Renewable energy generation and storage facilities would be added to a list of essential public facilities — such as ferry terminals, airports and recycling or waste facilities — if an OPALCO proposal is approved.
||| FROM SYDNEE CHAPMAN for SALISH CURRENT |||
A change in San Juan County’s comprehensive plan would ease one of the biggest barriers for new energy projects in the county: siting issues.
The proposed change comes after public pushback and permitting issues Orcas Power and Light Cooperative (OPALCO) has faced on two recent solar grid projects on San Juan and Decatur Islands. In a recent press release, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community also strongly objected to the co-op’s tidal energy project. Some worry the change might give the co-op outsized power.
The county is likely to approve a request from OPALCO to add renewable energy generation and storage facilities to a list of essential public facilities. The special designation is reserved for projects that are difficult to site but that also provide a necessary public service, such as ferry terminals, airports and recycling or waste facilities.
Under the designation, projects that can’t meet normal development standards such as land-use designations can go through a separate permitting process. Although the process inevitably ends with the project being sited somewhere, it doesn’t allow projects “to just happen outright,” said Sophia Cassam, the San Juan County planner overseeing the comprehensive plan update.
Whether the installation might be considered agricultural, whether sufficient visual screening would be included, and whether the project could be permitted under existing county regulations were among issues raised by residents pushing back early last year on a proposal to install a solar array in San Juan Valley on San Juan Island. (Nancy DeVaux, Salish Current 2024)
First, applicants must submit an analysis of proposed sites, including potential impacts to critical areas and the environment. That then opens the door for a public meeting before the county council votes on whether to select one of the proposed sites. If the council denies the application, it must identify additional sites and any actions the applicant needs to take to get approval. If everything goes smoothly, the process takes about a year before the applicant can apply for permits.
“We do need to find a place at the end of the day to site the facility. We can’t just say no,” Cassam said. “So, the public comment wouldn’t necessarily put an end to the process of trying to site it … but public comment could influence which site is chosen or whether or not other sites are considered.”
Regardless of whether the county approves the change, OPALCO could still apply for the designation on a project-by-project basis.
In a blog post, the co-op stated that, “The comprehensive plan should formally recognize utility-scale solar and microgrid facilities as essential public facilities — giving them the same planning priority and permitting pathways as other crucial services needed to support our island community and local energy independence.”
Cassam said the county has only been through the essential public facility permitting process once, for a public works construction yard on Shaw Island.
The essential public facilities process is designed to facilitate discussion, but some residents are concerned it will do the opposite.
Elisabeth Robson, an activist with the grassroots organization Protect The Coast PNW focused on protecting coastal ecosystems from offshore energy development, worries giving the designation to energy projects may be opening Pandora’s Box.
“Once you have that essential public facility designation, it feels a little bit like steamrolling … It basically says the public can’t say no,” she said. “It just seems to me that we’re handing over a lot of control to our utility when it’s a member utility, and these projects have a big impact in a small county.”
Robson added that while she understands the need for the designation, she believes that it should be paired with a community value to minimize the use of essential public facilities. She pointed to dumps and a community focus on reducing and reusing as an example.
OPALCO’s proposal to add to its solar microgrid near the center of Decatur Island has drawn opposition from residents. (Courtesy OPALCO)
“What’shappening here, though, is that there is no cultural value to minimize electricity use; and in fact, OPALCO is pushing more electricity use on us,” she said.
Chom Greacen, an energy analyst who lives on Lopez Island, sees both sides of the argument and doesn’t have a strong opinion on the designation. She believes the conversation about energy projects, however, is starting far too late in the game.
“Where we really need to have the conversation is upstream from project siting,” she said. “We need to have a conversation collectively as a community looking at the collective need for energy and the land use limitations and the concerns that various groups might have.”
Greacen said a better alternative would be least-conflict siting, which has been used in places like the Columbia Plateau, Northern California and Slovenia. The technique involves various stakeholders, such as utility companies, tribes, environmental groups and farmers. Each group identifies areas that would harm their interests and that feedback is combined into a final map identifying the least controversial sites.
Such a map in San Juan County, Greacen said, could allow the community to see whether there are enough noncontroversial sites for renewable projects.
“If that’s enough, then problem solved, right? We can just focus on those, and we don’t even have to designate anything as essential public facilities,” Greacen said, adding that the process would still be helpful even if the county moves forward with the designation for renewable energy projects.
The planning commission has included designating renewable energy facilities as essential public facilities in its recommendations to the county council regarding the comprehensive plan. The county plans to adopt a new comprehensive plan by the end of the year.
**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 was disappointed by this article. It gives the impression that the proposed Essential Public Facility (EPF) designation for OPALCO’s large-scale energy projects will pass with little opposition. Yet, that’s not what I’ve seen or heard across our islands.
The article quotes just three people: one opposed, one neutral, and one county planner overseeing comprehensive plan changes. That leaves out a significant portion of the community. In recent meetings, I’ve heard widespread concern and clear opposition. Friends of the San Juans, for instance, spoke against granting OPALCO the EPF distinction, with their attorney outlining several legal and environmental concerns.
There is still time for residents to weigh in by contacting the Planning Department, emailing planner Sophia Cassam, or attending the mid-October meeting. Public input still matters, but only if people speak up before these decisions are finalized.
The article’s language also obscures what’s really at stake. It uses gentle terms like “renewable energy” and “storage facilities,” mentions “solar” only twice, and never once says “batteries.” But that’s precisely what this is about: large fields of solar panels and massive battery installations–875 acres(or more) of them, spread across the county.
On Decatur Island, where I live, this proposal means replacing a beautiful forest in the island’s center with a clear-cut field of solar panels. And remember, we have no fire district here. Lithium battery storage introduces significant fire risks–risks OPALCO leadership seems willing to place squarely on the shoulders of small island communities.
Decatur already hosts the only solar microgrid in the county, one of just two in all of western Washington. That’s not because solar is new or experimental, but because our region’s short, dark winters make it inefficient. Solar works well in sunny climates like Arizona or Southern California. Here, it performs at roughly half that capacity, meaning twice as many panels are needed for the same output.
I support solar power in principle. I hope technology continues to improve. But at present, our climate simply doesn’t support large-scale solar as a reliable, “essential” energy source.
OPALCO is pushing for the EPF designation because it desperately needs it. Without it, public input and environmental review could slow or halt these projects and rightly so. At this point, it should not be deemed “essential”.The county should not grant any utility a legal shortcut that overrides community concerns. An EPF designation means that projects must be sited somewhere, and it would effectively make public engagement a formality, not a safeguard.
Meanwhile, the economics of OPALCO’s solar push are uncertain. The Decatur microgrid, and a proposed second one, were funded by Washington State Department of Commerce grants. Those grants have largely dried up in the current political climate. OPALCO appears to be counting on their return, a gamble that could burden members with higher rates just as the co-op faces urgent costs to replace aging undersea cables.
We all understand that OPALCO faces challenges and that the county needs to plan for the future. But poor or limited choices are not a reason to bypass public oversight or disregard local conditions.
Electricity itself is essential. OPALCO is essential. But large-scale solar development is not. Refusing the EPF designation wouldn’t end OPALCO’s pursuit of renewable energy; it would simply preserve our community’s right to meaningful involvement in where, and how, these projects take shape.