Washington State has been doling out millions for tribal clean energy projects, and while that sounds fantastic on the surface, the reality is more about dollars wasted than sense made. Over $10 million in grants for solar and battery projects have been handed out, but no one seems to have stopped to ask: What are these projects actually supposed to accomplish? Meanwhile, the small town of Twisp seems to have figured out what the big boys are missing—practicality, scalability, and real long-term benefits for the community.

Take Chief Leschi Schools, for example, where they’re installing a 421 kW solar system. This system will churn out about 691,492 kWh per year, and with current electricity rates at $0.11 per kWh, they’ll be pulling in $76,064 per year selling excess power back to the grid. So, if they’re generating all this extra energy and selling it, why did they need $1.77 million in grant money to install the system? At that price, the grant has already covered the cost of the system, but here’s the kicker: If they weren’t inflating the costs and paid the normal market rate, the system could have cost half as much, meaning it would have become a financial asset in just 11 years instead of dragging out the benefit over 18 years.

So, what’s going on here? Where’s all that extra money going? Are they installing gold-plated solar panels, or are the tribal contractors—who conveniently happen to be controlled by tribal governments—just padding their pockets with 200% markups? The average commercial solar installation in Washington costs about $2,500 per kW, but these projects are coming in at $4,200 per kW. Apparently, some electrons cost a lot more than others.

Meanwhile, Twisp is installing a 50.43 kW solar system with 125 kW/880 kWh battery storage, a system scaled to meet the needs of City Hall and provide backup power during outages. The best part? Twisp’s system can be scaled up into a community-focused microgrid, where local homeowners and businesses can join by paying individually. They can even use commercially available software like Tesla Energy to manage it. This approach actually makes sense, delivering resilience for the community without wasting millions in inflated costs.

Now, let’s talk about the bigger issue: it’s not just about generating more energy than needed—that’s fine if the excess energy is being sold back to the grid to help others decarbonize or keep the neighbors’ lights on during outages. But shouldn’t there be fairness built into this system? If a project is generating massive amounts of power for profit, shouldn’t the grant be scaled accordingly, and shouldn’t part of that profit go back into the community or to other decarbonization efforts? Instead, we’re seeing oversized grants being handed out with no strings attached, while the benefits of the excess energy flow into private coffers.

And while we’re at it—what about the basic energy-saving upgrades that could be making these systems even more efficient? Things like better windows, LED lighting, caulking, and insulating are a lot less glamorous than a big solar project, but they’d dramatically reduce energy use. Without focusing on reducing the energy needed first, these oversized solar systems are just a Band-Aid on a larger issue.

Then, there’s the long-term problem: what happens in 20 or 30 years when these panels reach the end of their lifespan? Will the tribes come back asking for another round of grants to replace them? Solar panels typically last 25-30 years, and without a recycling program, we’re going to end up with old panels clogging up the landfill. Washington needs to start planning for solar recycling now, before it becomes a major problem down the road.

In contrast, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation are at least thinking ahead. They’re investing $1.4 million into solar paired with energy storage across Nespelem, Inchelium, and Pascal-Sherman. By integrating storage, they’re making sure the power can be used when it’s needed most. But here’s the thing—why are they receiving full funding for a system that will pay for itself in just a few years? Once again, we’re seeing the state hand out oversized grants without considering the financial benefits these projects are generating.

Then there’s the Quileute Tribe, who received $45,630 for a study on whether they should install electric vehicle (EV) chargers. Are we really paying for studies to decide whether or not to install Level 2 chargers? These chargers don’t even require significant infrastructure—just a 240V outlet, similar to what you’d use for an electric dryer. They can be easily installed at parking lots, workplaces, or homes with minimal setup. Companies like Home Depot are already offering employees 110V plug-ins for their cars at work, and it hardly breaks the bank. Let’s save the Quileute Tribe some time—yes, EV chargers are a good idea, and no, you don’t need to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to figure that out.

While Twisp quietly builds an energy system that actually makes sense and can be scaled up into a microgrid, Washington State is throwing money at oversized solar projects that cost twice as much as they should. Why aren’t we focusing on helping homeowners and businesses install 20-30 kW solar systems with battery storage? For most homes, a 3-10 kW system is standard, but in northern regions like Chelan, Okanogan, Douglas, and Ferry Counties, where dark winters limit solar production and power outages are frequent, larger systems—around 20-30 kW—are needed to ensure consistent energy supply. These systems provide enough power to run the home (including heat) and charge electric vehicles, a future consideration as more people adopt EVs. With battery storage, these systems can also keep homes powered during storms, making them vital for rural and storm-prone areas. Plus, they qualify for federal tax incentives, which makes them even more affordable. It’s a practical, scalable solution that would actually help residents and businesses become energy-independent without the waste seen in large, overpriced projects.

And speaking of successful models—Tesla Energy is already enabling homeowners in states like California, Texas, and Florida to sell excess solar power back to the grid, all without massive government handouts. So, if Tesla can pull it off at a lower cost, why are tribal contractors charging so much more?

If Washington is serious about decarbonizing and improving energy resilience, they need to focus on smaller-scale, fair solutions that benefit rural communities directly. Places like Chelan, Douglas, Ferry, and Okanogan Counties need practical solutions to help them weather storms, not overpriced, overblown solar systems. And here’s a novel idea: charge these oversized tribal solar systems the same B&O tax that utilities pay when they sell excess power back to the grid. If they’re making money selling electricity, why should they get off scot-free?

In the end, it’s time for Washington to rethink its strategy. Instead of overfunding bloated projects with no accountability, the state should focus on practical, scalable solutions—like what Twisp is doing—that are community-focused and actually worth the investment.