Community Corner
Murrieta Council Joins With Temecula In Opposition Of Golden Pacific Powerlink Proposed Route
Murrieta's City Council approved a letter to SDG&E, showing it stands with neighboring Temecula in opposition to the 190-foot-tall towers.
MURRIETA, CA — Murrieta leaders joined a growing regional effort Tuesday to oppose the preliminary route of a massive electrical transmission project planned through neighboring Temecula and Southwest Riverside County.
During its session, the Murrieta City Council approved a formal comment letter opposing Segment 4 of San Diego Gas & Electric’s proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink during its Aug. 18 meeting.
The item was approved as part of the council’s consent calendar, according to the city’s meeting recap.
The comment letter by the council establishes Murrieta’s opposition to the project’s current route and directs city staff to submit the letter to SDG&E.
“On behalf of the City of Murrieta, I write to express the City’s opposition to the preliminary routing of Segment 4 of the Golden Pacific Powerlink project through the City of Temecula and the surrounding Southwest Riverside County region,” the letter, signed by Murrieta Mayor Jon Levell, states.
The Golden Pacific Powerlink is a proposed 500-kilovolt transmission line extending from the existing Imperial Valley Substation to a new substation planned near the San Diego-Orange County line. The approximately 145-mile line would be supported by steel lattice towers potentially reaching roughly 191 feet in height through Temecula.
SDG&E has said the estimated $1.62 billion project is intended to increase transmission capacity, relieve congestion on California’s electrical grid and support future energy needs. Its route remains preliminary and would require state and federal environmental reviews and regulatory approvals.
Murrieta’s objection is aimed at the proposed route rather than at the project's stated purpose.
“The City recognizes the need to strengthen California’s electrical transmission system and improve regional grid reliability,” the letter states. “Our opposition is not directed at the underlying purpose of the project. Rather, the City is concerned that the preliminary Segment 4 alignment would place a major 500-kilovolt transmission corridor through a highly developed area, creating potentially significant and lasting impacts on established communities.”
Though segment 4 does not pass directly through Murrieta, according to a City Council staff report, city officials said the transmission corridor could produce regional consequences as both Murrieta and Temecula share transportation routes, employment centers, tourism activity, businesses and neighborhoods.
“Although the proposed alignment may not pass directly through Murrieta, impacts to Temecula would affect the broader region, including community character, viewsheds, economic activity, property owners, traffic circulation, emergency operations, and future land-use planning,” the city’s letter states.
Murrieta officials have raised concerns about placing major transmission infrastructure in an area that regularly confronts wildfires and evacuations.
“Potential impacts to wildfire response, evacuation routes, public safety operations, sensitive resources, and nearby residential communities must be carefully evaluated and avoided wherever feasible,” the letter states. “Given the scale and permanence of the proposed infrastructure, mitigation measures alone may not adequately address the impacts of routing Segment 4 through established communities.”
The council’s action followed a July 7 request from Councilmember Cindy Warren Stone to bring an item opposing the route back for consideration. The council reached a consensus at that meeting to have staff prepare the letter.
Murrieta has asked SDG&E to favor a less developed route for the power link to avoid or reduce impacts on homes, businesses, public facilities, environmentally sensitive areas, and wildfire response operations.
“The environmental review should include a transparent and meaningful comparison of alternative alignments and demonstrate that avoidance of established communities was given substantial consideration,” the letter states.
The city also requested that SDG&E continue coordinating with Murrieta and Temecula before advancing a Segment 4 alignment for regulatory review.
Temecula has already taken a stronger formal position against the project. Its City Council announced unanimous opposition in May and adopted a formal resolution in July directing staff to intervene in regulatory proceedings. Hundreds of residents previously filled Temecula City Hall to voice opposition to the transmission line.
Mt. San Jacinto College and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors have also opposed the proposed route.
The project remains in its preliminary design and community outreach stage. SDG&E expects to apply to the California Public Utilities Commission in late 2026, followed by environmental review and permitting through 2029. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2029, with the transmission line entering service in 2032, according to the Golden Pacific Powerlink project website.
Murrieta’s letter does not constitute a formal California Environmental Quality Act comment, but the city said it intends to review the project and may submit additional comments after SDG&E files its application and environmental documents become available.
“For these reasons, the City of Murrieta opposes the current proposed routing of Segment 4 and urges SDG&E to develop an alternative that better protects the residents, businesses, and communities of Southwest Riverside County,” the letter concludes.
