Create the power where it's needed. It's good policy.
In the months before Victoria's November election, a quiet but consequential argument about how power should move across a landscape has broken into open political contest. The state's opposition Coalition has pledged to pause two major transmission projects — VNI West and the Western Renewables Link — that have run over budget and into the lives of farmers facing compulsory land acquisition, proposing instead to harvest energy from the rooftops of cities rather than the soil of the countryside. It is, at its heart, a dispute about where the burdens of a clean energy future should fall, and who gets to decide.
- Farmers facing forced acquisition of their land have built a grassroots movement 55,000 strong, turning private grievance into a public political force capable of shaping a six-month election campaign.
- Two flagship transmission projects are simultaneously over budget, behind schedule, and under fire — creating a rare opening for the opposition to reframe the entire energy debate.
- The Coalition's rooftop solar alternative is backed by credible research suggesting commercial and industrial buildings could supply a quarter of national electricity demand, lending the policy shift technical legitimacy beyond mere opposition politics.
- The state government holds firm, arguing that new transmission lines are the only reliable path to replacing retiring coal generators — a collision of two internally coherent visions with no easy reconciliation in sight.
- A potato grower north of Ballarat learned of the Coalition's commitment hours after discovering compulsory acquisition powers had been sought against her land — a moment that crystallised why energy infrastructure has become the election's defining fault line.
Victoria's opposition Coalition has staked out a clear position on energy infrastructure ahead of the November election, promising to pause construction on two major transmission projects — VNI West and the Western Renewables Link — if it wins government. Both projects are behind schedule and over budget, and both have become sites of bitter conflict with farmers whose land would be taken through compulsory acquisition. The Coalition says it will conduct a full review of the Victorian Transmission Plan before deciding whether to proceed.
In place of new transmission lines, the Coalition proposes rooftop solar installations across Melbourne's warehouses, shopping centres, and industrial buildings — a strategy grounded in research from the Victorian Energy Policy Centre, whose 2023 Plan B argues that expanding existing lines and tapping unused commercial rooftop space could supply at least a quarter of national electricity demand. Shadow Agriculture Minister Emma Kealy framed the shift as heeding expert scepticism about whether VNI West is necessary at all, while stopping short of promising outright cancellation — acknowledging that Labor may have locked in contractual obligations the Coalition cannot yet fully assess.
For farmers, the announcement offered partial relief. Ben Duxson, a Marnoo farmer who founded Farmers Fightback, welcomed the pause but said it fell short of his group's demands. With 55,000 social media followers and a clear appetite for sustained pressure, he signalled the campaign ahead would be anything but quiet. Katherine Myers, a potato grower in the path of the Western Renewables Link, heard the Coalition's commitment just hours after learning that AusNet had applied for compulsory acquisition powers — a coincidence that gave her, she said, a small measure of hope.
The state government has not shifted. It argues the transmission lines are essential to connecting renewable energy to the grid as coal generators retire, and that delays mean higher costs and less reliable power. The contest between these two positions — centralised transmission across farmland versus distributed generation in cities — will define the election campaign to come.
Victoria's opposition Coalition has drawn a line in the sand on energy infrastructure, pledging to pause two major transmission projects that have become flashpoints in the state's renewable energy transition. The Liberals and Nationals say they will halt work on VNI West and the Western Renewables Link if they win government in November, and conduct a sweeping review of the entire Victorian Transmission Plan. Both projects are running behind schedule and over budget, caught in a grinding conflict with farmers whose land would be seized through compulsory acquisition orders.
The Coalition's alternative is rooftop solar. They propose establishing solar parks across Melbourne's metropolitan areas, with panels and battery systems installed on the roofs of warehouses, shopping centres, and industrial buildings. The strategy draws on research from the Victorian Energy Policy Centre, whose 2023 Plan B recommends expanding existing transmission lines rather than building new ones. Bruce Mountain, the plan's co-author, has argued that Australia has enough unused commercial and industrial rooftop space to supply at least a quarter of the nation's annual electricity demand. Shadow Minister for Agriculture Emma Kealy framed the pivot as listening to experts who question whether VNI West is necessary at all.
But Kealy was careful not to promise outright cancellation. The Coalition said it would examine the business case once in government, acknowledging uncertainty about what contractual obligations Labor may have locked in. "We don't know where the trips and tricks in the contracts might be," she said. It was a measured position—enough to signal a change in direction without committing to a full reversal.
For farmers, the announcement landed as a reprieve, though an incomplete one. Ben Duxson, a Marnoo farmer and founder of Farmers Fightback, welcomed the pause but said it fell short of what his group demands. Duxson's advocacy organization has amassed 55,000 social media followers and has become the public face of rural resistance to the transmission lines. He praised the rooftop solar plan as practical—creating power where it's needed—but made clear his group would not relent over the six-month campaign ahead. "We'll use our numbers to lobby politicians and make sure our voice is heard," he said.
Katherine Myers, a potato grower north of Ballarat in the path of the Western Renewables Link, learned of the Coalition's commitment just hours after discovering that AusNet, the project proponent, had applied for compulsory acquisition powers under recent legislative amendments. The timing gave her what she called "a little bit of hope." She said the infrastructure had become an election issue, as it needed to be.
The state government, when asked for comment, restated its case for the transmission lines: they are necessary to connect renewable energy to the grid as coal-fired generators retire, and faster construction means cheaper power and reliable supply. The argument is straightforward. But it collides with a different logic—one that says the power should be generated where people live and work, not transmitted across farmland against the will of those who own it. That collision will shape the campaign to come.
Notable Quotes
We don't know what Labor has signed us up for, we don't know where the trips and tricks in the contracts might be.— Emma Kealy, Coalition Shadow Minister for Agriculture
It's really listening to experts in the energy industry who are saying we don't necessarily need VNI West and there are better options out there.— Emma Kealy
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would the Coalition pause these projects rather than cancel them outright?
Because they don't yet know what Labor has committed them to contractually. Once in government, they'd have access to the full terms. It's a political hedge—signal change without overcommitting before you have all the facts.
And the rooftop solar plan—is that actually viable at scale, or is it more of a political counterweight?
The research suggests it's viable. A quarter of Australia's electricity from unused warehouse and shopping centre roofs is substantial. But it's also true that it solves a different problem than transmission does. Rooftop solar handles local demand; transmission connects distant renewable resources to population centres. They're not perfect substitutes.
So why are farmers so opposed to these transmission lines if they're supposed to make power cheaper?
Because the cost to them is immediate and personal—compulsory land acquisition, easements across their property, infrastructure they didn't consent to. The benefit of cheaper power is distributed across millions of people. The burden falls on a few thousand farmers.
Is Farmers Fightback's 55,000 followers actually a political force, or just noise?
In a state election, especially in regional areas where these transmission lines run, 55,000 engaged people with a clear message can shift outcomes. They're organized, they have a spokesperson in Ben Duxson, and they're motivated. That's not noise—that's a constituency.
What happens if Labor wins again in November?
The transmission projects continue as planned, likely with more legal battles and more compulsory acquisition orders. The farmer opposition doesn't disappear, but it loses political leverage. The state government has already made its choice.