Agenda item 19 · AR-26-198
The public record
Official minutes for this meeting have not yet been adopted by the City; they are typically approved at a later Council meeting.
Unofficial transcript
Auto-generated from the YouTube recording. The reader version is reflowed into speaker turns with clickable timestamps and approximate speaker labels; the plain-text copy is the verbatim record for research. Either way, this is not the City's official minutes and may contain errors.
What was on the agenda
On May 26, 2026, the Temecula City Council took up agenda item 19 (AR-26-198): “Receive and File Presentation from San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project and Provide General Direction Regarding the Same.” [1] City staff presented what they had been able to gather about the project and the regulatory process behind it.
It was the first time the project was laid out in a public, on-the-record setting — the route, the structures, the schedule, and, critically, where in that schedule Temecula actually gets a say. The item was moved to the top of the agenda, and the full packet, staff report, and SDG&E's own outreach materials are linked above, with the complete meeting on video.
The Council voted 5–0 to oppose the route
Staff were careful to note the City's limited authority: “This is not a city project. The city does not approve or deny transmission projects,” so staff asked the Council for direction — including whether to “consider a resolution of position.” [1] After hours of public testimony, the Council went further than a statement.
The Mayor made the first motion “to formally oppose this power line project going through Temecula,” saying “the community unequivocally opposes this project … we will continue to fight to save Temecula.” A colleague added three directions: direct the City Manager “to do all he can to oppose the proposed project,” bring back additional information, and “bring back a formal resolution in opposition as needed.” Council Member Kalfus seconded, and the motion passed on a unanimous vote — “that is a 5, and that motion passes”. [1]
How Temecula found out
Staff explained that the City only began hearing about the “Golden Pacific Powerlink” in mid-April 2026, through emails from SDG&E and a public-relations firm it had hired. [1] An early graphic on the project website did not even show the extra-high-voltage line passing through Riverside County. The City Manager directed staff to gather as much information as possible and to attend SDG&E's outreach meetings.
A central point of the presentation was timing: in SDG&E's own five-step process, the City isn't formally notified until step four — well after the route has taken shape. That gap between when the project is designed and when the affected community is told is the backdrop for everything in the issues.
What SDG&E is proposing
The project traces back to the California ISO's 2022–2023 Transmission Plan, which identified and approved the line; [2] SDG&E later assumed responsibility to build, own, and operate it. [1] As presented, it would run roughly 500 kV from the Imperial Valley to a new substation north of the San Onofre site, including a corridor of about five miles through Temecula Creek carried on steel lattice towers in the range of 180–200 feet.
The presented timeline targets a California Public Utilities Commission filing in late 2026, state and federal permitting from 2026 through 2029, construction beginning around 2029, and the line entering service in 2032. [1] The CPUC filing is the point at which the formal proceeding — and the public comment that becomes part of the record — begins. Track the full sequence on the timeline.
SDG&E's wildfire claims drew pushback
Pressed on fire risk, SDG&E's representative told the Council that in 19 years the utility “has not started [a] wildfire” and that “500,000 volt lines do not start ignitions,” adding that SDG&E owns helicopters and coordinates closely with fire agencies. [1]
A firefighter then asked how much SDG&E had paid in wildfire settlements over 25 years. The representative said “not even a single dollar in the wildfire fund” and that he “wouldn't know” the 2007 figure; the firefighter answered: “2007 was 2.4 billion. Thousands of homes burned in that fire as well.” [1] (The $2.4 billion figure is the firefighter's statement at the meeting, not a number SDG&E confirmed — see our wildfire issue for the record.)
Why it matters
Local government cannot veto a state-regulated transmission line, but the City's input becomes part of the official record the CPUC must consider — and on May 26 the City put a unanimous opposition vote on that record, with a formal resolution to follow. It also echoes a fight Temecula has had before — see how a 500 kV line through this same corridor was stopped once already.
Go deeper