F

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K10-K/A

Amendment No. 1

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20192021

or

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ___ to ___

Commission File Number 001-37469

Green Plains PARTNERS LP
‎(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

¨ Yes xNo

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

¨ Yes xNo

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

x Yes ¨No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).

x Yes o No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

o Yes x No

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common units held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2019,2021, based upon the last sale price of the common units on such date, was approximately $321.8$146.0 million. For purposes of this calculation, executive officers and directors are deemed to be affiliates of the registrant.

As of February 13, 2020,14, 2022, the registrant had 23,160,55123,227,653 common units outstanding.

Auditor Firm ID: 185Auditor Name: KPMG LLPAuditor Location: Omaha, NE

TableEXPLANATORY NOTE

Green Plains Partners LP (the “partnership”) is filing this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A (this “Amendment”), to the partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, originally filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on February 18, 2022 (the “Original Filing”), solely to include information required by Item 11 of ContentsPart III of Form 10-K. The information required by Item 11 of Part III of From 10-K was previously omitted from the Original Filing in reliance on General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K. This Amendment amends and restates in its entirety Item 11 of Part III of the Original Filing.

Pursuant to the SEC rules, Item 15 of Part IV has also been amended to contain the currently dated certificates from the partnership’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The certificates of the partnership’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer are attached to this Amendment as Exhibits 31.3 and 31.4. Because no financial statements have been included in this Amendment and this Amendment does not contain or amend any disclosure with respect to Items 307 and 308 of Regulation S-K, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the certifications have been omitted. Additionally, the partnership is not including the certificate under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as no financial statements are being filed with this Amendment.

Other than with respect to the information contained herein with respect to Item 11 of Part III below, this Amendment does not change any of the information contained in the Original Filing. Other than as specifically set forth herein, the partnership has not updated or amended the disclosures contained in the Original Filing to reflect events that have occurred since the date thereof. Accordingly, this Amendment should be read in conjunction with the Original Filing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 
‎

Commonly Used Defined Terms

The abbreviations, acronyms and industry terminology used in this annual report are defined as follows:

Green Plains Partners LP, Subsidiaries, and Partners:

Green Plains Inc. and Subsidiaries:

Other Defined Terms:

‎

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

The SEC encourages companies to disclose forward-looking information so investors can better understand future prospects and make informed investment decisions. As such, forward-looking statements are included in this report or incorporated by reference to other documents filed with the SEC.

Forward-looking statements are made in accordance with safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on current expectations which involve a number of risks and uncertainties and do not relate strictly to historical or current facts, but rather to plans and objectives for future operations. These statements include words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “outlook,” “plan,” “predict,” “may,” “could,” “should,” “will” and similar words and phrases as well as statements regarding future operating or financial performance or guidance, business strategy, environment, key trends and benefits of actual or planned acquisitions.

Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those expressed or implied are discussed in this report under Item 1A – Risk Factors or incorporated by reference. Specifically, we may experience fluctuations in future operating results due to changes in general economic, market or business conditions; foreign imports of ethanol; fluctuations in demand for ethanol and other fuels; risks of accidents or other unscheduled shutdowns affecting our assets, including mechanical breakdown of equipment or infrastructure; risks associated with changes to federal policy or regulation; ability to comply with changing government usage mandates and regulations affecting the ethanol industry; price, availability and acceptance of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles, and laws mandating such fuels or vehicles; changes in operational costs at our facilities and for our railcars; failure to realize the benefits projected for capital projects; competition; inability to successfully implement growth strategies; the supply of corn and other feedstocks; unusual or severe weather conditions and natural disasters; ability and willingness of parties with whom we have material relationships, including Green Plains Trade, to fulfill their obligations; labor and material shortages; changes in the availability of unsecured credit and changes affecting the credit markets in general; and other risk factors detailed in our reports filed with the SEC.

We believe our expectations regarding future events are based on reasonable assumptions; however, these assumptions may not be accurate or account for all risks and uncertainties. Consequently, forward-looking statements are not guaranteed. Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied in our forward-looking statements. In addition, we are not obligated and do not intend to update our forward-looking statements as a result of new information unless it is required by applicable securities laws. We caution investors not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which represent management’s views as of the date of this report or documents incorporated by reference.

‎

PART I

Item 1. Business.

References to “we,” “our,” “us” or the “partnership” used in present tense for periods beginning on or after July 1, 2015, refer to Green Plains Partners LP and its subsidiaries. References to the “MLP predecessor” used in a historical context for periods ended on or before June 30, 2015, refer to BlendStar LLC and its subsidiaries, the partnership’s predecessor for accounting purposes, and the assets, liabilities and results of operations of the ethanol storage and leased railcar assets contributed by Green Plains in connection with the IPO on July 1, 2015. References to our “sponsor” in transactions subsequent to the IPO refer to Green Plains.

Partnership History

We are a master limited partnership formed by our parent on March 2, 2015. On July 1, 2015, we completed our IPO of 11,500,000 common units representing limited partner interests. Our common units are traded under the symbol “GPP” on Nasdaq. After completing the IPO, in addition to the interests of BlendStar, we obtained the ethanol storage and leased railcar assets and liabilities previously owned and operated by our parent, in a transfer between entities under common control.

On January 1, 2016, we acquired the ethanol storage and leased railcar assets of the Hereford, Texas and Hopewell, Virginia ethanol production facilities from our sponsor in a transfer between entities under common control. The assets were recognized at historical cost and reflected retroactively along with related expenses for periods prior to the effective date of the acquisition, subsequent to the initial dates the assets were acquired by our sponsor, on October 23, 2015, and November 12, 2015, for Hopewell and Hereford, respectively. There were no revenues related to these assets for periods before January 1, 2016, when the amendments to our commercial agreements related to the drop down became effective.

On September 23, 2016, we acquired the ethanol storage assets located in Madison, Illinois, Mount Vernon, Indiana and York, Nebraska related to three ethanol plants, which occurred concurrently with the acquisition of these facilities by Green Plains from subsidiaries of Abengoa S.A. The transaction was accounted for as a transfer between entities under common control and the assets were recognized at the preliminary value recorded in Green Plains’ purchase accounting. No retroactive adjustments were required.

On August 13, 2018, the requirements under the partnership agreement for the conversion of all of the outstanding subordinated units into common units were satisfied. Accordingly, all of the 15,889,642 outstanding subordinated units were converted into common units on a one-for-one basis.

On November 15, 2018, our parent closed on the sale of three of its ethanol plants located in Bluffton, Indiana, Lakota, Iowa, and Riga, Michigan to Valero Renewable Fuels Company, LLC (“Valero”). Correspondingly, the storage assets located adjacent to such plants were sold to our parent for $120.9 million. As consideration, we received from our parent 8.7 million Green Plains units and a portion of the general partner interest equating to 0.2 million equivalent limited partner units to maintain the general partner’s 2% interest. These units were retired upon receipt. In addition, we also received cash consideration of $2.7 million from Valero for the assignment of certain railcar operating leases.

On November 15, 2018, our parent announced the permanent closure of its ethanol plant located in Hopewell, Virginia. The closure did not affect our quarterly storage and throughput minimum volume commitment with Green Plains Trade or the current transload operations at that location.

Overview

Green Plains Partners provides fuel storage and transportation services by owning, operating, developing and acquiring ethanol and fuel storage facilities, terminals, transportation assets and other related assets and businesses. We were formed by Green Plains, a vertically integrated ethanol producer, to support its marketing and distribution activities as its primary downstream logistics provider.

We generate a substantial portion of our revenues under fee-based commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade for receiving, storing, transferring and transporting ethanol and other fuels, which are supported by minimum volume or take-or-pay capacity commitments. We do not take ownership or receive any payments based on the value of ethanol or other fuels we handle. As a result, we do not have direct price exposure to fluctuating commodity prices.

‎

As of December 31, 2019, our parent owns a 49.0% limited partner interest in us, consisting of 11,586,548 common units, a 2.0% general partner interest and all of our incentive distribution rights. The public owns the remaining 49.0% limited partner interest. The following diagram depicts our simplified organizational structure at December 31, 2019:

Our Assets and Operations

Ethanol Storage. Our ethanol storage assets are the principal method of storing ethanol produced at our parent’s ethanol production plants. Most of our parent’s ethanol production plants are located near major rail lines. Ethanol can be distributed from our storage facilities to bulk terminals via truck, railcar or barge.

In the fourth quarter of 2018, we sold the storage assets associated with the ethanol plants located in Bluffton, Indiana, Lakota, Iowa, and Riga, Michigan to our parent. We currently own or lease 32 ethanol storage facilities and approximately 49acres of land. Our storage tanks are located at or near our parent’s 13 operational ethanol production plants in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas, as well as our parent’s non-operational ethanol production plant in Virginia.

Our ethanol storage tanks have combined storage capacity of 31.9 mmg and aggregate throughput capacity sufficient to support our parent’s annual production capacity of 1,123 mmgy. For the year ended December 31, 2019, our parent operated its ethanol production facilities at an average daily production capacity of approximately 76.2%, resulting in ethanol production of 856.6 mmgy.The following table presents additional ethanol production plant details by location:

Terminal and Distribution Services. We own and operate seven fuel terminals in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and Oklahoma with combined total storage capacity of approximately 7.3 mmg and access to major rail lines. We also own approximately five acres of land and lease approximately 18 acres of land where our fuel terminals are located. Ethanol and other products are transported to our terminals primarily by rail, and shipped from our terminals by truck to third parties, including refiners, blenders and other obligated and non-obligated parties. For the year ended December 31, 2019, the aggregate throughput at these facilities was approximately 220.9 mmg.

The following table presents additional fuel terminal details by location:

(1) Access to our six other fuel terminal facilities is available from BNSF, KCS, Canadian National, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern and CSX.

Transportation and Delivery. Ethanol deliveries to distant markets are shipped using major U.S. rail carriers that can switch cars to other major railroads or barge delivery to national or international ports. Our railcar volumetric capacity is used to transport product primarily from our ethanol storage facilities and third-party production facilities to other fuel terminals, including our own, international export terminals and refineries located throughout the United States. In the fourth quarter of 2018, we assigned certain railcar operating leases associated with the ethanol plants in Bluffton, Indiana, Lakota, Iowa, and Riga, Michigan to Valero.Currently, our leased railcar fleet consists of approximately 2,630 railcars with an aggregate capacity of 78.9 mmg. We expect our railcar volumetric capacity to fluctuate over the normal course of business as our existing railcar leases expire and we enter into or acquire new railcar leases.

We also own and operate a fleet of 19 trucks and tankers that transport ethanol and other products.

Segments

Our operations consist of one reportable segment and are conducted solely in the U.S. See Item 8 - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data for financial information about our operations and assets.

Our Relationship with Green Plains

Our parent is a diversified commodity processor with operations related to ethanol production, grain handling and storage, and commodity marketing and logistics services. The company is one of the largest ethanol producers in North America with 13 operating dry mill plants, with the capacity to produce approximately 1.1 billion gallons of ethanol per year.

We benefit significantly from our relationship with our parent. Our assets are the principal method of storing and delivering the ethanol our parent produces. Our commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade account for a substantial portion of our revenues.

Our parent has a majority interest in us through the ownership of our general partner and a 49.0% limited partner interest, as well as all of our incentive distribution rights. We believe our parent will continue to support the successful execution of our business strategies given its significant ownership in us and the importance of our assets to Green Plains’ operations.

We have entered into several agreements with our parent, which were established in conjunction with the IPO, including: an omnibus agreement; a contribution, conveyance and assumption agreement; an operational services and secondment agreement; and various commercial agreements described below. For all material agreements and subsequent amendments required to be filed, please refer to Item 15 – Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

Commercial Agreements with Affiliate

A substantial portion of our revenues and cash flows are derived from our commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade, our primary customer, including a (1) fee-based storage and throughput agreement, (2) Birmingham terminal services agreement, (3) fee-based rail transportation services agreement and (4) various other transportation and terminal services agreements.

Minimum Volume Commitments. Our storage and throughput agreement and certain terminal services agreements with Green Plains Trade are supported by minimum volume commitments. Our rail transportation services agreement is supported by minimum take-or-pay capacity commitments. Green Plains Trade is required to pay us fees for these minimum commitments regardless of actual throughput volume, capacity used, or the amount of product tendered for transport, which is intended to provide some assurance that we will receive a certain amount of revenue during the terms of these agreements. These arrangements are intended to provide stable and predictable cash flows over time.

Storage and Throughput Agreement. Under our storage and throughput agreement, as amended, Green Plains Trade is obligated to deliver a minimum of 235.7 mmg of product per calendar quarter at our storage facilities. In addition, Green Plains Trade is obligated to pay $0.05 per gallon on all volume it throughputs associated with the agreement. If Green Plains Trade fails to meet its minimum volume commitment during any quarter, we will charge Green Plains Trade a deficiency payment equal to the deficient volume multiplied by the applicable fee. The deficiency payment may be applied as a credit toward volumes delivered by Green Plains Trade in excess of the minimum volume commitment during the following four quarters, after which time any unused credits will expire.

On November 15, 2018, as part of the sale of ethanol storage assets associated with the ethanol plants located in Bluffton, Indiana, Lakota, Iowa, and Riga, Michigan, the storage and throughput agreement was amended to reduce the minimum volume commitment from 296.6 mmg of product per calendar quarter to 235.7 mmg. In addition, we agreed with our parent to extend the storage and throughput agreement with Green Plains Trade an additional three years to June 30, 2028. The storage and throughput agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless either party provides written notice of its intent to terminate the agreement at least 360 days prior to the end of the remaining primary or renewal term.

Terminal Services Agreement. Under our terminal services agreement for the Birmingham facility, effective through December 31, 2019, Green Plains Trade is obligated to throughput a minimum volume commitment of approximately 2.8 mmg per month of ethanol and other fuels, equivalent to 33.2 mmgy, and pay associated throughput fees, as well as fees for ancillary services. Effective January 1, 2020, the agreement was amended to increase the minimum volume commitment to 8.3 mmg per month, which will be equally offset by a reduction in volume associated with the termination of a throughput agreement with a third party customer on December 31, 2019. This amendment was reviewed and approved by the conflicts committee. The agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year renewal terms unless either party provides written notice of its intent to terminate the agreement at least 90 days prior to the end of the remaining primary or renewal term. Several of our other terminal services agreements with Green Plains Trade also contain minimum volume commitments with various remaining terms.

Rail Transportation Service Agreement. Under our rail transportation services agreement, as amended, Green Plains Trade is obligated to use the partnership to transport ethanol and other fuels from receipt points identified by Green Plains Trade, to nominated delivery points, and pay an average monthly fee of approximately $0.0229 per gallon for all railcar volumetric capacity provided over the remaining life of the agreement. The minimum railcar capacity commitment we provide to Green Plains Trade for our leased railcar fleet is currently 78.9 mmg and the weighted average remaining term of all railcar lease agreements is 3.1 years. At December 31, 2019, the remaining term of our rail transportation services agreement was 5.5 years. The rail transportation services agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year renewal terms unless either party provides written notice of its intent to terminate the agreement at least 360 days prior to the end of the remaining primary or renewal term.

Green Plains Trade is also obligated to use the partnership for logistical operations management and other services related to railcar volumetric capacity provided by Green Plains Trade and pay a monthly fee of approximately $0.0013 per gallon for these services. In addition, Green Plains Trade reimburses us for costs related to: (1) railcar switching and unloading fees; (2) increased costs related to changes in law or governmental regulation related to the specification, operation or maintenance of railcars; (3) demurrage charges, except when the charges are due to our gross negligence or willful misconduct; and (4) fees related to rail transportation services under transportation contracts with third-party common carriers. Green Plains Trade frequently contracts with us for additional railcar volumetric capacity during the normal course of business at comparable margins.

We lease our railcars from third parties under multiple operating lease agreements with various terms. The minimum take-or-pay capacity commitment under the rail transportation services agreement is closely aligned with our existing railcar lease agreements. As a result, when current railcar lease agreements expire, the volumetric capacity provided under the rail transportation services agreement declines accordingly. We enter new lease agreements to replace scheduled capacity reductions under the rail transportation services agreement or provide incremental capacity as requested by Green Plains Trade. We do not speculate on capacity by leasing additional railcars that are not covered by the rail transportation services agreement.

Trucking Transportation Agreement. Under our trucking transportation agreement, Green Plains Trade pays us to transport ethanol and other fuels by truck from identified receipt points to various delivery points. Green Plains Trade is obligated to pay a monthly trucking transportation services fee equal to the aggregate amount of product volume transported in a calendar month multiplied by the applicable rate for each truck lane, which is defined as a specific route between point of origin and point of destination. Rates for each truck lane are negotiated based on product, location, mileage and other factors, including competitive factors. At December 31, 2019, the remaining term of our trucking transportation agreement was five months. The trucking transportation agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year renewal terms unless either party provides written notice of its intent to terminate the agreement at least 30 days prior to the end of the remaining primary or renewal term.

Competitive Strengths

We believe that the following competitive strengths position us to successfully execute our business strategies:

Stable and Predictable Cash Flows. A substantial portion of our revenues and cash flows are derived from long-term, fee-based commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade, including a storage and throughput agreement, rail transportation services agreement, terminal services agreement and other transportation agreements. Our storage and throughput agreement and certain terminal services agreements are supported by minimum volume commitments, and our rail transportation services agreement is supported by minimum take-or-pay capacity commitments. Green Plains Trade is obligated to pay us fees for these minimum commitments regardless of actual throughput or volume, capacity used or the amount of product tendered for transport.

Advantageous Relationship with Our Parent. Our assets are the principal method of storing and delivering the ethanol our parent produces, and the related agreements with Green Plains Trade include minimum volume or take-or-pay capacity commitments. Furthermore, as owner of a 49.0% limited partner interest in us and our general partner interest, as well as all of our incentive distribution rights, our parent directly benefits from our growth, which provides an incentive to pursue projects that directly or indirectly enhance the value of our business and assets. This can be accomplished through organic expansion, accretive acquisitions or the development of downstream distribution services. Under the omnibus agreement, we have the right of first offer, which expires June 30, 2020, on any (1) ethanol storage or terminal assets that our parent may acquire or construct in the future, (2) fuel storage and terminal facilities that our parent may acquire or construct in the future, and (3) ethanol and fuel transportation assets that our parent currently owns or may acquire in the future, if our parent decides to sell any such assets.

Quality Assets. Ourportfolio of assets has an expected remaining weighted average useful life of approximately 14 years. Our ethanol storage and fuel terminal assets are strategically located in fourteen states near major rail lines and barge service, which minimizes our exposure to weather-related downtime and transportation congestion and enables access to markets across the United States. Given the nature of our assets, we expect to incur only modest maintenance-related expenses and capital expenditures in the near future.

Proven Management Team. Each member of our senior management team is an employee of our parent who also devotes time to manage our business affairs. We believe the commercial, operational and financial expertise of our senior management team, which averages approximately 25 years of industry experience, allows us to successfully execute our business strategies.

Business Strategy

We believe ethanol could become an increasingly larger portion of the global fuel supply driven by volatile oil prices, heightened environmental concerns, energy independence and national security concerns. We intend to further develop and strengthen our business by pursuing the following growth strategies:

Generate Stable, Fee-Based Cash Flows. A substantial portion of our revenues and cash flows are derived from our commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade. Under these agreements, we do not have direct exposure to fluctuating commodity prices. We intend to continue to establish fee-based contracts with our parent and third parties that generate stable and predictable cash flows.

Grow Organically. We intend to collaborate with our parent and other potential third parties to identify opportunities to develop and construct assets that provide us long-term returns on our investments. Plant expansion that increases our parent’s production capacity also potentially increases the annual throughput volumes at our facilities. Capital expenditures associated with expansion are minimal since our ethanol storage facilities have available capacity to accommodate volume growth.

Acquire Strategic Assets. We intend to pursue strategic acquisitions independently and jointly with our parent to grow our business. While not recently acquisitive, our parent has a proven history of identifying, acquiring and integrating assets that are accretive to its business. Under the omnibus agreement, we have a right of first offer, which expires June 30, 2020, on any (1) ethanol storage or terminal assets that our parent may acquire or construct in the future, (2) fuel storage and terminal facilities that our parent may acquire or construct in the future, and (3) ethanol and fuel transportation assets that our parent currently owns or may acquire in the future, if our parent decides to sell any such assets. In addition, we intend to continually monitor the marketplace to identify and pursue assets that complement or diversify our existing operations, including fuel storage and terminal assets in close proximity to our existing asset base.

Development of Downstream Distribution Services. We intend to continue to use our logistical capabilities and expertise to further develop downstream ethanol distribution services that leverage the strategic locations of our ethanol storage and fuel terminal facilities.

Conduct Safe, Reliable and Efficient Operations. We are committed to maintaining safe, reliable and environmentally compliant operations and conduct routine inspections of our assets in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. We seek to improve our operating performance through preventive maintenance, employee training, and safety and development programs.

Recent Developments

The following is a summary of our significant developments during 2019. Additional information about these items can be found elsewhere in this report or in previous reports filed with the SEC.

Rejection of Offer – JGP Energy Partners

On October 28, 2019, upon recommendation of the conflicts committee, we rejected our parent’s offer related to the potential purchase of the Green Plains interest in the JGP Energy Partners’ Beaumont, Texas terminal.

Our Competition

Our contractual relationship with Green Plains Trade and the integrated nature of our storage tanks with our parent’s production facilities minimizes potential competition for storage and distribution services provided under our commercial agreements from other third-party operators.

We compete with independent fuel terminal operators and major fuel producers for terminal services based on terminal location, services provided, safety and cost. While there are numerous fuel producers and distributors that own terminal operations similar to ours, they often are not focused on providing services to third parties. Independent operators are often located near key distribution points with cost advantages that provide more efficient services and distribution capabilities into strategic markets with a variety of transportation options. Companies often rely on independent operators when their own storage facilities cannot manage their volumes or throughput adequately due to lack of expertise, market congestion, size constraints, optionality or the nature of the materials being stored.

We believe we are well-positioned to compete effectively in a growing market due to our expertise managing third-party terminal services and logistics. We are a low-cost operator, focused on safety and efficiency, and capable of managing the needs of multiple constituencies across geographical markets. While the competitiveness of our services may be impacted by competition from new entrants, transportation constraints, industry production levels and related storage needs, we believe there are significant barriers to entry that partially mitigate these risks, including significant capital costs, execution risk, complex permitting requirements, development cycle, financial and working capital constraints, expertise and experience, and ability to effectively capture strategic assets or locations.

Seasonality

Our business is directly affected by the supply and demand for ethanol and other fuels in the markets served by our assets. However, the effects of seasonality on our revenues are substantially mitigated through our fee-based commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade, which include minimum volume or take-or-pay capacity commitments.

Major Customer

We are highly dependent on Green Plains Trade and anticipate deriving a substantial portion of our revenues from them in the foreseeable future. Revenues from Green Plains Trade totaled approximately $75.5 million, or 91.7%, $94.3 million, or 93.6%, and $100.8 million, or 94.2% of our total revenues, during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Accordingly, we are indirectly subject to the business risks of Green Plains Trade and any development that materially and adversely affects its operations, financial condition or market reputation. For additional information, please refer to Item 1A -Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry and Risks Related to an Investment in Us.

Regulatory Matters

Government Ethanol Programs and Policies

We are sensitive to government programs and policies that affect the supply and demand for ethanol and other fuels, which in turn may affect the volume of ethanol and other fuels we handle. In the United States, the federal government mandates the use of renewable fuels under the RFS II. The EPA assigns individual refiners, blenders and importers the volume of renewable fuels they are obligated to blend into the fuel supply each year based on their percentage of total fuel sales. The EPA has the authority to waive the mandates in whole or in part if there is inadequate domestic renewable fuel supply or the requirement severely harms the economy or the environment.

The RFS II has been a driving factor in the growth of ethanol usage in the United States. When the RFS II was established in 2010, the required volume of “conventional” corn-based ethanol to be blended with gasoline was to increase each year until it reached 15.0 billion gallons in 2015, which left the EPA to address existing limitations in both supply (ethanol production) and demand (usage of ethanol blends in older vehicles). On December 19, 2019, the EPA announced the final 2020 RVO for conventional ethanol, which met the 15.0-billion-gallon congressional target.

According to the RFS II, if mandatory renewable fuel volumes are reduced by at least 20% for two consecutive years, the EPA is required to modify, or reset, statutory volumes through 2022 – the year through which the statutorily prescribed volumes run. While conventional ethanol maintained 15 billion gallons, 2019 was the second consecutive year that the total proposed RVO was more than 20% below statutory volumes levels. Thus, the EPA was expected to initiate a “reset” rulemaking, and modify statutory volumes through 2022, and do so based on the same factors they are to use in setting the RVOs post-2022. These factors include environmental impact, domestic energy security, expected production, infrastructure impact, consumer costs, job creation, price of agricultural commodities, food prices, and rural economic development. However, on December 19, 2019, the EPA announced it would not be moving forward with a reset rulemaking in 2020.

Under the RFS II, obligated parties use RINs to show compliance with the RFS II mandated volumes. RINs are created by renewable fuel producers and are detached when the renewable fuel is blended into the transportation fuel supply. The market price of detached RINs affects the price of ethanol in certain markets and influences the purchasing decisions of obligated parties. Higher RIN prices generally encourage more ethanol blending.

Under the RFS II, a small refinery is defined as one that processes fewer than 75,000 barrels of petroleum per day. Small refineries can petition the EPA for a waiver of their portion of the annual RVO requirements. The EPA, through consultation with the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture, can grant them a full or partial waiver, or deny it outright within 90 days of submittal. The EPA granted significantly more of these waivers for 2016, 2017 and 2018 than they had in the past, totaling 790 million gallons of waived requirements for the 2016 compliance year, 1.82 billion gallons for 2017 and 1.43 billion gallons for 2018. In doing so, the EPA effectively reduced the RFS II mandated volumes for those compliance years by those amounts respectively, and as a result, RIN values have declined significantly.

Biofuels groups have filed a lawsuit in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the 2019 RVO rule over the EPA’s failure to address small refinery exemptions in the rulemaking. This was the first RFS II rulemaking since the expanded use of the exemptions came to light, however the EPA had declined to cap the number of waivers it grants and until late 2019 had declined to alter how it accounts for the retroactive waivers in its annual volume calculations. The EPA has a statutory mandate to ensure the volume requirements are met, which are achieved by setting the percentage standards for obligated parties. The EPA’s recent approach accomplished the opposite. Even if all the obligated parties complied with their respective percentage obligations for 2019, the nation’s overall supply of renewable fuel would not meet the total volume requirements set by the EPA. This undermines Congressional intent to increase the consumption of renewable fuels in the domestic transportation fuel supply. Biofuels groups have argued the EPA must therefore adjust its percentage standard calculations to make up for past retroactive waivers and adjust the standards to account for any waivers it reasonably expects to grant in the future.

In a supplemental rulemaking to the 2020 RVO rule, the EPA changed their approach, and for the first time are accounting for the gallons they anticipate they will be waiving from the blending requirements due to small refinery exemptions. To accomplish this, they are adding in the trailing three year average of gallons the Department of Energy recommended be waived, in effect raising the blending volumes across the board in anticipation of waiving the obligations in whole or in part for certain refineries that qualify for the exemptions. Though the EPA has often disregarded the recommendations of the Department of Energy in years past, they stated in the rule their intent to adhere to these recommendations going forward, including granting partial waivers rather than an all or nothing approach. The EPA will be adjudicating the 2020 compliance year small refinery exemption applications in early 2021, but have indicated they will adhere to Department of Energy recommendations for the 2019 compliance year applications as well, which should be adjudicated in the first half of 2020.

On January 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled on RFA et. al. vs. EPA in favor of biofuels interests, overturning EPA’s grant of refinery exemptions to three refineries on two separate grounds. The Court agreed that, under the Clean Air Act, refineries are eligible for SREs for a given RVO year only if such exemptions are extensions of exemptions granted in previous RVO years. In this case, the three refineries at issue did not qualify for SREs in the year prior to the year that EPA granted them. They were thus ineligible for additional SRE relief because there were no immediately prior SREs to extend. In addition, the Court agreed that the disproportionate economic hardship prong of SRE eligibility should be determined solely by reference to whether compliance with the RFS II creates such hardship, not whether compliance plus other issues create disproportionate economic hardship. The Court thus vacated EPA's grant of SREs for certain years and remanded the grants back to EPA. It is expected the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the decision against the EPA is upheld by the Supreme Court, it is uncertain how the EPA will propose to remedy the situation.

On January 29, 2020, the President signed into law the updated North American Free Trade Agreement, known as the United States Mexico Canada Agreement or USMCA. The pact maintains the duty free access of U.S. agricultural commodities, including ethanol, into Canada and Mexico. As of the date of this filing, Mexico has ratified the pact and the Canadian Parliament is widely expected to do the same.

See further discussion in Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Environmental and Other Regulation

Under the omnibus agreement, our parent is required to indemnify us from all known and certain unknown environmental liabilities associated with owning and operating our assets that existed on or before the closing of the IPO. In turn, we agree to indemnify our parent from future environmental liabilities associated with the activities of the partnership. Construction or maintenance of our terminal facilities and storage facilities may impact wetlands, which are regulated by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

Our parent’s ethanol production plants emit carbon dioxide as a by-product of the ethanol production process. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court classified carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act in a case seeking to require the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide in vehicle emissions. In 2010, the EPA released its final regulations on the RFS II. Our parent believes that these final regulations grandfather its ethanol production plants at their current authorized capacity, though expansion of its ethanol production plants may need to meet a threshold of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions from a 2005 baseline measurement for the ethanol over current capacity to be eligible for the RFS II mandate.

Separately, CARB has adopted a LCFS which took effect in 2013, requiring a 10% reduction in average carbon intensity of gasoline and diesel transportation fuels. Several states, municipalities and regions of the country are considering using a LCFS approach to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector. Federal policy has been proposed that would phase out the use of liquid fuels entirely in an effort to reach net-zero carbon emissions as a nation.

See further discussion in Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Employees

We do not have any direct employees. We are managed and operated by the executive officers of our general partner, who are also officers of our parent, and our general partner’s board of directors. Our general partner and its affiliates have approximately 40 full-time equivalent employees under its direct management and supervision supporting our operations.

In addition, we have entered into service agreements with unaffiliated third-parties to provide railcar unloading and terminal services for several of our terminal facilities. Under these service agreements, the third parties are responsible for providing the personnel necessary to perform various railcar unloading and terminal services. The third parties are considered independent contractors and none of their employees or contractors are considered employees, representatives or agents of the partnership.

Available Information

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports are available on our website at www.greenplainspartners.com shortly after we file or furnish the information with the SEC. You can also find the charter of our audit committee, as well as our code of ethics in the corporate governance section of our website. The information found on our website is not part of this or any other report we file or furnish with the SEC. For more information on our parent, please visit www.gpreinc.com. Alternatively, investors may visit the SEC website at www.sec.gov to access our reports and information statements filed with the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Investing in our common units involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below together with the other information set forth in this report before making an investment decision. Any of the following risks and uncertainties could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders. If that occurs, we may not be able to pay distributions on our common units, the trading price of our common units could decline materially, and you could lose all or part of your investment. Although many of our business risks are comparable to those faced by a corporation engaged in a similar business, limited partner interests are inherently different from the capital stock of a corporation and involve additional risks described below. We may experience additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or as a result of developments occurring in the future. Conditions that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We may not have sufficient cash from operations following the establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including cost reimbursements to our general partner and its affiliates, to enable us to pay quarterly distributions to our unitholders.

We may not generate sufficient cash flows each quarter to enable us to pay quarterly distributions. We do not have a legal obligation to pay any distribution except to the extent we have available cash as defined in our partnership agreement. The amount of cash we can distribute on our units depends on the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which fluctuates from quarter to quarter based on:

the volume of ethanol and other fuels we handle;

the fees associated with the volumes and capacity we handle;

payments associated with the minimum commitments under our commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade;

timely payments by Green Plains Trade and other third parties; and

prevailing economic conditions.

The cash we have available for distribution also depends on other factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:

the amount of our operating expenses and general and administrative expenses, including reimbursements to our general partner in respect of those expenses;

our capital expenditures;

the cost of acquisitions and organic growth projects;

our debt service requirements and other liabilities;

fluctuations in our working capital needs;

our ability to borrow funds and access capital markets;

restrictions contained in our revolving credit facility and other debt service requirements;

the cash reserves established by our general partner; and

other business risks affecting our cash levels.

Our financial performance is substantially dependent on our parent’s ethanol production plants.

We believe that a substantial portion of our revenues for the foreseeable future will be derived from operations supporting our parent’s ethanol production plants. Any event that renders these ethanol production plants temporarily or permanently unavailable or that temporarily or permanently reduces production rates at any of these ethanol production plants could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

The services we provide under commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade account for a substantial portion of our revenues, which subject us to the business risks of Green Plains Trade and, as a result of its direct ownership by our parent, to the business risks of our parent.

We have a storage and throughput agreement and two transportation services agreements with Green Plains Trade, which have been amended from time to time. Green Plains Trade’s obligations under such commercial agreements are guaranteed by our parent. Additionally, we assumed all of BlendStar’s terminal services agreements with Green Plains Trade. The services we provide under commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade account for a substantial portion of our revenues for the foreseeable future. Therefore, we are subject to risk of nonpayment or nonperformance by Green Plains Trade and our parent under the commercial agreements. Any event, whether related to our operations or otherwise, that materially and adversely affects Green Plains Trade’s or our parent’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows may adversely affect our ability to sustain or increase cash distributions to our unitholders. Accordingly, we are indirectly subject to the following operational and business risks of our parent and its subsidiaries (including Green Plains Trade), among others:

the price volatility of corn, natural gas, ethanol, distillers grains, corn oil, crude oil, and cattle and our parent’s ability to manage the spread among the prices for such commodities;

our parent’s risk management strategies, including hedging transactions that may limit its effectiveness and expose it to other risks;

Green Plains Trade’s liquidity could be materially and adversely affected if third parties are unable to make payments for their sales;

the ethanol industry’s dependency on government usage mandates for blending ethanol with gasoline which influences ethanol production and ethanol prices;

our parent’s indebtedness may limit its ability to obtain additional financing, and our parent may also face difficulties complying with the terms of its debt agreements;

covenants and events of default in our parent’s debt agreements could limit its ability to undertake certain types of transactions and adversely affect its liquidity;

our parent has capital needs and planned and unplanned maintenance expenses for which its internally generated cash flows and other sources of liquidity may not be adequate;

the dangers inherent in our parent’s operations could cause disruptions and could expose our parent to potentially significant losses, costs or liabilities;

environmental risks, incidents and violations that could give rise to material remediation costs, fines and other liabilities;

our parent may incur significant costs to comply with state and federal environmental, economic, health and safety, energy and other laws, policies and regulations and any changes in those laws, policies and regulations;

our parent could incur substantial costs or disruptions in its business if it cannot obtain or maintain necessary permits and authorizations on favorable terms;

a material decrease in the supply of corn available to our parent’s ethanol production plants could significantly reduce its production levels;

competition in the ethanol industry is intense, and an increase in competition in the areas in which our parent’s ethanol is sold, or an increase in foreign ethanol production, could adversely affect our parent’s sales and profitability;

demand for ethanol is uncertain and may be affected by changes to federal mandates, public perception, consumer acceptance and overall consumer demand for transportation fuel which would affect our parent’s results of operations;

‎

increased federal support of cellulosic ethanol may result in reduced competitiveness of our parent’s corn-derived ethanol production;

replacement technologies under development may result in the obsolescence of corn-derived ethanol or our parent’s process systems which would materially impact our parent’s operations, cash flow and financial position;

severe weather, including earthquakes, floods, fire and other natural disasters, could cause damage to our parent’s ethanol production plants, disrupt our parent’s operations or interrupt the supply of our parent’s corn supply for its ethanol production plants and our parent’s ability to distribute ethanol;

Green Plains Trade could incur substantial penalties if it inadvertently traded or trades ethanol with invalid RINs;

our parent could incur substantial costs in order to generate or obtain the necessary number of RINs credits in connection with mandates to blend renewable fuels into the petroleum fuels produced and sold in the United States;

our parent may be required to provide remedies for the delivery of off-specification ethanol, distillers grains or corn oil;

our parent’s insurance policies do not cover all losses, costs or liabilities that our parent may experience;

our parent could be subject to damages based on claims brought by its customers or lose customers as a result of a failure of its products to meet certain quality specifications;

the loss by our parent of any of its key personnel;

terrorist attacks, threats of war or actual war; and

cyber-attacks or failure of our parent’s internal computer network and applications to operate as designed.

Green Plains Trade may suspend, reduce or terminate its obligations under the commercial agreements with us in certain circumstances.

All of our commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade include provisions that permit Green Plains Trade to suspend, reduce or terminate its obligations under the agreements if certain events occur. Under all of our commercial agreements, these events include a material breach of such agreements by us, the occurrence of certain force majeure events that would prevent Green Plains Trade or us from performing our respective obligations under the applicable commercial agreement and the minimum commitment, if any, not being available to Green Plains Trade for reasons outside of its control.

As defined in each of our commercial agreements, force majeure events include any acts or occurrences that prevent services from being performed under the applicable commercial agreement, such as:

federal, state, county, or municipal orders, rules, legislation, or regulations;

acts of God, including fires, floods, storms, earthquakes or other severe weather events;

compliance with orders of courts or any governmental authorities;

explosions, wars, terrorist acts or riots;

strikes, lockouts or other industrial disturbances; and

events or circumstances similar to those above (including disruption of service provided by third parties) that prevent a party’s ability to perform its obligations under the agreement, to the extent that such events or circumstances are beyond the party’s reasonable control.

Accordingly, under the commercial agreements, there are a broad range of events that could result in our no longer being required to store, throughput or transport Green Plains Trade’s minimum commitments and Green Plains Trade no longer being required to pay the full amount of fees that would have been associated with its minimum commitments. Neither our parent nor Green Plains Trade is required to pursue a business strategy that favors us or utilizes our assets. They could elect to decrease ethanol production or shutdown or reconfigure an ethanol production plant. Furthermore, a single event or business decision relating to one of our parent’s ethanol production plants could have an impact on the commercial agreements with us. These actions, as well the other activities described above, could result in a reduction or suspension of Green Plains Trade’s obligations under the commercial agreements. Any such reduction or suspension would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Ethanol production and marketing is a highly competitive business subject to changing market demands and regulatory environments. Any change in our parent’s business or financial strategy to meet such demands or requirements may negatively impact our parent’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and, in turn, may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Ethanol production, storage, transportation and marketing is highly competitive. In the United States, our parent competes with farmer cooperatives, corn processors and refiners. Our parent is among the five largest producers in the United States that have combined capacity of 7.1 bgy, or 42% of all domestic production as of December 31, 2019. Nearly half of the 209 ethanol plants in the United States are stand-alone entities that produce 5.8 billion gallons, or 34% of all domestic production. If our parent’s competitors consolidate or otherwise grow, our parent’s business may be significantly and adversely affected. There is also risk of foreign competition. Foreign producers, including Brazil, which is the second largest ethanol producer in the world, may be able to produce ethanol at lower input costs, including costs of feedstock, facilities and personnel, than our parent.

Additionally, our parent considers opportunities presented by third parties related to its assets, including its ethanol production plants. These opportunities may include offers to purchase assets and joint venture propositions. A third-party purchaser may identify alternative service providers and opt for minimum volume commitments or minimum take-or-pay capacity commitments or decide to allow the commercial agreements to expire at the end of the original term. Such third party may also operate the ethanol production plants in a suboptimal manner, increasing the frequency of turnarounds and reducing capacity utilization.

Our parent may change the focus of its operations by developing new types of facilities, suspending or reducing certain operations, modifying or closing facilities or terminating operations. Changes may be considered to meet market demands, to satisfy regulatory requirements or environmental and safety objectives, to improve operational efficiency or for other reasons. Our parent actively manages its assets and operations, and, therefore, changes of some nature, possibly material to its business relationship with us, are likely to occur at some point in the future. No such changes will be subject to our consent.

Green Plains Trade is currently our primary source of revenue and our primary customer. Our parent and Green Plains Trade, which we have no control over, may elect to pursue a business strategy that does not favor us or our business. A change in our parent’s business or financial strategy, contractual obligations or risk profile may negatively impact its financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or creditworthiness. In turn, our cash flows from our commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade and, therefore, our ability to sustain or increase cash distributions to our unitholders may be materially and adversely affected. Moreover, our creditworthiness may be adversely affected by a decline in our parent’s creditworthiness, increasing our borrowing costs or hindering our ability to access the capital markets.

Conflicts of interest may arise between our general partner and its affiliates, including our parent and Green Plains Trade, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. Green Plains Trade may suspend, reduce or terminate its obligations under the commercial agreements with us in certain circumstances, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our revolving credit facility includes restrictions that may limit our ability to finance future operations, meet our capital needs or expand our business. In addition, our revolving credit facility matures on July 1, 2020 and we may not be able to renew, extend or replace the expiring facility. If we fail to comply with covenants in our revolving credit facility or if the facility is terminated, we may be required to repay our indebtedness thereunder, which may have an adverse effect on our liquidity.

We are dependent upon the earnings and cash flow generated by our operations in order to meet our debt service obligations and to allow us to pay cash distributions to our unitholders. The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our revolving credit facility or in any future financing agreements could restrict our ability to finance future operations or capital needs or to expand or pursue our business activities, which may, in turn, limit our ability to pay cash distributions to our unitholders. For example, our revolving credit facility restricts our ability to, among other things:

make certain cash distributions;

incur certain indebtedness;

create certain liens;

make certain investments;

‎

merge or sell certain of our assets; and

expand the nature of our business.

Furthermore, our revolving credit facility contains covenants requiring us to maintain certain financial ratios.

The provisions of our revolving credit facility may affect our ability to obtain future financing and pursue attractive business opportunities and our flexibility in planning for, and reacting to, changes in business conditions. In addition, a failure to comply with the provisions of our revolving credit facility could result in an event of default that could enable our lenders, subject to the terms and conditions of our revolving credit facility, to declare the outstanding principal of that debt, together with accrued interest, to be immediately due and payable and/or to proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure such debt. If there is a default or event of default under our debt the payment of our debt is accelerated, defaults under our other debt instruments, if any, may be triggered, and our assets may be insufficient to repay such debt in full. Therefore, the holders of our units could experience a partial or total loss of their investment.

The revolving credit facility matures on July 1, 2020. We intend to renew and extend the revolving credit facility prior to its maturity. However, we may not be able to renew the revolving credit facility with the same or similar terms, which could have a material and adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Neither our parent nor Green Plains Trade is obligated to use our services with respect to volumes or volumetric capacity of ethanol or other fuels in excess of the applicable minimum commitment under the respective commercial agreements. Furthermore, we may be unable to renew or extend our commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade or renew them on favorable terms.

Our ability to distribute a quarterly distribution to our unitholders will be adversely affected if we do not receive, store, transfer, transport or deliver additional volumes or use volumetric capacity for Green Plains Trade or other third parties at our ethanol storage facilities, at our fuel terminal facilities or on our railcars.

In addition, the remaining term of Green Plains Trade’s obligations under each agreement extends for approximately 8.5 years in the case of the storage and throughput agreement, 5.5 years in the case of the rail transportation services agreement, 3.0 years in the case of the terminal services agreements that provide for minimum commitments, and five months in the case of the trucking transportation agreement. If, at the end of the remaining primary term, our parent and Green Plains Trade elect not to extend these agreements and, as a result, fail to use our assets and we are unable to generate additional revenues from third parties, our ability to pay cash distributions to our unitholders will be reduced. Furthermore, any renewal of the commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade may not be on favorable commercial terms. For example, depending on prevailing market conditions at the time of contract renewal, Green Plains Trade may desire to enter into contracts under different fee arrangements. To the extent we are unable to renew the commercial agreements with Green Plains Trade on terms that are favorable to us, our revenue and cash flows could decline and our ability to pay cash distributions to our unitholders could be materially and adversely affected.

Green Plains Trade’s minimum take-or-pay capacity commitment under the rail transportation services agreement will be reduced proportionately as our railcar leases expire if we do not enter into new rail transportation services agreements.

We lease our fleet of railcars from several lessors pursuant to lease agreements with remaining terms ranging from less than one year to approximately five years with a weighted average remaining term of 3.1 years. As our railcar lease agreements expire, the respective volumetric capacity of those expired leases will no longer be subject to the rail transportation services agreement, and Green Plains Trade’s minimum take-or-pay capacity commitment will be reduced proportionately. Of our current leased railcar fleet, 18.9%, 17.7%, 20.2% and 30.8% of the railcar volumetric capacity have terms that expire in the years ended December 31, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively, or approximately 87.6% of our total current railcar volumetric capacity during that time frame. If at the end of the terms under the lease agreements, we do not enter into new commercial arrangements with respect to rail transportation services, our revenues and cash flows could decline and our ability to pay cash distributions to our unitholders could be materially and adversely affected.

Railcars used to transport ethanol and other fuels will need to be retrofitted or replaced to meet new rail safety standards.

The U.S. ethanol industry has long relied on railroads to deliver its product to market. On May 1, 2015, the DOT, through PHMSA and FRA, and in coordination with Transport Canada, announced the final rule, “Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains.” The rule calls for an enhanced tank car standard

known as the DOT specification 117, or DOT-117 tank car, and establishes a schedule for retrofitting or replacing older tank cars carrying crude oil and ethanol. The rule also establishes new braking standards that are intended to reduce the severity of accidents and the so-called “pile-up effect.” Under prescribed circumstances, new operational protocols apply including reduced speed, routing requirements and local government notifications. In addition, persons that offer hazardous material for transportation must develop more accurate classification protocols. These regulations will result in upgrades or replacements of our railcars, and may have an adverse effect on our operations as lease costs for railcars may increase over the long term. The deadline for compliance with DOT specification 117 is May 1, 2023. As of December 31, 2019, approximately 30% of our 2,630 railcars were DOT 117 compliant.

Our railcars are also subject to federally-mandated tank car requalification, which requires inspection, repairs and upgrades to our current railcar fleet every ten years. Due to these regulatory standards, as well as any potential modifications that may be issued in the future, existing railcars could be out of service for a period of time while such upgrades are made, tightening supply in an industry that is highly dependent on such railcars to transport its product. Since we cannot charge our customers for railcars that are out of service, a significant increase in out of service railcars could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions.

Rail logistical problems may delay the delivery of our customers’ products.

Weather related incidents, particularly snow and flooding, can cause increased transit times and result in rail congestion at destinations. In the past, rail delays have caused some ethanol plants to slow or suspend production. Due to the location of our parent’s ethanol production plants, we have not historically been materially affected by these logistical problems. If railroad performance is inadequate, we may face delays in shipping railcars to and from our parent’s ethanol production plants, which may affect our ability to transport product. Rail logistical problems due to circumstances outside of the control or us or our customers could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions.

If the United States were to withdraw from or materially modify certain international trade agreements, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Ethanol and other products that our parent produces are exported to Canada, Mexico, Brazil, China and other countries. The current administration has expressed antipathy towards many existing international trade agreements, and has significantly increased tariffs on goods imported into the United States from many countries, which in turn has led to retaliatory actions on US exports. The current trade situation, the outcome of trade negotiations or lack thereof, has had and/or may continue to have a material effect on our parent’s, and consequently our, business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be able to increase our third-party revenues due to competition and other factors, which could limit our ability to grow and could increase our dependence on our parent.

Part of our growth strategy includes diversifying our customer base by acquiring or developing new assets independently from our parent. Our ability to increase our third-party revenue is subject to numerous factors beyond our control, including competition from third parties and the extent to which we lack available capacity when third parties require it.

We can provide no assurance that we will be able to attract any material third-party service opportunities. Our efforts to attract new unaffiliated customers may be adversely affected by (1) our relationship with our parent, (2) our desire to provide services pursuant to fee-based contracts, (3) our parent’s operational requirements at its ethanol production plants and (4) our expectation that our parent will continue to utilize substantially all of the available capacity of our assets. Our potential customers may prefer to obtain services under other forms of contractual arrangements under which we would be required to assume direct commodity exposure. In addition, we need to establish a reputation among our potential customer base for providing high-quality service in order to successfully attract unaffiliated third parties.

Our future growth could be limited if we are unable to make acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, or if the acquisitions we make reduce, rather than increase, our cash flows.

A portion of our strategy to grow our business and increase distributions to our unitholders is dependent on our ability to acquire businesses or assets that increase our cash flows. The acquisition component of our growth strategy is based, in large part, on our expectation of ongoing divestitures of complementary assets by industry participants, including in conjunction with acquisitions by our parent. A material decrease in such divestitures would limit our opportunities for future acquisitions and could adversely affect our ability to grow our operations and increase cash distributions to our unitholders. If we are

unable to make acquisitions from third parties because we are unable to identify attractive acquisition candidates, negotiate acceptable purchase contracts, obtain financing for these acquisitions on economically acceptable terms or we are outbid by competitors, our future growth and ability to increase distributions will be limited. Furthermore, even if we do consummate acquisitions that we believe will be accretive, they may in fact result in a decrease in cash flows. Any acquisition involves potential risks, including, among other things:

inaccurate assumptions about revenues and costs, including synergies;

an inability to integrate successfully the businesses or assets we acquire;

the assumption of unknown liabilities;

limitations on rights to indemnity from the seller;

inaccurate assumptions about the overall costs of equity or debt financing;

the diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns;

unforeseen difficulties operating in new product areas or new geographic areas; and

customer or key employee losses at the acquired businesses.

If we consummate any future acquisitions, our capitalization and results of operations may change significantly, and our unitholders will not have the opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and other relevant information that we will consider in determining the application of these funds and other resources.

Our right of first offer to acquire any of our parent’s new ethanol storage assets, fuel terminal facilities or ethanol or transportation fuel assets is subject to risks and uncertainty, and we may ultimately decide not to acquire any of those assets.

Under our omnibus agreement, we are granted a right of first offer, which expires June 30, 2020, on any (1) ethanol storage or terminal assets that our parent may acquire or construct in the future, (2) fuel storage or terminal facilities that our parent may acquire or construct in the future, and (3) ethanol and fuel transportation assets that our parent currently owns or may acquire in the future, before selling or transferring any of those assets to any third party. We do not have a current agreement with our parent to purchase any currently owned assets covered by our right of first offer. The consummation and timing of any future acquisitions of these assets will depend upon, among other things, our parent’s willingness to sell such assets, our ability to negotiate acceptable purchase agreements and commercial agreements with respect to the assets and our ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms. We can offer no assurance that we will be able to successfully consummate any future acquisitions pursuant to our right of first offer. In addition, certain of the assets may require substantial capital expenditures in order to maintain compliance with applicable regulatory requirements or otherwise make them suitable for our commercial needs. For these or a variety of other reasons, we may decide not to exercise our right of first offer if and when any assets are offered for sale. Our decision will not be subject to unitholder approval.

We can provide no assurance that we will be able to consummate any future acquisitions of assets from our parent through our expiring right of first offer. If we are unable to do so, our future growth and ability to increase distributions may be limited. Even if we do consummate such acquisitions that we believe will be accretive, they may in fact result in a decrease in our distributable cash flow per unit as a result of incorrect assumptions, unforeseen consequences, or other external events beyond our control.

Future events could result in impairment of long-lived assets, goodwill, or equity method investments, which may result in charges that adversely affect our results of operations.

Long-lived assets, including property and equipment and operating lease right-of-use assets, as well as goodwill and equity method investments, are evaluated for impairment annually or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Our impairment evaluations are sensitive to changes in key assumptions used in our analysis and may require use of financial estimates of future cash flows. Application of alternative assumptions could produce significantly different results. We may be required to recognize impairments based on future economic factors such as unfavorable changes in estimated future undiscounted cash flows.

Any inability to maintain required regulatory permits may impede or completely prohibit our parent’s and our operations. Additionally, any change in environmental and safety regulations, or violations thereof, may impede our parent’s and our ability to operate our respective businesses successfully.

Our and our parent’s operations are subject to extensive air, water and other environmental regulation. Our parent has had to obtain a number of environmental permits to construct and operate its ethanol production plants. Ethanol production involves the emission of various airborne pollutants, including particulate, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, hazardous air pollutants and volatile organic compounds. In addition, the governing state agencies could impose conditions or other restrictions in the permits that are detrimental to our parent and us or which increase our parent’s costs above those required for profitable operations. Any such event could have a material adverse effect on our operations, cash flows and financial position.

Environmental laws and regulations, both at the federal and state level, are subject to change and changes can be made retroactively. It is possible that more stringent federal or state environmental rules or regulations could be adopted, which could increase our operating costs and expenses. Consequently, even if we and our parent have the proper permits at the present time, each of us may be required to invest or spend considerable resources to comply with future environmental regulations. Furthermore, ongoing operations are governed by OSHA. OSHA regulations may change in a way that increases each of our costs of operations. If any of these events were to occur, they could have a material adverse impact on our operations, cash flows and financial position.

Part of our business is regulated by environmental laws and regulations governing the labeling, use, storage, discharge and disposal of hazardous materials. Because we use and handle hazardous substances in our businesses, changes in environmental requirements or an unanticipated significant adverse environmental event could have an adverse effect on our business. While we strive to ensure compliance, we cannot assure you that we have been, or will at all times be, in compliance with all environmental requirements, or that we will not incur material costs or liabilities in connection with these requirements. Private parties, including current and former employees, could bring personal injury or other claims against us due to the presence of, or exposure to, hazardous substances used, stored or disposed of by us, or contained in its products. We are also exposed to residual risk because some of our facilities and land may have environmental liabilities arising from their prior use. In addition, changes to environmental regulations may require us to modify existing facilities and could significantly increase the cost of those operations.

The interest rates under our revolving credit facility may be impacted by the phase-out of LIBOR.

LIBOR is the basic rate of interest widely used as a reference for setting the interest rates on loans globally. We use LIBOR as a reference rate for our revolving credit facility. In 2017, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, announced that it intends to phase out LIBOR by the end of 2021. It is unclear if LIBOR will cease to exist at that time or if new methods of calculating LIBOR will be established such that it continues to exist after 2021. The U.S. Federal Reserve, in conjunction with the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a steering committee comprised of large U.S. financial institutions, is considering replacing U.S. dollar LIBOR with a new index, the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), calculated using short-term repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities. We are evaluating the potential impact of the eventual replacement of the LIBOR benchmark interest rate, however, we are not able to predict whether LIBOR will cease to be available after 2021, whether SOFR will become a widely accepted benchmark in place of LIBOR, or what the impact of such a possible transition to SOFR may be on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Debt we incur in the future may limit our flexibility to obtain financing and to pursue other business opportunities.

Our future level of debt could have important consequences to us, including, but not limited to, the following:

our ability to obtain additional financing, if necessary, for working capital, capital expenditures or other purposes may be impaired, or such financing may not be available on favorable terms;

our funds available for operations, future business opportunities and distributions to our unitholders will be reduced by that portion of our cash flow required to service our debt;

we may be more vulnerable to competitive pressures or a downturn in our business or the economy generally; and

our flexibility in responding to changing business and economic conditions may be limited.

Our ability to service our debt depends upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance, which is affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. If our operating results are not sufficient to service any future debt, we will be forced to take actions such as reducing distributions, reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions, organic growth projects, investments or capital expenditures, selling assets or issuing equity. We may not be able to effect any of these actions on satisfactory terms or at all.

Our parent is required to comply with a number of covenants under its existing loan agreements that could hinder our ability to grow our business, pay cash distributions and maintain our credit profile. Our ability to obtain credit in the future may also be affected by our parent’s financial condition, our own credit profile and the environment for access to capital for master limited partnerships.

Our parent must devote a portion of its cash flows from operating activities to service its indebtedness. A higher level of indebtedness at our parent in the future increases the risk that its subsidiary, Green Plains Trade, may default on its obligations under the commercial agreements with us. Despite its current debt levels, our parent and its subsidiaries may incur additional debt in the future, including secured debt. Certain of our parent’s subsidiaries (including Green Plains Trade) are restricted under the terms of its debt from incurring various types of additional debt, pledging assets, and recapitalizing its debt. In addition, a number of other actions, whether restricted or non-restricted by the debt terms, could diminish our ability to make payments thereunder.

Our parent’s existing and future debt arrangements, as applicable, may limit its ability to, among other things, incur additional indebtedness, make capital expenditures above certain limits, pay dividends or distributions, merge or consolidate, or dispose of substantially all of its assets, and may directly or indirectly impact our operations in a similar manner. Our parent’s subsidiaries are also required to maintain specified financial ratios, including minimum cash flow coverage, minimum working capital and minimum net worth. A breach of any of these covenants or requirements could result in a default under its loan agreements. If any of its subsidiaries default, and if such default is not cured or waived, our parent’s lenders could, among other things, accelerate their debt and declare that debt immediately due and payable. If this occurs, our parent may not be able to repay such debt or borrow sufficient funds to refinance. Even if new financing is available, it may not be on terms that are acceptable. No assurance can be given that the future operating results of our parent’s subsidiaries will be sufficient to achieve compliance with such covenants and requirements, or in the event of a default, to remedy such default.

In the past, our parent has received waivers from its lenders for failure to meet certain financial covenants and has amended its loan agreements to change these covenants. In the event our parent is unable to comply with these covenants in the future, our parent cannot provide assurance that it will be able to obtain the necessary waivers or amend its loan agreements to prevent default. Under our parent’s convertible senior notes, default on any loan in excess of $20.0 million could result in the notes being declared due and payable.

In the event that our parent were to default under certain of its debt obligations, there is a risk that our parent’s creditors would assert claims against us with respect to our contracts with Green Plains Trade, our parent’s assets, and Green Plains Trade’s ethanol and other product we throughput and handle during the litigation of their claims. The defense of any such claims could be costly and could materially impact our financial condition, even absent any adverse determination. In the event these claims were successful, Green Plains Trade’s ability to meet its obligations under our commercial agreements and our ability to make distributions and finance our operations could be materially adversely affected.

We have exposure to increases in interest rates.

Borrowings under our revolving credit facility currently bear interest at LIBOR plus 2.25% to 3.00%. The revolving credit facility will mature on July 1, 2020. We intend to renew and extend the revolving credit facility prior to its maturity; however, we have no guarantee that this will occur. If we make any borrowings in the future, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders could be materially adversely affected by significant increases in interest rates.

Additionally, as with other yield-oriented securities, our unit price is impacted by the level of our cash distributions and implied distribution yield. The distribution yield is often used by investors to compare and rank related yield-oriented securities for investment decision-making purposes. Therefore, changes in interest rates, either positive or negative, may affect the yield requirements of investors who invest in our units, and a rising interest rate environment could have an adverse impact on our unit price and our ability to issue additional equity, to incur debt to expand or for other purposes or to pay cash distributions at our intended levels.

Our assets and operations are subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to environmental protection and safety that may require substantial expenditures.

Our assets and operations involve the receipt, storage, transfer, transportation and delivery of ethanol and other fuels, which is subject to increasingly stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations governing operational safety and the discharge of materials into the environment. Our business involves the risk that ethanol and other fuels may gradually or suddenly be released into the environment. To the extent not covered by insurance or an indemnity, responding to the release of regulated substances, including releases caused by third parties, into the environment may cause us to incur potentially material expenditures related to response actions, government penalties, natural resources damages, personal injury or property damage claims from third parties and business interruption.

Our operations are also subject to increasingly strict federal, state and local laws and regulations related to protection of the environment that require us to comply with various safety requirements regarding the design, installation, testing, construction and operational management of our assets. Compliance with such laws and regulations may cause us to incur potentially material capital expenditures associated with the construction, maintenance and upgrading of equipment and facilities.

We could incur potentially significant additional expenses should we determine that any of our assets are not in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Our failure to comply with these or any other environmental or safety-related regulations could result in the assessment of administrative, civil or criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory and remedial liabilities and the issuance of injunctions that may subject us to additional operational constraints. Any such penalties or liabilities could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions.

Compliance with evolving environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, particularly those related to climate change, may be costly.

Our parent’s ethanol production plants emit carbon dioxide as a by-product of the ethanol production process. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court classified carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act in a case seeking to require the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide in vehicle emissions. On February 3, 2010, the EPA released its final regulations on the RFS II. These final regulations grandfather many of our parent’s ethanol production plants at their current authorized capacity, and its other plants have met the efficient producer status under EPA’s pathway petition program.

Separately, CARB has adopted a LCFS, and numerous other states and regions are evaluating similar lifecycle greenhouse gas regulations which may have an adverse impact on the market for corn-based ethanol in those markets.

These federal and state regulations may require our parent to apply for additional permits for its ethanol plants. In order to expand capacity at its ethanol production plants, our parent may have to apply for additional permits, achieve EPA “efficient producer” status under the pathway petition program, install advanced technology, or reduce drying of certain amounts of distillers grains. Our parent may also be required to install carbon dioxide mitigation equipment or take other steps unknown to our parent at this time in order to comply with other future law or regulation. Compliance with future law or regulation of carbon dioxide, or if our parent chooses to expand capacity at certain of its ethanol production plants, compliance with then-current regulation of carbon dioxide, could be costly and may prevent our parent from operating its ethanol production plants as profitably, which may have an adverse impact on their operations, cash flows and financial position.

These developments could have an indirect adverse effect on our business if our parent’s operations are adversely affected due to increased regulation of our parent’s facilities or reduced demand for ethanol, and a direct adverse effect on our business from increased regulation at our fuel terminal facilities.

Our business is impacted by environmental risks inherent in our operations.

The operation of ethanol storage assets and ethanol transportation is inherently subject to the risks of spills, discharges or other inadvertent releases of ethanol and other hazardous substances. If any of these events have previously occurred or occur in the future in connection with any of our parent’s operations or our operations, we could be liable for costs and penalties associated with the remediation of such events under federal, state and local environmental laws or the common law. We may also be liable for personal injury or property damage claims from third parties alleging contamination from spills or releases from our assets or our operations. Even if we are insured or indemnified against such risks, we may be responsible for costs or penalties to the extent our insurers or indemnitors do not fulfill their obligations to us. The payment of such costs or penalties could be significant and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our business activities are subject to regulation by multiple federal, state, and local governmental agencies.

Our projected operating costs reflect the recurring costs resulting from compliance with these regulations, and we do not anticipate material expenditures in excess of these amounts in the absence of future acquisitions, or changes in regulation, or discovery of existing but unknown compliance issues. Additional proposals and proceedings that affect the ethanol industry are regularly considered by Congress, as well as by state legislatures and federal and state regulatory commissions and agencies and courts. We cannot predict when or whether any such proposals may become effective or the magnitude of the impact changes in laws and regulations may have on our business; however, additions or enhancements to the regulatory burden on our industry generally increase the cost of doing business and affect our profitability.

Replacement technologies could make corn-based ethanol or our process technology obsolete.

Ethanol is primarily an additive and oxygenate for blended gasoline. Although use of oxygenates is currently mandated, there is always the possibility that a preferred alternative product will emerge and impact the current market. Critics of ethanol blends argue that ethanol decreases fuel economy, causes corrosion of ferrous components and damages fuel pumps. Any alternative oxygenate product would likely be a form of alcohol (like ethanol) or ether (like MTBE). Prior to federal restrictions and ethanol mandates, MTBE was the dominant oxygenate. It is possible that other ether products could enter the market and prove to be environmentally or economically superior to ethanol. It is also possible that alternative biofuel alcohols such as methanol and butanol could evolve into ethanol replacement products. Such products could have a competitive advantage over ethanol, making it more difficult for our parent to market its ethanol, which could reduce our ability to generate revenue and profits.

New ethanol process technologies may emerge that require less energy per gallon produced. The development of such process technologies would result in lower ethanol production costs. Our parent’s process technologies may become outdated and obsolete, placing it at a competitive disadvantage against competitors in the industry. The development of replacement technologies may have a material adverse effect on our parent’s, and consequently our, operations, cash flows and financial position.

Future demand for ethanol is uncertain and changes in federal mandates, public perception, consumer acceptance and overall consumer demand for transportation fuel could affect demand.

While many trade groups, academics and government agencies support ethanol as a fuel additive that promotes a cleaner environment, others claim ethanol production consumes considerably more energy, emits more greenhouse gases than other fuels and depletes water resources. While we do not agree, some studies suggest ethanol produced from corn is less efficient than ethanol produced from switch grass or wheat grain. Others claim corn-based ethanol negatively impacts consumers by causing the prices of meat and other food derived from corn-consuming livestock to increase. Ethanol critics also contend the industry redirects corn supplies from international food markets to domestic fuel markets, and contributes to land use change domestically and abroad.

There are limited markets for ethanol beyond the federal mandates. We believe further consumer acceptance of E15 and E85 fuels may be necessary before ethanol can achieve significant market share growth. Discretionary and E85 blending are important secondary markets. Discretionary blending is often determined by the price of ethanol relative to gasoline, and availability to consumers. When discretionary blending is financially unattractive, the demand for ethanol may be reduced.

Demand for ethanol is also affected by overall demand for transportation fuel, which is affected by cost, number of miles traveled and vehicle fuel economy. Miles traveled typically increases during the spring and summer months related to vacation travel, followed closely behind the fall season due to holiday travel. Consumer demand for gasoline may be impacted by emerging transportation trends, such as electric vehicles or ride sharing. Additionally, factors such as over-supply of ethanol, which has been the case for some time, could continue to negatively impact our parent’s business. Reduced demand for ethanol may depress the value of our parent’s products, erode its margins, and reduce our parent’s, and consequently our, ability to generate revenue or operate profitably.

Increased federal support of cellulosic ethanol may increase competition among corn-derived ethanol producers.

Legislation, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and EISA, provides numerous funding opportunities supporting cellulosic ethanol production. In addition, RFS II mandates an increasing level of biofuel production that is not derived from corn, though this will be amended lower by the EPA in the reset rulemaking. Federal policies suggest a long-term political preference for cellulosic processing using feedstocks such as switch grass, silage, wood chips or other forms of biomass. Cellulosic ethanol is viewed more favorably since the feedstock is not diverted from food production and has a smaller carbon footprint. Several cellulosic ethanol plants are currently under development. While these have had limited success to date, as research and development programs persist, there is risk that cellulosic ethanol could displace corn ethanol. In addition, any replacement of federal mandates from corn-based to cellulosic-based ethanol production may reduce our parent’s, and consequently our, profitability.

Our parent’s ethanol production plants, where the majority of our ethanol storage facilities are located, are designed as single-feedstock facilities and would require significant additional investment to convert to the production of cellulosic ethanol. Additionally, our parent’s ethanol production plants are strategically located in high-yield, low-cost corn production areas. The adoption of cellulosic ethanol and its use as the preferred form of ethanol could have a significant adverse impact on our parent’s, and consequently our, business.

We could be adversely affected by cyber-attacks or failure of our or our parent’s internal computer network and applications to operate as designed.

We and our parent rely on network infrastructure and enterprise applications, and internal technology systems for operational, marketing support and sales, and product development activities. The hardware and software systems related to such activities are subject to damage from earthquakes, floods, lightning, tornados, fire, power loss, telecommunication failures, cyber-attacks and other similar events. They are also subject to acts such as computer viruses, physical or electronic vandalism or other similar disruptions that could cause system interruptions and loss of critical data, and could prevent us or our parent from fulfilling customers’ orders. Cybersecurity threats and incidents can range from uncoordinated individual attempts to gain unauthorized access to information technology networks and systems to more sophisticated and targeted measures, known as advanced persistent threats, directed at a company, its products, its customers and/or its third-party service providers. Despite the implementation of cybersecurity measures (including access controls, data encryption, vulnerability assessments, employee training, continuous monitoring, and maintenance of backup and protective systems), our information technology systems may still be vulnerable to cybersecurity threats and other electronic security breaches. While we have taken reasonable efforts to protect ourselves, we cannot assure our unitholders that any of our or our parent’s backup systems would be sufficient. Any event that causes failures or interruption in such hardware or software systems could result in disruption of our or our parent’s business operations, have a negative impact on our parent’s and our operating results, and damage each of our reputations, which could negatively affect our financial condition, results of operation, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our insurance policies do not cover all losses, costs or liabilities that we may experience, and insurance companies that currently insure companies in the energy industry may cease to do so or substantially increase premiums.

We are insured under the property, liability and business interruption policies of our parent, subject to the deductibles and limits under those policies. Our parent has acquired insurance that we and our parent believe to be adequate to prevent loss from material foreseeable risks. However, events may occur for which no insurance is available or for which insurance is not available on terms that are acceptable to our parent. Loss from such an event, such as, but not limited to war, riot, terrorism or other risks, may not be insured and such a loss may have a material adverse effect on our and our parent’s operations, cash flows and financial position.

Certain of our parent’s ethanol production plants and our related storage tanks, as well as certain of our fuel terminal facilities are located within recognized seismic and flood zones. We believe that the design of these facilities have been modified to fortify them to meet structural requirements for those regions of the country. Our parent has also obtained additional insurance coverage specific to earthquake and flood risks for the applicable plants and fuel terminals. However, there is no assurance that any such facility would remain in operation if a seismic or flood event were to occur.

Additionally, our ability to obtain and maintain adequate insurance may be adversely affected by conditions in the insurance market over which we have no control. In addition, if we experience insurable events, our annual premiums could increase further or insurance may not be available at all. If significant changes in the number or financial solvency of insurance underwriters for the ethanol industry occur, we may be unable to obtain and maintain adequate insurance at a reasonable cost. We cannot assure our unitholders that we will be able to renew our insurance coverage on acceptable terms, if at all, or that we will be able to arrange for adequate alternative coverage in the event of non-renewal. The occurrence of an event that is not fully covered by insurance, the failure by one or more insurers to honor its commitments for an insured event or the loss of insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

We may be affected by our parent’s portfolio optimization strategy.

In May 2018, our parent announced that it was evaluating the performance of its entire portfolio of assets and businesses. As part of that process, during the fourth quarter of 2018, our parent sold three ethanol plants and permanently closed one ethanol plant. As it continues to evaluate its portfolio, our parent may sell additional assets or businesses or exit particular markets that are no longer a strategic fit or no longer meet their growth or profitability targets. Depending on the nature of the assets sold, our profitability may be impacted by lost operating income or cash flows from such businesses. In addition, divestitures our parent completes may not yield the targeted improvements in their business and may divert management’s attention from our day-to-day operations. Our parent’s failure to achieve the intended financial results associated with its portfolio optimization strategy could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The loss of key personnel could adversely affect our ability to operate.

We depend on the leadership, involvement and services of a relatively small group of our general partner’s key management personnel, including its Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers and key technical and commercial personnel. The services of these individuals may not be available to us in the future. We may not be able to find acceptable replacements with comparable skills and experience. Accordingly, the loss of the services of one or more of these individuals could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our business.

Additionally, our success depends, in part, on our parent’s ability to attract and retain competent personnel. For each of our parent’s ethanol production plants, qualified managers, engineers, operations and other personnel must be hired. Our parent may not be able to attract and retain qualified personnel. If our parent is unable to hire and retain productive and competent personnel, the amount of ethanol our parent produces may decrease and our parent may not be able to efficiently operate its ethanol production plants and execute its business strategy, which could negatively impact the volumes of ethanol handled by us, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

We do not have any employees and rely solely on employees of our parent and its affiliates.

We do not have any employees and rely on employees of our parent and its affiliates, including our parent. Affiliates of our parent conduct businesses and activities of their own in which we have no economic interest. As a result, there could be material competition for the time and efforts of the employees who provide services to us and to our parent and its affiliates. If the employees of our parent and its affiliates do not devote sufficient attention to the operation of our business, our financial results may suffer and our ability to make distributions to our unitholders may be reduced.

In addition, we have entered into service agreements with unaffiliated third-parties to provide railcar unloading and terminal services for several of our terminal facilities. Under these service agreements, the third parties are responsible for providing the personnel necessary for the performance of various railcar unloading and terminal services. The third parties are considered independent contractors and none of their employees or contractors are considered an employee, representative or agent of us. Failure to maintain or renew these agreements could negatively affect our operational and financial results and may increase operating expenses at our terminal facilities.

We could be adversely affected by terrorist attacks, threats of war or actual war.

Terrorist attacks in the United States, as well as events occurring in response to or in connection with them, including threats of war or actual war, may adversely affect our and our parent’s financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and ability to make distributions to our unitholders. Ethanol-related assets (including ethanol production plants, such as those owned and operated by our parent on which we are substantially dependent, and storage facilities, fuel terminal facilities and railcars such as those owned and operated by us or our parent) may be at greater risk of future terrorist attacks than other possible targets. A direct attack on our assets or assets used by us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders. In addition, any terrorist attack could have an adverse impact on ethanol prices, including prices for our parent’s ethanol. Disruption or significant increases in ethanol prices could result in government imposed price controls.

Environmental, social and corporate governance matters and uncertainty regarding regulation of such matters may increase our operating costs, impact our capital markets, and potentially reduce the value of our assets.

The issue of global climate change continues to attract considerable public and scientific attention with widespread concern about the impacts of human activity, especially the emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. While climate change legislation in the U.S. is unlikely in the next several years, numerous proposals have been made and are likely to continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government that are intended to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Several states have already adopted measures requiring reduction of greenhouse gases within state boundaries. Other states have elected to participate in voluntary regional cap-and-trade programs. Any significant legislative changes at the international, national, state or local levels could increase the cost of production for our parent and could materially reduce the value of our assets.

Apart from governmental regulation, some investment banks based both domestically and internationally have announced that they have adopted environmental, social and corporate governance guidelines (ESG). There have also been efforts in recent years affecting the investment community, including investment advisers, sovereign wealth funds, public pension funds, universities and other groups, promoting the divestment of fossil fuel equities, and encouraging the consideration of ESG practices of companies in a manner that could negatively affect us. The impact of such efforts may adversely affect the demand for and price of securities issued by us, and impact our access to the capital and financial markets.

Further, it is believed by some that climate change itself may cause more extreme weather conditions such as more intense hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes and snow or ice storms, as well as rising sea levels and increased volatility in seasonal temperatures. Extreme weather conditions can interfere with our operations and increase our costs, and damage resulting from extreme weather may not be fully insured. However, at this time, we are unable to determine the extent to which any potential climate change may lead to increased weather hazards affecting our operations.

Risks Related to an Investment in Us

Our parent owns and controls our general partner, which has sole responsibility for conducting our business and managing our operations. Our general partner and its affiliates, including our parent and Green Plains Trade, have conflicts of interest with us and limited duties to us and our unitholders, and they may favor their own interests to our detriment and that of our unitholders.

Our parent owns and controls our general partner and appoints all of the directors of our general partner. Some of the directors and all of the executive officers of our general partner are also directors or officers of our parent. Although our general partner has a duty to manage us in a manner it believes to be in our best interests, the directors and officers of our general partner also have a duty to manage our general partner in a manner that is in the best interests of its owner, our parent. Conflicts of interest may arise between our general partner and its affiliates, including our parent and Green Plains Trade, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. In resolving these conflicts of interest, our general partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates, including our parent and Green Plains Trade, over the interests of our unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following situations:

neither our partnership agreement nor any other agreement requires our parent to pursue a business strategy that favors us or utilizes our assets, which could involve decisions by our parent, which also controls Green Plains Trade, to increase or decrease their ethanol production, shutdown or reconfigure its ethanol facilities, enter into commercial agreements with us, undertake acquisition opportunities for itself, or pursue and grow particular markets. Our parent’s directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to make these decisions in the best interests of our parent and its stockholders, which may be contrary to our interests and those of our unitholders;
‎

our parent may be constrained by the terms of its debt instruments from taking actions, or refraining from taking actions, that may be in our best interests;

our parent has an economic incentive to cause us not to seek higher storage and service fees, even if such fees would reflect fees that could be obtained in arm’s-length, third-party transactions, because Green Plains Trade, an indirect subsidiary of our parent, is our primary customer;

our general partner determines the amount and timing of asset purchases and sales, borrowings, issuance of additional partnership securities, and the creation, reduction or increase of cash reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is distributed to our unitholders;

our general partner may cause us to borrow funds in order to permit the payment of cash distributions, even if the purpose or effect of the borrowing is to make incentive distributions;

our general partner determines which costs incurred by it are reimbursable by us;

our partnership agreement permits us to distribute up to $40.0 million as operating surplus, even if it is generated from asset sales, non-working capital borrowings or other sources that would otherwise constitute capital surplus. This cash may be used to fund distributions on our incentive distribution rights;

our general partner is allowed to consider the interests of parties other than us in exercising certain rights under our partnership agreement;

our partnership agreement replaces the duties that would otherwise be owed by our general partner with contractual standards governing its duties, limiting our general partner’s liabilities and restricting the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that, without the limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty;

except in limited circumstances, our general partner has the power and authority to conduct our business and transfer its incentive distribution rights without unitholder approval;

our general partner determines the amount and timing of many of our cash expenditures and whether a cash expenditure is classified as an expansion capital expenditure, which would not reduce operating surplus, or a maintenance capital expenditure, which would reduce our operating surplus. This determination can affect the amount of available cash from operating surplus that is distributed to our unitholders and to our general partner, and the amount of adjusted operating surplus generated in any given period;

our general partner may exercise its right to call and purchase all of the common units not owned by it and its affiliates if it and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units;

our general partner controls the enforcement of obligations owed to us by our general partner and its affiliates, including our commercial agreements with its subsidiary, Green Plains Trade;

our general partner decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for us; and

our general partner, as the holder of our incentive distribution rights, may elect to cause us to issue common units to it in connection with a resetting of target distribution levels related to our general partner’s incentive distribution rights without the approval of the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner or our unitholders. This election may result in lower distributions to our unitholders in certain situations.

Except as provided in our omnibus agreement, affiliates of our general partner, including our parent and Green Plains Trade, may compete with us, and neither our general partner nor its affiliates have any obligations to present business opportunities to us.

Except as provided in our omnibus agreement, affiliates of our general partner, including our parent and Green Plains Trade, may compete with us. Pursuant to the terms of our partnership agreement, the doctrine of corporate opportunity, or any analogous doctrine, does not apply to our general partner or any of its affiliates, including our parent and Green Plains Trade, and their respective executive officers and directors. Any such person or entity that becomes aware of a potential transaction, agreement, arrangement or other matter that may be an opportunity for us does not have any duty to communicate or offer such opportunity to us. Any such person or entity is not liable to us or to any limited partner for breach of any fiduciary duty or other duty by reason of the fact that such person or entity pursues or acquires such opportunity for itself, directs such opportunity to another person or entity or does not communicate such opportunity or information to us. This may create actual and potential conflicts of interest between us and affiliates of our general partner, including our parent and Green Plains Trade, and result in less than favorable treatment of us and our common unitholders.

Our general partner intends to limit its liability regarding our obligations.

Our general partner intends to limit its liability under contractual arrangements between us and third parties so that the counterparties to such arrangements have recourse only against our assets and not against our general partner or its assets. Our general partner may therefore cause us to incur indebtedness or other obligations that are nonrecourse to our general partner. Our partnership agreement provides that any action taken by our general partner to limit its liability is not a breach of our general partner’s duties, even if we could have obtained more favorable terms without the limitation on liability. In addition, we are obligated to reimburse or indemnify our general partner to the extent that it incurs obligations on our behalf. Any such reimbursement or indemnification payments would reduce the amount of cash otherwise available for distribution to our unitholders.

Ongoing cost reimbursements and fees due to our general partner and its affiliates for services provided, which are determined by our general partner in its sole discretion, are substantial and reduce the amount of cash that we have available for distribution to our unitholders.

Prior to making distributions on our common units, we reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for all expenses they incur on our behalf. These expenses include all costs incurred by our general partner and its affiliates in managing and operating us, including costs for rendering certain management, maintenance and operational services to us, reimbursable pursuant to the operational services and secondment agreement. Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner determines the expenses that are allocable to us in good faith. Under the omnibus agreement, we have agreed to reimburse our parent for certain direct or allocated costs and expenses incurred by our parent in providing general and administrative services in support of our business. In addition, under Delaware partnership law, our general partner has unlimited liability for our obligations, such as our debts and environmental liabilities, except for our contractual obligations that are expressly made without recourse to our general partner. To the extent our general partner incurs obligations on our behalf, we are obligated to reimburse or indemnify it. If we are unable or unwilling to reimburse or indemnify our general partner, our general partner may take actions to cause us to make payments of these obligations and liabilities. Payments to our general partner and its affiliates, including our parent, are substantial and reduce the amount of cash otherwise available for distribution to our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement requires that we distribute all of our available cash, which could limit our ability to grow and make acquisitions.

Our partnership agreement requires that we distribute all of our available cash to our unitholders. As a result, we rely primarily upon external financing sources, including commercial bank borrowings and the issuance of debt and equity securities, to fund our expansion capital expenditures and acquisitions. Therefore, to the extent that we are unable to finance growth externally, our cash distribution policy significantly impairs our ability to grow.

In addition, because we distribute all of our available cash, our growth may not be as fast as businesses that reinvest their available cash to expand ongoing operations. To the extent we issue additional partnership interests in connection with any acquisitions or expansion capital expenditures or as in-kind distributions, our current unitholders will experience dilution and the payment of distributions on those additional partnership interests may increase the risk that we will be unable to maintain or increase our per unit distribution level. There are no limitations in our partnership agreement, and we do not anticipate that there will be limitations in our revolving credit facility, on our ability to issue additional partnership securities, including units ranking senior to the common units. The incurrence of additional commercial borrowings or other debt to finance our growth strategy would result in increased debt service costs which, in turn, may impact the available cash that we have to distribute to our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement replaces our general partner’s fiduciary duties to holders of our common units with contractual standards governing its duties.

As permitted by Delaware law, our partnership agreement contains provisions that eliminate the fiduciary standards that our general partner would otherwise be held to by state fiduciary duty law and replaces those duties with several different contractual standards. For example, our partnership agreement permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our general partner, or otherwise, free of any duties to us and our unitholders. This entitles our general partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or our limited partners. Examples of decisions that our general partner may make in its individual capacity include:

how to allocate business opportunities among us and its other affiliates;

whether to exercise its call rights;
‎

how to exercise its voting rights with respect to the units it owns;

whether to exercise its registration rights;

whether to elect to reset target distribution levels;

whether or not to consent to any merger or consolidation of the partnership or amendment to the partnership agreement; and

whether or not the general partner should elect to seek the approval of the conflicts committee or the unitholders, or neither, of any conflicted transaction.

By purchasing a common unit, a unitholder is treated as having consented to the provisions in our partnership agreement, including the provisions discussed above.

Our partnership agreement restricts the remedies available to holders of our common units for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that restrict the remedies available to our unitholders for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty under state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement provides that:

whenever our general partner makes a determination or takes, or declines to take, any other action in its capacity as our general partner, our general partner is required to make such determination, or take or decline to take such other action, in good faith, and is not subject to any higher standard imposed by our partnership agreement, Delaware law, or any other law, rule or regulation, or at equity;

our general partner does not have any liability to us or our unitholders for decisions made in its capacity as a general partner so long as it acted in good faith;

our general partner and its officers and directors are not liable for monetary damages to us or our limited partners resulting from any act or omission unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that our general partner or its officers and directors, as the case may be, acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct or, in the case of a criminal matter, acted with knowledge that the conduct was unlawful; and

our general partner is not in breach of its obligations under the partnership agreement or its duties to us or our limited partners if a transaction with an affiliate or the resolution of a conflict of interest is:

oapproved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner, although our general partner is not obligated to seek such approval;

oapproved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding common units, excluding any common units owned by our general partner and its affiliates; or

ootherwise meets the standards set forth in our partnership agreement.

In connection with a situation involving a transaction with an affiliate or a conflict of interest, our partnership agreement provides that any determination by our general partner must be made in good faith, and that our conflicts committee and the board of directors of our general partner are entitled to a presumption that they acted in good faith. In any proceeding brought by or on behalf of any limited partner or the partnership, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption.

Our partnership agreement designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our unitholders, which limits our unitholders’ ability to choose the judicial forum for disputes with us or our general partner’s directors, officers or other employees.

Our partnership agreement provides that, with certain limited exceptions, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for any claims, suits, actions or proceedings (1) arising out of or relating in any way to our partnership agreement (including any claims, suits or actions to interpret, apply or enforce the provisions of our partnership agreement or the duties, obligations or liabilities among limited partners or of limited partners to us, or the rights or powers of, or restrictions on, the limited partners or us), (2) brought in a derivative manner on our behalf, (3) asserting a claim of breach of a duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of us or our general partner, or owed by our general partner, to us or the limited partners, (4) asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited

Partnership Act, or the Delaware Act, or (5) asserting a claim against us governed by the internal affairs doctrine, each referred to as a unitholder action. By purchasing a common unit, a limited partner is irrevocably consenting to these limitations and provisions regarding unitholder actions and submitting to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or such other court) in connection with any such unitholder actions. These provisions may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against us and our general partner’s directors and officers that may otherwise benefit us and our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement provides that any unitholder bringing certain unsuccessful unitholder actions is obligated to reimburse us for any costs we have incurred in connection with such unsuccessful unitholder action.

If any unitholder brings any unitholder action and such person does not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially

achieves, in substance and amount, the full remedy sought, then such person shall be obligated to reimburse us and our affiliates for all fees, costs and expenses of every kind and description, including but not limited to all reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses, that the parties may incur in connection with such unitholder action. For purposes of these provisions, “our affiliates” means any person that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by or is under common control with us, and “control” means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of such person. Examples of “our affiliates,” as used in these provisions, include Green Plains, our general partner, and the directors and officers of our general partner, and, depending on the situation, other third parties that fit within the definition of “our affiliates” described above.

A limited partner or any person holding a beneficial interest in us (whether through a broker, dealer, bank, trust company or clearing corporation or an agent of any of the foregoing or otherwise) is subject to these provisions. By purchasing a common unit, a limited partner is irrevocably consenting to these potential reimbursement obligations regarding unitholder actions. These provisions may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against us and our general partner’s directors and officers that might otherwise benefit us and our unitholders.

The reimbursement provision in our partnership agreement is not limited to specific types of unitholder action but is rather potentially applicable to the fullest extent permitted by law. Such reimbursement provisions are relatively new and untested. The case law and potential legislative action on these types of reimbursement provisions are evolving and there exists considerable uncertainty regarding the validity of, and potential judicial and legislative responses to, such provisions. For example, it is unclear whether our ability to invoke such reimbursement in connection with unitholder actions under federal securities laws would be pre-empted by federal law. Similarly, it is unclear how courts might apply the standard that a claiming party must obtain a judgment that substantially achieves, in substance and amount, the full remedy sought. For example, in the event the claiming party were to allege multiple claims and does not receive a favorable judgment for the full remedy sought for each of its alleged claims, it is unclear how courts would apportion our fees, costs and expenses, and whether courts would require the claiming party to reimburse us and our affiliates in full for all fees, costs and expenses relating to each of the claims, including those for which the claiming party received the remedy it sought. The application of our reimbursement provision in connection with such unitholder actions, if any, depends in part on future developments of the law. This uncertainty may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against us and our general partner’s directors and officers that might otherwise benefit us and our unitholders. In addition, given the unsettled state of the law related to reimbursement provisions, such as ours, we may incur significant additional costs associated with resolving disputes with respect to such provision, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Our general partner, or any transferee holding incentive distribution rights, may elect to cause us to issue common units to it in connection with a resetting of the target distribution levels related to its incentive distribution rights, without the approval of the conflicts committee or the holders of our common units, which could result in lower distributions to holders of our common units.

Our general partner has the right, as the initial holder of our incentive distribution rights, at any time when our general partner has received incentive distributions at the highest level to which it is entitled (48%, in addition to distributions paid on its 2% general partner interest) for each of the prior four consecutive fiscal quarters and the amount of each such distribution did not exceed the adjusted operating surplus for such quarter, to reset the initial target distribution levels at higher levels based on our distributions at the time of the exercise of the reset election. Following a reset election by our general partner, the minimum quarterly distribution will be adjusted to equal the reset minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels will be reset to correspondingly higher levels based on percentage increases above the reset minimum quarterly distribution.

If our general partner elects to reset the target distribution levels, it will be entitled to receive a number of common units. The number of common units to be issued to our general partner will equal the number of common units that would have entitled the holder to an aggregate quarterly cash distribution in the quarter prior to the reset election equal to the distribution to our general partner on the incentive distribution rights in the quarter prior to the reset election. Our general partner will also be issued the number of general partner interests necessary to maintain our general partner’s interest in us at the level that existed immediately prior to the reset election. We anticipate that our general partner would exercise this reset right in order to facilitate acquisitions or internal growth projects that would not be sufficiently accretive to cash distributions per common unit without such reset. It is possible, however, that our general partner could exercise this reset election at a time when it is experiencing, or expects to experience, declines in the cash distributions it receives related to its incentive distribution rights and may, therefore, desire to be issued common units rather than retain the right to receive incentive distributions based on the initial target distribution levels. This risk could be elevated if our incentive distribution rights have been transferred to a third party. As a result, a reset election may cause our common unitholders to experience a reduction in the amount of cash distributions that our common unitholders would have otherwise received had we not issued new common units and general partner interests to our general partner in connection with resetting the target distribution levels.

Our general partner has a limited call right that may require our unitholders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more than 80% of our then-outstanding common units, our general partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price equal to the greater of (1) the average of the daily closing price of the common units over the 20 trading days preceding the date three business days before notice of exercise of the call right is first mailed and (2) the highest per-unit price paid by our general partner or any of its affiliates for common units during the 90-day period preceding the date such notice is first mailed. As a result, our unitholders may be required to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return, or may receive a negative return, on their investment. Our unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their common units. Our general partner is not obligated to obtain a fairness opinion regarding the value of the common units to be repurchased by it upon exercise of the limited call right. There is no restriction in our partnership agreement that prevents our general partner from issuing additional common units and exercising its call right. Our parent owns an aggregate of approximately 50.4% of our outstanding common units (excluding any common units owned by directors, director nominees and executive officers of our general partner or of Green Plains) and therefore is currently unable to exercise the call right.

Our unitholders have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our general partner or the board of directors of our general partner, which could reduce the price at which our common units trade.

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and, therefore, limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. For example, unlike holders of stock in a public corporation, unitholders do not have “say-on-pay” advisory voting rights. Our unitholders did not elect our general partner or the board of directors of our general partner, and have no right to elect our general partner or the board of directors of our general partner on an annual or other continuing basis. The board of directors of our general partner, including its independent directors, is chosen by the member of our general partner. Furthermore, if our unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, they have little ability to remove our general partner. Our partnership agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of our unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting our unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction of management. As a result of these limitations, the price at which our common units trade could be diminished because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

Even if our unitholders are dissatisfied, they cannot initially remove our general partner without its consent.

Our unitholders are unable to remove our general partner without its consent because our general partner and its affiliates own sufficient units to be able to prevent its removal. The vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of all outstanding common units is required to remove the general partner. Our parent owns approximately 50.4% of our total outstanding and equivalent common units on an aggregate basis (excluding any common units owned by directors, director nominees and executive officers of our general partner or of Green Plains).

Our partnership agreement eliminates the voting rights of certain of our unitholders owning 20% or more of our common units.

Our unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by the partnership agreement provision providing that any units held by a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our general partner, its affiliates, including our parent, their transferees and persons who acquired such units with the prior approval of the board of directors of our general partner, cannot vote on any matter.

Our general partner’s interest in us or the control of our general partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.

Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of our unitholders. Furthermore, our partnership agreement does not restrict the ability of our parent from transferring all or a portion of its ownership interest in our general partner to a third party. The new owner of our general partner would then be in a position to replace the board of directors and officers of our general partner with its own choices and thereby exert significant control over the decisions made by the board of directors and officers. This effectively permits a “change of control” without the vote or consent of our unitholders.

The incentive distribution rights held by our general partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.

Our general partner may transfer all or a portion of its incentive distribution rights to a third party at any time without the consent of our unitholders, and such transferee shall have the same rights as the general partner relative to resetting target distributions if our general partner concurs that the test for resetting target distributions have been fulfilled. If our general partner transfers the incentive distribution rights to a third party, it may not have the same incentive to grow our partnership and increase quarterly distributions to our unitholders over time as it would if it had retained ownership of the incentive distribution rights. For example, a transfer of incentive distribution rights by our general partner could reduce the likelihood of our parent accepting offers made by us relating to assets owned by it and our parent would have less of an economic incentive to grow our business, which in turn would impact our ability to grow our asset base.

We may issue additional partnership interests, including units that are senior to the common units, without unitholder approval, which would dilute our unitholders’ existing ownership interests.

Our partnership agreement does not limit the number of additional limited partner interests or general partner interests that we may issue at any time without the approval of our unitholders. The issuance by us of additional common units, general partner interests or other equity securities of equal or senior rank to our common units as to distributions or in liquidation or that have special voting rights or other rights, have the following effects:

each unitholder’s proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;

the amount of distributable cash flow on each unit may decrease;

because the amount payable to holders of incentive distribution rights is based on a percentage of the total distributable cash flow, the distributions to holders of incentive distribution rights will increase even if the per unit distribution on common units remains the same;

the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;

the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding unit may be diminished;

the claims of the common unitholders to our assets in the event of our liquidation may be subordinated; and

the market price of the common units may decline.

The issuance by us of additional general partner interests may have the following effects, among others, if such general partner interests are issued to a person that is not an affiliate of our parent:

management of our business may no longer reside solely with our current general partner; and

affiliates of the newly admitted general partner may compete with us, and neither that general partner nor such affiliates will have any obligation to send business opportunities to us.

Common units eligible for future sale may cause the price of our common units to decline.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common units in the public market, or the perception that these sales may occur,

could cause the market price of our common units to decline. This could also impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of our equity interests. Our parent holds 11,586,548 common units. All of the subordinated units converted into common units on August 13, 2018. Additionally, we have agreed to provide our parent with certain registration rights under applicable securities laws. The sale of these common units in public or private markets could have an adverse impact on the price of the common units or on any trading market that may develop.

Our general partner’s discretion in establishing cash reserves may reduce the amount of distributable cash flow to our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement requires our general partner to deduct from operating surplus the cash reserves that it determines are necessary to fund our future operating expenditures. In addition, our partnership agreement permits the general partner to reduce available cash by establishing cash reserves for the proper conduct of our business, to comply with applicable law or agreements that we are a party to, or to provide funds for future distributions to partners. These cash reserves affect the amount of distributable cash flow to our unitholders.

If we distribute available cash from capital surplus, which is analogous to a return of capital, our minimum quarterly distribution will be proportionately reduced, and the target distribution relating to our general partner’s incentive distributions will be proportionately decreased.

Our distributions of available cash are characterized as derived from either operating surplus or capital surplus. Operating surplus as defined in our partnership agreement generally means amounts we have received from operations or “earned,” less operating expenditures and cash reserves to provide funds for our future operations. Capital surplus is defined in our partnership agreement as any distribution of available cash in excess of our cumulative operating surplus, and generally would result from cash received from non-operating sources such as sales of other dispositions of assets and issuances of debt and equity securities.

Our partnership agreement treats a distribution of capital surplus as the repayment of the IPO initial unit price, which is analogous to a return of capital. Each time a distribution of capital surplus is made, the minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels will be proportionately reduced. Because distributions of capital surplus will reduce the minimum quarterly distribution after any of these distributions are made, the effects of distributions of capital surplus may make it easier for our general partner to receive incentive distributions.

Unitholder liability may not be limited if a court finds that unitholder action constitutes control of our business.

A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for those contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to the general partner. Our partnership is organized under Delaware law, and we own assets and conduct business throughout much of the United States. Our unitholders could be liable for any and all of our obligations as if they were a general partner if:

a court or government agency determines that we were conducting business in a state but had not complied with that particular state’s partnership statute; or

unitholder rights to act with other unitholders to remove or replace the general partner, to approve some amendments to our partnership agreement or to take other actions under our partnership agreement constitute “control” of our business.

Our unitholders may have liability to repay distributions that were wrongfully distributed to them.

Under certain circumstances, our unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully distributed to them. Under Section 17-607 of the Delaware Act, we may not make a distribution to our unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Delaware law provides that for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. Substituted limited partners are liable for the obligations of the assignor to make contributions to the partnership that are known to the substituted limited partner at the time it became a limited partner and for unknown obligations if the liabilities could be determined from the partnership agreement. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interest and liabilities that are nonrecourse to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted.

The price of our common units may fluctuate significantly, which could cause our unitholders to lose all or part of their investment.

As of December 31, 2019, there are 11,574,003 publicly traded common units. In addition, our parent owns 11,586,548 common units, representing an aggregate 49.0% limited partner interest in us. Our unitholders may not be able to resell their common units at or above their purchase price. Additionally, the lack of liquidity may result in wide bid-ask spreads, contribute to significant fluctuations in the market price of the common units and limit the number of investors who are able to buy the common units.

The market price of our common units may decline below current levels. The market price of our common units may also be influenced by many factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:

our operating and financial performance;

quarterly variations in our financial indicators, such as net earnings (loss) per unit, net earnings (loss) and revenues;

the amount of distributions we make and our earnings or those of other companies in our industry or other publicly traded partnerships;

the loss of our parent or one of its subsidiaries, such as Green Plains Trade, as a customer;

events affecting the business and operations of our parent;

announcements by us or our competitors of significant contracts or acquisitions;

changes in revenue or earnings estimates, or changes in recommendations or withdrawal of research coverage, by equity research analysts;

speculation in the press or investment community;

changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance, interpretations or principles;

additions or departures of key management personnel;

actions by our unitholders;

general market conditions, including fluctuations in commodity prices;

domestic and international economic, legal and regulatory factors related to our performance;

future sales of our common units by us or our other unitholders, or the perception that such sales may occur; and

other factors described in this report under Item 1A – Risk Factors.

As a result of these factors, investors in our common units may not be able to resell their common units at or above the current trading price. In addition, the stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies like us. These broad market and industry factors may materially reduce the market price of our common units, regardless of our operating performance.

Nasdaq does not require a publicly traded partnership like us to comply with certain of its corporate governance requirements.

We have listed our common units on Nasdaq. Because we are a publicly traded partnership, Nasdaq does not require us to have a majority of independent directors on our general partner’s board of directors or to establish a compensation committee or a nominating and corporate governance committee. Accordingly, our unitholders do not have the same protections afforded to certain corporations that are subject to all of Nasdaq’s corporate governance requirements.

We incur increased costs as a result of being a publicly traded partnership.

We have limited history operating as a publicly traded partnership. As a publicly traded partnership, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur prior to the IPO. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq, require publicly traded entities to adopt various corporate governance practices that further increase our costs. Before we are able to make distributions to our unitholders, we must first pay or reserve cash for our expenses, including the costs of being a publicly traded partnership. As a result, the amount of cash we have available for distribution to our unitholders is affected by the costs associated with being a public company.

We are subject to the public reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. We expect these rules and regulations to increase certain of our legal and financial compliance costs and to make activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, the board of directors of our general partner is required to have at least three independent directors, create an audit committee and adopt policies regarding internal controls and disclosure controls and procedures, including the preparation of reports on internal controls over financial reporting. In addition, we incur additional costs associated with our SEC reporting requirements and preparation of various tax documents, including Schedule K-1s.

We also incur significant expense in order to obtain director and officer liability insurance. Because of the limitations in coverage for directors, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on the board of directors of our general partner or as executive officers.

Pursuant to the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 because we are an emerging growth company. However, commencing on the last day of our fiscal year ending December 31, 2020, the partnership will no longer qualify as an emerging growth company.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal control over financial reporting on a quarterly basis, and we are required to assess the effectiveness of our controls annually. However, since we are an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act, we have taken advantage of certain exemptions from various requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including not being required to provide an auditor’s attestation report on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our system of internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports. We cannot predict if investors will find our common units less attractive because we relied on these exemptions. If some investors find our common units less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common units, and our trading price may be more volatile.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable and timely financial reports, prevent fraud and to operate successfully as a publicly traded partnership. We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with GAAP, but our internal accounting controls may not meet all standards applicable to companies with publicly traded securities. Our efforts to develop and maintain our internal controls may not be successful, and we may be unable to maintain effective controls over our financial processes and reporting in the future or to comply with our obligations under Section 404. For example, Section 404 requires us, among other things, to annually review and report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Any failure to develop, implement or maintain effective internal controls or to improve our internal controls could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations.

Commencing on the last day of our fiscal year ending December 31, 2020, the partnership will no longer qualify as an emerging growth company under Section 404. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to evaluate, test and issue an audit report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Even if we conclude that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective, once our independent registered public accounting firm is required to attest to our assessment in 2020, they may decline to attest or may issue a report that is qualified if they are not satisfied with our controls or the level at which our controls are documented, designed, operated or reviewed, or if they interpret the relevant requirements differently from us.

Given the difficulties inherent in the design and operation of internal controls over financial reporting, in addition to our limited accounting personnel and management resources, we can provide no assurance as to our or our independent registered public accounting firm’s future conclusions about the effectiveness of our internal controls, and we may incur significant costs in our efforts to comply with Section 404. Any failure to implement and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting subjects us to regulatory scrutiny and a loss of confidence in our reported financial information, which could have an adverse effect on our business and would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of our common units.

Tax Risks to Our Unitholders

Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If the Internal Revenue Service were to treat us as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which would subject us to entity-level taxation, or if we were otherwise subjected to a material amount of additional entity-level taxation, then our distributable cash flow to our unitholders would be substantially reduced.

The anticipated after-tax benefit of an investment in our units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Despite the fact that we are a limited partnership under Delaware law, it is possible in certain circumstances for a partnership such as ours to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A change in our business or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity.

If we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would pay U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which was a maximum of 35% at December 31, 2017, decreasing to 21% on January 1, 2018, the level at which it remains, and would likely pay state and local income tax at varying rates. Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate dividends (to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits), and no income, gains, losses, deductions, or credits would flow through to our unitholders. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our distributable cash flow would be substantially reduced. In addition, changes in current state law may subject us to additional entity-level taxation by individual states. Because of widespread state budget deficits and other reasons, several states are evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. Imposition of any such taxes may substantially reduce the distributable cash flow to our unitholders. Therefore, if we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subjected to a material amount of entity-level taxation, there would be material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to our unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our units.

Our partnership agreement provides that, if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects us to entity-level taxation for U.S. federal, state or local income tax purposes, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution levels may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us.

The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our units could be subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative changes or differing interpretations, possibly applied on a retroactive basis.

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial interpretation at any time. In addition, from time to time, members of Congress and the President propose and consider substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships, including the elimination of partnership tax treatment for publicly traded partnerships. Any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws and interpretations thereof may or may not be retroactively applied and could make it more difficult or impossible to meet the exception for us to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or any other proposals will ultimately be enacted or adopted. However, it is possible that a change in law could affect us, and any such changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.

If the IRS were to contest the U.S. federal income tax positions we take, it may adversely impact the market for our common units, and the costs of any such contest would reduce distributable cash flow to our unitholders.

We have not requested a ruling from the IRS with respect to our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions we take, even if taken with the advice of counsel, and the IRS’s positions may ultimately be sustained. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of the positions we take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units and the prices at which they trade. Moreover, the costs of any contest between us and the IRS will result in a reduction in distributable cash flow to our unitholders and thus will be borne indirectly by our unitholders.

As part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, legislation was passed requiring large partnerships to pay federal tax deficiencies. A tax assessment paid by the partnership would reduce distributable cash flow available to unitholders, potentially for tax assessments related to years in which they did not own partnership units. The new rules were effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Even if our unitholders do not receive any cash distributions from us, our unitholders are required to pay taxes on their share of our taxable income.

Because our unitholders are treated as partners to whom we allocate taxable income that could be different in amount than the cash we distribute, our unitholders’ allocable share of our taxable income is taxable to our unitholders, which may require the payment of U.S. federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes, on our unitholders’ share of our taxable income even if our unitholders receive no cash distributions from us. Our unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax liability that results from that income.

Changes to U.S. tax laws, including the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, could have an adverse effect on our unitholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law on December 22, 2017, effective on January 1, 2018. Among other provisions, the law reduced the federal statutory corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. In addition, the new law provided for the simplification and reform of individual income tax rates, enhancement of the standard deduction, and the repeal of personal exemptions. Changes to U.S. tax laws may impact our unitholders, depending upon their unique facts and circumstances, and as such we cannot determine whether they will have a positive or negative affect on our unitholders.

Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be more or less than expected.

If our unitholders sell common units, they will recognize gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and their tax basis in those common units. Because distributions in excess of their allocable share of our net taxable income decrease their tax basis in their common units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the common units they sell will, in effect, become taxable income to them if they sell such common units at a price greater than the tax basis therein, even if the price they receive is less than their original cost. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be taxed as ordinary income to such unitholder due to potential recapture items, including depreciation recapture. In addition, because the amount realized includes a unitholder’s share of our nonrecourse liabilities, if our unitholders sell common units, they may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash they receive from the sale.

Tax-exempt entities and non-U.S. persons owning our common units face unique tax issues that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

Investment in our common units by tax-exempt entities, such as IRAs, and non-U.S. persons, raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to organizations exempt from U.S. federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable income and will be taxable to them. Distributions to non-U.S. persons will be reduced by withholding taxes at the highest applicable effective tax rate, and non-U.S. persons will be required to file U.S. federal income tax returns and pay tax on their share of our taxable income. Tax exempt entities and non-U.S. persons should consult a tax advisor before investing in our common units.

We treat each purchaser of our common units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the common units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of our common units.

Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common units and because of other reasons, we adopted depreciation and amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations. A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to our unitholders. Our counsel is unable to opine as to the validity of such filing positions. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of our common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss, and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular common unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss, and deduction among our unitholders.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss, and deduction for U.S. federal income tax purposes between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular common unit is transferred. Although simplifying conventions are contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and most publicly traded partnerships use similar simplifying conventions, the use of this proration method may not be permitted under existing Treasury Regulations. The U.S. Treasury recently adopted final Treasury Regulations allowing similar monthly simplifying conventions. However, the final Treasury Regulations do not specifically authorize the use of the proration method that we have adopted and, accordingly, our counsel is unable to opine as to the validity of this method. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss, and deduction among our unitholders.

A unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g., a loan to a “short seller” to cover a short sale of common units) may be considered as having disposed of those common units. If so, he would no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from the disposition.

Because a unitholder whose common units are loaned to a “short seller” to effect a short sale of common units may be considered as having disposed of the loaned common units, he may no longer be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan to the short seller and the unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan to the short seller, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those common units may not be reportable by the unitholder and any cash distributions received by the unitholder as to those common units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a loan to a short seller are urged to consult a tax advisor to discuss whether it is advisable to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from loaning their common units.

We will adopt certain valuation methodologies that may result in a shift of income, gain, loss, and deduction between our unitholders. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of the common units.

When we issue additional common units or engage in certain other transactions, we will determine the fair market value of our assets and allocate any unrealized gain or loss attributable to our assets to the capital accounts of our unitholders and our general partner. Our methodology may be viewed as understating the value of our assets. In that case, there may be a shift of income, gain, loss, and deduction between certain of our unitholders and our general partner, which may be unfavorable to such unitholders. Moreover, under our valuation methods, subsequent purchasers of common units may have a greater portion of their Internal Revenue Code Section 743(b) adjustment allocated to our tangible assets and a lesser portion allocated to our intangible assets. The IRS may challenge our valuation methods, or our allocation of the Section 743(b) adjustment attributable to our tangible and intangible assets, and allocations of income, gain, loss, and deduction between our general partner and certain of our unitholders.

A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the amount of taxable income or loss being allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the amount of taxable gain from our unitholders’ sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of the common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns without the benefit of additional deductions.

As a result of investing in our common units, our unitholders may be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements in jurisdictions where we operate or own or acquire properties.

In addition to U.S. federal income taxes, our unitholders may be subject to other taxes, including foreign, state, and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes, and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we conduct business or control property now or in the future, even if our unitholders do not live in any of those jurisdictions. Our unitholders may be required to file foreign, state, and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these various jurisdictions. Further, our unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. We expect to conduct business in multiple states, many of which impose a personal income tax on individuals as well as corporations and other entities. It is the responsibility of our unitholders to file all U.S. federal, foreign, state, and local tax returns.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

See Item 1 – Business, Our Assets and Operations for a description of our properties and their utilization. We believe our properties and facilities are adequate for our operations and properly maintained.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

We may be involved in litigation that arises during the ordinary course of business. We are not, however, involved in any material litigation at this time.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

‎

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

On June 26, 2015, our common units began trading under the symbol “GPP” on Nasdaq. On July 1, 2015, we completed our IPO of 11,500,000 common units, representing limited partner interests, for $15.00 per common unit. The requirements under the partnership agreement for the conversion of all of the outstanding subordinated units into common units were satisfied upon the payment of the distribution with respect to the quarter ended June 30, 2018. Accordingly, the subordination period ended on August 13, 2018, the first business day after the date of the distribution payment, and all of the 15,889,642 outstanding subordinated units were converted into common units on a one-for-one basis. Our parent currently owns 11,586,548 common units, constituting a 49.0% limited partner ownership interest in us.

Holders of Record

We had six holders of record of our common units as of February 13, 2020, one of which holds 11,527,856 of the outstanding common units held by the public, including those held in street name.

Cash Distribution Policy

For each calendar quarter commencing with the quarter ended September 30, 2015, the partnership agreement requires us to distribute all available cash, as defined, to our partners within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. Available cash generally means all cash and cash equivalents on hand at the end of that quarter less cash reserves established by our general partner plus all or any portion of the cash on hand resulting from working capital borrowings made subsequent to the end of that quarter. For additional information on our cash distribution policy, please refer to Note 11 – Partners’ Deficit to the consolidated financial statements in this report.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Equity Compensation Plans

Refer to Item 12 – Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters for information regarding units authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans in this report.

Performance Graph

The following graph compares our cumulative total return on our common units since the IPO to the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index and the Alerian MLP Index (AMZX), assuming $100 was invested in each option as of June 26, 2015, the date common units began trading. The Alerian MLP Index is a composite of the 50 most prominent master limited partnerships and is calculated using a float-adjusted, capitalization weighted methodology.

The information in the graph is not considered solicitation material, nor will it be filed with the SEC or incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act or Exchange Act unless we specifically incorporate it by reference into our filing.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, and the balance sheet data as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and should be read together with the accompanying notes included elsewhere in this report.

The statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the balance sheet data as of December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that are not included in this report, which describe a number of matters that materially affect the comparability of the periods presented.

Our results of operations are not comparable to periods prior to our IPO on July 1, 2015, when the storage and transportation agreements between us and Green Plains Trade became effective. Results of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2015, include the activities of BlendStar, which provided terminal and trucking services for our parent as well as third parties. The ethanol storage and leased railcar assets contributed by our parent are recognized at historical cost and reflected retroactively in the six months ended June 30, 2015, along with related expenses, such as depreciation, amortization and railcar lease expenses. There were no revenues related to these assets reflected in the consolidated financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2015.

These financial statements also reflect the acquisition of the ethanol storage and leased railcar assets of the Hereford, Texas and Hopewell, Virginia ethanol production facilities from our sponsor in a transfer between entities under common control, effective January 1, 2016. The assets were recognized at historical cost and reflected retroactively along with related expenses for periods prior to the effective date of the acquisition, subsequent to the initial dates the assets were acquired by our sponsor, on October 23, 2015, and November 12, 2015, for Hopewell and Hereford, respectively. There were no revenues related to these assets for periods before January 1, 2016, when amendments to our commercial agreements related to the drop down became effective.

On September 23, 2016, we acquired the ethanol storage assets located in Madison, Illinois; Mount Vernon, Indiana and York, Nebraska related to three ethanol plants, which occurred concurrently with the acquisition of these facilities by Green Plains from subsidiaries of Abengoa S.A. The transaction was accounted for as a transfer between entities under common control and the assets were recognized at the preliminary value recorded in Green Plains’ purchase accounting. No retroactive adjustments were required.

On November 15, 2018, our parent closed on the sale of three of its ethanol plants located in Bluffton, Indiana, Lakota, Iowa, and Riga, Michigan to Valero. Correspondingly, the storage assets located adjacent to such plants were sold to our parent for $120.9 million. As consideration, we received from our parent 8.7 million Green Plains units and a portion of the general partner interest equating to 0.2 million equivalent limited partner units to maintain the general partner’s 2% interest. These units were retired upon receipt. In addition, we also received cash consideration of $2.7 million from Valero for the assignment of certain railcar operating leases.

On November 15, 2018, our parent announced the permanent closure of its ethanol plant located in Hopewell, Virginia. The closure did not affect our quarterly storage and throughput minimum volume commitment with Green Plains Trade or the current transload operations at that location.

The following selected financial data should be read together with Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow of this report. The financial information below is not necessarily indicative of our expected results for any future period, which could differ materially from historical results due to numerous factors, including those discussed in Item 1A – Risk Factors of this report.

(1) Includes consideration received of $2.7 million for the assignment of railcar operating leases to Valero in the fourth quarter of 2018.

*Recast to include historical balances of net assets acquired in a transfer between entities under common control.

*Recast to include historical balances of net assets acquired in a transfer between entities under common control.

Adjusted EBITDA is defined as earnings before interest expense, income tax expense, depreciation and amortization, plus adjustments for transaction costs related to acquisitions or financing transactions, unit-based compensation expense, net gains or losses on asset sales and our proportional share of EBITDA adjustments of our equity method investee. Distributable cash flow is defined as adjusted EBITDA less interest paid or payable, income taxes paid or payable, maintenance capital expenditures and our proportional share of distributable cash flow adjustments of our equity method investee.

Adjusted EBITDA and distributable cash flow presentations are not made in accordance with GAAP and therefore should not be considered in isolation or as alternatives to net income, operating income or any other measure of financial performance presented in accordance with GAAP to analyze our results. Refer to Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information.

The following table presents a reconciliation of net income to adjusted EBITDA for each of the periods presented and a reconciliation of net income to distributable cash flow (dollars in thousands):

(1) Represents our proportional share of depreciation and amortization of our equity method investee.

(2) Represents consideration received related to the assignment of railcar operating leases to Valero.

(3) Distributions declared for the applicable period and paid in the subsequent quarter.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

General

The following discussion and analysis includes information management believes is relevant to understand and assess our financial condition and results of operations. This section should be read together with our consolidated financial statements, accompanying notes and risk factors contained in this report.

Overview

We are a master limited partnership formed by our parent to be its principle provider of fuel storage and transportation services. On July 1, 2015, we completed our IPO, and, in addition to the interests of BlendStar, obtained the assets and liabilities of the ethanol storage and leased railcar assets contributed by our parent in a transfer between entities under common control. We also entered into long-term, fee-based commercial agreements for storage and transportation services with Green Plains Trade, which are supported by minimum volume or take-or-pay capacity commitments.

Our profitability is dependent on the volume of ethanol and other fuels handled at our facilities and the amount of railcar volumetric capacity we are able to provide. Our long-term, fee-based commercial agreements generate stable, predictable cash flows supported by minimum volume or take-or-pay capacity commitments.

Information about our business, properties and strategy can be found under Item 1 – Business and a description of our risk factors can be found under Item 1A – Risk Factors.

Industry Factors Affecting our Results of Operations

U.S. Ethanol Supply and Demand

According to the EIA, domestic ethanol production averaged 1.03 million barrels per day in 2019, which was 1.7% lower than the 1.05 million barrels per day in 2018. Refiner and blender input volume increased 1% to 921 thousand barrels per day for 2019, compared with 914 thousand barrels per day in 2018. Gasoline demand increased 27 thousand barrels per day, or 0.3% in 2019. U.S. domestic ethanol ending stocks decreased by approximately 2.1 million barrels, or 9%, year over year to 21.0 million barrels. At the end of May 2019, the EPA finalized regulatory changes to apply the 1 pound per square inch Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver that currently applies to E10 during the summer months so that it applies to E15 as well. This removes a significant barrier to wider sales of E15 in the summer months, thus expanding the market for ethanol in transportation fuel. As of December 31, 2019, there were approximately 2,080 retail stations selling E15 in 30 states, up from 1,700 at the beginning of the year, according to Growth Energy.

Global Ethanol Supply and Demand

According to the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service, domestic ethanol exports through November 30, 2019 were approximately 1.32 bg, down 15% from 1.56 bg for the same period of 2018. Brazil remained the largest export destination for U.S. ethanol, which accounted for 23% of domestic ethanol export volume despite the 20% tariff on U.S. ethanol imports in excess of 150 million liters, or 39.6 million gallons per quarter, imposed in September 2017 by Brazil’s Chamber of Foreign Trade, or CAMEX. In a resolution published August 31, 2019, Brazil raised the annual import quota to 750 million liters, or 198 million gallons per year from the expiring 600 million-liter limit. The final resolution awaits approval of the Brazilian government. In addition, Canada, India, South Korea, and the Philippines accounted for 23%, 12%, 7%, and 5%, respectively, of U.S. ethanol exports.

On April 1, 2018, China announced it would add an additional 15% tariff to the existing 30% tariff it had earlier imposed on ethanol imports from the United States and Brazil. China later raised the tariff further to 70% as the trade war escalated. In January 2020, China and the United States agreed to certain trade agreements, the impact of which on ethanol are yet to be determined.

The cost to produce the equivalent amount of starch found in sugar from $3.50-per-bushel corn is 7 cents per pound. The average price of sugar was approximately 12 cents per pound during 2019. We currently estimate that net ethanol exports will reach approximately 1.5 billion gallons in 2020, excluding any potential exports to China, based on historical demand from a variety of countries and certain countries who seek to improve their air quality and eliminate MTBE from their own fuel supplies.

Legislation and Regulation

We are sensitive to government programs and policies that affect the supply and demand for ethanol and other fuels, which in turn may impact the volume of ethanol and other fuels we handle. Various bills have been discussed in the House and Senate which would eliminate the RFS II entirely, eliminate the corn based ethanol portion of the mandate, or make it more difficult to sell fuel blends with higher levels of ethanol. We believe it is unlikely that any of these bills will become law in the current Congress. In addition, the manner in which the EPA administers the RFS II can have a significant impact on the actual amount of ethanol blended into the domestic fuel supply.

Federal mandates supporting the use of renewable fuels are a significant driver of ethanol demand in the U.S. Ethanol policies are influenced by concerns for the environment, diversifying our fuel supply, and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil. Consumer acceptance of flex-fuel vehicles and higher ethanol blends of ethanol in non-flex-fuel vehicles may be necessary before ethanol can achieve further growth in U.S. market share. Congress first enacted CAFE in 1975 to reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks.

Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), which are designed to run on a mixture of fuels, including higher blends of ethanol such as E85, receive preferential treatment in the form of CAFE credits. There are approximately 21 million FFVs on the road in the U.S. today, 16 million of which are light duty trucks. FFV credits have been decreasing since 2014 and will be completely phased out in 2020. Absent CAFE preferences, auto manufacturers may not be willing to build flexible-fuel vehicles, which has the potential to slow the growth of E85 markets.

Another important factor is a waiver in the Clean Air Act, known as the One-Pound Waiver, which allows E10 to be sold year-round, even though it exceeds the Reid Vapor Pressure limitation of nine pounds per square inch. At the end of May 2019, the EPA finalized a rule which extended the One-Pound Waiver to E15. This allows E15 to be sold year round to all vehicles model year 2001 and newer. This rule is being challenged in an action filed in Federal District Court for the DC Circuit. However, the One-Pound Waiver is in effect, and for the first time ever, E15 was legally sold to all vehicles model year 2001 and newer during the summer driving season of June 1 to September 15, 2019.

The RFS II has been a driving factor in the growth of ethanol usage in the United States. When the RFS II was established in 2010, the required volume of “conventional” corn-based ethanol to be blended with gasoline was to increase each year until it reached 15.0 billion gallons in 2015, which left the EPA to address existing limitations in both supply (ethanol production) and demand (usage of ethanol blends in older vehicles). On December 19, 2019, the EPA announced the final 2020 RVO for conventional ethanol, which met the 15.0-billion-gallon congressional target.

The EPA has the authority to waive the mandates, in whole or in part, if there is inadequate domestic renewable fuel supply or the requirement severely harms the economy or environment. According to the RFS II, if mandatory renewable fuel volumes are reduced by at least 20% for two consecutive years, the EPA is required to modify, or reset, statutory volumes through 2022 – the year through which the statutorily prescribed volumes run. While conventional ethanol maintained 15 billion gallons, 2019 was the second consecutive year that the total proposed RVO was more than 20% below statutory volumes levels. Thus, the EPA was expected to initiate a “reset” rulemaking, and modify statutory volumes through 2022, and do so based on the same factors they are to use in setting the RVOs post-2022. These factors include environmental impact, domestic energy security, expected production, infrastructure impact, consumer costs, job creation, price of agricultural commodities, food prices, and rural economic development. However, on December 19, 2019, the EPA announced it would not be moving forward with a reset rulemaking in 2020.

The EPA assigns individual refiners, blenders, and importers the volume of renewable fuels they are obligated to use based on their percentage of total domestic transportation fuel sales. Obligated parties use RINs to show compliance with the RFS II mandated volumes. Ethanol producers assign RINs to renewable fuels and the RINs are detached when the renewable fuel is blended with transportation fuel domestically. Market participants can trade the detached RINs in the open market. The market price of detached RINs affects the price of ethanol in certain markets and influences the purchasing decisions by obligated parties.

Under the RFS II, a small refinery is defined as one that processes fewer than 75,000 barrels of petroleum per day. Small refineries can petition the EPA for a SRE which, if approved, waives their portion of the annual RVO requirements. The EPA, through consultation with the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture, can grant them a full or partial waiver, or deny it outright within 90 days of submittal. The EPA granted significantly more of these waivers for 2016, 2017 and 2018 than they had in the past, totaling 790 million gallons of waived requirements for the 2016 compliance year, 1.82 billion gallons for 2017 and 1.43 billion gallons for 2018. In doing so, the EPA effectively reduced the RFS II mandated volumes for those compliance years by those amounts respectively, and as a result, RIN values have declined significantly.

Biofuels groups have filed a lawsuit in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the 2019 RVO rule over the EPA’s failure to address small refinery exemptions in the rulemaking. This was the first RFS II rulemaking since the expanded use of the exemptions came to light; however, the EPA had declined to cap the number of waivers it grants, and until late 2019, had declined to alter how it accounts for the retroactive waivers in its annual volume calculations. The EPA has a statutory mandate to ensure the volume requirements are met, which are achieved by setting the percentage standards for obligated parties. The EPA’s recent approach accomplished the opposite. Even if all the obligated parties complied with their respective percentage obligations for 2019, the nation’s overall supply of renewable fuel would not meet the total volume requirements set by the EPA. This undermines Congressional intent to increase the consumption of renewable fuels in the domestic transportation fuel supply. Biofuels groups have argued the EPA must therefore adjust its percentage standard calculations to make up for past retroactive waivers and adjust the standards to account for any waivers it reasonably expects to grant in the future.

In a supplemental rulemaking to the 2020 RVO rule, the EPA changed their approach, and for the first time are accounting for the gallons they anticipate they will be waiving from the blending requirements due to small refinery exemptions. To accomplish this, they are adding in the trailing three year average of gallons the Department of Energy recommended be waived, in effect raising the blending volumes across the board in anticipation of waiving the obligations in whole or in part for certain refineries that qualify for the exemptions. Though the EPA has often disregarded the recommendations of the Department of Energy in years past, they stated in the rule their intent to adhere to these recommendations going forward, including granting partial waivers rather than an all or nothing approach. The EPA will be adjudicating the 2020 compliance year small refinery exemption applications in early 2021, but have indicated they will adhere to Department of Energy recommendations for the 2019 compliance year applications as well, which should be adjudicated in early 2020. There were 21 applications pending as of this filing.

On January 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled on RFA et. al. vs. EPA in favor of biofuels interests, overturning EPA’s grant of refinery exemptions to three refineries on two separate grounds. The Court agreed that, under the Clean Air Act, refineries are eligible for SREs for a given RVO year only if such exemptions are extensions of exemptions granted in previous RVO years. In this case, the three refineries at issue did not qualify for SREs in the year prior to the year that EPA granted them. They were thus ineligible for additional SRE relief because there were no immediately prior SREs to extend. In addition, the Court agreed that the disproportionate economic hardship prong of SRE eligibility should be determined solely by reference to whether compliance with the RFS II creates such hardship, not whether compliance plus other issues create disproportionate economic hardship. The Court thus vacated EPA's grant of SREs for certain years and remanded the grants back to EPA. It is expected the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the decision against the EPA is upheld by the Supreme Court, it is uncertain how the EPA will propose to remedy the situation.

The White House directed the USDA and EPA to move forward with rulemaking to expand access to higher blends of biofuels. This includes funding for infrastructure, labeling changes and allowing E15 to be sold through E10 infrastructure.

In 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of biofuel groups against the EPA related to its decision to lower the 2016 volume requirements by 500 million gallons. As a result, the Court remanded to the EPA to make up for the 500 million gallons. Despite this, in the proposed 2020 RVO rulemaking released in July 2019, the EPA stated it does not intend to make up the 500 million gallons as the court directed, citing potential burden on obligated parties. The EPA has indicated that it plans to address this court ordered remand in early 2020.

Government actions abroad can significantly impact the demand for U.S. ethanol. In September 2017, China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the National Energy Board and 15 other state departments issued a joint plan to expand the use and production of biofuels containing up to 10% ethanol by 2020. China, the number three importer of U.S. ethanol in 2016, imported negligible volumes during 2018 and 2019 due to a 30% tariff on U.S. ethanol, which increased to 70% in early 2018. There is no assurance that China’s joint plan to expand blending to 10% will be carried to fruition, nor that it will lead to increased imports of U.S. ethanol in the near term. Ethanol is included as an agricultural commodity under the “Phase I” agreement with China, wherein they are to purchase upwards of $40 billion in agricultural commodities from the U.S. in both 2020 and 2021.

In Brazil, the Secretary of Foreign Trade issued an official written resolution, imposing a 20% tariff on U.S. ethanol imports in excess of 150 million liters, or 39.6 million gallons per quarter in September 2017. The initial ruling was valid for two years; however, it was extended at the end of August 2019 for an additional year. On an annual basis, Brazil will now allow into the country 750 million duty free liters distributed on a quarterly basis as follows: September to November 100 million liters, December to February 100 million liters, March to May 275 million liters and June to August 275 million liters.

Our parent’s exports also face tariffs, rate quotas, countervailing duties, and other hurdles in the European Union, India, Peru, and elsewhere, which limits the ability to compete in some markets.

In June 2017, the Energy Regulatory Commission of Mexico (CRE) approved the use of 10% ethanol blends, which was challenged by multiple lawsuits, of which several were dismissed. The remaining four cases follow one of two tracks: 1) to determine the constitutionality of the CRE regulation, or 2) to determine the benefits, or lack thereof, of introducing E10 to Mexico. An injunction was granted in October 2017, preventing the blending and selling of E10, but was overturned by a higher court in June 2018 making it legal to blend and sell E10 by PEMEX throughout Mexico except for its three largest metropolitan areas. On January 15, 2020, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that the expedited process for the CRE regulation was unconstitutional, and that after a 180 day period the maximum ethanol blend allowed in the country would revert to 5.8%. There is an effort underway to go through the full regulatory process to allow for 10% blends countrywide, including in the three major metropolitan areas. U.S. ethanol exports to Mexico totaled 29.4 mmg in 2018 and 29.8 mmg in 2019.

On January 29, 2020, the President signed into law the updated North American Free Trade Agreement, known as the United States Mexico Canada Agreement or USMCA. The pact maintains the duty free access of U.S. agricultural commodities, including ethanol, into Canada and Mexico. As of the date of this filing, Mexico has ratified the pact and the Canadian Parliament is widely expected to do the same.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law on December 22, 2017, effective on January 1, 2018. Among other provisions, the new law reduced the federal statutory corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. The new law had an immaterial impact to our financial statements.

Environmental and Other Regulation

Our operations are subject to environmental regulations, including those that govern the handling and release of ethanol, crude oil and other liquid hydrocarbon materials. Compliance with existing and anticipated environmental laws and regulations may increase our overall cost of doing business, including capital costs to construct, maintain, operate, and upgrade equipment and facilities. Our business may also be impacted by government policies, such as tariffs, duties, subsidies, import and export restrictions and outright embargos. Our parent employs maintenance and operations personnel at each of its facilities, which are regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The U.S. ethanol industry relies heavily on tank cars to deliver its product to market. On May 1, 2015, the DOT finalized the Enhanced Tank Car Standard and Operational Controls for High-Hazard and Flammable Trains, or DOT specification 117, which established a schedule to retrofit or replace older tank cars that carry crude oil and ethanol, braking standards intended to reduce the severity of accidents and new operational protocols. The deadline for compliance with DOT specification 117 is May 1, 2023. The rule may increase our lease costs for railcars over the long term. Additionally, existing railcars may be out of service for a period of time while upgrades are made, tightening supply in an industry that is highly dependent on railcars to transport product. We intend to strategically manage our leased railcar fleet to comply with the new regulations and have commenced transition of our fleet to DOT 117 compliant railcars. As of December 31, 2019, approximately 30% of our railcar fleet was DOT 117 compliant. We anticipate that an additional 20% of our railcar fleet will be DOT 117 compliant by the end of 2020, and that our entire fleet will be fully compliant by 2023.

Our Parent’s Production Levels

Our parent’s operating margins are sensitive to commodity price fluctuations, particularly for corn, ethanol, corn oil, distillers grains and natural gas, which are impacted by factors that are outside of its control, including weather conditions, corn yield, changes in domestic and global ethanol supply and demand, government programs and policies and the price of crude oil, gasoline and substitute fuels. Our parent uses various financial instruments to manage and reduce its exposure to price variability.

Our parent’s operating margins influence its production levels, which in turn affects the volume of ethanol we store, throughput and transport. During periods of commodity price variability or compressed margins, our parent may slow down or temporarily idle operations at certain ethanol plants. Slowing production increases the ethanol yield per bushel of corn, optimizing cash flow in lower margin environments. In 2019, our parent’s ethanol facilities ran at approximately 76.2% of their daily average capacity, largely due to the low margin environment during the year driven by higher domestic ethanol supplies resulting from weak refiner and blender input volume.