No Nox, The Diesel Dilemma
By Kathy Hubbard,
Director of Administration, California Ski Industry Association

“Grooming Vehicles 2007” (SAM, March 2007) reviewed grooming vehicles with some great new upgrades—heated wipers, Xenon headlights and digital technology to name a few. However, to those of us in California, noticeably absent was any mention of significant engine upgrades to reduce diesel emissions.

This is an urgent issue. For the past several years, California’s Air Resources Board (ARB) has pursued an agenda of reducing airborne toxins generated by diesel engines, including particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen emissions. While California’s ski areas support the ARB’s goals, the expense of upgrading equipment is significant. Moreover, the high elevations at which we operate create a unique challenge.

ARB’s draft regulations covering off-road diesel engines greater than 25 horsepower, introduced in February 2007, would require all fleets, including snowcats, snow removal and construction equipment, to meet fleet average emission rate targets. These targets become stricter over time, requiring fleets to hit increasingly lower emissions levels, or tiers. In order to meet the fleet averages, resorts would have several options for their vehicles: 1) Retrofit with verified emission control devices, 2) Repower with cleaner engines, 3) Replace with cleaner vehicles, 4) Use rental vehicles in place of the dirtiest vehicles. (Are you picturing the look on your fleet manager’s face?)

CSIA technical consultant Ev Ashworth estimates that compliance could cost an average of $120,000 per vehicle. Over 10 years, compliance costs could range from $1 million to $6 million per resort.

CSIA is working with the ARB to modify the draft regulations and create activity-based fleet averages, which would differentiate between relatively fuel-efficient equipment that we use and turn over frequently, and older equipment that we use much less and keep much longer. Given the size, use, and turnover of snowcat fleets, this compromise could result in important cost savings if properly monitored and managed.

The ARB has shown a willingness to hear and consider our concerns, but what about the other players—our own manufacturer and supplier communities? To comply with final Tier 4 emissions levels (the strictest standard), resorts need clean diesel engines—which are not scheduled to hit the market until 2012-2013. In this case, resorts will have to spend money twice over: once to comply with interim standards, and again to comply with Tier 4 when the appropriate engines are available!

While our engine manufacturers have the technology to offer Tier 4-compliant equipment sooner than scheduled, our vehicle suppliers have yet to indicate that the necessary equipment will be available sooner. Pressure from these suppliers could accelerate the development process. Working together, ski resorts, suppliers and manufacturers can greatly reduce the impact that ARB’s regulations will have on each resort’s bottom line.

This is not just a California problem (nor limited to ski resorts). California’s standards are often adopted by other states. AB 32, which aggressively targets carbon emissions, is already under consideration in several Northeastern states. Requirements for cleaner engines and emission control equipment are sure to spread to other parts of the country. We need an active partnership with our suppliers and manufacturers now.



Global Climate Change?
By Jim MacInnes
President and General Manager, Crystal Mountain, Mich.

While visiting friends this winter we noticed a book on the fireplace titled something like “Global Warming for Dummies.” While I silently debated whether or not to bring up this subject, my wife, Chris, promptly jumped in and pointed out that we in the ski industry are already experiencing its impacts and how our society needs to change its lavish energy consumption habits. Our host responded that global warming is a bunch of bunk from anti-capitalist left wingers who want to control our lives, take away our liberty and prevent us from enjoying our SUVs. John Stewart Mill would have been proud.

Politics aside, there is overwhelming agreement among scientists that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect.” In addition to the 150-year temperature record that shows CO2 levels have been increasing and the earth has indeed been warming, there are many other indications of a high correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

There is also little doubt that humankind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. While this is occurring at a relatively small rate, the problem is, once CO2 enters the atmosphere it doesn’t go away any time soon. The pre-industrial concentration was about 280 parts per million (ppm) and today we are at around 383 ppm, climbing by about 2 ppm per year. Each year’s small addition has a compounding effect that increases the total concentration in the atmosphere. Scientists believe that doubling the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels, which could occur as early as the year 2050, could begin to dangerously interfere with the climate system.

The consensus estimate for business as usual is an average global temperature rise of about 2.8 degrees F by 2050, and a 7.2-degree F increase and a sea level rise of 10 to 23 inches by 2100. To put that in perspective, a 7.2-degree F change is about two-thirds of the temperature change since the last ice age.

Many of us in the ski industry have been feeling the direct impacts of global warming for some years now, through shorter seasons and increased investment in snowmaking. During my 20 years at Crystal Mountain, we have added snowmaking capacity almost every year, and will do so again this year in order to take better advantage of the shorter windows of cold temperature.

Hats off to the National Ski Areas Association and SAM for helping to raise the awareness of the potential impacts of global climate change on our businesses and on the winter recreation experience.