressive in its efforts to create the
incentives for renewable installations. New Mexico also has the
transmission limitation in its ability to sell power outside the state.
Much work needs to be conducted to create an environment that will be
attractive to the investment community.  

Mr. Starfield asked whether there was potential for more biogas projects
at the many waste landfill sites along the border. The landfill
facilities already are in place, and methane-capture projects might
offer the community the added benefit of reducing odor from local
municipal landfills. Mr. Hoyt answered that that biogas projects will
not deliver thousands of megawatts; the technology tends to be in the 15
to 40 MW range, so they would be appropriate only for smaller
applications. Still, there should be considerably more in place than
there are at the moment. One project in Monterrey is a 7 MW landfill gas
project in which the municipality is the power purchaser. In the future,
there may be potential to expand the capacity by changing the way
municipal solid waste is handled, such as by using all the waste in
gasification. Mr. Starfield added that EPA, through its Superfund
program, already has a number of projects that put solar panels on
closed (capped) waste landfills; similar opportunities along the border
could be examined as well. 

Mr. Small stated that many of New Mexico’s industrial utilities have
proposed a number of large projects that have not attracted funding and
have not progressed. In terms of biomass, producing “green food” can
be considered; potentially using algae and brackish water so the water
resources are not heavily depleted. He asked whether biomass would be an
energy resource that could be “dropped in” ready for various
transportation uses. Mr. Hoyt responded that he focused far more on the
power sector as opposed to biofuels. The algae-based production of
biofuels is an emerging technology; during the next 10 to 15 years, it
is likely that this will increase. Municipal governments can indicate
that they will source a certain percentage of their fuel from such
facilities. Potential exists for utilizing brackish water in areas along
the border to advantage, but economics must be considered.  

The Economic Potential of Renewable Energy Development in the Border
Region

The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy in the Border States

Todd Foley, American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), Senior Vice
President on Policy and Government Relations

Mr. Foley explained that ACORE is a non-profit organization created to
advance renewable energy to the mainstream, and includes power from
solar, wind, hydro and ocean, biomass energy and fuels, geothermal, and
waste-to-energy sources. Membership is diverse, and includes all sectors
necessary to make renewable energy successful. ACORE has published and
will regularly update the report Renewable Energy in America:  Markets,
Economic Development and Policy in the 50 States, which includes
two-page summaries for every state covering market activities, resource
potential, and economic development. 

Overall, the renewable energy sector is high growth and entrepreneurial,
and attracts a great deal of investment. In 2010, the U.S. solar market
grew 96 percent in a difficult economic environment. The wind market
deployed 10 gigawatts of installations in 2009, representing 39 percent
of all new energy capacity that year. Much of the growth was built on
the momentum in the sector, but also the stimulus package that was
passed in Congress several years ago, the 1603 Treasury Cash Grant
Program. Much investment has been made in renewables in the United
States, and continued growth is expected. Pew Charitable Trusts
published a report last year on U.S. investment in renewable energy and
predicted an increase from $26.9 billion to $52.5 billion in by 2020. 

The four border states represented more than 35 percent of the
Nation’s renewable energy capacity in 2010, and the area is well ahead
of the rest of the country in deploying renewable energy. California’s
key policies for renewable energy include the California Solar
Initiative, which includes rebates and performance-based incentives. The
utilities have made a large investment in the state’s solar power, and
there now are more than 17,000 direct and indirect jobs related to
renewable energy in the state. Texas has the most renewable energy
deployed in the United States, which is mostly wind power, and contains
the largest wind farm in the Nation. Total wind power is more than 10
gigawatts. Arizona serves as headquarters for leading solar energy
companies like First Solar, Kyocera, and Stirling Energy Systems. New
Mexico is home to 700 MW of wind energy capacity, with 300 MW under
construction, though it does face challenges with transmission. 

Discussion

Mr. Joyce thanked Mr. Foley for the wealth of information in his
presentation, and for making ACORE’s report available to GNEB. 

Mr. Ramirez asked about future cost trends, and whether renewable energy
would be cost competitive with more traditional sources of energy. Mr.
Foley replied that renewable energy already was cost competitive,
although it depended on local power rates. In California, peak rates for
energy are some of the highest in the country, and solar already is cost
competitive with grid power. Solar and wind energy already are fully
cost-competitive compared to natural gas and nuclear. The power market
is in transition, and some in the utility sector think that 40 to 60
percent of existing coal plants will be closed during the next 10 years.
For now, solar and wind power are cost competitive, but there will be a
rapid reduction in cost. Mr. Foley offered to provide GNEB with an
additional slide that will provide more information on cost. Mr. Ramirez
noted that cost would seem to be one of the principal points for the
GNEB report. 

Dr. Henkel stated that one of the challenges for GNEB is to determine
where the resources and resource potentials exist within the border
region because the general totals from the states can distort this. That
kind of disaggregation will be helpful to the Board. Dr. Austin asked if
ACORE has this kind of information broken down below the state level.
Mr. Foley said that ACORE did not have this information, but others have
broken it down to the local level. Utilities have examined where
resources make most sense, and where there is distribution level and
cost information. 

Dr. Pohlman commented that DHS was working with DOE on regionalization,
single points of failure, and energy security, so she suggested that a
topic for the GNEB report might be looking at the aspect of energy
security. Additionally, she recommended examining regionalization, such
as how border states can leverage off of each others’ projects.
Mr. Foley answered that each state is rich in renewable energy to
different degrees, and some leveraging off each other is happening.
There is some regionalization taking place. Dr. Pohlman added that as an
advisory board to the President, GNEB could recommend examining
regionalization. Ms. Aguillon stated that GNEB should address the
concern that some states want the energy to be localized in their own
states. 

Update on Border 2012 Program and Commission for Environmental
Cooperation Activities

Michelle DePass, EPA, Assistant Administrator, Office of International
and Tribal Affairs (OITA)

Ms. DePass thanked the Board for their time and dedication on behalf of
herself, Administrator Jackson, and EPA. Border 2012 is the only ground
up, bilateral process on implementation of protection of human health
and the environment on the border of Mexico and the United States. She
noted that her office also is responsible for the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) project. 

Ms. DePass was pleased that GNEB maintains independent partnerships with
other key border regional programs, one of them being the Border 2012
program. Both GNEB and Border 2012 continue to be a model of
cooperation. The GNEB combines expertise and research to identify where
an impact can be made. Border 2012 works to achieve tangible
environmental and public health results in the U.S.-Mexico border region
by implementing programs and leveraging funds. With GNEB’s hard work
and recommendations, the Border 2012 program can be further improved and
be successful in creating positive environmental and health outcomes.
She provided the Board with copies of the recently released report  
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/Border2012/publications.html" \l "results"
 U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program - Border 2012: Program Highlights -
Fall 2010 . 

Border 2012 has six major goals:  (1) reducing water contamination, (2)
reducing air pollution, (3) reducing land contamination, (4) improving
environmental health, (5) improving emergency preparedness and response,
and (6) promoting environmental stewardship. During the last year,
progress has been made in all six areas. Some border communities,
however, still do not have access to clean drinking water. Border 2012
has been working toward safe water management by supporting communities
through its Trinational Tribal Partnership Initiative. Border 2012
cannot protect water resources alone, so beyond developing capacity in
specific communities, it worked to restore binational community
awareness and public participation in the Colorado/Rio Grande Watershed.
Border 2012 also is collaborating with local stakeholders to improve
pesticide collection through binational state level partnerships.
Although the U.S.-Mexico border zone is a center for international
commerce, communities on the border often face disproportionate
environmental and health risks, so Border 2012 has partnered with the
University of Texas at El Paso to find solutions that will improve air
quality by examining options for improved binational traffic flow at the
Bridge of Americas. This will help Border 2012 work with communities to
determine the impact on air quality and pollution exposure. Border 2012
also is engaging industry in the area to improve recycling of
electronics, and initial work has led to additional partnerships with
binational universities and further expansion of safe and
environmentally sound recycling procedures. 

As a result of the collaboration with Canada and Mexico established by
the Administrator, the work of the CEC has closely reflected U.S.
priorities. In terms of greening the economy in North America, the main
objective is to improve private sector environmental performance. The
CEC is attempting to target the work; in 2011-2012, CEC will establish a
trilateral green building construction task force that will help to
establish a common metric methodology to curb greenhouse gases from the
construction sector, which in turn, will help to identify opportunities
to reduce greenhouse gases in the construction of green buildings in
North America. Additionally, activities related to the priority of
healthy communities and the economy will be used as an avenue to create
strong partnerships with indigenous populations across North America by
identifying projects to support. CEC also is planning to help the three
countries understand the transboundary movements of e-waste and used
electronics in North America. As the CEC turned its attention to a low
carbon economy, the priority of climate change is one of the three major
themes. CEC and its North American counterparts are conducting an
assessment of greenhouse gas data, inventories, and related information.
In response to CEC direction, the United States recently proposed
development and sustainability of an interactive online platform on
which to share and discuss climate change-related information among the
three countries. 

As shared environmental needs and challenges grow, GNEB’s
recommendations are critical to help the Agency continue to seek robust
solutions. Ms. DePass again thanked the Board for its commitment to work
with EPA.

Discussion

Mr. Olmedo commented that he had seen much progress in border
communities during this Administration. There still are considerable
challenges when dealing with tribal governments and nontribal
governments. He mentioned a case where toxic waste was being disposed of
on tribal land. EPA is taking a cautious approach, and although state
and local governments want to act, they are unsure of what to do. Can
EPA take more aggressive action on issues such as this that are harming
border communities? Ms. DePass replied that she had visited border
communities where some problems were not being addressed because of
jurisdictional issues. EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance Cynthia Giles recognizes that this is a
problem. EPA looks for opportunities to work with the tribe or community
to bring about compliance before enforcement is used, but the Agency
would not hesitate to use enforcement when necessary. Mr. Starfield said
that open dumps of non-tribal toxic waste on tribal lands are a
continuing problem. Region 6 recently held a meeting with
representatives of 66 tribes and discussed enforcement and consultation
issues, but not much funding is available to deal with the dumps.
Cleanup is a priority, however, and EPA is collaborating with the tribes
on better protocols for enforcement. Ms. DePass added that there is a
question regarding the responsibilities of EPA and other agencies
regarding these open dumps. 

Ms. Krebs noted that a number of her member companies are working with
e-waste recyclers because they are concerned about liability and risk
that any of their e-waste might end up overseas. Some are adopting the
Responsible Recycling (R2) program. Is this adequate, or do the
companies need a third-party certifier? Ms. DePass responded that EPA is
co-chairing an interagency task force on e-waste. The President has
asked the group for a report by May 6, 2011, on research and
development, lifecycle analysis, and where the waste will go. EPA is
involved in an in depth discussion about standards, certification, and
disposal issues. More information will be available in 2 months. 

Mr. Ruiz stated that his region had experienced some successes under
Border 2012, and the bottom-up approach should be maintained for the new
program. Regarding the program’s timeline, the drafting committee has
discussed a “no-year” or 2-year program rather than setting goals
for 10 years at a time. Ms. DePass replied that accountability is
important, and that it will take time to make changes along the border.
In such a process, it is important to plan for a long-term effort, and
allow for budget forecasting. 

Ms. Wolf asked about the content of the new program. Ms. DePass
responded that she was very pleased that there was such a robust public
comment period. Environmental justice will be a larger piece in the
framework of Border 2020. The plan will have an 8-year framework. Ms.
DePass has charged staff to determine a way to improve communication and
enhance involvement. The work areas are the ones that have been
highlighted in the past, so the goals will be similar; GNEB should
inform EPA if members believe that the program should be changed. Ms.
Lisa Almodovar (EPA, OITA), mentioned that one goal on public health and
environmental health might change, and a new goal on chemical safety may
be created. The Border 2020 National Coordinators’ Meeting will be
held May 10-11, 2011, in San Antonio, Texas; the goals and objectives
will be discussed at that meeting. 

Mr. Ramirez asked for guidance on how to better communicate the needs of
the border region. The border does not always get its fair share of
resources, does not have political clout, and is facing budgetary
challenges on every front. New requirements from DHS are having an
impact on border communities as well. Ms. DePass stated that the
Administrator has been clear that shorter-term EPA appointees must do
their jobs. Everyone wants clean air and clean water. Public health will
be undergirding Border 2020. This region is important to the Nation’s
economy and the lack of public health along the border has a significant
impact on national productivity. She emphasized that a healthy economy
is impossible without healthy people. 

Mr. Niemeyer noted that one of the recommendations in the report was to
revisit the transboundary environmental impact assessment. The Joint
Public Advisory Committee of the CEC agreed with this recommendation at
its meeting. This issue continues to arise, and until something gets
done, there will always be complaints; nothing precludes the two
governments from having an agreement. Ms. DePass responded that this is
an issue that EPA hopes to address within the next year, but it is a
difficult issue. Ms. Rachel Poynter (Department of State) noted that the
State Department had raised the issue in a meeting with CEQ, and she
believes there is a willingness to review necessary aspects of such an
agreement.

 

Mr. Olmedo asked if Border 2020 would contain demonstration projects
that last more than 12 months or could be conducted in multiple phases.
He also asked if Border 2012 will have any focus on enforcement and
funding. Ms. DePass asked if Mr. Olmedo’s first question concerned
moving a Border 2012 project into another funding stream at the Agency.
Dr. Austin noted that there is such a focus in Border 2012 on pilot
projects, and those projects that are successful have no possibility of
other investment after the project ends. There are no resources
available to send the people out to teach others about the project so
many opportunities are lost. Mr. Luthans explained that this issue was a
challenge for EPA, because the Agency must rely on statutory authority
to provide grant money. Also, some of EPA’s funding streams are
limited only to pilot projects. Ms. Almodovar added that it was an
appropriation issue, but EPA has asked that each goal in Border 2020
include a capacity building objective, so that there will be the
capacity to pass on the knowledge gained for each goal. Ms. DePass
stated that there also is an issue with communicating the projects in a
way that is understandable, particularly how they are benefitting the
border area. Perhaps there is a way that this information can be
communicated to other institutions that have more flexibility in
distributing resources. In response to Mr. Olmedo’s second question,
Ms. Almodovar stated that the inclusion of enforcement in Border 2020
was still under discussion, because enforcement differs greatly in the
United States and Mexico. The current thought is that each goal should
have an enforcement component, but negotiations still are underway. Ms.
Aguillon suggested that perhaps a reward for compliance could be used as
well as enforcement. 

Mr. Niemeyer commented that the enforcement and compliance goals as
currently written are about pollution prevention and have nothing to do
with enforcement. Language that makes sense for compliance and
enforcement needs to be added. Ms. DePass noted that it was important to
keep Mexican partners in the negotiations. 

The Economic Potential of Renewable Energy Development in the Border
Region (continued)

Distributed Solar Energy:  Opportunities for the U.S. Border Region

Cecelia Aguillon, Kyocera Solar, Inc., Director of Market Development
and Government Affairs, GNEB Member

Ms. Aguillon identified some of the benefits of distributed solar
energy. It provides clean energy, provides peak shaving power that
reduces the investment need for peaking plants, reduces cost volatility,
reduces dependence on imported fuels, alleviates grid congestion,
leverages ratepayers’ funds assigned to the subsidies, creates local
high-tech industries, and improves energy security through
decentralization. 

Distributed generation creates jobs (about 2.5 per MW produced),
generates tax revenues, decreases spending outside the economy for
energy or fuel, and money saved can be returned to the local economy.
Solar distributed generation requires certain policies to be in place to
be successful. These policies can include net metering, in which the
state allows turning the meter back; declining financial incentives; and
solar-friendly electricity tariffs. Additionally, long-term contracts
for renewable energy credits are needed, as are renewable portfolio
standards with distributed generation carve outs. 

In terms of financial incentives, tax credits and exemptions often are
available. Rebates can be based on system cost or expected output, and
performance-based incentives and feed-in tariffs also are available. Ms.
Aguillon noted that other world models could be applicable to U.S.
renewable energy. Starting in 1994, Japan gave a large rebate of $9.5
per watt for the first year. Over 10 years, Japan spent $1 billion on
incentives, and the incentive program ended in 2005, with more than a
gigawatt installed in more than 200,000 homes and the largest number of
solar manufacturers worldwide. In 2004, European models were created.
Germany created a feed-in tariff, and a portfolio in which wind was
given 4 cents per kilowatt hour, solar was given 50 cents, and each
other technology was given what they needed at the time with a ramp down
on the tariffs. More than 10 gigawatts were installed by the end of
2010, with more than 40,000 jobs created since 2000. 

In both countries, the border region has much in common in terms of
potential for renewable energy. Similarities include solar resources,
grid congestion issues, population growth, industry growth, pollution,
low market penetration for solar, and a skilled and unskilled labor
force. There are some differences, however. Uniform policies are
possible in Mexico, but difficult in the United States; there is a
central utility in Mexico versus thousands in the United States; and the
United States has more experience with solar policies than Mexico.
Recommendations for market development include the need for consistency
and transparency in the market, and the fact that incentive programs
should be based on system performance and last 5 to 10 years. Rebates
should be available for residential and small commercial projects. Net
metering and feed-in tariff programs should be used to accelerate the
market. Additionally, programs should promote competition to be
sustainable, and lessons should be learned from more mature markets.
Effective policies such as these can promote investments in
manufacturing, stability of material development, investments in
research and development, price reductions, and creation of a
self-sustaining industry. 

Discussion

Dr. Henkel asked about the labor skills and training involved with the
California operation as well as the hourly pay rate in the San Diego
plant for new hires. Ms. Aguillon responded that for the production
plant, no particular skill level is needed, but for installation, a
minimum of 6 months training is needed. Plumbers, electricians, or
construction workers could take a 2-week course, but then should be
mentored by someone who is in the business. The starting pay rate for
the San Diego facility is approximately $10 per hour. 

Mr. Small stated that it is difficult to obtain financing; he asked Ms.
Aguillon to discuss financing and any national activities being
conducted that would provide consistent funding streams. Ms. Aguillon
responded that Sonoma County and Palm Desert in California have raised
$500 million and have about 35 companies in each county. She met with
Mr. Foley yesterday and they discussed the fact that ACORE should be
working on financing. She suggested a revolving fund. The German
government making the loans on the feed-in tariff was running out of
funds but within 2 years, the local banks began handling the financing.
Perhaps there could be collaboration on financing with the utility, with
a loan guarantee so the utility is not exposed. Ms. Aguillon added that
creativity is needed.  

Renewables: The Story of Texas

Stephen Niemeyer, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Border
Affairs Manager, GNEB Member

Mr. Niemeyer stated that the State of Texas had a goal, set by the state
legislature in 1999, to have 2,000 MW of new renewable generation
capacity by 2009; projects that would attain that goal, however, were
already under development by 2005. In 2005, the legislature set new
biennial goals to reach 5,880 MW by 2015, and a target of 10,000 MW by
2020. Texas exceeded 10,110 MW by the end of 2010. 

Wind is the largest source of renewable energy in the state. As of
December 2010, there are 10,000 MW of wind capacity in Texas, and when
matched against countries, Texas is sixth in the world in wind capacity.
In terms of biomass, as of December 2010, there was 125 MW of capacity
statewide. Also in December 2010, there was a 25.4 MW statewide capacity
for solar power, and a small hydropower capacity of 6 MW. Several
thousand more MW of wind farms could be built in Texas, and great solar
potential exists in some of these areas, but transmission is the biggest
challenge for wind and solar electricity in Texas and across the United
States. In 2005, the Texas Public Utility Commission created competitive
renewable energy zones, mainly in West Texas and the Panhandle, so
transmission lines could be built. Although people do not want
transmission lines through their land, they do not tend to live where
the wind blows. Nothing may happen with these lines for the next 3 to 5
years.

Legislation passed in 2009 allows “property-assessed clean energy,”
or PACE, in which cities can offer financing to homeowners for renewable
energy and efficiency that will be recovered through assessments on
property. Implementation of this legislation is being delayed by state
and federal legal concerns. 

Mr. Niemeyer mentioned the Border Energy Forum organized by the Texas
General Land Office that will be held in El Paso, October 27-28, 2011,
and invited interested GNEB members to attend. 

Discussion

Ms. Sally Spener (IBWC) noted that Mr. Drusina’s presentation had
mentioned that in 2008, hydropower provided 67 percent of U.S. renewable
energy. In Texas, more than 90 percent of renewable energy is wind,
which shows remarkable potential for wind and other energy sources in
the border region. She had received a notice from her power company, El
Paso Electric, which allowed payment of extra money for wind power from
the Hueco wind farm. The notice said that as of 2009, there were 526
Texas customers participating in this voluntary renewable energy
program, which is a very small number. Mr. Niemeyer responded that in
Austin, people are willing to pay more for green energy. There are pros
to wind energy but there also are some cons; for example, wind does not
blow steadily all the time, and the grid current has to be kept between
59.98 and 60.02 volts per second. 

Mr. Niemeyer mentioned added that two weeks ago, TCEQ Commissioner
Rubinstein was unanimously confirmed by the Texas Senate. He provided
copies of the TCEQ Border Initiative to GNEB members, and informed them
that it was on the Commission’s Web site as well.

Discussion of the Agenda and Other Business

Dr. Austin noted that the first order of business for the next day was
to discuss dates for the June, September, and December meetings. Members
should consult their planners and identify the weeks where they have 3
consecutive days open in case there is a field trip. Mr. Joyce added the
terms of several GNEB members end on June 9, 2011; the June meeting
would have to be held before that date in order for these members to
attend. Mr. Starfield asked how term lengths were decided and if it
would be possible to extend the terms of the retiring members until the
end of the year. Mr. Joyce replied that Administrator Lisa Jackson and
Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe established the term lengths. He
noted that several members will have served 6 years, which is the
maximum for EPA advisory committees. Ms. Wolf pointed out that the Board
did not meet for nearly 1 year, so that the members in question really
have served only for 5 years. 

Mr. Starfield suggested that, if there is agreement among the GNEB
members, a request to Mr. Perciasepe be prepared suggesting that the
membership transition occur when the 14th report has been completed and
the Board begins to consider the 15th report. Ms. Jones-Jackson agreed
that this could be done, and that she could discuss the matter with Mr.
Perciasepe and Ms. Diane Thompson. 

Dr. Austin called for a vote on sending this request to Mr. Perciasepe,
and the call was moved and seconded. The members who are scheduled to
retire in June abstained from voting. The motion passed unanimously. 

Dr. Austin explained that because the Board will not know the answer to
the request in time to plan the June meeting, members should be prepared
to discuss potential dates to meet prior to June 9th.  Also, if anyone
knows of major events on the border that would pose a conflict for
members, please notify the Board and the DFO. Dates and locations for
the upcoming meetings need to be determined by the end of the current
meeting. Subcommittees will be formed to plan the meeting. The June and
September meetings will be held on the border, and the December meeting
will be held in Washington, DC, or on the border. Mr. Joyce noted that
the advantage to having the meeting in Washington is that it is easier
to get senior officials such as Nancy Sutley to attend. The December
meeting location and dates must be decided by June. Mr. Starfield
pointed out that the GNEB is an advisory board to the President and
Congress.  If the Board’s hope is to influence national policy, then
it might be better to hold the December meeting in Washington, DC, where
Executive Branch agencies and Congressional offices (as well as the
national press) would be more likely to attend.  If the meeting is held
on the border, it is likely that only members of the local press will
attend to cover the release of the report. 

Mr. Ramirez stated that the Arizona-Mexico Commission meeting would be
held June 2-4, 2011, so that would not be a good time for the GNEB
meeting.  

Dr. Austin stated that the other issue on the agenda is the 14th report.
By the end of the meeting, an extended outline of the report should be
developed. Mr. Olmedo asked whether the current outline should be
subject to a vote. Mr. Joyce responded that the outline is an open
question; as long as the Board in December has a substantive report
addressing the issues raised by Ms. Sutley and makes compelling
recommendations to the President and Congress, the goal is met. Dr.
Austin noted that the goal of the Board is consensus, and the report is
developed through a consensus process. 

Mr. Gillen commented that he had always been proud of the fact that the
Board was independent. He would have preferred CEQ to offer GNEB two or
three important topics from which the Board could choose.  If through
CEQ, the President states, however, that renewable energy needs to be
studied, it behooves GNEB to do that. Perhaps in the future, a number of
topics could be presented to the Board. Mr. Joyce explained that it
must be clearly stated what advisory committees are working on and who
asked them to conduct the work; this requires approval at senior levels.
These groups are convening to provide recommendations to EPA, public
monies are being used to support these advisory boards, and the groups
are totally independent in terms of the advice that they offer, but not
in terms of how they operate. 

Mr. Starfield stated his hope that, in addition to the three areas in
the outline, the report could also discuss the positive and negative
impacts of renewable resources, including environmental, social, and
economic effects. Mr. Joyce said that this would be useful. The report
should be a balanced assessment of pros and cons. It would be a
worthwhile goal for GNEB to provide recommendations that would help
government and industry avoid previous mistakes. Mr. Angel thanked Mr.
Starfield for mentioning the impacts. 

Dr. Austin noted that one of her previous concerns had been what is
border specific about renewable energy. The potential positives and
negatives of increasing renewable energy development in the border
region need to be determined. If the Board is being asked to provide a
balanced assessment, what might this mean for the border? What will the
future look like on the border with increased development, what does it
look like now, and what policies need to be in place to protect the
communities? GNEB’s job is to state what the Board members believe the
increase in renewable energy means for the border. 

Mr. Small commented that, from the Administration’s perspective,
renewable energy resources in the border region are among the greatest
in the Nation. It is useful, however, to discuss the potential downsides
of increased renewable energy development. The Board should consider
having a specific focus on economic benefits for border communities and
border residents, and empowering border communities to be a resource for
the entire Nation. Dr. Austin said that the border can be held up as an
example for the Nation, but she firmly believed that environmental
issues needed to be the focus of the report rather than economic issues.
Mr. Joyce commented that the Board’s enabling legislation was broadly
focused. 

Dr. Henkel noted that there is an upside and downside to the discussion
about renewables, and a proper balance is critical. Board members bring
a local sensibility, and together, are advocates for a context that the
rest of the Nation does not have. GNEB is, by legislation, directed to
focus north of the boundary, but still has neighbors below the boundary
who must be considered when thinking about environmental health. 

Ms. Donna Wieting (NOAA), GNEB alternate, said she had been struggling
with the role of NOAA, especially in regards to the socieoeconomic
issues associated with renewables. She would like more guidance on how
she should be thinking about the relationship between socioeconomic
issues and the environment, and whether that will be part of the report.
Mr. Olmedo added that renewable energy creates jobs but it also sparks
more conversation about environmental and economic issues. They need to
be addressed together. Mr. Joyce responded that the socioeconomic issues
are intertwined with the environmental ones. The question is how to have
economic development in a way that results in a better environment. Dr.
Austin asked if the Board thought additional expertise was needed from
other areas in the Department of Commerce. Mr. Joyce commented that the
intent is that federal and state representatives will draw upon whatever
expertise is available in their agencies as necessary for the Board’s
work. There are myriad resources across the Federal Government that can
be tapped. It is hoped that members from the private sector will draw on
their networks to help the Board in its work as well. 

Friday, March 25, 2011

Dr. Austin welcomed members and noted that the first topic of discussion
would be locations and dates for the next three meetings. Then, members
will break into groups by sector to discuss topics that need to be
covered in the report. Once the topics are chosen, working groups will
be formed. The working groups then will meet to discuss and make
assignments. Several additional chairs are needed for these working
groups.  

Mr. Niemeyer asked if the meeting minutes from last March were to be
approved; Ms. AnnMarie Gantner (EPA, OFACMO) said that former GNEB
Chair, Paul Ganster, had approved them. 

Discussion of Options for the June, September, and December Meetings

Mr. Joyce recommended that the border meetings should be held in areas
where the Board could hear from people and visit facilities that are
dealing with renewable energy issues. Dr. Austin noted that meeting on
the border not only allows GNEB members to see local facilities, but
also allows local people to come and speak to the Board. 

Possible locations for the meetings (and reasons) suggested by the
members included: 

San Diego/El Centro/Imperial County:  Members from San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG) could be invited, as could people from the
Imperial Valley area, the University of California, San Diego, and
government officials from Baja California. Geothermal and biofuel
facilities are present. 

Las Cruces/El Paso:  Sapphire research and development site; there are
some commercial applications in the area, as well as medium-sized solar
installations; and the commercial algae site is 45 minutes away. Also,
IBWC has projects in the area. New Mexico’s two senators have been
active in the energy debate.

Laredo:  Wind farms nearby, and the Falcon Dam is 75 miles from Laredo. 

Del Rio, Texas, and Brownsville, Texas, also were suggested, but were
reconsidered and struck from the list. 

Mr. Joyce noted that the report would be in different phases of
completion at the June and September meetings.  He thought this should
be taken into consideration in making the location selection. 

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

Ms. Wolf noted that the past three meetings along the border were held
at resorts, and were not conducive to public participation. She
suggested that the planning committees look for facilities where the
public would feel comfortable. Dr. Austin explained that planning
committees were needed to develop field trip itineraries and identify
speakers, as well as select the meeting venue. 

Mr. Olmedo mentioned that an Annual Environmental Health Leadership
Summit would be held in Imperial County on October 1, 2011, which
includes an environmental justice tour the day before. 

Dr. Austin called for volunteers for the planning committee for the
September meeting San Diego. The committee will include Mr. Angel
(Co-Chair), Ms. Aguillon (Co-Chair), Mr. Olmedo, Ms. Wolf, Ms. Wieting,
and Ms. Krebs. The planning committee for the June meeting in Las Cruces
will include Mr. Small (Chair), Mr. Niemeyer (Co-Chair), Mr. Ruiz,
Mr. Apodaca, Dr. Henkel, Mr. Starfield, Ms. Spener, Mr. Cruz, and
Mr. Gillen. Dr. Austin commented that before the end of the meeting,
these committees should choose a date for a conference call.

 

Dr. Austin noted that meeting dates must be chosen, and GNEB should
first discuss dates that will not work for these meetings. She reminded
the Board that six members’ terms would be expiring on June 9.
Dr. Pohlman did not think that May 31-June 3 should be chosen because
that is the week of the Memorial Day holiday. She also was not available
to meet the following week, June 6-10, 2011. Mr. Angel commented that
the last two weeks in June and the last week in September were not good
for him because of events in California. Ms. Spener mentioned that June
29-July 1 is the Western Governors Association meeting, and that
September 21-24 is a large Colorado River symposium. Mr. Cruz stated
that tribal regional operations meetings were held the last week in
June. 

Mr. Angel entered a motion to hold the meeting June 7-9, 2011. It was
seconded, a vote was taken, and 12 members voted for the date, 4
against, and 1 abstained. A number of members from New Mexico were
unavailable on those dates, however, and the Board reconsidered. Mr.
Starfield said that perhaps the decision about whether terms could be
extended could be made quickly, and the meeting date could be finalized
at that point. 

Mr. Angel rescinded his previous motion, and entered a motion to hold
the meeting on June 15-17, 2011. It was seconded, and 16 votes were
entered for the date with one abstention. 

Mr. Joyce noted that it would be ideal to decide on a date for the
September meeting, but if a great deal more discussion was needed it
would be best to move on. Perhaps the September planning committee could
caucus and come up with some potential dates. 

Mr. Russ Frisbie (IBWC) suggested that the Board examine the National
Security Calendar to see if there were any events the southwest
scheduled in December with which the Board could collaborate for that
meeting. This would have the advantage of public presentation of the
14th report taking place in the GNEB’s geographical area of focus and
might encourage broader press coverage.

Discussion of the 14th Report

Dr. Austin suggested that the members break up into three to four
groups, choose someone to write down the group’s ideas, and identify
someone to share them with the larger group. The charge is to discuss
the renewable energy situation, its potential, and concerns in the
border region. These groups are only formed to brainstorm ideas; the
real working groups will be determined once the topics have been
narrowed down. The three groups will be:  (1) state representatives; (2)
federal representatives; and (3) private sector representatives (NGOs,
private industry, and academia). 

After the breakout session, the Board members reconvened and each group
presented their findings of what should be included in the report as
follows: 

State Government Group 

1.	“Watergy”—relationship between water and energy

2.	Environmental impacts of renewable energy—regulatory
constraints/considerations, i.e., dry-cycle power plants

3.	Environmental consequences of not doing anything (“no action
alternative”), i.e., what additional greenhouse gases are released
into the atmosphere

4.	Best management practices (BMPs) for different renewable energy
alternatives need to be highlighted

5.	Benefits of renewable energy and energy efficiency—what are the
benefits for communities that don’t already have renewable energy?

6.	If you can barely pay for basic needs, how can you afford renewable
energy?—what’s in it for the average consumer, people on fixed
incomes, and economically disadvantaged communities?

7.	Pros and cons of large arrays versus photovoltaic arrays for
individual use

8.	Challenges with existing grid system—transmission capacity

9.	Lessons learned—case studies

10.	Emission credits for transboundary, interstate, and local efforts

Federal Agencies Group 

1.	Institutional framework

Federal role, process on both sides of the border

2.	Role of federal financing

Lessons learned (e.g., Community Development Block Grant $, ARRA $) from
existing funding programs

Alternative funding/financing mechanisms

Ways to extend resources

3.	Mine existing interagency work groups (e.g., Southwest border,
environmental justice); reports (e.g., Institute of Americas) and
commission what is missing

4.	Role of private sector engagement

5.	Coordination of federal regulations and policies:  identifying
conflicts; background on existing policies on renewables

6.	Energy security’s relationship to homeland security

7.	Transmission issues across border

8.	Add DOI, especially the Fish and Wildlife Service, to GNEB

9.	Highlight existing examples of cross-border cooperation (e.g.,
agreements on hydropower generation)

10.	Add additional renewable types including efficiencies,
weatherization, biomass, and hydropower.

Private Sector (NGOs/Industry/Academia) Group 

1.	Private sector experiences

Business and industry development of renewable energy

Role of market forces as regulatory mechanisms

Cost/benefit of job creation/environmental impacts

Financing, market development, transmission

Inventory of projects

2.	Regulatory issues

Regulatory differences between states

Cost comparisons of conventional and renewable sources

Minimum/maximum projections of energy costs

Costs and efficiencies by renewable energy type

3.	Environment/Social/Economic Impact

Regulation of renewable energy production

Health and safety safeguards

Enforcement

Lifecycle (production – decommission)

Technical advice to local communities in designing healthy
public-private partnerships

Business incentives and incentive ladders

Community-corporate mutuality: community support and corporate good
neighbors

Protection of natural systems

Land and water health

Wildlife habitat

Precautionary principle

4.	Case study driven/illustrated

Private sector successes in commercialization and deployment of
renewable energy

Successes in renewable energy, environmental protection, and benefits to
communities

Scale sensitivity

Jobs

Environmental impact

Quality of life

Dr. Austin commended the groups for their work, and noted that the
report would be fairly brief. She explained that the report is intended
to raise the issues and to summarize what has been addressed in
renewable energy. Some of the issues have not been addressed, and the
Board may recommend that those be addressed. Mr. Joyce pointed out that
a more detailed report would be more useful to Administration.   The
more information GNEB can convey about what the Board thinks the Federal
Government should do, the better. Dr. Austin commented that the Board
might have to focus on fewer issues so that the report can contain more
detail. 

Mr. Ramirez stated that the largest source of pollution on the border is
vehicle emissions, and he did not see that in the comments from the
three groups. He asked about the spectrum of renewable energy that would
be considered for the report, and added that vehicle emissions should be
addressed some place in the report. Ms. Krebs agreed that vehicle
emissions, the low sulfur fuel standard, and biofuel development are
important topics for the report. Ms. Aguillon said that San Diego is
converting its buses to natural gas to reduce vehicle emissions; this
could be mentioned in the report. Mr. Joyce agreed that diesel emissions
are a major component of air quality issues along the border, but he
pointed out that those living in border communities need electricity and
power generation also yields emissions. Mr. Wood thought it was
important for the GNEB members to keep in mind the economic situation
along the border. Brownsville had to replace its fleet of buses, and
they all are still diesel because that is what the city could afford.
Some areas do not have the financial means to select the greener
alternative. 

Mr. Starfield was concerned that the outlines from the three groups
covered many times the number of topics that the report can cover. GNEB
is charged with examining the interaction between climate and the border
that makes renewable energy possible, and providing recommendations on
that possibility.  Dr. Henkel stated that part of the discussion among
the members focused on the inherited theme for the report, which came
from CEQ’s response to GNEB’s previous report. He suggested that
pollution can be examined by type, then the responses from the various
kinds of renewable technologies can be examined. GNEB can determine
which of these technologies are affordable and at what level. The
recommendations should fit to the realities of the communities.  

Mr. Olmedo pointed out that there is increased interest in renewable
energy because of the subsidies. Renewables will not solve the
border’s air pollution problems; in fact, renewable energy
technologies could contribute more air pollution in regions along the
border. He stressed the need to examine renewable energy from a neutral
perspective. 

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

Ms. Poynter mentioned that states have a great deal of authority over
renewable energy, so perhaps the report should address what the Federal
Government can do to facilitate work at the state level. There is intent
at the federal level to ease restrictions. 

Dr. Austin noted some facts to move the group forward. A background
section is needed to discuss why the border now is the focus of
renewable energy development and why the Board was addressing this
topic. The lifecycle of the technologies has to be discussed as does
affordability, transmission across the border, institutional framework,
funding and financing, efficiency, and the role of the private sector.
BMPs can be case studies. Dr. Pohlman suggested adding energy security. 

Mr. Starfield suggested that the Board members discuss the areas for
which they would like to make recommendations. GNEB can determine the
impacts of various choices, and identify policies that it would like the
Administration to adopt and promote. This would make it easier to
determine what information needs to be collected. Dr. Pohlman suggested
including a recommendation on policy regionalization to support current
efforts on energy security. 

Mr. Olmedo was concerned about ensuring that the report reflected the
Board’s independent opinion.  He got the impression that GNEB was
being led to give a certain opinion. Dr. Austin encouraged Mr. Olmedo
to add any topics that he believed had been omitted from the group
outlines.  Mr. Olmedo replied that he wanted to preserve the integrity
of the Board. Mr. Gillen responded that Mr. Starfield had suggested that
GNEB consider the recommendations to help guide the information
gathering; he did not suggest that the recommendations be formed before
the investigation. Oftentimes, in preparing a report, the GNEB will set
out on a certain path, and as the Board moves forward it determines that
the path must be changed. All of the recommendations in the report will
be supported by ample background material. Mr. Gillen said that he has
never seen any Board member’s opinion discarded. 

Ms. Spener suggested two points that should be covered in the report: 
the unique challenges and opportunities faced because of the border
region (opportunities for wind and solar, challenges with hydropower);
and the unique challenges and opportunities for working with Mexico. 

Mr. Niemeyer pointed out that in some of the previous reports, GNEB
would write about the issue, provide some background, and then include a
case study illustrating best practices. The recommendations usually are
presented at the beginning of each chapter. There were no foregone
conclusions about the report, however, before it was started. Aside from
the topic, the Board has the freedom to do whatever it wants in the
report. 

Mr. Angel thought it was common sense to start with the end in mind. He
suggested putting a placeholder in the report and employing a mechanism
to address regulatory enforcement and concerns.

Dr. Pohlman thought it would be helpful to see the discussion written
down in a document that could be revised. Dr. Austin noted that the
process was very rushed this year, but the members must leave this
meeting knowing what they are contributing to the report. 

Mr. Joyce agreed that the three outlines included a number of important
issues, but he did not think they had been organized into a framework
for the report. He suggested returning to the outline sent to members
before the meeting. Dr. Austin commented that there were still too many
topics listed. Mr. Angel said the outlines looked somewhat like a
puzzle, but he thought the members are beginning to speak in a common
language. Ms. Spener said, in terms of breaking this report down into
workable pieces, the outline given to GNEB might be more useful, but she
was unsure how it would meld with the outline just developed. Mr. Small
suggested grouping the topics into the outline. Mr. Gillen stated that
everything the private sector group discussed would fit under item #3
from the CEQ.  

Mr. Olmedo asked for Mr. Joyce’s opinion on what type of product would
make the best representation to Congress. Mr. Joyce responded that the
focus of the report is economic opportunities driven by environmental
and socioeconomic concerns. The hope was that, in this report, the Board
could examine renewables to address several issues:  the impact on the
local economy and the opportunity to create jobs, the use of renewables
to bring about environmental benefits, and any concerns associated with
renewable energy. Mr. Joyce said he has always strived for absolute
consensus among the Board members and did not expect this report to be
any different. Mr. Olmedo said that different communities view tradeoffs
differently; the border region will view that tradeoff between jobs and
less pollution/better health differently than a more affluent community.
Ms. Aguillon pointed out that any renewable energy technology company
that was polluting the environment and risking the health of the local
community would not be around long. The report provides a great
opportunity to examine impacts—both good and bad. Dr. Austin pointed
out that the report should address what renewable energy means for the
border region. Mr. Joyce noted that the report should have a balanced,
thorough discussion of benefits, costs, pros and cons, economic
opportunities, and detrimental effects; it also should provide
recommendations, by the consensus of this Board, on what needs to be
done to ensure that the positive impacts are achieved and the
detrimental impacts are avoided. 

Mr. Niemeyer mentioned that, according to the outline, GNEB has been
asked to examine the effects of air quality and climate change on the
border region in more depth than in the past reports, and the potential
for renewable energy resources along the border. The outline circulated
before the meeting states that the major emphasis of the report will be
to highlight the opportunities for green jobs in economic development
with a greater emphasis on what renewable energy would bring to the
border. Mr. Joyce said that the outline presented to the Board was
simply a starting point for the discussions, and the Board has moved
past it. Mr. Niemeyer wondered if the Board just needed to discuss the
issues surrounding renewable energy. Dr. Austin thought that was the
charge she heard from Ms. Sutley. Mr. Joyce added that the report should
capture the context of the Board’s discussion of renewable energy.
What are the socioeconomic impacts (positive and negative) and what can
the Federal Government do to ensure that the positive impacts are
maximized and any detrimental impacts are minimized? 

Mr. Apodaca suggested the possibility of creating three workgroups to
focus on community impacts, economic impacts, and environmental impacts.
Dr. Austin asked if other members had ideas on how to group the
information together in a framework for the report. Mr. Joyce pointed
out that some of the topics listed in the outlines are minor to the
Board’s central intent. GNEB cannot address everything. The scope must
be narrowed to a scale that will allow the report to offer
recommendations and a substantial body of information to support them,
as well as suggestions on what the Federal Government can do to ensure
the positive economic, social, and environmental benefits of renewable
energy while ensuring that the detrimental impacts do not occur. 

Ms. Aguillon suggested that national security be included as an impact.
Mr. Small noted that national security also is a driver and one of the
justifications for renewable energy. 

Mr. Cruz mentioned that many of the issues discussed also are faced by
the federal and state regulatory agencies. 

Dr. Austin wanted the Board to go one step further, and determine how
the topics fit together to create a framework for the report. Mr. Angel
noted that “large vs. small” was site specific and project specific.
Dr. Austin asked those who suggested that topic to comment on how it
fit with the other topics. Ms. Aguillon suggested that it was part of
the impacts. The pros and cons of both “large” and “small”
helped her company to come to a consensus. Mr. Angel added that it was
too speculative to get into impacts at a project level. Dr. Austin
suggested that “large” versus “small” be described as the
difference between a large project and a small (distributed) project in
the community, in economic terms, and in terms of environmental impacts.

Dr. Austin noted that each working group should seek case studies that
supported the findings and recommendations; these case studies could be
used to make a point or highlight the issue under discussion. 

Ms. Wieting commented that in the 13th report, there were six
recommendations on renewable energy; could the Board use those
recommendations as a starting point and elaborate on them in this
report? Mr. Gillen responded that because the 13th report was prepared
for a new President, the Board took the opportunity to cover a wide
array of issues. He would anticipate using some of the points raised in
the 13th report as discussion points. Ms. Wieting added that more focus
could be placed on those recommendations. Mr. Gillen pointed out that
many of the recommendations on renewable energy came from previous
reports. 

Mr. Starfield commented that there are two things that GNEB should
address:  (1) where the growth in renewables ought to be encouraged, and
(2) the best practices or policies for development. He suggested four
working groups to accomplish this:  background, renewable resources,
economic opportunities, and impacts. Ms. Krebs noted how the Economic
Technology Advancement Committee in California prepared its report—the
Committee listed the technologies available today, examined how they
could be applied based on who would benefit by it (residential,
commercial, institutional), and then examined the policies that would
have to be in place to make the projects successful. Ms. Krebs agreed to
e-mail the report to Dr. Austin. 

Mr. Niemeyer stated that one exercise conducted for every report is to
examine the previous reports; the Board needs to complete this task. He
added that he supported Mr. Starfield’s suggestion for the four
working groups. 

Dr. Austin stated that there were two sets of potential working group
frameworks under discussion. Mr. Cruz suggested the addition of a fifth
working group on consequences to the four suggested by Mr. Starfield.
Dr. Austin proposed organizing the topics under the working groups
suggested by Mr. Starfield, and Ms. Poynter agreed. Ms. Poynter noted
that the one area missing in the outline was challenges. 

Ms. Krebs proposed that the report include the comment that lifecycle
analysis be considered in the future, because the Board could not
conduct lifecycle analyses on all of the renewable technologies.
Dr. Austin said she envisioned a small diagram for each technology,
perhaps bolding or circling those aspects that take place on the border.
Mr. Luthans thought that lifecycle analysis might not be the correct
term, because Mr. Starfield meant it in broader terms that could
include obstacles and challenges. Mr. Small recommended putting the
challenges in the recommendations section of the report. 

Mr. Olmedo noted that some of the categories would fit well under
environmental justice. Dr. Austin commented that environmental issues
should be covered in the background and institutional framework section.
Ms. Aguillon pointed out that with regard to the lifecycle of
photovoltaic panels, lessons can be learned from Germany. In Europe,
there are plans for decommissioning the panels. Mr. Angel added that the
lifecycle differs for various renewable; he noted that both wells and
turbines fail. 

Mr. Joyce noted that the Board members appear to favor Mr. Starfield’s
proposed outline and working groups and the issues identified during the
breakouts fit into that proposal. Within this framework, the Board
should determine who would be willing to address these different issues.
Dr. Austin thought this would be a good approach for the Board to take.
She noted, however, that this approach would exclude efficiency, such as
home retrofitting, for this report; it also appears that transportation
would not be considered. Mr. Small said he thought transportation had to
be included, but with the scope limited to biofuels. 

The Board then placed the topics into the sections of Mr. Starfield’s
proposed outline, and determined which members would work on each
section. The results are as follows: 

1. 	Background (Mr. Niemeyer [Chair], Ms. Poynter/Ms. Georgina Scarlata,
Ms. Alison Krepp/Ms. Wieting, Mr. Angel, and Mr. Ruiz) 

Best management

Case studies

Unique challenges and how we work with Mexico, transboundary
relationship

Energy security

Institutional framework (must be defined by the group) 

Regulatory and compliance

2. 	Renewable resources (Ms. Spener, Mr. Luthans, Mr. Angel, and DOE
representative? [Chair undecided])

Lifecycle analysis of each (biofuels, biogas, solar, wind, hydropower,
geothermal, waste to energy) 

Best management

Regulatory and compliance

Case studies

3. 	Economic opportunities/issues (Ms. Aguillon [Chair], Mr. Gillen, Ms.
Krebs, Mr. Small, and Mr. Olmedo)

Energy security

Best management

Case studies

Affordability

Large/small

Jobs and training

Funding/finance

Roles of private sector

4. 	Impacts (Mr. Olmedo [Co-Chair], Ms. Veronica Garcia [Co-Chair], Ms.
Wolf, Mr. Small, Ms. Aguillon, Mr. Wood, Mr. Apodaca, Mr. Angel, Mr.
Luthans, and a DOI representative?) 

Energy security

Community impact

Best management

Regulatory and compliance

Case studies

Environmental impacts/socioeconomic impacts

Unintended consequences

Large/small

5. 	Challenges (This section will include recommendations and findings
of the report, which will be discussed in more detail at the June
meeting once members have reviewed the draft text) 

Policy

Best management

Practical recommendations

Case studies

Transmission? (place in report to be determined)

Dr. Austin instructed the working groups to select a date for a
teleconference before leaving the meeting. Each group should provide the
date for the teleconference to Ms. Gantner. Each of the groups should
have draft text by the June meeting. Prior to the June meeting, each
working group will send its text to the entire Board for review. Groups
should decide today what needs to be accomplished before the
teleconference. Dr. Austin asked if there was a location online where
working group reports and draft text could be posted. Mr. Joyce replied
that there is a Web site for the Board. Ms. Gantner will send the
teleconference call-in number and information to access the Web site to
members by March 29, 2011. She also will send e-mails out to the working
groups when a member posts something on the Web site. 

The working groups then met separately to discuss their charges and make
writing assignments. 

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

Action Items

Ms. Stendebach will send information on the percentage of the population
in Imperial Valley that is Hispanic to Mr. Gillen. 

Ms. Stendebach will provide information on OAR’s activities in
renewable energy to the Board. 

Dr. Papoulias will send Mr. Ramirez contacts to learn more about the
flood model mentioned in the Ambos Nogales region. 

OFACMO staff will follow up with DoD to see if that agency can be
represented on GNEB. 

Ms. Spener will send Mr. Small contact information for the IBWC
environmental chief and the engineering chief, and the contacts IBWC
used in its analysis of the dams for information on low-flow turbines. 

Mr. Foley will give GNEB an additional slide that provided information
on the cost of wind energy.

Ms. Krebs will send via e-mail the Economic Technology Advancement
Committee report to Dr. Austin.

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

Ms. Gantner will send the conference call-in number for the working
group teleconferences and information to access the Web site to GNEB
members by March 29, 2011.

Before the June meeting, each working group will post its text on the
Web site for the Board to review.

Ms. Gantner will send e-mails out to the working groups when a member
posts something new on the Web site.

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting Participants

Nongovernment, State, Local, and Tribal Members of the Board

Diane Austin, Ph.D., Acting Chair

Associate Research Anthropologist

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Cecilia E. Aguillon

Director, Market Development and Government

	Relations

KYOCERA Solar, Inc. 

San Diego, CA

Jose Angel

Assistant Executive Officer

California River Basin Region Water Quality

Control Board – Colorado River Basin Region

Palm Desert, CA 

Evaristo Cruz

Director

Environmental Management Office

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

El Paso, TX  

Veronica Garcia

Deputy Division Director

Waste Programs Division

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Phoenix, AZ  

Gary Gillen

President

Gillen Pest Control

Richmond, TX  

David Henkel, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

University of New Mexico

Community and Regional Planning Program

School of Architecture and Planning

Phoenix, AZ  

Patti Krebs 

Executive Director 

Industrial Environmental Association

San Diego, CA 

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.

Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator

Intergovernmental Relations Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX 

Luis Olmedo

Executive Director

Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.

Brawley, CA

Luis E. Ramirez Thomas, M.S.F.S. 

President 

Ramirez Advisors Inter-National, LLC 

Phoenix, AZ 

Thomas Ruiz, M.S.

Border/Environmental Justice Liaison

Office of the Secretary

New Mexico Environment Department

Las Cruces, NM

Nathan P. Small 

Conservation Coordinator

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance

Las Cruces, NM

Ann Marie A. Wolf

President

Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.

Tucson, AZ  

John Wood

Representative

Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority

Brownsville, TX

Antonio Noé Zavaleta, Ph.D. 

Director

Texas Center for Border and Transnational Studies

University of Texas at Brownsville

Brownsville, TX

Federal Members of the Board

Department of Homeland Security

Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.

Director

Occupational Safety and Environmental Programs

Office of Chief Administrative Officer

Management Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Department of State

Stewart Tuttle

U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs Coordinator

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC  

Environmental Protection Agency

Larry Starfield

Deputy Regional Administrator

EPA Region 6

Dallas, TX

International Boundary and Water Commission

Edward Drusina

Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX 

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Stan Gimont

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, DC 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Robert M. Apodaca

Assistant Chief – West

USDA/NRCS

Albuquerque, NM

Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Donna Wieting

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, MD  

Department of Energy

Christopher Lawrence

Department of Energy

Washington, DC  

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Washington, DC  

EPA Participants

Lisa Almodovar

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of International and Tribal Affairs 

Washington, DC 

Geraldine Brown

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Washington, DC  

Michelle DePass

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Assistant Administrator

Office of International and Tribal Affairs 

Washington, DC 

Jerry Ellis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water 

Washington, DC 

Ann-Marie Gantner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Washington, DC 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Acting Director

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

Debbie Lake-Hinkle

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC  

Bill Luthans

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

Dallas, TX

Stephanie McCoy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC  

Toni Rousey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC  

Sue Stendebach

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Washington, DC  

Other Participants

Jon Andrew

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washington, DC

William Bresnick

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Anthony J. Como

Department of Energy

Todd Foley

American Council on Renewable Energy

Russ Frisbie

International Boundary and Water Commission

Patricia Harrington

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Victoria Finkle

Inside EPA

Edward Hoyt

Nexant

Washington, DC

Lesley Hunter

American Council on Renewable Energy

Alison Krepp

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, MD

John McCardle

Environment and Energy News

Diana Papoulias

U.S. Geological Survey

Rachel Poynter

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

David Reese

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Rick Rosen

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, MD

Georgina Scarlata

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

Sally Spener

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Nancy Sutley

Chair

White House Council on Environmental Quality

Washington, DC

Contractor Support

Mary Spock, M.S.

Writer/Editor

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD  



U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

March 24-25, 2011

Mandarin Oriental

1330 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20024

AGENDA

Thursday, March 24, 2011

8:30 am	Registration

9:00-9:30	Welcome and Introductions

Diane Austin, Acting Chair

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director, OFACMO Mark Joyce, GNEB Acting
Designated Federal Officer Board Member Introductions

9:30-10:30	Opening Remarks and General Discussion

   Nancy Sutley, Chair

White House Council on Environmental Quality

10:30-10:45	Break

10:45-11:45	Air Quality and Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico

Border

   Sue Stendebach, Senior Advisor on International Air

Quality

U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation

   Richard Rosen, Senior Advisor for Climate Research

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

   Diana Papoulias

Research Biologist

U.S. Geological Survey

11:45-12:00 pm	Public Comments

12:00-1:30	Lunch

1:30-2:30	Renewable Energy Resources in the U.S.-Mexico Border

Region

   Edward Drusina, Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

   Edward Hoyt

Principal Clean Energy Specialist

Nexant Inc.

   DOE Speaker TBD

2:30-3:30	The Economic Potential of Renewable Energy Development in the
Border Region

   Cecilia Aguillon, Director

Market Development and Government Relations

  Stephen Niemeyer

Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

   Todd Foley, Senior Vice President on Policy and

Government Relations

American Council on Renewable Energy

3:45-3:45	Break

3:45-4:45	Update on Border 2012 Program and Commission for

Environmental Cooperation Activities

   Michelle DePass, Assistant Administrator

U.S. EPA Office of International and Tribal Affairs

4:45- 6:00	Discussion of 14th Report

6:00	Adjourn for the Day

Friday, March 25, 2011

8:00 am	Registration

8:30	Discussion of Options for June, September, and December

Meetings

9:00	Discussion of 14th Report continued

10:30	Break

10:45	Discussion of 14th Report continued

1:30 pm	Public Comments

2:00	Adjourn

  PAGE  30 		March 24-25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting Summary

March 24-25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  29 

  PAGE  38 		March 11–12, 2010, Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB) Meeting Summary

March 24-25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  39