31/08/2026
Important project update..
Samsung has confirmed that the Rubicon Valley is not viable for the proposed solar infrastructure.
As a result, the solar component will be removed from Samsung’s current planning application.
Without specifying which factors led to the decision, the company has broadly explained that an "environmental assessment" is the reason for the change. Those factors may have included the fact that the site:
•Is withing a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO)
•Is within a Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO)
•Is entirely within a designated Bushfire Prone Area (BPA)
•Is unsuitable for sheep grazing
•Has the presence of underground springs
•Is in close proximity to the Rubicon River, township, state forest and biodiverse habitat surroundings.
Samsung has suggested that the solar component may be reconsidered in the near future, but it will not form part of the current application.
The South Korean company is still pursuing the battery energy storage system (BESS), which has now increased from 200 megawatts to 300 megawatts—an expansion of approximately 100 additional shipping-container-sized lithium-ion battery units.
This has always been the commercially attractive part of the proposal.
The BESS would allow Samsung to take electricity from the community rooftop solar and the grid during periods of low demand, then sell it back at a premium when the sun goes down and demand rises.
The profits generated by the project would still ultimately flow offshore to South Korea, benefiting one of the world’s largest technology conglomerates— and the highest Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emitting company of any in the technology sector, world-wide.
Samsung has advised that their timeline for planning application submission has been pushed back again, now saying it is likely to be submitted late this year or early next year.
If approved, the company has not yet decided whether it would own and operate the project, sell it, or partner with another organisation. Other examples of their global history would indicate an intention to sell the permit to operate if approved.
The removal of the solar component confirms what the community has been saying for almost 12 months: this is the wrong location for this type of development.
However, the broader planning process remains unchanged, and Victoria still lacks meaningful protections for farmland, rural landscapes, communities and environmentally sensitive areas.
This is an important result—and it shows that sustained community pressure matters. We thank everyone who has stood with us to protect Victorian farmland, families, livelihoods and the landscapes that make the Rubicon Valley so unique.
But this campaign is not over. We will continue to stand up for a Rubicon Valley defined by community, beauty and healthy landscapes— and keep Samsung out for good!
