SDI 2013 MEXICO GRIDS AFF

feetinsectΗλεκτρονική - Συσκευές

21 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

476 εμφανίσεις

SDI 2013


MEXICO GRIDS AFF

*** SOLVENCY

Plan

The United States federal government should increase investment aimed to develop cross
-
border and
interconnected grid, transmission, and distribution infrastructure in Mexico.


Solvency


1AC

Solvency

Absent
US expertise about grid construction, Mexico renewable energy and trading fails

Esenaro 6
-
11

(Albert,

Federally Licensed Lawyer in Mexico,
Legal Specialist on Telecom, Energy, International
Business, and IT in Mexican Law,

“Mexico Energy Grid Construction
Provides Opportunity for Foreign
Companies,” JD Supra Law News, 2013, http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/mexico
-
energy
-
grid
-
construction
-
provides
-
42394/)


While Mexico has long been an energy producer thanks to

its plentiful
oil

reserves,
foreign
investment

in

its

energy

market

has

been

rather

difficult

due to the fact that the oil industry was nationalized and is now under the thumb
of PEMEX
, the Mexican oil monopoly. At first glance,
this might mean that when

private
investors

from abroad
see

that there’s
g
oing to be some energy
grid construction in Mexico
,
they might not get too excited
.

However, there’s a very good reason why
foreign companies should get excited about
this planned
energy

grid

construction

that’s happening in the country south of the
United

States:

this energy grid will be powered by solar resources, not fossil fuels
.

The solar market in Mexico is
located on cheap land that’s right in the middle of the southern sun
-
belt in the desert states of Chihuahua and
Sonora
; furthermore, the area receives so much sun that some
experts are saying that a small patch of land

(25 square kilometers)
will provide sufficient solar power to supply all of Mexico’s electricity needs
.

Because legislation has been passed in
Mexico’s gov
ernment to reduce carbon emissions by 30% in the next seven years, companies have been switching over to renewable energy
resources.

Natural gas in Mexico is in limited supply, so there’s been a big push to develop solar power.

But what does this mean for
foreign
companies?

Well, first of all,
Mexico is planning on making the grid far bigger than it needs to be to meet present demand
so that surplus energy produced can be exported to the United States
.

The U.S. has been described as a “guzzler of
electricit
y”
, and during U.S. president Obama’s recent visit to Mexico City, the American head of state spoke of energy partnerships betw
een
the two neighbors.

This means that
companies that specialize in cross
-
border transport infrastructure will have a lucrative
m
arket exporting energy from

the solar fields in
Mexico to the United States
.

Furthermore, PEMEX doesn’t control renewables,
and there is only one utility to deal with, the CFE (Comisión Federal de Electricidad).

This means that independent companies that
p
roduce solar power can set up shop in Mexico and start contributing towards the grid
.

This might sound easy, but
already there have been several investors who have been unsuccessful

with their solar companies in Mexico:

although the land
is cheap and sun i
s plentiful,
the country doesn’t have
the

solar

infrastructure

or

know
-
how

just

yet

and solar
producers are more or less
on

their

own

to

learn

the

ropes
.

Some
, unfortunately, have
gone in with a
profound

lack

of

knowledge

and have used
obsolete

solar

panel

technology
.

“You’ve got to bring your own support when you come to this
country,
there

is

nobody

here

that

knows

solar,

there

is

nobody

here

that

knows

wind
,” said John Skibinski, CEO of
Global Renewables Group, which has a subsidiary in Mexico.”

“It’s ne
w to the country and
it requires training, development as well as
pilot installations
. We’ve done that for the utilities, the banks and the government we’ve shown with pilot installations how we can reduce
GHG emissions. They are highly interested in new t
echnology


they don’t want solar panels that are 15 years old, 100W panels not going to cut
it and they are already looking at 115W.”


I have seen 50 independent power producers apply for power plant generation


two of them got approved
,” he said.


The o
ther 48 were on the wrong place on the grid
.
You’ve got to do your
homework when you want to put in an installation into Mexico
.
A utility will deny your application if it doesn’t fit
their needs
, they are very good at what they do in terms of their grid.”

As seen in the remarks above,
companies that know what
they’re doing will have plenty of opportunities
:

foreign specialists in solar power can build power plants, and they
can also train, consult, and share knowledge with local Mexican firms
.

New transmis
sion infrastructure is key to energy trading and renewable development

Wood et al 12

(Duncan, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
Samantha Medecigo, Department of International Affairs


Instituto Tecno
lógico Autónomo de México, Sergio
Romero
-
Hernandez, Haas School of Business


UC Berkeley, “Wind Energy Potential in Mexico’s Northern Border
States,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Mexico Institute), May,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sit
es/default/files/Border_Wind_Energy_Wood.pdf)


Transmission: the Crucial Element

Around the world,
the development of the wind energy sector has depended on the availability and close proximity of
transmission lines
. Unlike conventional sources of generating electricity, which can be located close to population centers and existing
transmission lines,
wind

(as well as
solar and geothermal
) plants
must have transmission lines built to allow them to get
their electrons

to market
. Surveys of
wind producers

around the world
have shown that development is

hindered more by
transmission challenge
s
than

any

other

single

factor
.
In Mexico this

problem is made more severe
by the fact that the
CFE has a constitutional monopoly o
ver transmission and therefore there are no other outlets for wind Independent Power Producers (IPPs) if
CFE refuses to provide capacity. Moreover, CFE is prohibited from using public funds to build new transmission capacity if th
e energy
generators cannot

prove that they are willing and ready to pay for the electrictity transmission service. On the other hand,
many electricity
generators who want to build plants cannot get the financing
they need unless they can prove that transmission capacity will exist
by the time they come online. In the case of Oaxaca,
this problem has

been resolved through close cooperation
between IPPs, the
CFE and the CRE, which have developed an effective method of estimating future transmission demand through the use of open se
aso
ns. In an
open season system, a period of time is determined (often one year) during which electricity companies can indicate their int
ention to build new
plants and their need for transmission capacity. At the end of this time, the transmission authority
(in this case the CFE) uses the results to justify
its investment in constructing new lines. For the state of Baja California,
this

problem is made
even

more

acute

because there is
no interconnection between the state and the national grid, making export o
f electricity to private consumers in other
states impossible at the present time
.
Mexico’s national grid is in fact three

grids
, with Baja California Norte and Baja
California Sur each having their own independent system.
A further level of difficulty is
found with cross
-
border transmission
. A
quick survey of the above map shows that
there are

only a limited number of interconnections across the border
. Furthermore,
only 5

of these connections
are bi
-
directional
. In Baja California, the Miguel
-
Tijuana and
the Imperial Valley
-
Rosarita interconnections
(both 230kV AC) have a combined capacity of 800 MW, in Coahuila the Eagle PassPiedras Negras interconnection (138kV HVDC) has

a
capacity of only 38 MW, and in Tamaulipas the Laredo
-
Nuevo Laredo (138kV VFT) and
McAllen
-
Reynosa (138kV HVDC) interconnections
have a combined capacity of 250 MW.
These interconnections are maxed

out and therefore cannot be considered for future
cross
-
border electricity trade
. In addition to these lines operated by CFE, there are two p
rivately owned transmission lines of 310 MW
(owned by Intergen) and 1200 MW (owned by Sempra). The problem of cross
-
border transmission has been identified in a number of previous
reports on wind and renewable energy in Mexico,5 and in 2010 the two countri
es set up a task
-
force to address the issue.6 Although this group
has met a number of times, there appears to be little momentum behind the initiative, with each side blaming the other for la
ck of progress.


Solvency


Expertise key

US expertise is key to
smarts grids


solves renewable development

Bennett 11

(Nicholas, “Smart Grid Technology


Mexico’s Upcoming Market Boon,” University of Arizona,
http://next.eller.arizona.edu/courses/BusinessInternationalEnvironments/Fall2011/student_papers/finalnicholasbenne
tt.pdf
)


Smart grids are a relatively new innovation in

the field of
electrical engineering

and design;
their prima
ry function is to

both
improve and expedite the flow of electricity between multiple networks

and power generators. This work is facilitated by
installing smart meters, which monitor and relay electrical information to their respective systems.
The primary

aim of a smart grid is to
make energy more reliable
,
lower aggregate energy consumption
,
and actively correlate with renewable energy
resources such as solar and wind energy
. Smart grids are revolutionizing the way we use and receive power, and the rising smart grid
market presents a historic opportunity for economic growth. Mexico’s projections in the smart grid market are strikingly posi
tive, with the market
projected to re
ach $8.3 billion by 2020. Like many Latin American countries,
Mexico’s problems with power outages
,
electrical
theft
,
and poor energy infrastructure present an advantageous climate for change
. Therefore,
Mexico is poised to make
staggering improvements wit
hin the coming decade by reducing these issues

while boosting their economy. According to the
Northeast Group, LLC, “Mexico’s smart meter market alone will contribute $5.1 billion in the overall smart grid market value
by 2020.” With the
current GDP of Mex
ico at approximately $874.81 billion, the field of smart grids could increase the Mexican GDP by approximately 1%, a
considerable addition for a single market in just one decade.
Many project the market to continue climbing, especially
with

the

aid

of

U.S.

expertise

and vendors seeking new markets
. The U.S.
-
Mexico Bilateral on Clean Energy and Climate Change, enacted
by President Obama in April, 2009, brings mutually beneficial smart grid technology to both the United States and Mexico thro
ugh joint
coopera
tion and 3 information exchange.
Smart grid technology provides an unprecedented opportunity for Mexico to
improve both functionally and economically
.

Mexico’s inexperienced with renewable


US experience is key to
effectiveness

Bennett 11

(Nicholas, Regio
nal Sales Representative


Terryberry Company, “Smart Grid Technology


Mexico’s
Upcoming Market Boon,” University of Arizona,
http://next.eller.arizona.edu/courses/BusinessInternationalEnvironments/Fall2011/student_papers/finalnicholasbenne
tt.pdf
)


Exciting as well are the global connections Mexico will create and strengthen by investing in a smart grid system
.
The relati
vely new process of installing smart grid technology
makes

the

exchange

of

information

vital

to

success
. Already, Mexico and the United States have enacted policies to work with each other in the smart grid field. The U.S.
-
Mexico
Bilateral on Clean Energy
and Climate Change, enacted by President Obama and President Calderon in April, 2009, brings mutually beneficial
smart grid technology to both the United States and Mexico through joint cooperation and information exchange.7 Their agreeme
nt also focused
up
on providing opportunities for joint work on renewable energy, exploring cooperation on greenhouse gas inventories and reduct
ion strategies,
and promoting low carbon energy technology development.7 These broad initiatives have since enacted several coopera
tive efforts, discussed in
the second annual U.S.
-
Mexico Bilateral on Clean Energy and Climate Change meeting on May 18, 2011. One of the main focal points of the
second meeting was the overview of electricity systems and plans to implement Smart Grid tech
nologies. These meetings demonstrate the
growing partnerships between Mexico and the U.S
. They also serve
to establish an initiative which will not only bring
jobs and revenue to each country, but also

cleaner,
more

effective

and reliable
energy sources
.


Solvency


Fed Key

Federal action is key to
uniform implementation

of grid integration

Ibarra
-
Yunez 12

(Dr. Alejandro, Professor of Economics and Public Policy


Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey (Mexico), “Economic and Regulatory
Challenges and Opportunities for US
-
Mexico
Electricity Trade and Cooperation,” Policy Research Project Report 174, May,
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/17560/prp_174
-
econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity
-
2012.pdf?sequence=5
)


IEG

(2007)
notes the
importance

of

national

institutions

to
lead

implementation

of integration initiatives

(with w
ell
understood and defined roles)
at the country level
, while regional institutions should be used for coordination and support services, such as
data collection and dispute resolution. It notes that
proper planning and agreement between regulators at the
early stages of
development is of
critical

importance

to the creation of institutional and market mechanisms to support integration
.
These include a harmonized regulatory environment, grid codes, and market rules; competitive access to both
wholesale and r
etail markets; and legal agreements on issues such as power purchase agreements (PPAs), liability
for supply failure, environmental responsibility, and physical security and operation of the line
. This recommendation,
however, runs counter to the state of
relative autonomy with which US regional transmission organizations and public utility commissions
operate. Historically, the US power sector has evolved to maintain distinct and exclusive regional entities for power sharing

a system that has
developed reg
ionally so as to minimize its vulnerability to shocks and disruptions such as cascading power outages.

Solvency


Synchronous Connectivity

Synchronizing grids makes energy a top priority


plan’s key

Ibarra
-
Yunez 12

(Dr. Alejandro, Professor of Economics and Public Policy


Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey (Mexico), “Economic and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities for US
-
Mexico
Electricity Trade and Cooperation,” Policy Research Project
Report 174, May,
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/17560/prp_174
-
econ_reg_challenges_US
_Mex_electricity
-
2012.pdf?sequence=5
)


The US
-
Mexico Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change, established by Presidents Felipe
Calderon and

Barack
Obama
in 2009
, also
recognizes this priority and “aims to increase electricity grid reliabilit
y and resiliency in both countries
,
including of cross
-
border interconnections
” (US Department of State 2011). Beyond simply increasing supply for an importing country
while providing a “means of income” for the exporting country,
interconnections have bee
n found to reduce prices and increase
reliability

(Sarmiento 2010).
The

B
order
G
overnors
C
onference
has pointed to “
untapped

potential

for increasing energy
interconnections among border communities” and has identified “cross
-
border energy exchanges” as a
priority

(BGC 2009). Two key
factors limiting the amount of trade in electricity between the United States and Mexico are
reliability concerns with
synchronous

connectivity

and legal provisions 83 governing the imports and exports of electricity across
the

border.
Current interconnections

between the United States and Mexico
offer relatively small capacities and are mostly

used
for power exchanges in the event of an emergency. With the exception of one interconnection between Eagle Pass and Piedras Ne
gras,
all ties
along the Texas
-
Mexico border are asynchronous HVDC interconnections used for emergency support only. Pineau and Froschauer (2004) assess
the level of infrastructure integration and determine the current transmission capacity for cross
-
border elec
tricity export, as measured by total
transmission capability over total production capacity, to be 17.13, 2.51, and 2.42 percent for Canada, the United States, an
d Mexico respectively.
The largest share of US
-
Mexico trade occurs between Baja California and

California where two 230 kV ties provide a total capacity of 800 MW.
Numerous laws and network operation reliability standards in Mexico and the United States require local demand to be met firs
t before
exportation is authorized. This means that excess ge
nerating capacity beyond what is required to meet the internal load requirements of each
system must be available for exports to occur. Exports from the US are regulated by Section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act,
which requires
authorization for the trade

from the Department of Energy and that the export action must not impair the operational reliability of the US power
system (North American Energy Working Group, 2002). Similarly, imports and exports from Mexico require authorization from CFE

or the
Energ
y Ministry with similar restrictions plus additional requirements. For imports, electricity must only be used for self
-
supply by the party
seeking a permit, and in the case of exports, the electricity exported must be the result of cogeneration, independen
t power production, or small
-
scale production. Mexico’s National Interconnected System (SIN) is expected to maintain a reserve margin well above 27% throu
gh 2015, to
move to 13% after 2015, giving it ample export potential (Figure 4.2). ERCOT (the Texas in
terconnection) on the other hand is forecasted to
maintain a reserve margin at or below its target level of 13.75%, suggesting a strong incentive for additional trade (ERCOT 2
010).



Solvency


Expertise/Coordination

US expertise and coordination’s key

SG
I 12

(Smart Grid Insights, “Smart Grid Developments in Mexico: Aimed At Raising International
Competitiveness,” 5
-
31,
http://smartgridresearch.org/news/smart
-
grid
-
developments
-
in
-
mexico
-
aimed
-
at
-
raising
-
international
-
competitiveness/#sthash.R4sAtYh1.dpuf
)


The goal of smart grid developments in Mexico is comprehensive
. It includes increase in grid reli
ability which is a requirement
for international competitiveness. It also includes a reduction in energy power loss. Energy power loss can be costly to the
Mexican economy.
A
promising future development is grid integration of renewable energy sources thro
ughout the country
. All these things
including customer service are creating an immediate demand for the deployment of smart grid technology.
The smart grid developments
in Mexico are at the
initial

stage
; however, financial projections place the cost of development at several million dollars over the next 10
years ending in 2022.
In connection with these developments
,
the government is identifying and evaluating the
technologies
,
systems and projects that

must be done first
.
This

is

an

opportunity

for

U.S.

smart

grid

and

technology

companies

to

start

being

involved

and

offer

their

expertise
. This present situation is an opportunity for U.S.
smart grid and technology companies to export their products and s
ervices. By getting in touch with the Mexican government through CFE, the
state
-
owned utility company, U.S. companies can get updates on projects, future trends and the accurate and updated state of the po
wer industry.
Aside from getting updates,
U.S. smar
t grid and technology companies can also present their relevant technologies and
services to representatives of the state utility company
.
This scenario is also ideal to collaborate with government
representatives
, private
stakeholders as well as U.S. gove
rnment organizations
. The smart grid developments in Mexico show
such promise of future international competitiveness.

Solvency


Clarity and Commitment Key

Strong commitment key. Absent that, negative perceptions destroy relations

BGC 9

(Border Governors
Conference, “Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive and Sustainable Development of
the U.S.
-
Mexico Transborder Region,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/strategic
-
guidelines
-
for
-
the
-
comp
etitive
-
and
-
sustainable
-
development
-
the
-
us
-
mexico)


To successfully

fulfill the
develop
ment potential of
the region
, while at the same time addressing existing social and institutional
challenges,
it is first necessary to reach a widely

shared vision for the

future of the region and a
clear

understanding

of what actions must be

made to achieve that vision
.
Without a vision and a strategy for making this happen
,
the

positive aspects of the border region, such as its economic comparative advantages
, shared heri
tage, and diversity

can be
overwhelmed

by

the

negative

aspects

of dissimilar

institutions and uneven development
. Even worse,
without a
strong commitment to longterm policies
,
disparities will

simply deepen and become sources of continuous problems

and ten
sions
.
Acknowledging the importance of proactive thinking and long
-
term action
, the Border Governors Conference
(BGC) commissioned El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (El Colef) and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars to ide
ntify the
elements
for developing a vision of the transborder region for the year 2030 based on the principles of regional competitiveness, soci
al and
environmental sustainability, and security. The task also included the identification of the tools needed to establish an act
ionable policy
framework based on the premises of cross
-
border collaboration and mutual benefit. The Strategic Guidelines for a Competitive and Sustainable
U.S.
-
Mexico Transborder Region is the result of this mission. The Strategic Guidelines build on a str
ong history of cross
-
border collaboration
among the border states that began in 1981 with the joint declarations of the Border Governors Conference and that culminated

with the Strategic
Regional Vision of 2007. These documents laid the groundwork for thes
e Strategic Guidelines and for their approach to longterm development
and policy implementation. However, these Strategic Guidelines are not an end in themselves. They
represent a tool centered on the
development of partnerships built around strategic

area
s and based on realistic regional policies that deal effectively
with the realities of the U.S.
-
Mexico transborder

region.

These partnerships require

the engagement of all the
region’s stakeholders
,
in accordance with the cross
-
cutting and

multi
-
scale natu
re of the issues faced by the region
.
The core objective of the Strategic Guidelines, therefore, is to provide a general framework and specific policy actions in ac
cordance with
mutually agreed upon regional development goals. The scope of the Strategic Gui
delines includes the four spatial scales commented above: the
totality of the 10
-
state transborder region, the cross
-
border metropolitan corridors, the planning area defined by the NADB and BECC, and the
strip formed by the municipalities adjacent to the in
ternational border.

Solvency


Investment Key

US Assistance Key to Mexico RE efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Projects


BECC

(Border Environment Corporation Commission), i
ntegrating Environmental Solutions for the U.S.
-

Mexico
Border
,
November 2011
,
http://www.cocef.org/Eng/VLibrary/Publications/SpecialReports/BECC%20WP%20%20Nov%202011%20index.pd
f


This white paper describes the c
urrent deficit in the U.S.
-
Mexico border region in terms of renewable energy, energy
efficiency, and transportation
projects focused on the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG)
. In the presentation, the
argument is made that the primary reason this project deficit exists
is due to: 1. limited resources for project
development, 2. lack of capacity building, at the most fu
ndamental level, in the public and publicprivate sectors, and
3. lack of technical assistance program to address this deficit
.

Specifically targeting a technical assistance program
for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and transportation projects to ach
ieve GHG reductions would be invaluable
in promoting an environment for effective climate action in border communities. A proposed technical assistance
program could help public sector entities build the bases on which they can develop both mitigation and
adaptation
greenhouse gas projects.


Mitigation projects are the priority of the program since they are intended to directly reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.

Adaptation projects are important as well, and it is recommended they be developed as “capacity
b
uilding” initiatives to assist municipalities better manage the current realities of climate change.
Ultimately, these
project types do need technical assistance funds, and the funds will need a highly capacitated and experienced
program manager
.



US
-
MEX
ICO Border Lacks Environmental Infrastructure, investment Key


BECC

(Border Environment Corporation Commission), i
ntegrating Environmental Solutions for the U.S.
-

Mexico
Border
,
November 2011
,
http://www.cocef.org/Eng/VLibrary/Publications/SpecialReports/
BECC%20WP%20%20Nov%202011%20index.pd
f


Although the
region is economically distressed, the northern Mexico border zone is considered more developed than
most parts of Mexico, and the southern U.S. border zone is one of the poorest regions in the country.
T
he economic
drivers to migrate north are still considerably strong since wages are higher in the U.S. border compared to the
Mexico side of the boundary.


Utilizing 2007 figures, for the 47 U.S. border counties,
the median household income was $38,840, whi
ch is
$18,189 below the national average of $55,0294 . Meanwhile for Mexican border municipalities, the median
household income was $8,0255 , which is $30,810 below their U.S. county counterparts.

Considering the
tremendous population growth pressures sinc
e the early 1990’s, communities on both sides of the border have co
-
existed under similar economic and environmental challenges. And when you view the two sides as one region
, it is
clearer to see the challenges that have been experienced by border communi
ties in both countries, especially in the
arena of environmental infrastructure.

The environmental problems caused by shared watersheds and air sheds along
the border have been exacerbated
due to limited resources and institutional capacity to develop appr
opriate planning
studies and implement beneficial solutions
.


Solvency


A2: Intermittency

US transmission investment solves intermittency

Ibarra
-
Yunez 12

(Dr. Alejandro, Professor of Economics and Public Policy


Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios
Superio
res de Monterrey (Mexico), “Economic and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities for US
-
Mexico
Electricity Trade and Cooperation,” Policy Research Project Report 174, May,
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/17560/prp_174
-
econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity
-
2012.pdf?sequence=5
)


Congestion in the ERCOT region reached a record high in 2008 w
hen system inefficiency reached a total cost of $375 million (ERCOT 2010).
These costs have since receeded, due to reductions in fuel cost, revised market rules, and transmission system improvement, t
o reach the lowest
level recorded in over a decade in 20
08. Transmission improvements since 2009 have included over $2 billion of investment in new
autotransformer capacity and over 1,933 miles of transmission. Additionally,
major investments

over the next five years include $9 billion to
add another 7,866 circuit miles
of transmission lines
. A major component of these improvements
involve the addition of planned
expansions to

the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) in the western portion

of the state
where significant wind resources
exist
.
Connecting these resources to the most heavily constrained

(and highest growth)
counties

namely, Bexar, Harris,
Dallas, and Tarrant

remains a significant challenge
.
While wind energy serves as 11.4% of
generating capacity
,
intermittency and transmission constraints reduce that amount to 1.1% of available capacity

(ERCOT 2010).
No major
plans exist to build signficant new 94 cross
-
border transmission capacity for the purpose of wholesale power
exchanges,
despite the ackowledged benefits of connecting new wind resources from neighboring Mexican states
.
It
is well understood that integrating wind resources across larger geographic regions
helps

to

reduce

problems

with

intermittency

by

smoothing

drops

in

avai
lable

capacity
. The last major study of potential benefits of additional cross
-
border
ties between ERCOT and CFE was conducted through a joint CFE
-
ERCOT Interconnection Study in 2003. It concluded that opportunity exists
for mutual benefit in block load tr
ansfers at Ciudad Acuña in the state of Coahuila, and asynchronous ties at Laredo and McAllen. A question
remains, however, as to what financing mechanisms, public or private, are most appropriate to pay for the establishment of ne
w cross
-
border ties.
Whil
e benefits associated with grid reliability and security are easy to ascertain, gains from increases in trade from a yet
-
to
-
be
-
utilitized
connection are harder to determine.


Solvency


A2: Renewables Fail/No Investment

Specifically, grid problems cause i
nvestment


fixes problems with renewable

Wood et al 12

(Duncan, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
Samantha Medecigo, Department of International Affairs


Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, Se
rgio
Romero
-
Hernandez, Haas School of Business


UC Berkeley, “Wind Energy Potential in Mexico’s Northern Border
States,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Mexico Institute), May,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Border_Wind_
Energy_Wood.pdf)


thE

tranSMiSSion

obStacLE

A major difference between the Cannon and Sempra projects is that Cannon’s goal
is to produce wind power for domestic consumption within Mexico. The focus on self
-
supply contracts suggests that
the prospect of Ba
ja California’s interconnection with the rest of the Mexican grid will
prove

a

boon

for

wind

power

in

the

area
. However,
the existence of a connection between the state and the rest of the country may prove
insufficient
,
as there is still the question of h
ow to move electrons generated at La Rumorosa to the existing grid in
the state
.
Sempra
’s Energía Sierra Juárez
has circumvented this issue by proposing to build its own cross
-
border
transmission line to connect with the California grid
. However, Cannon is

currently struggling to find off
-
takers for
its electricity because the transmission question within the state has not been resolved.

Solvency


A2: No Money

Funding is easy

Leibreich 10
(Michael, Chief Executive


Bloomberg New Energy Finance, “Power Str
uggles: The Growing
Geopolitical Role of Electricity of Markets,” BNEF, V(42), October, p. Online)


Securing the finance for international transmission
-
assuming diplomatic and regulatory hurdles are overcome
-

ought to be easy, since construction risks
are relatively low and the technologies of high
-
voltage direct current and
high
-
voltage alternating current cables are more mature. With institutional investors such as pension funds
struggling for yield, with 10
-
year bonds offering 4% or less in most lead
ing economies, low
-
risk infrastructure
offering 7
-
9% looks attractive indeed. Even more so if the construction phase is financed by a utility and the project
is only sold onto institutions once it is operating.


*** US/MEXICO RELATIONS ADV

Relations Adv



1AC

Advantage

: US
-
Mexico Border Relations

Mexico’s presidential election casts doubt on the future of US
-
Mexico relations


energy cooperation’s key

Seelke 13

(Clare Ribando, Specialist in Latin American Affairs


CRS, “Mexico’s New Administration: P
riorities
and Key Issues in U.S.
-
Mexican Relations,” Congressional Research Service, 1
-
16,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42917.pdf
)


Congress has maintained significant interest in Mexico and played an important role in
shaping

bilateral

relations
.
Recently, the centrist
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that governed Mexico from 1929 to 2000 retook the
presidency after 12 years o
f rule by the conservative National Action Party (PAN) in the July 1, 2012 elections
. The
party also captured a plurality (but not a majority) in Mexico’s Senate and Chamber of Deputies.
PRI President Enrique Peña Nieto
, a
former governor of the state of M
exico,
took office on December 1, 2012
,
pledging to

enact bold structural reforms and
broaden
relations with the United States beyond security issues
.
U.S. policymakers are closely following what the return of a
PRI government portends for Mexico’s

domesti
c policies and
relations with the United States
. Upon his inauguration, President
Peña Nieto announced a reformist agenda with specific proposals under five broad pillars: reducing violence; combating povert
y; boosting
economic growth; reforming education;

and fostering social responsibility. He then signed a “Pact for Mexico” agreement with the leaders of the
PAN and leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) containing legislative proposals for implementing an agenda that inc
ludes energy and
fiscal
reform. Although the pact may ease opposition in Mexico’s Congress, Peña Nieto could face other constraints such as violence
perpetrated
by Mexico’s powerful criminal organizations and the performance of the U.S. and global economies. Some analysts maintai
n that the prospects
for reform under this administration are good, while others are more circumspect.
U.S.
-
Mexican relations grew closer during the

Felipe
Calderón Administration

(2006
-
2012)
as a result of the Mérida Initiative
, a bilateral security effor
t for which Congress has
provided $1.9 billion.
Some Members of Congress may be concerned about whether
bilateral relations
,
particularly
security cooperation, may suffer now that the party controlling the presidency has changed
. Although the transition
fr
om PAN to PRI rule is unlikely to result in seismic shifts in bilateral relations, a PRI government may emphasize economic is
sues more than
security matters. President Peña
Nieto has vowed

to continue U.S.
-
Mexican security cooperation, albeit with a
strong
er emphasis on
reducing violent crime in Mexico

than on combating drug trafficking;
what that cooperation will look like remains to be
seen
.
He has also expressed support for

increased bilateral and trilateral (with Canada) economic and
energy

cooperation
.

Cooperation over energy infrastructure is THE key issue to broader US
-
Mexico border relations

Sweedler et al 5

(Alan, *Assistant Vice President for International Programs at San Diego State University,
Director of the Center for Energy Studies and the Env
ironmental Sciences Program and Professor of Physics,
Founder of SDSU's program on International Security and Conflict Resolution, Congressional Science Fellow in the
US Senate, and a Carnegie Science Fellow at Stanford University in the area of arms contr
ol and international
security, Margarito Quintero Núñez, Kimberly Collins, “Energy Issues in the U.S.
-
Mexican

Binational Region: Focus on California
-
Baja California,”
http://scerp.org/pubs/m11/cha
pter%201
-
5.pdf
)


Energy is an
indispensable

lifeblood

of the U.S.
-
Mexican border region and it is a
key

issue

in the binational
region’s future
.
The energy sectors in the United States, Mexico
, and Canada
are undergoing changes that will affect
how energy
is

produced,
transmitted, distributed, and sold

throughout North America.
These changes will directly influence
energy use and energy
-
related infrastructure in the U.S.
-
Mexican border region
. This chapter focuses on national energy
issues in the United Sta
tes and Mexico, border
-
wide topics of concern, and the California
-
Baja California section on the border.
Population
growth is the main force behind the increasing demand for energy services in the binational region. The expanding
economy is another importa
nt factor
. These factors have led to a greater demand for energy services in the border region than is
expected for other areas of North America. To meet the expected demand in northern Mexico, new and upgraded interconnections
of the
transmission system w
ith the United States will be needed. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) does provide new opportunities
for private energy companies, particularly those in the electric power industry. In addition to the increased need for power,

there will be

significant pressure on supplies of natural gas and associated infrastructure, such as high
-
pressure gas pipelines, distribution systems, and
pumping stations.
As prices for fossil fuels and electricity continue to rise, it is expected that solar energy

(
both thermal and
electric) will
also become
more

important

in the border region than in the past
.
A secure supply of reasonably priced
energy with a minimal environmental impact will be needed for the U.S.
-
Mexican border region if it is to remain
competiti
ve in the global economy
. Given the expected increase in population and living standards on the Mexican side of the border, it
is difficult to see how power demand can be met without the construction of new generating facilities in the border region. H
owev
er, if
environmental degradation is to be avoided and quality of life standards improved, the type of generation will be important.
Heavy reliance
of fossil fuels
, even natural gas,
will

inevitably

degrade

air

quality,

contribute

to

global

climate

change,

and

stress

limited

water

supplies
. There are several ways to enhance crossborder cooperation in the energy field and provide the energy services
needed for border residents in the future. But
doing so will require effective cooperation and coordination

bet
ween the privatized
energy market players and the local and state agencies still responsible for regulating the energy sector in both

the United States and Mexico.

It outweigh alt causes


US engagement’s key

Wood 10

(Duncan, Director of the Mexico Instit
ute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
“Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.
-
Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies,” Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars (Mexico Institute), May,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf
)


This study examines

one of the most important and
potentially lucrative d
imensions of the growth of the renewable energy
sector

in Mexico,
namely bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States
.
The

2009 bilateral
framework
should be seen in the context of an
emerging

trend

in Mexico towards renewable energy
, and as
recognition of the need
for the United States to take advantage of this if it is to meet its own carbon emissions reduction goals.
The long border shared by the
two countries
, so
often

seen as
a point of conflict due to the
thorny

issues

of
migration
,
drug
s

and
security
,
holds
the potential to benefit both states through the trade in renewable energy

from wind, geothermal, biomass and solar sources.
But
the promise of collaboration in the sector goes
far

beyond

the

border
.
The US has been
engaged

with Mexico
in RE issues for over 15 years now on multiple levels
, and
this has brought tangible results that have had a significant
impact on

both Mexico and on
bilateral relations
.

US
-
Mexico relations in the
border region
are failing


cooperation over
resources spills over which solves
terrorism and biodiversity


clarity’s key

Bonner and Rozental 9

(Robert C., Former Commissioner


U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Former
Administrator


Drug Enforcement Administration, and Andrѐs, Former Deputy Fore
ign Minister of Mexico;
Former President and Founder


Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, “Managing the United States
-
Mexico
Border: Cooperative Solutions to Common Problems,” Pacific Council on International Policy,
http://www.pacificcouncil.org/admin/
document.doc?id=31)


The

1,952
-
mile
Mexico
-
U.S. border is unique
. Only nine international land boundaries are longer, and only the longest of these
(Canada’s border with the United States) can claim the same flow of legal commerce and travel


almost $300

billion in trade each year.
Millions of people legally cross the frontier annually
; because
many

of them
do so

several times a week
, the total number of
crossings into the United States from Mexico exceeds 200 million per year.
No other major national bou
ndary sees anything like
this

volume of traffic
.
The pacific nature of relations between the United States and Mexico also sets the border apart
from most other long land boundaries
. It has been nearly a century since the last hostile action (U.S. raids in

search of Pancho Villa after
his attacks on Columbus, New Mexico during the Mexican Revolution), decades more since the last major rectification of the fr
ontier (the
Gadsden Purchase of 1853
-
4) and 161 years since a forcible seizure of territory (at the c
onclusion of the U.S.
-
Mexican War in 1848). The border
is policed


and where the boundary is not a river, often fenced


but it remains demilitarized.
Interdependence is an abiding feature of
the U.S.
-
Mexico relationship
, and this interdependence is parti
cularly pronounced along the border itself, where most communities are
twin cities. In the case of Nogales, the towns on each side of the border share the same name; in the case of Calexico and Me
xicali, they are
simply different combinations of the same w
ords (Mexico and California). Hundreds of thousands of people from these communities commute
across the border for work, shopping, and visits with friends or relatives.
Interdependence raises the stakes for both countries
.
Because trade flows are so

immens
e
,
misguided policies can impose

tens of billions of dollars of
costs

each year on consumers.
Poor

security
coordination along the frontier could
prove

deadly

and even
,
in the case of a serious terrorist threat
,
disastrous
.
Sound

joint

management

of

shared

resources

can lead to sustained and
ecologically

sustainable

development

in the
border region,
whereas mismanagement of these

same
resources

by either government
will produce
scarcity and environmental degradation
. Finally, federal policies in both countr
ies that ignore interdependence or reflexively promote
sovereignty over other considerations split border communities. In this report,
we urge both governments to confront the challenges
of border

management directly and immediately
.
We identify the polici
es they should adopt now

to

secure the border,
expedite legitimate crossings,
manage shared resources, and foster economic development
. We also articulate the ultimate goal to
which they should aspire, offering a conception of border management that can guide them as they adopt specific policies. Ful
l Report 9 We
envision a system of border management that moves people and goods between
the United States and Mexico far more quickly and efficiently
than the present arrangement but that also makes both nations more secure.
This new system would

expedite trade
, encourage the
emergence of regional economic clusters, promote wise stewardship
o
f

shared na
tural resources
, enhance efforts to preserve ecosystems that
cross the national boundary, and invite communities that dot and span the frontier to exploit opportunities for mutual benefi
t. Ultimately, the
border should be as “thin” as technologi
cally and politically possible for those engaged in legitimate travel or commerce while remaining difficult
to penetrate for those engaged in criminal activity or unauthorized transit.
Management of this shared boundary should serve as a
model

for bination
al collaboration in confronting shared challenges
. Few policymakers, legislators and opinion leaders fully
understand the border. Indeed,
misperception and misunderstanding of the situation at the border create a major
public relations challenge
. Those see
king to improve management of this shared boundary and the region around it must inform
policymakers by describing the situation on the ground before their recommendations will make sense. In the next section of t
his report,
therefore, we offer our diagnos
is of the situation on the ground today. We emphasize not only the deficiencies in border management but also the
“bright spots” along the frontier where cooperation has been exemplary.
Significant cooperation

between Mexico and the United
States already e
xists along the border, but it is incomplete, uneven, and unsystematic
.

Sustaining the border region’s environment is key to overall biodiversity

BGC 9

(Border Governors Conference, “Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive and Sustainable Development of
t
he U.S.
-
Mexico Transborder Region,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/strategic
-
guidelines
-
for
-
the
-
competitive
-
and
-
sustainable
-
development
-
the
-
us
-
mexico)


Due to its vastness
the U.S.
-
Mexic
o border region encompasses

an important wealth of natural resources and
diverse ecosystems
.
Freshwater, marine, and wetland ecosystems
,
deserts, rangelands, and several forest types constitute

sensitive and
invaluable

natural

features
. For example, the Ch
ihuahuan Desert supports 350 of the 1 500 known species of cacti in the world. Many
of these species are found only in single valleys. In the western region,
the Sonoran Desert has the greatest diversity of vegetation
of any desert in the

world
. A prominen
t feature of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts is the occurrence of mountain ranges separated by
extended valleys.
These ranges

provide habitats not present in the valleys and host species that
contribute to the biodiversity of the
border territory
. Urban

settlements, along with agriculture and cattle ranches, generally occupy the valleys.
Big waterways
, like the Rio
Grande or the Colorado River,
traverse the international

border and
support millions of people

in large cities and rural towns.
The Rio Grand
e or Río Bravo, as it is known in Mexico, flows through five Mexican states and three U.S. states, and a dozen Native American
nations.
All rely on it for irrigation
. From the headwaters in the Rocky Mountains, through the semi
-
arid Colorado Plateau and the
arid
Chihuahuan Desert, to its final subtropical ending in the Gulf of Mexico,
the Rio Grande sustains a

diversity of
critical

ecosystems

and is
crucial

for

wildlife
, including animals as diverse as beavers, bears, kangaroo rats, and migratory birds. The Co
lorado River also
sustains a very biodiverse region encompassing six U.S. states and two Mexican states. The ecosystems along the Colorado are
facing
unprecedented pressure from economic activities. The ecosystem’s water needs are rarely considered as agri
cultural production, industry, and a
rapidly growing urban population use all but a trickle of the river’s water.
The Gulf of Mexico supports productive fisheries
, which
are largely dependent on the estuaries, lagoons, wetlands and freshwater inflows from th
e Rio Grande.
The coastal

habitats at the mouth
of the Rio Grande are particularly important as breeding grounds and maturation areas for commercial fisheries in
the Gulf of Mexico
. In the Pacific coastal area, a saltwater lagoon and slough mark the seaward
end of the Tijuana River within the Tijuana
River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR). Established in 1982 to restore and preserve the integrity of the estuary
as a functioning
ecosystem supporting a diversity of fish and wildlife resources, this p
rotected area encompasses 2 500 acres of beach, dune, mudflat, saltmarsh,
riparian, coastal sage, and upland habitats.
The reserve

is home to eight threatened and endangered species
, including the light
-
footed clapper rail and the California least tern amon
g others.


Biodiversity in
specific hotspots

checks extinction. Key to
ag
,
medicine
, and
ecosystems

Mittermeier ‘11

(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Har
vard in Biological
Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has condu
cted fieldwork for over 30
years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation Int
ernational and he is
considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered s
everal monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots



F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978
-
3
-
642
-
20992
-
5_1, # Springer
-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This
evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous B
ritish environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)


Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is


irreversible
.Human activities
have
elevate
d
therate of species extinctions to a

thousand

or

more

times

the

natural

background
rate

(Pimm et al. 1995).
What are the


consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity


for future resource use.
Scientists have
discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species


(perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer


(Novotny et al.
2002).
As species vanish, so too does the health security
of

every

human.

Earth’s
species
are a vas
t genetic storehouse that
may harbor a cure for


cancer, malaria, or
the next new pathogen



cures waiting to be discovered.


Compounds initially derived from
wild species account for more than half of all


commercial medicines


even more in developing na
tions (Chivian and Bernstein


2008). Natural
forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration


for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi
-
tech devices, and


other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has b
een compared


to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the
content of 90% or


more of the books.
With loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of
our crops


and
the genes we use to
improve agricultural resilience
, the inspiration for


manufactured products,
and the
basis of the structure and function of the
ecosystems


that
support

humans

and

all

life

on

Earth

(McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond


material welfare and
livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,


an
d freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).


Less
tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs


inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their
own sake,


and wild plants

and animals are integral to the fabric of all the world’s cultures


(Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even
more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNee
ly et al.20
09).
The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage
from tropical
cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Sever
e Acute Respiratory
Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequ
ences of
biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capi
tal. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past
decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduc
e resilience of
ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example
, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less
from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of specie
s and ecosystems
will only increase in their importance to hum
anity (Turner et al.2009).


In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about
the biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most


and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over
which th
ey have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and

every
community should do everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global pri
orities?
Extinction
is a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders.

More practically, biodiversity, the threats to
it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the gl
obal conservation budget


perhaps
90%


originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexi
ble funds
available


in the hundreds of millions annually


be guided by systematic prior
ities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of
reducing biodiversity loss.


The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question.
Given the choice,
where should action toward

reducin
g the loss of
biodiversity
be

implemented

first
?
The field of conservation
planning addresses
this question

and
revolves around

a framework of
vulnerability and irreplaceability

(Margules and
Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species presen
t in a region


if the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not
protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitute
s exist for securing
biodiversity. The number of s
pecies alone is an inadequate indication of conserva
-
tion priority because several areas can share the same species.
In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species t
hey contain ca
nnot
be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in cert
ain areas, these areas
have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not all) of

these areas are the areas at greatest risk
of disappearing because of heavy human impact.


Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the first application of the principles of irreplaceability
and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale.
Myers described ten

tropical forest “
hotspots” on the basis of
extraordinary

plant
endemism and

high levels of
habitat loss
, albeit without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status.
A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots
, including four from Mediterranean
-
type ecosystems (Myers1990).After adopting hotspots
as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna
-
tional worked with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two
strict quantitative
criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics (

>


0.5% of the world’s
total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These effort
s cu
lminated in
an
extensive global review

(Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that
introduced seven new hotspotson
the basis

of both the better
-
defined criteria and
new data
. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004)

did not change the criteria, but
revisited the set of hotspots based on new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the

threat status of these
regions. That update redefined several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afrom
ontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots
but for which sufficient data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions.

Sadly, it uncovered
another region


the East Melanesian Isla
nds


which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region
that failed to meet the “less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.

Independently, US border cooperation over elec
tricity creates an
effective

response to a bio
-
terror attack


no
impact defense

CSIS 4

(Center for Strategic and International Studies, “U.S.
-
Mexico Border Security and the Evolving Security
Relationship,” CSIS Mexico Project, April,
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/0404_bordersecurity.pdf
)


Before the September 11 and anthrax attacks in the United States in the fall of 2001, the potential for major terrorist attac
ks in North America was
not considered to be high. But those
lethal surprise attacks on innocent civilians
, and many developments s
ince then,
have
continually

elevated the level of threat that the American

people now confront
. The retaliatory war waged successfully against
the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the continuing military occupation of that country by coalition and other forc
es, the U.S. invasion and
subsequent occupation of Iraq, and other developments in the war against terror have greatly elevated awareness of the need t
o prepare for a
possible future attack. Managing Binational Bioterrorist Threats
The threat of biological

terrorism continues to be one of the
gravest concerns of U.S. authorities

at the national, state, and local levels. These concerns have led to the perception that
there is a
potential risk that Al Qaeda or other Islamist terrorist

groups could
attempt to
exploit the long and porous U.S.
-
Mexican border to infiltrate terrorists and biological

weapons of mass destruction into the United States
.
The
relative ease with which illegal immigrants and illicit drugs are transported into the United States from and th
rough
Mexico
,
and the wealth, skills, and experience of trafficking organizations
,
indicates that the threat of biological
terrorism

through Mexico deserves sustained and serious attention
. Moreover,
the threat can

only be addressed
seriously through
exten
sive

and

increased

collaboration

by intelligence and law enforcement agencies on both sides of the
border. Increasingly, too, Mexican authorities have recognized that coordinating a response to a cross
-
border bioterrorist attack must involve
national, stat
e, and local authorities in public health and other fields in both countries. For example, the
high migratory flows and
generally long incubation periods of some biological pathogens would make it nearly impossible to isolate
communicable diseases within e
ither country if a dangerous outbreak of disease occurred
. Because of the enormous
flow of people back and forth along the border, public health calamities on either side inevitably would soon affect large po
pulations on both
sides. Responsibility for anti
cipating and preparing for such disasters must be shared. Cooperation among medical, public health, emergency
preparedness, and first response organizations in both countries must be developed. Moreover, the level of awareness and fear

of biological
terror
ism has reached unprecedented levels in Mexico as well as in the United States. Despite the fact that there were no real anth
rax attacks in
Mexico in the aftermath of those in the United States in the fall of 2001, Mexican public health officials were requ
ired to respond to a number of
hoaxes. At the peak of the anthrax crisis in the United States, the Mexican Ministry of Health received over 200 phone calls
daily from worried
citizens. And, in August 2002, a bioterrorist scare in the border town of McAllen
, Texas, required 70 people to be evacuated and forced officials
to close the main thoroughfare between Mexico and the United States. Mexico has entered into several bilateral and multilater
al initiatives to
enhance its preparedness and response capabiliti
es. At the multilateral level, Mexico is a member of the G
-
8’s Global Health Security Action
Group (GHSAG), which was created in 2001. In that capacity, Mexico has engaged in information sharing with member countries

Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
United Kingdom, United States, and Russia

and has participated in multilateral exercises to test international
bioterrorism response mechanisms, such as the Canadian
-
led Exercise Global Mercury, which simulated a smallpox outbreak. Bilaterally,
Mexico’s ef
forts have focused on developing enhanced disease surveillance capability along the U.S.
-
Mexico border. The U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Mexican Ministry of Health, and border healt
h of
ficials
collaborated on the Border Infectious Disease Surveillance (BIDS) project. The BIDS project was initiated in 1997 in response

to binational
consensus among public health officials on the need for a system for surveillance of infectious diseases alo
ng the border. The initiative has led to
the development of a network of selected clinical sites that conduct surveillance for infectious diseases along the border re
gion. Mexico’s
participation in the BIDS project has led to greater interaction among publ
ic health officials on both sides of the border. More recently, Mexico
demonstrated its commitment to improving cross
-
border preparedness and response capability by offering to host the U.S. Office of Naval
Research conference on infectious disease and bio
terrorism.
Although government agencies on both sides of the border have
undertaken steps to prepare for biological attacks
,
the discussion

of how government at various levels should prepare and be able
to respond
remains arguably
more

theoretical

than

pra
ctical
. U.S.
-
Mexico Critical Infrastructure Protection
The threat of
catastrophic terrorism has prompted

U.S. homeland security
officials

to undertake a series of measures to secure

the
nation’s
critical

infrastructure:

food, water, agriculture, and health

and emergency services;
energy

sources

(
electrical
, nuclear,
gas and oil, dams); transportation infrastructure (air, roads, rails, ports, waterways); information and telecommunications n
etworks; banking and
finance systems; postal and other assets; and ot
her systems vital to our national security, public health and safety, economy, and way of life.
The
resultant protective measures
, however,
cannot

be

undertaken

in

isolation

if they are to effectively protect the U.S.
homeland
.
The intense integration and
geographical proximity of Mexico and the United States makes bilateral
cooperation on critical infrastructure protection an imperative
. As such, the secure infrastructure chapter of the smart border
accords committed the two governments to cooperation on s
urveying and protecting critical infrastructure in the border region. Critical
infrastructure in

Mexico

both in
the

northern
border region

and elsewhere in the country

could be targeted by terrorists
attempting indirectly to do

harm to the United States
. M
exican infrastructure critical to U.S. interests includes a diversity of strategic
sites, ranging from oil and natural gas production facilities and pipelines, water supplies, power generating stations and gr
ids, and other facilities
that, if destroyed or
incapacitated for any length of time, would have significant adverse effects on both the United States and Mexico.

Bioterrorism results in extinction

Sandberg et al 8


Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. PhD in
computation
neuroscience, Stockholm

AND

Jason G. Matheny

PhD candidate in Health Policy and Management at Johns
Hopkins. special consultant to the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh

AND

Milan M.
Ćirković

senior research associate at the

Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade. Assistant professor of physics at
the University of Novi Sad. (Anders, How can we reduce the risk of human extinction?, 9 September 2008,
http://www.thebulletin.org/web
-
edition/features/how
-
can
-
we
-
reduce
-
the
-
risk
-
of
-
h
uman
-
extinction)

The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been
made in reducing
the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a
global thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear
winter.
We
may
face even greater risks from emerging technologies
.
Advances in synthetic biology might
make

it

possible

to engineer pathogens capable of extinction
-
level pandemics. The knowledge, equipment,
and materials needed to engineer
pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And
unlike other weapons
,
pathogens
are self
-
replicating
,
allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive
. Pathogens have been implicate
d in the
extinctions of many wild species.
Although most pandemics "fade out"

by reducing the density of susceptible populations,
pathogens
with wide host ranges

in multiple species
can reach

even
isolated individuals
. The intentional or unintentional
rele
ase of
engineered pathogens

with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality
might be capable of causing
human

extinction
. While
such an event seems unlikely today,
the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies

continue to
improve
at a rate rivaling Moo
re's
Law.

Relations Adv


U


Relations Low

Relations low


drug war

Walser, 5/2
(Ray, veteran Foreign Service officer, is a Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America at The
Heritage Foundation) “President Obama, the Drug War, and Mexico: Failure

Is an Option.” The Foundary. May 2,
2013.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/02/president
-
obama
-
the
-
drug
-
war
-
and
-
mexico
-
failure
-
is
-
an
-
option/

T
he White House still retains the power to set the national agenda and frame the political conversation at home and abroad. In

his last
conversation relating to drug issues in December 2012, President
Obama, when asked about the passage of marijuana legaliz
ation
laws in Colorado and the state of Washington, responded that the federal government had “
bigger fish to fry
.”


These st
ate laws run contrary to federal law and U.S. treaty obligations. Then
-
president Felipe Calderon of Mexico
angrily fired back, questioning U.S. “
moral authority
.”

When interviewed by the American Quarterly about his Mexican trip, the
President
answered no questions

about drug trafficking.
In Mexico this week, Obama will talk trade, immigration reform,
education, and dance diplomatically around the drug issue.

Fresh

friction

has

emerged

between the U.S. and
Mexico over rules for counter
-
drug intelligence collection and sharing.

Mexico’s current president, Enrique Peña Niet
o appears
to be concentrating on more centralized control over drug collection and operations on Mexican territory.
Concerned about citizen
security, Peña Nieto hopes to reduce the harm done to ordinary Mexicans as drugs flow across his nation’s territory
to U.S. consumers. At the back of his mind also is a recognition that he is dealing with the same Administration that
launched Operation
Fast and Furious
, which let guns walk across the border, and that argues marijuana legalization
in Colorado and Washington is no big deal.

Tensions between the US and Mexico over intelligence sharing

Archibold et al 4/30
/2013 (Randal, Damien Cave,

Ginger Thompson) Mexico’s Curbs on U.S. Role in Drug Fight
Spark Friction. NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013
/05/01/world/americas/friction
-
between
-
us
-
and
-
mexico
-
threatens
-
efforts
-
on
-
drugs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But
shortly after Mexico’s new president,
Enrique Peña Nieto
, took office

in December,
American agents got a clear
message that the dynamics
, with Washington holding the clear upper hand, were about to change.



So do we get to polygraph
you?” one incoming Mexican official asked his A
merican counterparts, alarming United States security officials

who
consider the vetting of the Mexicans central to tracking down drug kingpins.
The Mexican government briefly stopped its vetted
officials from cooperating in sensitive investigations
. The A
mericans are waiting to see if Mexico allows polygraphs when assigning
new members to units, a senior Obama administration official said.

In another clash, American security officials were recently
asked to leave an important intelligence center in Monterr
ey, where they had worked side by side with an array of
Mexican military and police commanders collecting and analyzing tips and intelligence on drug gangs. The
Mexicans, scoffing at the notion of Americans’ having so much contact with different agencies,
questioned the value
of the center and made clear that they would put tighter reins on the sharing of drug intelligence.


There have long
been political sensitivities in Mexico over allowing too much American involvement
. But the recent policy changes have

rattled American officials used to far fewer restrictions than they have faced in years.

Relations low


Mexico blames the US for drug markets

Shirk ’13
David Shirk, Associate professor of political science, NPR, May 4, 2013

I think that there are a lot of people who would agree with that idea. And in some ways, you can see that the drug war, as it
's played out over the
last 34 years, in particular as a U.S. proxy war. That said, over the last six years, working with Mexico, U
.S. officials have consistently tried to let
Mexico set the agenda. U.S. officials that I spoke to, repeatedly
-

and Mexican officials
-

repeatedly expressed the understanding that Mexico and
the United States were working together because they had a share
d responsibility to deal with the problem of drug trafficking and organized
crime. But I think U.S. officials are really waiting to see whether they will be able to cooperate with the Pena Nieto admini
stration and in what
areas.
Because there is some sense

that

the

trust

and

collaboration

that

was

built

up

over

the

last

six

years

is

at

least

on

hold
, if not in recession. It seems to me
-

I've spoken with Mexicans, who, to deal in shorthand, are sick of
the drug wars and sick of the cartels and blame them fo
r thousands of deaths, and yet at the same time, in some
ways,
they

blame

Americans

for

being

the

market

for

those

drugs
. I mean, first of all, I think many Mexicans are tired of
having their country portrayed as a lawless, violent and corrupt place. That
said, I also think that, for many Mexicans, this incredible fight that
they've made over the last six years to try to take on organized crime has not yielded major gains in stopping the flow of dr
ugs in even necessarily
breaking down some of the major cart
els that operate in Mexico. So, there is a sense that
they've made all of this effort and it's
primarily
to

prevent

U.S.

drug

consumers

in

engaging

in

an

illicit

market

activity
.

I think some Mexicans may simply
say this is not worth the effort. This is no
t our fight. Let's let the drug traffickers get back to business as usual and we can get on with our lives.




Relations Adv


Energy/Border Key

Energy cooperation at the border is key


affects majority of US
-
Mexico interactions

BGC 9

(Border Governors Conference, “Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive and Sustainable Development of
the U.S.
-
Mexico Transborder Region,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/strategic
-
guid
elines
-
for
-
the
-
competitive
-
and
-
sustainable
-
development
-
the
-
us
-
mexico)


A third definition is one that fundamentally defines the Border Governors Conference. Despite the independence of the two natio
ns,
the six
Mexican states and the four U.S. states that lie

on the international boundary form a true transborder region
,
sharing
many common challenges and concerns
.
Shared issues involve
transportation, logistics,
energy
, water, public services, and
socio
-
economic development, among others. Administrative system
s are not the same in Mexico as they are in the United States, and the two
countries’ federal systems differ significantly regarding the autonomy granted local and state governments. Nevertheless,
a prosperous,
highly functioning border region is in the int
erest of all 10 states
, and it is not viable for the state governments to defer border
-
related matters to their respective federal or municipal governments. Providing regional platforms for innovation, entreprene
urialism, trade, and
global engagement, majo
r transborder corridors traverse the region and are anchored by populous metropolitan areas. An example of one such
corridor is the Knowledge Corridor, connecting the Monterrey metropolitan area in the state of Nuevo León with the metropolit
an areas of San

Antonio, Houston and Dallas in Texas. The Sun Corridor, connecting the metro areas of Phoenix, Tucson, and Nogales in Arizona

with Nogales,
Hermosillo, and Obregón in Sonora, is an emerging transborder corridor. These and other corridors tend to consolida
te linear urban systems that
already have highly interconnected businesses and knowledge centers. From a regional perspective, corridors provide another u
nderstanding of
the transborder region, as they represent the centers of intense and dynamic exchange
between Mexico and the United States. No matter which
definition is used,
the transborder region is
central

to

U.S.
-
Mexico

relations
.
There are three major reasons

why an
efficient, highly functioning border is key to U.S.
-
Mexico relations.
First, border sta
tes’ economies have been among the most
dynamic and fastest
-
growing of both countries
.
Second, the border is the point of entry for the vast bulk of
merchandise trade
.
Third, a
surprisingly

large

share

of

Mexico
-
U.S.

interaction

occurs in the transborder r
egion
.
Though each of these points is important in itself,
taken together they emphasize the fact that a healthy border region serves
both U.S. and Mexican national interests
. Additionally, these points suggest that imp
roved U.S.
-
Mexico relations are possi
ble
through the promotion of more productive and prosperous economies on both sides of the borde
r.


Relation
s

Adv


Delay Fails/Now Key

This year/congress key

Seelke 13

(Clare Ribando, Specialist in Latin American Affairs


CRS, “Mexico’s New Administration: Priorities
and Key Issues in U.S.
-
Mexican Relations,” Congressional Research Service, 1
-
16,
http://www.fas.
org/sgp/crs/row/R42917.pdf
)


Mexico and
U.S.
-
Mexican relations are experiencing a
time

of

transition
.
This transition may bring about

advances in some
areas of the bilateral relationship, while
setbacks

may occur in others.
Throughout this process, the 113
th Congress is likely to closely
monitor conditions in Mexico
,
as well as U.S.
-
Mexican cooperation on key issues

as part of its legislative and oversight capacities.

Relations Adv


Energy Key/A2: Alt Causes

Closer collaboration’s key


outweighs alt caus
es

Wood 10

(Duncan, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
“Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.
-
Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies,” Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars (Mexico Ins
titute), May,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf
)


The

second general polic
y
recommendation is to
enhance

current

programs

designed to build human capital in
renewable energy
. Through the Mexico Renewable Energy Program, the work of the USAID and through the US