POWDR's CARBON FOOTPRINT
If we are serious about trying to stop global warming, the calculation and constant monitoring of our carbon footprint is essential. Powdr understands the environmental impact of our carbon footprint and has completed the audit of each resort for each of the last four years.
The results of these audits and the implementation of aggressive tracking and monitoring procedures make it possible for us to identify the major sources of our carbon footprint and implement energy saving initiatives to lower our energy consumption. Using this tracking data makes it possible to monitor our energy usage by individual building, vehicle, department and resort to determine the success or failure of each initiative.
Through our efforts to reduce our negative effects on our environment we have learned that the closet thing to a cookie cutter answer is "reduce, reuse, recycle and rethink".
Percentage of Our Carbon Footprint by Resort 2009-2010 Season*
|Copper Mountain, Colorado||34.21%|
|Killington Resort, Vermont**||26.64%|
|Park City Mountain Resort, Utah||21.82%|
|Mt. Bachelor, Oregon||10.93%|
|Pico Mountain Resort, Vermont||2.63%|
|Boreal Mountain Resort, California||1.96%|
|Las Vegas Ski & Snowboard, Nevada||1.35%|
|Gorgoza Park, Utah||.34%|
|Soda Springs, California||.12%|
Major Sources of Our Footprint
* Powdr Corp has resorts located from Oregon to Vermont. While carbon emissions from the use of a gallon of diesel fuel, gasoline, propane or natural gas are the same no matter where it's used, there is a huge variance by location in the ratio of emissions from power generation. Carbon emissions from generating electricity vary substantially depending on the method of generation, such as hydro electric, nuclear, biomass, wind, solar or coal. The weight ratio for power generation within the Powdr resorts range from 724 pounds of CO2 per mega watt hour to 1,883 pounds of CO2 per mega watt hour. (2007 E Grid Power CO2 Ratios).
** It is necessary to know and understand the footprint of each individual resort and manage it accordingly. It may be more environmental beneficial at one resort to reduce the use of electricity while at another it may make more of a positive impact to reduce the use of diesel fuel. For example Killington used 84 percent more electricity than Park City Mountain Resort but the carbon emissions from Killington's electricity use was 86 percent less than that of Park City Mountain Resort.