Mobil Oil Corporation v. Commissioner of Revenue (March 15, 2000)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


MOBIL OIL CORPORATION,	    v.	COMMISSIONER OR REVENUE
   pursuant to Power of Attorney
   granted by BOSTON EDISON Co.

Docket No. F239392				Promulgated:
                                   March 15, 2000


	This is an appeal under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 62C, § 39, from the refusal of the Appellee Commissioner of Revenue ("Commissioner") to abate sales tax assessed under G.L. c. 64H, § 2, for the quarterly tax periods beginning April 1, 1992 and extending through June 30, 1995. 
	Commissioner Scharaffa heard this appeal and was joined in the decision for the Appellant by Chairman Gurge and Commissioners Lomans, Burns and Gorton.
	These Findings of Fact and Report are made at the request of both the Appellee and the Appellant, pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, §13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Kathleen King Parker, Esq. and John R. Baraniak, Jr. Esq., for the Appellant.

	James M. McGowan, Esq. and Philip Olsen, Esq. for the Appellee.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	Based on the testimony, the parties' agreed statement of facts, exhibits entered into evidence at the hearing, and the Board's view of the Appellant's facility, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following Findings of Fact.
	The Appellant Mobil Oil Company ("Mobil") is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York.  Mobil operates a thirty-seven acre plant in East Boston, Massachusetts ("East Boston plant"), where it processes petroleum products.  The four types of fuel delivered ("base fuel") are "unadditized" 87 octane gasoline, "unadditized" 93 octane or premium gasoline, untreated jet fuel, and "unadditized" diesel fuel. Each day, approximately 2 million gallons of base fuel, or 50,000 barrels, are processed at the plant.  Of this amount, approximately 1 million gallons is jet fuel.  Of the remaining 1 million gallons, 95 percent is gasoline and 5 percent is diesel fuel.
	The East Boston plant receives deliveries of base fuel from vessels arriving from all parts of the world. In 1996, approximately 265 such vessels unloaded at the facility.  The vessels arrive at the plant's loading dock to unload their cargo.  Large hoses on the loading dock are attached to pipelines on board the ships.  Pumps, located on the ships, pump the base fuels through the hoses to large receipt tanks on the East Boston property.  The power required to unload the ships and transport the base fuels to the receipt tanks comes from the ships themselves, and is not supplied by the plant.  Each type of base fuel is kept segregated from others in separate receipt tanks at the plant.  The base fuels then undergo different treatment or "additization" processes at the plant.	
	Treatment of gasoline.  
The two grades of gasoline, 93 octane and 87 octane, are pumped from the receipt tanks to the "loading rack," a roofed ten-bay structure at the East Boston plant from which tanker trucks load fuel.  As the unleaded base fuel is pumped from the receipt tanks to the loading rack, certain chemical additives, stored in separate tanks adjacent to the loading rack, are pumped to the rack and mixed with the unleaded gasoline just before the gasoline enters the tanker truck.  Both the gasoline and the additives must be pumped to the rack at certain velocities and flow rates to ensure proper mixing of the two before the mixture enters the truck.
	The base gasoline is subjected to two categories of additives at the East Boston plant.  The first category of additives consists of detergents required by federal law.  The dissolution of these detergent additives in the gasoline alters the chemical makeup of the gasoline by creating a new solution.  The second category of additives consists of engine protectors including corrosion inhibitors, de-icers and demulsifiers.  These additives protect engine parts, improve an automobile's fuel economy, improve driveability and decrease maintenance costs.  Automobile manufacturers recommend that owners use such "additized" gasoline in their vehicles.
	Mobil also creates fuel, called mid-grade gasoline, by blending 87 octane gasoline with 93 octane gasoline at the loading rack.  Most of the gasoline passing through the East Boston plant, including some gasoline which is ultimately sold under the brand name of competitors, is owned by Mobil up until the point it leaves the plant in the tanker trucks.
	Treatment of jet fuel.  
Jet fuel brought to the plant is unloaded from the barges and is stored in receipt tanks in the same manner as base fuel gasoline. Upon arrival, the jet fuel does not meet industry and customer standards and specifications.  Specifically, in the process of being transported to the East Boston plant, base jet fuel becomes contaminated with both particulates and water.  If used to power an aircraft in such a condition, the water-contaminated fuel could freeze at high altitudes.  The frozen fuel could cause an aircraft engine to "flame-out" resulting in the potential crash of the aircraft.  
The base jet fuel received at the plant, therefore, must go through a multi-step purification process to make it a useable and saleable commodity.  First, the base jet fuel is treated through an enclosed vessel called a "hay pack" to remove gross water contamination.  Next, it goes through a "pre-filter," a two-micron particle size fuel filter that removes larger pieces of dirt.  Third, the jet fuel passes through a clay polisher to remove polar compounds.  Finally, the jet fuel passes through a filter separator, which uses Teflon-coated paper to trap water and remove any remaining contaminants.   This four-step process takes place in one building at the plant.  When completed, the treated jet fuel is pumped to an intermediate holding tank where it is tested and certified as meeting specifications.
From the intermediate holding tank, the treated jet fuel can go in one of two directions.  It can be brought from the loading rack to tanker trucks for distribution to small airports in the area, or it can be brought to an underground pipeline, approximately one-mile in length, originating from the East Boston plant and ending at Logan International Airport.  Before it travels in either of those two routes, however, the jet fuel is again passed through a clay treater and filter separator to remove any water and contaminants which may have been introduced into the fuel while in the intermediate receipt tank.  The jet fuel that passes through the pipeline to Logan Airport must be filtered one more time to remove any water or contaminants introduced on its trip to the Airport.  To perform this final filtering, Mobil operates another filtering system on land leased by Mobil from the Airport at the terminus of the pipeline.  
Treatment of diesel fuel.  
Mobil also processes a small amount of base diesel fuel, which represents approximately 2.5 percent of the total base fuel processed at the East Boston plant.  Approximately 30 percent of the base diesel fuel is "additized" in the same manner as the base gasoline, described above.  Seventy percent of the diesel fuel leaving the plant is not treated.
Gasoline vapor recovery.    
Mobil performs a process called "vapor recovery" at its East Boston plant.  Gasoline vapors, emitted each time an automobile fills up with gasoline at a service station, are collected at service stations through nozzles at the pump, and are stored in the same underground tanks that hold the gasoline.  Each time a tanker truck pulls in to a service station to unload fuel, the fuel displaces the vapors from the underground tank into the truck.  That truck then transports the vapors to the East Boston plant.  When the truck fills up with fuel at the loading rack, the vapors are again displaced, this time through a separate co-axial hose to a vapor recovery unit.  This unit uses two carbon bags and an adsorption/absorption system.  Gasoline molecules adhere to the charcoal in the carbon bags; once those bags are full, a vacuum pump draws those molecules off and puts them into a gasoline screen.  This multi-step process transforms the vapors into gasoline, which is then pumped back to the gasoline receipt tanks.  This process, mandated by law, promotes cleaner air and eliminates safety hazards.
The processes that occur at Mobil's East Boston plant, detailed above, are the same processes that occur at some of Mobil's oil refineries.  The gasoline and diesel "additization" and jet fuel treatment that occur at the East Boston plant, for example, also occur at the end of the manufacturing process at Mobil's Paulsboro, New Jersey refinery.  For reasons of economics and efficiency, however, Mobil has chosen to perform some of these processes in locales remote from the refineries and closer to end users.  By locating some of the end-stage processes closer to end users, Mobil can ship to and store its two base gasolines at the East Boston plant, yet allow the East Boston plant to create, through various mixtures of proprietary additives added at the loading rack, multiple products, thereby eliminating considerable expense.  In addition, jet fuel must be treated as close to the end user as feasible to eliminate the risk of contamination inherent in the transportation process.
Electrical consumption at the East Boston plant.
Boston Edison Company ("Boston Edison") generates and sells electricity.  Mobil purchased electricity from Boston Edison for use at its East Boston plant.
 From April 1, 1992, and extending through June 30, 1995 ("periods at issue"), Mobil purchased electricity from Boston Edison for consumption at its East Boston plant.  Boston Edison collected $44,869.98 from the Appellant in sales tax due on the purchase of electricity and remitted the sales tax to the Commissioner.
During the periods at issue, the East Boston plant used electricity for lighting, water treatment, operating buildings, and the processes described above. All electricity used at the East Boston plant is measured by a single electric meter, located on the premises.  
In order to calculate the percentage of electricity used in the East Boston plant's above-described treatment processes, the Appellant used a standard industry formula and data from a representative month.   Neither application of the formula nor data from the representative month were contested by the Appellee.  That percentage was determined to be 83.48 percent.  The bulk of the electricity consumption in these treatment processes results from the operation of pumping systems which propel the base fuels at a specified velocity and flow rate through the various filtering and treatment systems for jet fuel, and through the "additization" process for gasoline and diesel fuel.  The calculated 83.48 percent for electrical consumption in Mobil's processing is consistent with data published by the United States Department of Energy showing that in 1991, on average, approximately 78 percent of electrical usage at industrial facilities was consumed by motor-driven processes such as pumps.  The analysis of electrical consumption at the plant showed jet fuel treatment to be the largest electric consumer, followed by, in order, vapor recovery, gasoline "additization," and diesel "additization."
	On July 19, 1995, the Appellant, proceeding under a Power of Attorney granted by its vendor, Boston Edison, timely filed four applications for abatement for sales taxes paid during the periods at issue totaling  $44,869.98. The Appellant's applications for abatement were denied by the Commissioner on August 28, 1996.  On October 25, 1996, the Appellant timely appealed that abatement denial with this Board.  Accordingly, the Board has jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
	On the basis of the evidence presented, and to the extent that it is a Finding of Fact, the Board found that Mobil's treatment of jet fuel, gasoline, and diesel fuel and its gasoline vapor recovery processes constituted "the actual manufacture of tangible personal property" within the meaning of G.L. c. 64H §§ 6(i) and (r). The Board determined that the base fuel which arrived at the East Boston plant was transformed by a multiplicity of processes into something different: useable, saleable gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel, each having a different nature and use.


The Board further found that the East Boston plant was an "industrial plant" for purposes of §§ 6(i) and (r). In addition, the Board found that more than 75 percent of the East Boston plant's electricity was consumed in its manufacturing processes during the periods at issue as required by § 6(i).  The Board concluded that the requirements for an exemption from sales tax pursuant to G.L. c. 64H, §§ 6(i) and (r) were satisfied. 
The Board, therefore, ruled that for the reasons outlined in the Opinion below, the purchases of electricity for the periods at issue which were used by Mobil in its manufacturing processes were exempt from sales tax.  Accordingly, the Board granted Mobil an abatement of sales tax in the amount of $44,869.98.

OPINION
	In the present appeal, Mobil paid sales taxes totaling $44,869.98 for electricity purchased from Boston Edison and consumed at its East Boston plant.  The question presented in this appeal is whether the Appellant was entitled to an exemption from sales taxes pursuant to G.L. c. 64H, §§ 6(i) and 6(r) for the purchase of electricity used during the processing and recovery of petroleum products because that electricity was consumed in a manufacturing process.
	A vendor doing business in the Commonwealth is obligated to collect a sales tax from purchasers upon non-exempt sales at retail of tangible personal property.  G.L.  c. 64H, §§ 2 and 3.  Pursuant to G.L. c. 64H, § 1, "tangible personal property" is defined to include electricity.  Accordingly, unless otherwise exempt from the sales tax, the retail sale of electricity from Boston Edison to Mobil is subject to sales tax.
Mobil argued that its purchases of electricity used in its East Boston plant during the processing and recovery of petroleum products are exempt from sales tax pursuant to G.L. c. 64H, §§ 6(i) and 6(r).  Section 6(r) provides an exemption for sales of:
Materials, tools and fuel, or any substitute thereof ... which are consumed and used directly and exclusively ... in an industrial plant in the actual manufacture of tangible personal property to be sold, including ... in the furnishing of power to an industrial manufacturing plant ....  However, the exemption in this paragraph so far as it applies to sales of electricity, gas and steam consumed and used directly and exclusively in an industrial plant in the actual manufacture of tangible personal property to be sold shall be limited to the extent allowed in paragraph (i).

Section 6(i) limits the exemption for sales of electricity which are consumed and used directly and exclusively in an industrial plant in the actual manufacture of tangible personal property to be sold by providing that the exemption "shall only be allowed with respect to a metered building, location or premises at which not less than seventy-five percent of the gas, steam or electricity consumed at such metered building, location or premises is used for the purpose of such manufacturing ...."
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the statute, the sale of electricity will be exempt from sales tax if:     1) the electricity is consumed in the actual manufacture of tangible personal property; 2) at an industrial plant; and 3) at least seventy-five percent of the electricity consumed is used in the actual manufacturing of tangible personal property. 
In enacting these statutory exemptions from sales tax, the Massachusetts Legislature intended to "ensure that sales of tangible personal property are taxed only once in the production cycle, at the final stage of retail sale of tangible personal property." San-Vel Concrete Corporation v. Commissioner of Revenue, 16 Mass.App.Tax Bd.Rep. 41, 43 (Docket No. 179087, December 14, 1993), quoting Courier Citizen Co. v. Commissioner of Corp. & Tax., 358 Mass. 563, 567-568 (1971).  Furthermore, in construing § 6(r), the Supreme Judicial Court does "not impose on the taxpayer any special burden because it seeks an exemption."  Commissioner v. Purity Supreme, 396 Mass. 287, 290 (1985).  See also Wakefield Ready-Mixed Concrete Co. v. State Tax Commission, 356 Mass. 8, 12 (1969). 
The terms "manufacture" and "manufacturing" are not susceptible to an exact or precise definition.  See William F. Sullivan and Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, 413 Mass. 576, 579. ("Manufacturing is chameleon-like in the different definitions given to it.")  However, case law has developed a working definition of "manufacturing" as:
[C]hange wrought through the application of forces directed by the human mind, which results in the transformation of some preexisting substance or element into something different, with a new name, nature or use.

Id.  In Sullivan, the Court determined that a scrap metal dealer qualified as a manufacturer for classification purposes.  The Court found that the taxpayer's collection, separation, cutting, and compressing of various types of scrap metal constituted manufacturing. Id. at 577-578.  In doing so, the Court focused on the "kind of change effected" and the "correlative degree of refinement caused" to the source material, and noted that "[t]he undefinable nature of the operative terms in these exemption cases necessitates case-by-case, analogical development of their meaning.  Absent legislative instruction, we know of no better direction in which to proceed." Id. at 581. 
In Commissioner v. Houghton Mifflin Company, 423 Mass. 42 (1996), the Court held that a book publisher's "compilation of information, photographs, and text, into proofs, edited, refined and ultimately transferred to disk or CD ROM" constituted "a substantial and integral step in the process of manufacturing books," thereby qualifying the publisher as a manufacturer for classification purposes.
	The Court's analysis in the above cases supports the conclusion that Mobil's activities constitute "manufacturing" for purposes of §§ 6(r) and 6(i).  Mobil's activities fall within the broad definition of manufacturing as "change wrought through the application of forces directed by the human mind, which results in the transformation of some preexisting substance or element into something different, with a new name, nature or use."    Mobil took an original substance, base fuels and gasoline vapors, and transformed them into something different.  Jet fuel, when first received, is untreated, unuseable and contaminated.  Use of the jet fuel in such a state could cause damage to an aircraft's engine, possibly resulting in an airplane crash.  After treatment, it is transformed into clean jet fuel, meeting industry and customer specifications and standards, capable of being sold for use by jet aircraft. 
	Base gasoline, both 87 and 93 octane, is processed into a number of products: "additized" Mobil 87 and  93 octane unleaded gasoline, a mid-grade additized Mobil 89 octane unleaded gasoline, and a variety of other generic and other-branded additized gasoline.  The additized gasoline has a different nature than the base fuel.  Dissolved in the additized gasoline are chemical detergent additives which permit more complete combustion of the fuel, thereby reducing emissions, as well as chemical engine performance enhancers, including de-icers, demulsifiers and corrosion inhibitors.  These additives protect engine parts, improve driveability and fuel economy, and decrease maintenance costs.  
The fact that "unadditized" gasoline could be used to power an engine does not change the result.  It would have been illegal to sell the base fuel to consumers for use in automobiles without addition of certain of the additives introduced by Mobil at the East Boston plant.  Accordingly, the additized fuel is substantially different than the base fuel received because, like the diesel fuel, it has been converted into a marketable product with new properties.  Compare Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation, 323 Mass. 730 (1949)(blending and roasting of green coffee beans to make ground coffee suitable for brewing and adding chocolate to milk to make chocolate milk constituted manufacturing because of change to raw material) with Noreast Fresh, Inc. v. Commissioner, 1998 Mass. A.T.B. Adv. Sh. 795 (Docket No. F226284)(cutting vegetables into smaller, more useable size not manufacturing because no significant change to raw material) and Alcan Aluminum v. Commissioner, 21  Mass.App.Tax Bd. Rep. 80 (1997)(cutting large pieces of metal into smaller, more useable pieces, not manufacturing because no significant change to raw material).
The additized fuel even has a different name, receiving the Mobil brand name, or other brand names, only after inclusion of proprietary additives.  The dissolved additives are what differentiates the gasoline leaving the East Boston plant with Mobil's name from gasoline leaving East Boston with the name of Mobil's competitors.   
	With regard to Mobil's gasoline vapor recovery processes, Hopkinton LNG Corp. v. State Tax Commissioner, 372 Mass. 286 (1977), does not support the conclusion that the vapor recovery is not manufacturing.  In that case, the Court held that a business that converts natural gas into liquid form for storage and later redelivers the natural gas to customers in gas form constituted a service and not the manufacture of natural gas.  In Hopkinton, nothing was added or removed from the raw ingredient to give it a different nature, use or name.  In contrast, Mobil, by a series of steps, transforms dangerous, highly combustible and unuseable gasoline vapors, which are essentially gasoline by-products, into useable gasoline, which then can be sold to consumers.  A fundamental change in the nature of this substance has occurred, as well as the use to which it can be put.
	Moreover, the Supreme Judicial Court and this Board have observed that manufacturing activities typically involve a "multiplicity of processes."  See Sullivan, 413 Mass. at 580; Alcan Aluminium, 21 Mass.App.Tax Bd. Rep. at 85-86.  Mobil uses a multiplicity of processes in its East Boston operations and effects a substantial degree of change or refinement to the preexisting raw materials, transforming unuseable, unsaleable base fuels into useable, saleable finished products having different properties and characteristics. Gasoline vapors are subjected to an adsorption/absorption system and eventually bond to charcoal in carbon bags from which they are vacuumed off as useable gasoline.  Jet fuel undergoes a complex multi-step treatment process, passing through a number of different filters, separators and treaters at various points at the East Boston plant, and at the end of the pipeline at Logan Airport.  Similarly, various chemicals are added to the gasoline and diesel fuel and are mixed at various rates to achieve the desired grade of fuel.
	The Appellee argues that manufacturing has not occurred at Mobil's plant because this matter is essentially a simple case of "gasoline in, gasoline out." In Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corp. and Tax, 323 Mass. 730 (1949), however, the Supreme Judicial Court held, inter alia, that: 1) adding chocolate to milk to make chocolate milk; 2) blending, roasting and grinding coffee beans to make coffee; and 3) mixing syrups and juices with carbonated water to make soft drinks, all constituted manufacturing.  
	Similarly, in The Kendall Company v. Commissioner of Revenue, 11 Mass.App.Tax Bd.Rep. 5 (Docket No. 129643, January 13, 1989), the Board ruled that the processing of gauze for medical use constituted manufacturing.  In Kendall, the Board ruled that wood and concrete used in a flume to carry water to a facility used to bleach rolled gauze made elsewhere, water softening chemicals, and the equipment used for injecting the water softening chemicals into the bleaching process, all were equipment and materials used in manufacturing, qualifying for an exemption from sales tax under G.L. c. 64H, §§ 6(r) and (s).  The raw ingredient and the finished product in that case were both gauze.  The Board, however, found that the finished product, bleached gauze, had been fundamentally altered by the chemical bleaching process.  So altered, it could be used by hospitals, a new use.  For that reason, the Board found bleaching to be manufacturing.  Similarly, the raw ingredient and the finished product in the present case are both fuel, but they have been so altered using a multiplicity of processes that they have a new use, as a marketable and useable product.  Accordingly, the Board ruled that Mobil's petroleum treatment and recovery operations constituted manufacturing.
In addition, Mobil established that its East Boston operations were part of an integrated manufacturing process, beginning at its refineries with the refining of crude oil into jet and diesel fuel and gasoline and ending at East Boston with the additization of gasoline and diesel fuel and at the airport with the treatment of jet fuel.  Accordingly, Mobil's activities were an "essential and integral part of a total manufacturing process" and therefore constituted "manufacturing."  William F. Sullivan & Co., Inc., 413 Mass. at 579-580.
A second requirement for sales tax exemption under §§ 6(i) and 6(r) is that the manufacturing must take place in an "industrial plant."  An "industrial plant" is defined as "a factory at a fixed location primarily engaged in the manufacture, conversion or processing of tangible personal property to be sold in the regular course of business."  The Commissioner did not appear to contest at the hearing of this appeal that Mobil's East Boston plant constituted an "industrial plant" for purposes of §§ 6(r) and 6(i).  The East Boston plant clearly qualifies as an industrial plant.  See Associated Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Commissioner, 429 Mass. 628, 634-5 (1999); Spectron v. Commissioner, 1998 Mass. A.T.B. Adv. Sh. 86  (Docket No. F214939, February 11, 1998).
Finally, in order for sales of electricity used in manufacturing to be exempt from the sales tax under §§ 6 (r) and 6(i), at least 75 percent of the electricity consumed at the industrial plant must be used during the manufacturing process.  Mobil has demonstrated, using a standard industry formula and a representative sample period, that at least 83.48 percent of its total electrical use was in the manufacturing process.   
"Evidence of a party having the burden of proof may not be disbelieved without an explicit and objectively adequate reason.... If the proponent presented the best available evidence, which is logically adequate, and is either contradicted nor improbable, it must be credited." New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 470-471 (1981).  Here, Mobil has presented the best evidence of electricity consumption during the periods at issue. Moreover, this percentage of electrical consumption used for manufacturing purposes at the East Boston plant was uncontested by the Commissioner.  Accordingly, Mobil has met its burden of proving that over 75 percent of the electricity consumed at the East Boston plant was used for manufacturing during the periods at issue.
	On the basis of the foregoing, the Board ruled that Appellant Mobil Oil was engaged in manufacturing at an industrial plant and that over 75 percent of the electricity consumed at that plant during the periods at issue were consumed in the manufacturing process.

Accordingly, the Appellant met its burden of proving that it was entitled to an exemption from the sales tax under §§ 6(r) and 6(i) for its purchases of electricity used in manufacturing.  Accordingly, the Board granted an abatement of sales taxes in the amount of $44,869.98 for the periods at issue.

						APPELLATE TAX BOARD

					By:__________________________
                            Abigail A. Burns, Chairman




A true copy,
Attest:_____________________
       Clerk of the Board	





			

 The applicable federal requirement, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, went into effect on January 1, 1995. As testified to at the hearing, and not refuted by the Appellee, Mobil had voluntarily added these detergent additives to its base fuel gasoline since 1989.  Since January 1, 1992, Mobil has not sold any "unadditized" gasoline from the East Boston facility.   Mobil, as a gasoline producer, is subject to a $25,000 per day fine for selling "unadditized" gasoline.
These include, in addition to "additized" 87 octane gasoline and 93 octane gasoline, a blended 89 octane gasoline, three grades of Citgo gasoline, and three grades of generic gasoline.
 Mobil used data from September 1997, the most recent data available, in its analysis.  The type of data Mobil used in its calculation was not available for the period at issue because Mobil did not keep such records.  The Appellant highlighted the fact that data from its representative month, September 1997, most likely was an undercounting of electrical consumption at the East Boston plant. Testimony was offered concerning the operation, during a portion of the period at issue, of a lube oil plant at the East Boston plant which ceased operation as of the end of 1994. The electrical consumption analysis, using September 1997 data only, then, did not include electrical consumption from this operation.  
 The product of the standard industry formula, which measures electrical consumption by the various treatment processes at the East Boston plant (the pumps, filters, vapor recovery, etc.), was compared to the total electrical consumption at the plant for that same month, to yield the percentage of electricity consumed in the above-described treatment processes.
 Additional energy is required to transport jet fuel to Logan Airport, as well as propel the fuel through the treatment systems located at the plant and at the end of the pipeline (on property leased by Mobil from Massport.) 
 An abatement of sales tax would be to Boston Edison, with an eventual refund to Mobil.
 On or about July 19, 1995, the Appellant also filed with the Commissioner an application for abatement of sales/use tax paid for various items purchased from vendors for use at the Appellant's East Boston facility.  On October 2, 1995, the Commissioner approved that abatement application.  The approval of that abatement is not at issue in this appeal.

11


ATB 2000 - 144