Several recent studies have proposed a role for place attachment in understanding so-called ‘NIMBY’ responses to large-scale energy projects, including hydro-electric power stations and offshore wind farms. This study seeks to extend the literature on social acceptance of energy infrastructure in two ways. First, it goes beyond a single measure of intensity of attachment to place to include two measures of varieties of place attachment: place discovered and place inherited. Second, the conceptual framework included several constructs shown to be relevant in influencing social acceptance: procedural justice, trust and perceived impacts – yet not captured in previous place attachment research. These were investigated in an empirical case study of a controversial proposal to construct a 60km high voltage overhead powerline through a rural area of South West England. 503 adult residents of the town of Nailsea, Somerset, completed a questionnaire survey in July/August 2009. A series of logistic regressions were conducted to establish the relative importance of several sets of variables: socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender and educational attainment), project related beliefs (negative and positive impacts, procedural justice and trust in the development organisation) and place attachment (intensity, discovered and inherited). Findings suggest that collectively, these measures explain 39% of the variance in levels of acceptance, with most of the variance explained by project-related variables, with trust being the most important of these. In the final model, socio-demographic variables were not significant; however, two place attachment measures did significantly contribute to explaining social acceptance of the powerline after controlling for project related variables: intensity of place attachment and place discovered. Interestingly, these effects were in different directions: stronger place attachment related to stronger powerline support, with the opposite the case for place discovered. Conceptual and applied implications of the findings for the literature on place attachment are discussed.