PBF Energy (PBF) Risk Analysis

Our transportation activities are subject to regulation by multiple governmental agencies. The regulatory burden on the industry increases the cost of doing business and affects profitability. Additional proposals and proceedings that affect the oil industry are regularly considered by Congress, the states, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the United States Department of Transportation, and the courts. We cannot predict when or whether any such proposals may become effective or what impact such proposals may have. Projected operating costs related to our pipelines reflect the recurring costs resulting from compliance with these regulations, and these costs may increase due to future acquisitions, changes in regulation, changes in use, or discovery of existing but unknown compliance issues.

PBF Energy is party to a Tax Receivable Agreement that provides for the payment from time to time by PBF Energy to the current and former holders of PBF LLC Series A Units and PBF LLC Series B Units, or other permitted assignees, of 85% of the benefits, if any, that PBF Energy is deemed to realize as a result of (i) the increases in tax basis resulting from its acquisitions of PBF LLC Series A Units, including such acquisitions in connection with its prior offerings or in the future and (ii) certain other tax benefits related to its entering into the Tax Receivable Agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement. See "Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence." PBF Energy has recognized, as of December 31, 2025, a total liability for the Tax Receivable Agreement of $168.2 million. As future taxable income is recorded, increases in our Tax Receivable Agreement liability may be necessary in conjunction with the revaluation of deferred tax assets. If PBF Energy does not have taxable income, PBF Energy generally is not required (absent a change of control or circumstances requiring an early termination payment) to make payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement for that taxable year because no benefit will have been actually realized. However, any tax benefits that do not result in realized benefits in a given tax year will likely generate tax attributes that may be utilized to generate benefits in previous or future tax years. The utilization of such tax attributes will result in payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement. The foregoing are merely estimates based on assumptions that are subject to change due to various factors, including, among other factors, the timing of exchanges of PBF LLC Series A Units for shares of PBF Energy Class A common stock as contemplated by the Tax Receivable Agreement, the price of PBF Energy Class A common stock at the time of such exchanges, the extent to which such exchanges are taxable, and the amount and timing of PBF Energy's income. The actual payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement could differ materially. It is possible that future transactions or events could increase the actual tax benefits realized and the corresponding Tax Receivable Agreement payments. There may be a material negative effect on our liquidity if, as a result of timing discrepancies or otherwise, (i) the payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement exceed the actual benefits PBF Energy realizes in respect of the tax attributes subject to the Tax Receivable Agreement, and/or (ii) distributions to PBF Energy by PBF LLC are not sufficient to permit PBF Energy, after it has paid its taxes and other obligations, to make payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement. The payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement are not conditioned upon any recipient's continued ownership of us.

The Tax Receivable Agreement provides that upon certain changes of control, or if, at any time, PBF Energy elects an early termination of the Tax Receivable Agreement, PBF Energy's (or its successor's) obligations with respect to exchanged or acquired PBF LLC Series A Units (whether exchanged or acquired before or after such transaction) would be based on certain assumptions, including (i) that PBF Energy would have sufficient taxable income to fully utilize the deductions arising from the increased tax deductions and tax basis and other benefits related to entering into the Tax Receivable Agreement and (ii) that the subsidiaries of PBF LLC will sell certain nonamortizable assets (and realize certain related tax benefits) no later than a specified date. Moreover, in each of these instances, PBF Energy would be required to make an immediate payment equal to the present value (at a discount rate equal to LIBOR plus 100 basis points) of the anticipated future tax benefits (based on the foregoing assumptions). Accordingly, payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement may be made years in advance of the actual realization, if any, of the anticipated future tax benefits and may be significantly greater than the actual benefits PBF Energy realizes in respect of the tax attributes subject to the Tax Receivable Agreement. In these situations, PBF Energy's obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement could have a substantial negative impact on our liquidity. PBF Energy may not be able to finance its obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement and its existing indebtedness may limit its subsidiaries' ability to make distributions to PBF Energy to pay these obligations. In the case of certain changes of control, payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement will be accelerated and may significantly exceed the actual benefits we realize in respect of the tax attributes subject to the Tax Receivable Agreement. We expect that the payments that we may make under the Tax Receivable Agreement in the event of a change of control will be substantial. As a result, our accelerated payment obligations and/or the assumptions adopted under the Tax Receivable Agreement in the case of a change of control may deter a potential sale of our Company to a third-party and may otherwise make it less likely that a third-party would enter into a change of control transaction with us or negatively impact the value received by owners of our Class A common stock in a change of control transaction. Moreover, payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement will be based on the tax reporting positions that PBF Energy determines in accordance with the Tax Receivable Agreement. PBF Energy will not be reimbursed for any payments previously made under the Tax Receivable Agreement if the IRS subsequently disallows part or all of the tax benefits that gave rise to such prior payments. As a result, in certain circumstances, payments could be made under the Tax Receivable Agreement that are significantly in excess of the benefits that PBF Energy actually realized in respect of (i) the increases in tax basis resulting from our purchases or exchanges of PBF LLC Series A Units and (ii) certain other tax benefits related to PBF Energy entering into the Tax Receivable Agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement.

Continued scrutiny on sustainability matters may impact our business as it relates to the use of refined products, climate change, increasing public expectations on companies to address climate change, and potential use of substitutes or replacements to our products may result in increased costs, reduced demand for our products, reduced profits, increased regulations and litigation, and adverse impacts on our stock price and access to capital markets. In addition, organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have developed ratings for evaluating companies on their approach to sustainability matters. Such ratings are used by some investors to inform and advise their investment and voting decisions. Also, some stakeholders may advocate for divestment of fossil fuel investments and encourage lenders to limit funding to companies engaged in the manufacturing of refined products. Unfavorable sustainability ratings and investment community divestment initiatives may lead to negative investor and public sentiment toward the Company and to the diversion of capital from our industry, which could have a negative impact on our stock price and our access to, and cost of, capital. This scrutiny, coupled with changes in consumer behavior, attitudes and preferences with respect to the generation and consumption of energy and the use of fossil fuels, may continue to result in (a) the enactment of climate change related regulations, policies and initiatives, including alternative energy requirements, (b) further technological advances related to the generation, storage and consumption of energy through alternative methods such as wind and solar and (c) increased demand for and/or availability of non-fossil fuel energy sources and related consumer products such as electric and hybrid vehicles and renewable power supplies. These developments may also lead to reduced demand for our products, a reduction in our revenue, higher costs and an overall decrease in our profitability. Additionally, increased attention and scrutiny regarding climate change has resulted in increased investor attention and an increased risk of public and private litigation, which could increase our costs and/or otherwise negatively affect our operations and overall profitability, and cause the market price of our Class A common stock to decline.

The U.S. federal government under previous presidential administrations took a number of actions to address GHG emissions. For example, both houses of Congress actively considered legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs, such as carbon dioxide and methane, including proposals to: (i) establish a cap and trade system, (ii) create a federal renewable energy or "clean" energy standard requiring electric utilities to provide a certain percentage of power from such sources, and (iii) create enhanced incentives for use of renewable energy and increased efficiency in energy supply and use. In addition, EPA has taken steps to regulate GHGs under the existing federal Clean Air Act ("CAA"). EPA has adopted regulations limiting GHG emissions for light- and medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty highway vehicles. EPA has also adopted regulations addressing the permitting of GHG emissions from stationary sources, and requiring the reporting of GHG emissions from specified large GHG emission sources, including refineries. However, the current U.S. presidential administration has expressed a different approach with respect to U.S. climate, environmental, and energy policies and has revoked many of the existing executive orders and directives, and has indicated an intention to modify or eliminate many of the aforementioned laws and regulations, several of which are also currently being litigated, or may be subject to future legal challenges. However, the ultimate timing and outcome with respect to any modifications or eliminations of such laws and regulations, which may require action by the U.S. Congress or a federal agency or department, as well as pending or future litigation, are currently unknown and are subject to considerable uncertainty. It is also currently uncertain whether and to what extent any U.S. state and local governments may still pursue the prior administration's agenda on such matters. In addition, various states, individually as well as in some cases on a regional basis, have taken steps to control GHG emissions, including adoption of GHG reporting requirements, cap and trade systems and renewable portfolio standards. For example, the State of California's AB 32 imposes a statewide cap on GHG emissions, including emissions from transportation fuels, with the aim of returning the state to 1990 emission levels by 2020. Also, in September 2016, the State of California enacted Senate Bill 32, which further reduces GHG emissions targets to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Two regulations implemented to achieve these goals are Cap-and-Trade and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard ("LCFS"). In 2012, CARB implemented Cap-and-Trade. This program currently places a cap on GHG emissions and we are required to acquire a sufficient number of credits to cover emissions from our refineries and our in-state sales of gasoline and diesel. In 2009, CARB adopted the LCFS, which required a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of gasoline and diesel by 2020. In 2022, California enacted Assembly Bill 1279 which requires the state to achieve a GHG reduction target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 and overall carbon neutrality by 2045. CARB also amended the LCFS in 2024, which requires a 30 percent reduction by 2030 and 90 percent reduction by 2045 in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels (compared to a 2010 baseline). Compliance is achieved through blending lower carbon intensity biofuels into gasoline and diesel or by purchasing credits. Compliance with each of these programs is facilitated through a market-based credit system. If sufficient credits are unavailable for purchase or we are unable to pass through costs to our customers, we may have to pay a higher price for credits or if we are otherwise unable to meet our compliance obligations, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Additionally, on September 23, 2020, the California Governor issued Executive Order N-79-20 ("N-79-20 Order") intended to further reduce GHG emissions within the state. The N-79-20 Order sets a 2035 goal of no new sale of internal combustion engines for passenger cars and pickup trucks within California, and a 2045 goal of no new sale of internal combustion engine medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment. However, the N-79-20 Order would still allow used internal combustion engine vehicles to be used and sold after these dates. In an effort to accomplish the 2035 goal, on August 25, 2022, CARB voted unanimously to adopt the Advanced Clean Cars II ("ACCII") regulations. According to CARB, the ACCII regulations will rapidly scale down light-duty passenger car, truck, and SUV emissions starting with the 2026 model year through 2035. The regulations are two-pronged. First, they amend the California Zero-emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles, and rely on advanced vehicle technologies, including battery-electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, to meet air quality and climate change emissions standards. Second, the regulations amend the California Low-emission Vehicle Regulations to include increasingly stringent standards for gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog-forming emissions while the sector transitions toward 100% electrification by 2035. Similar to the ACCII, on April 28, 2023, CARB voted unanimously to adopt the Advanced Clean Fleet ("ACF") regulations with the goal of achieving a zero-emission truck and bus fleet by 2045 everywhere feasible, and significantly earlier for certain market segments such as last mile delivery and drayage applications. The initial focus of ACF is on high-priority fleets with vehicles that are suitable for early electrification, their subhaulers, and entities that hire them. However, in June 2025, the current U.S. presidential administration signed into law three Congressional Review Act resolutions, approved by congress, revoking CAA waivers that were granted by the previous presidential administration that allowed California to set its own stringent vehicle emissions standards (i.e., ACCII and ACF). California and other states have challenged the revocation of the CAA waivers. While the CAA resolutions are currently being litigated, it is currently uncertain whether and to what extent California, other states and local governments will still pursue the vehicle emission standards. In the event we do incur increased costs as a result of increased efforts to control GHG emissions through future adopted regulatory requirements, we may not be able to pass these costs to our customers. These future regulatory requirements also could adversely affect demand for the refined products that we produce. Any increased costs or reduced demand could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Payment terms for our crude oil purchases are typically longer than those terms we extend to our customers for sales of refined products. Additionally, reductions in crude oil purchases tend to lag demand decreases for our refined products. As a result of this timing differential, the payables for our crude oil purchases are generally proportionally larger than the receivables for our refined product sales. As we are normally in a net payables position, a decrease in commodity prices generally results in a use of working capital. Given we process a significant volume of crude oil, the impact can materially affect our working capital, cash flows and liquidity.

Our profitability, cash flows and liquidity from operations depend primarily on the margin above operating expenses (including the cost of refinery feedstocks, such as crude oil, intermediate partially refined products, and natural gas liquids that are processed and blended into refined products) at which we are able to sell refined products. Refining is primarily a margin-based business and, to increase profitability, it is important to maximize the yields of high value finished products while minimizing the costs of feedstock and operating expenses. When the margin between refined product prices and crude oil and other feedstock costs contracts, our earnings, profitability and cash flows are negatively affected. Historically, refining margins have been volatile, and are likely to continue to be volatile, as a result of a variety of factors, including fluctuations in the prices of crude oil, other feedstocks, refined products and fuel and utility services. An increase or decrease in the price of crude oil will likely result in a similar increase or decrease in prices for refined products; however, there may be a time lag in the realization, or no such realization, of the similar increase or decrease in prices for refined products. The effect of changes in crude oil prices on our refining margins therefore depends in part on how quickly and how fully refined product prices adjust to reflect these changes. The nature of our business has required us to maintain substantial crude oil, feedstock and refined product inventories. Because crude oil, feedstock and refined products are commodities, we have no control over the changing market value of these inventories. Our crude oil, feedstock and refined product inventories are valued at the LCM value under the last-in-first-out ("LIFO") inventory valuation methodology. If the market value of our crude oil, feedstock and refined product inventory declines to an amount less than our LIFO cost, we would record a write-down of inventory and a non-cash impact to cost of products and other. For example, during the year ended December 31, 2025, we recorded an adjustment to value our inventories to the lower of cost or market which decreased income from operations and net income by $313.0 million and $231.6 million, respectively. At December 31, 2024, the replacement value of inventories exceeded the LIFO carrying value, therefore no LCM inventory reserve was recorded. Prices of crude oil, other feedstocks, blendstocks, and refined products depend on numerous factors beyond our control, including the supply of and demand for crude oil, other feedstocks, gasoline, diesel, ethanol, asphalt and other refined products. Such supply and demand are affected by a variety of economic, market, environmental and political conditions. Our direct operating expense structure also impacts our profitability. Our major direct operating expenses include employee and contract labor, maintenance and energy. Our predominant variable direct operating cost is energy, which is comprised primarily of fuel and other utility services. The volatility in costs of fuel, principally natural gas, and other utility services, principally electricity, used by our refineries and other operations affect our operating costs. Fuel and utility prices have been, and will continue to be, affected by factors outside our control, such as supply and demand for fuel and utility services in both local and regional markets, including increased demand resulting from data center development and liquefied natural gas infrastructure and export build-out. Natural gas prices have historically been volatile and, typically, electricity prices fluctuate with natural gas prices. Future increases in fuel and utility prices may have a negative effect on our refining margins, profitability and cash flows. In addition, the operations, profitability and cash flows of SBR may similarly be impacted by volatility of renewable feedstock costs and operating expenses, which may negatively impact the anticipated benefits and operating synergies from the Renewable Diesel Facility or our equity method investment in SBR. See "We may not be able to successfully realize the anticipated benefits of our investment in SBR or meet our obligations to SBR" risk factor below.

We may be subject to liability for the investigation and clean-up of environmental contamination at each of the properties that we own, lease, occupy or operate and at off-site locations where we arrange for the treatment or disposal of regulated materials. We may become involved in litigation or other proceedings related to the foregoing. If we were to be held responsible for damages in any such litigation or proceedings, such costs may not be covered by insurance and may be material. Historical soil and groundwater contamination has been identified at our refineries. Currently, remediation projects for such contamination are underway in accordance with regulatory requirements at our refineries. In connection with the acquisitions of certain of our refineries and logistics assets, the prior owners have retained certain liabilities or indemnified us for certain liabilities, including those relating to pre-acquisition soil and groundwater conditions, and in some instances we have assumed certain liabilities and environmental obligations, including certain existing and potential remediation obligations. If the prior owners fail to satisfy their obligations for any reason, or if significant liabilities arise in the areas in which we assumed liability, we may become responsible for remediation expenses and other environmental liabilities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. As a result, in addition to making capital expenditures or incurring other costs to comply with environmental laws, we also may be liable for significant environmental litigation or for investigation and remediation costs and other liabilities arising from the ownership or operation of these assets by prior owners, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. See "Item 1. Business-Environmental, Health and Safety Matters" and "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Material Cash Requirements". We may also face liability arising from current or future claims alleging personal injury or property damage due to exposure to chemicals or other regulated materials, such as various perfluorinated compounds, including perfluorooctanoate, perfluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorohexane sulfonate, or other per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively, "PFAS"), asbestos, benzene, silica dust and petroleum hydrocarbons, at or from our facilities. We may also face liability for personal injury, property damage, natural resource damage or clean-up costs for the alleged migration of contamination from our properties. A significant increase in the number or success of these claims could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. Recently, we have been voluntarily cooperating with various local, state and federal agencies in their review of the environmental and health effects of PFAS and additional PFAS-related laws may be developed at the local, state and federal level that could lead to our incurring liability for damages or other costs, civil or criminal proceedings, the imposition of fines and penalties, or other remedies or otherwise affect our business. Governmental inquiries or lawsuits involving PFAS could lead to our incurring liability for damages or other costs, civil or criminal proceedings, the imposition of fines and penalties, or other remedies, as well as restrictions on or added costs for our business operations going forward, including in the form of restrictions on discharges at our manufacturing facilities or otherwise. We may be subject to asserted or unasserted claims and governmental regulatory proceedings and inquiries related to the use of PFAS in a variety of jurisdictions. Changes in law or interpretation of settled law and changes in policy, including with respect to climate change, other environmental regulations or regulations mandating efficiency standards or the use of alternative fuels or uncompetitive fuel components, could adversely affect our operations and results by increasing our cost of compliance, delaying or eliminating available business opportunities and/or preventing or limiting existing operations. Our operations also may give rise to federal, state or local government enforcement proceedings alleging non-compliance with applicable laws or regulations. We operate in jurisdictions where very large and unpredictable punitive damage awards may occur in the context of litigation. Private plaintiffs may also initiate legal action against us for alleged environmental impacts. These parties may attempt to use the legal system to promote public policy agendas (including seeking to reduce the production and sale of hydrocarbon products through litigation targeting the company or other industry participants), gain political notoriety, or obtain monetary awards from the company. For example, in recent years, private litigation has been increasingly initiated against oil and gas companies by local and state agencies and private parties alleging climate change impacts arising from their operations and seeking damages and equitable relief. We have not had any climate change litigation initiated against us to date and we cannot reasonably predict whether any such litigation will be initiated against us or, if initiated, what the outcome would be. If any such litigation were to be initiated against us, at a minimum, we would incur legal and other expenses to defend such lawsuits, which amounts could be significant. If we failed to prevail in any such litigation and were required to pay significant damages and/or materially alter the manner in which we conduct our business, there could be a material adverse impact on our operations, financial condition or results of operations.

Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EPA has issued the RFS, implementing mandates to blend renewable fuels into the petroleum fuels produced and sold in the United States. Under the RFS, the volume of renewable fuels that obligated refineries must blend into their finished petroleum fuels historically has increased on an annual basis. In addition, certain states have passed legislation that requires minimum biodiesel blending in finished distillates. On October 13, 2010, EPA raised the maximum amount of ethanol allowed under federal law from 10% to 15% for cars and light trucks manufactured since 2007. The maximum amount allowed under federal law currently remains at 10% ethanol for all other vehicles. Existing laws and regulations could change, and the minimum volumes of renewable fuels that must be blended with refined petroleum fuels may increase, which could displace an increasing volume of our refinery's product pool, potentially resulting in lower earnings and profitability. In addition, in order to meet certain of these and future EPA requirements, we may be required to purchase RINs, which may have fluctuating costs based on market conditions. Our results continue to be impacted by significant costs to comply with the RFS. While we have entered into agreements with SBR that allow us to purchase RINs at our election, we incurred approximately $680.1 million in RINs costs during the year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to $515.3 million and $762.3 million during the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. The fluctuations in our RINs costs are due primarily to volatility in prices for ethanol-linked RINs. Our RINs purchase obligation is dependent on our actual shipment of on-road transportation fuels domestically and the amount of blending achieved which can cause variability in our profitability. On June 21, 2023, EPA finalized the volumes of renewable fuels that obligated refineries must blend into their final petroleum fuels for years 2023, 2024, and 2025, and finalized volume requirements and percentage standards under the RFS program for 2023, 2024, and 2025. In June 2025, the EPA proposed volume requirements and percentage standards under the RFS program for 2026 and 2027, as well as making a series of important modifications to strengthen and expand the RFS program. As a result, we could also experience fluctuating compliance costs in the future as the EPA continues to adjust the volume requirements and potentially enacts further changes to the program.

Business closings or reduced activity and layoffs in the markets we operate may adversely affect demand for our refined products. Deterioration of general economic conditions or weak demand levels could require additional actions on our part to lower our operating costs, including temporarily or permanently ceasing to operate units at our facilities. There may be significant incremental costs associated with such actions. Deterioration of global and regional economic conditions may negatively affect our margins and harm our liquidity and ability to repay our outstanding debt and the trading price of PBF Energy's Class A common stock.