Statement From Save Temecula: Regarding SDG&E Open House 8/26/2026
Responding to "Have an opinion about SDG&E's Golden Pacific Powerlink? You can weigh in this week", by Rob Nikolewski, San Diego Union-Tribune, August 24, 2026. The article is behind the Union-Tribune's paywall, so each passage we respond to is quoted below.
Rob Nikolewski's August 24 preview of SDG&E's open houses accurately captures the growing regional opposition to the proposed 500-kilovolt Golden Pacific Powerlink. He also shares SDG&E's talking points — and those statements hide a far more uncomfortable truth about how this project is being framed and how these "open houses" are structured.
"Discussion about the Golden Pacific Powerlink is part of a years-long process that includes public hearings, environmental impact reviews and regulatory proceedings on the local, state and federal levels."
…
"SDG&E expects to formally file the project with the CPUC later this year."
— San Diego Union-Tribune, August 24, 2026
First, this week's events in Fallbrook and Temecula are not formal public hearings. They are informal, utility-run open houses designed to divide attendees, with no public microphone and no transcript. The official California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) process, where public testimony carries legal weight, has not even begun because SDG&E has not yet filed its application. We urge our community members to ask the questions important to you — but know that the process to articulate our story and address this project is just commencing.
"California is projected to use increasingly more electricity in the coming years to continue the state's efforts to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, not to mention anticipated growth in demand throughout the country by expected data center growth feeding the AI revolution."
— San Diego Union-Tribune, August 24, 2026
Second, the framing of "need" leaves out key facts. Citing high-tech AI data centers and rising demand creates the impression that local lights will go out without these nearly 200-foot steel towers. Yet CAISO's own 2022–2023 Transmission Plan explicitly categorizes this project under Table 3.9-1, titled "Recommended Policy-Driven Transmission Projects for Approval," not a "reliability-driven" project. Its primary goal is routing power across regions into the LA Basin and coastal San Diego, not keeping the power on in Riverside or rural North San Diego County.
"a proposed 500-kilovolt transmission line that would run from Imperial Valley to the east to the border of San Diego and Orange counties to the west."
— San Diego Union-Tribune, August 24, 2026
Third, the coverage routinely erases Riverside County entirely, describing the line as spanning from Imperial Valley to the border of San Diego and Orange counties. Riverside hosts nearly 18% of the proposed corridor. Communities like Temecula bear the full weight of every mile routed through the community — wildfire risks, environmental damage, and property devaluation. Worse, SCE ratepayers in Riverside County will be forced to shoulder an estimated $22 million per year through statewide transmission access fees to fund an SDG&E project meant for someone else's grid. These costs will be recurring on their utility bills — not a one-time occurrence.
Furthermore, SDG&E has not seriously evaluated non-wire, modern grid alternatives or existing, already-developed corridors. Advanced conductors, dynamic line rating technologies, battery storage, and co-locating power along established utility rights-of-way deserve public evaluation instead of immediately slicing through pristine parks, high-risk fire zones, and populated suburbs. Instead of evaluating these smarter, far less destructive solutions that protect both the environment and ratepayers' wallets, SDG&E remains fixated on defaulting to a century-old overhead infrastructure model. Why aren't modern, lower-impact alternatives the central focus of these public meetings?
Additionally, in May 2026 CAISO's Board cancelled the Serrano–Del Amo–Mesa 500 kV line, approved in the same 2022–2023 Transmission Plan as Golden Pacific, after its estimate rose from ~$1.1B to ~$5.0B, and met the remaining need with battery storage plus lower-cost reconductoring. The lesson learned is that costs can, and will very likely rise, placing a heavier burden on ratepayers, and that other solutions for power exist. How come SDG&E doesn't provide a table for those issues?
Finally, and most concerning of all, SDG&E's track record throughout this process has been anything but transparent. When confronted with direct, unscripted questions, whether during formal presentations to the Temecula City Council or from community members asking for straightforward answers on route alternatives and cost discrepancies, the utility repeatedly struggles to provide sound, verifiable information. SDG&E claims that "do the right thing" is one of its core values, yet its representatives consistently falter when asked basic, high stakes questions they cannot control. If SDG&E cannot handle elementary public scrutiny today, how can residents possibly trust them to do the right thing with the proposed Powerlink project?
Mark Winkler
President, Save Temecula
Sources
Every factual claim above rests on a public document. Check them yourself:
- San Diego Union-Tribune, August 24, 2026 — the article this statement responds to. Behind the Union-Tribune's paywall; the passages we answer are quoted above.
- CAISO Board-Approved 2022–2023 Transmission Plan — Table 3.9-1, "Recommended Policy-Driven Transmission Projects for Approval," where this project is listed.
- CAISO Board-Approved 2025–2026 Transmission Plan — the cancellation of the Serrano–Del Amo–Mesa 500 kV line, and the storage-plus-reconductoring solution that replaced it.
- SDG&E — Commitment, Vision and Values — SDG&E's own statement of its corporate values, including "Do the right thing."
- Golden Pacific Powerlink — SDG&E's project site, including its route maps and open-house schedule.