Here we go — Oronoco Township is appealing the Public Utility Commission’s Order:

Oronoco Appeal – filed August 7, 2012

It says it was filed August 7, 2012, but I’ve not received a copy yet — thanks to eDockets, I’ve got this copy.

What amazes me is that they’re still on that “Power Dam Group” mantra, that 4 people, 2 of them married, made false statements, that no one filed exceptions objecting to the Zumbro Dam Route, and that the PUC based its decision on information not on the record.

Please explain – what are the false statements?  What new information? Please identify!!!  It’s not like they submitted new “Testimony” with their Motion for Reconsideration, it’s not like they submitted a new “Exhibit 7” that conveniently omits the sandbar and the closed boat ramp (but does show the distribution line crossing the river paralleling the bridge:

Mostly, they do not seem to appreciate that the fact that there is no transmission at the dam site is the turning point.  And I guess they haven’t read the Exceptions — that there is NO transmission, no existing aerial crossing at the dam is the crucial fact, and that fact is in the record, going all the way back to the application:

It is in the Application, and it is in Xcel’s Hillstrom’s DEIS Comments:

Do they think that the PUC doesn’t know what’s in the record?

This is part of why the Barr Engineering Conflict of Interest Complaint is so important — how is it that they just happened to screw up on existence of transmission at both dam sites?  How is it that they said in the EIS that there IS transmission at the Zumbro Dam and how is it that they omit the transmission on both sides of the Byllesby Dam, including one of the most serious transmission corridors I’ve ever seen:

Stay tuned, that Barr Engineering Complaint is before the PUC on Thursday…