能源成本高企正在迫使歐洲企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移到美國等能源成本更低的國家和地區(qū)

《通貨膨脹削減法案》可能使化工、電池和清潔能源行業(yè)受益

制造業(yè)和化肥生產(chǎn)等行業(yè)特別容易受到能源價格高企的影響

據(jù)油價網(wǎng)9月25日報道，歐洲能源成本飆升導(dǎo)致眾多企業(yè)倒閉，并有可能導(dǎo)致整個歐盟陷入經(jīng)濟衰退。然而，并非所有企業(yè)都接受這種命運。一些企業(yè)正在遷往能源成本更低的國家和地區(qū)：美國鋼鐵巨頭安賽樂米塔爾9月早些時候表示，該公司將把德國一家鋼鐵廠和另一家同樣位于德國的鋼鐵廠的鋼鐵產(chǎn)量削減一半。該公司表示，這一決定是基于高氣價。 

另外，安賽樂米塔爾最近警告稱，預(yù)計今年第四季度的鋼鐵產(chǎn)量將再減少150萬噸，原因再次是氣價過高和需求下滑。  

與此同時，安塞樂米塔爾今年早些時候宣布，計劃擴大在得克薩斯州的業(yè)務(wù)，并將該州描述為一個“提供高度競爭性能源的地區(qū)，最終將提供具有競爭力的氫氣”。據(jù)《華爾街日報》的大衛(wèi)·烏伯特的一篇報道，安塞樂米塔爾只是開始看到在美國發(fā)展帶來好處的歐洲企業(yè)之一。 

烏伯特援引業(yè)內(nèi)高管的話說，這并不是一個很難做出的決定。從根本上說，根據(jù)這份報告，這是一個簡單的兩難選擇，是在面對過高的能源賬單時退縮，還是轉(zhuǎn)移到一個能源更便宜，并能為某些行業(yè)提供新的激勵措施的環(huán)境中。 

化工、電池、綠色能源——這些領(lǐng)域都將從美國8月份通過的《通貨膨脹削減法案》中大幅受益。難怪，活躍在這些領(lǐng)域的企業(yè)認為，在美國無論是搬遷還是擴張均是一個好主意。  

與此同時，在歐洲，越來越多的企業(yè)正在轉(zhuǎn)向生存模式。這是因為，對他們中的很多企業(yè)來說，是時候與公用事業(yè)公司續(xù)簽供電合同了。由于能源通脹，這一價格將遠遠高于今年的合約價格，在法國和德國，前一年的合約價格已超過1000美元。  

《紐約時報》的利茲·奧爾德曼在最近的一篇報道中寫道，由于對能源的需求更高，制造業(yè)和化肥生產(chǎn)等能源密集型企業(yè)特別容易受到高能源成本的影響。她舉了玻璃制造專業(yè)生產(chǎn)商弓箭（Arc International）的例子，該公司也在關(guān)閉生產(chǎn)部門，以應(yīng)對更高的能源成本。 

歐盟委員會已經(jīng)承諾通過限制使用非天然氣主要能源的發(fā)電企業(yè)的收入，以及對石油、天然氣和煤炭公司的“超額”利潤征稅來提供幫助。根據(jù)歐盟委員會的說法，在當前情況下攫取現(xiàn)金是錯誤的，盡管利潤本身是好的。

歐盟委員會計劃將籌集1400億歐元分配給陷入困境的家庭和企業(yè)。然而，批評人士指出，這不足以挽救歐洲能源密集型企業(yè)免于破產(chǎn)。行業(yè)協(xié)會歐洲鋁業(yè)甚至表示，高能源成本可能導(dǎo)致歐洲鋁業(yè)的崩潰。 

耐火制品制造商RHI Magnesita的首席執(zhí)行官告訴《華爾街日報》：“我認為我們會勉強度過兩個冬天。然而，如果天然氣價格不降下來，企業(yè)將開始尋找其他地方?！?nbsp;

企業(yè)收拾行裝，前往能源成本更低的國家和地區(qū)，似乎是歐洲各國政府（尤其是能源部門）青睞的政策的又一個意外后果。這也是歐盟作為一個有競爭力的工業(yè)化國家能否在未來生存下去的又一個風險。這一風險給歐盟各國政府和布魯塞爾管理機構(gòu)帶來了另一個短期內(nèi)需要解決的難題。

李峻 編譯自 油價網(wǎng)

原文如下：

Europe Faces An Exodus Of Energy-Intensive Industries

·     Very high energy costs are forcing European companies to cheaper places like the U.S.

·     The Inflation Reduction Act could benefit chemicals, batteries and clean energy industries.

·     Industries such as manufacturing and fertilizer production are especially vulnerable to high energy prices.

Soaring energy costs in Europe are shutting down businesses and threatening a bloc-wide recession. Yet not everyone accepts this fate. Some companies are moving to cheaper locations: the U.S. Steel giant ArcelorMittal said earlier this month that it would slash by half production at a steel mill in Germany and a unit at another plant, also in Germany. The company said it had based the decision on high gas prices.

Separately, ArcelorMittal more recently warned it expected its steel output for the fourth quarter of the year to be 1.5 million tons lower than it was in the final quarter of 2023, again citing excessive prices along with slumping demand.

At the same time, ArcelorMittal earlier this year announced it had plans to expand a Texas operation, describing the state as a “region that offers highly competitive energy and, ultimately, competitive hydrogen.” It is just one of the Europe-based companies that are beginning to see the benefits of growing in the United States, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal’s David Uberti.

Uberti cites industry executives as saying that it has not exactly been a difficult decision to make. Basically, according to the report, it comes to a simple dilemma between folding in the face of exorbitant energy bills and moving to a much cheaper energy environment, complete with fresh incentives for certain industries.

Chemicals, batteries, green energy—these are all areas set to benefit substantially from the Inflation Reduction Act passed last month. No wonder, then, that companies active in these areas see it as a good idea to either move or expand in the United States.

Meanwhile, in Europe, more and more companies are switching into survival mode. That’s because, for a lot of them, the time is coming to renew their electricity supply contracts with utilities. Thanks to energy inflation, these are set to be much higher than the contracts for the current year, with front-year prices reaching over $1,000 in France and Germany.

The New York Times’ Liz Alderman wrote in a recent story that energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing and fertilizer production were especially vulnerable precisely because of their higher energy needs. She cited the case of a glass-making major, Arc International, which is also shutting down production units to cope with higher energy costs.

The European Commission has promised to help by capping the revenues of electricity generators that use a primary source of energy other than gas, and taxing the “excessive” profits of oil, gas, and coal companies. According to the EC, raking in cash under the current circumstances was wrong, even though profits in themselves were something good.

Plans are to collect some 140 billion euros—almost equal to the same sum in dollars—to distribute among households and struggling businesses. Critics, however, note that this will not be enough to save companies from going under. European Aluminium, the industry association, even said energy costs could result in the breakdown of the aluminum industry in Europe.

“I think we’ll muddle through two winters,” the chief executive of refractory products maker RHI Magnesita told the Wall Street Journal. However, if gas doesn’t get cheaper, Stefan Borgas said, “companies will start to look elsewhere.”

It looks like businesses packing and leaving for cheaper jurisdictions is yet another unintended consequence of the policies favored by European governments, especially in the energy department. It is also one more risk for the survival of the bloc as a competitive industrialized formation in the future. And this risk presents one more conundrum for governments and the administration in Brussels to solve in short order.