||| FROM RIKKI SWAN |||
OPALCO (YOU) purchased 2 million dollars worth of solar panels for the Bailer Hill microgrid.
- Those panels? Still sitting outside the Friday Harbor office under tarps, gathering moss and questions. Over 5,200–5,700 panels, depending on who’s counting.
- OPALCO didn’t nail the due diligence on Bailer Hill. They assumed the county would just roll over. Instead, the county asked for more details, didn’t love what they saw, and the project is stopped cold—permitting on hold, grant money in limbo, panels collecting dust. Classic.
- So now what? We’re all on the hook to pay for this shiny landfill. What a brilliant use of member money. (Don’t be fooled by the subscription thing – subscribers get their money back from the members- they get discounts on their bill which makes you pay them back- clever huh?)
- So while sweating bullets they said ship the panels to Decatur—they fell for the microgrid pitch once before. Should be easy, right? Oops… Decatur woke up and started asking hard questions. Even Decatur “subscribers” are against it! Turns out they like their trees over there.
- Credit where due: Decatur helped wake up a lot of us to the shifty goings-on at OPALCO. For more details, check www.OurOpalco.com.
- The GM pulls down two full-time salaries for what amounts to two part-time gigs (one at OPALCO, one at the subsidiary Rock Island Communications). Each of the full time salaries tops what surrounding co-op GMs make—even those serving 30,000+ customers. Nice work if you can get it. ($800,000 anyone?)
- OPALCO’s long-term debt is pushing $90+ million (and climbing fast—see their latest financials). If you live here, congratulations: you owe that.
- Oh, and they guarantee another chunk of debt for Rock Island Communications (tens of millions, with OPALCO as the backstop). You owe that too. Sleep tight.
- Now they’re pipe-dreaming microgrids on all the major islands—another $100+ million easy, complete with tree-clearing and pastoral land destruction. For what, exactly?
- Most members assume we “need” solar because it’s carbon-free and renewable. Newsflash: BPA’s power (our main supplier) is already carbon-free and renewable. It’s mostly hydro, serving millions across WA, OR, ID, and MT. Did you know that? Yeah, they didn’t exactly lead with it.
- BPA isn’t panicking about running out of juice. They’re watching growth and climate impacts but expanding nuclear/SMR options for the long haul. They didn’t beg OPALCO to slap up solar farms. That’s on the co-op.
- OPALCO talks up “backup power” for the fire station, hospital, water treatment, etc. during short outages. Funny—they forget to mention those facilities already have required backup generators by law. Details, details.
- Do you know we haven’t had a cable failure since 1955? (some say there was another one in 1991- so 2 in all those years.
- And then there’s the tidal power project they’re smoking. Another hair-brained scheme in the Salish Sea. Because nothing says “reliable and affordable” like experimental underwater turbines that might play havoc with orcas and salmon. Why stop at solar when you can play R&D lab with other people’s money?
- Speaking of scare tactics: the submarine cables. The main ones from BPA are owned and maintained by BPA, and they (BPA) is planning to add/replace capacity. So why the constant black-cloud warnings from OPALCO? Fear sells projects, I guess.
- OPALCO is responsible for the island-to-island interconnect cables. That’s the unglamorous, no-R&D, no-grand-vision work they should be laser-focused on. Fix the basics. Cut the crap.
- And yes, we pay some of the highest energy rates around. It’s not “just the cables,” folks. The real elephant in the room is the big-shot ideas, spendthrift ways, double-dipping salaries, mounting debt, and mismanagement galore. That’s what you’re paying for—while panels rot under tarps and scenic views get lined up for the chopping block. I wonder if the board can spell “malfeasance” or “misfeasance”? – maybe let’s just start with “mismanagement”
- And they don’t report their legal fees separately, I’ve heard $600,000. Krista, am I close? (We all pay that too)
- I can do part 2 if you like. (spoiler alert: It doesn’t get any better)
- Or just check the website www.OurOpalco.com (It’s a very big room – lots of elephants!)
**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.**
OPALCO welcomes member questions and concerns — that’s what we’re here for. If you’d like to talk with the team that works on these issues day in and day out, please reach out. We’re glad to walk through the analysis, the trade-offs, and the years of strategy behind the decisions we’re making.
These choices aren’t made in a vacuum. They reflect long-term planning, technical review, and our obligation to balance reliability, affordability, and our clean energy commitments on behalf of our members.
Social media isn’t well-suited to the depth this topic deserves. What’s difficult to address in a comment thread is an article built on selective data that misrepresents sound technical work and the detailed nature of running an electric cooperative. The full picture takes more than a sound bite, and our members deserve the full picture. We’re happy to provide it in the form of a real conversation — give us a call, send an email, or stop by. Email communications@opalco.com and we can find you the right person to talk to.
Or better yet stop by our Annual Member Festival on May 8 on Lopez Island where the whole team will be present and ready to answer your questions!
Set before us are two very different ways to resolve problems.
One is to issue ad hominem manifestos of selected facts and factoids placed in a context selected by the author, and let fly, thereby giving vent to one’s personal bent and enjoy the resulting public splash.
The other is to invite direct, personal and more importantly, adult discussion with those whose decisions (and more colorfully, their motives) are questioned to bring forth mutual understanding.
Let’s see what choice the selecting party makes.
Well here is what happens when you speak out and share facts,..
From :
Lin McNulty
12:51 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
Rikki, I am not able to continue your ongoing posts regarding the Decatur Debacle. That is what your website is for. Sorry.
Lin McNulty, Managing Editor
theOrcasonian.com: Voice of the Orcas Community
Lin and others,
I am not speaking to what you term: “THE DECATUR DEBACLE”
My comments are and always have been about OPALCO et al. The Decatur issue is only one of many issues related to the ongoing mismanagement therein. I have obviously hit a nerve but now you are censoring me..
My disappointment right now is for our entire community. I thought yours was a – free press – practicing free speech- first amendment rights. I’m sorry for you and I beg you to immediately remove the EAGLE and U S A flag from your header. You have stepped on both!
Sadly, rikki swin
Gee Lin, Gotta agree with the flag. Always pissed me off. You know why.
Now you work content?
So disappointed….again.
To Lin,
Thank you for facilitating the Orcasonian. Unlike the San Juan Journal, also respected, you have to date allowed people to post, and people to comment. I am concerned that you appear to have told Rikki Swin that you won’t allow her to post in the future, if I read that right.
It is clear that she raises important issues about OPALCO that are deeply relevant to our county’s energy security and future. I certainly hope that we never have an energy catastrophe that was predicted on these and other pages, that an archive search will reveal. I hope that OPALCO changes course in many ways, to address the issues that impact us all in an effective manner.
Please reconsider limiting such posts and if not, help us the readers understand your path to this decision and what steps if any might be taken to reverse it. Thank you!
As far as I am aware, Lin is the editor, publisher and sole owner of The Orcasonian. I think that gives her the right to publish, or not, any and all submissions and comments.
Bill Appel, respectfully we HAVE been trying to as a community to engage with OPALCO for over a year. I don’t think (from comments you’ve made on previous letters) that we agree on much but I would hope we agree that a member co-op should listen to its members. Our “motives”as you questioned are simple: we don’t want this forested area to be peppered with solar panels. I say “peppered “ as 1/2 of this land purchased without due diligence is wetlands and has additional environmental protections. We don’t want to continue giving as we have ALREADY given our equitable share in the form of a micro grid. The only industrial solar in San Juan county is ALREADY on Decatur. This new phrase would be very shaded by remaining trees.
Returning to some of your previous comments: “For purposes of this particular discussion, it really doesn’t matter what site OPALCO seeks to develop for renewable energy support of our local grid; it will still be opposed”. While 87% of members would not choose a forest, you may be in that other 13% for whom it “doesn’t matter”? Decatur is perfect for you! Zoning and small population to oppose make Decatur ideal. Buildout is expensive on a non ferry serviced island,we have no fire protection and costs of this project are already over several million dollars, but county wide members must want to pay that to have it tucked away on Decatur.
I feel like you only view the Decatur Debacle as the thing that stands in the way of OPALCO advancing to other islands rather than the project itself. I know you said this on here a few days ago, “I don’t have the full facts on the proposed Decatur facility expansion”The siting is just wrong and their insistence (to the extent that attorneys have been hired to oppose their own members!) should concern every OPALCO member. Perhaps those are the “motivations” to be questioned.
In response to both Rikki and Lin–I have appreciated the extensive public debate for which the Orcasonian has provided a forum, both on this OPALCO issue and many others. It has been informative, and I have learned a lot from it. At the same time, I recognize that it is Lin’s right and responsibility as Editor to provide a fair balance of news and stories to be covered and not allow the publication to be taken over by a single issue or group of commenters.
It may be time for OPALCO to relieve Krista for a minute of the responsibility of being an intermediary and spokesperson for the General Manager and board, and provide a forum for a direct, live public debate between the two sides on issues of concern to the entire Co-op membership. I’d also like to hear from the current board candidates on their specific views on these issues.
Well stated, Brian. I have also enjoyed the debate, and I feel that the way things are being handled are not fair to Krista or our community. This is too big of an issue for the GM and Board to hide behind the curtain and not make themselves available to its members. We deserve to hear from them directly.
Agree with Brian and Ed, We must face this head on. We need the GM and the Board to address this—not a spokesperson, with respect to Krista. The truth is Foster has mismanaged OPALCO and unfortunately there is nothing to do but demand his resignation. The community deserves honestly and transparency and that will now require a major culture shift because currently it feels as though the Board and others continue to try and cover up the truth. Why is our co-op managed by someone who is doubled paid and yet we are millions in debt and when we ask hard questions we are mislead if not completely flat out lied to??
I’m in agreement that issues should be debated, and that OPALCO and its actions are certainly among them.
I also respect the First Amendment which gives each of us the right of free speech. As free as speech is, it has consequences even under the Constitution. Opinions can be freely expressed. On the other hand, the assertion of facts rather than opinion (“double dipping” comes to mind) and/or the misapplication of those facts in connection with identified persons can give rise to liabilities I would not wish on Lin as our community publisher. Being upset does not justify libel or slander, or the right to insist that Lin join in this behavior. No, I am not her lawyer. I simply want Lin and the Orcasonian to continue.
This is particularly true respecting those who seek the opportunity to vent rather than learn. OPALCO has offered to make responsible people within the organization available to answer questions. These are, after all, the people the manager and board rely upon. I am not sensing takers among those on this string, but of course I could be wrong.
I understand that Rikki Swin has a website where participants can take their own risks.
Overall, the comments reveal two healthy impulses: (1) It is overwhelmingly obvious that OPALCO wants to control the narrative through private channels, and (2) a sizable group of members wants public accountability and direct answers from the GM and board, not just the communications team. The communications person suggests I pose direct questions instead of accusations. I have tried this previously but never got direct answers so here are the same facts above in the form of neutral questions. They are phrased neutrally so the technical, financial, or legal staff can answer directly.
Did OPALCO purchase approximately $2 million worth of solar panels specifically for the Bailer Hill microgrid project?
Are those panels (roughly 5,200–5,700 in number) currently stored outside the Friday Harbor office under tarps?
What was the due-diligence process for the Bailer Hill site selection, and why is the project currently on hold with permitting stalled and grant money in limbo?
How much of the cost of the stored panels will ultimately be borne by OPALCO members through rates?
Under the “subscriber” model for the microgrid, do subscribers receive bill discounts that are effectively subsidized by the broader membership?
Has OPALCO decided to reallocate/ship the Bailer Hill panels to a Decatur Island site instead, and what is the current status of that plan?
What percentage or number of Decatur “subscribers” have expressed opposition to the project, and what are their primary concerns (e.g., tree clearing)?
What is the General Manager’s total compensation structure, including any salaries or payments from both OPALCO and its subsidiary Rock Island Communications? How does this compare to compensation for general managers of other Washington or Pacific Northwest cooperatives of similar or larger size?
What is OPALCO’s current long-term debt level, and what is the projected trend over the next several years?
Does OPALCO provide any debt guarantees or backstops for Rock Island Communications, and if so, what is the approximate amount and nature of that exposure?
What are the current plans and estimated total cost for expanding microgrids to other major islands in the San Juan archipelago?
Does the planned microgrid expansion involve clearing trees or converting pastoral/forested land, and if so, how many acres and on which islands?
BPA’s wholesale power supplied to OPALCO is already overwhelmingly carbon-free and renewable (primarily hydropower serving the Northwest). Is that characterization accurate?
Has BPA indicated any urgent need for OPALCO to add local solar generation to meet regional capacity or reliability shortfalls?
Do the fire station, hospital, water-treatment plant, and other critical facilities that OPALCO cites as needing microgrid backup already have legally required diesel or other backup generators?
How many submarine cable failures between the mainland and the islands has OPALCO experienced since 1955 (or since the most recent major replacement), and what were the dates?
Is OPALCO currently pursuing a tidal-power pilot project in the Salish Sea (e.g., Rosario Strait area)? If so, what is the status, estimated cost to members, and any environmental review regarding impacts on orcas, salmon, or marine life?
The primary submarine cables delivering BPA power are owned and maintained by BPA itself, which has announced plans to add or replace capacity. Is that correct?
Which specific cables or infrastructure does OPALCO itself own and maintain (i.e., the island-to-island interconnects), and what is the current capital plan and budget for those assets?
OPALCO’s retail rates are among the higher ones in the region. What portion of those rates is driven by (a) submarine cable maintenance, (b) new microgrid/renewable projects, (c) debt service, and (d) administrative or subsidiary costs?
Does OPALCO report legal expenditures as a separate line item in its financial statements or member reports? What were the total legal fees for the most recent fiscal year?
Are there any other material facts or data points about the Bailer Hill/Decatur microgrid, debt, compensation, or long-term generation strategy that members should know but that were not addressed in recent public communications?
Bill,. You suggested that people with concerns about OPALCO should sit down for “adult discussion” rather than public criticism. Yet when members raise legitimate questions about spending, debt, solar panel storage, and project siting, the response from OPALCO has mostly been invitations to private conversations while public debate is being curtailed.
Do you believe a member-owned cooperative should be insulated from open scrutiny by its ratepayers? Many of us have tried private engagement for over a year with limited results. That’s why public discussion matters.
I’d welcome a substantive response to the actual issues — compensation structure, debt levels, due diligence on Bailer Hill/Decatur, rate impacts, etc. — rather than lectures about tone or warnings to the publisher.
Rikki Swin
I might be naive, but I believe that Krista’s (I have never met her) invitation was made in good faith. She has promised availability of the people upon whose advice the GM and board acted. Obviously a recommendation was made. Is there a better source for why and on what basis each decision was made?
There seems to be an urge for public performance. The issues are more complicated than “Why did you do it?” (I think all would agree), and a calm, and cannot be treated well in what is destined to be a shouted barrage, which translated in print, we have been witnessing. And as I’ve previously said, real estate is a particularly sensitive matter. Beyond that, assumptions (many of which in this string even I, an outsider, know are not correct) need to be aligned so that both sides are talking about the same thing.
I have no beef with the fact that issues are raised. I do have a beef where they are raised with the stated presumption of bad faith and/or carelessness, and, I suggest, those targeted may respond more formally.
So all I’m suggesting at this point is, assuming your intentions are in good faith, take your list of questions (without assumptions) to OPALCO as Krista has invited and get your answers. It would seem that Krista’s invitation would also extend to those similarly inclined.
If OPALCO’s answers are not responsive to your questions (subject to some limitations on nonsharable insider information or to protect third parties), OK, have your rant. But let’s be adults here. That’s the tone issue. As to warnings, well, I’ve said my piece and I wish you well.
Bill Appel,
You criticize my tone and now my “presentation.” You want me to take these questions quietly to OPALCO for private one-on-one answers and ignore the year-plus of repeated member requests for public dialogue.
Let’s be direct. You are a lawyer who serves as a volunteer on OPALCO’s official Elections & Governance Committee. You have repeatedly defended OPALCO’s positions in this very forum. That’s your right — but members deserve to know your role and perspective when you lecture the rest of us about “adult discussion” and “good faith.”
Have you advised The Orcasonian that printing member criticism of OPALCO could expose them to libel risk? If so, let’s hear it.
Stop telling us how to ask. Answer the questions — the same neutral, factual questions multiple members have raised — right here in public, on the record, where every ratepayer can see the answers. That’s what transparency and member ownership actually look like.
Lin, Very little should genuinely scare a publisher in Washington state, especially on a matter of clear public concern like a member-owned electric cooperative’s spending, debt, projects, and management.
Bill Appel’s scare tactics overstates the danger here. Washington defamation law is plaintiff-friendly in some ways but strongly protects opinion, hyperbole, and criticism of public entities/utilities on public issues.
Key Washington Law Context
Defamation requires a false statement of fact (not opinion), published to third parties, that harms reputation, with fault (negligence for private figures, actual malice for public ones). Truth is an absolute defense.
Opinions and rhetorical hyperbole are protected — especially on public concerns. Courts look at the full context: is this verifiable fact, or loaded opinion in a heated debate?
Matters involving utility rates, debt, land use, and management of a co-op are core public concerns. Higher scrutiny and protections apply.
GM “pulls down two full-time salaries… $800,000 anyone?” + “double-dipping”This is the closest to factual assertion. However, it’s well-documented in public records (Form 990 filings) and has been debated openly in other Orcasonian letters and local media. The total compensation figure appears accurate based on prior reporting. Calling it “double-dipping” is opinion/rhetoric, not a literal crime accusation. Courts routinely protect this kind of criticism of public officials/executives.
“Malfeasance” or “misfeasance” and “mismanagement galore” + board “can spell” jabClassic protected opinion. These are subjective judgments, not verifiable facts. Hyperbole in public debate gets wide latitude.
Legal fees “I’ve heard $600,000. Krista, am I close?”Phrased as a question/rumor (“I’ve heard”), which weakens any claim. If inaccurate, it’s easily corrected. Not a strong basis for suit.
Panels “gathering moss… shiny landfill,” “shifty goings-on,” “scare tactics,” “hair-brained scheme,” “smoking” tidal powerPure opinion and colorful language. Not actionable.
Debt figures, cable failures, BPA facts, backup generators, etc.These are verifiable claims. If materially false and you had no reasonable basis, there could be negligence. But they appear grounded in public info/financials and are fair game for debate. OPALCO can (and should) rebut with their numbers.
Everything else is opinion, questions, or calls for accountability.
Bill Appel is giving unsolicited advice as far as I can tell. Doesn’t that suggest bias to you?
Local papers routinely publish strong criticism of OPALCO, salaries, projects, etc., without legal blowback.
No clear “actual malice” here — I am a member raising concerns with sources/cites (website, public knowledge).
My post is edgy but not a high-risk libel bomb. It’s classic community advocacy on taxpayer/co-op member money. Removing it or censoring further posts could actually hurt your credibility more than publishing. If you are worried, you can add an editor’s note inviting OPALCO’s response or fact-check the salary/debt numbers against public filings.
Rikki Swin
Rikki, thank you for this bulleted list, and Thank you Lin for publishing it.
I was particularly glad to see #3 addressed in writing, as it has long raised questions for me. We have been told that subscribers are paying for the Decatur and future solar installations, yet those costs are ultimately repaid by members. So in reality subscribers are fronting the the money, with reimbursement coming from the co-op. Of the many Decaturites that invested in the existing solar installation on our island… I am not aware of any that will be willing to do it again.
Regarding direct communication with OPALCO, last week we simply asked for confirmation that an email had been received by the board…no acknowledgment was provided. At last Tuesday’s meeting, a couple of board members suggested that confirming receipt of a member email was unreasonable, while also noting they picked up the phone to speak directly with another co-op member.
That inconsistency is worth noting.
While I have the floor, I want to raise one additional item. Bill, this may be in your wheelhouse. While helping sort mail at the mail shack during our carrier’s recent injury, I noticed that Richard Holbrook, who has been deceased for over 15 years, received a ballot. Each ballot costs roughly $1.03 to mail, not including printing or return postage. This raises a simple question: Does a process exist to remove deceased or inactive members from mailing lists, including ballots and the shiny Ruralite magazine that overflows our recycle bin? At a time of rising power rates, administrative waste deserves attention.
One correction is also important. Foster has repeatedly stated that he “thinks” that San Juan County issues hundreds of permits for new construction each year, using that figure to support the need for large-scale solar development. However, the most recent available data suggests that in 2024, new single-family home permits issued was 76 in rural San Juan county and a handful in the Urban Growth areas.
Policy decisions should be based on verified data, not assumptions, particularly from senior management.
Finally, I want to thank the OPALCO board for setting aside time during the April meeting specifically for Decatur Island residents to voice concerns. I I would encourage everyone to listen to the co-op member comments starting at 42.08 in the attached link.
As you will hear, many of the comments were in objection to a vote being taken while Opalco elections for new board members are underway.
https://youtu.be/SMx2RSfKCLA?si=5bcDDt9XCWLmb7jB
Bill,
you stated “ I might be naive…” and it may be that you are in the same frame of mind that I was a couple years ago.
A little about me: My family settled here in 1870 and has been here ever since so we have a long history with OPALCO. My grandfather desperately wanted electricity here selling them the spot that the substation & panels are on for just enough to cover fees & surveying (a few hundred dollars at the time). Easements were given, eventually a cable through the island. My dad (years later)also helped digging to install cable. My grandmother always had coffee and baked goods to share around the table with “the power guys”. Later , I went to school with their kids. These were the type of feelings we had about OPALCO (that I still have about the guys who come save us in an outage).
I am sure I was too young to understand the difference between an electricity co-op vs. a power company but I understand now. I understand Bill that our experiences with OPALCO may be different but I want you to know that my lack of faith in them is cornered in disappointment.
You have suggested engaging with them and I was very open to that until I realised that often what I got were partial truths that didn’t really answer what was asked. I began to realise that many of these the answers I needed could be found from reputable sources such as PSE, BPA, Wa state Department of Commerce/solar, IRS, NW Power & Conservation, Friends of The San Juans , as well as county resources. Just factual answers, no spin.
Lastly, incase it really is a belief that we haven’t done our part to understand, I invite you to watch this town hall meeting from Decatur. I am sure you have seen politicians side step , not really answer what is being asked and go off on a rambling folksy tale to run out the clock. Should this be the behavior of a GM of a small co-op in a meeting with 30-40 MEMBERS of that co-op? Listen as one person asks the same questions 3 times to FINALLY get an answer. Everyone was polite but it was very frustrating.
Questions start at about the 32min. mark.
https://youtu.be/xsLKBolZxTA?si=f2NhZ5HALbmGUqt6