News Roundup from the last couple days on the flip. Teasers? We don’t need no stinking teasers! Oh, alright then: Millionaires, Schwarzenegger, pay-to-play(?), more immigration, San Diego corruption, emissions, energy, salmon, water water everywhere, Prop 82, and earthquakes.

Special roundup of news coverage of the Univision debate up next and then much later today, a belated blog roundup

Pure Politics

• The CC Times reminds us that only millionaires are running for Governor. This may be in part an unintended consequence of limiting contributions while allowing unlimited spending on a campaign from one’s own wealth. Of course, lifting the contribution limit will allow millionaires to buy their own candidates, so I fail to see where that would help. Sounds like public financing is the way to go.
• Dan Walters thinks that 2006 is setting up the pool of California’s elected officials for the next big things. But isn’t that true of pretty much every major election?
• Daniel Weintraub reports, mostly without injecting his personal biases, on a pending problem: a recent court ruling that initiative petitions need to be translated from English into the language(s) spoken by any large minority of the population of the relevant political unit.
• Schwarzenegger’s approval ratings rising . . . some. This story is mostly notable for the Schwarzenegger spokesman pushing the “it’s a choice” message. Wouldn’t want Schwarzenegger to have to run on his record — no accountability for Republicans.
• Steve Westly probably didn’t do anything really wrong when he suggested that CalPERS have a look at a VC fund that raised contributions for him (especially when one considers how little outside funding he really has. But still, it looks like pay-for-access. Public financing, people.

Environment

• There’s a lot of coverage of the global warming pollution restrictions being discussed in the California State Government. The CC Times has a good summary of the larger picture. There’s a nifty quote from an oil company lobbyist, who admits that “climate change is real”. Wow. After all those millions (and probably billions) of dollars spent by the oil industry attacking the science and delaying any effort to deal with the problem, now global warming is real. Of course, the oil companies don’t want do do anything about it, so that hasn’t changed.
• In other news, moderate Republicans who aren’t in the pocket of the extractive industries seem to be educable on the problem. Now if only they’d buck the Bush-Cheney-Oil wing of the party and do something about it.
• Re that issue, for example, see this SacBee editorial calling out the Bush DOT’s usurpation both of state regulatory authority and the EPA’s authority.
• Vinod Khosla and Steven Bing are teaming up to sponsor a ballot initiative to tax the oil industry and fund alternative energy technology.
• The looming salmon fishery closing has effects beyond just the commercial fishing industry. There’s a big group of people who fish recreationally and a lot of merchants who serve them.

CA-50

CQ Politics has a great piece on how corruption in San Diego politics is driving the Republican side (sides?) of the race in CA-50.

Immigration

• CQ Politics rounds up some academic opinion on the political effects of the immigration debate. Not too much consensus there.
• “Immigration hardliners not gaining much traction” says the SacBee. The Merc reports that people have mixed feelings about immigration. Apparently, so does Congress, and it shows. Yesterday’s CC Times reminds us that nativism is a bad electoral policy, no matter how good it feels.

Water: Not Enough, Too Much

• Generic Dan Walters: There’s a problem with X. Politicians need to stop listening to special interests and fix X. Today, X = Water Policy.
• Non-generic Dan Walters: Local governments shouldn’t be able to freeload on the state’s liability for flood damages by building in known danger areas.
• Some federal money may be coming to strengthen the levees.
• And from a professor who actually studies, y’know, ecosystems ‘n’ stuff, a flood control plan that doesn’t rely on building artificial canyons or lakes.

Other

• Think tank doesn’t like Prop 82 much. And it doesn’t seem to be ideological.(Link fixed by Brian)
• If the big one hits before we fix some (well, a lot) of stuff, the Bay Area is screwed. Oh, the Delta too: levees down, floods everywhere. And does anyone think that a Republican-controlled federal government will help us godless librul eleets, even if by some miracle, they’re competent to do it right?

There was an interesting Op-Ed from Hal Harvey of the Hewlett Foundation in today’s Chronicle.  The Hewlett Foundation just released a study of the effect of California’s efforts to reduce energy usage.  The study itself is worth reading, but as a teaser, some grafs from the Op-Ed are on the flip.

Consider California, home to the world’s sixth largest economy. For 25 years, the Golden State has led the nation in programs to save energy; these, in turn, reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to global warming. According to the California Energy Commission, the state’s energy-efficient appliance standards, among the toughest in the country, have led to a 75 percent reduction in the energy required to power refrigerators, much to the delight of consumers. Similarly, new homes built in California use only a quarter of the energy of older homes, thanks to smarter building codes. Renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind have prospered in California, where state tax credits helped drive the price of wind energy down almost 90 percent, which now makes it cheaper, in windy areas, than any alternative. As a consequence, in Colorado, for example, customers who agreed to pay a bit extra for wind-only electricity are instead are now getting rebates.

The Hewlett Foundation recently sponsored a study of the economic consequences of these policies over the past three decades. It tells an amazing story. California now uses half as much energy per capita as the nation as a whole, saving the average household $1,000 each year, with total savings now more than $56 billion. New York households have similarly benefited. Whereas per-capita electricity use across the nation has increased 50 percent in the last 30 years, in New York it has risen only 15 percent, due to the state’s focus on energy conservation, saving billions of dollars. The bottom line here is that saving energy is not only good for the environment, it also saves people money.