Alto Ingredients, Inc.

Previous wording

We are engaged in multiple capital improvement initiatives and projects to diversify and enhance our revenue streams and to expand margins and profitability by reducing costs. These initiatives and projects have different timelines, returns on investment and risk profiles, including regulatory risks. In addition, we may have to raise significant additional capital to complete some of our initiatives and projects. Our expected financial and other results from these initiatives and projects are based on assumptions around many factors, including their costs, timing, operation and market prices prevailing at project completion and thereafter, as well as tax and other favorable environmental attributes associated with low carbon alcohol that may accrue to our benefit. These tax and other benefits may change, including as a result of new or repealed laws, new administrations and the implementation or interpretation of existing laws, or the exhaustion of funds or benefits available under a particular program. For example, in January 2025, the new administration suspended all Inflation Reduction Act spending for 90 days. In addition, certain provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act lack proposed or final regulations and guidance. Regulators could issue new regulations or guidance that significantly narrows the application of clean energy tax incentives, and could even defer or withdraw regulations, which could materially and adversely affect the economic outcome of our capital improvement initiatives and projects. We can provide no assurances that any particular benefit will be available to us upon completion of any capital improvement initiative or project.

Current wording

We are engaged in multiple capital improvement initiatives and projects to diversify and enhance our revenue streams and to expand margins and profitability by reducing costs. These initiatives and projects have different timelines, returns on investment and risk profiles, including regulatory risks. In addition, we may have to raise significant additional capital to complete some of our initiatives and projects. Our expected financial and other results from these initiatives and projects are based on assumptions around many factors, including their costs, timing, operation and market prices prevailing at project completion and thereafter, as well as tax and other favorable environmental attributes associated with low carbon alcohol that may accrue to our benefit. These tax and other benefits may change, including as a result of new or repealed laws, new administrations and the implementation or interpretation of existing laws, or the exhaustion of funds or benefits available under a particular program. For example, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted in 2025, phases out certain Inflation Reduction Act clean energy tax credits, and the new administration previously suspended all Inflation Reduction Act spending for 90 days. In addition, certain provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act lack proposed or final regulations and guidance. Regulators could issue new regulations or guidance that significantly narrows the application of clean energy tax incentives, and could even defer or withdraw regulations, which could materially and adversely affect the economic outcome of our capital improvement initiatives and projects. We can provide no assurances that any particular benefit will be available to us upon completion of any capital improvement initiative or project.

Previous wording

Section 45Z of the Internal Revenue Code, as added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provides a technology-neutral tax credit for the production of “clean transportation fuel” that is produced in the United States and sold to an unrelated person during calendar years 2025 through 2029, with the amount of the credit determined in part by the fuel’s carbon intensity relative to a statutory baseline. We currently expect our Columbia plant and our Pekin Campus dry mill to be eligible to apply for and claim Section 45Z tax credits with respect to qualifying fuel they produce and sell. Our ability to qualify for and receive these tax credits will depend on, among other things, our ability to produce qualifying low carbon fuel in anticipated volumes, to achieve and document the carbon intensity levels required under Section 45Z and applicable Treasury and IRS guidance, and to comply with related registration, measurement, reporting and substantiation requirements. If we are unable to produce low carbon fuel in anticipated amounts (including as a result of plant outages or other operational issues), if our fuels do not achieve the required or expected carbon intensities under the applicable carbon intensity methodology, or if we fail to satisfy applicable tax, regulatory, or documentation requirements, we may be unable to qualify for and receive Section 45Z tax credits in the amounts we currently anticipate, or at all, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, Section 45Z is scheduled to be available only for qualifying fuel produced after December 31, 2024 and sold before January 1, 2030, and there can be no assurance that Congress will extend or replace this credit.

Current wording

Section 45Z of the Internal Revenue Code, as added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, provides a technology-neutral tax credit for the production of “clean transportation fuel” that is produced in the United States and sold to an unrelated person during calendar years 2025 through 2029, with the amount of the credit determined in part by the fuel’s carbon intensity relative to a statutory baseline. For fuel produced after 2025, the credit is available only if no feedstocks originating outside the United States, Mexico or Canada are used. In addition, transferability of Section 45Z credits is scheduled to terminate after December 31, 2027. We currently expect to be eligible to apply for and claim additional Section 45Z tax credits with respect to qualifying fuel we produce and sell. Our ability to qualify for and receive these tax credits will depend on, among other things, our ability to produce qualifying low carbon fuel in anticipated volumes, using qualifying domestic feedstocks, to achieve and document the carbon intensity levels required under Section 45Z and applicable Treasury and IRS guidance, and to comply with related registration, measurement, reporting and substantiation requirements. If we are unable to produce low carbon fuel in anticipated amounts (including as a result of plant outages or other operational issues), if our fuels do not achieve the required or expected carbon intensities under the applicable carbon intensity methodology, or if we fail to satisfy applicable tax, regulatory, or documentation requirements, we may be unable to qualify for and receive Section 45Z tax credits in the amounts we currently anticipate, or at all, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, Section 45Z is scheduled to be available only for qualifying fuel produced after December 31, 2024 and sold before January 1, 2030, transferability of these credits is scheduled to end after December 31, 2027, and there can be no assurance that Congress will extend or replace this credit or restore transferability.

Previous wording

Federal and state income tax laws impose restrictions on our ability to use net operating loss, or NOL, and tax credit carryforwards if an “ownership change” occurs for tax purposes, as defined in Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, or Code. In general, an ownership change occurs when one or more stockholders each owning 5% or more of a corporation entitled to use NOL or other loss carryforwards have increased their ownership by more than 50 percentage points during any three-year period. The annual base limitation under section 382 of the Code is calculated by multiplying the corporation’s value at the time of the ownership change by the greater of the long-term tax-exempt rate determined by the Internal Revenue Service in the month of the ownership change or the two preceding months. As a result, our ability to utilize our NOL and other loss carryforwards may be substantially limited. Any such limitation could result in increased future tax obligations, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

Federal and state income tax laws impose restrictions on our ability to use net operating loss, or NOL, and tax credit carryforwards if an “ownership change” occurs for tax purposes, as defined in Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, or Code. In general, an ownership change occurs when one or more stockholders each owning 5% or more of a corporation entitled to use NOL or other loss carryforwards have increased their ownership by more than 50 percentage points during any three-year period. The annual base limitation under section 382 of the Code is calculated by multiplying the corporation’s value immediately before the ownership change by the greater of the long-term tax-exempt rate determined by the Internal Revenue Service in the month of the ownership change or the two preceding months. As a result, our ability to utilize our NOL and other loss carryforwards may be substantially limited. Any such limitation could result in increased future tax obligations, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

We may be liable for the investigation and cleanup of environmental contamination at each of our production facilities and at off-site locations where we arrange for the disposal of hazardous substances or wastes. If these substances or wastes have been or are disposed of or released at sites that undergo investigation and/or remediation by regulatory agencies, we may be responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or other environmental laws for all or part of the costs of investigation and/or remediation, and for damages to natural resources. For example, our Pekin Campus used coal as its primary source of fuel for steam production until 2016. We managed associated waste in part through a coal ash pond, an engineered impoundment site used to store waste byproducts. We operated the pond under an Illinois state operating permit that included a special condition that any ash impoundments either be capped and closed in accordance with an Illinois EPA-approved closure plan or removed. Although we continue to operate pumps and maintain protocols under operating permit conditions, our permit has expired, has not been renewed and we are in discussions with the Illinois EPA regarding a closure plan or other remediation. The Illinois EPA previously denied our closure plan for a beneficial re-use that would have utilized the ash as a structural fill. Although we continue to pursue a closure plan that would involve beneficial re-use, including potential uses such as grain storage, cogeneration, CO 2 utilization, a hydrogen facility or other beneficial use, including third-party redevelopment, we can provide no assurance that the Illinois EPA will allow any beneficial re-use and nor can we provide any assurance that the Illinois EPA will not mandate site cleanup, the costs of which, while not estimable at this time, could be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

We may be liable for the investigation and cleanup of environmental contamination at each of our production facilities and at off-site locations where we arrange for the disposal of hazardous substances or wastes. If these substances or wastes have been or are disposed of or released at sites that undergo investigation and/or remediation by regulatory agencies, we may be responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or other environmental laws for all or part of the costs of investigation and/or remediation, and for damages to natural resources. For example, our Pekin Campus used coal as its primary source of fuel for steam production until 2016. We managed associated waste in part through a coal ash pond, an engineered impoundment site used to store waste byproducts. We operated the pond under an Illinois state operating permit that included a special condition that any ash impoundments either be capped and closed in accordance with an Illinois EPA-approved closure plan or removed. Although we continue to operate pumps and maintain protocols under operating permit conditions, our permit has expired, has not been renewed and we are in discussions with the Illinois EPA regarding a closure plan or other remediation. The Illinois EPA previously denied our closure plan for a beneficial re-use that would have utilized the ash as a structural fill. Although we continue to pursue a closure plan that would involve beneficial re-use, including potential uses such as grain storage, cogeneration, CO 2 utilization, a hydrogen facility or other beneficial use, including third-party redevelopment, we can provide no assurance that the Illinois EPA will allow any beneficial re-use nor can we provide any assurance that the Illinois EPA will not mandate site cleanup, the costs of which, while not estimable at this time, could be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

The EPA may grant small refinery exemptions, in whole or in part, that reduce or eliminate annual RFS volume obligations for small refineries, which are defined as refineries with an average aggregate daily crude oil throughput not exceeding 75,000 barrels. If granted, these exemptions can remove the affected refinery’s gasoline and diesel from applicable RFS percentage standards for the relevant compliance year. In the past, the EPA has granted small refinery exemptions that have materially and adversely affected overall demand for and the price of fuel-grade ethanol. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in November 2023, struck down the EPA’s decision to deny numerous small refinery exemption petitions, holding that the EPA’s denials were impermissibly retroactive, contrary to law and counter to evidence in the litigation record. Since then, EPA has issued multiple rounds of decisions on small refinery exemption petitions, including actions in August 2025 and November 2025 granting full or partial exemptions for a number of refineries for the 2021-2024 compliance years. In April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit likewise vacated EPA’s denial of certain small refinery exemption petitions for the 2024 compliance year and remanded those petitions to EPA for further consideration. In light of these court decisions and EPA’s recent actions granting full or partial exemptions to a substantial number of petitions, small refinery exemptions may continue to be granted at elevated levels, which could materially and adversely affect overall demand for, and the price of, fuel-grade ethanol.

Current wording

The EPA may grant small refinery exemptions, in whole or in part, that reduce or eliminate annual RFS volume obligations for small refineries, which are defined as refineries with an average aggregate daily crude oil throughput not exceeding 75,000 barrels. If granted, these exemptions can remove the affected refinery’s gasoline and diesel from applicable RFS percentage standards for the relevant compliance year. In the past, the EPA has granted small refinery exemptions that have materially and adversely affected overall demand for and the price of fuel-grade ethanol. Federal courts have repeatedly vacated EPA denials of small refinery exemption petitions. In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining held that challenges to small refinery exemption denials must be filed in the D.C. Circuit. Since then, the EPA has issued multiple rounds of decisions on small refinery exemption petitions, including actions in August 2025 and November 2025 granting full or partial exemptions for a number of refineries for the 2016-2024 compliance years. In April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit likewise vacated EPA’s denial of certain small refinery exemption petitions for the 2024 compliance year and remanded those petitions to EPA for further consideration. In light of these court decisions and the EPA’s recent actions granting full or partial exemptions to a substantial number of petitions, small refinery exemptions may continue to be granted at elevated levels, which could materially and adversely affect overall demand for, and the price of, fuel-grade ethanol.

Previous wording

Various bills in Congress introduced from time to time are also directed at altering existing renewable fuels energy legislation, but none have passed in recent years. Some legislative bills are directed at halting or reversing expansion of, or even eliminating in its entirety, the renewable fuel program.

Current wording

Various bills in Congress introduced from time to time are also directed at altering existing renewable fuels energy legislation, but none have directly amended the RFS program in recent years. Some legislative bills are directed at halting or reversing expansion of, or even eliminating in its entirety, the renewable fuel program.

Previous wording

There are limited markets for fuel-grade ethanol beyond those established by federal mandates. Discretionary blending and E85 blending (i.e., gasoline blended with up to 85% fuel-grade ethanol by volume) are important secondary markets. Discretionary blending is often determined by the price of fuel-grade ethanol relative to the price of gasoline. In periods when discretionary blending is financially unattractive, the demand for fuel-grade ethanol may decline. Also, the demand for fuel-grade ethanol is affected by the overall demand for transportation fuel. Demand for transportation fuel is affected by the number of miles traveled by consumers and vehicle fuel economy. Lower demand for fuel-grade ethanol and essential ingredients, including through the transition by consumers to alternative fuel vehicles such as electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, would reduce the value of our ethanol and related products, erode our overall margins and diminish our ability to generate revenue or to operate profitably. In addition, we believe that additional consumer acceptance of E15 and E85 fuels is necessary before fuel-grade ethanol can achieve any significant growth in market share relative to other transportation fuels.

Current wording

There are limited domestic markets for fuel-grade ethanol beyond those established by federal mandates. Discretionary blending and E85 blending (i.e., gasoline blended with up to 85% fuel-grade ethanol by volume) are important secondary markets. Discretionary blending is often determined by the price of fuel-grade ethanol relative to the price of gasoline. In periods when discretionary blending is financially unattractive, the demand for fuel-grade ethanol may decline. Also, the demand for fuel-grade ethanol is affected by the overall demand for transportation fuel. Demand for transportation fuel is affected by the number of miles traveled by consumers and vehicle fuel economy. U.S. gasoline consumption has declined from pre-pandemic levels and is projected to continue declining due in part to improved vehicle fuel economy and the transition by consumers to alternative fuel vehicles such as electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles. Lower demand for fuel-grade ethanol and essential ingredients, including through this transition, would reduce the value of our ethanol and related products, erode our overall margins and diminish our ability to generate revenue or to operate profitably. In addition, we believe that additional consumer acceptance of E15 and E85 fuels is necessary before fuel-grade ethanol can achieve any significant growth in market share relative to other transportation fuels.

Previous wording

Our bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Delaware Court of Chancery shall be the sole and exclusive forum for (a) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of us to us or our stockholders, (c) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or (d) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine.

Current wording

Our bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Delaware Court of Chancery shall be the sole and exclusive forum for (a) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of us to us or our stockholders, (c) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or (d) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. The Delaware Court of Chancery forum provision does not apply to claims arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.

Previous wording

For the avoidance of doubt, the exclusive forum provisions described above do not apply to any claims arising under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, to the extent federal law requires otherwise. Section 27 of the Exchange Act creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder, and Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder.

Current wording

Section 27 of the Exchange Act creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. The federal forum provision described above does not restrict the concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts under the Securities Act to the extent federal law requires otherwise, and nothing in our bylaws is intended to override the exclusive federal jurisdiction established by the Exchange Act.

Previous wording

The choice of forum provisions in our bylaws may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees, agents or other third parties, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, employees, agents and other third parties even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. The applicable courts may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments or results may be more favorable to us than to our stockholders. With respect to the provision making the Delaware Court of Chancery the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions, stockholders who do bring a claim in the Delaware Court of Chancery could face additional litigation costs in pursuing any such claim, particularly if they do not reside in or near Delaware. Finally, if a court were to find these provisions of our bylaws inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Current wording

The choice of forum provisions in our bylaws may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees, agents or other third parties, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, employees, agents and other third parties even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. The applicable courts may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments or results may be more favorable to us than to our stockholders. With respect to the provision making the Delaware Court of Chancery the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions, stockholders who do bring a claim in the Delaware Court of Chancery could face additional litigation costs in pursuing any such claim, particularly if they do not reside in or near Delaware. Although Delaware courts have upheld the enforceability of forum selection provisions of this type, including under Section 115 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, if a court, including a court in another jurisdiction, were to find these provisions of our bylaws inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Previous wording

For the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, we accrued and paid in cash an aggregate of $0.3 million in dividends on our Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, or Series B Preferred Stock.

Current wording

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025, we accrued and paid in cash an aggregate of $0.3 million and $0.6 million, respectively, in dividends on our Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, or Series B Preferred Stock.