Skip to content

SDG&E has not filed its application.No filing in the CPUC Daily Calendar of November 10, 2026.What happens when it does

GPP Community Hub
EspañolDonate
Menu

Who is working on this

Share

The communities, conservation groups, businesses and workers who have spoken up about the Powerlink, and where governments, agencies, officials and Tribal Nations stand on the record. Each keeps its own name, members and pages; this hub links to them.

Find a group

Each badge opens the group's own website or Facebook page. That is where the organizing happens; this hub points the way.

Listed from the public record, with each group's own badge. A listing is not an endorsement of this hub. Is your group missing, is an entry wrong, or would a group rather not be listed? Tell us.

A private Facebook group shows anyone its name and a Join button; its posts are for members.

Is your group working against the line? We Save California, the coalition of groups along the whole route, invites organizations to join it: Bring your group into We Save California.

Looking for the people who protect the wildlife? Wildlife groups, agencies and researchers to contact.

Coalitions

What each group has done, and where it was reported.

  • Along the whole route

    We Save California

    A coalition of community and conservation organizations opposing the line, launched in August. It lists 18 members: Community Center of Palomar Mountain, Dos Valles Garden Club, Fallbrook Trails Council, Friends of Palomar Mountain State Park, Julian Fire Safe Council, Palomar Mountain Community Fire Association, Palomar Mountain Fire Safe Council, Protect Oak Grove, Save Fallbrook, Save Mesa Grande, Save Palomar Mountain, Save Pauma Valley, Save The Back Country, Save Temecula, Save Valley Center, Sequoia Sentinels, Southwest Riverside County Fire Safe Council and Volcan Mountain Foundation. It plans to publish members' letters of opposition as they are filed.

    Sources: The coalition; Why we built We Save California

Community groups

Conservation and heritage

Business and labor

On the record

Governments, public agencies, planning groups and officials. Each action or statement links to where it was published or reported.

  • City of Temecula

    July 14, 2026

    City Council announced its unanimous opposition on May 26, 2026. On July 14 it adopted Resolution 2026-50, 5-0, opposing the project as currently proposed through the City and the Temecula Valley.

    Sources: Resolution No. 2026-50 opposing the project as currently proposed; Golden Pacific Powerlink comments and updates

  • Temecula Mayor Jessica Alexander

    August 20, 2026

    Signed the City's resolution opposing the project. As quoted by the OB Rag: “Temecula is not SDG&E’s extension cord.”

    Sources: OB Rag; City of Temecula

  • Temecula Mayor Pro Tem Matt Rahn

    May 27, 2026

    Voted for the City's resolution. To SDG&E at the May 26 council meeting, as quoted by Patch: “I will say you have selected one of the most environmentally, culturally, and community-impactful routes imaginable.”

    Sources: Patch; City of Temecula

  • Temecula Council Member Brenden Kalfus

    May 12, 2026

    Voted for the City's resolution. Patch reported he was the first council member to state his position: “I do not support their plan to bring the Golden Pacific Powerlink project through the Temecula Valley,” and “Temecula is not the right place for this type of infrastructure.”

    Sources: Patch; City of Temecula

  • Temecula Council Member Zak Schwank

    May 27, 2026

    Voted for the City's resolution. At the May 26 council meeting, as quoted by Patch: “This is something that most absolutely needs to stop and we are here to stop it.”

    Sources: Patch; City of Temecula

  • Temecula Council Member James Stewart

    May 27, 2026

    Voted for the City's resolution. At the May 26 council meeting, as quoted by Patch: “Temecula is not the place for this.”

    Sources: Patch; City of Temecula

  • City of Murrieta

    August 21, 2026

    Opposes the preliminary routing of Segment 4 through Temecula and Southwest Riverside County, and asks SDG&E to redesign it to avoid established communities.

    Source: City of Murrieta

  • Murrieta Mayor Jon Levell

    August 21, 2026

    Signed the City's letter: “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.”

    Source: City of Murrieta

  • Riverside County Board of Supervisors

    June 23, 2026

    Voted 5-0 to adopt a formal County position with significant concerns about the route through Southwest Riverside County, and directed staff to take part in the CPUC proceeding.

    Source: County of Riverside

  • Riverside County Supervisor Chuck Washington

    June 19, 2026

    Brought the County position to the Board with Supervisor Karen Spiegel. In his letter: “I stand with our cities, tribal leaders, community stakeholders, and residents in opposition of the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink project as currently proposed.”

    Sources: Supervisor Chuck Washington, County of Riverside; County of Riverside

  • Riverside County Supervisor Karen Spiegel

    July 6, 2026

    Seconded the County position of significant concerns, which she brought to the Board with Supervisor Washington. As quoted by The Riverside Record: “I think standing up and expressing voices in an appropriate manner will get attention that there [are] second thoughts to this,” and “And I'm very glad to see this happening.”

    Sources: The Riverside Record; County of Riverside

  • San Diego County Board of Supervisors

    August 18, 2026

    At the request of Supervisors Desmond and Anderson, received a presentation from the Anza-Borrego Foundation and the Chaparral Lands Conservancy on the project's effects on Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, 5-0. The Board has taken no position.

    Sources: Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, August 18, 2026 (Item 25); Board of Supervisors meeting, August 18, 2026 (video)

  • San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond

    August 17, 2026

    Opposes the line and hosts a petition against it. In a post quoted by inewsource: “The route runs straight through our backcountry. And the communities that take the hit get no vote on the decision,” and “That is not how this should work. I am going to fight it.”

    Sources: inewsource; Supervisor Jim Desmond

  • State Senator Kelly Seyarto and Assemblymember Kate Sanchez

    June 3, 2026

    In a joint letter to SDG&E: “we must strongly oppose the project as currently designed.”

    Sources: Senator Kelly Seyarto and Assemblymember Kate Sanchez; CBS Los Angeles

  • Assemblymember Carl DeMaio

    July 10, 2026

    In a letter to SDG&E and the CPUC: “I write to express my strongest opposition to the current placement plans of the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink.” He asks SDG&E to withdraw the preferred route through Anza-Borrego and Borrego Springs, take Palomar Mountain off every route, and find a northern path clear of Temecula.

    Source: Assemblymember Carl DeMaio

  • Assemblymember Laurie Davies

    September 17, 2026

    Spoke against the line as proposed at the CPUC's San Marcos session. As quoted by KPBS: “We need to make sure we're getting this right, not simply getting it done.”

    Source: KPBS

  • Vista Irrigation District

    October 14, 2026

    Says every route SDG&E has shown crosses its land at Warner Springs, near Lake Henshaw. At a special meeting on October 14 its board adopted Resolution No. 2026-28 opposing the project, 5-0, according to the draft minutes in its November 4 board packet.

    Sources: Board of Directors special meeting packet, October 14, 2026; Board of Directors meeting packet, November 4, 2026 (draft minutes of the October 14 special meeting)

  • Fallbrook Public Utility District

    October 26, 2026

    In September its board directed staff to draft a letter of opposition to SDG&E's alternative alignment through Fallbrook, citing its Red Mountain Reservoir, its buried pipelines and wildfire risk. The letter went to the board for approval on October 26, and Save Fallbrook says the board voted to oppose.

    Sources: Fallbrook Public Utility District; Save Fallbrook

  • Rancho California Water District

    September 10, 2026

    Its board adopted Resolution 2026-9-1, formally opposing the project as currently proposed across District land in the Vail Lake watershed, and urged SDG&E and the CPUC to choose alternatives that avoid it.

    Source: Rancho California Water District

  • Temecula Valley Unified School District

    June 9, 2026

    Its board voted 5-0 to formally oppose the current alignment near Vail Ranch Middle School and any other district property, and demanded that the line be rerouted away from school sites or put underground.

    Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District

  • Mt. San Jacinto Community College District

    June 25, 2026

    Its trustees voted 5-0 to formally oppose the project as currently proposed, citing the Temecula Valley Campus, and directed its Superintendent/President to seek party status in the CPUC proceeding.

    Source: Mt. San Jacinto Community College District

  • Fallbrook Community Planning Group

    July 20, 2026

    Voted to oppose the project, citing wildfire risk, public safety, property rights and values, agriculture, and the Santa Margarita River. All ten members voting were in favor. The Chair agreed to make the project a standing agenda item.

    Source: County of San Diego

  • Rainbow Community Planning Group

    October 21, 2026

    Has followed the project at its meetings since August, and put a letter to the CPUC on its October 21 agenda for a vote.

    Sources: Rainbow Community Planning Group agenda, October 21, 2026; Rainbow Community Planning Group minutes, August 19, 2026

Every elected official for the communities on the routes, including those with no statement yet, and how to reach them: Your elected officials.

Tribal Nations

Tribal Nations take part in this review government to government, and much of that consultation is not public. Tribal representatives and cultural resource experts are working to protect ancestral lands, sacred places and cultural resources along the routes. This hub never speaks for a Tribal Nation: we list a position only from the Nation's own public statements, or with the name of whoever reported it.

  • Pechanga Band of Indians

    May 27, 2026

    Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro, as quoted by Patch: “The Tribe has serious concerns about the proposed route’s potential impacts to Pechanga’s ancestral cultural resources and the overall community. We are closely monitoring the proposal and expect our tribal government to be meaningfully consulted.”

    Source: Patch