Technology Assessment at the Congressional Research Service
The elimination of the congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1995 was a self-inflicted wound that left Congress with diminished capacity to evaluate the challenging scientific and technological issues that continue to confront it. But the need for such an enterprise to support the legislative process has not gone away, and to a limited extent it is now being addressed by the Congressional Research Service (as well as the Government Accountability Office).
Last month, CRS completed a substantial 139 page report entitled Energy Storage for Power Grids and Electric Transportation: A Technology Assessment. At first glance, it looks like an informative piece of work.
“This report attempts to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding energy storage technologies for both electric power grid and electric vehicle applications. It is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers interested in understanding the range of technologies and applications associated with energy storage, comparing them, when possible, in a structured way to highlight key characteristics relevant to widespread use.”
Two other recent CRS reports discuss the implications of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” the controversial technology for injecting fluids into underground wells to stimulate oil and gas production. See Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues, April 10, 2012, and Hydraulic Fracturing: Chemical Disclosure Requirements, April 4, 2012.
Some other newly updated CRS reports that Congress has declined to make available to the public include the following.
Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations, April 3, 2012
Small Business Size Standards: A Historical Analysis of Contemporary Issues, April 10, 2012
Medicare Trigger, April 9, 2012
Western Sahara, April 5, 2012
Yemen: Background and U.S. Relations, April 10, 2012
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.