| |
12. | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Operating Leases
We have long-term operating lease commitments for land, office facilities and equipment, transportation equipment, time charters for ocean-going tankers and coastal vessels, dock facilities, and various facilities and equipment used in the storage, transportation, production, and sale of refinery feedstocks, refined product and corn inventories.
Certain leases for processing equipment and feedstock and refined product storage facilities provide for various contingent payments based on, among other things, throughput volumes in excess of a base amount. Certain leases for vessels contain renewal options and escalation clauses, which vary by charter, and provisions for the payment of chartering fees, which either vary based on usage or provide for payments, in addition to established minimums, that are contingent on usage. In most cases, we expect that in the normal course of business, our leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases.
As of December 31, 2013, our future minimum rentals and minimum rentals to be received under subleases for leases having initial or remaining noncancelable lease terms in excess of one year were as follows (in millions):
|
| | | |
2014 | $ | 305 |
|
2015 | 230 |
|
2016 | 162 |
|
2017 | 111 |
|
2018 | 95 |
|
Thereafter | 321 |
|
Total minimum rental payments | $ | 1,224 |
|
Minimum rentals to be received under subleases | $ | 21 |
|
Rental expense was as follows (in millions):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Year Ended December 31, |
| 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Minimum rental expense | $ | 574 |
| | $ | 508 |
| | $ | 523 |
|
Contingent rental expense | 7 |
| | 23 |
| | 23 |
|
Total rental expense | 581 |
| | 531 |
| | 546 |
|
Less sublease rental income | — |
| | (2 | ) | | (2 | ) |
Net rental expense | $ | 581 |
| | $ | 529 |
| | $ | 544 |
|
Purchase Obligations
We have various purchase obligations under certain industrial gas and chemical supply arrangements (such as hydrogen supply arrangements), crude oil and other feedstock supply arrangements, and various throughput and terminalling agreements. We enter into these contracts to ensure an adequate supply of utilities and feedstock and adequate storage capacity to operate our refineries. Substantially all of our purchase obligations are based on market prices or adjustments based on market indices. Certain of these purchase obligations include fixed or minimum volume requirements, while others are based on our usage requirements. None of these obligations are associated with suppliers’ financing arrangements. These purchase obligations are not reflected as liabilities.
Environmental Matters
Hartford Matters
We are involved, together with several other companies, in an environmental cleanup in the Village of Hartford, Illinois (the Village) and the adjacent shutdown refinery site, which we acquired as part of a prior acquisition. In cooperation with some of the other companies, we have been conducting initial mitigation and cleanup response pursuant to an administrative order issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is seeking further cleanup obligations from us and other potentially responsible parties for the Village. In parallel with the Village cleanup, we are also in litigation with the State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and other potentially responsible parties relating to the remediation of the shutdown refinery site. In each of these matters, we have various defenses and rights for contribution from the other responsible parties. We have accrued for our own expected contribution obligations. However, because of the unpredictable nature of these cleanups and the methodology for allocation of liabilities, it is reasonably possible that we could incur a loss in a range of $0 to $200 million in excess of the amount of our accrual to ultimately resolve these matters. Factors underlying this estimated range are expected to change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate.
Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
The 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 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 for which controls will be required or delegated to the states through State Implementation Plans.
Furthermore, the EPA is currently developing refinery-specific greenhouse gas regulations and performance standards that are expected to impose, on new and modified 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. 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 currently subject to legal challenges in both state and federal court. The program currently is in effect, but the progressive reductions in the carbon intensity of fuel required under the LCFS currently are frozen at 2013 levels by order of a California state court until the CARB addresses certain deficiencies under the California Environmental Quality Act. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower-court finding that the LCFS violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It is anticipated that this case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, although it remains unclear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to review the case. |
| |
• | The California statewide cap-and-trade program became effective in 2012, with the auctioning of emission credits commencing in the fourth quarter of 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, but we expect that compliance costs will escalate as free allocations compromise a smaller portion of the progressive compliance obligation. Further, overall cap-and-trade program costs are expected to 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. |
Title V Permitting Matters
The EPA has objected to numerous Title V permits, including permits at our Port Arthur, Texas City, Meraux, Corpus Christi East, and McKee Refineries. Environmental activist groups have filed notices of intent to sue and/or sued the EPA, seeking to require the EPA to assume control of these permits from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 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 greenhouse gas permitting regime and the EPA’s objections to Title V permits 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.
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, results of operations, or liquidity.
Tax Matters
General
We are subject to extensive tax liabilities imposed by multiple jurisdictions, including income taxes, indirect taxes (excise/duty, sales/use, gross receipts, 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.
IRS Audits
As of December 31, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ongoing tax audits related to our U.S. federal tax returns from 2002 through 2011, as discussed in Note 16. We have received Revenue Agent Reports on our tax years for 2002 through 2009 and we are vigorously contesting many of the tax positions and assertions from the IRS. We are continuing to work with the IRS to resolve these matters and we believe that they will be resolved for amounts consistent with the recorded amounts of unrecognized tax benefits associated with these matters.
Self-Insurance
We are self-insured for certain medical and dental, workers’ compensation, automobile liability, general liability, and property liability claims up to applicable retention limits. Liabilities are accrued for self-insured claims, or when estimated losses exceed coverage limits, and when sufficient information is available to reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. These liabilities are included in accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities.
