
6.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental Matters

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases on January 2, 2011, under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Clean Air Act). Any new construction or material expansions will require that, among other things, a greenhouse gas permit be issued at either or both the state or federal level in accordance with the Clean Air Act and regulations, and we will be required to undertake a technology review to determine appropriate controls to be implemented with the project in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The determination would be on a case by case basis, and the EPA has provided only general guidance on which controls will be required.

Furthermore, the EPA is currently developing refinery-specific greenhouse gas regulations and performance standards that are expected to impose, on new and existing operations, greenhouse gas emission limits and/or technology requirements. These control requirements may affect a wide range of refinery operations but have not yet been delineated. Any such controls, however, could result in material increased compliance costs, additional operating restrictions for our business, and an increase in the cost of the products we produce, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

Certain states and foreign governments have pursued regulation of greenhouse gases independent of the EPA. For example, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and issue regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020. The CARB has issued a variety of regulations aimed at reaching this goal, including a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) as well as a statewide cap-and-trade program.

•

The LCFS was scheduled to become effective in 2011, but rulings by the U.S. District Court stayed enforcement of the LCFS until certain legal challenges to the LCFS were resolved. Most notably, the court determined that the LCFS violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to the extent that the standard discriminates against out-of-state crude oils and corn ethanol. CARB appealed the lower court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court).

The Ninth Circuit Court lifted the stay on April 23, 2012. We anticipate that the Ninth Circuit Court will hear arguments on the merits of the appeal this year, with a final ruling sometime thereafter.

•

A California statewide cap-and-trade program will begin in late 2012. Initially, the program will apply only to stationary sources of greenhouse gases (e.g., refinery and power plant greenhouse gas emissions). Greenhouse gas emissions from fuels that we sell in California will be covered by the program beginning in 2015. We anticipate that free allocations of credits will be available in the early years of the program to cover most of our stationary emissions, but we expect that compliance costs will increase significantly beginning in 2015, when transportation fuels are included in the program.

•

Complying with AB 32, including the LCFS and the cap-and-trade program, could result in material increased compliance costs for us, increased capital expenditures, increased operating costs, and additional operating restrictions for our business, resulting in an increase in the cost of, and decreases in the demand for, the products we produce. To the degree we are unable to recover these increased costs, these matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

In the first quarter of 2012, CARB adopted amendments to its Clean Fuels Outlet (CFO) Regulation. CARB states that the CFO Regulation is intended to provide outlets of clean fuel to meet the needs of alternative fuel vehicles. We understand that CARB is preparing to submit the CFO Regulation to the State Office of Administrative Law for approval. Under the regulation, projections of zero-emission vehicle availability in the California market would trigger a requirement for major refiners and importers of gasoline, including us, to install clean fuel outlets in designated areas in proportion to each refiner or importer’s share in the California gasoline market. We expect this regulation to be challenged, but we could be required to make significant capital expenditures if the regulation is implemented as presently adopted.

The EPA has disapproved certain permitting programs of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) that historically have streamlined the environmental permitting process in Texas. For example, the EPA disapproved the TCEQ pollution control standard permit, thus requiring conventional permitting for future pollution control equipment. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned the EPA’s disapproval and sent it back to the EPA to re-evaluate the decision. Litigation is pending from industry groups and others against the EPA for each of these actions. In some instances, the EPA’s decisions have been initially upheld and others are still pending before the courts. The EPA has also objected to numerous Title V permits in Texas and other states, including permits at our Port Arthur, Corpus Christi East, and McKee Refineries. Environmental activist groups have filed a notice of intent to sue the EPA, seeking to require the EPA to assume control of these permits from the TCEQ. Finally, as part of its regulation of greenhouse gases discussed above, the EPA has federalized the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions in Texas. This creates a dual permitting structure that must be navigated for material projects in Texas. All of these developments have created substantial uncertainty regarding existing and future permitting. Because of this uncertainty, we are unable to determine the costs or effects of the EPA’s actions on our permitting activity. The EPA’s disruption of the Texas permitting system could result in material increased compliance costs for us, increased capital expenditures, increased operating costs, and additional operating restrictions for our business, resulting in an increase in the cost of, and decreases in the demand for, the products we produce, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

Tax Matters

We are subject to extensive tax liabilities imposed by multiple jurisdictions, including income taxes, transactional taxes (excise/duty, sales/use, and value-added taxes), payroll taxes, franchise taxes, withholding taxes, and ad valorem taxes. New tax laws and regulations and changes in existing tax laws and regulations are continuously being enacted or proposed that could result in increased expenditures for tax liabilities in the future. Many of these liabilities are subject to periodic audits by the respective taxing authority. Subsequent changes to our tax liabilities as a result of these audits may subject us to interest and penalties.

As of June 30, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ongoing tax audits related to our U.S. federal tax returns from 2002 through 2009. We have received Revenue Agent Reports on our tax years for 2002 through 2007 and we are vigorously contesting the tax positions and assertions from the IRS. Although we believe our tax liabilities are fairly stated and properly reflected in our financial statements, should the IRS eventually prevail, it could result in a material amount of our deferred tax liabilities being reclassified to current liabilities which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity.

Litigation Matters

We are party to claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We have not recorded a loss contingency liability with respect to some of these matters because we have determined that it is remote that a loss has been incurred. For other matters, we have recorded a loss contingency liability where we have determined that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and that the loss is reasonably estimable. These loss contingency liabilities are not material to our financial position. We re-evaluate and update our loss contingency liabilities as matters progress over time, and we believe that any changes to the recorded liabilities will not be material to our financial position or results of operations.