Marathon Petroleum (MPC) Risk Analysis

Currently, multiple legislative and regulatory measures to address GHG (including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides) and other emissions are in various phases of consideration, promulgation or implementation. These include actions to develop international, federal, regional or statewide programs, which could require reductions in our GHG or other emissions, establish a carbon tax and decrease the demand for refined products. Requiring reductions in these emissions could result in increased costs to (i) operate and maintain our facilities, (ii) install new emission controls at our facilities and (iii) administer and manage any emissions programs, including acquiring emission credits or allotments. For example, California and Washington have enacted cap-and-trade programs. Other states are proposing, or have already promulgated, low carbon fuel standards or similar initiatives to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. If we are unable to pass the costs of compliance on to our customers, sufficient credits are unavailable for purchase, we have to pay a significantly higher price for credits, or if we are otherwise unable to meet our compliance obligation, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Certain municipalities have also proposed or enacted restrictions on the installation of natural gas appliances and infrastructure in new residential or commercial construction, which could affect demand for the natural gas that MPLX transports and stores. Regional and state climate change and air emissions goals and regulatory programs are complex, subject to change and considerable uncertainty due to a number of factors including technological feasibility, legal challenges and potential changes in federal policy. Increasing concerns about climate change and carbon intensity have also resulted in societal concerns and a number of international and national measures to limit GHG emissions. Additional stricter measures and investor pressure can be expected in the future and any of these changes may have a material adverse impact on our business or financial condition. International climate change-related efforts, such as the 2015 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, which led to the creation of the Paris Agreement, may impact the regulatory framework of states whose policies directly influence our present and future operations. In the United States, an Executive Order issued on January 27, 2021, announced putting the U.S. on a path to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, economy-wide, by 2050. The Executive Order also calls for the federal government to pause oil and gas leasing on federal lands and reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector as quickly as possible, and requires federal permitting decisions to consider the effects of GHG emissions and climate change. In December 2023, EPA completed one provision of the order by promulgating a final rule to reduce methane and volatile organic compounds from oil and gas operations. Concurrently, EPA significantly increased the social cost of greenhouse gases. A higher social cost of greenhouse gases could support more stringent GHG emission regulation. The scope and magnitude of the changes to U.S. climate change strategy under the current and future administrations, however, remain subject to the passage of legislation and interpretation and action of federal and state regulatory bodies; therefore, the impact to our industry and operations due to GHG regulation is unknown at this time.

Companies across all industries are facing increasing scrutiny from stakeholders related to ESG matters, including practices and disclosures regarding climate-related initiatives. In 2022, MPC established a target to reduce GHG emissions and MPLX established a target to reduce methane emissions intensity. These targets reflect our current plans and aspirations and are not guarantees that we will be able to achieve them. We assess progress with these targets on an annual basis. We may modify, discontinue, update or expand targets or adopt new metrics as new information, opportunities, and technologies become available. Further, there are conflicting expectations and priorities from regulatory authorities, investors, voluntary reporting frame works, and other stakeholders surrounding accounting and disclosure of ESG matters and climate related initiatives. Our efforts to accomplish and accurately report on these goals and objectives, which may be, in part, dependent on the actions of suppliers and other third parties, present numerous operational, regulatory, reputational, financial, legal, and other risks, any of which could have a material negative impact, including on our reputation and stock price. Efforts to achieve goals and targets, such as the foregoing and future internal climate-related initiatives, may increase costs, require purchase of carbon credits, or limit or impact our business plans and financial results, potentially resulting in the reduction to the economic end-of-life of certain assets and an impairment of the associated net book value, among other material adverse impacts. Additionally, as the nature, scope and complexity of ESG reporting, calculation methodologies, voluntary reporting standards and disclosure requirements expand, including the SEC's proposed disclosure requirements regarding, among other matters, GHG emissions, we may have to undertake additional costs to control, assess and report on ESG metrics. Our failure or perceived failure to pursue or fulfill such goals and targets or to satisfy various reporting standards within the timelines we announce, or at all, could have a negative impact on investor sentiment, ratings outcomes for evaluating our approach to ESG matters, stock price, and cost of capital and expose us to government enforcement actions and private litigation, among other material adverse impacts.

In recent years, increasing attention has been given to corporate activities related to ESG matters in public discourse and the investment community, including climate change, energy transition matters, and diversity, equity and inclusion. A number of advocacy groups, both domestically and internationally, have campaigned for governmental and private action to promote ESG-related change at public companies, including, but not limited to, through the investment and voting practices of investment advisers, pension funds, universities and other members of the investing community. These activities include increasing attention and demands for action related to climate change and energy transition matters, such as promoting the use of substitutes to fossil fuel products and encouraging the divestment of fossil fuel equities, as well as pressuring lenders and other financial services companies to limit or curtail activities with fossil fuel companies. If this were to continue, it could have a material adverse effect on our access to capital. Members of the investment community have begun to screen companies such as ours for sustainability performance, including practices related to GHG emission reduction and energy transition strategies. If we are unable to find economically viable, as well as publicly acceptable, solutions that reduce our GHG emissions, reduce GHG intensity for new and existing projects, increase our non-fossil fuel product portfolio, and/or address other ESG-related stakeholder concerns, our business and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Further, our reputation could be damaged as a result of our support of, association with or lack of support or disapproval of certain social causes, as well as any decisions we make to continue to conduct, or change, certain of our activities in response to such considerations.

Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the EISA, Congress established a Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS") program that requires annual volumes of renewable fuel be blended into domestic transportation fuel. A RIN is assigned to each gallon of renewable fuel produced in, or imported into, the United States. As a producer of petroleum-based motor fuels, we are obligated to blend renewable fuels into the products we produce at a rate that is at least commensurate to EPA's quota and, to the extent we do not, we must purchase RINs in the open market to satisfy our obligation under the RFS program. We are exposed to the volatility in the market price of RINs. We cannot predict the future prices of RINs. RINs prices are dependent upon a variety of factors, including EPA regulations, the availability of RINs for purchase, and levels of transportation fuels produced, which can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. There is currently no regulatory method for verifying the validity of most RINs sold on the open market. We have developed a RIN integrity program to vet the RINs that we purchase, and we incur costs to audit RIN generators. Nevertheless, if any of the RINs that we purchase and use for compliance are found to be invalid, we could incur costs and penalties for replacing the invalid RINs. See Item 1. Business – Regulatory Matters for additional information on these and other regulatory compliance matters.