Today’s headlines have heralded two important new developments concerning the Gulf of Mexico oil spill: BP might finally be able to cap the gushing oil well, and the Obama administration has placed a new moratorium on deep-water drilling. Another event of potentially equal importance is receiving far less national attention: a commission created by President Obama to investigate the oil spill disaster is meeting for the first time.

The oil spill commission is the second major advisory panel Obama has formed this year, following his establishment of a blue-ribbon commission on the federal deficit in February. These commissions are addressing two of the most pressing and difficult challenges facing America: energy policy and our yawning national debt.

If, like most people, you are cynical about commissions, you probably assume that these panels will not accomplish anything other than giving our elected officials an excuse for delaying tough decisions while the commissions conduct their work. But my research on over 50 commissions from the past three decades reveals that, during crises, bipartisan commissions often use their powerful political credibility to spur major reforms. (I present these findings in Terrorism and National Security Reform: How Commissions Can Drive Change in Moments of Crisis, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press in 2011.)

Indeed, the oil spill commission, scheduled to report in November, is poised to have a large impact on energy policy. Its mission is to uncover the causes of the spill and make recommendations related to offshore drilling. Congress’ extreme partisanship and the pressures of an election season mean that the House and Senate may not be able to reach agreement on changes to offshore drilling regulations or broader elements of energy policy this year. This gives the commission the opportunity to shape new legislation when it reports in January.

The panel’s membership also boosts its chances for success. Obama has named as the commission’s co-chairs former U.S. Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat, and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly, a Republican. Graham and Reilly are political moderates, and Obama has appointed pragmatists with scientific, engineering, and environmental backgrounds to the panel’s five other slots. With strong leadership from Graham and Reilly, such a group should be able to follow the example of the 9/11 Commission in conducting its work in a nonpartisan manner and issuing a unanimous report that gains broad public backing. The commission might then be able to prod President Obama and Congress to adopt its reform proposals, much as the 9/11 Commission did in triggering a counterterrorism and intelligence overhaul in 2004.

Less happily, the deficit commission faces much higher hurdles in its mission to bring the federal budget into balance. The lack of an immediate debt crisis means that members of Congress have less incentive to rally around a painful, but necessary, compromise that combines tax increases and cuts to entitlement programs in order to close the deficit.

Moreover, the deficit commission’s membership has poor prospects for maintaining a nonpartisan tone or issuing a unanimous report. The 18 commissioners include six Obama appointees and 12 members of the House and Senate named by the Republican and Democratic congressional leaders. Most of the Obama appointees, including the co-chairs—former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson—are centrists willing to support creative proposals for narrowing the deficit. But many of the legislators on the commission appear less open to compromise. For instance, Republicans Tom Coburn and Paul Ryan oppose any tax hikes, while Democrats Xavier Becerra and Jan Schakowsky seem resistant to significant cuts in Social Security or Medicare.

Even so, the deficit commission, which must report by December 1, is not destined to fail. In creating the panel, Obama ordered that its report required the approval of 14 of its 18 members, creating a lower bar than unanimity. If America’s fiscal situation goes from bad to worse in the coming months, creating a sharper feeling of crisis, commissioners will face growing pressure to reach agreement. It might then just be possible to muster 14 votes within the commission for groundbreaking reforms. Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have agreed to bring the commission’s proposals to the floor in their respective chambers, a strong supermajority report from the commission might even, at a time of crisis, spur legislative action in Congress.

While the deficit commission faces longer odds for success than the oil spill panel, these two commissions are among our best hopes for restoring the country to fiscal sustainability and setting a new course for energy policy. Far from just being ways for politicians to pass the buck, commissions can be essential tools for bridging partisan divides on the most difficult national challenges.

Related posts:

1. Reconceiving the BP Debacle
2. Dubious Decisions on Drilling: Why Obama Should Reconsider Offshore Drilling in the Wake of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
3. Bipartisan gift to the planet
4. Drilling Our Way to a Climate Change Solution?
5. Bipartisan breakthrough on climate change