Members of the public interested in engaging in the County’s review of OPALCO’s project can use this guide.
||| FROM SAN JUAN COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS |||
San Juan County’s Department of Community Development (DCD) received an application from Orcas Power & Light Cooperative (OPALCO) for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a commercial power generation facility on a parcel on Decatur Island. CUPs are a regulated process governed by the County Code and are subject to public comments and quasi-judicial review by a Hearing Examiner (a person contracted by the County to make land use decisions and hear appeals). DCD will review the application and prepare a report for the County Hearing Examiner who will convene a public hearing and make the final decision on the project application based on the County Code. Members of the public interested in engaging in the County’s review of OPALCO’s project can use this guide to find:
- A brief overview of OPALCO’s proposed project
- How San Juan County’s permit review process works
- A summary of information and links to important resources and contact information
What is the project?
OPALCO proposes to expand an existing solar photovoltaic (P V) power generation facility on Decatur Island, San Juan County, Washington. The proposal involves installation of additional ground-mounted solar arrays and associated electrical infrastructure on OPALCO-owned property located on Tax Parcel No. 152232005000 and Tax Parcel No. 152232002000 (existing solar array). The parcel is currently designated Rural General Use (RGU) on the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan maps.
OPALCO has provided documentation to the County including project narrative and site plans, SEPA checklist, critical area and cultural resources documentation, stormwater report, clearing and grading application, landscape plans and responses to staff inquiries (through February 11, 2026). All of which are available to the public.
Additional information may be required during the permit review process and will also be available to the public.
Why has OPALCO applied for a conditional use permit for this project? Why can the public comment on it?
The project is a CUP for a commercial power-generation facility on parcels designated Rural General Use (RGU) on Decatur Island. OPALCO completed its application on December 16th, 2025.
The DCD reviews CUPs and prepares a staff report for the Hearing Examiner (HEX) who convenes a public hearing to review and take testimony on the project. The HEX takes all testimony into consideration in their review and ruling on the project.
How can the public submit comments on OPALCO’s conditional use permit?
The public has several opportunities to comment on the project. Contact information for submitting comments is specified at the bottom of this page.
- Public Comment Period: The public comment period for the CUP, is from 1/28/2026 – 2/25/2026 and may be continued by the HEX at the hearing. Any member of the public is welcome to provide a written comment to DCD about the project.
- Public comments received prior to 2/11/2026, will be addressed in a staff report to the HEX. Any public comments submitted after 2/11/
2026 up until the hearing examiner meeting (during which the public may still provide comment) will be included for the record at the time of the meeting.
- Public comments received prior to 2/11/2026, will be addressed in a staff report to the HEX. Any public comments submitted after 2/11/
- SJCC 18.80.140 requires that appeals of HEX decisions must be filed within 21 days of the publication of the appealed decision.
- SEPA Comment Period: ‘SEPA’ stands for State Environmental Protection Act and this regulation has a specific comment period, 1/28/26 to 2/11/26 and appeal process depending on the SEPA threshold determination for the project. SEPA review for the project has been ongoing since the application was initially deemed complete. The threshold determination was published in the newspaper and Washington State SEPA Register on 1/28/26. The determination letter will have the specifics concerning SEPA comment period and SEPA appeal process
- Public Hearing Examiner Meeting: After DCD staff and the applicant provide their testimony for the record, members of the public will have an opportunity to present public testimony (written or verbal) about the proposed project. The HEX will hold a hearing on this application on February 25, 2026.
- The meeting will be available in person and streamed online.
- Rules for conduct during a hearing examiner meeting are outlined in SJCC 2.22.200-2.22.240.
Summary of Important Information and Resources
- Project Overview
- Short Title: OPALCO Solar photovoltaic commercial power generation facility on Decatur Island
- Permit file number: LANDUSE-25-0091
- Applicant: Orcas Power and Light Cooperative (OPALCO)
- Location: TPN: 152232005000 and 152232002000
- Important Project Documents
- Link to LANDUSE-25-0091 Documentation: San Juan County Public Portal
- Important Dates of Note
- Written public comments due by: 1/28/26 to 2/25/26. Comments submitted after February 11th will be accepted and presented at the hearing examiner meeting up until the date of the hearing examiner meeting. The HEX may continue the hearing and public comment period
- SEPA comments due by: SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS) was issued 1/28/26 with comments due by 2/11/26. The SEPA DNS was posted in the appropriate newspapers and on the SEPA Register.
- Proposed Hearing Examiner date: 2/25/26: If there is any change in the date it shall be posted in the appropriate newspapers. Hearing Examiner agendas (which include links to live web-streaming) may be viewed via the online Agenda Center when published
- Public Comment Contact Information
- Email:
- Letter:
- San Juan County RE: LANDUSE-25-0091 OPALCO Solar Project
Community Development
P.O. Box 947
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
- San Juan County RE: LANDUSE-25-0091 OPALCO Solar Project
About San Juan County’s Department of Community Development
San Juan County’s Department of Community Development is responsible for building permits and inspections, code enforcement, land use current planning, long range planning, and more. The department’s main office is located at 135 Rhone Street, Friday Harbor, WA 98250. For more information about San Juan County’s Department of Community Development, visit https://sanjuancountywa.gov/
**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.**
I believe this hearing be canceled.
I am a full-time resident of Decatur Island for the past 25 years and a Co-op member. I am strongly opposed to OPALCO’s proposal to clear recently acquired forested land for an industrial-scale solar project that would generate only a modest amount of power while permanently damaging protected land.
This hearing should be canceled because OPALCO’s application is incomplete and legally flawed.
OPALCO failed to recognize or account for recorded deed restrictions that protect the exact land they propose to clear and develop. These restrictions include both a Native Growth Area Covenant and an area of designated Open Space, which prohibit the type of development OPALCO is proposing.
The auditor file numbers for these deed restrictions are:
• Native Growth Area Covenant
AFN #2010-0810007
• Simple Land Division – Open Space Covenant
AFN #2012-0611001
In the course of researching these restrictions, a local title company also discovered that OPALCO’s Boundary Line Adjustment, recorded in November 2025
(AFN #2015-1103012), contains a materially incorrect legal description and refers to property OPALCO did not own at the time it was recorded. This same boundary line modification appears on the maps included in OPALCO’s application.
Although OPALCO is working to correct this error, the confusion it created has already prevented me from obtaining an accurate title report and from having survey documents prepared.
The title company stated:
“I’m working on the two OPALCO listing reports you requested. I just wanted to let you know that a Boundary Line Modification was recorded back in November, but it has an incorrect legal description on it and it also contains property they didn’t own at the time.”
These serious legal defects, combined with OPALCO’s failure to disclose and address binding deed restrictions, render their application incomplete. Proceeding with a public hearing under these circumstances is premature and inappropriate.
This is yet another example in a growing pattern of costly and careless errors by OPALCO, and it underscores why this hearing should be canceled until the application is complete, accurate, and lawful.
How have we come to the point that a hearing is even necessary?
How are we at a point where our local member owned co-op seeks(and may be granted) the permission to tear out a forrest in the heart of an outer island to install 10year old panels that will produce 1% of the estimated shortfall?
There are 5 important things to know:
1) Decatur was not chosen for its appropriateness. It was chosen because a 1 million dollar grant was timing out and ,with panels already purchased for the paused Bailer Hill project, a calculated pivot was made.
But why Decatur?
2)Decatur is small both geographically and politically (apx 140 registered voters)…. But as OPALCO cries NIMBY, it is VERY important to understand that we ALREADY HAVE A SOLAR MICRO GRID ON DECATUR. We have given our community supported share for almost a decade.
3)My family fought hard for Decatur’s RGU-5 zoning because we believed in protecting the island’s natural beauty for future generations. The intent was simple: one home per five-acre parcel. To see OPALCO use that zoning against us is heartbreaking.
4) “Decatur was selected due to its proximity to the existing solar site and substation,” said Krista Bouchey, OPALCO’s Manager of Communications.
Isn’t that nice? To be “rewarded” with removal of a forest and given acres more of ancient solar panels simply based on the fact that we already have solar & substation?
5) The underwater cable that comes from Anacortes goes right through Decatur. It is also the electric heart of this county. It has been dug up twice in my lifetime, the underground cable sign shown right in my bedroom window through my childhood.
OPALCO benefits from the goodwill associated with being a co-op. They take advantage of all of us who are supportive of solar energy. They ask for a blind trust when The Decatur Project is a prime example of their current decision making capabilities.
Everything has its pros and cons. My heart goes out to those who are most negatively impacted by any commercial project.
I’ve noticed that on some commercial projects the operating company sometimes has the ability to compensate those most negatively affected by the project. I remember when a gas company where I lived in Colorado, after much controversy, was successful in getting the permits needed to drill a string of new gas wells through a number of private properties. The gas company compensated the landowners with things like new gates, new fences, graveled driveways, and free gas.
“To be “rewarded” with removal of a forest and given acres more of ancient solar panels simply based on the fact that we already have solar & substation?”
In line with Kendra’s note– another thing that I’ve noticed about the citing of commercial developments is that areas that have pre-existing commercial facilities or services (whether it be shipping lanes, flight paths, gas / oil pipelines, elec. lines, substations, etc., etc., etc.) are always taken into consideration during the citing process for new projects, or increased activity, (and for a variety of practical reasons I’m sure).
Everything has it’s pros and cons. In this case my observations tell me that folks should look at the long view as it doesn’t take much before an area becomes known as a commercial corridor.
Our energy source is already RENEWABLE and CARBON FREE.
Solar wind or tidal won’t accomplish any reduction in carbon footprint.
Think about it – BPA (our supplier) uses HYDRO (90%) and NUCLEAR (10%)
HYDRO is considered RENEWABLE and CARBON FREE
NUCLEAR is considered CARBON FREE
Did you know that? Solar is a huge expense for nothing !!!!!
I do not believe that our energy source is “RENEWABLE and CARBON FREE.”
Though one could say that our sources for electrical energy are better than some, they are not entirely renewable or carbon free. For example– on a drying/dying planet water can certainly no longer be considered an entirely renewable product. Have you looked out your window at Mt. Baker recently?
It’s been a real eye-opener watching the energy sector lobby industry standards into place. Though nuclear energy is now considered to be a green energy, an alternative energy, and by some standards it’s even considered to be a cheap source of energy, the truth is that no form of electrical energy production is entirely carbon free. Only if one were to take out all of the greenhouse gases that are emitted during the construction and power up phase of a nuclear power plant could one accurately say that nuclear energy production produces less greenhouse gases than other forms of power production. However, nuclear power in the U.S. is the most expensive and is also the most potentially life-threatening type of energy production in use today. Though promising to be safer, (and perhaps feasible sometime in the future) would be nuclear fusion… if and when they figure that out.
The following is from DuckGoGo AI–
Energy Source Average Cost per MWh Strengths Weaknesses
Nuclear $100 – $150 Low greenhouse gas emissions, reliable output High capital costs, long construction times
Natural Gas $50 – $100 Lower initial investment, flexible operation Higher emissions, price volatility
Coal $40 – $80 Established technology, abundant supply High emissions, environmental regulations
Wind $30 – $60 Renewable, low operational costs Intermittent supply, location dependent
Solar $40 – $70 Renewable, decreasing costs rapidly Intermittent supply, space requirements
I agree that in the manner it is being proposed (the Decatur project for example), that one might consider solar power a huge expense for nothing. But, again, I know many people who’ve been running their entire home’s electrical energy needs from their home solar units for decades. During the nine years I lived in the outer islands (on solar power), I would smile when the lights on Orcas went out… it was less light pollution as far as I was concerned. It is well known that solar works on a micro-scale. You live on Decatur… do you and/or your neighbors not have solar?
Also, though solar power does have a lower fossil fuel output than other forms of power production during operation , it would not be accurate to say that it “does not host a carbon footprint”. Not counting the cost of wars that are being fought all around the world for the elements that are needed for energy production, (including the critical resources needed for solar, and nuclear power), and the amount of carbon that this puts into the atmosphere… think of all the mining, the processing, and the transport that has to take place around the world for all the critical minerals that are needed for all energy production (including solar) on a mass scale.
From DuckGoGo AI–
“Global Military Activity: Military operations, including the manufacturing of arms and maintenance of bases, contribute a considerable portion of emissions. The intensity of emissions from military activities is around three times higher than the global average for other economic sectors.”
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Caused by War (and postwar reconstruction)–
“War significantly impacts greenhouse gas emissions, contributing notably to global climate change. Recent estimates reveal that military activities worldwide account for approximately 5.5% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. This substantial figure positions military emissions on par with leading industrial sectors, such as the global cement industry, making it potentially the fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases if considered as a separate nation.”
In terms of the coming energy crisis I’m reminded of a statement that Bill Appel issued in a comment recently. Though I’m only paraphrasing, I believe it was something like, “It’s time to pull out all the stops,” (when considering alternative energy production and our future needs). What I’m seeing in reality, however, (and especially under the current administration), is that the small gains (if there are still any) that are being made towards true alternative energy production is being more than offset by the current massive increase in both wars for resources, and fossil fuel exploration and production. This is fact… it is undeniable.
When reviewing the data for SJC’s GHG emissions it remains obvious that our largest GHG emitter is related to the tourism industry. How ’bout we do with less? https://theorcasonian.com/the-biggest-source-of-greenhouse-gas-pollution/
Sorry, for clarity, one of the charts in my reply above should have read–
Energy Source Average Cost per MWh Strengths Weaknesses
Nuclear $100 – $150 Low greenhouse gas emissions, reliable output High capital costs, long construction times
Natural Gas $50 – $100 Lower initial investment, flexible operation Higher emissions, price volatility
Coal $40 – $80 Established technology, abundant supply High emissions, environmental regulations
Wind $30 – $60 Renewable, low operational costs Intermittent supply, location dependent
Solar $40 – $70 Renewable, decreasing costs rapidly Intermittent supply, space requirements
Under “ Nuclear” please add a line about the extreme & widespread costs of a catastrophic failure. I have heard it said that today’s nuclear technologies are not the same and SO MUCH safer than those used to build and maintain the facilities at Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island and Fukushima, but — tell it to the fish in the ditches at Hanford, which apparently nobody is capable of cleaning up. Tell it to the gardeners in the west of England, where zucchinis were still testing radioactive for years after the meltdown in Ukraine. Don’t bother telling it to the jillionaires who will profit from the construction or to the politicians they fund or to the shareholders in the AI industries that will swallow the electricity. The transmission lines are not adequate to get the juice across hundreds of miles of mountains and deserts to the people in the cities anyway.
Thanks for your attention to this important matter.