Table of Contents
- Analysis: State Microgrid Resiliency Programs
- Analysis: Making MCR Funds Go Further With Ski Resorts
Introduction
America’s rural communities face a heightened threat of power loss caused by damage to electrical equipment from more frequent and damaging hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, and blizzards.1 These rural communities are particularly vulnerable to outages from weather disruptions because they are likely to be served “by a single transmission supply line,” have fewer transmission backups, and suffer from long or difficult travel between their community and utility field crew.2 In response to these vulnerabilities, the U.S. energy sector is making efforts to improve the reliability and resiliency of its grids.3 For example, the Federal government has implemented multiple programs to fund grid resiliency projects, including the Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grants Program and the Energizing Rural Communities Prize Program.4 Some states followed this lead and formed their own versions of microgrid rural resilience
1 See June Kim, Increasing Power Outages Don’t Hit Everyone Equally, SCI. AM. (July 26, 2023),
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/increasing-power-outages-dont- hit-everyone-equally1/; U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, FINANCING MICROGRIDS IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR 1 (August 2020).
2 Julie C. Michalski, Microgrids for Micro-Communities: Reducing the Energy Burden in Rural Areas, 26 MICH. TECH. L. REV. 145, 154 (2019).
3 See State Microgrid Policy, Programmatic, and Regulatory Framework, NAT’L ASS’N OF REGUL. UTIL. COMMISSIONERS, https://www.naruc.org/core- sectors/energy-resources-and-the-environment/microgrids/state-microgrid- policy-programmatic-and-regulatory-framework/ (Last visited Jan. 15, 2025) [hereinafter State Microgrid Policy].
4 Grid Resilience State/Tribal Formula Grants Program, U.S. DEP’T OF
ENERGY, https://www.energy.gov/gdo/grid-resilience-statetribal-formula- grants-program (Last visited Jan. 15, 2025); Energizing Rural Communities Prize, U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY,
https://americanmadechallenges.org/challenges/rural-energy/results (Last visited Jan. 15, 2025) [hereinafter Energizing Prize].
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 213
programs, like Colorado’s Microgrids for Community Resilience
(“MCR”) grant program.5
Compared to other state resilience programs, Colorado’s MCR program is ahead of the curve for issuing grants to rural communities and kickstarting microgrid projects in vulnerable communities. For example, Colorado awarded MCR funds to three towns—Ophir, Ridgeway, and Rico—located in the San Juan Mountain Range at the Southwestern corner of the state where blizzards increase the risk of power outages and closed roads, threatening the safety of community members.6 Silverton, Colorado neighbors these towns and illustrates why vulnerable rural towns need these programs quickly.
Silverton is a rural community of 701 people, situated at 9,318 feet in Colorado’s San Juan Mountains.7 To access the town in the winter, there are two paved mountain pass highways.8 Although beautiful views and abundant recreation activities make the town a popular tourist destination, it is particularly vulnerable to blizzards and, thus, to power outages or road closures. In February 2023, the “Snowpocalypse” hit Silverton, causing a complete whiteout blizzard that closed both roads to and from the town.9 After the storm knocked out power, cash registers, gas pumps, gas furnaces, and firehouse garage doors, the town hall and other critical institutions could not function.10 It took nearly eight hours for the San Miguel Power Association to be able to turn the power back on.11 The blizzard was not the first major storm for Silverton and it will not be the last, as Colorado’s very first snowstorm of 2024 threatened up to sixty inches in parts of the San Juan Mountains.12 Recognizing
5 Microgrids for Community Resilience Program, COLO. DEPT. OF LOC. AFFS., https://dlg.colorado.gov/microgrids (Last visited Jan. 15, 2025).
6 Mark Jaffe, After “Snowpocalypse” killed their power, Silverton is turning on microgrids, COLO. SUN (Jan. 14, 2024, 3:32 MST), https://coloradosun.com/2024/01/14/silverton-colorado-snowpocalypse- microgrids/ [hereinafter Snowpocalypse].
https://townofsilverton.colorado.gov/community (last visited Jan. 15, 2025).
- How to get to Silverton, SILVERTON CHAMBER OF COM., https://www.silvertoncolorado.com/how-to-get-to-silverton (last visited Jan. 15, 2025).
9 Snowpocalypse, supra note 6.
12 Spencer McKee, 60-plus inches of snow could fall in upcoming Colorado
214 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
the danger that Silverton faced, the DOE awarded a $100,000 prize in 2023 to construct a resilient microgrid under its Energizing Rural Communities Program.13 That same year, Colorado awarded Ophir, Ridgeway, and Rico grants under its MCR program to explore resilient microgrid projects.14
This Note argues that although Colorado’s MCR program is successful in allocating grants, it can reach its resiliency goals faster with more widespread coverage by utilizing state resources, like incentivizing local ski resorts to expand and interconnect solar energy with rural community grids so that more MCR funds are available for other towns. To do this, the Note analyzes four states—Colorado, California, Vermont, and Oregon—with different regimes focused on expanding microgrids or resiliency. After analyzing the efficacy of those four approaches, it concludes that Colorado’s MCR leads the pack. The Note then looks at how Colorado can improve this program, specifically by taking advantage of the state’s unique resources. Analyzing the overlap between ski resort clean energy goals and MCR program goals, this Note proposes two incentive schemes that Colorado can implement to build upon the MCR program and improve the resiliency across more of Colorado.
Background
This section orients the reader on four topics covered in this Note by providing: (1) definitions of microgrids, resiliency, and Colorado’s vulnerable communities, (2) explanations of increased major weather events due to climate change, (3) descriptions of high energy expenses for hospitality groups and an industry push towards renewable energy, and (4) examples
blizzard, DENVER GAZETTE (Oct. 17, 2024),
https://denvergazette.com/outtherecolorado/news/60-plus-inches-of-snow- could-fall-in-upcoming-colorado-blizzard/article_eb118a1a-8c9f-11ef-9a81- cbf070e7c3bf.html [https://web.archive.org/web/20250225204557/https://denvergazette.com/outth erecolorado/news/60-plus-inches-of-snow-could-fall-in-upcoming-colorado- blizzard/article_eb118a1a-8c9f-11ef-9a81- cbf070e7c3bf.html?utm_source=Master&utm_campaign=f8c487fd26- Daily+Newsletter_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b88b5f678d
-f8c487fd26-160584229].
13 Energizing Prize, supra note 4; Snowpocalypse, supra note 6.
14 COLO. DEP’T OF LOC. AFFS, MICROGRIDS FOR COMMUNITY RESILIENCE (HB22-1013) GRANT, (2023) [hereinafter MCR 2023 REPORT].
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 215
of Colorado’s unique solar and ski resort resources available to
expand its MCR program.
Microgrids, Resiliency, and Vulnerable Communities
A microgrid is “a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources within clearly defined electrical boundaries that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid.”15 The main components of microgrids generally include generation energy resources that generate the grid’s energy, loads that consume the grid’s energy, and a controller that manages the grid’s energy.16 The microgrid can either “connect and disconnect from the [larger] grid to operate in grid- connected or island-mode.”17 Grid-connected means the microgrid is connected to the main, larger electric grid, whereas island-mode means the microgrid operates completely independent from the main electric grid.18
Microgrid generation sources are not solely comprised of renewable energy systems and can include fossil fuel sources.19 In fact, almost half of the microgrids constructed between 2014 and 2019 included some fossil fuel generation source.20 However, “[t]he fuel source(s) . . . in a microgrid are often selected based
on how long the microgrid must operate independent from the larger grid, the availability of the fuel, and the resources available to the microgrid operator.”21 As discussed infra Part II.D, solar is an abundant resource in Colorado that would be readily available to microgrid operators,22 especially during
15 Dan T. Ton & Merrill A. Smith, The U.S. Department of Energy’s Microgrid Initiative, 25 THE ELECTRICITY J. 84, 84 (2012) (quoting Microgrid Exchange Group).
16U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, MICROGRID OVERVIEW 1 (2024); U.S. DEP’T OF
Energy, Voices of Experience: Microgrids for Resiliency 14-16 (2020),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/75909.pdf.
17 Microgrid Controls, NAT’L RENEWABLE ENERGY LAB’Y, https://www.nrel.gov/grid/microgrid-controls.html (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
18 MICROGRID OVERVIEW, supra note 16, at 3.
19 U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, VOICES OF EXPERIENCE: MICROGRIDS FOR
RESILIENCY 15 (2020).
22 Denver’s 2020 Annual Climate Summary NAT‘L WEATHER SERV. (Jan. 1, 2021), https://www.weather.gov/bou/2020AnnualClimateSummary [hereinafter 2020 Climate Summary].
216 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
winter months. Solar panels can be more efficient in cold temperatures,23 and using bifacial—or dual-sided—solar panels can yield nearly twenty percent more energy than a single-sided solar panel in winter months.24
Microgrids are also an important tool for increasing the resiliency of an energy grid. Energy resilience is the “ability to operate building energy services, such as heating, cooling, ventilation, critical plug loads, and shelter, during and in response to a major disruption.”25 Resilience is crucial to a town’s ability to continue emergency services and operate vital infrastructure during a life-threatening storm that causes energy disruptions.26 Microgrids are key to this resilience, providing backup power “to an entire facility, or just the most critical components,” when the main grid experiences an outage during a disruptive natural weather event.27 Resiliency is particularly important in hard-to-reach areas that face major weather events.
Many hard-to-reach areas will qualify as vulnerable communities for energy resiliency purposes. In Colorado, the Department of Local Affairs uses the “MCR Climate and Social Vulnerabilities Mapping Tool” to document a community’s vulnerabilities that the agency considers as one factor when selecting community microgrid projects.28 The tool will flag a particular area with either, or both, a Colorado environmental justice flag or a climate vulnerability flag.29 An environmental justice flag indicates whether the community is a “disproportionately impacted community” under Colorado law for meeting criteria such as low-income level, demographic composition of the community, housing cost burden, linguistic
23 Solar Photovoltaic Hardening for Resilience– Winter Weather, U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY https://www.energy.gov/femp/solar-photovoltaic-hardening- resilience-winter-weather (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
24 Koami S. Hayibo et al., Monofacial vs. Bifacial Solar Photovoltaic Systems in Snowy Environments, 193 RENEWABLE ENERGY 657, 666 (2022).
25 Energy Resilience, OFF. OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY & RENEWABLE ENERGY,
https://www.energycodes.gov/energy-resilience (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
26 See Microgrids 101, COLO. DEP’T OF LOC. AFFS.,
https://dlg.colorado.gov/microgrids-101 (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
28 Measuring Climate and Social Risk and Vulnerabilities for the Microgrids for Community Resilience Program, COLO. DEP’T OF LOC. AFFS., https://dlg.colorado.gov/measuring-climate-and-social-risk-and-vulnerabilities (last visited Mar. 18, 2025).
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 217
isolation, and historic marginalization.30 On the other hand, a climate vulnerability flag indicates whether a community’s risk “of drought, flood, extreme heat, and wildfire compared to the rest of the state is above 50%.”31
The agency uses this information in conjunction with vulnerability narratives submitted for a project to decide how to distribute funds for the MCR.32 Although it is not required to meet certain vulnerability thresholds to qualify for MCR, “information on various vulnerabilities will support a strong,
comprehensive application,” where “the scoring rubric is meant to reward applicants with evidenced vulnerabilities.”33 For the purposes of this Note, a “vulnerable community” will be a rural community that has one or both vulnerability flags under Colorado’s MCR mapping tool.
In vulnerable communities, like Silverton, microgrid resiliency can reduce economic impacts, risk to human life, and other societal impacts caused by longer outages in hard-to-reach areas.34 The Humboldt Tribe in California is one out-of-state example of how microgrids play a significant role in community resilience after a 6.4 magnitude earthquake in 2022 knocked out power for 72,000 electric customers.35 The Tribe had a solar microgrid that operated in island-mode for an entire day when the main grid went out.36 Meanwhile, the surrounding community lost access to basic necessities and the Tribe became essential to the local emergency response, providing access to gas, Wi-Fi, food, lodging, and device charging.37 The Humboldt Tribe illustrates how microgrids can play an essential role in making electric grids and nearby communities more resilient, creating safer communities.
31 Id.
34 See Justinas Jasiunas et al., Energy System Resilience – A Review, 150 RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY R., 1, 14 (2021).
35 Ari Plachta, During Earthquake Blackouts, this Humboldt Tribe was an Island of Clean Power, THE SACRAMENTO BEE (Dec. 23, 2022, 12:31 PM), https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol- alert/article270311677.html.
218 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
Climate Change’s Impacts on Snowstorm
Frequency and Strength
Since the 1950s, the frequency and intensity of snowstorms continue to increase, largely because of climate change.38 Specifically for Colorado, there is a predicted increase of heavy precipitation events that could bring heavier snow at once, causing significant disruptions.39
In mountain regions, these extreme events and warming temperatures “will likely result in denser snow, shortened snow cover duration, and greater potential for rain-on-snow events.”40 These wetter, denser snow events cause significant impacts to transportation, critical services, and electric grids powering cities because “[t]he weight of snow can cause roofs to collapse and knock down trees and power lines.”41 For example, a March 2024 Colorado snowstorm produced large amounts of wet, heavy snow that caused a power outage for more than 43,000 Xcel Energy customers and 700 Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association customers (an electric utility co-op in Colorado’s northern front range).42 Poudre Valley Co-op posted an explanation for the outage, stating that “[t]he heavy, wet snow [and] wind is causing the line to ‘bounce,’ which results in power blinks,” and the power “line is icing over, which can lead to extended outages.”43 The increase in these types of weather events will put many vulnerable mountain communities at an increased risk of power loss going forward.
38 WALSH ET AL., CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES: OUR
Changing Climate 43 (2014) https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our- changing-climate/changes-storms.
39 Climate Change Connections: Colorado (Winter Sports), EPA, https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-connections-colorado- winter-sports (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
40 A.C. Lute et al., Projected Changes in Snowfall Extremes and Interannual Variability of Snowfall in the Western United States, 51 WATER RES. RSCH. 960, 970 (2015).
41 Snow Storm Safety, NAT’L WEATHER SERV., https://www.weather.gov/safety/winter-snow (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
42 Brooke Williams, Colorado power outages: Thousands without power amid heavy snow, KDVR (Mar. 14, 2024, at 1:47 PM MST) https://kdvr.com/news/colorado/colorado-power-outages-amid-heavy-snow/.
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 219
Colorado’s Solar and Ski Resource
Colorado is fortunate enough to receive abundant sunlight, with the state claiming to receive 300 days of sun per year.44 Although this claim is disputed, National Weather Service data shows that in 2020, Denver received 115 days of “fair,” sunny weather and 208 partly cloudy days.45 Without settling the debate on Colorado’s claim, the National Weather Service data demonstrates that solar is an abundant resource which can be harnessed effectively by ski resorts to reach their clean energy goals and fuel microgrid resiliency projects.
As alluded to before, Colorado’s other unique resource is its twenty-eight ski resorts scattered throughout Colorado’s multiple mountain ranges.46 Ski resorts tend to be located in areas where the resort will receive enough snow-reliability to open for the most amount of days and be economically successful.47 Colorado’s resorts are typically located in or very close to small mountain towns that would receive nearly equal amounts of snow during the winter.48 Just as ski resorts play a vital role in these small town economies by attracting tourists49, they could play an integral role in making the town’s energy grid more resilient. Because most resorts have their own clean energy goals, there is an overlapping interest between Colorado’s MCR program and solar installations by ski resorts. Aspen ski resort demonstrates this overlapping interest when it developed a solar microgrid at the Colorado Rocky Mountain High School in Carbondale in 2008.50 Colorado can provide
44 Colorado Weather, COLO. (Mar. 25, 2024) https://www.colorado.com/articles/colorado-weather#.
45 2020 Climate Summary, supra note 22.
46 Colorado Ski Resorts, COLO., https://www.colorado.com/colorado-ski- resorts (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
47 See generally, JURGEN SCHMUDE, THE ‘OPTIMAL SKIING DAY’: THE FUTURE OF SKI RESORTS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE CONDITIONS 1220,
https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/objects/ISSW13_paper_O5-27.pdf (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
48 See, e.g., Colorado Ski Resorts Map, COLO. INFO, https://www.coloradoinfo.com/colorado-ski-resorts-map/ (last visited Jan. 16, 2025); Members, COLO ASS’N OF SKI TOWNS, https://coskitowns.com/members- index/ (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
https://coskitowns.com/about/mission/ (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
https://www.aspensnowmass.com/discover/sustainability/our-stories (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
220 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
incentives for ski resorts, like Aspen, to connect their solar developments to local or adjacent communities and further increase the resilience of that community.
The Hospitality Industry: Energy Costs and Clean
Energy Goals
The hospitality industry requires a significant amount of energy to operate because of large demand from lighting, air conditioning, heating, electronics, and other expenses.51 This is a large overhead expense for hotels to operate each day of the year, costing an average of $2,196 per available room annually.52 Ski resorts typically have these same overhead operational costs for lodging, employee housing, and restaurants, but also have to power snowmaking equipment, ski lifts, snowmelt equipment, and extra heating strain from colder temperatures.53
To address these high costs, guest demands, and intrinsic hospitality goals to become “green,” some hotels and ski resorts are converting buildings to operate exclusively by microgrids or are adding solar panels to buildings to offset energy costs.54 For example, Colorado’s ski resorts (discussed infra Part III.A) are making strides by adding solar panels to various buildings or obtaining energy from renewable energy fields.55 And beyond ski resorts, hotels like Hilton and Marriott added solar arrays and batteries to two hotels in Connecticut and Costa Rica, respectively.56 Additionally, two independent hotels in Florida
51 See Diego Viesi, et al., Developing and Testing an “Integrated Energy Management System” in a Ski Resort: The “Living Lab Madonna di Campiglio”, 4 CLEANER ENERGY SYSTEMS 1, 5 (April 2023).
52 Bing Dong, et al., Quantifying Behavior Driven Energy Savings for Hotels, ACEEE SUMMER STUDY ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS 8-1 (2016).
54 Lisa Cohn, Hotel Microgrids Cut Energy Costs, Meet Demand from Guests for Sustainability, MICROGRID KNOWLEDGE (Mar. 11, 2022), https://www.microgridknowledge.com/distributed- energy/article/11427398/hotel-microgrids-cut-energy-costs-meet-demand- from-guests-for-sustainability; See generally, Colorado Ski Resorts Are Going Green: Feel Good About Skiing & Snowboarding in Colorado This Winter, COLO. (Mar. 13, 2024), https://www.colorado.com/articles/colorado-ski-resorts- are-going-green-feel-good-about-skiing-snowboarding-in-colorado [hereinafter Colorado Ski Resorts Going Green].
55 See generally, Colorado Ski Resorts Going Green, supra note 54.
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 221
and New York took similar steps and built solar arrays to power their hotels.57
However, significant upfront costs to build large solar arrays may deter and delay construction. Aspen’s Carbondale microgrid project required $1.1 million in private investments.58 Similarly, Hilton’s Connecticut hotel, Hotel Marcel, required a
$2.3 million commercial property-assessed loan and nearly
$600,000 in private investment.59 Without financial incentives from Colorado, ski resorts may not take on additional expenses to connect their resources to nearby communities.
Analysis: State Microgrid Resiliency Programs
State microgrid incentive programs specifically targeting grid resiliency in vulnerable communities exist in relatively few states.60 Beginning with Colorado’s MCR program, this Note analyzes the microgrid resiliency programs of three other states—California, Vermont, and Oregon—that take different approaches from Colorado. This comparison first outlines the details of each program before comparing the four state programs to evaluate which ones are most effective. An effective program will distribute funds to the greatest number of communities in a timely fashion, so as to decrease vulnerability and reduce risk from energy disruptions. Faster action time to distribute funds makes a program effective because it reduces
57 Ken Silverstein, Newly Opened, JFK’s TWA Hotel is Always Grid
Independent, MICROGRID KNOWLEDGE (Jun. 7, 2019),
https://www.microgridknowledge.com/editors-choice/article/11429645/newly- opened-jfks-twa-hotel-is-always-grid-independent; Kathy Hitchens, Florida’s Pensacola Beach Gets First Solar-Powered Hotel, MICROGRID KNOWLEDGE (Feb. 15, 2024), https://www.microgridknowledge.com/solar- energy/article/33037104/pensacola-beach-florida-gets-first-solar-powered- hotel.
58 The Power of the Sun, ASPEN SNOWMASS, https://www.aspensnowmass.com/discover/experiences/stories/the-power-of- the-sun (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
60 See generally, Daniel Shea, Microgrids: State Policies To Bolster Energy Resilience, NCSL (June 10, 2022), https://www.ncsl.org/energy/microgrids- state-policies-to-bolster-energy-resilience#anchor5700; State Scorecard 2023, THINK MICROGRID at 18 (2023),
https://tmi.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/Think_Microgrid_Scorecard_2023.pd f; State Microgrid Policy, supra note 3.
222 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
the time that a selected community is vulnerable to storms. Similarly, widespread distribution of funds to more communities makes a program effective because it reduces energy vulnerability state-wide rather than pooling funds in one area and neglecting other areas.
Colorado
Colorado formed its MCR program in 2022 with the passage of H.B. 22-1013. This statute provides “grants to support utilities, anchor institutions, and local governments to establish microgrid resources to build community resilience regarding electric grid disruptions in [vulnerable] Colorado communities.”61 In total, there is $14,060,133 of available funds to allocate as grants for community microgrid projects.62 This budget includes an initial allocation of $3,695,012 from Colorado under H.B. 22-101363 and a subsequent federal grant of
$10,365,121 from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) through its Grid Resilience State and Tribal Grant program.64 As of 2024, Colorado has $2,934,270 of available funds remaining.65 All initial state funding must be spent by June 30, 2026 while federal funding must be spent by April 30, 2029.66
The MCR program provides two types of grants: planning grants and construction or implementation grants. Planning grants are awarded for entities to assess the scope, feasibility, and design of a project, or to conduct final design studies.67 Construction or implementation grants are for entities to
61 COLO. REV. STAT. § 40-9.8-102; Microgrids for Community Resilience Program: Grant Application Guidelines, COLO. DEP’T OF LOC. AFFS., https://dlg.colorado.gov/microgrids-for-community-grant-application- guidelines (last visited Jan. 16, 2025) [hereinafter MCR Guidelines].
62 COLO. DEP’T OF LOC. AFFAIRS, MICROGRIDS FOR COMMUNITY RESILIENCE (HB22-1013) ANNUAL REPORT 3-4 (2024) [hereinafter MCR 2024 REPORT] (this
figure was calculated by subtracting the total amount awarded, $11,126,463, from the total MCR budget, $14,060,133).
63 Id.; COLO. REV. STAT. § 40-9.8-104(2).
64 MCR 2023 REPORT, supra note 14; Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grant Awards, U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, https://www.energy.gov/gdo/grid-resilience-state-and-tribal-formula-grant- awards (last visited Jan. 16, 2025) (the total grant amount was $17.2 million, but the remaining funds will be used to manage the Colorado Energy Office for grid hardening, monitoring, and preparing a microgrid roadmap).
65 MCR 2024 REPORT, supra note 62.
66 MCR Guidelines, supra note 61; COLO. REV. STAT. § 40-9.8-104(2).
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 223
actually build and complete a project for new generation, storage or battery backup, a microgrid controller, or other electrical components that are part of the proposed microgrid.68 Construction grants have a maximum award amount of
$2,500,000.69
Colorado limits MCR program grants to eligible applicants as specified in H.B. 22-1013 and federal law. Under Colorado’s H.B. 22-1013, “[o]nly cooperative electric associations and municipally owned utilities that serve eligible rural communities are eligible to apply for a grant under the grant program.”70 Cooperative electric associations are “nonprofit electric corporation[s] or association[s],” and excludes “nonprofit generation and transmission electric corporations or associations.”71 Eligible rural communities are those that are “at significant risk of experiencing severe weather or natural disaster events,” and have one or more community anchor institutions.72 Federal funding laws also make funding available to all utilities, local governments, and individual community- based anchor institutions.73 The former group of cooperative electric associations and municipally-owned utilities are eligible for state-funded grants, whereas the latter group of all utilities, local governments, and community anchor institutions may only receive federally-funded grants.74
Turning to MCR’s efficacy, the program’s awardees demonstrate its success in its two-year existence. As of December 1, 2024, Colorado awarded a total of $11,126,463 to twenty-four awardees during three rounds.75 Of these twenty- four awards, sixteen were for rural town projects in of Colorado’s mountain ranges, such as Aspen, Beulah, Gardner, Evergreen, Delta, Ophir, Livermore, Rico, Ridgway, and Estes Park.76 Each of these towns is located deep within Colorado’s mountain
69 Id.
70 COLO. REV. STAT. § 40-9.8-104(1)(c).
71 COLO. REV. STAT. § 40-9.8-103(2); COLO. REV. STAT. § 40-9.5-102.
72 Community anchor institutions include school, library, hospital or other healthcare facility, law enforcement or other public safety agency, government office, community organization facility, and other critical community service facilities. COLO. REV. STAT. § 40-9.8-103(6).
73 MCR Guidelines, supra note 61.
74 MCR Guidelines, supra note 61.
75 MCR 2024 REPORT, supra note 62 at 4.
76 Id. at 4-9; MCR 2023 REPORT, supra note 14 at 5-6.
224 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
ranges, adjacent to the beginning of a range, or along the front range. Although the first round of funding only awarded grants to planning projects, rounds two and three primarily awarded construction grants, with only three entities receiving planning grants.77 This demonstrates that the MCR’s focus has now shifted to the actual construction of microgrids which will rapidly help to make these grids more resilient.
Not only has the state government efficiently issued grants for projects, but the recipients—cooperative utility groups and local governments—focus solely on providing resilient energy to the community. Compared to larger utility corporations, there are fewer shareholder considerations when applying, planning, and constructing a community microgrid in these hard-to-reach rural communities.78 This is demonstrated by the sheer amount of funding that the MCR program achieved in such a short period of time. Despite this success, the current funds will eventually run out and, in fact, must be spent by 2026 or 2029.79 Colorado may be able to apply for more federal funds and reallocate state funds to help those communities that did not receive funding in these first rounds. However, as this note discusses later (infra Part IV), Colorado can also turn its attention to ski resorts and incentivize those resorts to connect solar arrays to nearby community grids, while using remaining MCR funds to expand resiliency in other places across the state.
MCR’s past awards also demonstrate the practicability of ski resort interconnection. A majority of MCR’s construction awards were for solar arrays or battery systems that connect to specific critical services in each town. For example, the Estes Park award grants $350,000 to the Platte River Power Authority (a cooperative utility) to connect a battery to a feeder utility line that distributes power to critical facilities like the Estes Park Hospital.80 As this award shows, it is possible, and common, to connect a renewable energy system to a specific part of a larger utility grid. Just as the Platte River Power Authority will be able to connect its battery system to the Estes Park distribution line, Colorado can provide incentives to ski resorts to connect their
77 MCR 2024 REPORT, supra note 62 at 4-9; MCR 2023 REPORT, supra note
14 at 5-6.
78 K.K. DuVivier, Mobilizing Microgrids for Energy Justice, 26 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 250, 311 (2023).
79 MCR Guidelines, supra note 61.
80 MCR 2024 REPORT, supra note 62 at 7.
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 225
solar arrays to nearby community utility lines to generate more resiliency. As a further example, the mountain town of Ridgway—situated near Silverton—received multiple grants through the San Miguel Power Association with one grant specifically to construct a solar array at San Miguel Power’s Ridgway facility to “complete an islandable microgrid.”81 This demonstrates that these grants may be used not only to start a microgrid project from scratch, but to supplement ongoing projects to make the existing microgrid more resilient as an “islandable” system. Colorado’s ski resorts could use these financial incentives to connect any solar project to the larger community network as a supplement to the existing energy systems in place, making the nearby town more resilient.
California
In 2018, California began its microgrid rural resiliency journey by enacting S.B. 1339—a broader microgrid legislation that required California’s Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) “to facilitate the commercialization of microgrids for distribution customers of large electrical corporations,” that have more than 100,000 service connections.82 CPUC then went through rulemaking in 2019 to determine how to implement S.B. 1339 requirements.83
After a lengthy rulemaking process, the CPUC eventually authorized the Microgrid Incentive Program (“MIP”) in January 2021.84 Rather than accepting applications directly through the CPUC, the rule directs three large utilities—Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”), Southern California Edison (“SCE”), and San Diego Gas & Electric (“SDG&E”)—to develop and implement the MIP.85 The primary reason for this structure was due to the language of the statute which requires, “without shifting costs to between ratepayers, to develop methods to reduce barriers for
81 Microgrids for Community Resilience Awardees To-Date, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ebYNNYJ_1WsB- cBORcnv09HGHrbU44EcCEuJMD–R08/edit?gid=0#gid=0 (Colo. Dep’t of Loc. Affs., Microgrids for Community Resilience Program, Google Drive).
83 Resiliency and Microgrids, CAL. PUB. UTIL. COMM’N, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/resiliencyandmicrogrids/ (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
84 See CAL. PUB. UTIL. COMM’N, D2101018 DECISION ADOPTING RATES, TARIFFS, AND RULES FACILITATING THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF MICROGRIDS PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 1339 AND RESILIENCY STRATEGIES (Jan. 21, 2021).
226 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
microgrid deployment.”86 This language prompted the CPUC to “direct PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E to develop a microgrid incentive program,” beginning with the three utilities filing a proposed joint implementation plan within thirty days of the rule and subject to approval by the CPUC within 120 days.87 The CPUC set aside $200 million as the total available funding for MIP, with no limit on the number of projects that can receive funding.88
Finally, in April 2023, the CPUC approved a joint proposed rule for MIP implementation between the three utilities.89 In the same CPUC order, the agency divided up the total $200 million budget, allocating $79,200,000 to PG&E, $83,340,000 to SCE, and $17,460,000 to SDG&E.90 The CPUC also approved eligibility requirements in three categories: (1) risk of power outages; (2) qualified disadvantaged community; and (3) other technical requirements.91
As of January 2025, none of the three utility groups implementing MIP published any awards, and all three companies were still accepting applications or had recently closed applications for their first or second rounds of funding. The SCE’s first application period opened in the middle of 2024 and its second application period opened on August 11, 2025, remaining open until December 31, 2025.92 Likewise, SDG&E opened its first application process on October 14, 2024, and closed applications on November 22, 2024.93 Lastly, PG&E does not provide exact dates for their first application period, but it announced the first application awards to nine projects on
89 CAL. PUB. UTIL. COMM’N, D2303034 DECISION ADOPTING IMPLEMENTATION RULES FOR THE MICROGRID INCENTIVE PROGRAM, at 2 (Apr. 14, 2023).
92 Microgrid Incentive Program Fact Sheet, S. CAL. EDISON, https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/custom- files/PDF_Files/SCE%20MIP%20Fact%20Sheet%20Final%2020230929.pdf (last visited Oct. 31, 2025); Microgrid Incentive Program, S. CAL. EDISON, https://www.sce.com/partners/partnerships/microgrid-incentive-program (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
93 Microgrid Incentive Program, SDGE, https://www.sdge.com/MIP (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 227
March 26, 202594, and opened its second application period on April 3, 2025.95
Overall, MIP may end up being effective, but most of its benefits have yet to be realized, which is the program’s greatest flaw. From its conception to the close of the first application periods and first awards granted, nearly four years elapsed with vulnerable communities receiving no funding to strengthen their grids. In addition to a slow implementation of project funds, the CPUC is struggling to make decisions on key statutory requirements and is “years behind the statutory deadline.”96 California’s size may lend MIP to be better implemented through private parties rather than bogged down by (more) administrative hurdles within the CPUC, but “[t]his extreme delay in community microgrid development means more vulnerability to heat waves, wildfires, power shutoffs and pollution, especially in frontline communities.”97 For that reason, California’s MIP is extremely ineffective in achieving its goal of facilitating microgrid commercialization and increasing vulnerable community resiliency across California.
Vermont
Although Vermont does not currently have a formal microgrid resiliency program or goal, its renewable energy goals create implicit incentives for utilities to develop microgrids, making it a different and worthwhile approach to analyze. Vermont set Renewable Energy Standards (“RES”) in 2015 where the state seeks to be “90% renewable by 2050.”98 However, on June 17, 2024, the Vermont legislature passed H.289 to set
94 Brian Martucci, PG&E announces microgrid awards for $43M as Sunrun joins its 2025 VPP, UTIL. DIVE (Apr. 2, 2025) https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-announces-microgrid-awards-for-43- million-sunrun-joins-2025-vpp/744223/.
95 Community Microgrids, PG&E, https://www.pge.com/en/save-energy- and-money/rebates-and-incentives/community-microgrids.html (last visited Oct. 31, 2025).
96 DuVivier, supra note 78 at 315.
97 Stephanie Doyle and Shina Robinson, California PUC’s delay of microgrids program harms disadvantaged communities, UTIL. DIVE (Jan. 18, 2023), https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-pucs-delay-of-microgrids- program-harms-disadvantaged-communitie/639823/.
98 ANNETTE SMITH, VERMONTERS FOR A CLEAN ENV’T, UNDERSTANDING VERMONT’S ENERGY POLICIES 1 (Mar. 2018).
228 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
its RES to reach “100% renewable electricity by 2035,” “overriding Governor Phil Scott’s veto of the bill.”99
Instead of utilizing a fund dedicated specifically to microgrid resiliency projects, the RES grants Renewable Energy Credits to utilities for net-metering projects,100 essentially allowing the utility to earn credits for purchasing electricity from small-scale renewable energy sources instead of the source- owner receiving the credit. One utility—Green Mountain Power—demonstrates how Vermont’s approach can force utilities to adapt and build community microgrids without an explicit program.
Although Green Mountain Power is not eligible for Renewable Energy Credits under the new RES101, the company developed its “Zero Outages Initiative” that seeks to “keep customers and communities connected while lowering costs for all.”102 The Zero Outages Initiative is “particularly focused on storm hardening the most rural areas of the state.”103 In addition to the program’s primary goal of moving utility goals underground, “[e]nergy storage and microgrids are also key to this multi-year initiative.”104 Unlike other state models that provide grants to utilities for construction on or near critical infrastructure, Green Mountain Power plans to deliver “residential batteries to customers in remote locations” to achieve this arm of the program.105 This customer-focused approach is likely due to the funding source for the project.
99 VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 30, §218d (2024); Joshua D. Leckey and Emily A. Garrett, Vermont Overhauls its Renewable Energy Standard with the Passage of H.289 (Jun. 20, 2024), https://www.drm.com/resources/vermont-overhauls- its-renewable-energy-standard-with-the-passage-of-h-289/.
100 Joshua D. Leckey and Emily A. Garrett, Vermont Overhauls its Renewable Energy Standard with the Passage of H.289 (Jun. 20, 2024), https://www.drm.com/resources/vermont-overhauls-its-renewable-energy- standard-with-the-passage-of-h-289/.
101 Id.
102 Green Mountain Power Launches First in Nation 2030 Zero Outages Initiative, GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER (Oct. 10, 2023),
https://greenmountainpower.com/news/green-mountain-power-launches-first- in-nation-2030-zero-outages-initiative/ [hereinafter Zero Outages Initiative].
103 Diana DiGangi, Green Mountain Power proposes energy storage for all Vermonters, UTIL. DIVE (Oct. 10, 2023), https://www.utilitydive.com/news/green-mountain-power-vermont-storage- grid-hardening/696180/.
104 Zero Outages Initiative, supra note 102.
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 229
While state programs use state funds to approve projects, Green Mountain Power is seeking private “investment of up to $280 million.”106 States would not give grant funds directly to individual customers, whereas a privately owned utility can, setting this program apart from the other states.
Because of Vermont’s RES, private companies have immense flexibility to reach the state’s renewable energy targets, but they are nonetheless forced to adopt some form of renewable energy. This may inspire innovative strategies and technologies, like the ones that Green Mountain Power employs, leading them to be ranked second on Fast Company’s list for the most innovative energy company in the world.107 However, Vermont’s new 2024 RES sets more stringent goals for Vermont’s utilities compared to the original 2015 RES and has two provisions with implications on the adoption of renewable energy and microgrids going forward. First, the 2015 RES allowed utilities to meet their goals by purchasing up to ninety percent of their renewable generation energy out of state, requiring only ten percent to be sourced in-state.108 Now, the utilities may only purchase eighty percent of their renewable energy from generation out of state and must get twenty percent of their energy from in-state generation.109 This requirement to generate more renewable energy from in-state sources will undoubtedly force development of various renewable energy sites within the state of Vermont. This development may come in the form of microgrids, larger clean energy generation stations, or something in between. In any case, the in-state development of renewable energy systems will help strengthen grids.
Another requirement that impacts community microgrids is the elimination of off-site net metering. For smaller renewable energy projects built by an individual or private non-utility owner (a school or firehouse, for example) that sells excess power
107 Green Mountain Power Named to Fast Company’s 2024 Most Innovative Companies in the World, GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER (Mar. 19, 2024), https://greenmountainpower.com/news/gmp-named-to-fast-companys-2024- most-innovative-companies-in-the-world/.
108 Act 179 of 2024: Vermont’s New Renewable Energy Standard, RENEWABLE ENERGY VT., https://www.revermont.org/vermont-res-reform- legislation-overview/ (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
230 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
back to the utility, these “projects must be located on the same parcel as, or on a parcel adjacent to, where the generated energy will be utilized.”110 There is an exception that pushes back the deadline to eliminate off-site net metering for low-income residential buildings by one year111, however, this limitation still has major implications on the expansion of microgrids in small towns. For example, a medical center that wants to install solar panels to make it more resilient during outages would be unable to seek net-metering financial returns in certain circumstances. If the medical center requires a large amount of solar power to maintain critical operations and there is not enough land to construct a solar array of that size, the medical center must build off-site and would be unable to sell excess power to the utility through net metering. Therefore, this rule disincentivizes construction of microgrids because without a state grant to fund solar arrays, developers are unable to realize financial returns through net metering unless they have enough available land on their parcel to construct a solar array.
Overall, Vermont’s RES cannot be labeled as effective or ineffective for increasing resiliency in vulnerable communities because the program’s sole goal is to expand renewable energy. Any microgrids built that increase community resiliency are ancillary and would be a natural consequence of the shift to renewable sources. However, because of Green Mountain Power’s innovative strategies that result in community microgrids, this approach may be appropriate where states have less available funds to grant. It may not be appropriate in all areas due to the long implementation periods, lack of guarantees that microgrids will be developed, and the ability of companies to source renewable energy out of state. Nonetheless, it is a different approach that may still result in grid resiliency.
Oregon
Oregon’s Grid Resilience Grant Program (“GRGP”) is another state-implemented program that mixes aspects of California’s and Colorado’s systems in its approach. Like California and Colorado, Oregon’s GRGP “supports projects that strengthen resilience of the electric grid in Oregon
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 231
communities.”112 The program has a total budget of $29,354,081 with $17,846,858 reserved for small utilities and $11,507,223 available to other remaining eligible entities.113 This funding is primarily from a U.S. DOE grant through the Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grants Program, which awarded the state $19,907,304 in June 2023 and an additional $10,991,729 in July 2024.114 As required through the federal grant, Oregon matched fifteen percent of the funding, providing $4,634,855 to the total available funds.115 Five percent of the total $30,899,033 is withheld from available funds to be used as administration and technical assistance, bringing the total budget to just over
$29 million.116
GRGP limits eligible grant recipients to “Oregon electric utilities that are distribution providers,” differentiated between small (selling less than 4 million megawatt-hours per year) and large (selling more than 4 million megawatt-hours per year) utilities.117 Unlike Colorado’s MCR, which also allows local governments and nonprofit community institutions to apply for grants, Oregon only allows electric utilities, including cooperatives, investor-owned municipal, and people’s utility districts to apply for grants, making it similar to California’s MIP. But, unlike California, those utilities are not in charge of accepting applications and dispersing large sums of money. Rather, they assist those communities to implement the project, like Colorado.118 While both California and Colorado have programs designed specifically for constructing microgrids, Oregon’s offers more flexibility for utilities to make their grids more resilient with microgrids being only one of twelve options for eligible projects. The utilities apply for projects that increase grid resiliency, which include, for example, weatherization
112 Oregon Grid Resilience Grant Program Flyer, OR. DEP’T OF ENERGY, (July 2025) https://www.oregon.gov/energy/Incentives/Documents/Grid- Resilience-Program-Flyer.pdf.
113 Grid Resilience Grant Program, OR. DEP’T OF ENERGY, https://www.oregon.gov/energy/Incentives/Pages/Grid-Resilience-Grant- Program.aspx (last visited Jan. 16, 2025) [hereinafter Oregon Grant Program].
https://www.oregon.gov/energy/Incentives/Documents/Grid-Resilience-OA-24- 001.pdf [hereinafter ANNOUNCEMENT 24-001].
232 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
technologies, fire-resistant technologies, undergrounding technologies, and construction of distributed energy resources (microgrids and battery storage).119 For those reasons, Oregon’s approach is somewhere between California’s MIP and Colorado’s MCR.
As for the effectiveness of Oregon’s program, Oregon has
only completed one opportunity for applications, where it made
$18,911,939 available.120 Although Oregon has not yet released specifics on which utilities and towns will benefit from this program (Oregon will publish the complete list once the U.S. DOE approves of the accepted projects121), the State published some basic background information on its applicants for the March 2024 program. Oregon received thirteen grant applications in total for this opportunity round, representing seventeen counties in Oregon with seventy-eight percent of the census tracts containing customers qualifying as disadvantaged communities. Applicants are cooperatives, investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, and people’s utility districts. Those thirteen applicants requested nearly $18 million in funding. At first glance, Oregon’s program appears to be effective, allocating nearly all of its available funding from its first DOE grant in GRGP’s first application period. However, that may prove to be a problem for the longevity of the program.
Without receiving its subsequent $10 million U.S. DOE grant in July 2024, GRGP would have no remaining funds for future application rounds to assist other disadvantaged or at- risk communities and only thirteen communities would receive the state’s help.122 For comparison, Colorado allocated over $11 million to seventeen projects in its first two rounds and still had program funds remaining.123 From the time Oregon’s Department of Energy submitted its first funding application to the U.S. DOE, it took nearly one full year to publish its
119 Announcement 24-001, supra note 117 at 2.
120 Announcement 24-001, supra note 117 at 1.
121 Oregon Grant Program, supra note 113.
122 This is calculated by subtracting the total funding made available during the first funding opportunity in March 2024 ($18,911,939) to the available program funds at the same time ($19,907,304). Announcement 24- 001, supra note 117 at 1; Oregon Grant Program, supra note 113. GRGP received the additional U.S. DOE award in July 2024, meaning that without this additional award, nearly all GRGP funding would have been spent in one round. Oregon Grant Program, supra note 113.
123 MCR 2024 REPORT, supra note 62 at 4.
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 233
application opportunity and over a full year to select its first project recipients.124 Presumably, there will be a similar delay before beginning the next round of funding for the state’s second
U.S. DOE grant. If Oregon follows the same strategy for each round—applying for funding to the U.S. DOE, accepting applications for a small number of projects, and allocating the entirety of its budget in one round—it risks significantly delaying the rate at which these disadvantaged communities receive access to reliable and resilient energy.
Like California, Oregon’s GRGP could suffer from time delays due to bureaucratic hurdles and requirements that delay funding implementation and leave communities in vulnerable positions for longer. Additionally, there is the risk of patchwork implementation if funds deplete. If Oregon is unable to receive further grants from U.S. DOE, they may have only enough funds to construct resilient grids in a limited number of communities. As discussed in Part IV.B, this will leave other vulnerable rural communities behind as they struggle with both disruptions from weather events and increased costs from energy providers.125
Comparison on Program Effectiveness
Overall, Colorado and Oregon both operate the most effective microgrid resiliency programs in terms of getting money out the door to fund projects. Both states have quickly funded numerous projects, providing tens of millions of dollars to make vulnerable communities more resilient. Although Colorado and Oregon are on similar tracks, Colorado has more available funding to provide future grants at a faster rate than Oregon, which has more procedural hurdles to receive additional funding. Colorado has also distributed funds to more communities than Oregon, giving it a slight advantage in efficacy.
On the other hand, Vermont’s hands-off, carrot-and-stick RES approach seems to leave room for innovation from utilities like Green Mountain Power. But it remains unclear if RES will
124 See Oregon Grant Program, supra note 113; Jennifer Kalez, Oregon Department of Energy Grid Resilience Grant Program Grant Program to Support Oregon Electric Utilities, OR. DEP’T OF ENERGY (Mar. 15, 2024), https://energyinfo.oregon.gov/blog/2024/3/15/oregon-department-of-energy- grid-resilience-grant-program-to-support-oregon-electric-utilities.
125 See Sharon Jacobs & Dave Owen, Community Energy Exit, 73 DUKE
L.J. 251, 290 (2023).
234 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
result in more resilient communities through microgrids or simply shift from natural gas generators to renewable generators on the larger grid with no increased resiliency for vulnerable communities. Lastly, California’s approach may ultimately become an effective program, but it is far too slow moving and leaves many communities at risk during this waiting period. Even though it was the first state resiliency program, California is well behind Colorado and Oregon, taking over three years to accept its first applications. Despite being ahead of other state microgrid programs, Colorado can expand and reinforce its rural community energy resiliency by providing incentives directly to ski resorts to connect their solar energy or develop a microgrid in a nearby rural town.
Analysis: Making MCR Funds Go Further With Ski Resorts
Nearly all of Colorado’s ski resorts are working towards renewable energy goals and constructing energy projects that overlap with the state’s MCR program. Incentives from the state could turn into a benefit for both the MCR program—by expanding coverage in vulnerable mountain communities, leaving more funds for other rural communities—and for each individual ski resort—by providing more financial assistance to make construction of the expensive sources and interconnection to a local town grid more feasible.
Ski Resorts’ Clean Energy Goals Overlapping With
MCR
The ski industry is experiencing a push to make skiing a sustainable sport through various environmental efforts, including reducing carbon emissions with the addition of clean energy at resorts. These clean energy goals often overlap with Colorado’s MCR goals to make vulnerable communities more resilient. Out of Colorado’s ski resorts, Arapahoe Basin, Copper Mountain, and Aspen Mountain provide the three clear examples of the potential, ripeness, and practicability for community interconnection compatibility with the MCR program.
First, Arapahoe Basin ski resort demonstrates the potential for ski resort-to-community interconnection for increased
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 235
resiliency. Arapahoe Basin claims to have achieved carbon-free on-site operation in 2023, obtaining its energy primarily from off-site solar fields in the plains of Colorado.126 Twenty percent of the ski resort’s energy comes from Xcel Energy’s solar field in Deer Trail, Colorado and another seven percent from Jack’s Solar Garden in Longmont, Colorado.127 The remainder of Arapahoe Basin’s energy comes from various Xcel Energy renewable energy grid programs while only about one percent of the resort’s energy comes from its solar arrays.128 The resort states that “A-Basin is committed to adding . . . solar to any feasible building project,” and has installed “three significant grid-tiered arrays, plus numerous small off-grid systems.”129 Arapahoe Basin also states that they “succeed when [their] community succeeds” and they are “particularly invested in Summit County, [Colorado],” 130 the central county of Colorado’s mountains that includes the towns of Frisco, Dillon, Silverthorne, Montezuma, and Blue River in addition to Breckenridge, Copper, and Keystone.131 These towns all have multiple areas that are considered vulnerable.132 With Arapahoe Basin’s commitment to developing renewable energy sources and investing in the local community, Colorado has a clear opportunity to provide an incentive to connect the resort’s energy to nearby vulnerable communities. By doing so, Colorado’s MCR program can focus its attention on other communities in need while still expanding resiliency in these
126 Amanda Faison, Local Legends and Carbon Goals: The A Basin Way, COLORADO SKI, (Mar. 31, 2023), https://www.coloradoski.com/blog/local- legends-and-carbon-goals-the-a-basin-way/; 100% Renewable Energy, ARAPAHOE BASIN (Oct. 13, 2023),
https://www.arapahoebasin.com/blog/renewableelectricity/ [hereinafter 100% Renewable Energy]; A-Basin Achieves Carbon Neutrality, ARAPAHOE BASIN (Apr. 3, 2024), https://www.arapahoebasin.com/blog/carbon-neutrality/.
127 100% Renewable Energy, supra note 126.
129 Id.
130 About us, ARAPAHOE BASIN, https://www.arapahoebasin.com/about/ (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
131 Community, SUMMIT CNTY. COLO.,
https://www.summitcountyco.gov/community/index.php (last visited Jan. 22, 2025).
132 MCR Climate & Social Vulnerabilities Mapping Tool, COLO. RESILIENCE OFFICE, https://dola- online.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465b15acc2e64e1d 9f092f57b31fb869 (Last visited Jan. 16, 2025) [hereinafter Environscreen Map].
236 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
mountain towns that are at risk for outages yet are fortunate enough to be near a ski resort.
Next, Copper Mountain’s renewable energy goals show that state incentives for interconnection are ripe due to future plans to develop nearby microgrids and renewable energy sources. About seventeen miles southwest of Arapahoe Basin, Copper Mountain recently installed eighteen new solar arrays with nine solar panels each in one of its parking lots that it uses to completely power one of its employee housing buildings.133 In addition, Copper added solar panels to recent construction projects like a ninety-panel system on the roof of its mid- mountain lodge, a sixteen-panel system on a ski patrol building, a fifty-panel system at its vehicle maintenance shop, and a 162- panel system at a lodging building.134
With Copper’s goal to expand its renewable energy use to “play forever,”135 Copper plans to build a larger, off-site solar field that will power most of its resort.136 Although Copper is similarly close to Frisco, Dillon, and Silverthorne, it is also only nineteen miles from the town of Leadville in Lake County, where nearly the entire county is considered a vulnerable community.137 Copper, like other ski resorts, is in the early planning stages for developing more resort-owned solar arrays. This makes the opportunity to incentivize ripe for the state.
Colorado can develop a program to provide interconnection incentives soon so these resorts will be able to plan a better location for these microgrids to make interconnection more feasible and affordable. For example, if the state can provide incentives prior to or during construction of Copper’s off-site
133 9NEWS, Copper Mountain using solar panels to help power employee housing, at 0:15 (9news.com, Feb. 29, 2024, 7:58 AM MST), https://www.9news.com/video/tech/science/environment/73-6ebf7f49-e340- 419e-8270-c96477374c0d [hereinafter Copper Employee Housing].
134 Cody Jones, A look at Copper Mountain Resort’s new lodge, upgraded trails and expanded parking, SUMMIT DAILY (Sept. 15, 2023), https://www.summitdaily.com/news/copper-mountain-resort-nears-winter- season-with-completion-of-major-capital-investment-projects/; Play Forever: Energy, COPPER MOUNTAIN, https://www.coppercolorado.com/sustainability- community/play-forever/overview/energy/ (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
135 Play Forever, COPPER MOUNTAIN, https://www.coppercolorado.com/sustainability-community/play- forever/overview (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
136 Copper Employee Housing, supra note 133 at 1:28.
137 Enviroscreen Map, supra note 132.
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 237
microgrid, Copper can easily purchase land, obtain easements, or otherwise acquire property rights closer to those communities; in turn, Copper can connect these grids to nearby vulnerable communities rather than build additional infrastructure and technology after the project is complete. For that reason, state incentives for interconnection are ripe in Colorado.
Lastly, Aspen Mountain exemplifies how this opportunity for interconnection could feasibly play out with local vulnerable communities. Aspen Mountain has always been ahead of the curve for the ski industry, claiming to install the first resort solar array in the industry in 2004.138 In addition to this initial solar project, Aspen continued to add solar arrays to structures around its resort, such as two employee housing buildings, a hotel, and a ski lift terminal.139 But Aspen’s largest project is its off-site solar array at the Colorado Rocky Mountain School campus in Carbondale, roughly twenty miles from Aspen Snowmass.140
Aspen’s community microgrid affirms that interconnection is realistic and shows how Colorado can help its ski resorts to achieve their clean energy goals while assisting their nearby communities in reaching expanded energy resiliency. Specifically, three aspects of the project are important to note for resort-to-community interconnection. First, Aspen resort owns and operates the seven hundred and fifty-six-panel system where Rocky Mountain School uses one third of the energy generated and Aspen sells the excess power to Xcel Energy.141 This means that there is potential for ski resorts to build off-site microgrids where the resort diverts a portion of its energy to towns for critical functions while retaining the remainder of the energy to power its operations or sell to utilities for profit.
Second, Aspen partnered with the town of Carbondale’s Office of Resource Efficiency to install the project.142 This community partnership shows that local vulnerable
138 The Power of the Sun, supra note 58 (describing how Aspen’s 2.3- kilowatt array powers one third of their Highlands ski patrol headquarters).
141 Phillip Yates, Solar farm unveiled in Carbondale, SUMMIT DAILY (Jul. 2, 2008) https://www.summitdaily.com/news/solar-farm-unveiled-in- carbondale/.
238 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
communities would likely support interconnection because of the benefits that it would bring. It also shows potential for resorts to be eligible to receive state funds with a proper community partnership as part of a proposed incentive scheme.
Lastly, Aspen received a $1.1 million private investment to qualify to receive federal tax credits for this solar project.143 This shows how an interconnection program could differ from Colorado’s MCR program. Rather than provide funding for the entire project like the MCR does, an interconnection program could require private funding while still providing alternative financial benefits for ski resorts. This would both save the state money in the immediate future, which would allow their MCR budget to stretch further, and make more of Colorado’s grids resilient.
Potential Incentives for Ski Resorts
Colorado can use Aspen’s Carbondale community microgrid as a guide for resort-to-community interconnection incentives, but it must develop the program around various existing solar incentives under Colorado and Federal law to ensure ski resorts participate.144 To do this, Colorado should provide specific incentives—like interconnection tax credits or conditional MCR funding—for ski resorts to connect their microgrids to nearby critical community services that increase resiliency in that town.
One issue that Colorado must consider when developing this supplemental incentive is the economic viability for ski resorts to expend resources on interconnection. When there is an “unattractive investment environment,” the resort may face “immediate business costs such as . . . lack of infrastructure, meaning that the gap to project viability is larger.”145 In this context, if the incentive does not actually assist a resort to build
144 Renewable and Clean Energy Assessment, COLO. DEP’T OF LOCAL AFFAIRS, https://dpt.colorado.gov/renewable-energy (last visited Jan. 16, 2025) [hereinafter Clean Energy Assessment]; Alix Langone & Spencer Fields, The solar tax credit for businesses: Complete overview, ENERGEYSAGE (Sept. 14, 2024) https://www.energysage.com/business-solutions/solar-tax-credit-for- businesses/.
145 Maya Forstater, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: How Do Tax Incentives Impact Investment, CTR. FOR GLOB. DEV. (Oct. 16, 2017), https://www.cgdev.org/blog/good-bad-and-ugly-how-do-tax-incentives-impact- investment.
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 239
infrastructure that connects its microgrid to the town and to its own resort, then companies will not seek to connect their grids. Therefore, any incentive program for ski resort interconnection must be narrow enough such that interconnection actually benefits the community but remain broad enough to make the incentive economically beneficial for resorts. There are two incentive structures that could achieve this balance.
The first type of incentive is to extend a tax credit scheme to the ski resorts that meet certain conditions. In this incentive scheme, a ski resort would not receive any initial funding for their microgrid interconnection project, but would instead be able to claim a percentage “of the cost of [their] solar energy system as a credit to [their] tax bill.”146 This would mirror a
number of current clean energy schemes that companies can take advantage of, like the federal tax credit claimed by Aspen’s Carbondale project.147 Like the federal system, Colorado could allow ski resorts to submit their privately funded projects to their energy office for a credit on their taxes, creating “a dollar- for-dollar reduction” on their taxes.148 Because Colorado does not already offer corporate tax credits for solar energy,149 it has the opportunity to provide a limited tax credit or rebate for qualifying private corporate solar projects that provide a community interconnection with a certain percentage of energy diverted to critical infrastructure. Colorado would not be providing any up-front funding to these companies, so certain vulnerable communities in the mountains would gain added resiliency from this interconnection while the state does not lose any funding from the MCR. With this scheme, there may be less demand for MCR funds in vulnerable mountain communities and the program could send funds to other areas of the state, creating more widespread coverage.
A second, more direct incentive pathway would use the existing MCR program and create an additional category of eligible entities. Like Aspen’s Carbondale microgrid, the MCR program could allow for ski resorts to be eligible for MCR funds if they are in a direct partnership with a local energy cooperative
146 Alix Langone, Federal Solar Tax Credit in 2025: How Does it Work, (Emily Walker ed.) ENERGY SAGE (July 24, 2025), https://www.energysage.com/solar/solar-tax-credit-explained/.
147 See Yates, supra note 141.
149 See Federal Solar Tax Credits, supra note 146.
240 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
or local government. This would mirror Colorado’s geothermal
program, another clean energy developmental program found in
H.B. 22-1381.150 This program “provides grant funding to public and private sector entities to support the development and use of geothermal energy in Colorado.”151 Eligible entities include a number of private and governmental authorities that can receive funds for single or multi-building projects.152 The key takeaway for the geothermal incentive is that the state prioritized projects serving disproportionately impacted communities.153 This limitation allows the state to focus its attention on particularly disadvantaged communities and a similar limitation for resort- to-community microgrid connection would be key to distributing MCR funds to private entities.
The modified MCR program would be slightly different from the Geothermal Grant Program because its goal is to make vulnerable communities more resilient, not to expand the use of a particular clean energy. The proposed MCR change could not completely copy the Geothermal Grant Program and allow private entities to receive funds with only a prioritization for projects helping disproportionately impacted communities. Instead, the MCR program should add two conditions for private entities to receive program funds. Ski resorts would be eligible for MCR funds if: (1) they are in a direct partnership with an energy cooperative, municipally-owned utility, or local government unit as described under H.B. 22-1013, and (2) the project connects to at least one community anchor institution to provide twenty percent of the grid’s energy at a cost-competitive rate.
With these two qualifications, the MCR program provides ski resorts with upfront state financial assistance to construct a microgrid while ensuring that these funds still meaningfully benefit the community. Requiring resorts to divert twenty percent of the grid’s energy to the local community allows a resort to seek the financial benefits from the remaining eighty percent while still supplying enough energy to the town to make
150 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-38.5-118.
151 Colorado’s Geothermal Energy Grant Program, COLO. ENERGY OFF., https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/geothermal-energy-grant (last visited Jan. 16, 2025).
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 241
it resilient to storms. This balance is essential to creating a workable incentive scheme.154
Practical Considerations and
Potential Downsides
Economic Concerns for Utilities and Other Rural
Communities
Two economic concerns exist for creating a ski resort interconnection program in Colorado. First, utilities may be left with residual costs from grid maintenance in hard-to-reach areas. Second, vulnerable mountain communities that are not near ski resorts may bear higher energy costs.
Utilities that service hard-to-reach communities may be left
with “stranded investments” that make “management measures
. . . uneconomic due to increased competition in the electric power market.”155 These costs arise when there are lower electricity costs from competition, such as community microgrids that decrease demand for larger grid utilities.156 This can be an issue for long-operating utilities and may result in existing infrastructure seeing less frequent maintenance or complete closures due to high economic costs for a smaller monetary gain, leading to a net negative for the utility to operate.157 In the context of ski resort interconnection, this manifests as increased costs for utilities to operate and maintain powerlines or other energy transmission infrastructure in hard-to-reach areas. Constructing and maintaining powerlines or other energy transfer equipment is incredibly difficult and costly in rural mountain areas, sometimes requiring entirely new roads to be constructed.158 When electric companies become burdened by these costs to maintain the grid, they will spread the costs across
154 See Forstater, supra note 145.
155 Kari Twaite, Note, Monopoly Money: Reaping the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Microgrids in Exclusive Utility Service Territories, 34 VT. L. REV. 975, 993 (2010).
158 Jacobs, supra note 125 at 290; Catherine Clifford, Fierce local battles over power lines are a bottleneck for clean energy, CNBC (Jun. 26, 2022, at 4:26 PM EDT), https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/26/why-the-us-has-a-massive-power- line-problem.html.
242 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
customers.159 This becomes an issue when the number of customers decreases and cost increases are “now spread across a smaller base of consumers.”160 And because towns near ski resorts often benefit from increased economic activity from more visitors, “the burdens may fall on disadvantaged communities.”161
Colorado may risk further harm to other vulnerable communities that are not near ski resorts and did not receive any MCR funding. These communities would be said to be “left behind” to deal with the increased costs associated with remaining part of the larger grid.162 For example, vulnerable communities connected to ski resort microgrids would see reduced energy prices and increased resiliency, but those vulnerable communities that are not near a ski resort and did not receive any MCR funding would remain reliant on the broader grid with likely increased energy bills. For that reason, Colorado must be cognizant to prioritize remaining MCR funds for areas that are not already receiving help from private resorts. This may require the Colorado legislature to modify the MCR program and include a preference for vulnerable communities that have both the environmental justice flag and the climate vulnerability flag. This preference allows for a balanced approach to the MCR that does not leave communities behind simply because they are further from ski resorts.
Wildlife Impacts from Energy Sprawl
Expansion of microgrid resiliency through the construction of solar panel arrays by ski resorts in Colorado’s mountains may lead to energy sprawl—“[t]he growing land use footprint of energy development.”163 Although microgrids may be used to curb energy sprawl, residents might oppose microgrid construction in their backyard, which can “drive[] distributed generation projects outward,” and “act to increase, not decrease,
159 Jon D. Carmack, Energy Cost Adjustment to be spread out over nine electric bills, CRAIGHEAD ELEC. COOP. CORP. (Mar. 10, 2021),
https://craigheadelectric.coop/energy-cost-adjustment-to-be-spread-out/.
160 Jacobs, supra note 125, at 290.
163 Anne M. Trainor et al., Energy Sprawl Is the Largest Driver of Land Use Change in United States, 11 PLOS ONE 1, 1 (Sep. 8, 2016).
2026 Ski Resorts and Rural Energy Resiliency 243
energy sprawl.”164 This energy sprawl can impact how and where Colorado’s wildlife live due to habitat replacement or fragmentation, therefore negatively harming their existence.165
An alpine solar project in Switzerland, named Gondosolar, illustrates how the debate plays out practically. Gondosolar seeks to install “4,500 solar panels on ten hectares— 14 football pitches—of private land on a mountain,” enough to power “at least 5,200 local homes.”166 On one hand, powering 5,200 homes will reduce greenhouse gases and help eliminate negative impacts of a warming climate on those animals. And Gondosolar developers claim that their bifacial solar panels are more efficient because they can capture solar reflections off of the snow, providing more available energy to the nearby town, and increasing resiliency in the event of a major interruption.167 On the other hand, large solar fields like Gondosolar can cause “habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, habitat degradation, and collision risk.”168 Although Gondosolar will contribute towards Switzerland’s renewable energy goals and reduce the negative wildlife impacts from greenhouse gases, there will be a near- certain immediate harm to wildlife through habitat destruction and fragmentation by taking fourteen football fields worth of land.
If Colorado chooses to incentivize ski resorts to develop more solar arrays in its mountains, there is a similar likelihood that negative wildlife impacts will follow depending on the size and location of the microgrid project. To combat this, Colorado must ensure that each project follows state and federal endangered species acts for listed endangered or threatened species, but should also take additional steps to study the impact on the ecosystem and determine if the location is suitable to handle the project’s impacts.
164 Sara C. Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 CONN. L. REV. 547, 579 (2010).
165 Robert McDonald, et al., Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America, 4 CLIMATE POLICY AND HABITAT 3 (2009).
166 Simon Bradley, Mountaintop solar farms spark tensions in Switzerland, SWISSINFO.CH (Oct. 17, 2022), https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci- tech/mountaintop-solar-farms-spark-tensions-in-switzerland/47968044.
168 SOLAR IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND ECOSYSTEMS: REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION RESPONSE SUMMARY, U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY & RENEWABLE ENERGY 9 (Nov. 2021).
244 Colo. Env’t L.J. Vol. 37: Issue 1
Conclusion
With an increase in destructive weather, there is an urgent need to address the dangers that rural communities face when left without power from weather-related incidents. Put simply, a loss of power could mean a loss of life for these communities. Colorado, along with multiple other states, recognized this danger and developed programs to fund projects that construct microgrids and increase communities’ energy resilience and protect them from outages. Between four active state programs, Colorado’s MCR is the most effective because it is efficient in providing funds, it funds the most communities, and it has available funds for more communities to benefit from. However, because of the urgency to harden these grids and the number of vulnerable communities requiring resiliency, Colorado should look to ski resorts to supplement its MCR program and make the money go further. Colorado can take advantage of ski resort internal goals of converting to renewable energy and incentivize grid interconnection to nearby mountain towns. This may take the form of a solar tax credit or a direct fund through the MCR program if the project meets certain conditions. Despite the benefits of this type of program, Colorado must consider two downsides: increased energy costs for utilities or other vulnerable communities and the impact on wildlife. Overall, this program could help Colorado achieve its goals of making vulnerable communities more resilient to the increasing threat of power outages caused by extreme weather events.