The forest isn't
in the wrong place.The project is.

In OPALCO’s own representative member survey, only 13% selected forested land for renewable-energy development. 60% selected previously disturbed or industrial sites. Forests ranked last among the land categories offered.

Yet OPALCO is pursuing a solar expansion that would clear standing forest on Decatur Island.

OPALCO asked members where to build. It should listen to the answer.

See OPALCO’s survey results, PDF page 32. ↗

OPALCO plans to clear and grade standing forest on Decatur Island for solar panels.

Friends of the San Juans’ analysis identifies roughly 400 trees taller than 49 feet, including about 50 taller than 98 feet, within the proposed clearing areas. OPALCO’s consultant also counted 44 large standing dead trees, known as snags.

Those trees store carbon. The snags provide potential shelter for bats and birds. The forest protects soil and helps absorb rainfall.

OPALCO emphasizes that the land was logged before. A forest that grew back is still a forest worth protecting.

Put solar on rooftops, parking lots and already-cleared land. Leave the forest standing.

Explore Friends of the San Juans’ illustrated forest report. ↗

A Native Growth Area covenant protected part of this property in 2010. A recorded land division established additional open-space protections in 2012. OPALCO bought the property in March 2025, with those protections already in place.

These commitments helped define where development could occur and which areas would remain protected. Our community relies on recorded land-use and environmental protections when we buy property, build homes and invest in our future.

OPALCO asked the County to redraw the open-space boundaries to accommodate its solar project. On October 1, 2026, the County approved that unprecedented revision.

The revised layout counts land already protected by the Native Growth Area covenant toward replacement open space, while moving open-space protection away from forest slated for clearing.

A new outline on a map cannot replace the forest inside the old one.

If the County can gerrymander protected open space around a new owner’s project, what confidence can any landowner have in those recorded commitments?

OPALCO should fit its project to the land’s protections. Honor the recorded commitments. Keep the forest standing.

A resident recorded more than 640 bat calls over three nights nearby, using the same detector model as OPALCO’s consultant. ESA monitored for one rainy, windy night, detected no bats and recommended no further surveys.

The nearby recordings establish bat activity, though they do not confirm Townsend’s bats. A regional expert on that species, whose research ESA itself cites, challenges the survey’s ability to rule out use of the site. Failing to detect wildlife does not establish that clearing its potential habitat is harmless.

The County initially found the feeding analysis insufficient and requested additional monitoring. ESA responded with more habitat reasoning, disclaimed reliance on the recordings and again recommended no further surveys. The County accepted it. More explanation. No additional monitoring.

OPALCO wants 44 large standing dead trees removed. It owes the public a convincing assessment of what feeds here before destroying potential habitat.

Publish the outside reviews. Resolve the feeding question. A forest cannot appeal after it has been cut.

Below the proposed clearing lie homes, wetlands and Decatur Shores’ airfield, including its medevac landing area. Neighbors described saturated ground, damaged roads, water entering buildings and septic-system problems. These are existing vulnerabilities that demand protection before OPALCO clears more forest.

The consequences extend toward the shoreline. Friends maps a potential drainage route toward forage-fish spawning beaches that support salmon and orcas. That route still needs verification on the ground. OPALCO should fund it before sending additional runoff into the drainage system.

OPALCO presented its original solar installation as a utility-substation expansion and obtained a provisional use permit. It pursued that same permitting shortcut for the current expansion, arguing that the facilities form an integrated site. The expansion ultimately went through conditional-use review. Yet OPALCO’s fire mitigation plan leaves the existing battery and substation outside its scope.

One integrated facility for permitting. Separate pieces for fire safety. OPALCO cannot have it both ways.

Before expanding again, OPALCO must reconcile today’s wetland mapping with the earlier construction and fill that proceeded without wetland review or wetland permitting. It must also investigate neighbors’ complaints about worsening drainage. Account for what the first project changed before changing more.

At the hearing, OPALCO’s stormwater engineer confirmed that no subsurface groundwater model was done and that he had never visited Decatur. He relied on geotechnical information and stormwater modeling; the Examiner accepted that analysis. Now OPALCO should substantiate its assurances with measurements that residents can examine.

Fund an independent hydrogeologist. Install monitoring wells and establish a wet-season baseline before clearing. Monitor the airfield’s drainage, publish the results, and commit to corrective action and payment for project-caused damage.

A medevac landing area is no place to discover that the assumptions were wrong.

Friends' forest and drainage discussion ↗

OPALCO promises restoration after the project ends. Yet its October update still says the decommissioning plan will become public “as available.” The community deserves that plan before the chainsaws arrive. Restoration commitment, page 24.

Friends’ analysis identifies roughly 400 trees taller than 49 feet, including about 50 exceeding 98 feet, within the proposed clearing areas. This second-growth forest has a future. Tomorrow’s old growth needs the chance to grow old.

Hauling away equipment decades from now will not restore those lost decades. Planting seedlings will not immediately replace a mature canopy, wildlife habitat or the forest’s role in managing water.

Meanwhile, OPALCO has $2.4 million in purchased panels awaiting installation. Publish their condition tests and remaining warranties. Compare their lifetime output and cost at Decatur with today’s alternatives. A warehouse of purchased panels does not justify clearing a forest.

Before clearing, publish an enforceable cleanup and restoration plan covering equipment removal, off-island transport, recycling or disposal, soil repair and successful replanting. Secure the money through a bond or dedicated fund, update the costs, and cover early closure.

Members should not inherit an unfunded cleanup. Decatur should not lose its future forest for a promise to tidy up later.

OPALCO's SEPA checklist, restoration discussion ↗

On July 1, 2025, OPALCO’s engineering and operations manager, Russell Guerry, signed a contract amendment reducing the Commerce grant from $1 million to $430,000. That removed $570,000 from the award.

Nearly ten months later, on April 22, 2026, OPALCO still publicly described the project as receiving $1 million in grant funding. That announcement came the day after its board voted to proceed with the project.

The amendment also limited authorized work to design and permitting. It did not authorize construction or installation. Its budget listed $420,000 as already paid, with just $10,000 allocated to additional redesign and permitting.

We deserve a clear accounting of the funding OPALCO uses to justify this project. If a later amendment restored the award, OPALCO should publish it.

Publish the full grant record. Reconcile the numbers. Explain what was spent, what remains, and when the board learned of the reduction. Correct the public claims.

Commerce contract, Amendment E ↗

OPALCO projected $50,000 annually in low-income assistance, less than 1% of a $6 million project’s cost each year.

Spread across 700 recipients, that is $5.95 a month. Yet the same paperwork proposes $10–$15 monthly increases. For 700 recipients, that requires $84,000–$126,000 a year. The promised reach, the monthly credit and the funding do not reconcile.

The promises also shrank. Bailer Hill’s scope projected $72,000 annually and full electricity-cost offsets for participating service providers across three islands. The Decatur revision dropped that specific commitment and cut projected assistance by 31%.

Then the $1 million grant underpinning the forecast fell to $430,000. Amendment E

OPALCO now also invokes Decatur’s growth and avoiding Tier 2 purchases. Changing the sales pitch does not fix the benefit arithmetic.

Guarantee the assistance. Explain the shortfall. Struggling households deserve the strongest help available, and their hardship should not become a sales tool for clearing a forest.

Amendment E, the reduced grant award ↗

OPALCO says its existing Decatur array produces around 570,000 kilowatt-hours annually. But Argonne National Laboratory’s study, coauthored by OPALCO’s Russell Guerry and Travis Neal, reports 466,000 kilowatt-hours in 2022, a full year of production 18% below that claim.

This compares actual electricity produced with electricity claimed. Nameplate capacity does not explain the discrepancy.

OPALCO’s lifetime dashboard points to a shortfall broadly consistent with the study’s 18% figure, with seasonal production affecting the precise percentage. The numbers need reconciliation.

Before using this array to justify clearing more forest, OPALCO must publish annual production records, explain the gap, and show how verified performance supports the next project’s promised payback.

Read the federal study, PDF page 18. ↗

OPALCO already operates a large battery storage system beside its Decatur substation. The County’s wildfire plan identifies this location as the gateway through which mainland electricity reaches the other electrified islands. A serious fire here could threaten power far beyond Decatur.

Decatur has no fire district. Its community brigade trains neighbors in basic wildland response. The County’s wildfire plan says outside emergency assistance generally takes more than an hour, even under the best conditions.

For Bailer Hill, OPALCO promises battery emergency-response training for San Juan Island Fire and Rescue, an established department on the same island. Decatur’s battery is already operating. Its isolation demands an equally concrete response arrangement.

OPALCO emphasizes low fire probability. Yet its own June 2026 fire plan rates inverter fires and transformer events as low likelihood but high severity, and a substation vault fire as low likelihood but critical severity. Low probability is not low consequence. Monitoring, suppression systems and agency briefings do not answer the practical question: who will arrive, with what equipment, and how soon?

Fire does not respect permit boundaries. The response plan must address the solar arrays, existing battery, substation and surrounding forest together. It must identify trained responders, safe access, equipment, water supplies and realistic transport arrangements.

Before expanding, OPALCO must demonstrate a funded, practiced emergency response for the entire facility. The community should not have to discover the gaps during a fire.

OPALCO calls its first Decatur project a success. Its record tells a different story: neglected maintenance, additional clearing, unresolved backup promises and public money behind subscriber returns. Some original investors now regret what they supported.

OPALCO built it. Then failed to maintain it. At the CUP hearing, Russell Guerry acknowledged overgrowth and a period without an available vegetation contractor. He confirmed that contractor difficulties contributed to plans for herbicide use. OPALCO’s own safety case depends on vegetation management, yet management allowed weeds to reach the panels. Spraying vegetation does not remove the dead fuel. A labor shortage explains the failure. It does not excuse it.

OPALCO promised production without securing the basics to protect it. It placed panels beside a busy gravel-road intersection without dependable labor and available water for routine washing. Requests for dust control to protect production went unanswered. Dust and debris accumulated while OPALCO continued promoting its production figures. Publish the cleaning records. Explain the losses. Stop treating maintenance as optional.

OPALCO installed the panels. Then more trees came down. PNNL’s production model omitted shading from nearby trees and buildings. Months after the array began operating, OPALCO admitted that shading had pushed winter production below projections. Additional clearing followed on neighboring County Public Works property. The forest paid for a problem that should have been resolved before construction.

OPALCO sold Decatur on backup power. Where is the promised service? The community was promised isolated backup for up to a day. PNNL explicitly modeled outage protection for Decatur and Center Islands. OPALCO must reconcile that promise with management’s public statements about the system’s inability to provide island-only backup. Publish the operating configuration, test results and outage records. A battery on the property is not proof that OPALCO delivered the protection it sold.

OPALCO installed the battery before demonstrating a workable emergency response. Decatur has no fire department equipped to manage a battery incident. Powin’s emergency guidance calls for evacuation when batteries release smoke or gas and requires trained, equipped responders. Agency briefings do not supply firefighters, equipment, transportation or usable water. OPALCO must produce binding response agreements and a battery-specific warning and evacuation plan. Powin’s bankruptcy and asset sale also demand a clear account of who now provides emergency support. Equipment arrived. Demonstrated readiness did not arrive with it.

OPALCO neglected even the most basic commitments. Promised landscaping and split-rail fencing gave way to neglected grounds and chain link. For years, OPALCO failed to provide even a toilet and washing water for its crews, leaving employees to relieve themselves in the woods. Management found money for a showcase project while overlooking basic provisions for the people maintaining it.

OPALCO celebrates subscriber returns. Everyone else helped carry the cost. Its own figures show approximately $207,000 in federal grant support and $500,392 in state incentives paid to solar subscribers. OPALCO members also supplied matching funds for the battery, including members who never bought a solar share. Subscriber payback does not prove the project paid for itself. Put the full taxpayer and membership contribution beside every payback claim.

Fix what our cooperative already built. Account for what it already spent. Deliver what it already promised. Decatur should not lose more forest on the strength of another sales pitch.

OPALCO has promoted this project with blackout warnings, Decatur’s growth and promises of low-income assistance. Now management says the expansion will eliminate its need to buy expensive Tier 2 power. The justification shifts. The forest remains the target.

But BPA’s published planning figures put OPALCO’s annual demand above its Tier 1 allocation at 8.8–10 million kWh for 2026–2028. OPALCO projects just 2.84 million kWh from the expansion. That covers less than one-third of the gap. On that published baseline, the project cannot deliver management’s promise. If OPALCO has newer figures that change the conclusion, publish them.

And 2.84 million is a forecast. OPALCO still advertises 570,000 kWh annually from its existing array, yet an Argonne National Laboratory study, coauthored by OPALCO managers, reports 466,000 kWh in 2022, about 18% less. We deserve an explanation before management asks us to trust another production claim.

Even OPALCO’s own April 2026 cost chart places the expansion above current Tier 2 power costs. Avoiding a purchase does not establish a saving when the replacement costs more.

Publish actual Tier 2 purchases. Reconcile the production figures. Demonstrate net savings. Stop selling fear and prove the case before clearing the forest.

BPA FY 2026–2028 planning workbook ↗

Washington’s September 2026 federal utility-scale inventory lists 347.9 megawatts of operating solar east of the Cascades and just 0.5 megawatts west. More than 99.8% sits on the eastern side. The geography of large solar development is unmistakable.

The legislature recognized the value of regional connections. On March 30, 2026, Washington enacted SB 6355, creating the Washington Electric Transmission Authority. The law expressly calls for stronger transmission to access Southwestern solar and Mountain West wind, improving reliability and delivering lower-cost power across the region.

That puts a straightforward obligation on OPALCO: demonstrate why clearing Decatur’s forest delivers better value than purchasing regional renewable power.

Publish the comparison. Include transmission costs, construction, maintenance, equipment replacement and every public subsidy. Show what each option delivers during winter peaks. Identify exactly which cable investments local solar would defer, for how long and at what savings.

“Local” is a location, not proof of value. We deserve the strongest power supply our money can buy. Decatur’s forest should not pay for a business case OPALCO has yet to demonstrate.

Rugged individualism does not run our ferries or maintain our mainland power connections. In FY2025, fares covered just 37.5% of the Anacortes–San Juan ferry route’s operating costs. Shared public investment makes island life possible. WSDOT route statement, page 13

Our challenges have regional counterparts. Vashon and Vancouver Island depend on submarine power connections. Clallam PUD maintains 1,869 miles of distribution lines across approximately 2,000 square miles. Expensive infrastructure is a responsibility throughout rural Washington.

A fifty-year cable should not become a financial surprise. OPALCO describes submarine cables as having a 40–50-year useful life. Management must account for the preparation: what it budgeted, what it funded, what it deferred and why any replacement slipped beyond that expected lifespan. We deserve that accounting before another pitch for “energy independence.”

The stakes are substantial. If members alone financed a $120 million project, divided equally among 12,000 members, that would mean $10,000 each, approximately $101 monthly for ten years at 4% interest. A second equally expensive project would double that exposure. Publish the actual financing, cost sharing and member impact.

BPA funding does not erase the expense. BPA recovers its costs through power and transmission charges. Regional cost sharing matters, but somebody still pays.

Show the funding. Set the deadlines. Explain what the solar project would actually save. Fear about our mainland lifeline does not justify clearing Decatur’s forest.

WSDOT ferry route statement, background comparison ↗

Decatur already hosts OPALCO’s operating community solar farm and large battery installation. Hosting the first project does not give OPALCO an unlimited claim on the surrounding forest.

San Juan and Orcas consume approximately 85% of the cooperative’s electricity. Divide OPALCO’s published 875-acre solar figure proportionally by electricity use, and their shares would be:

Calling the expansion an answer to Decatur’s growth does not reconcile the numbers. Its published 2.84 million kilowatt-hours annually exceeds Decatur’s entire 2024 consumption of 2.34 million. OPALCO’s load chart.

And acreage does not deliver energy independence. Solar produces nothing at night and much less in winter. OPALCO’s own analysis acknowledges the enormous seasonal-storage requirement. Show the batteries, winter supply and full bill.

Credit what Decatur already hosts. Publish each island’s contribution and the alternatives considered.

Countywide benefits demand countywide accountability. Hosting the first project was not consent to the next clearcut.

OPALCO's Decatur load chart ↗