Decatur residents press county over OPALCO’s Decatur solar proposal, call for independent review and citizen advisory body

Decatur Island residents told the San Juan County Council during public comment that OPALCO’s planned new solar array on Decatur requires deeper review, citing performance problems at the existing site, lack of battery storage, and questions about whether the county’s permitting approach matches the land use code.

The speakers said the issue matters because the project is presented as part of the islands’ energy security plan and could shift major costs — including submarine cable replacement — onto residents. They urged county officials to require a correct permit, commission independent technical review and to support a citizen-driven Energy Security Advisory Committee that would include OPALCO members, technical experts, environmental and tribal representatives.

“Solar panels do not produce on cold winter nights, just when we need the power most. And without batteries, Decatur changes nothing,” said Alan Mizuda, a Decatur resident. He described the existing Decatur array as “the lowest performing in the state,” saying it ran about 15 percent below its design and required clear-cutting adjacent public property to address shading. Mizuda urged an independent, nationally respected consultant to assess the project and communicate findings to stakeholders, saying the cooperative’s response to calls for a second opinion had been hostile.

Andrew Grenville, a Decatur resident and co-author of a position paper submitted to council, proposed forming an Energy Security Advisory Committee. “What we need, I believe, is a second opinion, a structured, credible forum where all stakeholders can examine not just this one project but the bigger question: how do we secure reliable, affordable, and fair energy for San Juan County in the years ahead?” Grenville said. He described the proposed group as citizen driven and multi‑stakeholder and said it could commission independent studies and provide balanced recommendations to both the council and OPALCO.

Several speakers warned that the county and OPALCO have not clearly connected large-scale solar proposals to the islands’ core vulnerabilities: ferry dependence and submarine power cables. Mizuda and other commenters said one underwater cable already has a failed conductor and the other is at capacity; replacing a single cable was cited as costing about $120,000,000. Brian Grant, a Decatur resident, said the cooperative’s focus on large arrays could distract from planning for expensive cable replacement and other resilience measures.

Donnie Cunnington, who identified himself as a Decatur resident, pressed the county on permitting procedure. He said OPALCO was applying under a provisional-use application (CP) rather than the conditional-use permit required by the county land use table for the RGU‑5 zone. “Nowhere in San Juan County code does it say that the process used on an adjacent parcel can override the land use table,” Cunnington said, and he warned the decision could be challenged in court.

Council members did not take action during public comment. Residents asked the county to require the correct permit, to enforce permitting standards consistently, to fund or accept an independent technical review, and to consider establishing a citizen advisory body to evaluate islandwide energy security.

Speakers requested clarity on whether OPALCO’s project included storage capacity and on the assumptions behind islandwide energy forecasts. Several commenters asked the county to publish the technical basis for its permitting decision and to clarify how proposed solar arrays fit into long‑term plans for cable replacement and system resilience.

The public comment period closed with no formal direction recorded on the transcript; speakers said they expected follow‑up from the county on permitting choices and potential next steps if the land use classification is disputed.