TABLE OF CONTENTS
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A
(Rule 14a-101)

INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No.   )

Filed by the Registrant ☒
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ☐
Check the appropriate box:

Preliminary Proxy Statement

Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

Definitive Proxy Statement

Definitive Additional Materials

Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12
Phillips 66
Filed by the Registrantý

Filed by a Party other than the Registranto

Check the appropriate box:
ýPreliminary Proxy Statement
oConfidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
oDefinitive Proxy Statement
oDefinitive Additional Materials
oSoliciting Material under §240.14a-12
(Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)


Phillips 66

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)


(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
ýNo fee required.
oFee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
(1)Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
(2)Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
(3)Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
(4)Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
(5)Total fee paid:
oFee paid previously with preliminary materials.
oCheck box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
(1)Amount Previously Paid:
(2)Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
(3)Filing Party:
(4)Date Filed:
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

No fee required.

Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
(1)
Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
(2)
Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
(3)
Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
(4)
Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
(5)
Total fee paid:

Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
(1)
Amount Previously Paid:
(2)
Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
(3)
Filing Party:
(4)
Date Filed:

Table of ContentsTABLE OF CONTENTS


GRAPHIC

[MISSING IMAGE: lg_phillips66.jpg]
March   , 2016

2018

To My Fellow Shareholders:

On behalf of your

The Board of Directors and management,executive leadership team cordially invite you are cordially invited to attend the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held at theThe Westin Houston, Marriott Westchase, 2900 Briarpark Drive,Memorial City, 945 Gessner Road, Houston, Texas 77042,77024, on Wednesday, May 4, 2016,9 at 9:00 a.m. Central Daylight Time. You will find information regarding the matters to be voted on at the meeting in the attached proxy statement.

We areExecuting on strategy.   Phillips 66 is a diversified energy manufacturing and logistics company with a portfolio of midstream, chemicals, refining, and marketing and specialties businesses. Our diverse portfolio, resilient cash flow and disciplined capital allocation position us to capitalize on opportunities across the value chain. We have a passion forOur corporate strategy remains unchanged and clear—we aim to deliver profitable growth, enhance returns on capital, and grow shareholder distributions, while focusing on strong operating excellence which guides everythingand continuing as a high-performing organization.
In 2017, we do. It always will. increased our dividend payment by 11 percent and returned nearly $3 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. We generated higher earnings compared to the prior year by improving margins in our Refining business and placing Midstream growth projects into service. This progress was achieved through the efforts of our 14,600 employees and with record setting and industry leading safety and environmental performance.
Engaging with shareholders.   We value the perspectives our shareholders provide by participating at our annual meeting and engaging in conversations with us throughout the year. In 2017, we met with shareholders representing nearly half of our shares outstanding. We were provided valuable feedback that was shared with the full Board. As a result of these discussions, management is resubmitting a proposal asking shareholders to declassify the Board so that our directors will be elected annually. For additional information regarding the feedback we heard through our engagement efforts and actions taken in response, please refer to SHAREHOLDER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT of the attached proxy statement.
Your vote is very important.   Whether or not you plan to attend the annual meeting, and no matter how many shares you own, we encourage you to vote promptly. You may vote by telephone or over the Internet, or by completing, signing, dating and returning the enclosed proxy card or voting instruction form if you requested to receive printed proxy materials. The proposal to declassify the Board of Directors requires 80% of shares outstanding to vote in favor of the proposal. Therefore, it is very important that you vote your shares for this proposal. For additional information on voting your shares, please see the instructions in the proxy statement located under ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING.
I look forward to sharing more about your company when we gather for our annual meeting.meeting on May 9.
In safety, honor and commitment,
Greg C. Garland

A commitment
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_greg-garland03.jpg]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
WOOD RIVER REFINERY CENTENNIAL
For 100 years, the Wood River Refinery has helped sustain the community of Roxana, Illinois, and its neighboring communities.
Founded in 1917 as the Roxana Petroleum Company, the plant on the banks of the Mississippi River helped give rise to shareholder engagement.    We value the perspectives our shareholders providetown itself. It also produced fuel for U.S. forces during World War II, winning accolades from the Army and Navy. Today, as a joint venture with Cenovus, the refinery has a more than $7 billion economic impact annually on the region, according to a study by Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.
But it is giving back to the town that may best define the Wood River Refinery.
“Historically the refinery has helped shape Roxana with its economic impact,” said Refinery Manager Jerry Knoyle. “We want to be an engine for growth, but we also want to help build a better community.”
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_wood-river.jpg]
The Wood River Refinery contributes more than $500,000 to charitable causes each year through participation at our annual meetingcorporate philanthropy and through direct conversations that weemployee contributions. Over the last 20 years, employees have throughoutgiven more than $5 million to the year. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with you in the coming year. Prompted by your comments,United Way alone. And last year, we asked shareholdersthey used Phillips 66 Volunteer Grants to vote on a proposal that would resultaccess more than $113,000 in funds for the annual electionorganizations where they volunteer. The refinery’s most recent act of philanthropy: A playground for children of all members of your board of directors. Althoughabilities and a nod to the proposal received significant support, it did not receive the 80 percent vote required for adoption. As your board of directors believes the proposal is in the best interest of Phillips 66 values of safety, honor and in light of the significant support expressed by shareholders,commitment.
“When we are again asking for a vote on this proposal this year.

Growing shareholder distributions.    We understand the importance of shareholder distributionsgive back, we want it to be with purpose and emphasize growing those distributions through share repurchases and dividends. In 2015, we increased the dividend by 12 percent and returned $2.7 billion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases.

Your vote is important.    Whether or not you plan to attend the annual meeting in person, and no matter how many shares you own, please vote by telephone or on the Internet, or mark your vote on the enclosed proxy card and sign, date, and return it by mail. For additional information on voting your shares, please see the instructions in the proxy statement on page 57.

Safety. Honor. Commitment.    These arealigned with the values that guide howwe operate under every day,” Knoyle said.

Among the 14,000centennial festivities was—what else?—a community birthday party featuring food, fun and friends, as well as a tribute video that tells the stories of employees, past and present, that reached tens of Phillips 66 conduct business every day as they work to fulfill our mission to provide energythousands on social media. The refinery’s birthday celebration continues in 2018 with the 100-year anniversary of its first refined products. With almost 900 employees and improve lives. It ismore than 1,200 living retirees, you can bet the Wood River Refinery will be a force in the spirit of these values that we look forwardcommunity for years to greeting you on May 4.

Sincerely,

come.
   ​

[MISSING IMAGE: lg_phillips66.jpg]

Greg C. Garland
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer


GRAPHIC




GRAPHIC


Table of Contents


GRAPHIC

NOTICE OF 20162018 ANNUAL MEETING
OF SHAREHOLDERS

May 4, 2016
9, 2018 at 9:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time

The Westin Houston, Marriott WestchaseMemorial City
2900 Briarpark Drive945 Gessner Road
Houston, Texas 77042

ITEMS OF BUSINESS

77024
(281) 501-4300
Items of Business
1.

To elect the two Directorsthree directors named in this proxy statement
2.

2.
To ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company'sCompany’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 20162018
3.

3.
To consider and vote on a management proposal to approve, on an advisory (non-binding) basis, the compensation of our Named Executive Officers
4.

4.
To consider and vote on a management proposal regarding the annual election of Directorsdirectors
5.

5.
To transact other business properly coming before the meeting

RECORD DATERecord Date

You can vote if you were a shareholder of record on March 11, 2016.

12, 2018. Shareholders as of the Record Date are invited to attend the annual meeting.

ANNUAL REPORTAnnual Report

Our 20152017 Annual Report to Shareholders accompanies, but is not part of, these proxy materials.

PROXY VOTINGVote Right Away

Shareholders as of the Record Date are invitedYour vote is very important to attend the annual meeting. Whether or notus and to our business. Even if you plan to attend our Annual Meeting in person, please vote in advanceright away using any of the meeting by using one of the methods described in thisfollowing methods.

BY INTERNET USING YOUR COMPUTERBY TELEPHONEBY MAILING YOUR PROXY CARD
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_laptop.jpg]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_phone01.jpg]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_mail01.jpg]
Visit 24/7
www.proxyvote.com
Dial toll-free 24/7
(800) 690-6903
Cast your ballot, sign your proxy card
and send by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope
Please see ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING for information about voting.
This proxy statement.

statement and accompanying proxy are being provided to shareholders on or about March 28, 2018.

By Order of the Board of Directors
Paula A. Johnson
Corporate Secretary

March   , 2016

2018




Table of Contents


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Page

PROXY SUMMARY

3
6

86

Board Leadership Structure 

8

Summary of Board Committees 

10

Director Independence 

10

Shareholder and Community Engagement 

10

Communications with the Board 

11

Director Meeting Attendance 

11

Board's Risk Oversight 

11

Code of Business Ethics and Conduct

126
Shareholder and Community Engagement

Related Party Transactions 

126
8
8
11
13
Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

Nominating Processes of the Nominating and Governance Committee 

1315
16
17

PROPOSAL 2:   RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Audit and Finance Committee Report

2223

PROPOSAL 3:   ADVISORY APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS


24

Our Industry, Corporate Strategy and Business Performance 

24

Our Compensation Philosophy 

25
25
26

Targets and Payouts forExecutive Compensation Elements 

Program Details
2729

Other Benefits and Perquisites

3539

Executive Compensation Governance

3741

Role of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee

3842

Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report

3944

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES


4045

Summary Compensation Table

4045

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

4247

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End

4348

Option Exercises and Stock Vested for 2015 

2017
4449

Pension Benefits as of December 31, 2015 

2017
4550

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

4651

Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control

47

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


51

Non-Employee Director Compensation Table 

52
CEO Pay Ratio

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End 

5355
55
5355
57
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   1​

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2016 PROXY STATEMENT1

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

54

STOCK OWNERSHIP

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

5559

Securities Ownership of Officers and Directors

5559

PROPOSAL 4:   MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL REGARDING THE ANNUAL ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

SUBMISSION OF FUTURE SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS


6165

APPENDIX A—B—

APPENDIX B—NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES


B-1
2    2016 PROXY STATEMENT
2   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROXY SUMMARY

This proxy summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider, and you should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting. Page references are supplied to help you find further information in this proxy statement. Throughout the proxy statement, we may refer to PhillpsPhillips 66 as the "Company," "we"“Company,” “we” or "our."“our.” For more complete information regarding the Company's 2015Company’s 2017 performance, please review the Company'sCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

If you are a beneficial owner and do not give your broker instructions on how to vote your shares, the broker will return the proxy card to us without voting on proposals not considered "routine." This is known as a broker non-vote. Only the ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2016 is considered to be a routine matter. 2017.

Your broker may not vote on any non-routine matters without instructions from you.

PROPOSALS REQUIRING YOUR VOTE

Company
MORE
INFORMATION
BOARD
RECOMMENDATION
VOTES REQUIRED
FOR APPROVAL
PROPOSAL 1Election of DirectorsPage 14 FOR each NomineeMajority of votes cast
PROPOSAL 2Ratification of the Appointment of Ernst & Young LLPPage 21 FORMajority of votes present
PROPOSAL 3Advisory Approval of Executive CompensationPage 23 FORMajority of votes present
PROPOSAL 4Management Proposal Regarding the Annual Election of DirectorsPage 56 FOR80% of Voting Stock

VOTE RIGHT AWAY

Your vote is very important to us and to our business.    Even if you plan to attend our Annual Meeting in person, please read this proxy statement carefully and vote right away using any of the following methods. In all cases, have your proxy card or voting instruction card in hand and follow the instructions.





BY INTERNET USING YOUR COMPUTER




BY TELEPHONE




BY MAILING YOUR PROXY CARD






GRAPHIC







GRAPHIC







GRAPHIC







Visit 24/7
www.proxyvote.com





Dial toll-free 24/7
(800) 690-6903





Cast your ballot, sign your proxy card
and send by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope



If you hold your Phillips 66 stock in a brokerage account (that is in "street name"), your ability to vote by telephone or over the Internet depends on your broker's voting process. Please follow the directions on your proxy card or voting instruction card carefully. If you plan to vote in person at the Annual Meeting and you hold your Phillips 66 stock in street name, you must obtain a proxy from your broker and bring that proxy to the meeting.

If you hold your stock through a Phillips 66 employee benefit plan, please see page 58 for information about voting.

VISIT OUR WEBSITE



GRAPHIC

Visit 24/7
www.phillips66.com









Review and download this proxy statement and our Annual Report.

Sign up for electronic delivery of future Annual Meeting materials to save money and reduce the impact on the environment at www.proxyvote.com.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT3

Table of Contents

PROXY SUMMARY

WE ARE PHILLIPS 66

We are a diversified energy manufacturing and logistics company withcompany. With a unique portfolio of assets in the Midstream, Chemicals, Refiningmidstream, chemicals, refining, and Marketingmarketing and Specialties businesses.specialties businesses, the Company processes, transports, stores and markets fuels and products globally. Our industry is vitally important to the globalworld-wide economy. Fossil fuels, particularly oil and natural gas, continue to beare the world'sworld’s primary energy source and are expected to remain so for decades to come. These sources are abundant and reliable, affordable and efficient. Phillips 66's mission66’s vision is to provide energy and improve lives through operating excellence, delivering energy in a safe, efficientsafely, efficiently and environmentally responsible way.sustainably. We improve lives by responsibly providing access to energy which isproducts that are essential tofor a high standard of living and health throughout the world.

Since the Company's inception

We delivered strong operating and financial results in May 2012,2017. We continued our strategic priorities have remained unchanged.


GRAPHIC

GRAPHIC

GRAPHIC

GRAPHIC

GRAPHIC





















Maintain Strong
Operating Excellence
Deliver Profitable
Growth
Enhance Returns
on Capital
Grow Shareholder
Distributions
Build a
High-Performing
Organization
2015 Performance Highlights






Top quartile Total Recordable Rate—0.19

Top quartile Lost Workday Case Rate—0.03

Crude capacity utilization of 91%








Adjusted Earnings of $4.2 billion—60% above target

Strong distribution growth in PSXP—41% Compound Annual Growth Rate since its 2013 IPO








VCIP Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) of 16.1%—7.2 percentage points above Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)

Adjusted controllable costs of $5.9 billion—5% improved while absorbing company growth








Dividend Compound Annual Growth Rate of 34% since May 2012

From 2013 - 2015 54% of capital was reinvested in our strategic activities and 46% was distributed to shareholders

Total share repurchases and exchanges of $7.7 billion since May 2012








Robust succession planning

Leadership development

Organizational capabilities

Performance management

Pay for performance




Our financial performance in 2015 demonstrates the resiliency of our diversified portfolio in a low commodity price environment. We create value by focusingfocus on operating excellence, enhancingwith a record low safety rate. We also enhanced returns in our Refining business and deliveringexecuted on our Midstream and Chemicals businesses’ growth programs. Our balance sheet is strong, and we maintain a disciplined approach to capital allocation. In 2017, we increased our dividend by 11% and returned nearly $3 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases.

The graphfollowing highlights our performance during 2017 and for the three years ended December 31, 2017, as measured by our compensation program performance targets, which are discussed in the COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS.
2017 Performance

Operating Excellence—Drives focus on safety, asset availability and environmental stewardship.   In 2017, we exceeded our targets in every metric of operating excellence. Our combined workforce recordable injury rate was 0.14, which averages to one injury per every 1.4 million hours worked, and we had the next page showslowest number of reportable environmental events in Company history.

High-Performing Organization—Measures effectiveness of our total shareholder returntalent management initiatives.   We continued to build leadership capabilities and maximize the performance of our people in 2017. Approximately 25 percent of our employees were in locations impacted by Hurricane Harvey, yet almost all assets were operating by mid-September 2017.

Adjusted Controllable Costs—Drives focus on cost management.   Our controllable costs were 2 percent below our 2017 target, which we were able to manage while absorbing company growth.

Adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization)—Aligns organization on value creation.   In 2017, we generated $5.74 billion of Adjusted EBITDA, an increase over 2016 results, but 13 percent below our target for the year.
Three Years Ended 2017

Total Shareholder Return (TSR)—Aligns executive compensation with long-term interests of shareholders. Our performance is evaluated compared to a group of peer companies and the S&P 100 IndexIndex.   For the three years ended December 31, 2017, our TSR was 55.1 percent, ranking 7th out of 16 peers (including the S&P 100 Index).

Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)—Demonstrates the Company’s growth and overall performance. Our performance is evaluated on both an absolute and relative basis.   For the three-year performance period ending in 2017, our relative performance was 7th out of 15 peer group since May 2012.

4    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

PROXY SUMMARY


TSR Since May 2012

GRAPHIC

OUR 2015 SAY-ON-PAY VOTE RESULT AND SHAREHOLDER ENGAGEMENT EFFORT

At our 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, holders of approximately 95 percent of our outstanding shares who castcompanies and, on an advisory vote on the Company's Say-on-Pay proposal voted in favor of the Company's executive compensation programs. Throughout the past year, we have engaged in dialogue with our largest shareholders, representing about 40 percent of shares outstanding, on various corporate governance topics, including executive compensation, and have received positive feedback. The Human Resources and Compensation Committee, which we may refer to as the Compensation Committee, values these discussions and encourages shareholders to provide comments about our executive compensation programs.

Based on the results of the 2015 vote and our ongoing dialogue with shareholders, as well as consideration of evolving best practices, the Compensation Committee has continued to examine our compensation programs to ensure that alignment with shareholders remains strong. While we received no prescriptive suggestions in these meetings with shareholders, we heard a consistent theme regarding the appropriate size and segment mix of our performance peer group, which we discussed further with the Compensation Committee. As a result, the Compensation Committee approved changes to our 2015 performance peer group. The peer group examination and the associated changes are discussed further in ourCompensation Discussion & Analysis underPeer Group Comparisons beginning on page 27.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT5

Table of Contents

PROXY SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION BEST PRACTICES

In conjunction with our corporate strategy, executive compensation philosophy and shareholder feedback, the following best practices are reflected in our executive compensation programs:

absolute basis, was 10.1 percent.
WE DO ...
WE DO NOT ...

ü

Target the majority of Named Executive Officer (NEO) compensation to be performance based

X

Provide tax gross-ups to our NEOs under the CICSP

ü

Link NEO compensation to shareholder value creation by having a significant portion of compensation at risk

X

Reprice stock options without shareholder approval

ü

Apply multiple performance metrics aligned with our corporate strategy to measure our performance

X

Price stock options below grant date fair market value

ü

Cap maximum payouts (number of shares) under our equity programs

X

Allow share recycling for stock options

ü

Employ a "double trigger" for severance benefits and equity awards under our Key Employee Change in Control Severance Plan (CICSP)

X

Have evergreen provisions in our active equity plans

ü

Include absolute and relative metrics in our Long-Term Incentive programs

X

Allow hedging or pledging of Phillips 66 stock, or trading Company stock outside of approved windows

ü

Maintain stock ownership guidelines for executives

X

Pay dividends during the performance period on PSP targets

ü

Balance, monitor and manage compensation risk through regular assessments and robust clawback provisions

X

Allow transfer of equity awards (except in the case of death)

ü

Have extended vesting periods on stock awards, with a minimum one-year vesting period required for stock and stock option awards

X

Provide separate supplemental executive retirement benefits for individual NEOs

ü

Intend to qualify compensation payments for deductibility under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m)

X

Maintain individual change in control agreements

ü

Maintain a fully independent Compensation Committee

X

Have an employment agreement with the CEO

ü

Retain an independent compensation consultant

X

Have excessive perquisites

ü

Hold a Say-on-Pay vote annually

GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS

This year, we are again asking shareholders to vote on a management proposal to move to the annual election of all Directors. See page 56 for details of that proposal. In addition, we already follow these other corporate governance best practices:

Majority voting for DirectorsYES
Active shareholder engagementYES
Substantial majority of independent DirectorsYES
Independent Lead DirectorYES
IndependentYour Board CommitteesYES
Executive sessions of independent DirectorsYES
Stock ownership guidelinesYES
Prohibition on pledging and hedging of our stockYES
Clawback policyYES
Regular Board and Committee Self-EvaluationsYES
Risk oversight by the full Board and CommitteesYES
Company does not have a poison pillYES
6    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

PROXY SUMMARY

BOARD DIVERSITY AND INDEPENDENCE

Our business requires that we not only bring together a knowledgeable and qualified leadership team, but one with a diversity ofdiverse backgrounds, experienceexperiences and thought.perspectives. The composition of our Board and the experiences and backgrounds of our executives reflect the Company’s ongoing organizational commitment to diversity. The Nominating and Governance Committee seeks Board members who possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values, and are committed to representing the long-term interests of the Company’s shareholders. The Nominating Committee regularly reviews the

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   3​

PROXY SUMMARY
composition of the Board and the evolving needs of the Company’s businesses to ensure the Board reflects a range of talents, ages, skills, experiences, diversity, and expertise, sufficient to provide sound and prudent guidance with respect to the commitment to diversity that we strive for throughout the organization.Company’s strategic and operational objectives. The charts below highlight the diversity and independence of our ten-member Board of Directors.

GRAPHIC

ATTEND OUR 2016 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Date and Time:9:00 a.m. (CDT) on Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Location:


Houston Marriott Westchase
2900 Briarpark Drive
Houston, Texas 77042
(713) 978-7400

Record Date:


March 11, 2016
[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_pie-committee.jpg]
Proposals Requiring Your Vote
2016 PROXY STATEMENTBOARD
7RECOMMENDATION
VOTES REQUIRED
FOR APPROVAL
PROPOSAL 1Election of DirectorsFOR each NomineeMajority of votes cast
PROPOSAL 2Ratification of the Appointment of Ernst & Young LLPFORMajority of votes present
PROPOSAL 3Advisory Approval of Executive CompensationFORMajority of votes present
PROPOSAL 4Management Proposal Regarding the Annual Election of DirectorsFOR80% of Voting Stock

Table

If you are a beneficial owner and do not give your broker instructions on how to vote your shares, the broker will not be able to vote on any proposal other than the ratification of ContentsErnst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2018. Your broker may not vote on any of the other proposals without instructions from you.
Our Shareholder Engagement
We value the views of our shareholders and other stakeholders. Throughout the past year, in addition to our ongoing community education and outreach, we proactively sought feedback from our shareholders. Over 90% of our offers to engage were accepted, representing nearly half of our shares outstanding, to discuss topics related to our business strategy and performance, Board composition and oversight, as well as governance and progress of our environmental and social initiatives.
As a direct result of these engagements, we have decided to again seek shareholder approval of a management proposal to eliminate our classified board structure and permit all directors to be elected annually. More information about the topics discussed and the actions we have taken can be found in SHAREHOLDER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT


GRAPHIC

.

4   2018 PROXY STATEMENT


PROXY SUMMARY​
Summary of Governance Best Practices
Our corporate governance practices are summarized below. Our Board regularly reviews evolving corporate governance best practices, changing regulatory requirements, and feedback from shareholders and makes changes it believes are in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders.

Robust shareholder engagement program covering large percentage of outstanding shares and proxy advisory firms

Independent Lead Director with clearly defined responsibilities

Risk oversight by the full Board and Committees

Regular Board and Committee self-evaluations

Provide 3%/3 year/20% proxy access right

Majority voting for directors

Substantial majority of independent directors

Independent Board Committees

Executive sessions of independent directors

Stock ownership guidelines

Prohibition on pledging and hedging of our stock

Clawback policy

Company does not have a poison pill
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   5​

[MISSING IMAGE: lg_phillips66.jpg] ​
PROXY STATEMENT
This proxy statement and accompanying proxy are being provided to shareholders on or about March 23, 2016,28, 2018, in connection with the solicitation by the Board of Directors of Phillips 66 of proxies to be voted at the 20162018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders on May 4, 2016.

9, 2018.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF THE COMPANYAT PHILLIPS 66

The Nominating

Phillips 66 is committed to effective corporate governance and Governance Committee, which we may also refer to ashigh ethical standards. We believe that corporate governance, including our values of safety, honor and commitment, is the Nominating Committee,foundation for financial integrity, investor confidence and sustainable performance. Our values guide how our 14,600 employees conduct business every day and how the Board of Directors which we may also refer to as the Board, annually review the Company's governance structure to take into account changes in Securitiesoversees and Exchange Commission (SEC) and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rules, as well as current best practices. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, posted on the "Investors" section of the Company's website under the "Governance" caption and available in print upon request (see "Available Information" on page 61), address the following matters, among others:

    director qualifications

    director responsibilities

    committees of the board

    director access to officers, employees and independent advisors

    performance evaluations of the board

    director orientation and continuing education

    director compensation

    Chief Executive Officer (CEO) evaluation and succession planning

BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

Chairman and CEO Roles

Although the Board of Directors has the authority to separate the positions of Chairman and CEO if it deems appropriate, the Board believes it iscounsels management in the bestlong-term interest of the Company's shareholders to combine them. Doing so enables one person to guide the Board in setting priorities for the Company and in addressing the risks and challenges the Company faces. The Board of Directors believes that, while its non-employee Directors bring a diversity of skills and perspectives to the Board, the Company's CEO, by virtue of his day-to-day involvement in managing the Company, currently is best suited to serve as Chairman and perform this unified role.

The Board of Directors believes that no single organizational model is the best and most effective in all circumstances. As a consequence, the Board of Directors periodically considers whether the offices of Chairman and CEO should continue to be combined and who should serve in such capacities. The Board of Directors also periodically reexamines its corporate governance policies and leadership structure to ensure that they continueour shareholders. We continuously strive to meet the Company's needs.

Independent Director Leadership

Theour vision of providing energy and improving lives, guided by our four pillars of sustainability:


Operational Excellence

Environmental Commitment

Social Responsibility

Economic Performance
Our Board of Directors has adopted strong governance practices to ensure that an appropriate balance of power exists between the non-employee Directors and management, including:

    appointing a Lead Director

    requiring a substantial majority of independent directors
8    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF THE COMPANY

    having only independent directors serve on the Audit and Finance Committee, which we may also refer to as the Audit Committee; the Compensation Committee; and the Nominating Committee

    holding executive sessions of the non-employee Directors at each Board meeting

    having only independent directors evaluate the CEO's performance annually and approve the CEO's pay

Mr. McGraw served as our Lead Director in 2015. In February 2016, the Board of Directors appointed Mr. Tilton as the Lead Director. In appointing a Lead Director, the Board of Directors considered it useful and appropriate to designate an independent Director to serve in a lead capacity to coordinate the activities of the non-employee Directors and to perform such other duties and responsibilities as the Board of Directors may determine. Specifically, those duties include:

    advising the Chairman on an appropriate schedule of Board meetings, seeking to ensure that the non-employee Directors can perform their duties responsibly while not interfering with operations

    providing the Chairman with input on the preparation of the agendas for the Board meetings and assuring that there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items

    advising the Chairman on the quality, quantity and timeliness of the flow of information from management to the non-employee Directors in order that they may perform their duties effectively and responsibly, including specifically requesting certain materials be provided to the Board

    recommending to the Chairman the retention of consultants who report directly to the Board of Directors

    interviewing all board candidates and making nomination recommendations to the Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors

    assisting the Board of Directors and Company officers in assuring compliance with and implementation of the Corporate Governance Guidelines

    ensuring that he or she or another appropriate Director is available for engagement with shareholders when warranted

    having the authority to call meetings of the non-employee Directors, as well as to develop the agenda for and moderate any such meetings and executive sessions of the non-employee Directors

    acting as principal liaison between the non-employee Directors and the Chairman on sensitive issues

    participating in the periodic discussion of CEO performance with the Compensation Committee

    ensuring the Board of Directors conducts an annual self-assessment and meeting with the CEO to discuss the results of the annual self-assessment

    working with the Nominating Committee to recommend the membership of the various Board committees, as well as selection of the committee chairs

The Board of Directors believes that its current structure and processes encourage its non-employee Directors to be actively involved in guiding the work of the Board. The chairs of the Board's committees review their agendas and committee materials in advance, communicating directly with other Directors and members of management as each deems appropriate. Moreover, each Director is free to suggest agenda items and to raise matters at Board and committee meetings that are not on the agenda.

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines require that the non-employee Directors meet in executive session at every meeting and, when there are non-employee Directors who are not independent, that the independent Directors meet in executive session at least annually. The Lead Director presides at such executive sessions. Each executive session may include discussionsestablish a common set of among other things, (1) the performance of the Chairman and the CEO, (2) matters concerning the relationship of the Board of Directors with the members of senior management, and (3) such other matters as the non-employee Directors deem appropriate. No formal action of the Board of Directors is taken at these meetings, although the non-employee Directors may subsequently recommend matters for consideration by the full Board. The Board of Directors may invite guest attendees to make presentations, respond to questions, or provide counsel on specific matters within their areas of expertise.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT9

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF THE COMPANY

SUMMARY OF BOARD COMMITTEES


Mr.
FERGUSON

Mr.
GARLAND

Mr.
LOOMIS

Mr.
LOWE

Mr.
MCGRAW

Mr.
TILTON

Ms.
TSCHINKEL

Dr.
WHITTINGTON

Audit and FinanceX*XXX
ExecutiveXX*XXX
Human Resources and CompensationX*XX
Nominating and GovernanceXX*X
Public PolicyXXX*X
*
Committee Chair

The charters for our Audit Committee, Executive Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating Committee, and Public Policy Committee can be found in the "Investors" section on the Phillips 66 website under the "Governance" caption. Shareholders may also request printed copies of these charters by following the instructions located under the caption "Available Information" on page 61.

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

The Corporate Governance Guidelines also contain director independence standards, which are consistent with the standards set forth in the NYSE listing standards,expectations to assist the Board of Directorsand its committees in determining the independence of the Company's Directors.performing their duties. The Board of Directors has determined that each Director, except Mr. Garland, meets the standards regarding independence set forth in theGuidelines are reviewed at least annually, and updates are made as necessary to reflect changing regulatory requirements, evolving best practices and input from shareholders and other stakeholders.

Our key corporate governance documents, including our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Charters of our Board’s committees, our By-Laws, and is freeour Code of any material relationshipBusiness Ethics and Conduct can be found on the Company’s website in the “Investors” section, under the “Corporate Governance” caption. We also publish a Sustainability Report, which presents our sustainability efforts and provides data, as well as programs and projects that demonstrate how we fulfill our vision of providing energy and improving lives. The Sustainability Report can be found on the Company website in the “Sustainability” section.
CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT
Our values are our foundation—our guiding principles for how we conduct our business day in and day out. We also know that in today’s increasingly complex global business environment, questions can arise. We have adopted a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct designed to provide guidance on how to act legally and ethically while performing work for Phillips 66. Our Code of Business Ethics and Conduct covers topics including, but not limited to, conflicts of interest, insider trading, competition and fair dealing, discrimination and harassment, confidentiality, payments to government personnel, anti-boycott laws, U.S. embargoes and sanctions, compliance procedures and employee complaint procedures. All of our directors and employees, including our Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and other senior finance personnel, are subject to compliance with the Company (either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officerCode of an organization that has a relationship with the Company). Mr. Garland is not considered independent because he is an executive officer of the Company. Mr. Lowe met the criteria to be considered independent beginning in May 2015, the third anniversary of our spin-off from ConocoPhillips. In making independence determinations, the Board of Directors specifically considered the fact that many of our Directors are directors, retired officers or shareholders of companies with which we conduct business. In addition, some of our Directors serve as employees of, or consultants to, companies that do business with Phillips 66Business Ethics and its affiliates (as further described in "Related Party Transactions" on page 12). Finally, some of our Directors may purchase retail products (such as gasoline, fuel additives or lubricants) from the Company. In all cases, it was determined that the nature of the business conducted and the interest of the Director by virtue of such position were immaterial both to the Company and to such Director.

Conduct.

SHAREHOLDER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The Company's guiding principles

At Phillips 66, we believe that we succeed together as a team, leveraging our diverse experiences and thoughts in an environment that thrives on collaboration. We embrace shareholder engagement as an important tenet of good governance. Wegovernance and value the views of our shareholders and other stakeholders. We believe that positive dialogue builds informed relationships that promote transparency and accountability. Although the Lead Director or other members of the Board are available to participate in meetings with shareholders as appropriate, management has the principal responsibility for shareholder communication. During 2015, we engaged with shareholders, representing about 40 percent of shares outstanding, and other interested parties, as part of our annual engagement efforts. Topics discussed included our strategy and performance; corporate governance matters; our executive compensation programs; and environmental and social concerns. We then shared the perspectives expressed in these discussions with the Board of Directors.

6   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66​
We also believe that engagement and good governance involve participating in political or public policy activities that advance the Company'sCompany’s goals, are consistent with Company values, and improve the communities where we work and live. A number of federal, state and local laws govern corporate involvement in such activities, and we maintain policies, procedures and proceduresprograms to comply with these laws. The Public Policy Committee is responsible for overseeing our political and public policy work and related activities about which it receives regular reports. Additional information about our involvement in political or public policy activities is available on our website.

What We Do
For several years, Phillips 66 has conducted a formal shareholder outreach program to listen to investor perspectives on our business strategy, corporate governance, our executive compensation program, and other matters. Twice yearly, we formally solicit feedback from institutional investors including asset managers, public and labor union pension funds, and socially responsible investors. In 2017, we expanded our dialogue over the course of the year with shareholders representing nearly half of our shares outstanding, and with proxy advisory firms, to include sustainability matters.
Information and feedback received through our engagement activities is shared with our executive leadership team and the Board of Directors, which helps inform their decisions. For example, as a result of our engagement with shareholders in recent years, we enhanced our disclosures on political giving and activity and implemented a proxy access right for shareholders.
The feedback we received in 2017 has been supportive, and the conversations provided us an opportunity to further discuss Board composition and risk oversight, environmental and social business practices, and other governance and compensation matters.
Topics Discussed and Actions Taken
Board Declassification
Based on feedback from shareholders, management is resubmitting a proposed charter amendment that would eliminate our classified board structure and allow all directors to be elected annually. We encouraged shareholders at the annual meetings in both 2015 and 2016 to approve the same charter amendment but the amendment did not receive the required vote to pass in either year. We recognize that many of our shareholders would prefer a declassified board structure and are therefore resubmitting the proposal at this year’s Annual Meeting. We urge all shareholders to vote FOR the declassification proposal.
Board Composition
Many of our discussions with shareholders addressed the subject of Board composition and director skills and qualifications. Certain of our shareholders had a particular desire to understand how the Board considers refreshment and its composition in connection with current and future business needs. Additionally, investors inquired about the specific roles of the Board and its committees in the risk oversight process. In general, investors expressed minimal concerns about the current Board composition, individual directors, Board policies or our overall approach to shareholder engagement. We have enhanced our disclosures regarding several of these topics throughout this proxy statement based on the feedback we received.
Executive Compensation
During our discussions, investors continued to show support for our overall executive compensation program and viewed it as well-structured and aligned with our Company strategy and performance. Investors were particularly interested in discussing the disclosure around our incentive targets for our annual bonus program, as well as the long-term components of our program. This information is included in the COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS section later in this proxy statement.
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
Investor interest in how companies view sustainability and how they integrate sustainability into their business objectives and corporate cultures has been increasing. During our engagements, investors inquired about Phillips 66’s practices, our views on different reporting methodologies, and the types of non-financial ESG issues that may impact our business or create reputational risks. We shared with investors the ESG factors that are included in our incentive compensation programs for measuring our performance, as disclosed in the COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS. We also described our enhanced
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   7​

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66
disclosures of ESG issues that we made in 2017 through the updated publication of our Sustainability Report, which can be found on the Company website. With respect to the disclosure of ESG metrics generally, the Company continues to assess appropriate next steps, and will continue to engage with investors on this topic.
SUSTAINABILITY
Phillips 66 is dedicated to meeting the world’s energy needs responsibly, efficiently and sustainably. For us, sustainability means manufacturing and delivering affordable, clean products in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Our sustainability efforts are built on four pillars: operational excellence, environmental commitment, social responsibility and economic performance. Our Board of Directors oversees these efforts through its regular work and through its committees, each of which has been delegated responsibility for different areas of sustainability. For more information, see BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT.
We are focused on implementing best-in-class sustainability practices today and into the future. For example, we are conducting research to manage water consumption, improve energy efficiency and provide technology options for future power generation. We also are seeking solutions for tomorrow’s energy needs, from opportunities to blend biofuels into clean products to co-founding forward-looking think tanks, such as the Fuels Institute. Phillips 66 is one of the few energy companies with a state-of-the-art Research Center. We employ scientists and engineers in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, to conduct research to enhance the safety and reliability of our operations and to develop future air, water and energy solutions.
In the fourth quarter of 2017, we published an updated Sustainability Report. The report, which can be found on the Company website under the “Sustainability” section, seeks to provide a comprehensive resource for interested parties to learn about our sustainability policies and programs, with links to a suite of Company information, including policies, positions, educational information, and other reports.
Highlights of results we have delivered and the positive impact we have had on our communities include:

Our combined total recordable injury rate (TRR) for employees and contractors was 0.14 in 2017, an industry leading achievement and record for the Company.

Environmental reportable events continued to decline, with a year-over-year decrease of 15%.

Of our U.S refineries, 45% have earned the U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR® award for top quartile energy efficiency performance.

For strong safety records and safety and health management programs, 28 of our sites have received Voluntary Protection Program certification from the Occupational Safety & Health Administration.

Our headquarters building in Houston, Texas, obtained Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum certification.

We have invested an aggregate of over $6 billion in safety, environmental and sustaining capital projects since 2012.

Since 2012, our employees have donated over 230,000 hours of their time volunteering in local communities.

To establish and maintain dialogue between the Company, local communities and stakeholders, 90% of our refining operations have community advisory councils or panels.

Our pipeline business provides comprehensive community awareness, education and outreach programs to ensure that everyone living or working near lines or facilities is aware of their existence, adopts safe digging practices, learns the signs of a potential pipeline leak and knows how to quickly respond if a problem is suspected.

We published a human rights position, to document our principle of recognizing the dignity, and valuing the worth, of all human beings, as reflected in our core values of safety, honor and commitment.
OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Our business and affairs are overseen by our Board of Directors in accordance with the general corporation law of the State of Delaware and our By-Laws. Members of the Board oversee the Company’s business by participating in Board and committee meetings, reviewing materials provided to them, and through discussions with the Chairman and CEO and with key members of management.
8   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66​
How We Select our Director Nominees
The Board is responsible for nominating directors and filling vacancies that may occur between annual meetings, based upon the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee. The Nominating Committee considers the Company’s current needs and long-term and strategic plans to determine the skills, experience and characteristics needed by our Board. The Nominating Committee identifies, considers and recommends director candidates to the Board of Directors with the goal of creating a balance of knowledge, experience and diversity. Generally, the Nominating Committee identifies candidates through the use of a search firm or the business and organizational contacts of directors and management.
When evaluating candidates, the Nominating Committee takes into consideration certain key qualifications and skills, as described below. Our Board also recognizes the value of diversity and considers how a candidate may contribute to the Board in a way that can enhance perspective and judgment through diversity in gender, age, ethnic background, geographic origin, and professional experience. The Nominating Committee also considers whether potential candidates will likely satisfy the independence standards for service on the Board and its committees.
For information on how shareholders may recommend candidates to the Nominating Committee or nominate their own candidates, see Shareholder Recommendation of Candidates and Nomination of Candidates below.
Skills and Qualifications We Seek in Directors
In evaluating potential candidates for nomination to the Board, as well as evaluating the Board’s overall composition, the Nominating Committee and the Board consider several factors. All directors are expected to possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values and be committed to representing the long-term interests of the Company’s shareholders. Directors also are expected to devote sufficient time and effort to his or her duties as a director.
The Nominating Committee believes that the Board should reflect a range of talents, ages, skills, experiences, diversity, and expertise sufficient to provide sound and prudent guidance with respect to the Company’s strategic and operational objectives. Although the Board does not have a separate policy on diversity, it desires to maintain a diverse membership and considers diversity when seeking nominees.
In addition to the fundamental skills and qualifications discussed above, the following are key skills and qualifications considered in evaluating director nominees and Board composition as a whole. The Board determined that a mix of these skills and qualifications provides the composition necessary to effectively oversee the Company’s execution of its strategy of delivering profitable growth, enhancing returns on capital and growing distributions to shareholders, underpinned by operational excellence and a high performing organization.

CEO experience.   We seek directors with public company CEO experience. We believe individuals with CEO experience have valuable insights and a practical understanding of organizations, processes, strategy, risk and risk management and the methods to drive change and growth. Through service as top leaders at other organizations, directors with CEO experience bring valued perspectives on common issues affecting publicly traded companies such as Phillips 66.

Financial reporting experience.   The Company measures its operating and strategic performance by reference to financial targets. In addition, accurate financial reporting and robust auditing are critical to the Company’s success. As a result, we believe it is important that directors have finance and financial reporting experience. We seek to have multiple directors who qualify as audit committee financial experts. We also expect all of our directors to be financially knowledgeable.

Industry experience.   We believe that experience as an executive, director or other leadership position in the energy industry is an important qualification for service on the Board. Individuals with specific industry experience bring pertinent background and knowledge to the Board, providing valuable perspective on issues specific to the Company’s business.

Global experience.   We are a global company. As such, we seek directors that have global business or international experience. This experience enables them to provide valuable perspectives on our operations and oversee strategic initiatives.

Environmental experience.   We seek directors who have experience within the environmental regulatory field. We implement policies and conduct operations to ensure that our actions today will provide the energy needed to drive economic growth and social well-being, while also securing a stable and healthy environment for tomorrow. Individuals with an understanding of environmental regulations provide insight to help guide the Company in its mission of providing energy and improving lives.
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   9​

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66

Risk management experience.   Our Board has oversight responsibility for the Company’s risk management. As a result, we seek individuals with experience managing risk to ensure that directors are capable of fulfilling their risk oversight responsibilities, bringing background and experience to their duties that increase their effectiveness.
The table below provides information on the directors’ qualifications, skills, characteristics and experience.
10    2016 PROXY STATEMENTMR.
ADAMS
MR.
FERGUSON
MR.
GARLAND
MR.
LOOMIS
MR.
LOWE
MR.
MCGRAW
MS.
RAMOS
MR.
TILTON
MS.
TSCHINKEL
DR.
WHITTINGTON
Experience (Skills and Qualifications)
Public Company CEO✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​
Financial Reporting✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​
Industry✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​
Global✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​
Environmental✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​
Risk Management✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​✔​
Demographic/Background
IndependentYes​Yes​No​Yes​Yes​Yes​Yes​Yes​Yes​Yes​
GenderMale​Male​Male​Male​Male​Male​Female​Male​Female​Female​
Tenure (years)1.4​5.9​5.9​5.9​5.9​5.9​1.4​5.9​5.9​5.8​
Age (years)67​63​60​69​59​69​61​69​70​70​

Table


CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66​
To further ensure continued Board effectiveness, the Nominating Committee periodically considers Board committee rotations. For example, in 2016, after a review of the Company’s corporate governance policies and leadership structure to ensure they meet the Company’s needs, the Board rotated committee chairs and committee membership. The rotations were made based on the recommendation by the Nominating Committee that the changes would help provide fresh perspectives and enhance the directors’ familiarity with different aspects of the Company’s business while maintaining subject matter expertise on all committees.
Shareholder Recommendation of Candidates and Nomination of Candidates
The Nominating Committee will consider director candidates recommended by shareholders. A shareholder wishing to recommend a candidate for nomination by the Nominating Committee should follow the same procedures referred to below for nominations to be made directly by a shareholder. In addition, the shareholder should provide such other information deemed relevant to the Nominating Committee’s evaluation. Candidates recommended by the Company’s shareholders are evaluated on the same basis as candidates recommended by the Company’s directors, management, third-party search firms or other sources.
Our By-Laws permit proxy access for shareholders. Shareholders who wish to nominate directors for inclusion in our proxy statement or directly at an annual meeting in accordance with our By-Laws should follow the procedures described under SUBMISSION OF THE COMPANYFUTURE SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS AND DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS

.

Majority Voting
To be elected, a director must receive a majority of the votes cast with respect to that director at the meeting. Our By-Laws provide that if the number of shares voted “for” a nominee who is serving as a director (an incumbent) does not exceed 50% of the votes cast with respect to that director, he or she will tender his or her resignation to the Board of Directors. The Nominating and Governance Committee will then make a recommendation to the Board on whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether other action should be taken. Within 90 days of the certification of the shareholder vote, the Board is required to decide whether to accept the resignation and publicly disclose its decision-making process.
In a contested election, where the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected, the required vote would be a plurality of votes cast.
Director Independence
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines contain director independence standards, which are consistent with the standards set forth in the NYSE listing standards. These standards assist the Board of Directors in determining the independence of the Company’s directors. The Board of Directors has affirmatively determined that each director, except Mr. Garland, meets our independence standards. Mr. Garland is not considered independent because he is an executive officer of the Company.
In making independence determinations, the Board specifically considered the fact that many of our directors are directors or otherwise affiliated with companies with which we conduct business. Some of our directors are employees of, or consultants to, companies that do business with Phillips 66 and its affiliates (as further described in RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS). Additionally, some of our directors may purchase retail products (such as gasoline, fuel additives or lubricants) from the Company. In all cases, it was determined that the nature of the business conducted and the interest of the director by virtue of such position were immaterial both to the Company and to the director.
Executive Sessions of Independent Directors
The independent directors hold regularly scheduled executive sessions of the Board and its committees without Company management present. These executive sessions are chaired by the Lead Director at Board meetings or by the Committee Chairs at Committee meetings.
BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE
Chairman and CEO Roles
Although the Board of Directors has the authority to separate the positions of Chairman and CEO if it deems appropriate, the Board believes it is in the best interest of the Company’s shareholders to combine them. Doing so enables one person to guide the Board in setting priorities for the Company and in addressing the risks and challenges the Company faces. The Board of
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   11​

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66
Directors believes that, while its non-employee directors bring a diversity of skills and perspectives to the Board, the Company’s CEO, by virtue of his day-to-day involvement in managing the Company, currently is best suited to serve as Chairman and perform this unified role.
The Board of Directors believes that no single organizational model is the most effective in all circumstances. As a consequence, the Board periodically considers whether the offices of Chairman and CEO should continue to be combined and who should serve in such capacities.
Independent Director Leadership
Glenn Tilton has served as our Lead Director since February 2016. In appointing a Lead Director, the Board of Directors considered it useful and appropriate to designate an independent director to serve in a lead capacity to coordinate the activities of the non-employee directors and to perform such other duties and responsibilities as the Board of Directors may determine. Specifically, those duties include:

advising the Chairman on an appropriate schedule of Board meetings, seeking to ensure that the non-employee directors can perform their duties responsibly without interfering with operations;

providing the Chairman with input on the preparation of the agenda for each Board meeting and assuring that there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items;

advising the Chairman on the quality, quantity and timeliness of the flow of information from management to the non-employee directors in order that they may perform their duties effectively and responsibly, including specifically requesting certain materials be provided to the Board;

recommending to the Chairman the retention of consultants who report directly to the Board of Directors;

interviewing all board candidates and making nomination recommendations to the Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors;

assisting the Board of Directors and Company officers in assuring compliance with and implementation of the Corporate Governance Guidelines;

ensuring that he or she, or another appropriate director, is available for engagement with shareholders when warranted;

having the authority to call meetings of the non-employee directors, as well as to develop the agenda for and moderate any such meetings and executive sessions of the non-employee directors;

acting as principal liaison between the non-employee directors and the Chairman on sensitive issues;

participating with the Human Resources and Compensation Committee in the periodic discussion of CEO performance;

ensuring the Board of Directors conducts an annual self-assessment and meeting with the CEO to discuss the results of the annual self-assessment; and,

working with the Nominating Committee to recommend the membership of the various Board committees, as well as selection of the committee chairs.
The Board of Directors believes that its current structure and processes encourage its non-employee directors to be actively involved in guiding its work. The chairs of the Board’s committees review their respective agendas and committee materials in advance of each meeting, communicating directly with other directors and members of management as each deems appropriate. Moreover, each director is free to suggest agenda items and to raise matters at Board and committee meetings that are not on the agenda.
12   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66​
BOARD MEETINGS, COMMITTEES, AND MEMBERSHIP
The Board of Directors met six times in 2017. Each director attended at least 75 percent of the meetings of the Board and committees on which they served.
Recognizing that director attendance at the Company’s Annual Meeting can provide the Company’s shareholders with an opportunity to communicate with the directors about issues affecting the Company, the Company actively encourages directors to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. All of our directors attended the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
BOARD COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The membership of the Board committees is set forth below.
MR.
ADAMS
MR.
FERGUSON
MR.
GARLAND
MR.
LOOMIS
MR.
LOWE
MR.
MCGRAW
MS.
RAMOS
MR.
TILTON
MS.
TSCHINKEL
DR.
WHITTINGTON
Audit and FinanceChair​X​X​X​X​
ExecutiveX​Chair​X​X​X​X​
Human Resources and CompensationX​X​X​Chair​
Nominating and GovernanceX​Chair​X​X​
Public PolicyX​X​X​Chair​X​X​X​X​X​
The charters for our Audit Committee, Executive Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating Committee, and Public Policy Committee can be found in the “Investors” section on the Phillips 66 website under the “Corporate Governance” caption. Shareholders may also request printed copies of these charters by following the instructions located under AVAILABLE INFORMATION.
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   13​

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66
Committees of the Board
Audit and Finance
Met 11 times in 2017
Current Members:
J. Brian Ferguson (Chair)
William R. Loomis, Jr.
John E. Lowe
Denise L. Ramos
Victoria J. Tschinkel
Primary Responsibilities:
Discusses, with management, the independent auditors and the internal auditors, the integrity of the Company’s accounting policies, internal controls, financial statements, and financial reporting practices, and select financial matters, covering the Company’s capital structure, complex financial transactions, financial risk management, retirement plans and tax planning.
Reviews significant corporate risk exposures and steps management has taken to monitor, control and report such exposures.
Monitors the qualifications, independence and performance of our independent auditors and internal auditors.
Monitors our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and corporate governance guidelines, including our Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.
Maintains open and direct lines of communication with the Board and our management, internal auditors and independent auditors.
Financial Expertise, Financial Literacy and Independence:
The Board has determined that Messrs. Ferguson, Loomis, Lowe and Ms. Ramos satisfy the SEC’s criteria for “audit committee financial experts.” Additionally, the Board has determined that each of the members of the Audit and Finance Committee are independent pursuant to SEC and NYSE requirements and are financially literate within the meaning of the NYSE listing standards.
Executive
Did not meet in 2017
Current Members:
Greg C. Garland (Chair)
J. Brian Ferguson
William R. Loomis, Jr.
John E. Lowe
Glenn F. Tilton
Marna C. Whittington
Primary Responsibilities:
Exercises the authority of the full Board between Board meetings on all matters other than (1) those expressly delegated to another committee of the Board, (2) the adoption, amendment or repeal of any of our By-Laws and (3) those that cannot be delegated to a committee under applicable statute or our Certificate of Incorporation or By-Laws.
Human Resources and Compensation
Met 6 times in 2017
Current Members:
Marna C. Whittington (Chair)
Gary K. Adams
Harold W. McGraw III
Glenn F. Tilton
Primary Responsibilities:
Oversees our executive compensation policies, plans, programs and practices.
Assists the Board in discharging its responsibilities relating to the fair and competitive compensation of our executives and other key employees.
Reviews at least annually the performance (together with the Lead Director) and sets the compensation of the CEO.
Additional information about the Compensation Committee can be found in the COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS.
Independence:
Each member of the Compensation Committee is independent under the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE listing standards for directors and compensation committee members.
14   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66​
Nominating and Governance
Met 3 times in 2017
Current Members:
William R. Loomis, Jr. (Chair)
J. Brian Ferguson
Denise L. Ramos
Marna C. Whittington
Primary Responsibilities:
Selects and recommends director candidates to the Board to be submitted for election at annual meetings and to fill any vacancies on the Board.
Recommends committee assignments to the Board.
Reviews and recommends to the Board compensation and benefits policies for our non-employee directors.
Reviews and recommends to the Board appropriate corporate governance policies and procedures for our Company.
Conducts an annual assessment of the qualifications and performance of the Board.
Reviews and reports to the Board annually on succession planning for the CEO.
Independence:
Each member of the Nominating and Governance Committee is independent under the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE listing standards for directors.
Public Policy
Met 4 times in 2017
Current Members:
John E. Lowe (Chair)
Gary K. Adams
J. Brian Ferguson
William R. Loomis, Jr.
Harold W. McGraw III
Denise L. Ramos
Glenn F. Tilton
Victoria J. Tschinkel
Marna C. Whittington
Primary Responsibilities:
Advises the Board on current and emerging domestic and international public policy issues.
Assists the Board with the development, review and approval of policies and budgets for charitable and political contributions and activity.
Advises the Board on compliance with policies, programs and practices regarding social risks and health, safety and environmental protection.
Independence:
Each member of the Public Policy Committee is independent under the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE listing standards for directors.
BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT
The Company’s management is responsible for the day-to-day conduct of our businesses and operations, including management of risks the Company faces. To fulfill this responsibility, our management has established an enterprise risk management (ERM) program designed to identify and facilitate management of the significant and diverse risks facing the Company and the approaches to addressing risks.
The Board of Directors has broad oversight responsibility over the Company’s ERM program and receives management updates on its development and implementation. In this oversight role, the Board of Directors is responsible for satisfying itself that the risk management processes designed and implemented by the Company’s management are functioning as intended, and that necessary steps are taken to foster a culture of risk-adjusted decision making throughout the organization.
The Board of Directors exercises its oversight responsibility for risk assessment and risk management directly and through its committees. However, the full Board maintains responsibility for oversight of strategic risks. Setting the strategic course of the Company and providing oversight of strategic risks involves a high level of constructive engagement between management and the Board. The Board regularly discusses the strategic priorities of the Company and the risks to the Company’s successful execution of its strategy, including global economic and other significant trends, as well as changes in the energy industry and regulatory initiatives.
The Board of Directors receives regular updates from its committees on individual areas of risk falling within each committee’s area of oversight and expertise, as outlined below.
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   15​

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66
Committee Risk Oversight Responsibilities
Audit and Finance Committee
The Audit Committee has primary responsibility for overseeing the Company’s ERM program and has been delegated responsibility to facilitate coordination among the Board’s committees with respect to the Company’s risk management programs.
The Audit Committee is responsible for the integrity of the Company’s financial statements; the independent auditors’ qualifications and independence; the performance of the Company’s internal audit function; and its system of internal controls. The Audit Committee also reviews and receives briefings concerning information security (including cybersecurity), compliance with laws and regulatory requirements, and major financial exposures.
Human Resources and Compensation Committee
The Compensation Committee oversees the Company’s compensation programs and the Company’s talent management program. The Compensation Committee evaluates whether our programs and practices create excessive risks and determines whether any changes to those programs and practices are warranted. The Compensation Committee also ensures that our compensation programs align with long-term interests of shareholders and are effective in retaining top talent. Finally, the Compensation Committee ensures the development of a diverse talent pool with respect to CEO and senior management succession planning.
Nominating and Governance Committee
The Nominating and Governance Committee reviews policies and practices in the area of corporate governance and is responsible for overseeing Board composition and director qualifications through the nomination process. Additionally, the Committee is responsible for CEO succession planning.
Public Policy Committee
The Public Policy Committee assists the Board in identifying, evaluating and reviewing social, political and environmental trends and related risks. It also reviews management’s proposed actions to anticipate and adjust to such trends and manage risks to achieve the Company’s long-term business goals. The Public Policy Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the full Board on the Company’s policies, programs and practices relating to health, safety and environmental protection, government relations and political contributions, and corporate responsibility.
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
Our Code of Business Ethics and Conduct requires that all directors and executive officers promptly report any transactions or relationships that reasonably could be expected to constitute a related party transaction. The transaction or relationship is reviewed by the Company’s management and the appropriate committee of the Board to ensure that it does not constitute a conflict of interest and is appropriately disclosed.
Additionally, the Nominating Committee conducts an annual review of related party transactions between each director and the Company and its subsidiaries in making recommendations to the Board regarding the continued independence of each director. In 2017, there were no related party transactions in which the Company or a subsidiary was a participant and in which any director, executive officer, or any of their immediate family members had a direct or indirect material interest.
The Nominating Committee also considered relationships that, while not constituting related party transactions where a director had a direct or indirect material interest, nonetheless involved transactions between the Company and an organization with which a director is affiliated, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer. Included in its review were ordinary course of business transactions with companies employing a director, such as ordinary course of business transactions with ITT Inc., of which Ms. Ramos serves as CEO and President. The Nominating Committee determined that there were no transactions impairing the independence of any member of the Board.
On February 13, 2018, we entered into a Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement with Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a more than 5% shareholder, and one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries to repurchase 35 million shares of our common stock for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $3.3 billion. The purchase price for the shares was based on the volume weighted average price of our common stock on the NYSE on the date of the agreement, which closed on February 14, 2018.
16   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT PHILLIPS 66​
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD

To support shareholder engagement, the Company maintains a process for shareholders and interested parties to communicate with the Board of Directors.non-employee directors. Shareholders and interested parties may communicate with the Board of Directorsnon-employee directors by contacting our Corporate Secretary, Paula A. Johnson, as provided below:

Mailing Address:Corporate Secretary
Phillips 66
P.O. Box 4428421959
Houston, TX 7721077242-1959

Phone Number:

(281) 293-6600

Internet:

Internet:

"InvestorsInvestors" section of the Company'sCompany’s website (www.phillips66.com) under the "Corporate GovernanceGovernance" caption

Relevant communications are distributed to the Board of Directors or to any individual Directordirector or Directors,directors, as appropriate, depending on the facts and circumstances outlined in the communication. In that regard, the Board has requested that certain items unrelated to its duties and responsibilities not be distributed, such as: business solicitations or advertisements; junk mail and mass mailings; new product suggestions; product complaints; product inquiries; résumés and other forms of job inquiries; spam; and surveys. In addition, material that is considered hostile, threatening, illegal or similarly unsuitable will be excluded. Any communication that is filtered out is made available to any non-employee Directordirector upon request.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   17​

TABLE OF CONTENTS DIRECTOR MEETING ATTENDANCE

Recognizing that director attendance at the Company's Annual Meeting can provide the Company's shareholders with an opportunity to communicate with the Directors about issues affecting the Company, the Company actively encourages our Directors to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. All of our Directors attended the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

The Board of Directors met eight times in 2015. Each Director attended at least 75 percent of the aggregate of:

    the total number of meetings of the Board in 2015, and

    the total number of full-committee meetings held in 2015 by all committees of the Board on which she or he served.

BOARD'S RISK OVERSIGHT

The Company's management is responsible for the day-to-day conduct of our businesses and operations, including management of risks the Company faces. In furtherance of this responsibility, our management has established an enterprise risk management program designed to identify and facilitate management of the significant and diverse risks facing the Company and the approaches to mitigate such risks. The Board of Directors has broad oversight responsibility over the Company's enterprise risk management program and is updated by management on its development and implementation. In this oversight role, the Board of Directors is responsible for satisfying itself that the risk management processes designed and implemented by the Company's management are functioning as intended, and that necessary steps are taken to foster a culture of risk-adjusted decision making throughout the organization.

In executing its responsibilities, the Board of Directors has delegated to individual committees certain elements of this oversight function, while retaining oversight responsibility for strategic risks. In this context, the Board of Directors delegated authority to the Audit Committee to facilitate coordination among the Board's committees with respect to oversight of the Company's risk management programs. Accordingly, the Audit Committee regularly receives updates on the enterprise risk management program and discusses the Company's risk assessment and risk management policies to ensure that our risk management programs are functioning properly.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT11

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF THE COMPANY

The Board of Directors, either directly or through its committees, exercises its oversight function with respect to all material risks to the Company, which are identified and discussed in the Company's public filings with the SEC. The Board of Directors receives regular updates from its committees on individual areas of risk falling within each committee's area of oversight and expertise, as outlined below:

GRAPHIC

CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT

Phillips 66 has adopted a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct for Directors and Employees designed to help resolve ethical issues in an increasingly complex global business environment. Our Code of Business Ethics and Conduct applies to all directors and employees, including the CEO and the Chief Financial Officer. Our Code of Business Ethics and Conduct covers topics including, but not limited to, conflicts of interest, insider trading, competition and fair dealing, discrimination and harassment, confidentiality, payments to government personnel, anti-boycott laws, U.S. embargoes and sanctions, compliance procedures and employee complaint procedures. Our Code of Business Ethics and Conduct is posted on the "Investors" section of our website under the "Governance" caption. Shareholders may also request printed copies of our Code of Business Ethics and Conduct by following the instructions located under the caption "Available Information" on page 61.

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Our Code of Business Ethics and Conduct requires that all directors and executive officers promptly bring to the attention of the General Counsel and, in the case of Directors, the Chair of the Nominating Committee or, in the case of executive officers, the Chair of the Audit Committee, any transaction or relationship that arises and of which she or he becomes aware that reasonably could be expected to constitute a related party transaction. Any such transaction or relationship is reviewed by the Company's management and the appropriate Board Committee to ensure that it does not constitute a conflict of interest and is reported appropriately. Additionally, the Nominating Committee conducts an annual review of related party transactions between each of our directors and the Company (and its subsidiaries) and makes recommendations to the Board regarding the continued independence of each Board member. In 2015, there were no related party transactions in

12    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF THE COMPANY

which the Company (or a subsidiary) was a participant and in which any director or executive officer (or their immediate family members) had a direct or indirect material interest. The Nominating Committee also considered relationships that, while not constituting related party transactions where a director had a direct or indirect material interest, nonetheless involved transactions between the Company and an organization with which a director is affiliated, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer. The Nominating Committee determined that there were no transactions impairing the independence of any member of the Board.

BOARD AND COMMITTEE EVALUATIONS

Each committee performs an annual self-assessment, and the Nominating Committee and Lead Director oversee an annual self-assessment of the Board, which includes an evaluation survey and individual discussions between the Lead Director and each other Director. A summary of the results of each committee's self-assessment is presented to the committee and discussed in executive session. The Lead Director presents a summary of the results of the Board evaluation to the Board in executive session. Any matters requiring further action are identified and action plans developed to address the matter.

NOMINATING PROCESSES OF
THE NOMINATING AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

The Nominating Committee consists of three non-employee Directors, all of whom are independent under NYSE listing standards and our Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Nominating Committee identifies, investigates and recommends director candidates to the Board of Directors with the goal of creating a balance of knowledge, experience and diversity. Generally, the Nominating Committee identifies candidates through the use of a search firm or the business and organizational contacts of the directors and management. Our By-Laws permit shareholders to nominate candidates for director election at a shareholders meeting whether or not such nominee is submitted to and evaluated by the Nominating Committee. Shareholders who wish to submit nominees for election at an annual or special meeting of shareholders should follow the procedures described under "Submission of Future Shareholder Proposals" on page 61. The Nominating Committee will consider director candidates recommended by shareholders. If a shareholder wishes to recommend a candidate for nomination by the Nominating Committee, he or she should follow the same procedures referred to above for nominations to be made directly by the shareholder. In addition, the shareholder should provide such other information deemed relevant to the Nominating Committee's evaluation. Candidates recommended by the Company's shareholders are evaluated on the same basis as candidates recommended by the Company's directors, CEO, other executive officers, third-party search firms or other sources.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT13

Table of Contents


PROPOSAL 1:
Election of Directors

Our By-Laws provide that the Directorsdirectors are divided into three classes, which are to be as nearly equal in size as possible, with one class being elected each year. The Board of Directors has set the current number of Directorsdirectors at eight,ten, with two classes of three Directorsdirectors each and one class of two Directors.four directors. Any director vacancies created between annual shareholder meetings (such as by a current director'sdirector’s death, resignation or removal for cause or an increase in the number of directors) may be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors then in office. Any director appointed in this manner would hold office for a term expiring at the annual meeting of shareholders at which the term of office of the class to which he or she has been appointed expires. If a vacancy resulted from an action of our shareholders, only our shareholders would be entitled to elect a successor.

We expect each nominee will be able to serve if elected. If, however, a nominee is unable to serve and the Board of Directors does not elect to reduce the size of the Board, shares represented by proxies will be voted for a substitute nominated by the Board of Directors.

The names, principal occupations and certain other information about the nomineeseach nominee for director, as well as key experiences, qualifications, attributes and skills that led the Nominating Committee to conclude that such personeach nominee is currently qualified to serve as a director, are set forth on the following pages.

For information on the compensation of our non-employee directors, please see NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATIONNOMINEES FOR DIRECTORS TO BE ELECTED AT THE 2016 ANNUAL MEETING
.
Nominees for Directors to be Elected at the 2018 Annual Meeting for a three-year term endingThree-Year Term Ending at the 20192021 Annual Meeting

Each nominee requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the meeting.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE "FOR"“FOR” EACH OF THE FOLLOWING DIRECTOR NOMINEES.

Greg C. Garland, 58

GRAPHIC

Director since April 2012

Mr. Garland serves as Chairman and CEO of Phillips 66. He was appointed Senior Vice President, Exploration and Production-Americas for ConocoPhillips in 2010. He was previously President and CEO of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LLC (CPChem) from 2008 to 2010, having served as Senior Vice President, Planning and Specialty Products, CPChem, from 2000 to 2008. Mr. Garland also serves on the boards of Amgen Inc. and Phillips 66 Partners GP LLC, the general partner of Phillips 66 Partners LP.

Skills and qualifications:

Mr. Garland's 35-year career with Phillips Petroleum Company, CPChem and ConocoPhillips, and as CEO of Phillips 66, makes him well qualified to serve both as a Director and as Chairman of the Board. Mr. Garland's extensive experience in the energy industry makes his service as a Director invaluable to the Company. In addition to his other skills and qualifications, Mr. Garland's role as both Chairman and CEO of Phillips 66 serves as a vital link between the Board of Directors and management, allowing the Board to perform its oversight role with the benefit of management's perspective on business and strategy.

14    2016 PROXY STATEMENT
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_brian-ferguson02.jpg]
J. Brian Ferguson
Age 63
Director since April 2012
Mr. Ferguson retired as Chairman of Eastman Chemical Company in 2010 and as CEO of Eastman in 2009. He became the Chairman and CEO of Eastman in 2002. He served on the board of NextEra Energy, Inc. from 2005 to 2013 and currently serves on the board of Owens Corning.
Director Qualifications:   Mr. Ferguson has over 30 years of leadership experience in international business, industrial operations, strategic planning and capital raising strategies.
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_harold-mcgraw02.jpg]
Harold W. McGraw III
Age 69
Director since April 2012
Mr. McGraw is Chairman Emeritus of S&P Global Inc. (previously McGraw Hill Financial), having served as Chairman of the Board from 1999 until 2015, as President and Chief Executive Officer from 1998 to 2013 and as President and Chief Operating Officer starting in 1993. Mr. McGraw has been the Honorary Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce since 2016, after serving as Chairman since 2013. He currently serves on the board of United Technologies Corporation.
Director Qualifications:   Mr. McGraw’s experience leading a large, global public company with a significant role in the financial reporting industry provides him with valuable global financial, corporate governance and operational expertise.
18   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1:  Election of Directors

Directors​

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_victoria-tschinkel02.jpg]
Victoria J. Tschinkel
Age 70
Director since April 2012
Ms. Tschinkel currently serves as the Vice Chairman of 1000 Friends of Florida and previously was its Chairwoman. In addition, Ms. Tschinkel is a director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, serving on the Gulf Benefits Committee. She served as State Director of the Florida Nature Conservancy from 2003 to 2006, was senior environmental consultant to Landers & Parsons, a Tallahassee, Florida law firm, from 1987 to 2002, and was the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation from 1981 to 1987.
John E. Lowe, 57Director Qualifications:

   Ms. Tschinkel’s extensive environmental regulatory experience makes her well qualified to serve as a member of the Board. In addition, her relationships and experience working within the environmental community position her to advise the Board on the impact of our operations in sensitive areas.

GRAPHIC

Director since April 2012

Mr. Lowe served as assistant to the CEO of ConocoPhillips, a position he held from 2008 until May 2012. He previously held a series of executive positions with ConocoPhillips, including Executive Vice President, Exploration and Production, from 2007 to 2008, and Executive Vice President, Commercial, from 2006 to 2007. Mr. Lowe is a Special Executive Advisor to Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. and serves on the boards of TransCanada Corporation and Apache Corporation, where he serves as non-executive Chairman.

Skills and qualifications:

Mr. Lowe has served on the boards of DCP Midstream, LLC and CPChem, two of the Company's significant joint ventures. He has extensive experience in and knowledge of the energy industry through his service on these boards and his 30-year career with Phillips Petroleum Company and ConocoPhillips.

The following Directorsdirectors will continue in office until the end of their respective terms. Included below is a listing of each continuing Director'sdirector’s name, age, tenure and qualifications.

DIRECTORS WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE AT THE 2017 ANNUAL MEETING

qualifications:

Directors Whose Terms Expire at the 2019 Annual Meeting

William R. Loomis, Jr., 67

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_greg-garland02.jpg]
Greg C. Garland
Age 60
Director since April 2012

GRAPHIC

Director since April 2012

Mr. Loomis has been an independent financial advisor since 2009. He was a general partner and managing director of Lazard Freres & Co. from 1984 to 2002, the CEO of Lazard LLC from 2000 to 2001 and a limited managing director of Lazard LLC from 2002 to 2004. He currently serves on the board of L Brands, Inc.

Skills and qualifications:

Mr. Loomis has extensive executive experience, financial expertise and substantial history as a senior strategic advisor to complex businesses and multiple executives.

Mr. Garland serves as Chairman and CEO of Phillips 66. He was appointed Senior Vice President, Exploration and Production-Americas for ConocoPhillips in 2010. He was previously President and CEO of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LLC (CPChem) from 2008 to 2010, having served as Senior Vice President, Planning and Specialty Products, CPChem, from 2000 to 2008. Mr. Garland serves on the boards of Amgen Inc. and Phillips 66 Partners GP LLC, the general partner of Phillips 66 Partners LP.
2016 PROXY STATEMENTDirector Qualifications:   15Mr. Garland’s more than 35-year career with Phillips Petroleum Company, CPChem and ConocoPhillips, and as CEO of Phillips 66, makes him well qualified to serve both as a director and as Chairman of the Board. Mr. Garland’s extensive experience in the energy industry makes his service as a director invaluable to the Company. In addition to his other skills and qualifications, Mr. Garland’s role as both Chairman and CEO of Phillips 66 serves as a vital link between the Board of Directors and management, allowing the Board to perform its oversight role with the benefit of management’s perspective on business and strategy.
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_gary-adams02.jpg]
Gary K. Adams
Age 67
Director since October 2016
Mr. Adams is the former chief advisor of chemicals for IHSMarkit. He started his chemical industry career with Union Carbide. After 15 years serving in a number of positions at Union Carbide, Mr. Adams joined Chemical Market Associates Inc. (CMAI). He served as President, CEO and Chairman of the Board of CMAI from 1997 until its acquisition by IHS in 2011. Mr. Adams is a director of Trecora Resources and previously served on the boards of Westlake Chemical Partners LP from 2014 to 2016 and Phillips 66 Partners LP from 2013 to 2016.
Director Qualifications:   Mr. Adams has a lengthy tenure and extensive experience in the energy industry, including leadership experience with operating responsibilities and in-depth knowledge of the chemicals market.
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   19​

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 1:  Election of Directors

Glenn F. Tilton, 67

GRAPHIC

Director since April 2012

Mr. Tilton served as Chairman ofDirectors Whose Terms Expire at the Midwest of JPMorgan Chase & Co. from 2011 to June 2014. From September 2002 to October 2010, he served as Chairman, President and CEO of UAL Corporation, a holding company, and United Air Lines, Inc., an air transportation company and wholly-owned subsidiary of UAL Corporation. Mr. Tilton previously spent more than 30 years in increasingly senior roles with Texaco Inc., including Chairman and CEO in 2001. He currently serves on the boards of Abbott Laboratories and AbbVie Inc. (as lead director).

Skills and qualifications:

Mr. Tilton has strong management experience overseeing complex multinational businesses operating in highly regulated industries, as well as 30-years experience in the energy industry and expertise in finance and capital markets matters.

Marna C. Whittington, 68

2019 Annual Meeting

GRAPHIC

Director since May 2012

Dr. Whittington was CEO of Allianz Global Investors Capital, a diversified global investment firm, from 2002 until her retirement in January 2012. She was Chief Operating Officer of Allianz Global Investors, the parent company of Allianz Global Investors Capital, from 2001 to 2011. Prior to that, she was Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of Morgan Stanley Asset Management. Dr. Whittington started in the investment management industry in 1992, joining Philadelphia-based Miller Anderson & Sherrerd. Previously, she was Executive Vice President and CFO of the University of Pennsylvania, from 1984 to 1992. Earlier, she served as Budget Director and, subsequently, Secretary of Finance for the State of Delaware. Dr. Whittington served on the board of Rohm & Haas Company from 1989 to 2009 and currently serves on the boards of Macy's, Inc. and Oaktree Capital Group, LLC.

Skills and qualifications:

Dr. Whittington has extensive knowledge of and substantial experience in financial, investment, and banking matters. She also provides valuable insight from her previous experience serving on the board of a chemicals company and as a statewide cabinet officer.

16    2016 PROXY STATEMENT
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_john-lowe02.jpg]
John E. Lowe
Age 59
Director since April 2012
Mr. Lowe served as assistant to the CEO of ConocoPhillips, a position he held from 2008 until 2012. He previously held a series of executive positions with ConocoPhillips, including Executive Vice President, Exploration and Production, from 2007 to 2008, and Executive Vice President, Commercial, from 2006 to 2007. Mr. Lowe is a Senior Executive Advisor to Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. He served on the board of Agrium Inc. from 2010 to 2015 and currently serves on the boards of TransCanada Corporation and Apache Corporation, where he is Non-Executive Chairman.
Director Qualifications:   Mr. Lowe has relevant industry financial expertise in addition to his extensive experience in and knowledge of the energy industry.
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_denise-ramos02.jpg]
Denise L. Ramos
Age 61
Director since October 2016
Ms. Ramos has served as the Chief Executive Officer, President and a director of ITT Inc. (formerly ITT Corporation) since 2011. She previously served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ITT. Prior to joining ITT, Ms. Ramos served as Chief Financial Officer for Furniture Brands International from 2005 to 2007. From 2000 to 2005, Ms. Ramos served as Senior Vice President and Corporate Treasurer at Yum! Brands, Inc. and Chief Financial Officer for the U.S. division of KFC Corporation. Ms. Ramos began her career in 1979 at Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), where she spent more than 20 years serving in a number of finance positions including Corporate General Auditor and Assistant Treasurer.
Ms. Ramos served on the board of Praxair, Inc. from 2014 to 2016. She serves on the board of trustees for the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, and is a member of the Business Council.
Director Qualifications:   Ms. Ramos has more than two decades of experience in the oil and gas industry and possesses significant retail and customer-centric experience. In addition to her financial expertise, she has extensive operational and manufacturing experience with industrial companies.
20   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 1:  Election of Directors

DIRECTORS WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE AT THE 2018 ANNUAL MEETING

J. Brian Ferguson, 61

Directors​

GRAPHIC

Director since April 2012

Mr. Ferguson retired as Chairman of Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman) in 2010 and as CEO of Eastman in 2009. He becameDirectors Whose Terms Expire at the Chairman and CEO of Eastman in 2002. He currently serves on the board of Owens Corning.

Skills and qualifications:

Mr. Ferguson has over 30 years of leadership experience in international business, industrial operations, strategic planning and capital raising strategies, as well as in executive compensation.

Harold W. McGraw III, 67

2020 Annual Meeting

GRAPHIC

Director since April 2012

Mr. McGraw is Chairman Emeritus of McGraw Hill Financial having served as Chairman of the Board from 1999 until 2015, as CEO from 1998 to November 2013 and as President and Chief Operating Officer from 1993 to November 2013. Mr. McGraw has been the Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce since July 2013. He currently serves on the board of United Technologies Corporation.

Skills and qualifications:

As a former CEO and Chairman of the Board of a large, global public company with a significant role in the financial reporting industry, Mr. McGraw's experience allows him to provide Phillips 66 with valuable global financial, corporate governance and operational expertise.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT17

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 1:      Election of Directors

Victoria J. Tschinkel, 68

GRAPHIC

Director since April 2012

Ms. Tschinkel currently serves as the Vice-Chairwoman of 1000 Friends of Florida and previously was its Chairwoman. In addition, Ms. Tschinkel is a director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, serving on the Gulf Benefits Committee. She served as State Director of the Florida Nature Conservancy from 2003 to 2006, was senior environmental consultant to Landers & Parsons, a Tallahassee, Florida law firm, from 1987 to 2002, and was the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation from 1981 to 1987.

Skills and qualifications:

Ms. Tschinkel's extensive environmental regulatory experience makes her well qualified to serve as a member of the Board. In addition, her relationships and experience working within the environmental community position her to advise the Board on the impact of our operations in sensitive areas.


Our By-Laws require directors to be elected by the majority of the votes cast with respect to such director (i.e., the number of votes cast "for" a director must exceed the number of votes cast "against" that director). If a nominee who is serving as a Director is not elected at the Annual Meeting and no one else is elected in place of that Director, then, under Delaware law, the Director would continue to serve on the Board of Directors as a "holdover director." However, under our By-Laws, the holdover director would be required to tender his or her resignation to the Board. The Nominating Committee then would consider and recommend to the Board whether to accept or reject the tendered resignation, or whether some other action should be taken. The Board of Directors would then make a decision whether to accept the resignation taking into account the recommendation of the Nominating Committee. The Director who tenders his or her resignation would not participate in the Board's decision. The Board is required to publicly disclose (by a press release, a filing with the SEC or other broadly disseminated means of communication) its decision regarding the tendered resignation and the rationale behind the decision within 90 days from the date of the certification of the election results. In a contested election (a situation in which the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected), the standard for election of directors will be a plurality of the shares represented in person or by proxy at any such meeting and entitled to vote on the election of directors.

For information on the compensation of our non-employee Directors, please see the the discussion beginning on page 51.

NOMINATIONS

In selecting the 2016 nominees for Director, the Nominating Committee sought candidates who possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values, and are committed to representing the long-term interests of the Company's shareholders. In addition to reviewing a candidate's background and accomplishments, the Nominating Committee reviewed candidates in the context of the current composition of the Board and the evolving needs of the Company's businesses. The Nominating Committee also considered the number of boards on which the candidate already serves. It is the Board's policy that at all times at least a substantial majority of its members meets the standards of independence promulgated by the NYSE and the SEC, and as set forth in the Company's Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Nominating Committee also seeks to ensure that the Board reflects a range of talents, ages, skills, experiences, diversity, and expertise, particularly in the areas of accounting and finance, management, domestic and international markets, leadership, and energy-related industries, sufficient to provide sound and prudent guidance with respect to the Company's operations and interests. The Board seeks to maintain a diverse membership, but does not have a separate policy on diversity. The Board also requires that its members be able to dedicate the time and resources necessary to ensure the diligent performance of their duties on the Company's behalf, including attending Board and applicable committee meetings.

The following are some of the key qualifications and skills the Nominating Committee considered in evaluating the director nominees. The individual biographies above provide additional information about each nominee's specific experiences, qualifications and skills.

18    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 1:      Election of Directors

    CEO experience.  Directors with experience as CEOs of public corporations provide the Company with valuable insights. These individuals have a demonstrated record of leadership qualities and a practical understanding of organizations, processes, strategy, risk and risk management and the methods to drive change and growth. Through their service as top leaders at other organizations, they also bring valued perspectives on common issues affecting other companies and Phillips 66.

    Financial reporting experience.  An understanding of finance and financial reporting processes is important. The Company measures its operating and strategic performance by reference to financial targets. In addition, accurate financial reporting and robust auditing are critical to the Company's success. We seek to have multiple directors who qualify as audit committee financial experts, and we expect all of our directors to be financially knowledgeable.

    Industry experience.  Directors with experience as executives or directors or in other leadership positions in the energy industry bring pertinent background and knowledge to the Board. These directors have valuable perspective on issues specific to the Company's business.

    Global experience.  As a global company, directors with global business or international experience provide valuable perspectives on our operations.

    Environmental experience.  The perspective of directors who have experience within the environmental regulatory field is valued as we implement policies and conduct operations in order to ensure that our actions today will provide the energy needed to drive economic growth and social well-being, while also securing a stable and healthy environment for tomorrow.

    Risk management experience.  Directors with experience as executives managing risk provide insight and guidance that enhance the Board's capabilities in performing its risk oversight responsibilities.

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_william-loomis02.jpg]

MR.
FERGUSON

MR.
GARLAND

MR.
LOOMIS

MR.
LOWE

MR.
MCGRAW

MR.
TILTON

MS.
TSCHINKEL

DR.
WHITTINGTON

William R. Loomis, Jr.
Age 69
Director since April 2012
Mr. Loomis has been an independent financial advisor since 2009. He was a general partner and Managing Director of Lazard Freres & Co. from 1984 to 2002, the CEO of Lazard LLC from 2000 to 2001 and a Limited Managing Director of Lazard LLC from 2002 to 2004. Mr. Loomis served as a director of L Brands Inc. from 2005 to 2016.
Director Qualifications:   Mr. Loomis has extensive executive experience and financial expertise, as well as substantial history as a senior strategic advisor to complex businesses and multiple executives.
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_glenn-tilton02.jpg]
Glenn F. Tilton
Age 69
Director since April 2012
Mr. Tilton served as Chairman of the Midwest of JPMorgan Chase & Co. from 2011 to 2014. From 2002 to 2010, he served as Chairman, President and CEO of UAL Corporation, a holding company, and United Air Lines, Inc., an air transportation company and wholly-owned subsidiary of UAL Corporation. Mr. Tilton previously spent more than 30 years in increasingly senior roles with Texaco Inc., including Chairman and CEO in 2001. He served as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of United Continental Holdings Inc. from 2010 to 2013 and currently serves on the boards of Abbott Laboratories and AbbVie Inc. (as lead director).
Director Qualifications:   Mr. Tilton has strong management experience overseeing complex multinational businesses operating in highly regulated industries, as well as 30 years of experience in the energy industry and expertise in finance and capital markets matters.
CEO Experienceüüüüüü
Financial Reporting Experienceüüüüüüüü
Industry Experienceüüüüü
Global Experienceüüüüüüüü
Environmental Experienceüüüüüüü
Risk Management Experienceüüüüüüüü
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_marna-whittington02.jpg]
Marna C. Whittington
Age 70
Director since May 2012

The lack of a "ü" for a particular item does not mean that the director does not possess that qualification, characteristic, skill or experience. We look to each director to be knowledgeable in these areas; however, the "ü" indicates that the item is a specific qualification, characteristic, skill or experience that the director brings to the Board.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT19

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 1:      Election of Directors

COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD

COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
PRINCIPAL FUNCTIONS
NUMBER OF
MEETINGS
IN 2015

AuditDr. Whittington was CEO of Allianz Global Investors Capital, a diversified global investment firm, from 2002 until her retirement in 2012. She was Chief Operating Officer of Allianz Global Investors, the parent company of Allianz Global Investors Capital, from 2001 to 2011. Prior to that, she was Managing Director and FinanceWilliam R. Loomis, Jr.*(1)
John E. Lowe
Victoria J. Tschinkel
Marna C.Chief Operating Officer of Morgan Stanley Asset Management. Dr. Whittington



Discusses, with started in the investment management the independent auditorsindustry in 1992, joining Philadelphia-based Miller Anderson & Sherrerd. Previously, she was Executive Vice President and the internal auditors, the integrityCFO of the Company's accounting policies, internal controls, financial statements,University of Pennsylvania, from 1984 to 1992. Earlier, she served as Budget Director and, financial reporting practices, and select financial matters, coveringsubsequently, Secretary of Finance for the Company's capital structure, complex financial transactions, financial risk management, retirement plans and tax planning.

Reviews significant corporate risk exposures and steps management has taken to monitor, control and report such exposures.

Monitors the qualifications, independence and performanceState of our independent auditors and internal auditors.

Monitors our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and corporate governance guidelines, including our Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.

Maintains open and direct lines of communication with the Board and our management, internal auditors and independent auditors.

12
ExecutiveGreg C. Garland*
J. Brian Ferguson
William R. Loomis, Jr.
Harold W. McGraw III
Victoria J. Tschinkel
Exercises the authority of the full Board between Board meetings on all matters other than (1) those expressly delegated to another committee of the Board, (2) the adoption, amendment or repeal of any of our By-Laws and (3) those that cannot be delegated to a committee under statute or our Certificate of Incorporation or By-Laws.0
Human Resources and CompensationJ. Brian Ferguson*
Harold W. McGraw III
Glenn F. Tilton


Oversees our executive compensation policies, plans, programs and practices.

Assists the Board in discharging its responsibilities relating to the fair and competitive compensation of our executives and other key employees.

Reviews at least annually the performance (together with the Lead Director) and sets the compensation of the CEO.

6
Nominating and GovernanceHarold W. McGraw III*
J. Brian Ferguson
Glenn F. Tilton
Selects and recommends director candidates to the Board to be submitted for election at Annual Meetings and to fill any vacanciesDelaware. Dr. Whittington served on the Board.

Recommends committee assignmentsboard of Rohm & Haas Company from 1989 to 2009 and currently serves on the Board.

Reviewsboards of Macy’s, Inc. and recommends toOaktree Capital Group, LLC.

Director Qualifications:   Dr. Whittington has extensive knowledge of and substantial experience in financial, investment, and banking matters, and has served on compensation committees. She also provides valuable insight from her previous experience serving on the Board compensationboard of a chemicals company and benefits policies for our non-employee Directors.

Reviews and recommends to the Board appropriate corporate governance policies and procedures for our Company.

Conducts an annual assessment of the qualifications and performance of the Board.

Reviews and reports to the Board annually on succession planning for the CEO.

5
Public PolicyVictoria J. Tschinkel*
William R. Loomis, Jr.
John E. Lowe
Marna C. Whittington



Advises the Board on current and emerging domestic and international public policy issues.

Assists the Board with the development, review and approval of policies and budgets for charitable and political contributions.

Advises the Board on compliance with policies, programs and practices regarding health, safety and environmental protection.

6
as a statewide cabinet officer.
*
Committee Chairperson

(1)
Audit committee financial expert
20    2016 PROXY STATEMENT
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   21​

PROPOSAL 2:
Ratification of the Appointment of Ernst & Young LLP

The Audit Committee is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of the independent registered public accounting firm retained to audit the Company'sCompany’s financial statements. The Audit Committee has appointed Ernst & Young LLP to serve as the Company'sCompany’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2016.2018. Ernst & Young has been retainedacted as the Company'sCompany’s independent registered public accounting firm continuously since 2012. 2011.
The Audit Committee annually considers the independence of the Company’s independent auditors prior to the firm’s engagement, and periodically considers whether a regular rotation of the independent auditors is necessary to assure continuing independence. The Audit Committee and its Chairman are directly involved in the selection of Ernst & Young’s lead engagement partner.
The Audit Committee and the Board of Directors believe that the continued retention of Ernst & Young is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. We are asking you to vote on a proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE "FOR"“FOR” THE PROPOSAL TO RATIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP.

Approval

The submission of this proposal requiresmatter for approval by shareholders is not legally required, but the affirmative vote of a majority ofBoard and the shares present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting and entitledAudit Committee believe it provides an opportunity for shareholders to vote on the proposal.an important aspect of corporate governance. If the appointmentshareholders do not ratify the selection of Ernst & Young, is not ratified, the Audit Committee will reconsider the appointment.

SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

selection of that firm as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Committee may in its discretion select a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

Services Provided by the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Audit services of Ernst & Young for fiscal year 20152017 included an audit of our consolidated financial statements, an audit of the effectiveness of the Company'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting, and services related to periodic filings made with the SEC. Additionally, Ernst & Young provided certain other services as described below. In connection with the audit of the 20152017 consolidated financial statements, we entered into an engagement agreement with Ernst & Young that set forth the terms by which Ernst & Young performed audit services for us.

The Audit Committee is responsible for negotiating the audit fee associated with its retention of Ernst & Young. Ernst & Young'sYoung’s fees for professional services totaled $12.9$12.8 million for each of 20152017 and 2014,$14.5 million for 2016, which consisted of the following:

Fees (in millions)
2017
2016
Audit Fees(1)$11.8​$13.5​
Audit-Related Fees(2)0.6​0.6​
Tax Fees(3)0.2​0.2​
All Other Fees0.2​0.2​
Total$12.8​$14.5​

(1)

Fees (in millions)

  2015  2014 

Audit Fees(1)

 $11.8 $11.6 

Audit-Related Fees(2)

  0.7  0.8 

Tax Fees(3)

 0.4 0.5 

All Other Fees

     

Total

 $12.9 $12.9 
(1)
Fees for audit services related to the fiscal year consolidated audit, the audit of the effectiveness of internal controls, quarterly reviews, registration statements, comfort letters, statutory and regulatory audits and accounting consultations. Includes audit fees of Phillips 66 Partners LP of  $1.3$1.7 million and $1.5$3.3 million for 20152017 and 2014,2016, respectively, which were approved by the Audit Committee of the General Partner of Phillips 66 Partners LP.
(2)

(2)
Fees for audit-related services related to audits in connection with proposed or consummated dispositions, benefit plan audits, other subsidiary audits, special reports, and accounting consultations.
(3)

(3)
Fees for tax services related to tax compliance services and tax planning and advisory services.

The Audit Committee has considered whether the non-audit services provided to Phillips 66 by Ernst & Young impaired the independence of Ernst & Young and concluded they did not.

The Audit Committee has adopted a pre-approval policy that provides guidelines for the audit, audit-related, tax and other non-audit services that Ernst & Young may provide to the Company. All of the fees in the table above were approved in accordance with this policy. The policy (a) identifies the guiding principles that must be considered by the Audit Committee in approving services to ensure that Ernst & Young'sYoung’s independence is not impaired; (b) describes the audit, audit-related, tax and other services that may be provided and the non-audit services that are prohibited; and (c) sets forth pre-approval requirements
22   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT​
for all permitted services. Under the policy, the Audit Committee must pre-approve all services to be provided by Ernst & Young. The Audit Committee has delegated authority to approve permitted services to its Chair. Such approval must be reported to the entire Audit Committee at its next scheduled meeting.

One or more representatives of Ernst & Young willare expected to be present at the Annual Meeting. The representatives will have an opportunity to make a statement if they desire and will be available to respond to appropriate questions from the shareholders.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT21

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 2:      Ratification of the Appointment of Ernst & Young LLP

AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT

The Audit Committee assists the Board of Directors in fulfilling its responsibility to provide independent, objective oversight of the financial reporting functions and internal control systems of Phillips 66. The Audit Committee currently consists of fourfive non-employee Directors.directors. The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee satisfies the requirements of the NYSE as to independence, financial literacy and expertise. The Board has further determined that at least one member,each of J. Brian Ferguson, William R. Loomis, Jr., John E. Lowe, and Denise L. Ramos is an audit committee financial expert as defined by the SEC. The responsibilities of the Audit Committee are set forth in the written charter adopted by the Board of Directors, which is available in the "InvestorsInvestors" section of the Company'sCompany’s website under the caption "Corporate GovernanceGovernance." One of the Audit Committee'sCommittee’s primary responsibilities is to assist the Board in its oversight of the integrity of the Company'sCompany’s financial statements. The following report summarizes certain of the Audit Committee'sCommittee’s activities in this regard for 2015.

2017.

Review with Management.   The Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the audited consolidated financial statements of Phillips 66 included in the Company'sCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015,2017, and management'smanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015,2017, included therein.

Discussions with Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.   The Audit Committee has discussed with Ernst & Young LLP, independent registered public accounting firm for Phillips 66, the matters required to be discussed by Auditing Standard (AS) No. 611301 as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is codified as AS No. 1301.Board. The Audit Committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from Ernst & Young required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent accountant'saccountant’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and has discussed with that firm its independence from Phillips 66.

Recommendation to the Phillips 66 Board of Directors.   Based on its review and discussions noted above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited consolidated financial statements of Phillips 66 be included in the Company'sCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

2017.

AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
J. Brian Ferguson, Chairman
William R. Loomis, Jr.
John E. Lowe
Denise L. Ramos
Victoria J. Tschinkel
THE PHILLIPS 66 AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE



William R. Loomis, Jr., Chairman
John E. Lowe
Victoria J. Tschinkel
Marna C. Whittington
22    2016 PROXY STATEMENT
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   23​

PROPOSAL 3:
Advisory Approval of Executive Compensation

Shareholders are being asked to vote on the following advisory (non-binding) resolution:

RESOLVED, that the shareholders approve the compensation of Phillips 66's66’s Named Executive Officers (NEOs) as described in this proxy statement in the Compensation Discussion and AnalysisCOMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS section and in the Executive Compensation TablesEXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES (together with the accompanying narrative disclosures).

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE "FOR"“FOR” THE ADVISORY APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE COMPANY'SCOMPANY’S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.

Approval of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting and entitled to vote on the proposal.

As required by Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),U.S. federal securities laws, Phillips 66 is providing shareholders with the opportunity to vote on an advisory resolution, commonly known as "Say-on-Pay,"“Say-on-Pay,” considering approval of the compensation of its NEOs.

The Compensation Committee, which is responsible for the compensation of our CEO and Senior Officers (as defined in ROLE OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE), has overseen the development of compensation programs designed to attract, retain and motivate executives who enable us to achieve our strategic and financial goals. The Compensation Discussion and AnalysisCOMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS and the Executive Compensation Tables,EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES, together with the accompanying narrative disclosures, allow you to view the trends in compensation and application of our compensation philosophies and practices for the years presented.

The Board of Directors believes that the Phillips 66 executive compensation programs align the interests of our executives with those of our shareholders. Our compensation programs are guided by the philosophy that the Company'sCompany’s ability to provide sustainable value is driven by superior individual performance. The Board believes that a company must offer competitive compensation to attract and retain experienced, talented and motivated employees. In addition, the Board believes employees in leadership roles within the organization are motivated to perform at their highest levels when performance-based pay represents a significant portion of their compensation. The Board believes that our philosophy and practices have resulted in executive compensation decisions that are aligned with Company and individual performance, are appropriate in value, and have benefited the Company and its shareholders.


COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) details our executive compensation programs for 20152017 and provides the decisions that the Compensation Committee has made regarding 2015 compensation. This CD&A focuses on the2017 compensation supported by our performance.
2017 COMPANY PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Our 2017 performance results and strategic highlights are presented below. Some of our NEOsthese results are not measures of financial performance under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), for which more information is available in 2015, who were:

Appendix A.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_oe02.jpg]
Greg Garland0.14ChairmanOur combined TRR was the lowest in our Company history and Chief Executive Officer
Paula Johnsonour Process Safety Event (PSE) rate of 0.03 was industry leading; however, our performance was diminished by a serious incident.Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Greg MaxwellExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Tim TaylorPresident
Larry ZiembaExecutive Vice President, Refining

At the end of 2015, Mr. Maxwell retired. In January 2016, Kevin J. Mitchell became our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

CONTENTS OF CD&A
97.6%

Our Industry, Corporate Strategy and Business Performance

During the largest turnaround year in our Company’s history, our assets were available to run 3.5% more than our target goal.

24
Our Compensation Philosophy25
Elements of Compensation26
Targets and Payouts for Compensation Elements27
Other Benefits and Perquisites35
Executive Compensation Governance37
Role of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee38
Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report39
#1For the second year in a row we had the lowest number of Reportable Environmental Events in our Company’s history.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_ind-recognized.jpg]
Six refineries were recognized in 2017 as 2016 American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Safety Award winners, with one receiving the Distinguished Safety Award—our industry’s highest level of safety recognition.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_growth02.jpg]
33%CPChem recently completed its U.S. Gulf Coast Petrochemicals project consisting of a world-scale ethane cracker and two polyethylene units. The project increases CPChem’s global ethylene and polyethylene capacity by approximately 33%.
$2.4 
billion
We completed a $2.4 billion dropdown of Refining and Midstream assets into Phillips 66 Partners LP (PSXP).
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_returns02.jpg]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_arrow01.jpg]
In Refining, we aim to be an efficient, low-cost, and reliable operator. We invest in smaller, high-return, quick payout projects to enhance margins. During 2017, we increased heavy crude processing capability at the Billings Refinery and completed a diesel recovery project at the Ponca City Refinery.
$6.3 
billion
Our Adjusted Controllable Costs were 2% below budget, while absorbing company growth. We have successfully executed the construction of major projects and maintained our disciplined approach to capital allocation.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_distributions02.jpg]
11%We increased our quarterly dividend by 11%, our seventh increase in 5 years.
21%Our diversified structure allows us to invest where profitable across multiple streams of business, delivering a 2017 TSR of 21%. Our cumulative TSR since our Company inception in May 2012 through the end of 2017 was 257%—outperforming both our peer group and the broader market.
$3.0 
billion
In 2017, we delivered $3 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. Since our inception in 2012, we have distributed $16.4 billion to shareholders, through dividends, share repurchases and share exchanges.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_high-performing02.jpg]
25%Approximately 25% of our global workforce resided in locations impacted by Hurricane Harvey, yet almost all assets were operating by mid-September. We provided employees with $4.3 million in financial assistance through emergency cash and interest free loans, and donated an additional $4 million to charitable relief efforts.
73,000Last year, our employees volunteered 73,000 hours to organizations in their local communities. Additionally, Phillips 66 provided $28 million in financial support to organizations promoting education, environmental sustainability, and community safety and preparedness.
Internally we focused on achievement of our corporate priorities centered around promoting a culture of inclusion and diversity, building leadership capabilities, and maximizing the performance of our people.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   25​

TABLE OF CONTENTS OUR INDUSTRY, CORPORATE STRATEGY
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

Our industry is vitally important to the global economy. Fossil fuels, particularly oil and natural gas, continueANALYSIS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM SUMMARY
We operate in a volatile industry; however, our diversified portfolio enables us to be the world's primary energy source and are expected to remain so for decades to come. These sources are abundant and reliable, affordable and efficient. Phillips 66's mission is to provide energy and improve livesresilient through operating excellence, delivering energy in a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible way. We improve lives by providing access to energy, which is essential to a high standard of living and health throughout the world.

We are a diversified energy manufacturing and logistics company with a unique portfolio of assets in the Midstream, Chemicals, Refining and Marketing & Specialties businesses. We are focused on processing, transporting, storing and marketing fuels and products globally. Integral to our portfolio of assets is our master limited partnership, Phillips 66 Partners LP (PSXP).

The 2015 energy landscape highlighted the volatile nature of our industry. Our operating plans reflect this changing environment; however, our overriding objective remains the same—enable our high-performing workforce to execute our corporate strategy efficiently and effectively and remain vigilant and focused on safety and operating excellence in order to:

    Deliver Profitable Growth

    Optimize Returns

    Grow Shareholder Distributions

One way we measure progress toward implementing our corporate strategy is through enterprise value growth.industry cycles. Through our disciplined capital allocation model, we increase our enterprise value by strategically investing capital in our higher-returnhigher-valued businesses while returning a significant portion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases.

Since our inception in 2012, we have operated with clear overriding objectives—enable our high-performing workforce to execute our corporate strategy efficiently and effectively, while remaining vigilant and focused on safety and operating excellence, in order to deliver profitable growth, optimize returns, and grow secure and competitive dividends.
Based on the positive result of our 2017 say-on-pay vote, we believe our shareholders approve of our executive compensation program and recognize its link to our business strategy. Although the Compensation Committee continuously evaluates our compensation program in light of evolving best practices to ensure alignment with shareholder interests, no changes were made to our executive compensation program in 2017 as a result of the say-on-pay vote.
Our 2017 NEOs were:
24    2016 PROXY STATEMENTNameTitle
Greg GarlandChairman and CEO
Robert HermanExecutive Vice President, Refining
Paula JohnsonExecutive Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Kevin MitchellExecutive Vice President, Finance and CFO
Tim TaylorPresident

Table


COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS​

Our 2015

Compensation Programs
The following table summarizes the principal elements of executive compensation and the performance results and strategic highlights are presented below.

drivers of each element.

STRATEGY

RESULTS

STRATEGIC HIGHLIGHTS

KEY ELEMENTS OF PAY
DELIVERED VIA
TARGET AMOUNT
PERFORMANCE DRIVERS
(AND WEIGHTINGS)
Base SalaryCash​Benchmarked to compensation peer group median; adjusted for experience, responsibility, performance and potential​Annual fixed cash compensation to attract and retain NEOs​
Annual IncentiveVariable Cash Incentive Program (VCIP)100% of Annual Performance-Based Compensation Target​Adjusted EBITDA (40%)
Operating Excellence (35%)
Adjusted Controllable Costs (15%) High-Performing Organization (10%)
Individual Modifier (+/- 50% of target)​


Long-Term Incentives (LTI)



Performance Share Program (PSP) (3-year performance period)​



50% of LTI Target​


Absolute ROCE (25%)
Relative ROCE (25%)
Relative TSR (50%)​



CHART
Adjusted earnings of $4.2 billion—60% above target and $0.4 billion above 2014Our 100,000 barrels-per-day Sweeny Fractionator One began operations.

On schedule with strategic projects including the Freeport LPG export terminal, JV pipelines connecting the Bakken oil field to the Gulf Coast, the Beaumont storage and terminal facility and Bayou Bridge pipeline.

CPChem completed the Cedar Bayou NAO expansion in June 2015, and is on schedule and on budget to complete the US Gulf Coast Petrochemicals project in mid-2017.
Stock Option Program(1)
25% of LTI Target​Long-term stock price appreciation​
PSXP distribution Compound Annual Growth Rate of 41% since its IPO in 2013PSXP raised $1,474 million in capital, through its first follow-on equity and debt issuances, which funded asset drop downs and organic-growth projects.
Clean product yield of over 84%

Refinery crude utilization of 91%
Our refineries completed $160 million of high-return projects.

Despite a heavy planned turnaround schedule, we maximized capture of increased margins by running above capacity and delaying certain turnarounds.
Restricted Stock Unit (RSU) Program​

CHART
VCIP ROCE25% of 16.1%VCIP ROCE was 7.2 percentage points above our WACC.

Chemicals ROCE of 20%.

Strengthened the DCP balance sheet with a $1.5 billion cash infusion positioning DCP to be self-funding in the current lower commodity price environment.
LTI Target​Long-term stock price appreciation​
Adjusted controllable costs of $5.9 billionOperations managed costs 5% below budget while absorbing company growth including the Spectrum acquisition, Sweeny Fractionator One and Beaumont Terminal.

CHART
$7.7 billion in share repurchases and exchanges since May 2012

Dividend Compound Annual Growth Rate of 34% since May 2012
Total common shares outstanding at year-end 2015 were 529 million, down 15% since spin-off and 3% from 2014.

Consistent with our strategy, 54% of capital was reinvested through our strategic activities and 46% was distributed to shareholders from 2013 to 2015.
(1)

OUR COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY

Our compensation programs support

The Compensation Committee believes that stock options are inherently performance-based, as options have no initial value and grantees only realize benefits if the value of our corporate missionstock increases above the option price following the date of providing energy and improving lives. Our programsgrant. This practice is intended to ensure that the interests of our NEOs are aligned with key elementsthose of our corporate strategy. Important tenets of our approach include:

shareholders.
We ensure executive compensation drives behaviors and actions consistent with shareholder interests, prudent risk-taking and a long-term perspective
We believe our compensation programs play an important role in our employee value proposition. They provide a competitive advantage by helping us attract, retain, motivate, and reward high-performing executive talent, as well as support succession planning
We pay for performance. Executives have a significant portion of compensation tied to the achievement of annual and long-term goals that promote shareholder value creation
We target and award reasonable and competitive compensation ranges, aligned with market median levels. Awards are then differentiated based on performance relative to targets/peers and market conditions.
We emphasize Phillips 66 stock ownership by requiring stock ownership levels for our executives that are set at a multiple of their annual base salary
We provide executives the same group benefit programs as we provide other employees, on substantially the same terms
We limit executive perquisites to items that serve a reasonable business purpose
2016 PROXY STATEMENT25

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION

Compensation Mix Puts Significant Pay at Risk

Consistent with our philosophy that executive compensation should be linked to Company performance and directly aligned with shareholder value creation, a significant portion of NEO compensation is at risk and based on performance metrics tied to our corporate strategy. "At risk"“At risk” means there is no guarantee that the target value of the awards will be realized. TheBased on its evaluation of performance, the Compensation Committee has complete authority to limitreduce, and even award nothing for, the performance-based payouts and individual performance adjustments under each of the Variable Cash Incentive Program (VCIP)VCIP and Performance Share Program (PSP) based on its evaluation of performance.PSP. Stock options can expire with zero value if the Companyprice of our common stock price does not appreciate above the grant date price over the 10-year lifeterm of the options. RSUs may lose value depending on stock price performance. Therefore, for NEOs to earn and sustain competitive compensation, the Company must meet its strategic objectives, perform well relative to peers, and deliver market-competitive returns to shareholders.

2015 Principal Elements

CEO target compensation mix is 89 percent at risk and 71 percent performance-based. The target mix for the other NEOs is 82 percent at risk and 65 percent performance-based. Further, LTI awards make up 72 percent of the Executive Compensation Programs

The following table summarizesCEO and 65 percent of other NEOs target compensation mix. For both the principal elementsCEO and other NEOs, target mix percentages are commensurate with their levels of the executive compensationresponsibility. Further detail on all of these programs and the performance drivers of each element.

is provided in EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM DETAILS.

KEY ELEMENTS OF PAY

DELIVERED VIA

TARGET AMOUNT

PERFORMANCE DRIVERS (AND WEIGHTING)

​  Base SalaryCashBenchmarked to peer median; adjusted for experience, responsibility and performanceAnnual fixed cash compensation to attract and retain NEOs
Annual IncentivesVCIP100% of Annual Performance-Based Compensation TargetSafety and Operating Excellence (25%)

Cost Management (25%)

1-Year ROCE (25%)

Adjusted Earnings (25%)

Individual Modifier (+/–50% of target)
​  Long-Term IncentivesPSP
(3-year performance period)

50% of Long-Term GrantRelative ROCE (25%)

Absolute ROCE (25%)

TSR (50%)




​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 
​  Stock Options(1)

RSUs


25% of Long-Term Grant

25% of Long-Term Grant


Long-term stock price appreciation for RSUs and stock options
(1)
The Compensation Committee believes that stock options are inherently performance-based, as options have no initial value and grantees only realize benefits if the value of our stock increases above the option price following the date of grant. This practice aligns the interests of our NEOs and shareholders.
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   27​

The Compensation Committee believes this mix is aligned with our compensation philosophy, reflects the cyclical nature of our business and supports executive retention.

Target Mix


COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The target mix of the compensation program elements for the CEO and other NEOs is shown below. The charts outline the relative size, in percentage terms, of each element of targeted compensation.

GRAPHIC

CEO target

[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_pie-target.jpg]
Aligned with Best Practices
The following best practices are reflected in our executive compensation mix is 90 percent at risk and 72 percent performance-based. The target mix for the other NEOs is 82 percent at risk and 66 percent performance-based. Both the CEO and other NEO target mix percentages are commensurate with their levels of responsibility.

programs:
26    2016 PROXY STATEMENTWE DO...

Target the majority of NEO compensation to be performance based

Link NEO compensation to shareholder value creation by having a significant portion of compensation at risk

Apply multiple performance metrics aligned with our corporate strategy to measure our performance

Cap maximum payouts under our VCIP and equity programs

Employ a “double trigger” for severance benefits and equity awards under our Key Employee Change in Control Severance Plan (CICSP)

Include absolute and relative metrics in our LTI programs

Maintain stock ownership guidelines for executives—Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 6x base salary; other NEOs 3-5x base salary

Balance, monitor and manage compensation risk through regular assessments and robust clawback provisions

Have extended vesting periods on stock awards, with a minimum one-year vesting period required for stock and stock option awards

Intend to qualify compensation payments for deductibility under Section 162(m)

Maintain a fully independent Compensation Committee

Retain an independent compensation consultant

Hold a Say-on-Pay vote annually

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

TARGETS AND PAYOUTS FOR COMPENSATION ELEMENTS

Peer Group Comparisons

In 2015, consistent with investor feedback and best practices, we enhanced our peer group comparisons to better reflect our business segments and long-term strategy. We use a performance peer group to evaluate our business results. We believe that our performance peer group is representative of the companies that investors use for relative performance comparisons. We use a compensation peer group to evaluate and determine our compensation levels for our NEOs. Our compensation peer group is comprised of a mix of companies from our performance peer group and companies from the broader market. The mix includes companies from the broader market because we draw our executive talent from a candidate pool that extends beyond the energy industry. We utilized the following peer groups for performance comparisons and compensation decisions.

Performance Peer Group    Phillips 66 is uniquely positioned in the energy industry with a large refining base, a growing midstream NGL business and significant petrochemical exposure. To reflect our unique portfolio of assets, we expanded our peer group for performance comparison purposes to include companies from all three of our major businesses. The table below presents the sixteen companies in our 2015 performance peer group.

WE DO NOT...
REFINING AND MARKETING
MIDSTREAM
CHEMICALS

Provide excise tax gross-ups to our NEOs under our CICSP

Reprice stock options without shareholder approval
Delek US Holdings, Inc.

Price stock options below grant date fair market value
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.Celanese Corporation
HollyFrontier Corporation

Allow share recycling for stock options
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.The Dow Chemical Company
Marathon Petroleum Corporation

Have evergreen provisions in our active equity plans
ONEOK, Inc.Eastman Chemical Company
PBF Energy Inc.Targa Resources Corp.Huntsman Corporation
Tesoro CorporationWestlake Chemical Corporation
Valero Energy Corporation
Western Refining, Inc.

In addition to the companies in our performance peer group, we evaluate our TSR performance against the S&P 100 Index. The Compensation Committee believes that the S&P 100 is an appropriate comparison for performance purposes because these are the companies with which we compete for capital in the broader market.

Compensation Peer Group    Compensation peers include companies that are reasonably comparable to Phillips 66 based on three primary criteria—assets, market capitalization, and business operations. Revenue is a secondary criteria due to the nature of our operations. The Compensation Committee believes reviewing each of these criteria is necessary in order to fully reflect the complex nature of our business and determine the optimal group of companies with which to compare Phillips 66.

Because our executive talent pool is broader than the energy industry, our compensation peer group consists of some of the companies from our performance peer group and large industrial companies with significant capital investments and complex international operations. At the time this compensation peer group was last reviewed in 2015, we were, in comparison to this group, in the 46th percentile in assets, 30th percentile in market capitalization and 93rd percentile in revenue. The 2015 compensation peer group is comprised of the following 26 companies.


Archer-Daniels-Midland CompanyFord Motor CompanyThe Procter & Gamble Company
The Boeing CompanyGeneral Dynamics CorporationSysco Corporation
BP p.l.c.General Motors CompanyTesoro Corporation
Caterpillar Inc.Honeywell International Inc.Tyson Foods, Inc.
Chevron CorporationJohnson & JohnsonUnited Parcel Service, Inc.
Deere & CompanyJohnson Controls, Inc.United Technologies Corporation
The Dow Chemical CompanyLockheed Martin CorporationValero Energy Corporation
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and CompanyMarathon Petroleum CorporationVerizon Communications Inc.
FedEx CorporationMondelez International, Inc.Allow hedging or pledging of Phillips 66 stock, or trading of Phillips 66 stock outside of approved windows

28   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS​
WE DO NOT...

Pay dividends during the performance period on PSP targets

Allow transfer of equity awards (except in the case of death)

Provide separate supplemental executive retirement benefits for individual NEOs

Maintain individual change-in-control agreements

Have an employment agreement with the CEO

Have excessive perquisites
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM DETAILS
The following provides a more detailed look at our executive compensation programs.
Base Salary

Base salary is designed to provide a competitive and fixed rate of pay recognizing employees'employees’ different levels of responsibility and performance. As the majority of our NEO compensation is performance-based and tied to long-term programs, base salary represents a less significant component of total compensation. In setting each NEO'sNEO’s base salary, the Compensation Committee considers factors including, but not limited to, the responsibility level for the position held, market data from the relevantcompensation peer groupsgroup for comparable roles, experience and expertise, individual performance and business results.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT27

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Below is a summary of the annualized base salary for each NEO for 2015.2017. Because these amounts reflect each NEO'sNEO’s annualized salary as of the dates indicated, this information may vary from the information provided in the "SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLESummary Compensation Table" on page 40,, which reflects actual base salary earnings in 2015,2017, including the effect of salary changes during the year.

Name
Salary as of 1/1/2017
($)
Salary as of 3/1/2017
($)
Salary as of 12/31/2017
($)
Greg Garland1,625,016​1,675,008​1,675,008​
Robert Herman670,008​693,480​693,480​
Paula Johnson704,568​749,664​749,664​
Kevin Mitchell692,136​712,920​712,920​
Tim Taylor1,080,768​1,124,016​1,124,016​

NAME
 POSITION
 BASE SALARY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2014 ($)
 BASE SALARY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 ($)(1)

Mr. Garland

 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 1,522,512 1,575,816

Ms. Johnson

 Executive Vice President and General Counsel 610,008 671,016

Mr. Maxwell

 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 775,008 806,016

Mr. Taylor

 President 985,008 1,024,416

Mr. Ziemba

 Executive Vice President, Refining 679,272 701,352
(1)
The December 31, 2015 base salary for Ms. Johnson reflects an increase for a promotion received during the year.

Mr. Garland, Ms. Johnson and Messrs. Maxwell, Taylor and ZiembaAll NEOs received base salary increases effective JulyMarch 1, 2015,2017, as part of the annual merit cycle for all employees. These merit increases in base salary broughtrealigned each applicable NEO'sNEO’s base salary in line with the respective compensation peer group levels and reflect thatreflected each NEO metNEO’s achievement of established performance requirements for their respective roles.corresponding to his or her role. The Compensation Committee determined these adjustments were appropriate to maintain our competitiveness in the market. Ms. Johnson received a grade promotion, effective July 1, 2015. This promotion prompted other actions, including target VCIP increases and supplemental prospective performance plan awards.

Variable Cash Incentive Program

The VCIP, which is our annual incentive program, is designed to:

    Reward annual performance achievements

    Align corporate, business and individual goals with shareholder interests and Company strategy

    Drive behaviors and actions consistent with shareholder interests

    Provideto provide variability and differentiation based on corporate business and individual performance

Each NEO's baseperformance. Through our metrics, we designed our VCIP award is tied solelyprogram to align annual awards with shareholder interests and execution of our corporate performance rather thanstrategy. We do not tie NEO VCIP awards to the performance of any individual business unit. We believe this structure is inserves the best interests of shareholders as it promotes collaboration across the organization.

The annual payout for NEOs is delivered as a cash bonus and is calculated as follows:

GRAPHIC

Eligible earnings are multiplied by a target percentage that is based on each NEO'sNEO’s salary grade level.level to derive the NEO’s target award. At the end of the performance period, the Compensation Committee reviews the Company'sCompany’s performance to determine the Corporate Payout Percentage. This percentage is based on a mix of operational and financial metrics, selected to drive the right behaviors. Metricsdetails and weightingsweighting of which are outlined in the tablesdescribed below. The Compensation Committee can award a Corporate Payout Percentage of zero up to the maximum of 200 percent.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   29​

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The target award is multiplied by the Corporate Payout Percentage, after which the Compensation Committee then takes into account the individual accomplishments of each NEO when determining any individual performance adjustments. Theseapplicable Individual Performance Adjustments. Individual Performance Adjustments can range from +/–50 percent of target.the target award. Adjustments are based on measurable performance of the individual NEO that drives shareholder value.

28    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_chrt-incentive.jpg]

For 2015,2017, the Compensation Committee used the following metrics, which are aligned with our corporate strategy, to evaluate corporate performance under the VCIP. This mix of financial and operational metrics was designed to ensure a balanced view of Company performance.

METRIC
CORPORATE
WEIGHTING

RATIONALE

Safety, Process Safety and Operating Excellence

25%Aligns payout with strategic focus on operating excellence

Cost Management

25%Effective cost management maintains[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_chrt-vcip.jpg]
Adjusted EBITDA
We believe Adjusted EBITDA is useful in evaluating our annual core operating performance and how we determine enterprise value. Our threshold represents the Adjusted EBITDA required to cover our sustaining capital and shareholder dividend commitments. To ensure we continue to deliver on our growth strategy, the target and maximum for Adjusted EBITDA represent returns that are 1.5 percent and 3.0 percent above our Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC), respectively.
Based on actual Company performance, the Compensation Committee determined that a focus on operating excellence as well as enhancing returns

ROCE

25%Aligns payout with strategic focus on enhancing returns and growth initiatives

Adjusted Earnings

25%Measures the effectiveness of strategic growth initiatives, operating excellence and quality of returns

Generally, target performance results in 100 percent payout of target bonus opportunity. Less-than-target performance will normally result in a payout between zero and 99 percent of target. Greater-than-target performance generally results in a payout between 10086 percent of target and the maximum 200was earned for this metric. Overall performance was 13 percent before individual adjustment.

below target due primarily to market volatility, which was partially offset by exceptional operating excellence. Adjusted EBITDA, as used for VCIP, is a non-GAAP financial measure. See Safety, Process Safety and Appendix A for additional information.

[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_bar1.jpg]
Operating Excellence Metrics

Operating excellence, including personal and process safety, as well as environmental stewardship and asset availability, is critical to meeting our corporate strategy of growth, returns and distributions. We measure ourselves against others in our industry for safety and utilization metrics, and target sustained improvementperformance in environmental events compared to prior years.

In 2015, both our Total Recordable Rate (TRR)stewardship, and effectively manage unplanned downtime.

30   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS​
For metrics for which comparative data was available, like TRR, Lost Workday Case Rate (LWCR) were first, and PSE Rate, we benchmarked ourselves against companies with the strongest safety records in our industry. Generally, these companies fall within the top 2 quartiles of all companies reported. We then established our threshold, target, and maximum goals based on the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of this group of companies.
For metrics for which comparative data was not available, like asset availability and environmental events, we established our threshold, target, and maximum goals based on our own historical performance, with a goal of continuous improvement. For asset availability, we incorporate all of the lines of our business, and then weight them by EBITDA.
In 2017, we met or exceeded our maximum stretch goal in all five areas measured for Operating Excellence. However, at the recommendation of the CEO, the Compensation Committee approved a 20% reduction in the payout for combined TRR and PSE Rate to acknowledge a serious incident that resulted in a fatality in February 2017.
The Compensation Committee reviewed each of the following metrics when determining an overall Operating Excellence payout of 192 percent.

Combined TRR and LWCR:   Our performance in LWCR was top quartile compared to anour industry group. Although our Process Safety Rategroup, earning 200 percent of target. While 200 percent of target was better than target, our 2015 results were second quartile compared to this industry group. 2015 was our second best performance yearalso earned for agency reportable environmental events. Despite a heavy turnaround schedule, our crude capacity utilization was 91 percent and better than industry average. Although the formulaic result would have produced a higher payout percentage,combined TRR, the Compensation Committee exercised negative discretionreduced the payout by 20 percent as noted above, resulting in a 180 percent payout.

PSE Rate:   Our PSE Rate in 2017 was top quartile performance. While 200 percent of target was earned for PSE, the Compensation Committee reduced the payout by 20 percent as noted above, resulting in a 180 percent payout.

Environmental Events:   The Compensation Committee considered that in the industries in which we operate there is increasingly stringent regulation and scrutiny on environmental performance. We not only beat our stretch goal, but also were 15 percent improved versus the prior year, setting record performance in our Company history. As a result, 200 percent of target was earned related to reflectthis metric.

Asset Availability:   The Compensation Committee confirmed that our process safety results were slightly impaired year-over-year and the fact thatavailability of 97.6 percent across all of our personal safety metrics were flat with 2014. All these considerations were used to determinelines of business resulted in a 160payout of 200 percent payout for safety, process safety and operating excellence performance.

of target.
 
  
  
    
  
  
 
 COMPANY RESULTS 
 

 PAYOUT LEVELS BASED ON PERFORMANCE 
 

  
  
  
SAFETY, PROCESS SAFETY AND
OPERATING EXCELLENCE METRICS

 PAYOUT
%

  
 CORPORATE
PAYOUT

 TARGET
 ACTUAL
  
 175-200%
 100-175%
 50-100%
 0-50%
  
 WEIGHT
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 

Combined TRR

 0.43 0.19   1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile   185% 5% 9.25%

Combined LWCR

 0.10 0.03   1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile   185% 5% 9.25%

Process Safety Rate

 0.09 0.08   1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile   150% 5% 7.50%

Environmental Events

 150 142   <125 125-150 150-175 >175   140% 5% 7.00%

Capacity Utilization

 90% 91%   >94% 90%-94% 86%-90% <86%   140% 5% 7.00%

Total Safety, Process Safety and Operating Excellence

             160% 25% 40.00%

Cost Management

Cost management maintains focus
Payout Levels Based on Performance
2017
Results
Payout
%
0%
50%
100%
200%
Combined TRR> 0.38​0.38​0.30​0.24​0.14​180%​
Combined LWCR> 0.08​0.08​0.06​0.04​0.04​200%​
Process Safety Rate> 0.09​0.09​0.08​0.05​0.03​180%​
Environmental Events> 163​163​142​123​103​200%​
Asset Availability< 92.4%​92.4%​94.1%​95.8%​97.6%​200%​
Combined Operating Excellence
192%

[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_bar2.jpg]
Adjusted Controllable Costs
Adjusted Controllable Costs focuses on operating excellence and enhances our ability to deliver differentiated returns to shareholders. Our targets for threshold, target, and maximum goals are based on our budget for the current year. We measure our costs per barrel relative to our peer group to ensure alignment with industry trendsFor threshold performance, Adjusted Controllable Costs could not exceed budget by more than 3 percent, target performance was based on achieving budget, and to reflect operating decisions made in response to changing market conditions that vary from budget assumptions.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT29
maximum performance required being at least 3 percent under budget.
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   31​

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In 2015,2017, we were 52 percent improved versus our budget, resulting in a payout of 173 percent. Our lower costs relative to budget were related to environmental insurance recoveries, ongoing equipment efficiencies, and were second in our peer group on costs per barrel. Additionally, we absorbed company growth costs associated with the Spectrum acquisition, start-up of Sweeny Fractionator One and the Beaumont terminal. These results were used to determine a 180 percent payout for Cost Management.

 
  
  
    
  
  
 
 COMPANY RESULTS 
 

 PAYOUT LEVELS BASED ON PERFORMANCE 
 

  
  
  
 
 PAYOUT
%

  
 CORPORATE
PAYOUT

COST METRIC
 TARGET
 ACTUAL
  
 150-200%
 100-150%
 100%
 50-100%
 0%
  
 WEIGHT
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 

Cost Management* ($MM)

 $6,155 $5,853   <Target–2% Target–1% Target <Target+5% >Target+5%   180% 25% 45.00%
*
Cost managementlower staff costs. Adjusted Controllable Costs is a non-GAAP financial measure. See Appendix BA for additional information.

Return on Capital Employed

ROCE

[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_bar3.jpg]
High-Performing Organization
We believe maintaining and enhancing a high-performing organization is keycritical to delivering returnsour success. Our employees promote our culture and are integral to shareholders and achieving our growth initiatives. ROCE is a key metric for shareholdersstrategic goals and maximizing long-term shareholder value. We measure our performance relative to determine the qualityfollowing:

Foundational metrics aimed at assessing the engagement of our earnings relativeworkforce and inclusion and diversity health of our organization. These metrics include:

overall quality and diversity of new hires;

employee and leadership development through rotational moves;

leadership development through effective succession management; and,

overall retention of the right talent.

Achievement of corporate priorities centered around promoting our culture, building capabilities, and maximizing the performance of our people.

Response and adaptation to peers. The Compensation Committee reviewschanging market conditions. Our headquarters, Sweeny Refinery, six terminals, and several pipelines—staffed by over 25 percent of our global workforce—were impacted by Hurricane Harvey in August 2017. Almost all assets were functioning at normal capacity by mid-September, with no environmental events or safety incidents. We donated $4 million in charitable relief efforts and were named one of the relative ROCE as well as the absolute results“Most Philanthropic Companies in Houston” for 2017, demonstrating our commitment to ensure we effectively compete for capitalimproving lives and being a good corporate partner in the broader market. Our absolute targets are basedcommunities in which we operate. We also provided $4.3 million to our impacted employees in emergency cash and interest fee loans.
We strive for continuous improvement of our high-performing organization, as we believe it is our employees that differentiate us in the market place. Based on our WACC.

In 2015,performance, the Compensation Committee considereddetermined that our VCIP ROCE120 percent of target was 7.2 percentage points above our target and that we were seventh out of 17 companies in our performance peer group, when determining a 145 percent payoutearned for ROCE.

High-Performing Organization.

[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_bar4.jpg]
 
  
  
    
  
  
RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED METRIC
 COMPANY RESULTS 
 

 PAYOUT LEVELS BASED ON PERFORMANCE 
 

  
  
  
 PAYOUT
%

  
 CORPORATE
PAYOUT

 TARGET
 ACTUAL
  
 200%
 175%
 150%
 125%
 100%
 75%
 50%
 25%
 0%
  
 WEIGHT
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 

Absolute VCIP ROCE*

 8.9% 16.1%  >11.9% 11.2% 10.4% 9.7% 8.9% 8.2% 7.4% 6.7% <5.9%  200% 12.5% 25%

 


 

 


 

 


 


 


 

PAYOUT LEVELS BASED ON PERFORMANCE

 


 


 

 


 

 


 

 

 
  
  
  
  
 160-200%
 80-160%
 25-80%
 0%
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 

Relative VCIP ROCE*

 Median
of peers

 
7th   1st-4th 5th-10th 11th-15th 16th or 17th      90% 12.5% 11.25%


Total Return on Capital Employed


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145%

 

25%

 

36.25%
*
VCIP ROCE is a non-GAAP financial measure. See Appendix B for additional information.
32   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

The following chart shows our VCIP ROCE performance relative to our peers.

RELATIVE VCIP ROCE(1)
(PERCENT)

LOGO

(1)
Relative ROCE calculations are based on Q3 YTD results annualized for 2015.

Adjusted Earnings

Adjusted earnings measures how effectively we are delivering on our growth, returns and distribution strategies. We measure our adjusted earnings compared to budgeted targets.

In 2015, we set an aggressive target in an increasingly uncertain commodity environment and outperformed our budget by 60 percent. Total adjusted earnings were $4.2 billion. Additionally, we generated cash from operations of $5.9 billion, excluding working capital. Although a strictly formulaic result would have produced a higher payout percentage, the

30    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Compensation Committee exercised negative discretion to reflect the current market environment when determining a 175 percent payout for adjusted earnings.

ANALYSIS​
 
  
  
    
  
  
 
 COMPANY RESULTS 
 

 PAYOUT LEVELS BASED ON PERFORMANCE 
 

  
  
  
 
 PAYOUT
%

  
 CORPORATE
PAYOUT

EARNINGS METRIC
 TARGET
 ACTUAL
  
 200%
 170-199%
 125-169%
 100-124%
 70-99%
 25-69%
 0%
  
 WEIGHT
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 

Adjusted Earnings* (millions)

 $2,619 $4,193   $4,200 $3,500 $3,000 $2,600 $2,300 $1,900 <$1,000   175% 25% 43.75%
*
Adjusted earnings is a non-GAAP financial measure. See Appendix B for additional information.

Total Corporate Payout

The formulaic result of our individual metrics resulted inwas a Total Corporate Payout of 165140 percent, and isas summarized below.

in the following table.
Metric
Payout Percentage
Weight
Corporate Amount
Adjusted EBITDA86%​40%​35%​
Operating Excellence192%​35%​67%​
Adjusted Controllable Costs173%​15%​26%​
High-Performing Organization120%​10%​12%​
Total Corporate Payout
140%

Individual Performance Highlights
METRIC
 PAYOUT PERCENTAGE
 WEIGHT
 CORPORATE PAYOUT
 

Safety, Process Safety and Operating Excellence

 160% 25% 40.00% 

Cost Management

  180%  25%  45.00% 

Return on Capital Employed

 145% 25% 36.25% 

Adjusted Earnings

  175%  25%  43.75% 

Total Corporate Payout

   165.00% 

Applying Project-Based and Shareholder Metrics to the Annual VCIP Payout

The Compensation Committee has the authority to adjust our NEOs’ individual VCIP payouts by +/–50 percent of the formula-based target payout amount.payout. The Compensation Committee appliesmay apply an additional individual performance adjustment to reflect project-based accomplishments that drove or detracted from shareholder value or for market-based considerations to more closely align the payout with shareholder returns. This flexibility allows us to reflect our unique business strategy and portfolio of assets as well as differentiate individual executive performance. The Compensation Committee made adjustments to individual compensation levelsVCIP payouts for NEOs based on their responsibility for the success of projects and initiatives leadingthat lead to the successful execution of our strategy and the senior executives responsible for the success of these projects and initiatives.

The following initiatives and results were considered when making individual adjustment decisions.

strategy.
GROWTH INITIATIVESIMPROVING RETURNSDISTRIBUTIONS

GROWTHRETURNSDISTRIBUTIONS

SWEENY
FRAC ONE

MIDSTREAM
GROWTH
PROJECTS IN
PROGRESS

CPCHEM
GROWTH
PROJECTS

PSXP
DISTRIBUTION
GROWTH

CLEAN
PRODUCT
YIELD

REFINERY
CRUDE
UTILIZATION

REFINING
HIGH-
RETURN
PROJECTS

CAPTURE
REFINING
MARGINS

CHEMICALS
ROCE

DCP
BALANCE
SHEET

PSX
ROCE

CONTROL
COSTS

SHARE
REPURCH

DIVIDEND
GROWTH

Beaumont
Expansion
Pipeline
Investments
CP Chem
Capacity
DCP
Restructure
and
Expansion
PSXP
Transactions
High
Return
Refining
Projects
Commercial
Rebranding
Sustainability
Initiatives
Control
Costs
Mr. Garland
·Share

·Repurchases

·& Dividend

·Growth
··········
Ms. Johnson······
Mr. Maxwell·······
Mr. Taylor········
Mr. Ziemba·······
Greg Garland
Robert Herman
Paula Johnson
Kevin Mitchell
Tim Taylor

The Compensation Committee approved total payouts for each of our NEOs as shown in the table below.

NAME
 ELIGIBLE EARNINGS
($)

 TARGET VCIP
PERCENTAGE(1)

 CORPORATE
PAYOUT PERCENTAGE

 INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
ADJUSTMENT PERCENTAGE

 TOTAL PAYOUT
($)

Mr. Garland

 1,549,164 160.00% 165% 20% 4,585,525

Ms. Johnson

 640,512 86.00% 165% 20% 1,019,055

Mr. Maxwell

 790,512 100.00% 165% 20% 1,462,447

Mr. Taylor

 1,004,712 110.00% 165% 35% 2,210,366

Mr. Ziemba

 690,312 83.00% 165% 15% 1,031,326
(1)
Target percentages are weighted to reflect promotions and/or merit increases during 2015.
2016 PROXY STATEMENT2017 Eligible
31Earnings
($)
Target VCIP
Percentage
(%)
Corporate
Payout Percentage
(%)
Individual Performance
Adjustment
(%)
Total Payout
($)
Greg Garland1,666,676​160%​140%​—%​3,733,354​
Robert Herman689,568​85%​140%​—%​820,586​
Paula Johnson742,148​90%​140%​15%​1,035,296​
Kevin Mitchell709,456​85%​140%​15%​934,708​
Tim Taylor1,116,808​110%​140%​15%​1,904,158​

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Long-Term Incentive (LTI) Programs

Our LTI programs are designed to:

    Align corporate, business and individual goals with shareholder interests and corporate strategy and vision

    Drive behaviors and actions consistent with shareholder interests

    Encourage prudent risk taking and long-term perspective

    Support retention of high-performing talent and succession planning


LTI Mix

CHART

Our programs deliver 50 percent of long-term target value in the form of Performance Share Units (PSUs), 25 percent in the form of stock options and 25 percent in the form of RSUs.

We believe this mix of awards is aligned with our compensation philosophy, reflects the cyclical nature of our business, promotes retention of our high-performing talent, supports succession planning and is consistent with market practice.

There

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   33​

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_pie-programs.jpg]
Performance Share Program
Each PSP has a three-year performance period, and therefore three PSPs are three PSP programs in progress at any time. The table below summarizes the programs in effect during 2015:


PROGRAM

METRICS

PROGRAM TERMS

PSP 2013-2015
PSP 2014-201650% ROCE
50% TSR
Paid in cash at the end of the performance period
PSP 2015-2017

PSP 2013-2015 Payout

For 2015, the Compensation Committee considered the following results when approving the payout for PSP 2013-2015.

RELATIVE PSP ROCE(1)
(PERCENT)

CHART

(1)
Relative ROCE calculations are based on full year results for 2013 and 2014 and Q3 YTD annualized for 2015.
32    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

RELATIVE TSR
(PERCENT)

CHART

Return on Capital Employed

ROCE is an important measure of Company growth and overall performance. The Compensation Committee has used a ROCE measure as a metric in both the PSP program and the VCIP program; however, each applies ROCE to a different time period.

The target for absolute performance is based on our WACC for the performance period.

During the PSP 2013-2015 performance period, our absolute PSP ROCE was 15.8 percent, or 6.4 percentage points above our WACC target. Our relative performance was fifth out of 17 peer companies. The Compensation Committee used these results when determining a 180 percent payout for ROCE.

RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED

 COMPANY RESULTS   PAYOUT LEVELS BASED ON PERFORMANCE   PAYOUT   CORPORATE

METRIC

 TARGET ACTUAL   200% 175% 150% 125% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%   % WEIGHT PAYOUT

Absolute PSP ROCE*

 9.4% 15.8%  12.4% 11.7% 10.9% 10.2% 9.4% 8.7% 7.9% 7.2% 6.4%  200% 25% 50%
 
 COMPANY RESULTS 
 

 PAYOUT LEVELS BASED ON PERFORMANCE 
 

  
  
  
 
  
  
 CORPORATE
PAYOUT

 
 TARGET
 ACTUAL
  
  
 160-200%
 80-160%
 25-80%
 0%
  
 PAYOUT %
 WEIGHT

Relative PSP ROCE*

 Relative Ranking 5th    1st-4th 5th-10th 11th-15th 16th-17th  160% 25% 40%


Total Return on Capital Employed


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180%

 

50%

 

90%
*
PSP ROCE is a non-GAAP financial measure. See Appendix B for additional information.

Total Shareholder Return

TSR for the performance period is compared to our performance peer group and the S&P 100. Our TSR for the 3-year performance period was 72.3 percent, fifth out of 18 (including the S&P 100 Index) on a relative basis. The Compensation Committee used this ranking when determining a 160 percent payout for our TSR performance.

 
  
  
    
  
  
 
 COMPANY RESULTS 
 

 PAYOUT LEVELS BASED ON PERFORMANCE 
 

  
  
  
TOTAL SHAREHOLDER RETURN METRIC
 PAYOUT
%

  
 CORPORATE
PAYOUT

 TARGET
 ACTUAL
  
 160-200%
 80-160%
 25-80%
 0%
  
 WEIGHT
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 

Relative Total Shareholder Return

 Relative
Ranking

 
5th   1st-4th 5th-10th 11th-15th 16th-18th   160% 50% 80%

Total PSP 2013-2015 Payout

The formulaic result of these metrics yielded a Total PSP 2013-2015 payout of 170 percent.

METRIC
 PAYOUT
PERCENTAGE

 WEIGHT
 CORPORATE
PAYOUT

PSP ROCE

 180% 50% 90%

Relative TSR

 160% 50% 80%

Total PSP 2013-2015 Payout

 170%
2016 PROXY STATEMENT33

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In addition, for PSP 2013-2015 the Compensation Committee could apply performance adjustments to the payout of up to +/–By delivering 50 percent based on individual performance. The maximum payout inclusive of Company and individual performance adjustments is capped at 200 percent of target. Targets are prorated for changes in salary grade level during the remaining portion of the relevant performance period. The CEO provides input on individual adjustments for all NEOs (other than himself).

Accordingly, the Compensation Committee approved the following payouts for each NEO for the PSP 2013-2015 performance period:

NAME
 TARGET
SHARES (#)

 CORPORATE
PAYOUT
PERCENTAGE

 INDIVIDUAL
PERFORMANCE
ADJUSTMENT(1)

 TOTAL
SHARES(2) (#)

 TOTAL
VALUE ($)

Mr. Garland

 96,129 170%  163,419 12,848,002

Ms. Johnson

 17,799 170%  30,258 2,378,884

Mr. Maxwell

 23,967 170%  40,744 3,203,293

Mr. Taylor

 32,358 170%  55,009 4,324,808

Mr. Ziemba

 20,480 170%  34,816 2,737,234
(1)
No individual performance adjustments were given to NEOs for the PSP 2013-2015 performance period.

(2)
The Total Shares were paid out in cash at the end of of the performance period.

2015 LTI Targets

The Company uses the compensation peer group described on page 27 to benchmark compensation levels and establish multiples of base salary tied to the median LTI opportunities for similar roles at peer organizations.

PSP 2015-2017 Targets

Throughthrough the PSP, a significant portion of NEO compensation is tied to Company and individual performance over a three-year period, which is evaluated by the Compensation Committee when determining payouts. Each year, the Compensation Committee establishes metrics that will be used to evaluate Company performance relative to internal performance goals as well as appropriate peer groups for the following three years.

performance.

Target Shares at Beginning of Performance Period.The Compensation Committee uses corporatethe Compensation Peer Group to benchmark LTI and establish base salary multiples for similar roles at peer organizations. The number of target shares is determined by dividing the multiple by the average of the stock’s fair market value for the 20 days prior to the start of the performance period, less anticipated dividends during the performance period.
The Compensation Committee assesses the individual performance of each NEO, and based on that assessment may adjust an award by up to +/–30 percent of the target amount at grant. The CEO provides input regarding awards made to all NEOs (other than himself). The Compensation Committee evaluates the individual performance of the CEO. The Compensation Committee believes in relationapplying performance adjustments to the number of target shares at the beginning of the performance period, rather than the end, so that performance-adjusted compensation is subject to company performance and market volatility throughout the performance period, aligning executive compensation with shareholder interests.

Target shares may be adjusted during the performance period for significant changes in responsibility that occur during the performance period.

NEOs hired after the start of the performance period may receive prorated target shares in ongoing PSP cycles, at the discretion of the Compensation Committee, so that their interests are immediately aligned with the Company long-term goals and benchmarks when determining award payouts. Payoutsshareholder interests.
Performance Metrics.   The performance metrics used for all three current PSP programs are 50 percent ROCE, equally weighted between absolute and relative, and 50 percent relative TSR.
The Compensation Committee considers ROCE an important measure of Company growth and overall performance. The Compensation Committee evaluates our results relative to our Performance Peer Group as well as absolute targets based on our WACC.

The absolute ROCE threshold is a return percentage equivalent to the Adjusted EBITDA required to cover our sustaining capital and shareholder dividend commitments during the 3-year performance period.

The absolute ROCE target delivers 1.5 percent above our WACC over the performance period.

The absolute ROCE maximum delivers 3.0 percent above WACC over the performance period.
The Compensation Committee also recognizes that relative TSR is the most common standard for relative comparisons to peers. Our performance is evaluated as compared to our Performance Peer Group and the S&P 100 Index.
34   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS​
For our current PSP programs, this translates into the following goals:
MetricWeightPerformance Share Program 2015-2017
Threshold(1)
Target(2)
Maximum(3)
Absolute ROCE25%
3.8%
average of 2015 (4.3%),
2016 (4.4%), and 2017 (2.8%)
delivers sustaining capital and
shareholder dividend
commitments over 3-year period
10.4%
average of 2015 (10.4%),
2016 (10.8%), and 2017 (9.9%)
delivers WACC +1.5%
over 3-year period
11.9%
average of 2015 (11.9%),
2016 (12.3%), and 2017 (11.4%)
delivers WACC +3.0%
over 3-year period
Relative ROCE25%above 10th percentile
of Performance Peers
median of Performance Peersabove 90th percentile
of Performance Peers
Relative TSR50%above 10th percentile
of Performance Peers
median of Performance Peersabove 90th percentile
of Performance Peers
(1)
Threshold for PSP 2016-2018 will be an average of 2016 (4.4%), 2017 (2.8%), and the ROCE necessary to deliver sustaining capital and dividend commitments in 2018. This number will not be known until after 2018 year-end. Threshold for PSP 2017-2019 will be an average of 2017 (2.8%), and the ROCE necessary to deliver sustaining capital and dividend commitments in 2018 and 2019. The 2019 number will not be known until after 2019 year-end.
(2)
Target for PSP 2016-2018 will be an average of 2016 (10.8%), 2017 (9.9%), and the ROCE necessary to deliver WACC plus 1.5% in 2018. This number will not be known until after 2018 year-end. Target for PSP 2017-2019 will be an average of 2017 (9.9%), and the ROCE necessary to deliver WACC plus 1.5% in 2018 and 2019. The 2019 number will not be known until after 2019 year-end.
(3)
Maximum for PSP 2016-2018 will be an average of 2016 (12.3%), 2017 (11.4%), and the ROCE necessary to deliver WACC plus 3.0% in 2018. This number will not be known until after 2018 year-end. Maximum for PSP 2017-2019 will be an average of 2017 (11.4%), and the ROCE necessary to deliver WACC plus 3.0% in 2018 and 2019. The 2019 number will not be known until after 2019 year-end.
Settlement.   Awards under all of the current PSP programs are denominated in shares, but are intended to be paid in cash at the end of their respective performance periods. Performance can range from 0-200 percent of target opportunity. Generally, target or peer median performancetarget.
Active PSP Programs.   The programs in effect during 2017 were the PSP 2015-2017, PSP 2016-2018, and PSP 2017-2019.
After the close of the PSP 2015-2017, the Compensation Committee considered the following results in awhen approving the payout equal to 100 percent of target opportunity. Performance below target or peer median performance normally results in a payout between 0 and 99 percent of target opportunity. Performance greater than target or peer median performance generally results in a payout between 100 percent and the maximum 200 percent of target opportunity.

Individual performance adjustments of up to +/–50 percent of targets can be set at the beginning of120 percent.


Absolute ROCE:   Our PSP Absolute ROCE for the three-year performance period and no adjustments are made at payout.

For PSP 2015-2017, the PSP continued to be 50was 10.1 percent, or 0.3 percentage points below target, resulting in a payout of 97 percent of target for PSP Absolute ROCE, also weighted at 25 percent. Absolute ROCE, as used in our PSP program, is a non-GAAP financial measure. See Appendix A for additional information.

[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_bar5.jpg]

Relative ROCE:   Our relative performance for the LTI target.three-year performance period was 7th out of 16 peer companies, resulting in a payout of 117 percent for PSP Relative ROCE, which was weighted at 25 percent.
[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_bar6.jpg]
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   35​

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Relative TSR:   Our TSR for the three-year performance period was 55.1 percent, 7th out of 17 peers (including the S&P 100 Index) on a relative basis, resulting in a payout of 129 percent of target for Relative TSR, which was weighted at 50 percent.
[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_bar7.jpg]
Accordingly, the Compensation Committee approved payouts for all of our NEOs for PSP 2015-2017. The total target units were setpayment was made in February 20152018 and are based on each executive's base salary,is described further in the executive's target percentage, Phillips 66's stock price on December 31, 2014 (less anticipated ordinary cash dividends duringfootnotes of the performance period) and individual performance.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE.

Stock Option Program

In 2015,2017, 25 percent of the LTI target value was delivered to executives in the form of stock options. These awards are inherently performance-based, as the stock price must increase before the executive can realize any gain. We believe stock options drive behaviors and actions that enhance long-term shareholder value.

Generally, stock

Stock options are typically granted in February each year. The number of options awarded is calculated based on the Black-Scholes-Merton model. The exercise price of stock options is set at 100 percent of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. Stock options granted to our NEOs in February 20152017 vest ratably over a three-year period and have a ten-year term. These stockStock options do not have voting rights nor entitle the holderand are not entitled to receive dividends. Based on its assessment of the individual performance of each NEO, the Compensation Committee may adjust an award by up to +/–30 percent of the target amount at grant. The CEO provides input on the grant amounts and individual performance adjustments for all NEOs (other than himself). The Compensation Committee evaluates the individual performance of the CEO. The Compensation Committee did not make any individual performance adjustments to NEO stock option awards in 2015.

34    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Restricted Stock Units

In 2015,2017, 25 percent of the LTI target value was delivered to executives in the form of RSUs. The Compensation Committee believes maintaining RSUs in our LTI program complements the overall compensation mix for our executives by:

Driving
driving the right behaviors and actions consistent with creating shareholder valuevalue;


Providing
providing diversification of compensation in recognition of the cyclical nature of our industryindustry;


Resulting
resulting in actual share ownership aligned with our stock ownership guidelinesguidelines; and


Supporting
supporting executive retention

retention.

RSUs are typically granted in February each year. The number of units is determined based on the fair market value of Companythe Company’s stock on the date of grant. RSUs awarded to our NEOs in February 20152017 cliff vest at the end of the three-year holding period and arewill be delivered to the NEOs in the form of unrestricted Company stock. These RSUs do not carry voting rights but do generateearn dividend equivalents during the holdingvesting period. The Compensation Committee assesses the individual performance of each NEO, and based on that assessment may adjust an award by up to +/–30 percent of the target amount at grant. The CEO provides input regarding awards made to all NEOs (other than himself). The Compensation Committee evaluates the individual performance of the CEO.

Driving Future Shareholder Value

Our strong 2015 results and the success of our strategic initiatives outlined previously were due in large part to the strong management and oversight of our key senior executives. When determining individual adjustments for the performance-based programs, the

36   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS​
2017 LTI Compensation Committee reviewed the contributions of each of our executives to Company results and successful project outcomes.

2015 LTI Target Compensation

The Compensation Committee approved the following targetsLTI for the NEOs for 2015.2017. The Compensation Committee considered the individual performance of each NEO as outlined above when determining these targets.the target values. These values do not reflect prospective promotional adjustments to PSP targets and may not match the accounting values presented in the "GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDSGrants of Plan-Based Awards" table on page 42.

table.
NAME
PSP 2017-2019(1)
($)
STOCK OPTIONS(2)
($)
RSUs(3)
($)
TOTAL TARGET
($)
Greg Garland5,898,808​2,949,404​2,949,404​11,797,616​
Robert Herman1,142,364​519,256​571,182​2,232,802​
Paula Johnson1,278,791​581,269​639,395​2,499,455​
Kevin Mitchell1,072,811​536,405​536,405​2,145,621​
Tim Taylor2,593,843​1,080,768​1,296,922​4,971,533​

(1)
NAME
 PSP 2015-2017(1)
($)

 STOCK OPTIONS(2)
($)

 RSUs(3)
($)

 TOTAL TARGET
($)

 

Mr. Garland

 5,526,719 2,763,359 2,763,359 11,053,437 

Ms. Johnson

  1,040,064  472,756  520,032  2,032,852 

Mr. Maxwell

 1,491,890 678,132 745,945 2,915,967 

Mr. Taylor

  2,265,518  985,008  1,182,010  4,432,536 

Mr. Ziemba

 1,158,159 526,436 579,079 2,263,674 
(1)
PSP 2015-20172017-2019 targets include individual adjustments for Mr. Herman (+10 percent), Ms. Johnson (+10 percent), and Messrs. Maxwell,Mr. Taylor and Ziemba of 10, 10, 15 and 10 percent, respectively.(+20 percent).
(2)

(2)
The Compensation Committee did not approve any individual adjustments to stock option targets.
(3)

(3)
RSU targets include individual adjustments for Mr. Herman (+10 percent), Ms. Johnson (+10 percent), and Messrs. Maxwell,Mr. Taylor (+20 percent).
Peer Group Comparisons
We utilize a compensation peer group and Ziembaa performance peer group. The Compensation Committee reviews these peer groups annually and adjusts as necessary. We find it necessary to have two differentiated peer groups because we are unique in our size and diversification of 10, 10, 20assets. Therefore, at the beginning of the year, we benchmark against large companies, as measured by asset value and 10 percent, respectively.market capitalization, to set target compensation using the compensation peer group. At the end of the year, in our closing Performance Share Program we assess our relative performance against peers in the industries in which we operate using the performance peer group. While our unique portfolio of assets provides an advantage to investors, it does necessitate using two peer groups to appropriately align compensation and assess performance.

Compensation Peer Group
Relative analysis.   We use the compensation peer group to evaluate and determine compensation levels for our NEOs, including base salary adjustments and targets for our annual bonus and LTI programs.
Criteria for selection.   Our compensation peer group is comprised of companies that have similar jobs and job scope as our NEOs. The compensation peer group primarily consists of large companies with significant capital investments and complex international operations.
Our compensation peer group includes companies that are comparable to Phillips 66 based on three primary criteria—assets, market capitalization, and business operations. Revenue is a secondary criteria due to the nature of our operations. The Compensation Committee believes utilizing each of these criteria is necessary in order to fully reflect the complex nature of our business and determine the optimal group of companies with which to compare Phillips 66.
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   37​

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Companies included.   The table below shows the companies in our 2017 compensation peer group. At the time the compensation peer group was determined, we were, in comparison to this group, in the 59th percentile in assets, 47th percentile in market value, and 91st percentile in revenue.
2017 Compensation Peer Group
3M Company (MMM)E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DD)Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT)
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM)Ford Motor Company (F)LyondellBasell Industries N.V. (LYB)
The Boeing Company (BA)General Dynamics Corporation (GD)Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC)
Caterpillar Inc. (CAT)General Motors Company (GM)Tesoro Corporation (TSO)
Chevron Corporation (CVX)Halliburton Company (HAL)United Technologies Corporation (UTX)
Deere and Company (DE)Honeywell International Inc. (HON)Valero Energy Corporation (VLO)
The Dow Chemical Company (DOW)Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI)
Changes for 2018.   As part of its annual review of peer group composition, the Compensation Committee determined to make the following changes, beginning in 2018:

including Andeavor (ANDV), the successor to the combination of Tesoro Corporation and Western Refining Inc., and DowDuPont Inc. (DWDP), reflecting the merger of The Dow Chemical Company and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company;

adding Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC), ConocoPhillips (COP), Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPD), ExxonMobil Corporation (XOM), and Schlumberger Limited (SLB); and

removing 3M Company, The Boeing Company, Caterpillar Inc., Deere and Company, General Dynamics Corporation, Johnson Controls Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, and United Technologies Corporation.
The table below shows the compensation peer group that will be used beginning in 2018. At the time of the review and approval of the changes to the compensation peer group, we were, in comparison to the new group, in the 46th percentile in assets, 39th percentile in market value, and 75th percentile in revenue.
2018 Compensation Peer Group
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC)Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPD)Honeywell International Inc. (HON)
Andeavor (ANDV)Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM)LyondellBasell Industries N.V. (LYB)
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM)Ford Motor Company (F)Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC)
Chevron Corporation (CVX)General Motors Company (GM)Schlumberger Limited (SLB)
ConocoPhillips (COP)Halliburton Company (HAL)Valero Energy Corporation (VLO)
DowDuPont Inc. (DWDP)
Performance Peer Group
Relative analysis.   The performance peer group is used to evaluate relative business results in our Performance Share Program. This includes both relative TSR and relative ROCE. We also evaluate our relative TSR performance against the S&P 100 Index, which the Compensation Committee believes is an appropriate comparison for performance purposes because the index reflects the companies with which we compete for capital in the broader market.
Criteria for selection.   Phillips 66 is uniquely positioned in the energy industry, with a large refining and marketing base, a growing midstream NGL business and significant petrochemical exposure. To reflect our unique portfolio of assets, we include companies operating in each of our three major businesses. We believe that our performance peer group is representative of the companies that investors use for relative performance comparisons.
38   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS​
Companies included.   The table below shows the performance peer group that was established for evaluating both relative TSR and relative ROCE for the three year performance period ending December 31, 2017.
Refining and MarketingMidstreamChemicals
Delek US Holdings, Inc. (DK)Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (ETE)Celanese Corporation (CE)
HollyFrontier Corporation (HFC)Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPD)The Dow Chemical Company (DOW)
Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC)ONEOK, Inc. (OKE)Eastman Chemical Company (EMN)
PBF Energy Inc. (PBF)Targa Resources Corp. (TRGP)Huntsman Corporation (HUN)
Tesoro Corporation (TSO)Westlake Chemical Corporation (WLK)
Valero Energy Corporation (VLO)
Western Refining Inc. (WNR)
Following the conclusion of the performance period, the following mergers and acquisitions were reflected when evaluating relative performance:

In June 2017, Tesoro Corporation acquired Western Refining Inc. and the combined company changed its name to Andeavor (ANDV). Each Tesoro and Western Refining were in our performance peer group; after the acquisition we included the combined company.

In September 2017, The Dow Chemical Company and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company completed their merger, forming DowDuPont (DWDP). The Dow Chemical Company was previously in our performance peer group; following the merger we continued to include the combined company.
Changes for 2018.   The Compensation Committee approved the following changes to the performance peer group for performance periods beginning in 2018. These changes reflect the Committee’s desire to have the peers reflect the weighting of our different business segments to our consolidated results and include companies of similar size and scale. They also reflect the impact of merger and acquisition activity. Changes to the performance peer group for performance periods beginning in 2018 include:

recognizing Andeavor (ANDV) as the successor to Tesoro Corporation and Western Refining Inc.;

replacing DowDuPont (DWDP) with LyondellBasell Industries N.V. (LYB); and

removing Energy Transfer Equity L.P.
OTHER BENEFITS AND PERQUISITES

Below is a summary of other compensation elements available to our NEOs in addition to the five main programsbase salary, VCIP, and LTI described above:

previously:

Broad-Based Employee Benefit Programs

NEOs participate in the same basic benefits package available to our other U.S. salaried employees. This package includes qualified pension; 401(k) plan; medical, dental, vision, life, and accident insurance plans, as well as flexible spending arrangements for health care and dependent care expenses; and our matching gift program.

Additional Executive Perquisites

In line with our compensation philosophy to provide compensation and benefits aligned with market practice, in 2015 we providedprovide our NEOs financial planning and executive health benefits. These benefits were imputed to the executives and included in All Other Compensation in the "Summary Compensation Table" on page 40.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT35

Table of Contents

SUMMARY COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISTABLE

. We did not provide a gross-up for these benefits.

Comprehensive Security Program

The Board has adopted a comprehensive security program to address the increased security risks for certain senior executives. Mr. Garland wasand Mr. Taylor were the only NEONEOs in 20152017 designated by the Board as requiring increased security under this program. ThisThe program allows for certain additional security measures in specific situations when the senior executive is traveling
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   39​

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
by car or airplane on Company business.airplane. An additional security review of histhe NEOs’ personal residenceresidences is also included. Any additional costs to the Company for these activities are reported as All Other Compensation and included in the "SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLESummary Compensation Table" on page 40.

.

Executive Retirement Plans

We maintain the following supplemental retirement plans for our NEOs.


Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan—This plan (the Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan, which we refer to as the KEDCP) provides tax-efficient retirement savings by allowing executives to voluntarily defer both the receipt and taxation of a portion of their base salary and annual bonus until a specified date or when they leave the Company. Further information on the KEDCP is provided in the "NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATIONNonqualified Deferred Compensation" table beginning on page 46. table.


Defined Contribution Restoration Plan—This plan (the Phillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan, which we refer to as the DCMP) restores benefits capped under our qualified defined contribution plan due to Internal Revenue CodeIRC limits. Further information on the DCMP is provided in the "NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATIONNonqualified Deferred Compensation" table beginning on page 46. table.


Defined Benefit Restoration Plan—This plan (the Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan, which we refer to as the KESRP) restores Company-sponsored benefits capped under the qualified defined benefit pension plan due to Internal Revenue CodeIRC limits. Further information on the KESRP is provided in the "Pension Benefits as of DecemberPENSION BENEFITS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 20152017" table beginning on page 45.

table.

Executive Life Insurance

We provide life insurance policies to all U.S.-based employees with a face value approximately equal to their annual base salary. For our NEOs, the face value of this coverage is approximately two times their annual base salary.

Executive Severance and Change in Control Plans

We do not maintain individual severance or change in control (CIC) agreements with our executives. However, we maintain the Phillips 66 Executive Severance Plan (which we refer to as the ESP)(ESP) and the Phillips 66 Change in Control Severance Plan (which we refer to as the CICSP)CICSP to accomplish several specific objectives, including:

Ensuring
ensuring shareholder interests are protected during business transactions by providing benefits that promote senior management stabilitystability;


Providing
providing and preserving an economic motivation for participating executives to consider a business combination that might result in an executive'sexecutive’s job lossloss; and


Competing
competing effectively in attracting and retaining executives in an industry that features frequent acquisitions and divestitures

divestitures.

Executives may not participate in both plans as a result of the same severance event. Among other benefits, the ESP provides a payment equal to one and one-half or two times the executive'sexecutive’s base salary, depending on salary grade level, and the executive’s current target annual bonus if he or she is involuntarily terminated without cause. The CICSP provides a payment equal to two or three times the executive'ssum of the executive’s base salary and the greater of his or her target bonus or average of the last two bonus payments, depending on salary grade level, if thelevel. The executive ismust be involuntarily terminated without cause in connection with a change in control or the executive terminatesterminate employment for good reason within two years after athe change in control. This "double trigger"control to be eligible for CICSP payment. We believe this “double trigger” requirement is in the best interest of shareholders and is considered a best practice.

Details of potential payments under these plans are outlined in the "POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROLPotential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control" section beginning on page 47. section. These plans do not provide any excise tax gross-up protections.

36    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Personal Use of Company Aircraft

The primary purpose of our corporate aircraft is to facilitate Company business. In the course of conducting Company business, executives may occasionally invite a family member or other personal guest to travel with them to attend a meeting or function. When such travel is deemed taxable to the executive, we provide further payments to reimburse the costs of the inclusion of this item in his or her taxable income.

40   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS​
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION GOVERNANCE

Clawback Provisions

Short- and long-term compensation, deferred compensation and nonqualified retirement benefits received by any executive are subject to clawback provisions if financial or other data is materially misstated due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the executive, as determined by the Compensation and Audit Committees.

Stock Ownership

The Compensation Committee believes requiring executives to retain shares of Phillips 66 common stock ownership guidelineshelps align executive performance with shareholder value creation and mitigatemitigates compensation risk. Each executive mustOur stock ownership guidelines require executives to own at least the following amounts of Phillips 66 common stock, valued as a multiple of the executive’s base salary, within five years from the date of program eligibility:

the executive becomes subject to the guidelines, as shown below:
EXECUTIVE LEVEL
SALARY MULTIPLE
SALARY MULTIPLE

Chairman and CEO

66​

President

President55​

Executive Vice President

4 / 53-5​

RSUs, but not

Shares of Phillips 66 common stock options or PSP targets,owned and RSUs are included when determining whether an executive has met the amount of stock owned by an executive.required ownership levels. Compliance with the stock ownership guidelines is reviewed annually. All NEOs currently comply with these stock ownership guidelines or are on track to comply within the applicable five-year period.

Tax Considerations—Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 162(m)

The Compensation Committee considers the deductibility of compensation under IRC Section 162(m) is one of the factors the Compensation Committee considers when making decisions andexecutive compensation decisions. Although the Compensation Committee generally attemptshas attempted to structure elements of executive compensation to meet the requirements for deductibility. However, the Compensation Committeedeductibility, it has retained the flexibility to designaward compensation that it determines to be consistent with the goals of our executive compensation program even if the awards are not deductible by the Company for tax purposes.
In December 2017, the exemption from IRC Section 162(m)’s deduction limitation for performance-based compensation was repealed, effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. Under the legislation repealing Section 162(m), compensation paid to certain executive officers, including the NEOs, in excess of  $1 million will no longer be deductible unless it qualifies for certain transition relief applicable to certain arrangements in place as of November 2, 2017. Because of ambiguities and maintain the programs in the most beneficial manner to shareholders, including payments that may be subjectuncertainties as to the deductibility limits under IRCapplication and interpretation of Section 162(m).

For 2015 after the Compensation Committee believes it has taken the necessary stepslegislative change, no assurance can be given that any compensation originally intended to qualify payments made undersatisfy the VCIP and awards made under the LTI programs (PSP and RSUs) as performance-based under IRCrequirements for exemption from Section 162(m).

will, in fact, be fully deductible.

Trading Policies

Our insider trading policy prohibits all employees and directors from trading Company stock while in possession of material, non-publicly disclosed information. This policy requires executives and directors, as well as employees with regular access to insider information, to follow specific pre-clearance procedures before entering into transactions in our stock. Our policy prohibits hedging transactions related to our stock or pledging our stock, including any stock the executive or director may hold in excess of his or her stock ownership guideline requirements.

Independent Compensation Consultant

The Compensation Committee retains Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC as its independent executive compensation consultant. The Compensation Committee has evaluated whether Meridian's work raised any conflict of interest and determined that no such conflict exists.

The primary role of thisthe independent executive compensation consultant retained by the Compensation Committee is to advise the Compensation Committee on:

Our
our compensation programs and processes relative to external corporate governance standardsstandards;
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   41​

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS


The
the appropriateness of our executive compensation programs in comparison to those of our peerspeers; and,


The
the effectiveness of the compensation programs in accomplishing the objectives set by the Compensation Committee with respect to executives
2016 PROXY STATEMENT37

Tableexecutives.

In 2017, the Compensation Committee retained Mercer as its independent executive compensation consultant. The Compensation Committee evaluated whether Mercer’s work raised any conflict of Contents

interest and determined that no such conflict existed. During 2017, fees paid to Mercer in its role as the independent compensation consultant for the Compensation Committee totaled $172,955. In addition, the Company paid fees to Mercer totaling $1,034,452 during 2017 for all other services performed for the Company. These services can be broken down as 13 percent related to administration of pension liabilities in international locations that have been sold, 29 percent related to administration of ongoing international benefit plans, 14 percent related to Human Resources consulting engagements, and 44 percent related to surety bonds.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Compensation Risk Assessment

The Compensation Committee oversees management'smanagement’s risk assessment of all elements of our compensation programs, policies and practices for all employees. Management has concluded that our compensation programs, policies and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. Relevant provisions of our programs include, but are not limited to:


VCIP and LTI metrics are aligned with our corporate strategy to ensure continued focus on actions that drive shareholder valuevalue.


VCIP and PSPLTI compensation targets increase with each pay grade, emphasizing shareholder value creation over timetime.


Maximum payouts under VCIP and PSP programs are appropriately limited to balance risk-taking with long-term strategic goalsgoals.


Maintaining a level of discretion in the performance-based programs, which enables the Compensation Committee to award zero payouts to executives who perform poorly or when warranted by company performance.


Clawback provisions that allow for reduction in awards for executives who expose the Company to undue riskrisk.


LTI design that provides incentives for executive retention and Company and individual performanceperformance.


Stock ownership guidelines that align executive interests with those of shareholders

shareholders.

The Compensation Committee considers senior management succession planning a core part of the Company’s risk management program. At least annually, the Compensation Committee reviews with the CEO succession planning for senior leadership positions (other than the CEO position itself, for which succession planning is reviewed by the Nominating Committee), and the timing and development required to ensure continuity of leadership over the short- and long-terms, to manage risk in this area.
ROLE OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

Authority and Responsibilities

The Compensation Committee is responsible for providing independent, objective oversight of our executive compensation programs and determining the compensation for our CEO and anyone who meets our definition of a Senior Officer. Currently, our internal guidelines define a Senior Officer as an officer of the Company who reports directly to the CEO or any other officer of the Company who is either a Senior Vice President or above or a reporting officer under Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act. As of December 31, 2015,2017, we had 1011 Senior Officers. The compensation tables that follow provide information about our CEO and certain of our Senior Officers. In addition, the Compensation Committee acts as plan administrator of the compensation programs and benefit plans for our CEO and Senior Officers and as an avenue of appeal for current and former Senior Officers regarding disputes over compensation and benefits.

42   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS​
The Compensation Committee oversees the Company'sCompany’s executive compensation philosophy, policies, plans and programs for our CEO and Senior Officers to ensure:

Alignment
alignment of our executive compensation programs with the long-term economic interests of shareholdersshareholders;


Competitiveness
competitiveness of compensation within the markets in which Phillips 66 competes for talenttalent;


Retention
retention of top talent; and,

development of a diverse talent andpool with respect to CEO and Senior Officer succession planning

planning.

One of the Compensation Committee'sCommittee’s responsibilities is to assist the Board in its oversight of the integrity of the Company's "Company’s COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISCompensation Discussion and Analysis" beginning on page 24.. The report on page 39HUMAN RESOURCES AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT summarizes certain of the Compensation Committee'sCommittee activities concerning compensation earned during 20152017 by our NEOs who are identified on page 24.

NEOs.

A complete listing of the authority and responsibilities of the Compensation Committee is set forth in its written charter adopted by the Board of Directors, which is available in the "InvestorsInvestors" section of our website under the caption "Corporate GovernanceGovernance."

Members

The Compensation Committee consists of threefour members who meet all requirements for "non-employee," "independent"“non-employee,” “independent” and "outside"“outside” director status under the Exchange Act, NYSE listing standards, and the IRC, respectively. The members of the Compensation Committee and the member to be designated as Chair, like the members and Chairs of all the Board committees, are reviewed annually by the Nominating Committee, which recommends committee appointments to the full Board. The Board of Directors has final approval of the committee structure of the Board.

38    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Meetings

Meetings

The Compensation Committee holds regularly scheduled meetings in association with regular Board meetings and meets by teleconference between such meetings as necessary to discharge its duties. The Compensation Committee reserves time at each regularly scheduled meeting to review matters in executive session without management present except as specifically requested by the Compensation Committee. Additionally, the Compensation Committee meets jointly with the Lead Director, who is also a member of the Compensation Committee, at least annually to evaluate the performance of the CEO. In 2015,2017, the Compensation Committee had five regularly scheduled meetings and one additional telephonic meeting. More information regarding the Compensation Committee'sCommittee’s activities at such meetings can be found in the "COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISCompensation Discussion and Analysis" beginning on page 24.

.

Continuous Improvement

The Compensation Committee is committed to a process of continuous improvement in exercising its responsibilities. To that end, the Compensation Committee:

Receives
receives ongoing training regarding best practices for executive compensation;

aided by the Company’s management, the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation

Regularly consultant, and, when deemed appropriate, independent legal counsel, regularly reviews its responsibilities and governance practices in light of ongoing changes in the legal and regulatory arena and trends in corporate governance. This review is aided by the Company's management and consultants, the Compensation Committee's independent compensation consultant, and, when deemed appropriate, independent legal counselgovernance;


Annually
annually reviews its charter and proposes any desired changes to the Board of DirectorsDirectors;


Annually
annually conducts a self-assessment of its performance that evaluates the effectiveness of the Compensation Committee'sCommittee’s actions and seeks ideas to improve its processes and oversightoversight;


Regularly
regularly reviews and assesses whether the Company'sCompany’s executive compensation programs are having the desired effects without encouraging an inappropriate level of riskrisk; and


Regularly
regularly reviews all its activities, including its self-assessment and a compensation risk assessment, with the full Board of Directors

Directors.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   43​

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
HUMAN RESOURCES AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

Review with Management.   The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the "COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISCompensation Discussion and Analysis" presented in this proxy statement beginning on page 24.

statement.

Discussions with Independent Executive Compensation Consultant.   The Compensation Committee has discussed with Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (Meridian),Mercer, an independent executive compensation consulting firm, the executive compensation programs of the Company, as well as specific compensation decisions made by the Compensation Committee. MeridianCommittee for 2017. Mercer was retained directly by the Compensation Committee, independent of the management of the Company. The Compensation Committee has received written disclosuresdisclosure from MeridianMercer confirming no other work has been performed for the Company by Meridian,consultant’s independence, has discussed with MeridianMercer its independence from Phillips 66, and believes MeridianMercer to be independent of management.

Recommendation to the Phillips 66 Board of Directors.   Based on its review and discussions noted above, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the "COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISCompensation Discussion and Analysis" be included in the Phillips 66 proxy statement on Schedule 14A and the Phillips 66 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

2017.

HUMAN RESOURCES AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

J. Brian Ferguson, Chairman

Dr. Marna C. Whittington, Chairperson
Gary K. Adams
Harold W. McGraw III
Glenn F. Tilton

2016 PROXY STATEMENT39
44   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

The following tables and accompanying narrative disclosures provide information concerning total compensation earned by our CEO and other NEOs as of December 31, 20152017 for services to Phillips 66 or any of our subsidiaries during 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 2013.

2015.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The following table summarizes the compensation for our NEOs for fiscal years 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 2013.

2015.
NAME AND POSITION
YEAR
SALARY(1)
($)
BONUS(2)
($)
STOCK
AWARDS(3)
($)
OPTION
AWARDS(4)
($)
NON-EQUITY
INCENTIVE
PLAN
COMPENSATION(5)
($)
CHANGE IN
PENSION
VALUE AND
NONQUALIFIED
DEFERRED
COMPENSATION
EARNINGS(6)
($)
ALL OTHER
COMPENSATION(7)
($)
TOTAL
($)
Greg Garland
Chairman and CEO
20171,666,6768,785,6682,951,0403,733,3546,270,030244,12823,650,896
20161,616,8168,677,8402,861,1663,751,0137,897,187251,27225,055,294
20151,549,1648,290,1202,763,8284,585,5255,531,249211,25322,931,139
Robert Herman
Executive Vice President, Refining
2017689,5681,701,495520,672820,586208,3401,572,7305,513,391
2016661,6081,621,773486,432815,432223,973646,4504,455,668
2015
Paula Johnson
Executive Vice President, Legal
and Government Affairs,
General Counsel and Corporate
Secretary
2017742,1481,904,666581,7281,035,2961,125,88482,7145,472,436
2016698,9761,847,570553,992912,164939,43290,1685,042,302
2015640,5121,802,647472,8841,019,055592,64671,2334,598,977
Kevin Mitchell
Executive Vice President, Finance and CFO
2017709,4561,597,830537,632934,708124,15693,5403,997,322
2016688,4481,732,942520,212760,735100,91867,8573,871,112
2015
Tim Taylor
President
20171,116,8083,863,3241,082,0481,904,158298,946197,0648,462,348
20161,071,3763,729,8111,025,2231,826,696325,493169,5708,148,169
20151,004,7123,447,557985,3322,210,366183,866133,3387,965,171

(1)
NAME AND POSITION
 YEAR
 SALARY
($)(1)

 BONUS
($)(2)

 STOCK
AWARDS
($)(3)

 OPTION
AWARDS
($)(4)

 NON-EQUITY
INCENTIVE
PLAN
COMPENSATION
($)(5)

 CHANGE IN
PENSION
VALUE AND
NONQUALIFIED
DEFERRED
COMPENSATION
EARNINGS
($)(6)

 ALL OTHER
COMPENSATION
($)(7)

 TOTAL
($)

 
Greg C. Garland, Chairman 2015 1,549,164  8,290,120 2,763,828 4,585,525 5,531,249 211,253 22,931,139 
and CEO 2014 1,510,427  8,732,652 2,393,385 2,658,351 8,984,486 229,132 24,508,433 
 2013 1,441,667  7,276,484 2,658,045 4,108,750 4,045,846 311,413 19,842,205 
Paula A. Johnson, Executive  2015  640,512    1,802,647  472,884  1,019,055  592,646  71,233  4,598,977 
Vice President and General  2014  596,676    1,634,565  371,420  590,709  879,304  76,683  4,149,357 
Counsel  2013  501,105    1,671,395  201,240  732,865  280,204  75,173  3,461,982 
Greg G. Maxwell, Executive 2015 790,512  2,237,846 678,240 1,462,447 112,616 95,704 5,377,365 
Vice President and CFO 2014 714,286  2,206,861 504,070 772,143 308,349 83,743 4,589,452 
 2013 633,546  1,899,948 412,542 1,013,039 74,263 130,368 4,163,706 
Tim G. Taylor, President  2015  1,004,712    3,447,557  985,332  2,210,366  183,866  133,338  7,965,171 
   2014  888,188    3,451,492  570,395  1,052,503  199,465  107,152  6,269,195 
   2013  717,285    2,130,711  538,317  1,264,574  169,823  169,629  4,990,339 
Larry M. Ziemba, 2015 690,312  1,737,253 527,520 1,031,326 594,011 92,695 4,673,117 
Executive Vice President, 2014 674,396  1,712,742 504,070 671,698 1,110,517 110,040 4,783,463 
Refining 2013 626,768  1,829,619 400,803 1,002,202 246,458 122,450 4,228,300 
(1)
Includes any amounts that were voluntarily deferred under our KEDCP.
(2)

(2)
Because our annual bonus program (VCIP) has mandatory performance measures that must be achieved before any payout can be made to our NEOs, VCIP payments are shown in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column of the table rather than the Bonus column.
(3)

(3)
Amounts shown represent the aggregate grant date fair value of RSU and PSP awards determined in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).GAAP. Assumptions used in calculating these amounts are included in Note 20—Employee Benefit Plans in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 (our “2017 Form 10-K”).
The PSP target award included in 2015 (our "2015 Form 10-K").

    The amounts shown for stock awards reflect awards under our PSP and RSU programs, and any off-cycle awards. No off-cycle awards were granted to our NEOs during 2015. These include awardshas a performance period that are expected to be finalized as late asended in 2017. The amounts shown for awards from the PSP relate totarget award included in 2016 has a performance periodsperiod that beganends in 2013, 2014 and 2015 and2018. The PSP target award included in 2017 has a performance period that endends in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively.

    2019.

Amounts shown relating to PSP are targets set for the PSP awards, because ittarget is the probable outcome at the setting of the target for the applicable performance period, that the target will be achieved consistent with the accounting treatment under GAAP. If the maximum payout were used for the PSP awards the amounts shown relating to PSP would double, although the value of the actual payout would depend on the stock price at the time of the payout. If the minimum payout were used, the amounts for PSP awards would be reduced to zero. Actual payouts with regard to the targets set for the performance period that ended in 20152017 were approved by the Compensation Committee at its February 20162018 meeting. Those payouts were as follows (with values shown at fair market value on the date of payout): Mr. Garland, $12,848,002;$9,970,589; Mr. Herman, $1,753,361; Ms. Johnson, $2,378,884;$2,119,314; Mr. Maxwell, $3,203,293;Mitchell, $1,472,189; and Mr. Taylor, $4,324,808; and Mr. Ziemba, $2,737,234.

$4,087,219.

Earned payouts under the PSP 2013-20152015-2017 have been, and under the PSP 2014-20162016-2018 and PSP 2015-20172017-2019 are expected to be, made in cash at the end of the applicable performance period and will be forfeited if the NEO is terminated prior to the end of the performance period (other than for death or following disability or after a change in control). If the NEO retires after age 55 and with five years of service, the NEO is entitled to a prorated award for any ongoing program in which he or she participated for at least 12 months.

(4)

Amounts shown represent the aggregate grant date fair value of awards determined in accordance with GAAP. Assumptions used in calculating these amounts are included in Note 20—Employee Benefit Plans in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our 20152017 Form 10-K.
(5)

(5)
These are amounts paid under our annual bonus program (VCIP), including bonus amounts that were voluntarily deferred under our KEDCP. See note (2) above. These amounts were paid in February 2018, following the year of service.performance year.
(6)

(6)
Reflects the actuarial increase in the present value of the benefits under our pension plans determined using interest rate and mortality rate assumptions consistent with those used in our financial statements. There are no deferred compensation earnings reported in this column, as our nonqualified deferred compensation plans do not provide above-market or preferential earnings.
40    2016 PROXY STATEMENT
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   45​

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

(7)

We offer limited perquisites to our NEOs, which, together with Company contributions to our qualified savings and nonqualified defined contribution plans, are reflected in the All Other Compensation column as summarized below:

NAME
COMPANY
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
NONQUALIFIED
DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION
PLANS(a)
($)
EXECUTIVE
GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE
PREMIUMS(b)
($)
EXECUTIVE
HEALTH
SERVICES(c)
($)
FINANCIAL
COUNSELING(d)
($)
MATCHING
CONTRIBUTIONS
UNDER THE
TAX-QUALIFIED
SAVINGS PLAN(e)
($)
MATCHING
GIFT
PROGRAM(f)
($)
MISCELLANEOUS
PERQUISITES
AND TAX
PROTECTION(g)
($)
PERSONAL USE
OF COMPANY
AIRCRAFT(h)
($)
Greg Garland97,767​13,200​962​16,810​18,900​15,000​22,333​59,156​
Robert Herman29,370​3,558​747​16,796​18,900​1,000​1,502,359​—​
Paula Johnson33,050​2,048​—​—​18,900​20,000​8,716​—​
Kevin Mitchell30,762​1,958​847​16,687​18,900​12,000​12,386​—​
Tim Taylor59,277​8,845​1,008​16,614​18,900​—​35,762​56,658​
(a)
NAME
 YEAR
 PERSONAL
USE OF
COMPANY
AIRCRAFT
($)(a)

 AUTOMOBILE
PROVIDED
BY
COMPANY
($)(b)

 HOME
SECURITY
($)(c)

 EXECUTIVE
GROUP
LIFE
INSURANCE
PREMIUMS
($)(d)

 MISCELLANEOUS
PERQUISITES
AND TAX
REIMBURSEMENTS
($)(e)

 MATCHING
GIFT
PROGRAM
($)(f)

 MATCHING
CONTRIBUTIONS
UNDER THE
TAX-QUALIFIED
SAVINGS
PLAN
($)(g)

 COMPANY
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
NONQUALIFIED
DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION
PLANS
($)(h)

 

Mr. Garland

 2015 23,712 8,279 6,688 7,994 9,664  26,500 128,416 

Ms. Johnson

  2015        1,768  331  5,083  26,500  37,551 

Mr. Maxwell

 2015  249  4,079 4,825 7,500 26,500 52,551 

Mr. Taylor

  2015  5,435      7,958  5,474  14,000  26,500  73,971 

Mr. Ziemba

 2015    5,468 3,196 15,000 26,500 42,531 
Under the terms of our nonqualified defined contribution plans, we make contributions to the accounts of all eligible employees, including the NEOs. See the NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION table and accompanying narrative and notes for more information.
    (a)
(b)
We maintain life insurance policies and/or death benefits for all our U.S.-based salaried employees (at no cost to the employee) with a face value approximately equal to the employee’s annual salary. We maintain group life insurance policies on each of our NEOs equal to approximately two times his or her annual salary. The amounts shown are for premiums paid by us to provide the additional group life insurance above what is provided to the broad-based employees.
(c)
Costs associated with executive physicals.
(d)
Costs associated with financial counseling and estate planning services with approved provider.
(e)
Under the terms of our tax-qualified defined contribution plans, we make contributions to the accounts of all eligible employees, including the NEOs.
(f)
We maintain a Matching Gift Program under which certain gifts by employees to qualified educational or charitable institutions are matched by the Company. The program matches up to $15,000 annually. The amounts shown reflect the actual payments made by us in 2017, which due to processing delays can include contributions in 2016 that were matched by the Company in 2017 and are therefore reported in this proxy statement.
(g)
The amounts shown primarily reflect payments by us relating to certain taxes incurred by the NEOs. Mr. Herman received tax assistance after he exercised stock options that he had been granted while an expatriate employee prior to becoming an NEO ($1,493,411). All expatriate employees receive this tax assistance. We also provide tax assistance when we request family members or other guests to accompany an NEO to a Company function and, as a result, the NEO is deemed to make personal use of Company assets such as Company aircraft and thereby incurs imputed income. We believe this type of expense is appropriately characterized as a business expense and, if the NEO incurs imputed income in accordance with applicable tax laws, we will generally reimburse the NEO for any increased tax costs (Mr. Garland $20,714; Mr. Herman $8,491; Ms. Johnson $8,274; Mr. Mitchell $11,914; and Mr. Taylor $9,075). We also provide tax assistance on miscellaneous gifts (such as duffel bags, jackets, and ornaments received as a member of the Board or the Executive Leadership Team), occasional car and driver for personal use, and companion travel expenses. The total cost of these benefits and their tax assistance are as follows: Mr. Garland $1,188; Mr. Herman $457; Ms. Johnson $442; Mr. Mitchell $472; and Mr. Taylor $546.
Also included are miscellaneous benefits. This includes benefits required for employees covered under our Comprehensive Security Program, which includes Mr. Garland and Mr. Taylor. These benefits include the use of a car and driver when security deems it required and home security fees that are in excess of the cost of a system typical for homes in their neighborhood (Mr. Garland $431; Mr. Taylor $26,141).
(h)
The Phillips 66 Comprehensive Security Program requires in certain circumstances that Mr. Garland and Mr. Taylor fly on Company aircraft. The amount presented above represents the approximate incremental cost to Phillips 66 for personal use of the aircraft. Approximate incremental cost has been determined by calculating the variable costs for each aircraft during the year, dividing that amount by the total number of miles flown by that aircraft, and multiplying the result by the miles flown for personal use during the year. Incremental costs for flights to the hangar or other locations without passengers, commonly referred to as "deadhead"“deadhead” flights, are included in the calculation.

(b)
The use of a car and driver is sometimes required by our Comprehensive Security Program for certain executives, including Mr. Garland. The values shown for Messrs. Garland and Maxwell represent the actual cost of car rental with driver service.

(c)
The use of a home security system is required as part of our Comprehensive Security Program for certain executives and employees, including Mr. Garland, based on risk assessments made by our Crisis Management and Security Manager. The amount shown represents upgrade costs to Mr. Garland's home security system with features required by us that are in excess of the cost of a "standard" system typical for homes in his neighborhood. Mr. Garland pays for the cost of the "standard" system.

(d)
We maintain life insurance policies and/or death benefits for all our U.S.-based salaried employees (at no cost to the employee) with a face value approximately equal to the employee's annual salary. We maintain group life insurance policies on each of our NEOs equal to approximately two times his or her annual salary. The amounts shown are for premiums paid by us to provide the additional group life insurance above what is provided to the broad-based employees.

(e)
The amounts shown primarily reflect payments by us relating to certain taxes incurred by the NEOs. These payments primarily occur when we request family members or other guests to accompany an NEO to a Company function and, as a result, the NEO is deemed to make personal use of Company assets such as Company aircraft and thereby incurs imputed income. We believe this type of expense is appropriately characterized as a business expense and, if the NEO incurs imputed income in accordance with applicable tax laws, we will generally reimburse the NEO for any increased tax costs. The amounts for Mr. Garland also include gifts received in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors. The amounts for Mr. Taylor also include gifts received as part of the executive leadership team.

(f)
We maintain a Matching Gift Program under which certain gifts by employees to qualified educational or charitable institutions are matched by the Company. The program matches up to $15,000 annually. The amounts shown reflect the actual payments made by us in 2015. Mr. Garland made certain contributions in 2015 that will be matched by the Company in 2016 and will be reported in the 2017 proxy statement.

(g)
Under the terms of our tax-qualified defined contribution plans, we make contributions to the accounts of all eligible employees, including the NEOs.

(h)
Under the terms of our nonqualified defined contribution plans, we make contributions to the accounts of all eligible employees, including the NEOs. See the "Nonqualified Deferred Compensation" table and accompanying narrative and notes beginning on page 
46   for more information.2018 PROXY STATEMENT
2016 PROXY STATEMENT41

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

TABLES​

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

The following table provides additional information about plan-based compensation disclosed in the "SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLESummary Compensation Table" on page 40.. This table includes both equity and non-equity awards.

ESTIMATED FUTURE PAYOUTS UNDER
NON-EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN AWARDS(2)
ESTIMATED FUTURE PAYOUTS UNDER
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN AWARDS(3)
ALL OTHER
STOCK
AWARDS:
NUMBER OF
SHARES OF
STOCK OR
UNITS(4)
(#)
ALL OTHER
OPTION
AWARDS:
NUMBER OF
SECURITIES
UNDERLYING
OPTIONS
(#)
EXERCISE
OR BASE
PRICE OF
OPTION
AWARDS
($/SH)
GRANT DATE
FAIR VALUE
OF STOCK
AND
OPTION
AWARDS(5)
($)
NAME
GRANT
DATE(1)
THRESHOLD
($)
TARGET
($)
MAXIMUM
($)
THRESHOLD
(#)
TARGET
(#)
MAXIMUM
(#)
Greg Garland2,666,6826,666,705
2/7/201737,5842,949,404
2/7/201774,371148,7425,836,264
2/7/2017174,00078.4752,951,040
Robert Herman586,1331,465,333
2/7/20177,279571,220
2/7/201714,40328,8061,130,275
2/7/201730,70078.475520,672
Paula Johnson667,9331,669,833
2/7/20178,148639,414
2/7/201716,12332,2461,265,252
2/7/201734,30078.475581,728
Kevin Mitchell603,0381,507,595
2/7/20176,835536,377
2/7/201713,52627,0521,061,453
2/7/201731,70078.475537,632
Tim Taylor1,228,4893,071,223
2/7/201716,5271,296,956
2/7/201732,70365,4062,566,368
2/7/201763,80078.4751,082,048

(1)
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 ALL OTHER
STOCK
AWARDS:
NUMBER OF
SHARES OF
STOCK OR
UNITS (#)

 ALL OTHER
OPTION
AWARDS:
NUMBER OF
SECURITIES
UNDERLYING
OPTIONS
(#)

  
 GRANT DATE
FAIR VALUE
OF STOCK
AND
OPTION
AWARDS
($)(4)

 
 
  
 ESTIMATED FUTURE PAYOUTS
UNDER NON-EQUITY INCENTIVE
PLAN AWARDS(2)
 ESTIMATED FUTURE PAYOUTS
UNDER EQUITY INCENTIVE
PLAN AWARDS(3)
 EXERCISE
OR BASE
PRICE OF
OPTION
AWARDS
($/SH)

 
NAME
 GRANT
DATE(1)

 THRESHOLD
($)

 TARGET
($)

 MAXIMUM
($)

 THRESHOLD
(#)

 TARGET
(#)

 MAXIMUM
(#)

 

Mr. Garland

   2,478,662 6,196,655        

 2/3/2015       37,275   2,763,382 

 2/3/2015     83,303 166,606    5,526,738 

 2/3/2015        146,700 74.135 2,763,828 

Ms. Johnson

       550,840  1,377,100               

  2/3/2015              7,015      520,057 

  2/3/2015          15,676  31,352        1,040,024 

  7/1/2015          3,722  7,444        242,566 

  2/3/2015                25,100  74.135  472,884 

Mr. Maxwell

   790,512 1,976,280        

 2/3/2015       10,062   745,946 

 2/3/2015     22,487 44,974    1,491,900 

 2/3/2015        36,000 74.135 678,240 

Mr. Taylor

       1,105,183  2,762,958               

  2/3/2015              15,944      1,182,008 

  2/3/2015          34,148  68,296        2,265,549 

  2/3/2015                52,300  74.135  985,332 

Mr. Ziemba

   572,959 1,432,398        

 2/3/2015       7,811   579,068 

 2/3/2015     17,457 34,914    1,158,185 

 2/3/2015        28,000 74.135 527,520 
(1)
The grant date shown is the date on which the Compensation Committee approved the target awards. Ms. Johnson received a promotion effective July 1, 2015, in recognition of her individual accomplishments and to maintain alignment with the market. The Compensation Committee approved this promotion at its July 2015 meeting. The grant shown above on the promotion date represents the promotional target received under the PSP for the performance periods that end in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The PSP targets are adjusted prospectively for promotions only during the performance period to reflect the executive's new base salary and target percentage for the remainder of the performance period using the stock price established at the beginning of the performance period. The number of promotional target units and their fair market value on the date of grant for the PSP performance periods ending in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively, are as follows: 561 units, $26,962; 1,130 units, $80,857; and 2,031 units, $134,747.
(2)

(2)
Threshold and maximum awards are based on the provisions in the VCIP. Actual awards earned can range from 0 to 200 percent of the target awards, with a further possible adjustment of  +/–50 percent of the target award fordepending on individual performance. The Compensation Committee retains the authority to make awards under the program and to use its judgment in adjusting awards, including making awards greater than the amounts shown in the table above, provided the award does not exceed amounts permitted under the 2013 Omnibus Stock and Performance Incentive Plan of Phillips 66, approved by shareholders.66. Actual payouts under the annual bonus program for 20152017 are calculated using base salary earned in 20152017 and reflected in the "Non-Equity“Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation"Compensation” column of the "SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLESummary Compensation Table" on page 40..
(3)

(3)
Threshold and maximum awards are based on the provisions of the PSP. Actual awards earned can range from 0 to 200 percent of the target awards. Performance periods under the PSP cover a three-year period, and since a new three-year period commences each year, there could be three overlapping performance periods ongoing at any time. In 2015, all the NEOs received2017, targets for each NEO were set with respect to an award for the three-year performance period beginning in 20152017 and ending in 2017.2019. The Compensation Committee retains the authority to make awards under the PSP using its judgment, including making awards greater than the maximum payout shown in the table above, provided the award does not exceed amounts permitted under the 2013 Omnibus Stock and Performance Incentive Plan of Phillips 66.
(4)
RSUs that were granted in 2017, but still have vesting restrictions.
(5)
(4)
For equity incentive plan awards, these amounts represent the grant date fair value at target level under the PSP as determined pursuant toin accordance with GAAP. For Stock Option awards, these amounts represent the grant date fair value of the option awards using a Black-Scholes-Merton-based methodology. Actual value realized upon option exercise depends on market prices at the time of exercise. For other stock awards, these amounts represent the grant date fair value of the RSU awards determined pursuant toin accordance with GAAP. See Note 20—Employee Benefit Plans in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our 20152017 Form 10-K, for a discussion of the relevant assumptions used in this determination.
42    2016 PROXY STATEMENT
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   47​

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR END

The following table lists outstanding Phillips 66 equity grants for each NEO as of December 31, 2015.

2017.

Some awards held by NEOs at the time of our spin-off from ConocoPhillips were adjusted or substituted as described below in order to preserve the intrinsic value, remaining vesting periods, and other terms and conditions of ConocoPhillips awards outstanding on April 30, 2012, in accordance with the Employee Matters Agreement entered into with ConocoPhillips.


NEOs with exercisable ConocoPhillips Stock Options received options to purchase both ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 common stockstock.


NEOs with unexercisable ConocoPhillips Stock Options received substitute options to purchase only Phillips 66 common stockstock.


NEOs with Restricted Stock and PSU awards for completed performance periods under the ConocoPhillips PSP received both ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 Restricted Stock and PSUsPSUs.


NEOs with Restricted Stock and RSUs received under all ConocoPhillips programs, other than the ConocoPhillips PSP, received Phillips 66 Restricted Stock and RSUs

RSUs.

The table below includes outstanding Phillips 66 shares and options that resulted from the adjustments described above, but it does not include the ConocoPhillips shares and options that resulted from these adjustments.

OPTION AWARDS(1)
STOCK AWARDS
NAME
GRANT
DATE(2)
NUMBER OF
SECURITIES
UNDERLYING
UNEXERCISED
OPTIONS
EXERCISABLE(3)
(#)
NUMBER OF
SECURITIES
UNDERLYING
UNEXERCISED
OPTIONS
UNEXERCISABLE
(#)
OPTION
EXERCISE
PRICE
($)
OPTION
EXPIRATION
DATE
NUMBER OF
SHARES OR
UNITS OF
STOCK THAT
HAVE NOT
VESTED(4)
(#)
MARKET
VALUE OF
SHARES OR
UNITS OF
STOCK THAT
HAVE NOT
VESTED
($)
EQUITY
INCENTIVE
PLAN AWARDS:
NUMBER OF
UNEARNED
SHARES,
UNITS OR
OTHER RIGHTS
THAT HAVE
NOT VESTED(5)
(#)
EQUITY
INCENTIVE
PLAN AWARDS:
MARKET OR
PAYOUT VALUE
OF UNEARNED
SHARES,
UNITS OR
OTHER RIGHTS
THAT HAVE
NOT VESTED
($)
Greg Garland2/9/201242,72832.0302/9/2022
2/7/2013158,50062.1702/7/2023
2/6/2014126,30072.2552/6/2024
2/3/201597,80048,90074.1352/3/2025
2/2/201656,466112,93478.6202/2/2026
2/7/2017174,00078.4752/7/2027
589,08759,586,150148,36915,007,524
Robert Herman2/9/201247,43332.0302/9/2022
2/7/201312,30062.1702/7/2023
2/6/201411,40072.2552/6/2024
2/3/201515,6667,83474.1352/3/2025
2/2/20169,60019,20078.6202/2/2026
2/7/201730,70078.4752/7/2027
74,4207,527,58328,2322,855,667
Paula Johnson2/7/201312,00062.1702/7/2023
2/6/201419,60072.2552/6/2024
2/3/201516,7338,36774.1352/3/2025
2/2/201610,93321,86778.6202/2/2026
2/7/201734,30078.4752/7/2027
77,6637,855,61231,8783,224,460
Kevin Mitchell2/3/20156,6003,30074.1352/3/2025
2/2/201610,26620,53478.6202/2/2026
2/7/201731,70078.4752/7/2027
16,6041,679,49528,3032,862,848
Tim Taylor2/7/201332,10062.1702/7/2023
2/6/201430,10072.2552/6/2024
2/3/201534,86617,43474.1352/3/2025
2/2/201620,23340,46778.6202/2/2026
2/7/201763,80078.4752/7/2027
164,11516,600,23264,5086,524,984

 
  
 OPTION AWARDS(1) STOCK AWARDS 
NAME
 GRANT
DATE(2)

 NUMBER OF
SECURITIES
UNDERLYING
UNEXERCISED
OPTIONS (#)
EXERCISABLE(3)

 NUMBER OF
SECURITIES
UNDERLYING
UNEXERCISED
OPTIONS (#)
UNEXERCISABLE

 OPTION
EXERCISE
PRICE ($)

 OPTION
EXPIRATION
DATE

 NUMBER OF
SHARES OR
UNITS OF
STOCK THAT
HAVE NOT
VESTED (#)(7)

 MARKET
VALUE OF
SHARES OR
UNITS OF
STOCK THAT
HAVE NOT
VESTED ($)

 EQUITY
INCENTIVE
PLAN AWARDS:
NUMBER OF
UNEARNED
SHARES,
UNITS OR
OTHER RIGHTS
THAT HAVE
NOT VESTED
(#)(8)

 EQUITY
INCENTIVE
PLAN AWARDS:
MARKET OR
PAYOUT VALUE
OF UNEARNED
SHARES,
UNITS OR
OTHER RIGHTS
THAT HAVE
NOT VESTED
($)

 

Mr. Garland

 2/10/2011 12,165  31.250 2/10/2021     

 2/9/2012 169,228  32.030 2/9/2022     

 2/7/2013 105,666 52,834(4)62.170 2/7/2023     

 2/6/2014 42,100 84,200(5)72.255 2/6/2024     

 2/3/2015  146,700(6)74.135 2/3/2025     

      791,372 64,734,230 340,474 27,850,773 

Ms. Johnson

  2/10/2011  16,735    31.250  2/10/2021         

  2/9/2012  23,406    32.030  2/9/2022         

  2/7/2013  8,000  4,000(4) 62.170  2/7/2023         

  2/6/2014  6,533  13,067(5) 72.255  2/6/2024         

  2/3/2015    25,100(6) 74.135  2/3/2025         

            106,216  8,688,469  66,898  5,472,256 

Mr. Maxwell

 2/9/2012 35,419  32.030 2/9/2022     

 2/7/2013 16,400 8,200(4)62.170 2/7/2023     

 2/6/2014 8,866 17,734(5)72.255 2/6/2024     

 2/3/2015  36,000(6)74.135 2/3/2025     

      143,936 11,773,965 77,358 6,327,884 

Mr. Taylor

  2/9/2012  77,260    32.030  2/9/2022         

  2/7/2013  21,400  10,700(4) 62.170  2/7/2023         

  2/6/2014  10,033  20,067(5) 72.255  2/6/2024         

  2/3/2015    52,300(6) 74.135  2/3/2025         

            209,688  17,152,478  128,094  10,478,089 

Mr. Ziemba

 2/10/2011 72,630  31.250 2/10/2021     

 2/9/2012 101,909  32.030 2/9/2022     

 2/7/2013 15,933 7,967(4)62.170 2/7/2023     

 2/6/2014 8,866 17,734(5)72.255 2/6/2024     

 2/3/2015  28,000(6)74.135 2/3/2025     

      205,711 16,827,160 67,298 5,504,976 
48   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES​
(1)

All options shown in the table have a maximum term for exercise of ten years from the grant date. Under certain circumstances, the terms for exercise may be shorter, and in certain circumstances, the options may be forfeited and cancelled. All awards shown in the table have associated restrictions upon transferability.
2016 PROXY STATEMENT43

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

(2)

The dates presented in this column represent the daterespective dates on which the awards were granted by ConocoPhillips for grants prior to the spin-off from ConocoPhillips, and by Phillips 66 for all other awards. The awards granted prior to the spin-off were converted to Phillips 66 equity awards in connection with the spin-off and in accordance with the Employee Matters Agreement and remain subject to the same general terms and conditions.
(3)

(3)
The options shown in this column vested and became exercisable in 20152017 or prior years (although under certain termination circumstances, the options may still be forfeited). Options become exercisable in one-third increments on the first, second and third anniversaries of the grant date.
(4)

(4)
Represents the final one-third of the February 7, 2013 grant, which became exercisable on February 7, 2016. In the case of Mr. Maxwell, all options became exercisable upon his retirement at the beginning of 2016.

(5)
Represents the final two-thirds of the February 6, 2014 grant, half of which became exercisable on February 6, 2016 and the other half of which will become exercisable on February 6, 2017. In the case of Mr. Maxwell, all options became exercisable upon his retirement at the beginning of 2016.

(6)
Represents the February 3, 2015 grant. One-third of the grant became exercisable on February 3, 2016, one-third will become exercisable on February 3, 2017, and one-third will become exercisable on February 3, 2018. In the case of Mr. Maxwell, all options became exercisable upon his retirement at the beginning of 2016.

(7)
These amounts include unvested restricted stock and RSUs awarded under the PSP for performance periods ending on or before December 31, 2014 and awarded as annual awards. All awards for performance periods endingthat ended on or before December 31, 2014 continue to have restrictions upon transferability. Restrictions on PSP awards for performance periods endingthat ended on or before December 31, 20122010 lapse upon separation from service. Restrictions on PSP awards for later performance periods lapse five years from the grant date unless the NEO elected prior to the beginning of the performance period to defer lapsing of the restrictions until separation from service. Awards are subject to forfeiture if, prior to lapsing, the NEO separates from service for a reason other than death, disability, layoff, retirement after reaching age 55 with five years of service, or after a change of control, although the Compensation Committee has the authority to waive forfeiture. The awards have no voting rights, but do entitle the holder to receive dividend equivalents in cash. The value of the awards reflects the closing price of our common stock, as reported on the NYSE, on December 31, 201529, 2017 ($81.80)101.15). These amounts also include the awards under the PSP for the performance period that ended December 31, 2015 and paid out in cash in February 2016, as follows: Mr. Garland, 163,419 units valued at $12,484,002; Ms. Johnson, 30,258 units valued at $2,378,884; Mr. Maxwell, 40,744 units valued at $3,203,293; Mr. Taylor, 55,009 units valued at $4,324,808; and Mr. Ziemba, 34,816 units valued at $2,737,234.
(5)

(8)
Reflects potential awards from ongoing performance periods under the PSP for performance periods ending December 31, 20162018 and December 31, 2017.2019. These awards are shown at maximum levels;target; however, there is no assurance that awards will be granted at, below or above target after the end of the relevant performance periods, as the determination to make a grant and the amount of any grant is within the judgment of the Compensation Committee. Until an actual grant is made, these unearned awards pay no dividend equivalents. The value of these unearned awards reflects the closing price of our common stock, as reported on the NYSE, on December 31, 201529, 2017 ($81.80)101.15).

OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED FOR 2015

2017

The following table summarizes the value received from stock option exercises and stock grants vested during 2015:

 
 OPTION AWARDS STOCK AWARDS 
NAME
 NUMBER OF
SHARES
ACQUIRED ON
EXERCISE
(#)

 VALUE REALIZED
ON EXERCISE
($)

 NUMBER OF
SHARES
ACQUIRED ON
VESTING
(#)

 VALUE REALIZED
ON VESTING
($)

 

Mr. Garland

   24,808 1,977,818 

Ms. Johnson

      4,181  318,677 

Mr. Maxwell

   4,165 331,864 

Mr. Taylor

      2,452  195,486 

Mr. Ziemba

 74,467 5,256,366   
2017:
44    2016 PROXY STATEMENTOPTION AWARDS
STOCK AWARDS(1)
NAME
NUMBER OF SHARES
ACQUIRED ON EXERCISE
(#)
VALUE REALIZED
UPON EXERCISE
($)
NUMBER OF SHARES
ACQUIRED ON VESTING
(#)
VALUE REALIZED
UPON VESTING
($)
Greg Garland—​—​168,612​15,397,642​
Robert Herman—​—​33,029​2,973,062​
Paula Johnson—​—​31,245​2,910,325​
Kevin Mitchell—​—​60,844​5,338,637​
Tim Taylor—​—​53,299​5,064,448​
(1)
Stock awards include RSUs that vested during the year, as well as the PSP 2015-2017 award that vested on December 31, 2017, and was paid out in cash in early 2018. The PSP awards were as follows: Mr. Garland 99,964 units valued at $9,970,589; Mr. Herman 17,579 units valued at $1,753,361; Ms. Johnson 21,248 units valued at $2,119,314; Mr. Mitchell 14,760 units valued at $1,472,189; and Mr. Taylor 40,978 units valued at $4,087,219.
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   49​

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

PENSION BENEFITS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015

2017

Our defined benefit pension plan covering NEOs, the Phillips 66 Retirement Plan, consists of multiple titles with different terms. NEOs are only eligible to participate in one title at any time, but may have frozen benefits under one or more other titles.


Title I(1)
Title II(2)
Title III
Title IV
TITLE I
TITLE II(1)
TITLE IV
Current Eligibility
Current EligibilityMr. GarlandMessrs. Maxwell and TaylorMr. ZiembaTaylor, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Herman(4)Ms. Johnson
Normal RetirementAge 65Age 65Age 65
Early Retirement(2)Age 55 with five years of service or if laid off during or after the year in which the participant reaches age 50Executives may receive their vested benefit upon termination of employment at any ageAge 55 with ten years of serviceAge 50 with ten years of service

Benefit Calculation(3)(2)

Calculated as the product of 1.6 percent times years of credited service multiplied by the final average eligible earningsBased on monthly pay and interest credits to a nominal cash balance account created on the first day of the month after an executive'sexecutive’s hire date. Pay credits are equal to a percentage of total salary and annual bonus.Calculated as the product of 1.6 percent times years of credited service multiplied by the final average eligible earnings
Final Average Earnings CalculationCalculated using the three highest consecutive compensation years in the last ten calendar years before retirement plus the year of retirementN/ACalculated using the highest consecutive 36 months of compensation in the last 120 months of service prior to retirementCalculated using the higher of the highest three years of compensation or the highest consecutive 36 months of compensation

Eligible Pension Compensation(4)(3)

Includes salary and annual bonusIncludes salary and annual bonusIncludes salaryIncludes salary and annual bonus

Benefit Vesting

All participants are vested in this titleEmployees vest after three years of serviceAll participants are vested in this title
Payment TypesAllows payments in the form of several annuity types or a single lump sumAllows payments in the form of several annuity types, but does not allow a single lump sum paymentAllows payments in the form of several annuity types or a single lump sum
IRS limitationsBenefits under all Titles are limited by the Internal Revenue Code.IRC. In 2015,2017, that limit was $265,000.$270,000. The Internal Revenue CodeIRC also limits the annual benefit available under these Titles expressed as an annuity. In 2015,2017, that limit was $210,000$215,000 (reduced actuarially for ages below 62).
(1)
(1)
Mr. Maxwell has a frozen benefit under Title I from prior years of service with predecessor companies.

(2)
NEOs whose combined years of age and service total less than 44 receive a six percent pay credit, those with 44 through 65 receive a seven percent pay credit and those with 66 or more receive a nine percent pay credit.

    Interest credits are applied to the cash balance account each month. This credit is calculated by multiplying the value of the account by the interest credit rate, based on 30-year U.S. Treasury security rates adjusted quarterly.

(3)
(2)
An early benefit reduction is calculated on Title I by reducing the benefit 5% for each year before age 60 that benefits are paid. An early benefit reduction is calculated on Title III by reducing the benefit 6.67% for each year before age 60 that benefits are paid, unless the participant has at least 85 points awarded, with one point for each year of age and one point for each year of service. Title IV early benefit reduction is calculated by reducing the benefit by 5% per year for each year before age 57 that benefits are paid and 4% per year for benefits that are paid between ages 57 and 60. The benefit calculation for Titles I, III and IV is reduced by the product of 1.5% of the annual primary social security benefit multiplied by years of credited service, although a minimum reduction limit of 50% of the primary Social Security benefit may apply.
(3)

(4)
Under Title I, if an executive receives layoff benefits, then the eligible compensation calculation also includes the annualized salary for the year of layoff (rather than the actual salary for that year) and years of service are increased by any period for which layoff benefits are calculated.
2016 PROXY STATEMENT45

Table

Mr. Herman has a frozen benefit under Title III from prior years of Contents

service with predecessor companies. Under Title III, normal retirement is age 65 and early retirement is age 55 with 10 years of service. Title III is similar to Title I, except that bonus is not eligible pension compensation and payout is made in the form of an annuity.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

The following table lists the pension program participation and actuarial present value of each NEO'sNEO’s defined benefit pension as of December 31, 2015.

2017.
NAMEPLAN NAME
NUMBER OF YEARS
CREDITED SERVICE(1)
(#)
PRESENT VALUE OF
ACCUMULATED BENEFIT
($)
PAYMENTS DURING
LAST FISCAL YEAR
($)
Greg GarlandPhillips 66 Retirement Plan—Title I281,710,860
Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)37,557,618
Robert HermanPhillips 66 Retirement Plan—Title II12320,876
Phillips 66 Retirement Plan—Title III22567,052
Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)720,030
Paula JohnsonPhillips 66 Retirement Plan—Title IV15707,557
Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)3,788,264
Kevin MitchellPhillips 66 Retirement Plan—Title II480,325
Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)201,482
Tim TaylorPhillips 66 Retirement Plan—Title II6149,424
Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)1,081,405

(1)
NAME
 PLAN NAME
 NUMBER OF
YEARS CREDITED
SERVICE (#)(1)

 PRESENT VALUE
OF ACCUMULATED
BENEFIT ($)

 PAYMENTS DURING
LAST FISCAL YEAR ($)

 
Mr. Garland Phillips 66 Retirement Plan-Title I 26 1,363,824  
 Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)  23,737,437  
Ms. Johnson Phillips 66 Retirement Plan-Title IV  13  504,684   
  Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)    1,925,821   
Mr. Maxwell Phillips 66 Retirement Plan-Title I 23 709,208  
 Phillips 66 Retirement Plan-Title II 4 91,417  
 Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)  369,264  
Mr. Taylor Phillips 66 Retirement Plan-Title II  4  92,367   
  Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)    514,023   
Mr. Ziemba Phillips 66 Retirement Plan-Title III 39 1,448,507  
 Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan(2)  3,654,900  
(1)
Years of credited service include service recognized under the predecessor ConocoPhillips plans from which these plans were spun off effective May 1, 2012. Mr. Maxwell is credited with a total of 27 years of service under the plans described above. The number of years of service credited under Title I is frozen at 23 years of service, andCredited Service displays the number of years of service counted under Title II increasedthe NEO was in each year that he was employed by us prior to his retirement. His years of service under Title I are related to his employment with ConocoPhillips predecessor companies prior to 2000.applicable formula.
(2)

(2)
The Phillips 66 Key Employee Supplemental Retirement Plan restores Company-sponsored benefits capped under the qualified defined benefit pension plan due to Internal Revenue CodeIRC limits. All employees, including our NEOs, are eligible to participate in the plan.

50   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES​
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION

Our NEOs are eligible to participate in two nonqualified deferred compensation plans, the Phillips 66 KEDCP and the Phillips 66 DCMP.

The KEDCP allows NEOs to defer up to 50 percent of their salary and up to 100 percent of their VCIP. The default distribution option is a lump sum payment paid at least six months after separation from service. NEOs may elect to defer payments from one to five years, and to receive annual, semiannual or quarterly payments for a period of up to fifteen years. NEOs may also elect to defer their VCIP to a specific date in the future.

The DCMP is a nonqualified restoration plan for employer contributions that cannot be made to our 401(k) plan either due to an NEO'sNEO’s salary deferral under the KEDCP or due to the Internal Revenue CodeIRC annual limit on compensation that may be taken into account under a qualified plan. Distributions are made as a lump sum six months after separation from service, unless the NEO elects to receive one to fifteen annual payments beginning at least one year after separation from service.

Each NEO directs investments of his or her individual accounts under the KEDCP and DCMP. Both plans provide a broad range of market-based investments that may be changed daily. No investment provides above-market returns. The aggregate performance of these investments is reflected in the "NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATIONNonqualified Deferred Compensation" table below.

Benefits due under these plans are paid from our general assets, although we also maintain rabbi trusts that may be used to pay benefits. The trusts and the funds held in them are Company assets. In the event of our bankruptcy, NEOs would be unsecured general creditors.

46    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

The following table provides information on nonqualified deferred compensation as of December 31, 2015:

2017:
NAME
APPLICABLE PLAN(1)
BEGINNING
BALANCE
($)
EXECUTIVE
CONTRIBUTIONS
IN LAST FISCAL
YEAR
($)
COMPANY
CONTRIBUTIONS
IN THE LAST
FISCAL YEAR(2)
($)
AGGREGATE
EARNINGS
IN LAST
FISCAL YEAR(3)
($)
AGGREGATE
WITHDRAWALS/
DISTRIBUTIONS
($)
AGGREGATE
BALANCE
AT LAST
FISCAL
YEAR END(4)
($)
Greg GarlandPhillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan993,00597,767170,5171,261,289
Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan1,102,782132,4171,235,199
Robert HermanPhillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan310,14829,37055,330394,848
Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan1,789,519330,1952,119,714
Paula JohnsonPhillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan193,35933,05036,523262,932
Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan
Kevin MitchellPhillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan50,13930,7629,42890,329
Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan
Tim TaylorPhillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan475,23259,27766,467600,976
Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan1,845,271226,9662,072,237

(1)
NAME
 APPLICABLE PLAN(1)
 BEGINNING
BALANCE
($)

 EXECUTIVE
CONTRIBUTIONS
IN LAST FISCAL
YEAR ($)

 COMPANY
CONTRIBUTIONS
IN THE LAST
FISCAL YEAR
($)(2)

 AGGREGATE
EARNINGS
IN LAST
FISCAL
YEAR ($)(3)

 AGGREGATE
WITHDRAWALS/
DISTRIBUTIONS
($)

 AGGREGATE
BALANCE
AT LAST
FISCAL
YEAR END
($)(4)

Mr. Garland Phillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan 675,010  128,416 24,906  828,332
 Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan 1,138,685   (105,411)  1,033,274
Ms. Johnson Phillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan  107,048  37,551 4,409  149,008
  Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan       
Mr. Maxwell Phillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan 153,194  52,551 9,765  215,510
 Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan 511,916   (10,498)  501,418
Mr. Taylor Phillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan  311,459  73,971 6,758  392,188
  Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan  1,694,316   12,153  1,706,469
Mr. Ziemba Phillips 66 Defined Contribution Make-Up Plan 568,904  42,531 (10,486)  600,949
 Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan 894,773   18,186  912,959
(1)
We have two defined contribution deferred compensation programs for our executives—the DCMP and the KEDCP. As of December 31, 2015,2017, participants in these plans had 9692 investment options. 34options—27 of the options were the same as those available in our 401(k) plan and the remaining options were other mutual funds approved by the plan administrator.
(2)

(2)
These amounts represent Company contributions under the DCMP. These amounts are also included in the "All“All Other Compensation"Compensation” column of the "SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLESummary Compensation Table" on page 40..
(3)

(3)
These amounts represent earnings on plan balances from January 1 to December 31, 2015.2017. These amounts are not included in the "SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLESummary Compensation Table" on page 40..
(4)

(4)
The total reflects contributions by our NEOs, contributions by us, and earnings on balances prior to 2015;2017; plus contributions by our NEOs, contributions by us, and earnings from January 1, 20152017 through December 31, 20152017 (shown in the appropriate columns of this table, with amounts that are included in the "SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLESummary Compensation Table" on page 40 shown in footnote 2 above)). The total includes all contributions by our NEOs and by us reported in this proxy statement and our proxy statements from prior years as follows: $525,898$718,292 for Mr. Garland, $119,650Garland; $57,133 for Mr. Herman; $183,078 for Ms. Johnson, $177,787Johnson; $60,403 for Mr. Maxwell, $248,998Mitchell; and $364,721 for Mr. Taylor, and $177,558 for Mr. Ziemba.Taylor.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   51​

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES
POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL

The tables at the end of this section summarize the potential value, as of December 31, 2015, of the incremental benefits to be received by each NEO due to an involuntary termination without cause or a change in control event as of December 31, 2015.

Each of our NEOs is expected to receive amounts earned during his or her period of employment unless he or she voluntarily resigns prior to becoming retirement-eligible or is terminated for cause. Such amounts include:

    VCIP earned during the fiscal year

    Grants under the PSP for the most-recently completed performance period and ongoing performance periods in which the executive participated for at least one year

    Previously granted restricted stock and RSUs

    Vested Stock Option grants

    Amounts contributed and vested under our defined contribution plans

    Amounts accrued and vested under our pension plans

Although normal retirement age under our benefit plans is 65, early retirement provisions allow receipt of benefits at earlier ages if vesting requirements are met. For our incentive compensation programs (VCIP, RSU, Stock Options, and PSP), early retirement is generally defined as termination at or after the age of 55 with five years of service.

As of December 31, 2015, all of our NEOs except Ms. Johnson2017, Mr. Garland, Mr. Herman, and Mr. Taylor were retirement-eligible under both our benefit plans and our compensation programs. Therefore, as of December 31, 2015,2017, a voluntary resignation of any NEO other than Ms. Johnson

2016 PROXY STATEMENT47

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

Mr. Garland, Mr. Herman, or Mr. Taylor, would have been treated as a retirement. Because the NEOs other than Ms. Johnson were then eligible for retirement, under these programs, theyand each would have been able to resign and retainretained all awards earned under the current PSP and earlier programs. As a result, thesuch, awards to them under these programs are not included in the incremental amounts reflected in the tablestable below. Please see the "OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR ENDOutstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End" table on page 43 for more information. Our compensation programs provide for the following upon retirement:

Cash Payments.

In addition,   Cash payments include VCIP earned during the fiscal year, amounts contributed and vested under our NEOs participatedefined contribution plans, and amounts accrued and vested under our pension plans.

Equity.   Equity considerations include grants under the PSP for ongoing performance periods in two severance plans:which the executive participated for at least one year, previously granted restricted stock and RSUs, and previously granted stock option awards exercisable through the original term.
The table at the end of this section summarizes the potential additional value of the benefits to be received by each NEO as of December 31, 2017, through the Phillips 66 ESP anddue to an involuntary termination without cause or through the Phillips 66 CICSP.CICSP due to a change in control event. Benefits that would be available generally to all or substantially all salaried employees on the U.S. payroll are not included in the amounts shown. Executives are not entitled to receive benefits under both plansthe ESP and the CICSP as a result of the same changeevent. These two plans have the following in control event.

common:


amounts payable under both are offset by any payments or benefits payable under any of our other plans;

benefits under both may also be reduced in the event of willful and bad faith conduct demonstrably injurious to the Company; and,

both are Company plans under which awards and payments are subject to clawback provisions and to forfeiture or recoupment, in whole or in part, under applicable law, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.
Executive Severance Plan
The ESP provides that if we terminate the employment of an executive other than forNEO separates due to an involuntary termination without cause, the executive will receive the following benefits, which may vary depending on salary grade level:level.
Cash Severance Payments.   ESP cash severance payments include:

A
a lump sum payment equal to one and one-half or two times the sum of the executive'sexecutive’s base salary and current target annual bonusbonus;


A
a lump sum payment equal to the present value of the increase in pension benefits that would result from crediting the executive with an additional one and one-half or two years of age and service under the pension planplan; and


A
a lump sum payment generally equal to the Company contribution for active employees toward the cost of certain welfare benefits for an additional one and one-half or two yearsyears.
Accelerated Equity.

Continued eligibility for a pro rata portion of the annual bonus paid with respect to the year of termination

Layoff treatment under our compensation plans that generally allows the executive to retain a prorated portion of grants held less than one year and full grants held for one year or more of Restricted Stock, RSUs, and RSUs,Stock Options, and maintain eligibility for PSP awards for ongoing periods in which he or she had participated for at least one year

Amounts payable under the ESP are offset by any payments or benefits payable under any of our other plans, and may also be reduced in the event of willful and bad faith conduct demonstrably injurious to the Company. As described above, the ESP and CICSP are Company plans under which awards and payments are subject to clawback provisions and to forfeiture or recoupment, in whole or in part, under applicable law, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.

year.

52   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES​
Change in Control Severance Plan
The CICSP provides that if, within two years of a change in control of the Company, an executive'sexecutive’s employment is terminated by the employer other than for cause, or by the executive for good reason, the executive will receive the following benefits, which may vary depending on salary grade level:level. CICSP benefits consist of cash severance payments and acceleration of equity awards.
Cash Severance Payments.   CICSP cash severance payments include:

A
a lump sum payment equal to two or three times the sum of the executive'sexecutive’s base salary and the higher of the current target annual bonus or the average of the annual bonuses paid for the previous two yearsyears;


A
a lump sum payment equal to the present value of the increase in pension benefits that would result from crediting the executive with an additional two or three years of age and service under the pension planplan; and,


A
a lump sum payment generally equal to the Company contribution for active employees toward the cost of certain welfare benefits for an additional two or three yearsyears.
Accelerated Equity.

Continued eligibility for a pro rata portion   CICSP benefits include the vesting of the annual bonus paid with respect to the year of termination

After a change in control, the CICSP may not be amended or terminated if doing so would be adverse to the interestsall equity awards and lapsing of any eligible participant without the participant's written consent. Amounts payable under the CICSP are offset by anyrestrictions.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   53​

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES
Death or Disability
For completeness, payments or benefits payable under any of our other plans, and may also be reduced in the event of willful and bad faith conduct demonstrably injurious to the Company.

Certain assumptions have been made in preparing each of the tables below. Benefits that would be available generallypayable to alleach NEO upon separation as a result of disability or substantially all salaried employees on the U.S. payrollto each NEO’s estate as a result of death are not included in the amounts shown. The following assumptions were also made:

    Short-Term Incentives—In the event of an involuntary not-for-cause termination unrelated to a change in control, the amount reflects onelikewise provided.
Executive Benefits and one-half or two times current VCIP target. In the event of an involuntary termination or termination by the executivePayments Upon Termination
INVOLUNTARY
NOT-FOR-CAUSE
TERMINATION
(NOT CIC)
($)
INVOLUNTARY OR
GOOD REASON
TERMINATION
(CIC)
($)
DEATH
($)
DISABILITY
($)
Greg Garland
Severance Payment11,693,852​21,993,568​—​—​
Accelerated Equity(1)—​—​—​—​
Life Insurance—​—​3,350,016​—​
TOTAL11,693,852​21,993,568​3,350,016​—​
Robert Herman
Severance Payment2,824,345​5,107,043​—​—​
Accelerated Equity(1)—​—​—​—​
Life Insurance—​—​1,386,960​—​
TOTAL2,824,345​5,107,043​1,386,960​—​
Paula Johnson
Severance Payment4,035,516​7,007,389​—​—​
Accelerated Equity(1)13,224,509​13,224,509​13,224,509​13,224,509​
Life Insurance—​—​1,499,328​—​
TOTAL17,260,025​20,231,898​14,723,837​13,224,509​
Kevin Mitchell
Severance Payment2,933,182​4,399,774​—​—​
Accelerated Equity(1)5,920,091​5,920,091​5,920,091​5,920,091​
Life Insurance—​—​1,425,840​—​
TOTAL8,853,273​10,319,865​7,345,931​5,920,091​
Tim Taylor
Severance Payment5,173,256​10,106,224​—​—​
Accelerated Equity(1)—​—​—​—​
Life Insurance—​—​2,248,032​—​
TOTAL5,173,256​10,106,224​2,248,032​—​
(1)
Amounts for good reason related to a change in control, the amount reflects two or three times current VCIP target or two or three times the average of the prior two VCIP payouts.

Long-Term Incentives—For the performance periods related to PSP amounts for the period that ended in 20152015-2017 are shown based on the cash amount received in February 2016 for the 2013-2015 performance period,2018, while amounts for other PSP periods are prorated to reflect the portion of the performance period completed by the end of 20152017 and
48    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

      shown at target payout levels. For the PSP awards, Restricted Stock and RSUs,These amounts reflect the closing price of our common stock, as reported on the NYSE, on December 31, 201529, 2017 ($81.80)101.15).

Restricted Stock Options—and RSU amounts reflect the closing price of our common stock, as reported on the NYSE, on December 29, 2017 ($101.15).
For Stock Options with an exercise price lower than our stock'scommon stock’s closing price on December 31, 2015,2017, amounts reflect the intrinsic value as if the options had been exercised on December 31, 2015,2017, but only for options the NEO would have retained for the specific termination event.

Incremental Pension Values—Regardless
54   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

CEO PAY RATIO
As required by Section 953(b) of whether the valueDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K, we are providing the following information about the ratio of the annual total compensation, calculated in accordance with the requirements of Item 402(c)(2)(x) of Regulation S-K, of our median employee and the annual total compensation of our CEO.
For 2017, the annual total compensation of our CEO was 138 times that of the median of the annual total compensation of all employees, based on annual total compensation of  $23,677,209 for the CEO and $170,988 for the median employee.
This ratio is provided directly through a pension plan or throughbased on an October 1, 2017 employee population of 14,316, which excluded 412 non-U.S. employees in Germany (270), Singapore (71), Austria (39), Canada (30), and the relevant severance plan,United Arab Emirates (2). The median employee was identified using annual base pay, overtime pay, annual bonus, and target LTI compensation using data as of September 30, 2017. The annual total compensation for our CEO includes both the amount reported in the event“Total” column of an involuntary not-for-cause termination unrelated to a change in control,our 2017 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE of  $23,650,896 and the amount reflects the single sumestimated value of deeming one and a half or two additional years of age and service. In the event of an involuntary or good reason termination related to a change in control, the amount reflects the single sum value of deeming two or three additional years of age and service.

Post-employment Health & Welfare—In the event of an involuntary not-for-cause termination not related to a change in control, the amount reflects the value of certainour CEO’s health and welfare benefits of  $26,313.
The SEC’s rules for oneidentifying the median compensated employee and calculating the pay ratio based on that employee’s annual total compensation allow companies to adopt a half or two additional yearsvariety of service which is paidmethodologies, to apply certain exclusions, and to make reasonable estimates and assumptions that reflect their employee populations and compensation practices. As a result, the pay ratio reported by other companies may not be comparable to the pay ratio reported above, as other companies have different employee populations and compensation practices and may utilize different methodologies, exclusions, estimates and assumptions in a lump sum. In the event of an involuntary or good reason termination related to a change in control, the amount reflects the value of certain health and welfare benefits for two or three additional years of service which is paid in a lump sum.

Mr. Garland

calculating their own pay ratios.
EXECUTIVE BENEFITS AND
PAYMENTS
UPON TERMINATION

 INVOLUNTARY
NOT-FOR-CAUSE
TERMINATION
(NOT CIC) ($)

 INVOLUNTARY OR
GOOD REASON
TERMINATION
(CIC) ($)

 DEATH
($)

 DISABILITY
($)

Base Salary

 3,151,632 4,727,448  

Short-term Incentive

 5,042,612 10,150,652  

2013-2015 (performance period)

    

2014-2016 (performance period)

    

2015-2017 (performance period)

    

Restricted Stock/Units from prior performance

    

Stock Options/SARs:

        

Unvested and Accelerated

    

Incremental Pension

 5,076,655 6,229,676  

Post-employment Health & Welfare

 43,280 64,920  

Life Insurance

   3,151,632 

    

 13,314,179 21,172,696 3,151,632 

Ms. Johnson

EXECUTIVE BENEFITS AND
PAYMENTS
UPON TERMINATION

 INVOLUNTARY
NOT-FOR-CAUSE
TERMINATION
(NOT CIC) ($)

 INVOLUNTARY OR
GOOD REASON
TERMINATION
(CIC) ($)

 DEATH
($)

 DISABILITY
($)

Base Salary

 1,342,032 2,013,048  

Short-term Incentive

 1,194,408 1,985,361  

2013-2015 (performance period)

 2,378,884 2,378,884 2,378,884 2,378,884

2014-2016 (performance period)

 865,771 865,771 865,771 865,771

2015-2017 (performance period)

 538,326 538,326 538,326 538,326

Restricted Stock/Units from prior performance

 6,213,364 6,213,364 6,213,364 6,213,364

Stock Options/SARs:

        

Unvested and Accelerated

 379,603 395,636 395,636 395,636

Incremental Pension

 2,324,070 2,647,479  

Post-employment Health & Welfare

 14,617 21,926  

Life Insurance

   1,342,032 

    

 15,251,075 17,059,795 11,734,013 10,391,981
2016 PROXY STATEMENT49

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

Mr. Maxwell

EXECUTIVE BENEFITS AND
PAYMENTS
UPON TERMINATION

 INVOLUNTARY
NOT-FOR-CAUSE
TERMINATION
(NOT CIC) ($)

 INVOLUNTARY OR
GOOD REASON
TERMINATION
(CIC) ($)

 DEATH
($)

 DISABILITY
($)

Base Salary

 1,612,032 2,418,048  

Short-term Incentive

 1,612,032 2,677,773  

2013-2015 (performance period)

    

2014-2016 (performance period)

    

2015-2017 (performance period)

    

Restricted Stock/Units from prior performance

    

Stock Options/SARs:

        

Unvested and Accelerated

    

Incremental Pension

 206,905 279,446  

Post-employment Health & Welfare

 32,195 48,293  

Life Insurance

   1,612,032 

    

 3,463,164 5,423,560 1,612,032 

Mr. Taylor

EXECUTIVE BENEFITS AND
PAYMENTS
UPON TERMINATION

 INVOLUNTARY
NOT-FOR-CAUSE
TERMINATION
(NOT CIC) ($)

 INVOLUNTARY OR
GOOD REASON
TERMINATION
(CIC) ($)

 DEATH
($)

 DISABILITY
($)

Base Salary

 2,048,832 3,073,248  

Short-term Incentive

 2,253,716 3,475,616  

2013-2015 (performance period)

    

2014-2016 (performance period)

    

2015-2017 (performance period)

    

Restricted Stock/Units from prior performance and inducement

    

Stock Options/SARs:

        

Unvested and Accelerated

     

Incremental Pension

 184,395 276,592  

Post-employment Health & Welfare

 46,453 69,680  

Life Insurance

   2,048,832 

    

 4,533,396 6,895,136 2,048,832 

Mr. Ziemba

EXECUTIVE BENEFITS AND
PAYMENTS
UPON TERMINATION

 INVOLUNTARY
NOT-FOR-CAUSE
TERMINATION
(NOT CIC) ($)

 INVOLUNTARY OR
GOOD REASON
TERMINATION
(CIC) ($)

 DEATH
($)

 DISABILITY
($)

Base Salary

 1,402,704 2,104,056  

Short-term Incentive

 1,164,244 2,510,850  

2013-2015 (performance period)

    

2014-2016 (performance period)

    

2015-2017 (performance period)

    

Restricted Stock/Units from prior performance

    

Stock Options/SARs:

        

Unvested and Accelerated

     

Incremental Pension

 269,656 419,727  

Post-employment Health & Welfare

 46,086 69,128  

Life Insurance

   1,402,704 

    

 2,882,690 5,103,761 1,402,704 
50    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents


NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The primary elements of our non-employee Directordirector compensation program are equity compensation and cash compensation. As described below,compensation, the first changes to the programcurrent levels of which have been in place since our spin-off were effective January 1, 2016.

OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES

Compensation for non-employee Directorsdirectors is reviewed annually by the Nominating Committee, with the assistance of such third-party consultants as the Nominating Committee deems advisable, and set by action of the Board of Directors. The Board'sBoard’s goal in designing such compensation is to provide a competitive package that will enable it to attract and retain highly skilled individuals with relevant experience and reflects the time and talent required to serve on the board of a complex, multinational corporation. The Board seeks to provide sufficient flexibility in the form of payment to meet individual needs while ensuring that a substantial portion of director compensation is linked to the long-term success of the Company. In furtherance of our commitment to be a socially responsible member of the communities in which we participate, the Board believes that it is appropriate to extend the Phillips 66 matching gift program to charitable contributions made by individual Directors.

directors.

Equity Compensation

In 2015,2017, each non-employee Directordirector received a grant of RSUs with an aggregate value of  $170,000$200,000 on the date of grant. Restrictions on the units issued to a non-employee Directordirector will lapse in the event of retirement, disability, death, or a change of control, unless the Directordirector has elected to receive the underlying shares after a stated period of time. Directors forfeit the units if, prior to the lapse of restrictions, the Board finds sufficient cause for forfeiture (although no such finding can be made after a change in control). Before the restrictions lapse, Directorsdirectors cannot sell or otherwise transfer the units, but the units are credited with dividend equivalents in the form of additional RSUs. When restrictions lapse, Directorsdirectors will receive unrestricted shares of CompanyPhillips 66 common stock as settlement of the RSUs.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   55​

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Cash Compensation

In 2015,2017, each non-employee Directordirector received $115,000$125,000 in cash compensation for service as a Director.director. Non-employee Directorsdirectors serving in specified committee or leadership positions also received the following additional cash compensation:

LEAD / CHAIR
MEMBER
Lead Director$50,000​N/A​
Audit and Finance Committee$25,000​$10,000​
Human Resources and Compensation Committee$25,000​$10,000​
All Other Committees$10,000​N/A​

 
 LEAD / CHAIR
 MEMBER
 

Lead Director

 $50,000 N/A 

Audit and Finance Committee

  $25,000  $10,000 

Human Resources and Compensation Committee

 $20,000 $7,500 

All Other Committees

  $10,000  N/A 

The total annual cash compensation is payable in monthly cash installments. Directors may elect, on an annual basis, to receive all or part of their cash compensation in unrestricted stock or in RSUs (such unrestricted stock or RSUs are issued on the last business day of the month valued using the average of the high and low prices of Phillips 66 common stock as reported on the NYSE on such date), or to have the amount credited to the Director'sdirector’s deferred compensation account as described below. The RSUs issued in lieu of cash compensation are subject to the same restrictions as the annual RSUs described above under "Equity Compensation.Compensation"

Program Changes for 2016

The Nominating Committee annually evaluates the non-employee Director compensation program. Taking into account that no changes had been made to the program since our spin-off in 2012 and studying the director compensation at our peers and across market indices, the Nominating Committee recommended, and the Board approved, an increase in non-employee Director compensation beginning January 1, 2016. The annual equity grant was increased to $200,000 and the cash compensation was increased to $125,000. Further, the additional cash compensation for committee or leadership service was revised as set forth below:

.
 
 LEAD / CHAIR
 MEMBER
 

Lead Director

 $50,000 N/A 

Audit and Finance Committee

  $25,000  $10,000 

Human Resources and Compensation Committee

 $25,000 $10,000 

All Other Committees

  $10,000  N/A 

Deferral of Compensation

Non-employee Directorsdirectors can elect to defer their cash compensation under the Phillips 66 Deferred Compensation Program for non-Employee Directors (the "Director“Director Deferral Plan"Plan”). Deferred amounts are deemed to be invested in various mutual

2016 PROXY STATEMENT51

Table of Contents

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

funds and similar investment choices (including Phillips 66 common stock) selected by the Directordirector from a list of investment choices available under the Director Deferral Plan.

The future payment of any compensation deferred by non-employee Directorsdirectors of Phillips 66 may be funded in a grantor trust designed for this purpose.

Directors'

Directors’ Matching Gift Program

All active and retired non-employee Directorsdirectors are eligible to participate in the Directors'Directors’ Annual Matching Gift Program. This provides a dollar-for-dollar match of gifts of cash or securities, up to a maximum during any one calendar year of  $15,000 per donor for active Directorsdirectors and $7,500 per donor for retired Directors,directors, to charities and educational institutions (excluding certain religious, political, fraternal, or collegiate athletic organizations) that are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue CodeIRC or meet similar requirements under the applicable law of other countries. Amounts representing these matching contributions are contained in the "All“All Other Compensation"Compensation” column of the "NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLENon-employee Director Compensation Table" below.

.

Other Compensation

The Board believes that it is important for spouses or significant others of Directorsdirectors and executives to attend certain meetings to enhance the collegiality of the Board. The cost of such attendance is treated by the Internal Revenue Service as income and is taxable to the recipient. The Company reimburses Directorsdirectors for the cost of resulting income taxes. Amounts representing this reimbursement are contained in the "All“All Other Compensation"Compensation” column of the "NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLENon-employee Director Compensation Table" below.

.

Stock Ownership

Directors are

Each director is expected to own as much Companyan amount of Phillips 66 common stock asequal to at least the aggregate amountsamount of the annual equity grants during their first five years on the Board. Directors are expected to reach this level of target ownership within five years of joining the Board. Actual shares of stock, Restricted Stock, or RSUs, including deferred stock units, may be counted in satisfying the stock ownership guidelines. All current directors are in compliance, or on pace to comply, with the guidelines.


56   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION​
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE

Phillips 66 benchmarks its non-employee Directordirector compensation design and pay levels against a group of peer companies. The Company targets the median of this peer group for all elements of non-employee Directordirector compensation.

The following table summarizes the compensation for our non-employee Directorsdirectors for 20152017 (for compensation paid to our sole employee Director,director, Mr. Garland, please see "EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLESExecutive Compensation Tables" beginning on page 40):

.
NAME
FEES EARNED OR
PAID IN CASH(1)
($)
STOCK
AWARDS(2)
($)
OPTION
AWARDS
($)
NON-EQUITY
INCENTIVE PLAN
COMPENSATION
($)
CHANGE IN PENSION VALUE
AND NONQUALIFIED
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
EARNINGS
($)
ALL OTHER
COMPENSATION(3)
($)
TOTAL
($)
Gary K. Adams135,000​200,001​—​—​—​1,146​336,147​
J. Brian Ferguson150,000​200,001​—​—​—​343​350,344​
William R. Loomis, Jr.145,000​200,001​—​—​—​20,412​365,413​
John E. Lowe145,000​200,001​—​—​—​15,095​360,096​
Harold W. McGraw III135,000​200,001​—​—​—​353​335,354​
Denise L. Ramos135,000​200,001​—​—​—​8,039​343,040​
Glenn F. Tilton185,000​200,001​—​—​—​22,940​407,941​
Victoria J. Tschinkel135,000​200,001​—​—​—​22,702​357,703​
Marna C. Whittington150,000​200,001​—​—​—​22,372​372,373​

(1)
NAME
 FEES
EARNED
OR PAID
IN CASH
($)(1)

 STOCK
AWARDS
($)(2)

 OPTION
AWARDS
($)

 NON-EQUITY
INCENTIVE PLAN
COMPENSATION
($)

 CHANGE IN PENSION
VALUE AND
NONQUALIFIED
DEFERRED
COMPENSATION
EARNINGS ($)

 ALL OTHER
COMPENSATION
($)(3)

 TOTAL
($)

 

J. Brian Ferguson

 135,000 170,010    2,777 307,787 

William R. Loomis, Jr.

  140,000  170,010        33,342  343,352 

John E. Lowe

 120,000 170,010    10,400 300,410 

Harold W. McGraw III

  182,500  170,010        356  352,866 

Glenn F. Tilton

 122,500 170,010    16,547 309,057 

Victoria J. Tschinkel

  135,000  170,010        15,964  320,974 

Marna C. Whittington

 125,000 170,010    20,072 315,082 
(1)
Reflects 20152017 base cash compensation of  $115,000$125,000 payable to each non-employee Director.director. In 2015,2017, non-employee Directorsdirectors serving in specified committee positions also received the additional cash compensation described above.previously. Compensation amounts reflect adjustments related to various changes in committee assignments by Board members throughout the year, if any. Amounts shown include any amounts that were voluntarily deferred to the Director Deferral Plan, received in Phillips 66 common stock, or received in RSUs. Mr. Tilton elected to defer his cash compensation.
(2)

(2)
Amounts represent the grant date fair market value of RSUs. Under our non-employee Directordirector compensation program, non-employee Directorsdirectors received a 20152017 grant of RSUs with an aggregate value of  $170,000$200,000 on the date of grant, based on the average of the high and low prices for Phillips 66 common stock, as reported on the NYSE, on such date. These grants are made in whole shares with fractional share amounts rounded up, resulting in shares with a value of  $170,010$200,001 being granted on January 15, 2015.
52    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

17, 2017.
(3)
Includes the amounts attributable to the following:

(3)
NAME
 PERSONAL USE OF
COMPANY AIRCRAFT
($)(a)

 MISCELLANEOUS
PERQUISITES AND TAX
REIMBURSEMENTS
($)(b)

 MATCHING GIFT
AMOUNTS
($)(c)

 TOTAL
($)

 

Mr. Ferguson

 1,821 956  2,777 

Mr. Loomis

  2,578  10,764  20,000  33,342 

Mr. Lowe

  3,150 7,250 10,400 

Mr. McGraw

    356    356 

Mr. Tilton

  1,547 15,000 16,547 

Ms. Tschinkel

    964  15,000  15,964 

Dr. Whittington

 1,803 3,269 15,000 20,072 
(a)
On occasion, the Company may request Directors to invite guests to accompany them on business trips, Directors may be asked to accompany executives on business trips other than Board meetings, or a Director or guest may be returned to a location other than their home. When these situations occur and we are required to impute income to the Director, incremental costs to Phillips 66, if any, are reported in this table. The incremental costAll Other Compensation is determined by calculating the variable costs for each aircraft during the year, dividing that amount by the total numbermade up primarily of miles flown by the aircraft, and multiplying the result by the miles flown for personal use during the year.

(b)
The amounts shown primarily reflect payments by us relating to certain taxes incurred by the Directors. These payments primarily occur when we request family members or other guests to accompany a Director to a Company function and, as a result, the Director is deemed to make personal use of Company assets such as Company aircraft and thereby incurs imputed income. In such circumstances, if the Director is imputed income in accordance with the applicable tax laws, we will generally reimburse the Director for the increased tax costs. The amounts shown include gifts received for their role as members of the Board of Directors.

(c)
We maintain a Matching Gift Program under which we match certain gifts by Directorsdirectors to charities and educational institutions (excluding certain religious, political, fraternal, or athletic organizations) that are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue CodeIRC or meet similar requirements under the applicable law of other countries.countries that we match under our Matching Gifts Program (Mr. Loomis $15,000; Mr. Lowe $10,500; Mr. Tilton $15,000; Ms. Tschinkel $15,000, and Dr. Whittington $15,000). For active Directors,directors, the program matches up to $15,000 with regard to each program year. The amounts shown reflect the actual payments made by us in 2015. Mr. Loomis made certain2017. All Other Compensation also includes any personal flights, automobile transportation expenses, smaller gifts in the fourth quarter of 2014 that were matched by the(such as books, ornaments, and jackets) as well as associated tax protection, and tax assistance when we request family members or other guests to accompany a director to a Company in 2015 in addition to his 2015 contributions. Mr. Garland is eligible for the program as an executive of the Company, rather thanfunction and, as a Director. Information onresult, the valuedirector is deemed to make personal use of matching gifts for Mr. Garland is shown in the "Summary Compensation Table" on page 40Company assets such as Company aircraft and the notes to that table.
thereby incurs imputed income.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR END

The following table lists outstanding equity grants for each non-employee Director as of December 31, 2015:

NAME
GRANT
DATE

NUMBER OF
SECURITIES
UNDERLYING
UNEXERCISED
OPTIONS (#)
EXERCISABLE

NUMBER OF
SECURITIES
UNDERLYING
UNEXERCISED
OPTIONS (#)
UNEXERCISABLE

OPTION
EXERCISE
PRICE ($)

OPTION
EXPIRATION
DATE

NUMBER OF
SHARES OR
UNITS OF STOCK
THAT HAVE NOT
VESTED (#)

Mr. Ferguson

12,698

Mr. Loomis

14,545

Mr. Lowe

12,698

Mr. McGraw

30,804

Mr. Tilton

12,698

Ms. Tschinkel

11,571

Dr. Whittington

12,698

OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED FOR 2015

The following table summarizes the value received from stock option exercises and stock grants vested in 2015:

NAME
 NUMBER OF
SHARES
ACQUIRED ON
EXERCISE
(#)

 VALUE REALIZED
ON EXERCISE
($)

 NUMBER OF
SHARES
ACQUIRED ON
VESTING
(#)

 VALUE REALIZED
ON VESTING
($)

 

Mr. Ferguson

     

Mr. Loomis

         

Mr. Lowe

     

Mr. McGraw

         

Mr. Tilton

     

Ms. Tschinkel

      1,306  77,850 

Dr. Whittington

     
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   57​
2016 PROXY STATEMENT53

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

The following table sets forth information about Phillips 66 common stock that may be issued under all existing equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2015:

2017:
PLAN CATEGORY
NUMBER OF SECURITIES TO
BE ISSUED UPON EXERCISE
OF OUTSTANDING OPTIONS,
WARRANTS AND
RIGHTS(1,2)
(a)​
WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
EXERCISE PRICE OF
OUTSTANDING OPTIONS,
WARRANTS AND RIGHTS(3)
(b)​
NUMBER OF SECURITIES REMAINING AVAILABLE
FOR FUTURE ISSUANCE UNDER EQUITY
COMPENSATION PLANS (EXCLUDING
SECURITIES REFLECTED IN COLUMN (a))(4)
(c)​
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders10,521,382​58.34​35,673,784​
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders0​0​0​
Total10,521,382​58.34​35,673,784​

(1)
Plan category
 NUMBER OF SECURITIES
TO BE ISSUED UPON
EXERCISE OF
OUTSTANDING
OPTIONS, WARRANTS
AND RIGHTS(1,2)
(a)

 WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
EXERCISE PRICE OF
OUTSTANDING OPTIONS,
WARRANTS AND RIGHTS(3)
(b)

 NUMBER OF SECURITIES REMAINING
AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE ISSUANCE UNDER
EQUITY COMPENSATION PLANS (EXCLUDING
SECURITIES REFLECTED IN COLUMN (a))(4)
(c)

 

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders

 12,746,393 $41.27 40,694,393 

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders

       

Total

 12,746,393 $41.27 40,694,393 
(1)
Includes awards issued under the Omnibus Stock and Performance Incentive Plan of Phillips 66 and awards issued under the 2013 Omnibus Stock and Performance Incentive Plan of Phillips 66.
(2)

(2)
Includes an aggregate of 5,431,7394,838,855 Incentive Stock Options and Nonqualified Stock Options issued to employees, 28,00510,539 Restricted Stock Awards granted under historical long-term incentiveLTI plans, and 3,556,826 Performance Share Units.2,558,278 PSUs. The number of securities to be issued includes 3,729,823 Restricted Stock Units,3,113,710 RSUs, of which 212,731226,874 were issued to non-employee Directors.directors. Some awards held by ConocoPhillips employees at our spin-off were adjusted or substituted with a combination of ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 equity. Awards representing a total of 13,071,435 shares were issued to ConocoPhillips employees, of which 3,841,9642,567,745 remain outstanding as of December 31, 2015.2017. The awards issued to ConocoPhillips employees are included in the outstanding awards listed above.
(3)

(3)
The weighted-average exercise price reflects the weighted-average price for outstanding Incentive Stock Options and Nonqualified Stock Options only. It does not include stock awards outstanding.
(4)

(4)
Total includes forfeited shares under the Omnibus Stock and Performance Incentive Plan of Phillips 66 that are now available for grant under the 2013 Omnibus Stock and Performance Incentive Plan of Phillips 66.

STOCK OWNERSHIP

HOLDINGS OF MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS

Holdings of Major Shareholders
The following table sets forth information regarding persons who we know to be the beneficial owners of more than five percent of our issued and outstanding common stock (as of the date of such shareholder's Schedule 13Gshareholder’s most recent ownership filing with the SEC):

COMMON STOCK
NAME AND ADDRESS
NUMBER OF
SHARES
PERCENT OF
CLASS
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.(1)
3555 Farnam Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68131
45,689,892​9.8%​
The Vanguard Group(2)
100 Vanguard Blvd.
Malvern, PA 19335
31,919,497​6.8%​
BlackRock, Inc.(3)
55 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10055
27,591,749​5.9%​

(1)
 
 COMMON STOCK 
NAME AND ADDRESS
 NUMBER OF SHARES
 PERCENT OF CLASS
 
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.(1)
3555 Farnam Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68131


 
75,550,745 14.32% 
BlackRock, Inc.(2)
55 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10055
  28,243,947  5.35% 
The Vanguard Group(3)
100 Vanguard Blvd.
Malvern, PA 19335


 
31,318,814 5.94% 
(1)
Based solely on an Amendment to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 16, 2016,21, 2018, by Warren E. Buffett on behalf of himself and Berkshire Hathaway Inc., National Indemnity Company, National Liability & Fire Insurance Co., Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corp., Columbia Insurance Company, Fruit of the LoomBerkshire Hathaway Consolidated Pension Plan Master Trust, Flightsafety International Inc. Retirement Income Plan, GeicoGEICO Corporation Pension Plan Trust, Johns Manville Corporation Master Pension Trust, and General Re Corp. Employee Retirement Trust, as updated by the most recent Form 4 filed by such ownership group dated February 12, 2016, which also added National Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Berkshire Hathaway Homstate Insurance Co., and Berkshire Hathaway SpecialtyHomestate Insurance Co. to the ownership group.Company.
(2)

(2)
Based solely on an Amendment to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 10, 2016,9, 2018, by The Vanguard Group on behalf of itself, Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, and Vanguard Investments Australia, Ltd.
(3)
Based solely on an Amendment to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on January 23, 2018, by BlackRock, Inc. on behalf of itself, BlackRock Advisors, LLC, BlackRock Financial Management, Inc., BlackRock Investment Management, LLC, BlackRock Investment Management (Australia) Limited, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd, BlackRock (Channel Islands) Ltd., BlackRock (Luxembourg) S.A., BlackRock (Netherlands) B.V., BlackRock Fund Managers Limited,Ltd, BlackRock Life Limited, BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited, BlackRock Asset Management Ireland Limited, BlackRock Asset Management Schweiz AG, BlackRock (Singapore) Limited, BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited, BlackRock Fund Advisors, BlackRock International Limited, BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., BlackRock Japan Co. Ltd., BlackRock Capital Management, Inc., FutureAdvisor, Inc., and BlackRock Asset Management North Asia Limited, and Xulu, Inc.

(3)
Based solely on an Amendment to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 11, 2016, by The Vanguard Group on behalf of itself, Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, and Vanguard Investments Australia, Ltd.
Limited.
54    2016 PROXY STATEMENT
58   

STOCK OWNERSHIP

OWNERSHIP​

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires directors and executive officers of Phillips 66, and persons who own more than 10 percent of a registered class of Phillips 66 equity securities, to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership of Phillips 66 common stock with the SEC and the NYSE, and to furnish Phillips 66 with copies of the forms they file.
To our knowledge, based solely upon a review of the copies of such reports furnished to the Company and written representations of our officers and directors, during the year ended December 31, 2015,2017, all Section 16(a) reports applicable to those officers and directors were filed on a timely basis.

SECURITIES OWNERSHIP OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS

The following table sets forth the number of shares of our common stock beneficially owned as of March 11, 2016,12, 2018, by each Phillips 66 Director,director, by each NEO and by all of our directors and executive officers as a group. Together these individuals beneficially own less than one percent of our common stock. The table also includes information about stock options, restricted stock, RSUs and Deferred Stock Units credited to the accounts of our directors and executive officers under various compensation and benefit plans. For purposes of this table, shares are considered to be "beneficially"“beneficially” owned if the person, directly or indirectly, has sole or shared voting or investment power with respect to such shares. In addition, a person is deemed to beneficially own shares if that person has the right to acquire such shares within 60 days of March 11, 2016.

12, 2018.
NUMBER OF SHARES OR UNITS
NAME OF BENEFICIAL OWNER
TOTAL COMMON STOCK
BENEFICIALLY OWNED
RESTRICTED/DEFERRED
STOCK UNITS(1)
OPTIONS EXERCISABLE
WITHIN 60 DAYS(2)
Mr. Garland225,995​483,918​645,161​
Ms. Johnson37,213​71,324​89,999​
Mr. Mitchell34,220​24,538​40,999​
Mr. Taylor73,761​128,003​176,232​
Mr. Herman26,942​67,081​124,066​
Mr. Adams4,901​—​—​
Mr. Ferguson234​20,657​—​
Mr. Loomis(3)72,582​22,623​—​
Mr. Lowe30,000​20,657​—​
Mr. McGraw(4)
873​39,942​—​
Ms. Ramos—​5,004​—​
Mr. Tilton5,900​20,657​—​
Ms. Tschinkel(5)
42,830​10,258​—​
Dr. Whittington2,500​20,657​—​
Directors and Executive Officers as a Group (15 Persons)560,879​958,669​1,094,056​

(1)
 
 NUMBER OF SHARES OR UNITS 
NAME OF BENEFICIAL OWNER
 TOTAL COMMON STOCK
BENEFICIALLY OWNED

 RESTRICTED/DEFERRED
STOCK UNITS(1)

 OPTIONS EXERCISABLE
WITHIN 60 DAYS(2)

 

Mr. Garland

 72,577 676,428 472,993 

Ms. Johnson

  17,595  87,200  73,574 

Mr. Maxwell(3)

 32,398 104,488 89,751 

Mr. Mitchell(3)

  5,972  55,862  3,300 

Mr. Taylor

 36,183 172,262 136,159 

Mr. Ziemba

  10,643  177,254  225,504 

Mr. Ferguson

 234 15,276  

Mr. Loomis

  59,902  17,123   

Mr. Lowe

 30,000 15,276  

Mr. McGraw(4)

  873  33,390   

Mr. Tilton

 5,900 15,276  

Ms. Tschinkel(5)

  36,619  11,399   

Dr. Whittington

 2,500 15,276  

Directors and Executive Officers as a Group (14 Persons)(3)

  291,443  1,408,947  1,073,495 
(1)
Includes RSUs or Deferred Stock Units that may be voted or sold only upon passage of time.
(2)

(2)
Includes beneficial ownership of shares of common stock which may be acquired within 60 days of March 11, 2016,12, 2018, through stock options awarded under compensation plans.
(3)

(3)
Effective January 1, 2016, Kevin J. Mitchell replaced
Includes 59,902 shares held by the Loomis Family Trust, for which Mr. MaxwellLoomis serves as our Chief Financial Officer. The holdingstrustee and has voting and investment power. Mr. Loomis disclaims beneficial ownership of Mr. Maxwell, an NEO in this proxy statement, andall securities held by the holdings of Mr. Mitchell, an executive officer as of the record date, are both included in this table. Only Mr. Mitchell's holdings are included in the total for all directors and executive officers as a group.trust.
(4)

(4)
Includes 373 shares held on behalf of the Harold W. McGraw Family Foundation, Inc., of which Mr. McGraw serves on the board, or various trusts for the benefit of various family members of Mr. McGraw and for which trusts Mr. McGraw serves as trustee and has voting and investment power. Mr. McGraw disclaims beneficial ownership of all securities held by the foundation and the trusts.
(5)

(5)
Includes 85171 shares of common stock owned by the Erika Tschinkel Trust and 31,003 shares of common stock owned jointly with Ms. Tschinkel's spouse.Trust.
2016 PROXY STATEMENT55
   59​

PROPOSAL 4:
Management Proposal Regarding the Annual Election of Directors

Currently, the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the "Certificate“Certificate of Incorporation"Incorporation”) of the Company provides for a staggered Board divided into three classes of directors, with each class elected for a three-year terms.

term.

After considering the advantages and disadvantages of declassification, including the opinion of major investors of the Company and views of commentators, the Board has determined it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to amend the Certificate of Incorporation and the By-Laws of the Company to declassify the Board over the next three years. This will result in a fully declassified Board by the 20192021 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE "FOR"“FOR” THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION TO DECLASSIFY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

The affirmative vote of the holders of 80 percent of the outstanding shares of common stock entitled to vote generally on the election of directors on the Record Date is required to approve this Proposal.proposal. We submitted this proposal in 2015 and 2016 and, while it received significant support, it did not receive the 80 percent vote required for adoption. Because brokers may not cast a vote on this proposal without your instruction, it is very important that you vote your shares.

The proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation would eliminate the classification of the Board over a three-year period and provide for the annual election of all directors beginning at the 20192021 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation would become effective upon the filing of a Certificate of Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, which the Company would file promptly following the Annual Meeting if our shareholders approve the amendment. Board declassification would be phased-in over a three-year period, beginning at the 20172019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, as follows:


At the 20162018 Annual Meeting, twothree nominees will be elected to the Board to serve for a three-year period ending at the 20192021 Annual Meeting.


The three Directors elected for three-yearfour directors whose terms expire at the 20142019 Annual Meeting will continue to serve until the 2019 Annual Meeting and nominees for the four director positions expiring at that meeting will be elected for one-year terms ending at the 2020 Annual Meeting.

The three directors elected for three-year terms at the 2017 Annual Meeting will continue to serve until the 2020 Annual Meeting. Nominees for the threeseven expiring director positions expiring at the 20172020 Annual Meeting will be elected for one-year terms ending at the 20182021 Annual Meeting.


The three Directors elected for three-year terms at the 2015 Annual Meeting will continue to serve until the 2018 Annual Meeting. Nominees for the six expiring director positions at the 2018 Annual Meeting will be elected for one-year terms ending at the 2019 Annual Meeting.

At the 20192021 Annual Meeting, the terms of the two Directorsthree directors elected for three-year terms in 20162018 and the six Directorsseven directors elected to one-year terms in 20182020 will all expire, and all nominees presented for election to the Board at the 20192021 Annual Meeting will be elected to one-year terms.

Beginning with the 20192021 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, all Directorsdirectors will stand for election at each annual meeting of shareholders for a one-year term expiring at the subsequent annual meeting of shareholders. The proposed amendment does not change the present number of Directorsdirectors or the Board'sBoard’s authority to change that number and to fill any vacancies or newly created directorships.

Delaware law provides, unless otherwise addressed in the certificate of incorporation, that members of a board that is classified may be removed only for cause. The proposed amendment provides that, once the Board is fully declassified as of the 20192021 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, directors may be removed with or without cause. Before that time, directors serving in a class elected for a three-year term at any annual meeting of shareholders from 20142016 through 20162018 may be removed only for cause. Directors elected for a one-year term at each annual meeting of shareholders from 20172019 through 20182020 may be removed with or without cause.

The proposed Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation is attached to this Proxy Statement asAppendix AB. If our shareholders approve the proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation, the Board will make certain conforming changes to the Company'sCompany’s By-Laws.

56    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

60   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

Who is soliciting my vote?

The Board of Directors of Phillips 66 is soliciting proxies to be voted at the 20162018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Phillips 66.

Who is entitled to vote?

You may vote if you were the record owner of Phillips 66 common stock as of the close of business on March 11, 2016,12, 2018, the record date established by the Board of Directors. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote. As of March 11, 2016,12, 2018, we had [xx]466,325,141 shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote. There is no cumulative voting.

How many shares must be present to hold the meeting?

In order for us to hold our meeting, holders of a majority of our outstanding shares of common stock as of March 11, 2016,12, 2018, must be present in person or by proxy at the meeting. This is referred to as a quorum. Your shares are counted as present at the Annual Meeting if you attend the meeting and vote in person or if you properly return a proxy by Internet, telephone or mail. Abstentions and broker non-votes will also be counted for purposes of establishing a quorum at the meeting.

What is a broker non-vote?

Applicable rules permit brokers

Brokers are allowed to vote shares held for the benefit of their clients on routine matters wheneven though the brokers have not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner on how to vote those shares.the shares only on routine matters. The ratification of an independent auditor is an example of a routine matter on which brokers may vote in this manner. Brokers
Without voting instructions, brokers may not vote shares held for the benefit of their clients on non-routine matters. Non-routine matters such asinclude the election of directors, proposals relating to executive compensation and proposals to amend certificates of incorporation and certain other corporate governance changes, unless they have received voting instructions from the beneficial owner on how to vote those shares.changes. Shares that are not voted by brokers on non-routine matters are called broker non-votes.

How many votes are needed to approve each of the proposals?

Each of the director nominees requires the affirmative "FOR" vote of the majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the meeting. All other proposals, except cast.
Proposal 4, require the affirmative "FOR" vote of a majority of those shares present in person or represented by proxy atproposal to declassify the meeting and entitled to vote. Proposal 4Board, requires the affirmative "FOR" vote of the holders of 80 percent of the outstanding shares as of stock entitled to vote generally on the election of directors on the Record Date. Accordingly,record date. As a result, a broker non-vote on Proposal 4 has the same effect as a vote against the proposal.
All other proposals require the affirmative “FOR

” vote of a majority of shares present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting.

How do I vote?

You can vote eitherin person at the meeting orby proxy.

This proxy statement, the accompanying proxy card and the Company's 2015Company’s 2017 Annual Report to Shareholders are being made available to the Company'sCompany’s shareholders on the Internet atwww.proxyvote.comwww.proxyvote.com through the notice and access process. The Company's 2015Company’s 2017 Annual Report to Shareholders contains consolidated financial statements and reports of the independent registered public accounting firm, management'smanagement’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations, information concerning the quarterly financial data for the past two fiscal years, and other information.

To vote by proxy, you must do one of the following:


Vote over theInternet (instructions are on the proxy card).


Vote bytelephone (instructions are on the proxy card).


If you elected to receive a hard copy of your proxy materials, fill out the enclosedproxy card,, date and sign it, and return it in the enclosed postage-paid envelope

envelope.

If you hold your Phillips 66 stock in a brokerage account (that is, in "street name"“street name”), your ability to vote by telephone or over the Internet depends on your broker'sbroker’s voting process. Please follow the directions on your proxy card or voter instruction form carefully.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   61​

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING
Even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we encourage you to vote your shares by proxy. If you plan to vote in person at the Annual Meeting and you hold your Phillips 66 common stock in street name, you must obtain a proxy from your broker and bring that proxy to the meeting.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT57

Table of Contents

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

How do I vote if I hold my stock through a Phillips 66 employee benefit plan?

If you hold your common stock through a Phillips 66 employee benefit plan, you must either:


Vote over theInternet (instructions are in the email sent to you or on the notice and access form).


Vote bytelephone (instructions are on the notice and access form).


If you elected to receive a hard copy of your proxy materials, fill out the enclosedvoting instruction form,, date and sign it, and return it in the enclosed postage-paid envelope

envelope.

You will receive a separate voting instruction form for each employee benefit plan in which you hold Phillips 66 common stock. Please pay close attention to the deadline for returning your voting instruction form to the plan trustee. The voting deadline for each plan is set forth on the voting instruction form. Please note that different plans may have different deadlines.

How can I revoke my proxy?

You can revoke your proxy by sending written notice of revocation of your proxy to our Corporate Secretary so that it is received prior to 5:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time, on May 3, 2016.

8, 2018. The contact information for our Corporate Secretary may be found under COMMUNICATIONS WITH OUR BOARD.

Can I change my vote?

Yes. You can change your vote at any time before the polls close at the Annual Meeting, which will void any earlier vote. You can change your vote by:

Voting
voting again by telephone or over the Internet prior to 11:59 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on May 3, 20168, 2018;


Signing
signing another proxy card with a later date and returning it to us prior to the meetingmeeting; or


Voting
voting again at the meeting

meeting.

If you hold your Phillips 66 common stock in street name, you must contact your broker to obtain information regarding changing your voting instructions.

Who counts the votes?

We hired Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. to count the votes represented by proxies and cast by ballot, and appointed Jim Gaughan of Carl T. Hagberg and Associates to act as Inspector of Election.

Will my shares be voted if I don'tdon’t provide my proxy and don'tdon’t attend the Annual Meeting?

For shares held in your name, if you do not provide a proxy or vote your shares at the Annual Meeting, those shares will not be voted.

If you hold shares in street name, your broker may be able to vote those shares for certain "routine"routine matters even if you do not provide the broker with voting instructions. Only the ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 20162018 is considered to be a routine matter.

If you do not give your broker instructions on how to vote your shares, the broker will return the proxy card without voting on proposals not considered "routine."that are non-routine. This is a broker non-vote. Without instructions from you, the broker may not vote on any proposals other than the ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016.

2018.

62   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING​
How are votes counted?

For all proposals, you may vote "FOR," "” “AGAINST," or "ABSTAIN." If you vote to "ABSTAIN" on the election of directors, it is not considered as a vote cast and, therefore, your vote will reduce the number, but not the percentage, of affirmative votes needed to elect the nominees. If
For the other proposals, if you vote to "ABSTAIN," on the other proposals, your shares are still considered as present and entitled to vote and, therefore, your abstention has the same effect as a vote "AGAINST."

What if I return my proxy but don'tdon’t vote for some of the matters listed on my proxy card?

If you return a signed proxy card without indicating your vote, your shares will be voted "FOR" the director nominees listed on the card, "FOR" the ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm for Phillips 66

58    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

for fiscal year 2016, "2018, “FOR" the approval of the compensation of our Named Executive Officers, and "FOR" the proposal regarding the declassification of the Board of Directors.

Could other matters be decided at the Annual Meeting?

We are not aware of any other matters to be presented at the Annual Meeting. If any other matters are properly brought before the Annual Meeting, the persons named in your proxy will vote in accordance with their best judgment. Discretionary authority to vote on other matters is included in the proxy.

When will the Company announce the results of the vote?

Within four business days of the Annual Meeting, we will file a Current Report on Form 8-K announcing the results of the vote at the Annual Meeting.

Who can attend the Annual Meeting?

The Annual Meeting is open to all holders of Phillips 66 common stock. Each shareholder is permitted to bring one guest. No cameras, recording equipment, large bags, briefcases or packages will be permitted in the Annual Meeting, and security measures will be in effect to provide for the safety of attendees.

Do I need a ticket to attend the Annual Meeting?

Yes, you will need an admission ticket or proof of ownership of Phillips 66 common stock to enter the meeting. If your shares are registered in your name, you will find an admission ticket attached to the proxy card sent to you. If your shares are held in the name of your broker or bank or you received your materials electronically, you will need to bring evidence of your stock ownership, such as your most recent brokerage statement. All shareholders will be required to present valid picture identification.IF YOU DO NOT HAVE VALID PICTURE IDENTIFICATION AND EITHER AN ADMISSION TICKET OR PROOF THAT YOU OWN PHILLIPS 66 STOCK, YOU MAY NOT BE ADMITTED INTO THE MEETINGMEETING..

How can I access the Phillips 66 proxy materials and annual report electronically?

This proxy statement, the accompanying proxy card and the Company's 2015Company’s 2017 Annual Report are being made available to the Company'sCompany’s shareholders on the Internet atwww.proxyvote.comwww.proxyvote.com through the notice and access process. Most shareholders can elect to view future proxy statements and annual reports over the Internet instead of receiving paper copies in the mail.

If you own Phillips 66 common stock in your name, you can choose this option, and help conserve resources and save the cost of producing and mailing these documents, by checking the box for electronic delivery on your proxy card or by following the instructions provided when you vote by telephone or over the Internet. If you hold your Phillips 66 common stock through a bank, broker or other holder of record, please refer to the information provided by that entity for instructions on how to elect to view future proxy statements and annual reports over the Internet.

If you choose to view future proxy statements and annual reports over the Internet, you will receive a Notice of Internet Availability next year containing the Internet address to use to access our proxy statement and annual report. Your choice will remain in effect unless you change your election following the receipt of a Notice of Internet Availability. You do not have to elect Internet access each year. If you later change your mind and would like to receive paper copies of our proxy statements and
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   63​

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING
annual reports, you can request both by phone at 800-579-1639, by email atsendmaterial@proxyvote.comsendmaterial@proxyvote.com, through the Internet atwww.proxyvote.comwww.proxyvote.com or by writing to Phillips 66, c/o Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717. You will need your 12-digit16-digit control number located on your Notice of Internet Availability to request a package. You will also be provided with the opportunity to receive a copy of the proxy statement and annual report in future mailings.

Will my vote be kept confidential?

The Board of Directors has a policy that shareholder proxies, ballots, and tabulations that identify shareholders are to be maintained in confidence. No such document will be available for examination, and the identity and vote of any shareholder will not be disclosed, except as necessary to meet legal requirements and allow the inspectors of election to certify the results of the shareholder vote. The policy also provides that inspectors of election must be independent and cannot be employees of the Company. Occasionally, shareholders provide written comments on their proxy card that may be forwarded to management.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT59

Table of Contents

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

What is the cost of this proxy solicitation?

The Board of Directors has sent you this proxy statement. Our directors, officers and employees may solicit proxies by mail, by email, by telephone or in person. Those persons will receive no additional compensation for any solicitation activities. We will request banking institutions, brokerage firms, custodians, trustees, nominees and fiduciaries to forward solicitation materials to the beneficial owners of common stock held of record by those entities, and we will, upon the request of those record holders, reimburse reasonable forwarding expenses. We will pay the costs of preparing, printing, assembling and mailing the proxy materials used in the solicitation of proxies. In addition, we have hired Alliance Advisors, LLC to assist us in soliciting proxies, which it may do by telephone or in person. We anticipate paying Alliance Advisors, LLC a fee of  $15,000, plus expenses.

Why did my household receive a single set of proxy materials?

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules permit us to deliver a single copy of an annual report and proxy statement to any household not participating in electronic proxy material delivery at which two or more shareholders reside, if we believe the shareholders are members of the same family. This benefits both you and the Company, as it eliminates duplicate mailings that shareholders living at the same address receive and conserves resources and reduces printing and mailing costs. This rule applies to any annual reports, proxy statements, proxy statements combined with a prospectus or information statements. Each shareholder will continue to receive a separate proxy card or voting instruction card.
Your household may have received a single set of proxy materials this year. If you prefer to receive your own copy now or in future years, please request a duplicate set by phone at 800-579-1639, through the Internet atwww.proxyvote.comwww.proxyvote.com, by email atsendmaterial@proxyvote.comsendmaterial@proxyvote.com, or by writing to Phillips 66, c/o Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717. Shareholders sharing the same address can request delivery of a single copy of these materials using the same methods described in the preceding sentence. If a broker or other nominee holds your shares, you may continue to receive some duplicate mailings. Certain brokers will eliminate duplicate account mailings by allowing shareholders to consent to such elimination, or through implied consent if a shareholder does not request continuation of duplicate mailings. Because not all brokers and nominees may offer shareholders the opportunity to request eliminating duplicate mailings, you may need to contact your broker or nominee directly to discontinue duplicate mailings to your household.

60    2016 PROXY STATEMENT
64   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

SUBMISSION OF FUTURE SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS

AND DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS

Under SEC rules, if a shareholder wants us to include a proposal in our proxy statement and form of proxy for the 20172019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, our Corporate Secretary must receive the proposal at our principal executive offices by November 23, 2016.28, 2018. Any such proposal must comply with the requirements of Rule 14a-8 promulgated under the Exchange Act.

Under our By-Laws, and as SEC rules permit, shareholders must follow certain procedures to nominate a person for election as a director at an annual or special meeting, or to introduce an item of business at an annual meeting (other than a proposal submitted under Rule 14a-8). Under these procedures, shareholders must submit the proposed nominee or item of business by delivering a notice to the Corporate Secretary at the following address: Corporate Secretary, Phillips 66, P.O. Box 4428, Houston, Texas 77210. We must receive notice as follows:


We must receive notice of a shareholder'sshareholder’s intention to introduce a nomination or proposed item of business for an annual meeting not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days before the first anniversary of the prior year'syear’s meeting. Assuming that our 20162018 Annual Meeting is held on schedule, we must receive notice pertaining to the 20172018 Annual Meeting no earlier than January 4, 20179, 2019, and no later than February 3, 2017.8, 2019.


However, if we hold the annual meeting on a date that is not within 30 days before or after such anniversary date, and if our first public announcement of the date of such annual meeting is less than 100 days prior to the date of such meeting, we must receive the notice no later than 10 days after the public announcement of such meeting.


If we hold a special meeting to elect directors, we must receive a shareholder'sshareholder’s notice of intention to introduce a nomination no later than 10 days after the earlier of the date we first provide notice of the meeting to shareholders or announce it publicly.

As required by Article II of our By-Laws, a notice of a proposed nomination must include information about the shareholder and the nominee, as well as a written consent of the proposed nominee to serve if elected. A notice of a proposed item of business must include a description of and the reasons for bringing the proposed business to the meeting, any material interest of the shareholder in the business and certain other information about the shareholder. You can obtain a copy of our By-Laws by writing the Corporate Secretary at the address above, or via our website under the "Corporate GovernanceGovernance" caption.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

SEC rules require us to provide an annual report to shareholders who receive this proxy statement. Additional printed copies of the annual report to shareholders, as well as our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, charters for each of the committees of the Board of Directors and our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015,2017, including the financial statements and the financial statement schedules, are available without charge to shareholders upon written request to Phillips 66, Investor Relations Department, P.O. Box 4428, Houston, Texas 77210411 S. Keeler, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, 74003 or via the Internet atwww.Phillips66.comwww.Phillips66.com. We will furnish the exhibits to our Annual Report on Form 10-K upon payment of our copying and mailing expenses.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   65​

Appendix A​
NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
The discussion of our results in this proxy statement includes references to our “Adjusted EBITDA,” “PSP ROCE,” and “Adjusted Controllable Costs” amounts, as used for purposes of our compensation programs. These measures are not measures of financial performance under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and may not be defined and calculated by other companies using the same or similar terminology.
VCIP Adjusted EBITDA
Adjusted EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure because it adjusts net income to exclude depreciation and amortization, net interest expense and income taxes, as well as certain items of expense or income that management does not consider representative of our core operating performance. Management uses this measure as a factor in its assessment of performance for the purposes of compensation decisions. A reconciliation of VCIP Adjusted EBITDA to net income, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, is set forth below.
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Net Income$                        5,248​
Plus:
Income tax expense (benefit)(1,693)​
Net interest expense407​
Depreciation and amortization (D&A)1,318​
EBITDA5,280​
Adjustments:
Impairments by equity affiliates64​
Pending claims and settlements(57)​
Gain on consolidation of business(423)​
Equity affiliate ownership restructuring—​
Recognition of deferred logistics commitments—​
Railcar lease residual value deficiencies and related costs—​
Pension settlement expense83​
Hurricane-related costs210​
Proportional share of selected equity affiliates income taxes69​
Proportional share of selected equity affiliates net interest66​
Proportional share of selected equity affiliates D&A682​
EBITDA attributable to Phillips 66 noncontrolling interests(211)​
Certain tax impacts(23)​
VCIP Adjusted EBITDA$                        5,740​
A-1   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PSP ROCE
We believe PSP ROCE is an important metric for evaluating the quality of capital allocation decisions, measuring portfolio value, and measuring the efficiency and profitability of capital investments. Management uses this measure as a factor in its assessment of performance for the purposes of compensation decisions. PSP ROCE is a ratio, the numerator of which is adjusted earnings plus after-tax interest expense, and the denominator of which is average adjusted total equity plus total debt.
Our calculation of PSP ROCE, and its reconciliation to ROCE prepared using GAAP amounts, is set forth below.
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (except as indicated)
PSP Average
2015-2017
2017
2016 PROXY STATEMENT
612015
PSP ROCE
Numerator
Net income$            5,248​1,644​4,280​
After-tax interest expense285​220​201​
GAAP ROCE earnings5,533​1,864​4,481​
Adjustments(1)
(2,837)​(57)​(34)​
PSP ROCE Earnings2,696​1,807​4,447​
Denominator
GAAP average capital employed(2)
35,700​33,344​31,749​
In-process capital(2,233)​(3,097)​(3,016)​
Cash adjustment(60)​(37)​(1,141)​
PSP Average Capital Employed$          33,407​30,210​27,592​
PSP ROCE (percent)10.1%​8.1%​6.0%​16.1%​
GAAP ROCE (percent)11.7%​15.5%​5.6%​14.1%​

Table

Adjusted Controllable Costs is a measure of Contents

how effectively we manage costs versus internal targets. Management uses this measure as a factor in its assessment of performance for the purposes of compensation decisions. Adjusted Controllable Costs is a non-GAAP financial measure because it excludes certain costs that management believes are not directly relevant to compensation decisions. A reconciliation of Adjusted Controllable Costs to the sum of operating expenses and selling, general and administrative expenses, the most directly comparable GAAP measures, is set forth below.

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Operating Expenses$                        4,699​
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses1,695​
Adjustments:
Certain employee benefits(161)​
Consolidation of business impacts53​
Turnaround timing impacts59​
Foreign currency and weather impacts(49)​
Adjusted Controllable Costs$                        6,296​
2018 PROXY STATEMENT   A-2​

Appendix A

B​

Certificate of Amendment to the
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
of
Phillips 66

Phillips 66, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify:

1.    That Article FIFTH of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

FIFTH: A. The business and affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by or under the direction of a Board of Directors. The total number of directors constituting the entire Board shall be not less than six nor more than twenty as determined from time to time by resolution adopted by affirmative vote of a majority of the entire Board of Directors.The directors, other than those who may be elected by the holders of any series of Preferred Stock under specified circumstances, shall be divided, with respect to the time for which they severally hold office, into three classes, as nearly equal in number as is reasonably possible, each with a term of office to expire at the third succeeding annual meeting of stockholders after their election, with each director to hold office until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified. Unless otherwise required by law, any vacancy on the Board of Directors or newly created directorship may be filled only by a majority of the directors then in office, though less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining director, and the directors so chosen shall hold office for a term expiring at the annual meeting of stockholders at which the term of office of the class to which they have been appointed expires and until their successors are duly elected and qualified, or until their earlier death, resignation, removal or departure from the Board of Directors for other cause.

Subject to the rights of the holders of any series of Preferred Stock to elect directors under specified circumstances:

(1) Commencing with the election of directors at the 20172019 annual meeting of stockholders, there shall be two classes of directors: (i) the directors in the class elected at the 20152017 annual meeting of stockholders and having a term that expires at the 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders, and (ii) the directors in the class elected at the 20162018 annual meeting of stockholders and having a term that expires at the 20192021 annual meeting of stockholders. Directors elected at the 20172019 annual meeting of stockholders shall be elected for a one-year term expiring at the 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders.

(2) Commencing with the election of directors at the 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders, there shall be one class of directors: those directors elected at the 20162018 annual meeting of stockholders and having a term that expires at the 20192021 annual meeting of stockholders. Directors elected at the 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders shall be elected for a one-year term expiring at the 20192021 annual meeting of stockholders.

(3) From and after the election of directors at the 20192021 annual meeting of stockholders, the Board of Directors shall cease to be classified and the directors elected at the 20192021 annual meeting of stockholders (and each annual meeting of stockholders thereafter) shall be elected for a term expiring at the following annual meeting of stockholders.

Unless otherwise required by law, in the event of any increase or decrease in the authorized number of directors at any time when the Board of Directors is divided into a class or classes, each director then serving as a member of a class of directors shall continue as a director of the class of which he or she is a member until the expiration of the director'sdirector’s term or the director'sdirector’s death, retirement, resignation, or removal. Each newly created directorship on the Board of Directors that results from an increase in the number of directors and any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors shall be filled only by a majority of the directors then in office, though less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining director, pursuant to Section 223 of the DGCL. Any director elected to fill a newly created directorship that results from an increase in the number of directors shall be elected for a term expiring at the next annual meeting of stockholders and until their successor is duly elected and qualified, or until their earlier death, retirement, resignation, removal or departure from the Board of Directors for other cause, and any director elected to fill a vacancy not resulting from an increase in the number of directors shall have the same remaining term as that of the predecessor director. Current directors serving in a class that was elected for a three-year term at the annual meetings of stockholders held from 20142016 through 20162018 may be removed only for cause. All other directors may be removed either with or without cause.

cause.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, whenever the holders of outstanding shares of one or more series of Preferred Stock are entitled to elect a director or directors of the Corporation separately as a series or together with one or more other series pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors providing for the establishment of such series, such director or directors
B-1   2018 PROXY STATEMENT

shall not be subject to the foregoing provisions of this Article FIFTH, and the election, term of office, removal

2016 PROXY STATEMENTA-1

Table of Contents

    and filling of vacancies in respect of such director or directors shall be governed by the resolution of the Board of Directors so providing for the establishment of such series and by applicable law.

B. Subject to applicable law, any director or the entire Board of Directors may only be removed with cause, such removal to be by the affirmative vote of the shares representing at least a majority of the votes entitled to be cast by the Voting Stock.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, whenever holders of outstanding shares of one or more series of Preferred Stock are entitled to elect directors of the Corporation pursuant to the provisions applicable in the case of arrearages in the payment of dividends or other defaults contained in the resolution or resolutions of the Board of Directors providing for the establishment of any such series, any such director of the Corporation so elected may be removed in accordance with the provisions of such resolution or resolutions.
C

CBB. There shall be no limitation on the qualification of any person to be a director or on the ability of any director to vote on any matter brought before the Board or any Board committee, except (i) as required by applicable law, (ii) as set forth in this Certificate of Incorporation or (iii) any By-Law adopted by the Board of Directors with respect to the eligibility for election as a director or the qualification for continuing service as a director upon reaching a specified age or, in the case of employee directors, with respect to the qualification for continuing service of directors upon ceasing employment from the Corporation.

D

DCC. Except as (i) required by applicable law or (ii) set forth in this Certificate of Incorporation, at all meetings of the Board of Directors, a majority of the entire Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the act of a majority of the directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the Board of Directors.

E

EDD. The following provisions are inserted for further definition, limitation and regulation of the powers of the Corporation and of its directors and stockholders:

(1) The By-Laws of the Corporation may be adopted, altered, amended or repealed (i) by the affirmative vote of the shares representing a majority of the votes entitled to be cast by the Voting Stock; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that any proposed alteration, amendment or repeal of, or the adoption of any By-Law inconsistent with, Section 3, 7, 10, 11, 12 or 13 of Article II of the By-Laws or Section 1, 2 or 11 of Article III of the By-Laws or Section 4, 5 or 12 of Article IV of the By-Laws (in each case, as in effect on the date hereof), or the alteration, amendment or the repeal of, or the adoption of any provision inconsistent with, this sentence, by the stockholders shall require the affirmative vote of shares representing not less than 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by the Voting Stock; and PROVIDED, FURTHER, HOWEVER, that in the case of any such stockholder action at a special meeting of stockholders, notice of the proposed alteration, amendment, repeal or adoption of the new By-Law or By-Laws must be contained in the notice of such special meeting, or (ii) by action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation; provided, rovidedhowever,however, that in the case of any such action at a meeting of the Board of Directors, notice of the proposed alteration, amendment, repeal or adoption of the new By-Law or By-Laws must be given not less than two days prior to the meeting. The Provisions of this paragraph (ED)(1) of this Article FIFTH are subject to Section 12 of ArticleIIIIIVIV of the By-Laws.

(2) In addition to the powers and authority hereinbeforeherein before or by statute expressly conferred upon them, the directors are hereby empowered to exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the Corporation, subject, nevertheless, to the provisions of the DGCL, this Certificate of Incorporation, and any By-Laws adopted by the stockholders; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that no By-Laws hereafter adopted by the stockholders shall invalidate any prior act of the directors which would have been valid if such By-Laws had not been adopted.

2.   The foregoing amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be executed by the undersigned officer, duly authorized, as of the    day of            2016.

2018.

Phillips 66

By:
Name:
Title:
Phillips 66



By:




Name:
Title:
A-2    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents


Appendix B

NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

The discussion of our results in this proxy statement includes references to our "adjusted earnings," "cash from operations, excluding working capital," "VCIP ROCE," "PSP ROCE," and "cost management" amounts. "Adjusted controllable costs" is used interchangeably with "cost management," and "ROCE" is displayed on both an absolute basis and a basis relative to our peer group. These measures are not measures of financial performance under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and may not be defined and calculated by other companies using the same or similar terminology.

Adjusted Earnings

Adjusted earnings is a non-GAAP financial measure because it excludes from net income certain items of expense or income that management does not consider representative of our core operating performance. Management uses this measure as a factor in its assessment of performance for the purposes of compensation decisions. A reconciliation of adjusted earnings to net income attributable to Phillips 66, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, is set forth below.

YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2014
 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
2015

 
​ ​ 

Net Income Attributable to Phillips 66

 $4,762 $4,227 

Adjustments:

       

Asset dispositions

 (494)(265)

Impairments

  200  256 

Pending claims and settlements

 (10)(23)

Lower-of-cost-or-market inventory adjustments

  30  33 

Pension settlement expenses

  49 

Certain tax impacts

    (84)

Discontinued operations

 (706) 

Adjusted earnings

 $3,782 $4,193 

Cash from Operations, excluding working capital

Cash from operations, excluding working capital provides a view of how much cash our operating activities generate, without regard to working capital changes, which can create timing differences that may cause variability in a given period's cash flow. A reconciliation of cash from operations, excluding working capital to cash provided by operating activities, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, is set forth below.

2018 PROXY STATEMENT   B-2​

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
2015

 
​ 

Cash provided by operating activities (CFO)

 $5,713 

Adjustments:

    

Net working capital impacts

 221 

CFO excluding working capital

 $5,934 

VCIP and PSP ROCE

We believe VCIP ROCE and PSP ROCE are important metrics for evaluating the quality of capital allocation decisions, measuring portfolio value, and measuring the efficiency and profitability of capital investments. Management uses these measures as factors in its assessment of performance for the purposes of compensation decisions. VCIP ROCE and PSP ROCE are ratios, the numerator of which is adjusted earnings plus after-tax interest expense, and the denominator of which is average adjusted total equity plus total debt.

2016 PROXY STATEMENTB-1

Table of Contents

Our calculation of absolute VCIP ROCE and PSP ROCE, which is based on full-year 2015 results, and their reconciliation to ROCE prepared using GAAP amounts, is set forth below.

[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_pc1.jpg]
 
 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EXCEPT AS INDICATED 
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 PSP AVERAGE
2013–2015

 2015
 2014
 2013
 
​ ​ ​ ​ 

Phillips 66—Absolute VCIP/PSP ROCE

         

Numerator

             

Net Income

  4,280 4,797 3,743 

After-tax interest expense

     201  173  178 
​ ​ ​ ​ 

GAAP ROCE earnings

  4,481 4,970 3,921 

VCIP adjustments*

     (34) (980) 182 
​ ​ ​ ​ 

VCIP ROCE earnings

  4,447 3,990 4,103 

Denominator

             

GAAP average capital employed**

  31,749 29,595 28,130 

In-process capital

     (3,016) (1,675) (370)

VCIP cash adjustment

  (1,141)(2,303)(1,437)

VCIP average capital employed

     27,592  25,617  26,323 
​ ​ ​ 

VCIP/PSP ROCE (percent)

 15.8% 16.1% 15.6% 15.6% 

GAAP ROCE (percent)

  14.9%  14.1%  16.8%  13.9% 

*
Primarily related to gains on asset dispositions and losses from asset impairments.

**
Total equity plus total debt.

Our calculation of relative VCIP ROCE and PSP ROCE, which is based on annualized September year-to-date 2015 results, and their reconciliation to ROCE prepared using GAAP amounts, is set forth below.

[MISSING IMAGE: tv487943_pc2.jpg]
 
 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EXCEPT AS INDICATED 
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 PSP AVERAGE
2013–2015

 SEP YTD 2015
 2014
 2013
 
​ ​ ​ ​ 

Phillips 66—Absolute VCIP/PSP ROCE

         

Numerator

             

Net Income

  3,614 4,797 3,743 

After-tax interest expense

     153  173  178 
​ ​ ​ ​ 

GAAP ROCE earnings

  3,767 4,970 3,921 

VCIP adjustments*

     (94) (980) 182 
​ ​ ​ ​ 

VCIP ROCE earnings

  3,673 3,990 4,103 

Denominator

             

GAAP average capital employed**

  31,801 29,595 28,130 

In-process capital

     (3,016) (1,675) (370)

VCIP cash adjustment

  (1,103)(2,303)(1,437)

VCIP average capital employed

     27,682  25,617  26,323 
​ ​ ​ 

VCIP/PSP ROCE (percent)***

 16.2% 17.7% 15.6% 15.6% 

GAAP ROCE (percent)

  15.5%  15.8%  16.8%  13.9% 

*
Primarily related to gains on asset dispositions and losses from asset impairments.

**
Total equity plus total debt.

***
Sep YTD 2015 annualized.
B-2    2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of Contents

Cost Management

Cost management uses "adjusted controllable costs" as a measure of how effectively we manage costs versus internal targets. Management uses this measure as a factor in its assessment of performance for the purposes of compensation decisions. Adjusted controllable costs is a non-GAAP financial measure because it excludes certain costs that management believes are not directly relevant to VCIP compensation decisions. A reconciliation of adjusted controllable costs to the sum of operating expenses and selling, general and administrative expenses, the most directly comparable GAAP measures, is set forth below.

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
2015

 
​ 

Operating expenses

 $4,294 

Selling, general and administrative expenses

  1,670 

Adjustments:

   

Certain employee benefits

  (268)

Foreign currency and utility price impacts

 157 

VCIP controllable costs

 $5,853 
2016 PROXY STATEMENTB-3

GRAPHIC

VOTE BY INTERNET - www.proxyvote.com Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 3, 2016. Have your Voting Direction card in hand when you access the web site and follow the instructions to obtain your records and to complete an electronic voting instruction form. ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE SHAREHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS If you would like to reduce the costs incurred by Phillips 66 in mailing proxy materials, you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, Voting Direction cards and annual reports electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access shareholder communications electronically in future years. VOTE BY PHONE - 1-800-690-6903 Use any touch-tone telephone to transmit your voting instructions up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 3, 2016. Have your Voting Direction card in hand when you call and then follow the instructions. VOTE BY MAIL Mark, sign and date your Voting Direction card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it to Phillips 66, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717. 3010 BRIARPARK DRIVE HOUSTON, TX 77042 TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS: E01633-P74354-Z67272 KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY THIS VOTING DIRECTION CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED. PHILLIPS 66  A VOTE "FOR" 1 - 4. 1. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS Nominees: 1a. Greg C. Garland For ! ! ! Abstain ! ! 1b. John E. Lowe For Against Abstain ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2. To ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2016. 3. To consider and vote on a proposal to approve, on an advisory (non-binding) basis, the compensation of our Named Executive Officers. 4. To consider and vote on a management proposal regarding the annual election of Directors. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE "AGAINST" PROPOSAL 5. ! ! ! 5. To consider and vote on a shareholder proposal regarding greenhouse gas reduction goals. In their discretion, the named proxies are authorized to vote upon such other matters that may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof. Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX] Date Signature (Joint Owners) Date


GRAPHIC

If you plan to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, you will be asked to verify that you are a shareholder by presenting this admission ticket together with a proper form of identification. Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting: The Notice and Proxy Statement and Annual Report are available at www.proxyvote.com. E01634-P74354-Z67272 THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS MAY 4, 2016 The shareholder(s) hereby appoint(s) Greg C. Garland and Paula A. Johnson, or either of them, as proxies, each with the power to appoint his or her substitute, and hereby authorize(s) them to represent and to vote, as designated on the reverse side of this ballot, all of the shares of Common Stock of Phillips 66 that the shareholder(s) is/are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held at 9:00 a.m., Central Time, on May 4, 2016, at the Houston Marriott Westchase, 2900 Briarpark Drive, Houston, Texas, and any adjournment or postponement thereof. THIS PROXY, WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED, WILL BE VOTED AS DIRECTED BY THE SHAREHOLDER(S). IF NO SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE MADE, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED "FOR" THE ELECTION OF THE TWO DIRECTOR NOMINEES NAMED ON THE REVERSE SIDE; "FOR" RATIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS THE COMPANY'S INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016; "FOR" THE ADVISORY (NON-BINDING) APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE COMPANY'S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS; AND "FOR" THE MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL REGARDING THE ANNUAL ELECTION OF DIRECTORS. PLEASE MARK, SIGN, DATE AND RETURN THIS PROXY CARD PROMPTLY USING THE ENCLOSED REPLY ENVELOPE. Continued and to be signed on reverse side ADMISSION TICKET