||| FROM KRISTA BOUCHEY for ORCAS POWER & LIGHT COOPERATIVE |||
OPALCO is looking to build local renewable power generation to offset potential power shortfalls due to the lack of needed energy supply from the mainland. Blackouts or very expensive carbon-based fuels will likely be our energy future if we don’t find ways to site local utility-scale projects in San Juan County.
Earlier this year, OPALCO began to look at siting additional utility-scale solar on Decatur Island. The area OPALCO is looking at is close to OPALCO’s substation in partnership with a San Juan County public works site and a 19-acre parcel that surrounds the area. Being close to OPALCO’s infrastructure is one of the main benefits to siting this project at that location. The proposed project will occur on 8 acres of land – allowing for wetland protection that includes the proper buffers needed on these parcels.
The project is still in very early planning, and OPALCO is still working through the specifics. If OPALCO can move forward, there is potential for 2.1MW of solar generation. Additionally, OPALCO could utilize the Department of Commerce grants funds they were awarded to install ~1.2MW of solar that will directly benefit OPALCO’s energy assistance program that serves low-income community members throughout San Juan County.
OPALCO still plans to have solar generation on the other major islands including at the Bailer Hill site. Due to the additional conditions for permitting on San Juan and the timeline for the grant, that project is on hold. OPALCO will revisit that project when they have fulfilled the needed requirements. OPALCO is not planning to overburden Decatur with solar generation needed for the rest of San Juan County. If we added up all the solar generation currently proposed for Decatur (existing, plus planned), the total kWh generation could offset Decatur’s projected increase in electric usage (30%).
OPALCO has begun early engagement with the Decatur community in order to get feedback and find ways that this project can directly benefit the residents of this island. On May 10th, the OPALCO and Rock Island team held a town hall meeting at the schoolhouse on Decatur Island.
OPALCO started the discussion about the proposed Decatur solar expansion project. There were approximately 60 people in person and 25 online. OPALCO started off with a brief discussion of the project starting high-level to outline the regional power supply and then specifics to Decatur project. The tone of the meeting was respectful with most of the audience there to learn more about this project.
The key takeaways for OPALCO from community feedback include justifying the location, feasibility of other Decatur locations offered up by the community, provide a central hub on OPALCO’s website to communicate potential mitigation measures to address the top concerns centered around fire mitigation, stormwater runoff, forest removal, construction disturbance and disruptions, maintenance and aesthetics, to provide environmental reports, and to communicate timeline logistics.
OPALCO agreed to hosting more town halls and have extensive detailed project updates going forward. Find the latest information at www.opalco.com/decatur.
Orcas Power & Light Cooperative (OPALCO) is our member-owned cooperative electric utility, serving more
than 11,400 members on 20 islands in San Juan County. OPALCO provides electricity that is 97%
greenhouse-gas free and is generated predominantly by hydroelectric plants. OPALCO was founded in
1937.
**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.**
With over 32 years of executive leadership and public relations consulting experience, I offer the following observations—not as a critic from the sidelines, but as a fellow OPALCO member who, like most, has not closely scrutinized our co-op’s management. That changed with the Decatur Island situation. I became aware only because a dear friend lives there. Like many, I stayed at arm’s length during the Bailer Hill controversy, observing with the detached curiosity of a professor. But this time, I’m engaged.
I urge every OPALCO member to watch the February 13th community meeting led by General Manager Foster Hildreth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bubyi3dogI4 In it, he outlines, in my paraphrased view, an urgent and ill-conceived plan that amounts to offloading a crisis onto one of our so-called “second-class” islands—for the sake of convenience and, perhaps, to cover past missteps. I’ve since shared that video as a case study—not of effective leadership, but of what happens when leadership veers from mission, loses touch with its audience, and leans on outdated, top-down communication that feels more Mad Men than modern.
This moment is a referendum on all of us—for not paying closer attention to the leadership we’ve installed, elected, or tolerated. I count myself among the guilty. But what’s at stake now deserves a sober reckoning.
We have a GM who accepted a $42,000 zero-interest energy conservation loan from OPALCO (a fact recorded in public documents tied to his property), while warning of imminent rolling blackouts unless Decatur is cleared for a large solar installation—with no battery backup. His own home, notably, features no visible solar infrastructure, despite his $450,000+ annual compensation and access to programs he helped create.
This isn’t about one man’s paycheck. It’s about a leadership vacuum that, if we believe the alarmist tone, has left us on the brink of rolling blackouts this winter. And the solution? Sacrifice 25 acres of Decatur now, with up to 30 more such projects to follow elsewhere in the County. All while assuring us that more “desirable” areas—“the crown jewels”—will be spared.
I find this hard to accept. Especially when the GM, whose legal name appears as John Kenneth (not Foster) in public filings, seems to dismiss community concerns rather than address them with transparency and humility.
Watch the video. I haven’t seen something this tone-deaf from a community leader in years. Then, consider voting for new leadership—one that brings diversity of skills, backgrounds, and perspectives to our board. We need leaders who speak plainly, lead consistently, accept responsibility, and build community rather than alienate it.
Decatur deserves better. We all do. And our community might be next without change in OPALCO’s organization.
The information raised by Roz Dalton seems quite unrelated to the Decatur solar project and veers into doxxing territory. The fact is that the solar generation equipment needs to be as close to the existing substation as possible, since this will lower the cost for all OPALCO members and improve the reliability of the whole grid for the county. That would be true no matter who runs OPALCO and how much they’re paid.
If you look at a map of the county’s electrical distribution network, the entry point of our sole undersea cable from the mainland is Decatur Island. From there it goes north to Blakely and west to Lopez. The geography of the area dictates the siting of both the existing and proposed solar fields on Decatur, so I’m not sure what the personal information about Mr. Hildreth has to do with anything.
Not doxxing. A better description would be “unhelpful defamation” .
I live across the road from OPALCO’s current solar “farm” on Decatur and am 100% against OPALCO’s plan to clear cut more of our forest on the island which many of us call home. The voice of the residents of Decatur is loud and strong STOP OPALCO NOW. OPALCO’ has not been transparent with the people who live on Decatur and OPALCO’ continues to minimize and disregard the strong opposition of this ill conceived plans. The residents of Decatur are not willing to sacrifice their island, homes, quality of life so OPALCO can demonstrate another failed attempt at establishing one of 26 planned solar stations. OPALCO continues to deny their intent to expand , but they continue to attempt to discuss with at least one property owner, another quiet sale of more of Decatur’s remains forest. The property owner declined to sell their property to OPALCO ,so score one for Decatur and again we see OPALCO misleading the public about their intentions. If you attempt to kill someone, but do not succeed does this mean you are innocent…. No victim no crime…..NO. Has OPALCO greatly underestimated the opposition, on Decatur, to their proposed solar expansion…..NO…they are well aware of the residents on Decatur strong opposition ,which is why they are not transparent about their intentions and continue to try and force their agenda in a desperate attempt to clear cut more of our dwindling forest.. Not informing the public of their “true intentions “, attempting to circumvent and expedite the permitting process, minimizing and disregarding the rights of the people who call Decatur home appears to be reminiscent of DOGE.
Krista, I would like to understand more about how you envision the solar in Decatur helping during a blackout, as you imply: “Blackouts or very expensive carbon-based fuels will likely be our energy future if we don’t find ways to site local utility-scale projects in San Juan County.”
Admittedly my engineering / technical know-how is limited, so please let me know where I’m wrong. What am I missing?
1. The peak demand in January 2024 which is often used as an example of “almost a blackout” was for 35,500 MW (according to the NPCC: https://www.nwcouncil.org/news/2024/09/18/july-heatwave-western-resource-adequacy-program-update/). It seems unlikely that a 1.2MW or even 2.1MW generating capacity from Decatur would alleviate the total demand on the grid during cold snaps or heatwaves and prevent a blackout.
2. For local generation from solar, the solar has to be connected to batteries (for frequency regulation, etc.), and then the demand must equal the supply. How would OPALCO ensure that demand equals supply in such a blackout scenario? Which places in the county get to demand electricity when supply is limited as when we are pulling from the Decatur solar alone (i.e. there is no power on the main grid)?
3. For local generation to power, for example, emergency shelters, that implies that Decatur would have batteries to power the supply (I know it has some already, but it’s not clear the new solar would be connected to new batteries, although perhaps I’m wrong on that), and that somehow the emergency shelters are wired or have tech to supply those places, while everyone else’s homes are not. Is that correct? (Otherwise the demand would far outstrip the supply and the micro-grid would fail.) If so, is that wiring/tech in place? If not, is that in a plan? And how much will that cost?
4. Or would the Decatur solar + batteries be limited to supplying Decatur homes / shelters only?
I’d love to see a much more detailed explanation of how solar on Decatur can help prevent or power the county in a potential blackout situation. If it can’t then it seems like OPALCO should stop implying that it could.
Does the state have policies that require certain priorities on powering down (e.g. certain industries) or purchasing power from elsewhere in the case of a potential blackout?
Krista from OPALCO here. We encourage co-op members to engage with us on this project directly and we can add your comments to the detailed log we are keeping as part of the public engagement but we do ask you use your real name. If you’re curious about any of our team and their full name you can review our bios in the about page of our website
Solar is a wonderful electricity source, but cutting island forests to install solar arrays is counter productive. There are so many areas of the islands that are already open, disturbed, and developed and where solar can be installed without displacing native habitat. I urge OPALCO to be more engaged, responsive, and transparent with its membership and am confident that an open and engaged process will result in better siting, and make it clear to the coop that aggressively clearing native vegetation (and bird and butterfly habitat) is inappropriate (be it for solar or along utility corridors).
As a full-time resident of Decatur Island for the past 25 years, I’ve been actively engaged in the ongoing efforts by OPALCO to enormously expand the solar grid on our tiny island.
Like many others, I was initially skeptical of OPALCO’s intentions. It wasn’t until I reviewed documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that I realized we really were not being told the truth.
I strongly encourage all island residents to carefully review the proposed revisions to our Comprehensive Plan.
OPALCO Is proposing a significant shift in how solar installations are regulated.
According to OPALCO’s own language, they are advocating for the Comprehensive Plan to “formally recognize utility-scale solar and microgrid facilities as Essential Public Facilities (EPFs), giving them the same planning priority and permitting pathways as other crucial services.”
If this change is approved, it could bypass the Conditional Use Permitting process designed to protect our sensitive natural areas. This opens the door for OPALCO to develop large-scale projects-including potentially clear-cutting forests without the community oversight and environmental safeguards currently in place.
Let’s stay informed and engaged to ensure that any changes to our island’s future reflect the values and voices of the people who live here.
So far, my home has exported 790 kWh to the OPALCO grid for the month of May. My home used 0 (zero) kWh from the grid in May.
My power generation export increases through the summer and then declines in October.
How are we ever going to solve the power generation problem here in the San Juans?
This plan to install an industrial solar project on Decatur is wrong in so many ways! The first wrong is trying to generate enough power to be beneficial in the cloudy north west! We have cloudy, foggy rainy weather for days on end! Solar is not a good choice for the northwest – certainly not the San Juan island complex.. let us look for a better source, something OPALCO is not willing to discuss.
The second wrong is OPALCO’s lack of transparency and honesty. I won’t say the management has lied to us – over and over again – but that they rearrange the issues to benefit their game plan, not those served. That may be par for the course for big business, but OPALCO is a co-op! We are all owners of it! Business as usual should be open and above board, it seems to me. They have only shared the terrible truths when forced to do so . We have learned the hard way not to trust management.That brings me to the transparency angle! Everything they have done since their debacle of the San Juan Island project bogged down in regulations and requirements has been done in the dark of night, half truths, lies by omission and down right propaganda . This is not transparent. And the supposed no interest loan to GM? Can any of you get that same deal from the same source? This aounds like a back room deal! The same with the county road works/ county planner and the proposed lease of Decatur’s public land! This is not transparency.
Let’s get to the present state of affairs!
Decatur is a small unserviced island. We have one public ramp and a small staging area at that ramp. OPALCO has said numerous times times that they have no plans to mitigate the wear and tear on our ramp, staging area or main roads – all areas that would, should they continue in their plan, become Hazardous and undrivable. They say “that’s the county’s responsibility . That road is our only artery thru the island. No water trucks to keep the dust at a minimum; no pile of grave to fill the potholes, no plan to on and off load their equipment at off peak times.
I won’t speak of the destroyed habitat, life style, quiet enjoyment, fire hazard, water runoff damage, noise pollution or any of those things. Anyone can see the potential there.
But I will call your attention to the current facility ( our fair share of providing power)! The promises made and never kept about the care and maintenance : landscaping, upkeep, screening from view the inappropriateness of their installation on our natural island. . They can’t maintain the current solar project on Decatur! The panels are so thick with dust they couldn’t possibly produce the power they are supposed to to produce.
This is just Wrong. Maybe OPALCO should hire an energy expert to guide them thru their
current power-shortage problem.
David,
I’m struggling to fully reconcile your explanation of the siting strategy with the underlying logic of OPALCO’s original choice of Bailer Hill. I follow the schematic layout of the distribution system, but if your rationale holds, then the selection of Bailer Hill becomes even more puzzling. Was that site ultimately deemed unviable due to the very interconnection constraints you now outline?
If we are to extrapolate from the schematic, it would seem that Decatur is destined to bear the brunt of a shore-to-shore solar buildout intended to serve the wider county. Perhaps Blakely too. If that’s the case, we should pause and interrogate the prevailing narrative of “energy independence”—particularly if that independence comes at the disproportionate expense of a few.
I’m not opposed to the ideal of energy autonomy. But we must also be intellectually honest. The ferried islands—by definition and infrastructure—are the least independent of the archipelago, inherently tethered to the mainland through roads, schedules, and subsidies. By contrast, the outer islands have cultivated a legacy of resilience and self-sufficiency precisely because of their remoteness and relative neglect by the county. For many, that reality is a defining factor in the choice between living on a ferried versus a non-ferried island.
So I find it troubling when some islands are anointed as “jewels,” as if certain geographies deserve protection while others are consigned to utility. Every island holds value. Each of us chooses where we live and, in doing so, assumes a responsibility to our community. But in this case, it appears that Decatur is being disproportionately burdened. There are, notably, no solar installations elsewhere.
This suggests a broader systemic failure—an epistemic void at the heart of our cooperative discourse. We appear to be engaging in high-stakes planning without a well-defined, well-communicated baseline. If we’re assigning accountability, that failure rests squarely with OPALCO. The recent flurry of conversations makes it increasingly evident: OPALCO has not adequately informed or engaged its membership in diagnosing the problem, much less in designing the solution.
Frankly, it feels like we’re in the midst of one of those “emperor has no clothes” moments—we sense something’s off, but we haven’t collectively acknowledged it. It’s unnerving to realize that OPALCO may have allowed this situation to deteriorate to the point where blackouts are now wielded as a threat. If I’m reading the broader implications correctly—not just the electrical schematics—then yes, we have a much deeper issue. And the notion that Blakely and Decatur can be cleanly and quickly sacrificed to resolve it is, at best, naïve.
Its EIGHT acres. Get a grip on reality folks. No one is proposing paving the outer islands with solar panels. This is a link to google maps showing a satellite view of Decatur – does it really look like a terrible place for solar panels to you?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Decatur+Island/@48.5042589,-122.8052629,1563m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x54857f74ceb49a51:0x239f48dcd5a05f3b!8m2!3d48.5073487!4d-122.8143084!16zL20vMDNoX3M1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUyNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
I feel like Ken Wood may not be familiar with Decatur . Or math. Or how solar panels work. A better resource than Google Maps would be Google Earth where you can clearly see the 3.5 acres of solar that we already have. You also get a clear picture of the 20+ acres of forest that OPALCO tells you is going to be 8 acres only…
Granted , we are to be the recipient of the 19acre Bailer Hill project (not sure how that is going to be done in only 8acres so maybe it’s me who doesn’t understand matb) . It would seem that if you put 8 acres of solar panels in the middle of the woods, you will need to clear additional trees (hence the purchase of 20+ acres). Solar panels don’t work in the shadows of tall trees..
Lastly, let’s talk about “only 8 acres”. So we have a 3.5 installation, are proposed to get 8 more(that will need trees cut. Let’s say (CONSERVATIVELY)15/15.5 acres.
You did not say if you are from one of the islands but I could choose ANY others to imagine solar on as none have it now. Just Decatur. OPALCO’s dumping ground. OUR 8 acres is analogous to 250 on San Juan or Orcas. Would you say it’s only or just 250acres?!?
At least it is not the false equivalent of 54,500 acres of panels on Vancouver Island! But like a drunk using a lamp post more for stability than illumination statistics and numbers can obscure the issue at hand. OPALCO, as with the still under consideration Bailer Hill Project on SJI is playing the few cards it has in trying to anticipate the sure to come outtages and brown outs while our electric usage increases and supply contracts heads to soaring hew heights. All of this is just a glimpse into the chaos just over the horizon. Learn to live with ambiguity and paralysis by analysis!
PS I never realized that a few acres of closed canopy second growth doug fir has important ecological value in a veritable sea of PAC NW “weed trees” everywhere you look.
“Weed trees”? Seriously?
If left alone, second growth becomes old growth in a few hundred years; how else do we restore old growth in this state, other than letting second growth grow old? There is very little old growth left, and it’s all under threat. In case anyone forgot, endangered species like marbled murrelets and spotted owls require old growth for survival.
I took the time to watch and listen to Foster’s video presentation at the Decatur (virtual) Town Hall…the key point which caught my attention (if memory serves) was that…in order to meet our County’s collective current electrical demand with solar it will take TWENTY SIX solar arrays the size of planned expansion of Decatur’s installation spread throughout SJC. So let’s acknowledge the fact that OPALCO’s solar strategy is based on installing over 400 acres of solar panels distributed among the islands.
Thus, the scope of a community conversation regarding a transition to solar must go far beyond the impact of the initial installation on Decatur.
I would urge the OPALCO Board to ensure, if not demand, that OPALCO Management participate in a county-wide conversation…a conversation IMMHO best led by our elected county officials.