Abraham: USA can wean itself from foreign oil
As the USA moves closer to war with oil-rich Iraq, gas prices are on the rise. So are concerns about terrorist attacks that might involve radiological materials available from widespread sources. In addition to tackling these pressing concerns, the Bush administration has proposed spending $1.7 billion over five years to start developing hydrogen fuel cells that could power cars, eventually eliminating U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, the administration's point man on these issues, met this week with USA TODAY's editorial board. His comments were edited for space and clarity:
Question: A USA TODAY poll found that 66% of Americans believe oil companies are overcharging. What is your view?
Answer: The average price of gasoline is about 10 cents higher this winter than the winter two years ago. The strike in Venezuela has constrained supply. The economy in comparison to last year is stronger, so demand is greater than it was a year ago. The reduction in production from OPEC on several occasions in recent years has affected supply. And uncertainties about what is going to happen in Iraq have fueled a lot of speculation in terms of price in the energy markets. All that having been said, we do not want to see people exploited. The Energy Department has a hot line available to anyone who wants to report evidence of price gouging. The Federal Trade Commission and others are monitoring. We should always be vigilant. These high prices hurt average working families, and we are concerned about them.
Q: How do you fend off charges that a war with Iraq would be an oil grab?
A: That is blatantly untrue. Our concerns have nothing to do with oil. We believe the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. They should decide how much of it is sold and what the proceeds should go for.
Q: There is increasing concern about terrorists getting a nuclear or radiological weapon. What is being done to prevent that?
A: One reason we focus so much attention on Iraq is the concern that a nuclear weapon or radiological material could be used by Saddam Hussein or conveyed to terrorists for their use. We also have worked with Russia for a long time — very intensely since 9/11 — to secure such materials in the former Soviet Union. We've reduced by about two years the time frame for securing the materials our department works on. The other challenge, radiological dispersal devices, is a big one because the material that could be employed in that type of a weapon is available in almost every country. I've been concerned about this for quite some time. Next week, there's a conference in Vienna of about 600 representatives from about 100 countries that will focus on this threat and give people a better understanding of ways to account for and secure these materials.
Q: What is the long-term solution to our energy challenges?
A: Because of his background in the world of energy, the president has a pretty strong understanding of the challenges ahead. He asked us for game-changing technologies and approaches, and we took that seriously. Our idea is a hydrogen-fuel-cell powered vehicle. Instead of trying to design the vehicle itself, our focus will be on operating systems that can be applied to the kinds of vehicles that Americans desire to drive, rather than what Washington might think consumers should have. At the same time, we faced a chicken-egg sort of challenge: What comes first, the operating system — the vehicle — or the infrastructure to support it? We concluded you have to do these concurrently, not consecutively. If you don't, it'll always be 30 years before we have a hydrogen-fuel-cell motor-vehicle fleet. If we move them together, we believe a commercialization decision would be made as early as 2015 that would translate into mass-market penetration in showrooms by the year 2020. We are very serious about this commitment.
Q: What are the advantages?
With a hydrogen-fuel-cell powered fleet, we wouldn't have to import oil. We would produce the fuel from a variety of sources here at home. There would be a lot of other applications. And the great thing is that the only byproduct is water. If we can get to that point, we will surmount both how we deal with our growing dependency on energy and how we can continue to allow consumers to have choice and continue to grow the economy in a way that is consistent with environmental concerns.
Q: How do you respond to critics on the right who see this as a misguided policy?
A: This has managed to create some unusual coalitions in opposition. The role we project for the government is perfectly legitimate, given the stakes and the potential payoff. First, we will fund the high-risk research the private sector cannot justify because it's so long-term. The other thing that makes the federal role so indispensable is the real need for coordination to bring everybody to the table. But we're not going to mandate and dictate, we're not going to pick the cars, we're not going to do the sorts of things that are within the venue of the private sector.
Q: Does this put all your eggs in one very expensive basket?
A: No. Hybrid-technology, clean-diesel, hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines all have a role to play here. But they all require oil to work, and our goal is to transcend that debate at some point. Where the game could be changed is in moving beyond oil-based operating systems, or oil-focused ones, to ones in which the source is hydrogen. And we think we've got an approach that can make that happen. But we by no means put all our eggs in that basket.