||| FROM BRUCE BENTON |||
When my wife, Patricia, and I moved from Maryland to Orcas in 2020, I was struck by the extent to which vehicle emissions were the major source of pollution on the island. There was a solution. But it required finding some way to incentivize Islanders to transition to electric vehicles (EVs). If businesses, public facilities, and nonprofits were willing to install publicly-available EV charging stations, those owning gas-powered vehicles might well decide to switch to an EV based on the economics.
I ran the numbers, and they showed that an EV was about five times less expensive to own and drive, given the high cost of gasoline and maintenance for a gas-powered vehicle on the Island (see below). So, with the help of Patricia, I sought out Washington state grants and applied for two which I felt would accelerate EV adoption and
thereby reduce carbon-based vehicle emissions on the Island. To my surprise, both applications were successful.
The Grants
The first was a grant for nearly $400,000 from the Washington State Department of Commerce. It required a government agency or tribal group to implement the project. So, I approached the Airport Commissioners, and they agreed to do so. The grant would support the installation of 36 free publicly-available level II EV chargers around the island and one level III, fast charging station at the Orcas Airport. The latter would require user payment due to the higher cost of electricity for fast charging. It would be the first such fast charger in San Juan County.
I saw it as possibly opening up other interesting clean transportation opportunities. One would be the establishment of an EV shuttle from the ferry landing around the Island and charging up at the Eastsound airport. Others included: 1) supporting short-haul battery-powered electric airplanes, produced in Washington and expected to come on stream later in the decade, and 2) encouraging commercial van deliveries, such as FedEx, to switch to electric.
The second grant came from the Washington State Department of Transportation to launch a pilot EV carshare project. The award totaled nearly $200,000. The implementing agency needed to be a nonprofit. As an Island Rides’ board member, I presented the option of adding carsharing to its portfolio, and the Board agreed. The initial focus was confined to residents of OPAL housing in the Eastsound area. We set the stage for the launch by installing four chargers at the Reddick Apartments (also OPAL headquarters) and at the April’s Grove Apartments.
These would be the home bases for the carshare vehicles. Next, we purchased two Chevy Bolts – the EVs to be shared among participants in the program. By mid-2024, the first driver applicants had been accepted and the Green CarShare Project was underway.
Progress and Current Status
Considerable progress has been made in building out the EV charging infrastructure around the Island. In 2025 alone, 18 free publicly-available charging stations have been installed at five sites in Eastsound and on both sides of the Island. These include the OI High School (6 chargers – 4 financed by the grant and 2 by the OI School District), The Exchange (4), Airport Center (3), Doe Bay (3), and the Eastsound Airport (2). An additional 10 level II chargers have been lined up and are to be installed at six other sites by end of June. In addition, the level III Fast-Charging station is scheduled to be installed at the Eastsound Airport around that same time. Two individuals have played central roles in this achievement – Chip Long, Executive Director of the Port of Orcas; and Austin Duncan, Principal at Blacklight Electric.
The Green CarShare Project has been underway for nine months. Once underway, Nicholas Johns was selected as the CarShare Coordinator, responsible for day-to-day management of the program and building up the complement of driver participants. Early on, the uptake of CarShare drivers among OPAL residents was slower than hoped. Consequently, Nick and I decided to widen the program to cover all Island residents and to add a third home base for the vehicles at Orcas High School.
The CarShare Project now offers free zero-emissions transportation to any Islander 21 and over with a Washington state driver’s license, minimal car insurance, and a three-year clean driving record. Approximately 20 drivers have now signed up. Over the past nine months, Islanders have taken the Project’s Chevy Bolts on more than 1200 trips covering over 10,000 miles around the Island. The program has saved participating drivers thousands of dollars in fuel and maintenance. During current consideration of San Juan County’s Comprehensive Plan for Transportation, the local group Island Stewards commented: “Green Carshare program is a local bright spot. It’s an Island-style solution – flexible, sustainable, and based on real community need. Residents can book an electric car when they need one without taking on the costs (or carbon footprint) of full-time ownership.”
The establishment of an EV charging network throughout the Island is supporting an incipient public transportation system. Charger installations at Reddick Apartments, April’s Grove, OI High School, Airport Center, and Northern Heights Apartments provide solid infrastructure to support both the regular Island Rides service and the Green CarShare Project. They provide free transportation for Islanders who lack access to a vehicle or cannot afford to own/drive one, and for those unable to drive for any reason. Both programs rely on EVs and charging access.
They now have reliable access. The Green CarShare Project has three home bases in addition to recently-established access to chargers at Northern Heights Apartments. And the Island Rides on-demand rides service has access to chargers recently installed at the OI High School, Airport Center, Northern Heights Apartments, and the long-standing dedicated charger provided by the OI Community Foundation.
For anyone interested in learning more about participating in these programs, there will be an information table hosted by Debbie Haagensen, Executive Director of Island Rides, and Nick Johns, CarShare Coordinator, from
12-3pm at the April 26 Earth Day Eco-Fair at the Parish Hall of the Episcopal Church. This will provide an opportunity for any Islander to begin the application process to become a Green CarShare Project driver for their own needs and/or to become a volunteer driver for the Island Rides rideshare service.
Benefits to Orcas Island and Its Residents
The benefits from expanding the charging network around OI and transitioning to EV transportation are primarily threefold: 1) lower transportation costs, 2) environmental benefits, and 3) reduced health risks.
Greater Transportation Affordability on OI
With the substantial increase of free publicly-available charging stations on OI, we project that 40% of gas-powered vehicle owners will transition to EVs over the next five years. That transition will substantially increase transportation affordability on the Island. Given the current cost of regular gasoline on OI of $5.50 per gallon and assuming a vehicle gets 20 miles per gallon, the average gas-powered vehicle driven 10,000 miles, costs $3845 per year in fuel and maintenance, or $10.50 per day. By contrast, the cost to drive an EV over the same distance is
estimated to be $730 per year, or $2 per day, given the availability of low-cost charging and the lower maintenance costs for EVs. Hence, the cost savings in transitioning to an EV will be approximately $3000 per year, or $8.50 per day. Current transportation costs for those relying on gas-powered vehicles are burdensome, particularly for the 39% of OI households living below the income level necessary to meet daily needs, and the 13% below the poverty line. High transportation costs are a disincentive for those who provide essential services to live on OI.
There is, of course, the investment involved in acquiring an EV to take advantage of these cost savings. A number of Islanders have purchased used EVs with lower battery range at considerably reduced cost. The lower range is generally not a problem on the Island given the shorter driving distances required. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, which remains in force, those at a certain income level can receive a $4000 tax credit when purchasing a used EV. The owner of Gordy’s Automotive on Mt Baker Road on OI is planning to begin selling used EVs by early summer.
Environmental Benefits
Vehicles are the largest cause of greenhouse emissions on OI, followed by the diesel ferries. They represent 78% of CO2 emissions in San Juan County (Cascadia Consulting Group Greenhouse Emissions Inventory), which reflects emissions levels on OI. With expanded, affordable EV infrastructure, there will be a strong economic incentive to transition to EVs. The goal of the EV Charger Project is to achieve at least a 40% transition to EVs over the next five years (through 2030), resulting in an estimated decline of ~30% in CO2 emissions from vehicles (Cascadia Greenhouse Emissions Inventory/OPALCO/San Juan County data).
Another environmental problem caused by vehicle emissions is ocean acidification. CO2 emissions go into the atmosphere and settle in the ocean. With ocean absorption of CO2 emissions, pH levels decline causing ocean acidity. Western Washington acidification is high relative to other US coastal areas. The ferries and international shipping contribute to the problem. Acidification threatens all marine life, but particularly endangers shellfish, an important western Washington employer, food source and export. Ocean acidity inhibits shell formation in clams/oysters/mussels. Washington is the largest producer and exporter of shellfish in the US.
In 2023, that sector employed 2700 people in rural areas and was responsible for exports valued at $11 billion. Accelerated transition to EV transportation on Oi will help reduce acidification in the surrounding Salish Sea and benefit the local economy.
Health Benefits
The toxic effects of the chemicals in carbon-based vehicle emissions, particularly in children, is an important and growing health concern. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2025 linked the exposure of these chemicals to the rise of important childhood diseases. It noted that over the past 50 years, cancer rates in
children have increased by 50% and pediatric asthma by 300%. Transitioning to EVs on OI will reduce carbon-based vehicle emissions and thus exposure to the toxic effects of the harmful chemicals in these CO2 emissions.
In closing, it’s worth noting that one of the barriers to providing free public access to charging on OI has been the cost of electricity. Under the EV Charger Project, the installation costs are paid for by the grant and OPALCO has generously provided rebates that, in most cases, fully cover the cost of the charger. The site host is required under the Project to pay for the electricity. That cost is relatively minor – somewhere between $0.50 and $0.75 per hour.
A number of local businesses participating in the Project have concluded that they favor providing electricity for free charging because doing so enables them to attract customers with electric vehicles. This is particularly true of
hotels, inns, and resorts on OI, as well as other selected businesses. Other site hosts participating in the Project, notably public facilities and nonprofits, view free charging as a “public good” that benefits the entire Island community – as noted in the benefits outlined above.
In order to produce a public good benefiting the wider community, the community needs to bear at least some small cost of producing that public good – in this case the cost of the electricity. Thank you to all those who are participating in these EV projects and stepping up to produce a public good that is contributing importantly to a
greener, healthier Orcas Island community.
**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.**
The supposed “environmental benefits” of EVs simply move the bulk of the harms from the refineries to refine oil and the tailpipe of the car, to the mining and refining of the copious materials required for the car’s batteries, and the electricity systems required to charge the vehicles. There is nothing “green” about EVs. Displacing the harms doesn’t mean they go away; it only means that well-meaning people don’t have to “see” them directly, and can thus ignore them. CO2 emissions are just one of *many* harms created by cars, roads, and car culture.
Cars and the roads they are driven on are not compatible with flourishing ecosystems required for life on Earth; it matters not what is under the hood.
You can read my report on mining for “green/clean” tech (including EV batteries) here: https://www.protectthackerpass.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/HowMiningHurtsCommunities_Spreads.pdf
And I recommend Ben Goldfarb’s Crossings for a crash course in how devastating roads are for the natural world.
I also highly recommend this youtube channel for information about how dangerous Li-ion batteries are: https://www.youtube.com/@StacheDTraining
While I don’t disagree with everything Ms. Robson writes, I don’t believe Bruce is claiming to reflourish the ecosystem. To the extent we’re stuck with cars, my thanks to Bruce and Patricia and the Port for taking practical steps to reduce local vehicle carbon emissions.
After reading numerous articles here about how Opalco will soon not be able to supply the islands with enough electrical power we find out that we are subsidizing all electric vehicle owners (including tourists I assume) with “free” (no such thing) electricity?
Thanks for the links… very interesting. Having lived inSW Colorado for a number of years and seeing a Forest Serv ice plan go wrong I became acutely aware of what roads mean to previously roadless places, “if you provide the infrastructure people will come.”
A realistic concern that I have is– I’m wondering, Krista, how much are our monthly electricity bills going to go up as a result of the planned tidal generator, the Bailer Hill solar project, and all of the needed infrastructure that’s required to support them?
“Nothing green about electric cars.” Seriously? I am no research scientist in these things, but my good friend Elizabeth Robson is at risk of leading this community astray from objective reality. If your enemy is roads, fine. I have no contest with that. But by shooting at EVs as an alternative to climate-wrecking cars, you do nothing about roads.
Let’s look at scale. Last year, the worldwide production of Lithium for batteries was 240,000 metric tons. Hold that number for a moment.
The 2023 global oil consumption was 4,530,000,000 metric tons. Billion with a B. Burning this for fuel is what has brought our climat4e crisis to where it is today.
There is nothing “equivalent” about these environmental impacts, EVs vs. ICE. Sure, battery demand is growing, and batteries include more than lithium. But the battery is part of the infrastructure of the car. It last for years, and its components can be recycled. Petrochemical fuels, on the other hand, must be burned for every inch of every mile, creating the well-documented cataclysmic, planet-destroying flood of CO2 production.
This is not to mention things like accidents and spills. The effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill are still with us 36 years later. The 2010 Deepwater horizon spill the Gulf of Amer . . uh, Mexico contaminated 1300 miles of coastline and killed a million birds, not to mention whales and other marine life. Minor spills routinely occur all the time. We live in terror of a spill in San Juan County waters. Lithium mining is dirty too, but again, scale matters.
Finally, Lithium itself is likely on the way out, to be replaced by less toxic or dangerous components like sodium, zinc, aluminum, magnesium and others.
In any case, huge thanks to Bruce for doing something wonderful for Orcas.
Well, one reason Lithium is tiny in comparison to fossil fuels is because out of the 1.5 billion cars on the road in the world, only 2.7% are EVs.
Once you mine lithium (or other materials) for the rest of those EVs, oh and make sure that there’s enough batteries on the grid to power all those EVs with electricity from “renewables” instead of coal and gas, the amount of materials (like lithium) will of course skyrocket.
And of course, oil is used for countless products, most of which most people couldn’t imagine living without, and is required for most industrial processes, so that comparison isn’t really fair.
Bedrock Materials, the main sodium-ion battery startup in the US just shutdown a couple of weeks ago. So far no one’s come up with a battery chemistry that compares to Li-ion when you factor in everything from price to charge speed to charge retention to total energy capacity, etc. Plus, because of mining, supply chain and manufacturing lead times, Li-ion will continue to rule the day for many decades to come.
One mistake people often make when comparing fossil fuels mining to materials mining (metals, for instance) is comparing the total *refined* materials to the fossil fuels. However, many materials have a massive waste rock to ore ratio, meaning one has to move/refine many many many times more earth out of the way to get the total material you’re mining for. Once you include that waste rock, the comparison is a lot more fair, and quite stunning in terms of the amount of destruction to the natural, of course.
I recognize that people are addicted to cars and car culture and nothing I say will make a difference, but it does irk me when people say cars are “green”. I remember when the environmental movement really got going in the early 70’s, everyone understood that cars are terrible. You can find many old slogans about this! Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, corporate propaganda intervened in people’s thinking and here we are, championing cars and the car industry! Fascinating.
Thanks for your comment Toby.
Thank you for your enormous contributions to Island Rides and the community, Bruce!
Toby, thanks for the reality check. Yes, fossil fuel extraction is estimated to be 2,143 times larger than extraction for all wind turbines, solar panels, EVs and other clean-energy infrastructure. As the article below summarizes, “Oil extraction dwarfs mining.”
“In 2020, building the world’s wind turbines, solar panels, EVs and other clean-energy infrastructure demanded 7 million tons of minerals, estimates the International Energy Agency. Roughly half of this was destined for batteries and EVs.
The oil, gas and coal industry, by contrast, extracted the equivalent of 15 billion metric tons in 2019. And the industry will need to extract it year after year to keep supplying energy. Clean-energy technology can use these materials for decades or, if recycled, in perpetuity.”
Not to mention the GHG and other pollutants that accelerate climate disaster, and ocean warming and acidification.
No perfect solutions. No easy answers.
Learn more: about mineral recycling, extraction, pollution: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/09/19/electric-cars-better-environment-fossil-fuels/
This seems like a great program, competently planned and executed, and it’s encouraging that the funding for something like this was available. The car share program in particular could really help a lot of working class people who don’t have access to reliable transportation. The article seems to be missing a link to a specific website with more information but I’ll probably be able to find it with a search.
Something else that would help with reducing GHG emissions and local air pollution would be pushing for Washington to re-implement emissions testing for all vehicles. The state Dept of Ecology ended their existing program on Jan 1, 2020 and there hasn’t been any serious legislative effort to resurrect it.
Putting more EVs on the roads helps reduce air pollution, but there are still countless old stinker vehicles roaming the islands, not to mention the dump trucks and other heavy utility vehicles that are able to pollute with impunity. There’s also a certain irony to putting EV chargers at the airport, since aviation-related emissions constitute a major point source of GHG emissions on the islands (not to mention noise pollution, but I digress).
It’s strange that Washington wants to be a national leader in decarbonization, yet there are still so many vehicles on our roads which would not pass an emissions test in another state. It’s particularly bad on the islands, with many older vehicles driving around without catalytic converters or even mufflers. I get that romancing the past is part of the charm of living here, but clouds of black smog from the tailpipe a 1970s pickup truck is not exactly nostalgic.
Welcome to Orcas Mr. Benton !!!
While the nattering nabobs talked, wrote, advocated, talked some more and argued all the while – you took action by providing a vary comprehensive plan, put it play, arranged funding, siting, permitting, design, construction, commissioning and implementation that offers access to all island stakeholders who choose to use an alternative transportation mode, regardless of economic circumstance.
All of that achieved in four years – Lightning Speed for Orca — A STELLAR ACHIEVEMENT !
For that you deserve the profound gratitude of the entire community, yes there are some reservations, and the caterwauling off the naysayers, nothing is perfect but you deserve far more thanks than you are receiving in this comment string – but that’s Orcas.
So a simple Thank You is all I have to offer!
A truly impressive achievement! As the naysayers confirm, something is wrong with everything. It takes initiative to step out and actually do something without being dragged down. Good job!
What is seldom mentioned when attempting to point out that electric cars are not “green” is the fact that the energy to power the cars comes our dams, solar, wind, etc. generation. These points of generation can be monitored such that emissions, etc. are managed at single points. Each fuel combustion car should be considered as an emitter, especially if not well maintained and serviced. I would rather my automobiles energy came from central sources than the estimated points of emissions from 1.644 billion cars and light commercial vehicles.
Google
“There are approximately 1.5 billion cars in the world. This figure encompasses both passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. A broader definition including all motor vehicles, like trucks and buses, pushes the total to 1.644 billion. “
Jay, Krista, Foster, anyone?
A realistic concern that I have is– how much are our monthly electricity bills going to go up as a result of the planned tidal generator, the Bailer Hill solar project, and all of the needed infrastructure that’s required to support them?
The phrase on many Electric Vehicles is “free zero-emission transportation.” Well, that is not true. For one, look up the origin of the properties to gather information on having an EV built, batteries, and the parts. The use of human trafficking, child labor, and mining with giant machines that are not EVs. Then, the transfer of parts by boat, NOT EV, transfers by larger trucks, again not EV, and our ferry, again not EV. Then the power costs. Opalco has warned us that we are at MAX capacity. But that does not seem to matter to many.
Now let’s look at, for example, how many EVs are on the island that are parked and not working due to the batteries, which cost upwards of $20,000 to replace. Hmmm, still sounding great. Cool, look up the use of where our power comes from…. Opalco raised their prices to $0.1351 per kWh, but only pays the generation from our solar panels at $0.860. I get it they need to make money but the issue I have is that I pay part of the loan I got from them in finance charge no problem, I pay them for lost kWh to and from my home, and my brand-new system and their system does not match on the amount sold to Opalco. AND I am not the only one with those issues. Opalco says their system is current and over 90% working. So let’s put Opalco to the side for a moment.
There is not enough power to run the EV that our society wants to push on us. The idea of EV is not yet really at “free zero-emission transportation.” I don’t care if you want to buy an EV, but I am tired of the push that they are ‘Better’ than other products. I have not witnessed that; I have seen a big push for a mislabeled product costing much money and precious labor to be considered FREE. I think EV will improve, but we must also be careful not to overwhelm our already tight system. But what do I know?
“As the naysayers confirm, something is wrong with everything. It takes initiative to step out and actually do something without being dragged down.”
I remember several years back there used to be a doctor (a psycho analyst) from NYC, who would make volatile comments all the time. I guess one might call him an “ayesayer”. He used to make comments like this in an attempt to be divisive… with this, in itself, being a form of bullying, a type of ridicule intended to make those he disagreed with feel insignificant, to feel unpopular, unliked, and in a minority. Though he would also at times call us “naysayers,” my favorite was when he started calling us “the haters.” I’m still laughing over that one. Such tactics are cheap shots, with the the reality being that everybody has the right to express their feelings. It has nothing to do with whether one is liked, or whether they are popular (as someone recently injected in another comment). And it certainly doesn’t mean that those who are urging caution, and are urging others to look at the bigger picture are against alternative power production. Indeed, when I look at those who are urging caution I am looking at some of those who are the least responsible for the problems of the day… and are also those who have been ringing the alarm bell for decades in an effort to avert such crisis moments.
There’s nothing negative (“nay”) about people stating their concerns in regards to behemoth energy projects that have limited lifespans (one of which is in the salt-water environment), that also host environmentally known hazards, that themselves host an enormous carbon footprint during the mining, transportation, and construction phase, that have a proven and dubious return on investment track record, that will result in significant increases in everybody’s monthly electric bill (creating haves and have nots), and that will cost billions in federal, state, and taxpayer dollars throughout its entire limited life cycle, (did I leave anything out?).
I do see something wrong, however, with labeling those who disagree with you and throwing them all into the same bus (the same mindset), when all they’re doing is looking at the bigger picture, trying to educate others, and urging caution. I see two things wrong with those who are trying to diminish the concerns of those who disagree with them in such a manner, 1) by doing so they create an atmosphere whereby some do not feel comfortable speaking out, and 2) this has the effect of robbing others of hearing the (sometimes educated) opinions of those whose views differ from theirs, those who might have spoken out otherwise. It’s like hearing the truth, but not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It’s only when people are able to hear both sides of an issue that they are able to get the full picture.
Speaking for myself, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do these projects, but I am concerned when I see the ayesayers continually overlooking and trying to diminish mine and others points of view. And, I cannot help but think that when I listen to the experts, that I get the idea that perhaps that these projects have not been well thought out. I speak out of concern… nothing else. OPALCO, in regards to particularly the tidal energy project, you have failed to convince me.
Options? Though a long shot perhaps we’d have been better off spending the money lobbying our elected leaders at the state level to pursuing legislation aimed at limiting the big energy users– the AI data centers, over-tourism, and over-development. Pursuing strategies like these proposed behemoth energy projects in an effort to ensure we have enough energy while at the same time promoting for more (AI data centers, tourism and development) seems a bit insane.
OPALCO is so grateful to Bruce Benton for all the work he put into these projects as a volunteer that will greatly benefit our community now and into the future. OPALCO isn’t the one providing the “free” chargers these are a courtesy of our generous local business owners who see the value of providing this service to their clients and to the community.
@MJ – thanks for asking these important questions about our future energy usage and the local renewable projects OPALCO is working on.
Here’s the bigger picture: 1/3 of all species are projected to go extinct in the next 50 years if we don’t get carbon emissions under control. We need to balance carbon reduction, siting renewable energy generation, and financial affordability.
First: We need to address the increased risk of electricity blackouts.
-The Centralia coal plant (670 MW) is shutting down, and no major new generation is being built.
-Regional supply-demand shortfalls are expected across the West.
-Without local backup, we face a real risk of rolling blackouts, especially during extreme weather or high-demand periods.
Second: We need to build local renewable generation — but only if it’s financially prudent.
-OPALCO would only move forward with a tidal generator if construction costs were covered by grants. With federal funding now rescinded, the tidal project is not moving forward at member expense.
-Community solar projects (like Bailer Hill) are funded voluntarily by members who buy solar units. Community solar projects will not raise member bills.
Meanwhile, the cost of mainland electricity is rising — fast:
-BPA hydro power: $42/MWh today.
-Tier 2 BPA power: $60/MWh average.
-2025 Mid-C market forecast: $45–$245/MWh depending on water and weather conditions.
-We realistically expect $80/MWh by the end of 2025, and $120/MWh or higher post-2026.
Fuel switching away from fossil fuels is imperative. Local generation is key to prevent blackouts and protect our islands. We are committed to only building local projects if they are financially sound. As we compare the costs of our future power supply we need to consider the regional market forces that are driving electricity prices up.
This chat began as an Orcas Island success story. I do not comment on Orcas issues normally but now it has morphed into the larger energy picture and OPALCO.
Krista, thanks for responding to questions. I expected federal funds to dry up for a tidal generation project but did not know that ours was shelved.
First, I believe that Mr Benton has accomplished a good thing that among other citizen actions increases the sense of community and social cohesion. An intangible value of living in smaller places (that does not happen all by itself) that face mounting socio-economic challenges.
The frustrating truth of this stage of the Anthropocene in America is that there a myriad wicked issues that cannot be solved in any meaningful way only tweaked and adjusted to be more tolerable. Given the circumstances we face in this odd little county, speaking only to increasing electric power costs and few member choices, I would like to see a number of properly sited Bailer Hill stations to blunt rolling blackouts to come and propose that OPALCO develop a more steeply tiered Kwh price structure that further rewards conservation and greatly increases costs to residential and commercial users who exceed those monthly limits. It would require developing a residential home standard home and say two levels of commercial business upon which charges are prorated on a steep curve.
Degrowth is not going to happen anytime soon and when it does it will be the result of socio economic collapse due to pandemics or pick your future dystopia.
Planned growth with strict water and electrical usage standards out here is the only way to economic diversification once a a lot more affordable housing happens.
The days of easy, relatively painless choices are far behind us and serious conservation is a necessity that is not yet stringent enough to match our daunting challenges. We must improve the prospects of the near term future for other reasonable islanders.
Thank you (Krista, Steve, Elisabeth, Jay)… it (the narrative) has created, and continues to promote a dysfunctional mess that has been a long time in coming, one in which alternatives seemingly offer little respite, (a move to an EV world will not keep 1/3 of all species from going extinct w/in the next 50 years as suggested), though it could perhaps offer some protection from rolling blackouts for those who have enough money to subsidize the building of the Bailer Hill type projects.
Jay, as I don’t subscribe to the Wa.Post, and don’t want to submit to all of the information they want from me inorder for me to see the “free article” that you posted, is there any way that you might post it in a PDF form for all to view? Thanks.
“We must improve the prospects of the near term future for other reasonable islanders.”
Steve– out of curiosity, who are the “the other reasonable islanders” that you refer to… the ones that we’re going to try and protect the near term future for?
MJ that is a good question about a fuzzy sentence. I mean that bit of hopefulness in terms of creating cohesive communities of engaged Islanders of all stripes that allows for a reasonable future of good living and pursuit of happiness. The greatest pressures here (certainly on SJI) are toward gentrification, investment homes empty most of the y ear and faux estates lifestyles that are not commitments to enduring community well-being. As you are obviously well aware a demographic dissection of our little county shows great differences in a real sense of place and community and reasons for “investing” here. I only hope that families with semi-rural lifeway dreams can increase in numbers and thrive here in a reasonably sustainable economy as the Great Troubles unfold. I feel that our very odd statistics, off-shore challenges and focus on booming summer tourism (after severe resource depletion) does not promise a reasonable future for reasonable people. Too much to go into beyond that.
Thank you for the clarification Steve. The reasoning you cite is, IMO, the crux of the issue, it is that place where many of our minds meet. That is, for those who are being honest and those that aren’t afraid to acknowledge it, we know what the problems are. As you state, “The greatest pressures here are…”. We’ve seen it, we’ve lived it, there are simply to many examples of this happening to communities around the world for us to even begin to list. And yet the proponents of this are still asking us to ignore the symptoms as if it’s not happening, and it won’t happen here, or as if there’s nothing we can do about it, as if this is our only option.
Yes, as you cite, here in the San Juans today, in front of our very eyes we’re witnessing the loss of community and diminishing hopes for our community’s long-term well-being. We’re seeing increasing gentrification as a result of policies allowing the investment class and an overabundance of non-committal part-timers. And, as you further, we’re seemingly bound by off-shore challenges (preemptive legislation), and we suffer from the ever continuing focus on a booming tourism economy that’s leading towards resource depletion, and more… much more.
And even while realizing the cause and effect thereof we’ve seemingly become complacent with the continued overpromotion of that which we know is killing the innate qualities of our island communities that we value the most… the reasons why many of us moved here for in the first place. And we’re doing this for money?
What’s wrong with this picture? Isn’t this planning for failure? In our all-consuming capitalistic society today there are so many things that we’ve become enablers of that are not in our best long-term interests, with much of it being tax-subsidized and sold to us on the premise that it’s for our own good. Is “loving it to death” really the lesser evil that we’re willing to accept?
Though I’ve never met you personally and I don’t always fully agree with you, I’ve come to know you over the years as a very interesting person, one who has the gift of deep thinking and expression. I’ve enjoyed reading the recent series portraying your life in the Journal. Of interest to you perhaps is that I was recently honored to have met, like you, a fellow Alaskan, and the father of my close Orcas friend Bridget Brunner. Eberhard Brunner is a rare breed, a man among men, one of the last of his kind, an elder who is a legend in his own time. https://alaskapublic.org/outdoor-explorer/2020-01-19/learning-from-our-elders-eberhard-brunner