Well organized and visible opposition to the proposed 400 kV transmission line began within a few weeks of the initial announcement of an intended 400 kV transmission line by Transpower in 2004. The most vocal opposition group was New Era Energy Inc, which organized protests at Transpower initiated consultation meetings, fronted for media comment, co-ordinated submissions to the Electricity Commission and the resource consent hearings, and did fundraising for the legal expenses which would soon come. A committee consisting of David Graham (Putāruru), Christina Baldwin (South Waikato), Bob McQueen (
Te Miro), Lorraine Bilby (Morrinsville), Rob Storey (North Waikato), Catherine Tuck (Clevedon) and Steve Hunt (Hunua) guided the efforts of the organization. An extensive website (notowers.co.nz, no longer operating) was managed by Kate Brennan, and held repositories of information about the health dangers of EMF fields around transmission lines, and resources about transmission lines from other countries. In 2004 and early 2005, Transpower undertook to organize a series of information meetings in local halls and communities along the route. On 24 February 2005, angry protesters stormed out of a Transpower public meeting in
Tīrau, and effigies of the Transpower CEO Ralph Craven and Prime Minister
Helen Clark were burned in the street. There were strong protests against the proposed transmission line during the initial planning and regulatory approval process. Many individuals and communities living near the proposed route expressed concerns about the visual effect of the line, possible health effects, and the devaluation of their properties. A particular point of concern was that the proposed transmission towers were to be up to in height. The Electricity Commission under Hemmingway also organized meetings during this time for information dissemination about its processes, and to gather feedback from the public. These were much better received than the Transpower meetings. The Electricity Commission was also doing financial analysis of the Transpower proposal, and conducting modelling on electricity demand, generation, and consumption data. In April 2006, the Electricity Commission announced its intention to decline Transpower's investment proposal for the 400 kV line, on the grounds that it was not the most cost-effective solution. However, on 12 June 2006, the vulnerability of power supply to Auckland was revealed when a major non-transmission failure occurred at the Ōtāhuhu substation, leading to the
2006 Auckland Blackout. It started at 8:30 am local time, with most areas of Auckland regaining power by 2:45 pm local time. It affected some 230,000 customers representing at least 700,000 people in and around the city. This incident brought back memories of a much more serious
1998 Auckland power crises which lasted 5 weeks, and was caused by the failure of underground power cables leading to the CBD. The public mood in 2006 demanded that something be done to secure Auckland's electricity supply, and the politicians were listening. In June 2006, Hemmingway and the other Electricity Commission members, together with senior Transpower executives were summoned to meet Energy Minister
David Parker and Finance Minister
Michael Cullen, and were bluntly told to reach an agreement. Later that year, Hemmingway was not re-appointed as chairperson of the Electricity Commission when his term expired, and on his departure expressed frustration at the political involvement in the regulatory process. Transpower then submitted a revised proposal to the Electricity Commission, which retained the 400 kV capable towers, but removed the expensive 220 to 400 kV transformers at the ends of the new line. This significantly reduced the cost of the revised proposal, but it also meant that the higher efficiency and capacity of 400 kV transmission would not be possible. It also meant that the objectionable height and scale of the transmission towers would still remain, but they would be significantly overbuilt to handle the lower 220 kV voltages. During the consideration of the revised proposal by the Electricity Commission, the new acting Chairperson of the Electricity Commission, a more compliant replacement to Hemmingway who seemed intent on approving Transpower's revised proposal, was sworn at and abused at a public meeting in Hamilton in February 2007. A large number of submissions opposing the revised proposal were made to the Electricity Commission in writing or in presentations at public conferences held by the Commission in May 2007. In July 2007, the Electricity Commission, under the new acting Chairperson who had replaced Hemmingway, announced that it had approved the revised proposal. This was met with astonished disbelief and anger by those opposed to the proposal. In November 2007, New Era Energy announced that it would seek a judicial review of the decision by the Electricity Commission to approve the project. The High Court hearing was held in Wellington. This legal action by New Era Energy was ultimately unsuccessful, with the High Court rejecting the application in May, 2009. A Board of Inquiry was established to consider the designations and resource consents for the project and began hearings in March 2008, which ran through to October that year. It received a total of 1244 submissions, of which 1160 were opposed to the project. Even after September 2009, when the Board of Inquiry announced its approval for the designations and resource consents for the project, many directly affected people were still protesting against the project. Some protests against the transmission line continued during the construction period. However, ultimately, landowners with lines on or over their property signed easement agreements with Transpower. In the Annual Report for 2010–2011, Transpower recorded that easements had been obtained on all the 318 properties crossed by the new line, without Transpower having to use powers of compulsory acquisitions. ==Land purchases==