Right, What the *#$@ is a Gaggle?

You know, I had the feeling I'd be posting this Note even as I was chipping away on my last Update. "Gaggle" holds one meaning for a goose, another for a journailst. Although, truth be told, there is an unconfortably common thread between both.
Let's start by defining another media term, "Avail," short for availability. If someone is willing to talk to us after an event or announcement (and let's face it, who in Washington doesn't want to expound further upon what they just spent 30 minutes expaining?), their press team will let us know that there will be an Avail afterward. This is often a good chance to ask a specific question or two that may require follow-ups. Generally, there is some order to the Q&A session.
The Gaggle is a much-better attended, but much-less dignified, version of the Avail used when many correspondents and reporters want a piece of someone. The media is herded together, securely corralled, and left to wait patiently for our quarry. Then, once said luminary arrives to face the cameras, the questions and queries come flying from all quarters. The process is potentially unsettling to the uninitiated, like Dr. Chu, and certainly uncivilized for even the well-adjusted.
Adding to the indignity is the fact that we're all so damn competitive that we let ourselves get hopped up on adrenaline in our rush to wedge in a question, the result of which is outright shouting to defeat the cacophony of undoubtedly less-insightful questions being flung about so carelessly.
This is merely an objective observation, but this journalist was the very first to shout at...ah, that is, have his question successfully recognized by Steven Chu at that particular Gaggle. Though I think that's less a testament to my tenacity than it is the result of being 6'4" and having played enough basketball to know how to box out your opponents.
I took this pic with Ian McAllister's cell (he's in the kelly green sweater) of The Assembled Media in the subterranean depths of the Washington Renaissance Hotel about 5 minutes before Secretary Chu broke free from a meeting. The Gaggle looked, and in this case smelled, like a small horde of hoofed herbivores.

The Chu Gaggle. Washington Renaissance Hotel. Wednesday, February 18th, 2009.

R-P-S...Easy as 1-2-3?

"R.P.S." The acronym now being batted around Washington isn't nearly as intimidating to the uninitiated as the full name, Renewable Portfolio Standard. If your response remains, Huh?, well, the principle actually isn't all that complex.

We're talking about electricity generation, most of which comes from burning natural gas or coal, or using nuclear heat, to fire generation turbines. So, how much generation do we get from renewable resources (wind, solar, biomass)? Now that's where this gets complicated.

The idea of an RPS is to establish a minimum amount of total generation that must come from renewable sources. 27 states now have these standards in place, as does the District of Columbia. But, as Energy Ventures Analysis principal Tom Hewson explains to me, "With 28 different regional RPS out there, that means there are 28 different ways of calculating an RPS." In short, the definitions vary as to what qualifies as a renewable generation source.

Barack Obama has pushed his idea of a national RPS ever since he unveiled his New Energy for America plan on the campaign trail. He wants us to reach at 10% standard by 2012, and 20% by 2025. Now, six months later, that Plan became an Agenda and is on the verge of becoming Policy. The thing is, the Energy Information Administration says renewable energy accounted for just 7% of our energy consumption in 2007. And more than one-third of that was from hydroelectricity, not necessarily a renewable resource. Getting to 10% in three years simply might not be possible.

This week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee discussed Chairman Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) Democratic Staff Draft on a "Renewable Electricity Standard," the same principle as an RPS. Sen. Bingaman has indicated this kind of legislation should be a precursor to climate-change legislation, and his point is valid. Forcing states to draw on renewable energy, and scaling back on coal-fired generation, goes hand-in-hand with capping their CO2 emissions.

Sen. Bingaman's set of standards would establish lower (or, if you prefer, more realistic) goals for renewable generation than the White House. He wants to start with a seemingly reachable goal of a 4% RPS by 2012, less than half the President's target. Then, as technology and transmission catch up, the senator expects to get 20% of our electricity from renewable generation by 2021.

Honestly, after talking with Jeff Bingaman and getting a glimpse of his pragmatic approach to both crafting and passing this legislation, I can envision his bill landing in the Oval Office and getting an welcome, inky reception. That is, if his plan survives a potential conference committee showdown with Rep. Ed Markey's (D-MA) pending RPS legislation, a bill that promises loftier goals more along the lines of the President's plan.

You can read Sen. Jeff Bingaman's Discussion Draft here, on his committee's website: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueItems.View&IssueItem_ID=07730eb9-369e-4d57-8fc1-3e3b9fc42bec

The White House Energy & Environment Agenda outlines the President's Renewable Portfolio Standard goals here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/