||| FROM RIKKI SWIN |||
I extend my sincere congratulations to OPALCO’s subsidiary, Rock Island Communications, on securing the $16.5 million BEAD grant to expand broadband connectivity across the San Juan Islands. This funding represents an important step forward for internet access in our community.
That said, OPALCO and Rock Island Communications have incurred substantial costs for members, resulting in elevated electricity rates that will persist for years. The following facts warrant attention from current and prospective board members:
-
OPALCO’s long-term debt stands at approximately $98 million, with an additional ~$25 million associated with Rock Island Communications.
-
The General Manager, who divides time between OPALCO and Rock Island Communications, receives total compensation (including benefits) exceeding $800,000 annually.
-
The solar microgrid projects on Decatur Island and Bailer Hill provide limited benefit to the islands overall:
- Our primary power supplier, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), already delivers carbon-neutral, renewable energy.
- Critical facilities (e.g., hospital, fire stations, water treatment) maintain on-site emergency generators for backup.
- Located at a northern latitude and influenced by marine Pacific weather patterns, solar generation here is relatively inefficient. You can verify this using tools like the Global Solar Atlas (www.globalsolaratlas.info/map
).
(Note: Individual residential solar installations differ significantly from utility-scale microgrids with large lithium battery banks. While home systems may have reasonable payback periods, microgrid projects often exceed 100 years in cost recovery, and panels/batteries may not last 20 years.)
Resources would be better allocated to redundant inter-island submarine cables. (For clarity: The primary mainland supply cable is funded and maintained by BPA; OPALCO handles intra-island distribution.)
-
OPALCO members pay roughly double the electrical energy rates of surrounding mainland utilities, largely due to high debt levels stemming from major capital investments and operational costs (including executive compensation).
-
OPALCO has plans to develop hundreds of acres of solar microgrids on major islands, including San Juan, Orcas, Lopez, Shaw, and Blakely (with expansions on Decatur). This represents significantly more debt and the industrial look of solar panels covering 100’s of acres!
Additional details and perspectives are available on www.OurOpalco.com.
I encourage transparent discussion of these issues to ensure decisions prioritize long-term affordability and reliability for all members.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Hydroelectric dams are not free from emitting greenhouse gases and as the planet continues to warm and there is less snowpack, we won’t be able to depend on that energy. Solar energy can be stored for those times the sun isn’t shining. There are many places where solar can be placed in the islands. That said, it would be very helpful if we would be more mindful of the amount of energy we use and continue to get more energy-efficient.
OPALCO welcomes open dialogue about the co-op — even when we disagree. Nothing is more encouraging than members who take an interest in our work and want to understand more. We invest significant effort in making the business transparent through our website and ongoing member communications.
It’s disheartening when that spirit of engagement perpetuates misinformation and conspiracies. OPALCO genuinely welcomes meetings, questions, and active participation — but social media sound bites rarely capture the nuance this business requires, and inaccurate claims can create confusion where there is none.
If you have questions or want to see change, we encourage you to engage directly. Co-ops are democratically run — your Board is elected by you, accountable to you, and willing to discuss concerns about the co-op’s direction openly. Do your homework, seek out the facts, and make your voice heard where it counts most: our Board election opens tomorrow.
Here are a few of the key points of misinformation:
• OPALCO retail rates are NOT impacted by Rock Island efforts in any way whatsoever. Debt carried on Rock Island’s (RIC) financial books is covered 100% by Rock Island and is not considered an OPALCO obligation. As planned, Rock Island debt service is paid for solely by revenue collected from RIC services.
• Power and Internet are crucial to island living. Electricity is required to run our emergency services, cell services, airports, septic and water systems, refrigerators, laundry, grocery stores, businesses, restaurants, etc. The complexity of providing critical power and internet services to these remote islands requires extremely talented staff that have the skills, background, experience and education to navigate this rapidly changing environment. While you may have a different opinion and disagree with the GM current compensation, the OPALCO Board does their due diligence in reviewing a host of comparable resources and information to determine GM compensation.
• OPALCO has one community solar project on Decatur and are considering expanding the project with additional solar panels. Only the Community members who purchase community solar shares fund the project. Given this, OPALCO doesn’t have excess “Community solar funds” to allocate elsewhere. We are not sure what the point is here; if you don’t support the concept, then don’t buy any solar panels?
• Given the lower cost of hydropower generated on the mainland, our retail rates have historically been some the lowest electricity rates in the nation. From a regional perspective the inefficiencies of running an electric utility in a 20-island service territory are extreme. OPALCO maintains 25 electric submarine cables, three office/crew facilities, 12 substations and requires more lineman and personnel to safely provide power to SJC. OPALCO’s retail rates may be higher than a mainland utility like PSE because we don’t have the luxury of spreading our fixed costs over 1.2 million meters. The expectation that PSE and OPALCO retail rates should be the same are like apples and oranges. PSE has 1.2M meters to spread their fixed costs over. OPALCO has 16k meters.
• OPALCO solar acreage figures were stated in SJC comprehensive plan as mandated by the growth management act. OPALCO expects to only build out local renewable generation as required to serve our membership. The ultimate solution(s) must include every option available, including BPA hydropower, new off-island generation, energy efficiency, conservation, and new local generation.
I would like to see the compensation model that OPALCO uses to calculate its executive pay package for the GM. Is this available? For example, is median peer compensation calculated, then an objectively-calculated cost of living adjustment made? Would OPALCO be willing to make the details of the pay package public as soon as it is awarded? It seems they keep it secret and we have to rely on 990 filings, which can be quite old. By the time the public is aware via form 990, another few substantial boosts have already been made.
I don’t argue with rates, as long as they are being delivered at cost by an efficient and prudent organization. We choose to live on an island, and it is an incredibly expensive place to live, both by nature of its geography and a county government that makes the problem worse through its web of bloated regulations.
I think what should be debated in the coming months is the philosophy of this rural co-op Should they be a vanguard energy producer and telecommunications provider with grid-scale solar and tidal implementations, or should they be a hardened utility with redundancy on the grid interconnect side and endpoint resiliency through residential and business ESS systems. I am not going to say that one or the other is correct, but I will say that there exists a graveyard of utilities that tried to be more than a utility, and I think that is where some of the concern lies. The alarming bias of the recent survey has woken up many, so I do hope more members get involved.
OPALCO’s response sidesteps key member concerns, particularly on debt issues (over 100 million $ !!!) ties and the questionable geographical location for microgrid solar sites, go to: http://www.globalsoaratlas.info/map). Labeling legitimate questions as “misinformation and conspiracies” undermines the open dialogue they claim to value. Here’s a point-by-point fact check:
On Rock Island and rate impacts OPALCO insists Rock Island (RIC) debt has zero impact on OPALCO retail rates. Historical records contradict this: OPALCO provided startup loans (e.g., $5M repaid in 2016) and imposed a ~$3/month member surcharge for 24 months (~$72 total per member) to support RIC debt service. Intercompany loans and shared infrastructure persist. While current budgets separate operations, past subsidies and RIC’s growth raise valid questions about indirect effects on OPALCO’s borrowing capacity and equity for power projects—issues not fully addressed publicly.
On GM compensation: The board asserts “due diligence” using comparable data justifies the GM’s pay. For a rural co-op serving ~16,000 meters, $800,000 per year is excessive compared to similar utilities. Members can and should question whether this aligns with keeping rates affordable, especially amid rising costs—no conspiracy, just accountability for how member funds are spent. Here are the comparisons:
Utility
Number served
Compensation
Lane CO-OP
34,000
$407,165
Kootenai Elec CO-OP
33,100
$605,008
OregonTrail CO-OP
31,500
$569,905
Coos-Curry CO-OP
19,500
$392,317
OPALCO CO-OP
19,500
$791,700
Clearwater Power
10,600
$368,414
Blachly-Lane CO-OP
4,800
$305,413
West Or CO-OP
4,700
$253,408
Okanogan CO-OP
4,200
$332,555
Hood River CO-OP
4,000
$351,014
Lost River CO-OP
3,500
$302,888
Salmon River CO-OP
3,200
$449,562
Harney CO-OP
2,500
$301,553
Nespelem CO-OP
1,500
$283,330
Members have every right to question whether this level aligns with rate affordability amid ongoing increases—no conspiracy, just fiscal accountability.
On community solar funding OPALCO says the Decatur project is funded solely by member share purchases, with no “excess” funds. This is deceptive. Members buy shares for bill credits (effectively a financed return), which means we all pay. And the project depends on state grants (originally $1M Clean Energy Fund, revised/extended/reduced) and OPALCO matching contributions from ratepayer resources. Grants benefit low-income programs, but ratepayers pay for permitting delays, legal fees, site pivots (Bailer Hill to Decatur), and now requests to revise long-standing covenants.
On retail rates vs. PSE and others Island service is costlier (submarine cables, substations), but OPALCO has long promoted “some of the lowest rates in the nation” via BPA hydro. Recent changes include a 2026 ~5.8% overall increase (~$12/month average), with the service access charge rising to $67.58/month (higher than many peers):
OPALCO: $67.58 base + 13.95¢/kWh
Inland Power: ~$33 base + ~8¢/kWh
Oregon Trail: ~$38.50 base + ~7¢/kWh
Lane: $49 base + 10¢/kWh
The fixed charge emphasis (the very high debt load) (is tied to grid costs, including past capital) contributes to higher bills for low-usage members. Management decisions play a role in these trends.
On solar acreage and Decatur specifics The comprehensive plan designates acreage for renewables per state law—true. But it doesn’t justify the Decatur site’s issues: OPALCO purchased land with pre-existing 2010 Native Growth Area and 2012 30% open space covenants (running with the land), then advanced plans overlapping them, and filed intents to revise both in 2026. County staff noted the project must avoid protected areas, yet OPALCO pushes forward. Clearing acres of mature forest near wetlands raises environmental and precedent concerns—do we want large-scale solar altering the islands’ scenic character? Visuals of similar installations show panels dominating landscapes. AND WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR OPALCO LEGAL FEES!
OPALCO is member-owned; robust scrutiny strengthens it. Dismissing questions discourages participation. Ballots arrive today (March 18, 2026)—this election is a direct path to accountability on rates, executive pay, due diligence, Rock Island ties, and project siting.
For more details, visit http://www.OurOpalco.com.
Members deserve transparent answers, not broad dismissals. Let’s demand better.
This is an excellent example of a data splash designed to support the writer’s (any writer, whoever it is) theme, often in our county a swirling mixture of financial (as seen from a personal perspective) and land use (also seen from a personal perspective) issues.
As to financial matters, it violates accounting rules and ignores that fact that virtually all co-operatives are either debt-capitalized, or (when I last checked) like Puget Consumers Co-op, “off the bank” and running on accumulated margins. No, not “profits” as co-ops are non-profit. And as to the amount of debt, $100,000,000 looks like a lot of money to those of a certain age, but remember you are now looking at 100 or fewer waterfront properties in our county which has approximately 20,000 parcels (OK, that’s a data splash).
Which brings us to land. Every one of us has either or both a financial stake in a piece of land, or strong feelings for what their own (and in OPALCO’s case) what someone else’s land should look like. The question is, what do we do with that feeling? Many recognize that the fact that humans are here means that there will be a tremendous cost to animal and vegetable wildlife here, as well as to human traditions usually honored in the breach. Some things can be swept aside, such as the casino sought to be developed on Indian land on Orcas Island. Some things cannot, such as the need for electric power resilience for a remote county whose economy is slowly shifting from fossil fuels to electric power. while access to mainland power for our expanding needs becomes more and more uncertain. Our council has recognized that we cannot duck this issue, and facing it will cause yet more strong feelings.
These feelings are getting in the way of reality. A splash factoids and figures energized by those feelings is not helpful. The next few years will be difficult enough.
Bill,
Your reply is a classic exercise in deflection: waving away hard numbers and member-funded realities as mere “feelings” or a “data splash” while offering zero substantive counter-facts. The concerns about skyrocketing debt, outsized executive pay, punishing rates, and questionable solar microgrid spending aren’t opinions—they’re documented in OPALCO’s own quarterly financials, IRS Form 990 filings, budgets, and project disclosures. Dismissing them as personal gripes doesn’t make the debt or the bills disappear.
On electricity supply: Yes, ~96% of our power comes from BPA’s overwhelmingly clean, renewable hydropower (85–90%+ GHG-free, straight from OPALCO’s fuel mix reports). No serious person disputes that baseline is already carbon-free. So tell me—what exactly is the point of spending millions on solar microgrids that won’t make us meaningfully “more carbon-free”? Resilience claims ring hollow when critical facilities already have generators, and we’re paying premium rates for projects with decades-long (or longer) paybacks in our cloudy, northern climate. If the goal is true reliability, why not prioritize redundant submarine cables instead of blanketing hundreds of acres with panels?
On finances: Sure, co-ops use debt for capital—that’s standard. But OPALCO’s long-term debt has ballooned from ~$67 million in 2022–2023 to over $90 million by late 2025 (per your own quarterly reports and 2026 budget projections). That escalation directly fuels rates that crush members compared to mainland utilities. Island challenges explain some of it, but not all—especially when spending decisions keep piling on.
Regarding executive pay: Public IRS filings and OPALCO’s own executive compensation comparison show the GM’s total package at $791,700 in recent years—far exceeding many other BPA-supplied co-ops and PUDs serving similar or larger customer bases. Check the detailed side-by-side at http://www.OurOpalco.com We’re paying double or more what comparable utilities do for leaders managing fewer members and simpler systems. That’s not competitive benchmarking—it’s excessive, and it’s fact, not opinion. Did you even glance at the numbers before calling them unhelpful “factoids”?
Finally, labeling documented questions about land use—hundreds of acres of industrial solar arrays on our scenic islands—as “feelings energized by factoids” is insulting to every member who values the beauty and character of the San Juans. Most of us would prefer reliable power without turning prime land into panel farms. That’s not just opinion—it’s shared by thousands who want transparency on why these projects trump proven alternatives like cable redundancy.
The future will be challenging, exactly as you say—which is why we need ruthless scrutiny of every dollar spent, every debt dollar added, and every project justified. Members aren’t getting “clear answers”—we’re getting rate hikes and deflections. Time for the board and management to stop hiding behind vague platitudes and start providing real accountability on how these choices hammer our bills and long-term reliability.
Rikki Swin
OPALCO GM compensation comparison – reformatted for clarity
Lane co-op, serves 34,000 , compensation : $407,165
Kootenai Elec co-op, serves 33,100, compensation $605,008
Oregon Trail co-op, serves 31,500, compensation $569,905
Coos-Curry co-op, serves 19,500, compensation $392,317
OPALCO co-op, serves 19,500, compensation $791,700 (2024)
Clearwater Power, serves 10,600, compensation $368,414
Blachly-Lane co-op, serves 4,800, compensation $305,413
West Or co-op, serves 4,700, compensation $253,408
Okanogan co-op, serves 4,200, compensation $332,555
Hood River co-op, serves 4,000, compensation $351,014
Lost River co-op, serves 3,500, compensation $302,888
Salmon River co-op, serves 3,200, compensation $449,562
Harney co-op, serves 2,500, compensation $301,553
Nespelem co-op, serves 1,500, compensation $283,330
https://www.OurOpalco.com
Rikki, you continue to state falsehoods and conflate apples and oranges.
1) An example is you stating that OPALCO has a ‘simpler system’ than those utilities you are using as comparisons….that is overwhelmingly demonstrably false.
2) Another example is continuing to use Rock Island as a cost impediment for OPALCO, which is also false, and does not recognize the benefits of that very positive decision by OPALCO to initiate and continue to improve that vital service for all members of our community.
All you do is double-down, continuing to try and confuse readers to support failing arguments.
Please show more integrity, and I repeat….Give it a rest.
Terry,
Your accusations ring hollow coming from someone who co-chaired OPALCO’s 2016 Member Review Committee on Elections—hardly the perspective of a neutral outsider.
Rock Island’s financials show real impacts: years of losses post-acquisition, shared costs inflating GM pay ($791k+ total), and burdens on electric members despite recent grant wins. Benefits exist, but so does the drag—facts from public reports, not confusion.
I’m citing OPALCO docs, filings, and disclosures—not doubling down on falsehoods. If my questions threaten your narrative, provide counter-data instead of personal attacks and demands to “give it a rest.” Integrity demands transparency, not silencing debate.
Rikki Swin