Letter to Editor | Decatur (who paid?) It’s not outright DECEPTION, but…..

Amanda Azous

I guess I wasn’t clear,….. OPALCO told us that SUBSCRIBERS and GRANTS paid for the Decatur Solar Microgrid, and that isn’t true. That’s deception – intentional deception. In reality the regular members actually got rate increases to pay for Decatur along with the SUBSCRIBERS and GRANTS. In fact, the REGULAR MEMBERS paid MORE than either of the other contributors. Thats D E C E P T I O N !

If you look at the http://www.OurOpalco.com website, there is a page that explains how solar microgrids are a very unwise investment for our area. They won’t help in a cable outage.

1. They can only supply power for hours and not everyone. A cable outage will last much longer – days
2. The microgrids for all the islands will cost 50 – 60 million $ (why not invest in backup cables?)
3. The microgrids will destroy the beauty of 100’s of acres – cut down trees – add to our carbon footprint
4. We are currently carbon free – solar microgrids won’t help the environment – our current sources is renewable and carbon-free
5. We live in a rain shadow and have low sun which makes this the worst location in the continental US for solar
6. We are essentially a retirement community – we don’t have anything critical (our health care fire, water treatment already have backup (by law))
7. We overpay the GM by far (www.OurOpalco.com)
8. We already pay about twice as much as our surrounding neighbors for power
9. If you need more reasons watch the website – I am adding pages as fast as I can.

In my own defense I am tryinig to help by pointing out past and present day mistakes in hopes that we may correct the situation before its too late.

May I ask why you think solar microgrids are good for us?

rikki

Red flag: I live in a solar powered home with battery storage. People that claim solar doesn’t work here have other agendas and energy independence is not one of them. Yes you need to site your panels appropriately but saying it is “the worst location in the continental US” is uninformed BS. The rain shadow means we have more sun! Do you live here? Micro grids don’t destroy our local beauty. Micro grids can supply power to essential resources in an emergency. We need more of them not argue against them. We have many acres of local beauty and many already cleared. Look around you. We just need to make an easy pathway for energy independence on buildings, pastures combined with agriculture and yes sometimes cutting a young forest. Port of Friday Harbor Marina is going to put them over their parking lot. Maybe one day on all their hangers too. We need to think big not small in protecting our island culture. If you don’t like what you pay for electricity, then get off the grid, move, and otherwise get out of the way. You don’t seem to understand the situation we are in. Note I’m not sure what neighbors you are referring to that pay half of what SJC people pay for energy but my research says it depends on when you are using power and we are comparable to Whatcom, Skagit and King Counties. Please facts not crap. Also to claim our power sources have “NO CARBON FOOTPRINT”. Huh? We truck salmon up rivers to keep their runs alive. Our dams are aging as are our submarine cables. Replacing cables is a great idea but when the mainland has lost power we don’t get it. Mainland rolling blackouts are becoming routine and now with AI data centers consuming energy resources around the country the situation is worsening. Anyone that thinks the status quo is ok is not thinking Rikki. What is your plan?

Nice ad-hominem attack. I sourced my equipment from Signature Solar, learned everything I needed to know from Will Prowse’s DIY solar forums, and had everything inspected by our local L and I office out of Mount Vernon. How is that hard to believe?

Residential solar and grid-scale solar are very different. I am a huge proponent of the former. Conflating the two is not helpful. Just read my prior comments in support. Please take the name-calling somewhere else. It just weakens your own argument.

From two decades of personal experience, I can say the solar works, and works well. But that isn’t really the point here.

Island people by nature have an independent streak. They are independent from the “mass” on the mainland, but also independent from each other as this string shows so well. OPALCO is required by law to serve all who want to be served, and there, OPALCO’s market for generation and use goes fractal.

We all know that OPALCO is controlled not directly by members, but by a board whom members elect. I do appreciate Rikki’s effort to muckrake; there is a place for that. The pity is that Rikki is not running for the board so that her point of view can be tested against a countywide vote. OPALCO board decisions on rates, and who pays for what, is fundamentally political with a small “p”.

There is no perfect allocation of income and expenses when the mental playing field is on several simultaneous levels: (1) those who can pay not only OPALCO’s charges but for replacement (off-grid or small grid) installations; (2) the need for uninterrupted service for governmental, safety and health supported power; (3) the need for businesses, large and small to stay in business in an economic location largely without capital reserves in many, if any, of the small businesses here; (4) the overriding need to participate in a planetary effort to reverse what appears to be a slow and so far inexorable shift in how planetary energy behaves which leads to local expenditures in support of a policy that extends far beyond OPALCO’s service area, but also intended to displace fossil fuel generation within that service area..

It is expenditures particularly in the fourth category that skew costs irrespective of source, initiated under policies of a board reflecting a majority of membership (who in turn, unaware of possible ideological schizophrenia, might or might not have considered consequences to local land use), put into practice by a competent and sympathetic manager supported by competent staff that are now complained of. The inefficiency is inherent in the conflict between public, private interests and even internally inconsistent beliefs.

The problem for each of us is personally moral integrity, economic security and personal safety. It is worthy of discussion, but I do suggest that it is best accomplished in recognition of the complexity of the multiply intertwined problem rather than assuming a failure of character or worse in those among us charged with its response.

Bill,

I did consider running for the OPALCO board. I won’t—because I refuse to subject myself to the same gag orders and legal threats that have silenced others.

The facts are clear and documented in local media and OPALCO’s own records: In 2013–2014, after John Bogert resigned amid frustrations over the broadband push (Rock Island/CenturyLink dealings), OPALCO’s attorney Joel Paisner sent him letters threatening legal action if he publicly discussed his reasons for resigning or details from board deliberations. This was framed as a breach of confidentiality, even though Bogert’s resignation letter was later acknowledged (after line-by-line review) as not violating it. Community backlash was swift—guest columns in The Orcasonian and San Juan Journal called it an overreach that suppressed transparency in a member-owned co-op. Similar threats went to others, like County Councilman Bob Jarman, and recent 2025–2026 letters to editors cite these incidents as reasons people hesitate to run, fearing loss of free speech post-service.

OPALCO’s policies require directors to keep non-public matters confidential (executive sessions, negotiations, etc.), with obligations extending after leaving the board. Violations can lead to injunctions or damages. That’s not protection—it’s a tool to stifle dissent, especially when tied to controversial decisions like the Rock Island acquisition, which loaded the co-op with debt and drove rates sky-high.

Low voter turnout (often 12–24% in recent elections) isn’t just apathy—it’s a symptom. People either don’t care (unlikely in this engaged community) or don’t understand the issues because critical information stays locked behind closed doors. I’m working to fix the latter: opening eyes to how post-2014 ventures shifted OPALCO from prudent management to high-debt expansion outside core electric service.

Our power is already hydro-based and carbon-free via BPA. Microgrids bring land clearing, tree loss, added carbon footprint, and massive costs—without displacing fossils here. Prioritizing reliable cable backups would deliver better resilience at far lower expense.

I trust our community’s intelligence and love for these islands. That’s why I’m speaking out publicly—where voices aren’t threatened into silence. If the board wants real input, start with transparency instead of confidentiality walls.

Rikki

Keep looking for additional facts on the website : http://www.OurOpalco.com

Bill,

Community criticism exists: Letters to editors, Facebook groups, and local news (e.g., The Orcasonian, San Juan Journal) highlight perceived lack of transparency, such as in renewable projects, or the purchase of Rock Island Communications, or GM compensation. Members have called for more open recordings, independent audits, or less executive session use. OPALCO has responded to “misinformation” claims by pointing to public documents, but complaints persist about spin (i.e. deceptively suggesting that “SUBSCRIBERS” and “GRANTS” are the only ones paying for solar).

True public-owned utilities prioritize accountability and transparency. NDAs shield decisions from timely member oversight. Why not disclose full environmental & cost analyses for microgrids?

Non Disclosure restrictions erode trust – they limit input on projects affecting our rates, land, and environment. OPALCO posts many documents, but key details (e.g., full cost-benefit for Decatur clearing) often emerge only after commitments. Washington law (OPMA) emphasizes open meetings—why not maximize disclosure to build confidence?

The board isn’t just ‘living in the future’—current realities matter. Our power is already clean hydro via BPA; local solar microgrids risk net carbon increases from tree/forest loss on sensitive islands. Community opposition (e.g., Decatur residents, surveys showing wildlife/scenic concerns) isn’t short-sighted. Prioritizing reliable cable upgrades could deliver resilience without deforestation or the high costs of microgrids. (50-60 million according to OPALCO)

Long-game planning is important but Solar Microgrids will do nothing to satisfy a cable outage. NOTHING!

I like to live in the real world – I can’t predict the future – and OPALCO has proven over and over that they can’t either!

rikki
http://www.OurOpalco.com

There are things that OPALCO must not divulge: threatened and internal matters involving ongoing litigation, personnel matters involving an individual’s health or internal performance, and real estate. All three items are of intense and occasionally prurient interest to the public, and all three must remain in-house. Do you have the same complaints about the county council’s use of our tax money? The restrictions on disclosure are largely the same; see RCW chapter 42.56, and note that municipal utilities are by law evenmore tightly restricted in what they can disclose: RCW 42.56.335.

Membership does not entitle this rule to be broken, irrespective of heat applied. If, for instance, OPALCO hoped to acquire a particular piece of real estate and it became public to a righteously demanding membership, what would happen to the purchase price? And if OPALCO, straitened for land, went ahead and bought the parcel at a publicity-inflated price,, who would defend the board for “wasting its members’ money? Would you?

Your reference to “true public utilities” (by which I understand you to mean “investor-owned utilities” or IOUs) being transparent is spectacularly not my experience in litigation involving the former Washington Public Supply System (now bearing the safely generic name “Energy Northwest”), or the investor-owned utilities involved whose skillful opacity permitted their substantial escape from the consequences of that spectacular failure that burdened the public. Those utilities make extensive disclosures solely benefiting investors, not customers. That said, you might want to look at the section titled “Risk Factors”, a required securities disclosure element in an IOU stock prospectus. It might give you a larger idea of what OPALCO and therefore its members are facing, though by reason of its location and lack of stockholder equity, OPALCO is exposed to additional risks..

As to the tense of choice, we get to the future by way of the present. There is no other way. Of course the board can’t foretell the future. Neither can the “full disclosure” IOUs. No business, particularly an electric utility today, can afford to live solely in he present. If the OPALCO board satisfied those clinging to the status quo, it would, I think, risk being legally derelict.

Moving into the future requires taking initial steps that may not be immediately rewarding, but are prerequisites for reaching a goal that is fundamentally necessary. Members can argue that the ends sought are illusory or worse, but those decisions are the board’s, not the members’. This is particularly true where a specific cadre of result-oriented members using selective and incomplete or untrue factoids, seeks to impose its will upon the board.

In this vein, we’ve talked about solar micro-grids before: a small step, the first step in a series to come, is better than nothing. The argument as I understand your position, that its failure to be the full solution and therefore a waste of time, money and member sensibilities is, I suggest, fallacious.

In sum, I think the best we can do is agree to disagree.

MJ

I am referring to the main cable(s) from BPA and all the OPALCO inter island connecting cables. Upgrades meaning replacement and redundancy where possible. Let me know if that doesn’t answer your question.

rikki http://www.OurOpalco.com

Bill,

That’s absurd! I never said DO NOTHING – that was your alternative – not mine.

Improving cables comes to mind.

rikki http://www.OurOpalco.com

It’s clear that Rikki has concerns about OPALCO. However, the claims being shared constitute a misinformation campaign that does not reflect the full scope of information available to our members.

OPALCO’s Board of Directors, who are elected by the membership, devote significant time to researching, evaluating, and carefully weighing decisions to ensure the long-term benefit of the co-op and its members. As a member-owned cooperative, we are committed to transparency and responsible stewardship. Unfortunately, information is being shared selectively using portions the information in ways that misrepresent the full context.

Community solar and the Decatur microgrid are funded through different mechanisms – OPALCO has not claimed otherwise. Community solar is supported by participating members who voluntarily opt into and fund the program. The battery storage portion making this a microgrid serves a different purpose and is structured differently.

When the team evaluated the battery storage component of the microgrid project, resiliency and potential cost deferral were key considerations. The Decatur battery storage project is supported by a study conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory demonstrating that the project can pay for itself through submarine transmission deferral (essentially extending the life of our vital submarine cables). It was funded through grant funds and matching funds from the OPALCO capital budget. We encourage anyone interested to review this information, which is available on our website.

We value informed discussion and encourage members to seek out complete and accurate information. OPALCO’s engineers and operations staff work on these complex energy challenges every day, and their expertise guides these projects.

We hope members will stay engaged, ask questions, and continue supporting their local electric cooperative. Actively spreading misinformation diverts member resources and does not help our community. As always, we invite anyone with concerns to reach out so we can share the rationale and careful decision-making process behind the work we do at OPALCO to keep your electricity on day in and day out.

Rikki,

Specifically, your words were: “Our power is already hydro-based and carbon-free via BPA. … Prioritizing reliable cable backups would deliver better resilience at far lower expense.”

Cables will be replaced as they age. That’s built into the system and protects only the status quo which you defend. Its effect in real terms, which you espouse, is to do nothing.

More to the point, the cables rely ultimately on the mainland which is rapidly shaping up to be the weak spot. To rely only on cables as you argue, the effect is wholly adopt the mainland’s weakness as ours. However small the initial steps may be, our island resilience requires that they be taken. And yes, it costs money. Resilience is not free. Few things are.

Bill

Dipping my toe back into this discussion:

I wish that OPALCO would have addressed my concern that I posed at a public meeting that installing solar arrays plus battery storage without adequate wetlands surveys can/will alter the ways that rainwater (stormwater) flows over the landscape.
Our precious groundwater and even reservoirs rely on the existing surface water flow patterns.

Solar arrays plus battery storage can be designed to minimize impacts to groundwater recharge.
But you need the information provided by a professional wetlands survey, not the cursory survey that occurred at Bailer Hill and was rejected as inadequate by our County Council. Even a “farm pond” will be contributing to aquifer recharge.

When the needed information is in hand, solar arrays/battery storage can be designed for a site to minimize impacts on our existing aquifer recharge. In agricultural areas, structures such as artificial beaver dams, could enhance aquifer recharge and might even be combined with micro-hydro electricity generation. Micro-hydro would provide power during the winter months.

But OPALCO does not want to even have the discussion about protecting our aquifers.

Think outside your existing box OPALCO. Your members do not appreciate being ignored.
At a minimum, engage in a respectful conversation.

About the lack of capacity in the high-power transmission lines:
The WA State Legislature needs to change the regulation that prohibits high power transmission lines along highway right-of-ways. Also, there are apparently upgrades that can be implemented to allow the existing high-power lines to transmit more power.

And, solar on the airport hanger roofs -Yes!

It seems that more electrons is one of the only solutions to this nasty issue. If only all the variables were in our control in this miniscule backwater place. But the greatest part of the challenge, a forever element, is that not only the movement of chess pieces but the board of options itself are in great uncertainty and unknowable flux due to anthropogenic climate change, a regional population explosion and first world entirely unsustainable energy consumption desires.
The only realistic source of electrons to fuel our island communities are those in the larger grid and serious conservation by nearly all and steep increases in usage rates and micro grids to ease sure black outs.
The idea that a few score acres of second growth fir are in any way meaningful in terms of carbon sequestration or ecological / economic values is poppycock.
OPALCO has recognizable faults in public process that are not surprising nor helpful.
Rikki has posted a lot and from previous statements is clearly in the make believe world of anthropogenic climate warming denial so despite a spirited effort and reminders of useful information her assumptions about the world we live in now are highly flawed from the get go.
Muckraking is an honored tradition as long as the effort is honestly seeking community health and well-being as an outcome using assumptions based in reality.
To expect a big beautiful solution for this issue is self-defeating, naive and unhelpful for no such thing will ever exist in the near term.

This is the longest Orcasonian debate that I can recall.

It has morphed from the paranoia of the outsider concerning a business decision by the OPALCO board, by a person unwilling to serve because someone else found serious business to be personally upsetting or distasteful.

It began with selected factoids separated from reality such as the alleged unsuitability of solar power generation in the Northwest while specifically provided for by the state legislature. See RCW 36.70A.080(1)(b). t

All this in the face of the oncoming designation by the county that electric generating facilities are essential public facilities See RCW 36.70A.200.

It included allegations implying nondisclosure of financing when OPALCO has never alleged that its members would pay nothing. The smoke and mirrors are the writer’s, not OPALCO’s.

We now have the latest welcomed addition of water percolation (an important issue to be sure), which, in the scrabble for reasons, spotlights the sole issue: prevent the needed expansion of an existing system on Decatur Island. Boiled down, the writer’s arguments are simply Not In My or Any Back Yard.

Bill,

Your attempt to reframe my concerns as NIMBY from an “outsider unwilling to serve” is lazy and wrong. I’m an OPALCO member raising documented issues about costs, transparency, effectiveness, and environmental trade-offs. Refusing to run for the board isn’t fear of “distasteful” business—it’s refusal to enter a system where dissenters get threatened with legal action for speaking out (as happened to former director John Bogert in 2014 over broadband decisions). That’s not paranoia; that’s pattern recognition.

On solar suitability: No one claims solar is impossible in the Northwest. The issue is economics and efficacy here—our low irradiance (clouds, rain shadow limitations) means longer paybacks and lower output per acre than sunnier regions. RCW 36.70A.080(1)(b) merely lists solar as an optional comprehensive plan element counties may include; it doesn’t mandate utility-scale ground-mount projects, override site-specific viability, or force clearing forest for marginal gains. It’s permissive, not prescriptive.

The proposed “essential public facilities” designation under RCW 36.70A.200 for OPALCO’s solar microgrids is exactly the problem: it would fast-track these projects, limit local review, and bypass normal scrutiny for facilities that are “difficult to site.” OPALCO is actively pushing this in the county’s Comprehensive Plan update to ease permitting for expansions like Decatur—despite our power already being 90%+ renewable/carbon-free via BPA hydro. These aren’t “essential” like airports or jails; they’re optional add-ons with high costs ($50–60M island-wide estimates) and limited benefit (short-hour backup, not full resilience).

Financing “nondisclosure”? OPALCO has repeatedly emphasized subscriber shares and grants cover Decatur—yet subscriber bill credits reduce co-op revenue, shifting more burden to non-subscribers via rates. That’s not smoke and mirrors; it’s basic rate impact math members deserve clarity on, not dismissal.

Clearing acres of second-growth forest for panels risks runoff, reduced infiltration, and habitat loss—concerns raised by residents and groups like Friends of the San Juans, not invented NIMBY excuses.

Boiling this down to “Not In My or Any Back Yard” is the real dodge. Opposition isn’t blanket rejection of renewables—it’s rejection of inefficient, high-impact choices when alternatives exist: prioritize cable redundancy for true outage protection, maximize rooftops/cleared sites first, and demand full cost-benefit transparency before committing millions in member rates.

You’ve offered no facts, no counter-evidence, just repeated attempts to misrepresent my position and dismiss the issues. That’s not discussion; that’s wasting time.

All the best, rikki. http://www.OurOpalco.com

I Know I’m not alone in this.. I WANT A REFREE that throws a flag when a foul is committed..
A true process that commands authority, not gaslighting or spinning.
I liken this to America, we the people. What the hell happened where the temperature rises and we just feel it’s ok to be complacent. We the people are actually enabling this culture… Are we so mediocre in our own constitution to just let things slide. I’m not!

https://www.sanjuanjournal.com/2026/02/17/solar-debate-on-decatur-sparks-conversation-about-cooperative-governance/