Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

September 8-9, 2011

Hotel Encanto

705 S Telshor Boulevard

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Meeting Summary

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Welcome and Introductions

Diane Austin, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB); Mark
Joyce, EPA, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
(OFACMO), GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO); and Sharon
Thomas, Mayor Pro Tem, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona), GNEB Chair, welcomed the
participants and the Mayor Pro Tem of Las Cruces to the meeting. Mr.
Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for
GNEB, also welcomed the Mayor Pro Tem and others presenters for the
meeting. Additionally, he thanked the planning committee for arranging
the field trip and helping with other arrangements for the meeting, as
well as members of the EPA Region 6 Border Office staff for their
assistance. He noted that Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director of
OFACMO, was unable to attend and he offered her regrets.

Dr. Sharon Thomas (Mayor Pro Tem, Las Cruces, New Mexico), welcomed the
Board to Las Cruces, and noted that GNEB’s visit afforded the region
an opportunity to highlight its focus on renewable energy. Renewable
energy is a large part of the city’s sustainability program, and she
was pleased to learn that one of the major efforts of GNEB is to develop
an environmentally sustainable framework. Dr. Thomas explained that the
most severe local problem is soil that has been disturbed by
construction projects. Las Cruces received an EPA grant with help from
the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). Using the grant, Las
Cruces hired an expert who helped craft an ordinance that will be voted
on soon. Las Cruces now has an EPA grant to work on abatement measures
particular to this region and several pilot projects to examine ways to
contain the blowing dirt. Additionally, with help from EPA, remediation
efforts at a local Superfund site got under way.

A few years ago, Las Cruces was chosen to be part of the EPA Technical
Assistance Program and was tasked to develop a vision for the city; EPA
Region 6 was very active in the effort as part of the EPA-U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-Department of
Transportation (DOT) partnership. A robust green infrastructure
conference, which eventually became a regional conference, resulted from
this effort. Las Cruces currently is pursuing a HUD sustainable
communities grant. Dr. Thomas said she has a particular interest in
transportation, and the EPA-HUD-DOT partnership understands how
transportation, housing, and economics intersect. She admired GNEB’s
dedication to sustainability and noted that the Board brings competence
to address the sustainability issues faced along the border, and the Las
Cruces community is pleased to have GNEB meet here. She looks forward to
working with GNEB on many projects, and invited Board members to a
presentation on sustainability that evening by William Goran, who works
with the military at Fort Bliss.

Discussion

Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ]),
GNEB member, commented that the Board had serious discussions on
sustainability the previous day.

Dr. Teresa Pohlman (Department of Homeland Security [DHS]), GNEB member,
asked about Las Cruces’ greatest challenge in sustainability. Dr.
Thomas responded that Las Cruces had grown dramatically in the last two
decades, and new and old members of the community do not think the same
way about sustainability. Among the old members, there is some
resistance to change. For example, the city council wanted to put solar
panels on city hall when it was built, but that was not accepted. The
compromise was that it was built solar-panel ready. The biggest
challenge is educating the public about the benefits of renewable
energy.

Mr. Nathan Small (New Mexico Wilderness Alliance), GNEB member,
commented that GNEB members had a chance to meet with representatives of
strong growth industries on the previous day’s field trip. He asked
Dr. Thomas to comment on economic opportunities in renewable energy
within the community. Dr. Thomas replied that unemployment in the area
was high, and former agricultural workers needed new positions and
training to work in the renewable energy sector. A group called Help New
Mexico has been teaching migrant and seasonal workers how to install
solar panels. The area is making progress in attracting the renewable
industries and is trying to work toward “economic gardening,” which
is helping unemployed workers start their own businesses and enabling
them to move into these industries. Las Cruces also is helping migrant
and seasonal workers with its sustainable communities grant.

Mr. Niemeyer asked if it had taken much time to educate members of the
city council on renewable energy issues. Dr. Thomas replied that she and
Mr. Small had worked hard to get people elected who want to work
together on these issues. A large component run by the progressive voter
alliance has tried to find candidates who are educated on environmental
issues. She noted that there may be some attempts to decrease the number
of progressive members on the council during the municipal election in
November.

Ms. Cecilia Aguillon (Kyocera Solar, Inc.), GNEB member, asked Dr.
Thomas if she saw a role for the city council to work with the local
credit unions to provide back-stop loans or encourage the banking
community to support some of these efforts. Dr. Thomas responded that a
few people in the community had been working with the banks to help them
understand that the extra cost for renewable energy is worth the money,
but it has been a challenge. Additionally, as a member of the
government, she wants to see the schools and county government take the
lead in installing solar power, but there are problems with the
regulatory commission and the utility companies. The city government has
not been able to enter into Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), and a
power struggle has arisen at the state level. Las Cruces has decided to
make its own investment in solar energy, even though it does not qualify
for tax rebates.

Dr. Pohlman stated that the Federal Government currently has some
legislation in Congress to create more empowerment of PPAs for federal,
state and local governments. In addition, the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) are placing emphasis on PPAs.

Ms. Aguillon commented that the federal Clean Renewable Energy Bonds
(CREBs) program was helpful in California and might be something Dr.
Thomas could look into in New Mexico.

Dr. Austin thanked Dr. Thomas for attending the meeting and responding
to member’s questions, and then asked the members of the audience to
introduce themselves.

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

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

Ms. Lucero asked how many GNEB members were familiar with the Councils
of Governments and worked with them in the region. Several members
raised their hands in acknowledgment. Ms. Lucero represents four
counties and nine local governments, and has worked with them for more
than 24 years. She now is seeing developments in her community that she
did not think were possible 20 years ago. In addition to the local
governments, she also represents local colonias, water districts, school
districts, and soil and water conservation districts. Funding sources
for SNMCOG include state appropriations, the U.S. Department of Commerce
through the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the New Mexico
Department of Transportation, and the New Mexico Mortgage Finance
Authority, which is the state housing division. SNMCOG conducts projects
on water, wastewater, legislative issues, transportation planning,
housing development, education and outreach, and economic and community
development.

One initiative unique to the region was started by U.S. Senator Jeff
Bingaman (D-NM), the Southwest New Mexico Energy and Green Jobs Task
Force in April 2010. He has tasked his staff to get the counties to work
on development of the area. Southwest New Mexico is known for having
many assets in the renewable energy field, and the area is being
considered by a large number of solar, geothermal, and wind energy
companies. The Green Jobs Task Force has numerous
participants—including businesses, local government representatives,
and state and federal agencies—working together. Educational systems
are included in the Task Force because the work force must be trained to
conduct renewable projects in the area. The Green Jobs Task Force has
established various committees to examine different aspects of
development, such as developing a mission statement to a regional
vision, education and outreach, and how projects are documented for
grant assistance.

The Green Jobs Task Force, per its mission, “will serve as an open,
effective, and ongoing forum through which a broad range of stakeholders
will address regional challenges in developing, prioritizing and
implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives, and
creating jobs on a sustained basis in Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna
counties in New Mexico. Three communities out of 40 selected nationally
(Silver City, Deming and Luna County) have been accepted to a workshop
sponsored by the Community Energy and Strategic Planning Academy.
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted the Task
Force opportunities to build stronger economies at two pilot sites.
Grant County received an EDA grant to conduct an economic development
strategic plan, so now the county is willing to take a portion of that
plan and develop goals, objectives and strategies for renewable energy.

When preparing the energy impact statement for the Academy workshops,
Ms. Lucero has had the opportunity to examine the electric and gas usage
and what communities are really doing to foster energy efficiency and
renewable energy projects. There has been quite a bit of activity in her
communities. Specifically, in Grant County, there is a partnership
between the county and Silver City that opened an office of
sustainability. As the result of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) funds, the office has remained open and many projects have been
conducted, including a PPA for the water and wastewater system. She also
is seeing more funding opportunities for local governments for water and
energy conservation. One project Ms. Lucero takes pride in is the
receipt of EPA funds by the City of Deming to remediate a brownfields
site, which has since become an industrial park.

Discussion

Dr. Greg Eckert (Department of the Interior), GNEB member, asked about
the participation of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest
Service (USFS).  Ms. Lucero replied that they had not been participating
as stakeholders with the renewable energy field, but they are active
within city and county governments. In Grant County, there is federal
and Gila National Forest land, and BLM and USFS are trying to make some
of that land available for development.

Mr. Luis Ramirez (Ramirez Advisors Inter-National), GNEB member, noted
that he did not see staff from utilities listed as participants in the
Green Jobs Task Force. Ms. Lucero stated that getting utility
participation had been a struggle. Local utility companies are not very
involved in local meetings. Mr. Ramirez stated that in Arizona, the
discussion of green jobs would not have been started without the
utilities at the table. Ms. Lucero stated that they have been invited to
participate and she would like to see more involvement from the utility
companies.

Dr. Antonio Zavaleta (University of Texas at Brownsville), GNEB member,
commented that in Cameron County, Texas, there are at least 100
recognizable colonias. He noted that there is not much activity on green
projects in the Council of Governments in that county. Does SNMCOG have
projects to self-empower the colonias so that they can come to meetings
and advocate for their needs? Ms. Lucero replied that because there is
trust from colonias in her area now, it is easier to convince them to
participate and realize that there are opportunities in the renewable
energy field where residents can be employed.

Dr. Pohlman mentioned that there are many types of renewable energy, and
asked which provided the best opportunities. Ms. Lucero answered that,
from her experience, the best opportunities were in solar energy.

Mr. Larry Starfield (EPA Region 6), GNEB member, noted that at the
previous meeting, GNEB had heard about negative impacts from all
renewable energy sources. He asked if Ms. Lucero could share examples of
how to create renewable energy projects without negative impacts on the
environment. Ms. Lucero said she was not involved day-to-day in
examining economic opportunities, but the local governments have been
attempting to do it right and ensure that there is proper planning. The
City of Deming, for example, has many economic prospects that are
attempting to locate there, but they chose to plan and ensure that they
had the appropriate industrial park with all the needed infrastructure
before encouraging businesses to locate there.

Mr. Robert Apodaca (USDA), GNEB member, asked if, from the state
perspective, proper incentives had been provided to encourage industries
to come to the area. Ms. Lucero responded that more work needs to be
done on incentives as well as educating the community about renewable
energy. Ms. Linda Smrkovsky, Deming Luna County Economic Development,
Inc., noted that New Mexico lagged behind in renewable energy, but when
requests for proposals (RFPs) for renewable energy projects were
released in southern New Mexico, Deming did not provide any options on
land without a PPA in place. She said that New Mexico has become more
educated in the past few years.

Ms. Lucero thanked the Board for its work, and then invited GNEB members
to visit her region.

Jo Anne Shelby, Plant Manager, Compass Manufacturing Services

Ms. Shelby thanked the Board for the opportunity to present at this
meeting, and noted that her company was trying to create green jobs, as
well as other jobs. Compass Manufacturing, located in Deming, New
Mexico, currently has 105 employees. It opened for business in April
2007 with 15 employees. The company manufactures wire harnesses for
public transportation buses, which have a made-in-U.S.A. content
requirement.

The Compass plant’s owner wanted to use renewable energy, so 1,010 2
kW solar panels were installed on a 77,000 square foot plant. The plant
is energy efficient, including the air conditioning and glass, and
Compass is preparing to replace the lighting in the plant using funding
from a federal grant. Ms. Shelby said that she spent a great deal of
time searching for grant opportunities, and found it difficult for a
manufacturer to find relevant information on such grants on government
websites.

Ms. Shelby said that she recently installed some solar panels on her own
home because of the performance of the panels at the plant.  She does
not believe people are informed enough about solar energy to understand
its importance. The Compass plant is completely driven by solar energy,
has no electrical bills, and the installation will be paid off in 4.8
years. With more help and education available, more manufacturers would
use renewable energy. She believes that the government should play a
role in that education.

Discussion

Dr. Zavaleta asked if the Compass plant produced more energy than it
used. Ms. Shelby confirmed that it did, and the plant sold the
additional energy back to the PNM Electric Company.

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

Ms. Sally Spener (International Boundary and Water Commission), GNEB
member, informed Ms. Shelby that the Board was working on a report to
the President and Congress about renewable energy in the border region
for which a series of recommendations would be developed. She noted that
from Ms. Shelby’s presentation, she understood that the business
community needs more help in converting to renewable energy sources.
Perhaps the Board could recommend that the government sponsor workshops
targeted at helping small businesses learn about the benefits of
renewable energy and how to apply for grants and other assistance.
Ms. Shelby replied that workshops are important, but outreach must be
conducted before they are held; the businesses must be contacted
directly. Ms. Spener suggested working through local chambers of
commerce. Ms. Lucero commented that agencies need to do more than hold
workshops; they need to do some “hand holding.” This is particularly
true for small businesses in rural areas.

Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department), GNEB member, noted
that it was unfortunate that the Director for the Energy Conservation
and Management Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural
Resources Department was unable to speak at the meeting because he has a
program that partners with citizens, businesses, industries and schools
on clean energy infrastructure that would have been of interest to the
Board. Mr. Ruiz was unsure whether he was active in rural areas. There
is recognition within New Mexico state agencies that there are issues in
southern New Mexico, including problems with colonias, and outreach to
these communities is needed. The assistance is there, and he hopes that
outreach would make it more useful.

Dr. Eckert asked if renewable energy was helping Compass to remain
competitive. Ms. Shelby responded that the tax credit and lack of energy
bills has helped the company retain jobs, including jobs making
harnesses for hybrid and natural gas buses.

Mr. Luis Olmedo (Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.), GNEB member, thanked
Ms. Shelby for her presentation, and said that it makes sense for
manufacturers to invest in renewable energy installation.

Mr. Niemeyer asked how much money Compass expected to save through
energy efficiency. Ms. Shelby responded that more than 50 percent would
be saved on the lighting efficiency alone.

Mr. Jose Angel (California River Basin Region Water Quality Control
Board), GNEB member, related Ms. Shelby’s comments on outreach to his
California experience on grants for water. Stakeholders who qualified
for some of these grants were not applying because there was confusion
as to which agency was in charge of administering the grants. The Water
Quality Control Board formed a task force that went into the community
to do outreach. The grants were consolidated into a one-stop shop, and
the task force held workshops in rural areas. These efforts resulted in
increased participation.

Mr. Starfield expressed surprise that a payback period of 4-5 years for
installed solar panels did not sell itself to every company in the
United States. He asked if there was any help from the Department of
Energy (DOE) or whether Compass itself calculated the benefits and
payback period. Ms. Shelby was not aware of any information or
assistance available from DOE. Mr. Starfield replied that it he thought
DOE had some tools that could be used to calculate savings based on
square footage and days of sunlight. Ms. Smrkovsky commented that the
DOE website is very difficult to navigate for someone who does not know
much about renewables. She noted that New Mexico had been helpful in
providing workshops, but because of budget cuts, this no longer happens.

Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control), GNEB member, stated that many
green initiatives are only successful because of government financial
assistance. In light of the economy, could businesses be encouraged to
use renewable energy through tax relief alone instead of grants? Ms.
Shelby replied that tax relief could work, and that grants may not be
needed, and many manufacturers may not be able to complete all of the
paperwork necessary to receive a grant.

Mr. Ramirez asked how Compass met its energy needs when the sun was not
shining. Ms. Shelby answered that the company stores energy to meet
those needs, but there are times when the company uses more energy and
has an energy bill. Mr. Ramirez asked about the solar rebate and whether
it was easy to deal with the utility. Ms. Shelby said the rebate was 12
cents per kilowatt hour for 20 years, and that PNM was very helpful to
Compass.

Linda Smrkovsky, Executive Director, Deming Luna County Economic
Development, Inc.

Ms. Smrkovksy commented that she had worked with PNM for 25 years. The
renewables mandate for New Mexico is 10 percent by 2020. PMN built the
plant to meet the requirements, and is very receptive to businesses and
industrial interests, but is not particularly responsive to residential
needs. The utilities were invited to the Green Jobs Task Force, but PNM
no longer has a large presence in the Luna County area.

The New Mexico Energy and Economic Development partnership has brought
the four southwest New Mexico counties to the table. The Luna County
commissioners were meeting September 8th to approve a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that touches on economic development, and
commissioners in the other counties will vote on similar measures. The
MOU will lead to marketing of the area on a regional basis to be
competitive with other areas of the United States and to support
renewables. Counties must work together to get regional funding. Many
utility companies, when considering a region, look at available land and
water rights as well as wind and geothermal resources.

In terms of renewables, there is a biosystems greenhouse in Luna County
that is waiting to get online with El Paso Electric (EPE). A PPA has
been in place, and the facility has been complete for more than a month
now, but it is not yet connected to EPE. The grand opening is scheduled
for November 8, 2011, and a substation was built for EPE to expedite the
process. The company was going to break ground on a new location in
September 2010, but just began construction in July 2011 because of all
the regulatory issues they encountered. The company received a $54
million USDA loan and a $50 million grant from DOE. The $50 million
dollar grant was split between two agencies that could not agree on
which would be the lead in overseeing the money.

In May 2011, unemployment in Luna County was 21.9 percent, but now it is
down to about 14 percent because green chilies are in season and there
is work at the processing plant. Trying to get businesses to locate to
the community is difficult because of the high rate of unemployment. She
stressed that private businesses need grants to help fund the expensive
retrofitting of old buildings. There is a definite need for grants or
combination grants/loans. She mentioned that Sapphire Energy bought
2,500 acres in Luna County, and is a good partner. Luna County also has
been working with one biofuels company interested in moving into an
industrial park that was a former brownfields site.

SunZia is one of the transmission lines planning to go through Luna
County; the Southline is the other, which will be right next to the
border. Ms. Smrkovsky stated that workforce investment funds have not
been used effectively in New Mexico but they are needed desperately. For
example, some of the funds were used to train massage therapists in Luna
County, who then were unable to get jobs. She hopes that things will
improve in the future.

Luna County wants to see companies create more local jobs; for example,
the county does not want Sapphire Energy to do all of its research and
development elsewhere. Ms. Smrkovsky noted that agencies often do not
have much of a presence in rural areas, and these areas are constantly
trying to attract jobs and improve the quality of life of their
residents. Area schools have been very responsive, and have green teams
that include both students and teachers. Rural communities now are
interested in working regionally. Working with renewables has been an
educational process in all four southern New Mexico counties.

Discussion

Dr. Pohlman asked if renewable energy audits were the biggest problem in
Luna County. Ms. Smrkovsky responded that there was no one in Luna
County who could conduct a renewable energy audit or a lead paint
assessment. She noted that mandates are issued that have to be met, but
rural areas often lack the resources and skills to meet the mandates.
Dr. Pohlman commented that this topic might make a useful
recommendation. Renewable energy audits are critical to determining the
potential of an area, and should be made more accessible.

Community Impacts in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

Jeremy Turner, Executive Director, New Mexico Renewable Energy
Transmission Authority (RETA)

Mr. Turner noted that Mr. Robert Apodaca was the newest RETA board
member. RETA was statutorily created in 2007 because of a lack of
transmission infrastructure in New Mexico. It is inappropriate to blame
the utilities for the lack of transmission because if utilities were
given the opportunity to recover the cost of transmission and build out,
they likely would create transmission infrastructure. The utilities in
the border region are not in a position to build it out. RETA is one of
eight state-level transmission authorities; each was created to finance
transmission, but they were not given many of the tools necessary to
accomplish that. Only three of these authorities continue to meet, and
only two—Wyoming and New Mexico—have issued debt to date.

RETA has a six-member voting board and three employees. Wyoming issued
$35 million in bonds in 2005, but since that time the state has not been
in a position to issue additional bonds, although Wyoming has a deeper
economic base to support development than some of the border states.
RETA was able to issue $50 million in revenue bonds in 2010 for a 100
megawatt wind farm project in New Mexico. This is the first opportunity
for RETA to be able to make a positive development impact on that
community. Without being able to get the renewable energy source into
the market, however, it is a difficult proposition to develop
renewables. The utilities must follow a process managed by the Federal
Government. RETA now is starting to transition into an opportunity where
the state authorities can make a drastic impact.

Several years ago, New Mexico State Senator Tim Keller, in Senate
Memorial 44, directed RETA to coordinate with other agencies to develop
a map with renewable energy resource zones and potential transmission
corridors and identify barriers to entry into transmission in the state.
RETA reached out and went through a large stakeholder process and tried
to identify the areas with the least environmental impact and the least
impact on the military installations that could still meet developers’
needs in bringing renewables into the grid. The Senate Memorial 44 Final
Report now is available on the RETA website. A small addendum will be
posted on the website shortly. The report identified areas where
corridors could be built, although RETA has no authority to get people
to use them. By going through this process, it was discovered that most
people do not want new transmission and many people want some of what
already exists taken down, but that is not a feasible alternative. RETA
would like to see other states go through a similar process. Arizona has
its own siting authority. RETA would like to see proper siting
encouraged in all of the border states. The public regulatory commission
in New Mexico has siting authority over transmission lines.
Additionally, RETA contracted with Los Alamos National Laboratories last
year to put together a plan to export megawatts of renewable energy out
of New Mexico, and develop a 20-year plan for the state. It is a
high-level study that needs a lot of additional funding. Within the
first 7 months, RETA was able to enter into more than 35 percent of the
20-year build out in the form of MOUs to start implementing this plan.
RETA would like to see other states do something of a similar nature.
The goal is to better utilize the existing infrastructure and start
cleaning up the U.S. power network. This plan calls for about $1.3
billion in investments over the next 20 years, and provides better
interconnection with the different grids in the country. The plan starts
by putting something in place that can work regardless of changes in the
political environment.

Several projects are under study in New Mexico:  the Centennial West is
a line from New Mexico to California with a RETA MOU that is probably 5
to 6 years away from construction; the Lucky Corridor line in northern
New Mexico has a RETA MOU, and addresses the Los Alamos study; the
Southline is from New Mexico to Arizona; SunZia also goes from New
Mexico to Arizona; and the Tres Amigas Superstation is an effort to
interconnect the three grids in the United States. Transfer capability
now is 600 megawatts, which is not significant. The utilities do an
excellent job of managing this because the United States rarely has
blackouts. When moving to a green economy, RETA and other state agencies
need to help the utilities.

RETA’s next step is Power Network NM, which involves stepping into the
role of a developer. In March 2011, RETA entered into an MOU with GS
Global Infrastructure Partners II (GSIP) to jointly develop a collector
system in Central New Mexico. GSIP typically invests in ports of entry,
toll roads, and projects of that nature. This is the first time GSIP has
invested in a developer. The two are moving forward to develop a
200-mile long 345 kV line with an initial carrying capacity of 1,500
megawatts. This could reach the four corners region so that it could be
exported to other markets. RETA has a tremendously long way to go on
this project. This is a first step. RETA already has reached out to
potential customers and has received bids back for 1.5 times the
line’s potential. The goal is to have the project online by 2013-2014.

RETA is using the Los Alamos Study to validate certain projects and
release proposals, and is trying to identify developers that will create
something that makes sense both economically and environmentally. The
cost of the line is about $400 million, but the resulting developments
and renewables are in excess of $2 billion in the first phase. If RETA
is successful, this type of project will be conducted several times
over. RETA is trying to establish an entity that forms a longer range
vision as an example for the other border states to create wealth and
jobs through clean energy development.

Discussion

Mr. Apodaca noted that RETA is working well with utilities within the
state, and is ready to move forward.

Ms. Spener explained that the Board’s report has some recommendations
about the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) transmission
infrastructure program (TIP), which also has borrowing authority. She
asked how Mr. Turner viewed that program. Mr. Turner responded that
WAPA’s TIP was an excellent program. WAPA invited RETA to speak at its
conference. He pointed out that one problem is that the underlying
economics of some of these projects need to be changed, or the projects
will not be built. In addition, the TIP program requires environmental
documentation, which can take a great deal of time. Within the coming
months, however, they may have something more workable in place.

Referring to the presentation from Compass, which meets all of its
energy needs through photovoltaic (PV) solar energy, Mr. Joyce asked if
there was more of an emphasis on distributed generation, and if it would
lessen the need for some of the transmission lines. Mr. Turner replied
that it would. RETA is a proponent of energy efficiency. All of the
transmission line efforts are meant to bring lines into the region to
export power. Currently, none are under construction, and it would be
useful to strengthen the existing infrastructure rather than build new
lines. Distributed generation and energy efficiency are some of the best
ways to prevent the need for new construction of lines.

Dr. Cyrus Reed (Sierra Club), GNEB member, asked who paid for
transmission in New Mexico. Mr. Turner responded that if a renewable
developer wanted to connect into the existing infrastructure, the
developer must bear the cost. The customers on the other end of the line
ultimately pay for the lines. The New Mexico rate payers do not pay for
it. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 1000, however, is
encouraging the Western United States, most of which is not part of a
regional transmission organization, to join together and examine cost
recovery across regions.

Mr. Small commented that the Board had visited with Sapphire Energy
employees the previous day, and they identified the land use component
as one of their top challenges. Noting that RETA has expanded its role,
he asked if that was in part to address land use issues. Mr. Turner
answered that RETA’s role as a developer is part of a
first-of-its-kind partnership. RETA’s role is starting to become more
defined in leading an effort to encourage development. The project that
RETA is working on with Power Network has been studied for the past 5
years, but no single developer could bear the entire cost. RETA is
bringing multiple partners to the table to spread the risk and cost over
four to five parties. RETA does have the power of imminent domain, but
does not want to use it, and is creating a rule for how it could be used
as a last resort. This process should be completed by the end of October
2011.

Mr. Starfield asked how RETA deals with environmental impacts for the
transmission line, and whether Mr. Turner could share information on the
right way to locate a transmission line. Mr. Turner responded that RETA
has done outreach with different environmental groups. There could be
the potential to change legislation, to change RETA’s role, and to
establish funding to allow the environmental review on established
corridors. This would put RETA in a better position to encourage
developers to locate in one of those areas. RETA has no formal
arrangement with SunZia, but at this time, what Arizona has in its
siting commission is a good step from an environmental standpoint.

Mr. Niemeyer asked if the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC)
handled transmission lines before RETA was created, and why RETA was
established. Mr. Turner responded that the PRC still has siting
authority over those lines of more than 230 kV and with connections to
generators larger than 300 megawatts. RETA is not subject to the PRC,
but does talk with commissioners. Either siting authority needs to take
place under RETA or the PRC’s role needs to be expanded to do a better
job of holistically looking at the state. Arizona has separation of
siting authority and rate cases for utilities; this would be a good
model for New Mexico. Mr. Turner confirmed that RETA was established to
plan and finance transmission and storage projects. It was created out
of frustration regarding the lack of transmission build out, and started
out as a financing entity.

Dr. Pohlman asked if the new FERC Order needed to be amended. Mr. Turner
responded that he had not read the FERC Order in its entirety, and
thought the utility representatives could comment on this topic.

Karyn Stockdale, Executive Director, New Mexico Audubon Society

Ms. Stockdale thanked the Board for inviting her to speak, and explained
that she ran the state office of the National Audubon Society, which
works on education and public policy. Conservation priority areas
include restoration of species and identifying areas as “important
bird areas” with critical habitats and species. Audubon also conducts
citizen surveys, including the Christmas bird count.

Birdwatchers have an economic impact, contributing $36 billion annually
to the U.S. economy. In New Mexico, as published in a report last year,
Audubon came to understand that especially in southern New Mexico, where
there is a diverse number of species, there is a direct link between
birdwatching in protected areas and economic benefit to the communities.

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

Audubon has been working directly with BLM to examine siting issues and
with RETA on siting of new transmission lines. Disturbed and impacted
lands should be considered for development of renewables and
transmission lines, as should lands with low resource values,
brownfields sites, and lands near urban areas that already may have
infrastructure in place. Audubon also has worked with the New Mexico
Wind and Wildlife Collaborative, which includes 14 wind power companies,
a few state and federal agencies, and about seven conservation groups,
to ensure that many concerns can be addressed in advance. There are few
regulatory processes in place on wind energy, so the group has developed
best management practices. In October 2011, the groups’ work will be
unveiled publicly via the web. The Solar Energy Zone project involved
much collaboration as well. More conversations among the solar industry
and conservation groups will occur in the near future once the wind
project has been rolled out.

Audubon supports the mitigation hierarchy of
Avoid–Minimize–Restore–Mitigate/Offset. Before building renewables
projects or transmission, developers should use a science-based process
to identify, incorporate and implement this hierarchy across a region or
site based on potential impacts and goals for species and habitats.
Opportunities for success are numerous; Audubon sees the need to ensure
that there is not a choice between jobs and the environment. If issues
are addressed early, projects are more likely to succeed with a faster
timeline. Stakeholders must be engaged early, and must see that there
will be a finished work product.

Discussion

Dr. Reed commented that the Sierra Club had attempted something similar
to Audubon’s partnership several years ago, but it did not work. He
asked if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) also was developing
best management practices. Ms. Stockdale answered that FWS has many
projects and ongoing working groups, but never developed a finalized
product on the best management practices. They were, however, at the
table with Audubon. FWS now, with the backing of many wind power
companies, has been looking at a corridor for wind development and
transmission through eastern New Mexico, west Texas, and all the way to
Canada. There are so many process pieces under way that it is difficult
for a developer to understand what the best science is out there.
Sometimes these meetings and plans can take years. FWS’ habitat
conservation plan will be completed in the winter of 2013. Dr. Reed
asked if it was a good idea to create a habitat conservation plan for
that large an area, or will plans be conducted regionally.
Ms. Stockdale agreed that there were pros and cons. The benefit,
because the assessment started out with whooping cranes and there are so
few left, will be that the species is examined through an entire range.
The downside is that there are hundreds of other species in the
territory, so it is difficult to draw the boundaries. If FWS had the
staff and funds to address them all at once, that would be most
desirable, but it does not have those kinds of resources.

Ms. Aguillon asked if the Audubon Society was working with the state
legislature and the public utilities commission to promote more
distributed generation as opposed to large-scale installations. Ms.
Stockdale replied that Audubon was minimally involved. Other
conservation groups have this as their mission and have more resources
to apply to that, so Audubon has relied on its partners to fill that
role.

Mr. Joyce asked if the guidance Audubon would be releasing contained
best management practices for developers when considering sites. Ms.
Stockdale confirmed that it would. Mr. Joyce asked if Audubon mapped
out areas of more concern and less concern. Ms. Stockdale answered that
the Western Governors Association (WGA) created a number of maps in the
past 2 years, but a few resources had never been illustrated. The New
Mexico Game and Fish Department has a sandhill crane management plan,
but no one had mapped the plan. The plan will be on the website, as well
as links to the WGA maps. Ms. Stockdale confirmed that Audubon worked
with all wildlife, not just birds.

Mr. Gillen noted that Ms. Stockdale mentioned that some species are
moving farther north, and attributed that to climate change. Is that
quantifiable, and if so, should observation efforts move north?
Ms. Stockdale responded that the California office has a large science
team that has been analyzing these trends. The guiding question has been
whether the areas that Audubon is fighting to protect now will be the
important areas 100 years from now. Some complicated GIS work
correlating the Christmas bird count data with U.S. Geological Survey
data on what is happening with temperature and precipitation has been
the primary basis of Audubon’s work. This needs to be applied across
the country, and will be conducted during the next 5 to 10 years. Mr.
Gillen asked if these data covered all species. Ms. Stockdale replied
that Audubon’s data was just for birds, but it had been working with
other partners on issues with other wildlife.

Mr. Starfield asked if Audubon could share the list of best management
practices today. Ms. Stockdale responded that it lists specific species
and habitats. Each one is limited to three pages with additional
references. They start out with what is known about the species, then go
into the state of the science on that species, and then into the
mitigation hierarchy.

Dr. Eckert asked if the guidelines were connected to the FWS wind energy
guidelines. Ms. Stockdale confirmed that there was a connection. At
times, there were best management practices that had to rely solely on
federal wind energy guidelines because there was not enough of a
consensus in the group to be more specific. In 80 percent of the
guidelines, the group went further because of concerns specific to New
Mexico.

Clay Doyle, Vice President of Transmission and Distribution, and Ricardo
Acosta, Director of Resource Planning and Delivery, El Paso Electric
Company (EPE)

Mr. Acosta noted that EPE had been serving the local community for 110
years and had 372,000 retail and wholesale customers. Because of the
growth in Las Cruces, EPE has been making updates to its infrastructure,
and will make more than $1 billion in capital investments in its service
area through 2020. Total megawatt generation is 1,815, including 26
megawatts of renewable energy (25 are owned by other parties and bought
by EPE). By next year, there should be close to 50 megawatts of
renewable energy, focusing mainly on solar and biomass.

Advantages of solar power include the lack of emissions, availability
during peak summer demand, ability to integrate with existing
generation, and the cost is free. Disadvantages include large land
requirements, lack of power at night, reduced output on cloudy and dusty
days, limited and costly storage, and the requirement for traditional
generation backup. Biomass advantages are that it is a high efficiency
fuel with low emissions. The disadvantages are that the location of the
power plant needs to be near the fuel source, the technology is unproven
in terms of large-scale dairy farm use, and biomass also requires
traditional generation as backup. EPE is not looking to develop wind
resources because the service area is not a high wind corridor.

Information provided by the Electric Power Research Institute shows that
the cost of solar energy is beginning to compete with natural gas
generation, and even nuclear and coal energy. EPE is committed to
supporting the development of renewable energy projects in its New
Mexico and Texas territories, but must consider the impacts on rate
payers, ongoing advancements in renewable energy technologies, and
whether a project is feasible in the region.

State renewable portfolio standards (RPS) require electricity providers
to meet collective renewable capacity requirements based on their market
share of energy sales in Texas, which is approximately 2 percent. In
New Mexico, renewable energy credits (RECs) must reach 20 percent by
2020, and standards require a diverse mix of renewable sources.

EPE’s voluntary renewable energy (VRE) tariff enables customers to
support the use of electric energy produced by renewable energy
resources such as solar, wind and biomass. The funds are banked for
future projects. Some of EPE’s current projects include:  the Hueco
Mountain Wind Ranch (1.32 MW); the El Paso Zoo project (6.5 kW wind and
solar combined); the Southwest Environmental Center (11.57 MW
hours/year); the Camino Real Landfill Project (1-3 MW); and Solar PV
Systems at Newman and Rio Grande Power Plants (260,000 kW hours/year).
EPE’s planned renewable projects include the Hatch Project (5 MW); the
NRG Solar Project (proposed 20 MW); and the SunEdison Solar Project, in
two facilities, Las Cruces and Chaparral, New Mexico (proposed 22 MW
total). EPE also is building smaller projects in the El Paso area. A
solar PV system will be built in September 2011 at two locations in
greater El Paso (33 kW and 53 kW), and another PV project, now in
discussion phases, would be built at El Paso Community College. A 2 MW
system will be located at the Newman power plant, and this will be
online in 2012.

Discussion

Ms. Spener commented that the VRE tariff program had a very low rate of
participation. Mr. Acosta stated that it was 100 percent subscribed for
a while because there was not much renewable energy to sell, but that
EPE did try to advertise and expand the program.

Dr. Reed asked how the larger scale solar installations affected rates.
Mr. Acosta responded that these costs would be incurred by the New
Mexico subscribers, but a reasonable cost threshold is applied in which
rates are not to increase by more than 2 percent. Dr. Reed commented
that the other way to get RECs to meet New Mexico’s or Texas’ RPS
would be with onsite solar power and customers bearing part of the cost.
Dr. Reed asked if a feed-in tariff or rebate was available. Mr. Acosta
replied that EPE has a small and medium customer program from 10 to 100
kW in which EPE will purchase RECs from the projects to meet the RPS.
Mr. Doyle added that EPE has a net-metering program so that individual
customers can install PV on their homes or businesses and EPE will pay
them for the kW hours they produce whether they use them or not. Dr.
Reed asked how much energy the program produced, and Mr. Acosta
answered that it produced approximately 1 MW. Mr. Doyle added that if
EPE went above the REC requirement, it could cause a problem with
regulators.

Mr. Starfield expressed curiosity about the large-scale solar
installations in terms of assessment of potential impacts, and asked if
there was much discussion with the local community. Mr. Acosta responded
that the programs were the result of requests for proposals that were
sent out, and the companies had to demonstrate that all environmental
permitting was in place.

Mr. Niemeyer commented that he had heard that private installations had
to fight to get the reimbursement increased for power sold back to the
grid through a contested case hearing. The impression he got was that
EPE was not big on renewable energy. Mr. Doyle responded that EPE was a
supporter of affordable renewable energy, and in a low-income area such
as its territory, had to keep the cost of power low. There are not a lot
of residential solar systems, and all rate payers help to subsidize
them. Mr. Niemeyer thanked Mr. Doyle for raising the issue of
affordability because the Board must consider the cost of renewable
energy. Do the charts on cost per kilowatt hour take into account
transportation and other costs? Mr. Acosta responded that EPE’s
analysis looked at carbon taxes for coal and other factors to ensure
comparison on a fair basis.

Dr. Zavaleta asked about the average cost to retrofit a 2,500 square
foot home for solar power. Mr. Doyle responded that the total cost was
decreasing. Mr. Acosta stated that it would cost approximately $15,000
for a 3 kW system. Dr. Zavaleta added that in Cameron County, the
poverty rate for rate payers is above 50 percent. Can the El Paso
Housing Authority get involved in this project? Mr. Acosta said that
Habitat for Humanity examined putting solar panels on the homes they
were building, but the cost was too high. Dr. Zavaleta noted that there
is a large range of applications for solar power, but that the extreme
needs of the impoverished rate payers should be considered.

Mr. Angel commented that $15,000 is in line with what even the poor were
paying over 4 to 5 years for electricity.

Mr. Small mentioned that there was little financing available on the
individual level. EPE’s investment in solar is increasing greatly,
however, and more projects are moving forward. How does EPE determine
costs for solar energy payoffs? Conventional energy costs are rising and
the cost for PV is decreasing. Additionally, in terms of the additional
costs borne by rate payers who do not participate in the VRE, if the
cost is cents per month, the relative impact should be quantified.
Economic difficulties could be outlined in terms of increased cost. Mr.
Doyle replied that he could return and give a presentation on how the
utility works in terms of resource allocation. There are solar resources
that will generate 20 MW, but a solar generation resource is not the
same thing as a gas generator, which can be turned on and run all day.
The renewable energy is different in terms of how it can be applied.
Solar energy is present when the sun is shining. The same investment can
be made for a gas generator, but a gas generator produces at 90 percent
capacity. If a customer is dependent on 1 MW of wind, it may not be
there. It is physically impossible at this time to have a utility that
is 50 to 100 percent renewable. Mr. Acosta noted that different
scenarios were examined to deal with the cost and account for the
variability of solar and wind energy.

Ms. Aguillon commented that there are worldwide markets in the
renewables sector. She asked about a program with 12 cents per kilowatt
hour. The price of solar energy has decreased significantly; is there a
trigger mechanism by which EPE will reduce that rate as the cost
decreases? Mr. Acosta said that every year a renewable plan must be
filed with the New Mexico Commission for the next 2 years. The price can
be adjusted at that time.

Mr. Ramirez raised the issue of cross-border energy opportunities, and
asked whether Mr. Turner’s group was limited to transmitting renewable
energy. Mr. Turner answered that RETA has a renewable requirement that
30 percent of transmission has to be from renewable resources. The
initial 1,500 MW for RETA’s project is all renewables, but because the
line is interconnected with the utility, it will be used for other
power. In GNEB’s report, the Board should consider that New Mexico
passed renewable energy financing districts, which is an opportunity for
homeowners to put renewable energy in their houses and be able to roll
that into their property tax. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will not allow
a first lien but if this was allowed, there would be a drastic spike in
renewables. On the transmission, EPE is pushing legislation to open
private activity bonds to make the states eligible for them. Once a
price on a wind farm is locked in, it remains in place for 30 years and
is not subject to the volatility of natural gas. Private activity bonds
are a financing tool in which a public body is eligible to finance what
would typically be considered private investments at tax exempt interest
rates. Mr. Acosta, addressing the question on cross-border energy,
stated that there was no cross-state or cross-border market in Texas and
New Mexico. The RPS RECs have to be generated in the specific states.
Mr. Ramirez asked if in terms of transmission line construction, Mexico
was a consideration. Mr. Acosta responded that a number of private
developers are considering building in Mexico. Mr. Doyle added that
Mexico is on a different grid than New Mexico and Texas, and the
machines are not synchronous with those in the United States. The cost
to convert their equipment would be significant.

Public Comments

Maria Elena Giner

Ms. Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC), stated that she was presenting the results of an
ongoing climate action planning process in Baja California, Sonora, and
Coahuila. This was achieved with Border 2012 funds. Additionally, she
would present a White Paper on what opportunities exist in the energy
efficiency, renewables, and transportation sectors.

The inventories for the six Mexican border states are what define the
source of greenhouse gas (GHG). The vast majority of the GHG emissions
in all six states are coming from residential, commercial, and
industrial consumption. Some come from transportation, and some,
especially in Coahuila, come from industrial processing and mining. The
Mexican border states constitute 21 percent of Mexico’s emissions.
Mexico has a goal of reducing its GHGs by 30 percent, but by 2025, the
border states could constitute 31 percent of the country’s GHGs. An
advisory group was formed in each of the states, and workgroups were
formed by sector, which formulated 134 public policies, 43 of which are
repeated across three states. BECC is in the process of working in
Sonora for quantification that will provide the cost-benefit of each
policy option, the amount of GHG emissions, identification of projects,
and identification of social justice issues. Part of this effort will be
to train the Mexican federal government.

With respect to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and transportation
project opportunities in the

U.S.-Mexico border region, the White Paper describes the current deficit
in the U.S.-Mexico border region because of limited resources for
project development and lack of capacity building in the public and
public-private sectors. The White Paper brings forward information on
green jobs. The largest permanent job generators are the landfill and
the biomass. Solar energy production generates jobs, but they are
temporary.

In the case of the energy efficiency projects, for every $1 million
invested, 13 potential jobs are created. In a California study, about
1.5 million full-time equivalent jobs with a total payroll of $45
billion were generated from energy efficiency savings of $56 billion
from 1972 to 2006. The White Paper also lists green jobs available in
renewable energy and transit, as well as potential projects in street
lighting, energy efficiency, truck stop electrification and anti-idling,
and housing.

The state technical assistance priorities, based on a BECC survey, are
listed for the border states in both countries. The states were asked
for their best strategies to address their energy consumption patterns.
A cross-section of agencies was interviewed, additionally, for their
state priority projects. These are listed in the White Paper as well.

BECC has certified three renewable energy projects out of a list of 20.
This does not mean that some of the projects are not going to other
entities and private developers. The first project was certified about
3 years ago and it involved retrofitting 1,500 to 2,000 homes with
renewables. Most job generation opportunities are for installation at
the home. Another project was certified in Nyland, California. This was
conducted by a private developer, and will provide 1.5 percent of the
RPS. Another project in Tucson is in public comment and would supply the
city with 25 MW of renewable energy and Tucson Electric with 1.5 percent
of the RPS. The projects are very time and research intensive, but the
impact is not as direct as if the projects were conducted on homes. The
utilities are driven by the RPS. Ms. Giner agreed to e-mail the White
Paper to Board members by Monday, September 12, 2011.

Discussion

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

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

Discussion of the 14th GNEB Report

Mr. Joyce announced that Dr. Austin was named as GNEB Chair by EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson.

Dr. Austin stated that the 14th GNEB report draft was 180 pages and it
needed to be shortened to 60 or 70 pages in length, but the time spent
preparing the material was not wasted. The information provided is
background for the Board members to understand what is known about the
topic. The Board must clearly define its message, so that members can
streamline the document.

Dr. Austin asked if there is anything in the report that is
objectionable to a member because of its claims or tone.

Mr. Niemeyer mentioned the issue of climate change. There are ways to
work around it, such as referring to “temperature change.” On page
15, line 1 states that “a recent report indicates that the most
pronounced and observed climate change in the United States…” and
this could be altered to read, based on comments from Mr. Niemeyer, Dr.
Reed and Mr. Gillen:  “observed temperature and precipitation
changes…are occurring in the border region. Most projections for 21st
century forecasts indicate….” Dr. Eckert stated that it was in fact
climate change, and climate and weather must be distinguished. He does
not know of any models that show anything other than average annual
increases. Dr. Zavaleta did not agree that this change was specific to
the border region, and suggested referring to the American Southwest.
Mr. Angel supported the changes suggested. Noting that this was not the
main focus of the report, Dr. Austin asked if the section was needed.
Ms. Spener asked if Texas could include a statement of dissent on that
one point. There were a few areas of inaccuracy in the report, and she
wondered if these should be addressed in today’s discussion.

Mr. Gillen noted an issue on page 15 under Energy Security and
Transmission. In the first sentence, he suggested striking “and
although America holds about 2 percent of the world’s proven oil
reserves, Americans,” and changing the next word “consume” to
“consuming.” Dr. Austin asked if these were critical issues needed
to frame the report. Ms. Aguillon said it should be deleted because so
much material needs to be eliminated anyway.

Mr. Olmedo suggested removing the discussion of climate change rather
than referencing it with a different twist. Mr. Niemeyer added that
language that does not use the phrase “climate change” could be
employed to express the same ideas. The report must be done by
consensus, and he could not support the original language because he
represents the State of Texas, which does not regard climate change as a
fact. Dr. Reed asked how the climate change topic might be raised in a
manner acceptable to all members. If the point is that hotter, drier
climates could lead to increased energy demand, that point is relevant
to a report on renewable energy. Causes of climate change are not
relevant.

Dr. Austin stated that this was a useful approach. The Board needs to
figure out what it is trying to say with this report and build its case
for the recommendations. Dr. Eckert suggested that the Board work within
the objectives on page 7, lines 34-37. Dr. Austin asked if the report
needed to include a long argument to justify why it was examining
renewables. Mr. Niemeyer responded that it should include an argument if
it can be stated concisely; some cogent arguments for renewable energy
should be made because policy makers might pay attention to them. Ms.
Aguillon did not think a justification was needed because the Board was
asked to examine the topic by CEQ.

Mr. Apodaca asked if the goal of the report was to capture the issues,
or make recommendations on how to move forward. Dr. Austin responded
that GNEB would move into that discussion next.

Ms. Spener stated that the Board will have to cut mercilessly to reach
the desired 60-70 page length; she suggested keeping page 7, and then
jumping to page 16, section 7. It is not necessary to explain why
renewable energy is important. The state policies should be deleted, as
should the discussion on climate change. Mr. Starfield commented that
the report needs to include three or four sentences about why renewables
are important; otherwise the reader will just come away with the
impression that there is something wrong with every type of renewable
energy. Mr. Angel stated that climate change is just one of the many
reasons that renewable energy is needed; a case should be made for these
reasons in the report.

Mr. Niemeyer said he thought that both positive and negative impacts
would be included in the impacts section, but the current draft contains
mostly negative impacts. On page 56, line 10, on low-flow generation, it
must be stated that low-flow energy on either dam will only be available
by call of the Texas Watermaster. Additionally, on page 107, in the box
on the Environmental Health Coalition, line 20 reads as if it were taken
directly from a press release. Mr. Joyce noted that the box was included
to illustrate the economic opportunities of developing renewables and
the jobs they can create. Dr. Austin suggested that the section might
not make it into the final report, so the language did not yet need to
be discussed.

Mr. Niemeyer stated that on page 33, lines 5-6 state that “available
groundwater resources will be exhausted within 30 years” in El Paso,
which is not true. Ms. Spener had the same comment. Dr. Reed suggested
that pages 30-33 be deleted. Ms. Spener suggested that, in the
background section, Mr. Angel, Mr. Starfield, and Mr. Niemeyer condense
pages 8-16 into one page. Dr. Austin commented that there was consensus
that there will be a page on why renewables are important. Mr. Starfield
will be the lead on that section.

Mr. Joyce noted that energy efficiency was discussed in the
introduction, but is not dealt with in the report. Ms. Spener agreed
that energy efficiency was barely addressed in the report, and that its
mention in the introduction should be deleted. Dr. Austin asked if there
were any more issues that need to be revisited.

Mr. Gillen noted that page 32, line 16 mentions the “bombing of the
World Trade Center.” The World Trade Center was attacked, not bombed.
Dr. Reed mentioned that this section could be condensed.

Mr. Niemeyer mentioned that the first two paragraphs on page 36 would be
a good lead in for why renewables are important.

Dr. Austin asked the Board to step back and determine the basic
objective of the report. This will help members determine the
recommendations to be made, and then consider how many of the sections
lead to the recommendations. The objective of the report is stated on
page 7, lines 34-37. Is the Board satisfied with this language? Dr.
Zavaleta suggested that the objective read “to examine the issues
associated with availability of renewable energy in the border
region.” Mr. Joyce added that the Board’s charge was to develop
recommendations on the development of renewable energy and the potential
for economic development and environmental improvement that the
development of renewable energy could bring to the border region. What
is the potential for developing renewables that would bring about
enhanced economic opportunities, better jobs, and an improved
environment in the border region?

Mr. Apodaca commented that the objectives of the report were to identify
why renewable energy is important in the border region, identify the
positive and negative impacts of renewable energy, and capture
recommendations on how to move renewable energy forward in the border
region. Mr. Starfield agreed, but recommended that the report state that
renewable energy is important to this nation for multiple reasons, and
then list them. Given that, the objective of this report is to discuss
responsible ways to take advantage of renewable energy resources in the
border region. Mr. Joyce commented that the resource maps are intended
to convey why the border region is important for renewables.

Mr. Gillen commented that the minimum wage in each of the border states
was discussed, and it appears that Texas was being criticized for having
a lower minimum wage. Dr. Austin responded that if the text on wages
remains after sections are deleted, Mr. Gillen’s concern will be
addressed.

Mr. Ramirez mentioned that lines 6-15 on page 7 state why the Board is
examining renewable energy. The first four or five paragraphs on the
page perhaps should be deleted because they may contradict the new
objective. Mr. Joyce stated that this report is about potential
environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy development in
the U.S. border region. Dr. Reed added that the Board had to discuss
unique opportunities on the border. He did not know if there was a way
to avoid discussing energy efficiency because it must be done in
conjunction with the use of renewable energy. Dr. Pohlman suggested that
a line be added that states GNEB recognizes that renewable energy will
be maximizing energy efficiency and that that two are complementary. A
recommendation can be made without having a lengthy dissertation in the
text. Mr. Niemeyer apologized that he had not drafted a section on
energy efficiency. He had distributed a page on energy efficiency to the
Board members, and suggested it could be put in the overview section.
Ms. Spener commented that the report should be focused on special
opportunities on the border, and she was unsure that energy efficiency
was different on the border than elsewhere in the country. Ms. Aguillon
stated that one way to include energy efficiency in the report was to
focus more on distributed generation. All of the groups the Board met
with yesterday were trying to promote energy efficiency in low-income
homes. Mr. Small added that the mention of energy efficiency had to be
specific to its link with renewable energy applications. A broad
statement could be made that “the Board believes it is understood that
energy efficiency offers tremendous benefits along a wide range of
areas. This report will discuss energy efficiency as it relates to
specific renewable energy efforts in the border region.” A big
explanation is not needed at the beginning, but it can be discussed with
renewable energy types. Dr. Austin noted another point of consensus is
that the Board should acknowledge at the beginning that energy
efficiency matters and will be discussed only in the context of
renewables. Mr. Angel commented that energy efficiency was an essential
part of the portfolio in California. Dr. Austin asked for key
recommendations regarding energy efficiency.

The recommendations section, which begins on page 166, does not contain
all of the recommendations in this report. These were the ones that were
specifically identified as recommendations. Dr. Pohlman noted that
energy audits, communication from the Federal Government, education from
the Federal Government, and implementation were raised in presentations.
There are four or five broad areas for recommendations. The Board may
not want to get as specific as recommending that the importance of the
new FERC Order be emphasized. Another specific issue is the liens for
solar projects from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. One more general
recommendation was made—federal efforts should be coordinated and a
master strategy should be developed. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that there
should be a recommendation on improved public outreach. He attempted to
use the DOE website, and agreed it was not user friendly. Ms. Aguillon
suggested that a more general recommendation on the FERC topic was that
the Federal Government should help with regulatory barriers.
Additionally, the role of the Federal Government should be examined
after the tax credits expire. Dr. Eckert noted that the mantra for the
natural resource community is “smart from the start” in terms of
siting. That will suffice for a general recommendation. Mr. Ramirez
suggested that a long-term approach be recommended on investments in
renewable energy. Dr. Reed added that the report should include a
recommendation about the BECC/NADB and its role in renewable energy. Ms.
Spener stated that this Board has consistently lamented reduced funding
for BECC/NADB, and Commissioner Drusina is concerned that the need for
water and wastewater projects is so great that supporting their
renewable energy efforts could diminish their ability to provide support
for these water projects. Dr. Austin stated that the report could note
that BECC funding is not adequate, so it must be ensured that dealing
with renewables does not take away from the rest of its work.

Mr. Apodaca asked if the Board should recommend one or two potential
renewable projects within the border region. Mr. Starfield commented
that careful development could be recommended in terms of siting and
avoiding sensitive habitats. Additionally, the use of contaminated land
should be encouraged. Installations should be located at federal
facilities and universities. The Board could ask DOE to develop some
portfolios for retrofitting an existing facility with solar panels and
mention the payback period. The Board ought to recommend some
sensitivity to the local community that is hosting the renewables, and
something to pay the community back for granting a permit. Dr. Pohlman
had made the recommendation about use of federal property for siting
renewable energy installations because of a Presidential memo issued
this year.

Mr. Small commented that lending institutions were not in the habit of
providing financial support for renewable energy, and they needed to be
encouraged to see the benefits of renewables. Additionally, he drafted a
section on biofuels. Dr. Austin noted that this issue would be
addressed.

Dr. Eckert asked if the Board wanted further recommendations on
supporting more decentralized renewable energy. Mr. Angel added that it
depended on what type of renewable was under discussion—some only will
be large scale.

Mr. Starfield held that the Federal Government was not adept at
communication and education. He suggested rephrasing the recommendation
to say that the Federal Government should support the communication and
education efforts of councils of governments, chambers of commerce, and
mayors. Dr. Pohlman disagreed, stating that the Federal Energy
Management Program at DOE has plenty of money for communication and
education.

Mr. Olmedo suggested including a recommendation that renewable projects
should create long-term jobs. Dr. Austin noted that the Board should be
focused on those projects that have environmental benefits, and those
that create jobs should be prioritized. Mr. Ramirez stated that research
and development should be encouraged.

Dr. Austin asked how many recommendations the Board wanted to include in
the report, and how they should be organized. Mr. Evaristo Cruz (Ysleta
del Sur Pueblo), GNEB member, asked if there was a way to quantify the
recommendations so that the Board could track the implementation of the
recommendations by the Federal Government. Ms. Spener noted that on
pages 172-173, there was a general and then specific recommendation
related to energy. Previous reports had “Recommendations at a
Glance” in the front, and these were more general, with specific
recommendations appearing later in the report. This is important, in
case readers do not read anything other than that section.

Mr. Small commented that the opening of the private activity bonds is a
specific recommendation. Dr. Austin responded that it might fit under
one of the more general recommendations. She asked for suggestions on
the most effective way for members to process the recommendations. Mr.
Niemeyer suggested going through the specific recommendations together
to determine where they belong under the general recommendations.

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

Mr. Gillen suggested that the Federal Energy Management Program should
give the money to the states in block grants for education. Mr. Niemeyer
agreed that funds should be given to the states. Dr. Pohlman added that
DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) could be asked to
provide training; she did not agree that states should get the money
because NREL has a lot of capacity and ability to call on private
consultants to provide education. She believed the Board should ask that
these programs be emphasized. Mr. Olmedo noted that sometimes there is
too much training. In Imperial County, there is a surplus of solar
installers and no jobs. Dr. Austin commented that both the states and
NREL could provide training. Mr. Cruz stated that Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Weatherization block grants are now being made
available by DOE, and the grants include training components. Noting
that a DOE representative was not present, Mr. Starfield mentioned that
some of DOE’s programs did not penetrate the local level. He thought
DOE should be consulted about these recommendations before the report is
finalized. Mr. Joyce explained that the official DOE representative
would no longer be on the Board. Mr. Chris Lawrence from DOE was going
to attend but had a scheduling conflict.

The Board organized the specific recommendations under the general
recommendations so that they could be discussed the next day at length
once the exact wording had been determined. Mr. Gillen noted that, so
far, the Board had listed all of the recommendations under the following
categories:  education or outreach, finance, and land use. The local
community issue could fall under land use.

Dr. Reed stated that like the green bank, the idea of a national RPS was
in some of the recent Congressional bills. Mr. Small mentioned that
there are four different standards that have been developed to different
degrees within the states and if there was a national RPS, then there
might be national results. It should be an observation based on the
facts. Ms. Aguillon stated that the recommendation was too political
and should not be included. Ms. Spener added that there may be utilities
with limited renewable resources, and if there was a national standard,
it could not be achieved without large transmission lines. Mr. Niemeyer
noted that this topic appeared in the text of the report. It could be
stated that there are pros and cons to the national RPS. Mr. Small
thought that the general recommendation could be included. Dr. Pohlman
suggested the report state that there might be merit to a national RPS,
and each state could recommend more specifics that come under that
umbrella. Mr. Olmedo stated that the border region constantly deals with
bad air quality, and much of the development causing the pollution is
being subsidized. There needs to be some kind of protection for these
communities, and projects that contribute to poor air quality should not
be allowed. The projects should be seen as more of a privilege than a
right. Dr. Austin commented that the recommendation was that projects be
placed in areas that would not contribute to non-attainment. Mr.
Starfield stated that the Clean Air Act allows a coal plant to operate
in non-attainment areas, so the Board could not recommend prohibiting
that placement of renewables in those areas. Ms. Aguillon stated that
one of the recommendations is to focus on decentralized, distributed
generation. Ms. Spener asked if the Board wanted to make a
recommendation for decentralized development. The report could state
that the Board has particular concerns about large-scale projects; this
is certainly within GNEB’s purview.

Mr. Ramirez commented that one of the lessons learned is not to depend
on any one source of energy, and it is not the Board’s mandate to pick
winners and losers with respect to types of renewable energy. He would
not support a recommendation to move away from utility scale
installations in favor of decentralized installations. Each has
advantages and disadvantages. Dr. Reed said it would be difficult to
recommend centralized over decentralized installations; if impacts are
the concern, the recommendation should focus on siting, and the Board
could recommend that the FWS guidelines be utilized for siting wind
installations. Dr. Eckert pointed out that there was not a specific
recommendation about decentralized energy; it was merely raised as a
discussion point. Dr. Austin commented that this is an area where some
recommendation is desired, but the specific recommendation has not yet
been crafted. Mr. John Wood (Cameron County Regional Mobility
Authority), GNEB member, noted that having been in local government,
often local action, not national action, needs to be taken. The Board
needs to recommend that the Federal Government either keep their
distance or assist in certain projects being conducted by local
governments or private enterprise. Mr. Joyce commented that the impacts
section was supposed to note the environmental impacts of large-scale
solar development, and the economic opportunities section would discuss
jobs and the nature of jobs. With distributed systems, the intent is to
have a cadre of installers that have high-paying jobs for a long period
of time. The facts may be able to speak for themselves without a strong
recommendation for one over the other. Mr. Angel commented that some of
the large-scale projects have significantly more potential for
environmental impact than a residential PV installation.

Dr. Austin suggested that the recommendations would guide the Board in
deciding what supporting material needs to be retained in the report.
There needs to be more discussion of positive impacts. The current
categories for recommendations are:  education and outreach, financing,
and land use. There also has been a recommendation to establish a
baseline to measure impacts. Dr. Eckert said that if a plan was being
discussed, there must be some means of determining if the goal is being
achieved, so metrics need to be addressed somehow. Dr. Reed noted that
it was difficult to think about a plan across four states and three
electric grids. It could be suggested that BECC/NADB conduct an
assessment. Another issue that has not been addressed is the
interconnection between the U.S. grids and the grids in Mexico.
Ms. Aguillon suggested that this topic not be addressed because the
focus of the report is on renewables on this side of the border.
Dr. Austin thought there was consensus on leaving this out of the
recommendations, but Mr. Ramirez stated that to leave it out of the
report entirely would be a glaring omission. Dr. Austin asked the Board
to articulate the recommendation. Mr. Niemeyer suggested the report
state that the effects of cross-border energy transmission need to be
studied. Dr. Zavaleta stated that it was not uncommon for reports such
as this to include a recommendation for continued cooperation and study
between the countries on cross-border energy transmission. Mr. Olmedo
did not think the recommendation should be included in the report,
adding that the United States should not pursue cross-border
transmission. Mr. Niemeyer thought the report should state that
cross-border transmission needs to be studied more carefully.

Dr. Austin noted that specific recommendations under each category have
not been addressed. Dr. Pohlman agreed to draft the section on a master
plan for the border region. Mr. Starfield noted that Audubon had stated
that before a project is begun, a plan should be developed in
consultation with the stakeholders. A master plan for the border region,
however, would be very difficult to achieve. Mr. Angel agreed and
supported the idea that a plan for each project be developed. Mr. Wood
asked if the WGA had the ability to develop a master plan that will
affect their states. Dr. Austin thought that was possible.

Dr. Pohlman noted that there are very specific definitions of
“underutilized”; the General Services Administration has one, and
she will e-mail it to the Board members for tomorrow’s discussion.

Dr. Austin tasked members to write the text around the general
recommendations and to address the specific recommendations. She asked
that those assigned prepare the recommendations and e-mail them to her
during the evening so that she could assemble them into one document for
the next morning’s discussion.

Dr. Austin recessed the meeting for the day at 5:53 p.m.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Dr. Austin welcomed members and attendees to the meeting, and thanked
them for their work on the report recommendations during the previous
night. She then introduced Dr. Duncan Wood.

Duncan Wood, Professor, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México,
Senior Advisor for the Renewable Energy Initiative, Mexico Institute of
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Dr. Wood noted that the work being conducted at the Wilson Center
focuses on renewable energy resources on the Mexican side of the border.
The work conducted in 2010 identified the enormous potential that exists
in Mexico for geothermal, wind and solar energy as well as biofuels. One
of the major conclusions was that one of the largest opportunities for
Mexico was in exporting renewable energy to the United States.

The Mexican Government has estimated that a 25 kilometer by 25 kilometer
block of Sonora, Mexico, if completely covered with solar panels, would
produce more than enough electricity for all of Mexico. Much of this
area is desert, so there is potential for solar installations, but the
cost must be considered as well as legal and constitutional issues.

Mexico has very impressive wind resources; for example, the Mexican
Government estimates that Mexico has 71,000 MW of potential. The wind
resources in Oaxaca in particular are highly valued and already are
under heavy development. Oaxaca may have as much as 33,000 MW of wind
energy potential. Development of renewable energy in Mexico is being led
by the private sector. Oaxaca leads the way in Mexican wind energy
resources, but Baja California and Tamaulipas follow closely behind.
Baja California now is under development, but projects are small so far.
The potential is to export between 3,000 to 5,000 MW of energy to the
United States.

Northern Mexico has high solar installation levels, but the high cost of
developing has been a major obstacle and the government has shown little
support. Small-scale solar development has been seen, which is supported
through government programs. It is estimated that only 3 percent of the
Mexican population does not have access to the grid, but that is still 5
million people, so these off-grid resources are important. A Wilson
Center project is examining the impact on development in remote areas.

In terms of biofuels, the possibility of greater ethanol production is
being examined. In Mexico, ethanol production is focused on white corn
and jatropha. The most interesting development in Northern Mexico has
been methane capture from trash.

The United States’ and Mexico’s history of cooperation in renewable
energy began in the 1990s focusing on rural applications. It then spread
rapidly to examine the potential for commercial exploitation of wind
energy in Oaxaca and La Rumorosa. Geothermal cooperation has an even
longer history, going back to the 1970s.

The Wilson Center’s research is trying to evaluate the gains from
renewable energy at the border. Economic benefits include direct
creation of temporary and permanent jobs, indirect creation of temporary
and permanent jobs in the service sector, local and state government
energy savings through self-supply projects that are passed along to
taxpayers, electricity subsidies for local inhabitants, electricity
supply to off-grid communities, and infrastructure investment. The
second area of research by the Wilson Center is examination of the
knowledge spillover and development of human capital through renewable
energy. This includes knowledge and information networks, specialization
in institutes of higher education, creation of research and training
centers, and increased interaction between government, business, and
civil society. Thirdly, social participation is being studied, and
includes communication among government, business and local populations;
ensuring that the local community becomes a stakeholder; acceptance of
projects as a driver of local development; and lessons from Oaxaca. The
experience of Oaxaca has not been all positive. Many firms that invested
in wind energy in Oaxaca did not deal well with the local communities.

Potential employment in wind energy is six jobs per MW of turbine
production. For every job created in manufacturing, installation and
operation of wind energy, at least one more is created in research,
financing and consulting services.

In Northwest Mexico, cross-border energy generation, such as in
cross-border energy farms, is being discussed. Tamaulipas, under the
previous administration, had enormous interest in building wind energy
resources, but the interest has decreased. Continuity is a problem in
Mexico because of the frequent changes in administrations.

Discussion

Ms. Aguillon noted that Dr. Wood had not addressed distributed
generation. Dr. Wood responded that solar thermal energy has been a
success story across Mexico. Currently, the Mexican Government is not
willing to discuss subsidies for PV solar energy. It comes down to a
question of cost, and President Calderon has not been willing to spend
much money. There is interest in the private sector and some in state
government, but not at the federal level. The Wilson Center has just
released a book on renewable energy in Mexico, available online, which
discusses the potential for PV and thermal solar energy.

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

Dr. Zavaleta commented that people in Mexico will not invest in anything
until they know who will become the next president. Local governors have
very little authority. He asked about the common name for jatropha. Dr.
Wood responded that jatropha was the common name for the shrub that
produces inedible nuts and can grow anywhere with water. The nuts are
high in oil content and can produce biodiesel. The first crop is
available within 6 months of planting.

Mr. Ramirez asked Dr. Wood to expand on the comment that Mexico was
looking for jobs rather than electricity generation. Additionally, one
of the obstacles for U.S. companies to export electricity has been the
current conditions within the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE)
that do not allow it to enter into long-term PPAs. Dr. Wood clarified
that based on the cost of renewable energy generation, and what is
occurring with shale gas in the United States, renewable energies will
not be competitive in terms of price within the next 10 to 15 years.
Mexico already has a surplus of electricity production, although it is
distributed poorly. The Calderon Administration promised to produce a
certain number of jobs per year. The fact that fewer Mexicans now are
crossing the border to seek jobs in the United States means that more
jobs must be produced in Mexico; this is where renewable energy is
relevant. In terms of the broader economic development, the knowledge,
infrastructure and human capital spillovers are what will provide a
boost to Mexican development from renewable energy. On the second
comment, CFE has limitations on its negotiating capacity and has to buy
the cheapest source of electricity defined by the constitution. Private
companies now produce close to 14 percent of electricity in Mexico, and
then can sell to CFE. The best opportunity would be to get private firms
to build cross-border transmission lines.

Mr. Angel asked if Dr. Wood could speak to the transboundary
environmental impacts of some of these projects. Dr. Wood answered that
environmental standards and regulations on both sides of the border
would have to be aligned. The standards in Mexico now are similar to
those in the United States, and there is less bureaucracy on the Mexican
side of the border. There have been interesting discussions in the wind
energy sector on the placement of turbines and the gradual harmonization
of norms between the two countries. It must be determined which
renewable energy works in which particular area.

Mr. Ruiz noted that one of the hindrances mentioned to the movement
toward renewables was the lack of awareness of benefits of renewable
energy in Mexico. Have there been any recommendations put forward by the
states in the Border Governors Conference regarding this issue? Dr. Wood
commented that in terms of awareness, public education has not been a
significant feature. Mexico still sees itself as a hydrocarbon nation,
and all the energy debates in the media are about oil.

Discussion of Next Meeting and Other Business

December Meeting

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

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

Report Process

The Board members have until the end of this month to finalize the draft
of the report, which then goes back to the contractor for editing. After
it is edited, the report will be sent back to the Board for review. At
that point, editorial changes can be suggested by the Board members and
can be incorporated by the contractor. On the teleconference, the Board
will vote to approve the report. The teleconference will be held during
the week of October 24, 2011. A sheet will be circulated; members should
block out any dates and times that they are not available.

Draft Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) Letter

Mr. Niemeyer included the letter to be distributed in members’ meeting
packets. Mr. Ramirez made a motion to discuss the letter and Mr. Angel
seconded the motion.

Ms. Spener commented that she had not seen the letter before the
meeting. Mr. Niemeyer responded that it had been distributed to members
15 days in advance of the meeting. The letter states that the TEIA
agreement should be finalized because it is important to the border, and
lists all the times GNEB has mentioned the agreement in the past.
Perhaps there is no political will for the agreement to be finalized,
but it is important for stakeholders.

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

Discussion of 14th GNEB Report

Dr. Austin compiled everyone’s contributions on the report’s
recommendations into a single document. The first step will be for
members to review the recommendations and ensure that they are in
agreement with the intent of the recommendations. Members also should
determine if additional recommendations need to be included.

Ms. Spener added that the three recommendations on hydropower, as
follows, had not been included:  Support installation of low-head or
low-flow power generation at federal hydroelectric power plants; the
Federal Government should continue to upgrade existing federal
hydroelectric power plants to ensure efficient, reliable, cost-effective
generation; and streamline federal permitting so that low-head
generation can be done at irrigation canals. These could fit under land
use, and will not have a negative impact because the recommendation
concerns taking facilities that already are there and using them more
efficiently and effectively. Mr. Angel agreed that these were common
sense recommendations.

Under planning and land use, recommendation A would be changed from
“The Board recommends that each RE project should be carefully planned
to ensure that any negative impacts are identified, and minimized,” to
“The Board recommends that each RE project should be carefully planned
to ensure that any negative impacts are avoided, mitigated and
offset.”

Ms. Aguillon commented that if people put solar PV systems on their
roofs, there would not be an impact. This recommendation assumes
large-scale installations. Mr. Gillen countered that this recommendation
could be appropriate even for a residential project if a development has
rules about what can be visible from the road.

Mr. Small noted that adding “if applicable” is one way to address
this issue. Another is to say it is subject to municipal law. Dr. Eckert
added that it might depend on the level of federal permitting. Mr. Joyce
suggested changing the text to each “large-scale” RE project. Ms.
Aguillon stated that a large-scale development produces more than 20 MW,
and everything below that level is distributed generation. Large scale
also could be called utility scale. Mr. Ramirez commented that even a 20
MW solar farm still could have impacts to the parcel of land on which it
is located. Mr. Niemeyer suggested the text read “RE projects”
period. “Projects” means something that is substantial. Even small
ones could have an impact. Mr. Wood added that the term “commercial
projects” could be used to identify something that will be used on the
property for a commercial operation or that will be sold into the
market. Mr. Cruz stated that when the recommendation was discussed
before, it was suggested that the regulator should make use of existing
policies such as NEPA. Mr. Eckert thought more specifics could be added.
Dr. Austin suggested bringing language from the bullet below on impacts
to the top. This is more than what is required by NEPA.

The recommendation that “Local and State governments should be
encouraged to site energy or industrial projects away from residential
areas to reduce potential impacts,” was deleted. Mr. Small agreed it
should be removed because it would be a mistake to add additional
hurdles to renewable energy that do not affect fossil fuels. Ms. Spener
concurred. In Texas, someone can put an oil well in your back yard
legally, so renewable energy sources should not be precluded. Ms.
Aguillon suggested that the Board encourage distributed generation in a
manner that complies with the community, state and federal laws.
Distributed generation should be considered before transmission lines.

Dr. Austin noted that the Board chose not to recommend anything more
restrictive than what can be done with conventional energy. Mr. Small
added that industrial-scale solar development over several thousand
acres can have a more significant impact on land than oil and gas
development. Mr. Angel noted that he was concerned about adding more
restrictions than those imposed by the Federal Government. Dr. Austin
stated that the consensus was that GNEB did not want to have the Federal
Government regulate renewables in a more restrictive manner than it
regulates other sources of energy. Mr. Niemeyer stated that developers
of these projects want some uniformity. Mr. Small mentioned that on
federal land, there could be “solar enterprise zones.” On the
federal level, GNEB could recommend that the government follow the solar
enterprise zones or a similar model that streamlines renewable energy
development.

Mr. Eckert will try to collect information from BLM and distribute it to
the Board to see if it is helpful.

Mr. Starfield said he could not remember EPA ever issuing a permit for a
renewable project. The point of this recommendation is to say that many
problems can be avoided by planning early and well. The report should
include some recommendations that make good common sense; not every
recommendation must require a federal action. Mr. Angel noted that the
Federal Government can provide incentives that help facilitate the
process. Mr. Olmedo stated that renewable energy should have to meet
standards at least equal to those for conventional energy. Dr. Austin
asked if the report should include recommendations that were not
specific to the Federal Government.

The recommendation “Renewable energy (RE) projects that produce
long-term jobs/have environmental benefit should be prioritized,” was
deleted, and an energy efficiency comment will be inserted in its place.

Ms. Spener stated that this recommendation means prioritizing landfill
gas, and PV is at the bottom of the list. Ms. Aguillon said that this
was true with large-scale installations, but with distributed
generation, it is the opposite. Dr. Austin asked if there would be
enough data in the report to say that distributed generation provides
long-term jobs. Ms. Aguillon responded that there are data on the number
of jobs, but perhaps not on the longevity of jobs. She will determine if
this information is available. Dr. Austin asked if the Board wanted to
prioritize long-term jobs. Mr. Niemeyer stated that the Board should
promote solar energy and the jobs will follow.

Mr. Angel said that environmental benefits must be considered.

Mr. Small commented that there are 300 households in EPE’s service
area with solar PV installed, and that probably between 14 and 18
workers installed these systems. The market’s surface is only being
scratched. With distributed generation, there will be a significantly
higher number of jobs. Landfills and biogas have been shown to have the
most significant number of long-term jobs, but there are few landfills.
Ms. Giner agreed that landfills have long-term jobs. In a city, a
landfill project will be an important job creation opportunity.

Mr. Starfield commented that in the original draft, there was a
discussion of energy efficiency. There should be a sub-bullet that says
“Combine energy efficiency into each of these projects.” Dr. Austin
did not see a conflict with adding this sub-bullet.

The text that reads “Where renewable energy development involves
disturbance of lands,” should be added to “apply best practices and
best available data to facility siting at both facility and landscape
scales” and “including utility-scale projects” should be added.

The specific reference to the NatureServe’s Biotics database should be
removed from the recommendation “Use conservation databases, such as
NatureServe’s Biotics, to identify potential occurrences of rare or
threatened species and/or rare or sensitive biological communities and
ecosystems, such as wetlands and riparian zones, in project areas.”

Regarding the recommendation “Evaluate cumulative impacts of not only
individual facilities but of multiple facilities across ecological
landscapes,” Ms. Spener commented that if a NEPA analysis is being
conducted, an evaluation also is being conducted. Dr. Eckert responded
that BLM did not follow NEPA because it looks at the cumulative impacts
of one facility; there is a big difference when there are thousands of
facilities. Mr. Olmedo commented that there can be a different
understanding of cumulative impacts in different communities. Dr. Austin
noted that no member objected to leaving the recommendation in the
report.

The recommendation “Avoid boundary areas of Protected Areas, such as
designated wilderness or National Park Service units,” was changed to
“pay special attention to boundary areas….” Ms. Spener suggested
that it would be beneficial if the National Park Service had PV panels
within their parks. Dr. Austin agreed that the Board should not
recommend avoiding these areas, but could recommend that developers
should be aware of them.

The following text will be deleted:

“Key practices to address the human landscape are:

Engage neighboring communities and develop and implement Community
Relations plans.

Identify and mitigate noise and light pollution from facilities.

Route service roads away from neighborhoods.

The Board recommends that RE project designers show a preference to
locate projects on:

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

Under-utilized portions of federal facility installations.”

The numerous bullets under the recommendation “The GNEB recommends
that the Federal Government build a domestic renewable energy program
that is ‘smart from the start’ to include:” should be deleted
unless they are not addressed elsewhere. Mr. Starfield noted that many
of the bullets besides DOE- and Department of Interior (DOI)-specific
recommendations already are covered in the planning section.

Dr. Austin asked if the Board wanted to strike the bullets completely or
put some of the recommendations elsewhere in the report. There should be
some recommendations on a scale above the project level. A specific
statement can be included about federal agencies working together and
trying to examine some of these issues at a higher level.

Mr. Small stated that the Board could make the following recommendation:
 “Cooperate on all renewables across the entire spectrum.”

Mr. Starfield suggested that Mr. Small write up that comment and send it
to Mr. Starfield who will add it to the section.

Dr. Austin proposed that the DOE and DOI roles be moved to the education
section, and that the recommendation on strategic planning be deleted.

In the following recommendation, “reusable” was changed to
“renewable” and “and sustainable” was deleted:  “The GNEB
recommends that substantial effort be made by the Federal Government to
communicate and inform local governments and their populations
concerning the development and use of reusable and sustainable energy
resources in the border region. To that effect, the following should be
accomplished:”

The recommendation “USDOE should develop an education campaign for
local banks and credit unions to encourage them to offer lending
products in border regions, which could easily spread to the rest of the
country,” was deleted.

“USDOE could” was deleted from the following recommendation “USDOE
could partner with state government, local government, Councils of
Government, and Chambers of Commerce in Border communities to
disseminate this information.”

Dr. Austin noted a number of recommendations refer to DOE, but no one
from DOE was present at the meeting to comment on the text of those
recommendations. Mr. Carlos Rincon (EPA Region 6) said that there are
many opportunities for outreach and education from parties other than
DOE. Mr. Joyce suggested that discussion of recommendations specific to
DOE be delayed until DOE has a chance to comment on them.

The recommendation “Additional training should be provided on …”
was deleted.

On the BECC/NADB recommendation “While the BECC must continue to
prioritize technical assistance for its core mission for water supply,
wastewater treatment and solid waste management, a special concentrated
effort should be made to expand technical assistance on both sides of
the border for medium- and small-sized renewable energy projects,
especially those that combine electric generation with energy savings
and efficiency,” text should be added to describe the types of
projects that BECC should take on, but the specific areas of focus
should be deleted. Dr. Austin suggested that some of the specifics be
incorporated into the report text.

The specific amount of funds was removed from the following
recommendation:  “The Congress should consider an extra infusion of
$15 million to support the BECC in this effort and increase the capacity
of the BECC/NADBANK and of the local government agencies along the
U.S.-Mexico border.” The words “$15 million” were deleted and
replaced by “funding.”

Mr. Niemeyer stated that it had been a long while since GNEB had
recommended dollar figures. Given the budget situation, if Congress adds
funds in one place, they subtract them elsewhere.

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

Dr. Austin noted that the point to make is the importance of technical
assistance for project development. She asked if the following
recommendation would be a problem for Ms. Spener: “Use existing funds
and utilize our technical assistance programs to continue efforts in
developing projects in medium and small communities so that
implementation funds can be leveraged from the various sources
available.” Ms. Spener replied that she will check on the
acceptability of this language.

The following three paragraphs will be moved into the text of the
report:

“The BECC should undertake a regional assessment of the opportunities
to promote small-scale renewable projects along the border, including
what projects, resources and efforts currently exist at the federal,
state and local levels so that there is coordination and education.

The BECC/NADBANK should consider earmarking a portion of its capital as
a revolving green bank to support renewable energy production,
manufacturing and renewable energy savings projects. Earmarking a small
portion of their existing capital and focusing it on this sector, could
lead to “marketing” opportunities to highlight such changes.

Project developers of renewable systems should be encouraged to utilize
the BECC certification process, even if they are not planning to seek
NADBANK financing as a way to assure their projects meet basic
certification criteria.”

The dollar figure was removed from the following recommendation:  “A
further recommendation would be to issue CREBs—Clean Energy Renewable
Bonds—for public power, rural electric cooperatives and governmental
entities along the border and flow them through the NADBANK and BECC for
oversight and management. A fund of $500 million for the border could
encourage the development of renewable energy in the border area and
assure that proper environmental, community development and financial
sustainability are considered.”

Ms. Aguillon was unsure whether the recommendation “encourage research
and development,” should be included. Mr. Niemeyer thought it
important to recognize that there still is research that needs to be
done, but this could be included in the text of the report. Dr. Austin
agreed with this approach.

Dr. Austin asked if the following recommendation should be included:
“The United States and Mexico should explore ways to interconnect the
electric grids of each nation while ensuring that such endeavors result
in enhanced economic development and sustainable growth initiatives in
each country.  Both countries have reaffirmed their commitment to this
endeavor through the establishment of the Cross-Border Electricity Task
Force to address the economic and technical constraints for cross-border
energy projects.

Furthermore, that both nations should continue to analyze ways in which
the asynchronous operation of the two grids can be overcome. The
interconnection of the systems may offer advantages to each grid by
enhancing the reliability of each system and offering opportunities for
the buying and selling of energy to and from each country.”

Ms. Aguillon stated that it could not be ignored because the idea
already is under study. Mr. Angel responded that the Board was not
suggesting that the countries stop studying the issue. Mr. Niemeyer
suggested that the recommendation state that the issue of
interconnecting grids between the United States and Mexico, including
the technical issues and the environmental constraints, needs to be
studied and evaluated carefully. Dr. Zavaleta thought the Board should
encourage continued discussions between the two countries on
environmental and energy issues. Mr. Gillen asked if the United States
had a greater opportunity to affect environmental issues around a power
plant in Mexico if it would be buying the power. He added that unions
are against transboundary transmission lines.

Mr. Niemeyer added that Mexico has different environmental standards
than the United States and once one is connected to the grid, the source
of the energy is unknown.  Dr. Austin confirmed that GNEB should state
that this is an issue that requires attention.

Mr. Starfield suggested that the focus of this report is on renewable
energy in the United States, but the Board recognizes that there are
important issues regarding cross-border projects and encourages ongoing
discussions by the appropriate agencies.

In the recommendation “Fix the uncertainty with so-called Property
Assessed Clean Energy Districts. Whether through legislation, such as
recently introduced in the Congress, or by administrative rulemaking,
the federal government must establish national rules whereby localities
can move forward on financing mechanisms to allow individuals to invest
in renewable and water and energy savings technologies long-term,” the
phrase “Whether through legislation, such as recently introduced in
the Congress, or by administrative rulemaking,” was deleted.

Mr. Starfield noted that if legislation is discussed, the federal
members cannot sign on to that section of the report. Mr. Joyce
commented that, in the past, federal agency representatives have recused
themselves only from advice letters.

The following recommendation needs rewording:  “In addition, after
December 31, 2012, we would suggest ending the business incentive tax
credit and converting it to a production tax credit. We favor tax
credits that encourage actual production of renewable energy as opposed
to simple investment (see below).”

As written, Mr. Starfield would need to add a footnote that the federal
members of the Board recuse themselves from this recommendation. Ms.
Spener was troubled by the idea of the federal agency members recusing
themselves for some recommendations. The recommendation could state
“The Board recommends that tax credits are a useful tool for promoting
renewable energy.” Dr. Austin agreed that language should be used that
would not necessitate recusal of the federal members.

Regarding the recommendation “The ITC has served an important purpose,
particularly with the added funding available through the stimulus to
encourage investment in renewable energy, but it is an expensive program
and does not assure that the investments are efficient and produce
long-term energy production. Instead, the federal government should
phase out the ITC in December 31, 2016, and instead provide an
appropriate PTC for these systems, which include solar technologies,
small-scale wind, geothermal, fuel cells, CHP, geothermal heat pumps and
microturbines. Although some of these technologies are less energy
production systems and more energy saving technologies, a PTC can be
given based on the amount of energy saved through adoption of these
technologies,” Mr. Niemeyer suggested that the Board state that it
recognizes that “this is expiring at a certain date and that it would
merit the Federal Government to look into performance-based financial
incentives.”

Dr. Austin suggested that the recommendation “Continue the CREBs for
governmental entities and consider allocating a portion to the NADBANK
for the border area,” could instead state that the Clean Renewable
Energy Bonds (CREBs) program should be refinanced. Mr. Joyce agreed that
the Board should not go into specifics about Congress.

The following recommendation was deleted:  “Congress should issue a
new round of CREBs for the 2012-2015 period with a particular focus on
local government and rural electric cooperatives. For the U.S.-Mexico
border region, Congress could earmark a portion of CREBs through the
BECC-NADBANK to market the program and provide additional oversight and
public input. We would suggest a minimum of $500 million in CREBs be
earmarked for the border region.”

Dr. Austin stated that the recommendation on the Private Activity Bonds
must be supported by material in the text of the report.

The recommendation “Federal agencies should mount an education
campaign with local banks and credit unions to offer lending products in
border regions, which could easily spread to the rest of the country,”
was moved to the education section.

The following recommendations were deleted:

“Climate Action Planning supported by a dedicated local revenue stream
and new state/federal programs to fund related projects.”

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

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

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

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

“Propose new funding programs (maybe a Border Energy Fund).”

Ms. Spener suggested recommending that a model federal building code be
developed. Mr. Gillen noted that the International Building Code is a
model code. Dr. Austin stated that this could be placed in the body of
the text.

Adjournment

No public comments were offered at 1:30 p.m. Dr. Austin adjourned the
meeting at 2:11 p.m.

Action Items

Ms. Maria Elena Giner will e-mail the BECC White Paper that she
discussed in public comments to Board members by Monday, September 12,
2011.

Mr. Starfield will write a page on why renewables are important,
condensing pages 8-16 into a page.

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

Ms. Aguillon will determine if data are available on the longevity of
jobs created by distributed generation.

Mr. Small will write a recommendation on federal agency cooperation on
renewables and send it to Mr. Starfield who will add it to the report.

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting Participants

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

Diane Austin, Ph.D., Chair

Associate Research Anthropologist

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Cecilia E. Aguillon

Director, Market Development and Government

	Relations

KYOCERA Solar, Inc.

San Diego, CA

Jose Angel

Assistant Executive Officer

California River Basin Region Water Quality

Control Board – Colorado River Basin Region

Palm Desert, CA

Evaristo Cruz

Director

Environmental Management Office

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

El Paso, TX

Veronica Garcia

Deputy Director, Waste Programs Division

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Phoenix, AZ

Gary Gillen

President

Gillen Pest Control

Richmond, TX

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.

Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator

Intergovernmental Relations Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX

Luis Olmedo

Executive Director

Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.

Brawley, CA

Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.

Conservation Director

Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter

Austin, TX

Thomas Ruiz, M.S.

Border/Environmental Justice Liaison

Office of the Secretary

New Mexico Environment Department

Las Cruces, NM

Nathan P. Small

Conservation Coordinator

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance

Las Cruces, NM

Luis E. Ramirez Thomas

President

Ramirez Advisors Inter-National, LLC

Phoenix, AZ

John Wood

Representative

Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority

Brownsville, TX

Antonio Noé Zavaleta, Ph.D.

Director

Texas Center for Border and Transnational Studies

University of Texas at Brownsville

Brownsville, TX

Federal Members of the Board and Alternates

Department of Homeland Security

Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.

Director

Occupational Safety and Environmental Programs

Office of Chief Administrative Officer

Management Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Department of the Interior

Greg Eckert, Ph.D.

National Park Service

Fort Collins, CO

Environmental Protection Agency

Larry Starfield

Deputy Regional Administrator

EPA Region 6

Dallas, TX

International Boundary and Water Commission

Sally Spener

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Robert M. Apodaca

Assistant Chief – West

USDA/NRCS

Albuquerque, NM

Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

David Kennedy

Assistant Administrator, NOS

NOAA

Silver Spring, MD

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

EPA Participants

Stephanie McCoy

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Carlos Rincon, Ph.D.

EPA Region 6

Debra Tellez

EPA Region 6

Other Participants

Ricardo Acosta

El Paso Electric Company

Christopher Brown

New Mexico State University

Clay Doyle

El Paso Electric Company

Maria Elena Giner

Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Melanie Goodman

The Office of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)

Priscilla C. Lucero

Southwest New Mexico Council of

   Governments

Lauren Oertel

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Dara Parker

The Office of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)

Gina Posada

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Daniel Reynolds

Doña Ana Community College

Linda Smrkovsky

Deming Luna County Economic Development, Inc.

Karyn Stockdale

New Mexico Audubon Society

Sharon Thomas

City of Las Cruces, New Mexico

Duncan Wood

Woodrow Wilson International Center for

   Scholars

Contractor Support

Mary Spock, M.S.

Writer/Editor

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Hotel Encanto de Las Cruces

705 South Telshor Blvd

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011

575-522-4300

AGENDA

Thursday, September 8th

8:00 a.m.	Registration

8:30-9:00	Welcome and Introductions

   Mark Joyce

Associate Director and Acting Designated Federal Officer

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

US Environmental Protection Agency

   Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

US Environmental Protection Agency

   Diane Austin

Acting Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

   Sharon Thomas

Mayor Pro Tem

Las Cruces, New Mexico

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

   Pricilla C. Lucero

Executive Director

Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments

   Jo Anne Shelby

Plant Manager

Compass Manufacturing Services

   Linda Smrkovsky

Executive Director

Deming Luna County Economic Development, Inc.

10:30-10:45	Break

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

   Jeremy Turner

Executive Director

New Mexico Renewable Energy Transmission Authority

   Karyn Stockdale

Vice President and Executive Director

New Mexico Audubon Society

   Clay Doyle

Vice President of Transmission and Distribution

El Paso Electric Company

12:15-12:45	Public Comments

12:45-2:00	Lunch

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

3:30-3:45	Break

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

6:00 p.m.	Adjourn

Friday, September 9th

Meeting Day 2

8:30-9:00	Duncan Wood

Professor, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México

Senior Advisor for the Renewable Energy Initiative

Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

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

Washington, DC – December 14-15

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

11:00-11:15	Break

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

1:30-2:00	Public Comments

2:00 p.m.	Adjourn

  PAGE  36 		September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB) Meeting Summary

September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  35

  PAGE  38 		September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB) Meeting Summary

September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  37