商务部公告2020年第36号 关于对原产于美国的进口相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚进行反倾销立案调查的公告

反倾销调查申请书——附件 公开版本 公开版本 中华人民共和国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚产业申请对原产于 美国的进口相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚进行反倾销调查 反倾销调查申请书——附件 反倾销调查申请书——附件 附件清单 附件1： 申请人的营业执照 附件2： 授权委托书 附件3： 代理律师指派书 附件4： 律师执业证明 附件5： 支持申请企业的营业执照及支持声明 附件6： 关于中国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚生产和进口情况的说明 附件7： 中华人民共和国海关进出口税则 附件8： ICIS—乙烯、丙烯价格与油价的相关性 附件9： 补贴油页岩-追踪联邦对美国油页岩开发的支持 附件10： 美国和加拿大页岩气产业政策借鉴 附件11： 能源税收政策：第 114 届国会议题 附件12： 上游石油基础设施政府补贴对美国石油生产和全球二氧化碳排放的影 响 附件13： 延迟无形钻井成本扣减的影响 附件14： 美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 附件15： 2019 财年美国政府预算分析 附件16： 2014 财年预算提案中的石油和天然气行业税收问题 附件17： 美国国税局出版物 535 附件18： 不同类型能源的税收激励措施的价值 附件19： 美国能源税收 1 反倾销调查申请书——附件 附件20： 石油和天然气税收补贴现状与分析 附件21： OECD 化石燃料补贴数据库—2016 年美国各州向石油和天然气产业提 供的补贴 附件22： 联邦电力补贴——有关研究资金，税收支出和其他支持电力生产的活 动的信息 附件23： 2007 年联邦政府对能源市场的财政干预和补贴 附件24： 联邦政府对发电技术的财政支持；州政府对发电技术的财政支持 附件25： G20 煤炭补贴—美国报告及数据表 附件26： 美国的乙烯、环氧乙烷、丙烯、环氧丙烷产能情况 附件27： 美国研究机构统计的化工行业补贴情况 附件28： 海运费、保险费率和美国境内环节费用证明 附件29： 美国海关出口数据 附件30： 申请人同类产品生产、经营和财务数据 附件31： 环氧乙烷和环氧丙烷历史价格 2 附件 1 附件 2 附件 3 附件 4 附件 5 附件 6 非保密概要 附件 6：关于中国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚生产和进口情 况的说明 本附件内容包含申请人和支持申请企业的同类产品产量数据，属 于商业秘密，故申请保密。 在申请书公开版本的正文部分，已经以指数形式提供了上述数据， 并且提供了申请人和支持申请企业的同类产品合计产量占国内总产 量的比例。该比例始终超过 90%，根据《反倾销调查立案暂行规则》 第五条的规定，申请人有资格代表国内产业提出本次反倾销调查申请。 关于中国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚生产和进口情况的说明 一、国内生产和需求情况 国内生产乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚的企业主要有怡达和德纳两家。“怡 达”是指江苏怡达化学股份有限公司，及其子公司吉林怡达化工有限公司和珠 海怡达化学有限公司。“德纳”是指江苏德纳化学股份有限公司及其子公司江 苏天音化工有限公司。2016年至2019年期间，中国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷 基醚的产量如下： （单位：吨） 怡达 德纳 其他合计 全国总产量 2016 年 【 】 【 】 8,000 88,089 2017 年 【 】 【 】 4,200 97,002 2018 年 【 】 【 】 2,600 99,568 2019 年 【 】 【 】 2,000 105,181 乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚是性能优越的溶剂，用途十分广泛，主要用作 溶剂，也用作分散剂、稀释剂、萃取剂和航空燃料抗冻剂，也是重要的有机合 成原料。根据我协会的分析统计，2016年至2019年期间全国需求情况如下： 全国总需求量（吨） 2016 年 114,170 2017 年 141,192 2018 年 162,227 2019 年 166,802 二、进口情况 乙二醇的单烷基醚有独立的税则号29094400，可直接了解进口情况。丙二 醇的单烷基醚归在税则29094990下，该税则号项下还包含其他产品。我中心根 据掌握的中国海关进口报关数据、美国海关出口数据以及对市场及下游的跟踪 统计，确定从美国进口丙二醇单烷基醚的情况。 附件 7 序号 税则号列 中文货品名称 最惠国税率(%) 协定税率(%) 特惠税率(%) 普通税率(%) -芳香醚及其卤化、磺化、硝化或 亚硝化衍生物： 2075 2909.3010 ---1-烷氧基-4-（4-乙烯基环己基） 5.5 0 东盟AS,智利CL,新西兰 0 受惠国LD 30 -2，3-二氟苯 NZ,秘鲁PE,哥CR,瑞士 CH,冰岛IS,韩国KR,澳 AU,香港HK,澳门MO,格 GE 5 巴PK 2076 2909.3020 ---4-（4-烷氧基苯基）-4'-烷烯基 5.5 0 东盟AS,智利CL,新西兰 0 受惠国LD 30 -1，1'-双环己烷及其氟代衍生物 NZ,秘鲁PE,哥CR,瑞士 CH,冰岛IS,韩国KR,澳 AU,香港HK,澳门MO,格 GE 5 巴PK 2077 2909.3090 ---其他 5.5 0 东盟AS,智利CL,新西兰 0 受惠国LD 30 NZ,秘鲁PE,哥CR,瑞士 CH,冰岛IS,韩国KR,澳 AU,香港HK,澳门MO,格 GE 5 巴PK -醚醇及其卤化、磺化、硝化或亚 硝化衍生物： 2078 2909.4100 --2，2′-氧联二乙醇（二甘醇） 5.5∆3 0 东盟AS,巴PK,智利CL,新 0 受惠国2LD2 30 西兰NZ,哥CR,瑞士CH,冰 岛IS,韩国KR,澳AU,香港 HK,澳门MO,台湾TW,格 GE 2079 2909.4300 --乙二醇或二甘醇的单丁醚 5.5 0 东盟AS,智利CL,新西兰 0 受惠国LD 30 NZ,秘鲁PE,哥CR,瑞士 CH,冰岛IS,韩国KR,澳 AU,香港HK,澳门MO,台 湾TW,格GE 5 巴PK 2080 2909.4400 --乙二醇或二丁醇的其他单烷基 5.5 0 东盟AS,智利CL,新西兰 0 受惠国LD 30 醚 NZ,秘鲁PE,哥CR,瑞士 CH,冰岛IS,澳AU,香港 HK,澳门MO,格GE 3.6 韩国KR 5 巴PK --其他： 2081 2909.4910 ---间苯氧基苄醇 4 0 东盟AS,巴PK,智利CL,新 0 受惠国LD 11 西兰NZ,秘鲁PE,哥CR,瑞 士CH,冰岛IS,韩国KR,澳 AU,香港HK,澳门MO,格 GE 2082 2909.4990 ---其他 5.5 0 东盟AS,智利CL,新西兰 0 受惠国LD 30 NZ,秘鲁PE,哥CR,瑞士 CH,冰岛IS,澳AU,香港 HK,澳门MO,格GE 3.6 韩国KR 5 巴PK 2083 2909.5000 -醚酚、醚醇酚及其卤化、磺化、 5.5 0 东盟AS,智利CL,新西兰 0 受惠国LD 30 硝化或亚硝化衍生物 NZ,秘鲁PE,哥CR,瑞士 CH,澳AU,香港HK,澳门 MO,格GE 3.6 韩国KR 5 巴PK 273 附件 8 qr ÿÿ ÿ ÿ!"   ÿ  ÿ  ÿ  ÿÿ ÿ #ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ!" ÿ ÿ #ÿ ÿÿÿ $  ÿ   ÿ %&'(ÿ 01 2345 ÿÿ 6789ÿ @& AB9ÿ67CD ÿÿ E94 FG B&(ÿB1 FH &IG45 P 0Q RSÿT 0U PÿPT VR W X ÿ Y ÿ `  ÿÿabÿÿ  $   ÿÿabÿÿ cÿ ÿ de ÿf  g hÿif ÿpÿhÿ bÿfÿÿ ÿfÿÿ hÿif ÿpÿhÿ qÿÿ s ÿ c ÿaÿh hÿ c ÿ b ÿ ÿfgÿ ÿÿ i   hÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ  ÿ fhÿÿ q t ÿ c ÿaÿÿ b ÿÿa ÿh qÿÿbÿÿ ÿÿhÿhÿ bÿfÿ s    ÿt  ÿÿ c ÿabÿ ÿ c ÿhÿÿ du qÿÿt ÿ ÿ ÿ hÿ ÿÿÿ ÿbbÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ hÿ  v ÿÿÿ ÿ"ÿ   gÿ ÿÿa ÿh b hÿÿ tb h q w ÿ c bhÿÿÿÿab  ÿfÿÿf c ÿÿhÿÿ  hÿ  v ÿhÿ  ÿ ÿb a xÿÿ w bhÿÿÿ ÿ c ÿÿc  gÿa ÿy!€aaxÿÿt ÿ   gÿa ÿÿ  ÿ ÿbvgÿ  ÿ  b ÿ  bÿfÿ b  ÿhÿbÿÿÿ  vq ‚hÿfÿÿh ÿfÿa cÿ y!€aagÿ c ÿ c bhÿ  ÿ  ÿfÿÿ ÿfÿÿ  ƒÿ   x t ÿ„b ÿÿÿ ÿaÿ c hÿ ÿÿ  c ÿ  ÿÿ! … #ÿ bgÿ ÿÿa c †  ÿbÿ  ÿbÿÿ ÿÿÿ‰i ’ÿbÿ  ÿ  ÿbÿÿ ÿÿÿ‰i ’ÿbÿ “ÿ   ÿbÿ ˜ÿ ™ÿÿ ÿÿÿi  tÿhÿ  ÿavÿÿÿp ÿÿÿÿÿe!‘ÿhÿ ÿbihhÿaÿhh ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ!… “ÿ  c ÿÿ ÿ #ÿ ÿa c ÿÿ c †ÿfÿÿ ÿ  gÿ ÿh ÿ tÿ   ÿbÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ  ƒÿ   ÿ‡ÿgÿabhgÿaˆÿhÿ‰qÿÿtÿÿÿ ÿ! #g abhÿ ÿ!€ #g ÿaˆÿ ÿ!u ÿ‰ÿ ÿ‘ #ÿ hÿ #q tb ÿfÿÿ ÿhÿfgÿ c ÿÿaÿ aÿphÿabÿ c ÿ c ÿ ÿÿhbÿ qÿÿ‚ ÿÿaÿ  c ÿÿÿgÿÿÿÿf y…aaÿ c bhÿhÿÿÿÿfÿyeu…€’ÿÿ ÿÿy…€aaÿ c bhÿ b  ÿÿ ÿfÿy!€€q “ÿÿ i ÿ fÿb gÿ c ÿ ÿ  c bhÿaÿ hÿfÿh  hqÿÿ$ b  ÿ  ÿ c bhÿ  ÿh ÿ ÿÿ hqÿÿbÿÿhb ÿ ÿb hÿÿh” ÿ ÿ gÿhÿfhÿ ÿ ÿÿabh ÿb qÿÿ• gÿÿ c  gÿ  ÿ ÿavÿbÿÿ   ÿb ÿfÿ  abh  ÿ  ÿbhÿ bÿf ÿ  c ÿ q –f ÿb gÿ      ÿ  ÿƒb ÿhhÿÿ ÿÿ bgÿhÿÿÿ  b ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ b  ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿfÿa c ÿ cÿ ye€€aaqÿ bhÿ b  ÿ ÿ ÿbÿÿ ÿ vÿ ÿÿvqÿÿ‚ÿ b ÿ ÿ c bhÿ b  ÿ ÿ ÿbÿÿ ÿÿ c bÿÿ—ÿÿ ÿ‰ hgÿ   ÿvÿ c v  ÿc a ÿ‰ hÿÿÿ aÿ  q X Y ` %RSdU VeP ÿ% VP T $f ÿh ÿa  ÿa ÿÿ c ÿ c hÿ c hÿiÿÿ gS hTÿ% VP T $ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿi™ÿ bÿ  ÿhÿ$f ÿ   ÿf ™ÿ$  t Q eT Vÿ PQjSP ÿ kQ gl ÿ Vm ÿS gn jQ go ÿ kQPm ÿ kS gp S gS ÿ kRS gT ÿ VU jÿ%RUESP ÿ ES gT RQjÿkQ gl P ÿ E 0U gQ ÿ E 0R WPjSR ÿ E VgP S e@ RÿP%S go U gn ÿ ERSoUTÿk ek kjS ÿ ERSoUTÿER egE 0 ÿ 附件 9 subsidizing oil shale Tracing Federal Support for Oil Shale Development in the U.S. www.taxpayer.net Oil Shale Specimen. Image Courtesy of United States Geological Survey O Shaleil Specimen. Image Courtesy of United States Geological Survey lthough the oil shale industry is still in reserves were created to ensure a military oil supply. its commercial infancy, it has a long his- In response, the Bureau of Mines program began A tory of government support that continues research into exploiting oil shale technology and in today. The Bureau of Land Management recently the 1960s private industry followed. But significant issued two new research, development and demon- action was limited until the 1970s, when in response stration leases and new federal regulations for com- to the gas shortages Congress intervened in oil shale mercial leases and royalty rates are expected any day. development, in hopes of creating a domestic fuel Before the federal government goes down that road alternative. Their unsuccessful attempt to spur large- it’s important to take a look back and ask whether we scale commercial development of oil shale and other should be throwing good money after bad. unconventional fossil fuels became a notorious waste Oil shale, or kerogen shale, is a sedimentary rock of federal funds. that contains liquid hydrocarbons that are released Since then federal support has continued in vari- when heated. Considered an oil precursor, kerogen ous forms. Although not a key part of the overall is fossil organic matter that has not had exposure energy policy agenda, federal subsidies continue to to high enough temperatures or been in the ground appear in legislation and administrative actions. A long enough to have developed into oil. Kerogen batch of subsides including the requirement of a fed- requires a large and expensive energy investment to eral research and development leasing program were produce liquid fuel. This leaves producers with the included in the 2005 Energy Bill. The 2008 Economic challenge of how to get more energy out of the rock Stabilization Act expanded an existing conventional than energy used to obtain the liquid fuel in the first oil and gas tax break for oil shale, and in 2008 a com- place. mercial leasing program emerged out of the Bureau Federal intervention in the development of oil of Land Management. As recently as the spring of shale dates back to the early 20th century when by 2012, Congress proposed federal sweeteners to help executive order the naval petroleum and oil shale get oil shale get off the ground as part of freestanding Sub dizingsi oil Shale 2 taxpayers for common sense legislation and as an add-on to the federal transportation authoriza- O l iShale Resources within tion bill. Green River Formation* Despite this support, success- ful development of a commercial oil shale industry has remained elusive. To this day, oil shale tech- nology has never been successfully demonstrated on a large scale.1 Many attempts to produce at the commercial level have occurred, but high costs and volatility in the markets have led to plant failures in the past, resulting in the loss of mil- lions of taxpayer dollars. The allure of domestic fuel production con- tinues to make oil shale a favorite discussion piece for lawmakers. But providing oil shale with additional government incentives, including commercial federal leases prior to proving economic viability given oil shale’s track record of failure, will only add to the layers of sub- * ageIm used with permission by the R AND Corporation: James T. Bartis et al., “Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues,” sidies the oil shale industry has RAND Corporation (MG-414-NETL), 2005. Adapted from: Smith, J. W., “Oil already received and once again Shale Resources of the United States,” Mineral and Energy Resources, Vol. 23, leave taxpayers with little to show No. 6, Colorado School of Mines, 1980. for it. Federal interest tends to ebb and flow around History of increases in gas prices, new information on the Oil Shale Subsidies amount of oil that could be recoverable from oil shale deposits, and most recently a need for increased rev- Because the United States is estimated to have 75% enues from royalties and fees charged for its extrac- of the world’s oil shale deposits,2 the prospect of tion, among other things. extracting oil from shale has been around for more Despite questions regarding its feasibility or envi- than a century. The Government Accountability ronmental consequences, the prospect of capturing Office has estimated that oil shale deposits in the some of this oil has led to a long history of federal Green River Formation of Colorado, Utah, and support for oil shale. Over the years oil shale has Wyoming (displayed in the figure above) could yield received layers upon layers of subsidies. Most support more than 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil3 and came in the form of loans and loan guarantees and in 2005 the RAND Corporation estimated that the price guarantees provided through the Department same area could produce up to 800 billion barrels of of Energy in the 1980s, but other subsidies including recoverable oil.4 valuable land giveaways occurred much earlier. Sub dizingsi oil Shale 3 taxpayers for common sense More than a century ago, the Pickett Act of 1910 authorized the acquisition of petroleum rich lands to ensure an emergency supply of fuel to the Navy during times of war. By 1927, a series of Executive Orders had designated three plots of land between Utah and Colorado for such use—titled the Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSR-1, NOSR-2, NOSR-3).5,6 These three plots of land would be the sites for numerous attempts by oil shale companies and federal govern- ment to jumpstart the oil shale industry. In the 1980s, two subsidies—the loan guaran- tee and the price guarantee—were the subsidies of choice for the oil shale industry. As previously men- tioned, the 1980s were the heyday of federal support for oil shale. An entire federal entity, the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, was created solely for the pur- pose of subsidizing unconventional fossil fuel devel- opment like oil shale. More than $3 billion (Table 1) was provided to the oil shale industry in federal loan guarantees. Federal loan guarantees allow borrowers to receive a loan with the federal government assuming the risk. According to the U.S. House of Representatives O l iShale Company’s first retort*, 1923. Rules Committee, a loan guarantee is a “statutory *an air-tight vessel used for oil shale extraction commitment by the federal government to pay part Image Courtesy of United States Geological Survey or all of a loan’s principal and interest to a lender or T blea 1: LOAN Guarantees to Oil Shale Total Value P ojecTir t tle Company Date Committed (millions) The Oil Shale C lonyi o I Project1 August 1981 $1,150 Corporation (TOSCO) C thedrala Bluffs Cathedral Bluffs Project2 July 1983 $1,800 Shale Oil Company* Seep Ridge Project3 Geokinetics, Inc. December 1983 $21 Parachute Creek Phase I Project4 Union Oil Company October 1985 $300 TOTAL $3,271 * Jointly-owned by Tenneco Shale Oil Company and Occidental Petroleum Corporation 1 thony an Andrews. “Oil Shale: History, Incentives, and Policy.” Congressional Research Service. April 13, 2006. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33359.pdf 2 Energy Law Journal. “Report of The Committee On Synthetic Fuels.” Vol. 5:1. 1984. 3 Ibid. 4 U.S. General Accounting Office. “Parachute Creek Shale Oil Project’s Economic and Operational Outlook.” June 1987. http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/145485.pdf Sub dizingsi oil Shale 4 taxpayers for common sense the holder of a security in case the borrower defaults. cover the gap, providing a $25 subsidy per barrel. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires that Some estimates have cited $30-$70 per barrel as a the cost of guaranteed loans be included in the com- point where oil shale becomes cost-competitive; but putation of budget authority and outlays. The con- even with a range this large, it is difficult to make gressional budget resolution includes loan guarantee any assumption without having ever commercially totals.”7 Federal loan guarantees placed the full faith produced oil shale. Below (Table 2) is a list of price and credit of the federal Treasury behind a project guarantees provided to oil shale in the early 1980s leaving taxpayers to assume the risk in the event of and their estimated value at the time. default, which is what happened in the case of oil In addition to loan and price guarantees, tax pro- shale. visions were written into the Internal Revenue Code Another generous form of subsidy provided for oil (IRC) to provide further incentives for oil shale pro- shale development in the 1980s was the price guar- duction. Created in the Windfall Profit Tax Act of antee. Price guarantees provided companies with 1980, Congress provided the alternative fuel produc- a minimum price, thereby ensuring profitability tion tax credit—a $3 per barrel credit for oil shale and regardless of market conditions. Taxpayers are asked other alternative fuel producers that was indexed to to absorb any difference. Because it is difficult to inflation. The tax credit was designed to take effect calculate the cost of both producing commercial oil only when oil prices fell below $23.50 per barrel and shale and predicting its overall market rate, a price phase out when prices rose above $29.50 (1979 dol- guarantee can be a very valuable (or costly) subsidy. lars). Soon after, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of For example, if fuel derived from oil shale could only 1981 created multiple tax credits for the oil and gas sell on the open market at $35 per barrel and a price industry from which oil shale producers were also guarantee was set at $60 per barrel, taxpayers would able to benefit. T blea 2: Price Guara ntees to Oil Shale Total Value P ojecTir t tle Company Date Committed (millions) P rachutea Creek Phase I Project1 Union Oil Company July 1981 $400 Parachute Creek Phase I Project2 Union Oil Company October 1985 $173 Parachute Creek Phase II Project3 Union Oil Company December 1983 $2,700 C thedrala Bluffs Cathedral Bluffs Project4 July 1983 $378 Shale Oil Company* Seep Ridge Project5 Geokinetics, Inc. December 1983 $24 TOTAL $3,675 * Jointly-owned by Tenneco Shale Oil Company and Occidental Petroleum Corporation 1 .S. UGeneral Accounting Offic e. rachute “Pa Creek Shale Oil Project’s Economic and Operational Outlook.” June 1987. http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/145485.pdf 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 nergy E Law Journa l. “Report of The Committee On Synthetic Fuels.” Vol. 5:1. 1984. 5 Ibid. Sub dizingsi oil Shale 5 taxpayers for common sense Synthetic Fuels Corporation which reduced incentives, made the large invest- As described above, the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Cor- ments required to develop synthetic fuels look too 12 poration (SFC) was created as a mechanism to pro- risky. vide subsidies for unconventional fossil fuels like oil After the corporation’s initial investment of $20 shale. The SFC was established in the Energy Secu- billion in federal funds, the corporation was esti- rity Act of 1980, a bill that was enacted in response to mated to have spent close to $88 billion over its six- 13 high oil prices in the 1970s. Under this act the DOE year lifetime. Sluggish activity at SFC, charges of provided the SFC with a $20 billion bank account to lavish spending, scandals, and improper manage- be used for the creation and development of synthetic ment were also cited as reasons behind SFC’s closure. fuel projects, including oil shale.8 The SFC would President Reagan drastically scaled back adminis- distribute loan guarantees and price-floor subsidies trative costs and large subsidies, and required com- while requiring production of synthetic fuels to be panies to provide most of the capital for proposed equivalent to 500,000 barrels a day by 1987 and 2 plants. Proposals, such as a $5 billion oil shale plant million (or 1.5m) barrels a day by 1992.9 in Parachute, Colorado that was operated by Exxon, In 1986, six years after its creation, the SFC folded were shelved due to high costs without further fed- after “spending billions without providing any eral funding (see case study that follows). Companies fuel.”10 The recession that occurred in the early 1980s already in the process of building plants, as was the coupled with a sharp drop in oil prices from $40 to case with the $2.7 billion Great Plains Coal Gasifi- $8,11 made synthetic fuel production a costly invest- cation Plant, feared significant losses and threatened ment. In addition, high interest rate and the passage to cancel construction without further federal assis- 14 of the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, tance. G okinee tics’ Oil Shale Development Site, 1981. Image Courtesy of United States Geological Survey Sub dizingsi oil Shale 6 taxpayers for common sense 附件 10 NATURAL GAS 天 然 气 美国和加拿大页岩气产业政策借鉴 王 南1,2 刘兴元3 杜 东4 雷丹凤1,2 杨 晶1 （1 中国石油勘探开发研究院廊坊分院 2 国家能源页岩气研发(实验)中心 3 中国石油物资公司 4 中国石油勘探开发研究院） 北美页岩气革命的成功点燃了 贴政策。这些补贴政策最早开始 摘 要 美国、加拿大 其他国家开发本土页岩气资源的热 于1978年的《天然气政策法案》 政 府 为 鼓 励 非 常 规 资 源 开 发，出台了一系列页岩气产 情。除美国和加拿大外，中国、波 （见表1），但在该法案中并没 业 扶 持 政 策 ， 其 中 包 括 对 兰、澳大利亚等30多个国家开始启 有明确说明对页岩气的具体补贴 页岩气勘探、开发实行税收 动对页岩气的研究工作，但由于起 额度和年限。1980年，美国国会 减免及财政补贴；建立专项 步较晚，缺乏配套的产业政策，基 通过《原油暴利税法》，其中第 基金资助研究机构开展技术 本都处于起步阶段。美国是世界上 29条“非常规能源生产税收减免 研发；打造多元化的投资环 境，建立市场机制等等。这 页岩气资源勘探开发最早、技术最 及财政补贴政策”明确规定：从 些举措降低了页岩气开发成 成熟的国家。美国政府长期以来一 1980年起，美国本土钻探的非常 本，促进了页岩气产业的快 直支持和鼓励对本土非常规资源的 规天然气（煤层气和页岩气）可 速发展。在鼓励页岩气发展 勘探开发，特别是对页岩气资源， 享受每桶油当量3美元的补贴。美 的同时，两国还加强行业监 管，出台了严格的环境保护 陆续出台了多项扶持政策，从而大 国国会后来又将第29条法案的执 政 策 ， 对 作 业 区 水 资 源 、 大提高了油气生产商的开发热情， 行期续延了两次至1992年。该政 渔 业 资 源 和 野 生 动 物 进 行 降低了页岩气的生产成本，刺激了 策有效地激励了非常规气井的钻 保护。本研究在综合分析了 页岩气产业的快速发展。 探，使美国在1980－1992年间非 美、加两国页岩气产业政策 常规气井数量爆增，达新增矿井 之后，建议我国政府借鉴北 美页岩气发展经验，针对页 一、美国和加拿大页岩气 总数的78%。 岩气产业出台一定的扶持政 产业政策经验 1992年，美国国会再次对《原 策；设立基金扶持项目，通 油暴利税法》第29条进行修订，对 过多领域技术合作，最终形 1. 提供政策支持，对页岩气 1979－1999年期间钻探、2003年之 成一套完整的页岩气开发配 套技术；同时制定严格的环 勘探、开发实行税收减免及财政补 前生产的页岩气实行税收减免政 境 保 护 政 策 ， 减 少 环 境 污 贴 策，减免幅度为0.5美元/千立方英 染，保障我国页岩气资源的 20世纪70年代末，美国政府就 尺（约0.02美元/立方米），而1989年 安全、有效开发。 开始鼓励开发本土的非常规资源。 美国的天然气价格仅为1.75美元/千 关键词 页岩气 产业 政府将致密气、煤层气和页岩气 立方英尺（约0.07美元/立方米）。 政策 税收 补贴 环境保护 统一划归为非常规天然气，并通 美国对页岩气的税收减免政策前后 管网建设 美国 加拿大 过立法落实对非常规天然气的补 共持续了23年。 2012.9 国际石油经济 ·69· 天 然 气 NATURAL GAS 在1997年颁布的《纳税人减负 家。2008年，加拿大天然气产量已 国政府积极推动本土非常规气的勘 法案》中，美国政府依然延续对非 占据北美天然气市场将近50%的份 探和开发，成立了美国天然气研究 常规能源实行税收减免政策，直到 额，这都得益于该国国家政策的大 院（GTI），旨在整合其国内天然 2006年美国政府出台新的产业政 力支持。加拿大政府在制定产业扶 气领域的技术研究人才，开展非常 策。新的产业政策规定：在2006年 持政策时，主要参考了美国的产业 规能源技术研究。美国天然气院作 投入运营、用于生产非常规能源的 政策，例如对生产商提供一定税收 为非盈利性机构，在后来的很多 油气井，可在2006－2010年享受每 优惠，对技术研发项目给予一定扶 年，一直在为美国能源行业提供技 吨油当量22.05美元的补贴。此项政 持，以及在水处理和环境保护方面 术支撑，在一定程度上支持政府实 策使得美国非常规气探井数量大幅 出台指导意见。 现既定的产业政策。 上升，天然气储量和产量也随之大 在加拿大从事油气勘探和开 1976年，美国联邦政府启动 幅增加。 采，可享受联邦和省区两级政府的 “东部页岩气项目”。美国联邦能 在美国，除联邦政府出台的一 各种税收优惠政策。对于页岩气开 源管理委员会（FERC）也同时批 系列产业政策外，拥有页岩气资源 发等高风险投入的矿产行业，加拿 准了FERC研究中心和美国天然气 的得克萨斯州、俄亥俄州、宾夕法 大财政部将给予税收补贴鼓励，投 院的研究预算。政府还邀请多所大 尼亚州的州政府也相继颁布了一些 入当年减免税率为100%，相当于 学、研究机构和私营的石油天然气 鼓励政策，其中最具代表性的是得 生产前全额减免税率；在生产期， 公司加入该项目，进行联合研究。 克萨斯州。自1992年以来，得州政 政府还会对高风险、低收益的项目 同年，FERC研究中心成功研发页 府对页岩气开发免征生产税，实行 进行一定的税额减免，最高减免额 岩气大型水力压裂技术，并获得了 每立方米3.5美分的州政府补贴（占 度为项目当年缴纳税额的30％。 该项技术的专利。1977年，美国能 州政府全年税收的7.5%）。这些 2. 建立专项研究基金资助研究 源部率先向外界展示了该项技术。 补贴政策与联邦政府的政策并不冲 机构开展技术研发，促进整体产业 该技术对非常规天然气产业产生了 突，在很大程度上鼓励了石油天然 技术进步 深远影响，极大地提高了非常规能 气公司对页岩气资源进行开发。 20世纪70年代初，美国天然气 源的开发效率，许多中小型公司开 加拿大是除美国外世界上另一 产量持续下降，造成本土天然气供 始运用这种技术。 个对页岩气进行商业化开发的国 应紧张。为缓解能源供应问题，美 20世纪80年代末至90年代初， 表1 美国联邦政府主要产业政策 年份 公布法案及相关政策 具体内容 将致密气、煤层气和页岩气统一划归为非常规天然气，通过立 1978 《天然气政策法案》（Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978） 法保证非常规天然气的开发税收和补贴政策 《原油暴利税法》中第29条“非常规能源生产税收减免及财 1980年至1992年钻探的非常规天然气（包括煤层气和页岩气） 1980 政补贴政策”（Windfall Profits Tax Act, Section 29 tax credit 可享受每油桶当量3美元的补贴 for production of Non-conventional fuels） 1992 第29条“非常规能源生产税收减免及财政补贴政策”修正案 设立了能源生产税收津贴，持续非常规气补贴政策 1992 《能源政策法案》（Energy Policy Act of 1992） 扩展了非常规能源的补贴范围 1997 《纳税人减负法案》（Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997） 延续了对非常规能源的税收补贴政策 2004 《美国能源法案》（Energy Act 2004） 10年内政府每年投资4500万美元用于支持非常规天然气的研发 《能源政策法案》第1345条（Energy Policy Act of 2005， 2006年投入运营的生产非常规能源的油气井，可在2006－2010 2005 section 1345） 年获得每桶油当量3美元的补贴 政府间建立长期的能源技术合作关系，帮助一些页岩气资源富 2009 推进国家间在清洁能源领域的合作 集的国家开发页岩气资源 2011 美国国务院成立能源资源局 加强国际能源领域合作，使美国的能源结构向更为清洁的方向转变 ·70· 国际石油经济 2012.9 NATURAL GAS 天 然 气 美国能源部设立了很多专项基金， 构和大学开展页岩气开发技术的研 府积极推动的这种产业模式丰富和 支持研究机构和中小型技术公司开 发。政府除设立专项基金外，还召集 完善了产业链环节，促进了美国页 展新技术研究。在专项基金的资助 一些研究机构和私人石油公司联合 岩气产业的快速发展。 下，美国能源部所属的Sandia国家 成立产业内技术研发项目，专门针对 4. 建立输气管网和管网运行的 实验室很快研发出包括微地震成 页岩气进行技术公关和研发，一般 市场化公平准入机制，对管道公司 图、页岩及煤层水力压裂等技术。 项目研究时间为2～3年，项目的知识 实行税率减免、提供贷款 1991年，在美国能源部和美国联邦 产权归政府或牵头机构所有，其他 美国是世界上天然气管网最发 能源管理委员会的共同资助下， 项目参与者都可以共享或优先购买 达的国家。据统计，美国本土已拥 得克萨斯州天然气公司Mitchell 研发出的新技术或新型产品。 有近40多万千米的天然气管道，这 Energy在该州北部的Barnett气田成 3. 引进市场竞争机制，开放天 为页岩气入网销售、降低运输成本 功完钻第一口页岩气水平井，该项 然气价格，降低页岩气开发成本 提供了便利。1992年，美国政府决 目主要技术支持由美国天然气研究 除了制定税收补贴政策、设立 定取消管道公司对天然气购销市场 院提供。1998年，同样是在政府 基金支持技术研发外，美国政府 的控制，禁止天然气生产者拥有天 的资助下，Mitchell Energy公司研 还一直致力于打造多元化的投资 然气管网资产。在产业模式上，美 发了具有经济效益的滑溜水压裂技 环境，建立自由市场机制。1978 国政府采取了天然气开采和管道运 术。直到今天，该技术仍为核心技 年，美国国会通过了《天然气政策 输业务分离的模式，规定管道公司 术，被广泛运用于页岩气开发。 法案》，放松了对天然气价格的管 只能从事输送服务，避免垂直垄断 2004年，美国政府开始新一轮的基 控，使气价的变动完全由市场需求 型产业链出现。政府还规定天然气 金资助，《美国能源法案》规定， 来决定，联邦政府只通过环境保护 生产商和用户对天然气管网拥有公 政府将在未来10年内每年投资4500 和管道建设进行有限介入，这在一 平准入条件，中小型能源公司可以 万美元用于包括页岩气在内的非常 定程度上使天然气市场成为具有竞 及时通过输气管网销售页岩气。这 规天然气研发。 争性的市场。这种自由市场机制避 种产业政策促进了美国天然气市场 从20世纪80年代至今，美国能 免了大型石油公司对气价和市场的 公平竞争环境的形成，提高了天然 源部、美国联邦能源管理委员会等 垄断，使具有竞争力的中小型石油 气运输市场效率，更好地保护了市 多个政府部门先后投入了60多亿 公司都可以参与市场竞争。 场参与者的利益。 美元用于非常规气的勘探开发，其 据美国能源信息署（EIA）统 对管道公司实行税率减免政 中用于培训和研究的费用近20亿美 计，2003年，美国85%的页岩气都 策。1996年，为缓解能源供应紧 元，后来诸多技术突破都得益于这 是由中小型石油公司生产的。迫于 张，降低非常规天然气的开发成 些研究。其间，美国政府资助研发 页岩气产业的低回报、高成本压 本，美国政府向管道公司征收的所 的技术主要包括：水平井钻井技 力，这些公司不断进行技术革新， 得税率仅为12.3%，远低于美国其 术、水平井多段压裂技术、清水压 成为推动美国页岩气开采技术快速 他工业所得税率（美国平均工业所 裂技术和近期出现的同步压裂技 发展的主要动力。由于中小型独立 得税率为21.3%）。2001年，该项 术，这些先进技术的规模化应用提 油气开发商在技术革新方面行动更 税率提高到13.3%，但仍是低于行 高了页岩气井产量，降低了开采成 快捷，而大公司在长期性和财务稳 业平均水平。 本，使页岩气生产进入了工厂化、 定性上有更多保证，因此，美国的 对一些地区的天然气管道建设 规模化开发阶段。 页岩气产业逐渐出现了中小公司取 实行激励措施。例如，在阿拉斯加 加 拿大 政 府同样 在研发资金 得技术和产业突破，大公司则对中 的管网建设项目中，美国政府向当 和技术支持方面资助了很多研究机 小公司进行收购和兼并的现象。政 地管道建设公司提供贷款，为大容 2012.9 国际石油经济 ·71· 天 然 气 NATURAL GAS 量的天然气处理装置提供15%的税 次呼吁政府，禁止页岩气水力压 对页岩气开采造成的环境污染进行 收优惠，将大容量天然气管道折旧 裂，因为该技术的运用会造成严重 评估，评估结果和经过修订的环境 年限规定为7年。这些政策都降低 的地下水污染。为此，美国政府重 保护条例将同时提交给国会进行审 了管道建设风险。 新制订了相关的环境保护政策，加 核，具体内容将于2014年公布。 在天然气管网建设方面，加拿 强了对页岩气开发过程的环境监管 在环境保护方面，加政府要求 大政府首先确定了本土天然气的生 （见表2）。 在加拿大进行页岩气开发的石油 产区块和资源分布情况。加政府学 1996年，美国国会通过了《安 公司，必须向政府提供更多的信 习美国的管网运营模式，鼓励天然 全饮用水法》（SDWA）修正案， 息，以便更好地利用和保护当地 气管网的建设，为天然气管道公司 法案规定，禁止油气运营商在河 水资源。受政府委托，加拿大石油 提供一定的贷款和税收减免政策， 流、湖泊、水库和地下水水源附近 生产商协会（CAPP）2011年发布 临近美国的区域都有洲际天然气管 进行页岩气水力压裂；未经美国环 了《岩气开发水力压裂技术指导条 线。加拿大是世界上主要的天然气 境保护局批准，不得向任何水源排 例》，明确要求加强水资源管理， 出口国，其所产页岩气不但可以满 放任何污染物。同年，美国国会还 加强水和液体使用信息的披露。该 足国内的天然气需求，还可以通过 通过《清洁空气法》（CAA），要 条例具体内容包括：通过合理的钻 洲际管线出口到美国等国家，特别 求页岩气生产商必须控制压裂施工 井施工管理，对地表和地下水资源 是在加拿大西南部的不列颠哥伦比 过程返排液体中挥发性有机化合物 的质量和数量进行保护；对施工用 亚省（也译作俾诗省）和阿尔伯达 （VOC）的含量。美国环境保护局 水进行循环回收利用，尽量使用清 省。这两个省拥有丰富的页岩气资 将派遣专员对页岩气开采活动进行 洁水的替代物；测量和公布水资源 源和复杂的天然气管网，为中小型 监督，并对违反规定的石油公司进 利用情况，减少对环境影响；支持 公司开发泥盆纪/密西西比区块提供 行严厉处罚。 环保型压裂液添加剂的开发，向公 了便利。 颁 布《职 业 安 全与 健 康 法》 众公布压裂液添加剂的成分等。 5. 逐步建立完善的页岩气开发 （OSHA），法案要求，运营商必须 在加拿大，前期页岩气在开采 环境保护政策 将施工现场使用的危险化学品材料 过程中对大气和水源造成了一定污 在页岩气开发初期，美国并未 清单向政府备案。《综合环境责任与 染，这使加拿大各省对页岩气开发 对页岩气开采采取任何环境监管措 赔偿法》（CERCLA）规定，运营商 持谨慎态度。2011年，出于环境保 施。后期，随着开采规模不断扩 必须提交危险化学品排放途径，并 护的考虑，魁北克省已暂停大部分 大，页岩气开采在很多地区都产生 承诺对可能发生的泄漏事件承担全 新的天然气开发项目；不列颠哥伦 了环境污染问题。一些环保组织多 部责任。美国环境保护局目前仍在 比亚省虽然没有出台严厉政策，但 表2 美国与页岩气相关的主要环境政策 法案缩写 中文名称 内 容 SDWA 《安全饮用水法》 禁止油气运营商在水源附近进行水力压裂作业 CWA 《清洁水法》 禁止未经许可向美国清洁水源排放污染物 CAA 《清洁空气法》 页岩气生产商必须控制压裂施工过程返排液体中的挥发性有机化合物（VOC）的含量 ESA 《濒危物种法》 在能源开发中必须对渔业和野生动物进行保护 MBTA 《候鸟条约》 确保工程作业时钻机不吸引或伤害鸟类 EPCRA 《社区经济规划法》 运营商必须维持工程施工材料的安全性 OSHA 《职业安全与健康法》 运运营商必须将施工现场使用的危险化学品材料清单向政府备案 RCRA 《资源保护和回收法》 提出工程施工中废物回收及处理责任 CERCLA 《综合环境责任与赔偿法》 运营商必须提交危险化学品排放途径 资料来源：美国环境保护局（EPA）。 ·72· 国际石油经济 2012.9 NATURAL GAS 天 然 气 也对新勘探的页岩气区块采取审慎 目前，美、加等国已出台严厉的 Mineral Resources. Washington, D.C., 开发的态度。加拿大政府除维持原 环境保护政策，对页岩气开发起到 June 30, 2005. [10] “Chapter 7 - Fracturing Fluid 有的能源开发激励政策外，并没有 了一定的负面作用，在一定程度 Chemistry and Proppants”in 针对页岩气再出台新的产业政策。 上制约了水力压裂等开发技术的 Reservoir Stimulation, ed. Michael J. 广泛应用，一些地区不能以最佳 Economides and Kenneth G. Nolte, 3rd ed. By John Wiley & Sons, LTD. 2000. 二、启示与建议 技术开发方案进行页岩气开采， [11] CRS Report for Congress. The Crude Oil 造成钻完井成本增加，经济效益 Windfall Profit Tax of the 1980s: 1. 美国和加拿大页岩气的成功 下降。我国出台的页岩气产业政 Implications for Current Energy Policy 2006. 与政府出台的扶持政策密不可分 策，应当参考美、加等国的环境 [12] ARTHUR J DANIEL, et al. Evaluating 美国和加拿大政府制定的税收 保护政策，在保护地下水、减少 the environmental implications of 减免政策、市场化准入模式以及管 地面污染的情况下，使页岩气得 hydraulic fracturing in shale gas reservoirs. 2008. http://www.all-llc.com. 网建设方案等都为页岩气的开发提 到经济、有效的开发。 [13] EIA. Annual Energy Outlook, DOE/ 供了有利条件，大大降低了页岩气开 EIA-0383(2011). 发成本，提升了页岩气盈利空间，为 参考文献： [14] EIA. Annual Energy Outlook, DOE/ EIA-0383(2006). 中小型油气开发商提供了公平竞争 [1] 吴建军, 常娟. 美国页岩气产业发展的 [15] EIA. Review of Emerging Resources: 成功经验分析[J]. 能源技术经济，2011 和商业开发页岩气的机遇。如果我 U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays [M]. （7）:19-22. 2011. 国对页岩气产业的发展出台一定的 [2] 冯跃威. 美国页岩气开发策略研究[J]. 国 [16] The influence of shale gas on U.S. energy 扶持政策，可在一定程度上减少石油 际石油经济, 2012（1-2）. and environmental policy 2008. [3] Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP. 加 公司页岩气开发的成本压力，使其积 [17] JACOBY HENRY D, et al. The 拿大矿业投资者法律指南. davies ward influence of shale gas on U.S. energy and 极参与非常规能源的开发。 phillips & vineberg llp environmental policy 2012. 2. 美国页岩气的成功缘于多年 [4] HORSFIELD BRIAN, SCHULZ HANS- [18] HOWARTH R, SANTORO R, MARTIN. Shale gas research for Europe. 的技术积累 INGRAFFEA A. Methane and the 2012. 美国政府设立基金长期支持技 greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas [5] Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. from shale formations. Climatic Change, 术研发，不但资助政府所属的研究 Department of Commerce. Survey of 106: 679–690. 2011. http://dx.doi. current business. June 2005. 机构，还投入一定的研究经费给 org/10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5. [6] BURNETT D B, VAVRA C J. Desalination 中小型技术公司，使页岩气开发技 [19] MEDLOCK K, JAFFE A, HARTLEY of oil field brine—Texas A&M produced P. Shale Gas and National Security. 术研发可以在多专业领域内同时开 water treatment. August 2006. http:// James A. Baker III Institute for Public www. pe.tamu.edu/gpri-new/home/ 展。我国可以参考美国的经验，设 Policy, Rice University. BrineDesal/MembraneWkshpAug 06/ 立基金扶持项目，使多数具备实力 [20] TEITENBERG T. Economic instruments Burnett8-06.pdf. for environmental regulation. Oxford 的科研机构和公司，都可以参与页 [7] Clean Water Act section 402(p); 33 U.S.C Review of Economic Policy. 6(1): 17–33. 1342(p). 岩气新型技术的研发。通过多领域 [21] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [8] GROAT CHARLES G. Fact-Based 技术合作，最终形成一套完整的页 Underground Injection Control Program. regulation for environmental protection in Oil and Gas Injection Wells: Class II. 岩气开发配套技术。 shale gas development. The Energy http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_ 环境保护成为页岩气开发面 Institute Flawn Academic Center, 2012. 3. class2.html. [9] CHAD CALVERT, Deputy Assistant 临的重要难题 Secretary for Land and Minerals 环境保护问题是能源公司开发 Management, U.S.Department of the 收稿日期：2012-04-26 Interior. Testimony before the U.S. House 页岩气面临的风险因素，也为我国 改回日期：2012-09-08 of Representatives Committee on 制定新的产业政策提出了挑战。 编 辑：夏丽洪 萧 芦 Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and 2012.9 国际石油经济 ·73· 英文摘要 ABSTRACTS IN ENGLISH including the gas to liquids (GTL), liquefied natural gas support policies have been introduced. China should (LNG) and gas to methanol are analyzed and compared, establish fund supporting projects, improve shale gas and route competitiveness is expressed by the ratio of the development technologies through technical cooperation, affordable gas price to the oil price of the project. The reduce environmental pollution and ensure that shale gas results show that, when the oil price is 80 dollars/barrel, the resources are developed effectively and safely. competitiveness of the GTL project and the LNG project for the lubricant program are at the equivalent level and higher, Condensate oil supply and demand trends and their while the competitiveness of the GTL project and the influence in Asia methanol project for the diesel program are significantly By XU Haifeng, CNPC Economics & Technology Research lower. Through GTL, the hard linkage between the natural Institute 74 gas price and the crude price will be realized, and the LNG price will stand at the same high level as the oil In recent years, the development of natural gas price. High-grade lubricant base oil produced from GTL projects facilitated the rapid growth of condensate oil projects will impact greatly on the traditional lubricant production in Asia. In the years to come, condensate base oil business. Therefore, Chinese companies should oil production in Asia, in particular in the Persian take countermeasures as soon as possible. According to the Gulf region, will continue growing and the crude, oil long-term view, the methanol price will gradually rise and product and natural gas markets of the whole region caution should be exercised in the development of methanol will be reshaped. Condensate oil, causing a change in to olefin (MTO) projects. the upstream development mechanism of the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region, is conducive to the Lessons from US and Canadian shale gas industry development of difficult natural gas projects. The new policies round of investment in the construction of condensate oil By WANG Nan & LEI Danfeng, Research Institute fractionation devices in the Middle East and the Asia- of Petroleum Exploration & Development - Langfang Pacific region will influence the trading flow of naphtha Branch, National Energy Shale Gas R&D (Experiment) and petrol. South Korea and China will be the source Centre; LIU Xingyuan, China Petroleum Materials of the growth in condensate oil demand. Condensate Corporation; DU Dong, Research Institute of Petroleum oil produced by Russia has started to enter the Asian Exploration & Development; YANG Jing, Research market. Naphtha is the decisive factor in the condensate Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development- oil price level, and crude, petrol and intermediate Langfang Branch 69 distillate also have an influence on the sale of condensate oil. The key to determining future condensate oil prices The US and Canadian governments have encouraged is the capacity of the Asia-Pacific region to absorb unconventional resource development by introducing increased naphtha from the Middle East and the capacity a series of shale gas support policies. The policies of India to increase naphtha exports. Oil companies include offering tax credits for shale gas exploration have noticed the change to the condensate oil market and development, establishing a special fund to and are attempting to grasp opportunities to maximize support research institutions carrying out technological their benefits. Trading in condensate oil is increasingly research, creating a diversified investment environment, becoming an important part of the integration of the and establishing an open market mechanism. These global oil trade and the demand and supply balance. initiatives have significantly reduced the cost of shale gas development and promoted the rapid development of the shale gas industry. In the meantime, the US and Canadian governments have strengthened industry regulation and issued strict environmental policies to The full text of each article is available in English protect water resources, fishery resources and wildlife subject to charge in the operation areas. In this study, a comprehensive analysis of US and Canadian shale gas industr y policies has been conducted. It is recommended that our government should draw experiences from shale gas development in North America, where a series of ·106· 国际石油经济 2012.9 附件 11 EřŐŝŒŤ TŌţ PŚŗŔŎŤƳ IŞŞŠŐŞ Ŕř şœŐ ęęĜşœ CŚřŒŝŐŞŞ MŚŗŗŤ FƱ SœŐŝŗŚŎŖ Specialist in Public Finance JŐőőŝŐŤ MƱ SşŠśŌŖ Analyst in Macroeconomic Policy June 15, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43206 Energy Tax Policy: Issues in the 114th Congress CŠŝŝŐřş SşŌşŠŞ Śő UƱSƱ EřŐŝŒŤ TŌţ PŚŗŔŎŤ26 Current U.S. energy tax policy is a combination of long-standing provisions and relatively new incentives. Energy-related tax incentives also support both energy production and consumption. Provisions supporting the oil and gas sector reflect desires for domestic energy production and energy security, long-standing cornerstones of U.S. energy policy. Incentives for renewable energy reflect the desire to have a diverse energy supply, also consistent with a desire for domestic energy security. Incentives for energy efficiency are designed to reduce consumption of energy from all energy sources. Incentives for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and alternative technology vehicles reflect environmental concerns related to the production and consumption of energy using fossil-based resources. Table 1 contains a current list of energy- related tax expenditures and other energy tax provisions.27 FŚŞŞŔŗ FŠŐŗŞ There are a number of tax incentives currently available for energy production using fossil fuels. They can be broadly categorized as (1) enhancing capital cost recovery; (2) subsidizing extraction of high-cost fossil fuels; or (3) encouraging investment in non-petroleum or cleaner fossil fuel energy options. Certain incentives are designed to support coal, while others tend to support the oil and gas sector. The fossil fuels related incentives listed in Table 1 are estimated to reduce federal tax revenues by $21.5 billion between 2015 and 2019. Among the capital cost subsidies, the allowance of the percentage depletion method is estimated to cost $8.8 billion between 2015 and 2019.28 Under percentage depletion, a deduction equal to a fixed percentage of the revenue from the sale of a mineral is allowed. Total lifetime deductions, using this method, typically exceed the capital invested in the project. To the extent that percentage depletion deductions exceed project investment, percentage depletion becomes a production subsidy, instead of an investment subsidy. In other words, taxpayers may be able to claim allowances that reduce tax liability even after the cost of investment is fully recovered. Other capital cost recovery provisions include expensing of intangible drilling costs related to exploration and development and a decrease in the amortization period for certain geological and geophysical (G&G) expenditures.29 The expensing of exploration and development costs is estimated to cost the federal government $7.5 billion in revenue losses over the 2015 through 2019 budget window, while the reduced amortization period for G&G expenditures is estimated to cost $0.7 billion over the same time period. (...continued) powered vehicles. Even if the gas tax were to be viewed as one correcting for emissions, it would make more economic sense to tax emissions rather than just those coming from the burning of fossil fuels by motor vehicles. 26 See also U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, Present Law and Analysis of Energy-Related Tax Expenditures, committee print, 114th Cong., June 9, 2016, JCX-46-16. 27 Tax expenditures are government revenue losses attributable to tax provisions that allow for special exclusions, exemptions, or deductions from income or provisions that provide special tax credits, preferential tax rates, of defer tax liability. Technically, excise tax credits are not considered tax expenditures because they do not directly affect income tax liability. 28 The tax expenditure for percentage depletion is computed by subtracting the value of cost depletion, the standard depletion method, from the value of percentage depletion. The resulting lifetime excess is the tax expenditure. 29 Expensing costs means to deduct the full cost of an investment in the current tax year, rather than depreciate the costs over a period of time. Congressional Research Service 7 附件 12 Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper 2017-02 Effect of government subsidies for upstream oil infrastructure on U.S. oil production and global CO2 emissions Peter Erickson, Adrian Down and Michael Lazarus, Stockholm Environment Institute Doug Koplow, Earth Track EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES ON U.S. OIL PRODUCTION AND GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONS SEI-WP-2017-02 Among the basins evaluated here, the greatest impact at $100 per barrel would be for offshore Gulf resources. This is because the region has the highest concentration of fields with high break-even costs. Figure 2: Share of U.S. oil resources that are subsidy-dependent as a function of oil prices 160 140 120 Not yet discovered 100 Economic Numerical oil resource (billion 80 results at barrels) Discovered, economic $50/barrel 60 20 without subsidies 40 24 20 29 Already producing - 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Oil price ($/barrel) Note: The chart assumes a 10% hurdle rate. Figure 2 also displays (in grey hatching) Rystad’s estimates of the U.S. oil resources that may still be discovered, most of which would cost $70 per barrel or more to develop.20 These estimates are speculative, so we do not assess the fields’ dependence on subsidies in detail here. Still, should they prove as subsidy-dependent as the fields we do assess, the impact of subsidies at higher prices would be larger than we currently estimate.21 It is notable that industry dependence on subsidies increases at higher hurdle rates. If investors used a hurdle rate of 15%, rather than the 10% rate used for Figure 2, 25 billion barrels of oil (instead of 20) would be subsidy-dependent at $50 per barrel, and only 5 billion (instead of 23) would proceed anyway. Thus, the total proportion of subsidy-dependent production would rise to more than 80% at a 15% hurdle rate, compared with slightly less than 50% at a 10% hurdle rate. Appendix 1includes a version of Figure 2 using a 15% hurdle rate instead of 10%. 20 These estimates include Rystad’s assessment of the Midland Basin Wolfcamp shale. Recent estimates of that formation by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicate it could hold 20 billion barrels (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/fs20163092). This is about 14 billion barrels more than Rystad’s (mid-2016) estimate. Should the potential be as the USGS estimates, this could increase the U.S. economic oil resource by about 10%. However, because the USGS still considers these resources undiscovered, including them here would not affect our findings on subsidy-dependent, already discovered resources. 21 For example, should the same amount of oil resource be subsidy-dependent at $100 per barrel (due to new discoveries) as we estimate at $50 per barrel – 20 billion barrels – then 17% of the 120 billion barrels of not-yet- producing oil at $100 per barrel could be subsidy-dependent. 17 EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES ON U.S. OIL PRODUCTION AND GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONS SEI-WP-2017-02 3.3 Effects on oil resources, production and CO2 emissions At prices of $50 per barrel, subsidies boost fields into profitability that contain an estimated 20 billion barrels of oil. Table 4 presents the scale of subsidy-dependent oil by basin, both in terms of barrels and as a share of each basin’s resource base. Although the absolute and relative quantities of each basin’s subsidy-dependent oil varies, subsidies have a substantial impact in all of them. The impact in terms of barrels of oil is highest in the Permian Basin. The share of each basin’s resource that is dependent on subsidies is highest in the Gulf of Mexico. Table 4: Impact of subsidies on undeveloped oil resources and GHG emissions (at $50/bbl) Economic oil Increase in economic oil resources, resources due to subsidies Increase in Percent discovered but net GHG Area subsidy- not yet (billion emissions (Gt dependent (Gt CO2) producing barrels) CO2) (billion barrels) Williston basin 4.1 59% 2.4 1.0 0.2 20.3 40% 8.0 3.3 0.6 Permian basin 2.1 73% 1.5 0.6 0.1 Gulf of Mexico Rest of 16.7 46% 7.6 3.1 0.6 U.S. Total U.S. 43.3 45% 19.6 8.1 1.5 Source: SEI analysis based in part on data from Rystad Energy. Once burned, the nearly 20 billion barrels of subsidy-dependent oil would release about 8 22 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2, as is also indicated in Table 4. Some further context on the relative scale of these emissions is helpful. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that if society is going to maintain even a two- thirds chance of limiting warming to the internationally agreed goal of 2°C (Clarke et al. 23 2014), net global emissions from 2016 onward cannot exceed 840 Gt CO2. In that context, the decision by the U.S. federal and state governments to continue subsidizing oil investment could produce oil that, once burned, will produce CO2 emissions equivalent to about 1% of the remaining global carbon budget that all sectors of all economies. It can also be helpful to compare this added production to the amount of oil that the U.S. might produce in a 2°C-consistent scenario. Some researchers have explored this question, using models that minimize the cost of meeting the global budget (McGlade and Ekins 2015; IEA 22 We use “tonnes” to denote metric tons. To estimate CO2 emissions, we use Rystad’s assumed energy content of 5.51 MMBtu/ barrel and apply standard carbon contents of crude oil of 20.31 kg C / MMBtu from the EPA’s national greenhouse gas inventory (U.S. EPA 2014). 23 Here, we adjust the IPCC’s 990 Gt CO2 budget from 2012 to 2100 (IPCC 2013) by the CO2 emissions that have been released in the four years since, or 150 Gt CO2. 18 附件 13 www.woodmac.com ClickImpacts to editof delaying Master titleIDC styledeductibility (2014-2025) Released – July, 2013 Strategy with substance www.woodmac.com Wood Mackenzie onshore/offshore split of tangibles and IDCs • We tend to see a higher percentage of intangible costs in offshore wells • Driven by rig rates for offshore wells which are typically higher than onshore • However unconventional onshore wells (i.e. shale gas and oil) require fracture stimulation once the rig has been removed, thus increasing the percentage of intangibles in these wells • For such wells, completion costs including fracture stimulation can be the largest single intangible cost item – greater than the cumulative day rate Offshore Drilling Onshore Conventional Drilling Onshore Unconventional Drilling Intangibles as a typical % of total well cost 80% 70% 85% Tangibles as a typical % of total well cost 20% 30% 15% 17 Strategy with substance 附件 14 美国化石燃料补贴自述报告 2015 年 12 月向 G20 同行审议小组提交 目 录 第一部分：生产者补贴 ........................................................................................................... 1 1. 扣除无形钻井成本 ....................................................................................................... 2 2.按比率计算油井和天然气井的折耗额 ........................................................................ 3 3.境内生产化石燃料费用扣除额 .................................................................................... 4 4.地测和物探费用支出可在 2 年内摊销 ........................................................................ 4 5.按比率计算与固体矿物化石燃料相关的财产折耗额 ................................................ 5 6.扣除固体矿物燃料的勘探和开发费用 ........................................................................ 6 7.煤炭权利金适用资本利得的税务处理 ........................................................................ 6 8.三次采油费用扣除 ........................................................................................................ 7 9.对油气财产享有经营权益而发生的被动损失的特殊性税务处理 ............................ 8 10.提高石油采收率（EOR）的税收抵免 ...................................................................... 8 11.边际井抵免 .................................................................................................................. 9 12.免除化石燃料行业上市合伙企业的企业所得税 ...................................................... 9 13.免除从焦油砂中提炼出的原油的消费税 ................................................................ 10 14.有益使用燃料可免除权利金 .................................................................................... 11 15.燃烧和排放天然气免收权利金 ................................................................................ 11 16.破坏自然资源的赔偿限额 ........................................................................................ 12 第二部分: 消费者补贴 ........................................................................................................... 14 1. 低收入家庭能源补助计划（LIHEAP） ................................................................ 14 This is an unofficial Chinese translation of the official English self-report. Should there be any differences, the English version is the authoritative version. 本报告为官方英文自述报告的非官方中文翻译。如有不同，以英文报告为权威版本。 1 第一部分：生产者补贴 在美国有下述几种针对化石燃料生产者的有效条款。美国政府一共确定了 16 条 联邦政府层面的化石燃料生产环节税收条款。这份清单包括了之前美国政府提 交给 G-20 化石燃料补贴进展报告中确定的 11 项联邦政府税收条款，以及在中 美化石燃料补贴改革同行审议进程中通过自评新增的 5 项条款。 1. 扣除无形钻井成本 成本/年：16.29 亿美元1（数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：石油、天然气 补贴描述：对于纳税人因开发其位于美国境内的油气田而产生的无形钻井成本 （IDCs），纳税人可选择在成本支付或发生的当年进行成本扣除（即费用化， 可以不进行资本化）。选择扣除无形钻井成本的综合性石油公司，其生产用井 的无形钻井成本的 30%必须予以资本化（计入资产的成本，而不是在当期直接 作为成本扣除），并在之后的 60 个月中进行摊销。 补贴分析：允许对无形钻井成本扣除的条款给石油和天然气行业提供了税收优 惠。无形钻井成本资本化的规定旨在使石油和天然气行业与其他行业适用类似 的成本回收系统，从而减少该项政策对经济的扭曲。正如本届提议废除的石油 和天然气行业的其他优惠条款一样，无形钻井成本扣除条款会扭曲市场，会鼓 励比在一个中性的税收制度下更多的资本进入石油和天然气行业。该市场扭曲 不利于维护国家的长期能源安全，与政府支持清洁能源经济发展的政策不相符， 而发展清洁能源经济有助于减少对石油的依赖，降低温室气体的排放量。此外， 因对石油和天然气行业提供税收优惠而减少的财政收入最终将由对其他行业征 收的税款来弥补，而这些行业原本可能会创造出更多的经济价值，却因为缺少 税收优惠政策而面临投资不足的问题。 废止建议：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，无形钻井成本扣除的政策以及综合性 石油公司无形钻井成本的 30%应当予以资本化并在之后的 60 个月中进行摊销的 1除上市合伙企业的优惠政策成本数据之外，美国财政部对其他所有的优惠政策成本数据负责。美国财政 部假设补贴将自 2015 年 12 月 31 日起废止，根据现行法律规定和拟于 2016-2025 财政年度期间进行的政 策调整分别计算联邦政府税收收入，根据两者的差额来测算优惠政策的年均成本。上市合伙企业的优惠政 策成本按如下方式测算：假设拟定于 2020 年 12 月 31 日之后进行的政策调整会生效，在 2021-2025 财政 年度期间按新旧政策分别计算联邦政府税收收入，根据两者的差额来测算其优惠政策的年均成本。 2 政策将被废止。根据成本与收入相配比的原则，无形钻井成本将全部资本化， 随着开采的进程进行摊销。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 2.按比率计算油井和天然气井的折耗额 成本/年：9.66 亿美元（数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：石油、天然气 补贴描述：折耗额适用于任何在油气财产中享有经济利益的个人。通常有两种 计算折耗额的方法：按成本和按比率计算折耗额。按成本计算折耗额的方法受 纳税人财产计税基础的限制，按比率计算折耗额的方法虽然不受计税基础的限 制，但是会受到其他制约。 按比率（15%）计算油气井折耗额的方法只适用于独立生产者和特许权所有者， 并且上述独立生产者和特许权所有者的日均石油产量不得超过 1000 桶/天，日 均天然气产量不得超过 1000 桶石油的天然气当量。除此之外，按比率计算折耗 额的方法还不得超过以下两个数额中的较小值：不包含免税折耗额的应纳税所 得额的 65%，不包含免税折耗额且与财产相关的应纳税所得额的 100%。 补贴分析：与按成本计算财产折耗额的方法相比，按比率计算财产折耗额的方 法能够实现更高的税后收入，相当于给纳税人提供了一个较低的税率。根据纳 税人财产的计税基础，按成本计算财产折耗额，符合收入与费用相配比的原则， 使化石燃料行业适用与其他行业类似的政策，有利于减少对经济的扭曲。有关 化石燃料税收优惠政策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据本届政府 2016 财年预算提案，自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳 税年度起，按比率计算油井折耗额和天然气井折耗额的政策将被废止。纳税人 可以根据其财产的计税基础按成本计算财产折耗额。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 3 3.境内生产化石燃料费用扣除额 成本/年：10.49 亿美元（数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：石油、天然气、煤炭、褐煤、油页岩 补贴描述：进行境内制造和生产活动所取得的所得可进行一定的扣除。自 2009 年之后的纳税年度起，按纳税年度符合条件的生产活动所得和应纳税所得额这 两者中较小值的 9%计算扣除额，但该扣除额不得超过 W-2 表格所记录的纳税 人在纳税年度所得额的 50%。从事石油和天然气生产所取得的所得可以按照 6% 计算费用扣除额。 该项纳税扣除被广泛使用，并不仅针对化石燃料行业。 补贴分析：生产活动扣除普遍适用于纳税人取得的所有符合条件的生产活动所 得，给包括化石燃料生产在内的特定经济活动有效地提供了一个更低的税率。 有关化石燃料税收优惠政策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳税年 度起，销售、交换和处置石油、天然气或煤炭及其他固体矿物化石燃料等一次 能源产品取得的收入，不再适用上述纳税扣除政策。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 4.地测和物探费用支出可在 2 年内摊销 成本/年：2.88 亿美元（2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：石油、天然气 补贴描述：独立石油公司2从事境内石油和天然气开采而发生的地测和物探费用 可以在 2 年内进行摊销。综合性石油公司从事境内石油和天然气开采而发生地 测和物探费用则必须在 7 年内进行摊销。 补贴分析：上述地测和物探费用的加速摊销政策给石油和天然气行业的独立石 油公司提供了税收优惠。将石油和天然气行业独立石油公司的地测和物探费用 2译注：综合性石油公司一般是指综合进行油气勘探、开采、炼油、分销等多种油气经营活动的企业；独 立石油公司在这里应是指专门从事油气开采的企业。 4 摊销期从 2 年延长至 7 年有利于更准确地反映其收入水平，对所有石油和天然 气石油公司一视同仁，有利于营造一个更公平的税收环境。有关化石燃料税收 优惠政策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，所有石油和天然气石油公司从事境内 石油和天然气开采而发生的地测和物探费用将统一按 7 年进行摊销。提前报废 的财产不再摊销，已弃置的财产恢复使用的，其账面价值应在剩余期限内摊销 （总摊销期以 7 年为限）。新政策将自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳税年度起生 效。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 5.按比率计算与固体矿物化石燃料相关的财产折耗额 成本/年：2.09 亿美元（数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：煤炭、褐煤、页岩油 补贴描述：与煤炭和褐煤相关的财产按 10%的比率计算其折耗额，与页岩油相 关的财产按 15%的比率计算其折耗额。当计算出的财产折耗额大于该财产经调 整后的计税基础时，不再适用上述 10%、15%的折耗额计算标准，而是按照替 代性最低税（AMT）的要求，按 20%的税率计算所得税。同时，计算的折耗额 也不得超过矿产年净所得的 50%。 补贴分析：与按成本计算财产折耗额的方法相比，按比率计算财产折耗额的方 法能够实现更高的税后收入，相当于给纳税人提供了一个较低的税率。按成本 计算每期的财产折耗额，符合收入与费用相配比的原则，使化石燃料行业适用 与其他行业相同的政策，有利于减少对经济的扭曲。有关化石燃料税收优惠政 策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止描述：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，与煤炭和其他固体矿物化石燃料相关 的财产不再适用按比率计算折耗额的政策。与褐煤和油页岩相关的财产也不再 适用按比率计算折耗额的政策。纳税人如果拥有与煤炭和其他固体矿物化石燃 料相关的财产，应根据其经过调整后的计税基础，按成本计算折耗额。自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳税年度起，与固体矿物化石燃料相关的财产按新政策计 算折耗额。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 5 主管机关：美国财政部 6.扣除固体矿物燃料的勘探和开发费用 成本/年：5300 万美元（数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：煤炭、褐煤、油页岩 补贴描述：矿业公司可选择将其境内发生的勘探和开发费用的 70%在当期进行 扣除。剩余的 30%不得抵扣，应予以资本化并在 60 个月内摊销。纳税人也可以 选择将所有的勘探和开发费用资本化并在 10 年内摊销。当存在替代性最低税 （AMT）的限制时，纳税人勘探和开发费用的两种不同核算方式并不属于税收 优惠。 补贴分析：扣除煤炭和其他固体矿物燃料勘探和开发费用的政策给这些化石燃 料行业提供了税收优惠。将上述勘探和开发费用资本化符合收入与费用配比的 原则，有利于税收公平，有利于减少对经济的扭曲。有关化石燃料税收优惠政 策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，美国将废止上述一些列政策，即煤炭 和其他固体矿物燃料勘探和开发费用的 70%可以在当期扣除，剩余 30%应予以 资本化并在之后的 60 个月内摊销；煤炭和其他固体矿物燃料勘探和开发费用全 部予以资本化并在之后的 10 年内摊销。新政策规定，矿业公司发生的勘探和开 发费用应全部予以资本化，根据收入与费用相配比的原则，在经营期内合理计 提折旧或进行摊销。褐煤和页岩油的勘探和开发费用也适用同样的政策调整。 自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳税年度起，发生或支付的勘探和开发费用适用新 政策。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 7.煤炭权利金适用资本利得的税务处理 成本/年：3100 万美元（数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：煤炭、褐煤 6 补贴描述：在煤矿被开采之前，纳税人已拥有该煤矿一年以上，其转让煤矿开 采经营权取得的权利金收入通常满足长期资本利得的确认条件。权利金收入在 下列情况中不应作为长期资本利得：转让煤矿开采经营权是以投机为目的；权 利金收入归属于合伙人、委托人；转让煤矿开采经营权的行为属于关联方交易。 补贴分析：将转让煤矿开采经营权取得的符合条件的权利金收入视同长期资本 利得的政策给相关化石燃料行业提供了税收优惠。对这部分权利金收入采用与 其他行业权利金收入无差别的政策有利于减少对经济的扭曲。有关化石燃料税 收优惠政策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳税年 度起，转让煤矿开采经营权取得的权利金收入将不再被认定为长期资本利得， 同时将作为一般性收入进行纳税。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 8.三次采油费用扣除 成本/年：1000 万美元（数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：石油 补贴描述：纳税人开采石油时，为提高原油采收率而运用三次采油技术所发生 的费用，如果符合条件，通常可以在计算应纳税所得额时扣除。 补贴分析：由于三次采油费用可以在发生的当期直接扣除而无需资本化，所以 三次采油扣除给石油和天然气行业提供了税收优惠。将三次采油费用资本化有 利于税收公平，使石油和天然气行业适用与其他行业同样的税收待遇，有利于 减少对经济的扭曲。有关化石燃料税收优惠政策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井 成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，在 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳税年 度起，发生或支付的三次采油费用不再享受当期扣除的优惠政策。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 7 9.对油气财产享有经营权益而发生的被动损失的特殊性税务处理 成本/年：1900 万美元（数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：石油、天然气 补贴描述：通常情况下，被动损失在抵减被动所得之后若还有剩余，则只能结 转至以后年度继续抵减被动所得。企业因对油气财产享有经营权益而发生的被 动损失可以抵减积极所得。只有当纳税人以不限制纳税义务的方式取得油气财 产经营权益时，才适用上述特殊性税务处理。 补贴分析：对油气财产经营权益的特殊性税务处理给石油和天然气行业提供了 税收优惠。限制这种特殊性税务处理有利于税收公平，使石油和天然气行业的 被动损失适用与其他被动损失同样的税收待遇，有利于减少对经济的扭曲。有 关化石燃料税收优惠政策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据本届政府 2016 财年预算提案，自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳 税年度起，对油气财产享有经营权而发生的被动损失不再适用特殊性税务处理。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 10.提高石油采收率（EOR）的税收抵免 成本/年：0 （数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：石油 补贴描述：在美国为提高石油采收率的项目所发生开支的 15%可以在应纳企业 所得税中进行抵免。提高石油采收率的项目是指通过运用一种或多种三次采油 技术来显著提高可采原油量的项目。 若石油的参考价格超过根据通货膨胀指数进行相应调整后的法定额度，该项税 收优惠政策失效。 补贴分析：该项抵免政策给石油和天然气行业提供了税收优惠。有关化石燃料 税收优惠政策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据本届政府 2016 财年预算提案，自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳 税年度起，为提高石油采收率而发生的支出将不再享受税收抵免优惠政策。 8 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 11.边际井抵免 成本/年：0 （数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：石油、天然气 补贴描述：边际井和日均产量不超过 3 桶/天的油井的产出可以享受税收抵免政 策。 若石油或液体燃料的参考价格超过根据通货膨胀指数进行相应调整后的法定额 度，将不再执行该税收优惠政策。 补贴分析：该项抵免政策给石油和天然气行业提供了税收优惠。有关化石燃料 税收优惠政策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳税年 度起，从边际井开采的石油和天然气将不再享受税收抵免优惠政策。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 12.免除化石燃料行业上市合伙企业的企业所得税 成本/年：3.42 亿美元（数据来自 2016 财年预算中期评估） 目标化石燃料：石油、天然气、煤炭 补贴描述：上市合伙企业一般需要缴纳企业所得税。当上市合伙企业的总收入 有 90%以上来自非再生资源、房地产和大宗商品领域时，该上市合伙企业可免 缴企业所得税，在税法上视同普通合伙企业缴税，即合伙企业可以将其所有的 收入、利得、损失、扣除、抵免在合伙人之间分摊，合伙人以其享有的份额来 承担所得税纳税义务（或从损失弥补中获益3）。 3 译注：在有收益的情况下，合伙人只需要缴纳个人所得税；在亏损的情况下，合伙人可以冲抵其他收入， 从而使合伙人承担较低的个人所得税。 9 补贴描述：该项免税政策给石油和天然气行业提供了税收优惠。有关化石燃料 税收优惠政策的影响分析详见扣除无形钻井成本的优惠政策分析。 废止建议：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，对上市合伙企业从事与化石燃料有关 的经营而取得的符合条件的收入和利得免征企业所得税的政策将被废止，这类 企业自 2020 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳税年度起，将被视同 C 类公司缴纳企业所得 税。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 13.免除从焦油砂中提炼出的原油的消费税 成本/年：5200 万美元（数据来自 2016 财年预算） 目标燃料：从沥青和焦油砂中提炼出的原油。 补贴描述：美国对以下燃料的使用征收消费税：（1）美国炼油厂获取的原油； （2）进口的石油产品（包括原油）；（3）所有在境内使用或向境外出口的尚 未承担任何税收的境内生产的原油和天然气（用于石油和天然气开采的除外）。 具体税率为：在 2017 年 1 月 1 日之前，9 美分/桶；2016 年 12 月 31 日之后，8 美分/桶。在税法上，从沥青和焦油砂中提炼出的原油不同于普通的原油和石油 产品。征收的消费税专款专用，通过成立溢油责任信托基金（OSLTF，Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund）来补偿除油支出，弥补石油泄漏所造成的损失，同时每年 给特定的机构提供资金支持，用于其对石油污染预防和应对方案的研究。 补贴分析：该项免税政策是对从焦油砂中提炼出的原油的税收优惠。 废止建议：根据政府 2016 财年预算提案，自 2015 年 12 月 31 日之后的纳税年 度，将上述消费税的减免范围扩大到所有从沥青沉积物中提炼的原油。 废止实施：美国国会必须通过法案，为此项建议立法。 主管机关：美国财政部 10 14.有益使用燃料可免除权利金 成本/年：平均每年损失权利金收入 3900 万美元4 目标化石燃料：主要为天然气，可能涉及石油 补贴描述：在开采租约上明确其对碳氢化合物的使用是“有益”的，可使陆上和 海上石油和天然气公司获得权利金的免除。这些“有益”的使用包括：钻机发动 机消耗的燃料，为提高收采率而消耗的燃料，用于设备升降和加热目的的燃料 以及压缩石油和天然气而消耗的燃料。 补贴分析：因免除“有益”的燃料使用所对应的权利金而减少的政府收入由美国 公众来承担。 废止建议：美国土地管理局（BLM）正在起草一项建议规则，旨在重新规定陆 上设备有利地消耗石油和天然气的情形，从而缩小该项优惠政策的适用范围。 海上设备有利地消耗燃料的情形也可能会作出类似的调整。 废止实施：这项建议规则原定于 2016 年初颁布，最终条例预计在 2016 年 5 月 发布。制定政策是美国土地管理局（BLM）的一项首要工作。 主管机关：美国内政部 15.燃烧和排放天然气免收权利金 成本/年：每年估计平均损失权利金收入 7000 万美元 目标化石燃料：天然气 补贴描述：石油和天然气公司从事陆上联邦石油和天然气开采时，在下述情况 下排放/燃烧的石油和天然气无需承担权利金：测试、处理紧急事件以及由于储 存和运输等基础设施的缺位使得天然气进入市场获取的收益无法补偿其成本的 “有益使用燃料可免除权利金”和“燃烧和排放天然气免收权利金”这两项优惠政策的年成本按如下方式 测算：天然气数据*开采每千立方英尺气体燃料所支付的年均权利金，其中天然气数据是指“有利”的气 体燃料使用和经美国土地管理局（BLM）或美国安全和环境执法局（BSEE）批准的作为不可避免损失而 燃烧或排放的气体燃料，开采气体燃料是指各州在 2006-2013 销售年度的气体燃料开采。开采每千立方 英尺气体燃料所支付的年均权利金根据 ONRR（“有利”的气体燃料使用和经美国土地管理局或美国安 全和环境执法局批准的作为不可避免损失而燃烧或排放的气体燃料）的销售量和上述部门网站上有关支付 的权利金的统计数据计算得出。如果对上述燃料用量征收权利金，则油井和气井的作业者将会有动力减少 其排放或燃烧的燃料，因此这里的测算值是一个上限值。 11 时候。除此之外，石油和天然气公司应当就其开采的所有天然气支付权利金， 无论这些天然气是被燃烧/排放或用于销售。对于海上石油和天然气开采活动， 美国安全和环境执法局（BSEE）规定，平均每天加工 2000 桶以上石油的设施 必须安装燃烧/排放测量仪。为了防止政府收入流失，美国安全和环境执法局还 规定了不得免除权利金的情形。比如基于经济考虑，没有免除海上排放/燃烧的 天然气权利金的规定。 补贴分析：免除石油和天然气公司符合条件的权利金而减少的政府收入由美国 公众来承担。 废止建议：美国土地管理局（BLM）正在起草一项针对天然气燃烧/排放的建议 规则，旨在通过确立一套标准来限制因燃烧/排放陆上天然气而导致的浪费，旨 在使联邦领土和印第安人保留地上的石油和天然气生产设施所耗费的天然气最 少，旨在建立区分可避免损失与不可避免损失的标准。 废止实施：这项建议规则原定于 2016 年初颁布，最终条例预计在 2016 年 5 月 发布。制定政策是美国土地管理局（BLM）的一项首要工作。 主管机关：美国内政部 16.破坏自然资源的赔偿限额 成本/年：无法做出准确测算。由于相关责任方支付的溢油污染清理费用至今均 未发生超过赔偿限额的情形，因此尚未有责任方从该项条款中受益。 目标化石燃料：主要是石油，可能涉及天然气 补贴描述：美国 1990 年通过的《石油污染法案》（OPA）要求责任方支付溢油 污染清理费用，用于私有经济和公共天然资源的索赔，以 7500 万美元为最高限 额（发生重大过失导致的污染不受此限额的限制）。除了墨西哥海湾“深水地平 线”（Deepwater Horizon）近海钻井油田爆炸事件之外，企业支付的所有溢油污 染清理费用至今尚且没有超过 7500 万美元限额的，因此该法案至今未被援引。 在墨西哥海湾“深水地平线”近海钻井油田一案中，法庭判定钻井平台的操作存 在重大过失，而重大过失所导致的溢油污染不适用上述《石油污染法案》。所 以“深水地平线”金海钻井油田爆炸所导致的溢油污染不以 7500 万美元为赔付限 额。 补贴分析：石油公司应支付的溢油污染清理费用超过 7500 万美元的部分实际上 由美国公众来分担。 12 废止建议：目前该赔偿限额是由成文法规定的，并且只有在消费者价格指数 （CPI）上升幅度很大时才能进行相应的调整。美国海洋能源管理局（BOEM） 被授权调整上述赔偿限额，使其不受通过膨胀的影响。未来，美国海洋能源管 理局将会每三年根据通货膨胀的影响来相应调整该赔偿限额。 废止实施：2014 年 12 月 11 日，美国海洋能源管理局宣布将海上石油和天然气 设施的溢油污染赔偿限额从 7500 万美元提高到 1.34 亿美元。该项提高溢油污 染赔偿限额的举措与全国委员会就英国石油公司（BP）“深水地平线”近海钻井 油田爆炸事件的研究建议和其他相关机构的研究建议相一致，也是《石油污染 法案》所允许提高的最大幅度。1.34 亿美元的赔偿限额适用于在联邦和州海岸 线向海海域内开采石油和天然气的设施所造成的溢油污染，该条款同时也包含 这样一种机制，即赔偿限额可以根据未来消费者价格指数（CPI）的变化而做相 应调整，反映通货膨胀产生的影响。 主管机关：美国内政部 13 第二部分: 消费者补贴 美国有一项由联邦政府提供资金支出的消费者补贴。该补贴针对低收入家庭， 符合条件的家庭，根据其家庭水电费账单的金额可以得到一笔数额客观的返还。 由于该计划是一项有针对性的转移支付，旨在帮助低收入家庭获得基本的能源 服务，所以并不会鼓励浪费性的能源消费，因此该计划不是低效的。 1. 低收入家庭能源补助计划（LIHEAP） 成本/年： 34 亿美元（来源于 2016 财年数据） 补贴描述：以整笔拨款的形式酌情发放给各州、各领区、各部落以及各部落组 织，用于保障低收入家庭冬季取暖和夏季降温的需求。领取到该笔拨款的政府 机构或组织等，可以将该笔基金的一部分投放在低收入家庭的房屋节能翻修工 程以及与该计划有关的行政管理工作中。联邦政府规定，当家庭收入超过贫困 家庭收入标准的 150%或家庭所在州的中等收入水平的 60%时，将不再享受该 项能源补助计划。在 2012 财政年度，低收入家庭能源补助计划的供暖补助（包 括冬季取暖补助以及针对冬季恶劣天气的补助）平均为 587 美元/户，相当于享 受该项补助计划的低收入家庭平均取暖支出的 63.7%。 补贴分析：低收入家庭能源补助计划针对有老人，残疾人和孩子的家庭以及收 入无法满足其基本用能需求的贫困家庭。这部分家庭取暖和降温的能源需求如 果无法得到满足，将面临严重的健康风险和安全风险。在 2012 财政年度，在享 受低收入家庭能源补助计划的家庭中，有老人的家庭占比 32%，有残疾人的家 庭占比 35%，有 5 岁以下儿童的家庭占比 21%。通过加权平均，享受到取暖补 助的家庭其能源负担率为 12%，所有低收入家庭的同期能源负担率为 9%。 政策的杠杆效应：低收入家庭能源补助计划带动了各州、各领区、各部落以及 各部落组织与能源相关的其他补助，诸如：更低的水电费用，房屋节能翻修获 得的补助，电话费折扣以及其他私人和公共领域的补助。在 2010 财政年度，低 收入家庭能源补助计划拨款带动的其他相关私人和公共领域的补助共计 29.96 亿美元。 废止建议：该计划原定于 2007 年底废除，但是国会通过法案使政策得以延续， 每年继续提供拨款。本届政府并不建议废除这项针对于低收入家庭的能源补助 计划。 主管机关：美国健康与公共事业部（HHS） 14 附件 15 FISCAL YEAR 2019 EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, ACCOUNTABLE AN AMERICAN BUDGET ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES BUDGET OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET | OMB.GOV 176 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES Table 13–4.  PRESENT VALUE OF SELECTED TAX EXPENDITURES FOR ACTIVITY IN CALENDAR YEAR 2017 (In millions of dollars) 2017 Present Provision Value of Revenue Loss 5 Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations (normal tax method) �������������������������������������������������������� 63,630 7 Expensing of research and experimentation expenditures (normal tax method) ���������������������������������������������������� 3,390 22 Credit for holding clean renewable energy bonds ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 0 9 Expensing of exploration and development costs - fuels ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 740 36 Expensing of exploration and development costs - nonfuels ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 40 Expensing of multiperiod timber growing costs ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 110 45 Expensing of certain multiperiod production costs - agriculture ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 50 44 Expensing of certain capital outlays - agriculture ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 50 Expensing of reforestation expenditures ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20 66 Accelerated depreciation on rental housing ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 14,080 77 Depreciation of buildings other than rental ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ –5,300 78 Accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 27,200 78 Expensing of certain small investments (normal tax method) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,320 105 Credit for holders of zone academy bonds �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 65 Credit for low-income housing investments ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9,120 102 Qualified tuition programs ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3,990 144 Defined benefit employer plans ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29,729 145 Defined contribution employer plans ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 79,310 146 Exclusion of IRA contributions and earnings ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,600 146 Exclusion of Roth earnings and distributions ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5,300 146 Exclusion of non-deductible IRA earnings ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 500 148 Exclusion of contributions and earnings for Self-Employed plans ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5,480 165 Exclusion of interest on public-purpose bonds �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16,520 Exclusion of interest on non-public purpose bonds ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4,260 170 Deferral of interest on U.S. savings bonds ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 260 tax method is that all R&E expenditures are successful then amortized (or depreciated) over an estimate of the and have an expected life of five years. economic life of the property. This insures that the net 8.  Credit for increasing research activities.— income from the well or mine is measured appropriately The baseline tax system would uniformly tax all returns each year. to investments and not allow credits for particular activi- In contrast to this treatment, current law allows imme- ties, investments, or industries. In contrast, the Tax Code diate deduction, i.e. expensing, of intangible drilling costs allows an R&E credit of up to 20 percent of qualified re- for successful investments in domestic oil and gas wells search expenditures in excess of a base amount. The base (such as wages, the cost of using machinery for grading amount of the credit is generally determined by multiply- and drilling, and the cost of unsalvageable materials used ing a “fixed-base percentage” by the average amount of in constructing wells). Current law also allows immediate the company’s gross receipts for the prior four years. The deduction of eligible exploration and development costs taxpayer’s fixed base percentage generally is the ratio of for domestic coal mines and other natural fuel depos- its research expenses to gross receipts for 1984 through its. Because expensing allows recovery of costs sooner, 1988. Taxpayers can elect the alternative simplified cred- it is more generous for the taxpayer than amortization. it regime, which equals 14 percent of qualified research Expensing provisions for exploration expenditures apply expenses that exceed 50 percent of the average qualified only to properties for which a deduction for percentage research expenses for the three preceding taxable years. depletion is allowable. For oil and gas wells, integrated oil companies may deduct only 70 percent of intangible Energy drilling costs and must amortize the remaining 30 per- cent over five years. Non-integrated oil companies may 9.  Expensing of exploration and development expense all such costs. costs, fuels.—Under the baseline tax system, the costs of 10.  Excess of percentage over cost depletion, fu- exploring and developing oil and gas wells and coal mines els.—The baseline tax system would allow recovery of or other natural fuel deposits would be capitalized and the costs of developing certain oil, gas, and mineral fuel Tax Expenditures 177  .13 properties using cost depletion. Cost depletion is similar 14.  Enhanced oil recovery credit.—A credit is in concept to depreciation, in that the costs of developing provided equal to 15 percent of the taxpayer’s costs for or acquiring the asset are capitalized and then gradually enhanced oil recovery on U.S. projects. The credit is re- reduced over an estimate of the asset’s economic life, as is duced in proportion to the ratio of the reference price of appropriate for measuring net income. oil for the previous calendar year minus $28, adjusted for In contrast, the Tax Code generally allows independent inflation from 1990, to $6. fuel producers and royalty owners to take percentage de- 15.  Energy production credit.—The baseline tax pletion deductions rather than cost depletion on limited system would not allow credits for particular activities, quantities of output. Under percentage depletion, taxpay- investments, or industries. Instead, it generally would ers deduct a percentage of gross income from fossil fuel seek to tax uniformly all returns from investment-like production. In certain cases the deduction is limited to activities. In contrast, the Tax Code provides a credit for a fraction of the asset’s net income. Over the life of an certain electricity produced from wind energy, biomass, investment, percentage depletion deductions can exceed geothermal energy, solar energy, small irrigation power, the cost of the investment. Consequently, percentage de- municipal solid waste, or qualified hydropower and sold pletion offers more generous tax treatment than would to an unrelated party. Wind facilities must have begun cost depletion, which would limit deductions to an invest- construction before January 1, 2020. Facilities that be- ment’s cost. gin construction in 2017 receive 80 percent of the credit, 11.  Exception from passive loss limitation for facilities that begin construction in 2018 receive 60 per- working interests in oil and gas properties.—The cent of the credit, and facilities that begin construction in baseline tax system accepts current law’s general rule 2019 receive 40 percent of the credit. Qualified facilities limiting taxpayers’ ability to deduct losses from passive producing electricity from sources other than wind must activities against nonpassive income (e.g., wages, interest, begin construction before January 1, 2017. In addition and dividends). Passive activities generally are defined as to the electricity production credit, an income tax credit those in which the taxpayer does not materially partici- is allowed for the production of refined coal for facilities pate, and there are numerous additional considerations placed in service before January 1, 2012. The Tax Code brought to bear on the determination of which activities also provided an income tax credit for Indian coal facili- are passive for a given taxpayer. Losses are limited in an ties. The Indian coal facilities credit expired on December attempt to limit tax sheltering activities. Passive losses 31, 2016. that are unused may be carried forward and applied 16.  Marginal wells credit.—A credit is provided for against future passive income. crude oil and natural gas produced from a qualified mar- An exception from the passive loss limitation is provid- ginal well. A marginal well is one that does not produce ed for a working interest in an oil or gas property that the more than 1,095 barrel-of-oil equivalents per year, with taxpayer holds directly or through an entity that does not this limit adjusted proportionately for the number of days limit the liability of the taxpayer with respect to the inter- the well is in production. The credit is no more than $3.00 est. Thus, taxpayers can deduct losses from such working per barrel of qualified crude oil production and $0.50 per interests against nonpassive income without regard to thousand cubic feet of qualified natural gas production. whether they materially participate in the activity. The credit for natural gas is reduced in proportion to the 12.  Capital gains treatment of royalties on amount by which the reference price of natural gas at the coal.—The baseline tax system generally would tax all wellhead for the previous calendar year exceeds $1.67 per income under the regular tax rate schedule. It would not thousand cubic feet and is zero for a reference price that allow preferentially low tax rates to apply to certain types exceeds $2.00. The credit for crude oil is reduced in pro- or sources of income. For individuals, tax rates on regu- portion to the amount by which the reference price of oil lar income vary from 10 percent to 39.6 percent (plus a for the previous calendar year exceeds $15.00 per barrel 3.8-percent surtax on high income taxpayers), depending and is zero for a reference price that exceeds $18.00. All on the taxpayer’s income. In contrast, current law allows dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation from 2004. capital gains realized by individuals to be taxed at a pref- 17.  Energy investment credit.—The baseline tax erentially low rate that is no higher than 20 percent (plus system would not allow credits for particular activities, the 3.8-percent surtax). Certain sales of coal under roy- investments, or industries. Instead, it generally would alty contracts qualify for taxation as capital gains rather seek to tax uniformly all returns from investment-like than ordinary income, and so benefit from the preferen- activities. However, the Tax Code provides credits for tially low 20 percent maximum tax rate on capital gains. investments in solar and geothermal energy property, 13.  Exclusion of interest on energy facility qualified fuel cell power plants, stationary microturbine bonds.—The baseline tax system generally would tax all power plants, geothermal heat pumps, small wind prop- income under the regular tax rate schedule. It would not erty and combined heat and power property. A temporary allow preferentially low (or zero) tax rates to apply to cer- credit of up to 30 percent is available for certain quali- tain types or sources of income. In contrast, the Tax Code fied property placed in service before January 1, 2017. For allows interest earned on State and local bonds used to solar energy, a temporary credit is available for property finance construction of certain energy facilities to be ex- for which construction begins before January 1, 2022, and empt from tax. These bonds are generally subject to the which is placed in service before January 1, 2024. The State private-activity-bond annual volume cap. credit is 30 percent for property that begins construction 156 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES Table 13–1.  ESTIMATES OF TOTAL INCOME TAX EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2027 (In millions of dollars) Total from corporations and individuals 2018– 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2027 National Defense: 1 Exclusion of benefits and allowances to armed forces personnel �������������������������������������������������������������������� 12,400 12,830 11,640 11,680 12,040 12,520 13,040 13,590 14,190 14,820 15,490 131,840 International affairs: 2 Exclusion of income earned abroad by U.S. citizens ������� 6,600 6,930 7,280 7,640 8,020 8,420 8,840 9,290 9,750 10,240 10,750 87,160 3 Exclusion of certain allowances for Federal employees abroad ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1,370 1,430 1,510 1,580 1,660 1,740 1,830 1,920 2,020 2,120 2,230 18,040 4 Inventory property sales source rules exception ������������� 3,320 3,570 3,840 4,170 4,480 4,760 5,070 5,410 5,780 6,180 6,640 49,900 5 Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations (normal tax method) ��������������������������������������������������� 107,200 112,560 118,190 124,100 130,310 136,820 143,660 150,850 158,390 166,310 174,620 1,415,810 6 Deferred taxes for financial firms on certain income earned overseas ��������������������������������������������������������� 16,080 16,880 17,730 18,620 19,550 20,520 21,550 22,630 23,760 24,950 26,190 212,380 General science, space, and technology: 7 Expensing of research and experimentation expenditures (normal tax method) ������������������������������ 8,330 8,340 9,140 10,100 10,910 11,640 12,310 13,040 13,820 14,660 15,540 119,500 8 Credit for increasing research activities ��������������������������� 11,500 12,250 13,010 13,820 14,680 15,600 16,580 17,630 18,730 19,900 21,140 163,340 Energy: 9 Expensing of exploration and development costs, fuels �� –650 –290 –30 120 200 260 290 290 300 350 370 1,860 10 Excess of percentage over cost depletion, fuels ������������� 440 550 600 640 700 830 990 1,110 1,210 1,360 1,510 9,500 11 Exception from passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and gas properties ������������������������������� 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 260 12 Capital gains treatment of royalties on coal ��������������������� 140 160 150 140 150 150 160 160 170 180 190 1,610 13 Exclusion of interest on energy facility bonds ������������������ 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 30 30 30 30 180 14 Enhanced oil recovery credit ������������������������������������������� 270 350 400 450 440 460 500 530 510 490 440 4,570 15 Energy production credit 1 ����������������������������������������������� 1,590 2,230 2,870 3,430 3,880 4,280 4,600 4,790 4,850 4,750 4,440 40,120 16 Marginal wells credit �������������������������������������������������������� 70 110 70 30 30 40 100 140 180 210 230 1,140 17 Energy investment credit 1 ����������������������������������������������� 1,850 3,410 3,470 3,330 3,330 2,710 1,630 670 80 –120 –150 18,360 18 Alcohol fuel credits 2 �������������������������������������������������������� 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Bio-Diesel and small agri-biodiesel producer tax credits 3 ������ 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Tax credits for clean-fuel burning vehicles and refueling property ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 590 680 670 490 360 330 280 240 180 130 100 3,460 21 Exclusion of utility conservation subsidies ����������������������� 470 490 520 540 570 590 620 650 680 710 750 6,120 22 Credit for holding clean renewable energy bonds 4 ��������� 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 700 23 Deferral of gain from dispositions of transmission property to implement FERC restructuring policy ������� –190 –270 –210 –190 –150 –120 –70 –20 0 0 0 –1,030 24 Credit for investment in clean coal facilities ��������������������� 140 110 100 250 320 190 20 –20 –10 –10 –10 940 25 Temporary 50% expensing for equipment used in the refining of liquid fuels �������������������������������������������������� –1,380 –1,140 –930 –740 –560 –370 –180 –40 0 0 0 –3,960 26 Natural gas distribution pipelines treated as 15-year property ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 150 150 150 120 60 –20 –100 –190 –270 –320 –270 27 Amortize all geological and geophysical expenditures over 2 years ���������������������������������������������������������������� 70 60 70 70 70 80 70 60 40 40 50 610 28 Allowance of deduction for certain energy efficient commercial building property �������������������������������������� 30 –10 –30 –30 –30 –30 –30 –30 –30 –30 –30 –280 29 Credit for construction of new energy efficient homes ����� 170 70 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 30 Credit for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes ������������������������������������������������������������������������� 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Credit for residential energy efficient property ����������������� 1,430 1,380 1,360 1,250 1,060 530 120 20 0 0 0 5,720 32 Qualified energy conservation bonds5 ���������������������������� 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 300 33 Advanced Energy Property Credit ����������������������������������� 50 0 –20 –20 –10 –10 0 0 0 0 0 –60 34 Advanced nuclear power production credit ���������������������� 0 0 170 440 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 4,460 35 Reduced tax rate for nuclear decommissioning funds ����� 210 230 240 260 270 280 290 310 320 340 350 2,890 Natural resources and environment: 36 Expensing of exploration and development costs, nonfuel minerals ��������������������������������������������������������� 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 500 37 Excess of percentage over cost depletion, nonfuel minerals ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 140 150 150 150 150 150 150 140 140 140 1,460 38 Exclusion of interest on bonds for water, sewage, and hazardous waste facilities ������������������������������������������� 420 410 420 420 450 500 540 580 610 650 680 5,260 附件 16 Oil and Natural Gas Industry Tax Issues in the FY2014 Budget Proposal Robert Pirog Specialist in Energy Economics October 30, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42374 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Oil and Natural Gas Industry Tax Issues in the FY2014 Budget Proposal Table 1. FY2014 Oil/Gas Industry Tax Proposal Revenue Estimates (in millions of dollars) Proposed Change 2014 2014-2018 2014-2023 Repeal Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit 0 0 0 Repeal Credits for Oil and Gas from Marginal Wells 0 0 0 Repeal Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs 1,663 8,986 10,993 Repeal Deduction for Tertiary Injectants 8 54 107 Repeal Passive Loss Exception for Working Interests 7 42 74 in Oil and Natural Gas Properties Repeal Percentage Depletion for Oil and 1,039 5,211 10,723 Natural Gas Wells Repeal the Domestic Manufacturing Deduction for 1,119 8,824 17,447 Oil and Natural Gas Companies Increase Geological and Geophysical Amortization 60 1,138 1,363 Periods Totals 3,896 24,255 40,707 Source: FY2014 federal budget request, Analytical Perspectives, Governmental Receipts, p. 191. Notes: Revenues represent changes from current law. A zero entry in Table 1 implies no revenue effect under current and forecasted conditions in oil and natural gas markets. Order of proposals is as per the budget proposal. As shown in Table 1, the proposed tax changes would have the effect of raising an estimated $3.9 billion in FY2014. Almost all (96%) of the revenues from the proposed tax preference repeal from FY2014-FY2023 would come from only three of the proposals, while two of the proposals would provide no revenue at all. Compared to the FY2013 budget proposal, the current proposal estimates less revenue received in the current year, $3.9 billion compared to $4.8 billion, but higher revenues over the 10-year period, $40.7 billion compared to $38.6 billion. The major difference in the revenue estimates comes from a revision of the revenue gains from repealing the domestic manufacturing deduction for the oil and natural gas industries. That provision was expected to yield $11.6 billion over the 10-year time horizon in 2013, compared to $17.4 billion in the current estimate. In addition, the repeal of the expensing of intangible drilling expenses provision is expected to yield $11 billion in the 2014 proposal, compared to $13.9 billion in the 2013 budget proposal. Repeal Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit The enhanced oil recovery credit provides for a credit of 15% of allowable costs associated with the use of oil recovery technologies, including the injection of carbon dioxide, to supplement natural well pressure, which can enhance production from older wells. The credit is only available during periods of low oil prices, determined by yearly guidance with respect to what constitutes a low price. The credit has not been in effect over the past several years. Elimination of this credit would likely not have any effect on current, or expected, oil production, as oil prices are generally expected to remain high. Periods of low oil prices are usually associated with excess supply in the market. During periods of excess supply, it is unlikely that keeping older, higher-cost, low- production wells producing is an effective strategy for oil companies. Revenues from these wells Congressional Research Service 2 Oil and Natural Gas Industry Tax Issues in the FY2014 Budget Proposal are unlikely to cover operating costs in periods of low prices, although the credit could provide the margin that keeps some of these wells in production. Repeal Credit for Oil and Gas from Marginal Wells4 The marginal well tax credit was implemented as the result of a recommendation by the National Petroleum Council in 1994.5 The purpose was to keep low-production oil and natural gas wells in production during periods of low prices for those fuels. The tax credit is designed to maximize U.S. production levels even when energy markets result in low world prices for oil, and low regional prices for natural gas. It is believed that up to 20% of U.S. oil production and 12% of natural gas production might be sourced from wells of this category. The credit was enacted in 2004, but has not been utilized because market prices have been high enough since that time to justify production on economic grounds without the application of the credit. The credit is not likely to be an important factor if prices remain high, or if the United States is successful in transitioning to alternative energy sources. The high-cost wells that fall into the marginal well category are likely to be some of the first eliminated on economic efficiency grounds if a reduction in petroleum prices occurs even if the credit were maintained. Repeal Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs The expensing of intangible drilling costs has been part of the federal tax code since 1913. Intangible drilling costs generally include cost items that have no salvage value, but are necessary for the drilling of an exploratory well, or the development of a well for production. Intangible drilling costs cover a wide range of activities and physical supplies, including ground clearing, draining, surveying, wages, repairs, supplies, drilling mud, chemicals, and cement required to commence drilling, or to prepare for development of a well. The purpose of allowing current-year expensing of these costs is to attract capital to what has historically been a highly risky investment. Current expensing allows for a quicker return of invested funds through reduced tax payments. In recent years, the risk associated with finding oil has been reduced, but not eliminated, through the use of advanced technology, including three-dimensional seismic analysis and advanced horizontal drilling techniques, among others. These advances make expensive “dry holes” less likely, and expand the physical range of exploration and production activities available from a drilling rig, reducing the cost of exploration of prospective oil and natural gas fields.6 In the current law, the full expensing of intangible drilling costs is available to independent oil producers. Since 1986, major integrated oil companies have been able to expense 70% of their 4 Marginal wells produce on average less than 15 barrels per day, produce heavy oil, or produce up to 25 barrels per day, but with 95% or more water content. 5 The credit is $3 per barrel (inflation adjusted), and/or $0.50 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas (inflation adjusted) from a marginal well. The credit phases out once threshold prices are reached. 6 According to Energy Information Administration data, in 1961 there were 44,254 oil and natural gas exploration and development wells drilled in the United States, of which 17,331 were dry (39%). In 2011, 45,529 oil and natural gas exploration and development wells were drilled in the United States, of which 4,761 were dry (10%). Data available at http://www.eia.doe.gov. Part of the reduced cost of dry holes is offset by the cost of using new technologies. Congressional Research Service 3 Oil and Natural Gas Industry Tax Issues in the FY2014 Budget Proposal intangible drilling costs and capitalize the remaining 30% over a 60-month period. The FY2014 budget proposal would repeal both direct expensing and the accelerated capitalization provision, and replace them with generally applicable accounting procedures for cost recovery. Administration estimates are that the repeal of the expensing of intangible drilling costs provision will yield $10.9 billion in revenue over the decade to 2023. In response to a similar tax proposal in the FY2010 federal budget proposal, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) estimated that the tax change would result in an initial year reduction in investment in U.S. oil development of about $3 billion.7 IPAA’s estimated reduction in oil development spending implied an almost dollar-for-dollar relationship between higher taxes and reduced investment. Little empirical evidence for the estimate was provided. The effect of the elimination of the expensing of intangible drilling costs in FY2012 was estimated by IPAA to result in an almost immediate one-third reduction in drilling budgets.8 Actual reductions in drilling budgets are likely to be determined by the effect of increased taxes in conjunction with the price of oil. If the price of oil were to settle in the $40-per-barrel range that prevailed in December 2008, the burden of additional tax expense on the independent firms could reduce drilling activity. The combination of low oil prices and additional taxes might not justify the development of relatively high-cost resources, especially in deep waters, as in the Gulf of Mexico. However, with the October 2013 price of oil around $100 per barrel, reflecting political unrest in the Middle East as well as other factors, the additional tax expense is likely to have a smaller effect on reducing oil development activity.9 Repeal Tertiary Injectants Deduction Tertiary injection expenses, including the injectant cost, can be fully deducted in the current tax year. Supporters of the favorable current treatment of these expenses point to the importance of tertiary recovery methods in maintaining the output of older wells, as well as the environmental advantages of injecting carbon dioxide, a primary tertiary injectant, into wells. Repeal of the deduction, or less favorable tax treatment of the expenses, would be likely to reduce oil output from older producing fields during periods when the profit margin, and the price of oil, is low. During a period of high oil prices, the repeal is likely to have a smaller effect on production levels. Repeal Passive Loss Exception for Working Interests in Oil Properties Repeal of the passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties is a relatively small item in terms of tax revenues, estimated at $74 million from FY2014 to FY2023. The provision exempts working interests, investments, in gas and oil exploration and 7 Independent Petroleum Association of America, “New Natural Gas and Oil Taxes Would Crush America’s Clean Energy and Energy Security,” http://www.ipaa.org/news/docs/ObamasNewtaxes2009.pdf. 8 Independent Petroleum Association of America, “Increasing Taxes on America’s Independent Natural Gas and Oil Producers—A Bad Idea,” http://www.ipaa.org. 9 On October 18, 2013, the observed futures price of West Texas Intermediate on the NYMEX was $101.1 per barrel. Congressional Research Service 4 Oil and Natural Gas Industry Tax Issues in the FY2014 Budget Proposal development from being categorized as “passive income (or loss)” with respect to the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This categorization permits the deduction of losses accrued in oil and gas projects against other active income earned without limitation, and is believed to act as an incentive to induce investors to finance oil and gas projects. Repeal Percentage Depletion Allowance Percentage depletion is the practice of deducting from an oil company’s gross income a percentage value, in the current law 15%, which represents, for accounting and tax purposes, the total value of the oil deposit that was extracted in the tax year. Percentage depletion has a long history in the tax treatment of the oil industry, dating back to 1926. The purpose of the percentage depletion allowance is to provide an analog to normal business depreciation of assets for the oil industry, in effect equating the tax treatment of oil deposits to the tax treatment of capital equipment in more traditional manufacturing industries. The analogy is based on the observation that both capital equipment in traditional manufacturing, as well as an oil deposit, are “wasting resources” in the sense that they both require capital investment to generate an income stream, and that both will eventually become nonproductive through obsolescence or through wearing out. Depreciation allowances are applied against the investment in capital equipment, and depletion allowances are applied to the value of oil deposits as a way to recover initial investments. In its current form, the allowance is limited to domestic U.S. production by independent producers, on the first 1,000 barrels per day, per well, of production, and is limited to 65% of the producer’s net income. Percentage depletion was eliminated for the major oil companies in 1975. Although major oil companies’ profits were likely affected by the tax change, their production of oil showed little variation as a result. Production of oil within the United States remains attractive for companies because ownership of the oil is allowed in this country. In most areas of the world, ownership of oil is vested in the national oil company, as a proxy for the state itself. The result is generally a lower share of revenues for private oil companies producing outside the United States. The Administration projects that the repeal of the percentage depletion allowance would yield tax revenues of approximately $10.7 billion over the period FY2014 through FY2023. Repeal Manufacturing Tax Deduction (§199) A provision in the proposed budget for FY2014 that affects both independent and the major companies’ oil and natural gas tax liability is the repeal of the domestic manufacturing tax deduction for those industries.10 As shown in Table 1, the Administration estimates that the repeal of this deduction for the oil and natural gas industries would contribute $1.1 billion in revenue in 2014, $8.8 billion for the period FY2014 to FY2018. The total increase in tax revenue is estimated to be $17.4 billion from FY2014 to FY2024, according to estimates reported in the budget proposal. 10 The FY2014 budget proposal also requests repeal of the deduction for coal and other hard minerals in addition to oil and natural gas. This proposal is revenue-neutral in the sense that revenues gained by the repeal of the deduction for these industries would be used to finance an increase in the deduction rate for other domestic manufacturing firms. Congressional Research Service 5 附件 17 Userid: CPM Schema: tipx Leadpct: 100% Pt. size: 8 Draft Ok to Print AH XSL/XML Fileid: … tions/P535/2018/A/XML/Cycle02/source (Init. & Date) _______ Page 1 of 65 14:35 - 24-Jul-2019 The type and rule above prints on all proofs including departmental reproduction proofs. MUST be removed before printing. Publication 535 Cat. No. 15065Z Contents Introduction .................. 1 Department of the Business What's New for 2018 ............. 2 Treasury Internal What's New for 2019 ............. 2 Revenue Expenses Service Reminders ................... 2 Chapter 1. Deducting For use in preparing Business Expenses .......... 3 Chapter 2. Employees' Pay ........ 8 Returns 2018 Chapter 3. Rent Expense ........ 10 Chapter 4. Interest ............ 13 Chapter 5. Taxes ............. 18 Chapter 6. Insurance ........... 20 Chapter 7. Costs You Can Deduct or Capitalize .............. 24 Chapter 8. Amortization ......... 28 Chapter 9. Depletion ........... 35 Chapter 10. Business Bad Debts .... 40 Chapter 11. Other Expenses ...... 42 Chapter 12. Qualified Business Income Deduction .......... 49 Chapter 13. How To Get Tax Help ... 58 Index ..................... 64 Introduction This publication discusses common business expenses and explains what is and is not de- ductible. The general rules for deducting busi- ness expenses are discussed in the opening chapter. The chapters that follow cover specific expenses and list other publications and forms you may need. Note. Section references within this publica- tion are to the Internal Revenue Code and regu- lation references are to the Income Tax Regula- tions under the Code. Comments and suggestions. We welcome your comments about this publication and your suggestions for future editions. You can send us comments from IRS.gov/ FormComments. Or you can write to: Internal Revenue Service Tax Forms and Publications 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, IR-6526 Washington, DC 20224 Although we cannot respond individually to each comment received, we do appreciate your Get forms and other information faster and easier at: feedback and will consider your comments as • IRS.gov (English) • IRS.gov/Korean (한국어) we revise our tax forms, instructions, and publi- • IRS.gov/Spanish (Español) • IRS.gov/Russian (Pусский) cations. • IRS.gov/Chinese (中文) • IRS.gov/Vietnamese (TiếngViệt) Jul 24, 2019 Page 35 of 65 Fileid: … tions/P535/2018/A/XML/Cycle02/source 14:35 - 24-Jul-2019 The type and rule above prints on all proofs including departmental reproduction proofs. MUST be removed before printing. Basis reduction for corporations. A corpora- The applicable costs and the optional recovery Topics tion must reduce the amortizable basis of a pol- periods are as follows. This chapter discusses: lution control facility by 20% before figuring the • Circulation costs—3 years. amortization deduction. • Intangible drilling and development • Who can claim depletion costs—60 months. • Mineral property More information. For more information on • Mining exploration and development • Timber the amortization of pollution control facilities, costs—10 years. see sections 169 and 291(c) and the related • Research and experimental costs—10 regulations. years. Useful Items You may want to see: How to make the election. To elect to amor- Research and tize qualifying costs over the optional recovery Publication period, complete Part VI of Form 4562 and at- 544 544 Sales and Other Dispositions of Experimental Costs tach a statement containing the following infor- Assets mation to your return for the tax year in which You can elect to amortize your research and ex- the election begins. 551 551 Basis of Assets perimental costs, deduct them as current busi- • Your name, address, and taxpayer identifi- ness expenses, or write them off over a 10-year cation number. Form (and Instructions) period (see Optional write-off method below). • The type of cost and the specific amount of the cost for which you are making the elec- Schedule E (Form 1040) Schedule E (Form 1040) Supplemental If you elect to amortize these costs, deduct tion. Income and Loss them in equal amounts over 60 months or more. Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) Partner's The amortization period begins the month you Generally, the election must be made on a Share of Income, Deductions, first receive an economic benefit from the costs. timely filed return (including extensions) for the tax year in which you incurred the costs. How- Credits, etc. For a definition of “research and experimen- ever, if you timely filed your return for the year Schedule K-1 (Form 1120S) Schedule K-1 (Form 1120S) without making the election, you can still make tal costs” and information on deducting them as Shareholder's Share of Income, the election by filing an amended return within 6 current business expenses, see chapter 7. Deductions, Credits, etc. months of the due date of the return (excluding Optional write-off method. Rather than am- extensions). Attach Form 4562 to the amended 6198 6198 At-Risk Limitations ortize these costs or deduct them as a current return and write “Filed pursuant to section expense, you have the option of deducting 301.9100-2” on Form 4562. File the amended 8582 8582 Passive Activity Loss Limitations (writing off) research and experimental costs return at the same address you filed the original T (Timber) T (Timber) Forest Activities Schedule ratably over a 10-year period beginning with the return. tax year in which you incurred the costs. For See chapter 13 for information about getting more information, see Optional Write-Off of Revoking the election. You must obtain con- publications and forms. Certain Tax Preferences, later, and section sent from the IRS to revoke your election. Your 59(e). request to revoke the election must be submit- ted to the IRS in the form of a letter ruling before Who Can Claim Costs you can amortize. You can amortize the end of the tax year in which the optional re- costs chargeable to a capital account (see covery period ends. The request must contain Depletion? chapter 1) if you meet both of the following re- all of the information necessary to demonstrate quirements. the rare and unusual circumstances that would If you have an economic interest in mineral • You paid or incurred the costs in your trade justify granting revocation. If the request for rev- property or standing timber, you can take a de- or business. ocation is approved, any unamortized costs are duction for depletion. More than one person • You aren't deducting the costs currently. deductible in the year the revocation is effec- can have an economic interest in the same min- tive. eral deposit or timber. In the case of leased How to make the election. To elect to amor- property, the depletion deduction is divided be- tize research and experimental costs, complete tween the lessor and the lessee. Part VI of Form 4562 and attach it to your in- come tax return. Generally, you must file the re- You have an economic interest if both the turn by the due date (including extensions). following apply. However, if you timely filed your return for the • You have acquired by investment any in- year without making the election, you can still 9. terest in mineral deposits or standing tim- make the election by filing an amended return ber. within 6 months of the due date of the return • You have a legal right to income from the (excluding extensions). Attach Form 4562 to extraction of the mineral or cutting of the the amended return and write “Filed pursuant to Depletion timber to which you must look for a return section 301.9100-2” on Form 4562. File the of your capital investment. amended return at the same address you filed A contractual relationship that allows you an the original return. economic or monetary advantage from prod- Your election is binding for the year it is Introduction ucts of the mineral deposit or standing timber is made and for all later years unless you obtain Depletion is the using up of natural resources not, in itself, an economic interest. A production approval from the IRS to change to a different by mining, drilling, quarrying stone, or cutting payment carved out of, or retained on the sale method. timber. The depletion deduction allows an of, mineral property is not an economic interest. owner or operator to account for the reduction Individuals, estates, and trusts who of a product's reserves. claim depletion deductions may be lia- There are two ways of figuring depletion: ! Optional Write-Off of CAUTION ble for the AMT. For tax years begin- Certain Tax Preferences cost depletion and percentage depletion. For ning after 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, mineral property, you generally must use the section 12001, repealed the corporate AMT. method that gives you the larger deduction. For You can elect to amortize certain tax preference standing timber, you must use cost depletion. items over an optional period beginning in the Basis adjustment for depletion. You must tax year in which you incurred the costs. If you reduce the basis of your property by the deple- make this election, there is no AMT adjustment. tion allowed or allowable, whichever is greater. Chapter 9 Depletion Page 35 附件 18 The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy Resources: In Brief Molly F. Sherlock Specialist in Public Finance May 18, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44852 The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy Resources: In Brief Table 2. Energy-Related Tax Preferences, 2016 billions of dollars Provision 2016 Cost Fossil Fuels Credits for investments in Clean Coal Facilities 0.2 Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs: Oil and Gas 1.8 Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion: Oil and Gas 0.7 Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion: Other Fuels 0.2 Amortization of Geological and Geophysical Expenditures Associated with Oil and Gas 0.1 Exploration Amortization of Air Pollution Control Facilities 0.5 15-year Depreciation Recovery Period for Natural Gas Distribution Lines 0.2 Exceptions for Publicly Traded Partnerships with Qualified Income Derived from Certain Energy- 0.9 Related Activities Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit 0.6 Subtotal, Fossil Fuels 5.2 Renewables Energy Credit, Investment Tax Credit (ITC) 2.6 Production Tax Credit (PTC) 3.4 Residential Energy-Efficient Property Credit 1.1 Credit for Investment in Advanced Energy Property 0.3 5-year Depreciation Recovery Period for Certain Energy Property (solar, wind, etc.) 0.3 Treasury Grant in Lieu of Tax Credit 0.1 Subtotal, Renewables 7.8 Efficiency Credit for New Energy-Efficient Homes 0.4 Deduction for Energy-Efficient Commercial Buildings 0.2 Credit for Energy-Efficient Improvements to Existing Homes 0.5 Subtotal, Efficiency 1.1 Renewable Fuels Biodiesel Tax Credits 3.6 Subtotal, Renewable Fuels 3.6 Alternative Technology Vehicles Credit for Plug-In Electric Vehicles 0.3 Subtotal, Alternative Technology Vehicles 0.3 (...continued) facilities is currently de minimis. However, should qualifying capacity be placed in service by the end of 2020, there may be positive tax expenditures associated with this provision. Congressional Research Service 6 附件 19 January 2009 Energy P olicy & the environment Report Published by Manhattan Institute Which FuelsDoestheTax in theUnitedS Taxing Energy Code Favor? T N E M N O R I V N E E H T D N A Y C I L O P Y G R E N E R O F R E T N E C a tes: E T U T I T S N I N A T T A H N A M E H T T A National BureauofEconomicResearch Research Associate, Tufts University Professor ofEconomics, Gilbert E.Metcalf C E P E  Energy Policy and the Environment Report January 2009 can be affected bythe AMT.can beaffected I do note in various places where my analytic results not analyze the corporate AMT in detail in this paper, corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT). While I do income taxes. income corporate state and federal to subject are firms that assuming paper this in investments energy analyze I rate incometax. corpo- to subject is sectors coal-manufacturing and petroleum and utilities, mining, the in assets of bulk vast The tax. income corporate the to subject tries indus- energy-related various in assets of share the Tablepercent. 35 marginalindicates of federal 5 rate top a has which income, corporate on that mostly tax, income U.S. the to subject is energy of tribution dis- or production the in earned income begin, To A. FederalTax Provisions switch to straight-line depreciation at the point where firms that Assuming so. do to advantageous comes be- it point whichever to at depreciation shift straight-line to option the with property), twenty-year and (fifteen- percent 150 or property) ten-year and seven-, five-, (three-, percent 200 either at capital, most depreciate to used is method clining-balance de- A years. thirty-nine to three from ranging riods pe- recovery Accelerated with (MACRS), Modified System Recovery Cost the to according de- are preciated assets capital code, tax current the Under 1. Depreciation Table 5. Share of Assets Subject to Corporate Pipeline Transportation 99.2% Retail GasolineSales Petroleum andCoalProducts, Manufacturing Utilities Mining Industry Source: Congressional BudgetOffice(2006),table3 8 Many energy firms are subject to the to subject are firms energy Many Income Tax 9 Income-T Treatment Corporate 68.5% 47.6% 99.6% 92.3% ax effectively reduces thepurchase priceofanasset. reduces effectively ogy were included in the Emergency Economic Stabi- New deprecation provisions for “smart grid” technol- the remainder deducted, as under current law. expensing,withpercent 50 forallows provision The 2012. before service in placed capacity refinery new law contains a provision allowing partial expensing of lines from twenty years to fifteen. In addition, the new andreduced the recovery period ofdistribution pipe- the depreciation of natural-gas gathering (seven years) clarifiedalso act That2005. of ActPolicyEnergy the in period recovery fifteen-year a received lines sion twenty years for coal. High-voltage electricity transmis- periods range from five years for renewable energy Recoveryto plant. of type the on depending lives, tax Electric generating capital is depreciated over different the final three years of the asset. the of years three final the over depreciated is basis remaining the and switch, to advantageous is it year, following the In (0.104). balance double-declining under allowed amount the than less is which 0.091, = 0.364/4 equal would four year in allowed deduction the since straight-line, to switch to advantageous not is it three, year After sis. plying toba- straight-line the depreciation remaining ap- to switch may point any at taxpayers Thus ated. depreci- fully be never would asset the rules, these With deduction. a as taken be may basis remaining the of two-sevenths years, subsequent In year. first the in depreciated be may asset the of value the of two-sevenths method, double-declining-balance the has been depreciated, and zero basis remains. Under asset the all years, seven of end the At years. future in depreciated be can that and depreciated been yet basis in each year is the share of the asset that has not with a recovery period of seven years. The remaining lowed to deduct one-seventh of the value of an asset al- is taxpayer the depreciation, straight-line Under period. year recovery seven- a assuming rules, double-declining-balance and straight-line under depreciated be would $1 of tion rate. Table 6 illustrates how an asset with a value deduc- declining-balance the and asset the of period ing-balance, the two key parameters are the recovery declin- than deduction larger a provides straight-line 10 Tax depreciation depreciation Tax 11 附件 20 Order Code RL33763 Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies: Current Status and Analysis December 20, 2006 Salvatore Lazzari Specialist in Public Finance Resources, Science, and Industry Division CRS-8 For purposes of percentage depletion, before EPACT05, an independent oil producer was one that, on any given day, (1) did not refine more than 50,000 barrels of oil and (2) did not have a retail operation grossing more than $5 million a year (IRC § 613A[d]). EPACT05 raised the 50,000 barrel daily limit to 75,000. In addition, the act changed the refinery limitation from actual daily production to average daily production for the taxable year. Accordingly, the average daily refinery runs for the taxable year may not exceed 75,000 barrels. For this purpose, the taxpayer would calculate average daily refinery runs by dividing total refinery runs for the taxable year by the total number of days in the taxable year. This is effective for taxable years ending after the date of enactment. Natural Gas Distribution Lines Treated as 15-Year Property For purposes of determining the depreciation deduction, EPACT05 established a 15-year recovery period for natural gas distribution lines. Prior to this amendment, natural gas distribution lines were assigned a 20-year recovery period. This provisions is effective for property, the original use of which begins with the taxpayer after April 11, 2005, which is placed in service after April 11, 2005, and before January 1, 2011, and does not apply to property subject to a binding contract on or before April 11, 2005. Temporary Expensing for Equipment Used in Oil Refining Before the enactment of EPACT05, depreciation rules (the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, MACRS) required oil refinery assets to be depreciated over 10 years using the double declining balance method.17 Under the 2005 act, refineries are allowed to irrevocably elect to expense 50% of the cost of qualified refinery property, with no limitation on the amount of the deduction. This provision was enacted to increase investments in existing refineries so as to increase petroleum product output and reduce prices. The expensing deduction is allowed in the taxable year in which the refinery is placed in service. The remaining 50% of the cost remains eligible for regular cost recovery provisions. To qualify for the deduction (1) original use of the property must commence with the taxpayer; (2)(a) construction must be pursuant to a binding construction contract entered into after June 14, 2005, and before January 1, 2008, (b) in the case of self-constructed property, construction began after June 14, 2005, and before January 1, 2008, or (c) the refinery is placed in service before January 1, 2008; (3) the property must be placed in service before January 1, 2012; (4) the property must meet certain production capacity requirements if it is an addition to an existing refinery; and (5) the property must meet all applicable environmental laws when placed in service. Certain types of refineries, including asphalt plants, are not eligible for the deduction, and there is a special rule for sale-leasebacks of qualifying refineries. If the owner of the refinery is a cooperative, it may elect to allocate all or a part of the deduction to the cooperative owners, allocated on the basis of ownership 17 Under the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation deductions, the annual deduction is a fixed percentage (200% or double the straight-line rate) of the difference between asset cost and prior year depreciation deductions. CRS-9 interests. This provision is effective for qualifying refineries placed in service after date of enactment (i.e., it became effective on August 9, 2005). Arbitrage Rules Not To Apply to Prepayments for Natural Gas EPACT05 creates a safe harbor exception to the general rule that tax-exempt, bond-financed prepayments violate the tax code’s arbitrage restrictions. The term investment-type property does not include a prepayment under a qualified natural gas supply contract. The act also provides that such prepayments are not treated as private loans for purposes of the private business tests. Thus, a prepayment financed with tax-exempt bond proceeds for the purpose of obtaining a supply of natural gas for service area customers of a governmental utility would not be treated as the acquisition of investment-type property. The safe harbor provisions do not apply if the utility engages in intentional acts to render (1) the volume of natural gas covered by the prepayment to be in excess of that needed for retail natural gas consumption and (2) the amount of natural gas that is needed to fuel transportation of the natural gas to the governmental utility. This provision is effective for obligations issued after date of enactment. Natural Gas Gathering Lines Treated as Seven-Year Property Under tax law prior to the enactment of EPACT05, the recovery period for natural gas gathering lines could be either 7 or 15 years, depending on whether they were classified as production or transportation equipment. Several court cases reflected the ambiguous tax treatment. Natural gas pipelines had a recovery period of 15 years, whereas natural gas distribution lines had a recovery period of 20 years (which, as noted above, was reduced to 15 years). EPACT05 assigned natural gas gathering lines a seven-year recovery period for MACRS depreciation deductions. EPACT05 defined a natural gas gathering line as the pipe, equipment, and appurtenances determined to be a gathering line by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or used to deliver natural gas from the well-head or common point to the point at which the gas first reaches (1) a gas processing plant, (2) an interconnection with an interstate transmission line, (3) an interconnection with an intrastate transmission pipeline, or (4) a direct connection with a local distribution company, a gas storage facility, or an industrial consumer. Also, the act requires that the original use of the property begin with the taxpayer. This provision became effective for property placed in service after April 11, 2005, excluding property with respect to which the taxpayer or related party had a binding acquisition contract on or before April 11, 2005. Pass Through to Owners of Deduction for Capital Costs Incurred by Small Refiner Cooperatives in Complying with EPA Sulfur Regulations IRC § 45H allows a small refiner to claim a tax credit for the production of low- sulfur diesel fuel that is in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sulfur regulations (the Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements). The credit is $2.10 per barrel of low-sulfur diesel fuel produced; it is limited to 25% of 附件 21 Dataset: Fossil Fuel Support - USA Mechanism Tax expenditure Level Subnational Unit US dollar Year 2016 Measure Incidence Indicator Stage Fuel Type Gross Production Tax Rebate for Land and natural resources Producer Support Estimate Extraction or mining stage Petroleum Crude oil 233,714 3D Seismic Wells Natural gas 749,286 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Petroleum Crude oil 2,299,810 Economically At Risk Wells Natural gas 7,373,190 Gross Production Tax Exemption Petroleum Crude oil 1,468,616 for O&G Owned by Government Natural gas 4,708,384 Gas Marketing Deduction Against 14,339,000 Gross Production Tax Sales Tax Exemption for Electricity Cost of Intermediate Inputs Petroleum Crude oil 1,956,000 Used in Enhanced Oil Recovery Gas Gross Production Tax Land and natural resources 144,987,592 Exemptions + Oil Extraction Tax Natural gas 39,225,903 Eti Severance-Tax Exemption for Petroleum Crude oil 12,176,375 Stripper Wells Natural gas 32,311,550 Severance-Tax Oil and Gas Ad Petroleum Crude oil 0 Valorem Credit Natural gas 0 Cook Inlet Platform Royalty Relief Petroleum Crude oil 1,746,852 Natural gas 0 Small Cook Inlet Discoveries Petroleum Crude oil 0 Royalty Relief Natural gas 0 Royalty Modification for Ooguruk Petroleum Crude oil 26,192,088 Unit Taxable Per Barrel Credit Output Returns 523,000,000 Gas Storage Facility Credit Capital Transportation of fossil Natural gas 0 LNG Storage Facility Credit fuels (e.g., through 0 Gas Exploration and Development Land and natural resources Extractionili) or mining stage 0 Credit Gross Value Reduction Petroleum Crude oil 0 Natural gas 0 Oil and Gas Industry Service Petroleum Crude oil 0 Expenditures Credit Natural gas 0 Sales Tax Exemption for Oil & Gas Capital Petroleum Crude oil 58,446,419 Equipment Natural gas 76,453,581 Property-Tax Exemption for Cost of Intermediate Inputs Petroleum Crude oil 0 Intangible Drilling Expenses In-State Refinery Tax Credit Capital 0 Impact Assistance Credit 0 Natural gas 0 Severance-Tax Reductions for Low-Land and natural resources Petroleum Crude oil 0 Volume Wells Natural gas 0 Severance-Tax Reductions for New Petroleum Crude oil 0 Oil-Shale Facilities Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Severance-Tax Exemption for Low- Petroleum Crude oil 0 Volume Oil-Shale Production Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Occupational-Privilege-Tax Labour Petroleum Crude oil 0 Exemption for Oil and Gas Workers Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Reduced Value for Certain Mineral Land and natural resources Petroleum Crude oil 0 Properties Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Sales-Tax Exemption for CO2 Used Cost of Intermediate Inputs Petroleum Crude oil 0 in Tertiary Recovery Sales-Tax Exclusion for Installation 0 of Board Roads in Oil-fields Natural gas 0 Sales-Tax Exclusion on Drilling Petroleum Crude oil 0 Rigs Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Sales-Tax Exemption for Repairs Petroleum Crude oil 0 and Materials Used on Drilling Rigs Natural gas 0 Severance Tax Exemptions for Land and natural resources Petroleum Crude oil 112,514,683 Crude Oil and Natural Gas Natural gas 30,440,468 Cost of Complying with Sulphur Cost of Intermediate Inputs Petroleum Crude oil 0 Regulations Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Full Expensing of Capital Capital Petroleum Crude oil 0 Investments in Qualified New Natural gas 0 Refinery Capacity Natural gas 0 Gross Production and Excise Tax Enterprise Income Petroleum Crude oil 149,073 Credits, Small Business and Rural Natural gas 477,927 S llB i C itlC i Realty-Transfer Tax Exemption for Land and natural resources Petroleum Crude oil 0 Resource Leases Natural gas 0 Severance-Tax Reduction for Petroleum Crude oil 0 Stripper Wells Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Severance-Tax Reduction for Petroleum Crude oil 0 Tertiary Recovery Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 24-Month Severance-Tax Petroleum Crude oil 0 Reduction Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Severance-Tax Reduction for Petroleum Crude oil 0 Workover Wells Severance-Tax Reduction for Idle 0 Wells Severance-Tax Exemption for Natural gas 0 Flared Natural Gas Sales-Tax Exemption for Petroleum Crude oil 0 Transporting Drilling Rigs Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Sales-Tax Exemption for Certain Petroleum Crude oil 0 Well Services Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Qualified Capital Expenditure Capital Petroleum Crude oil 440,577,070 Credit Natural gas 166,422,930 Sales-Tax Exemption for CO2 Used Cost of Intermediate Inputs Petroleum Crude oil 0 in Tertiary Production Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Severance-Tax Credit for Certain 0 R&D Projects Reduced Tax Rate for Certain Petroleum Crude oil 0 Wells Outside the Bakken and Natural gas 0 Three Forks Region Natural gas 0 Coal Conversion Tax Exemptions 0 Sales tax exemption for oil Capital Refining or processing Petroleum Crude oil 0 stage Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Development Credit for Small Output Returns Extraction or mining stage Petroleum Crude oil 36,291,357 Producers and New Areas Natural gas 13,708,643 Sales tax exemption for CO2 used Cost of Intermediate Inputs Petroleum Crude oil 0 for enhance oil recovery Natural gas 0 Natural gas 0 Sales tax exemption for natural 0 gas Alternative Credit for Exploration Capital Petroleum Crude oil 36,291,357 Natural gas 13,708,643 Exclusion of Low Volume Oil & Gas Land and natural resources Petroleum Crude oil 126,748 Wells Natural gas 4,373,252 Coalbed Methane Exemption 0 Percentage Depletion of Mineral Capital Petroleum Crude oil 6,241,163 and Other Resources Natural gas 1,438,101 Excess of Percentage over Cost Petroleum Motor 0 Depletion Gas/diesel 0 Natural Gas Severance Tax Land and natural resources Natural gas 84,472,151 Suspension for Horizontal Wells Natural Gas Severance Tax 170,506 Suspension for Inactive Wells Natural Gas Severance Tax 10,107,072 Suspension for Deep Wells Natural Gas Severance Tax Suspension for New Discovery 1,000,000 Wells Reduced Severance Tax on 916,891 Incapable Oil Well Gas Reduced Severance Tax on 21,768,480 Incapable Gas Well Gas Oil Deduction Severance Tax on Output Returns Transportation of fossil Petroleum Crude oil 363,029 Transportation Fees fuels (e.g., through Severance Tax Suspension on Oil Land and natural resources Extraction or mining stage 11,872,434 from Horizontal Wells Severance Tax Suspension on Oil 5,969,788 from Inactive Wells Severance Tax Suspension on Oil 11,081,247 from Deep Wells Severance Tax Suspension on Oil 20,000,000 from New Discovery Wells Severance Tax Suspension on Oil 13,039,821 from Tertiary Recovery Reduced Severance Tax Rate on 5,192,613 Incapable Oil Wells Reduced Severance Tax Rate on 19,512,184 Oil from Stripper Wells Severance Tax Exclusion on Flared Natural gas 518,675 or Vented Natural Gas Severance Tax Exclusion for Natural Gas Used in Field 7,453,016 Operations Severance Tax Exclusion for Refining or processing 370,144 Carbon Black Producers stage Excess of Percentage over Cost Capital Extraction or mining stage Petroleum Crude oil 4,550,880 Depletion Natural gas 14,590,120 Enhanced Oil Recovery Deduction Land and natural resources Petroleum Crude oil 43,747 Natural gas 140,253 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Petroleum Crude oil 1,741,322 Horizontally Drilled Wells Natural gas 5,582,678 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Petroleum Crude oil 220,637 Reestablished Production Natural gas 707,363 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Petroleum Crude oil 1,897,052 Production Enhancement Natural gas 6,081,948 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Petroleum Crude oil 548,502 Deep and Ultra Deep Wells Natural gas 1,758,498 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Petroleum Crude oil 86,305 New Discovery Wells Natural gas 276,695 Dataset: Fossil Fuel Support - USA Mechanism Budgetary Level Subnational Unit US dollar Year 2016 Measure Incidence Indicator Stage Fuel Type Alaska Gasline Inducement Act Capital Producer Support Estimate Transportation of fossil fuels Natural gas (e.g., through pipelines) 0 Enhanced Oil Recovery Knowledge General Services Support Extraction or mining stage Petroleum Crude Commission Estimate oil 5,195,930 Oil and Gas Research Fund 7,870,628 Natural gas 2,129,372 Oil and Gas Impact Grant Fund Land and natural Petroleum Crude 117,524,065 resources Natural gas 22,475,935 Abandoned Oil and Gas Well Petroleum Crude 11,000,766 Plugging and Site Reclamation Natural gas 2,976,220 Fnd Data extracted on 26 Feb 2019 03:24 UTC (GMT) from OECD.Stat 附件 22 United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters GAO October 2007 FEDERAL ELECTRICITY SUBSIDIES Information on Research Funding, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities That Support Electricity Production GAO-08-102 • Fossil fuel programs. Fossil fuel programs were appropriated $3.1 billion in electricity-related R&D funding from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. Appropriations for these programs were relatively constant during the 6-year period we examined. Appropriations totaled $531 million in fiscal year 2002, peaked at $574 million in fiscal year 2004, and then returned to $531 million in fiscal year 2007. Most of the funding variation within these programs was due to the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which is aimed at accelerating the deployment of advanced technologies to reduce air emissions and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants. Funding for the Clean Coal Power Initiative decreased from $210 million in fiscal year 2004 to $62 million in fiscal year 2005, before increasing to $75 million in fiscal year 2007. Other significant fossil fuel energy programs include the fuels and power systems program, which provides research funding aimed at reducing coal-burning power plant carbon emissions, and the FutureGen program, which focuses on the technical capability of coproducing electricity and hydrogen with near-zero emissions. • Renewable programs. Renewable programs were appropriated $1.4 billion in electricity-related R&D funding from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. During this period, appropriations for these programs grew by 23 percent, increasing from $248 million in fiscal year 2002 to $305 million in fiscal year 2007. Variations in funding were primarily attributable to funding for the Solar program, which makes up the largest share of renewable program funding. Here, funding more than doubled between fiscal year 2006 and 2007, rising from $99 million to $203 million. Other renewable energy programs include wind, biomass, and geothermal programs. The hydrogen R&D program was not included in our analysis as hydrogen primarily is used as an alternative fuel for transportation. Based on our review of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) estimates, the sum of revenue loss estimates associated with tax expenditures specifically related to electricity totaled $18.2 billion from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2007.3 Over this period, revenue loss estimates associated with these tax expenditures increased by 88 percent, 3Summing tax expenditure estimates provides a gauge of general magnitude but does not take into account interactions between individual provisions. Of the $18.2 billion amount, we could assign $16.5 billion to fuel types. We could not assign one electricity-related tax expenditure, deferral of gain from dispositions of transmission property, to a fuel type. This tax expenditure totaled $1.7 billion during the period of our analysis. All tax expenditure estimates are based on projections using prior year data; whereas historical data are available for federal receipts and outlays, the last available values for tax expenditures remain estimates. Page 3 GAO-08-102 Federal Electricity Subsidies Appendix I: Briefing to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Results in Brief For electricity-related R&D, we estimate • DOE received $11.5 billion (2007 dollars) in funding from FY2002 to FY2007. • Funding grew by 35 percent from FY2002 to FY2007. • Funding spread across several fuels: about $6.2 billion was provided to nuclear, $3.1 billion to fossil fuels, and $1.4 billion to renewables. For electricity-related tax expenditures, we estimate • Tax expenditures totaled $18.2 billion (2007 dollars) from FY2002 to FY2007. • Grew by 88 percent from FY2002 to FY2007. • Tax expenditures largely go to fossil fuels: about $13.7 billion was provided to fossil fuels and $2.8 billion to renewables. • We did not include the credit for production from advanced nuclear power facilities because there is no current revenue loss from the credit as advanced nuclear facilities have yet to be constructed. Federal loan and loan guarantees, preferred borrowing, and other activities may also subsidize electricity. RIB R&D Tax Other 10 Page 18 GAO-08-102 Federal Electricity Subsidies 附件 23 SR/CNEAF/2008-01 Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 April 2008 Energy Information Administration Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should be attributed to the Energy Information Administration and should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or of any other organization. Service Reports are prepared by the Energy Information Administration upon special request and are based on assumptions specified by the requestor. Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 Table ES3. Allocation of Electricity Production and Other Energy Subsidies (million 2007 dollars) FY 2007 FY 2007 Electricity Other FY 2007 Production Energy Total Energy Subsidies Subsidies Subsidies Subsidy and Support Category and Support and Support and Support Fuel Specific1 5,105 2,330 7,435 Transmission and Distribution 2 1,235 - 1,235 Federal Utilities and RUS Borrowers Capacity3 407 - 407 Energy Subsidies Unrelated to Electricity Production4 - 7,504 7,504 Total 6,747 9,834 16,581 NOTES: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. 1Includes fuel-related tax expenditures, R&D, and direct expenditures applicable entirely to a specific type of electric generation, or primary fuel production-related subsidies allocated to either electricity or other sectors based on each sector’s proportionate consumption of the applicable fuel. Excludes fuels that have no role in electricity production such as ethanol and other biofuels. 2 Includes transmission and distribution-related tax expenditures, R&D, and $360 million of estimated financial support attributable to Federal utilities’ and RUS borrowers’ debt associated with transmission and distribution assets. 3Reflects the estimated portion of Federal utilities’ and RUS borrowers’ interest support attributable to long-term debt associated with capacity and certain TVA and BPA regulatory assets. This support is then assigned by fuel-type. 4Includes tax and direct expenditures for end-use activities and transportation-related alternative fuels. Among these subsidies are conservation programs, residential and commercial energy efficiency programs, and ethanol and biofuels tax credits. Sources: See Table 26, Table 27 and Table 30. Findings Regarding Electricity Production-Related Subsidies Subsidies and support related to electricity production are estimated at $6.7 billion (Table ES3), or about 41 percent of total energy subsidies. A significant portion of electricity subsidies and support ($1.2 billion, or 18 percent of total electricity subsidies and support) is directed to electric plant or infrastructure, such as transmission. Another $407 million consists of capital cost support associated with electric generation assets of Federal utilities and RUS loans. The beneficiaries of this support are electricity consumers who purchase power produced by the Federal utilities and RUS borrowers. The estimated interest subsidy associated with these assets is allocated by fuel type. The remaining $5.1 billion of electricity subsidies are either directed at specific types of electricity production, based on fuel type or investment, or expenses associated with upstream production and transportation of fuels used in electricity production—all of which either affect the cost of the input fuel or reduce the cost of generating equipment used to produce electricity. xiv Energy Information Administration / Executive Summary Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 Tax expenditures comprise about two-thirds of the total subsidies and support related to electricity production (Table ES4). The alternative fuel production tax credit,1 which is largely directed to producers of coal-based synthetic fuels, also referred to as refined coal, accounted for about one-half of total tax expenditures related to electricity production in FY 2007. Nuclear programs, renewable programs, and non-fuel-specific electricity production subsidies and support each ranged from $1 billion to $1.3 billion. Natural gas and petroleum liquids receive a lower level of support from electricity production-related subsidies and support than other fuel groups. Overall, electricity production-related subsidies are spread broadly across the various fuel groups, probably more so than in the past.2 Table ES4. Fiscal Year 2007 Electricity Production Subsidies and Support (million 2007 dollars) Federal Direct Tax Research & Electricity Fuel End Use Expenditures Expenditures Development Support Total Coal - 264 522 68 854 Refined Coal - 2,156 - - 2,156 Natural Gas and Petroleum - 203 4 20 227 NuclearLiquids - 199 922 146 1,267 Renewables 3 724 108 173 1,008 Transmission and - 735 140 360 1,235 Distribution Total 3 4,281 1,696 767 6,747 NOTES: Estimates of Federal electricity program support are based on the most recent audited annual reports for Federally-owned utilities which conform to Federal fiscal year convention. The Rural Utilities Service estimate is based on calendar year 2005 data. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Sources: See Table 34. Electricity production subsidies and support per unit of production (dollars per megawatthour) vary widely by fuel. Coal-based synfuels (refined coal) that are eligible for the alternative fuels tax credit, solar power, and wind power receive, by far, the highest subsidies per unit of generation, ranging from more than $23 to nearly $30 per megawatthour of generation (Table ES5). Subsidies and support for these generation sources are substantial in relationship to the price or cost of electricity at the wholesale or end- user level. The average U.S. electricity price was about $53 per megawatthour at the wholesale level in 2006 and about $92 per megawatthour to end users in all sectors in FY 2007.3 1 The alternative fuel production tax credit was initially established in the Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-223). The provision was codified in Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code. It was subsequently modified by Section 710 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-357) to include synthetic coal, which was redefined as refined coal and recodified in Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code. The expiration date to qualify for the credit was extended in EPACT2005. 2 EIA did not analyze electricity production subsidies in particular in its 2000 report. However, a line item comparison of various energy subsidies indicates that newer subsidy programs have been directed toward fuel groups and activities, such as renewables, conservation, and transmission that previously received less attention. 3 Energy Information Administration Form EIA-861 “Annual Electric Power Industry Report,” 2006; and Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly December 2007, DOE/EIA 0026(0712) (Washington, DC, December 2007), Table 5.6.B. Energy Information Administration / Executive Summary xv Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 Table ES5. Subsidies and Support to Electricity Production: Alternative Measures Alternative Measures of Subsidy and Support FY 2007 Net Generation FY 2007 Subsidy and Subsidy and Support per (billion Support Unit of Production Fuel/End Use kilowatthours) (million 2007 dollars) (dollars/megawatthour) Coal 1,946 854 0.44 Refined Coal 72 2,156 29.81 Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 919 227 0.25 Nuclear 794 1,267 1.59 Biomass (and biofuels) 40 36 0.89 Geothermal 15 14 0.92 Hydroelectric 258 174 0.67 Solar 1 14 24.34 Wind 31 724 23.37 Landfill Gas 6 8 1.37 Municipal Solid Waste 9 1 0.13 Unallocated Renewables NM 37 NM Renewables (subtotal) 360 1,008 2.80 Transmission and Distribution NM 1,235 NM Total 4,091 6,747 1.65 NOTES: Unallocated renewables include projects funded under Clean Renewable Energy Bonds and the Renewable Energy Production Incentive. NM=Not meaningful. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Sources: See Table 35 The differences between rankings of subsidies and support based on absolute amounts and amounts per megawatthour are driven by substantial differences in the amount of electricity generation across fuels. Capital-intensive, baseload generating technologies, such as coal-fired steam generators and nuclear generators, together produce about 70 percent of total net generation,4 which tends to reduce their subsidies and support per unit of production compared to the other fuel groups (Table ES5). For the same reason, electricity subsidies for solar and wind show a relatively large subsidy per unit of production, as these groups account for less than 1 percent of total net generation in the country. It is important to recognize that the subsidies-per-megawatthour calculations are a snapshot taken at a particular point in time. Some electricity sources, such as nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas, have received varying levels of subsidies and support in the past which may have aided them in reaching their current role in electricity production.5 The impacts of prior subsidies, some of which may no longer be in effect, are not measured in the current analysis. A per-unit measure of electricity production subsidies and support may provide a better indicator of its market impact than an absolute measure. For example, even though coal receives more subsidies in absolute terms than wind power, the use of wind is likely to be more dependent on the availability of subsidies than the use of coal. 4 In fiscal year 2007, nuclear and coal accounted for 68 percent of total net generation. 5 See Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 1999: Primary Energy, SR/OIAF/99-03 (Washington, DC, September 1999); Energy Information Administration, Federal Energy Subsidies: Direct and Indirect Interventions in Energy Markets, SR/EMEU/92-02 (Washington, DC, November 1992). xvi Energy Information Administration / Executive Summary Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 Table 26. Allocation of Electricity Production and Other Energy Subsidies (million 2007 dollars) FY 2007 Electricity FY 2007 FY 2007 Production Other Energy Total Energy Subsidies and Subsidies Subsidies Subsidy and Support Category Support and Support and Support Fuel Specific1 5,105 2,330 7,435 Transmission and Distribution2 1,235 - 1,235 Federal Utilities and RUS Borrowers Capacity3 407 - 407 Energy Subsidies Unrelated to Electricity Production4 - 7,504 7,504 Total 6,747 9,834 16,581 NOTES : Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. 1Includes fuel-related tax expenditures, R&D, and direct expenditures applicable entirely to a specific type of electric generation, or primary fuel production-related subsidies allocated to either electricity or other sectors based on each sector’s proportionate consumption of the applicable fuel. Excludes fuels that have no role in electricity production, such as ethanol and other biofuels. 2 Includes transmission and distribution-related tax expenditures, R&D, and the financial support attributable to Federal utilities’ and RUS borrowers’ debt associated with transmission and distribution assets with an estimated value of $360 million (See Table 34). 3Reflects the estimated portion of Federal utilities’ and RUS borrowers’ interest support attributable to long-term debt associated with capacity plant and certain TVA and BPA regulatory assets. This support is then assigned by fuel-type. 4Includes tax and direct expenditures for end-use activities and transportation-related alternative fuels. Among these subsidies are conservation programs, residential and commercial energy efficiency programs, and ethanol and biofuels tax credits. Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008-Appendix. Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008, Federal Receipts and Collections, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/. Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement For Title XIII of H.R. 6, The Energy Tax Incentives Act Of 2005," JCX59-05, July 27, 2005. (Washington, DC, November 2007). Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," 2006; Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-906, "Power Plant Report;" and Form EIA-920, "Combined Heat and Power Plant Report," October 2006 through September 2007. To the extent these incentives provide benefits to all users of transmission facilities placed under the operational control of RTOs/ISO, all forms of generation benefit. Accordingly, these tax expenditures are included in non-production-related electricity subsidies. Subsidies unrelated to electricity production, totaling $7.5 billion, are not included in the estimate of direct and indirect subsidies for electricity production, as are $2.3 billion in fuel-related subsidies that are allocated to consumers, i.e., residential, commercial, industrial and transportation, based their direct receipt and consumption of the applicable fuel. Allocation of Subsidies This portion of the chapter describes the method used to allocate the four categories of subsidies described above. The following four sections provide a description of the methodology and the specific subsidies that comprise the $16.6 billion of total energy-related subsidies and support, and the $6.7 billion assigned to electricity production. Energy Information Administration / Chapter 5: Electric Subsidies Per Unit of Production 93 Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 Per-Unit Electricity Subsidies by Fuel Type When grouped by type of subsidy, tax expenditures account for $4.3 billion of the estimated $6.7 billion in electric production subsidies (Table 34). R&D is the second largest category of subsidies at $1.7 billion. When allocated by fuel type fuel type, refined coal alternative fuel production tax credits account for one-half at $2.2 billion, followed by nuclear at $1.3 billion and non-fuel specific electricity subsidies at $1.2 billion. Renewable electricity production received an estimated $1.0 billion in subsidies, of which $724 million consists of tax expenditures. Table 34. Fiscal Year 2007 Electricity Production Subsidies and Support (million 2007 dollars) Federal Direct Tax Research & Electricity Fuel/Other Expenditures Expenditures Development Support Total Coal - 264 522 68 854 Refined Coal - 2,156 - - 2,156 Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids - 203 4 20 227 Nuclear - 199 922 146 1,267 Renewables 3 724 108 173 1,008 Transmission and Distribution - 735 140 360 1,235 Total 3 4,281 1,696 767 6,747 NOTE: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2008-Appendix, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008, Federal Receipts and Collections. See, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/. Joint Committee on Taxation, "Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement For Title XIII Of H.R. 6, The Energy Tax Incentives Act Of 2005," JCX59-05, July 27, 2005. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2006, DOE/EIA-0348(2006) (Washington, DC, November 2007). Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-906, "Power Plant Report;" Form EIA-920 "Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;" October 2006-September 2007. Tennessee Valley Authority SEC 10-K, 2006. Bonneville Power Administration 2006 Annual Report. Southeastern Power Administration 2005 Annual Report. Southwestern Power Administration 2004-2006 Annual Report and Western Area Power Administration 2006 Annual Report. The per-unit subsidies are calculated as the subsidies allocated to each fuel type divided by the FY 2007 electricity generated by each fuel type (Table 35). Refined-coal-related generation receives the largest subsidy in absolute terms, at roughly $2 billion, as well as the highest per- unit value at $29.81 per megawatthour. Renewable electricity production, in aggregate, received subsidies totaling $1.0 billion, but the per-unit subsidy in aggregate is $2.80 per megawatthour. On a fuel-specific basis, solar and wind subsidies receive the second-and-third highest per unit subsidies. However, the total value of subsidies received by each of these technologies was roughly in proportion to their relative share of net generation. As, a result, their respective per-unit subsidies are nearly equal. In the case of solar, the per-unit subsidy estimate of $24.34 per megawatthour is a function of the relatively high allocation of subsidies received, $14 million, and its low share of total electricity production. Wind received $724 million in subsidies, valued at $23.37 per megawatthour. Energy Information Administration / Chapter 5: Electric Subsidies Per Unit of Production 105 Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 Table 35. Subsidies and Support to Electricity Production: Alternative Measures Alternative Measures of Subsidy and Support Subsidy and FY 2007 Net Support Value Subsidy and Support Per Generation (billion 2007 unit of Production Fuel/End Use kilowatthours) (million dollars) (dollars/megawatthours) Coal
1,946
854
0.44 Refined Coal
72
2,156
29.81 Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids
919
227
0.25 Nuclear
794
1,267
1.59 Biomass (and Biofuels)
40
36
0.89 Geothermal
15
14
0.92 Hydroelectric
258
174
0.67 1 Solar
1
14
24.34 Wind
31
724
23.37 Landfill Gas
6
8
1.37 Municipal Solid Waste
9
1
0.13 Unallocated Renewables
NM
37
NM Renewables (subtotal)
360
1,008
2.80 Transmission and Distribution
NM
1,235
NM Total
4,091
6,747
1.65 NOTES: Total may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Unallocated renewables include projects funded under Clean Renewable Energy Bonds and the Renewable Energy Production Incentive. NM = Not meaningful. 1Net generation rounded to the nearest whole number. The actual value is 583 million kilowatthours. Sources: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-906, "Power Plant Report;" Form EIA-920, "Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;" October 2006-September 2007. Of the $9.8 billion in energy subsidies not related to electricity (Table 36), about one-third of the total promotes fuels, particularly ethanol and biodiesel, which are eligible to receive a blender’s credit under the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC). Blenders receive a $0.51 per gallon credit for each gallon of ethanol that is blended with gasoline for use as a motor fuel. In FY 2007, ethanol (and biofuels) consumption was just over half a quadrillion Btu, or about one half of one percent of all the energy consumed in the United States. On a consumption basis, ethanol is subsidized at a rate of $5.72 per million Btu, more than any other non-electric fuel. About 60 percent of all fuel consumed in the United States is consumed by primary end-use sectors, i.e., residential, commercial, industrial and transportation. In FY 2007 subsidies for petroleum liquids and natural gas totaled $2.1 billion. Although natural gas-fired generation has increased 86 percent between 1997 and 2007, power sector consumption of natural gas has increased only slightly as a share of total energy consumption in the United States, growing from around 5 percent of the national total to just under 7 percent. So, of the $2.1 billion in total natural gas and petroleum liquids subsidies, $1.9 billion are allocated to the primary end-use 106 Energy Information Administration / Chapter 5: Electric Subsidies Per Unit of Production Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 sectors with the remainder to electricity production. With over 60 percent of total energy consumption in the U.S. associated with natural gas and petroleum, the two fuels receive relatively small subsidies on a consumption unit basis, only about three cents per million Btu. Similarly, hydrogen, which is used in fuel cells and in a limited number of transportation pilot programs received $230 million in subsidies in FY 2007. However, consumption is so small that the subsidy per million Btu is not meaningful for comparison purposes in Table 36. Subsidies totaling another $3.6 billion do not directly affect fuel production or specific fuel consumption. These programs focus on energy efficiency, conservation, and energy-related financial assistance to residential, commercial, and industrial end-users. The largest of these programs, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), provided $2.2 billion in FY 2007 to subsidize heating and cooling costs. No program information is available to determine the portion of the expenditure directed to the affected fuels, which include distillate fuel, natural gas, coal, and electricity. Energy Information Administration / Chapter 5: Electric Subsidies Per Unit of Production 107 附件 24 The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) Federal Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies PART OF A SERIES OF WHITE PAPERS 2 | WHAT IS A SUBSIDY AND WHAT DO WE INCLUDE IN OUR ANALYSIS? Financial support is commonly called subsidy. subsidy but also on the set of assumptions needed While we will use subsidy as a short-hand for to estimate the magnitude of each category. fi ancial support throughout this report, specific programs have different intents and methods, Dictionary defin tions of subsidy focus on direct which influences their economic impact on money fl ws but the Latin root of the word 4 energy projects and costs as well as government subsidy suggests other forms of support. Th cash fl w (e.g., forsaken revenues versus direct Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) offers a broader expenditures). Over the years, numerous defin tion: “A subsidy is a fi ancial contribution entities, including various government agencies by a government, or agent of a government, that and civil society organizations, have produced confers a benefit on its recipients” (Steenblik 2007, reports to document federal fi ancial support 8). Th s defin tion, albeit somewhat vague, widens mechanisms and their contributions to different the scope in at least two ways: fi st, a “benefit” can be extended beyond a direct payment, and, second, energy sectors, fuels and technologies. Th ese recipients can include consumers and public analyses employ different defin tions of subsidy entities not just businesses. Th e GSI then suggests and scopes of analysis yielding results that 5 differed by more than an order of magnitude. nine categories of subsidy. Given the scope of our report, we remain closer to the dictionary For example, a study of fossil fuel production definition and use the term “subsidy” in the subsidies commissioned by the U.S. Treasury rest of the report as a short-hand for federal identifi d eleven provisions worth $4.7 billion per programs with the explicit intent to provide year (UST 2014). By contrast, a study, sponsored financial support to electricity generation or by the Organization for Economic Cooperation fuels used extensively in power generation. Next, and Development (OECD) of energy subsidies in we provide detailed rationale for inclusion and the U.S. identifi d $74 billion in spending each exclusion of specific ategories in this analysis. year (Koplow, 2007, 95). UST (2014) only includes 4 The Oxford English Dictionary defines a subsidy as “A sum of money provisions targeting energy production while granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or Koplow (2007) includes a host of spending related competitive.” The Merriam-Webster definition of subsidy is almost identi- to defense, foreign aff irs, and transportation cal: “money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a infrastructure. Th e intent of government support product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function.” The Latin root of the word subsidy, subsidium, means “sup- included in UST (2014) is clear and it is relatively port, assistance, aid, help, protection” and suggests broader possibilities straightforward to estimate the magnitude of this that could include forms of assistance other than direct payments. support. On the other hand, government intent 5 Cash grants and other direct payments (e.g., biofuel producers in the and costs are less easy to confi m for categories U.S., agricultural subsidies), tax concessions (e.g., tax preferences such as exemptions, credits, and deferrals discussed earlier), in-kind included in Koplow (2007) as some of them such as subsidies (e.g., low-rent housing, bridge to serve a community or an global spending on defense, military construction, industrial facility, access to public lands for free or at a below-market price), cross subsidy (e.g., electricity prices to residential, commercial and foreign operations and export fi ancing are and industrial users, fuel subsidies—low-priced diesel, high-priced not directed to any particular industry to build gasoline), credit subsidies and government guarantees (e.g., low- interest loans, loan guarantees), hybrid subsidies (tax engineering such generation in the U.S. although they may have as tax increment financing), derivative subsidies (a catch-all term to benefited the energy industry globally along capture downstream and upstream impacts of a subsidized project with other infrastructure industries indirectly. such as aluminum smelters associated with large hydroelectric dams), government procurement (e.g., requirements to buy domestic), and Th s comparison illustrates the disagreement market price support (e.g., agricultural commodity prices set by govern- regarding not only the categories to include as a ments, import tariffs—e.g., on ethanol in the U.S.) (Steenblick 2007) The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) Federal Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies, March 2017 | 7 TABLE 5: Electricity Spending by Type & Fuel (2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, $ million, nominal) Direct Expenditures Tax Expenditures Section Elec. Power Fuel Fuel Type 1603 R&D Other Subtotal Sales Plants Sales Prod. Subtotal Total FY2010 Spending Summary by Type & Fuel Coal - 307 46 353 28 359 - 235 622 975 HC - 9 45 54 - - - 726 726 780 Nuclear - 446 46 492 - 1,137 - - 1,137 1,629 Renewables 4,481 1,060 26 5,567 1,596 875 - - 2,471 8,038 Wind 4,002 58 1 4,061 1,338 - - - 1,338 5,399 Solar 359 320 22 701 - 355 - - 355 1,056 Other 120 682 3 805 258 520 - - 777 1,582 Total 4,481 1,822 163 6,466 1,624 2,371 - 961 4,956 11,422 FY2013 Spending Summary by Type & Fuel  Coal - 202 74 276 40 581 66 213 900 1,176 HC - 34 50 84 - - - 711 711 795 Nuclear - 406 9 415 - 1,289 - - 1,289 1,704 Renewables 8,169 976 11 9,156 1,630 3,413 - - 5,043 14,199 Wind 4,273 49 1 4,323 1,367 - - - 1,367 5,690 Solar 2,941 284 6 3,231 - 2,715 - - 2,715 5,946 Other 955 643 4 1,602 263 698 - - 961 2,563 Total 8,169 1,618 144 9,931 1,670 5,283 66 923 7,942 17,873 FY2016 Spending Summary by Type & Fuel  Coal - 270 64 334 40 561 91 413 1,105 1,439 HC - 23 50 73 - - - 1,154 1,154 1,227 Nuclear - 452 29 481 140 392 - - 532 1,013 Renewables - 1,080 20 1,100 3,220 3,563 - - 6,783 7,883 Wind - 57 57 2,700 - - - 2,700 2,757 Solar - 320 320 - 2,820 - - 2,820 3,140 Other - 703 703 520 743 - - 1,263 1,966 Total - 1,825 163 1,988 3,400 4,516 91 1,567 9,575 11,563 FY2019 Spending Summary by Type & Fuel  Coal - 287 68 354 40 531 66 490 1,127 1,481 HC - 24 53 78 - - 146 997 1,143 1,221 Nuclear - 480 31 511 340 488 - - 828 1,338 Renewables - 1,146 21 1,167 5,111 3,882 - - 8,993 10,160 Wind - 60 60 4,591 - - - 4,591 4,651 Solar - 340 340 - 3,345 - - 3,345 3,685 Other - 746 746 520 537 - - 1,057 1,803 Total - 1,937 173 2,110 5,491 4,900 212 1,487 12,091 14,200 Notes: ARRA Section 1603 spending is assumed to be zero for 2016 although pending litigation could result in a small, positive value for this year. The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) Federal Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies, March 2017 | 18 TABLE 7: Per-MWh Subsidy by Type & Fuel (2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, $ nominal) Direct Expenditures Tax Expenditures Section Elec. Power Fuel Fuel Type 1603 R&D Other Subtotal Sales Plants Sales Comp. Subtotal Total FY2010 Spending Summary by Type & Fuel Coal - 0.17 0.02 0.19 0.02 0.19 - 0.13 0.34 0.53 HC - 0.01 0.04 0.05 - - - 0.72 0.72 0.77 Nuclear - 0.55 0.06 0.61 - 1.41 - - 1.41 2.02 Renewables 26.51 6.27 0.15 32.94 9.44 5.18 - - 14.62 47.56 Wind 42.19 0.61 0.01 42.82 14.11 - - - 14.11 56.93 Solar 88.60 78.98 5.43 173.01 - 87.69 - - 87.69 260.69 Other 1.71 9.73 0.04 11.48 3.68 7.41 - - 11.09 22.57 Avg. All Fuel 1.09 0.44 0.04 1.57 0.40 0.58 - 0.23 1.21 2.78 FY2013 Spending Summary by Type & Fuel  Coal - 0.13 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.37 0.04 0.13 0.57 0.74 HC - 0.03 0.04 0.07 - - - 0.62 0.62 0.69 Nuclear - 0.51 0.01 0.53 - 1.63 - - 1.63 2.16 Renewables 31.13 3.72 0.04 34.90 6.21 13.01 - - 19.22 54.12 Wind 25.46 0.29 0.01 25.76 8.14 - - - 8.14 33.90 Solar 158.63 15.32 0.32 174.27 - 146.44 - - 146.44 320.71 Other 12.56 8.46 0.05 21.08 3.46 9.18 - - 12.65 33.72 Avg. All Fuel 2.01 0.40 0.04 2.44 0.41 1.30 0.02 0.23 1.95 4.39 FY2016 Spending Summary by Type & Fuel Coal - 0.20 0.05 0.25 0.03 0.41 0.07 0.30 0.81 1.06 HC - 0.02 0.04 0.05 - - - 0.85 0.85 0.91 Nuclear - 0.58 0.04 0.62 0.18 0.50 - - 0.68 1.30 Renewables - 3.17 0.06 3.22 9.43 10.44 - - 19.87 23.10 Wind - 0.26 - 0.26 12.48 - - - 12.48 12.74 Solar - 6.26 - 6.26 - 55.05 - - 55.05 61.31 Other - 9.54 - 9.54 7.06 10.08 - - 17.14 26.68 Avg. All Fuel - 0.44 0.04 0.48 0.83 1.10 0.02 0.38 2.33 2.81 FY2019 Spending Summary by Type & Fuel  Coal - 0.21 0.05 0.26 0.03 0.38 0.05 0.35 0.81 1.07 HC - 0.02 0.04 0.06 - - 0.11 0.78 0.89 0.95 Nuclear - 0.62 0.04 0.66 0.44 0.63 - - 1.07 1.74 Renewables - 2.43 0.04 2.47 10.81 8.21 - - 19.03 21.50 Wind - 0.20 - 0.20 14.95 - - - 14.95 15.15 Solar - 3.92 - 3.92 - 38.59 - - 38.59 42.51 Other - 9.46 - 9.46 6.59 6.80 - - 13.40 22.85 Avg. All Fuel - 0.46 0.04 0.50 1.30 1.16 0.05 0.35 2.86 3.36 The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) Federal Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies, March 2017 | 23 The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) State Level Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies An analysis of Texas & California Part of a series of white papers Table 7: Value of Texas Electricity-Related Financial Support ($ million, nominal) Proximity and Fuel 2010 2013 2016 2019 Fuel Sales 287 293 395 299 Coal 77 90 77 66 Hydrocarbons 210 203 318 233 Oil < 0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Natural Gas 201 199 314 230 Undifferentiated 9 4 4 3 Fuel Extraction 55 78 52 49 Coal 4 4 4 4 Hydrocarbons 51 74 49 45 Electricity Sales 22 26 6 5 Renewables 22 26 6 5 Wind 22 26 6 5 Power Plants 51 55 105 141 Nuclear 1 1 2 2 Renewables 49 54 103 139 Wind 44 49 88 118 Solar 2 5 15 19 Other RE 3 0 1 2 T&D and Storage 101 968 1,045 976 Renewables 101 968 1,045 976 Wind 101 968 1,045 976 Total (without CREZ) 415 452 559 493 Total 516 1,419 1,604 1,470 Coal 81 94 81 70 Oil 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 201 199 314 230 Undifferentiated Hydrocarbons 60 78 53 48 Nuclear 1 1 2 2 Renewables 172 1,047 1,154 1,120 Wind 167 1,042 1,138 1,099 Solar 2 5 15 19 Other RE 3 0 1 2 Notes: “Total (without CREZ)” refers to annual Texas financial support for electricity when subtracting our estimated costs for the CREZ transmission lines. The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) State Level Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies, April 2018 | 19 Table 9: Texas $/MWh Financial Support by Type & Fuel (2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, annual $ nominal divided by annual generation per fuel) Proximity and Fuel 2010 2013 2016 2019 Fuel Sales 0.70 0.68 0.87 0.64 Coal 0.51 0.60 1.11 0.49 Hydrocarbons 1.10 0.98 1.11 1.05 Fuel Extraction 0.13 0.18 0.12 0.10 Coal 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 Hydrocarbons 0.27 0.36 0.17 0.20 Power Plants 0.12 0.13 0.23 0.30 Nuclear 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 Renewables 1.78 1.42 1.74 1.95 Wind 1.68 1.36 1.66 1.83 Solar 256 29.6 8.72 10.6 Other RE 1.07 0.14 - - Electricity Sales 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.01 Wind 0.84 0.72 0.11 0.08 T&D and Storage 3.86 27.0 19.8 15.2 Renewables 3.86 27.0 19.8 15.2 Wind 3.86 27.0 19.8 15.2 Portfolio Total (wtd. avg., without CREZ) 1.01 1.04 1.23 1.06 Portfolio Total (wtd. avg., with CREZ) 1.26 3.28 3.54 3.15 Coal 0.54 0.63 1.16 0.52 Hydrocarbons 1.37 1.34 1.28 1.25 Nuclear 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 Renewables (with CREZ $) 6.22 27.7 19.4 15.7 Renewables (without CREZ $) 2.57 2.11 1.84 2.02 Wind (with CREZ $) 6.38 29.1 21.6 17.1 Wind (without CREZ $) 2.52 2.07 1.77 1.91 Solar 256 29.6 8.72 10.6 Other RE 1.07 0.14 0 0 Notes: Total and subtotal values are category subsidy subtotal divided by total Texas electricity generation from all generator types. (with CREZ $): refers to total annual wind subsidies, including CREZ costs, divided by annual electricity generation from all wind farms. (without CREZ $): refers to total annual wind subsidies, not including CREZ costs, divided by annual electricity generation from all wind farms. On a portfolio wide basis, financial support for 2017). These Texas benefits differ dramatically electricity generating technologies is worth 2-4 by year and technology. Conventional fuels like $/MWh over the study period (Table 9). If one coal and natural gas receive 1-2 $/MWh. Wind neglected CREZ costs, the value is about 1 $/MWh. receives up to 30 $/MWh (at peak) if including The overall 2-4 $/MWh calculation is slightly below CREZ costs, but receives approximately 2 $/MWh the range we estimated for federal support at 3-5 when not including CREZ costs. These results $/MWh for electricity generation (Griffiths, et al., hold despite our estimate that fossil fuels receive The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) State Level Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies, April 2018 | 22 Table 13: California Energy-related Financial Support by Type & Fuel (2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, $ million, nominal) Category 2010 2013 2016 2019 Electricity Sales 1,934 2,623 4,021 4,621 Renewables 1,934 2,623 4,021 4,621 Wind 760 1,201 1,044 1,093 Solar 105 565 2,264 2,908 Geothermal 482 364 347 304 Biopower 404 399 267 218 Hydro 183 93 99 98 Power Plants and Capital 854 1,353 1,765 2,335 Renewables 652 1,308 1,476 1,823 Wind 2 - - - Solar 476 772 570 385 Geothermal - - - - Biopower - - - - Hydro - - - - RE (Undifferentiated) 178 540 910 1,442 Nuclear 4 4 3 3 Fuel Cells 197 33 35 26 Energy Storage 1 8 250 483 Fuel Sales & Extraction 24 24 33 35 Hydrocarbons 24 24 33 35 R&D 3 130 180 158 Electricity - 63 64 64 Biopower 3 3 50 29 Other Renewables - 57 58 58 Hydrocarbons - 6 6 6 Energy Storage - 2 2 2 Total 2,819 4,071 5,937 7,088 Renewables 2,587 3,931 5,497 6,444 Wind 762 1,201 1,044 1,093 Solar 581 1,337 2,834 3,293 Geothermal 482 364 347 304 Biopower 407 401 317 247 Hydro 183 93 99 98 RE (Undifferentiated) 178 596 967 1,500 Hydrocarbons 24 29 39 41 Nuclear 4 4 3 3 Fuel Cells 197 33 35 26 Energy Storage 1 10 252 485 The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) State Level Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies, April 2018 | 30 Table 15: California Volumetric Electricity-Related Financial Support ($/MWh) Category 2010 2013 2016 2019 Electricity Sales 6.66 8.84 15.2 17.0 Renewables 47.9 47.1 79.0 72.4 Wind 56.1 47.4 46.6 39.9 Solar 110 105 109 85.0 Geothermal 36.0 27.6 29.7 26.6 Biopower 58.2 50.3 51.7 51.9 Hydro 32.9 24.5 26.5 25.0 Power Plants and Capital 2.94 4.56 6.65 8.59 Renewables 16.2 23.6 29.1 28.6 Wind 0.14 - - - Solar 496 143 27.4 11.2 Nuclear 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.15 Fuel Sales & Production 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Hydrocarbons 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 R&D 0.01 0.44 0.68 0.58 Biopower 0.36 0.32 9.7 6.9 Renewables - 1.02 1.13 0.90 Hydrocarbons - 0.04 0.04 0.04 Total 9.70 13.7 22.4 26.1 Renewables 64.1 70.7 108 101 Wind 56.3 47.4 46.6 39.9 Solar 606 248 136 96.2 Geothermal 36.0 27.6 29.7 26.6 Biopower 58.6 50.3 61.4 58.7 Hydro 32.9 24.5 26.5 25.0 Hydrocarbons 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.29 Nuclear 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.15 Note: Bolded values are the subcategory of financial support dollars divided by total California electricity generation. The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) State Level Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies, April 2018 | 32 附件 25 United States G20 coal subsidies The US federal government provides no support to transition away from coal, despite recent major coal power plant closures Coal and the US's economy US$58,560 5,206 36,207 31% GDP per capita, PPP 2016 imports 2016 exports Share in power mix (2016–2017 average) (kilotonne oil equivalent) (kilotonne oil equivalent) (by generation) Key findings • The US provides over US$1 billion per year in fiscal support for coal mining at federal level (2016–2017 average), split between tax expenditures that benefit coal mining companies and research and development spending via the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy. • Support for consumption of coal and coal-fired electricity is mainly provided at state level, accounting for over US$718 million in fiscal support (2016–2017 average). Prominence of fossil fuels and subsidy phase-out commitments • The Trump Administration has moved to repeal the Clean Power Plan which aimed to accelerate the US transition away from coal-fired power plants. • Despite this, and other federal policy efforts to further subsidise coal-fired power, more coal-fired power plants were retired in the first two years of the Trump Administration than in the first Obama Administration, driven by both market forces and local opposition (DiSavino, 2019). 2018 saw the closure of 14.5 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired generating capacity. In March 2019, a bid to keep the 2.4 GW Navajo Generating Station operating failed, so it will close (Randazzo and Smith, 2019). • Coal accounted for 31% of US electricity generation in 2016, with all fossil fuels totalling 65% (IEA, 2019). • As a member of the G20, the US has committed to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term (as agreed in 2009), and as a G7 member to do so with a 2025 deadline (G20, 2009; G7, 2016). Government support to coal production • Our analysis has identified over US$1 billion of subsidies to coal production per year (2016–2017 average), provided through tax exemptions and budgetary contributions. But some G20 coal subsidies: tracking government support to a fading industry odi.org/g20-coal-subsidies of the largest subsidies to coal production in the US are not reflected in these findings, as they are difficult to quantify and absent from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels – the source used in this analysis to allow for comparability between countries. However, other analyses estimate many of these subsidies (Redman, 2017). • For example, the Powder River Basin – one of the main US coal-production regions and among the biggest in the world – is not currently designated a ‘coal-producing region’. This has contributed to a lack of management of the resource, and a lack of competition for leases, resulting in low bid prices. Some estimates assess the value of this de facto subsidy alone to be nearly US$1 billion annually (Sanzillo, 2012). Government support to coal-fired power production • Some federal government efforts to further subsidise coal-fired power production have failed as a result of pushback from regulators or the judiciary. For example, in 2017 Secretary of Energy Rick Perry proposed subsidisation of coal-fired power plants, arguing that the reliability of facilities that keep more than 90 days of fuel on site was undervalued by the market. However, this was rejected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Bade, 2018). • New state-level efforts to prevent coal-fired power plants from closing emerged in 2018 and 2019. For example, a bill signed by Wyoming’s governor in March 2019 will force any utility selling a coal-fired power plant to continue purchasing the electricity generated by that plant from the new owner, even if less expensive sources of electricity are available. These costs would be passed on to ratepayers, and one economist has estimated that this could increase the average household electricity bill in the state by US$1,000 annually (Scott, 2019). Government support to coal and coal-fired power consumption • The bulk of support for coal-fired power consumption is in the form of state-level consumption subsidies to electricity used by households. This represents coal’s share in the total amount of subsidies that are provided to electricity consumption (for all fossil fuel-based electricity). Our analysis estimates US$718 million per year of support benefiting coal and coal-fired power consumption (2016–2017 average). Government support to the transition away from coal and coal-fired power • No federal-level government support to the transition away from coal or coal-fired power was identified. The US’s government support to coal and coal-fired power production and consumption US$ millions, 2016–2017 annual average Instrument Coal productioni Coal-fired power Coal consumptionii Transition supportiii Fiscal support 1,057 173 718 none identified (budgetary transfers and tax exemptions) Public finance 11 none identified none identified none identified Domestic none identified – – – International 11 – – – State-owned enterprise investment none identified none identified none identified none identified Note: for more detail and sources see the US data sheet available at odi.org/g20-coal-subsidies/us. i  This category includes support for coal exploration, mining, processing and transportation. ii  This category includes support for consumption of coal-fired power, and of coal other than for its use for coal-fired power generation (or for co-generation of power and heat). iii  This category includes support for closing down mining sites, and for workers and communities in their transition away from coal and coal-fired power. 2 References Bade, G. (2018) ‘FERC rejects DOE NOPR, kicking resilience issue to grid operators’. Utility Dive, 8 January (www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-rejects-doe-nopr-kicking-resilience-issue-to-grid-operators/514334/) DiSavino, S. (2019) ‘President Trump can’t stop U.S. coal plants from retiring’. Reuters, 14 January (www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-coal/president-trump-cant-stop-u-s-coal-plants-from-retiring- idUSKCN1P80BY) IEA – International Energy Agency (2019) ‘Statistics: electricity generation by fuel’ (electronic dataset, International Energy Agency) (www.iea.org/statistics/) G7 (2016) G7 Ise-Shima Leaders’ Declaration. Ise-Shima: G7 (www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2016shima/ ise-shima-declaration-en.html) G20 (2009) G20 Leaders’ Statement: The Pittsburgh Summit. Pittsburgh PA: G20 (www.g20.utoronto.ca/ 2009/2009communique0925.html) Randazzo, R. and Smith, N. (2019) ‘Navajo Nation votes to end efforts to purchase coal-fired power plant, sealing its fate’. AZCentral, 22 March (www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2019/03/22/ navajo-nation-ends-bid-buy-navajo-generating-station-coal-power-plant/3246913002/) Redman, J. (2017) ‘Dirty energy dominance: dependant on denial’. Oil Change International, 3 October (priceofoil.org/2017/10/03/dirty-energy-dominance-us-subsidies/) Sanzillo, T. (2012) The great giveaway: an analysis of the costly failure of federal coal leasing in the Powder River Basin. IIEFA Report. Cleveland OH: Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (ieefa.org/study-almost-30-billion-in-revenues-lost-to-taxpayers-by-giveaway-of-federally- owned-coal-in-powder-river-basin/) Scott, R. (2019) ‘Bill to save coal power plants signed, skeptics abound’. Wyoming Tribune Eagle, 9 March (www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/bill-to-save-coal-power-plants-signed-skeptics- abound/article_e3b8efa7-59ba-5251-ad9e-7a07fadb206d.html) 3 Fiscal support (budgetary transfers and tax exemptions) Estimated annual  Notes 2016 2017 Measure Level Mechanism Incidence Indicator Stage Fuel type Fuel sub‐type amount Source (USD) (USD) (USD) Coal Severance Tax Exemptions Measure still active but no data available Cost of  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) Intermediate Inputs stage Coal Severance Tax Exemptions Measure still active but no data available Cost of  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) Intermediate Inputs stage Coal Severance Tax Exemptions Measure still active but no data available Cost of  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) Intermediate Inputs stage coal Coal Conversion Tax Exemptions Measure still active but no data available Cost of  Extraction or mining  Electricity‐ Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate OECD (2019) Intermediate Inputs stage based support Coal Refuse Energy and  Use of fossil fuels in  Reclamation Tax Credit Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite 292,822 380,259 336,541 OECD (2019) electricity generation Coal Refuse Energy and  Use of fossil fuels in    Other bituminous  Reclamation Tax Credit Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal 7,207,178 9,619,741 8,413,460 OECD (2019) electricity generation coal Coal Royalty Rate Reduction  ‐  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Federal Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) Category 5 Qualification resources stage Coal Royalty Rate Reduction  ‐  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Federal Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) Category 5 Qualification resources stage Coal Royalty Rate Reduction  ‐  Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Federal Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) Category 5 Qualification resources stage coal Industrial Expansion and  Use of fossil fuels in    Other bituminous  Revitalization Credit Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal 52,500,000 48,000,000 50,250,000 OECD (2019) electricity generation coal Credit for Reducing Utility  Measure still active but no data available Use of fossil fuels in    Other bituminous  Charges Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) electricity generation coal Reduced Tax for Thin‐Seamed  Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal 30,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 OECD (2019) Coal resources stage coal Sales Tax Exemption for Coal Measure benefits both households and  Coal consumption  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite 5,130,245 5,046,041 5,088,143 OECD (2019) companies, but allocated to companies as  (business and industry) likely to mostly benefit them. Sales Tax Exemption for Coal Measure benefits both households and  Coal consumption    Other bituminous  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal 126,269,755 127,653,959 126,961,857 OECD (2019) companies, but allocated to companies as  (business and industry) coal likely to mostly benefit them. Sales Tax Exemption for  Multiplied by proportion of coal in the fossil  Residential Utilities Electricity  fuel‐based electricity mix. Electricity‐ Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate consumption  428,400,000 433,100,000 207,793,800 OECD (2019) FF: 65.03%, coal: 31.37%; coal/FF: 48.24% based support (households) (Source: IEA) Sales Tax Exemption for Energy  Coal consumption    Other bituminous  Used in Manufacturing Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal 0 57,686 28,843 OECD (2019) (business and industry) coal Thin Seam Tax Credit Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite 12,310 13,357 12,834 OECD (2019) resources stage Thin Seam Tax Credit Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal 400,581 501,442 451,012 OECD (2019) resources stage Thin Seam Tax Credit Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal 1,787,109 1,785,201 1,786,155 OECD (2019) resources stage coal Coal Transportation Expense Transportation of fossil  Measure still active but no data available Land and natural  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate fuels (e.g., through  Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) resources pipelines) Coal Transportation Expense Transportation of fossil  Measure still active but no data available Land and natural  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate fuels (e.g., through  Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) resources pipelines) Coal Transportation Expense Transportation of fossil  Measure still active but no data available Land and natural    Other bituminous  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate fuels (e.g., through  Coal OECD (2019) resources coal pipelines) Excess of Percentage over Cost  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite 19,585 20,326 19,956 OECD (2019) Depletion stage Excess of Percentage over Cost  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal 637,288 763,064 700,176 OECD (2019) Depletion stage Excess of Percentage over Cost  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal 2,843,128 2,716,610 2,779,869 OECD (2019) Depletion stage coal Coal Incentive Tax Credit Use of fossil fuels in  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite 19,585 19,745 19,665 OECD (2019) electricity generation Coal Incentive Tax Credit Use of fossil fuels in  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal 637,288 741,262 689,275 OECD (2019) electricity generation Coal Incentive Tax Credit Use of fossil fuels in    Other bituminous  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal 2,843,128 2,638,992 2,741,060 OECD (2019) electricity generation coal Sales Tax Incentive for  Measure still active but no data available Refining or processing  Alternative Fuel or Gasification  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) stage Facilities Sales Tax Incentive for  Measure still active but no data available Refining or processing  Alternative Fuel or Gasification  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) stage Facilities Sales Tax Incentive for  Measure still active but no data available Refining or processing    Other bituminous  Alternative Fuel or Gasification  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) stage coal Facilities Sales Tax Exemption for Energy  Coal consumption    Other bituminous  and Energy Producing Fuels Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal 7,734,795 7,975,567 7,855,181 OECD (2019) (business and industry) coal Railroad Improvement Tax  Transportation of fossil  General Services Support    Other bituminous  Credit Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital fuels (e.g., through  Coal 2,700,000 2,600,000 2,650,000 OECD (2019) Estimate coal pipelines) Fossil Energy R&D General Services Support    Other bituminous  Federal Budgetary transfer Knowledge Coal mining (R&D) Coal 651,295,196 646,372,679 648,833,938 OECD (2019) Estimate coal Alaska Affordable Heating  Multiplied by proportion of coal in the fossil  Program Electricity  fuel‐based electricity mix. Electricity‐ Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate consumption  1,122,215 0 270,678 OECD (2019) FF: 65.03%, coal: 31.37%; coal/FF: 48.24% based support (households) (Source: IEA) Department for Energy  General Services Support  Extraction or mining  Development and Independence Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Knowledge Coal   Anthracite 8,566 4,475 6,521 OECD (2019) Estimate stage Department for Energy  General Services Support  Extraction or mining  Development and Independence Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Knowledge Coal   Coking coal 278,750 168,011 223,381 OECD (2019) Estimate stage Department for Energy  General Services Support  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Development and Independence Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Knowledge Coal 1,243,587 598,142 920,865 OECD (2019) Estimate stage coal Coal Academy Mining Workforce  General Services Support  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Labour Coal   Anthracite 16,787 17,422 17,105 OECD (2019) Development Estimate stage Coal Academy Mining Workforce  General Services Support  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Labour Coal   Coking coal 546,247 654,055 600,151 OECD (2019) Development Estimate stage Coal Academy Mining Workforce  General Services Support  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Labour Coal 2,436,966 2,328,523 2,382,745 OECD (2019) Development Estimate stage coal Mine Safety and Licensing General Services Support  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Labour Coal   Anthracite 54,643 58,163 56,403 OECD (2019) Estimate stage Mine Safety and Licensing General Services Support  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Labour Coal   Coking coal 1,778,081 2,183,528 1,980,805 OECD (2019) Estimate stage Mine Safety and Licensing General Services Support  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Labour Coal 7,932,542 7,773,650 7,853,096 OECD (2019) Estimate stage coal Coal Development Trust Fund Land and natural  General Services Support  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Coal   Lignite 3,136,599 3,081,651 3,109,125 OECD (2019) resources Estimate stage Abandoned Mine Reclamation  Land and natural  General Services Support  Extraction or mining  Sub‐national Budgetary transfer Coal   Lignite 2,796,000 2,793,000 2,794,500 OECD (2019) Fund resources Estimate stage Capital Gains Treatment of  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Federal Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite 458,061 483,855 470,958 OECD (2019) Royalties on Coal resources stage Capital Gains Treatment of  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Federal Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal 14,905,248 18,164,655 16,534,952 OECD (2019) Royalties on Coal resources stage Capital Gains Treatment of  Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Federal Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal 66,496,697 64,668,578 65,582,638 OECD (2019) Royalties on Coal resources stage coal Capital Gains Treatment of  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Federal Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Sub‐bituminous coal 58,631,764 58,171,538 58,401,651 OECD (2019) Royalties on Coal resources stage Capital Gains Treatment of  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Federal Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Lignite 9,508,230 8,511,374 9,009,802 OECD (2019) Royalties on Coal resources stage Excess of Percentage over Cost  Extraction or mining  Federal Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite 548,789 570,786 559,788 OECD (2019) Depletion stage Excess of Percentage over Cost  Extraction or mining  Federal Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal 17,857,525 21,428,170 19,642,848 OECD (2019) Depletion stage Excess of Percentage over Cost  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Federal Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal 79,667,671 76,287,122 77,977,397 OECD (2019) Depletion stage coal Excess of Percentage over Cost  Extraction or mining  Federal Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Sub‐bituminous coal 70,244,933 68,622,804 69,433,869 OECD (2019) Depletion stage Excess of Percentage over Cost  Extraction or mining  Federal Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Lignite 11,391,521 10,040,551 10,716,036 OECD (2019) Depletion stage Nonrefundable Tax Credit for  Use of fossil fuels in    Other bituminous  the Purchase of Oklahoma  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal 3,998,000 3,109,000 3,553,500 OECD (2019) electricity generation coal Mined Coal Sales tax exemption for coal Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) stage Sales tax exemption for coal Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) stage Sales tax exemption for coal Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) stage coal Mineral Resources and Mapping  General Services Support  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Knowledge Coal OECD (2019) Program Estimate stage coal Mineral Resources and Mapping  General Services Support  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Knowledge Coal   Sub‐bituminous coal OECD (2019) Program Estimate stage Coal Used in the Manufacture of  Use of fossil fuels in    Other bituminous  Electricity Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal 33,800,000 35,900,000 34,850,000 OECD (2019) electricity generation coal Sales of Electricity Support for electricity producers. Multiplied  by proportion of coal in the fossil fuel‐based  Use of fossil fuels in  Electricity‐ Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate 150,000,000 72,360,000 OECD (2019) electricity mix. electricity generation based support FF: 65.03%, coal: 31.37%; coal/FF: 48.24% (Source: IEA) Sales and Use Tax Exemption for  Multiplied by proportion of coal in the fossil  Electricity  Electricity Electricity‐ fuel‐based electricity mix. Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate consumption (mixed or  38,500,000 18,572,400 OECD (2019) based support FF: 65.03%, coal: 31.37%; coal/FF: 48.24% unclear) (Source: IEA) Sales Tax Exemption for Natural  Multiplied by proportion of coal in the fossil  Gas and Electricity for  Electricity  fuel‐based electricity mix. Electricity‐ Residential Sector Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate consumption  692,054,109 581,039,410 307,070,157 OECD (2019) FF: 65.03%, coal: 31.37%; coal/FF: 48.24% based support (households) (Source: IEA) Electricity Used in Oil De‐ Measure still active but no data available Extraction or mining  Electricity‐ watering Projects Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Producer Support Estimate OECD (2019) stage based support Sales‐Tax Exclusion for Purchase  Multiplied by proportion of coal in the fossil  of Electric Power or Energy for  Electricity  fuel‐based electricity mix. Electricity‐ Non‐residential Use Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate consumption (business  138,288,865 45,681,993 44,373,771 OECD (2019) FF: 65.03%, coal: 31.37%; coal/FF: 48.24% based support and industry) (Source: IEA) Impact Assistance Credit Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) stage coal Severance‐Tax Reduction for  In absence of data for 2017, the 2016  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Underground Coal Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite 1,819,000 1,819,000 OECD (2019) estimate was taken as the annual value. resources stage Severance‐Tax Reduction for  In absence of data for 2017, the 2016  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Underground Coal Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal 1,819,000 1,819,000 OECD (2019) estimate was taken as the annual value. resources stage Severance‐Tax Reduction for  In absence of data for 2017, the 2016  Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Underground Coal Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal 1,819,000 1,819,000 OECD (2019) estimate was taken as the annual value. resources stage coal Severance‐Tax Reduction for  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Lignite OECD (2019) Lignite resources stage Severance‐Tax Exemption for  In absence of data for 2017, the 2016  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Low‐Volume Coal Mining Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite 3,626,000 3,626,000 OECD (2019) estimate was taken as the annual value. resources stage Severance‐Tax Exemption for  In absence of data for 2017, the 2016  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Low‐Volume Coal Mining Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal 3,626,000 3,626,000 OECD (2019) estimate was taken as the annual value. resources stage Severance‐Tax Exemption for  In absence of data for 2017, the 2016  Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Low‐Volume Coal Mining Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal 3,626,000 3,626,000 OECD (2019) estimate was taken as the annual value. resources stage coal Coal Used to Burn Solid Waste Other end uses of  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) fossil fuels Coal Used to Burn Solid Waste Other end uses of  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) fossil fuels Coal Used to Burn Solid Waste Other end uses of    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) fossil fuels coal Sales‐Tax Exemption on Energy  Electricity  Measure still active but no data available Electricity‐ for Residential Use Sub‐national Tax expenditure Direct Consumption Consumer Support Estimate consumption  OECD (2019) based support (households) Coal Waste Removal Tax Credit Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) stage Coal Waste Removal Tax Credit Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) stage Coal Waste Removal Tax Credit Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) stage coal Realty‐Transfer Tax Exemption  Measure still active but no data available Land and natural  Extraction or mining  for Resource Leases Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) resources stage Realty‐Transfer Tax Exemption  Measure still active but no data available Land and natural  Extraction or mining  for Resource Leases Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) resources stage Realty‐Transfer Tax Exemption  Measure still active but no data available Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  for Resource Leases Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) resources stage coal Alternative Energy Production  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) Tax Credit stage Alternative Energy Production  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) Tax Credit stage Alternative Energy Production  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) Tax Credit stage coal Severance‐Tax Reduction for  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) Underground Coal resources stage Severance‐Tax Reduction for  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) Underground Coal resources stage Severance‐Tax Reduction for  Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) Underground Coal resources stage coal Severance‐Tax Exemption for  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) Coal Used as Process Energy resources stage Severance‐Tax Exemption for  Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) Coal Used as Process Energy resources stage Severance‐Tax Exemption for  Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) Coal Used as Process Energy resources stage coal Property‐Tax Exemption for  Measure still active but no data available Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Underground Coal‐Mining  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) resources stage Equipment Property‐Tax Exemption for  Measure still active but no data available Land and natural  Extraction or mining  Underground Coal‐Mining  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) resources stage Equipment Property‐Tax Exemption for  Measure still active but no data available Land and natural  Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Underground Coal‐Mining  Sub‐national Tax expenditure Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) resources stage coal Equipment Sales‐Tax Exemption for Coal‐ Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Anthracite OECD (2019) Gasification Equipment stage Sales‐Tax Exemption for Coal‐ Extraction or mining  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal   Coking coal OECD (2019) Gasification Equipment stage Sales‐Tax Exemption for Coal‐ Extraction or mining    Other bituminous  Measure still active but no data available Sub‐national Tax expenditure Capital Producer Support Estimate Coal OECD (2019) Gasification Equipment stage coal TOTAL 2,744,767,389 2,342,346,387 附件 26 US chemical profile For up-to-date information on more than 120 global commodities, visit: icis.com/about/price-reports tarun raizada houston Ethylene oxide Uses ­market was boosted by winter weather, which us ethylene oxide capacity Ethylene oxide (EO) is mainly used to make drove antifreeze sales. ‘000 TONNES/YEAR ethylene glycol (EG), which accounts for three- Sasol’s $11bn Lake Charles Chemicals Company Location Capacity quarters of global EO consumption. The ­Project (LCCP) in the US is 81% complete, Shell Chemicals Geismar, 715 ­second largest outlet is in surface active agents, and the company is scheduled to start up its Louisiana including non-ionic alkylphenol ethoxylates first units at the site in the second half of Dow Chemical Taft, Louisiana 700 and detergent alcohol ethoxylates. 2018. LCCP consists of a 1.5m tonne/year Huntsman Port Neches, 580 Monoethylene glycol (MEG) is used in ethane cracker, as well as six downstream Texas ­polyester fibres, resins and antifreeze ­facilities. The EO/EG unit will have a capacity Indorama Clear Lake, Texas 435 ­formulations, and polyethylene terephthalate of 300,000 tonnes/year of crude EO and Ventures (PET) film for packaging.Diethylene ­ glycol 250,000 tonnes/year of MEG and associated Dow Chemical Seadrift, Texas 420 (DEG) is used in polyols, unsaturated polyes- higher glycols. US cracker capacity is expect- Equistar Bayport, Texas 380 ter resins and plasticizers. Triethylene glycol ed to increase by 35% by 2019, taking into Chemicals (TEG) is used in natural gas dehydration and ­account new cracker projects and expansions Dow Chemical Plaquemine, 270 as a dehumidifier. of existing crackers. Louisiana Other EO derivatives include glycol ethers In Mexico, Pemex’s output of EO reached NOTE: Top seven listed (used in solvents and fuels), ethanolamines 218,000 tonnes in 2017, down from 294,000 A full list of plants and projects capacities, (used in surfactants and personal care tonnes in 2016. The state giant is struggling to forecasts, production volumes and ­products), polyols for polyurethane (PU) supply feedstock ethylene to its downstream operating rates are available on the ­systems, polyethylene glycols (used in units following its contractual pledge to ­deliver ICIS Supply and Demand database ­toothpaste and medicines) and polyalkylene ethane to Ethylene XXI, a $5.2bn JV between glycols (used in antifoam agents and Brazil’s Braskem and Mexico’s Grupo Idesa. ­Ethylene, compressed oxygen and recycled ­hydraulic lubricants). Surfactants producers in Asia and ­elsewhere gas are mixed and fed to a multitubular EO is very explosive and difficult to in the world may be in for a tough time on ­catalytic reactor. The mixture is passed over a ­transport over long distances. ­account of lacklustre demand growth, global silver oxide catalyst at 200-300°C and 10-30 overcapacity and an increasingly stringent bar. The resulting gases from the reactor are Supply/demand ­regulatory environment, ­especially in China. cooled and then passed through a scrubber US EO supply is somewhat tight due to recent where the EO is absorbed, and can go straight production issues in the first quarter and the Prices to glycol production or be purified to produce impending start of the peak season in the EO contract prices for March fell from other EO derivatives. downstream surfactants and PET sectors. The ­February following a decline in the feedstock A crude EG mixture is produced by the anticipated pick-up in demand from the down- ­ethylene contract for March. The ethylene ­hydrolysis of EO with water under pressure. stream ­sectors will run from April to August. contract typically settles at the beginning of Fractional distillation under vacuum Demand was also at a healthy level during the month for the previous month, and the EO ­separates the MEG from DEG and TEG. the winter season as the downstream EG contract price moves in tandem with ­ethylene. The majority of EO contracts are Outlook US ETHYLENE OXIDE formula-based, and price movement compris- EO supply is expected to be tighter by the start es 80% of the change in the ethylene price of summer, driven by several EO/EG turna- Cents/lb, contract FOB and an ­additional conversion fee, or adder. rounds and higher demand from the onset of 62 The March EO contract settled at 51.60- the peak downstream surfactants ­season. Turn- 61.10 cents/lb free on board (FOB), a decrease arounds are generally scheduled after the peak 61 of 1.40 cents/lb from February. antifreeze season since demand tends to be US spot feedstock ethylene prices have slower. In addition, demand from downstream 60 fallen to their lowest point in nine years as EG is also expected to see a pick-up from the ­production continues to be bolstered by new PET market, which has its peak season from 59 crackers and demand is hampered by April to August. PET is a major outlet for EG. ­downstream outages. Feedstock ethylene supply may become 58 more snug as downstream polyethylene (PE) Technology outages wrap up and as new PE plants EO was first manufactured using ethylene ­increase production. ■ 57 Apr Feb chlorohydrin as an intermediate, but this 2017 2018 route has been superseded by the direct Access the archive of the Chemical Profiles ­oxidation of ethylene with air or oxygen. A-Z at icis.com/subscriber/icb 84 | ICIS Chemical Business | 13-19 April 2018 www.icis.com ICB_240818_082-089 Profiles April18.indd 84 8/22/18 4:09 PM US chemical profile For up-to-date information on more than 120 global commodities, visit: icis.com/about/price-reports Jessie Waldheim Houston Ethylene Uses Prices US ethylene capacity Ethylene is used in the manufacture of poly- Prices peaked in 2017 during Q1, amid turna- ‘000 TONNES/YEAR ethylene (PE), polyester, polyvinyl chloride rounds and outages at several US Gulf crack- Company Location Capacity (PVC), polystyrene (PS) and ethylene oxide ers and strong downstream consumption. In DowDuPont Freeport, Texas 3,155 (EO), as well as fibres and other organic chem- February, spot prices had risen to to a high of ExxonMobil Baytown, Texas 2,200 icals. PE accounts for 60% of global ethylene 36-38 cents/lb and contract prices to a high of Chevron Phillips Sweeny, Texas 1,966 demand. 35.75 cents/lb. INEOS Chocolate Bayou, 1,907 Prices moderated in Q2 as outages resolved Texas Supply/demand and continued falling into the middle of the LyondellBasell Channelview, Texas 1,859 US ethylene supply is expected to tighten late year as the several expected downstream pro- DowDuPont Plaquemine, 1,507 in 2017 as new downstream capacity has jects had not started up by mid-year. Louisiana come online ahead of expected new ethylene Hurricane Harvey in Q3 pushed prices Formosa Point Comfort, 1,496 capacity. Three new crackers and one idled higher, although the post-hurricane high in Plastics Texas cracker had been expected to come online late late September remained below the peak in Shell Norco, Louisiana 1,420 in 2017. One cracker started up in September, February. Westlake Lake Charles, 1,356 but the others are now expected in early 2018. Louisiana Some of the companies building these pro- Technology LyondellBasell La Porte, Texas 1,152 jects cited Hurricane Harvey for the delays. Commercial production of ethylene is carried LyondellBasell Corpus Christi, 1,134 The hurricane in late August caused ethyl- out by steam cracking hydrocarbon feed- Texas ene outages along the Texas coast into stocks. Natural gas liquids (NGLs) ethane and BASF Total Port Arthur, Texas 1,040 Louisiana. While most units were back online propane are the primary feedstocks in the US ExxonMobil Baton Rouge, 1,000 within weeks, several outages continued into due to their abundance from shale gas, while Louisiana Q4. The hurricane also caused outages in oil-based naphtha is the primary feedstock in DowDuPont Taft, Louisiana 990 downstream markets, which took some pres- Europe and Asia. ExxonMobil Beaumont, Texas 900 sure off supply levels during Q3. NOVA Chemicals Geismar, Louisiana 885 Ethylene inventory levels at the close of Q3 Outlook Shell Deer Park, Texas 835 had increased from the prior quarter and from With the delay of several cracker projects into Chevron Phillips Cedar Bayou, Texas 803 the prior year, according to the American Fuel early 2018, ethylene supply is expected to be Chevron Phillips Port Arthur, Texas 803 & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). tight early in the year. While Dow started up DowDuPont Orange, Texas 680 Earlier in 2017, ethylene supplies also had its cracker in Freeport, Texas, in September, Eastman Longview, Texas 640 tightened due to a combination of offline crack- the start-up of three other projects was post- Flint Hills Port Arthur, Texas 621 ers and strong consumption into PE during Q1 poned. These are: Resources and part of Q2. However, ethylene supplies ■ ExxonMobil at Baytown, Texas (1.5m LyondellBasell Morris, Illinois 549 lengthened in the middle of the year as outages tonnes/year expected mid-2018, previously Occidental Ingleside, Texas 544 resolved and as PE consumption eased. end 2017) Chemical/ ■ Chevron Phillips Chemical at Cedar Bayou, Mexichem US ETHYLENE Texas (1.5m tonnes/year expected Q1 2018, Sasol Lake Charles, 482 previously end 2017) Louisiana Cents/lb ■ NOTE: Top 25 listed 40 Indorama at Lake Charles, Louisiana Pipeline, spot DEL (370,000 tonnes/year expected early 2018, Contract DEL previously end 2017) ■ Sasol at Lake Charles, Louisiana (1.5m 35 As these and other projects come online, tonnes/year, expected H2 2018) supply could move into a more balanced or Supply is not expected to be constrained by 30 even a long position. Ethylene capacity is feedstock ethane supply, which is expected to expected to expand by more than five mil- remain adequate. However, crude oil values 25 lion tonnes/year by mid-2018 with another are lower now than when many of these eth- three million tonnes/year planned by the ylene and related downstream projects were 20 end of 2018. planned, which has narrowed the cost advan- Other 2018 ethylene projects include: tage US production receives from using ■ Formosa Plastics at Point Comfort, Texas ethane as a feedstock. ■ 15 Dec Nov (1.2m tonnes/year, expected Q2 2018) 2016 2017 ■ Shintech at Plaquemine, Louisiana Access the archive of the Chemical Profiles (500,000 tonnes/year, expected early 2018) A-Z at icis.com/subscriber/icb 54 | ICIS Chemical Business | 8-14 December 2017 www.icis.com ICB_240818_052-057 Profiles December17.indd 54 8/20/18 2:39 PM US chemical profile For up-to-date information on more than 120 global commodities, visit: icis.com/about/price-reports jessie waldheim houston Propylene Uses stream derivative prices to rise as well, which US PROPYLENE CAPACITY Propylene is mainly used to make polypro- caused domestic derivatives to be less com- ‘000 TONNES/YEAR pylene (PP), which accounts for about half of petitive against imported derivatives. Operat- Company Location Capacity propylene consumption in the US. Other out- ing rates for downstream polypropylene (PP) LyondellBasell Channelview, Texas 1,905 lets for propylene include acrylonitrile fell as imports rose. ExxonMobil Baytown, Texas 1,700 (ACN), propylene oxide (PO), a number of al- The lower propylene consumption allowed Chemical cohols, cumene and acrylic acid. supply levels to recover and inventory levels DowDuPont Freeport, Texas 1,430 began ticking higher in mid-January and con- ExxonMobil Baton Rouge, 1,275 Supply/demand tinued to recover through much of February. Chemical Louisiana US propylene supplies had been tight in early Shell Chemicals Norco, Louisiana 1,065 2018 amid production issues and low inven- Prices Flint Hills Houston, Texas 790 tory levels. Inventory levels had been low Propylene spot and contract prices rose sharp- Resources since late 2017, following the impact of Hur- ly at the start of 2018, and in January reached Enterprise Mont Belvieu, Texas 750 ricane Harvey on production in the US Gulf their highest points since December 2014. The Products coast. Multiple production units, both includ- high prices were due largely to tight supplies BASF Total Port Arthur, Texas 635 ing crackers and refineries, were taken off line following production issues. Spot prices for Formosa Point Comfort, Texas 575 during the late-August hurricane. Supplies polymer-grade propylene (PGP) had diverged Plastics USA were not immediately tightened as the hurri- from refinery-grade propylene (RGP), as the Chevron Phillips Sweeny, Texas 545 cane also affected downstream plants. production issues had centred around propane Chemical Many outages were resolved by late Septem- dehydrogenation (PDH) units, which produce Note: Top 10 sites ber. However some cracker outages continued PGP. RGP is rarely used for chemical deriva- A full list of plants and projects capacities, into the fourth quarter and refinery operating tives, but is commonly used to produce PGP. forecasts, production volumes and rates remained below pre-Harvey levels into late Historically, spot PGP has been valued operating rates are available on the November. As consumption levels had normal- about 10 cents/lb above spot RGP. However, ICIS Supply and Demand database ised by the fourth quarter, propylene supply amid a tight market for PGP and relatively bal- was snug and inventory levels remained low. anced market for RGP, the spread widened to tonne/year PDH units were recently built in Meanwhile, the propylene market contin- 30.5 cents/lb in late January. As the high-cost the US Gulf, one which started up in Decem- ued to await the start-up of a new propane de- propylene affected downstream demand, con- ber 2015 and the other which was ramping up hydrogenation (PDH) unit, which had faced sumption rates fell and propylene prices began to full production as of late February. several delays. A production outage for an- to moderate. Propylene contract prices in Feb- other PDH unit in late December, followed by ruary fell by 6 cents/lb, while spot PGP prices Outlook a days-long outage for a third PDH unit in dropped by about 20 cents/lb in the three The US propylene market is expected to mid-January, further tightened supplies and weeks following the late-January high point. lengthen as several production projects are caused propylene prices to spike. scheduled to be complete by the end of 2018, Those high propylene prices caused down- Technology while no consumption projects are expected Propylene comes in three grades: polymer over the same timeline. This is a shift from re- US PROPYLENE grade (99.5% minimum purity), chemical cent years as propylene supply has been tight grade (93-94% minimum purity) and refinery due to a move in the US towards lighter crack- Cents/lb, DEL grade (60-70% purity). er feedstocks like ethane. Despite light feed- 80 Polymer grade, contract Polymer grade, pipeline, spot There are several routes to produce propyl- stocks continuing to be favoured, several new Renery grade, pipeline, spot 70 ene, most commonly as a by-product of gasoline cracker projects are expected to expand the production in fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) volume of propylene produced. 60 units in refineries. Propylene also is a by-prod - In addition, a new 750,000 tonne/year PDH uct steam cracking of liquid feedstocks such as unit in the US Gulf is expected to be operating at 50 ethane and naphtha. More than half the propyl- full capacity. Another new 750,000 tonne/year ene produced in the US comes from refineries, PDH unit had started up in December 2015. 40 while about a third comes from steam cracking. Meanwhile, strong demand for US gasoline On-purpose routes for propylene include exports is continuing to encourage strong oper- 30 metathesis, which converts ethylene into pro- ating rates for US refineries, which is resulting pylene, and PDH, which converts propane in good propylene production from refineries. ■ 20 Mar Feb into propylene. While on-purpose systems 2017 2018 have been a small part of domestic propylene Access the archive of the Chemical Profiles production, it has been growing. Two 750,000 A-Z at icis.com/subscriber/icb 74 | ICIS Chemical Business | 9-15 March 2018 www.icis.com ICB_240818_072-081 Profiles March18.indd 74 8/22/18 3:49 PM US PROPYLENE OXIDE CAPACITY '000 TONNES/YEAR ~ IHS Markit· f) ~ 1.oc.uon CIPICltY Hullb!Mn Pon ~hes . Texas 240 < Chemicals < Chemical Economics Handbook l)'(lftdol~ I Bayport. Tex11s 600 Chennel\'leW, TeX  ) +.56 &) $&;;6A/3!6B%5 <<&-?60 /3!6.%5 26!                   &                  & 7 8"      56 &)8" )  / 5 0 /4,75 $ #%% ;. ;. < < ; .% ? . %% %% B ?% - 0 /4,75 / 5 # # # # .%  % % 8 8 ( (     *  7  *  7  0  0  0  0 
;B     
    8"      56 &) )    #!  ( 
   :,      7  /!5 ?%% -$# 7   / 5 #B %$ 7     /4,75 -? B-;-   8"      56 &)8)    $ )   " ) /  0 '  )  /
0 860      &- ;.&%     860      %&% %&%      86
   %&. %&% (60      &. ;.&%     (60      %&% %&%      (6
   %&. %&%
;. 附件 29 2909440110 Monomethyl Ethers 2909440150 Monoalkyl Ethers Of 2909490000 Ether-alcohols And Commodity Of Mono Or Di-ethylene Glycols Mono Or Di-ethylene Glyc Nesoi 合计 Their Halo Etc Deriv Nesoi (kg) (kg) (kg) Unit Value Measures Quantity 1 Value ($US) Quantity 1 Value ($US) Quantity 1 Value ($US) Quantity (Ton) Value ($US) ($US/Ton) Malaysia 3,346 6,290 36,249 128,119 220,576 925,619 260 1,060,028 4,074 附件 30 非保密概要 附件 30：申请人同类产品生产、经营和财务数据。 本附件内容为申请书正文部分所提供的申请人的生产、经营和财 务数据的底层数据及相关证明材料，属于申请人的商业秘密，故申请 保密。 在申请书公开版本的正文部分，已经以指数形式提供了上述数据 的非保密概要，其他利害关系方可以合理理解。 附件 31 ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϮϭ ϴ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϭϳ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϭϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ҫͬ⩰ҫͬ⩰ҫͬ⩰ҫͬ⩰ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϮϮ ϴ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϮϬ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϮϬ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲ֭ў ϴ͕ϱϱϰ ϮϬϭϳ֭ў ϵ͕ϳϲϵ ϮϬϭϴ֭ў ϭϬ͕Ϯϵϴ ϮϬϭϵ֭ў ϳ͕ϳϰϵ ϳ͕ϳϭϲ چ؄֚ٶϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϮϯ ϴ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϮϭ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϮϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϭ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϯ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϵ ϳ͕ϳϮϰ چІ؄ٶϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϮϰ ϴ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϮϮ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϮϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϰ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϰ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϯ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϵ ϳ͕ϱϴϭ چи؄ٶϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϮϱ ϴ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϮϯ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϮϯ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϱ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϱ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϰ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϵ ϳ͕ϵϳϱ چ؄▲ٶϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϮϰ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϮϲ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϲ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϲ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϱ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϵ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϮϳ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϳ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϵ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϯϬ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϮϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϴ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϭϬ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϯϭ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϮϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϭϭ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϭϬ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϭ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϯϬ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϯϬ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϭϮ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϭϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϱ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϯϭ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϭϯ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϭϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϲ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϭ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϯ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϭϰ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϭϲ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϭϱ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϳ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϱ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϰ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϭϱ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϭϳ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϭϲ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϴ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϲ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϭϴ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϭϳ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϳ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϭϵ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϭϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϭϬ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϭϬ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϮϬ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϭϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϭϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϮϭ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϮϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϭϰ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϭϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϮϮ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϮϯ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϭϱ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϭϯ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϮϱ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϮϯ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϮϰ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϭϰ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϭϲ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϮϲ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭͬϮϰ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϮϱ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϭϳ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϭϳ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϮϳ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϯ ϵ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϮϲ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϭϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϮϴ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϰ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϮϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϭϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭͬϮϵ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϲ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϯϬ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϮϬ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϭ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϳ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭͬϯϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϮϯ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϮ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϮϰ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϮϰ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϯ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϵ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϮϱ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϭϱ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϭϬ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϱ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϮϲ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϭϲ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϭϯ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϲ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϰͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϮϳ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϭϳ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϭϰ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϳ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϯ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϰͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϰͬϮϴ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϭϴ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϭϱ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϰ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϮ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϮ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϭϵ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϭϲ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϱ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϯ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϯ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϮϮ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϭϳ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϭϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϲ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϰ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϰ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϮϯ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϮϬ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϭϮ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϵ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϱ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϳ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϮϰ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϮϭ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϭϯ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϭϬ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϴ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϮϱ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϮϮ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϮϮ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϵ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϵ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϮϲ ϲ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϮϯ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϮϯ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϭϬ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϭϬ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϮͬϮϵ ϳ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϮϰ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϮϰ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϭϭ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϭ ϳ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϮϳ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϮϲ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϭϲ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϭϰ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϮ ϳ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϮͬϮϴ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϮϳ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϭϳ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϭϱ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϭϱ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϯ ϳ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϭ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϮͬϮϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϭϲ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϭϲ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϰ ϳ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϮ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϭϳ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϭϳ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϳ ϳ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϯ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϮϬ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϭϴ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϴ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϲ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϲ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϮϯ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϮϭ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϵ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϳ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϳ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϮϰ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϮϮ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϭϬ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϴ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϮϱ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϮϯ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϮϯ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϭϭ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϵ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϮϲ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϮϰ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϮϰ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϭϰ ϴ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϭϬ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϭϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϮϳ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϮϱ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϭϱ ϴ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϭϯ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϭϯ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϯϬ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϮϴ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϭϲ ϴ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϭϰ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϭϰ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϱͬϯϭ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϱͬϯϭ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϮϵ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϭϳ ϴ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϭϱ ϭϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϭϱ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϭ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϭ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϯϬ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϯͬϭϴ ϴ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϯͬϭϲ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϯͬϭϲ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϭϱ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϭϰ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϭϯ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϮ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϮ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϱͬϯϭ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϭϲ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϭϱ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϭϰ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϯ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϱ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϭ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϭϳ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϭϲ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϭϱ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϲ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϲ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϰ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϭϳ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϭϲ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϳ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϳ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϱ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϭϳ ϭϬ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϴ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϴ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϲ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϮϬ ϭϬ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϭϮ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϳ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϮϯ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϮϭ ϭϬ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϭϯ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϭϮ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϮϰ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϮϯ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϮϮ ϭϬ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϭϰ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϭϯ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϭϭ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϮϰ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϮϯ ϭϬ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϭϱ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϭϰ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϭϮ ϭϬ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϮϰ ϭϬ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϭϲ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϭϱ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϭϯ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϮϳ ϭϬ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϭϳ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϭϲ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϭϰ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϯϬ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϮϴ ϭϬ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϮϬ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϭϵ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϭϱ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϯϭ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϯϬ ϵ͕ϱϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϮϵ ϭϬ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϮϭ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϮϬ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϭϵ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϭ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϯϭ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϯϬ ϭϬ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϮϮ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϮϭ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϮ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϭ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϯϭ ϭϬ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϮϯ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϮϮ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϱ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϰ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϯ ϭϬ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϮϰ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϮϯ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϲ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϱ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϰ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϮϳ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϮϲ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϳ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϲ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϱ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϮϴ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϮϳ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϴ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϳ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϲ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϮϵ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϮϴ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϴ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϳ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϲͬϯϬ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϮϵ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϭϬ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϭ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϲͬϯϬ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϲͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϭϭ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϰ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϯ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϮ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϭϰ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϭϮ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϱ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϰ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϯ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϭϰ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϭϯ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϲ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϱ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϰ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϭϱ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϭϰ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϳ ϴ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϲ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϱ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϭϳ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϴ ϴ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϳ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϲ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϭϴ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϭϭ ϴ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϭϬ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϵ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϭϵ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϭϮ ϴ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϭϭ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϭϬ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϮϯ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϮϬ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϭϯ ϴ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϭϮ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϮϭ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϭϰ ϴ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϭϯ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϮϱ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϭϱ ϴ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϭϰ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϮϲ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϭϴ ϴ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϭϳ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϭϲ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϮϳ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϭϴ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϭϳ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϵͬϯϬ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϮϴ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϭϵ ϴ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϳϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϴ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϮϵ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϮϬ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϵ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϵͬϯϬ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϵͬϯϬ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϮϭ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϭϬ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϮ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϮϰ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϮϯ ϵ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϭϭ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϯ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϵ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϮϱ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϮϰ ϵ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϭϮ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϰ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϭϬ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϮϲ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϭϯ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϱ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϭϭ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϮϳ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϭϰ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϲ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϭϮ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϳͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϮϴ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϭϳ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϵ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϭϱ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϭ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϳͬϯϭ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϯϬ ϵ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϭϴ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϭϬ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϭϲ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϮ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϭ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϳͬϯϭ ϵ͕ϵϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϭϵ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϭϳ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϯ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϮ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϭ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϮϬ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϭϴ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϰ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϯ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϮ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϮϭ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϭϵ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϱ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϰ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϯ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϮϰ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϭϲ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϮϮ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϴ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϳ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϲ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϮϱ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϭϳ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϮϯ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϴ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϳ ϭϬ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϮϲ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϮϰ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϭϬ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϵ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϮϳ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϮϱ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϭϬ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϵ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϮϴ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϮϲ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϴͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϴͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϴͬϭϬ ϭϬ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϬͬϯϭ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϮϯ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϮϵ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϭ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϮϰ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϯϬ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϮ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϮϱ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϬͬϯϭ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϯ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϮϲ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϭ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϰ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϮϳ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϮ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϳ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϯϬ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϱ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϴ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϬͬϯϭ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϲ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϵ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϭ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϳ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϭϬ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϮ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϴ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϭϭ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϯ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϵ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϭϰ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϲ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϭϱ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϳ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϭϲ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϭϰ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϭϳ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϵ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϭϱ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϭϴ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϭϯ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϭϲ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϮϭ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϭϰ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϮϮ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϭϱ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϮϯ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϭϲ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϮϰ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϭϳ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϮϱ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϮϬ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϮϯ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϮϴ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϮϭ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϮϵ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϮϮ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϭͬϯϬ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϮϯ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϭ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϮϰ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϮ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϮϳ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϭͬϯϬ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϱ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϮϴ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϯ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϲ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϮϵ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϰ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϳ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϭͬϯϬ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϱ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϴ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϲ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϵ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϰ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϳ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϭϮ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϱ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϭϬ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϭϯ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϲ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϭϭ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϭϰ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϳ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϭϮ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϭϱ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϭϯ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϭϲ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϭϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϭϰ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϭϵ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϭϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϭϳ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϮϬ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϭϯ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϭϴ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϮϭ ϴ͕ϴϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϭϰ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϭϵ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϮϮ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϭϱ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϮϬ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϮϯ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϭϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϮϭ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϭϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϮϰ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϮϬ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϮϱ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϮϭ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϮϲ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϮϮ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϮϳ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϲͬϭϮͬϯϬ ϵ͕ϭϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϮϱ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϮϴ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϮϲ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϴͬϭϮͬϮϵ ϵ͕ϯϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϮϳ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϮϴ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϮϵ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ϮϬϭϳͬϭϮͬϯϬ ϭϬ͕ϲϬϬ ICIS Dashboard Price History Generated 10 May 2020 04:23:27 Data Price History Date Range From 01 Jan 2016 to 31 Dec 2019 Original Currency CNY CNY Original Unit tonne tonne Original Frequency Weekly Weekly Selected Currency CNY CNY Selected Unit tonne tonne Selected Frequency Quarterly Quarterly Propylene Oxide DEL China E  Assessment Spot Week‐ Quarterly Ahead Full Market Range  Weekly (Mid) : CNY/tonne Q1‐2016 7618.750 Q2‐2016 8296.154 Q3‐2016 10008.929 Q4‐2016 10829.167 2,016 9,188 Q1‐2017 10665.385 Q2‐2017 9861.538 Q3‐2017 11288.462 Q4‐2017 11885.417 2,017 10,925 Q1‐2018 12500.000 Q2‐2018 11807.692 Q3‐2018 12482.692 Q4‐2018 11686.538 2,018 12,119 Q1‐2019 10447.917 Q2‐2019 9925.000 Q3‐2019 10184.615 Q4‐2019 10047.917 2,019 10,151 Copyright © 2020 Reed Business Information Limited. ICIS is a member of the RELX group. ICIS accepts no liability for commercial decisions based on the content of this report. UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION / TRANSMISSION PROHIBITED. Exchange rates supplied by Bloomberg and XE.com (http://www.XE.com). Prices that have been converted from the originally quoted unit or currency are shown to two decimal places. When exporting multiple quote series, empty cells may appear in the quote table as publishing dates may not align or may vary over holiday periods. For prices downloaded in any frequency other than the original frequency, ICIS has made some assumptions in averaging (see methodology for frequency). To view prices as assessed by ICIS, please download series in their original published frequency.

公开版本 此呈： 中华人民共和国商务部贸易救济调查局 中华人民共和国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚产业申请对原产于 美国的进口相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚进行反倾销调查 反倾销调查申请书 申请人： 江苏怡达化学股份有限公司 吉林怡达化工有限公司 珠海怡达化学有限公司 申请人全权代理人： 上海海华永泰（北京）律师事务所 支持申请企业： 江苏天音化工有限公司 江苏德纳化学股份有限公司 二〇二〇年七月十七日 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 第一部分. 申请书正文 ......................................................................................... 1 一. 概述 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 二. 申请人及国内产业的情况 ........................................................................................................................... 1 （一） 申请人 ............................................................................................................................................. 1 （二） 申请人的委托代理人 .................................................................................................................. 2 （三） 支持本次申请的国内同类产品生产企业 ............................................................................. 2 （四） 申请人和国内产业的产量......................................................................................................... 3 （五） 国内产业的基本情况 .................................................................................................................. 3 1. 产品介绍 ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2. 国内产业的情况 ........................................................................................................................... 4 （六） 申请人寻求的其他进口救济 .................................................................................................... 5 三. 申请调查产品及国内同类产品的情况 .................................................................................................... 6 （一） 申请调查产品 ................................................................................................................................ 6 1. 名称 .................................................................................................................................................. 6 2. 产品描述 ......................................................................................................................................... 6 3. 特性和用途 .................................................................................................................................... 6 4. 原产地和出口国 ........................................................................................................................... 6 5. 中华人民共和国关税税则号及税率 ...................................................................................... 6 （二） 申请调查产品的生产者、出口商和进口商 ........................................................................ 7 1. 生产者 ............................................................................................................................................. 7 2. 出口商 ............................................................................................................................................. 8 3. 进口商 ............................................................................................................................................. 8 （三） 国内同类产品 .............................................................................................................................. 10 1. 名称 ................................................................................................................................................ 10 2. 产品描述 ....................................................................................................................................... 10 3. 特性和用途 .................................................................................................................................. 11 （四） 申请调查产品与国内同类产品的相似性和可替代性 .................................................... 11 1. 物理特征及化学性能的相似性 ............................................................................................. 11 2. 原材料、生产设备和工艺的相似性 .................................................................................... 11 3. 产品用途、包装和运输方式、销售渠道及客户群体的相似性 ................................. 12 4. 结论 ................................................................................................................................................ 12 四. 申请调查产品的进口情况 ......................................................................................................................... 12 五. 倾销 ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 （一） 美国存在导致乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚成本扭曲的非市场状况 ........................ 13 1. 美国政府从国家战略的高度制定能源产业政策 ............................................................. 14 ii 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 2. 美国的能源产业政策刺激了石油和天然气的生产 ........................................................ 15 3. 美国的能源产业政策刺激了页岩气的生产 ...................................................................... 18 4. 长期出口管制扭曲了美国的石油和天然气市场 ............................................................. 20 5. 美国的石油和天然气行业获得了大量政府补贴 ............................................................. 20 6. 政府补贴导致电价扭曲 ........................................................................................................... 31 7. 政府补贴导致煤炭价格扭曲 .................................................................................................. 32 8. 生产申请调查产品的美国企业具备操纵原料价格的能力 ........................................... 33 9. 长期的政府补贴政策系统性地扭曲了美国化工产品市场 ........................................... 34 （二） 倾销幅度 ....................................................................................................................................... 34 1. 出口价格 ....................................................................................................................................... 34 2. 正常价值 ....................................................................................................................................... 36 3. 倾销幅度 ....................................................................................................................................... 38 六. 实质损害 ......................................................................................................................................................... 38 （一） 进口数量 ....................................................................................................................................... 38 1. 进口绝对数量 .............................................................................................................................. 38 2. 进口相对于国内生产和消费的数量 .................................................................................... 39 （二） 价格影响 ....................................................................................................................................... 39 （三） 国内产业的状况 ......................................................................................................................... 41 1. 表观消费量 .................................................................................................................................. 41 2. 产能、产量和产能利用率....................................................................................................... 41 3. 销量、销售收入和销售价格 .................................................................................................. 42 4. 市场份额 ....................................................................................................................................... 43 5. 利润 ................................................................................................................................................ 43 6. 投资收益率 .................................................................................................................................. 44 7. 现金流 ........................................................................................................................................... 44 8. 就业与工资 .................................................................................................................................. 45 9. 劳动生产率 .................................................................................................................................. 45 10. 库存 ................................................................................................................................................ 45 （四） 结论 ................................................................................................................................................ 46 七. 倾销与损害之间的因果关系 ..................................................................................................................... 46 （一） 倾销进口与国内产业受到的损害之间存在因果关系 .................................................... 46 （二） 排他因素 ....................................................................................................................................... 47 1. 来自其他国家（地区）的进口 ............................................................................................. 47 2. 市场需求变化 .............................................................................................................................. 47 3. 消费模式的变化 ......................................................................................................................... 47 4. 国内产业的生产工艺水平与产品质量 ............................................................................... 47 5. 国内外正常竞争 ......................................................................................................................... 47 6. 商业流通渠道和限制贸易的政策 ......................................................................................... 48 iii 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 7. 国内产业同类产品的出口....................................................................................................... 48 8. 不可抗力 ....................................................................................................................................... 48 八. 公共利益考量 ................................................................................................................................................ 48 九. 结论与请求 ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 第二部分. 保密申请 .......................................................................................... 50 第三部分. 确认书 ............................................................................................. 51 第四部分. 附件清单 .......................................................................................... 52 iv 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 近年来，原产于美国的相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚以低于正常价值的 价格向中国大量出口，对中国的相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚产业（“国内 产业”）造成了实质损害。 根据《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》，申请人江苏怡达化学股份有限公 司、吉林怡达化工有限公司和珠海怡达化学有限公司代表国内产业对原产于美 国的进口相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚产品提出反倾销调查申请。 （一） 申请人1 公司名称： 江苏怡达化学股份有限公司 法定代表人： 刘准 地址： 江苏省江阴市西石桥球庄村 邮编： 214441 案件联系人： 袁纪贤 联系电话： 0510-86600660 公司名称： 吉林怡达化工有限公司 法定代表人： 刘准 地址： 吉林市吉林经济技术开发区昆仑街 346 号 邮编： 132000 案件联系人： 高华 联系电话： 0432-63053009 1 附件 1：申请人的营业执照 1 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 公司名称： 珠海怡达化学有限公司 法定代表人： 刘准 地址： 珠海高栏港经济区石化九路 306 号 邮编： 519050 案件联系人： 胥刚 联系电话： 0756-7716868 （二） 申请人的委托代理人 反倾销调查申请人全权代理律师： 上海海华永泰（北京）律师事务所 吴必轩 律师 地址： 北京市朝阳区光华路 4 号东方梅地亚中心 A703 邮编： 100026 电话： 010－85570270，13901143533 电子邮件： wubixuan@hiwayslaw.com 为申请反倾销调查之目的，申请人授权上海海华永泰（北京）律师事务所 作为其全权代理人，参与题述反倾销调查的申请及调查工作，具体代理权限见 授权委托书2。根据上述委托，上海海华永泰（北京）律师事务所指派本所吴必 轩律师处理与本案有关的全部事宜3、4。 （三） 支持本次申请的国内同类产品生产企业5 公司名称： 江苏天音化工有限公司 法定代表人： 秦小琪 地址： 江苏省宜兴市周铁镇 邮编： 214262 案件联系人： 梁甫军 2 附件 2：授权委托书 3 附件 3：代理律师指派书 4 附件 4：律师执业证明 5 附件 5：支持申请企业的营业执照及支持声明 2 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 联系电话： 0510-87557980 公司名称： 江苏德纳化学股份有限公司 法定代表人： 秦旭东 地址： 南京化学工业园区白龙路 2 号 邮编： 210047 案件联系人： 余科峰 联系电话： 025-58392168 （四） 申请人和国内产业的产量 表 1. 申请人及支持申请企业的同类产品产量6 （单位：吨） 2016 年 2017 年 2018 年 2019 年 国内总产量 88,089 97,002 99,568 105,181 产量 【100】 【118】 【122】 【133】 申请人 占比 【46~50】% 【50~55】% 【50~55】% 【50~55】% 申请人及支持 产量 80,089 92,802 96,968 103,181 申请企业合计 占比 91% 96% 97% 98% 申请人及支持本次申请的企业的同类产品产量占国内总产量的比例超过 50%。根据《反倾销调查立案暂行规则》的规定，申请人有资格代表国内产业 提出本次反倾销调查申请。 （五） 国内产业的基本情况 1. 产品介绍 乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚，包含乙二醇的单烷基醚和丙二醇的单烷基醚 两大类。它们都是以环氧化合物和醇为原料，在催化剂的作用下反应制得的醇 醚，通常合称为二元醇醚（glycol ether）。乙二醇的单烷基醚，是环氧乙烷 （EO）与醇反应的产物，又称为乙二醇醚或 E-系列醇醚7。丙二醇的单烷基 6 附件 6：关于中国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚生产和进口情况的说明 7 E-series glycol ethers 3 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 醚，是环氧丙烷（PO）与醇反应的产物，又称为丙二醇醚或 P-系列醇醚8。E- 系列和 P-系列醇醚都是性能优越的溶剂，在大多数应用方面可以互相替代。 乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚的分子结构中有烷基、羟基和醚键，使其兼具 有醇类和醚类溶剂的特性，既能溶解憎水性化合物，也能溶解水溶性化合物。 同时由于醇醚具有较强的氢键，使其成为多种有机溶剂与水的强偶联剂。因其 气味温和，溶解力强，挥发速率适中，故成为性能优越的“万能溶剂”，主要 用作溶剂、分散剂和稀释剂，也用作燃料抗冻剂、萃取剂，也是重要的有机合 成原料，广泛应用在光刻胶、覆铜板、电子化学品、汽车制动液、飞机燃料防 冰剂、涂料、印刷油墨、纺织印染、医药农药、日用化学品等领域。 2. 国内产业的情况 我国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚的生产始于上世纪 70 年代中期，比 国外晚了半个世纪。从那时起直到 90 年代初，国内的生产和消费都处于极低的 水平。1988 年全国的总消费量不足 800 吨。1993 年以后，宜兴东升化学公司、 宜兴化工助剂厂、扬州华伦公司等几家企业陆续建成了几套千吨级的生产装 置。但当时国内的生产能力、产品种类和技术水平仍然和国外有很大的差距。 在整个 1990 年代，国内市场在需求快速增长的同时高度依赖进口，进口的主要 来源是美国。 在 1998 至 1999 年期间，江苏怡达化工有限公司和江苏天音化工有限公司 突破了国外的技术垄断，先后自主设计并建成了万吨级的现代化生产装置。以 此为标志，国内产业才真正开始打破国内市场由国外厂商主导和控制的局面。 进入 21 世纪以来，随着中国加入 WTO，国内电子、汽车、涂料等所有下 游产业都经历了快速发展，市场对相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚的需求量持 续增长。相应地，国内产业的技术水平、产品质量和种类、生产规模也都取得 了长足的进步。经过 20 多年的发展，江苏怡达和江苏天音这两家公司始终保持 8 P-series glycol ethers 4 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 了行业领先地位。江苏怡达目前在江苏、吉林和广东拥有 3 个相关乙二醇和丙 二醇的单烷基醚的生产基地，合计产能【 】万吨。江苏天音也已发展成为亚洲 领先的醇醚溶剂生产企业9，在宜兴和南京拥有 2 个相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷 基醚生产基地，合计产能【 】万吨。 近年来，中国已经逐渐成为全球最大的相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚消 费市场，对美国厂商的吸引力越来越强。随着中国企业的产品品质和供应能力 的提升，美国厂商在中国市场的定价和销售方式也越来越富有攻击性。特别是 2016 年以来，美国厂商愈发积极地通过倾销抢占市场，产品进口数量大幅增 加，市场份额也在增长。美国产品的倾销进口给国内产业的定价和销售造成了 巨大压力。2016 至 2019 年期间，国内产业的市场份额持续下降，市场地位不断 恶化。申请人同类产品的生产线始终处于开工不足的状态，有近一半的产能无 法利用；税前利润持续减少，在 2019 年度已陷入亏损；现金流在大多数年份为 负数，表明企业的综合状况在恶化。如果不及时依法采取措施，国内产业可能 很快会被低价倾销的进口产品打垮，这也会危及到国防、集成电路、电子、医 药农药、涂料等多个下游应用领域的原料自主供应。 （六） 申请人寻求的其他进口救济 申请人在申请对原产于美国的进口相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚进行反 倾销调查的同时，还申请对该产品进行反补贴调查。除此之外，申请人没有根 据《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》、《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》和《中华 人民共和国反补贴条例》及其相关的法律规定，对任何企业、组织或国家和地 区向中国出口的相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚提出过贸易救济申请，或寻求 任何其他形式的进口救济措施。 9 江苏天音化工有限公司现在是江苏德纳化学股份有限公司的全资控股公司。 5 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 （一） 申请调查产品 1. 名称 中文名称：相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚 英文名称：Certain monoalkyl ethers of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol 或 Certain glycol ehters 2. 产品描述 申请调查产品为相关乙二醇的单烷基醚和丙二醇的单烷基醚。相关乙二醇 的单烷基醚是指由环氧乙烷和醇合成的，分子链中带有乙烷氧基（分子式为 C2H4O）的醇醚，又称为乙二醇醚或 E-系列醇醚，但其中不包含乙二醇或二甘 醇的单丁醚。相关丙二醇的单烷基醚是指由环氧丙烷和醇合成的，分子链中带 有丙烷氧基（分子式为 C3H6O）的醇醚，又称为丙二醇醚或 P-系列醇醚，但其 中不包含丙二醇甲醚。 3. 特性和用途 申请调查产品为无色透明液体，有微弱的醚味，能与水、醇、酮、醚、 酯、芳烃、脂肪烃等混溶，并能溶解多类型高聚物。申请调查产品主要用作溶 剂、分散剂和稀释剂，也用作燃料抗冻剂、萃取剂，也是重要的有机合成原 料，广泛应用在光刻胶、覆铜板、电子化学品、汽车制动液、飞机燃料防冰 剂、涂层材料、印刷油墨、纺织印染、医药农药、日用化学品等领域。 4. 原产地和出口国 申请人请求商务部对原产于下述国家并向中国出口的相关乙二醇和丙二醇 的单烷基醚产品进行反倾销调查：美国。 5. 中华人民共和国关税税则号及税率 6 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 申请调查产品在中华人民共和国关税税则中的税则号为 29094400 和 29094990。税则号 29094990 项下相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚以外的其他产 品不在本次申请调查的产品范围之内。 申请调查产品所适用的最惠国进口关税税率均为 5.5%，普通进口关税税率 均为 30%10。 （二） 申请调查产品的生产者、出口商和进口商 申请人在合理可获得的信息和资料的基础上，提供如下已知的申请调查产 品的生产者、出口商和进口商名单： 1. 生产者 （1） 公司名称： 陶氏化学公司（Dow Chemical Company） 地址：2211 H.H. Dow Way, Midland, Michigan 48674, USA 电话： +1 989 636 1792 传真： +1 989 832 1456 网址： http://www.dow.com （2） 公司名称：伊士曼化工公司（Eastman Chemical Company） 地址：100 Eastman Road, Kingsport, TN 37660, USA 电话：+1 423 229 2000 传真：+1 423 229 2145 网址：http://www.eastman.com （3） 公司名称：利安德巴塞尔公司（LyondellBasell Industries） 地址：1221 McKinney Street, Suite 300, Houston, TX 77010, USA 电话：+1 713 309 7200 网址： http://www.lyondell.com/ 10 附件 7：中华人民共和国海关进出口税则 7 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 2. 出口商 上述生产者本身亦为出口商。 3. 进口商 申请调查产品的进口商包括但不限于： （1） 公司名称：上海蒂凯姆实业有限公司 地址：上海市徐汇区石龙路 89 号 电话：021-60799069 （2） 公司名称：宁波通悦化工贸易有限公司 地址：宁波市鄞州区天童南路南部商务区利时商务大厦 603 室 电话：0574-27787662 （3） 公司名称：固安泰利德化学有限公司 地址：河北省廊坊市固安县南开发区 电话：0316-5928555 （4） 公司名称：上海东浩新贸易有限公司 地址：上海市肇嘉浜路 268 号紫苑大厦 10-14 楼 电话：86-21-64333000/64330633 （5） 公司名称：致德化学（上海）有限公司 地址：上海市娄山关路 85 号东方国际大厦 电话：021-62330015 （6） 公司名称：江苏汇鸿国际集团中鼎控股股份有限公司 地址：中国南京市建邺路 100 号 电话：86-025-58006166 （7） 公司名称：张家港越洋实业有限公司 地址：江苏省张家港市锦丰镇 电话：0512-58578567 （8） 公司名称：宁波市联凯化学有限公司 8 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 地址：宁波梅山保税港区集卡中心 2 层 211 室 电话：0574-87849999 （9） 公司名称：浙江瓯华化工进出口有限公司 地址：浙江省台州市椒江区疏港大道 17 号 电话：0576-88888666 （10） 公司名称：广州市遂悦化工有限公司 地址：广州市天河区珠江新城华夏路 30 号富力盈通大厦 2206-2211 电话：020-38012801 （11） 公司名称：东莞市同舟化工有限公司 地址：广东省东莞市东城区旗峰路 288 号新世纪大厦 8 楼 电话：0769-22365555 （12） 公司名称：广州市星鸿化工贸易有限公司 地址：广州市天河区体育东路 122 号羊城国际商贸中心东塔 3004 电话：020-38871535 （13） 公司名称：湖石化学贸易（上海）有限公司 地址：上海自由贸易试验区浦东南路 855 号 8 楼 CDE 单元 电话：021-58796116 （14） 公司名称：陶氏化学（中国）投资有限公司 地址：上海市张江高科技园区张衡路 936 号 电话：021-38511000 （15） 公司名称：中海油销售（北京）股份有限公司 地址：北京市东城区和平里街道七区四号楼 电话：010-84520970/84520660 （16） 公司名称：江阴贝恩进出口有限公司 地址：江苏省江阴市临港经济开发区浦江路 105 号 805 室 电话：0510-66253335 （17） 公司名称：广州五金矿进出口有限公司 9 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 地址：中国广州市东风东路 774 号 电话：86-20-87752204/87337739 （18） 公司名称：天津市泰荣化学品贸易有限公司 地址：天津市和平区解放北路信达广场塔楼 1712 电话：022-23303666 （19） 公司名称：天津市广远国际贸易有限公司 地址：津市河东区大直沽中路 108 号 1-1301 电话：022-24389162 （20） 公司名称：新政星（上海）贸易有限公司 地址：上海市漕河泾开发区田州路 99 号新安大楼 1203 室 电话：86-21-54450202 （21） 公司名称：汉姆德华化工（上海）有限公司 地址：上海市静安区南京西路 1515 号嘉里中心办公楼 905 室 电话：86-21-63200808 （22） 公司名称：南京古田化工有限公司 地址：南京市建邺区嘉陵江东街 18 号紫金科技创业特别社区 6-17 电话：025-83346359 （三） 国内同类产品 1. 名称 中文名称：相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚 英文名称：Certain monoalkyl ethers of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol 或 certain glycol ethers 2. 产品描述 国内同类产品为相关乙二醇的单烷基醚和丙二醇的单烷基醚。相关乙二醇 的单烷基醚是指由环氧乙烷和醇合成的，分子链中带有乙烷氧基（分子式为 C2H4O）的醇醚，又称为乙二醇醚或 E-系列醇醚，但其中不包含乙二醇或二甘 10 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 醇的单丁醚。相关丙二醇的单烷基醚是指由环氧丙烷和醇合成的，分子链中带 有丙烷氧基（分子式为 C3H6O）的醇醚，又称为丙二醇醚或 P-系列醇醚，但其 中不包含丙二醇甲醚。 3. 特性和用途 国内同类产品为无色透明液体，有微弱的醚味，能与水、醇、酮、醚、 酯、芳烃、脂肪烃等混溶，并能溶解多类型高聚物。国内同类产品主要用作溶 剂、分散剂和稀释剂，也用作燃料抗冻剂、萃取剂，也是重要的有机合成原 料，广泛应用在光刻胶、覆铜板、电子化学品、汽车制动液、飞机燃料防冰 剂、涂层材料、印刷油墨、纺织印染、医药农药、日用化学品等领域。 （四） 申请调查产品与国内同类产品的相似性和可替代性 1. 物理特征及化学性能的相似性 申请调查产品与国内产业生产的相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚在分子 式、分子结构、物理和化学特性等方面完全相同，两者可以完全相互替代。 2. 原材料、生产设备和工艺的相似性 申请调查产品和国内同类产品的生产原料完全相同，均为环氧乙烷或环氧 丙烷和醇。具体到每一个细分产品，作为原料的环氧化合物和醇也完全相同。 申请调查产品和国内同类产品的生产工艺和设备也基本相同，均为将环氧 乙烷或环氧丙烷和醇经过混合器投入恒温反应器和管式反应器，在催化剂作用 下进行醚化反应，再将反应所得产物通过精馏系统进行分离精馏，分离出的过 量醇循环使用，成品进入储罐。 11 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 图 1. 乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚生产流程图 乙二醇醚 二乙二醇醚 多乙二醇醚 （丙二醇醚） （二丙二醇醚） （多丙二醇醚） 醇 环氧乙烷 反应器 脱醇塔 单醚塔 二醚塔 多醚塔 （环氧丙烷） 催化剂 蒸汽发生器 少量残渣 3. 产品用途、包装和运输方式、销售渠道及客户群体的相似性 申请调查产品和国内同类产品的用途完全相同，均用作溶剂、分散剂和稀 释剂，也用作燃料抗冻剂、萃取剂，也是重要的有机合成原料。 申请调查产品和国内同类产品的包装和运输方式相同，在中国境内均以桶 装或散水（槽罐车）的方式进行公路运输。 申请调查产品和国内同类产品的销售渠道和客户群体基本相同，均通过直 销或代理的方式销售，两者的销售区域和客户群体相互重叠。 4. 结论 综上所述，申请调查产品和国内产业生产的相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基 醚在物理和化学特性、主要原料和生产工艺、下游用途、包装和运输方式、客 户群体等方面均相同或相似，两者之间存在明显的相互竞争和相互替代的关 系，属于同类产品。 2016 至 2019 年期间，申请调查产品的进口数量大量增加。2016 年的进口 量为 1.8 万吨，2017 年增至 2.4 万吨，此后 2018 年和 2019 年都超过了 3 万吨。 四年期间的累计增长幅度达到 68.59%。 11 附件 5：关于中国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚生产和进口情况的说明 12 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 表 2. 申请调查产品的进口情况（单位：吨、美元、美元/吨） 进口数量 进口金额 进口价格 占总进口的比例 2016 年 18,095 28,502,495 1,575 62.03% 2017 年 23,960 34,927,526 1,458 49.68% 2018 年 33,316 56,688,694 1,702 51.12% 2019 年 30,507 42,363,510 1,389 46.28% 图 2. 申请调查产品的进口数量（单位：吨） 进口数量 35,000 33,316 30,507 30,000 23,960 25,000 20,000 18,095 15,000 10,000 2016年 2017年 2018年 2019年 （一） 美国存在导致乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚成本扭曲的非市场状况 乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚的成本取决于上游乙烯/环氧乙烷、丙烯/环氧 丙烷的价格。而乙烯/环氧乙烷、丙烯/环氧丙烷作为重要的石油化工原料，其 价格与石油天然气价格有着极其紧密的联系12。美国的石油和天然气产业由于受 到政府的大量干预，生产、供需和价格都严重扭曲。这直接导致了美国市场包 括乙烯/环氧乙烷、丙烯/环氧丙烷在内的基础石油化工原料的价格存在扭曲。 此外，美国还存在电和煤炭价格扭曲、申请调查产品生产企业具备操纵原料价 格的能力、化工产品市场系统性扭曲的问题。多种情况表明，美国存在导致乙 12 附件 8：ICIS—乙烯、丙烯价格与油价的相关性。乙烯和丙烯分别是环氧乙烷和环氧丙烷的直 接原料。 13 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚成本扭曲的非市场状况。 基于以下具体的事实和说明，申请人恳请调查机关对本案中影响美国申请 调查产品倾销幅度计算的非市场状况进行调查，以确保认定正常价值所使用的 生产成本和价格数据未受市场扭曲，具有可比性。 1. 美国政府从国家战略的高度制定能源产业政策 长期以来，历届美国政府均极其重视能源政策。2006 年美国智囊机构“外 交关系委员会”（Council on Foreign Relations）发布的报告《美国石油依赖的国 家安全后果》13就体现了这种广泛存在的共识。该报告指出，美国对进口石油的 依赖会对美国的外交政策和国家安全事务形成不利影响。报告建议美国政府将 能源问题与外交政策结合起来。 “能源独立”或“能源安全”一直是美国政府的关注重点，这明确体现在 历届美国政府发布的《国家安全战略报告》（下简称“报告”）中。例如，在 2006 年的《报告》里，布什政府指出“我们的综合能源战略把减少对外国能源 的依赖放在优先位置14”。在 2010 年的《报告》中，奥巴马政府在“国家安全 战略概述”部分即强调“减少对外国石油的依赖”15。在 2015 年的《报告》 中，奥巴马政府再次强调“促进能源安全”，“必须促进能源燃料、来源和路 线的多样化，鼓励本土能源供应。在美国内部实现更大的能源安全和独立是努 力的核心16”。而到特朗普总统执政后，在 2017 年的《报告》中，在强调能源 安全的同时，还明确提出了“拥抱能源支配（地位）”和“促进能源出口17”。 这表明随着美国逐渐转变为能源生产大国，开始着重利用其在能源生产方面的 13 见：美国石油依赖的国家安全后果（National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency）， https://pages.ucsd.edu/~dgvictor/publications/Faculty_Victor_Chapter_2006_National%20Security%20 Consequences_CFR.pdf 14 “Our comprehensive energy strategy puts a priority on reducing our reliance on foreign energy sources.” http://nssarchive.us/national-security-strategy-2006/ 15 http://nssarchive.us/national-security-strategy-2010/ 16 http://nssarchive.us/national-security-strategy-2015/ 17 http://nssarchive.us/national-security-strategy-2017/ 14 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 优势地位，并将能源出口视为国家安全和经济繁荣的重要支柱。 由于美国长期以来将“能源独立”或“能源安全”上升到国家战略的高 度，因此历届政府均不遗余力地推行干预和刺激本土能源生产的政策。长期执 行这种产业政策不仅严重扭曲了美国的能源生产和供应，也显著地改变了全球 的能源供应格局。 2. 美国的能源产业政策刺激了石油和天然气的生产 长期以来，美国政府通过立法手段推行石油和天然气方面的产业政策，大 幅刺激了国内油气的生产，压低了油气价格，导致美国的能源市场存在根本性 的扭曲。 在立法上，美国制订了一系列法律、法规、法令、政策性文件以实现对石 油和天然气行业的管理、约束和激励。美国从上世纪 70 年代起即颁布了多部法 律和规章，通过各种资金支持和税收减免政策来扶持石油和天然气，以及油页 岩等非常规能源的开发和生产。其中包括 1978 年《天然气政策法案》18、1980 年《原油暴利税法》19、1984 年联邦能源管理委员会（FERC）第 436 号令20、 1985 年联邦能源管理委员会（FERC）第 436 号令21、1987 年废除《发电厂和工 业燃料使用法》22，1989 年《天然气井口管制法》23，1990 年《清洁空气法》修 正案24，1990 年《综合预算调整法》25、1992 年《能源政策法案》26、1993 年 18 Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 19 The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980 20 FERC Order 380: Eliminated Minimum Bills for LDCs (1984)，取消了地方天然气销售公司（LDCs） 因“照付不议”协议而必须向管道公司支付的最低费用。 21 FERC Order 436: Open Access Blueprint (1985)，鼓励天然气管网公司开放设施。 22 Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act 23 The Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989 24 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 25 Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 26 Energy Policy Act of 1992 15 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 《综合预算调整法》27、1995 年《外大陆架深水税收减免法》28、1997 年《纳税 人减负法案》29、1999 年《税收减免扩展法》30等。 进入 21 世纪之后，美国政府对石油和天然气行业的干预和扶持全面加强。 2002 年通过了《1974 年深水港口法》31修正案，使天然气行业得以建设海上液 化天然气接收站。2002 年 12 月，为了鼓励天然气开发，联邦能源管理委员会 （FERC）取消了建造新的液化天然气进口再气化码头的监管障碍32。2004 年颁 布的《阿拉斯加天然气管道法》33为阿拉斯加天然气管道项目的发起人提供了高 达 180 亿美元的贷款担保，并设立了中央协调员以获取必要的联邦机构许可。 2004 年《美国就业机会创造法案》34设立了对边际油井生产的税收抵免以及阿 拉斯加天然气管道和天然气处理设施的税收优惠。2005 年颁布的《能源政策法 案》35明确将油页岩列为具有战略重要性的资源，指令能源部协调促进油页岩资 源开发，并向油页岩开发提供税费减免等诸多优惠。该法案还通过减少公共土 地和外大陆架边缘石油和天然气井的特许权使用费，鼓励在联邦土地上的油气 生产。根据 2005 年《能源政策法案》，联邦能源监管委员会、能源部和矿产管 理局采取了多项措施来鼓励对能源基础设施的投资。此后，美国又颁布了 2007 年《能源独立和安全法案》36，2009 年《复兴与再投资法案》37，2009 年《美国 清洁能源安全法》38等，对能源行业具有指导意义，明确规定支持增加石油天然 27 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 28 Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 29 Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 30 Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999 31 The Deepwater Port Act (DWPA) 32 FERC's Hackberry Decision 33 The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act 34 The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 35 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 36 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 37 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 38 The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) 16 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 气生产供应，减少对进口石油的依赖。 2011 年 3 月，奥巴马总统发布了“未来能源安全蓝图”（Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future），全面勾画了国家能源政策，提出确保美国未来能源供应 和安全的三大战略，其中第一条就是“开发和保障美国的能源供应：部署资 本，创新和技术，以安全和负责任的方式开发更多的国内能源，成为全球能源 经济的领导者。扩大国内石油和天然气的开发和生产39。”美国政府还通过“识 别公有土地的开采区域”、“为油气生产提供激励机制”、“制订区域发展战 略”、“鼓励负责任的天然气开发行为”等规定鼓励开发、降低企业开采成 本、促进资源向能源开发开采和生产领域流动。政府专门设立相应的机构来对 这些行为进行监督和管理，包括进行授权认证、兑现鼓励措施等。此外，美国 联邦、州和各级政府还存在很多向高风险勘探的生产者以及小型生产者实施所 得税减免等相关法律和优惠政策。 美国的石油和天然气行业的产业政策对油气行业的发展、资源配置、企业 经营活动和生产成本、市场供给和市场价格都造成了显著的影响，尤其是 2005 年通过《能源政策法案》明确将油页岩列为具有战略重要性的资源之后，美国 石油和天然气的产量均大幅增长。根据美国能源署的统计，石油产量由 2005 年 初的 543 万桶/天增至 2019 年 8 月底的 1,240 万桶/天，增长了 128%；天然气产 量则从 2005 年初的 20,350 亿立方米/月增至 2019 年 6 月的 32,936 亿立方米/ 月，增长了 62%40。 美国对能源产业的干预和扶持不但极大地刺激了本国的能源生产，也从根 本上改变了全球的能源供应格局。根据美国能源署的统计，美国在 2018 年已成 为全球最大的原油生产国41。2018 年美国石油和天然气的产量增长创造了新的 39 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/03/30/obama-administration-s-blueprint-secure- energy-future 40 见美国能源署网站：https://www.eia.gov/ 41 The United States is now the largest global crude oil producer, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37053 17 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 记录并领先全球42，石油和天然气的出口量也创造了新的记录43。在 2018 年 11 月的最后一周，美国实现了原油和石油产品的净出口44。美国能源署称，预计到 2020 年美国将成为能源净出口国45。 3. 美国的能源产业政策刺激了页岩气的生产 长期以来，美国政府推行鼓励页岩气开发的激励政策，人为刺激了私营部 门的开发热情，降低了页岩气的生产成本，从而实现了该产业的快速发展。根 据 1980 年《能源安全法案》的授权，美国专门设立了一个联邦政府机构—— “合成燃料公司”（Synthetic Fuels Corporation, SFC），作为财政通道向包括油 页岩在内的非常规化石燃料企业提供补贴。“合成燃料公司”获得了 200 亿美 元的政府拨款，用于和私营油气企业设立合资公司46。 美国扶持页岩气产业的政策手段主要有贷款担保、价格担保和税收优惠 3 种。1980 年代，美国政府向油页岩行业提供了 32.7 亿美元的贷款担保47。价格 42 美国 2018 年石油和天然气生产创纪录的增长领先全球（The U.S. leads global petroleum and natural gas production with record growth in 2018）， https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40973 43 见：美国能源消费、生产和出口在 2018 年达到历史新高（U.S. energy consumption, production, and exports reach record highs in 2018），https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39392; 美国原油产量在 2018 年增长了 17％，超过了 1970 年的纪录（U.S. crude oil production grew 17% in 2018, surpassing the previous record in 1970）， https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38992；美国天然气产量在 2018 年创历史新高 （U.S. natural gas production hit a new record high in 2018）， https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38692； 2018 年天然气价格、生产、消费和出口均增加（Natural gas prices, production, consumption, and exports increased in 2018），https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37892 44 在 11 月的一个星期中，美国是原油和石油产品的净出口国（For one week in November, the U.S. was a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products）， https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37772 45 预计到 2020 年，美国的能源出口量将超过进口量（The United States is expected to export more energy than it imports by 2020），https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38152 46 附件 9：补贴油页岩-追踪联邦对美国油页岩开发的支持（Subsidizing oil shale -- Tracing Federal Support for Oil Shale Development in the U.S.） 47 同上。 18 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 担保是预先设定产品的最低价格，当市场价格低于预设价格时，由政府负责补 贴两者之间的差额。1980 年代，美国政府向油页岩行业提供的价格担保的价值 为 36.8 亿美元48。 在税收优惠方面，1980 年《原油暴利税法》的第 29 条规定：从 1980 年 起，美国本土钻探的非常规天然气（煤层气和页岩气）可享受每桶油当量 3 美 元的补贴。国会后来又将第 29 条的执行期续延了两次至 1992 年。该政策有效 地激励了非常规气井的钻探，使美国在 1980－1992 年间非常规气井数量爆增， 达新增矿井总数的 78%49。 1992 年，美国国会再次对《原油暴利税法》第 29 条进行修订，对 1979－ 1999 年期间钻探、2003 年之前生产的页岩气实行税收减免政策，减免幅度为 0.5 美元/千立方英尺，而 1989 年美国的天然气价格仅为 1.75 美元/千立方英 尺。美国对页岩气的税收减免政策前后共持续了 23 年50。 在 1997 年颁布的《纳税人减负法案》中，美国政府依然延续对非常规能源 实行税收减免政策，直到 2006 年美国政府出台新的产业政策。新的产业政策规 定：在 2006 年投入运营、用于生产非常规能源的油气井，可在 2006－2010 年 享受每吨油当量 22.05 美元的补贴。此项政策使得美国非常规气探井数量大幅上 升，天然气储量和产量也随之大幅增加51。 除联邦政府的产业政策外，拥有页岩气资源的得克萨斯州、俄亥俄州、宾 夕法尼亚州的州政府也相继颁布了一些鼓励政策，其中最具代表性的是得克萨 斯州。自 1992 年以来，得州政府对页岩气开发免征生产税，实行每立方米 3.5 美分的州政府补贴（占州政府全年税收的 7.5%）。这些补贴政策与联邦政府的 48 附件 9：补贴油页岩-追踪联邦对美国油页岩开发的支持（Subsidizing oil shale -- Tracing Federal Support for Oil Shale Development in the U.S.） 49 附件 10：美国和加拿大页岩气产业政策借鉴 50 同上。 51 同上。 19 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 政策并不冲突，在很大程度上鼓励了石油天然气公司对页岩气资源进行开发52。 4. 长期出口管制扭曲了美国的石油和天然气市场 继 1973 年的阿拉伯石油输出国组织石油禁运后，美国国会在 1975 年颁布 了《能源政策和保护法案》53。该法第 103 条指示总统颁布对原油的出口禁令。 从此美国开始了长达 40 年的禁止本土生产的原油出口的时代。美国国内普遍认 为，原油出口禁令严重干扰了美国的石油贸易，导致了美国国内的石油价格扭 曲54。虽然在 2015 年 12 月，《2016 年综合拨款法案》取消了出口禁令，但仍保 留了总统在现行法律授权下采取行动限制原油出口的能力。 美国目前仍然对天然气的出口进行严格管制。根据《1938 年天然气法案》 第 3 节，所有美国液化天然气出口必须获得能源部化石能源办公室和联邦能源 管理委员会（FERC）的双重批准。在出口企业向能源部提交申请后，能源部必 须审查出口是否符合公众利益。如果能源部认为出口天然气的总量不符合公众 利益，则可以拒发许可证。 如果进口国是与美国签署自由贸易协定（FTA）的 国家，则出口自动被视为符合公共利益。如果进口国与美国未签署自由贸易协 定，则能源部必须在联邦纪事上发布征求意见的公告，并最终确定是否符合公 众利益。 联邦能源管理委员会（FERC）的安全审查包括咨询海岸警卫队、满足 《2002 年海上运输安全法案》和交通部管道安全办公室的要求。对于海上的液 化天然气设施，根据《深水港法》的规定，海事管理局和海岸警卫队与其他机 构合作进行环境审查，以满足《国家环境政策法案》的要求。 5. 美国的石油和天然气行业获得了大量政府补贴 52 附件 10：美国和加拿大页岩气产业政策借鉴 53 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) 54 Lifting the U.S. Crude Oil Export Ban: Prospects for Increasing Oil Market Efficiency, https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev/econrevarchive/2017/2q17cakirmelekoje da.pdf 20 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 大量证据表明，美国政府为鼓励和扶持石油和天然气行业，多年来一直向 该行业提供巨额补贴，严重扭曲了美国石油和天然气的生产、供需和价格。美 国国会的研究报告显示，2015-2019 年期间，美国对开采化石能源（主要是石油 和天然气）的补贴预计约为 215 亿美元55。巨额补贴大幅降低了美国石油和天然 气的开采成本，使原本不具经济效益的开采变得有利可图。根据美国 Stockholm 环境研究所 2017 年发表的研究报告56，在所有美国的油田中，补贴将大多数石 油项目的内部收益率（IRR）提高了 2-6 个百分点。当原油价格为每桶 50 美元 时，如果没有政府补贴，美国有 237 亿桶具备经济开采价值的石油储量。但是 由于补贴的存在，会有额外 196 亿桶原本不具备经济开采价值的石油储量变得 值得开采。换言之，美国现有的石油资源中有 45%是依赖于补贴的（subsidy- dependent）。在美国石油的最主要产区墨西哥湾，由于运营成本较高，对补贴 的依赖率上升至 73%。如果没有补贴，全美有近 200 亿桶的石油储量会因不具 经济价值而不被开采。 表 3. 补贴对美国石油资源开采的影响57 已发现具备经济开采 因补贴而增加的 地区 价值，但尚未开采的 对补贴的依赖率 具备经济开采价值的 石油储量（亿桶） 石油储量（亿桶） 威利斯顿盆地 41 59% 24 帕米亚盆地 203 40% 80 墨西哥湾 21 73% 15 美国其余地区 167 46% 76 全美合计 433 45% 196 美国政府向石油和天然气行业提供补贴的大致情况如下。 (1) 当期抵减无形钻井成本（Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs） 无形钻井成本是指场地清理、排污、工资、供给、维修等没有残余价值的 55 附件 11：能源税收政策：第 114 届国会议题 56 附件 12：上游石油基础设施政府补贴对美国石油生产和全球二氧化碳排放的影响 57 同上。 21 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 开销。这些必需的开销约占钻井费用的 70%-85%58。此项目允许美国的石油和 天然气企业将其开采油气的无形钻井成本在发生当年即进行抵减（即“费用 化”，不必分摊于多个年度）59。 美国政府在其《2019 财政年度预算分析60》中指出，在基准税制下，由于 无形钻井成本带来的是长期效益，属于资本性支出，应当根据井的经济寿命进 行摊销。但是，美国税法61却允许石油和天然气公司将无形钻井成本作为当期费 用进行一次性抵减。非综合性石油公司可以将无形钻井成本全部当期抵减；综 合性石油公司62可以将 70%当期抵减。这种税收优惠措施使得石油和天然气企业 可以更快获得回报，其政策目的在于吸引对石油和天然气开采的投资63。 美国政府在 2015 年 12 月向 G20 同行审议小组提交的《美国化石燃料补贴 自述报告》中，不但明确承认此项补贴的存在，还明确承认“无形钻井成本扣 除条款会扭曲市场，会鼓励比在一个中性的税收制度下更多的资本进入石油和 天然气行业64”。2016 财政年度，美国政府在此项目下提供的财政资助为 16.29 亿美元65。 (2) 按固定比例计提石油和天然气井的矿源折耗（Percentage Depletion for Oil and Natural Gas Wells） 在美国税法下，“折耗”（depletion）是指由开采、伐木等造成的自然资源的 减少66。“折耗计提”（depletion allowance）是指投资于矿产的纳税人可以从其 应纳税收入中抵减折耗成本，性质类似于从应纳税收入中计提固定资产折旧 58 附件 13：延迟无形钻井成本扣减的影响 59 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 60 附件 15：2019 财年美国政府预算分析 61 美国国内税收法典（Internal Revenue Code, IRC）第 263(c)、291 节。 62 指同时从事炼油和零售的原油企业。 63 附件 16：2014 财年预算提案中的石油和天然气行业税收问题 64 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 65 同上。 66 附件 17：美国国税局出版物 535 22 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 （depreciation）。 美国政府在其《2019 财政年度预算分析67》中指出，在基准税制下，石油 和天然气行业和其他行业一样，应当根据实际成本计提折耗68（即以纳税人当年 的油/气销售量所对应的矿源折耗比例计提，在税法中称为 cost depletion）。但 是，美国税法却为石油和天然气行业规定了更为优惠的计提方式，即允许“独 立生产商和特许权所有者”按照收入的固定比例（15%）计提折耗（在税法中 称为 percentage depletion）69。 美国政府在向 G20 提交的《美国化石燃料补贴自述报告》中表示，与按成 本计提折耗相比，按固定比例计提“能够实现更高的税后收入，相当于给纳税 人提供了一个较低的税率70”。按固定比例计提会导致历年累计抵减总额超过纳 税人的实际投资成本71。2016 财政年度，美国政府在此项目下提供的财政资助 为 9.66 亿美元72。 (3) 加速摊销石油和天然气的地测和物探费用（Two Year Amortization Period for Geological & Geophysical Expenditures） 根据《美国国内税收法典》第 167(h)节，独立石油生产商在美国境内从事 石油和天然气开采而发生的地测和物探费用可以在 2 年内进行摊销。相比之 下，“大型综合性石油公司”所适用的摊销期为 7 年。从税收政策角度，摊销 期越短，优惠越大。 美国政府在向 G20 提交的《美国化石燃料补贴自述报告》中承认“加速摊 销政策给石油和天然气行业的独立石油公司提供了税收优惠。将摊销期从 2 年 67 附件 15：2019 财年美国政府预算分析 68 见美国国税局出版物 535（IRS Publication 535），https://www.irs.gov/publications/p535 69 见，美国国内税收法典（Internal Revenue Code, IRC）第 611—613A 节。 70 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 71 附件 15：2019 财年美国政府预算分析 72 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 23 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 延长至 7 年有利于更准确地反映其收入水平73”。2016 财政年度，美国政府在此 项目下提供的财政资助为 2.88 亿美元74。 (4) 按固体比例计提固体化石燃料的矿源折耗（Percentage Depletion for Hard Mineral Fossil Fuels） 此项目与前述“按固定比例计提石油和天然气井的矿源折耗”的性质相 同，但适用于油页岩、煤和褐煤生产者。美国税法允许这些生产者按固定比例 （而非实际成本）计提折耗，以抵减应纳税收入。油页岩生产者的计提比例是 其应纳税收入的 15%。 与按实际成本计提折耗相比，按固定比例计提“能够实现更高的税后收 入，相当于给纳税人提供了一个较低的税率75”。这种计提方法会导致历年累计 抵减总额超过纳税人的实际投资成本76。2016 财政年度，美国政府在此项目下 提供的财政资助为 2.09 亿美元77。 (5) 当期抵减固体矿物燃料的勘探和开发费用（Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs for Hard Mineral Fuels） 此项目与前述“无形钻井成本的当期抵减”的性质相同，但适用于油页 岩、煤和褐煤生产者。美国税法允许这些生产者将勘探和开发费用的 70%在发 生当年即进行抵减，而不必分摊于多个年度78。 美国政府在《2019 财政年度预算分析79》中指出，在基准税制下，勘探和 开发费用应当被“资本化”处理，根据固定资产的使用年限进行折旧摊销。但 在现行税法下，矿业企业却可以将上述费用立即冲抵收入。在《美国化石燃料 73 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 74 同上。 75 同上。 76 附件 15：2019 财年美国政府预算分析 77 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 78 同上。 79 附件 15：2019 财年美国政府预算分析 24 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 补贴自述报告》中，美国政府承认这种做法“给化石燃料行业提供了税收优惠 80”。2016 财政年度，美国政府在此项目下提供的财政资助为 5300 万美元81。 (6) 抵减三次采油费用（Deduction for Tertiary Injectants） 石油和天然气企业为提高原油采收率而运用三次采油技术所发生的费用， 如符合条件，可以用来一次性抵减企业的应纳税收入。美国政府在向 G20 提交 的《美国化石燃料补贴自述报告》中表示，“由于三次采油费用可以在发生的当期 直接扣除而无需资本化，所以给石油和天然气行业提供了税收优惠”82。 (7) 对因油气资产经营权益而发生的“被动亏损”的特殊税务处理 （Exception to Passive Loss Limitation for Working Interests in Oil and Natural Gas Properties） 按照美国税法的一般规则，“被动（无实质参与）投资”的亏损只能被用 来抵减被动投资产生的收入，而不能用来抵减“主动收入”（如工资、资本收 益等）。例如，纳税人不能用其出租房屋（被动投资）的亏损来抵减其工资收 入（主动收入）。但是，美国税法却给予石油和天然气行业的投资特殊对待— —不论投资者是否实质参与经营，其在油气资产中享有的“经营权益” （working interest）都被视为非被动投资83。这样一来，纳税人可以用因投资于 油气行业而获得的抵扣来抵减其他来源的收入。 美国政府在向 G20 提交的《美国化石燃料补贴自述报告》中表示，“对油 气资产经营权益的特殊性税务处理给石油和天然气行业提供了税收优惠”。美 国政府《2019 财政年度预算分析》显示，在此项目下提供的财政资助 2018 年为 2000 万美元84。 80 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 81 同上。 82 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 83 见，美国国内税收法典（Internal Revenue Code）第 469(c)(3)节。 84 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 25 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 (8) “提高石油采收率”项目开支的税收抵免（Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit） 提高石油采收率（EOR）技术是指向油层中注入驱油剂（如二氧化碳）， 以补充天然井压，提高老井产量的技术。在美国税法下，此类项目开支的 15% 可用来抵免应纳所得税85。美国政府在向 G20 提交的《美国化石燃料补贴自述 报告》中表示，“该项抵免政策给石油和天然气行业提供了税收优惠”。美国 政府《2019 财政年度预算分析》显示，在此项目下提供的财政资助 2018 年为 3.5 亿美元，2019 年预计为 4 亿美元86。 (9) “边际井”享受的税收抵免（Marginal Wells Credit） 边际井是指年产量不超过 1095 桶的油气井。此类井的开采费用和销售收入 相差不大，缺乏经济开采价值。根据美国税法，边际井以及日产量不超过 25 桶 的井可以享受税收抵免87。抵免额度为，每桶石油——3 美元，每 1000 立方英 尺天然气——50 美分。此项政策的目的是鼓励低产量的石油和天然气井在油气 价格低时继续开采。美国国会的研究报告估计，全美 20%的石油和 12%的天然 气产自此类边际井88。美国政府《2019 财政年度预算分析》显示，在此项目下 提供的财政资助 2018 年为 1.1 亿美元89。 (10) 化石燃料上市合伙企业的企业所得税免除（Corporate Income Tax Exemption for Fossil Fuel Publicly Traded Partnerships） 根据美国政府提交的《美国化石燃料补贴自述报告》，上市合伙企业一般 需要缴纳企业所得税。但是，当上市合伙企业的总收入有 90%以上来自非再生 资源、房地产和大宗商品时，则可免缴企业所得税，在税法上视同普通合伙企 业。即合伙企业可以将其所有的收入、利得、亏损、扣减、抵免在合伙人之间 85 见，美国国内税收法典（Internal Revenue Code）第 43 节。 86 附件 15：2019 财年美国政府预算分析 87 见，美国国内税收法典（Internal Revenue Code）第 45I 节。 88 附件 16：2014 财年预算提案中的石油和天然气行业税收问题 89 附件 15：2019 财年美国政府预算分析 26 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 分摊，合伙人以其享有的份额来承担所得税纳税义务（或从亏损中获益）—— 在有收益的情况下，合伙人只需缴纳个人所得税；在亏损的情况下，合伙人可 以冲抵其他收入，从而承担较低的个人所得税90。美国国会的研究报告显示， 2016 年在此项目下提供的财政资助为 9 亿美元91。 (11) 天然气输配管道的加速折旧（Natural gas distribution pipelines treated as 15-year property） 按照美国税法下的正常折旧方法，天然气输配管道的折旧期为 20 年。但是 《2005 年能源政策法案》给予了天然气输配管道加速折旧待遇，将折旧期从 20 年缩短为 15 年92。在 2018 财政年度，美国政府因此项优惠政策而减少的税收 1.5 亿美元93。 (12) 当期抵减炼油厂扩产投资的 50%（Temporary 50% expensing for equipment used in the refining of liquid fuels） 在基准税制下，投资于炼油厂的资本性支出应当根据资产的经济寿命进行 摊销。但是，为了鼓励对炼油厂的投资以促进石油产品增产及降价，《2005 年 能源政策法案》给予了炼油厂加速摊销的优惠政策。根据此项目，炼油厂的扩 产投资的 50%可以当期抵减（即“费用化”），其余 50%则仍按正常方法逐年 折旧摊销94。 (13) 各州政府提供的补贴 除美国联邦政府之外，各州也通过各种财税优惠措施补贴和刺激石油和天 然气和生产。这些补贴进一步扭曲了美国石油和天然气的生产、供需和价格。 根据经济合作与发展组织（OECD）和国际能源署（IEA）的“化石燃料补贴数 据库”的统计，2016 年，美国各州向石油和天然气产业提供的补贴总额超过 22 90 附件 14：美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 91 附件 18：不同类型能源的税收激励措施的价值 92 附件 19：美国能源税收 93 附件 15：2019 财年美国政府预算分析 94 附件 20：石油和天然气税收补贴现状与分析 27 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 亿美元95。 表 4. 美国各州以税收优惠形式向石油和天然气行业提供的补贴96 阿拉斯加州 Cook Inlet 地区钻井平台权利金 Cook Inlet Platform Royalty Relief 减免 Small Cook Inlet 地区的的权利金 Small Cook Inlet Discoveries Royalty Relief 减免 Ooguruk 地区的权利金优惠 Royalty Modification for Ooguruk Unit 按桶抵免原油应缴税额 Taxable Per Barrel Credit 储气设施抵免 Gas Storage Facility Credit 液化天然气储存设施抵免 LNG Storage Facility Credit 天然气勘探开发抵免 Gas Exploration and Development Credit 降低油气企业的应纳税收入 Gross Value Reduction 油气行业服务支出抵免 Oil and Gas Industry Service Expenditures Credit 无形钻井费用的财产税免除 Property-Tax Exemption for Intangible Drilling Expenses 州内炼油厂税收抵免 In-State Refinery Tax Credit 资本性支出抵免 Qualified Capital Expenditure Credit 小生产者和新地区的油气开发 Development Credit for Small Producers and New 费用抵免 Areas 油气勘探费用的抵免 Alternative Credit for Exploration 加利福尼亚州 按比例计提矿产和其他资源折 Percentage Depletion of Mineral and Other Resources 耗 科罗拉多州 油气井的开采税免除 Severance-Tax Exemption for Stripper Wells 从价的油气开采税抵免 Severance-Tax Oil and Gas Ad Valorem Credit 与“影响援助”相关的开采税 Impact Assistance Credit 抵免 低产量井的开采税减免 Severance-Tax Reductions for Low-Volume Wells 新油页岩设施的开采税减免 Severance-Tax Reductions for New Oil-Shale Facilities 低产油页岩生产的开采税免除 Severance-Tax Exemption for Low-Volume Oil-Shale Production 油气工人的职业税免除 Occupational-Privilege-Tax Exemption for Oil and Gas Workers 矿业资产减值计算财产税 Reduced Value for Certain Mineral Properties 路易斯安那州 95 附件 21：OECD 化石燃料补贴数据库—2016 年美国各州向石油和天然气产业提供的补贴 96 同上。 28 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 用于三次采油的二氧化碳免征 Sales-Tax Exemption for CO2 Used in Tertiary 营业税 Recovery 油田道路免征营业税 Sales-Tax Exclusion for Installation of Board Roads in Oil-fields 钻机免征营业税 Sales-Tax Exclusion on Drilling Rigs 钻机修理及材料免征营业税 Sales-Tax Exemption for Repairs and Materials Used on Drilling Rigs 按固定比例计提折耗 Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion 水平井天然气免征开采税 Natural Gas Severance Tax Suspension for Horizontal Wells 闲置井天然气免征开采税 Natural Gas Severance Tax Suspension for Inactive Wells 深井天然气免征开采税 Natural Gas Severance Tax Suspension for Deep Wells 新探井天然气免征开采税 Natural Gas Severance Tax Suspension for New Discovery Wells 低压油井开采税优惠 Reduced Severance Tax on Incapable Oil Well Gas 低压天然气井开采税优惠 Reduced Severance Tax on Incapable Gas Well Gas 以石油运输费用扣减开采税 Oil Deduction Severance Tax on Transportation Fees 免征水平井石油的开采税 Severance Tax Suspension on Oil from Horizontal Wells 免征闲置井石油的开采税 Severance Tax Suspension on Oil from Inactive Wells 免征深井石油的开采税 Severance Tax Suspension on Oil from Deep Wells 免征新探井石油的开采税 Severance Tax Suspension on Oil from New Discovery Wells 免征三次开油的开采税 Severance Tax Suspension on Oil from Tertiary Recovery 低压油井的开采税优惠 Reduced Severance Tax Rate on Incapable Oil Wells 低产井石油的开采税优惠 Reduced Severance Tax Rate on Oil from Stripper Wells 免征燃烧或排放天然气的开采 Severance Tax Exclusion on Flared or Vented Natural 税 Gas 免征现场作业用天然气的开采 Severance Tax Exclusion for Natural Gas Used in Field 税 Operations 免征生产炭黑用天然气的开采 Severance Tax Exclusion for Carbon Black Producers 税 北达科他州 免征天然气总产量税和石油开 Gas Gross Production Tax Exemptions + Oil 采税 Extraction Tax Exemptions Bakken 和 Three Forks 地区油井 Reduced Tax Rate for Certain Wells Outside the Bakken 的优惠税率 and Three Forks Region 炼油厂用动产免征营业税 Sales tax exemption for oil 免征用于提高采收率的二氧化 Sales tax exemption for CO2 used for enhance oil 碳的营业税 recovery 29 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 生产天然气的动产免征营业税 Sales tax exemption for natural gas 俄克拉荷马州 3D 地震井的总产量税退税 Gross Production Tax Rebate for 3D Seismic Wells 经济风险井的总产量税退税 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Economically At Risk Wells 政府拥有的油气公司的总产量 Gross Production Tax Exemption for O&G Owned by 税免税 Government 天然气营销费用抵减总产量税 Gas Marketing Deduction Against Gross Production Tax 免征提高采收率用电的营业税 Sales Tax Exemption for Electricity Used in Enhanced Oil Recovery 以降硫支出扣减应纳税收入 Cost of Complying with Sulphur Regulations 当期抵减新炼油厂的全部投资 Full Expensing of Capital Investments in Qualified New Refinery Capacity 小企业资本公司和农村小企业 Gross Production and Excise Tax Credits, Small 资本公司可抵免总产量税及消 Business and Rural Small Business Capital Companies 费税 按固定比例计提折耗 Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion 提高石油采收率扣减 Enhanced Oil Recovery Deduction 水平钻井的总产量税退税 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Horizontally Drilled Wells 复产井的总产量退税 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Reestablished Production 增产的总产量税退税 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Production Enhancement 深井和超深井的总产量税退税 Gross Production Tax Rebate for Deep and Ultra Deep Wells 新探井的总产量税退税 Gross Production Tax Rebate for New Discovery Wells 宾夕法尼亚州 免征资源租赁的不动产转让税 Realty-Transfer Tax Exemption for Resource Leases 德克萨斯州 免征油气设备的营业税 Sales Tax Exemption for Oil & Gas Equipment 免征油气开采税 Severance Tax Exemptions for Crude Oil and Natural Gas 西弗吉尼亚州 免征油气井的开采税 Exclusion of Low Volume Oil & Gas Wells 免征煤层气井的开采税 Coalbed Methane Exemption 怀俄明州 低产井的开采税优惠 Severance-Tax Reduction for Stripper Wells 三次采油的开采税优惠 Severance-Tax Reduction for Tertiary Recovery 油气井投产后两年部分免征开 24-Month Severance-Tax Reduction 30 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 采税 大修井的开采税优惠 Severance-Tax Reduction for Workover Wells 复产井的开采税优惠 Severance-Tax Reduction for Idle Wells 免征火炬气的开采税 Severance-Tax Exemption for Flared Natural Gas 运输钻机免征营业税 Sales-Tax Exemption for Transporting Drilling Rigs 油井服务免征营业税 Sales-Tax Exemption for Certain Well Services 三次采油用二氧化碳免征营业 Sales-Tax Exemption for CO2 Used in Tertiary 税 Production 研发费用抵免开采税 Severance-Tax Credit for Certain R&D Projects 6. 政府补贴导致电价扭曲 美国联邦和地方政府长期向发电行业提供巨额补贴。 根据美国国会的“政府问责办公室”（GAO）向国会提交的报告《联邦电 力补贴——有关研究资金，税收支出和其他支持电力生产的活动的信息》，从 2002 到 2007 财政年度，美国联邦政府以税收形式提供电力补贴的总额为 182 亿 美元，此外美国能源部还提供了总额为 115 亿美元的电力研发补贴97。 另据美国能源部的报告《2007 年联邦政府对能源市场的财政干预和补 贴》，2007 财政年度，美国联邦政府向发电行业提供的补贴总额为 67.5 亿美 元，每千度电的补贴为 1.65 美元98。根据德州奥斯丁大学能源研究所的白皮书 《联邦政府对发电技术的财政支持》，2019 财政年度，联邦政府向发电行业提 供的补贴总额已上升至 142 亿美元，每千度电的补贴则升至 3.36 美元99。 在州政府层面，根据德州奥斯丁大学能源研究所的白皮书《州政府对发电 技术的财政支持》，2019 年，德克萨斯州政府向电力部门提供的补贴总额为 14.7 亿美元，每千度电的补贴为 3.15 美元。2019 年，加利福尼亚州向电力部门 提供的补贴总额为 70.9 亿美元，每千度电的补贴高达 26.1 美元100。 美国联邦和州政府提供的巨额补贴扭曲了美国电力部门的发电成本，造成 97 附件 22：联邦电力补贴——有关研究资金，税收支出和其他支持电力生产的活动的信息 98 附件 23：2007 年联邦政府对能源市场的财政干预和补贴 99 附件 24：联邦政府对发电技术的财政支持；州政府对发电技术的财政支持 100 附件 24：联邦政府对发电技术的财政支持；州政府对发电技术的财政支持 31 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 美国的电价无法反映真实成本。电是现代工业生产的重要的生产要素。但由于 政府补贴的存在，美国企业能够以严重扭曲的价格获得电力，这本身就是一种 非市场化的情形。 7. 政府补贴导致煤炭价格扭曲 根据美国国会研究报告的不完全统计，2016 年联邦政府以税收优惠形式向 能源行业提供的补贴高达 182 亿美元，其中对化石燃料的补贴为 52 亿美元101。 虽然美国对化石能源补贴的重点在于石油和天然气，但煤炭行业同样也获得了 数目可观的补贴。根据 OECD 的统计，2017 年美国煤炭行业获得的政府财政扶 持总额高达 23.4 亿美元102。美国每年在联邦层面为煤炭开采提供超过 10 亿美元 的财政支持，其中包括向煤炭开采企业提供的税收减免和能源部化石能源办公 室提供的研发补助103。 在美国，绝大部分（92.6%）的煤炭被用于发电，燃煤发电占总发电量的 27%104。此外煤炭也是煤化工的原料。由于大量补贴的存在，美国的煤炭价格不 能完全反映真实成本，也在一定程度上扭曲了化工行业的成本。 表 5. 美国联邦和州政府向煤炭行业提供的补贴105 联邦政府 精炼煤税收抵免 Refined Coal Credit 印第安部落土地采煤税收抵免 Indian Coal Credit 煤炭权利金费率优惠 Coal Royalty Rate Reduction - Category 5 Qualification 替代燃料生产税收抵免 Alternative Fuels Production Credit 煤炭权利金的资本收益处置 Capital Gains Treatment of Royalties on Coal 先进矿山安全设备的部分当期抵减 Partial Expensing for Advanced Mine Safety Equipment 按超出成本的比例计提矿源折耗 Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion 能源部化石能源研发资助 Fossil Energy R&D 101 The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy Resources: In Brief, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44852.pdf 102 附件 25：G20 煤炭补贴—美国报告及数据表 103 同上。 104 见美国能源信息管理局（EIA）网站：https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/use-of-coal.php 105 OECD 化石能源扶持措施数据库：https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=FFS_USA 32 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 北达科他州 煤炭开采税免除 Coal Severance Tax Exemptions 煤炭营业税免除 Sales tax exemption for coal 西弗吉尼亚州 薄层煤减税 Reduced Tax for Thin-Seamed Coal 肯塔基州 薄层煤税收抵免 Thin Seam Tax Credit 煤炭运输费用抵扣 Coal Transportation Expense 按超出成本的比例计提矿源折耗 Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion 替代燃料或气化设施的营业税优惠 Sales Tax Incentive for Alternative Fuel or Gasification Facilities 科罗拉多州 煤炭开采税免除 Impact Assistance Credit 地下煤的开采税减免 Severance-Tax Reduction for Underground Coal 褐煤的开采税减免 Severance-Tax Reduction for Lignite 低产量煤矿的开采税免除 Severance-Tax Exemption for Low-Volume Coal Mining 宾夕法尼亚州 煤炭废物处理设施税收抵免 Coal Waste Removal Tax Credit 资源租赁的不动产转让税免除 Realty-Transfer Tax Exemption for Resource Leases 生产替代能源的税收抵免 Alternative Energy Production Tax Credit 怀俄明州 地下煤的开采税减免 Severance-Tax Reduction for Underground Coal 煤矿用煤的开采税免除 Severance-Tax Exemption for Coal Used as Process Energy 地下采煤设备的财产税免除 Property-Tax Exemption for Underground Coal- Mining Equipment 煤气化设备的财产税免除 Sales-Tax Exemption for Coal-Gasification Equipment 8. 生产申请调查产品的美国企业具备操纵原料价格的能力 生产申请调查产品的美国企业本身就是上游原料的主要生产者。在乙烯/环 氧乙烷、丙烯/环氧丙烷两方面，陶氏公司和利安德巴塞尔公司都是世界级的巨 头106。伊士曼公司也自产乙烯、环氧乙烷和丙烯。ICIS 的统计显示，陶氏公司 在美国的德克萨斯州和路易斯安那州有 4 个乙烯裂解装置，共计 633 万吨/年的 产能。伊士曼公司在德克萨斯州的乙烯裂解装置也有 64 万吨/年的产能。利安 德巴塞尔公司的丙烯产能在美国排名第一，陶氏公司排名第三107。这些企业同 时在上下游市场上占据显著地位，具有操纵供应和价格的能力，可能导致美国 106 附件 26：美国的乙烯、环氧乙烷、丙烯、环氧丙烷产能情况 107 同上。 33 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 市场的乙烯/环氧乙烷、丙烯/环氧丙烷的价格存在扭曲。 9. 长期的政府补贴政策系统性地扭曲了美国化工产品市场 化工行业是美国经济最重要的部门之一，也是美国制造业的主要出口部 门。2017 年，美国化工行业的销售额超过 7,650 亿美元，提供了 53 万个直接就 业岗位，间接就业人数则超过 180 万108。由于其在经济中的举足轻重的位置， 化工行业一直是美国政府财政扶持的重点对象。长期以来，美国联邦和地方政 府向境内的化工巨头企业提供了名目繁多，数额巨大的补贴，以刺激其发展。 根据公开可获得的信息，2000 年以来，陶氏杜邦公司109总共获得了 662 笔补 贴，共计 23.4 亿美元；沙索北美公司获得了 68 笔补贴，共计 18.5 亿美元；伊 士曼公司获得了 32 笔补贴，共计 1.36 亿美元；巴斯夫公司获得了 269 笔补贴， 共计 3.39 亿美元110。 美国政府通过长期执行补贴政策，以非市场化的手段系统性地刺激了化工 行业的生产和投资，扭曲了产品的成本和价格，使得美国的化工产品普遍存在 非市场化的情形。 （二） 倾销幅度 申请人掌握的证据表明，原产于美国的进口相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基 醚存在倾销行为。申请人以 2019 年 1 至 12 月为期间，初步估算倾销幅度。 1. 出口价格 (1) 调整前的出口价格 申请人以 2019 年 1 至 12 月期间申请调查产品向中国出口的 CIF 价格作为 调整前的出口价格。 108 https://www.selectusa.gov/chemical-industry-united-states 109 陶氏杜邦公司已于 2019 年 6 月 1 日正式分拆为 3 个独立的公司。 110 附件 27：美国研究机构统计的化工行业补贴情况 34 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 表 6. 调整前的出口价格111 数量（吨） 金额（美元） 价格（美元/吨） 2019 年 1—12 月 30,507 42,363,510 1,388.65 (2) 价格调整 《反倾销调查立案暂行规则》第十七条规定，关于价格调整和价格比较， 申请人应当对正常价值、出口价格在销售条件、条款、税收、贸易环节、数 量、物理特征等方面做适当调整，在对正常价值和出口价格进行比较时，应当 尽可能在同一贸易环节、相同时间的销售、出厂前的水平上进行。 调整前的出口价格是 CIF 价格。为了尽可能将出口价格与正常价值在出厂 价的水平上进行比较，应当合理扣除申请调查产品从美国出口到中国的各环节 的费用，包括境内外的运输、保险费用、关税、增值税、佣金、信用成本、仓 储、商检费等各种费用。 具体调整方式如下： a. 关税、增值税不做调整 调整前的出口价格是 CIF 价格，不包含关税、增值税，此项调整不适用。 b. 扣除海运费和海运保险费 根据申请人的了解，2019 年 1 至 12 月从美国出口到中国的申请调查产品采 用海运方式，以 20 呎集装箱货柜运输，每个货柜可以装运 14.8 吨。从美国向中 国运输一个 20 呎集装箱的海运费平均价格为 2,297 美元112，折合每吨 155.23 美 元。此项费用应从调整前的出口价格中扣除。 申请人以中国到美国的海运保险费率作为基础，初步推算美国到中国的保 险费率为 0.45%113。根据国际贸易的惯常做法，保险金额是按照 CIF 价格的 111 附件 5：关于中国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚生产和进口情况的说明 112 附件 28：海运费、保险费率和美国境内环节费用证明 113 同上。 35 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 110%来计算的。因此，保险费等于 CIF 价格×110%×0.45%，即 CIF 价格的 0.495%，此项费用应从调整前的出口价格中扣除。 c. 扣除境内环节费用 从美国向中国出口申请调查产品所发生的境内环节费用应从调整前的出口 价格中扣除。申请人暂根据世界银行集团（World Bank Group）统计的从美国出 口一个 20 呎集装箱货柜的境内环节费用（包括文件、清关和商检、报关、港杂 和内陆运输费用）进行调整。根据世界银行集团的统计，美国出口一个 20 呎集 装箱的境内环节费用为 1,596 美元114。以每个集装箱装运 14.8 吨申请调查产品计 算，折合境内环节费用为每吨 107.84 美元。 (3) 调整后的出口价格 申请人计算调整后的出口价格的方法如下： 调整后的出口价格＝调整前的出口价格－境内环节费用－海运费和保险费 ＝[1,388.65×(1−0.495%)]−107.84−155.23＝1,118.71 调整后的出口价格为 1,118.71 美元/吨 表 7. 调整前和调整后的出口价格 调整前（美元/吨） 调整后（美元/吨） 2019 年 1—12 月 1,388.65 1,118.71 2. 正常价值 (1) 正常价值的确定 由于美国存在导致乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚成本扭曲的非市场状况，该 产品在美国市场上的销售价格不能作为正常贸易中用于消费的可比价格。根据 《反倾销调查立案暂行规则》，没有可比价格或可比价格不能获得的，申请人 应当提供申请调查进口产品的结构价格或者向第三国出口的价格。为提起本次 114 同上。 36 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 申请之目的，申请人以美国产品向马来西亚出口的价格作为正常价值。 (2) 调整前的正常价值 申请人以美国海关统计的 FOB 贸易条件下，2019 年美国向马来西亚出口的 同类产品价格作为调整前正常价值，即 4,074.35 美元/吨115。 表 8. 2019 年美国向马来西亚出口申请调查产品的同类产品情况 金额（美元） 数量（吨） 价格（美元/吨） 2019 年 1,060,028 260.17 4,074.35 (3) 正常价值的调整 《反倾销调查立案暂行规则》第十七条规定，关于价格调整和价格比较， 申请人应当对正常价值、出口价格在销售条件、条款、税收、贸易环节、数 量、物理特征等方面做适当调整，在对正常价值和出口价格进行比较时，应当 尽可能在同一贸易环节、相同时间的销售、出厂前的水平上进行。 调整前的正常价值为 FOB 贸易条件下美国向马来西亚的出口价格。此价格 不涉及海运费、海运保险、目的国的进口环节关税和增值税等，故不需相关调 整。 从美国向马来西亚出口所发生的境内环节费用应从调整前的正常价值中扣 除。根据世界银行的统计，从美国出口一个 20 呎集装箱货柜的境内环节费用 （包括文件、清关和商检、报关、港杂和内陆运输费用）为 1,596 美元116。以每 个集装箱装运 14.8 吨相关产品计算，折合境内环节费用为 107.84 美元/吨，应 予扣除。 (4) 调整后的正常价值 调整后正常价值＝调整前正常价值―境内环节费用 115 附件 29：美国海关出口数据 116 附件 28：海运费、保险费率和美国境内环节费用证明 37 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 ＝4,074.35−107.84＝3,966.51 美元/吨 表 9. 正常价值（美元/吨） 调整前正常价值 调整后正常价值 2019 年 1—12 月 4,074.35 3,966.51 3. 倾销幅度 根据申请人的估算，2019 年 1 至 12 月期间美国向中国出口的相关乙二醇和 丙二醇的单烷基醚的倾销幅度为 205.08%。 表 10. 估算的倾销幅度 调整前出口价格（美元/吨） 1,388.65 调整后出口价格（美元/吨） 1,118.71 调整后的正常价值（美元/吨） 3,966.51 倾销绝对额117（美元/吨） 2,847.80 倾销幅度118 205.08% （一） 进口数量 1. 进口绝对数量 申请人主张以 2016 年至 2019 年作为损害调查期。在此期间，申请调查产 品的进口数量大量增加。2016 年的进口量为 1.8 万吨，2017 年增至 2.4 万吨，此 后 2018 年和 2019 年都超过了 3 万吨。四年期间的累计增长幅度达到 68.59%。 表 11. 申请调查产品的进口数量（单位：吨） 2016 年 2017 年 2018 年 2019 年 进口数量 18,095 23,960 33,316 30,507 117 倾销绝对额 = 调整后正常价值−调整后出口价格 118 倾销幅度 = 倾销绝对额 / 调整前的出口价格 119 本部分所涉及的国内产业数据均出自“附件 30：申请人同类产品生产、经营和财务数据”。 38 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 图 3. 申请调查产品进口数量（单位：吨） 进口数量 35,000 33,316 30,507 30,000 23,960 25,000 20,000 18,095 15,000 10,000 2016年 2017年 2018年 2019年 2. 进口相对于国内生产和消费的数量 从相对于国内同类产品生产和消费数量的角度看，进口也在不断增长。这 意味着申请调查产品在中国市场上的影响力不断增加，加之其绝对数量达数万 吨之多，因此它的低价倾销足以对国内产业造成显著的负面影响。 表 12. 进口量相对于国内同类产品生产和消费数量的比例（单位：吨） 2016 年 2017 年 2018 年 2019 年 国内同类产品生产数量 88,089 97,002 99,568 105,181 国内同类产品消费数量 114,170 141,192 162,227 166,802 申请调查产品的进口量 18,095 23,960 33,316 30,507 相对于国内生产数量 20.54% 24.70% 33.46% 29.00% 相对于国内消费量 15.85% 16.97% 20.54% 18.29% （二） 价格影响 申请调查产品包括乙二醇的单烷基醚和丙二醇的单烷基醚。因为两者的价 格存在差异，所以申请人分别对比两者的进口价格和国内同类产品价格，以客 观评估倾销进口的价格影响。 1. 乙二醇单烷基醚 39 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 2016 年，原产于美国的相关乙二醇单烷基醚的进口完税人民币价格120尚高 于国内同类产品的销售价格。但从 2017 年开始，进口价格便低于国内同类产品 的售价。2017 至 2019 年期间存在明显的削价销售。 表 13. 进口乙二醇单烷基醚的削价销售情况（单位：元/吨） 2016 年 2017 年 2018 年 2019 年 进口完税人民币价格 10,556 9,759 10,869 9,147 国内同类产品价格 9,638 10,488 11,080 9,542 图 4. 进口乙二醇单烷基醚的削价销售情况（单位：元/吨） 进口完税人民币价格 国内同类产品价格 11,500 11,080 11,000 10,556 10,488 10,500 10,869 10,000 9,542 9,500 9,759 9,638 9,000 9,147 8,500 2016年 2017年 2018年 2019年 2. 丙二醇单烷基醚 2016 至 2019 年期间，原产于美国的相关丙二醇单烷基醚的进口完税人民币 价格始终大幅低于国内同类产品的销售价格，存在削价销售。 表 14. 进口丙二醇单烷基醚的削价销售情况（单位：元/吨） 2016 年 2017 年 2018 年 2019 年 进口完税人民币价格 11,477 10,898 12,532 11,395 国内同类产品价格 13,551 12,837 13,783 13,278 120 进口完税人民币价格 = 进口美元价格×（1＋关税税率）×美元/人民币汇率。 40 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 图 5. 进口丙二醇单烷基醚的削价销售情况（单位：元/吨） 进口完税人民币价格 国内同类产品价格 13,783 14,000 13,551 13,278 12,837 13,000 12,532 12,000 11,000 11,477 11,395 10,898 10,000 2016年 2017年 2018年 2019年 （三） 国内产业的状况 1. 表观消费量 2016 至 2019 年期间，中国市场对相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚的需求不 断增长，表观消费量的累计增长幅度为 46.10%。 表 15. 国内表观消费量（单位：吨） 表观消费量 变化幅度 2016 年 114,170 - 2017 年 141,192 23.67% 2018 年 162,227 14.90% 2019 年 166,802 2.82% 2016-2019 年 - 46.10% 2. 产能、产量和产能利用率 2016 至 2019 年期间，随着国内需求的明显增长，申请人的产量也有所提 高。由于产能维持不变，产能利用率也相应有所提高。但是产量的增加并不意 味着市场地位的改善。实际上，申请人同类产品的市场占有率反而出现了下 滑，反映在产量相对于消费量的比例呈下降的趋势。这说明申请人产量的增长 并没有跟上需求的增长。相比之下，倾销进口产品的市场份额却在增长。此 41 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 外，在调查期内申请人的开工率最高时只有 55%，始终处于开工不足的状态。 表 16. 产能、产量和开工率 产量相对于表观 产量（吨） 产能（吨） 开工率 消费量的比例 2016 年 【100】 【100】 41.5% 【36~40】% 2017 年 【118】 【100】 49.0% 【31~35】% 2018 年 【122】 【100】 50.8% 【31~35】% 2019 年 【133】 【100】 55.0% 【31~35】% 3. 销量、销售收入和销售价格 2016 至 2018 年期间，申请人同类产品的销量和销售收入保持了增长。2019 年，销量和销售收入都有比较显著的下降。在销售价格方面，走势和主要原料 环氧乙烷和环氧丙烷的走势完全一致，在 2016 至 2018 年期间持续上升，2019 年显著下降。 表 17. 申请人同类产品的销售情况 销量（吨） 销售收入（万元） 销售价格（元/吨） 2016 年 【100】 【100】 10,105 2017 年 【115】 【124】 10,937 2018 年 【123】 【139】 11,419 2019 年 【112】 【115】 10,309 图 6. 主要原料环氧乙烷和环氧丙烷的价格121（单位：元/吨） 环氧乙烷 环氧丙烷 13,000 12,119 12,000 10,925 11,000 10,151 10,000 9,188 10,269 9,000 9,769 8,000 8,554 7,000 7,749 6,000 2016年 2017年 2018年 2019年 121 附件 31：环氧乙烷和环氧丙烷历史价格 42 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 4. 市场份额 调查期内，申请人同类产品的市场份额持续下降。需要指出的是，即使在 销量保持增长的前三年（2016—2018），市场份额也是不断下降的。这说明虽 然销售绝对数量得益于需求增长而有所增加，但国内同类产品的竞争能力仍不 断减弱。 表 18. 销量和市场份额 销量（吨） 表观消费量（吨） 市场份额 2016 年 【100】 114,170 【21~25】% 2017 年 【115】 141,192 【16~20】% 2018 年 【123】 162,227 【16~20】% 2019 年 【112】 166,802 【16~20】% 图 7. 销量和市场份额 销量 市场份额 140 25% 【123】 【115】 120 【112】 【100】 100 20% 80 60 15% 40 20 0 10% 2016年 2017年 2018年 2019年 5. 利润 调查期内，申请调查产品的进口数量大幅增加，并且以低价倾销的方式抢 占市场，对国内同类产品的定价和销售造成了巨大压力。2016 年以来，申请人 同类产品的税前利润不断下降，到 2019 年已完全处于亏损状态。 表 19. 申请人同类产品的盈利情况（单位：万元） 税前利润 销售收入 利润率 2016 年 【100】 【100】 【0~5】% 2017 年 【91】 【124】 【0~5】% 43 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 2018 年 【67】 【139】 【0~5】% 2019 年 【-3】 【115】 【-5~0】% 图 8. 申请人同类产品的盈利情况（单位：万元） 税前利润 120 【100】 100 【91】 80 【67】 60 40 20 0 -【3】 -20 2016年 2017年 2018年 2019年 6. 投资收益率 调查期内，随着申请人同类产品的利润不断下降，投资收益率也不断下 降，到 2019 年变为负值。即使盈利状况最好的 2016 年，投资收益率也仅为 2.35%，远低于同期融资成本122。 表 20. 投资收益率（单位：万元） 税前利润 投资额 投资收益率 2016 年 【100】 【100】 2.35% 2017 年 【91】 【144】 1.49% 2018 年 【67】 【192】 0.83% 2019 年 【-3】 【235】 -0.03% 7. 现金流 调查期内，申请人同类产品分配的现金流除了在 2018 年为正数，在其他三 年均为负值。现金流长期为负数，说明公司的综合状况在恶化。 122 参见，中国人民银行金融机构人民币贷款基准利率： http://www.pbc.gov.cn/zhengcehuobisi/125207/125213/125440/125838/index.html 44 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 表 21. 现金流（单位：万元） 现金流 2016 年 【-100】 2017 年 【-460】 2018 年 【210】 2019 年 【-244】 8. 就业与工资 2016 至 2018 年期间，申请人同类产品的就业人数和人员工资都保持了增 长。在 2019 年，就业人数和工资又有所下降，但仍略高于 2016 年的水平。 表 22. 就业和工资情况 工资总额（元） 员工总人数 人均工资（元/人） 2016 年 【100】 【100】 75,997 2017 年 【126】 【121】 78,934 2018 年 【146】 【131】 84,646 2019 年 【118】 【117】 76,201 9. 劳动生产率 调查期内，申请人同类产品的劳动生产率在前三年略呈下降趋势，在最后 一年有明显提高。 表 23. 劳动生产率 产量（吨） 员工人数 劳动生产率（吨/人） 2016 年 【100】 【100】 308.94 2017 年 【118】 【121】 301.25 2018 年 【122】 【131】 288.90 2019 年 【133】 【117】 349.24 10. 库存 调查期内，申请人同类产品的库存不断增加，在调查期最后一年增加的幅 度最为明显。 表 24. 申请人同类产品的期末库存情况 期末库存 变化幅度 2016 年 【100】 - 45 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 2017 年 【134】 33.9% 2018 年 【140】 4.3% 2019 年 【200】 43.2% （四） 结论 2016 至 2019 年期间，申请调查产品通过大幅削价销售抢占市场，进口数量 大幅增加且绝对数量巨大，市场份额不断增长，对国内同类产品的定价和销售 造成了巨大压力。国内产业的状况是，申请人的同类产品生产线始终处于开工 不足的状态，有近一半的产能无法利用。虽然得益于需求的大幅增长，同类产 品的产、销绝对数量有所增加，但是市场份额却不断下降，说明国内产业的竞 争能力在不断减弱，市场地位不断恶化。调查期内，同类产品的税前利润持续 减少，到 2019 年已陷入亏损状态；投资收益率不断下降，并且始终大幅低于融 资成本。在调查期的四年中，有三年现金流为负数，说明公司的综合状况在恶 化。总体来看，国内产业受到了倾销进口的实质损害。 （一） 倾销进口与国内产业受到的损害之间存在因果关系 调查期内，中国市场对相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚的需求不断增长。 2016 至 2019 年期间，表观消费量的累计增长幅度为 46.10%。这样的市场条件 非常有利于国内产业健康发展。 但是，由于申请调查产品通过大幅削价销售抢占市场，进口数量大幅增加 且绝对数量巨大，市场份额不断增长，对国内同类产品的定价和销售造成了巨 大压力。调查期内，申请人的同类产品生产线始终处于开工不足的状态，有近 一半的产能无法利用。虽然得益于需求的大幅增长，同类产品的产、销绝对数 量有所增加，但是市场份额却不断下降，说明国内产业的竞争能力在不断减 弱，市场地位不断恶化。调查期内，同类产品的税前利润持续减少，到 2019 年 已陷入亏损状态；投资收益率不断下降，并且始终大幅低于融资成本。在调查 46 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 期的四年中，有三年现金流为负数，说明公司的综合状况在恶化。 综合考虑国内市场需求、申请调查产品的进口数量和价格，以及国内产业 各项经济指标的变化，可以确定申请调查产品的大量倾销进口是造成国内产业 陷入严重困境的根本原因，倾销进口与实质损害之间存在明显的因果关系。 （二） 排他因素 1. 来自其他国家（地区）的进口 调查期内，原产于美国的相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚在总进口量中所 占的比重最大，来自其他国家（或地区）的进口数量和所占比例均明显小于美 国产品。目前申请人暂未掌握来自其他国家（或地区）的进口产品存在倾销的 证据。申请人认为，来自其他国家（或地区）的进口不能否定申请调查产品倾 销进口和实质损害之间的因果关系。 2. 市场需求变化 调查期内，中国市场对相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚的需求不断增长。 可以确定国内产业受到的实质害并非是由于市场需求减少造成的。 3. 消费模式的变化 相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚是性能优越的溶剂和重要的有机合成原 料，应用领域十分广泛。近年来，该产品的应用领域还在不断扩展。国内产业 受到的实质损害并非是由消费模式的变化造成的。 4. 国内产业的生产工艺水平与产品质量 申请人的同类产品装置采用的是成熟、稳定的生产工艺，产品质量完全达 到或超过进口产品的标准。国内产业受到的损害并非是由生产工艺或产品质量 等方面的原因造成的。 5. 国内外正常竞争 47 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 国内同类产品和申请调查产品的主要生产原料相同，生产工艺和设备也不 存在实质性差异。与申请调查产品相比，国内同类产品在质量、交货周期、售 后服务等方面还具备自身的优势。如果在公平的贸易情况下，国内同类产品完 全能够与进口产品竞争，国内产业不应受到如此严重的损害。 6. 商业流通渠道和限制贸易的政策 目前相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚在国内完全实行市场化的价格机制， 产品的生产经营受市场规律调节，在商业流通渠道和贸易政策方面，并不存在 阻碍国内同类产品销售或造成国内产业损害的因素。 7. 国内产业同类产品的出口 调查期内，出口只占国内同类产品产量的 6%—7%，对国内产业的经济指 标没有实质性影响。损害并非是由于出口情况发生变化造成的。 8. 不可抗力 调查期内国内产业未受到自然灾害或其它不可抗力的影响。 首先，反倾销调查和采取反倾销措施的目的是为了纠正倾销这种不公平的 贸易行为，消除倾销对国内产业造成的损害。国家有关部门依法对破坏公平竞 争的倾销进口产品采取贸易救济措施，维护公平有效的市场竞争，这本身就是 维护公共利益的最大体现。 其次，保障国内产业安全对国防、电子、医药、农药等多个产业具有重要 意义。相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚是性能优越的溶剂和重要的有机合成原 料。在国防领域，它被用作军用喷气式飞机航空煤油的防冰剂，也是我国军用 高端汽车制动液的主要组份。在电子行业，它是生产覆铜板所必须的溶剂，也 用作生产光刻胶和液晶显示屏的光阻稀释剂、剥离剂、光阻去除液。它在医药 （作萃取剂）、农药（做中间体和溶剂）和锂电池（作电解液原料）等行业也 48 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 有广泛的应用。 纠正不公平的倾销行为并不会损害下游利益。首先，国内产业完全能够保 质、保量地供应。第二，来自其他国家（地区）的进口不受影响。第三，申请 调查产品仍然能够以公平的价格进入中国市场。国内产业是保障供应和平抑价 格波动的压舱石。从长远看，随着国内市场需求的持续增长，保护国内产业的 健康发展，保障稳定的国产供应来源同样符合下游的利益。 综上，申请人认为，对原产于美国的进口相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚 进行反倾销调查并依法采取反倾销措施不但能够维护国内产业的合法利益，而 且对于保障下游的产业安全也有重要意义，是符合公共利益的。 根据上述事实和理由，申请人认为： 原产于美国的进口相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚产品在中国市场存在明 显的倾销，并对国内产业造成了实质损害。 为了维护国内产业的合法权益和保障产业的健康发展，根据《中华人民共 和国对外贸易法》和《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》的规定，申请人请求中华 人民共和国商务部对原产于美国的进口相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚产品进 行反倾销调查，并向国务院税则委员会建议，对上述产品征收反倾销税。 49 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 根据《反倾销条例》第 22 条的规定，申请人请求对如下所述第一部分中的 材料作保密处理，即除了本案调查机关及《反倾销条例》所规定的部门可以审核 及查阅该部分之外，该部分材料得以任何方式进行保密，如禁止以任何方式接触、 查阅、调卷或了解本申请书保密部分的任何材料。 保密申请包括并指向以下材料： 一．申请书第一部分正文  申请人生产、经营及财务数据  申请书公开版本中声明保密的内容 二．申请书附件：  “附件 6：关于中国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚生产和进口情况的 说明”中申请人和支持申请企业的同类产品产量  附件 30：申请人同类产品生产、经营及财务数据 50 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 附件1： 申请人的营业执照 附件2： 授权委托书 附件3： 代理律师指派书 附件4： 律师执业证明 附件5： 支持申请企业的营业执照及支持声明 附件6： 关于中国相关乙二醇和丙二醇的单烷基醚生产和进口情况的说明 附件7： 中华人民共和国海关进出口税则 附件8： ICIS—乙烯、丙烯价格与油价的相关性 附件9： 补贴油页岩-追踪联邦对美国油页岩开发的支持 附件10： 美国和加拿大页岩气产业政策借鉴 附件11： 能源税收政策：第 114 届国会议题 附件12： 上游石油基础设施政府补贴对美国石油生产和全球二氧化碳排放的影 响 附件13： 延迟无形钻井成本扣减的影响 附件14： 美国化石燃料补贴自述报告（向 G20 同行审议小组提交） 附件15： 2019 财年美国政府预算分析 附件16： 2014 财年预算提案中的石油和天然气行业税收问题 附件17： 美国国税局出版物 535 附件18： 不同类型能源的税收激励措施的价值 附件19： 美国能源税收 52 反倾销调查申请书 公开版本 附件20： 石油和天然气税收补贴现状与分析 附件21： OECD 化石燃料补贴数据库—2016 年美国各州向石油和天然气产业提 供的补贴 附件22： 联邦电力补贴——有关研究资金，税收支出和其他支持电力生产的活 动的信息 附件23： 2007 年联邦政府对能源市场的财政干预和补贴 附件24： 联邦政府对发电技术的财政支持；州政府对发电技术的财政支持 附件25： G20 煤炭补贴—美国报告及数据表 附件26： 美国的乙烯、环氧乙烷、丙烯、环氧丙烷产能情况 附件27： 美国研究机构统计的化工行业补贴情况 附件28： 海运费、保险费率和美国境内环节费用证明 附件29： 美国海关出口数据 附件30： 申请人同类产品生产、经营和财务数据 附件31： 环氧乙烷和环氧丙烷历史价格 53