
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). According to statements by the EPA, 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 will be on a case by case basis, and the EPA has provided only general guidance on which controls will be required. 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.

In addition, certain states and foreign governments have pursued independent regulation of greenhouse gases. 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 is effective in 2011, with small reductions in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California. The mandated reductions in carbon intensity are scheduled to increase through 2020, after which another step-change in reductions is anticipated. The LCFS is designed to encourage substitution of traditional petroleum fuels, and, over time, it is anticipated that the LCFS will lead to a greater use of electric cars and alternative fuels, such as E85, as companies seek to generate more credits to offset petroleum fuels. The statewide cap-and-trade program will begin in 2013. 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, but we expect that compliance costs will increase significantly beginning in 2015, when 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.

On June 30, 2010, the EPA formally disapproved the flexible permits program submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in 1994 for inclusion in its clean-air implementation plan. The EPA determined that Texas’ flexible permit program did not meet several requirements under the federal Clean Air Act. Our Port Arthur, Texas City, Three Rivers, McKee, and Corpus Christi East and West Refineries formerly operated under flexible permits administered by the TCEQ. In the fourth quarter of 2010, we completed the conversion of our flexible permits into federally enforceable conventional state NSR permits (“de-flexed permits”). We are now in the process of incorporating these de-flexed permits into our Title V permits. Continued discussions with the TCEQ and the EPA regarding this matter are likely.

Meanwhile, the EPA has formally disapproved other TCEQ permitting programs that historically have streamlined the environmental permitting process in Texas. For example, the EPA has disapproved the TCEQ pollution control standard permit, thus requiring conventional permitting for future pollution control equipment. Litigation is pending from industry groups and others against the EPA for each of these actions. 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. 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. But 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, including federal, state, and foreign income taxes and transactional taxes such as excise, sales/use, payroll, franchise, withholding, 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.

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.