COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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 $11.7 million recorded as of March 31, 2019 ($11.0 million as of December 31, 2018) represents the present value of expected future costs discounted at a rate of 8.0%. 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 March 31, 2019, a portion of this liability is self-guaranteed by the Company with the remainder being guaranteed through an irrevocable standby letter of credit issued by BNP Paribas. In connection with the acquisition of the Delaware City assets, Valero Energy Corporation (“Valero”) remains responsible for certain pre-acquisition environmental obligations up to $20.0 million 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, $75.0 million 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 $3.9 million 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 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, $100.0 million environmental insurance policy to insure against unknown environmental liabilities at the refinery. 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. On remand, the Coastal Zone Board met on January 28, 2019 and reversed its previous decision on standing, ruling that the appellants have standing to appeal the issuance of the Ethanol Permit. DCR is currently evaluating its appeal options. At the time the Company acquired the Toledo refinery, EPA had initiated an investigation into the compliance of the refinery with EPA standards governing flaring pursuant to Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. On February 1, 2013, EPA issued an Amended Notice of Violation, and on September 20, 2013, EPA issued a Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation to Toledo refinery, alleging certain violations of the Clean Air Act at its Plant 4 and Plant 9 flares since the acquisition of the refinery on March 1, 2011. Toledo refinery and EPA subsequently entered into tolling agreements pending settlement discussions. A tentative settlement has been reached, including flare emission reduction and controls, enhancements to the existing leak detection and repair program, closure of an existing Consent Decree, implementation of supplemental environmental projects, and payment of a civil penalty in the amount of $0.4 million. On February 5, 2019, a Notice of Lodging of the Consent Decree was published in the Federal Register, starting a 30-day public comment period. On March 7, 2019 the Environmental Law & Policy Center and the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Northwestern Law School filed adverse comments to the Consent Decree. TRC is currently waiting on EPA to respond to these comments. In connection with the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and related logistics assets, the Company assumed certain pre-existing environmental liabilities totaling $129.2 million as of March 31, 2019 ($130.8 million as of December 31, 2018), 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 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, $100.0 million 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”). In connection with the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and related logistics assets, the Company agreed to take responsibility for NOV No. P63405 that ExxonMobil had received from the SCAQMD for Title V deviations that are alleged to have occurred in 2015. On August 14, 2018, the Company received a letter from SCAQMD offering to settle this NOV for $0.5 million. On February 22, 2019, the SCAQMD reduced their settlement offer to $0.3 million. The Company is currently in communication with SCAQMD to resolve this NOV. Subsequent to the acquisition, further NOVs were issued by the SCAQMD, Cal/OSHA, the City of Torrance, the City of Torrance Fire Department, and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District 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. EPA in November 2016 conducted a Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) inspection following the acquisition related to Torrance operations and issued preliminary findings in March 2017 concerning RMP potential operational violations. Since the EPA’s issuance of the preliminary findings in March 2017, the Company has been in substantive discussions to resolve the preliminary findings. In the course of these discussions, on November 8, 2018, EPA made an offer to settle all preliminary findings for $0.5 million. The Company is currently in communication with EPA to resolve the RMP preliminary findings. EPA and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) in December 2016 conducted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) inspection following the acquisition related to Torrance operations and also issued in March 2017 preliminary findings concerning RCRA potential operational violations. On June 14, 2018, the Torrance refinery and DTSC reached settlement regarding the oil bearing materials in the form of a stipulation and order, wherein the Torrance refinery agreed that it would recycle or properly dispose of the oil bearing materials by the end of 2018 and pay an administrative penalty of $0.2 million. The Torrance refinery has complied with these requirements. Following this settlement, in June 2018, DTSC referred the remaining alleged RCRA violations from EPA’s and DTSC’s December 2016 inspection to the California Attorney General for final resolution. The Torrance refinery and the California Attorney General are in discussions to resolve these remaining alleged RCRA violations. Other than the $0.2 million DTSC administrative penalty, no other settlement or penalty demands have been received to date with respect to any of the other NOVs, preliminary findings, or order that are in excess of $0.1 million. As the ultimate outcomes are uncertain, the Company cannot currently estimate the final amount or timing of their resolution 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. As of July 1, 2018 most of the Northeastern states require heating oil with 15 PPM or less sulfur (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. 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. 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. The Company is required to comply with the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) implemented by EPA, which sets annual quotas for the quantity of renewable fuels (such as ethanol) that must be blended into motor fuels consumed in the United States. In July 2018, EPA issued proposed amendments to the RFS program regulations that would establish annual percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuels that would apply to all gasoline and diesel produced in the U.S. or imported in the year 2019. In addition, the separate proposal includes a proposed biomass-based diesel applicable volume for 2020. It is likely that RIN production will continue to be lower than needed forcing obligated parties, such as the Company, to purchase cellulosic waiver credits or purchase excess RINs from suppliers on the open market. In addition, on November 26, 2018 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. 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 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 ten 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 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 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 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 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 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 15th 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 unitholders (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 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 99.0% interest in PBF LLC as of March 31, 2019 (99.0% as of December 31, 2018). 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.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 $11.7 million recorded as of March 31, 2019 ($11.0 million as of December 31, 2018) represents the present value of expected future costs discounted at a rate of 8.0%. 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 March 31, 2019, a portion of this liability is self-guaranteed by the Company with the remainder being guaranteed through an irrevocable standby letter of credit issued by BNP Paribas.

In connection with the acquisition of the Delaware City assets, Valero Energy Corporation (“Valero”) remains responsible for certain pre-acquisition environmental obligations up to $20.0 million 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, $75.0 million 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 $3.9 million 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 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, $100.0 million environmental insurance policy to insure against unknown environmental liabilities at the refinery.

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. On remand, the Coastal Zone Board met on January 28, 2019 and reversed its previous decision on standing, ruling that the appellants have standing to appeal the issuance of the Ethanol Permit. DCR is currently evaluating its appeal options.

At the time the Company acquired the Toledo refinery, EPA had initiated an investigation into the compliance of the refinery with EPA standards governing flaring pursuant to Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. On February 1, 2013, EPA issued an Amended Notice of Violation, and on September 20, 2013, EPA issued a Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation to Toledo refinery, alleging certain violations of the Clean Air Act at its Plant 4 and Plant 9 flares since the acquisition of the refinery on March 1, 2011. Toledo refinery and EPA subsequently entered into tolling agreements pending settlement discussions. A tentative settlement has been reached, including flare emission reduction and controls, enhancements to the existing leak detection and repair program, closure of an existing Consent Decree, implementation of supplemental environmental projects, and payment of a civil penalty in the amount of $0.4 million. On February 5, 2019, a Notice of Lodging of the Consent Decree was published in the Federal Register, starting a 30-day public comment period. On March 7, 2019 the Environmental Law & Policy Center and the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Northwestern Law School filed adverse comments to the Consent Decree. TRC is currently waiting on EPA to respond to these comments.

In connection with the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and related logistics assets, the Company assumed certain pre-existing environmental liabilities totaling $129.2 million as of March 31, 2019 ($130.8 million as of December 31, 2018), 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 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, $100.0 million 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”).

In connection with the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and related logistics assets, the Company agreed to take responsibility for NOV No. P63405 that ExxonMobil had received from the SCAQMD for Title V deviations that are alleged to have occurred in 2015. On August 14, 2018, the Company received a letter from SCAQMD offering to settle this NOV for $0.5 million. On February 22, 2019, the SCAQMD reduced their settlement offer to $0.3 million. The Company is currently in communication with SCAQMD to resolve this NOV.

Subsequent to the acquisition, further NOVs were issued by the SCAQMD, Cal/OSHA, the City of Torrance, the City of Torrance Fire Department, and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District 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. EPA in November 2016 conducted a Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) inspection following the acquisition related to Torrance operations and issued preliminary findings in March 2017 concerning RMP potential operational violations. Since the EPA’s issuance of the preliminary findings in March 2017, the Company has been in substantive discussions to resolve the preliminary findings. In the course of these discussions, on November 8, 2018, EPA made an offer to settle all preliminary findings for $0.5 million. The Company is currently in communication with EPA to resolve the RMP preliminary findings.

EPA and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) in December 2016 conducted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) inspection following the acquisition related to Torrance operations and also issued in March 2017 preliminary findings concerning RCRA potential operational violations. On June 14, 2018, the Torrance refinery and DTSC reached settlement regarding the oil bearing materials in the form of a stipulation and order, wherein the Torrance refinery agreed that it would recycle or properly dispose of the oil bearing materials by the end of 2018 and pay an administrative penalty of $0.2 million. The Torrance refinery has complied with these requirements. Following this settlement, in June 2018, DTSC referred the remaining alleged RCRA violations from EPA’s and DTSC’s December 2016 inspection to the California Attorney General for final resolution. The Torrance refinery and the California Attorney General are in discussions to resolve these remaining alleged RCRA violations. Other than the $0.2 million DTSC administrative penalty, no other settlement or penalty demands have been received to date with respect to any of the other NOVs, preliminary findings, or order that are in excess of $0.1 million. As the ultimate outcomes are uncertain, the Company cannot currently estimate the final amount or timing of their resolution 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. As of July 1, 2018 most of the Northeastern states require heating oil with 15 PPM or less sulfur (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.

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. 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.

The Company is required to comply with the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) implemented by EPA, which sets annual quotas for the quantity of renewable fuels (such as ethanol) that must be blended into motor fuels consumed in the United States. In July 2018, EPA issued proposed amendments to the RFS program regulations that would establish annual percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuels that would apply to all gasoline and diesel produced in the U.S. or imported in the year 2019. In addition, the separate proposal includes a proposed biomass-based diesel applicable volume for 2020. It is likely that RIN production will continue to be lower than needed forcing obligated parties, such as the Company, to purchase cellulosic waiver credits or purchase excess RINs from suppliers on the open market.

In addition, on November 26, 2018 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.

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 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 ten 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 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 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 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 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 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 15th 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 unitholders (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 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 99.0% interest in PBF LLC as of March 31, 2019 (99.0% as of December 31, 2018). 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.