TEMECULA — Hundreds of residents and business owners attended an Aug. 26 open house to oppose San Diego Gas & Electric’s proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink, while the utility says the transmission project is needed to strengthen the regional electric grid.
The event at Embassy Suites drew enough people to fill a ballroom with a capacity of 250, with others waiting in the lobby and an adjacent area. SDG&E’s website listed the open house for Wednesday, Aug. 26, from 4 to 7 p.m.
Save Temecula says the project threatens public safety, property values, scenic views and the environment. The group is urging SDG&E to withdraw its proposal and the California Public Utilities Commission to reject it.
SDG&E describes Golden Pacific Powerlink as a proposed 500-kilovolt transmission line connecting its Imperial Valley Substation with a new substation in southern Orange County. The utility estimates the project would cost approximately $1.6 billion.
The city of Temecula, which also opposes the proposed route, says the project would bring transmission towers up to 191 feet tall through the community. The City Council announced its unanimous opposition May 26.
Temecula resident Cheryl Brown said the open house did not provide the answers she sought.
“I was hoping to learn more than I did at their online presentation months ago, but instead I found a small, crowded room with no air conditioning and staff who had nothing substantive to share,” Brown said in the release.
“It felt like being invited to a full-course dinner where the host wasn’t prepared for the guests. There were plenty of servers, but no real information. We left hot, tired, and hungry for answers, which we didn’t get.”
On its community outreach webpage, SDG&E describes a different goal for its public engagement.
“SDG&E is committed to providing clear, accessible ways for community members to learn about Golden Pacific Powerlink and offer feedback,” the website states.
The utility says its outreach includes community meetings, organizational briefings, online resources and direct conversations. The open houses were designed around stations where residents could speak with project staff and subject matter experts.
Save Temecula President Mark Winkler questioned whether that process was influencing the proposal.
“This open house was nothing more than a perfunctory exercise,” Winkler said in the release. “SDG&E continues to go through the motions of community engagement while pressing forward with its bid to the CPUC.”
Winkler accused the utility of providing vague and incomplete answers and failing to incorporate residents’ concerns.
On its website, SDG&E says community input, engineering work and field investigations have helped refine route alternatives. The proposed route remains preliminary, with alternatives to undergo environmental review.
Resident Michael Scalise said the information presented was familiar.
“SDG&E provided flyers and posters, but it was nothing new,” Scalise said in the release. “It’s the same information they provided at the Temecula City Council meeting in May. Their plan is disastrous to Temecula’s residential areas and the environment.”
SDG&E says the California Independent System Operator identified a need for additional transmission capacity as electricity demand grows.
“Transmission constraints can lead to congestion on the grid, higher costs, and reduced reliability during extreme weather or emergency conditions,” the project website states.
Although Save Temecula’s release refers to the utility advancing its CPUC bid, SDG&E’s published schedule places the commission filing in fall or winter 2026. It anticipates permitting through 2029, construction beginning that fall and service starting in 2032. State and federal approvals would be required. To learn more about the project, go to: https://goldenpacificpowerlink.com/
Save Temecula is advocating alternatives it says would protect the community while continuing to press for withdrawal of the proposal.
Save Temecula exists to fight SDG&E’s Golden Pacific Powerlink and advocate for alternatives that protect our community. For more information, visit www.savetemecula.org
Projected Timeline
Timeline item 1 – complete
Spring 2023
CAISO identifies and approves project in its annual Transmission Plan
Timeline item 2 – complete
Summer 2025
SDG&E assumes responsibility to build, own and operate the new line
Timeline item 3 – complete
Spring 2026
Virtual open houses
Timeline item 4 – active
Summer / Fall 2026
In-person open houses
More information Coming Soon!
Timeline item 5 – incomplete
Fall / Winter 2026
California Public Utilities Commission Filing
Timeline 6 – incomplete
2026 – 2029
State and federal permitting and approvals
Timeline item 7 – incomplete
Fall 2029
Construction
Timeline item 8 – incomplete
2032
New transmission line begins service
