The Potential Environmental and Economic
Benefits of Renewable Energy Development
in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
December 2011
GNEB
Env«rnfWTWrtsl Advisors Across Bantam
Fourteenth Report of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board to the President and
Congress of the United States


LEMERCV

-------

-------
About the Board
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board was created in 1992 by the Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative Act, Public Law 102-532.The purpose of the Board is to "advise the President and the
Congress on the need for implementation of environmental and infrastructure projects (including
projects that affect agriculture, rural development, and human nutrition) within the States of the
United States contiguous to Mexico in order to improve the quality of life of persons residing on
the United States side of the border."
The Board is charged with submitting an annual report to the President and the Congress.
Management responsibilities for the Board were delegated to the Administrator of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by Executive Order 12916 on May 13,1994.
The Board does not carry out border-region activities of its own, nor does it have a budget to fund
border projects. Rather, its unique role is to serve as a nonpartisan advisor to the President and
the Congress and recommend how the federal government can most effectively work with its
many partners to improve conditions along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and membership
on the Board is extremely diverse. By statute, the Board is composed of:
(1)	"representatives from the United States Government, including a representative from the
Department of Agriculture and representatives from other appropriate agencies;
(2)	representatives from the governments of the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and
Texas; and
(3)	representatives from private organizations, including community development, academic,
health, environmental, and other nongovernmental entities with experience on environ-
mental and infrastructure problems along the southwest border."
The Board also includes representatives from Tribal governments with lands in the border region.
The recommendations in this report do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the federal
departments and agencies that are represented on the Board, nor does the mention of trade
names, commercial products, or private companies constitute endorsement.
To request a hardcopy of this report, contact the National Service Center for Environmental Publications at
1-800-490-9198 or via e-mail at nscep@bps-lmit.com and request publication number EPA 130-R-l 1-001.
(English version) http://www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb/gnebl4threport/English-GNEB-l4th-Report.pdf

-------
Tribute to Daniel
1951 -2011
Marks Reyna
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board and the U.S.-Mexico
Border Region suffered a tremendous loss this year when
Board member Dan Reyna passed away suddenly. For more
than 25 years, Dan advocated throughout the U.S.-Mexico
border region as a national expert on border health issues.
Most recently, Dan had been serving as the General Man-
ager of the U.S. Section, Office of Global Affairs, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) in El Paso,Texas. He also was instrumental in founding
and directing border health programs with the Texas and New
Mexico Departments of Health.
A retired Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, Dan served as Company Commander of the 205th
Chemical Company, Fort Biiss.Texas, and Battalion Commander of the 413th Civil Affairs Battalion
in Lubbock,Texas. His active duty service included Bosnia-Herzogovina (Hungary) in 1996 and
combat service in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2004.
Saddened by the loss of our dear colleague, HHS Office of the Americas Director Craig Shapiro,
M.D., described Dan as having "dedicated his career to improving the health and quality of life
for persons living along the U.S.-Mexico border. His ability to bring national, regional and local
partners from both countries together to discuss health issues of mutual interest, as well as his
commitment and passion for the U.S.-Mexico border region, made him the ideal candidate to
represent HHS in the capacity of General Manager of the U.S. Section of the Office of Global
Affairs. His dedication was well-known throughout HHS, and his reputation and success preceded
him in the field of border health.'
Dan will be sorely missed and the border region has lost a true advocate. It is in that spirit that
his memory will live on as we continue to work towards a better future for the border region.The
Board dedicates this 14th Report to the memory of our esteemed colleague, Dan Reyna.
o
* ^ *** r

-------
Tribute to Patti Krebs
1949-2011
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board and the U.S.-Mexico
Border region suffered another tremendous loss this year when
Board member Patti Krebs passed away suddenly.
For the past 17 years, Patti served as the Executive Director
of the San Diego-based Industrial Environmental Association
(IEA). During her time at the public policy organization, Patti
was "instrumental in leading the creation of a San Diego Re-
gional Sustainability Partnership—bringing together business-
es, military, governmental, public interest groups, academic
and faith-based organizations—to identify and carry forward
an agenda to promote practices to support sustainable com-
munities," Vilmarie Rodriguez, the association's president, said in a statement. "Her involvement
extended to South of the Border as she was instrumental in the Border Waste Wise Program."
Patti also worked for elected officials, including former Governor Pete Wilson and Congressman
Brian Bilbray, before joining IEA. "Patti's love for environmental and sustainable causes was an
inspiration to all," Ms. Rodriguez said. "Her tenacity and effective leadership were of benefit to all
Southern California residents."
Patti served on the San Diego Association of Governments' Energy Working Group, Port of San Di-
ego's Maritime Advisory Committee, and San Diego Regional Airport Authority Technical Advisory
Group, and helped organize the San Diego Regional Sustainability Partnership.
She also was a member of the Board of Directors of the San Diego Transit Corporation, San Diego
Natural History Museum, and San Diego Symphony, and held a bachelor's degree in communica-
tions from San Diego State University.
Patti was a true advocate for the border region and she will be deeply missed. It is in that spirit
that her memory will live on as we continue to work towards a better future for the border region.
The Board dedicates this 14th Report to the memory of our esteemed colleague, Patti Krebs.

-------

-------
Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter to the President From the Chair of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board	vi
Executive Summary	vii
Chapters
1	Overview and Background	1
2	Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable
Energy Development Along the U.S.-Mexico Border.	11
Solar	12
Wind	23
Biomass.	38
Geothermal	44
Hydropower	52
3	Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region	61
4	Recommendations	77
Acknowledgments.
Endnotes
90

-------
GNEB
Environmental Advisors Across Borders
GOOD NEIGHBOR
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
Presidential advisory committee on
environmental and infrastructure issues
along the U.S. border with Mexico
Chair
Diane Austin
Designated Federal Officer
Mark Joyce
President Barack Obama	December 14,2011
Vice President Joseph Biden
Speaker John Boehner
On behalf of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, your independent advisory committee on
environment and infrastructure along the U.S. border with Mexico, I am submitting to you our 14th
report. The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in
the U.S. - Mexico Border Region.
The 14th report responds to the request of the White House Council on Environmental Quality that
we provide recommendations on responsible ways to take advantage of the abundant renew-
able energy resources in the border region while fostering sound economic development in the
area. In this report we consider the following renewable energy resources: solar, wind, biomass,
geothermal, and hydropower.
This report illustrates why this is a special region with both unique opportunities and considerable
challenges related to the development and application of renewable energy technologies.To
facilitate the careful development of these resources, the Board supports an approach that iden-
tifies priority areas for potential energy development and emphasizes coordination of local, state,
tribal, and federal partners. In addition, we encourage the implementation of energy efficiency
projects and initiatives as a partial or complete alternative prior to and in conjunction with the
development of renewable energy projects.
The Board, in the development of this report, and following a tradition that has been maintained
since its inception, has been driven by its desire to work through consensus in constructing all its
recommendations. We hope that this report is useful to you and other U.S. government officials
as we continue to think about how we can best achieve a healthier environment and a better
quality of life for all of our citizens. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you and provide these
recommendations and respectfully request a response.
Very truly yours,
'¦M.&
Diane Austin, Chair
Good Neighbor Environmental Board

-------
Executive Summary
Renewable energy production is expected to increase sharply in the United States.The U.S.-
Mexico border region has a unique abundance of renewable resources that have been and
can be used to produce energy, and the region is likely to play a significant role in this expansion.
Increased production and use of renewable energy is important to the United States for many
reasons: it can help foster our nation's energy independence; it can reduce harmful air emissions
commonly associated with fossil fuel energy production; and it draws upon a supply of energy
that is inexhaustible.The ability to harness renewable resources will be vital to the United States'
future, especially as the nation's population and energy needs continue to grow.The U.S. states
along the border with Mexico and the specific communities within the border region will make
significant contributions in this area.
There are a number of characteristics of the border region that make it fundamentally different
from other regions within the United States. Many communities suffer from poor air and water
quality, insufficient water supply, inadequately managed hazardous and solid waste, habitat and
species protection concerns, and conservation challenges.The region is defined by rapid eco-
nomic and population growth, rapid urbanization, its location along the international boundary,
asymmetries with Mexican infrastructure and social services in communities across the border,
international commerce and trade flows, high rates of poverty, and a distinct ethnic identity.
Energy-related jobs may help address high rates of unemployment and underemployment. Yet,
the border region should not become merely an exporter of energy to other parts of the United
States. Existing and potential impacts of renewable energy development have led to conflicts
with communities and natural resource conservationists, and these will continue unabated
unless more attention is paid to the scale and form of this development and to pre-development
analysis of natural resources and community conditions and needs. Local communities should
benefit directly from renewable energy development.
In this Fourteenth Report to the President and Congress of the United States, the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board (GNEB, the Board) discusses existing and potential development of solar,
wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower resources along the border.The Board considers
availability, technology, production capacity, environmental impacts of production and transmis-
sion, and the mitigation of negative effects.The Board also examines economic opportunities
such as job creation, municipal energy savings, increased revenues, and investments in operating
capital, infrastructure and equipment.
Energy needs along the border are growing, and careful development of abundant renewable
energy resources can help address those needs.The Board encourages responsible efforts to take
advantage of the energy resources in the border region while at the same time improving eco
nomic conditions. GNEB endorses the careful planning and execution of projects and regional ini
tiatives to ensure that any negative impacts are identified early and avoided to the greatest extent
possible, and that any remaining unavoidable impacts are minimized or mitigated.The Board also
promotes the implementation of energy efficiency projects and initiatives as a partial or complete
alternative prior to and in conjunction with the development of renewable energy projects. In sum,
GNEB supports an approach that identifies priority areas for potential energy development and
emphasizes coordination of local, state, tribal and federal partners to optimize local benefits while
protecting the habitats, ecosystems, and all of the communities of this unique region.

-------
viii | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Overview and Background

-------
11 Overview and Background
Introduction
At the request of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Good Neighbor Envi-
ronmental Board (GNEB, the Board) accepted renewable energy in the border region as the topic of its
14th annual report. In 2011, energy continues to be one of the pressing issues facing the United States,
and the U.S.-Mexico border region provides examples of renewable energy, combined with energy
efficiency, that can be a model for the nation. With ample wind and solar energy available, the border
region highlights what can be achieved with renewable energy.
By renewable energy, the Board means any type of energy that is a flow (e.g., solar, wind, hydro-
power) as opposed to a stock that will be depleted, such as oil, coal, or natural gas. Energy efficiency
means accomplishing necessary activities while using less energy.
This 14 report examines the effects of renewable resource development, including environmental
and economic effects, on the border region. The report captures not only the perspective of Board
members, but also those of border residents and communities. Many local and state government, tribal,
and nongovernmental Board members live and work in border communities, and GNEB federal mem-
bers also are experts on border issues pertaining to their respective agencies' mandates. During 2011,
the Board met twice in border communities to hear firsthand from local residents about the opportuni-
ties and challenges that they face with regard to renewable energy development.
Background and Objectives
The increased development of renewable energy is important to the United States for many reasons.
First, renewable energy is critical to the energy security of the United States: energy produced from wind,
solar, or another renewable power source helps to increase our nation's energy independence. Second,
renewable energy sources like sun and wind do not produce any harmfal air emissions, such as nitrogen
oxides, sulfur oxides, or particulate matter, commonly associated with fossil liiel energy production; thus,
there is a clear environmental and public health benefit.1 Third, the supply of renewable energy from the
sun and wind is inexhaustible, making the ability to harness these resources vital to the United States'
future, especially as the nation's population and energy needs continue to grow.2 Finally, the potential for
creatingjobs in renewable energy also is extremely important to this region. At the same time, existing and
potential impacts of renewable energy development are many, and these require careful attention to the
scale and form of this development and to pre-development analysis of natural resources and community
conditions and needs.
The U.S.-Mexico border region is defined as the area ofland that is 100 kilometers (62.5 miles)
north and south of the international boundary. It stretches approximately 2,000 miles from the southern
tip of Texas to California. This region contains a unique abundance of natural renewable resources that
have been and can be used to produce energy. In 2008, the Texas State Energy Conservation Office
2 I The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Figure 1. Border Population Growth 2000-2010
% Population Growth
2000-2010
M < -20%
M -20% to -15%
H -15% to -10%
M -10% to -5%
(HT. -5% to 0%
¦3 0% to 5%
H 5% to 10%
10% to 15%
15% to 20%
¦I 20% to 25%
M 25% to 30%
M 30% to 35%
¦I 35% to 40%
M >40%
0	65 130	260 Miles
1	I I I I I I I I
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. IMEGI, and James Peach, New Mexico State University
reported that Texas was home to vast solar, wind, geothermal and biomass resources that potentially
made it the largest market for non-hydro renewable energy production in the United States; Much
of this potential was found along the border, particularly for solar energy in far West Texas. Similar
reports by the California Energy Commission and the Western Governors' Association (WGA) have
identified abundant resources in Arizona, New Mexico, and California, including vast potential in the
borderlands. In fact, the two largest developers of installed renewable energy capacity to date have been
Texas—mainly because of wind power—and California, with its combination of solar, wind, and geo-
thermal power.3 New Mexico and Arizona have similarly large potentials for renewable energy, mainly
because of their sunny days. In terms of individual resources, California, Arizona, and Texas were the
top three in the long-term solar index, and Texas topped the wind index.
The availability of renewable resources along the border aligns well with a strong need for more
energy and energy-related jobs in that part of the country. The population in the U.S.-Mexico border
region is growing at a faster rate than other locations in the United States, and its energy needs are
increasing rapidly (see Figure 1). Also, border communities tend to be low-income areas character-
ized by high unemployment, with unemployment rates often 250 to 300 percent higher than in the
rest of the nation.4

-------
11 Overview and Background
This report will provide an overview of current renewable energy issues in the border region,
beginning with the role of the federal government, and also will examine economic opportunities and
issues and provide recommendations. The Board chose to highlight only the following renewable
energy resources (the list order does not imply a hierarchy of importance): solar, wind, biomass, geo-
thennal, and hydropower. The Board believes that negative impacts of renewable energy can be avoided
or minimized through careful planning.
It is the objective of th is report to provide
recommendations on responsible ways to
take advantage of the abundant renew-
able energy resources in the border region
while fostering sound economic develop-
ment in the area.
Background: Energy and the
Environment
The role of the federal government
in renewable energy differs markedly in
the United States and Mexico because of
the way energy markets in each country
operate. In the United States, electricity
generation, transmission, and distribution
primarily are carried out by public utilities or private firms, resulting in a decentralized system shared
by the public and private sectors. The United States lacks a comprehensive federal policy on renewable
energy, and federal agencies do not dictate how renewable energy develops in different regions. In addi-
tion, most energy regulation is carried out at the state level; state, county, and local governments often
have their own regulations, permit applications, and approval procedures for renewable energy genera-
tion and transmission. These governments can influence the adoption of renewable energies by enacting
laws and ordinances, offering incentives, and developing their own generation sources and transmission
infrastructure. Tribal governments also use these mechanisms to actively participate in renewable energy
development.
By contrast, energy is almost entirely a public monopoly in Mexico. The Mexican Constitu-
tion mandates that electricity generation, transmission, and distribution are the purview of Mexico's
government-owned electric utility, the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), giving the federal gov-
ernment considerable influence over the renewable energy market. Changes to Mexican law in 1992
opened certain categories of the generation sector to private participation and allowed the involvement
of small producers, co-generators and independent power producers. In November 2008, the Mexican
Congress passed the Renewable Energy Development and Financing for Energy Transition Law
4 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
(LAERFTE). The law makes it possible for the first time for private companies to build power plants
and sell the electricity they produce to the CFE grid. It also permits companies or public or private
entities to construct renewable or efficient cogeneration electricity generation facilities or to use CFE's
network when they contract with private energy generators to meet their energy needs. In addition,
C FE increasingly has bid out contracts for construction of renewable facilities (mainly for wind farms)
to private companies.
U.S. Federal Structure
Several U.S. federal agencies play a role in regulating and promoting renewable energy along the
border. The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for implementing Executive Order (EO)
10485. which was amended by EO 12038. It authorizes exports of electric energy and issues Presi-
dential permits for the construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of electricity transmis-
sion facilities at the international border. Before a permit can be issued, DOE must establish that the
permit is consistent with the public interest and has received favorable recommendations from the
U.S. Departments of State and Defense. In determining consistency with the public interest, DOE
considers the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), implements other relevant executive orders such as EO 13186
regarding the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds, determines the project's
impact on electric system reliability (including whether the proposed project would adversely affect
the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions),
and considers any other factors that DOE may find relevant to the public interest. DOE also finances
research and development for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.
Many other federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments ofDefense (DoD), Agriculture
(USDA), and Interior (DOI), are responsible for managing certain lands and properties within the
border region and are involved directly in renewable energy development there. The Department of
Housing and Urban Development is responsible for national policy and programs that address housing
needs and for improving and developing U.S. border communities. The agency's Energy Efficient
Mortgage program helps homebuvers or homeowners finance the cost of adding energy efficiency fea-
tures to new or existing housing as part of their Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured home
purchase or mortgage refinancing. The Department of Transportation oversees the national transporta-
tion system, promotes intcrmodal transportation, and negotiates and implements international trans-
portation agreements. The U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC),
United States and Mexico, operates and maintains the U.S. hydropower plants at Falcon and Amistad
International Dams on the Rio Grande. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible
for developing and maintaining regulations, policies, and guidance for the protection ofhuman health
and the environment, working closely with state, tribal, and local governments to accomplish this.
EPA also has developed a variety of voluntary programs and partnerships to help address and identify

-------
11 Overview and Background
clean energy opportunities. Other federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of State, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates the interstate
transmission of electricity, also have direct responsibilities that affect renewable energy development
within this region. All of these agencies also must comply with NEPA and implement executive orders.
Mexican Federal Structure
Several different federal agencies share responsibility for the promotion, production, and regulation
of renewable energy in Mexico. The Secretariat of Energy (SENER) designs the national energy policy.
SENER has made renewable energy one of the two major planks of Mexico's national climate change
mitigation strategy. As a result, LAERFTE, which came out of the 2008 energy reforms, set up a fund
of almost $250 million (U.S.) a year for the promotion of renewable energy. CFE controls electricity
generation, transmission, distribution, subsidy implementation, and cost. CFE functions as a public
monopoly and is obligated by law to purchase electricity from third parties at the lowest cost, which
favors energy produced from fossil fuels. All cross-border electricity transmission using public transmis-
sion lines is subject to CFE control. The Mexican Section of the IBWC partners with CFE in the opera-
tion and maintenance of Falcon and Amistad International Dams and hydropower plants.
In addition, the National Commission for Energy Efficiency (CONUEE) encourages energy
conservation and efficiency through the promotion of sustainable technologies, information sharing
and regulations in the household, industrial, and commercial sectors. The Energy Regulatory Com-
mission (CRE) regulates the natural gas and electricity industries, grants permits for energy generation,
approves umbrella contracts for energy provision, and provides the methodologies to calculate rates
for private energy suppliers. The Institute for Electricity Research (HE) is responsible for research and
development in the national electricity sector, including renewable energy. Unlike the United States,
the Mexican federal government does not provide subsidies or tax incentives to the renewable energy
industry to stimulate energy generation and transmission. The federal government, however, along with
several Mexican states and municipalities and in coordination with nongovernmental organizations and
international financial institutions, has enacted programs that offer financial incentives for households
that use energy efficient technologies, such as solar heaters.
Bilateral Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy
The differences between the U.S. and Mexican electrical grid systems, as well as the differences in
how each country manages renewable energy policies, complicate cross-border transmission. Currently,
the U.S. and Mexican electrical grid systems are not synchronized in a way that allows for a great deal of
renewable energy trade. Baja California's electrical grid is connected to the U.S. grid in a few locations.
Texas has various connections to the Mexican electrical grid, with one commercial connection, but the
rest are principally for emergency electricity transmission. Furthermore, state and local governments in
6 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
the United States generally have more authority to set renewable energy policy than federal agencies,
while the opposite holds true in Mexico.
Despite the challenges, the United States and Mexico are working together on a wide variety of renew-
able energy and energy efficiency projects. The U.S. Agency for International Development (IJSAID)
is working with Mexico to develop a national Low-Emission Development Strategy (LEDS) for Mexico
and also is working with Mexican federal, state, and municipal governments on a range of programs, from
encouraging the use ofrenewables to energy efficient mortgages and renewable standards.
In 2010, the United States and Mexico expanded their Methane to Markets Partnership with the
launch of the Global Methane Initiative (GMI) to expand and accelerate global methane reductions.
In addition, EPA cooperates with the M exican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources
(SEMARNAT) on reducing heavy vehicle emissions through Mexico's Transporte Limpio program,
which is based on EPA's Smart Way program, aimed at reducing transportation-related emissions by
creating incentives to improve supply chain fuel efficiency. DOE arid SENER share information on
smart grid, renewable energy, and energy efficiency technologies, and work with EPA and SEMARNAT
011 a partnership to develop a program similar to ENERGY STAR to promote the use of more efficient
building materials and appliances in Mexico. Mexico has taken the lead within the Energy and Climate
Partnership of the Americas on an Energy Efficiency Working Group for the region, and supports
regional interconnections and energy access efforts. Mexico also is part of the Clean Energy Ministe-
rial process, where it leads with other countries on energy efficiency, smart grid, and renewable energy
initiatives. Finally, as part of a 1993 bilateral agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), the United States and Mexico formed the North American Development Bank (NADB)
and Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), which recently have begun assessing and
financing some renewable energy projects in the border area.
Renewable Portfolio Standards
A renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is a law or regulation that requires certain absolute or relative
contributions from renewable energy sources to an electricity grid (and therefore is sometimes called a
renewable electricity standard).
As of 2011,29 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, including all four U.S.-Mexico border
states, have established these standards. A national RPS never has been approved by the U.S. Congress,
although legislation has been proposed multiple times. In the absence of national policy, states have
taken the lead on renewable energy policy and implementation. Texas, for example, leads the nation in
wind energy production, taking the initiative from state law.
Although the regulatory details of an RPS vary from state to state, the responsibility for implemen-
tation generally falls on the companies supplying end-use customers with electricity. Most states estab-
lish a system of tradable credits, so that one supplier can purchase credits (renewable energy certificates

-------
11 Overview and Background
[RECs]) from another. The definitions of which categories are considered renewable vaiy, with some
states carving out niches or special credit for specific categories. Furthermore, although most states tie
the requirement to electricity generated and sold (megawatt-hours [MWh]), a few link the requirement
to generation capacity (megawatts [MW]).
State Policies Affecting Renewable Energy Development
Given the state-level authority for renewable energy and energy efficiency policies in the United
States, the Board provides this comparison of the four U.S. border states. No similar analysis is pro-
vided for the Mexican states because the Mexican federal government is the main energy provider and
policymaker there. Each U.S. state also has its own economic development and workforce policies,
as well as its own public utility agencies. For example, with the support of elected public officials, 64
public, private, and nonprofit entities in the New Mexico border region have drafted a Memorandum
of Understanding to coordinate state and federal rural economic development programs that focus on
the particular needs of small communities, allowing for a coordinated marketing and development effort
based on a sophisticated use of renewable energy promotion and energy conservation strategies that
include industrial development and job training. New Mexico also has a specific agency, the Renewable
Energy Transmission Authority, to help plan and develop the necessary transmission systems so that
New Mexico can move renewable energy to in-state and out-of-state markets.
Although all four U.S. border states have state agencies responsible for energy planning and policy,
their renewable energy and energy efficiency programs differ. For example, Texas, with the longest
international border with Mexico, is unique in that it has an electrical grid that is mostly separate from
the rest of the nation's grids, so it has an agency just to manage the grid. Each of the four U.S. border
states has energy policies that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. Table 1 lists a few of the
major policies in these states.
Still, the four states have similar policies to promote workforce development that focuses on
training in specialized areas for jobs in the renewable energy sector. They all engage in workforce
development through postsecondary educational institutions and the activities of state workforce com-
missions, labor unions, and nonprofit entities.
As shown in Table 1, border states are acting at a statewide level to implement renewable
energy programs at that level. In addition, individual cities, tribes, and utilities also are taking action in
these areas. The border region offers important opportunities for renewable energy development from
which both nations can benefit.
8 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Table 1. Comparison of Border State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Requirements
State
Renewable Energy
Requirements
Energy Efficiency Requirements
MW of Wind
Power, 2010
MW of Solar
Power, 2010

33% of electricity from
renewables by 2020
2010-2012 plan provides funding and program require-
ments for investor-owned utilities (lOUs) to reduce
electricity use by a combined 7,000 gigawatt hours and
capacity needs by 1,500 MW.
3,253
1,021
Arizona
15% of electricity from
renewables by 2025
Regulated utilities with annual revenue > $5 million are
required to achieve cumulative savings equal to 22% of
their retail electric sales by 2020.
N/A
110
New
Mexico
Renewables must com-
prise 10% of investor-
owned electric utilities'
sales by 2011; there is a
target of 20% by 2020
forlOUsand 10% by
2020 for co-ops
Utilities are required to achieve a 5% reduction from
2005 electricity sales by 2014, and a 10% reduction
by 2020. SB 418 (signed into law in March 2007) calls
for a goal of 5% reduction by January 1,2020, in total
retail sales to New Mexico customers (adjusted for load
growth). A 20% energy usage reduction in state build-
ings and transportation is called for by 2015.
700
43
Texas
5,880 MW from renew-
ables by 2015
Investor-owned electric distribution utilities are to cover
20% of residential and commercial load growth with
efficiency programs by 2009; 25% by 2012, and 30%
by 2013.
10,089
34
Sources: For wind and solar power, 2008 State Renewable Electricity Profiles, Energy Information Administration, http://www. eia.gov/
cneaf/solar. renewables/page/state_profiles/r_profiles_sum. html
Year-end power capacities: U.S. Department of Energy, "Wind Powering America," http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_
installed_capacity. asp# current.
Solar power by state: Larry Sherwood, Interstate Renewable Council (IREC), "U.S. Solar Market Trends 2010," http://irecusa.org/
wp-content/uploads/2011/06/IREG-Solar-Market-Trends-Report-June-2011 -web.pdf.
Energy Requirements: The California Energy Commission, 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, http://www.energy.ca.gov/
title24/2008standards/ and EPA, State and Local Energy Climate Program, http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/state/tracking/
individual/nm. html#a01.
Energy Efficiency Standards
Rather than creating new energy sources, energy efficiency makes better use of existing resources
by making appliances or buildings more energy efficient, or making the generation of energy more
efficient, such as utilizing combined heat and power. Similar to energy efficiency, demand response
programs can help manage when energy is used, thus avoiding use at the time when it is most expensive
and hardest to provide.
In addition to an RPS, many states have adopted energy efficiency requirements that property
owners and utilities must meet. Although these requirements generally are met through traditional
energy efficiency programs like weatherization, incentives for more efficient homes, or even demand
response programs, they also can include incentives for technologies that save money, like solar PV
systems. All four border states have basic efficiency mandates that certain utilities must meet. Arizona
imposes a public benefit fee on all residents, part of which goes into energy efficiency programs, and
also has efficiency targets for the state and its utilities.

-------
11 Overview and Background
As the costs of renewable energy devices drop, or as incentives for their use are combined with
more comprehensive and cost-effective energy efficiency programs, it is likely that the energy efficiency
goals that utilities are required to meet will include such technologies.
Tribes and Renewable Energy
Border tribes, too, have begun to implement renewable energy programs. For example, the Campo
Band of Mission Indians of the Kumeyaay Nation operates a wind farm that annually produces power
sufficient for about 30,000 homes and saves approximately 110,000 tons a year in greenhouse gas emis-
sions compared with equivalent fossil fuel generation.5 The Tohono O'odham Nation is working with
the University of Arizona to develop a comprehensive plan to address economic development, housing
and transportation, natural resources and land use, energy, public service and facilities.6 The Nation
currently is pursuing projects that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources to provide
economic and social benefits to the Tohono O'odham people.
Federal laws and executive orders, including EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and EO 13007,
Indian Sacred Sites, require federal agencies to consult and collaborate with tribal officials on a
government-to-government basis in developing federal policies that have tribal implications and in
assessing the effects of federal undertakings on properties to which they may attach religious or cultural
importance. In addition, DOE's Tribal Energy Program promotes tribal energy sufficiency and fosters
economic development and employment on tribal lands through the use of renewable energy and
energy efficiency technologies.7 From 2002 to 2008, the program funded 93 tribal energy projects, nine
of which were for tribes in the border region.8
The remainder of this report includes information on energy efficiency, renewable resource poten-
tials, and related economic possibilities in the border region, followed by recommendations.
10 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts
of Renewable Energy Development Along the
U.S.-Mexico Border

-------
Solar | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Solar
12 I The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
"Potential impacts of renewable energy
development are many.; and these require
careful attention to the scale and form of
their development."
Electric power generated from the sun is adaptable to a variety of needs but generally can be divided
into large utility-scale systems designed to serve large populations and smaller distributed generation sys-
tems installed in remote locations as well as near existing infrastructure and population centers.
Solar technologies for generating electricity can be divided generally into photovoltaic systems
(PV), which convert sunlight directly into electricity, and concentrated solar power systems (CSPs),
which use mirrors or lenses to concentrate the sun's heat to boil water or another liquid to turn a
turbine and generate electricity.9 Solar technologies also are used for heating water at residential,
commercial, and industrial sites.
Technologies
Photovoltaic Solar
Both utility-scale and distributed generation have become part of the electricity mix in the United
States during the past 10 years. Although far behind leaders Germany, Spain, Japan, and Italy, the
United States now constitutes some 5 percent of the world's PV market, and has seen the number
of megawatts (MW) installed grow from just 3.9 MWs in 2000 to 435 MWs in 2009 to 878 MWs in
2010.10 Although this isjust a tiny fraction of the electricity market in the United States, this incredible
rate of growth far outpaces traditional sources of energy. Also of interest is that the 878 MWs installed
as of 2010 were evenly divided between utility-scale PV plants, residential PV, and commercial PV,
showing tremendous opportunity in all three areas. Figure 2 shows the solar resource availability to
power PV in the United States.

-------
Solar | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Figure 2. United States Photovoltaic Solar Resource: Flat Plate Tilted at Latitude
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
CSP systems consist of two parts, one that collects solar energy and converts it to heat, and another
that converts heat energy to electricity. These systems can be sized for small village-scale power genera-
tion (10 kilowatts) or for grid-connected applications (up to 100 MW). CSP systems may use parabolic
troughs, towers, or parabolic dishes to concentrate the sun's rays. Despite a flurry of activity in the late
1980s and early 1990s, the development of thermal solar plants sometimes called concentrating or
concentrated solar plants—was relatively dormant until recently. Figure 3 shows the resource availability
of concentrated solar power in the United States.
State Updates
The four U.S. states bordering Mexico were responsible for much of the recent growth in PV.
Although in 2007, only California and three other non-border states had installed more than 10 MWs
of PV, by 2010, five states had installed more than 50 MWs in 1 year alone, including California and
Arizona. In 2010, all four border states, including for the first time New Mexico (#7) and Texas (#10),
made the top 10 list of states with installed PV capacity (see Figure 4).
14 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Figure 3. United States Concentrating Solar Power Resource: Direct Normal
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
California	Figure 4. Installed PV Capacity in 4 Border
States, 2009-2010
California continues to be the leader, in large
part because of its strong commitment to solar
energy through targeted state programs and its
aggressive renewable portfolio standard (RPS)
target. The RPS recently was expanded in
California to commit the state to obtaining 33
percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2020, one
of the most aggressive goals in the country. Further, recendy
elected Governor Brown has committed to a 12,000 MW
distributed generation goal by 2020. In addition, a statewide
solar program stemming from state Senate Bill SB 1, which
provides ratepayer funding to a variety of small and larger
scale PV projects, is scheduled to provide more than $3.3 billion in an effort to reach 3,000 MWs of solar
power installed by 2020. The statewide program's diree components include: (1) the California Solar
Initiative— 1940 MW goal by 2017 installed by the three investor-owned utilities in the state; (2) California
Energy Commission's New Solar Homes Partnership—360 MW goal; and (3) other solar programs offered

300

250

200
3S

s
150

100

50

0
¦ California
2009	2010
H Arizona	~ New Mexico
9
I Texas
15

-------
Solar | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
through publicly owned utilities—700 MW goal.11
Through the first quarter of 2011, more than 924
MW at 94,891 individual sites had been installed
through die California Solar Initiative.
In addition, a solar thermal program was initi-
ated by the California Public Utilities Commission
to provide incentives to residential and com-
mercial utility customers to replace water heating
systems powered with electricity or natural gas.
The funding for this program is $350.8 million
used to install 200,000 systems (http://www.cpuc.
ca.gov/PUC/energy/Solar/swh.htm).
Incentivized by American Recovery and Rein-
vestment Act (ARRA) funds and the Department
of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee program, 3,000
MW of utility-scale solar projects were permitted in
California in 2010 and an additional 1,000 MW of
solar projects already have been permitted in 2011.
Additionally, several utility-scale projects have
been announced in California's border region. For
example, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)
recently announced a contract with Tenaska Solar
Ventures to build a 150 MW PV plant in El Centro
in Imperial County (an area which has abundant
desert sunlight for solar power generation).12 This
contract follows a November 2010 agreement
SDG&E signed with a CSOLAR Development
|	|	subsidiary for up to 130 MW of solar PV capacity
on a 900-acre site in southern Imperial County
called the Imperial Solar Energy Center South. That project is slated for completion in 2014 and is
expected to bring up to 250 new constructionjobs to the Southern California area.
Additionally, SDG&E signed two 20-year power-purchase agreements (PPAs) with an LS Power
subsidiary to procure up to 175 MW of PV solar energy from the proposed 1,350-acre Centinela
Solar Energy I and II facilities in the Imperial Valley. Upon completion in 2014, the new facilities
will send up to 175 MW of solar power to SDG&E's service territory across the 117-mile Sunrise
Powerlink transmission line that has been designed and approved to cany renewable energy from the
Imperial Valley to San Diego.
"Renewable energy sources like sun
and wind do not produce any harmful
toxins providing a clear environmental
and public health benefit."
16 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
California also pursued CSP well in advance of other states. Although nine smaller projects
totaling 354 MWs were built in San Bernardino County in the 1980s and 1990s, some 4,192.5 MW of
large utility-scale CSP had been approved by the California Energy Commission by December 2010,
and another 300 MWs were under review. Of these, one project—the 709 MW Imperial Valley Solar
Project—was located in the border region, while three other projects totaling 900 MWs were located
just north in Riverside County.13 For example, BrightSource's Ivanpah 392 MWs solar thermal system
located in the Mojave Desert began construction in October 2010, and will be the world's largest solar
plant.14 Additionally, although currently stalled, the Imperial Valley Solar project potentially could be
built out to 750 MWs on some 6,000 acres of federal land.15
Arizona
The abundance of solar resources and an RPS of 15 percent by 2025 have made
H Arizona an ideal location for the development of PV and CSP for both utility-scale and
distributed generation. The Renewable Energy Standard (RES), as it is called in Arizona,
directs utilities to obtain 15 percent of their electric load with renewable energy. Thirty
percent of the RES must come from distributed generation projects and 50 percent of that from the resi-
dential segment of the market; solar water heating is included in the technology mix. New rules require
that an increasing percentage of the state's RPS be achieved through the construction of distributed
generation.16 As of 2009, however, the state generated approximately 14 MW (or less than 1%) of its
electricity from solar energy and still relied heavily on fossil fuels.17
Several projects under development throughout the state (including the border region) promise to
gready increase not only the quantity of solar energy for domestic use, but also the potential to export
to other states as well. Of the 31 solar projects currently pending Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
approval, 4 projects are located in border counties, totaling a proposed 2,150 MW of power genera-
tion on 64,070 acres ofland. The 500 MW Palomas and 800 MW Wildcat Quartzsite CSP projects in
Yuma County, along with the 250 MW Safford Solar Energy PV project in Northern Cochise County,
will increase solar capacity in the state gready, but represent a small portion of the 15,000 MW awaiting
approval by BLM.18
The Agua Caliente project in Yuma County still is pending approval by BLM. Once completed in
2013, the site will supply electricity using PV thin film technology to produce 290 MW of electricity.
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has signed an agreement with majority owner NRG Energy to purchase
the project's output for 25 years, guaranteeing a steady source of revenue for the project. A recently
approved $967 million federal loan guarantee from DOE played a significant part in its development.19
Other private projects in the desert southwest also have been developed, such as the Abengoa
Solana facility that currently is being built near Gila Bend, Arizona, with a net capacity of250 MW; it
is expected to deliver enough electricity to meet the annual needs of approximately 80,000 Arizona
households.20 It is likely that in the coming years, potentially thousands of MWs of CSP projects will

-------
Solar | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
be built in the southwestern United States. The industry remains dynamic, as evidenced by the recent
decisions of several developers to switch their previously approved large-scale solar farms from solar
thermal to photovoltaic technology due to the significant drop in PV panel prices in the past 18 months.
BLM's Arizona Restoration Design Energy Project, which was funded through ARRA funds,
provides an example of how the federal government can play an important role in developing state-level
solar capacity while helping to minimize impacts to sensitive, undisturbed desert ecosystems. The
project initially identified roughly 80 areas on disturbed or damaged sites for renewable energy develop-
ment, including solar energy. These sites include hazardous material sites or brownfields, unreclaimed
mining sites, inactive mineral materials sites, and former landfills. Reutilizing these disturbed and dam-
aged lands is important in providing viable areas for development at a good value to the taxpayer while
minimizing the footprint associated with solar projects.21
In addition to the PV utilities on the ground, state RPS requirements in California, New Mexico,
and Arizona are likely to lead to farther installations of utility-scale PV plants, including in the border
region. El Paso Electric (EPE) and PNM in New Mexico, APS and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) in
Arizona, and Southern California Edison (SCE) and PG&E in California all are likely to invest in solar
power plants in the coming years to meet RPS targets, potentially in the border region.22
New Mexico
In New Mexico, the RPS and associated regulations require EPE, which also serves
eastern New Mexico, to supply 10 percent of its retail jurisdictional energy sales through
renewable energy resource procurement in 2011 and 2012, increasing to 15 percent by
January 2015, and 20 percent by January 2020, and thereafter. To achieve this, EPE has
issued a 2011 Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit competitive proposals for solar energy projects
and for dispatchable renewable energy resources, the latter being those sources that can be ramped
up or shut down in a relatively short amount of time. In addition to contracts with residential and
commercial customers, EPE is contracting to have a 20 MW photovoltaic plant built in New Mexico.
The Roadrunner Solar Electric Facility will be one of the first large-scale utility projects in the state
and the second largest PV facility in the State of New Mexico. Covering 210 acres in Santa Teresa, the
entire facility will be built on privately owned land previously zoned for industrial use.23 In addition to
the contract for 20 MWs, EPE also proposes to enter into PPAs with SunEdison to obtain energy and
RECs, available in 2012 from 24 MW solar PV facilities located in southern New Mexico, and with
the village of Hatch for energy and renewable energy certificates (RECs) from a 5 MW solar PV facility
available during 2011.24
18 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Texas
		Texas, despite good solar resources, particularly in Western Texas, has lagged behind
I I in development of solar power. Through 2010, the only utility-scale PV plant built has
been the 14 MW Blue Wing Solar plant in San Antonio, contracted with the municipal
utility, CPS Energy. Both the lack of a statewide solar incentive program and the failure
of the legislature and the Public Utility Commission to implement the 500 MW target for
non-wind renewables as part of Texas' RPS have slowed solar development in Texas.25 None-
theless, in February 2011, the City of Austin adopted the 2020 Austin Energy Generation Plan, com-
mitting the municipal utility to purchase at least 200 MW of solar energy by 2020, potentially from the
border region in West Texas. In addition, CPS Energy has committed to adding an additional 30 MWs
of solar energy through small plants near San Antonio and recently has announced plans to invest in a
400 MW plant, which could be located in the sun-rich border region.26
Several other projects announced for the competitive market in Texas have secured interconnection
agreements, although there is no guarantee that they will be built.27 Of the 800 MW s of potential solar
development that have been announced, roughly one-half are planned in counties on or near the Mex-
ican border. Two solar projects near the Marfa area have been delayed due to local residents' concerns
about the mirrored satellite dishes they would incorporate. Still, it is likely that development of CSP or
utility-scale PV within the border area could occur in the coming years.
19

-------
Solar | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
The Texas General Land Office (GLO) also has announced a series of RFPs to lease state lands in
West Texas for solar development. First, a GLO/Austin Energy Solar Lease would lease lands for a 150
MW GSP or PV plant, and an additional three leases in El Paso and Hudspeth Counties would provide
Distributed Solar
Although most distributed solar initiatives are outside of the
border region, there has been some limited PV development activity
in places such as El Paso, Texas; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and San
Diego, California.
These efforts largely have resulted from specific incentive programs
run by utilities, whether as part of a rebate program or as a result of
federal grants, many of which were connected to ARRA liuids. Thus,
federal grants distributed via ARRA have led to some PV development
at municipal public buildings within the border region.
A number of the utilities serving the border currently offer PV
programs to their rate payers. In Texas, the utility companies serving
the border region—Texas New Mexico Power, EPE, American Electric
Power (AEP) Central and AEP North—have begun small-scale solar
rebate programs as part of their energy efficiency programs, while in
New Mexico, both EPE and PNM offer incentives for extra energy
produced by distributed systems and purchase the RECs.
In California, the California Solar Initiative and Solar New Homes Program are coordinated with the
individual utilities. There is a strong correlation between incentive programs and the installation of dis-
tributed solar PV. Many of the most successful programs have been linked to wider energy efficiency and
weatherization programs because solar PV systems are far more cost-effective when combined with such
efforts. For example, in California, all homes applying for solar rebates first must undergo an energy audit.
In Arizona, many of the electric cooperatives, such as Trico Electric Cooperative, participate in a
Sun Watt rebate program to help meet their RPS obligations, while TEP has a more extensive incen-
tive program for residents. Several utilities, including TEP, have begun solar farm programs in which
residents can purchase part of a community solar plant. This is a new and innovative way to support the
development of distributed solar power without the need for costly home installation.
Finally, another opportunity to grow the distributed generation renewable markets in the border
region comes from wholesale distributed generation programs, whereby the project is built at or near elec-
tricity loads and the energy is sold to the utilities through short- or long-term contracts. Examples of pro-
grams are feed-in tariffs, reverse auctions, and competitive solicitations administered by utility companies.
space for 30 MW projects.
20 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Understanding and Addressing Environmental Impacts of Solar
Energy Development Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Although solar energy development is an important step toward addressing the nation's energy
needs, development of solar projects must be tempered by an awareness and consideration of the poten-
tial impacts on surface and ground water, land, and wildlife. Some solar technologies use enormous
quantities of water, a scarce resource in deserts, and all utility-scale solar projects, no matter their funda-
mental technologies, require large tracts of land.15
Potential Impacts on Water Resources
Concentrated Solar Power Systems May Use Large Quantities of Water
CSP systems typically use steam to generate electricity and often consume water for cooling. CSP
plants employ a steam cycle to spin a turbine, in turn generating electricity. Because the water in the
steam cycle is recycled continuously, the amount of water consumed by the steam cycle itself is quite
small. Substantial quantities of water, however, generally are used in the cooling cycle;
There are three main types of cooling systems for CSP facilities with vaiying levels of water use:
open-loop cooling; closed-loop cooling; and air or dry-cooling. The amount of water used in open-
loop systems is a function of the amount of power produced, the type of cooling system installed, and
the highest temperature in the system. Open-loop CSP facilities generally require up to 1,000 gallons
21

-------
Solar | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
of water per MWh of electricity produced, equaling or exceeding the amount of water used at water-
intensive nuclear and coal plants.29 Closed-loop cooling systems lose significant quantities of water
during each cooling cycle through evaporation and discharge to keep salt concentrations in check. Air
or dry-cooling systems do not use any cooling water, but rather depend on ambient air temperatures
for cooling. Hence, their efficiency increases during cooler winter months and decreases during hot
summer months. As an example, one air/dry-cooled power plant was found to produce 5 percent less
energy than a water-cooled plant during the course of a year, thereby increasing the electricity cost 7 to
9 percent over a water-cooled plant.30
CSP facilities using wet cooling can consume more water per unit of electricity generated than
traditional fossil liiel facilities with wet cooling.31 Even when using closed-loop thermal technologies
similar to traditional coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants, CSP plants consume, on average, 300 percent
more water because they are less efficient at electricity production and therefore require more water for
steam production used in generating electricity.32 Concerns about the water requirements of CSP raise
questions about whether and how to invest in large-scale deployment of CSP within the border region
and what kinds of solar technologies are most appropriate for areas susceptible to water supply con-
straints.31 In California, some developers of large-scale thermal systems in the desert have recognized
such concerns and switched to diy cooling.
PV Systems May Save Water in the Southwest
Electricity generation via conventional pathways accounts for a major part of water demand. The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that in 2005 thermoelectric power plants withdrew approxi-
mately 41 percent of U.S. freshwater.32 In contrast, PV uses little water during operation, only that
needed to wash the solar panels and operating equipment periodically.31 Although water is necessary for
the production of several components in solar panels, a detailed life-cycle analysis concluded that PV
would save water use in the Southwest because of the lack of water used for cooling.33
Potential Impacts to Ground Water
Where ground water will be used for a solar project, the review of environmental impacts requires
assessment of the potentially affected groundwater basin as well as the potential impacts to surface water
and biologic resources. Key elements of a thorough analysis include:
•	A discussion of the amount of water needed for a proposed solar generation facility and where
this water will be obtained;
•	A discussion of availability of ground water within the basin, annual recharge rates, and a
description of the water right permitting process and the status of water rights within that basin,
including an analysis of whether water rights have been over-allocated;
22 I The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
•	A discussion of cumulative impacts to groundwater supply within the hydrographic basin,
including impacts from other large-scale solar installations that also have been proposed;
•	An analysis of different types of technology (e.g., PV) that can be used to minimize or recycle water;
•	A discussion of whether it would be feasible to use other water sources (i.e., potable water, irriga-
tion canal water, wastewater, or deep-aquifer water);
•	An analysis of the potential for alternatives to cause adverse aquatic impacts such as impacts to
water quality and aquatic habitats; and
•	An analysis on how existing and/or proposed water sources may be affected by climate change
and a discussion of impacts to water supply and the adaptability of the project to these changes.
Water conservation measures such as appropriate use or recycled water for landscaping and industry,
xeric landscaping, and water conservation education can be implemented to reduce water demands.
Potential Impacts to Surface Waters
Surface waters are scarce in the desert—a precious resource critical to the health and vitality of its
unique biodiversity and rapidly growing population. Recent court decisions have dramatically impacted
the federal government's ability to implement the Clean Water Act in these desert environments. Loss of
these waters thus is accelerating, with predictable impacts to endangered species habitat, groundwater
recharge and the natural flood control services that surface streams provide.
Unless criteria are established for the conservation of desert aquatic resources, renewable energy
production may come at the expense of conserving the desert's biodiversity. Less than 1 percent of the
vegetation in deserts is riparian (streamside), yet most desert animal species, whether birds, mammals,
reptiles, or amphibians, rely on riparian habitat for at least part of their life cycle.
Desert streams also recharge ground water by storing and circulating water in the stream network
across a landscape. A recent study in Arizona's San Pedro River basin showed that the network of
ephemeral streams accounts for up to 40 percent of annual regional aquifer recharge during wet years.34
In many populous areas in the southwest, groundwater pumping already outstrips replenishment rates,
so recharge is critically important to sustaining drinking water and agricultural supply.
Land management agencies can embrace a more environmentally sustainable approach to public
lands management by incentivizing impact avoidance for streams and other sensitive natural resources
in their right-of-way (ROW) approval process.
To protect and manage the desert's fragile and invaluable ecosystems effectively, project reviewers
must have information about the distribution of aquatic resources on a project site—regardless of Clean
Water Act jurisdictional status. An agency's approval criteria then can be modified to reflect this informa-
tion, potentially speeding review and approval of sites selected for minimal presence of aquatic resources.
23

-------
Solar | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Also, with this information, agencies can programmatically shift important renewable energy devel-
opment toward more disturbed lands with fewer natural resource conflicts. Early coordination with fed-
eral and state partners can promote the nation's complementary goals of sustainably advancing domestic
renewable energy production and, as stated in the Clean Water Act, of "restoring and maintaining the
physical, chemical and biological integrity ofWaters of the U.S."
Examples of specific measures that will help avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to
desert washes (such as erosion, migration of channels, and local scour) include:
•	Avoid placement of support structures in desert washes.
•	Utilize existing natural drainage channels on site and more natural features, such as earthen
berms or channels, rather than concrete-lined channels.
•	Commit to the use of natural washes, in their present location and natural form and including
adequate natural buffers, for flood control to the maximum extent practicable.
•	Minimize the number of road crossings over washes and design necessary crossings to provide
adequate flow-through during storm events.
•	Avoid complete clearing and grading of the site by evaluating the mounting of PV panels at suf-
ficient height above ground to maintain natural vegetation and reduce impacts to drainages.
•	Discuss and ensure the availability of sufficient compensation lands within the project's water-
shed to replace desert wash functions lost on the project site.
Potential Impacts on Air Quality
Because 100 percent solar-powered systems generate no air pollution during operation, the pri-
mary environmental, health, and safety issues revolve around manufacturing, site construction, equip-
ment installation, maintenance and, ultimately, system decommissioning and disposal. The energy used
to manufacture and install solar components and any nonrenewable fuels used for this purpose will
generate emissions. Although this varies depending on the technology being implemented, the energy
balance is generally favorable to solar systems in applications where they are cost effective, and it is
improving with each successive generation of technology.
A 2011 study quantified the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutant emissions, and
heavy metal emissions from four types of major commercial PV systems and showed that the emissions
are insignificant in comparison to the emissions that they replace when introduced in average U.S.
grids. The analysis found that central PV systems present significant environmental benefits over grid
electricity, including 89-98 percent reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutants, heavy
metals, and radioactive species. Rooftop dispersed installations are expected to have greater reductions
as the loads on the transmission and distribution networks are reduced, and part of the emissions
related to the lifecycle of these networks are avoided.35
24 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Through close coordination with local and state air quality management agencies, project propo-
nents can ensure that individual project impacts, as well as cumulative impacts from the construction
of multiple simultaneous large-scale installations, adequately address construction vehicular, as well as
fugitive dust, emissions.
Potential Impacts on Land
When used to generate electricity on a commercial scale, solar energy facilities require large tracts
ofland. The land requirements for CSP systems are approximately 5 to 10 acres ofland per MW of
capacity.36 A veiy large, single utility-scale solar plant may occupy up to 50 square miles, or nearly
32,000 acres. The 27 CSP applications to BLM in Arizona have requested 400,779 acres of public
land.18 These companies have estimated an aggregate generating capacity of 18,575 MWs. A rule of
thumb used by the TEP is that PV requires 8 acres ofland per MW of power produced.
Development of these large-scale solar projects may transform the lands on which they are
constructed, precluding most other uses. These preparations can be veiy disruptive to native flora
and fauna and may require regular herbicide application to keep the area under the collection devices
free of any growth and of soil stabilizer applications to control dust that may block sunlight from
reaching the mirrors.
Utility-Scale Systems May Fragment Habitats and Direcdy Harm Flora and Fauna
The deserts in the southwest are biologically rich ecosystems with a vast array of animals and
plants that have adapted to the harsh conditions over millions of years and contain rare wildlife and
sensitive habitats. They are fragile and slow to recover from disturbance. Any large, artificial structures
built in a pristine natural area are likely to have significant negative impacts on the surrounding natural
environment.37 Once disturbed, the site remains impaired for the life of the project because the large
fields of solar collectors interfere with natural sunlight, rainfall, and drainage at the facility, causing
microclimate alteration. These effects are compounded at large facilities due to the number of mirrors
that cover and cool the ground while simultaneously reflecting light and heating the air.37
Utility-scale solar projects also may affect migratory populations by cutting off migration corridors,
impacting mating and as a result, genetic diversification. Habitat fragmentation inevitably leads to smaller
populations of wildlife and threatens biodiversity by increasing the possibility of extinction for entire
populations or species. Wildlife also may be harmed or killed (luring the construction of these facilities.38
Environmental analyses evaluate impacts and mitigation for species and require:
•	Baseline conditions of habitats and populations of potentially impacted species.
•	A clear description of how avoidance, mitigation, and conservation measures will protect and
encourage the recovery of the covered species and their habitats in the project area.

-------
Solar | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
•	Monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management efforts to ensure species and habitat
conservation effectiveness.
Developers may acquire compensation lands to mitigate potential impacts to identified species,
and comprehensive environmental analyses require:
•	Information on the compensatory mitigation proposals (including locations, quantification of
acreages, estimates of species protected, costs to acquire compensatory lands, etc.) for unavoid-
able impacts to waters of the United States and state as well as biological resources.
•	Identification and quantification of available lands for compensatory habitat mitigation for the
project, as well as reasonably foreseeable projects in the project's vicinity.
•	Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures that result from consultation with the appro-
priate officials, and incorporation of lessons learned from other solar projects and recently
released guidances to avoid and minimize adverse effects to sensitive biological resources, for
example, habitat for desert tortoise.
•	Adoption of provisions that will ensure the habitat selected for compensatory mitigation will be
protected in perpetuity.
Public Lands Are ofValue to Communities
Public wild lands often are of special importance to people who live nearby, and the use of these
public lands for solar energy development must be justified against the long-term loss of that land to
citizens. Some areas are economically dependent on the recreation opportunities associated with sur-
rounding public lands. Revenue from outdoor activities and other forms of recreation potentially may
be lost if solar facilities are installed on lands holding special value to people.39
PV Systems May Cause Less Land Disturbance Than Conventional Systems
Solar systems pose a distinct advantage from conventional liiel cycles in that they do not disturb
land by extracting and transporting fuel to the power plants, and they eliminate the necessity of
reclaiming mines or securing additional lands for waste disposal. Once the infrastructure of a system
is constructed, there is no need for farther extraction of resources. In contrast, nonrenewable energy
systems continuously transform some land in search of fuels.33 Even when considering the entire
life cycle stages, a PV's life cycle involves less disturbance of land than do nonrenewable- and other
renewable-fuel cycles. Furthermore, integrating PV modules within buildings, structures, or on already
disturbed lands such as "greyfields", which are declining urban properties such as shopping malls, will
farther minimize the amount of land disturbed.33
26 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Other Impacts
Manufacturing and End-of-Life Hazards
PV production involves many of the same materials as the microelectronics industry and therefore
presents many of the same hazards.40 The production can involve the use of toxic and explosive gases,
corrosive liquids, and suspected carcinogenic compounds.41 Exposure to these materials can occur
during the manufacturing process, leaching from cracked or broken modules, or from the combustion
of modules; however, the greatest risk to human health is associated with manufacturing. The produc-
tion of solar panels can involve the use of toxic and flammable gases, carcinogenic materials, and heavy
metals and therefore poses health risks.40
The disposition of solar panels at the end of their usefulness (approximately 25 years or more) also
is a concern. Solar PV products contain many of the same materials that end up as electronic waste and
use new and emerging materials that present complex recycling challenges. These challenges include
finding ways to recycle the small amounts of valuable materials on which many of the new solar PV
technologies depend. To avoid a repeat of the e-waste crisis, decommissioned solar PV products must
be recycled responsibly and not enter the waste stream. Attention must be paid to the full product
life cycle and production and purchasing practices guided by efforts to: (1) minimize environmental
impacts during raw material extraction; (2) manufacture solar components in a zero-waste facility; and
(3) provide future solar disassembly for material recovery for reuse and recycling.
Transmission Lines
The issue of transmission lines can create interstate conflicts and resistance from property
owners, indigenous peoples, and individuals and organizations concerned about habitat and other
environmental impacts. For example, proposed transmission projects involve the construction of
hundreds of towers, each more than 100 feet tall, through important ecosystems and north-south
migratory bird flyways, potentially affecting hundreds of bird species.42 Important elements of environ-
mental analyses for specific transmission projects or multi-state transmission lines are the proximity and
capacity of existing transmission facilities to support new solar development and an estimate of the costs
and potential impacts associated with building new lines or upgrading existing infrastructure. Where
transmission is an integral component of solar energy development, the development of transmission
facilities requires analysis in comparable detail to that of solar initiatives and individual solar projects.
27

-------
Wind | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Developmen t
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Wind
28 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
K
"Energy produced from wind, solar,
or another renewable power source
helps to increase our nation's energy
independence."
Wind energy is the renewable "fuel" that has enjoyed the most success during the past 15 years
in the generation of electricity. This has occurred worldwide, as well as in the United States, including
the states bordering Mexico. The principal reasons for this growth have been the relatively low costs
of production combined with federal and state government policies that pushed for more renewable
energy. The four U.S. border states differ in the availability of this resource, with Texas having by far the
greatest potential in the region and Arizona the least.
Resource Availability and Benefits Along the Border
Figure 5 shows the distribution of wind regimes by average wind speed throughout the United
States at a height of 80 meters (about 265 feet) from the ground.
A wind resource is generally considered economically useful for generating electricity if the mean
wind speed is 6.5 meters per second (about 14,5 mph) or better at 80 meters elevation,43 although
various factors can lead to adjustments in that threshold; in other words, the areas colored orange, red,
or various shades of purple in Figure 5 are economically usefiil for generating electricity, with the brown
29

-------
Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Developmen t
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Source: Wind resource estimates developed by AWS Truepower.
LLC lor windNavigator® Web: MtpY/www,windnavH^torcorri I
http://www.awstruepower.com. Spatial resolution of wind resource
data: 2.5 km. Projection: AJbers Equal Area WGS84
V AWS Truepower NRELI
Wh»r* tcJwKt dBiiws perloffnsflte	(NinerU«»»TCwT ¦
Figure 5. United States - Annual Average Wind Speed at 80m
Wind Speed
nrtfs
>10 5
10.0
& 5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
70
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
40
<4 0
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 80 Meter Wind Maps and Resource Potential, http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind maps, asp
areas being marginal. Because the amount of useful energy that can be derived from wind varies with
the cube of the wind speed (e.g., a doubling of the speed can produce eight times as much electricity),
small differences in wind speed can significantly improve performance. Wind, somewhat like solar, is an
intermittent resource. Economically exploitable winds vaiy by season, time of day, and location.
Although many states in the United States have one or more areas where the wind regime is strong
enough to support generation of electricity, Figure 5 shows that the greatest wind resources are found
in a band down the middle of the country. This band extends from Montana, North Dakota, and Min-
nesota in the north to New Mexico and Texas in the south.
Texas has some of the best resources in the country, and New Mexico has some promising areas.
California has a few selected areas with economic resources in the southern part of the state, as well as
just east of San Francisco Bay. Arizona has veiy limited useful wind resources.
Many offshore areas in the United States also offer excellent wind regimes, as demonstrated in
Figure 6, which shows the resources available at 90 meters elevation from sea level. Texas and California
both have economically exploitable resources off their coasts.
30 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Figure 6.90m Offshore Wind Resource of the United States
Along the U.S. - Mexico Border
L; AWSTruepower
Wind Speed (m/s)
wind resource estimates
developed by AWSTruepower,
LlCforwindNavigator*. Web:
http://www.windnavigator.com |
http://www.awstruepower.coni.
Spatial resolution of wind
resource data: 2.5 km.
5.50-6.75
6.75-7.00
7.00-7.25
7.25-750
7.50- 7.7S
7.75 -8.00
Chihuahua
Corpus
Chrlstl

<3.00


3.00 - 3.25


3.25-350

350-3.75

3.75-4.00


4.00 - 4.25


4.25-450


4.50-4.75


4.75-5.00


500-5.25


5.25-5.50


5.50-5.75
¦

5.75-6.00

¦
6.00 - 6.25


6.25-6.50
¦
8.25-850
8.S0-8.75
8.75-9.00
9.00 - 9.25
9.25 - 950
950-9.75
9.75-10.00
>10.00
International Miles
0	100	200	300
Pms map was produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
for (he US Department of Energy
July 18. 2011 Author. Billy J Roberts MaplOr 20110718
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Virtually all wind development has taken place in so-called wind farms, where numerous large
turbines are placed at appropriate distances from one another over a relatively large area.
The generation of electricity from wind energy became competitive with some conventional sources in
the mid-1990s. Although part of the reason fortius was the availability of federal tax credits, other sources
of electricity generation (principally fossil fuels and nuclear energy) have long enjoyed government subsidies
(at different parts of the fuel cycle) larger than those more recently available to renewable energy. A 2007
report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that in fiscal years 2002-2007,
direct subsidies for electricity (appropriations plus tax expenditures) from fossil fuels totaled $16.8 billion,
for electricity from nuclear energy $6.2 billion, and for electricity from renewable energy $4.2 billion,44
Current Status
During the 2000-20 f 0 decade, installed capacity of wind turbines worldwide increased from
f 7,400 MW to f97,000 MW,45 or just greater than f ,000 percent. In the United States, installed
capacity increased from 2,539 MW to 40,180 MW, or by some 1,480 percent, with installed capacity in
die four border states increasing from 1,801 MW to 14,090 MW, or about 680 percent.
31

-------
Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Figure 7. Growth in Wind Capacity in Border States,
2000-2010 (in installed MW)
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
it


California	Arizona	New Mexico	Texas
¦ 2000 ¦ 2005 ¦ 2010
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Installed Wind Capacity.
Online: http://www. windpoweringamerica. gov/wind_installed_
capacity, asp.
Figure 7 shows these increases in the individual border
states during the decade in 5-year increments. As noted
earlier, Arizona's relatively small capacity results because the
state has fewer wind resources available. Texas, with more
than 10,000 MW of capacity at die end of 2010, had the most
of any state in the country, and by itself trailed only five coun-
tries in the world (including the United States). California,
with 3,177 MW, was third nationally (Iowa was second).
Early wind farms in the 1980s used turbines with a
capacity of 50 kW each, but with increased technological
experience, the average size has grown dramatically. Most
wind farms built today use turbines rated at 1 MW or higher
each. Meanwhile, the costs of electricity production per MW-
hour have decreased significandy.
32 I The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
California
In 2010, wind energy provided 3 percent of total in-state generation in California, and
electricity imported from outside the state brought the total contribution to 4.7 percent of
the state's demand.46
Wind farms have a longer histoiy in California than in any other U.S. state. Private
developers began to build wind farms in the Altamont Pass, about 1 hour east of San
Francisco in Alameda County, in 1981. This activity was a result of 1979 legislation,
which required utilities to offer purchase contracts at so-called "avoided costs," for electricity from
facilities up to a certain size built by independent generators.
During the 1980s, developers in California also began to build wind farms in two other areas with
good wind resources: San Gorgonio Pass (southeast of Bakersfield) and Tehachapi Pass (near Palm
Springs, east of Los Angeles). By 1995,30 percent of all the wind-generated electricity in the world
came from these three areas.47 Subsequently, additional resources were exploited in Solano County, a
few miles north-northeast of Altamont Pass.
Although about 95 percent of the wind farms in California today are in the areas named above,
there are additional sites with potential in the southern part of the state, and the current installations
include a small number in the border region. The nation's first wind farm on tribal lands was developed
on the Reservation of the Campo Band of Mission Indians of the Kumeyaay Nation in Imperial County
in 2006, with a capacity of 50 MW and providing electricity to San Diego. Since mid-2009, SDG&E
has announced its intentions to collaborate in the development of additional wind projects in eastern
San Diego County and in Imperial County (as
well as in Northern Baja California in Mexico).
One of those projects is additional development
on the Campo Band Reservation.	"Renewable energy is critical to the
As in other states, transmission constraints energy security of the United States."
must be overcome to enable greater use of the
wind potential. Two transmission-related projects
currently are under way. Southern California Edi-
son's Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project in Los Angeles and Kern Counties involves both new
and upgraded lines, and when all phases are completed in 2015, it will allow delivery of another 4,500
MW of wind production.48 Farther to the south, and within the 100-km border region, SDG&E is
building a new 500 kilovolt transmission line from Imperial County to San Diego County, which when
completed will be able to cany 1,000 MW from a combination of solar, wind and geothermal projects.
The Imperial County project has received opposition from some local residents. One of their primary
concerns is the belief that they were not sufficiently involved in the planning process.
33

-------
Wind | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Arizona
At the end of 2010, Arizona had 128 MW of installed wind capacity, all located at a
project in Navajo County in the northeastern part of the state built in two phases and just
completed in 2010. The electricity is purchased by the Salt River Project, a state agency
and Arizona's second largest electric utility.
Another 110 MW of capacity were expected to go online at two wind farms by the
end of 2011, and several hundred MW of additional projects currently are in various stages of the per-
mitting process.49 They all would be located in the northern part of the state, where most of Arizona's
relatively limited wind resources exist. Further development may be possible without encountering
transmission constraints, depending on the possible retirement of old fossil liiel plants.49
New Mexico
The first wind farm in New Mexico went online in 2003, and by the end of 2010
the state had seven projects in operation with 700 MW ofinstalled wind capacity.
Those projects met 5 percent of the state's total demand that year.50
The best wind resources in New Mexico are generally in the eastern high plains
region of the state. The existing wind farms are in Guadalupe, Quay, De Baca, Cibola, Torrance. Roos-
evelt, and Curry Counties.51 In addition, a report prepared by the Western Governors' Association, as
part of its Western Renewable Energy Zones project, identified an area in southeastern New Mexico,
just north of El Paso County, Texas, with some wind potential. Some of this area is within the 100-km
border region.52
During the next 2 to 3 years, two more projects totaling 254 MW are expected to come online.53
To address transmission constraints for development of solar and wind resources for the longer term,
in 2007 the New Mexico Legislature established the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority. In
late 2010, the Authority issued its first $50 million worth of bonds for the purpose of transmission
upgrades.54 For the longer term, developers of projects totaling more than 14,000 MW have paid the
necessary fee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to get into the transmission queue.50
Texas
In 2010, wind power met almost 8 percent of the total electricity demand within the
service area of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT, the independent
grid system that covers most of the state). This production met a much smaller per-
centage of the load at time of peak demand,27 because most wind development in Texas
so far has been in the western half of the state, where a majority of the exploitable wind
speeds occur during night-time, off-peak hours.
The first wind farms in Texas were built in an area roughly 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico
border, northeast of Big Bend National Park. Development subsequendy expanded in that area and also
34 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
jumped further north toward the Panhandle. By
the middle of the past decade, it became clear that
the major constraint to much greater development
was the lack of transmission capacity to cany
the electricity from the resources in the west to
die demand that existed in the urban centers of
Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, and
Houston in the eastern half of the state.
The state legislature in 2005 required the
Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) to
identify and meet transmission needs for "Com-
petitive Renewable Energy Zones" to address
transmission capacity issues. Competitive Renew-
able Energy Zones ill the western half of the state
and proposed routes for transmission lines have
been identified, with companies selected to be
involved in negotiations with property owners and then build the lines. The state has decided to apply
the transmission costs to the rate base of all the state's utilities. The PUCT and ERCOT still are con-
ducting studies to optimize operations of the transmission additions, expected to come online within
the next 1 to 3 years. A recent report suggests that when build-out is complete, Texas will be able to
incorporate 18,500 MW ofwind into its grid from the affected areas.55
Of the 10,000 MW of capacity statewide by the end of 2010,13 projects with 1,500 MW of
capacity have been developed in the border region, and an additional 10 projects totaling some 1,900
MWs obtained interconnection agreements within ERCOT and were scheduled to go online between
2011 and 2014. Within this region are three areas with significant resources: a mountainous area in
Presidio, Culberson, Pecos, and El Paso Counties; the high plains around Laredo in Webb County; and
on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico (such as Cameron and Kenedy Counties). The first two wind farms
in the coastal area, totaling 687 MW of capacity, went online in 2010. The coastal resources, in contrast
to those in western Texas, are predominantly daytime winds, and significant additional coastal resources
remain to be developed, perhaps at some point also requiring additional transmission capacity.
Finally, the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages both significant amounts of state-
owned onsite land and coastal resources, has been encouraging the private sector to take interest in off-
shore development. The GLO has leased four offshore sites with an estimated potential of at least 250
MW each. Two of these are located within die border region. Most recently, in 2010 the GLO granted
leases to a company that proposes to build 500 wind towers, each of which could provide between 5
and 6 MWs of power, 6 to 14 miles off the coast of Texas in three locations (two in the border area). The
project still must undergo extensive research and regulatory processes, including potentially an environ-
mental impact study.
B

-------
Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Developmen t
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Understanding and Addressing the Environmental Impacts of
Wind Energy Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
As with any source of energy, there are positive and negative impacts associated with the develop-
ment of wind energy. A significant limitation of wind energy development is that in most places the wind
does not blow continually at an optimal speed for the turbines. The average output as a proportion of
theoretical output at full capacity averages between 28 and 48 percent,56 lower than the capacity factor
of conventional plants used for baseload power. In addition, the timing of the wind speeds is not entirely
predictable. For both these reasons, some dispatchable back-up power must be available, although at
substantially less than a one-to-one ratio of capacity.®
From an institutional perspective, most wind turbines are approved through local zoning boards and
state authorities, and these entities, and the federal agencies that play a role in wind energy development,
have been critiqued for their lack of experience anticipating, reviewing, and assessing their impacts.5®
Potential Impacts on Water and Air Quality
When in operation, wind-energy facilities generate no atmospheric pollutants and use virtually no
water. Spinning wind turbine rotors generate vertical turbulent motion, causing heat and water vapor to
mix, resulting in horizontal heat transport that affects the meteorological conditions downwind.5S>i6D
Wind turbines require steel, concrete, aluminum, and other materials in their manufacture and
these are transported using energy-intensive processes. Some models require neodymium, a rare-earth
36 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
metal. Life-cycle analysis indicates that the payback period for carbon dioxide (CO,) emissions, when
comparing energy produced by the wind turbine with that produced by fossil fuels, is about 9 months.61
Potential Impacts on Land and Wildlife
Wind-energy facilities require large tracts of land and can affect landscapes, views, wildlife, and
habitats. The average wind farm requires 17 acres of land to support each MW of capacity,62 although
the footprint of each individual turbine foundation and infrastructure is small. The construction and
maintenance of these facilities alters ecosystems through the clearing of vegetation, soil disruption, and
the potential for erosion and noise. These changes can lead to habitat loss and fragmentation. When
development takes place in agricultural and ranching regions, wind farms can be installed and operated
alongside those other economic activities through leasing arrangements. The turbines interfere mini-
mally with those activities and can generate extra income for landowners through royalty payments from
the wind farm owners. In the United States, the construction of wind installations is a relatively recent
phenomenon, so the long-term effects of wind-energy projects on property values are difficult to assess.
Potential effects of wind-energy facilities on wildlife result from both the disruption of soils, vegeta-
tion, and habitats caused by the placement of wind farms in various ecosystems (deserts, mountain
ridges, forests, and, for offshore installations, marine environments) and by the specific impact of the
operating turbines on bird and bat mortality, behavior, and migration corridors, and other factors that
may affect the animals' risk of collisions with turbines, especially when these are located in migratory
paths.63'64 Mitigations and technological "best practices" (curtailment of operations under certain condi-
tions) can address some effects.
Significant impacts on viewscapes and aesthetics depend on the particular landscape being affected,
the proximity to people's homes, and individual perceptions of the relative positives versus negative
attributes of the technology. The turbines often are taller than regulated by any local zoning ordinance, are
impossible to screen from view, and have moving blades that are likely to draw attention.65Approaches have
been developed to assess potential visual impact and to involve the public early in project discussions.
Other Potential Impacts
Spinning wind turbines can create electromagnetic interference with television and radio broad-
casting, cellular phones, and civilian and military radar systems, depending on proximity and specific
siting characteristics. All wind farm developers must submit an application to the Federal Aviation
Administration for review and possible mitigation measures.66 Several studies are under way to identify
solutions to the interference problem.
Selected aspects of the sound produced by turbines as they rotate in the wind can cause annoy-
ance depending on proximity, although sensitivity varies greatly by individual. Mitigating technological
refinements have been made and are being developed farther.67
37

-------
Biomass | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Biomass
38 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Regit

-------
Resource Potential and Benefits Along the Border
Although wind and solar are considered the most uniquely abundant sources of renewable energy
along the U.S.-Mexico Border, the potential for energy produced from biomass also deserves con-
sideration. Recent projects and partnerships illustrate the localized opportunities to use biomass as a
renewable energy source. Biomass—waste from biological material and the feedstock for biofuels—has
the flexibility to be utilized as a liiel for direct combustion, gasified for combined heat and power tech-
nologies, or used in biochemical conversion. Biomass includes agricultural residues, forest resources,
perennial grasses, woody energy crops, wastes (animal, municipal solid waste, urban wood waste and
food waste), construction debris, and algae.
There are four different sectors in which biomass energy plays a role: (1) transportation (feedstock
can be useful to manufacture biofuel for the transportation or aeronautical industry), (2) electricity
(biomass used to generate electricity for facilities or boiler systems), (3) agriculture, and (4) heating
applications for industrial processes.
The potential for the growth and expansion of biofuels along the U.S.-Mexico border is determined
by the biomass feedstock potential that exists along these border states.
The DOE's National Renewable Energy Labo-
ratory (NREL) has conducted some extensive
work showcasing where the various feedstocks
currently exist in the United States. Along the
border, the majority ofbiofuel resources (Figure
8) are found in the southern counties of Cali-
fornia and Arizona with some pockets along the
New Mexico-Texas corridor known as the Paso
del Norte and the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. The San Diego County area has the greatest bio-
mass resource available from the border counties, followed by Hidalgo County in South Texas and El
Paso County in West Texas. Both urban wood and methane emissions from landfills in all three counties
are potential resources.
The full potential to convert biomass to energy along the border is not being achieved. Some of
the biomass resources being tapped include capturing methane emissions from landfills and anaerobic
digester gas from wastewater treatment plants, and converting cooking grease, food, and other wastes to
energy. Only a small fraction of methane gas is captured from animal manure operations.
"Energy continues to be one of the
pressing issues facing the United States
and the U.S.-Mexico border region"
39

-------
Bioraass
Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Figure 8. Biomass Resource of the United States
Along the U.S.Mexico Border
Flagstaff
[Lfog^ngetesi
•Santa Fe
[SanlSernarqlnoi
Albuquerque
San Diego j
Tijuana
a aass v
Jucson
Nogales

Thousand Tonnes/Year
B Above 500
250 - 500
150 - 250
100-150
50-100
Less than 50 t
Chihuahua
This study estimates the biomass resources currently available in the
United States by county. It includes the following feedstock categories;
crop residues (5 year average: 2003-2007), forest and primary mill
residues (2007), secondary mill and wban wood waste (2002), methane
emissions from landfills {2008), domestic wastewater treatment (2007),
and animal manure (2002). For more information on (he data develop-
ment, please refer to http,7/www.nrel.gov/doc:s/'fy06osti/Wiai .pdf.
Although, the document contains the methodology for the development
of an older assessment, tlie information is applicable to this assessment
as welL The difference is only in the data's time period.
Laredo
Corpus
Chrlstf
Nuevo Laredo
This i nap was produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
for the US Department ot Energy.
July 18,2011 Author: BIWy J. Roberts Map®: 20110718
Electricity, Direct Energy From Biomass
Often, landfill gas (LFG) simply is collected and flared (burned) to meet basic environmental
requirements for destroying toxins in the gas. The LFG at landfills could be captured, converted and
used as an energy source. Possibilities include generation of electricity for another user, direct onsite
use as fuel for a boiler or other thermal application, or use in cogeneration projects (combined heat
and power). The Miramar Landfill in San Diego County is operating a landfill recovery project that
fuels a 6.4 MW cogeneration system at the Metro Biosolids Center (MBC) and the 3.8 MW North City
Cogeneration Facility (NCCF) at the North City Water Reclamation Plant (NCWRP). In Southern New
Mexico, the Camino Real Landfill in Sunland Park is generating electricity and selling back to the local
utility with its landfill recovery system. El Paso, Texas, which sends 3,420 tons of waste to landfills each
year, resulting in 46,091 tons of C( ^-equivalents,'* also is developing a landfill gas recovery project in
an effort to reduce its city operations' carbon footprint.
Capturing LFG to produce bioenergy destroys methane, a potent greenhouse gas. It also potentially
reduces air pollution by offsetting the combustion of nonrenewable hydrocarbon resources, and reduces
landfill odors. It is not always feasible or economically viable, but enhanced access to better tools may assist
increased exploitation through earlier planning and more efficient landfill design and retrofit features.
40 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Another potential source for bioenergy is gas produced in anaerobic digesters, either from large
wastewater treatment plants or from manure operations at large combined animal feeding operations
(e.g., cow farms). Veiy few of the border wastewater treatment plants appear to be generating electricity
from recovered anaerobic digester gas. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, veiy few manure anaerobic
digester projects currently operate. One limiting factor is the cost for installing and operating anaerobic
digesters. It often is difficult to offset those higher costs through energy benefits in current markets.®
Biodiesel, Biofuel for Transportation
With the U.S. transportation sector heavily dependent on fossil fuels, during the past decade there
has been an increase in research and development of alternative biofuels in die U.S.-Mexico border
region. Because of its geographic location, the main feedstocks that have been driving biodiesel along
the border have been plant seeds, waste grease from restaurants, tallow, and algae. There are a number
of advantages as well as disadvantages in utilizing biodiesel as a transportation fuel. As an alternative
fuel, biodiesel, if blended with petrodiesel in low concentrations, can be accepted by unmodified
engines. In addition, handling and transportation of biodiesel is relatively safe compared to petroleum
diesel because of its high flash point and biodegradability. Depending on the type of biodiesel blend
used, biodiesel has shown a significant reduction in various pollutant emissions (Table 2).70
Table 2. Average Changes in Mass Emissions from Diesel Engines Using the Biodiesel Mixtures Relative to
the Standard Diesel Fuel (%).r
Mixture
CO
N0x
so2
Particulate Matter
Volatile Organic
Compounds
B20
-13.1
+2.4
-20
-8.9
-17.9
B100
-42.7
+13.2
-100
-55.3
-63.2
B20 refers to a diesel formula comprised of 20 percent biodiesel, etc.
Algae Biofuel
One feedstock that has been gaining signifi-
cant attention is algae. To produce algae fuel,
plenty of land, sunlight, carbon dioxide, water,
and nutrients are required. During the past several
years, researchers turned to the U.S.-Mexico
border region, as it is a potential corridor that
meets some of these important criteria for algal
growth.72 Using algae as a biofuel over other plant
seeds and waste oil has several advantages. First,
algae can be grown in a variety of environments,
including on land not normally suitable for crops
41

-------
Biomass | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
or in fresh or brackish water. Additionally, algae have shorter growth cycles compared to other crops,
and the energy production potential per acre is significandy higher than other plant crops. A last advan-
tage to utilizing algae as a biofuel is that, although the process of growing the algae for a biofuel uses a
great deal of CO , it is possible to use CO from other source emitters (i.e., power plants and chemical
plants) to sequester this greenhouse gas (GHG) and "recycle" it into algae farms. One such example is
through a veiy recent partnership between Sapphire Energy and Linde Group. Sapphire Energy is set
to begin development of an open point algae cultivation farm just outside of Columbus, New Mexico.
The commercial demonstration facility is set to utilize approximately 10,000 metric tons of CO to
grow the algae. Sapphire anticipates that this partnership with the Linde Group, which has developed
technology to "recycle" CO from industries that emit the pollutant, will make it easier to bring down
the technological and operational costs that would otherwise exist for such a large-scale undertaking.
It should be noted, however, that algae technology is still veiy much in its infancy and considerable
research still is needed to understand the fall potential.
Understanding and Addressing Environmental and Social
Impacts of Biomass Energy
Unlike for much of the United States, bioenergy potential along the border rarely contemplates
growing and harvesting biomass (e.g., corn) specifically for use as an energy stock or liiel (e.g., ethanol).
Thus, many of the negative implications associated with full life-cycle impacts of agriculture for biofuels
(nutrient and pesticide use, runoff, etc.) are not as prevalent along the border. One social concern with
certain biomass to energy programs is that extensive use of vegetable oils as a feedstock could contribute
to food shortages in developing nations73 or cause domestic food prices to rise, putting stress on poorer
populations. Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, the biomass sources with the most potential for energy
production are based primarily on feedstocks that originate from waste products (i.e., municipal solid
waste, wastewater treatment sludge), landfill gas, or more recently, algae farms. Based on these potential
feedstock sources, positive impacts may include, indirectly, decreased reduction of air emissions such as
less methane emissions from diverted "waste" from landfills or agriculture waste, and reduced carbon
dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides emissions in biofuels.
The combustion of biomass, however, still produces air pollutants that could include carbon mon-
oxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. It is important that proper air pollution control technology is
utilized to minimize the environmental impacts. Although the use of algae-based biofuel certainly would
have some positive impacts such as reduction of air emissions that fossil-based fuels produced, this type
of technology is still in its infancy and more needs to be learned about all of its implications.
Some biomass projects in the United States have not been without controversy (see Table 3). Both
the sustainability of the source of the biomass and the pollution controls used on the electricity plants
themselves have been identified as important issues.74
42 I The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Table 3. Summary of Benefits/Impacts of Biofuels in U.S. Border States
Positive/Benefits
Negati Concerns/Impacts
Landfill Gas
(LFG) Capture
•	Reduced methane emissions
•	Reduced carbon dioxide emissions
•	Reduced on-site odor
•	Reduced pathogens
•	Landfill fuel gas sells for roughly same
as natural gas
•	Reduced explosion threats at landfill due
to reduction of trapped methane
•	Decrease in demand on local utility for
electrical needs if LFG is used to meet
facility power needs
•	Potential safety risk to operators-high levels of hydro-
gen sulfide and ammonia are produced in anaerobic di-
gester container; container must be cleaned thoroughly
and vented prior to entry75
•	Low Btu fuel: Btu content is one-half that of natural gas,
so there are some limitations to its utilization
•	Possible increased odors if LFG is piped to a nearby
location
•	Initial high cost to install technology
Methane Capture
at Wastewater
Treatment Plants
• Reduced air pollution from flaring of
methane gas
•	Cost of conversion from aerobic to anaerobic digesters
If converted, indirect costs associated with additional
operator trainer and maintenance
•	Considered a low Btu fuel, so limitation to use
Methane Capture
From Manure
Management
•	Reduced methane emissions
•	Reduced carbon dioxide emissions
•	Reduced odor
•	Reduced pathogens
•	Reduced waste that might otherwise be
diverted to landfill
•	Cost of installation and technology utilized, especially
to smaller operations; 50% failure rate of such systems
documented
•	Cost of laboratory characterization of biosolids prior to
permit authorization from federal/state government
Biodiesel From Waste
Vegetable Oil
•	Use of a waste product
•	End product use: decrease in particulate
matter, hydrocarbon, and carbon
monoxide emissions
• End product: slight possible increase in NOx emissions
Biodiesel Algae
•	Can utilize wastewater for growth that
would otherwise be unsuitable for agri-
culture or municipal use
•	Versatility to be grown in diverse climatic
conditions
•	CO.-, capture mechanism, possible CO.-,
reduction from "recycling" from other
CO.-, producing facilities75
•	Possible utilization of large quantities of water
•	Technology is very expensive and not yet available on a
commercial scale along the border
Secondary Mill Residues: Secondary mill residues include wood scraps and sawdust from woodworking shops—furniture factories, wood
container and pallet mills, and wholesale lumberyards.
Urban Wood Waste: This analysis includes wood residues from municipal solid waste (wood chips and pallets), utility tree trimming and
private tree companies, and construction and demolition sites.
43

-------
Geothermal | Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Geothermal
44 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Resource Potential and Benefits Along the Border
The term geothermal comes from the Greek "geo" meaning earth and "therine"
meaning heat; thus, geothermal energy is energy derived from the natural heat of the
earth. The Earth's temperature varies widely, and geothermal energy is usable from room
temperature to well over 300° F (150° C). A geothermal reservoir capable of providing
hydrothermal (hot water and steam) resources is necessary for commercial use. Geo-
thermal reservoirs are typically classified as being either low temperature (< 300° F) or
high temperature (> 300° F). Generally speaking, the high temperature reservoirs are the
ones suitable for, and sought out for, commercial production of, electricity. Geothermal
reservoirs are found in "geothermal systems," which are regionally localized geologic
settings where the Earth's naturally occurring heat flow can bring steam or hot water to
the surface. Examples of geothermal systems include the Yellowstone Region in Idaho.
Montana, and Wyoming, the Geysers Region in Northern California, and in the border,
the Imperial Valley in Southern California.
One advantage of geothermal energy is that it can
provide baseload power 24 hours
per day, 7 days per week, with reliability compa-
rable to drat of conventional power plants and on
a scale sufficient to power up to 200,000 homes,
Geothermal can help utilities meet state RPS.
Geothermal power plants also guard against volatile
electricity prices because their lifetime fuel is
secured at the initiation of the project through long-
term leases with landowners, and dre costs to drill the resource in advance of plant startup are capitalized
so that liiti ire fuel cost risk shifts from the consumer back to the developer and/or operator.76 In addition,
there are few harmful gases or by-product pollutants associated with the use of geothermal energy.
As seen in Figure 9, the border region, especially in die western half, possesses sufficient geo-
thermal resources to consider development. California has the greatest number of existing geothermal
plants along the border. Most of California's border geothermal energy is generated in the Imperial
Valley. California is and will continue to be a leader in the development of geothermal energy. As
shown in die recent map developed by die National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), California
leads the nation with more than 2,500 MWs of geothermal energy development, while virtually no
"Renewable energy is critical to the
energy security of the United States."
45

-------
Geothermal Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
1
'Albuquerque
San Diego I
Tijuana
^TucsonJ
Nogafes
Monterrey
Figure 9. Enhanced Geothermal Resource of the United States
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Favorability of Deep EGS
Most Favorable
I Least Favorable
|	1	International Miles
I I No Data**	0	100
•	Map does not include shallow EGS resources located near hydrothermal sites
or DSGS assessment of undiscovered hydrothermal resources.
•	Source data for deep EGS Includes temperature at depth from 3 to 10 km
provided by Southern Methodist University Geothermal Laboratory
(Blackwell & Richards, 2009) and analyses (for regions with temperatures 2
1 SOX) performed by NREL <2009).
•	"WA'regions have temperatures less than 150°Cat 10 km depth and were
not assessed for deep EGS potential
I Ttiis map was produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Hor the US Department ol Energy.
I July 18,2011 Author Billy J. Roberts MaplD: 20110718
Austin
San Antonio
Chihuahua
ffSn • W Corpus
Nuey^aredc^^^	Christ!
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
development has occurred in the other three border states in the United States (Figure 10). There
are some potential projects, however, under development in these states. Moreover, a map of deep
geothermal resources shows that die border states, and border area in particular, are rich in geothermal
resources. Thus, programs, policies, and efforts that provide research and incentives to develop geo-
thermal energy could benefit the border region while providing more renewable energy.
In September 2010, DOE awarded $2 million to Utah-based GreenFire Energy to demonstrate
how naturally occurring CO, found in the region located at the Arizona-New Mexico border known
as St. John's Dome, can be used to generate geothermal power when injected underground and
recaptured.77 In 2009, New Mexico's first geothermal plant (10 MW capacity) began operations.
Cyrq Energy (formerly Raser Technologies, who constructed the plant) is working on expanding
the plant to a capacity of 25 MWs by the end of 2011, providing geothermal energy to the Phoenix
area.78 Recently, the Texas General Land Office announced that it had leased lands on Padre
Island for geothermal development along the southeastern coast.78 In Texas, thousands of old non-
producing oil and gas wells provide ready-made testing grounds and potentially are vehicles for the
development of geothermal resources.
46 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Figure 10. Geothermal Power Generation
Current and Planned Nameplate Capacity (MW) by State
?628 - 883
5?\<2KK0£) JMb = EfeE®
Data are (ram the Geothermal Energy Alloa*
ttpn (OEA) Ap«il JOIO and lnrt>dc twjflctt
fuivdcd by th# American Recovery and Reinvwt-
merfl Act (AffiAt. Ftanned ftgum incKMte both
project! In Phases 1-4 of development and
uctconfwmed projects. Toul n?=l
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Geothermal Power Plant Technology
Currently, there are three geothermal power plant technologies being used to convert hydrothermal
fluids to electricity: (1) dry steam, (2) flash, and (3) binary cycle. The type of conversion used depends
on the state of the fluid (whether steam or water) and its temperature. Dry steam power plant systems
were the first type of geothermal power generation plants built. They use the steam from the geothermal
reservoir as it comes from wells and route it directly through turbine/generator units to produce electri-
city. Flash steam plants are the most common type of geothermal power generation plants in operation
today. They use water at temperatures greater than 360°F (182°C) that is pumped under high pressure
to the generation equipment at the surface. The steam eliminates the need to burn fossil fuels to run the
turbine, also eliminating the need to transport and store fuels. Binary cycle geothermal power genera-
tion plants differ from dry steam and flash steam systems in that the water or steam from the geothermal
reservoir never comes in contact with the turbine/generator units. In binary cycle plants, the heat from
geothermal steam typically is used to heat a different "working fluid" (with a lower vaporization tem-
perature than water), which then is vaporized and used to power a turbine.
47

-------
Geothermal Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Understanding and Addressing Environmental Impacts of
Geothermal Energy Use Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
In September 2005, DOE commissioned a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-led
interdisciplinary assessment panel to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of enhanced
geothermal systems (EGS) becoming a major supplier of primary energy for the United States by 2050.
The 2006 MIT report summarized the findings of multiple studies on the environmental impacts of
geothermal energy.79 According to the report, most of the potentially important environmental impacts
of geothermal power plant development are associated with groundwater use and contamination, and
with related concerns about land subsidence and induced seismicity as a result of water injection and
production into and out of a fractured reservoir formation. Issues of air pollution, noise, safety, and land
use also merit consideration.
Potential Impacts on Water
Geothermal systems can have significant water requirements daring development and operation.
Geothermal plants use approximately 5 gallons of freshwater per MWh, while binary air-cooled plants use
no Iresh water. This compares favorably with 361 gallons per IVIWh used by natural gas facilities/0
One type of operation uses fresh water in the geothermal plant's cooling tower. The cooling towers are
used to cool down hot geothermal fluids from production wells used to turn the turbines that generate the
48 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
electricity before they are reinjected into the reservoir. In addition, (luring the cooling process some fresh
water evaporates and must be replaced. The use of makeup water (water added to the system to replace the
evaporative losses) contributes to depleting the already limited supply of fresh water resources along the
border such as in Imperial County and other locations where geothermal energy is being exploited. A chal-
lenge for geothermal power companies would be to engineer new geothermal power plants that use less or
no water for cooling.
Protection of water quality in aquifers is another potential issue, as evaporation of water (luring the
cooling process also increases the total dissolved solids in the freshwater. Therefore, it often is necessary to
contain the cooling tower water to meet standards to prevent degradation of aquifers.
Waste residuals from the various processes used to generate geothermal energy also can create
environmental concerns. Often, the diy sludge that is produced during drilling operations or sludge from
holding ponds or brine ponds such as those used in Imperial County must be removed and transported to
licensed off-site locations for disposal because they can contain various contaminants. These contaminants
can include oil derivatives, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), phenols, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, chromate and barite, which could damage ecosystems if not disposed of
properly. In addition, the holding ponds will be used at times for other uses such as to retain geothermal
brines and cooling tower blow-down during emergency situations, maintenance operations, spills and
water from hydroblasting, portable shower effluent, vehicle wash station effluent, water from the plant
conveyance system, lime sump effluent, and effluent from emission abatement equipment. Disposal of the
sludge can be expensive depending on the concentrations of the chemicals that are present. Geothermal
power companies should develop and use drilling techniques that reduce hazardous chemicals in the
drilling to the maximum extent practical to preserve fragile, stressed ecosystems.
Brine routinely is piped from the brine pond back to a clarifier for reuse in the geothermal process.
In that process, solids are removed prior to reinjection, often resulting in a filter cake being produced as a
by-product of treatment. The filter cake also contains heavy metals that must be disposed of in a regulated
facility. CalEnergy constructed and secured a permit for a solid waste facility solely for the purpose of
disposing of filter cake from its geothermal plants. A challenge for geothermal power companies would be
to engineer new systems to eliminate the filter cake and brine ponds.
Surface runoff is controlled by directing fluids to impermeable holding ponds and by injection of all
waste streams deep underground. Well casings are designed with redundant barriers inside the well and
adjacent formations to guard against fluids leaking into aquifers. Well monitoring during drilling and sub-
sequent operation is important to detect and manage potential leakage in the event of casing failures.
Potential Impacts on Air Quality
Geothermal plants produce minimal air emissions, especially when compared to conventional
power plants. Table 4 shows a summary of emissions into the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
sulfur dioxide (SO ) are negligible in the air emissions from geothermal steam and flash plants. Carbon
dioxide emissions are far lower than fossil-fueled power plants.
49

-------
Geothermal Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Development
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Table 4. Air Emissions Summary
Plant Type
Nitrogen Oxides
Lbs/MWh
Sulfur Dioxide*
Lbs/MWh
Carbon Dioxide
Lbs/MWh
Particulate Matter
Lbs/MWh
Coal
4.31
10.39
2191
2.23
Coal, Life-Cycle Emissions
7.38
14.8
Not available
20.3
Oil
4
12
1672
Not available
Natural Gas
2.96
0.22
1212
0.14
EPA Listed Average of All U.S.
Power Plants
2.96
6.04
1392.5
Not available
Geothermal (flash)
0
0.35
60
0
Geothermal (binary and flash/binary)
0
0
0
Negligible
Geothermal (Geysers steam)
.00104
.000215
88.8
Negligible
*Although geothermal plants do not emit sulfur dioxide directly, once hydrogen sulfide is released as a gas into the atmosphere, it eventually
changes into sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid. Therefore, any sulfur dioxide emissions associated with geothermal energy derive from
hydrogen sulfide emissions.
Source: Alyssa Kagel, Diana Bates and Karl Gawell, Geothermal Energy Association, "A Guide to Geothermal Energy and The
Environment' " 2007, http://www.geo-energy. org/reports/Environmental%20Guide.pdf.
Total non-condensable gas (NCG) emissions from geothermal resources typically comprise less
than 5 percent of the total steam emitted.80 If the NCGs contain toxic gases, they must be scrubbed to
reduce the toxic gases to within the federally established emission limits. Some of the more common
toxic gases that could be present are hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and mercury vapor.81'82 The concentration
of these gases in the steam depends on the temperature in the area and the chemical composition of the
ground, which can vaiy from one area to another.83
The removal of H2S from geothermal steam is mandatory in the United States, and the most
common process is the Stretford process, which produces pure sulfur and is capable of reducing H2S
emissions by more than 90 percent.84 Since 1976, hydrogen sulfide emissions have declined from 1,900
lbs/hr to 200 lbs/hr or less, although geothermal power production has increased from 500 MW to
more than 2,000 MW. Although such H2S emissions usually do not pose a health risk and do not con-
tribute to global climate change, the odor they produce has created objections in many areas.85
In total, the savings from present geothermal energy production in the United States, both electricity
and direct-use, amounts to 45.7 million barrels (6.86 million tons) of liiel oil equivalent per year, and
reduces air pollution by 6 million tons of carbon annually. CO reduction is estimated at 17 million tons.85
Potential Impacts on Land
Geothermal power plants usually are built at or near the geothermal reservoir because long trans-
mission lines degrade the pressure and temperature of the geofluid. Consequendy, land footprints for
such plants vaiy by site because the properties of the geothermal reservoir fluid and the best options for
waste stream discharge are highly site specific. Well fields can cover 5 to 10 km2 or more, but the well
pads themselves cover only about 2 percent of this area. Directional drilling techniques enable multiple
50 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Wastewater Injection:
Success at The Geysers
A wastewater injection project was initiated in
December 2003, at The Geysers geothermal reservoir,
a complex of 22 geothermal power plants, drawing
steam from more than 350 wells located in the May-
acamas Mountains 72 miles north of San Francisco,
California.Treated wastewater from the nearby
community of Santa Rosa previously had been
discharged directly into the Russian River, prompting
state water quality regulators to take action against
the community. Now, 11 million gallons of treated
wastewater from Santa Rosa are being pumped
daily to The Geysers for injection into the geothermal
reservoir. Any residual biological contamination in the
wastewater is instantly sterilized upon contact with
the reservoir rock (usually above 400°F).The project
also has been of great help in maintaining the sus-
tainability of the geothermal reservoir.The additional
water being pumped into the geothermal reservoir
has helped recharge the resource to make full use
of the heat still trapped in the Earth's rock and has
slowed the decline of the resource.The $250 million
project has proved successful so far in reducing sur
face water pollution for the community of Santa Rosa,
and also has helped to improve the sustainability of
the geothermal reservoir.
wells to be drilled from a single pad to minimize
land use. The footprint of the power plant,
cooling towers, and auxiliary buildings is relatively
modest. Holding ponds for temporary discharges
can be sizeable but still represent only a fraction of
the total well field.
Compared to nuclear and conventional
fossil-fuel power plants, geothermal technologies
have lower land use impacts, ranging from 7 to
50 times less area needed for geothermal plants
compared to these other plants.79 In geothermal
technologies, there is no physical mining in the
conventional sense, or transportation over long
distances from the energy source. The adverse
environmental impacts of mining and transporta-
tion of the lii el are well documented.
Other Potential Impacts
Noise Pollution
Noise from geothermal operations is typical
of many industrial activities, with the highest noise
levels produced during well drilling, stimulation,
and testing (80 to 115 decibels).79 Noise levels
during normal geothermal power plant operation range from 71 to 83 decibels (comparable to a con-
gested urban area) at a distance of 900 m, dropping rapidly with increased distance from the source.79
Disturbance of Wildlife, Vegetation, and Scenic Vistas
Development of geothermal fields may result in removal of trees and brush to facilitate installa-
tion of well pads, holding ponds, and so on. Geothermal plants tend to have a low profile and are less
conspicuous than wind turbines, solar power towers, or coal plants. Any power generation facility built
where none existed will alter the view of the landscape, but with care and creativity, geothermal plants
can be designed to blend into the natural surroundings. Once the geothermal plant is built, reforestation
and plantings can help restore an area to a semblance of its original natural appearance, helping to mask
the presence of building and other structures. Several geothermal power plants co-exist with agricul-
tural fields in the Imperial Valley of California.
51

-------
Hydropower Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Developmen t
Along die U.S.-Mexico Border
Hydropower

-------
"The potential foi
>' creating jobs in renewable energy
also is extreme1)
/ important to this region."
Although much of the border region is desert, hydropower plays a significant role in
providing renewable energy to the U.S. border region. In particular, the Colorado
River is a major source of power generation for the region while the Rio Grande's
hydropower resources, although more limited, are unique because of the existence of
international dams where power is generated for both the United States and Mexico.
By using the power of water to generate electricity, hydroelectric power plants provide
a reliable source of renewable energy.
Federal Hydropower in U.S. Border States
Along or near the Mexico border in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas,
federal hydropower resources on the two major transboundary rivers—the Colorado
River and the Rio Grande—are produced by the following dams and projects. All are
operated by die Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), part of the U.S. Department of
the Interior (DOI), unless indicated otherwise.86'®7,88
Hoover Dam: Straddl ing the Colorado River outside of Las Vegas at the Arizona-
Nevada border, Hoover Dam at Boulder Canyon creates Lake Mead. The Hoover Power Plant produces
about 2,074 MW, enough electricity for nearly 8 million people. About 58 percent of power generated
at Hoover Dam is delivered to California, 19 percent to Arizona, and 23 percent to Nevada.
Parker Dams Parker Dam on the Colorado River, which forms Lake Havasu near Parker, Arizona,
is 155 miles downstream from Hoover Dam. The capacity of the power plant is 120 MW.
Davis Dam: Davis Dam, on the Colorado River near Laughlin, Nevada, and Bullhead City,
Arizona, is 67 miles below Hoover Dam. Its capacity is 255 MW. The combined Parker-Davis Project
includes transmission lines in Arizona, southern Nevada, and California, to supply power to 26 munici-
palities, cooperatives, federal and state agencies, and irrigation districts.
5s

-------
Hydropower Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Developmen t
Along die U.S.-Mexico Border
Glen Canyon Dam: Located on the Colorado River near Page, Arizona, Glen Canyon Dam's
power plant has a generating capacity of 1,320 MW.
Elephant Butte Dam: The hydroelectric plant at this dam on the Rio Grande in Truth or Conse-
quences, New Mexico, has a capacity of nearly 28 MW.
Falcon Dam: Falcon Dam, located near Laredo, Texas-Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, is one of two
international storage dams on the Rio Grande built and operated by the International Boundary and Water
Commission, United States and Mexico (IBWC). The United States and Mexico operate separate power
plants on each side of die Rio Grande. The U.S. Section of the IBWC operates the U.S. portion of die
project, including the U.S. power plant with a capacity of 31.5 MW.
Amistad Dam: The other major IBWC dam, Amistad, is located near Del Rio, Texas-Ciudad
Acuna, Coahuila. Like at Falcon Dam, each country has its own power plant. The U.S. power plant's
capacity is 66 MW.
Border Region Hydroelectric Facilities Owned by Reclamation
but Operated and Maintained by Others
As part of Reclamation's Boulder Canyon Project (which includes Hoover Dam), there are various
smaller power plants along the Ail-American Canal, a U.S. irrigation canal diat parallels the U.S.-
Mexico border in portions of Arizona and California. The Imperial Irrigation District operates these
plants with a total generating capacity of 87 MW.
The Central Arizona Project has the New Waddell Pump/Generating Plant in Phoenix, with a
capacity of 36 MW, operated by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District.
The Salt River Project, also in Phoenix, includes seven power plants operated by the Salt River
Valley Water User's Association, with a total capacity of 239 MW.
54 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Improving Existing
Hydro power Plants
Following the 1973 oil embargo, Reclama-
tion's power plants were reviewed to determine
if they could be uprated to a higher capacity to
produce more energy. Uprating existing hydro-
power plants to utilize the available water resource
fully for additional energy and peaking capacity
was recognized as one of the better long-range
additions to help solve the energy problem. In
1978, Reclamation and the DOI established, as
one of their major program goals, the investigation
and implementation of all viable opportunities
to improve existing plants by modernizing and
uprating the generating equipment. Since 1978,
Reclamation initiated a power uprating program
to increase die capacity of Reclamation facilities as funding and unit availability allowed. In addition,
there have been a number of generator rewinds where no appreciable uprate potential existed but
winding condition was poor.
Uprating hydroelectric generator and turbine units at existing power plants is one of the most
immediate, cost effective, and environmentally acceptable means for developing additional electrical
power. As a result of the uprating program, Reclamation's generating capacity has increased by
approximately 2,000 MW.
Through this initiative, rehabilitation of the power plant at Hoover Dam is planned for 2012 with
installation of wide head turbines, providing greater efficiency at lower lake levels. A rewind project at
Davis Dam is forecast for 2018.
Low-Head Generation
In a region known more for deserts than water resources, die importance of hydroelectric power
may be surprising. Unfortunately, drought that routinely affects the U.S.-Mexico border region and that
is projected to worsen due to the effects of climate variability, affects not only die availability of water
but of hydroelectric power. The IBWC undertook a study to see if new technologies in low-head hydro-
power generation could produce power during these periods of drought in die border region.
During the Rio Grande drought of the 1990s and early 2000s, water releases from Amistad and
Falcon Dams were so low that water could not be run through the turbines and generators at the
hydroelectric power plants in the United States and Mexico. In accordance with the 1944 Water
Treaty between the two countries, water released from the dams generates power equally for both
countries regardless of the national ownership of the water being released.
B

-------
Hydropower Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Developmen t
Along die U.S.-Mexico Border

(Currently, the Amistad Power Plant cannot generate electricity at releases ofless than 30 cubic
meters per second (1,059 cubic feet per second) while Falcon cannot generate below 14 cubic meters
per second (494 cubic feet per second). A low-head generator would produce power at lower release
levels, potentially generating 26 to 56 gigawatt hours per year at Amistad or 3 to 6 gigawatt hours
per year at Falcon. The increased power generation would be shared between the United States and
Mexico. The plants provide a portion ofpower to, and therefore would benefit, some 170,000 U.S.
members of the South Texas Electric Cooperative.
The U.S. water behind the reservoirs belongs to Texas water rights' holders. Because the pri-
mary purpose of the dams is to store water for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses, power
would only be generated by the low-head turbines if Mexico or the State of Texas were to request
water releases for downstream users.
In December 2010, both countries through the IBWC agreed to
move forward on the development of a report that would outline how a
low-head power generation turbine project would be planned, designed,
and constructed. The report is expected to be completed in 2012.
Preliminary research indicates that it is more feasible to install a unit on
die Mexican plant at Amistad because of existing in Iras tincture there and
it can be done with minimal disruption of power generation. If installed at
die U.S. power plant, however, power production would be shut down for
12-18 months and con struct ion of a coffer dam and building expansion
would be required. Likewise, because of existing infrastructure at Falcon
Dam, conditions there are much more favorable for installation of the low-
head unit on the U.S. side as compared to die Mexican plant.
Budgetary estimates project the cost to be in the range of $7 million
for the unit at Falcon and possibly $ 11 million at Amistad. Final cost
estimates are subject to detailed designs. Potential funding sources
include the Western Area Power Administration and Mexico's Federal
Electricity Commission. If the project is undertaken, these low-head
units would allow IBWC to continue to generate clean hydroelectric
power even during drought conditions.
Retrofitting Existing Dams or Locks with Hydroelectric Capacity
In March 2011, DOI released a report titled "Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclama-
tion Facilities"89 which indicates that DOI could generate up to 1 million MWli of electricity annually and
create jobs by adding hydropower capacity at 70 of its existing facilities. The report cited 70 sites with the
highest benefit cost ratio, including a few in die U.S.-Mexico border region, identified in Table 5. The
ratio used incorporates incentives, such as rebates, tax credits, or grants available from existing federal
and state programs for developing clean renewable energy, including hydropower.
56 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Table 5. Reclamation Facilities Along the U.S.-Mexico Border Region With Positive Benefit Cost Ratio for
Installation of Hydroelectric Power Generation
Facility Name
Installed Capacity (kW)
Annual Production (MWh)
Benefit Cost Radio
Arizona
Gila Gravity Main Canal
Headworks (Gila River)
223
1,548
1.17
Imperial Dam
(Colorado River)
1,079
5,325
1.61
New Mexico
Caballo Dam
(Rio Grande)
3,260
15,095
1.45
Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, http://www.usbr.gov/power
Low-Head Hydroelectric Power in Irrigation Canals
The Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID), which serves more than 90,000 acres of farmland
with Rio Grande water in southern New Mexico, has started generating electricity at its
irrigation canals. EBID built its first station in 2009 near Las Cruces, New Mexico, and recently
completed a second. As water flows through a canal toward a 12-foot drop, it powers the
turbines, which generate electricity used to pump water from the canal to a farmer's fields.
Given high fossil fuel prices, the use of hydroelectric power in the irrigation district could
significantly reduce the energy costs for farmers to run pumps.
EBID has identified more than 100 sites within the district where such a system could be
installed. EBID has a vision of eventually selling power generated from the district's canals to
the electric company. However, to do so requires a license from the Federal Energy Regula-
tory Commission. According to EBID officials, the costs associated with obtaining one license
can be more than $100,000, which could make the plan to sell the power cost prohibitive.
Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor stated that the report is not a feasibility study
but "provides information that allows DOI and developers to prioritize investments in a more detailed
analysis that focuses on sites demonstrating reasonable potential for being economically, financially, and
environmentally viable."90
Much of the current focus for federal hydroelectric power projects is to improve existing projects
through application of innovative technologies and efficiency improvements rather than to construct
new facilities. In the border region, these types of efforts can help to increase the generation of clean
hydroelectric energy without requiring construction of new dams. At the same time, some of the nega-
tive environmental impacts of existing dams can be mitigated.
57

-------
Hydropower Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Developmen t
Along die U.S.-Mexico Border
Understanding and Addressing Environmental Impacts of
Hydropower Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Hydropower is practically emissions-free, yet the environmental impact of hydroelectric power
plants still can be significant.91 This section will discuss some of the environmental benefits of hydro-
electric power and negative impacts, particularly to wildlife, caused by disrupting a river's natural flow
through the construction of dams.
Hydropower is considered environmentally beneficial in that it is renewable and generated with little
or no direct combustion emissions. Hydropower facilities have die ability to start generation without an
outside source of power. This so-called "Black Start" capability exists at Hoover, Elephant Butte, Amistad,
and Falcon Dams, allowing system operators to provide auxiliary power to more complex generation
sources diat could otherwise take hours or even days to start. Hydropower output can be changed quickly
in response to changes in electrical demand because of the ability to control the flow of water. This ability
is considered essential to electric transmission grid stability. Once a facility has been built, hydropower
is one of the least expensive sources of electricity to operate because diere is no liiel cost. Maintenance of
dams and infrastructure is die major ongoing expense to generate electricity. Some dams serve multiple
purposes, as water stored for irrigation or flood control purposes also can support recreational activities.
58 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
The extent to which hydroelectric projects affect riparian ecosystems depends on many key variables,
most notably the amount of water that is stored for electric generation.92 When dams flood significant por-
tions of land upstream, turning rivers into lakes, the change in habitat can affect wildlife and have especially
dramatic affects on migratory fish populations. Similarly, the development of dams can adversely affect
water quality, as the dealing of trees can result in soil erosion and landslides that can lead to a buildup of
sediments and clogged streams. Spilling water from dams can force atmospheric gases into solution in the
basin water below, making the basin water supersaturated and potentially killing fish.
Water quality for aquatic life also can deteriorate if reservoirs limit the natural flow of water
downstream. Water can become stratified, with warmer water collecting at the surface and cooler water
staying at the bottom. Because the bottom water is isolated from aeration, it loses its oxygen. Many fish
cannot live in these conditions. When this deep water passes through hydropower turbines, it is still low
in dissolved oxygen and it also can affect the quality of water downstream of the dam. A lack of oxygen
in deep reservoir water can cause certain metals to dissolve more readily from surrounding rocks, and
these metals can be released to the downstream river where they can cause water to become toxic.
Even if the water quality is not degraded, major habitat impacts can occur if the natural hydrology of
the river is changed (i.e., "in-stream flow" effects). If the amount of water released downstream changes,
either on a seasonal basis or even on an hourly basis, adverse effects on fish and other organisms can result.
Mitigation
There are some measures that can be taken to address continuing environmental impacts. It is
important to remember that these measures are part of a much larger and complex whole. One incentive
for hydroelectric facilities to help mitigate their overall impact on the environment is through renewable
power certification. The Low Impact Hydropower Institute's (LIHI) mission is to reduce the impacts of
hydropower dams through market incentives.
LIHI is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to reducing the impacts of hydropower
generation through the certification of hydropower projects that are well sited and well operated in
accordance with objective and scientific environmental standards.
The Certification Program's goals are to reduce the environmental impacts of hydropower genera-
tion, and to create a credible and accepted standard for consumers to use in evaluating hydropower.
The Certification Program's objective to meet these goals is to establish certification criteria that hydro-
power facilities must meet in the following eight areas: (1) river flows, (2) water quality, (3) fish passage
and protection, (4) watershed protection, (5) threatened and endangered species protection, (6) cultural
resource protection, (7) recreation, and (8) facilities recommended for removal. A hydropower facility
meeting all eight certification criteria will be certified as a Low Impact Hydropower Facility, and will
be able to use this certification when marketing power to consumers.93 The Institute has certified 73
hydropower facilities in the United States, none of which are in the U.S.-Mexico border states.
Improvement of hydropower resources along the U.S.-Mexico border presents a mix of opportu-
nity and potential problems that are inherently site dependent. Decisions about these resources should
reflect this individuality, the fact that some of the opportunities can be better utilized, and the reality that
all river resources need to be managed for multiple uses, not just energy.
59

-------
Hydropower Resource Potential and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Developmen t
Along die U.S.-Mexico Border
60 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

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

-------
3 | Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Market Opportunities for Utility-Scale Renewables
From solar to wind power, biomass to hydropower, and to some geothermal capabilities, the U.S.-
Mexico border region presents market and economic development opportunities. These opportunities
are due both to the natural resources present as well as the economic drivers, which include both the
increasing demand for electricity in general and the specific demand for renewable energy. Market
opportunities also derive from combining programs and policies to "co-locate" energy efficiency,
demand response and renewable energy, and these could lead to the expansion of die use of renewable
energy, and particularly distributive renewable energy. For example, building codes governing water
conservation, energy, and building materials can encourage the construction of more energy-efficient
buildings, incorporating the use of technologies such as combined heat and power systems, solar water
heating, photovoltaic (PV) and geothermal heat pumps, among others. Likewise, building retrofits can
add both energy efficiency and technologies for saving energy, including die use of renewable energy.
The recent American Recoveiy and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included billions of dollars in grants
that states could use to provide monies for retrofit and add-ons of renewable technologies to existing
buildings. Moreover, because of a variety of new U.S. environmental regulations under development,
many utilities are considering the retirement of older fossil liiel plants, which could expand the potential
for renewable energy development.
When coupled widijob training and incentives lor job creation, the use of renewable energy
sources also has the potential to create linkages with local economies and encourage the location of
62 I The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
suppliers and manufacturers within the border region. This could lead to complementary economic
policies or create enclaves, increasing the potential for the border to serve as a good location for the
renewable projects. Local communities have concerns, however, that the majority of the wealth and jobs
that are created may not stay in die region.
Finally, the special characteristics of the border area open up some potential opportunities as power
plants on the U.S. side could serve demands on the Mexican-side of the border, and vice versa. In the
latter case, if some of the parts were manufactured or designed in the United States, specifically in
U.S. border communities, these plants could generate employment as well as potential environmental
benefits for the U.S. border states. Obtaining resources within Mexico, however, is controversial, as
such efforts would require careful monitoring of compliance with environmental regulations and could
potentially undercut U.S. job creation. The development of renewable resources in northern Mexico
should consider benefits to economic and social interests in the United States and the border state elec-
tricity markets, while honoring commitments under trade agreements.
Job Growth and Job Growth Potential
The "clean energy economy" already has created thousands ofjobs in the border states^ A 2009
Pew study found that California and Texas were the leaders in the creation ofjobs from a combination
of energy efficiency, renewable energy development, pollution control equipment, and research and
development.94 A more recent Brookings study using a broader definition of clean economy found an
even larger number ofjobs had been created between 2003 and 2010. The Brookings study also looked
at the most populated 100 individual cities, which included two border cities and another just outside
of the border region: San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and Tucson, Arizona.® The analysis offers
a contrast in terms of the number ofjobs nationwide created in the "clean" economy. El Paso ranked
92lldwith 2,695 jobs, Tucson ranked 79th and San Diego ranked 213twitli 22,862jobs.
Studies conducted on the potential of a federal Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) have pointed
to the advantages it might provide to certain areas of the country, including the Southwest, while also
providing the renewable energy industry with
more certainty by establishing a national standard
as opposed to individual state goals. A Union of
Concerned Scientists study in 2009 found that a
"25 percent by 2025" national RES would lead
to some 300,000 jobs, and create three times as
many jobs as producing the same amount of elec-
tricity from fossil fuels.96 Similarly, a 2009 report
released by the Blue-Green Alliance showed that
a 10-year effort to introduce 185,000 megawatts
(MW) of renew allies—the rough equivalent of

-------
3 | Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
a 15 percent RES—had the potential to create
850,000 jobs with $160 billion of investments in
manufacturing.97 Interestingly, under this scenario
the most job growth would occur in Texas and
California, although the report did not detail
what geographic regions within each state would
receive the most benefit.
Job growth is even greater if studies look not
only at renewable energy generation but also at
energy efficiency. A recent study in Texas found
that if policies were changed to raise the require-
ments for meeting all demand growth through
energy efficiency and designed to encourage the use of combined heat and power systems, some 46,900
jobs would be generated in Texas.98
The benefits ofjob growth depend on the type of jobs created, and a key factor in attracting well-
paying and secure jobs is a skilled labor force. Currently, labor departments (often now referred to as
"departments of workforce solutions") in each state are devising programs for labor training based on
economic assumptions of relative demand.
To facilitate a long-term job development strategy, it is necessary to develop assumptions about
the medium- and long-term behavior of the economy as a whole and die interactions among sectors
within it. As an example, input-output analysis such as provided by JEDIII, a program developed at the
NREL, is a use fill tool for this purpose.99
To benefit from new economic opportunities, in addition to understanding what job skills may
be required according to assumptions about economic growth and corporate repositioning, border
residents also must have access to a training infrastructure, which may not be in place yet. Significantly,
high school curricula are being developed and tested to provide graduates with the job skills required
for employment in the clean energy economy.
Federal and state programs have emerged to support workforce development efforts, from incen-
tive programs, on-the-j ob-training programs, ridership programs, to environmentally sound economy
programs, and information about these programs is vital to local communities.
Enhancing Local Benefits While Meeting the Demand
There is growing need for energy in residential, commercial, and industrial applications. Stimu-
lated by consumer appetite for energy choices, economic inducements, and regulatory requirements,
the demand for alternative energy goods and services has been increasing steadily for die past 10 years
and is likely to continue. The border region exhibits opportunities for export from existing renewable
energy sectors and the development of businesses in construction, manufacturing, and sendee sectors
64 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
to meet local needs in the border states at large.
Energy production should have low environ-
mental impact, in the manufacture of equipment,
siting and generation, and be high value added
with a significant benefit accruing to local com-
munities in the form of revenues and employment.
Easily, the most available activity with short-
term impact is the adoption of conservation and
energy efficiency technologies. Unlike some of
the more expensive residential systems devoted to
generation of electricity, conservation techniques
can benefit low-income families currently paying
high prices for energy, and often can result in
rebates to those families.
Beyond job growth, key benefits that can
accrue to local economies from growth in the
renewable energy sector include savings in municipal energy costs; increased revenues from sales taxes,
permitting fees, and payroll taxes; and investment in operating capital, infrastructure, and equipment.
Some of the larger municipalities use input-output analysis to project the effects of increased economic
activity, although forecasting return on investment generally does not occur at the local level.
In addition, savings to local communities are a sometimes-overlooked economic benefit from alter-
natives to conventional electricity production and supply. Some examples include:
•	In the arid Southwest, a large part of the typical municipal utility budget is devoted to the
pumping of potable water and wastewater treatment—in some cases as high as 80 percent.
Silver City, New Mexico, expects to break ground in September 2011 on a 1 MW facility that is
expected to save the town $2 million during the next 20 years in pumping costs for wastewater
through a PPA modeled on a successful program in Santa Fe.
•	Hatch Valley public schools have inaugurated a 100 kW PV solar energy system under ARRA.
The Ruben Torres Elementary School in Denting. New Mexico, in a county chronically charac-
terized by high unemployment, already has received a check for $78,000 from the local electric
cooperative representing savings from its geothermal energy system.
•	Municipal lighting of buildings, traffic signals, and streedights are other sources of considerable
expense for small town and large city budgets alike. Programs to retrofit conventional lighting
sources have resulted in savings of well over $100,000 a year for 20 years in some smaller cities.
§5

-------
3 | Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
What Drives the Growth of the Renewable Energy Economy
Although the border population is a relatively small proportion of each of the U.S.-Mexico border
states, averaging about 10 percent of the total population of these states, this nevertheless represents
more than 7 million people in a rapidly growing geographic area. In the four border states, renewable
energy economic activity is concentrated in utilities and construction,
followed by wholesale trade. The potentially more lucrative manufac-
turing activities are relatively few. This section examines the factors that
affect economic activity.
Policy
Federal, tribal, state, and local policies all have been fundamental
drivers of current infrastructure devoted to renewable energy devel-
opment. The continuation or expansion of these policies will affect
ongoing and future developments, while a change away from existing
financial incentives and mandates could negatively impact development
on the border.
Major State Policies
In the U.S. border states, the fundamental state policy that has led
to the development of utility-scale removables has been the renewable
portfolio standard (RPS). RPS policies require a percentage of electric demand to be met by renewables
but let the markets determine the price for renewable electricity. Although RPS policy designs vaiy
among the four states, it can be argued that the past and current development would not have been pos-
sible without these policies; The quick installment of wind generation in West and East Texas between
2005 and 2010 was conducted to meet Texas' RPS and the current development of solar resources in
southeastern California was done to meet that state's RPS.
Although several bills have been introduced at the federal level to create a national RPS, there cur-
rently is no federal law mandating that a certain percentage of renewable resources serve the United States.
States also differ in how they approach the development of onsite renewable resources, sometimes
known as distributed generation. New Mexico has a specific set-aside for onsite renewables as part of
the RPS, while California has created a multi-billion dollar incentive program for onsite solar. New
Mexico offers no specific state or local rebates for solar or other onsite renewables, while Texas and
Arizona only offer them through local and utility programs, and there is no specific mandate to do so.
In Arizona, several of the local electric cooperatives along the border offer solar rebate programs, in part
to help meet their RPS requirements. In New Mexico, although there is no rebate program, in an effort
to meet their RPS requirements, the three major investor-owned utilities all offer performance-based
incentives to those installing solar capacity.
66 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Other important policies for the development of onsite renewables include grid interconnection
requirements and how surplus electricity generated back into the electric grid is treated and paid for,
a policy commonly known as net-metering. These state and/or local utility policies can have a direct
impact on the economics and development of onsite solar. Policies that make the installation of small-
scale solar and wind cheaper and easier generally will lead to more installed capacity. Arizona, New
Mexico, and California all have established statewide net-metering policies, but Texas has not, though
some individual utilities have done so.
Federal Policies
Federal Financing and Tax Incentives
Although the state RPS, energy efficiency standards, and onsite renewable policy and incentives
have been important tools in the development of renewables, federal rules and incentives, such as pro-
duction and investment tax credits, have played a vital role. The development of wind energy in Texas
closely tracked Congressional reauthorization of the Production Tax Credits. Similarly, the Investment
Tax Credit has been a crucial factor in the development of solar energy.
A key issue for the development of renewables will be the continuation of these incentives at the
federal level for a defined period of time, which allows these nascent industries to reach cost parity with
previously incentivized fossil and nuclear energy. Many of these programs are scheduled to expire between
2012 and 2016, or are subject to budget allocations, meaning their continuation may come into question.
As part of the federal stimulus package, the government allowed projects to choose an upfront grant
to help cover up to 30 percent of the cost of renewable energy projects rather than utilizing a 10-year tax
incentive. This section 1603 program has facilitated more than $30 billion in manufacturing and con-
struction since 2008. A further financial incentive provided for some public utility providers was the use
of CREBs, or Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, in which the federal government lowers the cost of debt
financing by providing a tax credit to bondholders in place of interest payments from the bond issuer.
Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bonds are another source of funding that can be used by state and local
governments to finance certain types of energy and infrastructure projects. The interest paid to holders
of these bonds is not included in gross income calculations for federal income tax purposes.
Through ARRA and another piece of legislation, $2.4 billion was allocated to develop renewable
energy projects throughout the United States. The federal government has been investing direcdy in
programs through federal loan guarantees. Thus, several of the large solar installations occurring in Cal-
ifornia are being backed by the approximately $ 10 billion available for such projects. The DOE's Loan
Program has committed more than $30 billion to support 42 renewable energy projects. These include
several solar projects in the border area in Arizona, including Sempra's Mesquite Solar 1 in Maricopa
County, Arizona; Abengoa Solar in Gila Bend, Arizona; and Agua Caliente in Dateland, Arizona.
67

-------
3 | Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Siting mid Transmission
The siting of the renewable energy projects themselves as well as the siting of transmission can
create an opportunity for development in the border region as well. Given the great potential for wind
and solar power generation in the U.S. states that border Mexico, the federal government has the oppor-
tunity to support installation of renewable energy projects at its facilities or on federal lands. Where suf-
ficient land exists and environmental considerations are addressed, larger renewable energy generation
projects could be installed on federal lands, particularly those located near transmission lines. These
projects could power any federal buildings at the site and potentially could feed power to the grid.
The federal policy to encourage the use of federal BLM lands to be used for siting large-scale
renewable energy projects has led to several being developed in the border areas in California and Ari-
zona. Importantly, this policy has included a programmatic Environmental Impact Study to tiy to pre-
determine the appropriate location of such large-scale renewable projects. The Department of Defense
(DoD) is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, accounting for about 90 percent of the
federal government's energy use, and in 2002 Congress set aside funding to assess the renewable energy
potential of U.S. military installations. The DoD formed a Renewable Energy Assessment Team to
explore solar, wind and geothennal energy resources at military installations. By mid-2009, the resulting
Energy Conservation Investment Program generated plans for more than a dozen projects in the Air
Force alone, with expected savings of more than $4 million per year.100 In 2011, an Energy Initiatives
Task Force for Large-scale Renewable Energy Projects was created with the explicit goal of getting
25 percent of the U.S. Army's power from renewable sources by 2025. Within the border region, for
example, Fort Bliss, in El Paso, Texas, has a goal of being energy independent by 2015 and of reducing
its water consumption and using some of El Paso's waste to produce electricity by 2018.lal
Efforts to identify and address transmission needs and challenges are occurring at many levels. The
Western Governors Association (WGA) began its own process to identify transmission needed to take
advantage of renewable resources. During the past several years, the WGA has undertaken an initiative
68 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
to determine where large-scale electrical generation from renewable sources might be possible in the
western states. The 2009 Western Renewable Energy Zones (WREZ)—Phase I Report, explains the meth-
odology used to identify sites capable of producing sufficient power for distribution on a regional basis
and established population density and transmission proximity criteria for the designation oflocations
as potential production sites.102
In June 2009, DOE announced die availability of stimulus funds to analyze transmission requirements
under a broad range of alternative energy futures and to develop long-term, interconnection-wide trans-
mission expansion plans. In December. DOE announced that a combined total of $26.5 million would be
given to the WGA and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council to complete this work. WGA and its
affiliate, the Western Interstate Energy Board, are concentrating their efforts in two major areas: continu-
ation of activities initiated under the WREZ project and the development of alternative energy futures that
can be modeled into transmission plans that will open up high-quality renewable resource areas.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western) is a federal agency under DOE that markets
and transmits wholesale hydroelectric power across 15 western states, including the four U.S. states
along the border with Mexico	California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Western's transmission
system carries electricity from 57 power plants operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission
(IBWC). Two-thirds of the power is sold to state agencies, cooperatives, and municipalities.
In 2009, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Congress expanded
Western's role to include the Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP). The program provides
authority to borrow up to $3.25 billion from the U.S. Treasury to develop transmission infrastructure
that delivers renewable energy across the West. Project beneficiaries will repay project costs. Projects
considered for funding under this authority will be evaluated against die following criteria. The project:
•	Facilitates delivery to market of power generated by renewable resources constructed or reason-
ably expected to be constructed
•	Is in the public interest
•	Will not adversely impact system reliability or operations, or odier statutory obligations
•	Is reasonably expected to generate enough transmission service revenue to repay the principal
investment; all operating costs, including overhead; and accrued interest
•	Has at least one terminus within Western's service territory
•	Provides economic development benefits, includingjob creation
•	Satisfies Western's Open Access Transmission Tariff'
•	Has technical merits and feasibility
69

-------
3 | Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
•	Has financial stability and capability of potential project partners
•	Has project readiness
•	Participates in region-wide or interconnection-wide planning groups or forums
The Sonoran-Mojave Renewable Transmission (SMRT) Project,103 which involves nine public
and private power firms or entities, is aimed at taking a regional look at the feasibility of: (1) providing
transmission capacity for renewable resources, (2) providing wholesale and retail markets in Arizona
and California access to those renewable resources, and (3) providing a more robust transmission grid
in the southwestern United States.
To date, insufficient attention has been paid to opportunities to co-locate facilities that take advan-
tage of different renewable resources in a single geographic area. Given the large land requirements of
both wind and solar projects, as well as the need for transmission, co-location of projects that use wind
(which generally blows more at night) and solar (which has its greatest impact in the middle of the day)
has the potential to lower costs and potential impacts. Future analysis of these and similar potentials
could help foster appropriate renewable energy development in the border region.
The Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and
the North American Development Bank (NADB)
When the NADB and its sister institution, the BECC, were created in 1993 as part of a side agree-
ment to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), their primary focus was on the creation
of environmental infrastructure on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border to help alleviate the scarcity of
proper systems to provide potable water, wastewater treatment, flood control, and solid waste manage-
ment. The focus of these binational agencies has expanded in recent years, during which the BECC and
NADB have been examining the potential to move into financing renewable energy projects.
The BECC and NADB are authorized to provide grants for project development and loans for
implementation of renewable and efficient energy infrastructure projects. The NADB recently provided
a contract for a loan credit of $77.4 million to Imperial Valley Solar Company for a solar PV utility plant
in Imperial County. It previously has helped finance a biofuels plant in El Paso, Texas. In addition, the
EPA and NADB financed the construction of a wastewater treatment plant for Nogales, Sonora. In an
example of positive synergy, EPA and Mexican federal and state commissions have agreed to finance the
construction of a solar array to supply 100 percent of electrical energy needs to the Nogales project.104
Moreover, NADB currently is involved in financing the development of a 54 MW wind farm project in
El Porvenir in the Municipality of Reynosa, Tamaulipas, that, when completed, would supply electricity
for Soriana, a supermarket chain store in Mexico.105 In addition to renewable energy, the NADB also is
authorized to provide grants for project development and loans for implementation of clean and effi-
cient energy infrastructure projects. In addition to these large initiatives, there are many opportunities to
promote small-scale renewable energy projects along the border.
7 0 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
Energy Demand and Electricity Growth
The success of existing renewable resources already installed along the U.S.-Mexico border and the
potential for much greater development in wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass depend on a number of
factors, including the growth in energy demand and the actual price of energy. With some exceptions,
such as the current recessionary period, electricity demand has risen throughout the Southwest, even as
new appliances and buildings become more efficient.
Within the part of Texas it serves, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERGOT) predicts that
both resource capacity and demand are expected to rise slightly, but then supplies may not be able to
meet all load demands, in part because of older plant retirement. Although projections of demand have
varied, the most recent predictions continue to indicate that demand will continue to grow and that by
2014 capacity will not meet demand, and still maintain the required reserve, which is 13.75 percent
under ERGOT protocols. This energy demand—measured in summer peak demand—is expected
to rise by 21 percent during the next 10 years or between 2 and 2.5 percent per year.27 Border cities
such as Brownsville and El Paso have among the highest population growth rates in the state, and their
energy needs are likewise expected to continue to grow.
A recent long-term study by ERGOT specifically highlights the growing demand for electricity in
the South Zone, which includes the Rio Grande Valley, and the lack of transmission as an impediment
to a reliable electricity system. Electric demand in the three-county Rio Grande Valley—Starr, Hidalgo,
and Cameron Counties	is expected to grow from 3,300 MWs of peak demand in 2015 to 3,900 MWs
of peak demand in 2020, or more than 3 percent per year.106
Similarly, according to a report on its Integrated Resource Planning process, El Paso Electric
(EPE), which serves three counties in Texas Culberson, Hudspeth, and El Paso, and much of Dona
Ana and Luna counties in New Mexico, is facing severe growth in demand in the coining years.107 The
required renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in New Mexico, along with the growth in demand, is
likely to require even more investments in renewable energy in southern New Mexico. EPE is reacting
by investing in utility-scale solar and paying customers who invest in roof-top solar and has established
some contracts with a wind provider in eastern New Mexico.
In the Western Interconnection, which oversees reserves and supply projections in the California,
New Mexico, and Arizona markets, as well as other states, there is a similar tale of an increasing demand,
and while supply currently is sufficient, the potential for shortages in upcoming years is real.
In sum, three specific areas—Southern California, the EPE service area, and the Lower Rio Grande
Valley are likely to need more energy resources, and the development of local border renewable resources
coupled with efficiency is one option to meet these needs. According to EPE's most recent 2011 Load and
Energy Forecast and Integrated Resource Reports, El Paso is expecting a deficiency in its energy supplies
by 2016 and a deficiency in its reserve by 2014 if additional resources are not added.107
71

-------
3 | Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Electricity Price and Cost of New Generation
The ability of developers and financiers to develop renewable energy projects is dependent on the
cost of those resources, the average price of electricity on the market, and any incentives that lower that
cost. Although solar costs have been reduced significandy during the past 10 years—in particular, the
installed cost of PV systems—in general the cost of renewables still is higher than depreciated aging
of conventional sources. Nonetheless, the costs of new fossil liiel and nuclear resources are already, in
some cases, as expensive or greater than renewable resources.
Several recent studies have indicated that continued declines in the price of renewables, and par-
ticularly solar, could favor the development of these resources in the future, although the price of natural
gas will be an important factor in whether these resources can compete in the market. A frequently used
concept to compare energy prices is the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), which includes both con-
struction costs, sometimes called the overnight cost, and operations and maintenance, including the cost
of lii el. Figure 11 shows a recent projection of LCOE by one firm that specializes in determining present
and liiti i re costs of different electricity sources and suggests that wind already is competitive in the United
States, and that solar is becoming competitive with the price of other resources.
Average prices in the Texas electricity market have
fallen in recent years, in part because of the discoveiy of
new supplies of natural gas throughout the United States,
lowering the cost of natural gas. This is true both in "com-
petitive" areas and in those areas served by monopolies.
Even though average retail prices have decreased
within ERCOT in the past 3 years, there has continued
to be wind development, in part because of continued
federal support for wind power. The reduced price of
natural gas, however, has affected the development of
wind power. The only solar development in Texas has
been through power purchase agreements (PPAs) with
municipal utilities and not through sales in the competi-
tive market. There is significant concern that the present
low price of electricity in Texas does not provide any
market incentive for new generation of any type, and only forced retirement of older plants is likely to spur
new development.
Average electricity prices in New Mexico and Arizona have been lower than those in Texas, meaning
apart from the state RPS, there is little to suggest that market prices would lead generators to invest in
renewable technology. In California, on the other hand, the higher average electricity prices have led many
investors to see renewables like solar and wind to be a competitive investment, particularly because there
is no fuel charge. The higher average cost of electricity in California in part has been responsible for the
greater development of renewable power, along with state policies designed to support its use.
72 I The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region
Figure 11. Levelized Cost of Energy ($s/Megawatt Hour)
Coal
Nuclear
Gas Combined Cycle
Gas Peaking
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Solar Thermal
Solar PV-Thln Film
Solar FV Ground-Mounted
Solor PV Rooftop
' I
' I
' I

' I
I
' I
_L
100 150
¦ Maximum
200	250
¦ Minimum

-------
Transition Toward Renewable Energy and Impact of
Environmental Regulation
A number of recent studies have pointed to the impact that current and upcoming environmental
regulations related to clean air, clean water, and management of waste will have on existing fossil liiel plants,
particularly older coal plants. These studies all come to the conclusion that some older coal plants likely
will retire, because the cost of adding the additional pollution controls is not economically viable. An
October 2010 study by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation found that under a moderate
scenario of EPA regulations, some 5,241 MWs in Texas, 5,285 MWs in California, and 2,407 MWs in
Arizona, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada could be subject to de-rating or retirement by 20 \ 8.198
Most recently, EPA announced its final "Transport" rule, which affects coal and natural gas plants in
all eastern states, as well as Texas, by forcing major reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The
July announcement was immediately met by a letter Irom ERCOT suggesting that Texas might face severe
electricity supply issues because several plants may have economic difficulty meeting the new rules.109
Studies suggest that coal plants and even older gas plants in the border states could be affected by
recent EPA rulemakings. A number of states have put in place transition plans to move away Irom coal
and toward natural gas and renewable technologies because they are less affected by these regulations.
Cooperation With the Mexican Market
During the past few years, there has been increasing interest in the role that U.S. electricity pro-
viders could play in the Mexican market, as well as the role that renewable and other energy sources in
Mexico could play in the U.S. market, particularly in Texas and southern California. Mexico's Federal
Electricity Commission (CFE) has been interested in increasing the amount of electricity it obtains from
renewable resources and has been interested, for example, in obtaining energy from the Texas market.
73

-------
3 | Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
A number ofhigh-profile studies have been conducted in recent years, and the U.S. and Mexican
governments recently have committed to promote regional renewable energy markets and ways to ease the
transmission of electricity between the two countries through the Cross-Border Electricity Task Force.
A recent U.S.-Mexico Cross-Border Electricity Stakeholders Forum in San Diego, California,
brought together more than 70 stakeholders to discuss issues pertinent to the fostering of increased
electricity trade between the two countries with an emphasis on renewable energy.110 Arizona State Uni-
versity's North American Center for Transborder Studies has held similar forums and recently released
a Transborder Renewable Energy Framing Paper and a Transborder Renewable Energy Exchange.
These point to the potential to create a transborder renewable energy market with the potential for jobs
and economic development.111
A recent study produced by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars suggests a
number of policy options, and the potential for the U.S. government and private industry to assist
in the development of Mexico's renewable energy projects, including those designed to serve the
U.S. market. Significant transmission constraints to moving power across the border exist, and there
San Diego's Participation in the Renewable Energy Economy
According to California's Public Utility Commission data. Northern California is by far the
largest solar market in the state. San Diego County, however, makes up less than 10 per
cent of the state's energy consumption, yet the city of San Diego surpasses all other cities,
including Los Angeles, in the number of PV systems installed.
Of the 49,335 California residential installations completed in July 2009,2,262 were installed
in the City of San Diego, which was equivalent to 19.4 MWs of installed capacity.The Cali-
fornia Solar Initiative (CSI) program started with a residential rebate of $2.50 per AC watt
installed in 2006, with a MW trigger mechanism to reduce said rebate to zero over a period
of no longer than 10 years. As of July 2010, the rebate was reduced to $0.25 per AC watt. In
addition, the San Diego region has 140 PV installer companies out of 231 renewable energy
vendors, according to the California Center for Sustainable Energy.114
In addition to residential PV projects, the San Diego region has an active and growing clean
technology sector. According to Clean Tech San Diego, a nonprofit organization that works
with clean technology companies to help them grow and expand in the region, San Diego
is home to more than 800 companies doing business in the renewable energy space.These
include research and development for biofuels, solar PV and thermal, energy efficiency,
and small to large wind energy. In addition, San Diego has a very active university. University
of California, San Diego (UCSD), which works with private companies on research and
development projects and on deploying and using renewable technologies to reduce their
energy costs.
The high activity in renewable energy in San Diego is a result of a successful CSI program
implementation, a strong state commitment to renewable energy through the 33 percent
RPS, and the emissions reduction efforts under AB32. Strong state policy followed by smart
local implementation has made San Diego a hub for renewable energy businesses.
74 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
are only a few interconnections. The most recently built interconnection was added in south Texas,
where Shatyland Utilities owns and operates a 150 MW high voltage direct current (DC) intercon-
nection with Mexico. Completed in October 2007, the DC interconnection provides reliability
benefits to both sides of the border.
Some wind and geothermal developments in Mexico already are serving the California markets. The
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has a contract with Cerro Prieto, a geothermal development
near Mexicali, to import some 50 MWs of power through a PPA.112 Most recently, Sempra, which owns
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), lias proposed a new cross-border transmission line to bring wind
from the Sierra Juarez Wind Project into the California market. The more recent wind energy project, La
Rumorosa in Baja California, is being developed in part to serve the Southern California market, although
significant transmission constraints remain to fully develop these resources.113 The development of
renewable energy in Mexico to provide power to the U.S. market has sparked concern over potential job
displacement and the loss of economic development opportunities in the United States.
Moving Forward
As the border region progresses toward a more robust renewable energy future, many questions
remain unanswered. Information needs include a more specific understanding of the economic oppor-
tunities for business development serving local markets in the region and a determination of the impact
of such business development, including both the required inputs and the costs of securing them, as
well as the outputs and the means of delivering them to consumers. In addition, the costs and benefits of
renewable energy to the ambient environment have not been assessed fully and adequately. Finally, it is
important to determine the likely cost-effectiveness of renewable energy enterprises and related invest-
ment on job creation, revenue forecasts, and increases in the local tax base.
75

-------
Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

-------
Recommendations
Chapter

-------
4 Recommendations
Renewable energy production is expected to increase shaiply in the United States, and the U.S.-
Mexico border region is likely to play a significant role in that production. This production can be posi-
tive for the nation, the border region, and the specific communities within which it is taking place. Yet,
the border region should not become merely an exporter of energy to other parts of the United States.
Existing and potential impacts of renewable energy development have led to conflicts with communities
and natural resource conservationists, and these will continue unabated unless more attention is paid to
the scale and form of this development and to pre-development analysis of natural resource and human
community conditions and needs. GNEB believes in an approach that identifies priority areas for
potential energy development and emphasizes coordination of local, state, tribal, and federal partners.
These recommendations are provided to help promote a careful approach to renewable energy develop-
ment along the U.S.-Mexico border.
I. Planning and Resource Protection
GNEB recommends that the federal government encourage the careful planning and execution of
projects and regional initiatives to ensure that any negative impacts are identified and avoided to the
greatest extent possible and that any remaining unavoidable impacts are minimized or mitigated.
A.	The federal government should encourage the implementation of energy efficiency projects
and initiatives as a partial or complete alternative prior to and in conjunction with the develop-
ment of new renewable energy projects.
B.	To facilitate sound renewable energy development, the federal government should:
•	Continue to build on initiatives such as EPA's Re-Powering America's Land, efforts aimed at
developing a comprehensive inventory of mechanically disturbed lands (including marginal
agricultural lands) in the region that may be candidates for renewable energy development;
•	Develop and make publicly available a list of siting and environmental screening criteria that
could be used to prioritize projects. These include proximity to existing transmission infra-
structure with sufficient current or approved capacity and to urban areas, use of disturbed or
marginal agricultural lands, avoidance of culturally significant tribal sites, and avoidance of
threatened and endangered species and of United States and state waters;
•	Establish regular consultation and collaboration with tribal officials to inform project and
programmatic level efforts and to address how any impact to tribal or cultural resources will
be avoided or mitigated, consistent with federal laws and executive orders; and
•	Identify incentives that can be used to motivate developers to site and design in an environmen-
tally responsible manner and reward examples of superior environmental stewardship.
78 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
C.	At its facilities and properties in and near die border region, the federal government should:
•	Produce an d purchase renewable energy. The Department of Defense (DoD) should give
priority to facilities in the border region as it shifts its emphasis to increased use of renewable
energy. Consistent with their missions, other federal agencies should follow the lead of the DoD
and increase the use of renewable energy in their ongoing operations;
•	Install solar generation as part of overall energy efficient design when constructing new
buildings or renovating old buildings in the border region or, at a minimum, construct build-
ings on which solar generation systems readily can be added in the future;
•	Improve federal interagency coordination to increase the border region's ability to take
advantage of renewable energy capabilities;
•	Continue to explore opportunities to coordinate with local, state, tribal, and federal partners
to accelerate evaluation and permitting of wind farms and solar arrays on federal lands adja-
cent to transmission lines; and
•	Continue to upgrade existing federal hydroelectric power plants:
-	Support installation of additional low-head power generation at federal hydroelectric
power plants, taking into consideration costs and benefits;
-	Support or expand projects to uprate existing federal hydro power plants to ensure the
efficient, reliable, and cost-effective generation of hydropower.
D.	All renewable energy planning and land use initiatives should:
•	Optimize the use of rooftops, greyfields,1 brownficlds, underutilized federal properties,2 and
disturbed sites, recognizing that some degraded areas may be restored to become key com-
ponents of the conservation landscape, and provide adequate incentives and assurances to
encourage developers and landowners to take full advantage of opportunities to site renew-
able energy facilities at these environmentally preferable locations;
•	Involve all stakeholders as early as possible in planning and maintain that involvement
throughout project design and development:
•	Identify multi-jurisdictional land management and conservation efforts, such as Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives and solar energy zones, and work to ensure compatibility of
objectives and actions and to take advantage of synergies to avoid duplication of efforts, opti-
mize learning, and increase efficiency;
•	Use best available data, including those generated by conservation, habitat connectivity,
1	Greyfields are underused or declining urban properties, such as shopping malls, which usually have parking lots.
2	An underutilized property is defined in Title 41 ol the Code of Federal Regulations as "an entire property or portion thereof, with or without
improvements, which is used only at irregular periods or intermittently by the accountable landholding agency for current program purposes
of that agency, or which is used for current program purposes that can be satisfied with only a portion ol the property"
79

-------
4 Recommendations
and wildlife movement research to identify project areas and transmission routes that do
not negatively impact rare or threatened species, rare or sensitive biological communities
and ecosystems, cultural resources and landscapes, or Protected Areas, such as designated
wilderness, National Park Service units, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife lleliiges. Ensure that gaps
in knowledge concerning the location of such resources are addressed prior to the start of
development activities;
•	Optimize the use and upgrading of the existing electric transmission network wherever
possible; and
•	Optimize benefits to border communities, including tribal areas, through efforts such as local
hiring,job training, new manufacturing investments, discounting power rates, and providing
solar panels, solar water heating systems, small wind turbines, and small biomass projects for
nearby residents at affordable prices to reduce their energy costs.
E. To promote a high level of environmental stewardship and good project planning, all proposed
renewable energy project developers should:
•	Conduct early, in-depth resource analyses (e.g., hydrological and biological) through a due
diligence process, project application submittal, or project Plan of Development, to deter-
mine a project's viability and to avoid potential project delays later in the process;
•	Ensure applicants, during the early stages of a project application process, fully consider
environmentally preferable alternatives, including alternate sizes and/or siting locations, and
including the use of private lands as well as neighboring disturbed sites;
•	Develop and incorporate specific design criteria for each renewable energy technology, including
requirements to maintain natural hydrologic flow, minimize soil disturbance,protect critical
habitat and wildlife movement corridors, and demonstrate maximum water use conservation;
•	Compare and contrast different technologies to determine "best fit" given different environ-
mental and site characteristics. Consider key parameters such as design flexibility (e.g., to
avoid drainages), water use, and megawatts per acre;
•	Ensure adequate lands are available for compensatory mitigation of affected areas and that
these will be protected into perpetuity;
•	Evaluate environmental and socioeconomic cumulative impacts of individual projects and
facilities in the vicinity of any proposed project. Mitigate impacts on threatened and endan-
gered species, hydrology, groundwater, and air quality; and
•	Incorporate systematic monitoring for each project to evaluate the effectiveness of key avoid-
ance and mitigation measures. Require biannual reporting of such evaluation to ensure a
constant feedback cycle.
80 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
II.	Education and Outreach
GNEB recommends that increased efforts be made by the federal government, in partnership with
state and local governments, councils of government, tribal officials, and chambers of commerce in
border communities, to communicate with and inform border populations about the development and
use of renewable energy resources in the border region.
A.	To improve communication with border communities and especially local and tribal, govern-
ments, businesses, homeowners, and lenders about renewable energy resources and opportuni-
ties, the federal government should:
•	Conduct outreach to border communities on renewable energy technologies and best
practices, costs and benefits, and the use of data and analyses in determining the potential
impacts of project development;
•	Provide guidance for shepherding proposals through the public process to ensure informed
decision-making about the use of public lands; and
•	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.
B.	To identify opportunities to reduce energy use and identify the most appropriate forms of re-
newable energy development, the federal government should:
•	Encourage and assist municipalities and businesses to conduct energy audits on an ongoing
basis. The Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) should continue to help
border cities to conduct such audits, to the extent that it does not detract from other impor-
tant core mission work;
•	Cooperate closely with U.S. border states to provide technical assistance for renewable
energy projects; and
•	Create a baseline ofrenewable energy resources in the border region to measure increases
and impacts over time.
III.	Financing
GNEB recommends that the federal government provide greater certainty regarding renewable energy
production and energy-saving technologies to help drive investment into these important sectors.
A. To reduce uncertainty, the federal government should:
•	Through the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program or another mechanism, estab-
lish national rules whereby localities can move forward on financing mechanisms to allow indi-
viduals to invest in renewable and water and energy savings technologies over the long term;
81

-------
4 Recommendations
•	Extend and expand tax incentives for energy efficiency and the production of renewable
energy, including wind, biomass, geothermal energy, landfill gas, and hydroelectricity for
several years, to provide more certainty to the industry;
•	Support performance-based financial incentives such as through conversion of the Business
Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) to a production tax credit or incentive to encourage the
actual production of renewable energy as opposed to simple investment, and the use of the
NPS-administered Historic Preservation Tax Credit program to provide incentives for sustain-
ability, including renewable energy, in historic preservation activities;
•	Continue to provide financing tools such as the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs)
for governmental entities and rural electric cooperatives and consider allocating a portion to
the North American Development Bank (NADB) for the border area;
•	Allow public/private partnerships and quasi-governmental initiatives to access Private
Activity Bonds.
B. The Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the NADB have emerged as
a "green" financing mechanism for the border area and have successfully certified several re-
newable energy/energy efficiency projects in the past few years. The BECC and NADB should
continue to make protection and preservation of the border environment their primary mission.
While continuing to fund and prioritize technical assistance for their core programs for water
supply, wastewater treatment and solid waste management, the BECC and NADB should:
•	Update their criteria to incorporate energy efficiency and renewable energy;
•	Continue to make financing available for renewable energy projects that meet their criteria,
and expand technical assistance for medium and small-sized renewable energy projects,
especially those that combine electric generation with energy savings and efficiency, so that
implementation funds can be leveraged;
•	Identify opportunities in energy efficiency during project development, which could include
water conservation, improved operations of the existing systems, and the use of renewable
energy sources;
•	Undertake a regional assessment of the opportunities to promote small-scale renewable projects
along the border, including the identification of projects, resources, and efforts that currently
exist at the federal, state and local levels to promote coordination and shared learning; and
•	Encourage project developers of renewable systems to utilize the BECC certification process as
a way to ensure that their projects meet important criteria regarding public participation, com-
munity development, environmental protection, and financial integrity.
82 I The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
IV. Coordination and Collaboration
GNEB recommends that the federal government develop better collaboration and coordination
among the various levels of government and different sectors. Key elements are:
•	Increase coordination among federal agencies with regard to permitting procedures for renew-
able energy projects.
•	Evaluate costs associated with licenses needed to feed back into the power grid for low-head
power generation on irrigation canals.
•	Carefully evaluate the environmental, social, and economic benefits, as well as challenges, related
to cross-border generation and transmission of electricity from renewable energy sources.

-------
Glossary of Acronyms
AD
anaerobic digester
LI] II
AEP
American Electric Power
MBC
ARRA
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
MIT
BECC
Border Environment Cooperation
MSW

Commission
MW
BLM
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
MWh
CFE
Mexico's Federal Electricity Commission
NADB
CO,
carbon dioxide
NAFTA
CONUEE
Mexico's National Commission for
NCCF

Energy Efficiency
NGG
CRE
Mexico's Energy Regulatory Commission
NCWRP
CREB
Clean Renewable Energy Bond
NEPA
CSI
California Solar Initiative
NOx
esp
concentrated solar power
NREL
DC
direct current
PACE
DoD
U.S. Department of Defense
PAH
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
PG&E
DOI
U.S. Department of the Interior
PPA
EBID
Elephant Butte Irrigation District
PTC
EGS
enhanced geothermal systems
PUCT
EO
Executive Order
PV
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
QECB
EPE
El Paso Electric
REAP
ERGOT
Electric Reliability Council of Texas
REC
FERG
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
RE PI
FHA
Federal Housing Authority
RES
GAO
U.S. Government Accountability Office
RFP
GHG
greenhouse gas
ROW
GLO
Texas General Land Office
RPS
GMI
Global Methane Initiative
SCE
GNEB
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
SDG&E
h2s
hydrogen sulfide
SEMARNAT
HHS
U.S. Department of Health and Human


Services
SENER
1BWC
International Boundary and Water
SMRT

Commission
so2
HE
Mexico's Institute for Electricity Research
TEP
IOU
investor-owned utility
TIP
ITC
investment tax credit
UCSD
LAERFTE
Mexico's Renewable Energy Development
USAID

and Financing for Energy Transition


Law
USDA
LCOE
Levelized Cost of Electricity
USGS
LEDS
Low-Emission Development Strategy
WGA
LEG
landfill gas
WREZ
Low Impact I lydropower institute
Metro Bio solids Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
municipal solid waste
megawatt
megawatt hour
North American Development Bank
North American Free Trade Agreement
North City Cogeneration Facility
non-condensable gas
North City Water Reclamation Plant
National Environmental Policy Act
nitrogen oxides
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Property Assessed Clean Energy
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Pacific Gas and Electric
power-purchase agreement
production tax credit
Public Utility Commission of Texas
photovoltaic
qualified energy conservation bond
Rural Energy for America Program
Renewable Energy Certificate
renewable energy production incentive
renewable electricity standard
request for proposals
ri ght -of-way
Renewable Portfolio Standards
Southern California Edison
San Diego Gas and Electric-
Mexican Secretariat of Environment and
Natural Resources
Mexico's Secretariat of Energy
Sonoran-Mojave Renewable Transmission
sulfur dioxide
Tucson Electric Power
Transmission Infrastructure Program
University of California. San Diego
U.S. Agency for International
Development
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Geological Survey
Western Governors' Association
Western Renewable Energy Zones
1 he Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

-------
Summary of Federal Incentives and Rules for
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Financial Incentives
Rules, Regulations & Policies
Corporate Depreciation
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
• Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS) + Bonus
• Energy Goals and Standards for Federal Government
Depreciation (2008-2012)


Green Power Purchasing
Corporate Exemption
• U.S. Federal Government - Green Power Purchasing Goal
• Residential Energy Conservation Subsidy Exclusion (Corporate)


Interconnection
Corporate Tax Credit
• Interconnection Standards for Small Generators
• Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC)

• Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC)

Federal Grant Program

• Tribal Energy Program Grant

• U.S. Department ofTreasury - Renewable Energy Grants

• USDA - High Energy Cost Grant Program

• USDA - Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Grants

Federal Loan Program

• Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs)

• Energy-Efficient Mortgages

• Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs)

• U.S. Department of Energy - Loan Guarantee Program

• USDA - Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Loan

Guarantees

Industry Recruitment/Support

• Qualifying Advanced Energy Manufacturing Investment Tax

Credit

Performance-Based Incentive

• Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI)

Personal Exemption

• Residential Energy Conservation Subsidy Exclusion (Personal)

Personal Tax Credit

• Residential Energy Efficiency Tax Credit

• Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Database of State Incentives for Renewable and Efficiency
85

-------
2011 Members of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board
Diane Austin, Ph.D.* Chair
Associate Research Anthropologist, Bureau of Applied
Research in Anthropology
University of Arizona
Cecilia E. Aguillon
Director, Market Development and Government Relations
KYOCERA Solan Inc.
Jose Angel
Assistant Executive Officer
Colorado River Basin Region Water Quality Control Board
Lvaristo Cruz
Director, Environmental Management Office
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
Gary Gallegos
Executive Director
San Diego Association of Governments
Veronica Garcia
Deputy Director, Waste Programs Division
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Gary Glllen
President
Gillen Pest Control
David Henkel, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Community and Regional Planning
Program
University of New Mexico
PattI Krebs
Executive Director
Industrial Environmental Association
Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.
Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Luis OSmedo
Executive Director
Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.
Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.
Conservation Director, Lone Star Chapter
Sierra Club
Thomas Ruiz, M.S.
Border/Environmental Justice Liaison
New Mexico Environment Department
Nathan P. Small
Conservation Director
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
Ann Marie A. Wolf
President
Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc
John Wood
Representative
Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority
Antonio Noe Zavaleta, Ph.D.
Director, Texas Center for Border and Transnational Studies
University of Texas at Brownsville
Federal Members
Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Robert M. Apodaca
Assistant Chief - West
Department of Commerce
David Kennedy
Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Energy
Gilbert C. Bindewald, III
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability
Department of Homeland Security
Dr. Teresa R. Pohlman, LEED AP
Director, Occupational Safety 8c Environmental Programs
Department of Housing 8c Urban Development
Michael J. Ortega, P.E.	Yolanda ("have/,
County Administrator	Deputy Assistant Secretary, Grant Programs
Cochise County Arizona
Department of Health and Human Services
Luis E. Ramirez Thomas, MSFS	Dan Reyna
President	General Manager, U.S. Section, Office of Global Health
Ramirez Advisors Inter-National. LLC	Affairs
86 I 1 he Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

-------
Department of Interior
Gregory E. Eckert, Ph.D.
Restoration Ecologist, National Park Service
Department of State
Rachel Poyntcr
U.S.-Mexico Border Coordinator. Office of Mexican Affairs
Departmen t of Transportation
Linda I Lawson
Director. Safety. Energy and the Environment
Environmental Protection Agency
Lawrence Starfield
Deputy Regional Administrator (Region 6)
International Boundary and Water Commission
Edward Drusina
Commissioner
Designated Federal Officer
Mark Joyce
Associate Director
U.S. EPA Office of Eederal Advisory Committee Management
and Outreach
Resource Specialists
Department of Energy
Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Industry Specialist
Department of State
Georgina Scarlata, Border Affairs Officer
Angela Palazzolo, Border Affairs Officer
Department of Transportation
Sylvia Grijalva. U.S.-Mexico Border Planning Coordinator,
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
William Luthans, Deputy Director of Multimedia Planning
and Permitting Division, Region 6
Carlos Rincon, El Paso Border Office Director, Region 6
Maria Sisneros, Environmental Engineer, Region 6
Dehra Telle/, El Paso Border Office, Region 6
Enrique Manzanilla, Communities and Ecosystems Division
Director, Region 9
Tomas Torres, U.S.-Mexico Border Program Coordinator,
Region 9
Jose Garcia, U.S.-Mexico Border Program Specialist,
Region 9
Alheli Banos, U.S.-Mexico Border Program Environmental
Health and Outreach Coordinator, Region 9
International Boundary and Water Commission
Sally Spener, Public Affairs Officer
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Laurie McGilvray, Division Chief, Estuarine Reserves
Division
Donna Wieting, Acting Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
Alison Krepp, Estuarine Reserves Division
87

-------
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the following individuals and organizations
for their assistance with this report.
Michelle Alexander, Program Assistant, National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, USGS
Michael Annistead, Chief Security Officer, U.S. Section, 1BWC
Valentin Arzola, Civil Engineer, U.S. Section, IBWC
Lisa Bicker. President and CEO. Clean TECH San Diego
Ofelia Bolanos, General Engineer (Planning), U.S. Section, SBWC
David P. Brown, Ph.D., Regional Climate Services Director, Southern Region, NO A A
Nicole Capretz. Director, Green Energy/Green Jobs Campaign, Environmental Health Coalition, California
Matt ("louse, Acting Chief, Energy Supply & industry Branch, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA
John Dake, Power System Dispatcher, Western Area Power Administration
Bryn Davis, New Mexico Operations Manager, Sapphire Energy
Frank D'Erchia, Science Advisor, USCS
Clay Doyle, Vice President of Transmission and Distribution, El Paso Electric Company
Gabriel Duran, General Engineer (Planning), U.S. Section, IBWC
Gary Esslinger, Treasurer-Manager, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, New Mexico
Todd Foley, Senior Vice President on Policy and Government Relations, American Council on Renewable Energy
Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Xavier Gonzalez, General Engineer, Western Area Power Administration
Lorri Gray-Lee, Regional Director for Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Pablo Gutierrez, Geothermal Program Technical Lead, California Energy Commission
Patricia Harrington, Ph.D., Energy Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Luis Hernandez, Civil Engineer, Operations and Management Division, U.S. Section, IBWC
Rebecca Higgins, Office of Safety, Energy and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation
Alberto Hinqjosa, Power Productions Manager, U.S. Section, SBWC]
Andy Home, Deputy County Executive Officer, Natural Resources Development, Imperial County
Edward Hoyt, Principal Clean Energy Specialist, Energy and Carbon Management, Nexant, Inc.
Lesley Hunter, Research Program Specialist, American Council on Renewable Energy
Eric Lantz, Energy Analyst, Market and Policy Impact Analysis Group, NREL
Rob Lawrence, Senior Policy Advisor, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6, EPA
Priscilla C. I Jicero, Executive Director, Southwest New Mexico Council of (Governments
Kathy MacDougall, Director of Human Resources, Independent Energy Solutions, Inc.
Andrew McAllister, Director of Policy and Strategy, California Center for Sustainable Energy
Kerry McCalman, Program Manager (Power Resources), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Lauren Oertel, Graduate Research Assistant, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
88 I 1 he Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

-------
Robin O'Malley. Policy and Partnership Coordinator, National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, IISGS
Diana Papoulias, Research Biologist, USGS
Thomas Plenys, Environmental Scientist, Environmental Review Office, Region 9, EPA
Bill Powers, Owner, Powers Engineering
Michael Pulskamp, Program Analyst, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Ross Pumfrey, Senior Program Coordinator, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Billy Roberts, Strategic Energy Analysis Center, NIIEL
Richard D. Rosen, Ph.D., Senior Advisor for Climate Research, NOAA
Paul Royalty, Manager of Energy Efficiency, El Paso Electric Company
Christian P. Sarason, Product Manager, 3TIER
Jo Anne Shelby, Plant Manager, Compass Manufacturing Services
Linda Smrkovsky, Executive Director, Denting Luna County Economic Development, Inc.
Max Spiker, Program Manager (Power Resources), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Sue Stendebach, Senior Advisor on International Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA
Karyn Stockdale, Vice President and Executive Director, New Mexico Audubon Society
Tom Stoffel, Manager, Resource Information and Forecasting Group, Electricity, Resources, and Building Systems Integration
Center, NREL
Pascal Storck, Ph.D, Chief Operating Officer, 3TIER
Soil Sussman, Alternative Fuels Program Coordinator, Renewable Energy Division, Texas General Land Office
Dub Taylor, Director, State Energy Conservation Office, Texas
Suzanne Tegen, Energy Analyst, Market and Policy Impact Analysis Group, NREL
Sharon Thomas, Mayor Pro Tem, Las Graces, New Mexico
Donna Tisdale, Secretary, Protect Our Communities Foundation
Jeremy Turner, Executive Director, New Mexico Renewable Energy Transmission Authority
Randall G. Updike, Regional Executive for the Rocky M ountain Area, USGS
Rick Van Schoik, Director, North American Center for Transborder Studies, Arizona State University
Andrea Watson, Project Leader, Integrative Applications Center, NREL
Steven White, C. E.M., Energy Program Manager, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Duncan Wood, Professor, Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico, Senior Advisor for the Renewable Energy Initiative,
Mexico Institute of die Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
James Yarbrough, Climate Advisor, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6, EPA
Amy Zimpfer, Associate Director, Management Lead for Energy and Climate Change, Region 9, EPA
89

-------
Endnotes
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sulfur Dioxide. Health. 2011, http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/health.htmL
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "U.S. Energy Facts Explained." 2011,
http://www. eia.gov/energyexplained/index. cfm?page=us__energy__home.
Kate Galbrailh, "California and Texas: Renewable Energy's Odd Couple/' New York Times, October 17,2009,
http://www.nytimes.eom/200.9/l 0/18/weekinre view/18galbraith.html.
The United States-Mexico Border Health Commission, "The United States-Mexico Border at a Glance,"
http://wwwnmsu.edU/~bec/BEC/Readings/l O.USMBHC-TheBorderAtAGlance.pdf.
Campo Kumeyaay Nation, "Muht Hei, Inc.," http://www.campo-nsn.gov/windfarm.html.
University of Arizona, "Tohono O'odham Nation Collaborate on Land-Use Plan," UANews, August 9,2011,
http://uancws.org/nodc/41050.
U.S. Department of Energy. Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, Tribal Energy Program,
http://apps Leere.energy.gov/ tribalenergy/.
U.S. Department of Energy, Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, Tribal Energy Program, "Projects on
Tribal Lands," http://apps! .eere.energy.gov/Lribalenergv/projects.cfm.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Solar Energy Explained, Your Guide to Understanding Energy,"
accessed October 2011, http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=solar_home.
Solar Energy Industries Association, "US Solar Market Insight, 2010 Year in Review" 2010, p. 4,
http://www.seia.org/galleries/pdfyS VI l-\ IR-2010-ES.pdf.
Damon Franz, Mona Dzvova, James Loewen, Amy Reardon, Neal Reardon and Melicia Charles, California Public Utilities
Commission, "California Solar Initiative, 2011 Annual Program Assessment - Legislative Report," June 2011,
http://www.cpuc.ca.gOv/NR/rdonlyres/9BClAC3A-020C-4E85-99F0-D6CF42D34B03/0/2011_APA_FINAL_PRINT.pdf
Jennifer Ramp and Holley Salmi. San Diego Gas and Electric, "SDG&E Signs Renewable Power Contract With
Tenaska Project That Will Use Locally Produced Solar Modules," March 10,2011,
http://www.tenaska.com/newsItem.aspxPid-94.
California Energy Commission, "Solar Thermal Projects under Review As of December 15,2010,"
www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.htmL
RrightSource, www.brightsourceenergy.com.
Duncan Wood, "Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies," May 2010, p. 38,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf.
Pew ("enter on Global Climate Change, "Renewable and Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards,"
h Up://www.pewclimate.org/whaL_s_being_done/in_Lhe_staLes/rps.cfn).
U.S. Energy Information Administration, "EI A Renewable Energy-Arizona Renewable Electricity Profile,"
http://www.cia.gov/cneaf/solar.rcncwablcs/pagc/statc_profiles/arizona.html.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, "Pending Arizona BLM Solar Projects,"
http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/solar/pend-solar.html.
90 I 1 he Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

-------
19	| David Wichner. ;;Solar Projects in AZ Get OK for Guarantees," Arizona Daily Star, October 9,2011.
http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article__d8d0fl.70-l 5e5-5a8d=af30=833b095779 7b. html?mode=story.
20	| U.S. Department of Energy, Abengoa Solar Inc. (Solaria). hLtps://lpo.energy.gov/?projects=abengoa-solar-inc.
21	| Kathy Pedrick, Bureau of Land Management, "Arizona Restoration Design Energy Project PowerPoint Presentation,
http://azgovernor.gov/renewable/documents/April2010/BI jM RestorationDesign ProjectPresentation.pdf.
22	| Shayle Kann, Solar Research, GTM Research, "The U.S. Utility PV Market: Demand, Players, Strategy and Project
Economics Through 2015," Figure: Estimated Capacity Required to Meet 2015 RPS Target by State,
http://w-w\v.grcentechmcdia.com/rescarch/rcport/us-utility-pv-market-20l5
23	| Allie Gardner, "G overnor Richardson Pleased with News of Solar Plant," Clean Energy Authority, December 17,2010,
www. cleanenergyauthority. com.
24	| El Paso Electric Company, "El Paso Electric Company's Application for 2010 Annual Procurement Plan," 2011,
http://www.epelectric.com/tx/business/2010-renewable-energy-procurement-plan.
25	| Laylan Copelin, "Green Energy is Dealt a Setback: Utility Commission Drops Plan for Renewable Energy Mandate'',
Austin American Statesman,July 6, 2011,
h ttp://www. statesman, com/husiness/utility-commission-drops-plan-for-renewahle-energy-mandate-1584351.
h tm 1? prin tArti cl e=y.
28 | Tracy I dell Hamilton, "CPS Energy Ratchets up Investment in Solar; Utility Notifies Its Bidders That Project Will Be Eight
Times Larger," Sam Antonio Express-News, July 7,2011,
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/CPS-Energy-ratchets-up-investment-in-solar-1455605.php.
27	| Electric Reliability Council of Texas, "ERCOT: the Texas Connection,'' Report on Capacity, Demand and Reserves in the
ERGOT Region, May 2011,
http://www.ercot.com/content/news/presentations/2011/ERCQTJ201 l__%20Capacity,__Demand_and%20Reserves_Report.pdf.
28	| Jerry Patterson, "Texas General Land Office Renewable Energy Program,'' PowerPoint Presentation, February 25,2011.
29	| U.S. Department of Energy, "Concentrating Solar Power Commercial Application Study: Reducing Water Consumption
of Concentrating Solar Power Electricity Generation," http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/csp_water_study.pdf.
30	| U.S. Energy Information Administration, Solar Photovoltaic Cell/Module Manufacturing Activities 2008,
Table 3.16, December 2009, ftp://fLp.eia.doe.gov/renewables/solarpv08.pdf.
31	| Nicole T. Carter and Richard J. Campbell, Congressional Research Service, "Water Issues of Concentrating Solar Power
(CSP) Electricity in the U.S. Southwest,''June 8,2009, 7-5700, R40631,
http://www.circleoflDlue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Solar-Water-Use-Issues-in-Southwest.pdf.
32	| Joan F. Kenny, Nancy L. Barber, Susan S. Hutson, Kristin S. Linsey, John K. Lovelace, and Molly A. Maupin, U.S.
Geological Survey, "Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005," October 27,2009,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/pdf/cl344.pdf.
33	| Vasilis Fthemakis and Hyung Chul Kim, "Land Use and Electricity Generation: A Life-Cycle Analysis," Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 13 (2009): 1465-1474.
91

-------
Endnotes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDA/ARS Southwest Watershed Research Center, "The Ecological and
Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-arid American Southwest,"
EPA/600/R-08/134, ARS/233046,116 pp., http://azriparian.org/docs/arc/publications/EphemeralStreamsReport.pdf.
Vasilis Fthenakis, Hyung Chul Kim and Erik Alsema, "Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles " Environmental Science
& Technology, Vol. 42 (2008): 2168-2174.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Concentrating Solar Power, Troughnet, http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/faqs.html.
Sarah Pizzo. "Note 8c Comment: When Saving the Environment Hurts the Environment: Balancing Solar Energy Devel-
opment with Land and Wildlife Conservation in a Warming Climate," Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law,V61.22 (2011): 123-157.
Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center, http://solareis.anl.gov/guide/environment/index.cfm.
The Wilderness Society, "Natural Dividends: Wildland Protection and the Changing Economy of the Rocky Mountain
West," 2007, www.wilderness.org.
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, "Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Indus try," January 14,2009,
http://www.greencollar.org/UserFiles/ads-media/12526955654aaa9e0d799db.pdf.
Electric Power Research Institute, "Potential Health and Environmental Impacts Associated with the Manufacture and
Use of Photovoltaic Cells," Report to the California Energy Commission, Palo Alto, CA, 2003,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/500-04-053.PDF.
Robert Glennon and Andrew M. Reeves, "Solar energy's cloudy futur e" Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy.
Vol. l,No. 1 (2010), http://www.ajelp.com/2010/GlennonFinal.pdf.
U.S. Department of Energy, "80-Meter Wind Maps and Resource Potential,"
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Federal Electricity Subsidies: Information on Research Funding, Tax Expendi-
tures, and Other Activities That Support Electricity Production," October 2007,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08102.pdf.
Global Wind Energy Council, "Global Cumulative Installed Wind Capacity,"
http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/images/Publications/5Global_cumulative_installed_wind_capacity_1996-2010.jpg.
California Energy Commission, "Total Electricity System Power,"
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html.
California Energy Commission, "Overview of Wind Energy in California," http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html.
Katherine Tweed,"Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Completes Phase One" greentechgrid, May 5,2010,
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/phase-one-completed-in-tehachapi-renewable-transmission-project/.
Ross Pumfrey, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, telephone conversation with Karin Wadsack of Northern
Arizona University, September 26,2011.
American Wind Energy Association, "Wind Energy Facts: New Mexico,"
http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/New-Mexico.pdf.
92 I The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
51	| Jeremy Lewis. New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, e-mail to Ross Pumfrey, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, September 26,2011.
52	| Western Governors'Association and U.S. Department of Energy, "Western Renewable Energy Zones-Phase 1
Report,"June 2009,p. 12. http://www.westgov.org/component/joomdoc/cat_view/95-reports/96-2009.
53	| Ross Pumfrey, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, telephone conversation with Michael McDermott, New
Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, September 26,2011.
54	| New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, "Annual Report 2010'', p. 34,
http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/main/documents/EMNRD-2010-Anniial-Report.pdf.
55	| RS&H Engineering, prepared for the Public Utility Commission of Texas, "CREZ Progress Report No. 3." April 2011, p. 1,
http://www.texascrezprojects.com/page29601131.aspx.
56	| National Renewable Energy Laboratory, "Utility-Scale Energy Technology Capacity Factors,''
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_cap_factor.html.
57	| Utility Wind Interest Group, "Wind Pow er Impacts on Electric-Power-System Operating Costs, Summary and
Perspective on Work Done to Date," November 2003, http://www.uwig.org/windpower2004.pdf.
58	| The National Academies, "Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects," 2007,
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/wind__energy__fmal.pdf.
59	| Somnath Baidya Roy and Justin J. Traiteur, "Impacts of Wind Farms on Surface Air Temperatures," Proceedings oj
the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 107, No. 42 (2010): 17899-17904,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2QlQ/lQ/12/100Q4931Q7.full.pdf.
60	| C. Wang and R.G. Prinn, "Potential Climatic Impacts and Reliability of Very Large-Scale Wind Farms,"
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 10 (2010): 2053-2061,
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/lQ/2Q53/2QlQ/acp-lQ-2Q53-2QI0.pdf.
61	| Vestas, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),
http://www.veslas.eom/en/about-vestas/sustaiiiabinty/wind-turbines-and-lhe-enviromnenL/life-eycle-assessmenl-%28lca%29.aspx.
62	| California Energy Commission, "Overview of Wind Energy in California," http://vvwvv.eriergy.ca.gov/wind/overview.htnil.
63	| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines",
May 8, 2003, http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/wind.pdf.
64	| George C. Ledec, Kennan W. Rapp, and Roberto G. Aiello, The World Bank, Latin America and Caribbean Region,
"Greening the Wind: Environmental and Social Considerations for Wind Power Development in Latin America and
Beyond", Energy Sector Management Assistance Program Report, June 2011,
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/07/26/000333038_201 10726003
613/Rcndcrcd/PDF/634800vl OWPOGrOOBOX361518BOOPUBLICO.pdf.
65	| "Wind Power in View: Wind Turbines, Aesthetics, & Public Acceptance," Martin J. Pasqualetti, Paul Gipe, and Robert
W Right er, eds., San Diego: Academic Press, 2002.
66	| American W ind Energy Association, "Air Space, Radar, and Wind Energy"
http://www.awea.org/leaniabout/publications/upload/04- 10_Radar_factsheet.pdf.

-------
Endnotes
67	| National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, "Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects,"
2007, pp. 157-160, http://www.nap. edu/catalog.php?record_id=l 1935.
68	| City of El Paso "'Carbon Footprint'" Report: Municipal Operations Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventory Report," December 2010,
http://www.elpasotexas.gov/sustainability/_documents/City%20of%20El%20Paso%20Carbon%20Footprint%20Report.pdf.
69	| U.S. Department of Agriculture, "An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion Systems in U.S.
Livestock Production Facilities," October 2007, p.l,
http://policy.nrcs.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=18476.wba.
70	| Ayhan Dermibas, "Importance of Biodiesel As Transportation Fuel," Energy Policy, Vol. 35 (2007): 4661-4670.
71	| R.E. Morris, A.K. Pollack, G.E. Mansell, C. Lindhjem, Y Jia, and G. Wilson, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
"Impact of Biodiesel Fuels on Air Quality and Human Health," May 2003, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/33793.
pdf.
72	| Biocom Institute, "Algae Grown in Pecos for Fuel," January 1,2011, http://biocominstitute.org/news/277/.
73	| Ayhan Demirbas and M. Fatih Demirbas, "Importance of algae oil as a source of biodiesel". Energy Conversion and
Management, Vol52(2011): 153-170.
74	| Sierra Club, "Sierra Club Conservation Policies: Biomass Guidance," 2000,
http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/biomass.aspx.
75	| Resource Dynamics Corporation, U.S. Department of Energy, "Combined Heat and Power Market Potential for Opportu-
nity Fuel," Distributed Energy Program Report, 2004, pp. 2-7,
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/industry/distributedenergy/pdfs/chp_opportunityfuels.pdf.
76	| Ingvar Fridleifsson, Ruggero Bertani, Ernst Huenges, John W. Lund, Ami Ragnarsson and Ladislaus Rybach, The Pos-
sible Role and Contribution of Geo thermal Energy to the Mitigation of Climate Change. In: O. Hohmeyer and T. Trittin
(Eds.), IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources, Proceedings, Luebeck, Germany,January 2008, pp. 59-80,
http://www.iea-gia.org/documents/FridleifssonetalIPCCGeothermalpaper2008FinalRybach20May08_000.pdf.
77	| Jerry Patterson, Texas General Land Office Renewable Energy Program Powerpoint Presentation, February 25,2011.
78	| Geothermal Energy Association, "U.S. Geothermal Power Production and Development Update," 2010,
http://www.geo-energy.org/pdf/reports/April_2010_US_Geothermal_Industry_Update_Final.pdf.
79	| Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "The Future of Geothermal Energy - Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems
(EGS) on the United States in the 21stCentury," http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/future_geo_energy.pdf.
80	| Alyssa Kagel, Diana Bates and Karl Gawell, Geothermal Energy Association, "A Guide to Geothermal Energy
and The Environment," 2007, http://www.geo-energy.org/reports/Environmental%20Guide.pdf.
81	| Bruce Squires, "Case Study in Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide, Mercury and Benzene from Geothermal Non-Condensable
Gas," Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 26 (2002).
82	| Gary J. Nagl. "15 Years of Successful H2S Emission Abatement," Merichem Chemicals 8c Refinery Services, LLC, 2009,
http://www.geothermal.org/09NovDec21.pdf.
94 | The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S. -Mexico Border Region

-------
83
84
85
86
87
88
8.9
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Kristin V Matthfasdottir, Department of Chemical Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology. Lund, Sweden, "Removal
of Hydrogen Sulfide from Non-Condensable Geothermal Gas at Nesjavellir Power Plant," 2006,
http://www.chemeng.lth.se/exjobb/E251 .pdf.
Northern Arizona University, Geothermal Sustainable Energy Solutions, "Geothermal Energy and the Environment,"
http://geothermal.nau.edu/about/enviroment.shtml.
John W. Lund, Karl Gawell, Tonya I Boyd, and Dan Jeimejohn, "The United States of America Country Update 2010,''
Proceedings, Thirty-Fifth Workshop on Ceothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2010/lund.pdf.
Western Area Power Administration, www.vvapa.gov/ahout/power.htm and "Roadmap for Renewable Energy, Western
Area Power Administration Annual Report 2010," http://www.wapa.gov/newsroom/pdf/annreplO.pdiy.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation records.
U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission records.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior, "Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facili-
ties," March 2011, http://www.usbr.gov/power/AssessmentReport/USBRHydroAssessmentFinalReportMarch2011 .pdf.
Bureau of Reclamation, "Hydropower Report Announces ("lean Energy Improvements," ETA, Spring 2011,
http://www. usbr.gov/eta/docs/spring2011 ETA.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Energy, Hydroelectrity,
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/hydro.html.
Richard J. Campbell, Congressional Research Service, "Small Hydro and Low-Head Hydro Power Technologies and
Prospects," March 1,2010,
http://nepinstitute.Org/get/C RS_Reports/CRS_Energy/Renewable_Fuels/Small_hydro_and_Low-head_hydro_power.pdf.
Low impact Hydropower Institute, "Low Impact Hydropower Certification Criteria, Summary of Coals and Standards,"
http://www.lowimpacthydro.org/assets/files/CriteriaSummaiyl l~08.pdf.
The Pew Charitable Trust," The ("lean Energy Economy: Repoweringjobs, Businesses and Investments through Invest-
ments Across America," 200,9,
http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Report/Clean%20Energy%20Economy.pdf.
The Brookings Institute, "Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment," 2011,
http://www.brookings.edU/~/raedia/Files/Programs/M.etro/clean_economy/07l3_clean_economy.pdf.
Union of Concerned Scientists, "Clean Power, Green Jobs," 2009,
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Clean-Power-Green-Jobs-25-RES.pdf.
Blue-Green Alliance, "How to Revitalize America's Middle Class with the Green Energy Economy,"
http://www;bluegreenalliance.org/admin/publications/files/OQ 12.4.pdf.
John A. I .aitrier, American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy, "Energy Efficiency Investments as an Economic
Productivity Strategy for Texas," March 2011, http://www.aceee.org/research-reporL/el 12.
S. Tcgen, M. Goldberg and M. Milligan. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, "User-Friendly Tool to Calculate Eco-
nomic Impacts from Coal, Natural Gas, and Wind: The Expanded Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model (JED I
II)," Conference Paper NREL/CP-500-40085, June 2006, http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/40085.pdf.

-------
Endnotes
100	| U.S. Department of Defense, "Investing in Energy Conservation Expected to Save Millions,"
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123161632.
101	| El Paso Times Editorial Board, "Energy Independence: Fort Bliss Leads the Way," El Paso Times, October 28,2011,
http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_19208885.
102	| Western Governors' Association, "Western Renewable Energy Zone Phase I Report," June 2009,
http://www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/WREZ09.pdf.
103	| SMRT, Sonoran-Mojave Renewable Transmission Project Preliminary Feasibility Study November 2010,
http://ww2.wapa.gov/sites/western/recovery/Documents/SMRTProjectFinalReportl2-7.pdf.
104	| BECC, Border Environment Flash, "Significant Environmental Infrastructure Work Done by BECC in Nogales,"
http: II www. cocef. org/news/archivo/2011/08/EN/125/Significant_Environmental_Infrastructure_Work_D one_by_
BECC_in_Nogales.html.
105	| NADB, "NADB Projects To Be Featured at U.S.-Mexico Border Energy Forum XVIII in El Paso, Texas," October 26,
2011, Press Release, http://www.nadb.org/pdfs/pastnadbnews/volume_l5/35.pdf.
106	| Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Long-Term Study Task Force, "Long-Term Transmission Analysis 2010-2030,"
Interim Report, Vol. l,June 2011.
http://www.ercot.com/content/committees/other/lts/keydocs/201 l/LONG_TERM_STUDY	INTERIM_
REPORT_Volume_l .pdf.
107	| El Paso Electric Company Integrated Resource Planning Public Advisory Group, "Resource Planning Process," presen-
tation, June 15,2011, http://www.epelectric.com/files/html/IRP_201 l/Resource_Planning_Presentation_6-15-1 l.pdf.
108	| North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), "2010 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment: Resource
Adequacy Impacts of Potential U.S. Environmental Regulations," October 2010, p. 24.
http://www.nerc.com/files/EPA_Scenario_Final.pdf.
109	| H.B. "Trip" Doggett, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, CEO Statement Regarding EPA Cross-State Rule, July 19,
2011, http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/354.
110	| Institute of the Americas, "Summary Report: U.S.-Mexico Cross-Border Electricity Stakeholder Forum," 2011,
http: //azmc.org/amc_downloads/amcdownload 1361 .pdf.
111	| D. Rick Van Schoik. Arizona State University, North American Center for Transborder Studies, "Transborder Renew-
able Energy Framing Paper," 2011,
http://nacts.asu.edu/sites/default/files/NACTS%20Renewable%20Energy%20WORKshop%20Framing%20Paper.pdf.
112	| Duncan Wood, Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, "Environment, Development and
Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies," May 2010, page 22,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf.
113	| Duncan Wood, Mexico Institute, Woo drow Wilson International Center for Scholars, "Environment, Development and
Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies," May 2010, page 33,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf.
114	| Environment California, "California's Solar Cities Leading the Way to a Clean Energy Future," 2009,
http://sandiegohealth.org/environment/californiasolarcities.pdf.
The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

-------
Photo Credits
BrightSource, Page 16
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
Editor: MarySpock
Art Director: Eric Doty
Senior Creative Artist: Charles Wallace

-------

-------