Valero Energy (VLO) Risk Analysis

Many government authorities across the world have imposed, and may impose in the future, laws, regulations, and policies designed to facilitate less petroleum-dependent modes of transportation (e.g., increases in fuel economy or efficiency standards, low-carbon fuel standards, restrictions and bans on vehicles using internal combustion engines, tariffs, duties, tax incentives, and EV subsidies), which could reduce demand for our petroleum-based products and/or all liquid transportation fuels. For example, CARB's current Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce liquid petroleum consumption in California by 94 percent by 2045, and CARB has approved a series of related rulemakings discussed below. The European Union (EU), the U.K., Canada, and Quebec have each adopted what they refer to as "zero-emissions vehicle" mandates and other government authorities across the world, such as Mexico, Quebec,and other U.S. states have also announced, adopted, or are considering, restrictions on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles, stricter tailpipe emissions standards, and/or limitations on or penalties on the use of certain petroleum-based products and biofuel feedstocks. The U.S. federal government under the previous presidential administration was also aggressive in the scope, magnitude, and number of actions it took for the stated purpose of addressing GHG emissions and other environmental matters, including efforts to limit or eliminate petroleum-dependent modes of transportation. For example, the previous administration utilized a "whole of government" approach to climate-related initiatives that sought to organize and deploy the full capacity of the U.S. federal government in novel and coordinated ways to limit or eliminate the use of most petroleum-based products. The previous administration also issued a number of related executive orders seeking to limit or eliminate petroleum-based fuels by imposing mandates of so-called 100 percent zero-emission vehicle acquisitions and setting ambitious decarbonization goals. These actions contributed to a number of U.S. federal rulemakings and other actions, as well as similar actions by U.S. state and local governments, that disfavor petroleum-dependent modes of transportation and in many cases ignore or downplay the full life cycle carbon footprint of EVs, and thereby seek to inappropriately advantage EVs over internal combustion engine vehicles. For example, the EPA issued its "Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards," revising the GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles for 2023 and later model years at a level that cannot be achieved by internal combustion engine vehicles through improvements in combustion efficiency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also similarly issued its "CAFE Standards for MY 2024-26 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks," increasing the corporate average fuel economy and carbon dioxide standards for certain passenger cars and light-duty trucks such that automakers cannot demonstrate compliance without increasing the sales of EVs. Together, these federal regulations seek to significantly increase the market penetration of EVs and other alternative fuel vehicles and reduce U.S. gasoline consumption. The IRA also includes substantial subsidies to promote EVs and other alternative fuel vehicles. Additionally, in November 2023, the Federal Highway Administration finalized rules that require certain U.S. state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to establish declining tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions targets for motor vehicles. Moreover, in March 2024, the EPA announced new, more ambitious emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles for model years 2027 to 2032 that the agency expects will drive a significant increase in the percentage of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be EVs or other alternative fuel vehicles. In May 2024, the EPA published final rules intended to sharply reduce emissions of methane and other air pollution from oil and gas operations, and within such rules, the EPA nearly quadrupled its estimate of the "social cost" of carbon dioxide, a measure that is often used by certain U.S. federal agencies as part of their analyses of the costs and benefits of more stringent regulations on GHG emissions. In June 2024, NHTSA also issued final rules increasing both the fuel economy standard for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2027 to 2031 and the fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans for model years 2030 to 2035. The current U.S. presidential administration has expressed a different approach with respect to U.S. climate, environmental, and energy policies and has revoked many of the previous administration's executive orders and directives, and has indicated an intention to modify or eliminate many of the aforementioned laws and regulations, several of which are also currently being litigated, or may be subject to future legal challenges. However, the ultimate timing and outcome with respect to any modifications or eliminations of such laws and regulations, which would likely require action by the U.S. Congress or a federal agency or department, as well as pending or future litigation, are currently unknown and are subject to considerable uncertainty. It is also currently uncertain whether and to what extent any U.S. state and local governments will still pursue the prior administration's agenda on such matters. In addition to these U.S. federal measures, in March 2022, the EPA reinstated a waiver of preemption under federal law authorizing California to implement its "Advanced Clean Cars I" rule requiring sales of increasing percentages of alternative fuel vehicles, thereby also reviving other U.S. states' ability to adopt standards identical to California's. In November 2022, California approved its "Advanced Clean Cars II" rulemaking, which similarly requires an increasing percentage of "zero-emission" light-duty vehicle sales through 2035, at which time 100 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales in California must be zero-emission vehicles. The EPA recently granted CARB's request for a waiver of preemption for Advanced Clean Cars II and other preemption waiver requests. Several other U.S. states have already adopted, or are expected to adopt, similar laws, regulations, or mandates. California is also pursuing similar zero-emission vehicle mandates for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles via its "Advanced Clean Trucks" rulemaking and its "Advanced Clean Fleets" rulemaking. Additionally, in July 2023, CARB announced a "Clean Truck Partnership" with various U.S. truck and engine manufacturers and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association that is aimed at advancing the development of EVs or other alternative fuel vehicles for the commercial trucking industry regardless of whether the regulatory mandates survive legal challenge. While many of these measures are currently being litigated, or may in the future be subject to legal challenges, we face a risk that automakers will nevertheless move forward with changing their manufacturing and marketing practices. Moreover, there have been various international climate accords and multilateral agreements aimed at reducing GHG emissions. While the current U.S. presidential administration has ordered the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement, and many international accords and multilateral agreements are not legally binding, they have in certain instances resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, additional government and regulatory actions across the world that are adverse to our industry. Incentives to conserve energy or use renewable energy could also negatively impact our industry. Government authorities across the world have also announced, imposed, or are considering, taxes or penalties on fossil fuel companies for profits or windfalls, or margins above a certain level, carbon border adjustments, fees, and other regulations that are adverse to or restrict refining and marketing operations, could increase costs, and limit profitability. For example, California's Senate Bill No. 2 (such statute, together with any regulations contemplated or issued thereunder, SBx 1-2) and Assembly Bill No. 1 (ABx 2-1), as described in Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, present considerable uncertainty and risks for us. These legal, regulatory, and political developments, as well as other similarly focused laws and regulations, such as, among others, the California, Quebec and other cap-and-trade programs, the U.K. Emissions Trading Scheme, the Renewable and Low-Carbon Fuel Programs, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1109.1 – Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Petroleum Refineries and Related Operations, CARB's Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth Rule and its Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Commercial Harbor Craft, reductions in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, bans or restrictions on certain chemicals, feedstocks, products, or processes (such as hydrofluoric acid alkylation), and other laws related to climate, GHG emissions, or environmental, health, or safety matters, have in certain instances resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, increased costs and capital expenditures that impact our ability to effectively and profitably operate and maintain our facilities. These include things such as (i) restrictions on certain refinery operations, (ii) and requirements to modify our operations or install new emissions controls or other equipment, and (iii) costs to administer our obligations under the Renewable and Low-Carbon Fuel Programs. Such risks are particularly acute in California due to the pace and scope of anti-fossil fuel developments there. Many of these matters and developments (including SBx 1-2 and ABx 2-1) are subject to considerable uncertainty due to a number of factors, including technological and economic feasibility, pending or future legal challenges, and potential or future changes in law, regulation, or policy, as noted above, and it is not currently possible to predict the ultimate effects thereof on us. However, such events could adversely restrict or affect our refining and marketing operations and limit our profitability; cause us to make changes with respect to our business plan, strategy, operations, and assets, including our current financial and accounting estimates and assumptions; cause a reduction in demand for our products; and result in negative publicity, litigation, and regulatory enforcement; each of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.