Sunoco LP

PART I

Item 1. Business

General

As used in this report, the terms “Partnership,” “SUN,” “we,” “us” or “our” should be understood to refer to Sunoco LP and our consolidated subsidiaries as applicable and appropriate.

Overview

We are a Delaware master limited partnership. We are managed by our general partner, Sunoco GP LLC (our “General Partner”), which is owned by Energy Transfer LP (“Energy Transfer”). As of February 7, 2025, Energy Transfer owned 100% of the membership interest in our General Partner, 28,463,967 of our common units and all of our incentive distribution rights (“IDRs”).

We are primarily engaged in energy infrastructure and distribution of motor fuels in over 40 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, Europe and Mexico. Our midstream operations include an extensive network of over 14,000 miles of pipeline and over 100 terminals. Our fuel distribution operations serve approximately 7,400 Sunoco and partner branded locations and additional independent dealers and commercial customers.

The following simplified diagram depicts our organizational structure as of February 7, 2025.

Significant Achievements in 2024

On May 3, 2024, we completed the acquisition of 100% of the common units of NuStar Energy L.P. (“NuStar”). Under the terms of the agreement, NuStar common unitholders received 0.400 SUN common units for each NuStar common unit. In connection with the acquisition, we issued approximately 51.5 million common units, which had a fair value of approximately $2.85 billion, assumed debt totaling approximately $3.5 billion, including approximately $56 million of lease related financing obligations, and assumed preferred units with a fair value of approximately $800 million. We also redeemed all outstanding NuStar preferred units, totaling $784 million, redeemed NuStar's subordinated notes totaling $403 million and repaid and terminated NuStar's credit facility totaling $455 million. NuStar has approximately 9,500 miles of pipeline and 63 terminal and storage facilities that store and distribute crude oil, refined products, renewable fuels, ammonia and specialty liquids. The acquisition is expected to diversify the Partnership’s business, increase scale and provide vertical integration, as well as improving the Partnership’s credit profile and enhancing growth.

On March 13, 2024, we completed the acquisition of liquid fuels terminals in Amsterdam, Netherlands and Bantry Bay, Ireland from Zenith Energy for €170 million ($185 million), including working capital. The acquisition is expected to supply optimization for the Partnership’s existing East Coast business and continues its focus on growing its portfolio of stable midstream income.

On August 30, 2024, we acquired a terminal in Portland, Maine for approximately $24 million, including working capital.

On April 16, 2024, we completed the sale of 204 convenience stores located in West Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma to 7-Eleven, Inc. for approximately $1.0 billion, including customary adjustments for fuel and merchandise inventory. As part of the sale, SUN also amended its existing take-or-pay fuel supply agreement with 7-Eleven, Inc. to incorporate additional fuel gross profit.

Effective July 1, 2024, SUN and Energy Transfer formed ET-S Permian, a joint venture combining their respective crude oil and produced water gathering assets in the Permian Basin. SUN contributed all of its Permian crude oil gathering assets and operations to ET-S Permian. Energy Transfer contributed its Permian crude oil and produced water gathering assets and operations to ET-S Permian. Energy Transfer’s long-haul crude pipeline network that provides transportation of crude oil out of the Permian Basin to Nederland, Houston, and Cushing is excluded from ET-S Permian.

Available Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 8111 Westchester Drive, Suite 400, Dallas, Texas 75225. Our telephone number is (214) 981-0700. Our Internet address iswww.sunocolp.com. We make available through our website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Information contained on our website is not part of this report. The SEC maintains an Internet site atwww.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

Our Relationship with Energy Transfer LP

One of our principal strengths is our relationship with Energy Transfer. As of February 7, 2025, Energy Transfer owned 100% of the membership interest in our General Partner, all of our IDRs and 28,463,967 of our common units. Given the significant ownership, we believe Energy Transfer will be motivated to promote and support the successful execution of our business strategies. In particular, we believe it will be in the best interest of Energy Transfer to facilitate organic growth opportunities and accretive acquisitions of third parties, although Energy Transfer is not under any obligation to do so.

Energy Transfer is one of the largest and most diversified midstream energy companies in North America. Energy Transfer, through its wholly owned operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in:

•natural gas midstream, intrastate and interstate transportation and storage operations; and

•crude oil, natural gas liquids (“NGL”) and refined products transportation, terminalling services, and acquisition and marketing activities as well as NGL storage and fractionation services and liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) regasification.

Our Business and Operations

Our business is comprised of three reportable segments: Fuel Distribution, Pipeline Systems and Terminals.

The map below depicts the major assets of our business and excludes corporate and field offices and certain assets that are less significant to SUN.

Fuel Distribution Segment

We are a distributor of motor fuels and other petroleum products which we supply to third-party dealers and distributors, to independent operators of commission agent locations, other commercial consumers of motor fuel and to our retail locations.

We are the exclusive wholesale supplier of the Sunoco and EcoMaxx-branded motor fuels, supplying an extensive distribution network of approximately 5,619 company and third-party operated locations throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. We believe we are one of the largest independent motor fuel distributors, by gallons, in the United States. We also are one of the largest distributors of Chevron, Texaco, ExxonMobil and Valero branded motor fuel in the United States. In addition to distributing motor fuels, we also distribute other petroleum products such as propane and lubricating oil, and we receive lease income from real estate that we lease or sublease.

We purchase motor fuel primarily from independent refiners and major oil companies and distribute it across more than 40 U.S. states and territories, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico, to:

•76 company-operated retail stores;

•252 independently operated commission agent locations where we sell motor fuel to retail customers under commission agent arrangements with such operators;

•6,965 retail stores operated by independent operators, which we refer to as “dealers” or “distributors,” pursuant to long-term distribution agreements; and

•approximately 2,000 other commercial customers, including unbranded retail stores, other fuel distributors, school districts, municipalities and other industrial customers.

The Fuel Distribution segment also includes one terminal, the Partnership’s retail operations in Hawaii and New Jersey, credit card services and franchise royalties.

Dealer Incentives

In addition to motor fuel distribution, we offer dealers the opportunity to participate in merchandise purchasing and promotional programs arranged with vendors. We believe the vendor relationships we have established through our retail operations and our ability to develop programs provide us with an advantage over other distributors when recruiting new dealers into our network as well as with retaining current dealers. Our dealer incentives give our dealers access to discounted rates on products and services that they would likely not be able to obtain on their own.

Sales to Contracted Third Parties

We distribute fuel under long-term contracts to branded distributors, branded and unbranded convenience stores, and branded and unbranded retail fuel outlets operated by third parties. 7-Eleven, Inc. is the only third-party dealer or distributor which is individually over 10% of our Fuel Distribution segment or individually over 10%, in terms of revenue, of our aggregate business.

Sunoco-branded supply contracts with distributors generally have both time and volume commitments that establish contract duration. These contracts have an initial term of approximately ten years with an estimated volume-weighted term remaining of approximately five years.

Distribution contracts with retail stores generally commit us to distribute branded (including, but not limited to, Sunoco-branded) or unbranded motor fuel to a location or group of locations and arrange for all transportation and logistics. These contracts require, among other things, that dealers maintain the standards established by the applicable fuel brand, if any. The initial term of these contracts ranges from three to 20 years, with most contracts lasting for 10 years.

Our supply contracts and distribution contracts are typically constructed so that we receive either (i) a fee per gallon equal to the posted rack rate, less any applicable commercial discounts, plus transportation costs, taxes and a fixed, volume-based fee, which is usually expressed in cents per gallon, or (ii) a variable cent per gallon margin (“dealer tank wagon pricing”).

During 2024, our Fuel Distribution business distributed fuel to 252 commission agent locations. Under these arrangements, we generally provide and control motor fuel inventory and price at the site and receive actual retail selling price for each gallon sold, less a commission paid to the independent commission agents.

We continually seek to expand through the addition of new branded dealers, distributors and commission agent locations, new unbranded commercial customers and through acquisitions of contracts for existing independently operated sites from other distributors. We evaluate potential independent site operators based on their creditworthiness and the quality of their sites and operations, including the site’s size and location, projected monthly volumes of motor fuel, monthly merchandise sales, overall financial performance and previous operating experience. We may extend credit to certain dealers based on our credit evaluation process.

Sales to Other Commercial Customers

We distribute unbranded fuel to numerous other customers, including retail stores, unattended fueling facilities and certain other commercial customers. These customers are primarily commercial, governmental and other parties who buy motor fuel by the load or in bulk and who do not generally enter into exclusive contractual relationships with us, if they enter into a contractual relationship with us at all. Sales to these customers are typically made at a quoted price based upon our cost plus taxes, cost of transportation and a margin determined at time of sale, and may provide for immediate payment or the extension of credit for up to 45 days. We also sell propane, lubricating oil and other petroleum products, such as heating fuels, to our commercial customers on both a spot and contracted basis. In addition, we receive income from the manufacture and distribution sale of race fuels at our Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania manufacturing facility.

Fuel Supplier Arrangements

We distribute branded motor fuel under the Aloha, Chevron, Citgo, Conoco, EcoMaxx, Exxon, Mahalo, Mobil, Phillips 66, Shamrock, Shell, Sunoco, Texaco and Valero brands. We purchase branded motor fuel from major oil companies and refiners under supply agreements. Our largest branded fuel suppliers in terms of volume are Chevron, Exxon, Phillips 66 and Valero. The branded fuel supply agreements generally have an initial term of three to five years. Each supply agreement typically contains provisions relating to payment terms, use of the supplier’s brand names, credit card processing, compliance with other of the supplier’s requirements, insurance coverage and compliance with legal and environmental requirements, among others.

We also distribute unbranded motor fuel, which we purchase in bulk, on a rack basis based upon prices posted by the refiner at a fuel supply terminal or on a contract basis with the price tied to one or more market indices.

Bulk Fuel Purchases

We purchase motor fuel in bulk and hold it in inventory or transport it via pipeline. To mitigate inventory risk, we use commodity futures contracts or other derivative instruments, which are matched in quantity and timing to the anticipated usage of the inventory. We also blend in various additives, including ethanol and biomass-based diesel.

Transportation Logistics

We provide transportation logistics for most of our motor fuel deliveries through our own fleet of fuel transportation vehicles as well as third-party and affiliated transportation providers. We arrange for motor fuel to be delivered from the storage terminals to the appropriate sites in our distribution network at prices consistent with those historically charged to third parties for the delivery of fuel. We also deliver motor fuel, propane and lubricating oils to commercial customers involved in petroleum exploration and production.

Technology

Technology is an important part of our Fuel Distribution segment. We utilize a proprietary web-based system that allows our wholesale customers to access their accounts at any time from a personal computer to obtain prices, place orders and review invoices, credit card transactions and electronic funds transfer notifications. Substantially all of our customer payments are processed by electronic funds transfer. We use an Internet-based system to assist with fuel inventory management and procurement and an integrated distribution fuel system for financial accounting, procurement, billing and inventory management.

Sale of Regulated Products

In certain areas where our convenience stores are located, state or local laws limit the hours of operation for the sale of alcoholic beverages and restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products to persons younger than a certain age. State and local regulatory agencies have the authority to approve, revoke, suspend or deny applications for and renewals of permits and licenses relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages, as well as to issue fines to convenience stores for the improper sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Failure to comply with these laws may result in the loss of necessary licenses and the imposition of fines and penalties on us.

Pipeline Systems Segment

Our Pipeline Systems segment includes an integrated pipeline and terminal network comprised of approximately 6,000 miles of refined product pipeline (including the pipeline of our J.C. Nolan joint venture), approximately 6,000 miles of crude oil pipeline (including the pipelines of ET-S Permian), approximately 2,000 miles of ammonia pipeline and 67 terminals.

The following details our pipelines and storage facilities, excluding our investments in J.C. Nolan and ET-S Permian, in the Pipeline Systems segment:

J.C. Nolan Joint Venture

Through our investment in the J.C. Nolan Terminal, a joint venture with Energy Transfer, we provide diesel fuel storage in Midland, Texas with storage capacity of 130,000 barrels. Additionally, through our investment in the J.C. Nolan Pipeline, we transport diesel fuel from a tank farm in Hebert, Texas to Midland, Texas, on a 500 mile pipeline with a throughput capacity of approximately 36 thousand barrels per day.

Effective July 1, 2024, SUN and Energy Transfer formed ET-S Permian, combining their respective crude oil and produced water gathering assets in the Permian Basin. SUN contributed all of its Permian crude oil gathering assets and operations to ET-S Permian. Energy Transfer contributed its Permian crude oil and produced water gathering assets and operations to ET-S Permian. Energy Transfer’s long-haul crude pipeline network that provides transportation of crude oil out of the Permian Basin to Nederland, Houston, and Cushing is excluded from ET-S Permian.

Terminals Segment

Through our Terminals segment, we operate four transmix processing facilities and 56 refined product terminals (two in Europe, six in Hawaii and 48 in the continental United States). Transmix is the mixture of various refined products (primarily gasoline and diesel) created in the supply chain (primarily in pipelines and terminals) when various products interface with each other. Transmix processing plants separate this mixture and return it to salable products of gasoline and diesel. Our refined product terminals provide storage and distribution services used to supply our own retail stations as well as third-party customers. In addition, we provide services at our terminals to various third-party throughput customers.

Real Estate and Lease Arrangements

As of December 31, 2024, our real estate and lease arrangements were as follows:

Competition

In the Fuel Distribution segment, we compete primarily with other independent motor fuel distributors. The markets for distribution of motor fuel and the retail store industry are highly competitive and fragmented, which result in narrow margins. We have numerous competitors, some of which may have significantly greater resources and name recognition than we do. Significant competitive factors include the availability of major brands, customer service, price, range of services offered and quality of service, among others. We rely on our ability to provide value-added, reliable service and control our operating costs in order to maintain our margins and competitive position. Additionally, we face strong competition in the market for the sale of retail gasoline and merchandise. Our competitors include service stations of large integrated oil companies, independent gasoline service stations, convenience stores, fast food stores, supermarkets, drugstores, dollar stores, club stores and other similar retail outlets, some of which are well-recognized national or regional retail systems. The number of competitors varies depending on the geographical area. Competition also varies with gasoline and convenience store offerings. The principal competitive factors affecting our retail marketing operations include gasoline and diesel acquisition costs, site location, product price, selection and quality, site appearance and cleanliness, hours of operation, store safety, customer loyalty and brand recognition. We compete by pricing gasoline competitively, combining our retail gasoline business with convenience stores that provide a wide variety of products, and using advertising and promotional campaigns.

In the Pipeline Systems segment, we compete primarily with common carrier and proprietary pipelines owned and operated by major integrated and large independent oil companies and other pipeline companies in our service areas. Competition between common carrier pipelines is based primarily on transportation charges, quality of customer service and proximity to end users. Trucks may deliver products competitively for short-haul destinations; however, trucking costs render that mode of transportation noncompetitive with pipeline options for long-haul destinations or for larger volumes.

In the Terminals segment, we compete primarily with both major energy and chemical companies as well as independent terminal owners. Although major energy and chemical company terminals often have the same capabilities as terminals owned by independent operators, they generally do not provide terminalling services to third parties. In many instances, even major energy and chemical companies that have storage and terminalling facilities are also significant customers of independent terminal operators, especially terminals located in cost-effective locations near key transportation links, such as deep-water ports. Major energy and chemical companies also need independent terminal storage when their proprietary storage facilities are inadequate due to size constraints, the nature of the stored material or specialized handling requirements. Independent terminal owners generally compete on the basis of the location and versatility of terminals, service and price. A favorably located terminal will have access to various cost-effective transportation modes both to and from the terminal. Transportation modes typically include waterways, railroads, roadways and pipelines. Terminal versatility is a function of the operator’s ability to offer complex handling requirements for diverse products. The services typically provided by the terminal include, among other things, the safe storage of the product at specified temperature, moisture and other conditions, as well as receipt at and delivery from the terminal, all of which must comply with applicable environmental regulations. A terminal operator’s ability to obtain attractive pricing is often dependent on the quality, versatility and reputation of the facilities owned by the operator. Operators with versatile storage capabilities typically require less modification prior to usage, ultimately making the storage cost to the customer more attractive. On the West Coast, regulatory priorities continue to increase demand for renewable fuels in the region, while at the same time, obtaining permits for greenfield projects remains difficult, which both add more value to our existing assets.

Seasonality

Our business exhibits some seasonality due to our customers’ increased demand for motor fuel during the late spring and summer months, as compared to the fall and winter months. Travel, recreation and construction activities typically increase in these months in the geographic areas in which we operate, increasing the demand for motor fuel. Therefore, the volume of motor fuel that we distribute is typically somewhat higher in the second and third quarters of our fiscal year. As a result, our results from operations may vary from period to period.

Working Capital Requirements

Related to our retail store operations, we maintain customary levels of fuel and merchandise inventories and carry corresponding payable balances to suppliers of those inventories. In addition, Sunoco LLC purchases and stores a significant amount of unbranded fuel in bulk. We also have rental obligations related to leased locations. Our working capital needs will typically fluctuate over the medium to long term with the price of crude oil, and over the short term due to the timing of motor fuel tax, sales tax, interest and rent payments.

Environmental Matters

Environmental Laws and Regulations

We are subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, including those relating to underground storage tanks; the release or discharge of hazardous materials into the air, water and soil; the generation, storage, handling, use, transportation and disposal of regulated materials; the exposure of persons to regulated materials; and the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater. For more information, see “Our operations are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining to environmental protection and operational safety that may require significant expenditures or result in liabilities that could have a material adverse effect on our business” in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Environmental laws and regulations can restrict or impact our business activities in many ways, such as:

•requiring remedial action to mitigate releases of hydrocarbons, hazardous substances or wastes caused by our operations or attributable to former operators;

•requiring capital expenditures to comply with environmental control requirements; and

•enjoining the operations of facilities deemed to be in noncompliance with environmental laws and regulations.

Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations may trigger a variety of administrative, civil and criminal enforcement measures, including the assessment of monetary penalties, the imposition of remedial requirements and the issuance of orders enjoining or otherwise curtailing future operations. Certain environmental statutes impose strict, joint and several liability for costs required to clean up and restore sites where hydrocarbons, hazardous substances or wastes have been released or disposed of. Moreover, neighboring landowners and other third parties may file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the release of hydrocarbons, hazardous substances or other wastes into the environment.

We do not believe that compliance with federal, state or local environmental laws and regulations will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Any future change in regulatory requirements could cause us to incur significant costs. We incorporate by reference into this section our disclosures included in Note 13 to our consolidated financial statements included in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Hazardous Substances and Releases

Certain environmental laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), impose strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, liability on the owner and operator as well as former owners and operators of properties for the costs of investigation, removal or remediation of contamination and also impose liability for any related damages to natural resources without regard to fault. In addition, under CERCLA and similar state laws, as persons who arrange for the transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous substances, we also may be subject to similar liability at sites where such hazardous substances come to be located. We may also be subject to third-party claims alleging property damage and/or personal injury in connection with releases of or exposure to hazardous substances at, from or in the vicinity of, our current properties or off-site waste disposal sites.

We are required to comply with federal and state financial responsibility requirements to demonstrate that we have the ability to pay for remediation or to compensate third parties for damages incurred as a result of a release of regulated materials from our underground storage tank systems. We meet these requirements primarily by maintaining insurance, which we purchase from private insurers.

Environmental Reserves

We are currently involved in the investigation and remediation of contamination at motor fuel storage and gasoline store sites where releases of regulated substances have been detected. We accrue for anticipated future costs and the related probable state reimbursement amounts for remediation activities. Accordingly, we have recorded estimated undiscounted liabilities for these sites totaling $28 million as of December 31, 2024. As of December 31, 2024, we have additional reserves of $84 million that represent our estimate for future asset retirement obligations for underground storage tanks.

Underground Storage Tanks

We are required to make financial expenditures to comply with regulations governing underground storage tanks adopted by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has established a comprehensive regulatory program for the detection, prevention, investigation and cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks. State or local agencies are often delegated the responsibility for implementing the federal program or developing and implementing equivalent state or local regulations. We have a comprehensive program in place for performing routine tank testing and other compliance activities, which are intended to promptly detect and investigate any potential releases. To date, compliance with applicable underground storage tank requirements have not had a material adverse impact on our business, though we cannot guarantee this will always be the case.

Air Emissions and Climate Change

The Clean Air Act and similar state laws impose requirements on emissions to the air from motor fueling activities in certain areas of the country, including those that do not meet state or national ambient air quality standards. These laws and implementing regulations may require the installation of vapor recovery systems to control emissions of volatile organic compounds to the air during the motor fueling process or otherwise in the course of our operations. For example, in October 2024, the EPA finalized changes to its new source performance standards (“NSPS”) for new, modified and reconstructed storage vessels containing volatile organic liquids, a term which includes certain of our products. The EPA’s final rule created new NSPS subpart Kc, which broadened the definition of modification for storage tanks (which would result in significantly broader application of this rule to existing tanks), introduced more stringent emission control requirements for certain tanks, imposed additional annual monitoring requirements for certain tanks, and require control of degassing events, amongst other matters. Costs to comply with new rules under the Clean Air Act can be substantial. In addition, under the Clean Air Act and comparable state and local laws, permits are typically required to emit regulated air pollutants into the atmosphere. Although we can give no assurances, we are aware of no changes to air quality regulations that will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Various federal, state and local agencies have the authority to prescribe product quality specifications for the motor fuels that we sell, largely in an effort to reduce air pollution. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in substantial penalties. To date, compliance with applicable product quality specifications for motor fuels has not had a material adverse impact on our business, though we cannot guarantee this will always be the case.

In recent years, there have been a number of efforts at the federal and state level focused on reducing the levels of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from various sources in the United States. At both the state and the federal level, legislators have from time to time considered legislation to reduce GHG emissions in the United States such as a carbon emissions tax or a cap-and-trade program or direct emission regulation by the EPA. For example, in 2022 President Biden signed the IRA 2022 into law, which appropriated significant federal funding for renewable energy initiatives and imposed the first-ever federal fee on methane emissions from certain oil and gas facilities. While the Trump Administration through Congress may seek to repeal or modify the IRA 2022 methane fee and other provisions of the law, we cannot predict with any certainty whether, how, or the timing for when such actions may occur. Even in the absence of new federal legislation, GHG emissions have begun to be regulated by the EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act as well as by state environmental authorities. For example, the EPA has set a new emissions standard for motor vehicles to reduce GHG emissions. This vehicle emission standard has become increasingly stringent over time; for example, in March 2024, the EPA finalized new emissions standards for light and medium-duty vehicles, including passenger cars, vans, pickups, sedans and sport utility vehicles for model years 2027 through 2032 and beyond. The final rule sets new, strict standards intended to reduce air pollutant emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions; however, the new standards are now subject to legal challenge. Moreover, it remains uncertain what actions, if any, the Trump Administration may take to repeal or otherwise modify this rule. For example, in January 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order, Unleashing American Energy, which directs all agencies to immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the IRA 2022 or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, including funds for electric vehicle charging stations made available through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, though this pause is generally currently subject to legal challenge.

New federal or state restrictions on emissions of GHGs that may be imposed in areas of the United States in which we conduct business and that apply to our operations could adversely affect the demand for our products. However, on his first day in office, President Trump issued several Executive Orders rescinding many of the previous administration’s climate-related initiatives, including directing agencies to immediately pause the disbursement of certain funds, including funding for GHG mitigation projects. Even absent any significant GHG-related rulemakings in the near-term at the federal level, several states in which we operate, such as California, Colorado and Pennsylvania, may continue to aggressively pursue the regulation of GHG emissions.

In addition, the federal regulation of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector have been subject to substantial uncertainty in recent years. For example, the EPA previously finalized more stringent methane emission standards for certain sources in the oil and gas sector, including first-ever standards for existing sources. Under the final rules, states have two years to prepare and submit their plans to impose methane emission controls on existing sources. The presumptive standards under the final rule are generally the same for both new and existing sources, including enhanced leak detection survey requirements using optical gas imaging and other advanced monitoring to encourage the deployment of innovative technologies to detect and reduce methane emissions, reduction of emissions by 95% through capture and control systems, zero-emission requirements for certain devices, and the establishment of a “super emitter” response program that would allow third parties to make reports to the EPA of large methane emissions events, triggering certain investigation and repair requirements. It is likely, however, that the final rule and its requirements will be subject to legal challenges. We cannot predict whether or on what timeline the Trump Administration may seek to revise or otherwise repeal these rules.

At the international level, the United States and 195 other countries previously reached an agreement during the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the “Paris Agreement”), a long-term, international framework convention designed to address climate change over the next several decades. President Biden recommitted the United States to the Paris agreement and, in April 2021, announced a goal of reducing the United States’ emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030. However, in January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order calling for the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement and revoking any related financial commitments thereunder as part of a broader series of executive orders announcing a deregulatory approach with respect to climate change matters. State or local governments may, however, elect to continue to participate in international climate change initiatives and pursue state- or regional-level climate change-related regulations. Any efforts to control and/or reduce GHG emissions by the United States or other countries, or concerted conservation efforts that result in reduced consumption, could adversely impact demand for our products and, in turn, our financial position and results of operations.

Climate change may also result in various physical risks, such as the increased frequency or intensity of extreme weather events or changes in meteorological and hydrological patterns that could adversely impact our operations or those of our supply chains. Such physical risks may result in damage to our facilities or our customers’ facilities or otherwise adversely impact our operations, such as to the extent changing weather and temperature trends reduce the demand for our products or frequency with which consumers may visit our locations or impact the cost or availability of insurance. Moreover, certain parties, including local and state governments, have from time to time filed lawsuits against various fossil fuel energy companies seeking damages for alleged physical impacts resulting from climate change or relating to false or misleading statements related to fossil fuel’s contribution to climate change. In addition, several states, including New York and Vermont, have passed climate change-related “Superfund” laws that seek to impose liability for alleged damages from climate change on certain types of entities. Other states are also considering the adoption of such laws. Further, there are increasing financial risks to companies in the fossil fuel sector as members of the general financial and investment communities increase sustainability considerations in their practices. There is also a risk that financial institutions will be required to adopt policies that have the effect of reducing the funding provided to the fossil fuel sector, although this trend has waned in recent years. To the extent implemented or pursued, these efforts may adversely affect the market for our securities and our ability to access capital and financial markets in the future.

Separately, in March of 2024, the SEC has published a rule establishing a framework for reporting of climate risks, targets and metrics. However, the rule is currently paused pending litigation and we cannot predict the final outcome. Further, the Trump Administration is expected to repeal the SEC climate rule; however, the timeline for any repeal is subject to a number of uncertainties and likely could face legal challenges that would further delay the implementation of any repeal. If implemented, we cannot predict how financial institutions or investors might consider any information included in these climate-related disclosures when making investment decisions, and as a result it is possible we could face increased costs related to, or restrictions imposed on, our access to capital. Similarly, in October 2023 the Governor of California signed the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (“CCDAA”) and Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (“CRFRA”) into law. The CCDAA requires both public and private U.S. companies that are “doing business in California” and that have a total annual revenue of $1 billion to publicly disclose and verify, on an annual basis, Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions. Both laws are vague and potentially overbroad with respect to their applicability, appearing to require only minimal contacts with California. The CRFRA requires the disclosure of a climate-related financial risk report in line with certain stakeholder frameworks every other year for public and private companies that are “doing business in California” and have total annual revenue of $500 million. Reporting under both laws would begin in 2026. Currently, the ultimate impact of these laws on our business is uncertain, but to the extent implemented, we may face additional costs to comply with these disclosure requirements as well as increased costs of and restrictions on access to capital. Separately, enhanced climate related disclosure requirements could lead to reputational or other harm with customers, regulators, investors or other stakeholders and could also increase our litigation risks relating to alleged climate-related damages resulting from our operations, statements alleged to have been made by us or others in our industry regarding climate change risks, or in connection with any future disclosures we may make regarding reported emissions, particularly given the inherent uncertainties and estimations with respect to calculating and reporting GHG emissions. These various political, regulatory, financial, physical and litigation risks related to climate change have the potential adversely impact our operations and financial performance.

Water

The U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, (the "Clean Water Act"), and analogous state laws, impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the United States (“WOTUS”). The definition of WOTUS has been subject to repeated change in recent years. Most recently, following legal action on a January 2023 final rule, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, and the enactment of a subsequent September 2023 rule, the implementation of the definition is split based on jurisdiction. In 27 states, the January 2023 rule is enjoined subject to litigation, and the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are implementing the definition of WOTUS consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and the changes made by the Sackett decision, which utilizes the “continuous surface connection” test to determine if wetlands qualify as WOTUS. In the remaining 23 states, the agencies are implementing the September 2023 rule, which amended the January 2023 rule to incorporate the Sackett decision. However, the September 2023 rule does not define the term “continuous surface connection,” and it is currently unclear how broadly the September 2023 rule and the Sackett decision will be interpreted by the agencies and what the Trump Administration may further propose or finalize. To the extent any action further expands the scope of the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction, it could cause increased costs and delays with respect to obtaining permits for dredge and fill activities in wetland areas. Federal and state regulatory agencies can impose administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties for non-compliance with discharge permits or other requirements of the Clean Water Act, and can also pursue injunctive relief to enforce compliance with the Clean Water Act and analogous laws. Spill prevention control and countermeasure requirements of federal and state laws require containment to mitigate or prevent contamination of waters in the event of a refined product overflow, rupture, or leak from above-ground pipelines and storage tanks. The Clean Water Act also requires us to maintain spill prevention control and countermeasure plans at our terminal facilities with above-ground storage tanks and pipelines.

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA 90”) amended certain provisions of the Clean Water Act as they relate to the release of petroleum products into navigable waters. OPA 90 subjects owners of facilities to strict, joint and potentially unlimited liability for containment and removal costs, natural resource damages and certain other consequences of an oil spill. State laws also impose requirements relating to the prevention of oil releases and the remediation of areas. In addition, the OPA 90 requires that most fuel transport and storage companies maintain and update various oil spill prevention and oil spill contingency plans. Facilities that are adjacent to water require the engagement of Federally Certified Oil Spill Response Organizations to be available to respond to a spill on water from above ground storage tanks or pipelines.

Transportation and storage of refined products over and adjacent to water involves risk and potentially subjects us to strict, joint, and potentially unlimited liability for removal costs and other consequences of an oil spill where the spill is into navigable waters, along shorelines or in the exclusive economic zone of the United States. In the event of an oil spill into navigable waters, substantial liabilities could be imposed upon us. The Clean Water Act imposes restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, with the potential of substantial liability for the violation of permits or permitting requirements.

Pipeline Safety Regulation

Some of our pipelines are subject to regulation by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”), pursuant to the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (“HLPSA”). The HLPSA was amended by the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (“PSIA”), as reauthorized and amended by the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 (“2011 Pipeline Safety Act”) and the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020. The HLPSA regulates safety requirements in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of crude oil and NGL pipeline facilities, while the PSIA establishes mandatory inspections for all U.S. crude oil, NGLs and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines in certain high risk areas, such as high-consequence areas (“HCAs”) or moderate consequence areas (“MCAs”).

PHMSA has developed regulations that require pipeline operators to implement integrity management programs, including more frequent inspections and other measures to ensure pipeline safety in HCAs and MCAs. The regulations require operators, including us, to:

•perform ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity;

•identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline segments that could impact certain high risk areas;

•improve data collection, integration and analysis;

•repair and remediate pipelines as necessary; and

•implement preventive and mitigating actions.

The 2011 Pipeline Safety Act, among other things, increased the maximum civil penalty for pipeline safety violations and directed the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate rules or standards relating to expanded integrity management requirements, automatic or remote controlled valve use, excess flow valve use, leak detection system installation and testing to confirm the material strength of pipe operating above 30% of specified minimum yield strength in HCAs. Consistent with the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act, PHMSA finalized rules that increased the maximum administrative civil penalties for violation of the pipeline safety laws and regulations to $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. In January 2024, those maximum civil penalties were increased to $266,015 and $2,660,135, respectively, to account for inflation. The PHMSA has also issued a final rule applying safety regulations to certain rural low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines that were not covered previously by some of its safety regulations.

Following legislation enacted by Congress, PHMSA has issued or proposed regulations that either seek to impose new obligations on pipeline operations or expand existing pipeline safety requirements. In the Fiscal Year 2021 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Congress authorized PHMSA’s spending through fiscal year 2023 and directed the Agency to move forward with several regulatory actions: the promulgation of rules related to changes in class location of existing pipelines, pipeline integrity and maintenance, and the management of idled pipelines, amongst other matters. An example of PHMSA’s rulemaking under this directive was a 2022 rule, expanding regulations for the installation of rupture mitigation valves and establishing of a minimum rupture detection standard. PHMSA also released final regulations in January 2025 related to the management of methane emissions from pipelines; however, the future of these rules is uncertain at this time as a result of the change in U.S. presidential administrations. We cannot predict the capital and operating expenditures related to compliance with future PHMSA rulemakings, and such rulemakings may require us to incur significant costs to maintain compliance.

States are largely preempted by federal law from regulating pipeline safety for interstate lines but most are certified by the DOT to assume responsibility for enforcing federal intrastate pipeline regulations and inspection of intrastate pipelines. States may adopt stricter standards for intrastate pipelines than those imposed by the federal government for interstate lines; however, states vary considerably in their authority and capacity to address pipeline safety. State standards may include requirements for facility design and management in addition to requirements for pipelines. We do not anticipate any significant difficulty in complying with applicable state laws and regulations; however, we cannot guarantee that this will or will always be the case.

We regularly review all existing and proposed pipeline safety requirements and work to incorporate the new requirements into procedures and budgets. We expect to incur increasing regulatory compliance costs, based on the intensification of the regulatory environment and upcoming changes to regulations as outlined above, consistent with other similarly situated midstream companies. In addition to regulatory changes, costs may be incurred if there is an accidental release of a commodity transported by our system, or a regulatory inspection identifies a deficiency in our required programs and corrective action is required.

Regulation of Interstate Crude Oil and Products Pipelines

Interstate common carrier pipeline operations are subject to rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”), the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (“EPAct of 1992”), and related rules and orders. The ICA requires that tariff rates for petroleum pipelines be “just and reasonable” and not unduly discriminatory and that such rates and terms and conditions of service be filed with the FERC. This statute also permits interested persons to challenge proposed new or changed rates. The FERC is authorized to suspend the effectiveness of such rates for up to seven months, though rates are typically not suspended for the maximum allowable period. If the FERC finds that the new or changed rate is unlawful, it may require the carrier to pay refunds for the period that the rate was in effect. The FERC also may investigate, upon complaint or on its own motion, rates that are already in effect and may order a carrier to change its rates prospectively. Upon an appropriate showing, a shipper may obtain reparations for damages sustained for a period of up to two years prior to the filing of a complaint.

The FERC generally has not investigated interstate rates on its own initiative when those rates, like those we charge, have not been the subject of a protest or a complaint by a shipper. However, the FERC could investigate our rates at the urging of a third party if the third party is either a current shipper or has a substantial economic interest in the tariff rate level. Although no assurance can be given that the tariff rates charged by us ultimately will be upheld if challenged, management believes that the tariff rates now in effect for our pipelines are within the maximum rates allowed under current FERC policies and precedents.

We are able to use various FERC-authorized rate change methodologies for our interstate pipelines, including indexed rates, cost-of-service rates, market-based rates and negotiated rates. Typically, we adjust our rates annually in accordance with the FERC indexing methodology, which currently allows a pipeline to change its rates within prescribed ceiling levels that are tied to an inflation index. It is possible that the index may result in a negative rate adjustments in some years, or that changes in the index might not be large enough to fully reflect actual increases in our costs.

To the extent we rely on cost-of-service ratemaking to establish or support our rates, the issue of the proper allowance for federal and state income taxes could arise. In July 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion in United Airlines, Inc., et al. v. FERC, finding that the FERC had failed to demonstrate that permitting an interstate petroleum products pipeline organized as a master limited partnership, or MLP, to include an income tax allowance in the cost of service underlying its rates, in addition to the discounted cash flow return on equity, would not result in the pipeline partnership owners double recovering their income taxes. The court vacated the FERC’s order and remanded to the FERC to consider mechanisms for demonstrating that there is no double recovery as a result of the income tax allowance.

In March 2018, the FERC issued a Revised Policy Statement on Treatment of Income Taxes in which the FERC found that an impermissible double recovery results from granting an MLP pipeline both an income tax allowance and a return on equity pursuant to the FERC’s discounted cash flow methodology. The FERC revised its previous policy, stating that it would no longer permit an MLP pipeline to recover an income tax allowance in its cost of service. The FERC stated it will address the application of the United Airlines decision to non-MLP partnership forms as those issues arise in subsequent proceedings. In July 2018, the FERC dismissed requests for rehearing and clarification of the March 2018 Revised Policy Statement, but provided further guidance, clarifying that a pass-through entity will not be precluded in a future proceeding from arguing and providing evidentiary support that it is entitled to an income tax allowance and demonstrating that its recovery of an income tax allowance does not result in a double recovery of investors’ income tax costs. On July 31, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion upholding FERC’s March 2018 Revised Policy Statement, as clarified and revised on rehearing. In light of the rehearing order’s clarification regarding individual entities’ ability to argue in support of recovery of an income tax allowance and the court’s subsequent opinion upholding denial of an income tax allowance to a master limited partnership, the impacts the FERC’s policy on the treatment of income taxes may have on the rates an interstate pipeline held in a tax-pass-through entity can charge for the FERC regulated transportation services are unknown at this time.

Effective January 2018, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changed several provisions of the federal tax code, including a reduction in the maximum corporate tax rate. With the lower tax rate, and as discussed immediately above, the tariff rates allowed by the FERC under its rate base methodology may be impacted by a lower income tax allowance component. The timing and impact to our pipelines of any tax-related policy change is unknown at this time and varies based on the circumstances of each pipeline.

The EPAct of 1992 required the FERC to establish a simplified and generally applicable methodology to adjust tariff rates for inflation for interstate petroleum pipelines. As a result, the FERC adopted an indexing rate methodology which, as currently in effect, allows common carriers to change their rates within prescribed ceiling levels that are tied to changes in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, or PPI-FG. The FERC’s indexing methodology is subject to review every five years.

In December 2020, FERC issued an order setting the indexed rate at PPI-FG plus 0.78% during the five-year period commencing July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2026. The FERC received requests for rehearing of its December 17, 2020 order and on January 20, 2022, granted rehearing and modified the oil index. Specifically, for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2026, FERC-regulated liquids pipelines charging indexed rates are permitted to adjust their indexed ceilings annually by PPI-FG minus 0.21%. FERC directed liquids pipelines to recompute their ceiling levels for July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, as well as the ceiling levels for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, based on the new index level. Where an oil pipeline’s filed rates exceed its ceiling levels, FERC ordered such oil pipelines to reduce the rate to bring it into compliance with the recomputed ceiling level to be effective March 1, 2022. Some parties sought rehearing of the January 20 order with FERC, which was denied by FERC on May 6, 2022. Certain parties have appealed the January 20 and May 6 orders. On July 26, 2024, the D.C. Circuit ruled in LEPA v. FERC that FERC violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the January 20 order modified the index without following notice and comment. As a result, the D.C. Circuit vacated the January 20 order and on September 17, 2024, the Commission reinstated the index level established by its original December 17 order, directed pipelines to file an informational filing to show their recomputed ceiling levels reflecting the reinstated index level and stated that pipelines may file to prospectively increase their indexed rates to their recomputed levels. On October 17, 2024, FERC issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Supplemental NOPR”) that proposes a reduction to the currently effective index by one percent. The Supplemental NOPR, which remains pending before FERC, could result in the reimplementation through a notice-and-comment rulemaking of the same rulings that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit in LEPA v. FERC.

The indexing methodology is applicable to existing rates, including grandfathered rates, with the exclusion of market-based rates. A pipeline is not required to raise its rates up to the index ceiling, but it is permitted to do so and rate increases made under the index are presumed to be just and reasonable unless a protesting party can demonstrate that the portion of the rate increase resulting from application of the index is substantially in excess of the pipeline’s increase in costs. Under the indexing rate methodology, in any year in which the index is negative, pipelines must file to lower their rates if those rates would otherwise be above the rate ceiling.

In November 2017, the FERC responded to a petition for declaratory order and issued an order that may have significant impacts on the way a marketer of crude oil or petroleum products that is affiliated with an interstate pipeline can price its services if those services include transportation on an affiliate’s interstate pipeline. In particular, the FERC’s November 2017 order prohibits buy/sell arrangements by a marketing affiliate if: (i) the transportation differential applicable to its affiliate’s interstate pipeline transportation service is at a discount to the affiliated pipeline’s filed rate for that service; and (ii) the pipeline affiliate subsidizes the loss. Several parties have requested that the FERC clarify its November 2017 order or, in the alternative, grant rehearing of the November 2017 order. On December 15, 2022, the FERC provided further clarification of its November 2017 order but denied requests for rehearing.

Finally, on December 15, 2022, the FERC issued a Proposed Policy Statement on Oil Pipeline Affiliate Committed Service, which addresses whether a contract for committed transportation service complies with the ICA where the only shipper to obtain the committed service is an affiliate of the regulated entity. If adopted, the proposed policy statement would create a rebuttable presumption that affiliate contracts are unduly discriminatory and not just and reasonable in certain circumstances and require a pipeline to produce additional evidentiary support for affiliate contracts rates and terms. This follows a trend of increased scrutiny by FERC on affiliated contracts across all industries regulated by the FERC. The FERC has taken no further action on the proposed policy statement.

Regulation of Intrastate Crude Oil and Products Pipelines

In addition to federally regulated body oversight, various states, including Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota and Texas, maintain commissions focused on the rates and practices of common carrier pipelines offering services within their borders. Although the applicable state statutes and regulations vary, they generally require that intrastate pipelines publish tariffs setting forth all rates, rules and regulations applying to intrastate service, and generally require that pipeline rates and practices be just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

Shippers may challenge tariff rates, rules and regulations on our pipelines. In most instances, state commissions have not initiated investigations of the rates or practices of pipelines in the absence of shipper complaints. There are no pending challenges or complaints regarding our tariffs or tariff rates.

In addition, as noted above, the rates, terms and conditions for shipments of crude oil or petroleum products on our pipelines could be subject to regulation by the FERC under the ICA and the EPAct of 1992 if the crude oil or petroleum products are transported in interstate or foreign commerce whether by our pipelines or other means of transportation. Since we do not control the entire transportation path of all crude oil or petroleum products shipped on our pipelines, FERC regulation could be triggered by our customers’ transportation decisions.

Regulation of Interstate Ammonia Pipelines

Our ammonia pipeline is subject to regulation by the Surface Transportation Board (the “STB”) pursuant to the ICA applicable to such pipelines (which differs from the ICA applicable to interstate liquids pipelines). Under that regulation, the ammonia pipeline’s rates, classifications, rules and practices related to the interstate transportation of anhydrous ammonia must be reasonable and, in providing interstate transportation, the ammonia pipeline may not subject a person, place, port or type of traffic to unreasonable discrimination. Similar to the crude and refined products pipelines, the rates for transportation services on the ammonia pipeline are required to be in a tariff which is posted publicly on our website, however, that tariff is not required to be on file with the STB. The STB does not prescribe an indexing approach similar to the EP Act but rates under the STB must be reasonable and the pipeline may not subject a person, place, port or type of traffic to unreasonable discrimination.

Other Government Regulation

The Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (the “PMPA”) is a federal law that governs the relationship between a refiner and a distributor, as well as between a distributor and branded dealer, pursuant to which the refiner or distributor permits a distributor or dealer to use a trademark in connection with the sale or distribution of motor fuel. Under the PMPA, we may not terminate or fail to renew a branded distributor contract, unless certain enumerated preconditions or grounds for termination or non-renewal are met and we also comply with the prescribed notice requirements. Additionally, we are subject to state petroleum franchise laws as well as laws specific to gasoline retailers and dealers, including state laws that regulate our relationships with third parties to whom we lease sites and supply motor fuels. Finally, we are subject to laws regarding fuel standards. For more information, see “We are subject to federal laws related to the RFS” and “We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations that govern the product quality specifications of refined petroleum products we purchase, store, transport, and sell to our distribution customers” in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Employee Safety

We are subject to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) and comparable state statutes that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. In addition, OSHA’s hazard communication standards require that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe that we are in substantive compliance with the applicable OSHA requirements.

Store Operations

Our remaining retail locations are subject to regulation by federal agencies and to licensing and regulations by state and local health, sanitation, safety, fire and other departments relating to the development and operation of convenience stores, including regulations related to zoning and building requirements and the preparation and sale of food.

Our operations are also subject to federal and state laws governing such matters as wage rates, overtime, working conditions and citizenship requirements. At the federal level, there are proposals under consideration from time to time to increase minimum wage rates.

Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2024, we employed an aggregate of 3,298 employees, 359 of which are represented by labor unions. We and our subsidiaries believe that our relations with our employees are good.

In order to accomplish our objectives, we must continue to attract and retain top talent. We seek to accomplish this by fostering a culture that is guided by our ethics and principles, that respects all people and cultures, and that focuses on health and safety.

Ethics and Principles. We are committed to operating our business in a manner that honors and respects all people and the communities in which we do business. We recognize that people are our most valued resource, and we are committed to hiring and investing in employees who strive for excellence and live by our core values: working safely, corporate stewardship, ethics and integrity, entrepreneurial mindset, supporting our people, excellence and results, and social responsibility. We value our employees for what they bring to our organization by embracing those from all backgrounds, cultures, and experiences. We also believe that the keys to our success have been the cultivation of an atmosphere of belonging and respect within our family of partnerships and sustaining organizations that promote and support all of the communities in which we do business. These are the principles upon which we build and strengthen relationships among our people, our stakeholders, and those within the communities we support.

Respecting All People and All Cultures. We believe strict adherence to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is not only right, but is in the best interest of the Partnership, its unitholders, its customers, and the industry in general. The Partnership's policies require that business be conducted in a lawful and ethical manner at all times. Every employee acting on behalf of the Partnership must adhere to these policies. Please refer to “Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance” for additional information on our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

Commitment to Health and Safety. Our goal is operational excellence, which means an injury and incident-free workplace. To achieve this, we strive to hire and maintain a qualified and dedicated workforce and encourage safety and safety accountability throughout our daily operations.

Our environmental, health and safety professionals provide environmental and safety training to our field representatives. This group also assists others throughout the organization in identifying continuous training for personnel, including the training that is required by applicable laws, regulations, standards, and permit conditions. Our safety standards and expectations are clearly communicated to all employees and contractors with the expectation that each individual has the obligation to make safety the highest priority. Our safety culture promotes an open environment for discovering, resolving, and sharing safety challenges. We strive to eliminate unwanted safety events through a comprehensive process that promotes leadership, employee involvement, communication, and personal responsibility to comply with standard operating procedures and regulatory requirements, effective risk reduction processes, maintaining clean facilities, contractor safety, and personal wellness.