KEY POINTS:
Here is an earlier selection of Your Views:
Murray
It's a given this will happen but it doesn't make it right. Far from it. The primary issue in this case is actually not the pylons but why power stations are not being built closer to Auckland? The answer to this is quite simple - there would be howls of protests, politicians would get involved etc. So the weak option Transpower has done is bring power from further afield, hoping that protests will be 'easier' to manage. Just imagine what would happen if a power station was forced through like this on Auckland's fringe? All hell would break loose - just to emphasis the selfishness of Aucklanders who are happy to push any environmental impact onto other people. All in all, this is another case where the rural people are be sacrificed for urban growth. Each one of those pylons is caused by an Aucklander - a monument to their selfishness. In some form, this environmental damage has to be counted against them.
Chippie (Wellington)
I think it's pretty selfish that a handful of farmers would want to halt the progress of an entire city. Get off your high horse & support your countries economic growth or move.
Diane (Auckland)
I'm surprised to see there are no comments on the link between pylons and cancer, particularly leukaemia in children. My understanding is that the UK no longer build pylons above ground on the basis of this 'link' although it is not 'proven'. How many people have to die before we accept proof? Is it not better to be safe than sorry?
Cynthia
It beggars belief that Transpower, whose job it is to "transmit" power, the Electricity Commission, whose job it is to be fair/unbiased, and ultimately the Government; can bulldoze this project through without due process being served. Rather than scarring the landscape, the $683 million should be spent on generation alternatives and power saving initiatives at domestic level, with all power generation companies consulting and planning in the best interests of the country as a whole. This line is just the first of more to come. All New Zealanders should be concerned, not just those of us directly affected and who have had their lives on hold/in limbo since 27th October 2004.
PD
Even though I live in Auckland I am with the farmers. I wouldn't want one of those monstrosities in my backyard either. Helen & Co have to go! Sooner rather than later.
New Zealand thirst
The Electricity Commission decision was inevitable considering its composition and recent government interference.
1) Surely an investment of this size should be integrated with location of future generation for Auckland.
2) If generation is planned for the South, transmission should be compatible with probable future technology - superconductors and a hydrogen economy.
3) HVDC is the logical solution and the Government/Benson-Pope don't have the technical nouse to warrant a call-in for the Transpower plan at this stage.
Jeff H (Mission Bay)
Aestheticism is a very important value in the developed World. How many of us would live with exposed electrical wires in our homes? Are 70 metre pylons from horizon to horizon what we want to live with or under. What price progress? When can supply all of Auckland's petrol, diesel and aviation fuel through a single underground pipeline from Marsden Point to Wiri, why is it so difficult to do the same with electricity.
Logan
You really are kidding yourself Auckland if you don't think you'll be paying for this gold plated grid! The more acceptable option from those who have to cope with lost property values (with no compensation from Transpower's extremely narrow easement path) will actually save you paying nearly two thirds more for a massive structure that will never ever see it's full capacity used. Yes, upgrading what we already have will reduce the cost passed on to consumers by a massive amount. If something the size of the Rainbows End Fearfall was going close to your house in a massive row you would not want it either, not in this day and age. Why should our property losses subsidise Auckland's power? Keep your head in the sand those of you who think we are being treated fairly and should just be taking property value losses over and above $200,000 per lifestyle property because the majority of Auckland rules. You would never agree to the government devaluing your property for the greater good of another area so why in he world should we agree to them doing it to us? We have worked too hard to get what we have for it to be blown off like that!
Greenie no
Simple answer is to build a nuclear power station that can provide New Zealand's largest economic and finance centre with the electricity it requires. Forget power lines there are too many variables that result in power outages. Nor is breaking up Auckland city and spreading it across NZ the answer. Failure to build a nuclear power plant in Auckland places the whole New Zealand economy and tax collection system at risk. As for the waste, plenty of land fill in the South Island and it wouldn't effect too many people around 20 per cent of the population who already have an unfair advantage from the Auckland revenue generation.
Fiona (Auckland)
Surely in the time of rapid technological advances there must be a better option than this visual blot on our (mostly) rural landscapes. I feel for the farmers who are having large tracts of their farms destroyed by the impact of these pylons.
Lee
Why build new pylons to supply even more electricity into Auckland. We should be setting building regulations, so that any new builds install solar power and other energy saving devices. Be developing a good education programme, which changes our mindsets on how we use electricity. Us consumer driven generations might find it hard, but for the text generations it would just be a way of life. Then there are the questions on the build of the pylons: What about the roads that will need to be built to carry the cranes, trucks etc to get to the sites of the proposed 400 pylons? Is that in the GIT analyst? Technology is getting smaller. Who would have thought 20 years ago we would all be carrying lightweight, slimline mobile phones? We do not know where transmission technology will be positioned in 20 years. For all we know it could be as simple as a laser beam. I am totally surprised that Tourism NZ has not involved themselves: imagine trying to market a country that for years had the clean green landscapes image. To marketing a country that has ugly pylons scaring the landscape. Saving energy seems to me the way to go, not rewarding us for our excesses, so we can keep on teaching our children that rest of New Zealand will always be the battery farm for Auckland.
JR (Wellington)
How much money is being invested in finding real, sensible & innovative solutions to our energy needs? It would be a hell of a lot more useful than Aucklanders moaning about pylons. If we could find something that would benefit NZ, then the whole world could also benefit - taxpayers would also get a healthy return. Suggest however that a large part of the small sum invested by the taxpayer these days goes on Public Servants for administration. NZ has proven time and time again that we are a clever bunch of people - but less and less of us have the confidence. It is simply not to be encouraged.
Had enough!
Why don't we stop the out of control migration of outsiders to Auckland? The increased demand for power is in line with the increased demand for more roads, sewerage systems and the loss of the Green Belt areas. For what? Only property developers profit from this, but who allows it? Do councillors get backhanders for allowing what were "Green Belt areas" to be rezoned? There are plenty of other areas in NZ where new migrants can go, for the first 5 years at least. If that's not good enough, don't come to NZ. Face it, these problems are caused solely by our inability to manage a rapid population increase, in turn caused by too many do-gooder PC dorks running the place.
Goby
Well what do you want no power at all? Bring it on I say lets get productivity up. Any lines having to go over houses then the owners should be compensated. Isn't it so simple!
Kirsten (Aucklander)
Absolutely not. No pylons in our backyard. It's a foul disgusting and environmentally tragic option for Transpower to take. Far better solutions have been put forward and continually are ignored by Transpower. Put cables underground, put up wind turbines do anything or everything aside from plyons. Say no to them.
Kath
No, it absolutely is not the best solution. Pylons are an eyesore and a health hazard. We have an abundance of natural resources - wind, rain, sun - so it should be easy to be more self-sufficient. If every house in Auckland had solar/wind generation - and better insulation - then our power needs would be greatly reduced. But that's far too practical, and wouldn't increase GDP/taxes. P.S. Isn't it great the government gets to ride roughshod over the Resource Management Act while the rest of us have to slum it going thru the usual channels.
Gray (Hunua)
I think many miss the point. We elected a democratic government but now they do just what they like. We didn't want the smacking law, we don't want ugly or potentially dangerous HT lines or pylons and we want to be able to choose our own medications.
1. Safety. We release murderers because of reasonable doubt. If the experts can't agree surely that is reasonable doubt.
2. Various figures have been quoted but my favourite to quantify the problem is - if every household replaced 2 light bulbs with low wattage bulbs there would be no problem.
3. If this is a public gain why should a few pay for it. All public works should have a "sphere of influence" nominally 1 Km but may be different for every project, where all land owners in the sphere have automatic right to a full payout of full market value. This at least would mean we all share in the burden.
4. Imagine if every home had to have solar water heating by law. funded by savings in power bills. We wouldn't know what to do with all the surplus power and it wouldn't cost us a cent.
Come on Helen - you work for us - the people.
Karl Baldwin
Auckland should be more proactive in generating its own power. All new homes should have alternative energy source, eg solar and better design to make warmer houses etc. All new and existing commercial buildings should also be made to install solar panels and perhaps wind generation on the roofs. The Auckland region should have its own wind farm or at least a few wind turbines within the city limits. A wind turbine is essentially an urban structure and would have far less effect on an urban landscape than more pylons in a rural one. Auckland's power supply should not be at the detriment to the Waikato regions rural landscape (which I know Waipa has worked hard to protect through its district plan). Perhaps Auckland tax payers should bite the bullet and pay for the supply to be underground? The supply is obviously that important. NZ should be seen as a world leader in environmental technology and be promoting the clean, green image in all respects. The government should not be seen as following the 'easiest path' when it will create long term, irreparable harm to a valued rural landscape. Fast tracking would be a travesty of justice to those people affected by the pylons!
Peter
Instead of shipping the power to business in Auckland, why don't ship the business in Auckland to where the power is? There are some great communities which are located close to where the power is generated (e.g. Huntly, Tokoroa) which are crying out for new business investment. Why not invest in transferring businesses to those communities rather than investing in pylons?
Jack
Oh well... as long as they don't increase the power charges (which they did a number of times this year), its all good. We really cannot be dependent on one wire that if it get eaten by possum or other creature, we are in the dark.
Phil
Once again big Auckand is over riding the rest of the country. 95 per cent of Waikato people do not want a bar of this power proposal. The answer - a nuclear power station at the bottom of Queen Street. Leave the Waikato alone. In the meantime put a moratorium of future development in Auckland. Who needs it.
Te Miro resident
The whole process stinks of an arrogant deaf blind government being led by the nose by an uncontrolled SOE. New Zealand will pay a billion dollars for infrastructure it doesn't need, when that fact along with health and environmental impacts start hitting the headlines the current movers and shakers may well be shouting "shame" from the opposition benches. Commissioner Pinnell will be made chair of the Commission, the other commissioners will be doing jobs that do not require backbone.
Smitty
The pylon is critical if there aren't to be blackouts. However, the new clean and small nuclear stations would be better. Or even a nearby coal or gas plant. The Greens are now creating environmental havoc such as this trail of towers and wires. Windmills are similar.
Jackie (Auckland)
Just to set the record straight for all those who think that stringing a row of massive pylons is going to give them power! Wake up - this will not provide the power you need - it must be generated! This is not about not in our backyards either - it's about not in NZ's backyard. There are much better alternative than having the biggest, tallest pylons just a few other countries who care not about their environment and the beauty it beholds.
DC
So Auckland will probably get the big new pylons they so desperately want/need. What Auckland won't get is any more power because there is no more power capacity available from the Waikato generators. Auckland has been sold a crock.
Bruce Rae
Surely they will be merely seeking a resource consent - whether they will actually obtain one is surely still to be decided - otherwise the whole process is a (very expensive) farce.
Pat Jacques
We're being 'hoodwinked' yet again! There are numerous alternatives but the 'mighty Transpower' have their own agenda and refuse to consider. Just as a wild think big project, has anyone thought through the possibility of using the natural tides of each side of this beautiful country to create a perpetual, twice a day, water flow through a canal creating hydro-power oh so close to Auckland - it's right there, under their noses - the narrowest section of land in the country. I would be very interested for a more technical brain than mine to study the cost and consequences.
Colin England
As much as I agree that the power lines should be put under ground there is a slight problem with that if we expect the SOE to continue running as a profitable enterprise - putting it underground costs far too much. It would have to be subsidised by the taxpayers and, apparently, no one wants their taxes to go up so that puts an end to that idea. People who say we're doing things the third world way in erecting pylons haven't checked out the rest of the westernised world - they build pylons as well because it's cheaper. Most of those countries tend to be bigger than NZ so the lines can go where people aren't. Nuclear power isn't an answer to our power problems as its running very close to a net energy loss rather than the needed net energy gain. Throw in the fact that they're only safe if built upon solid ground (ie no earthquakes) and building one in NZ becomes a non-issue simply because NZ isn't exactly stable. Some more information on nuclear: http://nonewnukes.ukrivers.net/starthere.html
Bruce
Nice that the government can skip the potentially lengthy and exhausting resource consent process while the rest of us are strangled with it. It's this sort of thing that divorces politicians from the realities of life that they burden us with.
Nobilangelo Ceramalus
No, pylons are not the solution. Transpower sees the problem as one of transmission --getting enough power into Auckland when needed. It isn't. It's having enough power in Auckland when needed. Power can be stored. During off-peak hours there is a vast amount of unused transmission capacity. If that were used to store power at those times it would be here, ready for peaks. No extra transmission capacity would be needed. In Germany wind-power is stored as hydrogen (by splitting water), which drives fuel-cells (hydrogen batteries) at peaks. $683 million would buy a vast number of such systems, which could be set up all over the city. Any surplus hydrogen could power vehicles, which would reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. Transpower is living in the electrical stone-age, in which power is only generated in big, central projects and transmitted vast distances, instead of being generated where it is consumed. $683 million would also put about 225MW of silicon solar cells on roofs all over the city.
Frank
In several instances the Minister of Energy Hon John Luxton failed to ensure that the provisions of the Energy Companies Act 1982 were observed when our Elected Electricity Boards were wrested from the consumers.
The Draft Plan from the Labour appointed Board was supposed to reflect the wishes of the consumers. How could that happen when by manipulation, no public consultation was held on the proposal before it was sent to the Minister for his approval. The goal posts were moved!
Mark
Sadly all of the opinions miss the point. The entire project started as a misconceived irrational choice by Transpower and subsequently covertly supported by an out of touch and irrational government. The community, local councils, industry experts and local politicians have provided mountains of evidence of better alternatives and demonstration of community wishes. For the constantly confused, the objections were never about the need for reliable power to Auckland it was always only about the best environmentally acceptable and safe way of doing it. Regardless, Transpower and the government will ignore this and get their way out of a perverted view that they know best and that when it's done we will thank them. The local National Party members also seem out-gunned by their caucus, so there is little hope that a change of government will bring a better decision. It's a disgrace that tens of millions of dollars have been spent in a futile attempt to convince Transpower that the community wants another solution and is prepared to pay for it. It's been like arguing with a mad man. So it's without any pleasure I believe the project will go ahead and it will be a sad time for our communities, with huge impacts on individual and community quality of life.
Ray E (Whangarei)
Isn't it about time everyone realised that there is always going to be a whinger here and there. Face facts, every one wants electricity, it rules our very lives from home to work and to anywhere else you can think of. So what's the problem? A few left of left greenies, a few farmers that won't make this year's rich list. Give some one the right to complain and that's just what they will do. Forget about the niceties of gaining consent and just do the damn job. To all you greenies and whingers, if you don't want visual pollution, find you own means of making power and stay away from the national grid. I bet you wont last long and maybe that's a good thing for the rest of New Zealand. Political correctness has become a total pain in the butt.
Kim H (Sydney)
Great move, it will ensure the security of power supply to Auckland. For all the whinging NIMBY's here - why don't you organise a petition to have them cloaked in green plastic foliage, giving them the appearance of huge trees?
Dominic McKinley
The solution has been simple and known to power companies for a long time. DC power, Extend the Cook Straight high voltage cable from Wellington to Auckland, it's just 3 large wires on a single pylon that could replace all the pylons running to Auckland. The Cook Straight cable has been running for decades and carries all the power from the South Island to the North Island in just one cable. Of courses building the necessary infrastructure for the DC cable would be higher but once installed would virtually never need upgrading and would last forever.
Tim (Avondale)
I cannot understand why an above ground option should be considered in this day and age. Surely burying a line would be a better option for all concerned? Pylons belong in the last century, as technology has moved on since then. Still, I'm sure this cheap solution was uppermost in the minds of company directors protecting their share bonus. Short-sightedness rules again.
Russ
No, it is not the best long term solution, it requires too many wires and too much maintenance it is the least cost effective of all. If we could have sensible debate on nuclear power, then this would be the choice, but because we have backed ourselves into the nuclear free corner we can't go forwards using modern technology. Close the Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter down, it uses far too much for what we get out of it. How long do we need to keep relying on hydro. Wind farms would be okay if we could harness the hot air currents from the Beehive.
Next