In connection with the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and related logistics assets, we assumed certain pre-existing environmental liabilities related to certain environmental remediation obligations to address existing soil and groundwater contamination and monitoring activities, which reflect the estimated cost of the remediation obligations. In addition, in connection with the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and related logistics assets, we purchased a ten-year, $100.0 million environmental insurance policy to insure against unknown environmental liabilities. We currently have multiple outstanding notices of violation (“NOVs”) issued by regulatory authorities for various alleged regulation and permit violations at our refineries. It is not possible to predict the outcome of any of these NOVs or the amount of the penalties that will be assessed in connection with any NOV. If any one or more of them were decided against us, we believe that there would be no material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. SEC regulations require us to disclose certain information about proceedings arising under federal, state, or local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or primarily for the purpose of protecting the environment, if a governmental authority is a party to such proceeding and such proceeding involves potential monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, that exceeds a specified threshold. We use a threshold of $1 million for such determination because we believe that such threshold is reasonably designed to result in disclosure of any such proceeding that is material to the business or financial condition. On November 24, 2022, the Martinez refinery experienced a catalyst release. An investigation is being conducted by the DOJ, the USAO, and the EPA. At this time, the potential liabilities, including regulatory penalties, arising from the incident are unknown, and the full financial impact of this incident cannot reasonably be estimated. In connection with the Martinez refinery fire, investigations are being conducted by various regulatory agencies, including the CalOSHA, the BAAD, CCC, the DOJ, the USAO, and the EPA. There are uncertainties around these inquiries and investigations and potential results and consequences, including whether any financial penalties will be assessed or changes to the operations of the Martinez refinery will result therefrom. To date, the BAAD has issued a total of twenty-two (22) NOVs relating to the Martinez refinery fire. At this time, the potential liabilities, including regulatory penalties, arising from the incident are unknown, and the full financial impact of this incident cannot reasonably be estimated. On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., we and PBF LLC, PBF Western Region LLC (“PBF Western Region”), Torrance Refining Company LLC (“Torrance Refining”) and the manager of our Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”) were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability claims arising from a February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator (“ESP”) explosion at the Torrance refinery, which at the time was owned and operated by ExxonMobil, and subsequent operations by Torrance Refining after the acquisition of the Torrance refinery in July 2016. To the extent the claims relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any resulting liabilities pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave for plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint alleging groundwater contamination and added an additional plaintiff, Youssef. On October 15, 2019, the Court granted certification of two limited classes of with Youssef as the sole class representative and named plaintiff, related to trespass claims for ground contamination (“Ground Subclass”) and nuisance for air emissions (“Air Subclass”). On May 5, 2021, the Court granted leave for plaintiffs to a third amended complaint to substitute Navarro for Youssef. On July 5, 2022, the Court issued a final order ruling that plaintiffs’ motion to substitute Navarro as class Representative was denied and decertifying both of plaintiffs’ proposed Air and Ground Subclasses. The order provided that the case will proceed with Navarro as the sole plaintiff. On October 30, 2023, plaintiff appealed the Court’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit. On April 15, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that reversed the 70 Court’s dismissal of the individual trespass claim and vacated the decertification of the Ground Subclass. The Ninth Circuit, however, affirmed the Court’s grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff’s individual nuisance claims and decertification of the Air Subclass. On August 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the Court regarding the trespass claim and Ground Subclass decertification for reconsideration. On March 23, 2026, the Court agreed that further briefing is required regarding class representative substitution and renewed class certification for the Ground Subclass. On June 30, 2026, plaintiff filed a fifth amended complaint. On July 24, 2026, we filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint. We intend to continue to defend this matter vigorously. Based on information currently available, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Beginning in August 2023, Martinez Refining Company LLC (“MRC”) and, in certain cases, we and PBF Western Region, have been named as defendants in a series of related class and individual actions arising from MRC’s operations in Martinez, California (collectively, the “Martinez Actions”). The complaints generally allege claims including negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, premises liability, strict liability for ultrahazardous activities, and, in one action, alleged Clean Air Act (“CAA”) violations and claims for medical and environmental monitoring. The actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The first-filed action, Piscitelli et al. v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, commenced on August 16, 2023, as a putative class action. On April 10, 2024, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint to add plaintiff Malan and dismiss plaintiff Zanzucchi. On June 17, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Piscitelli. On September 30, 2025, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling. The other actions that have been filed include Alena Cruz and Shannon Payne vs. PBF Energy Inc., et. al, a putative class action; Jennifer Frye, et al. v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, filed by 18 individual plaintiffs; Alice Saliba, et al. v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, filed by 285 individual plaintiffs; Elizabeth Silvestri, et al. v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, filed by 195 individual plaintiffs; Robert Manning, et al. v. Martinez Refining Company LLC filed by 204 individual plaintiffs; and Canning v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, filed by two individual plaintiffs. In the Cruz case, on April 4, 2024, the Cruz Court dismissed all wrongly named PBF entities and plaintiffs’ CAA and medical monitoring claims. In the Frye case, on December 17, 2024, the Frye Court issued a ruling partially dismissing some of plaintiffs’ claims. In the Canning Case, the case was removed from state to federal court, and on November 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint limiting their claims to only alleged property damages associated with the November 24, 2022 catalyst release. On April 15, 2025, the Piscitelli Court ordered the Piscitelli, Cruz, Frye, Saliba, Silvestri, and Manning cases related for coordination of common core issues. Subsequently, on July 16, 2025, the Piscitelli Court also related the Canning case for common core issues. On January 29, 2026, the Piscitelli Court issued a scheduling order for the Martinez Actions with discovery and certain motion practice continuing through first quarter of 2028. The Martinez Actions are currently in the early phase of discovery. Based on information currently available, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of the Martinez Actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On December 21, 2023, the EPA Region 5 issued a Finding of Violation (“FOV”) alleging violations of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411, 7412, and regulations promulgated under those sections, of the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations at 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart FF (“BWON”), of the New Source Performance Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds from Petroleum Wastewater Systems at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart QQQ (“QQQ”), and of our CAA Title V operating permit for the Wastewater Treatment Unit at our Toledo refinery. This FOV followed an EPA compliance inspection at the Toledo refinery conducted in September 2023. In addition, the EPA has conducted compliance inspections at our Chalmette, Delaware City, Martinez, Paulsboro, and Torrance refineries relating to BWON and QQQ. For our Toledo refinery, we have been engaged in discussions with the EPA to resolve the FOV, but we cannot currently estimate the timing of the resolution or the amount of any potential civil penalties. We presently believe neither the outcome related to the Toledo refinery FOV nor the resolution of other matters relating to the referenced refinery inspections will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. 71 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 our sites are subject to these laws and we 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 our current normal operations, we have 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. As the ultimate outcomes of the pending matters discussed above are uncertain, we cannot currently estimate the final amount or timing of their resolution, but any such amount is not expected to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, individually or in the aggregate. 72