KEY POINTS:
Local Waikato man Brian Sylvester, in a submission to the Electricity Commission, wrote: "Pushing ahead with this grossly unpopular scheme is going to create trouble in New Zealand that has not been seen since the ill-fated Springbok Tour of 1981."
He is talking about the proposal to create a pathway of giant pylons to carry power to Auckland - before the next big power cut puts out the lights in our biggest city.
Spend time in these snubbed communities, who feel they are being railroaded, and there is that same sense of embedded anger as the Springbok tour, turning to hatred.
Already there is talk of explosives for tree stumps being placed at pylon feet, and how to arrange alibis. Discussion is earnest about rifles and whether a few well-placed bullets could take out the capacity of a pylon to carry power. This is ugly talk for heartland New Zealand. These are farmers, teachers, small business owners, all believing they will win a High Court action to stop the pylons, but who say they are fearful the pylons will be thrust upon them anyway.
It's not the way they want it. In fact, all most want is the belief they have had a fair hearing. If they then lose, they will accept it.
Without some salve for the growing bitterness, there will be a 190km stretch of power needed in Auckland at the mercy of an increasingly well-armed, well-prepared group of angry people. And they could turn out Auckland's lights anyway.
LOOKING NORTH from the deck of Kate Brennan's modest Waikato hilltop home, it's as if God has shaken a carpet of green out to stretch to the Firth of Thames.
Soon, the invasion. Soon, great pylons marching north, higher than any seen in New Zealand, stalking the landscape like HG Wells' creatures from War of the Worlds.
Standing 70m tall, the pylons will carry power from Whakamaru, just north of Lake Taupo, to Pakuranga, in east Auckland, where they will feed electricity into the energy-hungry Queen City.
These are power lines of the like never seen here. By some reckoning, they are three times the size of anything used in New Zealand and if Transpower, the state-owned body in charge of distributing power, has its way, these massive pylons will stretch the length of the country, across both main islands.
Transpower says the result will be blackouts for Auckland if the project doesn't go ahead. Time is running short. They say the people of Waikato simply don't want such massive power conduits running through their beautiful backyards.
The people of Waikato are no strangers to pylons. They know their land must feed Auckland, not just with its food and water but as a path for essential services. A line of ordinary pylons already stretches through the Te Miro community, where Brennan lives. Further north, just below the Bombay Hills, another Transpower opponent, farmer Rob Storey, has four sets of pylons carrying power to Auckland across his land.
But this latest invasion of Waikato has become a battle of right against wrong, about playing by the rules, of perceived treachery and deceit, of decency and fairness.
They have now sparked new court action - to be heard next month - which alleges political interference guiding the hand of the Electricity Commission. It is the body which was set up to be a neutral, independent and objective safeguard against people's rights being trampled under the feet of things such as pylons.
If the people standing against Transpower are right, then the same game could be played out anywhere else in New Zealand.
AUCKLAND NEEDS more power and Transpower is the body relied on to supply it.
The taxpayer-owned body is meant to come up with ideas on how to move power about, and present those ideas to the Electricity Commission for permission to pursue its plans. The commission, a regulatory body, measures Transpower's proposal against a strict set of rules. The proposals have to be economically sound; better than alternative options; and reasonably meet expected electricity demands.
In 2002, in the wake of widespread blackouts across Auckland, Transpower developed a plan to put a new electricity corridor through the Waikato to Auckland. By 2004, when it began presenting the plan to people in Waikato, the proposal was for 70m high, 20m wide pylons with the capacity to carry 400,000 volts. This is almost double the current "backbone" supply across New Zealand, which is 220,000 volts or 220kv.
Transpower began consultation with communities likely to be affected. This was when relations began to sour. "Drop-in" days were arranged in community halls by Transpower, allowing those living nearby. Those affected did drop in, and found the meetings staffed for Transpower by temporary workers for a public relations firm. Locals say the Transpower representatives at the meetings struggled to discuss the issues, instead offering 0800 numbers and pamphlets.
Bob McQueen, who lives in Te Miro, said in a High Court affidavit: "I had a sense the 'consultation' process was only to provide data for the upcoming RMA (Resource Management Act) process (to show) that Transpower had supposedly consulted on options."
It also galled the local residents that Transpower's 'consultation' was about whether the massive pylons and super-charged power line should run through the east or west Waikato. "There was no discussion on whether the line should be built at all, and the [Transpower] documents did not discuss alternatives."
When Transpower held a second round of meetings in early 2005, the emergence of actual company staff did nothing to calm local frustrations. In conservative Tirau, where traffic going south turns for either Rotorua or Taupo, Transpower chief executive Ralph Craven was burned in effigy, strung up from a model pylon. The crowd cheered.
That year, like this year, was election year. Television coverage of the 'David and Goliath' battle spurred then Energy Minister Trevor Mallard to write a letter (also released to the media) to the Electricity Commission, asking that it explore alternatives. He also wanted the commission to "consult widely" with affected parties.
So, Electricity Commissioner Roy Hemingway set out from Wellington into the Waikato countryside, with an American enthusiasm for his adopted country and 30 years of experience working in the United States, the world's most power-hungry country.
Transpower, he said in a High Court affidavit, was "not happy with any suggestion of lengthy consultation". It was also, according to Hemingway, "uneasy" with the time being taken and the "degree of investigation" of Transpower's data around the proposal.
Hemingway's efforts cooled the anger in Waikato. He, according to McQueen, seemed genuine, and in meetings began producing alternatives to the 400kv line. Among these were possible upgrades of existing lines, and a new 220kv line along the route.
McQueen said the 220kv option was "not much bigger than the... line which already existed over much of the proposed route".
"My frustrations in being misled and stonewalled by Transpower were balanced with a growing respect for the Electricity Commission, and knowledge they were doing the tough job of keeping Transpower in check.
"I felt whatever the decision of the Electricity Commission, whether to approve or turn down Transpower's proposal, I had gotten a fair hearing of my objections and I had begun to get ready to accept whatever that decision might be."
THE ELECTRICITY Commission came back from the Waikato, did the sums and, in April 2006, killed Transpower's proposal.
The transmission company came back with a new plan. It wanted to build a lesser-powered version of exactly the same proposal as before - a 220kv line on 400kv pylons, which could be powered up to 400kv when the need arose. The commission prepared to begin work evaluating the new proposal.
It is said that people only care about electricity when power pylons are built in their backyards or when the lights go out.
On June 12, 2006, the lights in Auckland went out. A shackle holding up lines at the Otahuhu substation failed, dropping a wire across a switching yard and causing a blackout across the city.
Again, Auckland's tenuous grip on power made headlines, with Transpower discussing again the need for security of supply to the city, even though this had nothing to do with the failure, which came from one small, failed shackle.
This was the backdrop for a meeting between current Energy Minister David Parker and the five commissioners of the Electricity Commission.
Hemingway's affidavit refers to the meeting as "a low point in the process", during which Parker told the commissioners "how we were to do our jobs". While Parker has denied ever directing a specific outcome from the commission, he has acknowledged that the public wanted an outcome - and that it had to be soon.
Transpower's Waikato opponents question that the commission is only able to make a decision based on Transpower proposals, and Transpower only puts one proposal forward.
Hemingway's affidavit states Parker believed the commission valued delay over building new lines; there was bias against Transpower; and the decision-making process was taking too long when the need for power to Auckland was the most crucial of all issues.
Parker, according to Hemingway, also said the commission should not be "mediating relationships in the Waikato" and that it should defer to Transpower on technical matters. Herald on Sunday inquiries have found that Hemingway's recollection is supported, at least in part, by two or more of the commissioners present.
A letter from Hemingway to Parker after the meeting was blunt. The commission was as concerned as the government about security of supply to Auckland, he wrote.
"We do not agree, however, that the issues of supply into Auckland require immediate agreement on the long-term solution."
Instead, he said, there were internationally recognised improvements to existing lines which would improve security of supply, which would give plenty of time to come up with a plan palatable to all.
Hemingway was sharply critical of Transpower, telling Parker it was "under-resourced on intellectual capital" with "the quality of work... often not high".
Transpower's upgrade plans were "weak on analysis", failed to "examine[d] alternatives in depth", and had shown little creativity in solving the country's power problems at low cost.
"Transpower has tended to support conventional, large, expensive technology without sufficient justification for the choice." Hemingway went on, attacking management and the board, arguing that Transpower's "hostility" to the commission undermined its ability to be a regulatory authority.
In his letter to Parker, Hemingway said: "If the commission approves a 400kv proposal in any guise, there will be litigation pursued vigorously by well-funded opponents."
Hemingway told Parker they had forced staff to fast-track the new proposal "to a point where I worry that litigation against us for weak process could be successful".
"The worst possible outcome is to find out in a year or two that Transpower and the commission must start over, or that the Government must step in to override a court decision obtained by litigants in good faith."
Hemingway was sacked before the year's end, and left saying he was sorry he had taken the job.
He is now back in the US, in high-powered power regulatory roles, winning awards for the way he works.
Hemingway told a select committee that he had been promised that the commission was to be independent and "this has turned out not to be true".
In Hemingway's affidavit, he said that Parker became "anxious" about the disagreement over the 400kv proposal. "Eventually, he became an advocate for Transpower's position on many points."
The relationship, he wrote, was "not a good one, particularly following direct interference from the Minister and government officials in the regulatory function of the commission in 2006".
IN OCTOBER 2006, after Hemingway's contract had been allowed to expire, Transpower put its new proposal for a 220kv line, which could be later upgraded to 400kv.
It also put forward a straight 220kv alternative, which has been criticised by opponents for being a version set up to fail against Transpower's preferred option.
The commission approved the plan in January 2007. The decision was not unanimous - commissioner Graham Pinnell, a former president of Federated Farmers, opposed it. Commissioner Doug Dell, who has 50 years experience in the electricity field, told the Herald on Sunday that his vote to approve was also close.
In fact, the decision to approve it, which was confirmed in July, proved a close call. One of the criteria for making the decision is cost, and the difference between Transpower's preferred proposal and the single alternative (and criticised) option, was 1.6 per cent in favour of Transpower's preferred project.
The Waikato opponents say the commission made choices in assessing the proposal which altered the costing to the cheaper alternative - which then triggered the obligation of selecting the most cost-conscious option. Examination of the decisions to approve, and internal documents from the Electricity Commission, show that a huge degree of subjectivity is relied upon from the commissioners. There are a great number of variables in making the decision, and the choice to accept some and disregard others can lead to considerable weighting for or against a proposal.
This, of course, is why commissioners are appointed. They are expected to make tough decisions and decide, within the rules, what is best for New Zealand.
As more information came out, and was gathered by Waikato residents, questions were raised about the choices the commissioners had made. The residents, formed into a group called New Era Energy, could not understand why, for example, the commissioners had backed the 220kv/400kv idea when part of the basis was on outdated estimates of Auckland's energy consumption, called Statement of Opportunities (SOO).
Transpower had done its calculations on the commission's 2005 SOO figures, since found to be which opponents claim are inflated and unrealistic. Instead of using 2007 SOO figures, which showed a far lesser demand for power need in Auckland, the commissioners, with the exception of Pinnell, used the old figures which backed the need for the 220kv/400kv proposal.
Transpower had submitted that the new line needed to be running by 2012. The new figures gave another five years, at least, of breathing space.
The commissioners also faced advice from commission staff, who said that any future upgrade of the 220kv/400kv line to its full 400kv capacity could never legally be approved. The commissioners, again excepting Pinnell, focused on the line being energised at the lower rate.
Another point of difference between the commission and its staff was the "eggs in one basket" approach of any future 400kv line.
The staff and Pinnell found it unlikely that future regulators would allow almost all of Auckland's energy to be supplied by one line - the 400kv option. Instead, they believed that, when more energy than that supplied at 220kv was needed, the safer option would be to build a second 220kv/400kv line into Auckland.
It seemed, to McQueen and others, that the hope they had invested in the commission had been misplaced.
That is the nub of the argument being taken to court by the Waikato opponents. They say the commission was the subject of political interference to begin with and that the new commission then toed the line.
New Era Energy hired experienced environment lawyer Paul Cavanagh QC, who called for a judicial review. It will not be cheap. The home owners, farmers and small businesses up and down the proposed route are trying to come up with $500,000 to fund the fight, even as Transpower has spent, already, about $150m buying farmland on the same strip of land to build pylons that still have to pass the Resource Management Act hurdle.
On December 14, papers were filed in the High Court at Wellington, alleging the then commission had failed to follow process, and that there had been interference by Parker, and to a lesser degree, Finance Minister Michael Cullen.
The Herald on Sunday approached Parker and Cullen for comment. Both of them declined.
New Era Energy also feels there is the possibility that the Government could change the law and allow Transpower to have its way.
TRANSPOWER'S PERSISTENCE in pushing through the 400kv option is explained by chairman Wayne Brown.
He says so much work has been done in this direction that it would be too time-consuming, and put Auckland at too much risk, to start from the beginning.
There is also the rest of the country to think about, he says. Eventually, 400kv lines on 70m-high pylons will run the length of the north and south islands. It will be the new backbone of our electricity grid.
Brown, who has an engineering background, is renowned for his blunt, no-nonsense style, and for fixing organisations that need fixing.
"Whether you get (220kv/)400kv or 220kv, you get pylons. Fewer big ones or lots of small ones."
It's money, he reckons. People complain about a technicality when they are actually upset about something else - and that's the amount of compensation wanted to Transpower getting its lines across people's land. For Brown, it's simple: "If you build something a little bit big, a little bit early, the only consequence is Transpower invested early."
The alternative is not enough transmission into Auckland, and large-scale blackouts, bringing "horrendous costs... that fall on the nation".
The 2007 SOO figures which project less energy use in Auckland might well be wrong, he says. "So what happens if it's 2013 and we dick around for a few years?"
Brown's words are unlikely to win favours in the Waikato. Hemingway, in his June 20 letter to Parker, states: "This is not inevitable NIMBYism [Not In My Back Yard], as Transpower asserts. No electricity company or pipeline, company in the United States would take the risk of treating landowners the way Transpower routinely does."
