||| FROM RIKKI SWIN |||
OPALCO Board Candidate observations:
District 1: Drew Gislason:
He comes across as the candidate best equipped to push back on expensive, low-payback solar microgrids if they don’t deliver rate relief or reliability gains — while still supporting smart local generation where it makes technical and economic sense (including SMR feasibility down the road). His utility-tech experience gives him tools to evaluate “on-demand” integration across sources, not just virtue-signaling sustainability. This matches this websites forum perfectly and seems like a stronger fit for long-term ratepayer interests than the others.
Drew highlighted SMR (small modular reactor) viability which sets him apart from the others
,,,,,
District 2: Conor Anderson:
- No incumbent ties — He’s a fresh candidate, not tied to the current board’s decisions on microgrid spending (Decatur, Bailer Hill pauses/costs, etc.).
- No solar business bias — Unlike Stern, no ownership or professional stake in solar development that would predispose him to favor it regardless of payback math.
- Affordability and cost-control focus — His stated platform emphasizes affordability
first: “what cost-control measures are in place, how effectively are community dollars being invested?” He stresses transparency on “the why” and “the how” of spending, not just outcomes — this could translate to scrutinizing high-cost microgrids, low insolation yields in our cloudy/marine climate, long payback periods, and whether they truly reduce rates or just add debt. - Pragmatic, member-centered approach — He positions himself to partner with the board/GM on nonprofit governance principles centered on members (ratepayers), without heavy “sustainability” rhetoric that ignores BPA’s hydro/wind dominance (~95% carbon-free, no near-term shortages per forecasts). His background (governance/strategy consulting, economics/MBA lean) suggests analytical evaluation of economics over ideological green pushes.
- No off-topic distractions — Unlike Fant’s apparent tourism-year-rounding comments (which is irrelevant to OPALCO’s business), Anderson stays grounded in co-op basics: reliable power, cost management, transparency. No evidence of pushing unrelated economic diversification.
**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.**
It’s hard to take the notion of SMRs seriously here on the islands. We’re talking about a nuclear power plant idea that doesn’t exist yet outside of the military. The nuclear trade organizations say 10yrs out for commercial viability with testing units coming out in the next 3-5 years. That doesn’t mean we’ll have SMRs here on the island in 10 yrs, but rather they will just start becoming commercially buildable… economically viable is to be determined. Considering the history of nuclear costs delays and overruns, 10yrs is most likely optimistic.
BPA is expecting both a hydropower deficit (from drought conditions) and rapid load growth of 30% over current generation levels in the next 10 years. That power has to come from somewhere and it won’t be coming from hydro.
Let’s stop kicking the can down the road. Wishful thinking is not a strategy.
Adam,
My mention of small modular reactors (SMRs) in relation to candidate Drew Gislason highlights his grasp of emerging technical alternatives that can address our energy future. The other candidates show limited understanding of advanced technology, next-generation solutions, and the rapid obsolescence facing today’s conventional power systems—much like tube TVs gave way to modern displays. We need genuine forward thinking on San Juan County’s energy challenges, and Drew Gislason stands out as the only candidate demonstrating that vision.
Regarding BPA and drought concerns, the fear-mongering I’ve observed originates primarily from OPALCO, not BPA. Moreover, if climate change materializes as projected, it is likely to deliver more precipitation and water to Pacific Northwest hydropower systems overall, not less—shifting seasonal flows but enhancing total resource availability in many models.
On SMRs specifically, substantial momentum is building worldwide. Multiple projects are under construction, in advanced licensing, or advancing site preparation, with first commercial power expected in the early 2030s:
Darlington SMR (Ontario, Canada – Ontario Power Generation with GE Hitachi BWRX-300): Construction is well underway as of 2026, with major excavation (including reactor building shafts) largely complete and module fabrication progressing. This marks one of the first commercial grid-scale SMR deployments in the Western world, with the first unit targeted for operation by the end of 2030 (and potential for additional units).
Clinch River (Tennessee, USA – TVA with GE Hitachi BWRX-300): Early site work and design efforts are advancing, supported by recent DOE funding. A construction permit application is under NRC review, with commercial operation targeted for the early 2030s.
Palisades (Michigan, USA – Holtec SMR-300): Preparatory civil construction activities are poised to begin soon following submission of a partial construction permit application to the NRC in late 2025/early 2026, with deployment goals in the early 2030s as part of broader fleet plans.
Kairos Power Hermes (Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA): This fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature reactor demonstration is under active construction. The low-power Hermes unit aims for operation around 2027, with the Hermes 2 follow-on in the early 2030s.
Additional projects in planning or early stages include NuScale VOYGR deployments (e.g., the Romania RoPower project, which reached a final investment decision in early 2026 for a six-module plant with initial operation targeted later this decade), TerraPower’s Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor in Wyoming (NRC construction permit issued in early 2026, with operations eyed for ~2030–2031), and various microreactor initiatives.
Dozens more projects—over 70 tracked globally—are advancing through pre-construction, licensing, or planning phases. Designs from companies like Rolls-Royce, Westinghouse (AP300), X-energy (Xe-100), and others are in active development. While China and Russia currently lead in operational deployments thanks to streamlined regulatory processes, Western efforts are accelerating through rigorous licensing, supply chain maturation, and government support. These technologies represent practical, scalable pathways to reliable, low-carbon power that could transform our energy landscape.