Guest Opinion | The wrong question … and a suggestion

||| FROM BILL APPEL |||

Over the past few years (who’s counting?) we have participated in, been treated to, or studiously ignored a fierce debate around the following question: “Should OPALCO be permitted to construct a utility-scale solar facility at Bailer Hill and/or to expand its existing solar facility on Decatur Island, notwithstanding effects on ecology, asserted traditions, and aesthetics?”

But however direct to the point of common concern, this is the wrong question which is easily answered: free market investment in solar facilities in the Northwest is not by itself economically feasible and its minor benefit does not justify its harm to ecology, native tradition, esthetics, and consequent alienation of OPALCO’s membership. The answer to this particular question leads inextricably to an irrelevant answer: free market investment in solar power does not apply when considering (1) that funding is by grant (the purpose of grants is to fund economically infeasible projects), and (2) the cumulative costs of complete loss of power far exceeds investment in both projects.

To those whose knowledge, personal concern or experience is limited to one or more of these factors, this answer is conclusive on the merits, and OPALCO’s introduction of additional factors is seen as an effort to scare its membership into acquiescence in money wasting, and ecologically and aesthetically damaging projects.

This is understandable; we live on islands. We enjoy luxurious separation from mainland concerns. Although also a full-time resident, OPALCO cannot so indulge itself. OPALCO is obligated to provide electrical energy to serve all present and future electric power demands upon which the health and welfare of the inhabitants and economy of our county depend: electrical energy from the BPA. This energy is delivered to OPALCO via three break points: two cables (aged 25 and 41 years old and increasingly operated at maximum load; a third, estimated to cost $100,000,000 will be needed: https://www.opalco.com/quick-fact-opalco-needs-a-redundant-submarine-cable-to-meet-growing-demand/2023/11/), and 10 vulnerable miles of participation in the Northwest grid that is itself becoming insufficient for the demands placed upon it, https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/wa-lawmakers-commit-to-flexibility-to-keep-electricity-affordable-reliable/ .

Failure of any one of these break points forces major and/or well-off minor power consumers to use fossil fuel generators, isolates and imperils county inhabitants, and discourages the use of EVs contrary to county policies adopted in 2008 (Climate Stabilization Resolution 8A) and 2020 (Climate Action Resolution) and state policy (Climate Commitment Act, chapter 70A.65 RCW).

Despite two explicit warnings, February 10, 2025, (https://www.opalco.com/opalco-meets-with-county-council-energy-supply-will-not-meet-demand/2025/02/) and April 20, 2026 (https://www.sanjuanjournal.com/2026/04/29/a-warning-from-the-boardroom-opalcos-departing-board-president-sounds-energy-alarm-county-council-members-call-for-community-engagement/) County Council reaction has been limited to mild surprise, perhaps believing that classifying utility scale solar facilities as essential public facilities ended their regulatory foray into that zone.

More is needed, because OPALCO has no regulatory power to enforce, as an example, conservation. I suggest, however, that under Section 11, clause 11 of our state constitution, the county does. This provision was clearly designed to allow local governments to solve unique local problems. It is this provision upon which the state supreme court upheld our jet-ski ordinance. It is not merely pride that confirms that our circumstances are unique requiring aunique solution. It is our vulnerability.

The wrong question quoted above continues business as usual: using grant funds, OPALCO struggles to install energy facilities compliant with state goals and while under attack from righteously vociferous members, which the County Council stays above the fray. This leaves OPALCO to struggle with projects that fit within grant conditions under a storm of criticism and abuse by its members.

Much has been said about climate, for which there is the Climate and Sustainability Committee. What is missing is a mechanism to design a response to an approaching threat to the health, welfare and economy of the people of our county, one that will propose concrete action to mesh seamlessly with OPALCO’s efforts in which it alone cannot succeed. Neither party could hope to lead the other; each one, and all of us, face a common threat: interruption of mainland power, and/or overuse thereof leading to onerous rates.

I suggest that certain organizations adjust their missions to include the role of ecological triage advice. Even those in the medical profession sworn to preserve life find themselves in this role, and it is called for here to minimize the ecological (and esthetic and consequent financial) cost of missteps … but some steps must be taken. The consequences of our increasing reliance on electric energy in response to climate commitments, and events on the mainland, will not wait for us.

So, here is the right question: “Should San Juan County and OPALCO together, with advice from relevant organizations and experts as needed, protect the health, welfare and economy of the county by taking such measures and imposing and defending such carefully drafted regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to increase county resilience against interruption, insufficiency, or excessive use of electrical power?”