COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease and Other Commitments

The Company leases office space, office equipment, refinery facilities and equipment, and railcars under non-cancelable operating leases, with terms ranging from one to twenty years, subject to certain renewal options as applicable. Total rent expense was $125,433, $129,768, and $126,060 (excluding expenses for leases with affiliates of $97,771, $46,511 and $21,352) for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The Company is party to agreements which provide for the treatment of wastewater and the supply of hydrogen and steam for certain of its refineries. The Company made purchases of $64,050, $53,364 and $36,139 under these supply agreements for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

The fixed and determinable amounts of the obligations under these agreements and total minimum future annual rentals to third parties and affiliates, exclusive of related costs, are approximately:



Year Ending December 31,
2018	$	237,209
2019	219,554
2020	206,226
2021	186,028
2022	145,521
Thereafter	537,400
	$	1,531,938

Employment Agreements

PBF Investments (“PBFI”) has entered into amended and restated employment agreements with members of executive management and certain other key personnel that include automatic annual renewals, unless canceled. Under some of the agreements, certain of the executives would receive a lump sum payment of between one and a half to 2.99 times their base salary and continuation of certain employee benefits for the same period upon termination by the Company “Without Cause”, or by the employee “For Good Reason”, or upon a “Change in Control”, as defined in the agreements. Upon death or disability, certain of the Company’s executives, or their estates, would receive a lump sum payment of at least one half of their base salary.

Environmental Matters

The Company’s refineries, pipelines and related operations are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, those relating to the discharge of materials into the environment or that otherwise relate to the protection of the environment, waste management and the characteristics and the compositions of fuels. Compliance with existing and anticipated laws and regulations can increase the overall cost of operating the refineries, including remediation, operating costs and capital costs to construct, maintain and upgrade equipment and facilities.

In connection with the Paulsboro refinery acquisition, the Company assumed certain environmental remediation obligations. The Paulsboro environmental liability of $10,282 recorded as of December 31, 2017 ($10,792 as of December 31, 2016) represents the present value of expected future costs discounted at a rate of 8.0%. At December 31, 2017 the undiscounted liability is $15,804 and the Company expects to make aggregate payments for this liability of $6,095 over the next five years. The current portion of the environmental liability is recorded in Accrued expenses and the non-current portion is recorded in Other long-term liabilities. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, this liability is self-guaranteed by the Company.

In connection with the acquisition of the Delaware City assets, Valero Energy Corporation (“Valero”) remains responsible for certain pre-acquisition environmental obligations up to $20,000 and the predecessor to Valero in ownership of the refinery retains other historical obligations.

In connection with the acquisition of the Delaware City assets and the Paulsboro refinery, the Company and Valero purchased ten year, $75,000 environmental insurance policies to insure against unknown environmental liabilities at each site. In connection with the Toledo refinery acquisition, Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) remains responsible for environmental remediation for conditions that existed on the closing date for twenty years from March 1, 2011, subject to certain limitations.

In connection with the acquisition of the Chalmette refinery, the Company obtained $3,936 in financial assurance (in the form of a surety bond) to cover estimated potential site remediation costs associated with an agreed to Administrative Order of Consent with the EPA. The estimated cost assumes remedial activities will continue for a minimum of thirty years. Further, in connection with the acquisition of the Chalmette refinery, the Company purchased a ten year, $100,000 environmental insurance policy to insure against unknown environmental liabilities at the refinery. At the time the Company acquired Chalmette refinery it was subject to a Consolidated Compliance Order and Notice of Potential Penalty (the “Order”) issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) covering deviations from 2009 and 2010. Chalmette Refining and LDEQ subsequently entered into a dispute resolution agreement to negotiate the resolution of deviations inside and outside the periods covered by the Order. Although a settlement agreement has not been finalized, the administrative penalty is anticipated to be approximately $741, including beneficial environmental projects. To the extent the administrative penalty exceeds such amount, it is not expected to be material to the Company.

The Delaware City refinery is appealing a Notice of Penalty Assessment and Secretary’s Order issued in March 2017, including a $150 fine, alleging violations of a 2013 Secretary’s Order authorizing crude oil shipment by barge. DNREC determined that the Delaware City refinery had violated the 2013 order by failing to make timely and full disclosure to DNREC about the nature and extent of those shipments, and had misrepresented the number of shipments that went to other facilities. The Penalty Assessment and Secretary’s Order conclude that the 2013 Secretary’s Order was violated by the Delaware City refinery by shipping crude oil from the Delaware City terminal to three locations other than the Paulsboro refinery, on 15 days in 2014, making a total of 17 separate barge shipments containing approximately 35.7 million gallons of crude oil in total. On April 28, 2017, the Delaware City refinery appealed the Notice of Penalty Assessment and Secretary’s Order. On March 5, 2018, Notice of Penalty Assessment was settled by DNREC, the Delaware Attorney General and Delaware City refinery for $100. The Delaware City refinery made no admissions with respect to the alleged violations and agreed to request a Coastal Zone Act status decision prior to making crude oil shipments to destinations other than Paulsboro.

On December 28, 2016, DNREC issued a Coastal Zone Act permit (the “Ethanol Permit”) to DCR allowing the utilization of existing tanks and existing marine loading equipment at their existing facilities to enable denatured ethanol to be loaded from storage tanks to marine vessels and shipped to offsite facilities. On January 13, 2017, the issuance of the Ethanol Permit was appealed by two environmental groups. On February 27, 2017, the Coastal Zone Industrial Board (the “Coastal Zone Board”) held a public hearing and dismissed the appeal, determining that the appellants did not have standing. The appellants filed an appeal of the Coastal Zone Board’s decision with the Delaware Superior Court (the “Superior Court”) on March 30, 2017. On January 19, 2018, the Superior Court rendered an Opinion regarding the decision of the Coastal Zone Board to dismiss the appeal of the Ethanol Permit for the ethanol project. The Judge determined that the record created by the Coastal Zone Board was insufficient for the Superior Court to make a decision, and therefore remanded the case back to the Coastal Zone Board to address the deficiency in the record. Specifically, the Superior Court directed the Coastal Zone Board to address any evidence concerning whether the appellants’ claimed injuries would be affected by the increased quantity of ethanol shipments. During the hearing before the Coastal Zone Board on standing, one of the appellants’ witnesses made a reference to the flammability of ethanol, without any indication of the significance of flammability/explosivity to specific concerns. Moreover, the appellants did not introduce at hearing any evidence of the relative flammability of ethanol as compared to other materials shipped to and from the refinery. However, the sole dissenting opinion from the Coastal Zone Board focused on the flammability/explosivity issue, alleging that the appellants’ testimony raised the issue as a distinct basis for potential harms. Once the Board responds to the remand, it will go back to the Superior Court to complete its analysis and issue a decision.

In connection with the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and related logistics assets, the Company assumed certain pre-existing environmental liabilities totaling $136,487 as of December 31, 2017 ($142,456 as of December 31, 2016), related to certain environmental remediation obligations to address existing soil and groundwater contamination and monitoring activities and other clean-up activities, which reflects the current estimated cost of the remediation obligations. The Company expects to make aggregate payments for this liability of $32,426 over the next five years. The current portion of the environmental liability is recorded in Accrued expenses and the non-current portion is recorded in Other long-term liabilities. In addition, in connection with the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and related logistics assets, the Company purchased a ten year, $100,000 environmental insurance policy to insure against unknown environmental liabilities. Furthermore, in connection with the acquisition, the Company assumed responsibility for certain specified environmental matters that occurred prior to the Company’s ownership of the refinery and the logistics assets, including specified incidents and/or notices of violations (“NOVs”) issued by regulatory agencies in various years before the Company’s ownership, including the Southern California Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health of the State of California (“Cal/OSHA”).

Additionally, subsequent to the acquisition, further NOVs were issued by the SCAQMD, Cal/OSHA, the City of Torrance and the City of Torrance Fire Department related to alleged operational violations, emission discharges and/or flaring incidents at the refinery and the logistics assets both before and after the Company’s acquisition. In addition, subsequent to the acquisition, EPA and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) conducted inspections related to Torrance operations and issued preliminary findings related to potential operational violations. On March 1, 2018, the Company received a notice of intent to sue from Environmental Integrity Project, on behalf of Environment California, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act with respect to the alleged violations from EPA’s and DTSC’s inspections. On March 2, 2018, DTSC issued an order to correct alleged violations relating to the accumulation of oil bearing materials. No settlement or penalty demands have been received to date with respect to any of the NOVs, preliminary findings, or order that are in excess of $100. As the ultimate outcomes are uncertain, the Company cannot currently estimate the final amount or timing of their resolution. It is reasonably possible that SCAQMD, Cal/OSHA, the City of Torrance, EPA and/or DTSC will assess penalties in excess of $100 but any such amount is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, individually or in the aggregate.

Applicable Federal and State Regulatory Requirements

The Company’s operations and many of the products it manufactures are subject to certain specific requirements of the Clean Air Act (the “CAA”) and related state and local regulations. The CAA contains provisions that require capital expenditures for the installation of certain air pollution control devices at the Company’s refineries. Subsequent rule making authorized by the CAA or similar laws or new agency interpretations of existing rules, may necessitate additional expenditures in future years.

In 2010, New York State adopted a Low-Sulfur Heating Oil mandate that, beginning July 1, 2012, requires all heating oil sold in New York State to contain no more than 15 parts per million (“PPM”) sulfur. Since July 1, 2012, other states in the Northeast market began requiring heating oil sold in their state to contain no more than 15 PPM sulfur. Currently, all of the Northeastern states and Washington DC have adopted sulfur controls on heating oil. Most of the Northeastern states will now require heating oil with 15 PPM or less sulfur by July 1, 2018 (except for Pennsylvania and Maryland where less than 500 PPM sulfur is required). All of the heating oil the Company currently produces meets these specifications. The mandate and other requirements do not currently have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The EPA issued the final Tier 3 Gasoline standards on March 3, 2014 under the CAA. This final rule establishes more stringent vehicle emission standards and further reduces the sulfur content of gasoline starting in January 2017. The new standard is set at 10 PPM sulfur in gasoline on an annual average basis starting January 1, 2017, with a credit trading program to provide compliance flexibility. The EPA responded to industry comments on the proposed rule and maintained the per gallon sulfur cap on gasoline at the existing 80 PPM cap. The refineries are complying with these new requirements as planned, either directly or using flexibility provided by sulfur credits generated or purchased in advance as an economic optimization. The standards set by the new rule are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In November 2017, the EPA issued final 2018 RFS standards that will slightly increase renewable volume standards from final 2017 levels. It is not clear that renewable fuel producers will be able to produce the volumes of these fuels required for blending in accordance with the 2018 standards. Despite decreasing 7% in comparison to 2017, the final 2018 cellulosic standard is still set at approximately 125% of the 2016 standard. It is likely that cellulosic RIN production will be lower than needed forcing obligated parties, such as us, to purchase cellulosic “waiver credits” to comply in 2018 (the waiver credit option by regulation is only available for the cellulosic standard). The advanced and total RIN requirements were kept relatively flat in comparison to 2017, but remain 19% and 7% higher than final 2016 levels. Production of advanced RINs has been below what is needed for compliance in 2017 and obligated parties, such as us, will likely continue to rely on the nesting feature of the biodiesel RIN to comply with the advanced standard in 2018. Consistent with 2017, compliance in 2018 will likely rely on obligated parties drawing down the supply of excess RINs collectively known as the “RIN bank” and could tighten the RIN market potentially raising RIN prices further. While a proposal to change the point of obligation under the RFS program to the “blender” of renewable fuels was denied by the EPA in November of 2017, we remain hopeful that the current presidential administration will initiate necessary changes to the RFS program in the future and provide relief to us and other downstream refiners that continue to feel the burden of increased costs to comply with RFS.

In addition, on December 1, 2015 the EPA finalized revisions to an existing air regulation concerning Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (“MACT”) for Petroleum Refineries. The regulation requires additional continuous monitoring systems for eligible process safety valves relieving to atmosphere, minimum flare gas heat (Btu) content, and delayed coke drum vent controls to be installed by January 30, 2019. In addition, a program for ambient fence line monitoring for benzene was implemented prior to the deadline of January 30, 2018. The Company is in the process of implementing the requirements of this regulation. The regulation does not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The EPA published a Final Rule to the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) Section 316(b) in August 2014 regarding cooling water intake structures, which includes requirements for petroleum refineries. The purpose of this rule is to prevent fish from being trapped against cooling water intake screens (impingement) and to prevent fish from being drawn through cooling water systems (entrainment). Facilities will be required to implement Best Technology Available (“BTA”) as soon as possible, but state agencies have the discretion to establish implementation time lines. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of this regulation, and at this time does not anticipate it having a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

As a result of the Torrance Acquisition, the Company is subject to greenhouse gas emission control regulations in the state of California pursuant to Assembly Bill 32 (“AB32”). AB32 imposes a statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions, including emissions from transportation fuels, with the aim of returning the state to 1990 emission levels by 2020. AB32 is implemented through two market mechanisms including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (“LCFS”) and Cap and Trade, which was extended for an additional 10 years to 2030 in July 2017. The Company is responsible for the AB32 obligations related to the Torrance refinery beginning on July 1, 2016 and must purchase emission credits to comply with these obligations. Additionally, in September 2016, the state of California enacted Senate Bill 32 (“SB32”) which further reduces greenhouse gas emissions targets to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

However, subsequent to the acquisition, the Company is recovering the majority of these costs from its customers, and as such does not expect this obligation to materially impact the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. To the degree there are unfavorable changes to AB32 or SB32 regulations or the Company is unable to recover such compliance costs from customers, these regulations could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company is subject to obligations to purchase RINs. On February 15, 2017, the Company received a notification that EPA records indicated that PBF Holding used potentially invalid RINs that were in fact verified under the EPA’s RIN Quality Assurance Program (“QAP”) by an independent auditor as QAP A RINs. Under the regulations, use of potentially invalid QAP A RINs provided the user with an affirmative defense from civil penalties provided certain conditions are met. The Company has asserted the affirmative defense and if accepted by the EPA will not be required to replace these RINs and will not be subject to civil penalties under the program. It is reasonably possible that the EPA will not accept the Company’s defense and may assess penalties in these matters but any such amount is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

As of January 1, 2011, the Company is required to comply with the EPA’s Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources, or MSAT2, regulations on gasoline that impose reductions in the benzene content of its produced gasoline. The Company purchases benzene credits to meet these requirements. The Company’s planned capital projects will reduce the amount of benzene credits that it needs to purchase. In addition, the renewable fuel standards mandate the blending of prescribed percentages of renewable fuels (e.g., ethanol and biofuels) into the Company’s produced gasoline and diesel. These new requirements, other requirements of the CAA and other presently existing or future environmental 25 regulations may cause the Company to make substantial capital expenditures as well as the purchase of credits at significant cost, to enable its refineries to produce products that meet applicable requirements.

The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), also known as “Superfund,” imposes liability, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, on certain classes of persons who are considered to be responsible for the release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the current or former owner or operator of the disposal site or sites where the release occurred and companies that disposed of or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substances. Under CERCLA, such persons may be subject to joint and several liability for investigation and the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. As discussed more fully above, certain of the Company’s sites are subject to these laws and the Company may be held liable for investigation and remediation costs or claims for natural resource damages. It is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous substances or other pollutants released into the environment. Analogous state laws impose similar responsibilities and liabilities on responsible parties. In the Company’s current normal operations, it has generated waste, some of which falls within the statutory definition of a “hazardous substance” and some of which may have been disposed of at sites that may require cleanup under Superfund.

The Company is also currently subject to certain other existing environmental claims and proceedings. The Company believes that there is only a remote possibility that future costs related to any of these other known contingent liability exposures would have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

PBF LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement

The holders of limited liability company interests in PBF LLC, including PBF Energy, generally have to include for purposes of calculating their U.S. federal, state and local income taxes their share of any taxable income of PBF LLC, regardless of whether such holders receive cash distributions from PBF LLC. PBF Energy ultimately may not receive cash distributions from PBF LLC equal to its share of such taxable income or even equal to the actual tax due with respect to that income. For example, PBF LLC is required to include in taxable income PBF LLC’s allocable share of PBFX’s taxable income and gains (such share to be determined pursuant to the partnership agreement of PBFX), regardless of the amount of cash distributions received by PBF LLC from PBFX, and such taxable income and gains will flow-through to PBF Energy to the extent of its allocable share of the taxable income of PBF LLC. As a result, at certain times, the amount of cash otherwise ultimately available to PBF Energy on account of its indirect interest in PBFX may not be sufficient for PBF Energy to pay the amount of taxes it will owe on account of its indirect interests in PBFX.

Taxable income of PBF LLC generally is allocated to the holders of PBF LLC units (including PBF Energy) pro-rata in accordance with their respective share of the net profits and net losses of PBF LLC. In general, PBF LLC is required to make periodic tax distributions to the members of PBF LLC, including PBF Energy, pro-rata in accordance with their respective percentage interests for such period (as determined under the amended and restated limited liability company agreement of PBF LLC), subject to available cash and applicable law and contractual restrictions (including pursuant to our debt instruments) and based on certain assumptions. Generally, these tax distributions are required to be in an amount equal to our estimate of the taxable income of PBF LLC for the year multiplied by an assumed tax rate equal to the highest effective marginal combined U.S. federal, state and local income tax rate prescribed for an individual or corporate resident in New York, New York (taking into account the nondeductibility of certain expenses). If, with respect to any given calendar year, the aggregate periodic tax distributions were less than the actual taxable income of PBF LLC multiplied by the assumed tax rate, PBF LLC is required to make a “true up” tax distribution, no later than March 15 of the following year, equal to such difference, subject to the available cash and borrowings of PBF LLC. PBF LLC generally obtains funding to pay its tax distributions by causing PBF Holding to distribute cash to PBF LLC and from distributions it receives from PBFX.

Tax Receivable Agreement

PBF Energy (the Company’s indirect parent) entered into a tax receivable agreement with the PBF LLC Series A and PBF LLC Series B Unit holders (the “Tax Receivable Agreement”) that provides for the payment by PBF Energy to such persons of an amount equal to 85% of the amount of the benefits, if any, that PBF Energy is deemed to realize as a result of (i) increases in tax basis, as described below, and (ii) certain other tax benefits related to entering into the Tax Receivable Agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement. For purposes of the Tax Receivable Agreement, the benefits deemed realized by PBF Energy will be computed by comparing the actual income tax liability of PBF Energy (calculated with certain assumptions) to the amount of such taxes that PBF Energy would have been required to pay had there been no increase to the tax basis of the assets of PBF LLC as a result of purchases or exchanges of PBF LLC Series A Units for shares of PBF Energy’s Class A common stock and had PBF Energy not entered into the Tax Receivable Agreement. The term of the Tax Receivable Agreement will continue until all such tax benefits have been utilized or expired unless: (i) PBF Energy exercises its right to terminate the Tax Receivable Agreement, (ii) PBF Energy breaches any of its material obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement or (iii) certain changes of control occur, in which case all obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement will generally be accelerated and due as calculated under certain assumptions.

The payment obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement are obligations of PBF Energy and not of PBF LLC or PBF Holding. In general, PBF Energy expects to obtain funding for these annual payments from PBF LLC, primarily through tax distributions, which PBF LLC makes on a pro-rata basis to its owners. Such owners include PBF Energy, which holds a 96.7% and 96.5% interest in PBF LLC as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. PBF LLC generally obtains funding to pay its tax distributions by causing PBF Holding to distribute cash to PBF LLC and from distributions it receives from PBFX. As a result of the reduction of the corporate federal tax rate from 35% to 21% as part of the Tax Cut Jobs Act (“TCJA”), PBF Energy’s liability associated with the Tax Receivable Agreement was reduced.