The newest trend in generating renewable energy on site, Jiminy Peak’s wind turbine excepted, is micro hydro. And its potential for ski areas is huge. According to NSAA director of public policy Geraldine Link, 282 of NSAA’s 320 members already have the basic infrastructure needed to set up one type of micro hydro generation: a snowmaking system with pipes and holding ponds. “Micro hydro has the potential for extremely broad application because the infrastructure is already in place,” Link says. “Otherwise the costs would be prohibitive.”

And it’s certifiably green. “Micro hydro is considered a green, renewable resource because it doesn’t block the flow of the rivers,” says John Steelman, program manager for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In 2005, Aspen Snowmass became the first ski area to have a micro hydro power plant on site, and its example is one that other areas could easily follow, from a technical standpoint. Whistler Blackcomb is planning a much more ambitious micro hydro project, which, when completed, will generate enough electricity to power the entire resort.


Why Water Works
On-site generation has numerous benefits. “If you buy renewable energy credits,” Link says, “you’re just paying more for your energy and you’re not going to see a return on that investment, ever. When you generate on-site, once you recoup the cost you’ve invested, everything from that point forward is contributing to your bottom line.”

The investment to set up a micro hydro system that uses an existing snowmaking system is relatively small. Federal, state and local grants are usually available as well and help reduce the initial costs even further. Aspen Snowmass got about 36 percent of the funding for the system from grants, making it possible for the resort to pay off the system in about 10 years.

Another benefit of generating energy on site is that it’s right there in front of customers. Resort guests can see it and understand it, which isn’t always the case with renewable energy credits.

“We were already buying wind directly through our utility,” says Matt Hamilton, manager of community and environmental responsibility for Aspen Snowmass. “But our guests asked, ‘Where is the windmill?’ Trying to explain the workings of the grid is a bit challenging.”

But perhaps one of the most important benefits of pioneering on-site energy generation comes from leading by example. “Advocacy is a very important role,” says Arthur De Jong, mountain planning and environmental resource manager for Whistler Blackcomb. The resort has a small micro hydro system already set up near a ski slope with big signs explaining how it works as a demonstration.

The project at Aspen Snowmass generates approximately one percent of the total energy the resort uses. But as a demonstration, the project’s worth is immeasurable. “The impact is far greater than the one percent,” Steelman says. “They’re being innovative and really searching for ways to improve their operations. And those operations fit in with this new ethos of changing the way they use energy.”

Hamilton says the project has also positioned Aspen Skiing Company as a major player in the global warming debate. “A lot of what we’ve done has built a foundation that allows us to go out and be active on a policy level nationally,” Hamilton says.


The Snowmakers’ Option
Once Aspen/Snowmass decided to go ahead with the micro hydro project, it took about two years to design and construct it. Because Aspen Snowmass uses existing ponds and pipes, there was no need for environmental impact studies, only a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The project cost about $152,000, of which $55,080 came in grants from federal, state and local organizations. Aspen Snowmass built a small powerhouse near the beginner slope where it installed the generator, laid some pipe to get the water from the snowmaking system to the powerhouse, and built a spur to carry the used water back to the existing stream. That was about it. In the spring of 2005 the system was online.

The system can only generate power as long as there’s melting snow to fill the ponds. In the spring, run-off fills the holding ponds and the water is then directed into the micro hydro system. Once the snow is gone, power generation stops.

“The biggest challenge has been figuring out how to maximize the power creation,” Hamilton says. “In other words, maintaining enough water in the upper reservoir to keep the plant [which has an automatic shut off system if the water level gets too low] running constantly.”

Two staff members oversee the plant, checking it about every 24 hours. That first season, they were able to generate power from spring snowmelt for about three months. The resort sold the 145 megawatt hours the system generated to the local utility for about $10,000. At that rate, the payoff for the project will be less than 10 years.

The following year, 2006, the melt period was almost a month shorter. But because the staff were more familiar with the system and were able to keep it running almost constantly, it generated about the same amount of power as the previous year.


100 Percent Local Power
Whistler Blackcomb is planning to use hydro power on a much larger scale, and with a different kind of micro hydro system—often referred to as “run of river.” In this system, some stream water will be diverted and run through turbines, then directed into the snowmaking system. Once it’s up and running, it’s estimated that the system will produce about 32,000 megawatt hours of energy a year, about the same amount of power the resort consumes annually.

“We want to show global leadership on mitigation,” De Jong says. “We are clearly reliant on snow and we want to set an example.”

How is the company financing its example? The Ledcor Group, Whistler Blackcomb’s partner in the project, will shoulder the cost of the $18 million project and reap any return on investment from the sale of the energy the system produces. But the five-year planning process, which has involved numerous public hearings, environmental studies and staff time, has cost the resort about $100,000 so far, De Jong says.

The biggest hurdle was getting permission to install the main pipeline. The venues for the luge and bobsled races in the 2010 Olympics are located right where Ledcor wanted to run the pipe from the river to the generating station. “It took us some time to get an agreement with the Olympic organizers,” De Jong notes. “But we have a right of way.”

The Whistler Blackcomb project has also faced opposition from local environmental groups, which say the project will harm fish habitat. De Jong has worked closely with them, and the resort has funded studies to determine the impact of the micro hydro system. De Jong says the studies have shown that the project is unlikely to harm the fish population, which has helped mollify the environmentalists somewhat.

One reason run-of-river systems create less environmental impact at resorts is because they’re usually situated high in the watershed. “Because they’re at the top, they’re not going to affect most fish runs,” which are further downstream, says Patrick Nye, director of sales for Bonneville Environmental Foundation. “You’re not affecting temperature or flow because the water is returned to the river immediately, so the impacts won’t be felt lower down in the ecosystem.”

Ultimately De Jong argues that the benefits of generating Whistler’s power locally are worth it, even if fish habitat is slightly affected. “We have numerous environmental issues globally,” he says. “But the tumor in the global patient is climate change. If we do not transfer to cleaner sources of energy, the patient dies.”

Perhaps the solution for ski areas is a resource that is plentiful and close at hand: the power of melting snow.