Prevention & Preparedness: How Mountain Communities Are Getting Ahead of Wildfire

Wildfire risk keeps climbing across the West, but so does the sophistication of the response.

That was the takeaway from “Stage Setting: Prevention & Preparedness,” the first partof Mountain Towns 2030‘s three-part Mountain Wildfire Action Series.

Moderated by Jason Brooks, co-founder of Fire Aside, a wildfire resilience platform, the conversation brought together Rick Balentine, recently retired Aspen Fire Chief and founder of Aspen Wildfire Strategies; Amy Berry, Executive Director of the Tahoe Fund; and Hilary Franz, President & CEO of American Forests.

Together they traced how mountain towns are shifting from reacting to wildfire toward proactively preventing it — through new technology, unlikely partnerships, and hard-won lessons about what actually moves communities to act.

From Response to Resilience

Balentine has watched wildfire strategy evolve over 36 years with the Aspen Fire Department. The biggest shift, he said, has been a move from a response mindset to a resilience mindset: success is no longer measured only by how fast crews reach a fire, but by whether it can be stopped before it starts. That lesson was hard-earned. Not far from Aspen, the 1994 Storm King fire killed 14 firefighters — a reminder, Balentine said, that “fire is faster than we are,” no matter how quickly departments respond.

Early detection technology is closing that gap. AI-enabled cameras from companies like Pano AI already flag fires within minutes, giving departments the location data and lead time to knock down a blaze before it spreads.

Risk modeling has matured just as fast, Berry added. Older models treated entire communities as uniformly “unburnable.” Today’s tools score individual homes — a score of 75 and above signals a home is likely to burn, while getting below that threshold through targeted work can be tracked and financed. That precision lets communities focus limited dollars where they matter most, rather than treating mitigation as all-or-nothing.

Collaboration Beats Jurisdiction

Wildfire doesn’t respect boundaries, and neither do the most effective mitigation efforts. In the Tahoe Basin, Berry described a landscape split among two states, five counties, a city, and a federal government that owns 80 percent of the land — yet the Tahoe Fire & Fuels Team now coordinates roughly 21 fire entities to reduce fuel loads consistently across all of it.

In Colorado, Balentine helped launch the Roaring Fork Valley Wildfire Collaborative, which has pulled in more than $8 million in state and federal grants for landscape-scale mitigation across communities with very different resources. He also pointed to Colorado’s wildland-urban-interface building code mandates — among the first in the country — as a model other states should adopt.

Insurance Is the Motivator, Not the Solution

All three panelists agreed insurance has become the single biggest lever for getting homeowners to act — dropped coverage or spiking premiums succeed where decades of fire-department outreach couldn’t.

Berry noted the effect compounds: a homeowner who does the mitigation work and gets insurance back tells every neighbor, while one who complies and still gets dropped warns everyone else off.

Franz offered the sharpest caution, though: waiting on insurance markets to fix the problem is already too late for many communities. Homeowners typically hear from their insurer only after the risk — or the damage — is already done.

Philanthropy as the Risk-Taker

If insurers move slowly, fire agencies move even more cautiously — which is where nonprofits have stepped in. Berry described the Tahoe Fund’s role as absorbing risk that public fire districts can’t.

For example, when the fund wanted local agencies to try Burnbot’s remote masticating robots, fire districts balked, so the fund ran and paid for a 22-acre demonstration itself. It cleared land in three days that would have taken a hand crew two to three weeks — and it worked so well that neighboring districts signed on, with community members hosting “worm-watching parties” to see the machines clear defensible space. That demonstration led directly to the Fires Smart Community Pilots, now running in six locations with utilities and insurers at the table.

New financing tools are extending the model: low-interest resilience loans paid back over three to four years through insurance savings, and dedicated local funds like Truckee’s Measure T, a self-imposed tax funding fuels reduction work.

Invest Locally, Don’t Wait

Asked what one action mayors and local leaders should prioritize, Franz distilled it to three things:

  1. Early detection
  2. Landscape-scale risk modeling to prioritize where treatment dollars go
  3. Sustained, repeated community outreach — a single mailer or knock on the door rarely changes behavior.

Washington state’s own $500 million wildfire and forest-health investment, she noted, only happened after catastrophic losses forced the issue, a lesson for towns weighing whether to act before or after their own crisis. Balentine added that building a coalition doesn’t require Aspen-level resources, just leaders willing to convene early and often.

Key Takeaways for Mountain Towns

This was Part 1 of the three-part Mountain Wildfire Action Series. We will post a recap soon of Session 2 which took place on July 14th, and please join us for the final session next week:

The Building That Almost Wasn’t: Why Collaboration Is the Most Important Material in Sustainable Design

Great sustainable buildings are a choice that requires the right people in the room in order to realize them.

That was the throughline of a recent Mountain Towns 2030 webinar hosted by Jamie Wolf Jamie W. of OZ Architecture, who brought together engineers, energy modelers, and developers to talk candidly about what it actually takes to deliver ambitious, high-performance buildings in mountain communities. The conversation covered energy modeling, entitlement realities, infrastructure constraints, and wildfire resilience, but the deeper subject was always collaboration: who’s at the table, when they show up, and what happens when they don’t.

The Gap Between Design Intent and Real-World Performance

Mountain towns are not generic places, and they don’t respond well to generic solutions. They face seasonal occupancy swings, constrained power grids, short construction windows, high material costs, wildfire exposure, and groundwater surprises, all of which are variables that standard building codes and energy models weren’t designed to capture.

“Are we unintentionally limiting solutions by who we’re inviting into the room?” Wolf asked. It’s the question that started this whole conversation, one that emerged from a chance exchange with Aspen policy writers at the Mountain Towns 2030 Summit. One conversation led to another, and a clear pattern emerged: the gap between a building’s design intent and its real-world performance almost always lives in the handoffs, and in who was missing from the table early on.

Chris Vandal, Associate Principal at OZ Architecture, framed it this way: the most successful projects aren’t successful because of a specific technology or design direction. They succeed because the right experts found alignment from the start. OZ frequently runs multi-day “charrettes” at the outset of a project, bringing every relevant subject-matter expert into the room early on to inform decisions. This helps avoid the expensive and demoralizing experience of retrofitting both design and budget later.

Energy Modeling as a Collaboration Tool, Not Just a Compliance Box

Libby Middleton, PE, BEMP of Group 14 Engineering offered two case studies from a large condo+hotel in Steamboat Springs that illustrated what collaborative energy modeling can actually do when it goes beyond code compliance.

The first involved glazing. The design team had selected low solar heat gain coefficient glass, following the conventional wisdom that less solar heat means lower cooling loads. Reasonable in theory. But Steamboat is a heating-dominated climate, and with the right model and the right questions, the team discovered the opposite was true for this building, in this orientation, on this site. They studied five different glazing options and landed on the highest solar heat gain coefficient, the exact opposite of their anticipated selection..

The second example was about occupancy assumptions. Standard energy modeling protocols assume a building is 100% occupied year-round. That’s fine for a downtown Denver apartment but is not the same mountain condo+hotel that empties out between seasons.

During a team meeting, Wolf spoke up: “that’s not how this building is actually going to operate.” The team worked with the developer to pull real occupancy data from their portfolio, updated the model schedules, and found a 17% reduction in predicted energy use intensity (realized annually due to seasonal swings), and accurate heating and cooling load profiles. Testing an assumption led to a clearer picture of which design decisions actually moved the needle.

“Garbage in, garbage out,” Libby said. The earlier expert opinions and data  are integrated and inform the model, the less you’re guessing. And in predictive modeling, where you’re trying to understand how a building will actually perform against Colorado Building Performance Standard targets, AIA 2030 commitments, or net-zero goals, accuracy isn’t academic.

The Real Constraints Mountain Towns Face

OZ Architecture Partner, Rebecca (Becky) Stone (Rebecca Stone), AIA, NCIDQ, has worked in mountain resort communities for nearly 30 years, and brought the conversation down to earth with a series of case studies that illustrated just how interconnected mountain town development really is.

On community housing: entitlements in resort communities almost always require developers to contribute to workforce housing, sometimes by directly building it, sometimes by funding it in partnership with others. Burlingame in Aspen, Vail Health’s staff housing project, and Wintergreen in Keystone weren’t charity projects. They were the cost of doing business in a place where you can build a world-class building while ensuring there is a community there to support its operation.

On infrastructure: Becky’s team is currently working on The Stockman in Steamboat Springs, CO where they wanted to go all-electric. The local utility’s response was grounded in the reality of their operational capacity. It would necessitate a new power plant for this to be a viable option. Alterra is working on a geothermal system for the broader mountain, but it won’t be ready in time for this project’s construction timeline. The result is a building that can’t yet be what its designers want it to be, not because of any failure of ambition, but because the infrastructure simply isn’t available yet. Policy and infrastructure have to move together, or sustainability mandates just strangle development.

On wildfire: fire departments are an underappreciated early stakeholder in mountain construction. On a Snowmass Village project, the team worked with the local fire department and ultimately purchased them a new truck with the right ladder and rescue equipment to support the building type they were designing. At Deer Valley’s new East Village, the design team worked with mountain operators to cut strategic tree gaps in the runs, wide enough that a wildfire couldn’t jump them and reach the village. The Forest Service was at that table too since they own the land.

On groundwater: on a current Jackson project, geotech work revealed an environmental plume underground. The city was relieved as a developer willing to clean it up is not something you take for granted. The team turned the remediation into a foundation strategy, creating a waterproofed bathtub structure for the parking garage as they removed the contaminated soil.

Sewer Heat Recovery and the Art of Finding Common Ground

Chris Imperato, Associate Principal at AECOM, walked through the National Western Center in Denver’s sewer heat recovery system. The project took over a year of financial modeling and feasibility work before a single design drawing was made, and required buy-in from the City and County of Denver, Denver Water, Metro Wastewater, Xcel Energy, the National Western Stock Show, Colorado State University, Saunders Construction, and Centrio as plant operator.

Nobody woke up one morning and decided to build a sewer heat recovery system. It happened because every one of those organizations shared a common sustainability goal, and because the team was patient enough to find the financial and operational structures that made it work for all of them.

His advice for bridging the gap between feasibility study and built project: find partners who share a common vision, who prioritize sustainability as the driver, and seek the funding that follows when enough people are genuinely committed to the project’s success. “In mountain communities, that’s how they all stick together,” he said. “They share many common goals.”

Key Takeaways for Mountain Towns

• Bring stakeholders in before decisions are finalized. The cost of early collaboration is a charrette. The cost of late collaboration is redesign, budget overruns, and missed opportunities you can’t get back.

• Energy modeling is a design tool, not just a compliance checkbox. Collaborative, predictive modeling, informed by real occupancy data, local climate conditions, and actual operational plans,  improves energy-use predictions, significantly informing final design decisions.

• Mountain town occupancy is seasonal. Generic code assumptions about year-round full occupancy will produce inaccurate models. Push back on defaults and use real data from comparable properties.

• The power grid is a constraint, not a given. All-electric ambitions require utility conversations early. If the grid can’t support the load, the strategy has to adapt, and advocating for grid capacity upgrades is part of the work.

• Fire departments are design partners, not permit reviewers. Engage them early, understand their equipment and staffing constraints, and design (and sometimes fund) around them.

• Wildfire resilience extends beyond the building envelope. Tree gap design, site access planning, mechanical ventilation for air quality events, and coordinated land management with the Forest Service are all part of a complete approach.

• Shared goals make the impossible possible. The most ambitious projects get built when every stakeholder at the table can point to a reason it matters to them. Find that common ground first.

—

Jamie Wolf is a Project Architect at  OZ Architecture and a longtime participant in the Mountain Towns 2030 community. Panelists included Rebecca (Becky) Stone and Chris Vandal of OZ Architecture, Libby Middleton of Group 14 Engineering, and Chris Imperato of AECOM.

This article is part of the Mountain Towns 2030 webinar recap series. The next webinar is part of our new Wildfire Resilience Series, beginning May 23rd – details at mt2030.org.

Guardians of the Headwaters: Indigenous Wisdom and Mountain Towns Collaborate for Climate Resilience

Mountain towns and ski areas occupy a unique and interconnected space in the landscape of climate resilience. Nestled at the headwaters of vital watersheds, these communities and recreation hubs share not only geography, but a common reliance on healthy forests, clean water, and stable ecosystems.

At the Mountain Towns 2030 Climate Summit in Breckenridge, Colorado in October 2025, a powerful conversation introduced by Geoffrey Grimmer, Town of Eagle, CO and featuring Alastair Lee Bitsóí & Thomas Bitsóí unfolded, bridging mountain communities with Indigenous voices from the Navajo Nation. This dialogue featured  the deep cultural knowledge, environmental challenges, and collaborative solutions that are essential to stewarding mountain landscapes amid a changing climate.

The Challenge in Mountain and Indigenous Communities

Mountain towns face numerous climate-related challenges — from increasing wildfire risks and drought stress to impacts on water quality and forest health. Ski areas, often located upstream, play a crucial role in managing the ecological health of headwaters that supply downstream communities. Yet, these challenges are not confined to mountain towns alone.

The Navajo Nation, spanning an area the size of West Virginia and framed by four sacred mountains as the ancestral lands of the Diné, confronts its own environmental legacies, including the aftermath of the legacy of uranium mining, milling, and contamination. Thomas Bitsóí, a former Navajo EPA official with over 20 years of experience, shared the scale of various environmental issues, including the issue of illegal dumpsites: “There’s probably over a thousand open dump sites across the Navajo Nation,” which pose ongoing threats to the land and people, reflecting the broader struggle to protect water and soil quality amid historical and ongoing industrial impacts.

At the heart of this conversation is the question of climate change itself. Thomas recounted a poignant moment asking his grandmother and mother if they had observed climate changes over their lifetimes. Both answered “No,” indicating how the Indigenous perspective of climate variations being part of natural cycles. “What changes occur… is us. The Five-Fingered People are the ones responsible for what is happening,” Thomas emphasized. This view invites reflection on humanity’s role in driving environmental change and the need for respectful stewardship.

Building Unlikely Alliances: Indigenous Knowledge Meets Mountain Town Climate Action

Alastair Lee Bitsóí, Thomas’s son and a journalist deeply engaged in Indigenous environmental advocacy, illustrated how Indigenous knowledge provides vital insights and solutions for climate resilience. He described the rediscovery and revival of traditional food systems, such as bringing back the drought-resilient Four Corners potato, as a form of climate mitigation: “I feel like I’m helping supply and survive or keep a food system, a superfood alive that our diets need that we forgot that we needed.”

This emphasis on ancestral food systems reflects a broader theme of reconnecting with the land and its rhythms. Alastair explained how such knowledge complements scientific understandings of climate change, blending cultural wisdom with data-driven approaches. “There’s data that now exists that says climate change is real… but human behavior is adding to the crazy,” he noted, highlighting the urgency to align human activities with ecological balance.

The conversation also addressed the complexities of energy transition within Indigenous territories. Alastair shared his experiences working with the Navajo Nation’s government, confronting debates over uranium mining, coal, and renewable energy development. While some leaders advocate infrastructure expansion for equity and development, others caution about repeating extractive mistakes. “There’s a constant threat of energy development in the Navajo Nation,” he said, reflecting the tension between economic needs and environmental protection.

From Ideas to Action: Collaborative Solutions in Mountain Landscapes

Mountain towns and ski areas are uniquely positioned to lead collaborative climate resilience efforts that honor Indigenous knowledge and address shared environmental challenges. The session highlighted examples of stewardship strategies including:

These approaches recognize that mountain ecosystems function as interconnected systems requiring partnerships across jurisdictions and cultures. Tools and resources are increasingly available to assess climate vulnerabilities and design adaptive strategies tailored to local contexts.

Key Takeaways for Mountain Towns

The Mountain Towns 2030 summit reveals the power of collaboration and cultural wisdom in confronting climate challenges. For mountain communities seeking practical actions, consider:

The voices of Thomas Bitsóí and Alastair Lee Bitsóí remind us that climate resilience is not simply a technical challenge but a deeply human one — rooted in respect for the land, intergenerational wisdom, and shared responsibility. Mountain towns, as guardians of these vital headwaters, have an opportunity and obligation to lead with humility, collaboration, and hope.

As Thomas reflected, “At the end of the day, we all sleep and we all eat, we all breathe this air, we all enjoy life. There’s no difference.” Embracing this unity can fuel the collective action needed to safeguard mountain homelands for generations to come.

For those interested in learning more or continuing the conversation, the Mountain Towns 2030 initiative offers resources and connections to support community-driven climate action rooted in both science and culture..

Together, mountain towns and Indigenous communities are weaving a resilient future — one grounded in the knowledge of the past and the promise of partnership.

How Routt County Built a Roadmap for Building Electrification

For mountain communities, buildings can be a climate problem hiding in plain sight. They are where people live, work, gather, vacation, and stay warm through long winters. They are also, in many places, the largest source of local emissions.

In a recent Mountain Towns 2030 webinar, Paul Bony of the Western Resilience Center, along with John Balfe and Michael Goodrum of NORESCO, walked through how the Routt County Climate Action Collaborative developed a 30-year community-wide building electrification and decarbonization roadmap and, just as importantly, the dashboard and implementation tools to make that roadmap usable.

Starting with the Carbon Problem

Routt County, home to Steamboat Springs and the Yampa Valley, adopted its Climate Action Plan in 2020. The countywide goal is ambitious: reduce carbon emissions 78% by 2050. But unlike some communities where transportation dominates the emissions picture, buildings are Routt County’s largest source – responsible for about 48% of local emissions.

That finding gave the Climate Action Collaborative a clear mandate – if the county was going to meet its long-term climate goals, it needed a serious plan for the building sector.

The Collaborative itself is regional by design. It includes Routt County, the City of Steamboat Springs, and the towns of Oak Creek, Yampa, and Hayden, with the Western Resilience Center serving as the administrative agency. When the Colorado Energy Office released Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, Routt County’s existing regional partnership made it a strong fit.

The grant helped fund three deliverables: a building electrification and decarbonization plan, a dashboard to track progress over time, and a public-facing story map to help communicate the work to residents and local leaders.

Building the Inventory from the Bottom Up

Routt County already had a countywide emissions inventory, completed by Lotus Engineering and Sustainability. But to build a building-sector roadmap, the team needed to understand what was happening inside that sector, so they built a bottom-up inventory of the county’s buildings.

The model combined Routt County assessor data with ComStock and ResStock, two National Renewable Energy Laboratory datasets that estimate building energy use by type, climate zone, and other characteristics. NORESCO filtered those datasets to Colorado Climate Zone 7 to better represent Routt County’s cold mountain climate, then matched them with local building types and fuel data.

It was not a perfect dataset – heating fuel information was incomplete in places. Building categories did not always line up cleanly. But after calibration against the county’s previous emissions inventory, NORESCO’s model came within about 1% of the overall inventory – close enough to give the Collaborative confidence that the roadmap was grounded in reality.

The deeper inventory confirmed several important things: Residential buildings make up most of the county’s building stock, and commercial buildings account for slightly more total building-sector emissions. When the team looked specifically at fossil fuel emissions from natural gas and propane, residential buildings (especially single-family homes) became the central challenge. Single-family buildings alone were responsible for roughly 45% of fossil fuel-based building emissions.

The Dashboard: Turning Targets Into Decisions

Instead of choosing a subscription software platform, the Collaborative wanted something it could own, update, and adapt. NORESCO built the dashboard in Excel, with editable inputs for retrofit quantities, grid emissions, new construction rates, and other assumptions.

The dashboard allows the Collaborative to test different pathways. What happens if the electric grid reaches 80% clean energy around 2030, as Yampa Valley Electric Association’s new power supply contract is expected to do? What if the grid reaches 100% clean electricity by 2045? What if retrofit volumes grow slowly? What if they grow aggressively?

With a cleaner grid, Routt County can make major progress toward its building-sector emissions targets. But even under a 100% clean electricity scenario, natural gas and propane emissions remain – buildings still have to be retrofitted and fossil fuel heating still has to be addressed.

The dashboard also made the scale of work visible. To hit the Collaborative’s original 2030 retrofit percentage targets, the county would need to retrofit thousands of buildings per year – a pace that would be difficult in any community, and especially challenging in a rural mountain region with limited contractor capacity. The recommended pathway relaxes the near-term retrofit volume while still meeting 2030 and 2050 emissions targets, then ramps building retrofits over time.

That is the power of a good model – it does not just say “electrify buildings,” it helps leaders understand what is technically possible, what is operationally realistic, and where the gaps are.

From Plan to Programs

The 50-plus-page decarbonization plan focuses on removing fossil fuels from Routt County’s building sector. It identifies high-impact retrofit packages – including heat pumps, envelope improvements, lighting upgrades, and appliance electrification – and then pairs those measures with policy and program options that could actually drive adoption.

Three ideas stood out:

First is a HeatSmart-style campaign or energy concierge program that provides human support to residents trying to navigate audits, bids, incentives, contractors, and equipment choices. In rural communities, where contractor capacity may be limited and trust matters, that kind of peer-to-peer support can be the difference between interest and action.

Second is a “Slope Smart Homes” concept aimed at second homes and vacation properties. These homes can be large energy users and difficult to reach through standard outreach. By working with Home Owner Associations (HOAs), property managers, rental agencies, utilities, and homeowners, a mountain community can start with practical measures like smart thermostats, smart plugs, and education – then build toward deeper retrofits.

Third is an “Electrify Routt” program modeled in part on Breckenridge’s electrification work. The idea is to use local funding to close the gap between existing incentives and the actual cost of heat pump projects, especially for workforce housing and community-serving properties. One potential funding mechanism is a renewable energy mitigation program, where high-energy outdoor uses such as snowmelt systems, pools, or hot tubs either install onsite renewable energy or pay into a fund that supports public electrification projects.

Financing remains one of the biggest barriers. Paul Bony noted that the Collaborative is exploring options including micro-PACE, on-bill financing through the local electric cooperative, and leasing structures for geothermal heat pumps that may allow tax credits to be captured by the leasing entity.

The Workforce Reality

Paul put the scale plainly: the community needs roughly 10,000 heat pumps over the next 20-plus years. That means local contractors have a choice – become part of the solution, or watch the work get imported from outside the region.

A recent local “heat pump hoedown” drew 190 registrations across contractor and public sessions. Colorado Mountain College is working on heat pump apprenticeship training. The Northwest Colorado Development Council has launched the Northwest Colorado Innovation Center in Craig and hired a workforce development manager, with HVAC contractors and apprentices among its first focus areas.

That ecosystem matters because electrification is not just a technology transition – it is a workforce transition, an economic development opportunity, and a local capacity challenge.

Routt County is also taking a nuanced approach to the grid. In a cold climate with 9,500 heating degree days at 6,000 to 7,000 feet, peak demand matters, and full electrification with electric resistance backup could create serious distribution challenges. In some cases, dual-fuel systems may be more practical in the near term, while ground-source heat pumps can reduce the need for supplemental heat.

Key Takeaways for Mountain Towns

—

This article is part of the Mountain Towns 2030 webinar recap series. The full webinar recording and presentation materials will be shared with registrants, and the next MT2030 webinar is scheduled for June 17 on implementing innovative sustainable building design through collaboration. Register here!

How Jackson Hole Airport is Reducing Emissions

Air travel is one of the hardest emissions problems mountain communities face. Flights are essential — for residents, emergency services, and the visitor economy that sustains these towns — and yet aviation’s carbon footprint is enormous.

In a recent Mountain Towns 2030 webinar, Jac Stelly, Environmental Manager at Jackson Hole Airport, walked through the bold and practical steps his team is taking to reduce emissions. Jackson Hole Airport is the only commercial airport situated entirely within a national park, which means every climate commitment it makes carries extra weight. The elk, the sagebrush, the night sky — all of it is part of the operating context.

Electrifying the Ground Fleet

Planes are the big emitters, but airports have far more direct control over what’s rolling around on the ground. At Jackson Hole, vehicles account for about 63% of the airport’s direct emissions portfolio.

The airport currently operates 79 vehicles — 38 diesel, 21 gas, and 20 electric. That electric number is growing. The team recently secured approval for three new Ford Lightning electric pickups, and they’ve added electric ground power units (GPUs) that plug directly into parked aircraft to run lights and air conditioning without idling the jet engines.

Stelly’s approach to selling the transition internally: lead with function, not emissions. “Range anxiety? We’ve got 28 and a half acres,” he said. At an airport, vehicles idle constantly — exactly the use case where EVs outperform combustion engines.

For heavier equipment, fully electric alternatives are still emerging – butJackson Hole isn’t waiting. They jumped from 300 gallons of renewable diesel in 2024 to roughly 7,000 gallons in 2025. No retrofit required — just drop it in and reduce tailpipe emissions now. Their neighbors at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort are running a 50% summer blend, proof that scaling is doable. Grants and partnerships are crucial in electrifying heavy-duty vehicles. The airport has active grants in progress for two electric fuel trucks and one electric compact loader. They are also partnering with Kodiak Technologies with hopes of demoing a fully electric snowplow.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel

For the planes themselves, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is the most actionable near-term solution. Made from non-petroleum feedstocks like recycled vegetable oils and agricultural byproducts, SAF cuts lifecycle emissions by 60–70% compared to conventional jet fuel.

Jackson Hole ran its first SAF batch in 2019. The goal now is on-site availability as a standard offering within the next year or two. Aspen has already done it, leveraging a community of private flyers willing to pay a green premium. Jackson Hole, with its high proportion of general aviation traffic, is well-positioned to follow.

Buildings: Geothermal and Dark Sky

Buildings account for roughly 30% of the airport’s emissions. For heating and cooling, Jackson Hole has leaned into geothermal — three systems across the terminal, a hangar, and the new administration building. The economics are strong: the federal Section 48 tax credit can return 30% of initial investment within about 18 months, and it has remained stable across administrations. For mountain towns near geothermal activity — which is most of them — this is an underutilized opportunity.

On lighting, Jackson Hole became the first airport in the world to earn Dark Sky certification. Parking lot lights dim to 30% at night and rise only when motion triggers them. The results benefit wildlife, stargazers, and the electric bill simultaneously.

Renewable Electricity: The Multiplier

Jackson Hole Airport currently purchases 100% renewable electricity through its local utility — and that single decision reshapes their entire emissions picture. Without it, electricity would represent 70% of their footprint and their total emissions would jump by nearly 300%.

“Our greatest opportunity in emissions reductions is the investment in renewable electricity generation,” Jac said. Locking in clean power — whether through purchase agreements, on-site solar, or utility advocacy — is the foundation everything else is built on.

Key Takeaways for Mountain Towns

• Lead with function. Framing EV and electrification projects around reliability and operational savings wins over skeptics faster than emissions arguments alone.

• Renewable diesel is available now. No retrofit, no delay — a meaningful emissions cut for heavy fleets while full electrification catches up.

• Geothermal is underutilized. For mountain communities near geothermal activity, the Section 48 tax credit makes the economics compelling right now.

• Clean electricity is the multiplier. Every electrification investment delivers its full benefit only when powered by renewable energy — utility partnerships matter as much as the technology itself.

• Airports are climate platforms. Millions of visitors pass through mountain airports each year. What they see modeled there travels home with them.

• Share the momentum. Jackson Hole’s progress accelerated through peer learning — with Aspen on SAF, with Jackson Hole Mountain Resort on renewable diesel, with Dallas and Vancouver on fleet transitions. The network is the strategy.

—

Jac Stelly is Environmental Manager at Jackson Hole Airport and a participant in the Mountain Towns 2030 program.

This article is part of the Mountain Towns 2030 webinar recap series. Check out upcoming webinars at mt2030.org/events

Can Tourism Play a Role in Climate Resilience?

Tourism powers many mountain-town economies. But as climate impacts accelerate — from low-snow winters to drought, wildfire, and shifting visitor patterns — tourism leaders are increasingly asking a new question: can the industry also help communities become more resilient?

That question was the focus of Mountain Towns 2030’s recent webinar, “Can Tourism Play a Role in Climate Resiliency?”, featuring Hilary Lewkowitz, Director of Destination Development & Sustainability at the Colorado Tourism Office; Eliza Voss, Vice President of Marketing at Aspen Chamber Resort Association; and Sarah-Jane Johnson, Tourism & Destination Services Manager for the City of Durango.

The conversation highlighted a growing shift in mountain communities: tourism is no longer being viewed only as an economic engine but as a potential partner in climate action.

Tourism’s Climate Challenge

Tourism is both vulnerable to climate change and a contributor to it. Visitors are drawn to snow, rivers, forests, and outdoor recreation — all of which are being affected by warming temperatures, drought, wildfire risk, and changing precipitation patterns.

Transportation remains the largest emissions challenge. Roughly 72% of tourism-related emissions come from transportation, with aviation accounting for the majority.

At the same time, climate impacts are already reshaping visitor behavior. As Hilary Lewkowitz explained, recent winters have shown how quickly patterns can shift: “We saw a pretty massive decline in overnight stays at our mountain communities… and about a 10% decline in visitor spending.”

For mountain towns that rely heavily on tourism, those changes carry real economic consequences.

From Promotion to Stewardship

In response, tourism leaders are rethinking their approach.

Through its Destination Stewardship Strategic Plan, the Colorado Tourism Office is encouraging destinations to move beyond simply increasing visitation and instead consider tourism’s broader impact on communities.

That includes applying a “climate lens” to existing efforts — from marketing to product development.

A key insight: sustainability messaging alone doesn’t drive behavior change. Instead, destinations are reframing how they present options to visitors.

This approach aims to make lower-impact choices the most convenient and appealing option, rather than asking visitors to sacrifice.

Aspen: Aligning Tourism with Community Values

In Aspen, climate work is deeply tied to long-standing community values.

The Aspen Chamber Resort Association works alongside city government to promote sustainability initiatives, support responsible businesses, and align visitor messaging with local priorities.

Because the tourism organization does not directly control policy, much of its role is about coordination and communication. “We really can become a facilitator to distribute the information,” said Eliza Voss.

That includes highlighting public transportation, supporting waste diversion efforts, and elevating businesses participating in sustainability programs.

Durango: Integrating Tourism into Climate Planning

Durango has taken a different approach by embedding tourism directly into city government.

That shift has created new opportunities for collaboration across departments, from sustainability to transportation to economic development.

“It really seemed to me to be a governance opportunity,” said Sarah-Jane Johnson, “because tourism now has the right seat at the table.”

Durango has also developed its own Climate Action Plan, with tourism playing a role in areas like food waste reduction, dark-sky certification, and transportation decarbonization.

One current initiative is a food waste pilot program involving local restaurants and hotels — an example of how tourism can help drive change within local business systems.

Economic Resilience Is Climate Resilience

As climate impacts intensify, mountain towns are also reconsidering their economic dependence on tourism — particularly winter tourism.

Communities are exploring ways to diversify, including arts and cultural programming, special events, and year-round experiences.

At the same time, risks like wildfire remain a major concern. Johnson pointed to a past example in Durango, where wildfire disrupted a key tourism asset:“It has literally shut down… the train was stopped… that had a huge economic impact,” she said.

The takeaway is clear: climate resilience is inseparable from economic resilience.

The Path Forward

Tourism organizations are uniquely positioned to influence visitor behavior, convene stakeholders, and help align economic activity with community goals.

As mountain towns look ahead, the role of tourism is evolving — from simply attracting visitors to helping protect the places they come to experience.

Key Takeaways for Mountain Towns

Plan for climate volatility: Build strategies that account for changing snowpack, drought, wildfire, and shifting demand.

Powering Resilience: How Innovative Energy Storage is Strengthening Mountain Towns and Ski Areas

At the Mountain Towns 2030 Climate Summit in Breckenridge, CO, energy experts explored how advanced battery and inertial-based systems are helping mountain communities and ski areas secure clean, reliable power amid growing climate uncertainty.

The Challenge in Mountain Communities: Climate Risks and Energy Vulnerabilities

Mountain towns are deeply connected to surrounding high-elevation landscapes that serve as headwaters for critical watersheds. But that same geography also makes them vulnerable. Wildfires, heavy snowstorms, and fallen trees increasingly disrupt power lines, threatening safety, economic activity, and daily life.

At the same time, rising electricity costs—driven largely by maintaining poles and wires—are putting pressure on residents and businesses.

Ski resorts and hospitality operators, which anchor many mountain economies, rely on consistent power to operate lifts, lodges, and infrastructure. As demand response events become more frequent, these businesses need flexible solutions that can stabilize energy use without compromising operations.

Building Resilience Through Advanced Energy Storage Solutions

Energy storage is emerging as a key solution.

Michael Thomas , founder of Cleanview and the newsletter Distilled, noted the dramatic drop in lithium-ion battery costs—from about $1,200 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to roughly $100—unlocking new opportunities for local energy resilience and decarbonization.

Brent Hill, Managing Partner at Origin Ventures, emphasized the growing urgency. With AI and data center expansion driving demand, “we expect the next decade to look like an increase of 35 to 80 gigawatts of power,” he said.

Chris Klima of Torus introduced a hybrid system combining flywheel technology with lithium iron phosphate batteries. Designed for subtransmission and distribution systems, it is particularly well suited to mountain towns and ski areas.

Flywheels store energy kinetically by spinning a rotor in a vacuum, enabling rapid response and grid stabilization. “The flywheel is able to store energy  via an inertial-based storage device and provide clean power,” Klima explained. Combined with batteries, the system delivers both short bursts and longer-duration energy support.

Article content
Michael Thomas, Chris Klima, and Brent Hill at the Mountain Towns 2030 Summit in Breckenridge

Real-World Applications: Mountain Towns and Ski Resorts Leading the Way

These technologies are already being deployed.

In Utah’s Wasatch Front, Torus has partnered with ski resorts and communities to integrate storage with solar and existing infrastructure. At Woodward Park City, systems are improving solar utilization and backup capacity. At Snowbird, the Torus system will support tram operations by smoothing power fluctuations and stabilizing the grid.

Energy storage also reduces costs by addressing peak demand charges. “There’s usually one event that’s 40 or 50 percent higher than any other event in the whole month,” Hill said. “Our job is to shave that off.”

By reducing peak loads, storage systems lower strain on infrastructure and help avoid costly upgrades that drive long-term rate increases.

Safety and Sustainability: Addressing Community Concerns

Concerns around battery safety and environmental impact remain, especially given high-profile battery fires and lithium mining challenges.

Torus has focused on safety through rigorous testing and built-in fire suppression systems. Klima emphasized the company’s approach: “We are pro-regulation… making sure the safety factors are there.”

On sustainability, the company is reducing reliance on lithium by increasing the role of flywheels, which are primarily made of recyclable steel. “Our flywheel is 95 percent recyclable… and it lasts for 25 years,” Klima noted.

Technical Advantages and Maintenance

Internal-based, or flywheel systems offer high efficiency—around 88 to 91 percent—and long service life with minimal maintenance. The rotor spins in a vacuum and is magnetically levitated, reducing friction and wear.

Torus typically retains ownership of deployed systems, managing them remotely with 24/7 monitoring. This model shifts costs from upfront capital investment to ongoing operational expenses, making adoption more accessible for communities and resorts.

Collaboration and Policy: Driving the Energy Transition Together

The panel emphasized that technology alone is not enough—collaboration and communication are essential.

Hill highlighted the importance of storytelling and public perception: “where policymakers can really help is… telling all the success stories versus the failures.”

Mountain communities, utilities, and private partners all have a role to play in advancing deployment. Strong partnerships can accelerate adoption, build trust, and align climate goals with economic resilience.

Key Takeaways for Mountain Towns

Join us this year at the Mountain Towns 2030 Summit in Sun Valley

Wildfire & Climate Resilience with Biochar: How Communities Can Finance Fuels Reduction

As wildfire seasons grow longer, hotter, and more destructive across the West, mountain and rural communities are under growing pressure to reduce hazardous fuels, restore forest health, and protect people, infrastructure, and local economies.

A recent Mountain Towns 2030 webinar, “Wildfire & Climate Resilience with Biochar: Financing Fuels Reduction,” explored one emerging solution with the potential to address several of these challenges at once: biochar.

Featuring Noah Planavsky, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Yale University; Lizzy Vanderkloot, co-founder and executive director of Riseline Foundation; and Alan Spadafora, founder of Circle Forestry, the conversation focused on how communities can turn forest slash and woody waste into a climate and resilience asset. The speakers discussed the science behind biochar, its role in reducing wildfire risk, and how public-private partnerships and carbon markets could help finance fuels reduction and restoration work over time.

Why Biochar Matters Now

Planavsky emphasized that climate adaptation and climate mitigation can no longer be treated as separate efforts. Mountain communities need solutions that reduce immediate climate risk while also helping address the deeper drivers of climate change.

That is where biochar enters the picture.

Biochar is created through pyrolysis — a high-temperature process that heats organic material in a low-oxygen environment. Instead of fully burning biomass and releasing most of its carbon back into the atmosphere, pyrolysis converts a portion of that material into a stable form of carbon that can remain in soils for hundreds or even thousands of years.

In other words, what is typically treated as forest waste can become part of a carbon removal strategy.

Reimagining Forest Waste

Spadafora grounded the discussion in the history of wildfire management in the West. After the Great Fire of 1910, U.S. fire policy shifted heavily toward suppression. Over time, that approach contributed to a “fire deficit” in many forests, allowing fuels to build up unnaturally and increasing the risk of high-intensity wildfire.

Today, much of the biomass generated during thinning and fuels reduction projects is still handled as a waste product. It is chipped, hauled away, spread across the landscape, or piled and burned. While pile burning is simple and common, it also releases smoke, particulate pollution, and greenhouse gases — and it misses an ecological function that fire historically provided.

“Fire,although it is a destructive force, is also an essential ecosystem service,” Spadafora noted.

One of those lost functions is the creation of long-lasting carbon in the soil. In natural fire regimes, some carbon remains behind in charred material and contributes to soil health and forest recovery. Biochar production offers a way to restore that benefit while still carrying out necessary fuels reduction work.

A Cleaner Alternative to Pile Burning

The webinar highlighted flame cap kilns as a practical, lower-tech method for producing biochar in the field.

These kilns are relatively simple vessels that are filled with biomass and lit from the top. That top flame creates a “flame cap” that helps limit oxygen lower in the pile, allowing the biomass underneath to cook rather than fully combust. Once the kiln is full or the available material has been processed, the remaining hot material is quenched with water, locking the carbon into stable biochar.

Compared with conventional pile burning, presenters said flame cap kilns can significantly reduce harmful emissions. Vanderkloot noted that kiln systems can reduce fine particulate pollution by more than 70 percent, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide by more than 90 percent, and methane by over 40 percent compared with pile burning.

That means less smoke in nearby communities, lower public health impacts, and more of the carbon retained in a useful form rather than lost to the atmosphere.

For communities that regularly deal with smoke from fuels reduction work — or the anxiety of visible pile burns near neighborhoods — that is a meaningful operational and public-facing benefit.

From Waste to Climate Asset

Beyond reducing smoke and wildfire risk, biochar can improve soils by increasing water-holding capacity, nutrient retention, and soil structure. When spread back onto treated forest areas, it can help return some of the ecological benefits that fire once provided naturally.

But the panelists made clear that the real opportunity is not just ecological. It is also financial.

Vanderkloot explained that voluntary carbon markets are creating growing demand for durable carbon removal. In the case of biochar, trees absorb carbon as they grow. If that biomass is simply burned, the carbon is released. If some of it is converted into stable biochar, a portion of that carbon remains stored for centuries — creating measurable climate value.

That value can potentially be monetized.

Using one larger kiln as an example, Vanderkloot estimated that a single day of operation could process 10 to 20 tons of biomass, produce about two tons of biochar, and result in roughly five tons of net carbon dioxide removal. At a carbon price of $200 per ton, that could translate to around $1,000 in gross revenue per day once credits are verified and sold.

For communities already doing fuels reduction work, that opens up the possibility of turning a disposal cost into a source of funding.

The Access Problem — and a Coalition Model

Still, accessing carbon markets is not easy for small towns, local operators, or community-scale forestry crews.

To generate carbon credit revenue, projects must document feedstocks, track operating conditions, quantify carbon outcomes, meet registry requirements, and package credits in a way buyers can trust. Those steps are often too costly or administratively burdensome for smaller projects to manage on their own.

That challenge is what the Riseline Foundation is trying to solve.

Vanderkloot described Riseline as a nonprofit coalition builder focused on helping rural and mountain communities participate in carbon markets through aggregated biochar projects. Rather than asking each town or operator to develop its own market pathway, the coalition model brings multiple community-scale projects together into one portfolio.

Riseline then helps manage the back-end work: carbon accounting, documentation, lab coordination, registry requirements, and connections to buyers. The goal is to allow communities to keep the economic and environmental benefits local while removing the barriers that usually keep small projects out of the market.

The coalition approach also helps create scale and consistency — something buyers often require but individual communities may struggle to provide on their own.

Practical Questions Still Matter

The Q&A portion of the webinar underscored that while biochar is promising, implementation still depends on practical realities.

Panelists discussed permitting, steep slopes, transporting biomass, material size, and the tradeoffs between portable kilns and larger systems. In many cases, there is no single best answer. Some sites are well suited to kiln-based biochar production, while others may still rely partly on conventional pile burning because of access or terrain constraints.

Spadafora emphasized that even partial adoption can matter. If communities can redirect even a portion of material away from pile burning and into biochar production, that can reduce smoke, lower emissions, and restore some ecological function.

The presenters also stressed that this is not about one perfect technology. Different kilns, project sizes, and operating models may make sense in different places. What matters is building tools and systems that help communities choose approaches that are feasible, safe, and beneficial at the local level.

A Deployable Climate Solution for Mountain Communities

One of the strongest themes of the webinar was that biochar is not a distant or overly theoretical climate idea. It is a deployable solution that can fit into work many communities are already doing.

Fuel reduction crews already generate slash. Transfer stations already handle woody waste. Fire-prone communities already spend money trying to reduce risk. Biochar offers a way to connect that existing work to longer-term resilience, carbon removal, and potentially new revenue streams.

As mountain communities search for scalable, cost-effective ways to live with wildfire and climate change, biochar may offer a rare combination of benefits: reduced fuels, lower smoke, healthier soils, durable carbon storage, and new pathways for project finance.

The challenge now is moving from isolated examples to broader implementation.

For communities interested in getting started, the panelists encouraged reaching out early, assessing available biomass streams, exploring partnerships, and considering whether biochar could become part of a local wildfire resilience strategy.

The need is urgent. But as this conversation made clear, so is the opportunity.

Attend our free webinar on April 29th at 11AM MT, “Can Tourism Play a Role in Climate Resiliency,” featuring:

This webinar will spotlight an innovative, action-oriented model designed to equip mountain communities to lead the way on climate response through strategic collaboration with tourism partners.

Register For the Webinar

Real talk from ski industry leaders on the winter that wasn’t: “We can take the profile of this issue to a whole new level

By Anna Robertson

“It was dire.”

That was how one outdoor industry leader categorized this winter at a frank conversation among leaders in the ski industry at the Progression conference, an event that connects investors, founders, and thought leaders to drive climate impact.

In a talk titled, “Where’s all the snow?” moderated by Mountain Towns 2030 Executive Director Chris Steinkamp , ski industry leaders talked about the real economic impacts of climate change on their businesses – while also discussing the opportunity to create change through innovative technologies, education, and athlete activation.

“We had a pretty significant impact on sales,” Backcountry CEO Kevin Lenau shared about the impact of this year’s lackluster snow season, citing a significant downturn in revenue.

Sophie Goldschmidt , CEO of the US Ski and Snowboard Team added that climate change is increasing costs for their organization as they pivoted to change venues or adjust to get athletes the time they need on snow. “Flexibility comes at a high cost and investment,” she explained. “On the training side and the competition side, it’s having a material impact on us.”

How this winter changed the ski industry

Lenau said the lack of snow has led Backcountry to diversify into other sports, but he believes the situation is “actually worse than it looks,” adding, “Even though you can still ski, it’s going to become more and more expensive as smaller resorts aren’t going to be able to pay for the snowmaking necessary to stay open. As the supply shrinks, you’re going to have less young people and less people coming into the sport. It’s dire.”

Raj Basi Raj B., VP of Sustainability for POWDR, which owns ski resorts like Copper Mountain and Snowbird as well as training facilities like Woodward and concessions in national parks, said that adapting to uncertain conditions was a logistical challenge.

Lack of snow this year forced them to “revisit planning structures and hiring structures to be  more dynamic.” They’ve also been looking to create more alternatives for guests who visit their mountains. “You can’t expect things to be the way they were 30 years ago,” he said. “Expectations have to change and we have to come to terms with that reality. There’s also a lot of opportunity for innovation.

Looking toward the future

One positive outcome Lenau described is increasing innovation in more sustainable materials and technology, as well as a stronger interest from consumers around sustainability in their purchasing decisions.

“Our consumer really cares about these problems… We are seeing search trends on sustainability, recycled, organic materials increasing,” he said, adding, “It’s great to see another revolution in material science that is really moving us forward.”

While technology can help address climate change, Goldschmidt says we have to move quickly.

“We still can slow down what’s happening and in some instances, I believe, reverse it, with new technologies,” she said. “But we don’t want to wait for that. We need to impact it right away. I think people have maybe been lulled into a false sense of security because the past few years we’ve had great snow years.”

If we don’t address the impacts of climate change, she warned, “in 10-20 years time, our ski season will be a lot shorter.”

Goldschmidt sees a huge opportunity to affect change tied to the Olympic Games coming to  Park City, Utah in 2034.

“Let’s use the next 8 years to educate about the issue we have, which is dire, but what we need to do to impact it,” she suggested. “There are things everybody in this country can be doing to make a difference, and we can take the profile of this issue to a whole new level.”

That might include mobilizing athletes and their platforms. “Our athletes authentically care about this, they’ve been pushing us to do more,” she said. “They are absolute key stakeholders to help us to market some of what we can do, but also some of the challenges. No one should be in the dark about the situation.”

Brad Chedister, Head of Project Orion from the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee called for collaboration and innovation.

“It is an existential threat, it is very serious. But let’s be a little more optimistic on the tech side,” he said. “We win together. We need to set up purposeful ecosystems that collaborate with each other.”

That’s the mission of Mountain Towns 2030, which helped seed the Mountain Collaborative, an effort among the four largest ski resorts to share solutions across their organizations.

Combining that collaboration with consumer awareness could be a key unlock, Basi added. “We have millions of people visiting our locations who are receptive to climate messaging every day.”

Rethinking Transportation in Mountain Towns: Local Leaders Share Innovation & Challenges

Transportation in mountain towns comes with unique constraints—remote geography, steep terrain, seasonal population swings, and growing workforce housing challenges.

At the Mountain Towns 2030 Climate Summit in Breckenridge, transit leaders from Park City, Winter Park, and the Telluride–Mountain Village area shared how they are designing systems that meet these realities while advancing climate and community goals.

The session featured Alex Roy, PTP (Park City, Utah), Charles McCarthy, CCTM (Winter Park, Colorado), and James Loebe (Mountain Village Telluride, Colorado), moderated by Edward Parks , a global infrastructure leader). Together, they highlighted how mountain communities are rethinking mobility to reduce congestion, lower emissions, and better serve residents, workers, and visitors.

Transit in Mountain Towns Means Planning for Constant Change

Mountain transit systems must adapt to dramatic seasonal shifts. Winter tourism can drive intense peaks, but summer demand is increasingly significant as outdoor recreation grows year-round.

In Winter Park, CO, this dynamic defines the system. Only two routes run year-round, with the rest deployed in winter. In contrast, Telluride and Mountain Village have seen a reversal in ridership trends. Loebe explained, “We were 60/40 winter summer, and now we’re seeing like 40/60 winter summer,” reflecting the rise of summer visitation.

The takeaway is clear: mountain transit systems must be flexible, responsive, and built for variability.

Park City’s Regional Model Balances Local and Long-Distance Travel

Park City has separated local and regional transit into two complementary systems. Park City Transit focuses on in-town service, while High Valley Transit serves a broader footprint, connecting to surrounding communities and Salt Lake City.

This structure allows each system to specialize while still functioning as part of a larger network.

Within the city, transit has evolved from a single route into a comprehensive system connecting neighborhoods, resorts, and recreation areas. Recent additions, like trailhead connectors, aim to reduce congestion at popular outdoor destinations.

Roy emphasized the importance of aligning transit with housing and development patterns, adding that his team meets regularly with city officials planning low and moderate-income housing developments “to understand where the new developments might be happening… and we work with developers to talk about what the transit system would look like accessing those locations.”

Winter Park Is Building Service Around Workforce and Regional Need

Winter Park’s system, The Lift, serves a large area across Grand County and functions as the region’s only public transit provider.

Because many workers commute across long distances, transit planning is closely tied to workforce needs. McCarthy described bringing employers into the process. “I contacted all the department heads… and said, ‘Hey guys, let’s look at this schedule together. Tell me what works, tell me what doesn’t work,’” he explained.

At the same time, the system must balance visitor demand with essential community trips. As McCarthy noted, “If you set in a route that’s not going to serve those [major destinations], you have to be able to justify that through means other than just ridership.”

This reflects a core reality for mountain transit: not every route is about maximizing ridership—some are about maintaining access and community function.

The Telluride–Mountain Village Gondola Shows the Potential of Mountain-Specific Transit

The Telluride–Mountain Village gondola is a standout example of designing transit around terrain. It replaces what would otherwise be a long and winding drive with a direct aerial connection.

As Loebe explained, “We take a seven and a half mile car ride… about an eighteen- to twenty minute drive… and we turn it into a two and a half mile, direct, twelve minute ride.”

The system supports about 3.1 million passenger trips annually and avoids roughly 5,600 metric tons of CO₂ emissions each year. Loebe added, “It would take 42 50-passenger buses to equal the capacity of the gondola system.”

Originally built as part of environmental mitigation requirements, the gondola is now a core piece of regional infrastructure, funded through local mechanisms including a real estate transfer assessment and voter-approved taxes.

It highlights how non-traditional transit modes can be highly effective in mountain environments where roads are constrained.

Pilots and Experimentation Can Reveal What Works

Mountain communities are increasingly using pilot projects to test ideas before scaling them.

In Park City, experiments—from neighborhood traffic calming to transit service pilots—have helped refine long-term planning. A microtransit pilot revealed limitations, including overlap with existing routes and reduced reliability during peak demand.

As Roy explained, the system struggled when demand was highest, with riders encountering “zero availability” during peak winter conditions.

As a result, the city shifted resources toward fixed-route service, prioritizing predictability over flexibility.

Winter Park is taking a more targeted approach, using microtransit in areas where buses are less effective, rather than replacing core routes.

Electrification Offers Big Promise, but Mountain Conditions Still Matter

Both Park City and Winter Park are transitioning to electric buses, but mountain conditions introduce added complexity.

Roy highlighted both the promise and the challenge: “A cleaner system… a quieter system… [but] EV batteries lose a lot of juice in the winter.”

Cold temperatures, steep terrain, and charging logistics all impact performance, requiring new approaches to planning and operations.

Winter Park is early in its transition, working with partners to install charging infrastructure and identify where electric buses can be most effective. McCarthy emphasized the importance of collaboration, noting that success depends on working closely with operators and maintenance teams to adapt in real time.

Funding and Governance Remain Central Challenges

Transit systems depend on strong regional collaboration and reliable funding. In San Miguel County, early partnerships between municipalities eventually led to a broader regional transportation structure.

But building that kind of system is not always straightforward. Securing voter approval, aligning priorities across jurisdictions, and navigating funding uncertainty remain significant hurdles.

Still, the panel emphasized that transit investments can reduce the need for costly road expansions while improving long-term sustainability and quality of life.

Key Takeaways for Mountain Towns

Build strong funding and partnerships: Long-term success depends on regional collaboration and stable funding.Mountain towns sit at the intersection of climate pressure, tourism demand, and geographic constraint. But as this discussion showed, they are also leading innovation in mobility—developing systems that are not only more sustainable, but better suited to the places they serve.

Register for the Mountain Towns 2030 Sun Valley 2026 Climate Solution Summit Here.