Renewable Energy Group, Inc. - Annual Report: 2012 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

or

For the transition period from              to             

Commission File Number: 001-35397

RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (515) 239-8000

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

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

None

(Title of class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy

or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

As of June 30, 2012, the aggregate market value of Common Stock held by non-affiliates was $53,496,000.

As of February 28, 2013, 30,590,062 shares of Common Stock of the registrant were issued and outstanding.

Documents Incorporated By Reference

All or a portion of Items 10 through 14 in Part III of this Form 10-K are incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A, which will be filed within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year covered by this report on Form 10-K, or if the Registrant’s Schedule 14A is not filed within such period, will be included in an amendment to this Report on Form 10-K which will be filed within such 120 day period.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

PART I

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This annual report on Form 10-K contains, in addition to historical information, certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this prospectus, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, strategy and plans, and our expectations for future operations, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “might,” “could,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “design,” “intend,” “plan,” “seek,” “potential,” “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, strategy, short-term and long-term business operations and objectives, and financial needs. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Table of Contents

These statements reflect current views with respect to future events and are based on assumptions and subject to risks and uncertainties. We note that a variety of factors could cause actual results and experience to differ materially from the anticipated results or expectations expressed in our forward-looking statements. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are also subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expected. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those risks discussed in Item 1A of this report.

Forward-looking statements contained in this report present management’s views only as of the date of this report. We undertake no obligation to publicly update forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. You are advised, however, to consult any further disclosures we make on related subjects in our 10-Q and 8-K reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

General

We are the largest producer of biodiesel in the United States based on gallons produced. We participate in each aspect of biodiesel production, from acquiring feedstock, managing construction and operating biodiesel production facilities to marketing, selling and distributing biodiesel and its co-products. During 2012, we sold approximately 188 million gallons of biodiesel and had total revenues of $1.02 billion.

We operate a network of seven biodiesel plants, with an aggregate nameplate production capacity of 227 mmgy. We have acquired five of our seven facilities since February 2010. We believe our fully integrated approach, which includes acquiring feedstock, managing biorefinery facility construction and upgrades, operating biorefineries and marketing renewable products, positions us to capitalize on growing demand for biodiesel, renewable chemicals and other advanced biofuels. Our experience has enabled us to develop extensive expertise in biorefinery operations, from facility construction management and feedstock procurement to biodiesel production, marketing, logistics and risk management.

We are a low-cost biodiesel producer. We primarily produce our biodiesel from a wide variety of lower cost feedstocks, including inedible corn oil, used cooking oil and inedible animal fat. We also produce a smaller portion of our biodiesel from higher cost virgin vegetable oils. We believe our ability to process a wide variety of feedstocks provides us with a cost advantage over many biodiesel producers, particularly those that rely on higher cost virgin vegetable oils, such as soybean oil or canola oil.

During 2008, we took advantage of the downturn in the biodiesel industry and began acquiring biodiesel businesses and biodiesel production capacity. In 2010, we became the largest biodiesel producer in the United States by selectively acquiring two strategically located biodiesel facilities in Danville, Illinois and Newton, Iowa and began leasing a biodiesel facility in Seneca, Illinois, which we then acquired in January 2012. We also acquired a partially constructed biodiesel facility in Clovis, New Mexico in August 2010. On July 12, 2011, we completed the acquisition of the former SoyMor biodiesel facility in Albert Lea, Minnesota. On October 26, 2012, we acquired an idled biodiesel facility in New Boston, Texas, which has remained idled pending completion of certain upgrades we expect to complete in second quarter 2013. We also acquired a biodiesel facility near Atlanta, Georgia, on November 16, 2012 that had been idled prior to our acquisition and will remain so until certain repairs or upgrades are made.

2

Table of Contents

Biodiesel benefits from many government programs. The most important of these programs is RFS2, which we expect will create significant, stable and growing demand for our biodiesel. On July 1, 2010, RFS2 became effective, requiring for the first time that a portion of the diesel fuel consumed in the United States be renewable. In response, the EPA, based on data from its EPA Moderated Transaction System, or EMTS, which was put in place beginning July 1, 2010 for RFS2 compliance, reports total production of biomass-based diesel for 2012 of approximately 1.14 billion gallons, of which approximately 33 million gallons was imported and 60 million gallons was generated from foreign renewable fuel producers. Per EMTS, approximately 1.1 billion of the 1.14 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel produced in 2012 was biodiesel, the remaining being non-ester renewable diesel. During 2011, the EMTS reported total production of biomass-based diesel of approximately 1.1 billion gallons, of which approximately 43 million was imported. Per EMTS, approximately 1 billion of the 1.1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel produced in 2011 was biodiesel, the remaining being non-ester renewable diesel.

Fully Integrated Platform

Our integrated approach to biodiesel production consists of:

We believe our biorefinery platform and experience running a fully integrated biorefining company is highly attractive to technology companies working on developing renewable chemicals and advanced biofuels. We are able to offer to co-locate these companies’ equipment and production processes at our existing facilities, as well as to offer design-build, operations and management capabilities to accelerate the commercialization of these companies’ products.

3

Table of Contents

Plant Network

Our production network consists of the following facilities;

In addition to the production facilities listed above, REG maintains a testing laboratory in its corporate headquarters in Ames, Iowa. The testing laboratory allows us to test various feedstocks for their conversion into biodiesel, as well as various manufacturing processes available in the production of biodiesel. Through a subsidiary we are a 50% owner of 416 South Bell, LLC, which owns and leases to us our corporate headquarters located at 416 South Bell Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010, comprised of 60,480 square feet of office and laboratory space, under a lease that expires in December 2017 and is renewable at our option for an additional ten years.

4

Table of Contents

Our Feedstocks and Other Inputs

Our ability to use a wide range of feedstocks gives us the flexibility to quickly respond to changes in feedstock pricing to maintain our feedstock cost advantage. We have the ability to rapidly change our processing techniques to accommodate different feedstocks and feedstock mixes. For 2012, approximately 84% of our total feedstock usage was lower cost inedible corn oil, used cooking oil or inedible animal fat feedstock and 16% was higher cost soybean oil. Our lower cost feedstock plants generally run on a mix of lower cost feedstocks. As different feedstocks are delivered to the plant, they are combined or segregated into our feedstock storage tanks. Feedstock tanks are then tested and the plant is tuned to optimize the processing of that specific feedstock mix.

We procure our feedstocks from numerous vendors in small to medium quantities. There is no established futures market for lower cost feedstocks. We generally purchase inedible animal fats on a freight delivered basis and purchase in one to four week forward positions. Used cooking oil and inedible corn oil can be purchased in nearby forward positions of three to twelve months, and are sometimes indexed to the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX, heating oil index. We maintain both long term contractual arrangements and long term trading relationships with key feedstock suppliers, which provide us with an advantage. Some of these relationships are with our investors including West Central and Bunge. Higher cost virgin vegetable oil feedstocks like soybean oil can be purchased on a spot or forward contract basis from a number of suppliers.

We work with developers of next generation feedstocks, such as algae, camelina and jatropha oil, to assist them in bringing these new feedstocks to market. We have converted each of these feedstocks, as well as other second generation feedstocks, into high quality biodiesel in our laboratory. We believe we are well positioned to incorporate these new feedstocks into our production process as they become commercially available.

We procure methanol, chemical catalysts such as sodium methylate and hydrochloric acid, under fixed-price contracts and formula-indexed contracts based upon competitive bidding. These procurement contracts typically last from three months to one year. The price of methanol is indexed to the monthly reported published price of methanol plus or minus a negotiated basis.

Distribution

We have established a national distribution system to supply biodiesel throughout the United States. Each of our facilities is equipped with an on-site rail loading system, a truck loading system, or both, and a logistics and supply chain management staff. We also manage some customers’ biodiesel storage tanks and replenishment process. We lease more than 330 railcars for transportation and lease biodiesel storage tanks in 18 terminals as of December 31, 2012. Typically, the terminals where we lease our biodiesel storage tanks are petroleum fuel terminals so that fuel distributors and other biodiesel customers can create a biodiesel blend at the terminal before further distribution. Terminal leases typically have one to three-year terms and are generally renewable subject to certain terms and conditions. We have sold biodiesel in 43 states and Canada.

Risk Management

The prices for feedstocks and biodiesel can be volatile and are not always closely correlated. Lower cost feedstocks are particularly difficult to risk manage given that such feedstocks are not traded in any public futures market. To manage feedstock and biodiesel price risks, we utilize forward contracting, hedging and other risk management strategies, including the use of futures, swaps, options and over-the-counter products.

In establishing our risk management strategies, we draw from our own in-house risk management expertise and we consult with industry experts. We utilize research conducted by outside firms to provide additional market information and risk management strategies. We believe combining these sources of knowledge, experience and expertise gives us a more sophisticated and global view of the fluctuating commodity markets for raw materials and energies, which we then can incorporate into our risk management strategies.

5

Table of Contents

Seasonality

Biodiesel producers have historically experienced seasonal fluctuations in demand for biodiesel. Biodiesel demand has tended to be lower during the winter in Northern and Midwestern states due to concerns about biodiesel’s ability to operate optimally in cold weather, as compared to the most commonly used petroleum based diesel fuel. This seasonal fluctuation is strongest for biodiesel made from inedible animal fats and used cooking oil. Biodiesel made from those feedstocks has a higher cloud point, the point at which a fuel begins to gel, than biodiesel produced from soybean oil, canola oil or inedible corn oil, which may cause cold weather performance issues.

Competition

We face competition in the distillate fuel market from producers and suppliers of petroleum-based diesel fuel and in the biodiesel sub-market from other biodiesel producers, marketers and distributors. Our principal methods of competition are product quality, both biodiesel and Renewable Identification Number, or RIN, quality, supply reliability and price. We also face competition in the biomass-based diesel RIN compliance market from producers of renewable diesel, in the advanced biofuel RIN compliance market from producers of other advanced biofuels. In the United States and Canadian biodiesel markets, we compete with large, multi-product companies that have greater resources than we do. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, Louis Dreyfus Commodities Group and Ag Processing Inc. are major international agribusiness corporations and biodiesel producers with the financial, sourcing and marketing resources to be formidable competitors in the biodiesel industry. These agribusiness competitors tend to make biodiesel from higher cost virgin vegetable oils such as soybean or canola oil, which they produce as part of their integrated agribusinesses.

We also face competition from independent biodiesel producers. Unlike us, most of these competitors own only one biodiesel plant and thus, do not enjoy the benefits of scale that we do. Many of our competitors own biodiesel plants that can process only higher cost virgin vegetable oils. Furthermore, in our marketing and distribution, we face competition from biodiesel traders such as Astra, Gavilon, Glencore, Tenaska and Traffigura. These trading companies have far greater financial resources than we do and are able to take significant biodiesel positions in the marketplace. These competitors are often customers and/or suppliers of ours as well.

In the amended Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS2, biomass-based diesel and the Canadian renewable fuel requirement markets, we are also in competition with producers of renewable diesel, such the Dynamic Fuels, LLC, the joint venture between Syntroleum Corporation and Tyson Foods, Inc. Renewable diesel, like biodiesel, is a petroleum-based diesel substitute made from renewable feedstocks. Renewable diesel can also satisfy the RFS2 biomass-based diesel requirement if the renewable diesel meets the greenhouse gas reduction requirements and may satisfy Canadian renewable fuel requirements. Some of the producers of renewable diesel, including future producers like Diamond Green Diesel, LLC, the joint venture between Valero Energy Corp. and Darling International, may have greater financial resources than we do. In the RFS2 advanced biofuel market, we also compete with other producers and importers of advanced biofuels such as Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producers.

The biodiesel industry is also in competition with the petroleum-based diesel fuel industry. The size of the biodiesel industry is small compared to the size of the petroleum-based diesel fuel industry and large petroleum companies have greater resources than we do. Without government incentives and requirements, biodiesel may be more expensive than petroleum-based diesel, making it difficult to compete with petroleum-based diesel on price.

Government Programs Favoring Biodiesel Production and Use

The biodiesel industry benefits from numerous federal and state government programs, the most important of which is RFS2.

6

Table of Contents

Renewable Fuel Standard

On July 1, 2010, RFS2’s biomass-based diesel requirement became effective, requiring for the first time that a certain percentage of the diesel fuel consumed in the United States be made from renewable sources. The biomass-based diesel requirement can be satisfied by two primary fuels, biodiesel and renewable diesel. Historically, Renewable diesel has not been available in the United States in significant commercial quantities and thus, biodiesel has satisfied the vast majority of the RFS2 biomass-based diesel requirement. Based on recent announcements, an increased volume of renewable diesel is expected to come online in late 2013 and would be available to satisfy the RFS2 biomass-based diesel requirement in addition to biodiesel. RFS2 required the use of one billion gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2012, requires 1.28 billion gallons in 2013 and at least one billion gallons each year thereafter, with such higher amounts subject to EPA proposals and the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, approval. As of this filing, the EPA has not proposed or finalized the 2014 biomass-based diesel requirement. We expect RFS2 to create demand for biodiesel.

The biomass-based diesel requirement is one of four separate renewable fuel requirements under RFS2. The RFS2 requirements are based on two primary categories and two subcategories. The two primary categories are conventional renewable fuel, which is intended to be satisfied by corn ethanol, and advanced biofuel, which is defined as a biofuel that reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% compared to the petroleum-based fuel the biofuel is replacing. The advanced biofuel category has two subcategories, cellulosic biofuel, which is intended to be satisfied by newly developed cellulosic biofuels, such as ethanol made from woody biomass, and biomass-based diesel, which is intended to be satisfied by biodiesel and renewable diesel. RFS2’s total advanced biofuel requirement is larger than the combined cellulosic fuel and biomass-based diesel requirements, thus requiring the use of additional volumes of advanced biofuels.

The RFS2 requirement for additional volumes of advanced biofuels can be satisfied by any advanced biofuel, including biodiesel, renewable diesel, biobutanol, cellulosic ethanol or sugarcane-based ethanol. The additional advanced biofuel requirement is 500 million gallons in 2012 and one billion gallons in 2013. Biodiesel comprises the vast majority of advanced biofuel produced in the United States. As such, we expect the RFS2 advanced biofuel requirement to increase demand for biodiesel.

The advanced biofuel renewable volume obligation, or RVO, is expressed in terms of ethanol equivalent volumes, or EEV, which is based on the fuel’s renewable energy content compared to ethanol. Biodiesel has an EEV of 1.5 compared to 1.0 for sugarcane-based ethanol. Accordingly, it requires less biodiesel than sugarcane-based ethanol to meet the required volumes as each gallon of biodiesel counts as 1.5 gallons for purposes of fulfilling the advanced biofuel RVO, providing an incentive for Obligated Parties to purchase biodiesel to meet their advanced biofuel RVO.

The RFS2 volume requirements apply to petroleum refiners and petroleum fuel importers in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii, who are defined as “Obligated Parties” in the RFS2 regulations, and requires these Obligated Parties to incorporate into their petroleum-based fuel a certain percentage of renewable fuel or purchase credits in the form of RINs from those who do. An Obligated Party’s RVO is based on the volume of petroleum-based fuel they produce or import. The largest United States petroleum companies, such as Valero, Phillips 66, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Chevron and Shell, represent the majority of the total RVOs, with the remainder made up of smaller refiners and importers.

Renewable Identification Numbers

The EPA created the renewable identification number, or RIN, system to track renewable fuel production and compliance with the renewable fuel standard. EPA registered producers of renewable fuel may generate RINs for each gallon of renewable fuel they produce. In the case of biodiesel, 1.5 biomass-based diesel RINs may be generated for each gallon of biodiesel produced. Most renewable fuel, including biodiesel, is then sold with its associated RINs attached. Under the RFS2 regulations, the RINs may also be separated from the gallons of renewable fuel and once separated they may be sold as a separate commodity. RINs are ultimately used by

7

Table of Contents

Obligated Parties to demonstrate compliance with the RFS2. Obligated Parties must obtain and retire the required number of RINs to satisfy their RVO during a particular compliance period. An Obligated Party can obtain RINs by buying renewable fuels with RINs attached, buying RINs that have been separated, or producing renewable fuels themselves. All RIN activity under RFS2 must be entered into the EPA’s moderated transaction system, which tracks RIN generation, transfer and retirement. RINs are retired when used for compliance with the RFS2 requirements.

The value of RINs is significant to the price of biodiesel. In July 2010 when RFS2 became effective, biomass-based diesel RINs began trading at approximately $0.55 per RIN. By the end of 2010, the 2010 biomass-based diesel RIN value had become increasingly significant to the price of biodiesel, contributing approximately $1.11, or 26% of the average The Jacobsen B100 Upper Midwest spot price of a gallon of biodiesel. As of December 31, 2011, RINs contributed approximately $1.83, or 38% of the average The Jacobsen B100 Upper Midwest spot price of a gallon of biodiesel. During 2012, the value of RINs, as reported by OPIS, have contributed to the average B100 spot price of a gallon of biodiesel, as reported by The Jacobsen, and range from a low of $0.63 per gallon, or 24%, in October to a high of $2.39, or 50%, per gallon in January. There was a sharp decline in RIN prices during third quarter 2012 that carried through the end of the year. During this period, RIN pricing declined from $1.17 per RIN at June 30, 2012 to $0.64 per RIN at December 31, 2012, as reported by OPIS, which contributed to the decline in price of biodiesel.

Blenders Tax Credit

The blenders tax credit provides a $1.00 per gallon excise tax credit to the first blender of biodiesel with at least 0.1% petroleum-based diesel fuel. The blenders tax credit can then be credited against such blenders federal excise tax liability or the blender can obtain a cash refund from the United States Treasury for the value of the credit. The blenders tax credit became effective January 1, 2005 and then lapsed January 1, 2010 before being reinstated retroactively on December 17, 2010. The blenders tax credit again expired as of December 31, 2011 and on January 2, 2013, it was again reinstated retroactively for 2012 through December 31, 2013. The blenders tax credit is set to expire again on December 31, 2013 and it is uncertain whether it will be extended.

State Programs

Several states have enacted legislation providing incentives for the use of biodiesel, requiring the use of biodiesel, or both. For example, Illinois offers an exemption from the generally applicable 6.25% sales tax for biodiesel blends that incentivizes blending at 11% biodiesel, or B11, however such taxes will not apply after December 31, 2018 unless such exemption is extended. Illinois’ program has made that state the largest biodiesel market in the country. During 2011, Iowa offered a $0.03 per gallon income tax credit to petroleum marketers of B2 blends. In May 2011, Iowa signed into law a bill that encourages Iowa’s petroleum marketers to blend biodiesel into on-road and off-road diesel in a multi-year incentive program beginning in 2012. In 2012, retailers earn $0.02 per gallon for B2 blends or $0.045 per gallon for B5 blends. For 2013 through 2017, retailers earn $0.045 per gallon of B5. The new law also creates a biodiesel production incentive of $0.03 per gallon in 2012, $0.025 per gallon in 2013, and $0.02 per gallon in 2014, for each gallon produced in an Iowa facility up to the first 25 million gallons per production plant. In Texas, biodiesel blends are exempt from state excise tax, which results in a $0.20 per gallon incentive for B100. In addition, recent regulatory changes by the Texas Department of Revenue and Texas Commission on Environmental Equality have removed regulatory barriers and eliminated limitations to blending biodiesel under the Texas Low Emissions Diesel program.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 40 states currently have implemented various programs that encourage the use of biodiesel through blending requirements as well as various tax incentives. Currently, Minnesota requires a B5 blend. Minnesota legislation also calls for future steps to increase blends to B10 and then B20, in the summer months. Oregon has implemented a B5 biodiesel blend requirement. New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington have all adopted legislation requiring biodiesel blends beginning at B2 (and B5 in New Mexico) with incremental increases, provided certain feedstock or production minimums are met. Several

8

Table of Contents

northeast states, including Connecticut and Vermont, have adopted legislation requiring biodiesel blends in home heating oil. The City of New York has adopted legislation requiring biodiesel blends at a 2% rate for heating oil and the state of New York will debate adopting a state-wide requirement during 2013.

In addition, several states have adopted or are considering adopting a low carbon fuel standard, or LCFS, requiring a reduction in the amount of lifecycle carbon intensity in their transportation fuels. Biodiesel has lower carbon emissions than petroleum-based diesel and is thus expected to benefit from increased demand in states like California that have adopted LCFS. California’s LCFS calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels of 10% by 2020.

Although we believe that state requirements for the use of biofuels increase demand for our biodiesel within such states, they generally may not increase overall demand in excess of RFS2 requirements. Rather, existing demand for our biofuel from Obligated Parties in connection with federal requirements may shift to states that have use requirements or tax incentive programs.

Environmental Matters

Our biofuel facilities, like other fuel and chemical production facilities, are subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, including those relating to the discharge of materials into the air, water and ground; the generation, storage, handling, use, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials; ecological and natural resources; and the health and safety of our employees, contractors and the public. These laws and regulations require us to obtain and comply with numerous environmental permits to construct and operate each network facility. They can require expensive pollution control equipment or operational changes to limit actual or potential impacts to human health and the environment. A violation of these laws, regulations or permit conditions could result in substantial fines, natural resource damage, criminal sanctions, permit revocations and or facility shutdowns. However, we do not currently have any such proceedings either pending or threatened against our facilities. Furthermore, we do not anticipate a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition as a result of our efforts to comply with these requirements as presently in effect.

We also do not expect to incur material capital expenditures for environmental controls in this or the succeeding fiscal year. However, new laws, new interpretations of existing laws, increased governmental enforcement of environmental laws or other developments could require us to make additional significant expenditures. Continued government and public emphasis on environmental issues can be expected to result in increased future investments for environmental controls at our ongoing operations. Future environmental laws and regulations and related interpretations applicable to our operations, more vigorous enforcement policies and discovery of currently unknown conditions may require substantial capital and other expenditures.

Our air emissions are subject to the federal Clean Air Act and similar state and local laws and associated regulations. For example, the EPA has promulgated National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or NESHAPs, under the federal Clean Air Act that apply to facilities that we own or manage if the emissions of hazardous air pollutants exceed certain thresholds. If a facility we operate is authorized to emit hazardous air pollutants above the threshold level, then we are required to comply with the NESHAP related to our manufacturing process, boilers and process heaters. New or expanded facilities would be required to comply with such standards upon startup if they exceed the hazardous air pollutant threshold. In addition to costs for achieving and maintaining compliance with these laws, more stringent standards also may limit our operating flexibility. Other federal and state emission limitations, such as New Source Performance Standards, may also apply to facilities we own or manage. Because other domestic biodiesel manufacturers will have similar restrictions, however, we believe that compliance with more stringent air emission control or other environmental laws and regulations is not likely to materially affect our competitive position.

We do transport and dispose of small quantities of hazardous materials from our on-site research and testing laboratories. The facilities in our network have been and may in the future be located on or adjacent to industrial property. There is a risk of liability for the investigation and cleanup of environmental contamination at each of

9

Table of Contents

the properties that we own or operate and at off-site locations where we arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances. If these substances have been or are disposed of or released at sites that undergo investigation or remediation by regulatory agencies or private parties, we may be responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act or other environmental laws for all or part of the costs of investigation or remediation and for damage to natural resources. We also may be subject to related claims by private parties alleging property damage and personal injury due to exposure to hazardous or other materials at or from these properties. Some of these matters may require us to expend significant amounts for investigation, cleanup or other costs. We are not aware of any material environmental liabilities relating to contamination at or from our facilities or at off-site locations where we have transported or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances.

The hazards and risks associated with producing and transporting our products, such as fires, natural disasters, explosions, abnormal pressures, blowouts and pipeline ruptures also may result in personal injury claims or damage to property and third parties. As protection against operating hazards, we maintain insurance coverage against some, but not all, potential losses. Our coverage includes physical damage to assets, employer’s liability, comprehensive general liability, automobile liability and workers’ compensation. We believe that our insurance is adequate and customary for our industry, but losses could occur for uninsurable or uninsured risks or in amounts in excess of existing insurance coverage. We do not currently have pending material claims for damages or liability to third parties relating to the hazards or risks of our business.

History

Our predecessor, REG Biofuels, LLC, formerly named REG Biofuels Inc., which was formerly named Renewable Energy Group, Inc., was formed under the laws of the State of Delaware in August 2006 upon acquiring the assets and operations of the biodiesel division of West Central Cooperative, or West Central, and two of West Central’s affiliated companies, InterWest, L.C. and REG, LLC. Prior to February 26, 2010, the “Company,” “REG,” “we,” “us,” “our” and similar references refer to the business, results of operations and cash flows of REG Biofuels, Inc., formerly Renewable Energy Group, Inc., which is considered the accounting predecessor to Renewable Energy Group, Inc., formerly, REG Newco, Inc. After February 26, 2010, such references refer to the business, results of operations and cash flows of Renewable Energy Group, Inc., and its consolidated subsidiaries.

In June 2008, we acquired our Houston facility, which has access to deepwater ports, from United States Biodiesel Group, Inc., or USBG, through a transaction which included an equity investment in the Company by USBG. We also acquired a terminal facility with the option to build a biodiesel plant at the Port of Stockton in Stockton, California. In July 2009, we sold the Stockton terminal facility for $3.0 million in cash.

On February 26, 2010, we acquired our Danville facility by merger from Blackhawk Biofuels, LLC. On March 8, 2010, we acquired our Newton Facility, through the purchase of substantially all of the assets and liabilities of Central Iowa Energy, LLC. On April 8, 2010, we closed a transaction in which we agreed to lease and operate the Seneca facility and certain related assets.

On July 16, 2010, we acquired certain assets of Tellurian Biodiesel, Inc., or Tellurian, and American BDF, LLC, or ABDF. Tellurian was a California-based biodiesel company and marketer. ABDF was a joint venture owned by Golden State Service Industries, Restaurant Technologies, Inc., or RTI, and Tellurian. ABDF previously focused on building a national array of small biodiesel plants that would convert used cooking oil into high quality, sustainable biodiesel. The purchase connects RTI’s national used cooking oil collection system, with more than 16,000 installations, with our national network of biodiesel manufacturing facilities.

On September 21, 2010, we acquired for stock the partially constructed Clovis facility and $8.0 million in cash.

On July 12, 2011, we acquired for stock all the assets and certain liabilities of SoyMor cooperative and SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC.

10

Table of Contents

On January 24, 2012, we exercised an option to purchase our Seneca facility, which we previously operated under lease. The exercise price of the option was $12 million, of which approximately $937,000 was previously paid, and 60,000 shares of our Common Stock.

On January 24, 2012, we completed our initial public offering in which we sold 6.8 million shares of our Common Stock at a price to the public of $10.00 per share. Our Common Stock is currently traded publicly on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “REGI.”

On October 26, 2012, the Company issued 900,000 shares of common stock and approximately $324,000 in cash in connection to the purchase of substantially all the assets of North Texas Bio Energy, LLC, or NTBE.

On November 16, 2012, the Company acquired substantially all the assets of BullDog Biodiesel, LLC, or BullDog, in exchange for approximately $1.3 million in cash and approximately $1.3 million of in-kind contribution.

Employees

As of December 31, 2012, we employed 279 full-time employees, including 207 in operations, procurement, logistics and technical, 20 in sales and marketing and 52 in administration. None of our employees are represented by a labor organization or under any collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Intellectual Property

We rely primarily on trade secret laws and contractual restrictions to protect our technology. As of December 31, 2012, we had five issued United States patents, two United States patent applications, including eighteen foreign patents and eighteen foreign patent applications. We also jointly own with Crown Iron Works Company thirteen issued foreign patents, one United States patent application and three pending foreign patent applications. In addition, we own one United States patent and jointly own with POS Pilot Plant Corporation of Saskatchewan, Canada one United States patent, which we acquired from SoyMor on July 12, 2011 as part of the SoyMor acquisition.

Customers

As of December 31, 2012, we had 328 customers, only one of which, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, or Pilot, accounted for 10% or more of our total revenues. Sales to Pilot for 2012 and 2011 were $363.4 million and $189.8 million, respectively, representing approximately 36% and 23%, respectively, of our total revenues.

Executive Officers of the Registrant

Daniel J. Oh, age 48, has served as our Chief Executive Officer and as a director since September 2011 and President since April 2009. Mr. Oh served as our Chief Operating Officer from June 2007 to September 2011, our Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President from June 2006 to June 2007 and as Secretary from August 2006 until March 2009. From May 2004 to May 2006, Mr. Oh served at Agri Business Group, Inc., or ABG, an agribusiness management consulting firm, including as Associate Director, Director and Vice President. Prior to joining ABG, Mr. Oh served in several different positions, including Senior Financial Analyst, Financial Team Member and Manager, in the Corporate Finance and Investment Banking area of the Corporate Strategy and Business Development Group at Eli Lilly and Company, a global pharmaceutical company, from August 2001 to May 2004. From 2000 to August 2001, Mr. Oh served as a consultant with McKinsey & Company, a leading consulting firm, where he focused on the pharmaceutical industry. From 1987 to 1998, Mr. Oh served as an officer in the United States Army, earning the rank of Major. Mr. Oh holds an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago with concentrations in finance, accounting and strategic management as well as a B.S. with a concentration in economics from the United States Military Academy. Mr. Oh serves as a director for the Ames Economic Development Commission. Mr. Oh’s employment agreement with us provides that he will serve as a director.

11

Table of Contents

Chad Stone, age 43, has served as our Chief Financial Officer since August 2009. Prior to joining us, he was a Director at Protiviti Inc., a global business consulting and internal audit firm, from October 2007 to May 2009. From August 1997 to September 2007, Mr. Stone served as Director with PricewaterhouseCoopers and was a manager at Arthur Andersen from July 1992 to August 1997. He has been an executive Board Member of the Iowa Biodiesel Board since 2011. Mr. Stone holds an M.B.A. with concentrations in finance, economics and accounting from the University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business and a B.B.A in Accounting from the University of Iowa. He is also a Certified Public Accountant.

Brad Albin, age 50, has served as our Vice President, Manufacturing since February 2008. Mr. Albin also served as Vice President of Construction Services from April 2007 through February 2008. From September 2006 through April 2007, Mr. Albin served as Director, Construction. Prior to joining us, Mr. Albin served as General Manager for West Central, one of our predecessors from July 2006 through September 2006. From November 2002 to January 2006, Mr. Albin served as Executive Director of Operations for Material Sciences Corporation, where he directed multi-plant operations for automotive and global appliance industries. From 1996 to 2002, Mr. Albin was the Vice President of Operations for Griffin Industries. Mr. Albin has over 23 years of experience in executive operations positions in multi-feedstock biodiesel, chemical, food and automotive supplier companies, such as The Monsanto Company, The NutraSweet Company and Griffin Industries. Mr. Albin was a charter member of the National Biodiesel Accreditation Committee. Mr. Albin is currently the Past-President of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and was the President in 2012, as well as, Vice President in 2011. Mr. Albin holds a B.S. in chemistry from Eastern Illinois University.

David Elsenbast, age 51, has served as our Vice President, Supply Chain Management since April 2009. From August 2006 to April 2009, Mr. Elsenbast served as our Vice President, Procurement. Prior to joining us, Mr. Elsenbast served in the same role for West Central, since April 2006. Mr. Elsenbast has also served on the Board of the American Fats and Oils Association since October 2009. From 1990 to March 2006, Mr. Elsenbast served in various roles for Milk Specialties Company, an animal nutrition company, including Vice President of Business Development, Vice President of Operations and Purchasing and General Manager. Mr. Elsenbast has over 28 years in agricultural business development, supply chain management, operations, and purchasing. Mr. Elsenbast holds a B.S. in agricultural business from Iowa State University.

Gary Haer, age 59, has served as our Vice President, Sales and Marketing since we commenced operations in August 2006. From October 1998 to August 2006, Mr. Haer served as the National Sales and Marketing Manager for biodiesel for West Central and was responsible for developing the marketing and distribution infrastructure for biodiesel sales in the United States. Mr. Haer has over 16 years of experience in the biodiesel industry. Mr. Haer is currently Chairman of the National Biodiesel Board’s Governing Board and has been elected to various officer positions during his tenure from 1998 to 2011. Mr. Haer holds a M.B.A. from Baker University and a B.S. in accounting from Northwest Missouri State University.

Our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including those described below, and as a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

Risk Associated With Our Business

Loss or reductions of governmental requirements for the use of biofuels could have a material adverse affect on our revenues and operating margins.

The biodiesel industry relies substantially on federal requirements and state policies for use of biofuels. Since biodiesel has been more expensive to produce than petroleum-based diesel fuel over the past few years, the biodiesel industry depends on governmental programs that support a market for biodiesel that might not otherwise exist.

12

Table of Contents

The most important of these government programs in the United States is RFS2, which requires that a certain volume of biomass-based diesel fuel, which includes biodiesel, be consumed. RFS2 became effective on July 1, 2010 and applies through 2022. We believe that the increase in demand for our biodiesel in 2011 and 2012 is directly attributable to the implementation of RFS2. In addition, we believe that biodiesel prices in 2011 and 2012 benefited significantly from RFS2.

There can be no assurance that Congress will not repeal, curtail or otherwise change, or that the EPA will not curtail or otherwise change the RFS2 program in a manner adverse to us. The petroleum industry is generally opposed to RFS2 and can be expected to continue to press for changes that eliminate or reduce its impact. Any repeal or reduction in the RFS2 requirements or reinterpretation of RFS2 resulting in our biodiesel failing to qualify as a required fuel would materially decrease the demand for and price of our biodiesel, which would materially and adversely harm our revenues and cash flows.

If Congress decides to repeal or curtail RFS2, or if the EPA is not able or willing to enforce RFS2 requirements, the demand for our biodiesel based on this program and any increases in demand that we expect due to RFS2 would be significantly reduced or eliminated and our revenues and operating margins would be materially harmed. In addition, although we believe that state requirements for the use of biofuels increase demand for our biodiesel within such states, they generally may not increase overall demand in excess of RFS2 requirements. Rather, existing demand for our biofuel from petroleum refiners and petroleum fuel importers in the 48 contiguous states or Hawaii, which are defined as “Obligated Parties” in the RFS2 regulations, in connection with federal requirements, may shift to states that have use requirements or tax incentive programs.

The EPA is required to determine the volume of biomass-based diesel that will be required each year beginning in 2013 based on the EPA’s consideration of a variety of factors, including biomass-based diesel production, consumption, and infrastructure issues, the likely impact of biomass-based diesel production and use in a variety of areas, including climate change, energy security, the agricultural sector, air quality, transportation fuel costs, job creation, and water quality, and other factors. RFS2 requires that the biomass-based diesel annual volume requirement be at least 1 billion gallons in each of those years. The biomass-based diesel volume requirement for 2013 is 1.28 billion gallons. As of the filing of this report, EPA has not proposed the 2014 requirement for biomass-based diesel. Once proposed by EPA, the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, has to approve EPA’s proposal, based on the same factors outlined above. Extended delay in the proposal and/or final determination or a determination that the biomass-based diesel requirement would be equal to or less than the 1.28 billion gallons required for 2013 may reduce the demand for and price of our biodiesel, which would adversely harm our revenues and cash flows.

Our gross margins are dependent on the spread between biodiesel prices and feedstock costs.

Our gross margins depend on the spread between biodiesel prices and feedstock costs. Historically, the spread between biodiesel prices and feedstock costs has varied significantly. Although actual yields vary depending on the feedstock quality, the average monthly spread between the price per gallon of 100% pure biodiesel, or B100, as reported by The Jacobsen Publishing Company, or The Jacobsen, and the price per gallon for the amount of choice white grease, a common inedible animal fat used by us to make biodiesel, was $1.83 in 2008, $1.25 in 2009, $1.06 in 2010, $1.32 in 2011 and $1.26 in 2012 assuming 8.0 pounds of choice white grease yields one gallon of biodiesel. The average monthly spread for the amount of crude soybean oil required to produce one gallon of biodiesel, based on the nearby futures contract as reported on the Chicago Board of Trade, or CBOT, was $0.61 per gallon in 2008, $0.39 in 2009, $0.25 per gallon in 2010, $0.89 in 2011 and $0.65 in 2012 assuming 7.5 pounds of soybean oil yields one gallon of biodiesel. For 2011 and 2012, approximately 83% and 84%, respectively, of our total feedstock usage was inedible animal fat, used cooking oil or inedible corn oil and 17% and 16%, respectively, was soybean oil, compared to approximately 91% for inedible animal fat, used cooking or inedible corn oil and 9% for soybean oil in 2010. We expect to see lower feedstock availability in 2013 as a result of recent drought conditions in the Midwest, which is expected to put upward pricing pressure on feedstock prices in the period described.

13

Table of Contents

Biodiesel has traditionally been marketed primarily as an additive or alternative to petroleum-based diesel fuel and as a result biodiesel prices have been influenced by the price of petroleum-based diesel fuel, adjusted for government incentives supporting renewable fuels, rather than biodiesel production costs. A lack of close correlation between production costs and biodiesel prices means that we may be unable to pass increased production costs on to our customers in the form of higher prices. Any decrease in the spread between biodiesel prices and feedstock costs, whether as a result of an increase in feedstock prices or a reduction in biodiesel prices, including, but not limited to, a reduction in the value of RINs, such as the decrease that occurred in the last few months of 2012, would adversely affect our gross margins, cash flow and results of operations. For a detailed description of RINs, see “Business—Government Programs Favoring Biodiesel Production and Use—Renewable Identification Numbers.”

The costs of raw materials that we use as feedstocks are volatile and our results of operations could fluctuate substantially as a result.

The cost of feedstocks is a significant uncertainty for our business. The success of our operations is dependent on the price of feedstocks and certain other raw materials that we use to produce biodiesel. A decrease in the availability or an increase in the price of feedstocks may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. At elevated price levels, these feedstocks may be uneconomical to use, as we may be unable to pass feedstock cost increases on to our customers.

The price and availability of feedstocks and other raw materials may be influenced by general economic, market and regulatory factors. These factors include weather conditions, farming decisions, government policies and subsidies with respect to agriculture and international trade, and global supply and demand. The significance and relative impact of these factors on the price of feedstocks is difficult to predict, especially without knowing what types of feedstock materials will be optimal for use in the future, particularly at new facilities that we may construct or acquire.

Since 2009, we have principally used inedible animal fats, used cooking oil and inedible corn oil as our feedstocks for the production of biodiesel. Our decision to shift to these feedstocks resulted from the reduction in profit caused by a significant increase in soybean oil prices, which rose from $0.1435 per pound in February 2001 to $0.7040 per pound in March 2008, and soybean oil having generally remained at high levels since that time. While prices for these alternative feedstocks can experience price volatility similar to soybean oil, their prices can also vary significantly from soybean oil based on market conditions. Since January 1, 2008, the cost per pound of choice white grease, an inedible animal fat commonly used by us in the production of biodiesel, has traded in a range of $0.0950 to $0.5250 based on the closing nearby futures prices on the CBOT. The recent drought conditions experienced in the Midwest are expected to increase the cost of corn and other feedstocks, including animal fat. Historically, the price of animal fat has been affected by the amount of rendering volumes in the United States, as well as demand from other markets. As the cost of animal feed rises as a result of the drought in the Midwest, the price of animal products may also rise, thereby reducing demand and rendering volumes. If biodiesel production continues to increase in response to RFS2, we expect that more biodiesel producers will seek to use lower cost feedstocks, potentially increasing our costs of production. In addition, because the market for animal fat is less developed than markets for vegetable oils such as soybean oil, we generally are unable to enter into forward contracts at fixed prices. Further, the markets for used cooking oil and inedible corn oil are in their nascent stages.

The market and supply for used cooking oil as a feedstock for biodiesel is growing. The commercial supply of inedible corn oil is growing as more ethanol producers are installing corn oil extraction technology in their ethanol plants. It is not generally available in quantities sufficient to cover all of our operations. Approximately half of U.S. ethanol plants have the equipment necessary to extract inedible corn oil that can be used in biodiesel production. There are a number of additional ethanol producers who have announced plans to install corn oil extraction equipment in their ethanol plants. If more ethanol plants do not acquire and utilize corn oil extraction equipment or if ethanol plants are idled, we may not be able to obtain additional amounts of inedible corn oil for use in our production of biodiesel and may be forced to utilize higher cost feedstocks to meet increased demand, which may not be economical.

14

Table of Contents

Loss of or reductions in tax incentives for biodiesel production or consumption would have a material adverse affect on our revenues and operating margins.

The biodiesel industry is also substantially aided by federal and state tax incentives. Prior to RFS2, the biodiesel industry relied principally on these tax incentives to bring the price of biodiesel more in line with the price of petroleum-based diesel fuel to the end user. The most significant tax incentive program was the federal blenders tax credit. The blenders tax credit provided a $1.00 refundable tax credit per gallon of pure biodiesel, or B100, to the first blender of biodiesel with petroleum-based diesel fuel. The blenders tax credit expired on December 31, 2009 and was re-enacted in December 2010, retroactively for all of 2010 and prospectively for 2011. The blenders tax credit expired again on December 31, 2011 and was again re-enacted on January 2, 2013, retroactively for all of 2012 and prospectively for 2013. There is no assurance that it will be reinstated when it expires at the end of 2013. Unlike RFS2, the blenders tax credit has a direct effect on federal government spending and could be changed or eliminated as a result of changes in the federal budget policy. The absence of and uncertainty around the blenders tax credit during 2012 materially curtailed demand for biodiesel and reduced margins. Although the blenders tax credit was reinstated for all of 2012, it was restated in January of 2013 and thus will be reflected in our 2013 earnings. It is uncertain what action, if any, Congress may take with respect to extending the blenders tax credit beyond 2013 or when such action might be effective. If Congress does not reinstate the credit, demand for our biodiesel and the price we are able to charge for our product may be significantly reduced, harming revenues and profitability. With the blenders tax credit expiring on December 31, 2011, we believe that we experienced an industry-wide acceleration of gallons sold in the fourth quarter of 2011, which was further influenced by the ability of Obligated Parties to satisfy up to 20% of their renewable volume obligation, or RVO, for 2012 through RINs obtained in 2011. We believe the resulting buildup of biodiesel inventories reduced gallons sold in the first quarter of 2012. We may experience something similar with the blenders tax credit scheduled to expire again on December 31, 2013.

In addition, several states have enacted tax incentives for the use of biodiesel. For example, Illinois offers an exemption from the generally applicable 6.25% sales tax for biodiesel blends that incentivizes blending at 11% biodiesel, or B11. Like the federal blenders tax credit, the Illinois tax incentive program and the tax incentive programs of other state could be changed as a result of state budget considerations or otherwise. Reduction or elimination of such incentives could materially and adversely harm our revenues and profitability.

Risk management transactions could significantly increase our operating costs and working capital requirements and may not be effective.

In an attempt to partially offset the effects of volatile feedstock costs and biodiesel fuel prices, we may enter into contracts that establish market positions in feedstocks, such as inedible corn oil, used cooking oil, inedible animal fats and soybean oil, and related commodities, such as heating oil and ultra-low sulfur diesel, or ULSD. The financial impact of such market positions will depend on commodity prices at the time that we are required to perform our obligations under these contracts. Risk management arrangements will also expose us to the risk of financial loss in situations where the counterparty defaults on its contract or, in the case of exchange-traded or over-the-counter futures or options contracts, where there is a change in the expected differential between the underlying price in the contract and the actual prices paid or received by us. Risk management activities can themselves result in losses when a position is purchased in a declining market or a position is sold in a rising market. Changes in the value of these futures instruments are recognized in current income and may result in margin calls. We may also vary the amount of risk management strategies we undertake, or we may choose not to engage in risk management transactions at all. Further, our ability to reduce the risk of falling biodiesel prices and rising feedstock costs will be limited as currently there is no established futures market for biodiesel or the vast majority of our feedstocks, nor are fixed-price long-term contracts generally available. As a result, our results of operations and financial position may be adversely affected by increases in the price of feedstocks or decreases in the price of biodiesel that are not managed effectively. For example, we had losses of $4.6 million from risk management trading activity for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to gains of $3.0 million from risk management trading for the year ended December 31, 2011, respectively. Our increased losses were

15

Table of Contents

largely due to a decrease in soybean oil prices in September 2012 and an increase in heating oil prices during the third quarter of 2012 which resulted in reduced market value of our derivative financial instruments related to fourth quarter biodiesel sales.

Our success depends on our ability to manage our growing and changing operations.

Since our formation, our business has grown significantly in size and complexity. This growth has placed, and is expected to continue to place, significant demands on our management, systems, internal controls and financial and physical resources. In addition, we expect that we will need to further develop our financial and managerial controls and reporting systems to accommodate future growth. This will require us to incur expenses related to hiring additional qualified personnel, retaining professionals to assist in developing the appropriate control systems and expanding our information technology infrastructure. Our inability to manage growth effectively could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

One customer accounted for a meaningful percentage of revenues and a loss of this customer could have an adverse impact on our total revenues.

One customer, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, or Pilot, accounted for 36% and 23% of our total revenues in 2012 and 2011, respectively. Our agreements with Pilot have typically had a one-year term and our current agreement with Pilot expires December 31, 2013. In the event we lose Pilot as a customer or Pilot significantly reduces the volume of biodiesel it buys from us, it could be difficult to replace the lost revenues in the short term and potentially over an extended period, and our profitability and cash flow could be materially harmed.

Our business is primarily dependent upon one product. As a consequence, we may not be able to adapt to changing market conditions or endure any decline in the biodiesel industry.

Our business is currently focused almost entirely on the production and sale of biodiesel, with glycerin and fatty acid sales and the operations of our Services segment representing only a small portion of revenues. Our reliance on biodiesel means that we may not be able to adapt to changing market conditions or to withstand any significant decline in the size or profitability of the biodiesel industry. For example, in 2009, the beginning of 2010, we were required to periodically idle our plants due to insufficient demand at profitable price points which materially affected our revenues. If we are required to idle our plants in the future or are unable to adapt to changing market conditions, our revenues and results of operations may be materially harmed.

Technological advances and changes in production methods in the biodiesel industry could render our plants obsolete and adversely affect our ability to compete.

It is expected that technological advances in biodiesel production methods will continue to occur and new technologies for biodiesel production may develop. Advances in the process of converting oils and fats into biodiesel could allow our competitors to produce biodiesel faster and more efficiently and at a substantially lower cost. If we are unable to adapt or incorporate technological advances into our operations, our production facilities could become less competitive or obsolete. Further, it may be necessary for us to make significant expenditures to acquire any new technology and retrofit our plants in order to incorporate new technologies and remain competitive. There is no assurance that third-party licenses for any proprietary technologies that we would need access to in order to remain competitive for either existing processes or new technology will be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or that any new technologies could be incorporated into our plants. In order to execute our strategy to expand into the production of renewable chemicals, additional advanced biofuels, next generation feedstocks and related renewable products, we may need to acquire licenses or other rights to technology from third parties. We can provide no assurance that we will be able to obtain such licenses or rights on favorable terms. If we are unable to obtain, implement or finance new technologies, our production facilities could be less efficient than our competitors, we may not be able to successfully execute our strategy and our results of operations could be substantially harmed.

16

Table of Contents

If we are unable to respond to changes in ASTM or customer standards, our ability to sell biodiesel may be harmed.

We currently produce biodiesel to conform to or exceed standards established by ASTM. ASTM standards for biodiesel and biodiesel blends may be modified in response to new observations from the industries involved with diesel fuel. New tests or more stringent standards may require us to make additional capital investments in, or modify, plant operations to meet these standards. In addition, some biodiesel customers have developed their own biodiesel standards which are stricter than the ASTM standards. If we are unable to meet new ASTM standards or our biodiesel customers’ standards cost effectively or at all, our production technology may become obsolete, and our ability to sell biodiesel may be harmed, negatively impacting our revenues and profitability.

Increases in our transportation costs or disruptions in our transportation services could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our business depends on transportation services to deliver our products to our customers and to deliver raw materials to us. The costs of these transportation services are affected by the volatility in fuel prices, such as those caused by recent geopolitical and economic events. For example, in 2012, the market rates of leasing new rail cars nearly doubled as a result of increased demand to move domestically drilled crude oil from new supply fields in the upper Midwest to various refineries. We have not been able in the past, and may not be able in the future, to pass along part or all of any of these increases to customers. If we continue to be unable to increase our prices as a result of increased fuel costs charged to us by transportation providers, our gross margins may be materially adversely affected.

If any transportation providers fail to deliver raw materials to us in a timely manner, we may be unable to manufacture products on a timely basis. Shipments of products and raw materials may be delayed due to weather conditions, strikes or other events. Any failure of a third-party transportation provider to deliver raw materials or products in a timely manner could harm our reputation, negatively affect our customer relationships and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are dependent upon our key management personnel and the loss of any of these persons could adversely affect our results of operations.

We are highly dependent upon key members of our management team for the execution of our business plan. We believe that our future success is highly dependent on the contributions of these key employees. There can be no assurance that any individual will continue in his or her capacity for any particular period of time. The loss of any of these key employees could delay or prevent the achievement of our business objectives and have a material adverse effect upon our results of operations and financial position.

We and certain subsidiaries have indebtedness, which subjects us to potential defaults, could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations and limits our ability to react to changes in the economy or the biodiesel industry.

At December 31, 2012, our total long-term debt was $31.8 million. This includes consolidated long-term debt owed by our Variable Interest Entities, or VIEs, including 416 South Bell, LLC, or Bell, LLC. In December 2011, certain of our subsidiaries entered into a new revolving credit agreement with a bank group and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, which we refer to as the Wells Fargo Revolver. At December 31, 2012, there was no balance outstanding under our lines of credit, all of which we guarantee.

All of the agreements for our indebtedness contain financial covenants the breach of which would result in an event of default by us or our subsidiary obligor. For a discussion of the financial covenants related to our debt agreements, see “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations—Liquidity.”

17

Table of Contents

Our subsidiaries are required annually to pay a certain portion of our excess cash flow at our Danville and Newton facilities to their respective lenders, which reduces the cash flow that we receive from these facilities.

Our indebtedness could:

Despite our current debt levels, we and our subsidiaries may incur substantially more debt. This could exacerbate the risks associated with our substantial indebtedness.

We and our subsidiaries may incur substantial additional debt in the future, including secured debt. We and certain of our subsidiaries are not currently prohibited under the terms of our debt from incurring additional debt, pledging assets, refinancing our debt or taking a number of other actions that could diminish our ability to make payments thereunder. If new indebtedness is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we and our subsidiaries now face could intensify.

We have partially constructed or non-operational plants and planned plant upgrades that require capital that we may not be able to raise and an impairment could negatively impact our financial position, results of operations and future cash flows.

We have three partially constructed plants, one near New Orleans, Louisiana, one in Emporia, Kansas and one in Clovis, New Mexico. We expect it will require additional investments of approximately $130 to $140 million in the aggregate, excluding working capital requirements, before these plants would be able to commence production. Our Clovis plant is currently being operated as a terminal facility to fulfill biodiesel contracts for customers in the Southwest. In order to complete construction or upgrade these facilities as planned, we will require additional capital. In November 2012, we acquired a biodiesel facility near Atlanta, Georgia that had been idled prior to our acquisition and will remain so until certain repairs or upgrades are made. We also have various upgrades planned for our operating facilities, including the upgrades we are currently completing at our Albert Lea, Minnesota and New Boston, Texas facility. While we intend to finance certain upgrades to our existing facilities from our cash flow from operations, we will need to raise significant capital to complete construction of the three partially constructed facilities and to fund related working capital requirements. It is uncertain when or if financing will be available. It is also likely that the terms of any project financing would include customary financial and other covenants restricting our project subsidiaries, including restrictions on the ability to make distributions, to guarantee indebtedness and to incur liens on the plants of such subsidiaries. We also may engage in acquisitions of assets or facilities in the future that require significant investment to complete or operate. If we are unable to obtain such capital on satisfactory terms, or if such capital is otherwise unavailable, or if we encounter cost overruns on these projects such that we have insufficient capital, we may have to postpone completion of these projects indefinitely, which may adversely affect our ability to implement our strategy and our future revenues and future cash flows.

We may not successfully identify and complete acquisitions and other strategic relationships on favorable terms or achieve anticipated synergies relating to any such transactions, and integration of acquisitions may disrupt our business and management.

We regularly review domestic and international acquisitions of biodiesel production facilities and have acquired most of our facilities from third parties. However, we may be unable to identify suitable acquisition candidates in

18

Table of Contents

the future. Even if we identify appropriate acquisition candidates, we may be unable to complete such acquisitions on favorable terms, if at all. In addition, we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any or all of our past or future transactions and each transaction has numerous risks. These risks include:

In addition, one of our strategic goals is to expand our biodiesel production capabilities into international markets. In the event we expand our operations into international markets through acquisitions or otherwise, we may be exposed to additional risks, including unexpected changes in foreign laws and regulations, political and economic instability, challenges in managing foreign operations, increased costs to adapt our systems and practices to those used in foreign countries, export duties, currency fluctuations and restrictions, tariffs and other trade barriers, and the burdens of complying with a wide variety of foreign laws, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

We intend to pursue strategic initiatives to diversify our business that will require significant funding and management attention and these initiatives may not be successful.

We are seeking opportunities to diversify our product lines, as a commercialization partner for companies engaged in the development of new advanced biofuels, by using our biorefinery platform to produce renewable chemicals from bio-mass feedstocks and by entering entirely new industries through acquisitions or otherwise. There is no assurance that new technologies capable of economically producing advanced biofuels will be developed, that the developers of these technologies will select us as their commercialization partner or that the terms of any such collaborative arrangement will be favorable to us. Further, the renewable chemicals market is underdeveloped. Any chemicals that we produce from renewable sources may not prove to be as effective as chemicals produced from petroleum or other sources and, regardless of their effectiveness, renewable chemicals may not be accepted in the chemical marketplace. Furthermore, we may not be able to acquire companies in different industries at attractive valuations or at all. These strategic initiatives will require significant funding and management attention, and if we are not successful in implementing them, our financial condition and results of operations may be harmed.

We may be obligated to redeem our Series B preferred stock beginning in 2015.

On June 30, 2015, each holder of the then-outstanding shares of Series B preferred stock may require that up to all of such holder’s shares of Series B preferred stock be redeemed by us out of funds lawfully available at a

19

Table of Contents

price per share equal to $25 per share plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends. As of the date of this filing, the amount of this potential obligation would be approximately $74.9 million. In order to satisfy any redemption request, we may need to use limited cash resources on hand, be required to borrow money, issue equity securities or sell assets to meet this obligation, which could impair our working capital, reduce the funds necessary to operate and grow our business, involve significant dilution to holders of our Common Stock or require the disposition of our key assets. If we are subject to a redemption request, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, and cause the price of our Common Stock to decline.

Our business is subject to seasonal fluctuations, which are likely to cause our revenues and operating results to fluctuate.

Our operating results are influenced by seasonal fluctuations in the price of and demand for biodiesel. Our sales tend to decrease during the winter season due to perceptions that biodiesel will not perform adequately in colder weather. Colder seasonal temperatures can cause the higher cloud point biodiesel we make from inedible animal fats to become cloudy and eventually gel at a higher temperature than petroleum-based diesel or lower cloud point biodiesel made from soybean, canola, used cooking oil or inedible corn oil. Such gelling can lead to plugged fuel filters and other fuel handling and performance problems for customers and suppliers. Reduced demand in the winter for our higher cloud point biodiesel may result in excess supply of such higher cloud point biodiesel and lower prices for such higher cloud point biodiesel. In addition, most of our production facilities are located in colder Midwestern states and our costs of shipping biodiesel to warmer climates generally increase in cold weather months. As a result of these seasonal fluctuations, comparisons of operating measures between consecutive quarters may not be as meaningful as comparisons between longer reporting periods.

Failure to comply with governmental regulations, including EPA requirements relating to RFS2, could result in the imposition of penalties, fines, or restrictions on our operations and remedial liabilities.

The biodiesel industry is subject to extensive federal, state and local laws and regulations related to the general population’s health and safety and compliance and permitting obligations, including those related to the use, storage, handling, discharge, emission and disposal of municipal solid waste and other waste, pollutants or hazardous substances, discharges, air and other emissions, as well as land use and development. Existing laws also impose obligations to clean up contaminated properties or to pay for the cost of such remediation, often upon parties that did not actually cause the contamination. Compliance with these laws, regulations and obligations could require substantial capital expenditures. Failure to comply could result in the imposition of penalties, fines or restrictions on operations and remedial liabilities. These costs and liabilities could adversely affect our operations.

Changes in environmental laws and regulations occur frequently, and any changes that result in more stringent or costly waste handling, storage, transport, disposal or cleanup requirements could require us to make significant expenditures to attain and maintain compliance and may otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business in general and on our results of operations, competitive position or financial condition. We are unable to predict the effect of additional environmental laws and regulations which may be adopted in the future, including whether any such laws or regulations would significantly increase our cost of doing business or affect our operations in any area.

Under certain environmental laws and regulations, we could be held strictly liable for the removal or remediation of previously released materials or property contamination regardless of whether we were responsible for the release or contamination, or if current or prior operations were conducted consistent with accepted standards of practice. Such liabilities can be significant and, if imposed, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

In addition to the regulations mentioned above, we are subject to various laws and regulations related to RFS2, most significantly regulations related to the generation and dissemination of RINs. These regulations are highly

20

Table of Contents

complex and evolving, requiring us to periodically update our compliance systems. For example, in 2008, we unintentionally generated duplicate RINs as a result of a change to the software we use to manage RIN generation. We voluntarily reported this violation to the EPA and followed EPA guidance in correcting the issue promptly. In 2011, we entered into an administrative settlement agreement with the EPA regarding this violation and paid a fine for this inadvertent violation. Any violation of these regulations by us, inadvertently or otherwise, could result in significant fines and harm our customers’ confidence in the RINs we issue, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business. For a detailed description of RINs, see “Business—Government Programs Favoring Biodiesel Production and Use—Renewable Identification Numbers.”

In response to certain cases of RIN fraud whereby biodiesel producers were selling biomass-based diesel RINs without having produced the required renewable fuel, the EPA has recently instituted a quality assurance program for RIN compliance. Compliance with these or any new regulations or Obligated Party verification procedures could require significant expenditures to attain and maintain compliance. Failure to comply could result in the imposition of penalties, fines, restrictions on operations, loss of customers and remedial liabilities. These costs and liabilities may have a material adverse effect on our business in general and on our results of operations, competitive position or financial condition. We are unable to predict the effect of any additional regulatory or customer requirements which may be adopted in the future, including whether any such regulations or verification procedures would significantly increase our cost of doing business or affect our operations in any area.

We are a holding company and there are limitations on our ability to receive dividends and distributions from our subsidiaries.

All of our principal assets, including our biodiesel production facilities, are owned by subsidiaries and some of these subsidiaries are subject to loan covenants that generally restrict them from paying dividends, making distributions or making loans to us or to any other subsidiary. These limitations will restrict our ability to repay indebtedness, finance capital projects or pay dividends to stockholders from our subsidiaries’ cash flows from operations.

Our business may suffer if we are unable to attract or retain talented personnel.

Our success depends on the abilities, expertise, judgment, discretion, integrity, and good faith of our management and employees to manage the business and respond to economic, market and other conditions. We have a relatively small management team and employee base, and the inability to attract suitably qualified replacements or additional staff could adversely affect our business. No assurance can be given that our management team or employee base will continue their employment, or that replacement personnel with comparable skills could be found. If we are unable to attract and retain key personnel and additional employees, our business may be adversely affected.

If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, we might not be able to report our financial results accurately or prevent fraud; in that case, our stockholders could lose confidence in our financial reporting, which would harm our business and could negatively impact the value of our stock.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and prevent fraud. The process of maintaining our internal controls may be expensive and time consuming and may require significant attention from management. Although we have concluded as of December 31, 2012 that our internal control over financial reporting provides reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect fraud or misstatements. Failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our results of operations or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. If we or our independent registered public accounting firm discover a material weakness, the disclosure of that fact could harm the value of our stock and our business.

21

Table of Contents

A natural disaster, leak, fire or explosion at any of our production plants or customer’s facilities could increase our costs and liabilities.

Because biodiesel and some of its inputs and outputs are combustible and flammable, a leak, fire or explosion may occur at a plant or customer’s facility which could result in damage to the plant and nearby properties, injury to employees and others, and interruption of operations. In addition, our Houston facility, due to its coastal location, is vulnerable to hurricanes, which may cause plant damage, injury to employees and others and interruption of operations and all of our plants could incur damage from other natural disasters. A majority of our facilities are also located in the Midwest, which is subject to tornado activity. If any of the foregoing events occur, we may incur significant additional costs including, among other things, loss of profits due to unplanned temporary or permanent shutdowns of our facilities, clean-up costs, liability for damages or injuries, legal expenses, and reconstruction expenses, which would seriously harm our results of operations and financial condition.

Our insurance may not protect us against our business and operating risks.

We maintain insurance for some, but not all, of the potential risks and liabilities associated with our business. For some risks, we may not obtain insurance if we believe the cost of available insurance is excessive relative to the risks presented. As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain insurance policies can increase substantially and, in some instances, certain insurance policies may become unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage. As a result, we may not be able to renew our existing insurance policies or procure other desirable insurance on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Although we intend to maintain insurance at levels we believe are appropriate for our business and consistent with industry practice, we will not be fully insured against all risks. In addition, pollution, environmental risks and the risk of natural disasters generally are not fully insurable. Losses and liabilities from uninsured and underinsured events and delay in the payment of insurance proceeds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosures of confidential information, trade secrets and other proprietary information.

We rely in part on trade secret protection to protect our confidential and proprietary information and processes. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We have taken measures to protect our trade secrets and proprietary information, but these measures may not be effective. For example, we require new employees and consultants to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of their employment or consulting arrangement with us. These agreements generally require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. These agreements also generally provide that knowhow and inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us are our exclusive property. Nevertheless, these agreements may be breached, or may not be enforceable, and our proprietary information may be disclosed. Further, despite the existence of these agreements, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques. Accordingly, it may be difficult for us to protect our trade secrets. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

Moreover, we cannot assure you that our technology does not infringe upon any valid claims of patents that other parties own. In the future, if we are found to be infringing on a patent owned by a third party, we might have to seek a license from such third party to use the patented technology. We cannot assure you that, if required, we would be able to obtain such a license on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If a third party brought a legal action against us or our licensors, we could incur substantial costs in defending ourselves, and we cannot assure you that such an action would be resolved in our favor. If such a dispute were to be resolved against us, we could be subject to significant damages.

22

Table of Contents

Insiders have substantial control over us and will continue to be able to exercise influence over corporate matters.

As of February 28, 2013, our five largest stockholders beneficially owned, in the aggregate, sufficient shares of our voting stock to exercise control over all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions, such as a merger or other sale of our company or its assets. In addition, subject to certain exceptions, two of our largest stockholders, USRG Holdco V, LLC, which together with its affiliates we refer to as USRG, and NGP Energy Technology Partners, L.P., will hold rights to each designate a member of our board of directors for the next two years. This concentration of ownership and contractual power over the appointment of directors could limit other stockholders’ ability to influence corporate matters and may have the effect of delaying or preventing a third party from acquiring control over us.

In the event we enter into new construction contracts, we may be exposed to a variety of risks that could affect our ability to realize profit.

While our construction services management business has had only limited external operations over the last three years, we intend to continue to pursue opportunities to provide these services. Substantially all of our revenues from our new facility construction services business have been derived from fixed unit price contracts. Fixed unit price contracts require us to perform the contract for a fixed unit price irrespective of our actual costs. As a result, we realize a profit on these contracts only if we and our subcontractors successfully estimate our costs and then successfully control actual costs and avoid cost overruns. Further, we have historically subcontracted substantially all of our construction work to Todd & Sargent, Inc. and TSW, LLC on a time and materials, rather than fixed, basis. As a result, we have less control over the largest component of our plant construction costs and the risk of cost overruns generally falls on us rather than our subcontractors. If we or our subcontractors do not perform a contract within cost estimates, then cost overruns may cause us to incur losses or cause the contract not to be as profitable as we initially expected. This, in turn, could negatively affect our cash flow, earnings and financial position. As we have acquired assets and begun consolidating the industry, our construction services management business has almost exclusively been focused on internal intercompany projects.

If we or our subcontractors perform extra or change order work that is not approved by the customer in advance we may have a dispute with the customer over whether the work performed is beyond the scope of the work included in the original project plans and specifications or, if the customer agrees that the work performed qualifies as extra work, the price that the customer is willing to pay for the extra work. These disputes may result in us not receiving payment for all or a significant portion of work that we or our subcontractors have performed. Even where the customer agrees to pay for the extra work, we may be required to fund the cost of that work for a lengthy period of time until the change order is approved and paid by the customer. To the extent actual recoveries with respect to change orders or amounts subject to contract disputes or claims are less than the estimates used in our financial statements, the amount of any shortfall will reduce our revenues and profits, and this could have a material adverse effect on our working capital and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Biodiesel Industry

The market price of biodiesel is influenced by the price of petroleum-based distillate fuels, such as ultra-low sulfur diesel, and decreases in the price of petroleum-based distillate fuels or RIN values would very likely decrease the price we can charge for our biodiesel, which could harm our revenues and profitability.

Historically, biodiesel prices have been strongly correlated to petroleum-based diesel prices and in particular ULSD, regardless of the cost of producing biodiesel itself. We market our biofuel as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Therefore, if the price of petroleum-based diesel falls, the price of biodiesel could decline, and we may be unable to produce products that are an economically viable alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Petroleum prices are volatile due to global factors, such as the impact of wars, political uprisings, OPEC production quotas, worldwide economic conditions, changes in refining capacity and natural disasters. Additionally, demand for liquid transportation fuels, including biodiesel, is impacted by economic conditions.

23

Table of Contents

Just as a small reduction in the real or anticipated supply of crude oil can have a significant upward impact on the price of petroleum-based fuels, a perceived reduction of such threats can result in a significant reduction in petroleum-based fuel prices. A reduction in petroleum-based fuel prices may have a material adverse affect on our revenues and profits if such price decrease reduces the price we are able to charge for our biodiesel.

There was a sharp decline in RIN prices during third quarter 2012 that carried through the end of the year. During this period, RIN pricing declined from $1.17 per RIN at June 30, 2012 to $0.64 per RIN at December 31, 2012, as reported by OPIS, which contributed to the decline in price of biodiesel. A reduction in RIN values, such as those experienced in the second half of 2012, may have a material adverse affect on our revenues and profits as such price decrease reduce the price we are able to charge for our biodiesel.

We operate in a highly competitive industry and competition in our industry would increase if new participants enter the biodiesel business.

We operate in a very competitive environment. The biodiesel industry is primarily comprised of smaller entities that engage exclusively in biodiesel production, large integrated agribusiness companies that produce biodiesel along with their soybean crush businesses and increasingly, integrated petroleum companies. We face competition for capital, labor, feedstocks and other resources from these companies. In the United States, we compete with soybean processors and refiners, including Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, LLC, Cargill, Inc. and Louis Dreyfus Commodities. In addition, petroleum refiners are increasingly entering into biodiesel and renewable diesel production. These and other competitors that are divisions of larger enterprises may have greater financial resources than we do. We also have many smaller competitors. If our competitors consolidate or otherwise grow and we are unable to similarly increase our scale, our business and prospects may be significantly and adversely affected.

In addition, petroleum companies and diesel retailers form the primary distribution networks for marketing biodiesel through blended petroleum-based diesel. If these companies increase their direct or indirect biodiesel and renewable diesel production, there will be less of a need to purchase biodiesel from independent biodiesel producers like us. Such a shift in the market would materially harm our operations, cash flows and financial position.

The development of alternative fuels and energy sources may reduce the demand for biodiesel, resulting in a reduction in our revenues and profitability.

The development of alternative fuels, including a variety of energy alternatives to biodiesel has attracted significant attention and investment. Neste Oil operates four renewable diesel plants: a 240 million gallon per year plant in Singapore, a 240 million gallon per year plant in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and two 60 million gallon per year plants in Porvoo, Finland. Dynamic Fuels, LLC, has recently announced that their 75 million gallon per year renewable diesel plant in Geismar, Louisiana was producing near its reported capacity. Diamond Green Diesel, LLC has announced that it expects to complete construction of its 137 million gallon per year renewable diesel plant in Norco, Louisiana in 2013. Under RFS2, renewable diesel made from biomass meets the definition of biomass-based diesel and thus is eligible, along with biodiesel, to satisfy the RFS2 biomass-based diesel requirement described in “Business—Government Programs Favoring Biodiesel Production and Use.” Furthermore, under RFS2, renewable diesel may receive up to 1.7 RINs per gallon, whereas biodiesel currently receives 1.5 RINs per gallon. For a detailed description of RINs and RIN values, see “Business—Government Programs Favoring Biodiesel Production and Use—Renewable Identification Numbers.” As the value of RINs increases, this 0.2 RIN advantage may make renewable diesel more cost-effective, both as a petroleum-based diesel substitute and for meeting RFS2 requirements. If renewable diesel proves to be more cost-effective than biodiesel, our revenues and results of operations would be adversely impacted.

In addition, the EPA may allow other fuels to satisfy the RFS2 requirements and allow RINs to be attached to these fuels. The EPA recently proposed regulations to amend the definition of “Home Heating Oil” under RFS2,

24

Table of Contents

which may expand the scope of fuels eligible to generate RINs. If the proposed rule is finalized, this could increase competition within heating oil markets by introducing fuels that could generate more RINs (i.e., cellulosic diesel) and or be more cost competitive than biodiesel utilized as heating oil.

The biodiesel industry will also face increased competition resulting from the advancement of technology by automotive, industrial and power generation manufacturers which are developing more efficient engines, hybrid engines and alternative clean power systems. Improved engines and alternative clean power systems offer a technological solution to address increasing worldwide energy costs, the long-term availability of petroleum reserves and environmental concerns. If and when these clean power systems are able to offer significant efficiency and environmental benefits and become widely available, the biodiesel industry may not be able to compete effectively with these technologies and government requirements for the use of biodiesel may not continue.

The development of alternative fuels and renewable chemicals also puts pressure on feedstock supply and availability to the biodiesel industry. If these emerging technologies compete with biodiesel for feedstocks, are more profitable or have greater governmental support than biodiesel does, then the biodiesel industry may have difficulty in procuring the feedstocks necessary to be successful.

Increased industry-wide production of biodiesel could have a negative effect on our margins and there remains excess production capacity in the biodiesel industry.

According to EPA EMTS data, approximately 1.1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel was produced in the United States in 2011, and 1.14 billion was produced in 2012, primarily reflecting the recommencement of, or increase in, operations at underutilized facilities in response to RFS2 requirements. Such production was in excess of the 800 million gallon RFS2 requirement for 2011 and one billion gallon requirement for 2012. Should biodiesel production continue to remain above RFS2 required volumes, which is 1.28 billion for 2013, the resulting supply could put downward pressure on our margins for biodiesel, negatively affecting our profitability. In addition, because the level of production in 2011 and 2012 exceeded the 2011 and 2012 RFS2 requirements, respectively, the demand for biodiesel in 2013 could be less than 2013 RFS2 required volumes. Under RFS2, Obligated Parties are entitled to satisfy up to 20% of their annual volume requirement for any given year with gallons used in the previous year so long as they are in compliance with the RFS2. The carry-over of gallons from 2012 may have some adverse effect on biodiesel demand in 2013.

Many biodiesel plants in the United States do not currently operate, and of those that do, many do not operate at full capacity. According to the NBB, as of September 12, 2012, 2.7 billion gallons per year of biodiesel production capacity in the United States were registered under the RFS2 program by NBB members. In addition to this amount, several hundred more gallons of U.S. based biomass-based diesel production capacity was registered by non-NBB members and another 1.2 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel production was registered by foreign producers. Furthermore, plants under construction and expansion in the United States as of December 31 2011, if completed, could add an additional several hundred million gallons of annual biodiesel production capacity. The annual production capacity of existing plants and plants under construction far exceeds both historic consumption of biodiesel in the United States and required consumption under RFS2. If this excess production capacity was fully utilized for the U.S. market, it would increase competition for our feedstocks, increase the volume of biomass-based diesel on the market and may reduce biodiesel gross margins, harming our revenues and profitability.

The European Commission has imposed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on biodiesel blends imported into Europe, which have effectively eliminated our ability to sell those biodiesel blends in Europe.

In March 2009, as a response to the federal blenders tax credit, the European Commission imposed anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tariffs on biodiesel produced in the United States. These tariffs have effectively eliminated

25

Table of Contents

European demand for 20% biodiesel blends, or B20, or higher imported from the United States. The European Commission has extended these tariffs through 2014. In May 2011, the European Commission imposed similar anti-dumping and countervailing duties on biodiesel blends below B20. These duties significantly increase the price at which we and other United States biodiesel producers will be able to sell such biodiesel blends in European markets, making it difficult or impossible to compete in the European biodiesel market. These anti-dumping and countervailing duties therefore decrease the demand for biodiesel produced in the United States and increase the supply of biodiesel available in the United States market. Such market dynamics may negatively impact our revenues and profitability.

If automobile manufacturers and other industry groups express reservations regarding the use of biodiesel, our ability to sell biodiesel will be negatively impacted.

Because it is a relatively new product, research on biodiesel use in automobiles is ongoing. Some industry groups have recommended that blends of no more than 5% biodiesel be used for automobile fuel due to concerns about fuel quality, engine performance problems and possible detrimental effects of biodiesel on rubber components and other engine parts. Although some manufacturers have encouraged use of biodiesel fuel in their vehicles, cautionary pronouncements by other manufacturers or industry groups may impact our ability to market our biodiesel.

Perception about “food vs. fuel” could impact public policy which could impair our ability to operate at a profit and substantially harm our revenues and operating margins.

Some people believe that biodiesel may increase the cost of food, as some feedstocks such as soybean oil used to make biodiesel can also be used for food products. This debate is often referred to as “food vs. fuel.” This is a concern to the biodiesel industry because biodiesel demand is heavily influenced by government policy and if public opinion were to erode, it is possible that these policies would lose political support. These views could also negatively impact public perception of biodiesel. Such claims have led some, including members of Congress, to urge the modification of current government policies which affect the production and sale of biofuels in the United States.

Concerns regarding the environmental impact of biodiesel production could affect public policy which could impair our ability to operate at a profit and substantially harm our revenues and operating margins.

Because biodiesel is a relatively new product, the environmental impacts associated with biodiesel production and uses have not yet been fully analyzed. Under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, the EPA is required to produce a study every three years of the environmental impacts associated with current and future biofuel production and use, including effects on air and water quality, soil quality and conservation, water availability, energy recovery from secondary materials, ecosystem health and biodiversity, invasive species and international impacts. The first such triennial report was released in February 2012. The 2012 report concludes that (1) the extent of negative impacts to date are limited in magnitude and are primarily associated with the intensification of corn production; (2) whether future impacts are positive or negative will be determined by the choice of feedstock, land use change, cultivation and conservation practices; and (3) realizing potential benefits will require implementation and monitoring of conservation and best management practices, improvements in production efficiency, and implementation of innovative technologies at commercial scales. Should future EPA triennial studies, or other analyses find that biodiesel production and use has resulted in, or could in the future result in, adverse environmental impacts, such findings could also negatively impact public perception of biodiesel and acceptance of biodiesel as an alternative fuel, which also could result in the loss of political support.

To the extent that state or federal laws are modified or public perception turns against biodiesel, use requirements such as RFS2 and state tax incentives may not continue, which could materially harm our ability to operate profitably.

26

Table of Contents

Problems with product performance, in cold weather or otherwise, could cause consumers to lose confidence in the reliability of biodiesel which, in turn, would have an adverse impact on our ability to successfully market and sell biodiesel.

Concerns about the performance of biodiesel could result in a decrease in customers and revenues and an unexpected increase in expenses. Biodiesel typically has a higher cloud point than petroleum-based diesel. The cloud point is the temperature below which a fuel exhibits a noticeable cloudiness and is the conventional indicator of a fuel’s potential for cold weather problems. The lower the cloud point, the better the fuel should perform in cold weather. According to an article published by Iowa State University Extension, the cloud point of biodiesel is typically between 30 °F and 60 °F, while the cloud point of the most common form of pure petroleum-based diesel fuel is typically less than 20 °F. It is our experience that when biodiesel is mixed with pure petroleum-based diesel to make a two percent biodiesel blend, the cloud point of the blended fuel can be 2 °F to 6 °F higher than petroleum-based diesel and the cloud point of a twenty percent biodiesel blend can be 15 °F to 35 °F higher than petroleum based diesel, depending on the individual cloud points of the biodiesel and petroleum-based diesel. Cold temperatures can therefore cause biodiesel blended fuel to become cloudy and eventually to gel when pure petroleum-based diesel would not, and this can lead to plugged fuel filters and other fuel handling and performance problems for customers and suppliers. The consequences of these higher cloud points may cause demand for biodiesel in northern and eastern United States markets to diminish during the colder months, which are the primary markets in which we currently operate.

The tendency of biodiesel to gel in colder weather may also result in long-term storage problems. In cold climates, fuel may need to be stored in a heated building or heated storage tanks, which result in higher storage costs. This and other performance problems, including the possibility of particulate formation above the cloud point of a blend of biodiesel and petroleum-based diesel, may also result in increased expenses as we try to remedy these performance problems, including the costs of extra cold weather treatment additives. Remedying these performance problems may result in decreased yields, lower process throughput or both, as well as substantial capital costs. Any reduction in the demand for our biodiesel product, or the production capacity of our facilities will reduce our revenues and have an adverse effect on our cash flows and results of operations.

Growth in the sale and distribution of biodiesel is dependent on the expansion of related infrastructure which may not occur on a timely basis, if at all, and our operations could be adversely affected by infrastructure limitations or disruptions.

Growth in the biodiesel industry depends on substantial development of infrastructure for the distribution of biodiesel. Substantial investment required for these infrastructure changes and expansions may not be made on a timely basis or at all. The scope and timing of any infrastructure expansion are generally beyond our control. Also, we compete with other biofuel companies for access to some of the key infrastructure components such as pipeline and terminal capacity. As a result, increased production of biodiesel or other biofuels will increase the demand and competition for necessary infrastructure. Any delay or failure in expanding distribution infrastructure could hurt the demand for or prices of biodiesel, impede delivery of our biodiesel, and impose additional costs, each of which would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Our business will be dependent on the continuing availability of infrastructure for the distribution of increasing volumes of biodiesel and any infrastructure disruptions could materially harm our business.

We may face competition from imported biodiesel and renewable diesel, which may reduce demand for biodiesel produced by us and cause our revenues to decline.

Biodiesel and renewable diesel produced in Canada, South America, Europe, Eastern Asia, the Pacific Rim, or other regions may be imported into the United States market to compete with United States produced biodiesel. These regions may benefit from production incentives or other financial incentives in their home countries that offset some of their production costs and enable them to profitably sell biodiesel or renewable diesel in the United States at lower prices than United States-based biodiesel producers. Under RFS2, imported biodiesel and

27

Table of Contents

renewable diesel may be eligible and, therefore, may compete to meet the volumetric requirements for biomass-based diesel. This could make it more challenging for us to market or sell biodiesel in the United States, which would have a material adverse effect on our revenues.

Nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel may harm its appeal as a renewable fuel and increase costs.

In some instances biodiesel may increase emissions of nitrogen oxide as compared to petroleum-based diesel fuel, which could harm air quality. Nitrogen oxide is a contributor to ozone and smog. These emissions may decrease the appeal of biodiesel to environmental groups and agencies who have been historic supporters of the biodiesel industry, potentially harming our ability to market our biodiesel.

In addition, several states may act to regulate potential nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel. California is in the process of formulating biodiesel regulations that may also require such an additive. In states where such an additive is required to sell biodiesel, the additional cost of the additive may make biodiesel less profitable or make biodiesel less cost competitive against petroleum-based diesel or renewable diesel, which would negatively impact our ability to sell our products in such states and therefore have an adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.

Several biofuels companies throughout the United States have filed for bankruptcy over the last several years due to industry and economic conditions.

Unfavorable worldwide economic conditions, lack of credit and volatile biofuel prices and feedstock costs have likely contributed to the necessity of bankruptcy filings by biofuel producers. Our business has been, and in the future may be, negatively impacted by the industry conditions that influenced the bankruptcy proceedings of other biofuel producers, or we may encounter new competition from buyers of distressed biodiesel properties who enter the industry at a lower cost than original plant investors.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The market price for our Common Stock may be volatile.

The market price for our Common Stock is likely to be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to factors including the following:

28

Table of Contents

In addition, stock markets generally and from time to time experience significant price and volume fluctuations that are not related to the operating performance of particular companies. These market fluctuations may have material adverse effect on the market price of our Common Stock.

We may issue additional Common Stock as consideration for future investments or acquisitions.

We have issued in the past, and may issue in the future, our securities in connection with investments and acquisitions. The amount of our Common Stock or securities convertible into or exchangeable for our Common Stock issued in connection with an investment or acquisition could constitute a material portion of our then outstanding Common Stock.

We have never paid dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have paid no cash dividends on any of our classes of common stock to date, have contractual restrictions against paying cash dividends and currently intend to retain our future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, stockholders must look solely to appreciation of our Common Stock to realize a gain on their investment. This appreciation may not occur. Investors seeking cash dividends should not invest in our Common Stock.

Delaware law and our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws will contain anti-takeover provisions that could delay or discourage takeover attempts that stockholders may consider favorable.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control or changes in our management. These provisions include the following:

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or DGCL. These provisions may prohibit or restrict large stockholders, in

29

Table of Contents

particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us. These provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws and under Delaware law could discourage potential takeover attempts and could reduce the price that investors might be willing to pay for shares of our common stock in the future and result in our market price being lower than it would without these provisions.

If securities or industry analysts issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding our stock or do not publish research or reports about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our Common Stock relies in part on the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business. It is difficult for companies such as ours to attract independent equity research analysts to cover our Common Stock. We do not control these analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. The price of our Common Stock could decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrade our Common Stock or if those analysts issue other unfavorable commentary or cease publishing reports about us or our business. If one or more equity research analysts ceases coverage of our company, we could lose visibility in the market, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

None.

The following table lists each of our biodiesel production facilities and its location, use, and nameplate production capacity. Each facility listed below is used by our Biodiesel Segment.

COMPLETED FACILITIES

We are currently upgrading our New Boston facility and expect this facility to begin production in second quarter 2013. Our Ellenwood facility was idled by the previous owners prior to our acquisition and will remain so until repairs or upgrades are made. We have not yet set a production date for our Ellenwood facility.

The following table lists our partially constructed or idled biodiesel production facilities, the planned nameplate capacity and the approximate level of completion.

PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES

30

Table of Contents

The Company is not a party to any material pending legal proceeding, nor is any of its property the subject of any material pending legal proceeding, except ordinary routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of the Company’s business and incidental to its business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s business, financial position or results of operations.

Not applicable.

31

Table of Contents

PART II

Market For Our Common Equity

Our Common Stock began trading on the NASDAQ Global market on January 19, 2012. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our stock. The table below sets forth the high and low sales price of our Common Stock.

Holders

As of February 28, 2013, there were approximately 2,116 holders of our Common Stock.

Dividends

We have never paid, and do not intend to pay in the future, a cash dividend on our Common Stock. Holders of our Series B preferred stock are entitled to receive cumulative dividends semi-annually in arrears on June 30 and December 30 of each year at an annual rate of $1.125 per share. We may, at our option, defer a regularly scheduled dividend payment and instead pay accumulated and unpaid dividends on the following dividend payment date, however, we may only defer two such dividend payments and may not defer consecutive dividend payments. We may pay any dividend in cash, by delivering shares of Common Stock, or through any combination of cash and shares of Common Stock. Unless all accumulated and unpaid dividends on the Series B preferred stock are paid in full, we may not pay any dividends on our capital stock. In addition, we have entered into agreements that contractually restrict our subsidiaries from paying dividends, making distributions or making loans to our parent company or to any other subsidiaries.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

The following table provides certain information as of December 31, 2012, with respect to our equity compensation plans:

32

Table of Contents

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

There are currently no authorized repurchase programs in effect under which we may repurchase shares of our outstanding common stock.

Use of Proceeds

On January 24, 2012, we completed the initial public offering of shares of our common stock, in which 7,200,000 shares of common stock were sold at a price to the public of $10.00 per share, which included 342,860 shares of Common Stock from selling shareholders, for an aggregate offering price of $72 million. The offer and sale of all of the shares in the IPO were registered under the Securities Act pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-175627), which was declared effective by the SEC on January 18, 2012. The offering commenced as of January 18, 2012 and did not terminate before all of the securities registered in the registration statement were sold. The syndicate of underwriters was led by UBS Investment Bank and Piper Jaffray as joint book-running managers for the offering, Stifel Nicolaus Weisel and Canaccord Genuity served as co-managers for the offering. The net proceeds from the initial public offering were approximately $59.9 million after deducting underwriting discounts and offering expenses payable by us. We used approximately $11 million of the net proceeds from the offering to exercise the option we hold to acquire the Seneca Facility. We intend to use the remainder of the net proceeds for working capital, capital expenditures related to improvements of production processes and logistics, and investments, including potential acquisitions, joint ventures and other collaborative arrangements, in new biofuel businesses, production technologies or other assets and in opportunities to extend our biorefinery platform to the production of renewable chemicals and feedstocks. We have no agreements with respect to any material investments at this time.

33

Table of Contents

The following selected consolidated financial data should be read together with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” beginning on page 36 and our financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this annual report. The selected consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the selected consolidated statements of operations data for each year ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements which are included elsewhere in this annual report. The selected consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, and the selected consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this annual report.

34

Table of Contents

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto that appear elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements reflecting our current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, including those set forth in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report.

Overview

We are the largest producer of biodiesel in the United States. We have been a leader in the biodiesel industry since 1996. We have transitioned from being primarily an operator of a third party-owned network of facilities to now owning seven operating biodiesel production facilities with aggregate nameplate production capacity of 227 million gallons per year, or mmgy. We produce biodiesel primarily from lower cost feedstocks, such as inedible corn oil, used cooking oil and inedible animal fat. A small portion of our biodiesel is produced using higher cost virgin vegetable oils, such as soybean oil. We own biodiesel production facilities with nameplate capacities consisting of: a 12 mmgy facility in Ralston, Iowa, a 35 mmgy facility near Houston, Texas, or the Houston facility, a 45 mmgy facility in Danville, Illinois, a 30 mmgy facility in Newton, Iowa and a 30 mmgy biodiesel production facility in Albert Lea, Minnesota. In January 2012, we exercised our option to purchase a 60 mmgy facility in Seneca, Illinois that we previously operated under a lease. In October 2012, we completed our acquisition of North Texas Bio-Energy, LLC, or NTBE, a 15 mmgy facility in New Boston, Texas, which was idled at the time we purchased it and remains idled pending completion of certain upgrades expected to be completed in second quarter 2013. In November 2012, we completed our acquisition of Bulldog Biodiesel, LLC, or BullDog, a 15 mmgy facility near Atlanta, Georgia, that was idled at the time we purchased it and will remain so until certain repairs or upgrades are made. See “Note 5 – Acquisitions and Equity Transactions” in our consolidated financial statements for description of these transactions.

During 2012, we sold 188 million gallons, including 25 million gallons we purchased from third parties and resold. During 2011, we sold 150 million gallons of biodiesel, including 16 million gallons we purchased from third parties and resold and including six million gallons we manufactured for others.

Beginning in the second half of 2010, we and the biodiesel industry began to benefit from the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS2, which became effective July 1, 2010 and requires Obligated Parties, including petroleum refiners and petroleum importers in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii that have annual renewable fuel volume obligations, to use specified amounts of biomass-based diesel, which

35

Table of Contents

includes biodiesel, as discussed further below. In addition, the $1.00 per gallon federal blenders tax credit, which had expired as of December 31, 2009, was reinstated in December 2010 retroactively for all of 2010 and prospectively for 2011. As a result of these regulatory changes, as well as improving general economic conditions and relatively high petroleum prices, the price of and demand for biodiesel increased significantly compared to the years prior to 2011. During 2010, prior to the effectiveness of RFS2 and the reinstatement of the blenders tax credit, our average price for B100 was $3.31 per gallon. During 2011, our average price per gallon of B100 was $5.23, or 58% higher than the average price in 2010, and we sold 150 million gallons of biodiesel, compared to 68 million gallons sold in all of 2010. During 2012, our average price per gallons of B100 was $4.60, or 39% higher than the average price in 2010 and 12% lower than the average price in 2011. In 2012, we sold 188 million gallons of biodiesel, an increase of 25% and 176% over 2011 and 2010 gallons sold, respectively.

We own three partially completed biodiesel production facilities. In 2007, we began construction of two 60 mmgy nameplate production capacity facilities, one near New Orleans, Louisiana and the other in Emporia, Kansas. In February 2008, we halted construction of these facilities as a result of conditions in the biodiesel industry and our inability to obtain financing necessary to complete construction of the facilities. Construction of the New Orleans facility is approximately 45% complete and construction of the Emporia facility is approximately 20% complete. Further, during the third quarter of 2010, we acquired a 15 mmgy nameplate biodiesel production capacity facility in Clovis, New Mexico which is approximately 50% complete. Currently, the Clovis facility is being operated as a terminal to fulfill biodiesel contracts for customers in the Southwest. We expect that the aggregate cost to complete construction and commence operations of these three facilities is in the range of approximately $130 to $140 million, excluding working capital. In November 2012, we acquired a 15 mmgy nameplate biodiesel production facility near Atlanta, Georgia that was idled prior to our acquisition and will remain so until certain repairs or upgrades are made. We plan to complete construction and upgrade of these facilities as financing becomes available, subject to market conditions.

On January 24, 2012, we completed an initial public offering, or IPO, of shares of Common Stock in which we sold 7.2 million shares at a price to the public of $10 per share, which included 0.3 million shares sold by selling shareholders. The IPO raised proceeds to us of $59.9 million after underwriting fees and offering costs. In connection with the IPO, we executed a 1-for-2.5 reverse stock-split of our Common Stock and our outstanding Series A Preferred Stock was converted into shares of Common Stock and Series B preferred stock.

We derive revenues from two reportable business segments: Biodiesel and Services

Biodiesel Segment

Our Biodiesel segment, as reported herein, includes:

36

Table of Contents

We derive a small portion of our revenues from the sale of glycerin, free fatty acids and other co-products of the biodiesel production process. In 2011 and 2012, our revenues from the sale of co-products were less than five percent of our total Biodiesel segment revenues.

When we produce a gallon of biodiesel, we generate 1.5 Renewable Identification Numbers per gallon. RINs are used to track compliance with RFS2 using the EPA moderated transaction system, or EMTS. RFS2 allows us to attach between zero and 2.5 RINs to any gallon of biodiesel. When we sell a gallon of biodiesel we generally attach 1.5 RINs. As a result, a portion of our selling price for a gallon of biodiesel is generally attributable to RFS2 compliance. RINs may also be separated from the gallons of renewable fuel and once separated may be sold. In addition, we may acquire RINs from third parties and hold varying amounts of these RINs for separate sales to Obligated Parties. The value of these RINs acquired from third parties is reflected in “Prepaid expenses and other assets” on our consolidated balance sheet and at the end of each accounting period, this RIN inventory is valued at the lower of cost or market and resulting adjustments are reflected in our cost of goods sold for the period.

Services Segment

Our Services segment includes:

Historically, we provided facility operations management services to owners of biodiesel production facilities under management and operational services agreements, or MOSAs. During 2010, we ceased providing services to three of these facilities, acquired one and continued to provide limited services to the other facility. The termination of our MOSAs has not had a significant impact on our financial statements. During 2011, we acquired the remaining facility to which we were providing limited services. Our Services segment has been focused internally on managing and upgrading our facilities.

Demand for our construction management and facility management and operational services depend on capital spending by potential customers and existing customers, which is directly affected by trends in the biodiesel industry. We have not received any orders or provided services to outside parties for new facility construction services since 2009. We have, however, utilized our construction management expertise internally to upgrade three of our facilities during the last three years and we are currently in the process of a $20 million upgrade to our Albert Lea facility. We anticipate revenues derived from construction management services will be minimal in future periods.

37

Table of Contents

Factors Influencing Our Results of Operations

The principal factors affecting our segments are the market prices for biodiesel and the feedstocks used to produce biodiesel, as well as governmental programs designed to create incentives for the production and use of biodiesel.

Governmental programs favoring biodiesel production and use

Biodiesel has historically been more expensive than petroleum-based diesel, excluding biodiesel incentives and credits. The biodiesel industry’s growth has largely been the result of federal and state programs that require or incentivize biodiesel, which allows biodiesel to compete with petroleum-based diesel on price.

On July 1, 2010, RFS2 was implemented, stipulating volume requirements for the amount of biomass based diesel and other advanced biofuels that must be utilized in the United States each year. Under RFS2, Obligated Parties, including petroleum refiners and fuel importers, must show compliance with these standards. Currently, biodiesel meets two categories of an Obligated Party’s annual renewable fuel required volume obligation, or RVO—biomass-based diesel and undifferentiated advanced biofuel. The RFS2 program requires the domestic use of one billion gallons of biodiesel in 2012 and 1.28 billion gallons in 2013. As of this filing, the EPA has not proposed or finalized the 2014 biomass-based diesel requirement. Our sales volumes and revenues have benefited from our increased production capacity, as well as an increase in demand relating to the implementation of RFS2.

RFS2 required the use of 800 million gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2011. According to EMTS data, approximately 1.1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel were produced in 2011, approximately 4% of which was imported. We believe more gallons were produced in 2011 than were required by RFS2 as a result of the fact that the blenders tax credit was set to expire on December 31, 2011. Since Obligated Parties are allowed to satisfy up to 20% of their 2012 RVO with 2011 RINs, we believe many purchasers of biodiesel were taking advantage of the blenders tax credit while it was still available. This 2011 overproduction had an impact on demand for biodiesel in 2012. The 2012 RFS2 requirement for biomass-based diesel was one billion gallons. The 2011 carry-over could be used to satisfy up to 200 million gallons of the one billion 2012 requirement. According to EMTS data, approximately 1.14 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel was produced during 2012, indicating that between the 2011 carry-over and 2012 year production, there was sufficient biomass-based diesel produced to satisfy the 2012 RVO of one billion gallons and create carryover towards the 2013 RVO.

The federal blenders tax credit provides a $1.00 refundable tax credit per gallon of 100% pure biodiesel, or B100, to the first blender of biodiesel with petroleum-based diesel fuel. The blenders tax credit expired on December 31, 2009, was reinstated on December 17, 2010, retroactively for 2010 and prospectively for 2011 and expired again on December 31, 2011. On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which reinstated the federal biodiesel blenders tax credit for 2013 and retroactively reinstated the credit for 2012. The retroactive credit for 2012 is estimated to result in a net benefit to us of approximately $58.0 million in the first half of 2013. The net benefit will increase our income before income taxes and equity investments by a similar amount. We will recognize the federal biodiesel blenders tax credit related to eligible 2012 gallons during the first quarter of 2013.

Biodiesel and feedstock price fluctuations

Our operating results generally reflect the relationship between the price of biodiesel, including credits and incentives, like RINs and the price of feedstocks used to produce biodiesel.

Biodiesel is a low carbon, renewable alternative to petroleum-based diesel fuel and is primarily sold to the end user after it has been blended with petroleum-based diesel fuel. Biodiesel prices have historically been heavily influenced by petroleum-based diesel fuel prices. Accordingly, biodiesel prices have generally been impacted by the same factors that affect petroleum prices, such as worldwide economic conditions, wars and other political events, OPEC production quotas, changes in refining capacity and natural disasters.

38

Table of Contents

Regulatory and legislative factors influence the price of biodiesel, in addition to petroleum prices. Biomass-based diesel RIN pricing, a value component that was introduced via RFS2 in July 2010, has had a significant impact on our biodiesel pricing. For example, the value of RINs, as reported by Oil Price Information Service, or OPIS, has been significant to the price of biodiesel, contributing approximately $1.11, or 26%, of the average B100 Upper Midwest spot price of a gallon of biodiesel as reported by The Jacobsen in December 2010 and $1.83, or 38% of the average B100 Upper Midwest spot price of a gallon of biodiesel as reported by The Jacobsen in December 2011. In December 2012, the value of RINs, as reported by OPIS, contributed approximately $0.89, or 22%, of the average B100 Upper Midwest spot price of a gallon of biodiesel as reported by The Jacobsen. During 2012, the value of RINs, as reported by OPIS, have contributed to the average B100 spot price of a gallon of biodiesel, as reported by The Jacobsen, and range from a low of $0.63 per gallon, or 24%, in October to a high of $2.39, or 50%, per gallon in January. There was a sharp decline in RIN prices during third quarter 2012 that carried through the end of the year. During this period, RIN pricing declined from $1.17 per RIN at June 30, 2012 to the low price of $0.42 per RIN in October, finishing the year at $0.64 per RIN on December 31, 2012, as reported by OPIS, which contributed to the decline in price of biodiesel during 2012.

This decrease in the value of RINs during 2012 resulted in a $19.6 million write-down to lower of cost or market on RIN inventory acquired from third parties that occurred throughout the year. See “Note 11 – Other Assets” to our consolidated financial statements.

During 2012, feedstock expense accounted for 86% of our costs of goods sold, while methanol and chemical catalysts expense accounted for 4% and 2% of our costs of goods sold, respectively.

Feedstocks for biodiesel production, such as inedible corn oil, used cooking oil, inedible animal fat and soybean oil are commodities and market prices for them will be affected by a wide range of factors unrelated to the price of biodiesel and petroleum-based diesel fuels. The following table outlines some of the factors influencing supply and price for each feedstock:

During 2012 and 2011, 84% and 83%, respectively, of our feedstocks were comprised of inedible corn oil, used cooking oil and inedible animal fats with the remainder coming from refined vegetable oil. We have increased the use of these feedstocks because they are lower cost than refined vegetable oils.

39

Table of Contents

Historically, most biodiesel in the United States has been made from soybean oil. Soybean oil prices have fluctuated greatly, but have generally remained at historically high levels since early 2007 due to higher overall commodity prices. Over the period January 2006 to December 2012, soybean oil prices (based on daily closing nearby futures prices on the CBOT for crude soybean oil) have ranged from $0.21 per pound, or $1.58 per gallon of biodiesel, in January 2006 to $0.70 per pound, or $5.28 per gallon of biodiesel, in March 2008, assuming 7.5 pounds of soybean oil yields one gallon of biodiesel. The average closing price for soybean oil during 2012 was $0.52 per pound, or $3.92 per gallon of biodiesel, compared to $0.55 per pound, or $4.13 per gallon of biodiesel, in 2011.

Over the period from January 2008 to December 2012, the price of choice white grease, an inedible animal fat (based on daily closing nearby futures prices for The Jacobsen reported Missouri River delivery of choice white grease), have ranged from $0.095 per pound, or $0.76 per gallon of biodiesel, in December 2008 to $0.5250 per pound, or $4.20 per gallon of biodiesel, in June 2011, assuming 8.0 pounds of choice white grease yields one gallon of biodiesel. The average closing price for choice white grease during 2012 was $0.4133 per pound, or $3.31 per gallon of biodiesel, or $0.4567 per pound, or $3.65 per gallon of biodiesel, in 2011.

The graph below illustrates the spread between the cost of producing one gallon of biodiesel made from soybean oil to the cost of producing one gallon of biodiesel made from a lower cost feedstock. The results were derived using assumed conversion factors for the yield of each feedstock and subtracting the cost of producing one gallon of biodiesel made from each respective lower cost feedstock from the cost of producing one gallon of biodiesel made from soybean oil.

Our results of operations generally will benefit when the spread between biodiesel prices and feedstock prices widens and will be harmed when this spread narrows. The following graph shows feedstock cost data of choice white grease and soybean oil on a per gallon basis compared to the sale price data for biodiesel, and the spread between the two, from December 2009 to December 2012.

40

Table of Contents

The 2012 drought in the Midwestern United States increased the cost of corn and soybeans and may increase the cost of biodiesel feedstocks in the future. Following the drought, there was a decrease in the price of animal fats, which may have been related to increases in slaughter rates, putting more supply on the market and decreased demand from the biodiesel industry. If the increased slaughter rates or increased cost of corn and soybeans reduces future slaughter rates, the price of animal fats may rise as supply decreases in the future. The impact of the drought on the prices of our feedstocks is uncertain, but the drought may increase the prices of some or all of our feedstocks as the market adjusts to higher commodity prices.

Risk Management

The profitability of the biodiesel production business largely depends on the spread between prices for feedstocks and biodiesel, including RINs, each of which is subject to fluctuations due to market factors. Adverse price movements for these commodities directly affect our operating results. We attempt to protect operating margins by entering into risk management contracts that mitigate price volatility of our feedstocks, such as inedible corn oil, used cooking oil and inedible animal fat and energy prices. We create offsetting positions by using a combination of forward fixed-price physical purchases and sales contracts on feedstock and biodiesel, including risk management futures contracts, swaps and options primarily on heating oil and soybean oil; however, the extent to which we engage in risk management activities varies substantially from time to time, and from feedstock to feedstock, depending on market conditions and other factors. In making risk management decisions, we utilize research conducted by outside firms to provide additional market information.

41

Table of Contents

Inedible corn oil, used cooking oil and inedible animal fat are the primary feedstocks we used to produce biodiesel in 2011 and 2012. We utilize several varieties of inedible animal fat, such as beef tallow and choice white grease derived from pork and poultry fat. There is no established futures market for lower cost feedstocks. The purchase prices for lower cost feedstocks are generally set on a negotiated flat price basis or spread to a prevailing market price reported by the USDA price sheet or The Jacobsen. Our limited efforts to risk manage against changing inedible corn oil, used cooking oil and inedible animal fat prices have involved entering into futures contracts, swaps or options on other commodity products, such as soybean oil or heating oil. However, these products do not always experience the same price movements as lower cost feedstocks, making risk management for these feedstocks challenging. We manage feedstock supply risks related to biodiesel production in a number of ways, including, where available, through long-term supply contracts. For example, most of the feedstock requirements for our Ralston facility were supplied under a three-year agreement with West Central which expired on July 8, 2010 and was renewed October 1, 2012. The purchase price for soybean oil under these contracts may be indexed to prevailing Chicago Board of Trade, or CBOT, soybean oil market prices with a negotiated market basis. We utilize futures contracts, swaps and options to risk manage, or lock in, the cost of portions of our future soybean oil requirements generally for varying periods up to one year.

Our ability to mitigate our risk of falling biodiesel and RIN prices is limited. We have entered into forward contracts to supply biodiesel. However, pricing under these forward sales contracts generally has been indexed to prevailing market prices, as fixed price contracts for long periods on acceptable terms have generally not been available. There is no established market for biodiesel futures in the United States. Our efforts to hedge against falling biodiesel prices generally involve entering into futures contracts, swaps and options on other commodity products, such as diesel fuel and heating oil. However, these products do not always experience the same price movements as biodiesel.

When we produce a gallon of biodiesel, we generate 1.5 biomass-based diesel RINs per gallon. We frequently acquire RINs from third parties which we hold in inventory for resale. There is no established futures market for RINs, which severely limits the ability to risk manage the price of RINs without the use of futures contracts, swaps and options. We enter into forward contracts to sell RINs and we use risk management position limits to monitor RINs.

As a result of our strategy, we frequently have gains or losses on derivative financial instruments that are conversely offset by losses or gains on forward fixed-price physical contracts on feedstocks and biodiesel or inventories. Gains and losses on derivative financial instruments are recognized each period in operating results while corresponding gains and losses on physical contracts are generally not recognized until quantities are delivered or title transfers. Our results of operations are impacted when there is a period mismatch of recognized gains or losses associated with the change in fair value of derivative instruments used for risk management purposes at the end of the reporting period when the purchase or sale of feedstocks or biodiesel has not yet occurred and thus the offsetting gain or loss will be recognized in a later accounting period.

We incurred risk management losses of $4.6 million from our derivative financial instrument trading activity for the year ended December 31, 2012, respectively, compared to risk management gains of $3.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, respectively. Changes in the value of these futures or options instruments are recognized in current income or loss. Over the year 2012, risk management losses have represented an expense of $0.03 per gallon sold. Over the last three years, risk management losses have represented an expense of $0.02 per gallon sold.

Seasonality

Our operating results are influenced by seasonal fluctuations in the price of biodiesel. Our sales tend to decrease during the winter season due to blending concentrations being reduced to compensate for performance during colder weather. Colder seasonal temperatures can cause the higher cloud point biodiesel we make from inedible animal fats to become cloudy and eventually gel at a higher temperature than petroleum-based diesel or lower cloud point biodiesel made from soybean oil, canola oil or inedible corn oil. Such gelling can lead to plugged fuel filters and other fuel handling and performance problems for customers and suppliers. Reduced

42

Table of Contents

demand in the winter for our higher cloud point biodiesel can result in excess supply of such higher cloud point biodiesel and lower prices for such higher cloud point biodiesel. In addition, most of our production facilities are located in colder Midwestern states and our costs of shipping increases as more biodiesel is transported to warmer climate states.

Industry capacity and production

Our operating results are influenced by our industry’s capacity and production, including in relation to RFS2 production requirements. According to EMTS data, approximately 1.1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel was produced in the United States in 2011, primarily reflecting the recommencement of, or increase in, operations at underutilized facilities in response to RFS2 requirements. Such production was in excess of the 800 million gallon RFS2 requirement for 2011. During 2012, according to EMTS data, approximately 1.1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel was produced, which also was above RFS2 required volumes of 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel for 2012. Production in 2011 and 2012 in excess of RFS2 volume requirements put downward pressure on our margins for biodiesel, negatively affecting our profitability. In addition, because the level of production in 2011 and 2012 exceeded the RFS2 biomass-based diesel requirements, the demand for biodiesel in 2013 could be less than 2013 RFS2 required volumes of 1.28 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel. As of this filing, the EPA has not proposed or finalized the 2014 biomass-based diesel requirement. Under RFS2, Obligated Parties are entitled to satisfy up to 20% of their annual requirement for 2013 with gallons used in 2012, meaning that 2012 gallons could potentially be used to satisfy 256 million gallons of the 1.28 billion gallon requirement for 2013.

Components of Revenues and Expenses

We derive revenues in our Biodiesel segment from the following sources:

We derive revenues in our Services segment from the following sources:

Cost of goods sold for our Biodiesel segment includes:

43

Table of Contents

Cost of goods sold for our Services segment includes:

Selling, general and administrative expense consists of expenses generally involving corporate overhead functions and operations at our Ames, Iowa headquarters.

Other income (expense), net is primarily comprised of the changes in fair value of the embedded derivative related to the Series A Preferred Stock conversion feature, changes in fair value of interest rate swap, interest expense, interest income, the impairment of investments we made in biodiesel plants owned by third parties and the changes in valuation of the Seneca Holdco, LLC liability associated with the put and call options on the equity interest in Seneca Landlord, LLC, or Landlord.

Accounting for Investments

We use the equity method of accounting to account for the operating results of entities over which we have significant influence. Significant influence may be reflected by factors such as our ownership percentage, our significant operational influence due to our management of biodiesel operations at a third party owned facility and participation by one of our employees on the facility’s board of directors. Prior to our acquisition of SoyMor on July 12, 2011, we accounted for our approximately 9% ownership interest in SoyMor under the equity method due to our ownership interest, MOSA and board seat. In the past we used this method to account for our interests in other entities where we had a significant management role under a MOSA and had board participation. We acquired substantially all of the assets of SoyMor in July 2011; therefore, beginning on the date of acquisition we are no longer accounting for our interest under the equity method, and the operations of SoyMor, like all of our other wholly-owned subsidiaries are consolidated in our consolidated financial statements. Until it was consolidated on January 1, 2011, we used the equity method of accounting to account for the operating results of 416 South Bell, LLC, or Bell, LLC, which owns our headquarters building. We own 50% of Bell, LLC and one of our employees is a member of Bell, LLC’s board of managers. Under the equity method, we recognized our proportionate share of the net income (loss) of each entity in the line item “Income (loss) from equity investments.” See “Note 6—Variable Interest Entities” to our consolidated financial statements for a description of the consolidation.

We use the cost method of accounting to account for our minority investment in three previously managed plants, East Fork Biodiesel, LLC, or EFB, Western Iowa Energy, LLC, or WIE, since May, 2010, and Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC, or WDB, since August 2010. Because we do not have the ability to influence the operating and financial decisions of EFB, WIE, or WDB, and do not maintain a position on the board of

44

Table of Contents

directors, the investment is accounted for using the cost method. Under the cost method, the initial investment is recorded at cost and assessed for impairment. There was a $0.4 million impairment recorded during 2010, relating to the wind up and liquidation of EFB, which fully impaired the remaining investment. We have not recorded any impairment of our investments in WIE or WDB.

For additional information with regard to prior accounting treatment for now acquired investments including Blackhawk and CIE, please see “Note 5 – Acquisitions and Equity Transactions” and “Note 6 – Variable Interest Entities” to our consolidated financial statements.

In June 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, amended its guidance on accounting for variable interest entities, or VIEs. As of January 1, 2010, we evaluated each investment and determined we do not hold a controlling interest in any of our investments in third party owned plants that would empower us to direct the activities that most significantly impact economic performance. As a result, we are not the primary beneficiary and do not consolidate these VIE’s. See “Note 6—Variable Interest Entities” to our consolidated financial statements for more information.

On April 8, 2010, we determined that Landlord was a VIE and it was consolidated into our financial statements as we are the primary beneficiary. See “Note 6—Variable Interest Entities” to our consolidated financial statements for a description of the transaction. We had a put/call option with Seneca Holdco, LLC, or Seneca Holdco, to purchase Landlord and leased the plant during 2011 and 2010 for production of biodiesel, both of which represent a variable interest in Landlord that was significant to the VIE. Although we did not have an ownership interest in Seneca Holdco, it was determined that we were the primary beneficiary due to the related party nature of the entities involved, our ability to direct the activities that most significantly impact Landlord’s economic performance and the design of Landlord that ultimately gave us the majority of the benefit from the use of Landlord’s assets. On January 24, 2012, we executed the call option and acquired the Seneca Facility. For additional information about the acquisition please see “Note 5 – Acquisitions and Equity Transactions” to our consolidated financial statements.

Critical Accounting Policies

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based upon our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amount of assets, liabilities, equities, revenues and expenses and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We evaluate our estimates on an ongoing basis. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for judgments we make about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Because these estimates can vary depending on the situation, actual results may differ from the estimates.

We believe the following critical accounting policies affect our more significant judgments used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements:

Revenue recognition.

We recognize revenues from the following sources:

45

Table of Contents

Biodiesel sales, including RINs and raw material feedstock revenues are recognized when there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, delivery has occurred, the price has been fixed or is determinable and collectability can be reasonably assured.

We refer to agreements under which a biodiesel facility produces biodiesel for a third party using such third party’s feedstock as tolling arrangements. Generally, the party producing the biodiesel receives a per gallon fee. Fees received under toll manufacturing agreements with third parties are generally established as an agreed upon amount per gallon of biodiesel produced. The fees are recognized where there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, delivery has occurred, the price has been fixed or is determinable and collectability can be reasonably assured.

Revenues associated with the governmental incentive programs are recognized when the amount to be received is determinable, collectability is reasonably assured and the sale of product giving rise to the incentive has been recognized. Our revenue from governmental incentive programs is comprised of amounts received from the USDA Advanced Biofuel Program, or the USDA Program, and the blender’s tax credit. For a discussion of the blender’s tax credit, see the section entitled “Risk factors—Loss or reductions of tax incentives for biodiesel production or consumption would have a material adverse effect on our revenues and operating margins” and “—Factors Influencing Our Results of Operations—Governmental programs favoring biodiesel production and use.” In connection with the blender’s tax credit, we file a claim with the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, for a refund of excise taxes each week for gallons we have blended to B99.9 and sold during the prior week. During 2011, we have collected these claims in approximately 20 days on average from the time we file and we currently have no filed claims older than one month. Other than routine audits of these claims, we have had no denials or challenges of our claims and no issues with collectability. On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which reinstated a set of tax extender items including the reinstatement of the federal biodiesel blenders tax credit for 2013 and retroactively reinstated credit for 2012. The collection process relating to qualifying 2012 blenders credit tax credit will be slightly different than in previous years, where we will file a claim with the IRS for a refund of excise taxes for fourth quarter 2012 activity and then file for the remaining refund related to the first three quarters of 2012 with the federal income tax return. The retroactive credit for 2012 is estimated to result in a net benefit to us of approximately $58.0 million in the first half of 2013. The net benefit will increase our income before income taxes and equity investments by a similar amount. We will recognize the federal biodiesel blenders tax credit for the gallons we blended in 2012 during the first quarter of 2013 as the law was signed on January 2, 2013. In connection with the USDA Program, funds are allocated to the Company based on our proportionate eligible biofuels production and available funds under the USDA Program. Due to the uncertainty of the amounts to be received, we do not record amounts until we have received notification from the USDA or are in receipt of the funds.

Historically, we have provided consulting and construction services under turnkey contracts. These jobs require design and engineering effort for a specific customer purchasing a unique facility. We record revenues on these fixed-price contracts on the percentage of completion basis using the ratio of costs incurred to estimated total costs at completion as the measurement basis for progress toward completion and revenue recognition. The total contract price includes the original contract plus any executed change orders only when the amounts have been received or awarded.

Contract costs include all direct labor and benefits, materials unique to or installed in the project and subcontract costs. Contract accounting requires significant judgment relative to assessing risks, estimating contract costs and making related assumptions for schedule and technical issues. We routinely review estimates related to contracts and reflect revisions to profitability in earnings on a current basis. If a current estimate of total contract cost indicates an ultimate loss on a contract, we would recognize the projected loss in full when it is first determined. We recognize additional contract revenue related to claims when the claim is probable and legally enforceable.

46

Table of Contents

Changes relating to executed change orders, job performance, construction efficiency, weather conditions and other factors affecting estimated profitability may result in revisions to costs and revenues and are recognized in the period in which the revisions are determined.

Billings in excess of costs and estimated earnings on uncompleted contracts represents amounts billed to customers prior to providing related construction services.

Fees for managing ongoing operations of third party plants, marketing biodiesel produced by third party plants and from other services are recognized as services are provided. We also have performance-based incentive agreements that are included as management service revenues. These performance incentives are recognized as revenues when the amount to be received is determinable and collectability is reasonably assured.

In the past, we have acted as a sales agent for certain third parties under our MOSAs, thus we recognized revenues on a net basis in accordance with ASC Topic 605-45, “Revenue Recognition.” We included the fees earned under the MOSAs in revenue. All of our third party MOSAs have expired or were terminated during 2010.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and Certain Identifiable Intangibles. We review long-lived assets, including property, plant and equipment and definite-lived intangible assets for impairment in accordance with ASC Topic 360-10, “Property, Plant, and Equipment,” or ASC Topic 360-10. Asset impairment charges are recorded for long-lived assets and intangible assets subject to amortization when events and circumstances indicate that such assets may be impaired and the undiscounted net cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than their carrying amounts. If estimated future undiscounted cash flows are not sufficient to recover the carrying value of the assets, an impairment charge is recorded for the amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds its fair value. Fair value is determined by management estimates using discounted cash flow calculations. The estimate of cash flows arising from the future use of the asset that are used in the impairment analysis requires judgment regarding what we would expect to recover from the future use of the asset.

Significant assumptions used by management in the undiscounted cash flow analysis include the projected demand for biodiesel based on annual renewable fuel volume obligations under RFS2, our capacity to meet that demand, the market price of biodiesel and the cost of feedstock used in the manufacturing process. For facilities under construction, management’s estimates also include the capital expenditures necessary to complete construction of the plant. Our facilities under construction are expected to have substantially similar operating capabilities and results as our current operating facilities. Such operating capabilities would include similar feedstock capabilities, similar access to low cost feedstocks, proximity to shipping from our vendors and to our customers, and our ability to transfer best practices among our various operating facilities to maximize production volumes and reduce operating costs.

We estimated the future cash flows from the facilities under construction utilizing the following significant assumptions:

Costs to complete: The remaining costs to complete the plant construction were developed by management, using historical and plant-specific knowledge and external estimates. Management’s estimate of costs included those required to finish the general structure of each facility, as well as furnish it with the appropriate equipment necessary to produce biodiesel. There has not been an accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount originally expected for the acquisition or construction of a long-lived asset (asset group). There can be no assurance actual costs to complete or upgrade these facilities will be consistent with these estimates.

Gallons sold: We estimated the aggregate gallons to be produced and sold based upon nameplate capacity of the plants under construction coupled with historical operating rates for our existing plants.

Gross margin per gallon: We have estimated rising sales prices and costs after 2012. This annual increase is a consequence of anticipated increased demand for biodiesel, market trends expected for the energy industry and normal inflationary pressures. Biodiesel sales prices were estimated using the expected prices for

47

Table of Contents

biodiesel, RINs and co-products. When building the estimate for future prices, we weighed historical evidence, CBOT and NYMEX future prices and industry forecasts. To develop the estimated feedstock prices, we utilized soybean oil as a base coupled with a spread to soybean oil for all other feedstocks based on historical experience and expected future price changes.

Plant operation costs: We estimated plant operation costs to increase with production, until a steady cost level is reached once the plants are operating in a stabilized manner. Plant operating costs are estimated based upon costs at currently operating plants and take into account the size of the plants under construction and production volumes.

Financing of facilities under construction: In 2008, we halted construction on our New Orleans, Louisiana, and Emporia, Kansas facilities as a result of conditions in the biodiesel industry and the credit markets. We continue to pursue financing and intend to complete the facilities, when industry conditions improve and financing becomes available on terms satisfactory to us. Since construction halted at these facilities in 2008, we have continued to monitor the construction sites and perform routine maintenance on the partially constructed assets. We also have pursued programs under which we could obtain a government guarantee to enhance our ability to obtain financing for these facilities, but at this point have not been able to obtain any such guarantees. We will continue to pursue such government programs in the future to the extent they arise. If available, we would also consider using funds from operations to fund a portion of the construction at these facilities. As currently configured, the assets can be completed as biodiesel production facilities, or with alternative or additional capabilities for the manufacture of specialty chemicals or other renewable products such as advanced biofuels and renewable chemicals. Some of the existing components could be transported for use at our other production facility locations, or they could be sold to third parties for various uses. The Emporia construction project benefits from a city incentive package that continues through July 1, 2013. In addition, from time to time we have had discussions with potential investors and commercial partners regarding these facilities. We have also invested in third party engineering studies to revise and enhance construction completion plans on a more cost effective basis. We cannot assure you if or when such facilities will be completed or any alternate transaction regarding such facilities that we may pursue will be consummated.

Period of time used in recovery analysis: To estimate the period of time utilized in the recovery analysis, we followed the guidance included in ASC Topic 360-10-35-31, which states in part that estimates of future cash flows used to test the recoverability of a long-lived asset (asset group) shall be made for the remaining useful life of the asset (asset group) to the entity. For purposes of this Subtopic, the primary asset is the principal long-lived tangible asset being depreciated or intangible asset being amortized that is the most significant component asset from which the asset group derives its cash-flow-generating capacity. We considered the plant assets and their operational functionality and determined that the inner equipment of the plants, (e.g. tanks, separators, filters, heaters, etc.), is the most significant component of the asset group. We have determined that the useful life of this equipment has a range of 10-30 years depending on its use, with the majority of the equipment having a 20 year life. Therefore, we have selected a 20 year period from the original date the assets are placed into service as the time period over which the cash flows would be projected.

Our analysis determined that the undiscounted cash flows of each plant exceeded its carrying value by a significant margin and therefore no charge for impairment was needed.

During 2010, certain of our soybean oil supply agreements were cancelled. The original agreements were recorded as intangible assets in the amount of $7.0 million. As a result of the cancellations, the full amount was charged off as an impairment during the year ended December 31, 2010.

We also recorded an impairment on deferred financing cost related to Gulf Opportunity Zone, or GOZone, bonds available as part of Congress’ tax incentive program to help the Gulf Coast recover from Hurricane Katrina. We determined that it was not probable that the GOZone bonds allocation would be extended past the December 14, 2010 deadline or that the bonds would be issued prior to the deadline, and accordingly, we returned our allocation prior to the deadline. The amount of the impairment for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $0.3 million.

48

Table of Contents

Total asset impairment charges of $7.5 million were recorded for the year ended December 31, 2010. There were no asset impairment charges for the years ended December 31, 2012 or 2011.

Goodwill asset valuation. While goodwill is not amortized, it is subject to periodic reviews for impairment. As required by ASC Topic 350, “Intangibles—Goodwill and Other,” we review the carrying value of goodwill for impairment annually on July 31 or when we believe impairment indicators exist. Goodwill is allocated and reviewed for impairment by reporting units. The Company’s reporting units consist of its two operating segments, the biodiesel operating segment and services operating segments. The analysis is based on a comparison of the carrying value of the reporting unit to its fair value, determined utilizing a discounted cash flow, or DCF, methodology and consideration of a market approach. Additionally, we review the carrying value of goodwill whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. Changes in estimates of future cash flows caused by items such as unforeseen events or sustained unfavorable changes in market conditions could negatively affect the fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill asset and result in an impairment charge.

We engaged an independent external valuation specialist to provide assistance in measuring the fair value of our biodiesel and services reporting units using an income approach. The income approach uses a discounted cash flow, or DCF, analysis based on cash flow estimates prepared by us in addition to comparing other selected public guideline company information. The selected DCF method is an invested capital method. In performing the services reporting unit goodwill impairment analysis, cash flows generated from services provided to third parties and to the biodiesel segment were used to determine the reporting unit’s fair value.

The annual impairment tests as of July 31, 2012 determined that the fair value at each of the reporting units exceeded its value by over 45% margins. No impairment of goodwill was recorded in 2012, 2011 or 2010. There can be no assurances that future circumstances and/or conditions will not change, which could result in an impairment of goodwill. Such circumstances and/or conditions could include, but are not limited to, further decline in the price of our common stock, deterioration in our financial condition or results of operations, and/or adverse changes in the fair value of our assets and liabilities. Management continues to monitor circumstances and conditions for events that could result in an impairment of our goodwill.

The Company’s declines in income before income taxes and loss from equity investments for the services reporting unit are primarily a result of construction revenues being derived from company-owned facilities during this period and the termination of four third party MOSAs, which occurred in early 2010. Income before income taxes and loss from equity investments, as it appears in the segment footnote disclosure, presents only the income from third parties after the elimination of intersegment revenues and associated costs. Two of these MOSAs ceased because the facilities to which services were being provided were acquired in a business combinations. During the periods presented in the annual financial statements the amount of service revenues earned from third parties declined, but the amount of service revenues earned from the biodiesel segment increased. After incorporating intersegment revenues, presented in the segment footnote, income before income taxes and loss from equity investments increased from 2009 to 2010 and again from 2010 to 2011. Additionally, the operating results for the services segment were significantly impacted by the improvement in the biodiesel industry induced by the volume requirements set forth in RFS2. Since services revenue from facility management and operations is principally earned on a per gallon basis, improvements in industry production volumes generally yield similar improvements in the services reporting unit operating income, cash flows and estimated fair value. Therefore, we do not believe the recent operational results of the services segment represent an indicator of impairment for the reporting unit.

Income taxes. We evaluate our deferred tax assets to determine if valuation allowances are required or should be adjusted. A valuation allowance is established against our deferred tax assets based on consideration of all available evidence, both positive and negative, using a “more likely than not” standard. This assessment considers, among other matters, the nature, frequency and severity of recent losses, forecasts of future profitability, the duration of statutory carry-forward periods, our experience with tax attributes expiring unused and tax planning alternatives. In making such judgments, significant weight is given to evidence that can be

49

Table of Contents

objectively verified. Due to the losses incurred prior to fiscal 2011, we were in a cumulative loss position for the preceding three years which is considered significant negative evidence that is difficult to overcome on a “more likely than not” standard through objectively verifiable data. While our long-term financial outlook remained positive, we concluded that our ability to rely on our long-term outlook and forecasts as to future taxable income was limited due to uncertainty created by the weight of the negative evidence. As a result, we previously recorded a valuation allowance offsetting our deferred tax assets. In fiscal 2011, due to the significant increase in profitability, we were able to utilize net operating loss carry-forwards to significantly offset the taxable income, resulting in a significant reduction of the valuation allowances. Due to our positive earnings through fiscal 2012, and the absence of any significant negative evidence to the contrary, we have concluded that we can rely on our positive long-term outlook and forecasts as to future taxable income in evaluating our ability to realize our deferred tax assets. Accordingly, the reserve against the majority of our deferred tax assets was removed in fiscal 2012, resulting in a credit to income of $7.3 million, which is included in our net income tax benefit for the year.

We believe there is a reasonable basis in the tax law for all of the positions we take on the various federal and state tax returns we file. However, in recognition of the fact that various taxing authorities may not agree with our position on certain issues, we expect to establish and maintain tax reserves.

Consolidations. On April 8, 2010, we determined that Landlord was a VIE and consolidated it into our financial statements as we are the primary beneficiary (ASC Topic 810). We had a put/call option with Seneca Holdco to purchase Landlord and we leased the plant for production of biodiesel as of December 31, 2011, both of which represent a variable interest in Landlord that are significant to the VIE. Although we did not have an ownership interest in Seneca Holdco, we determined that we were the primary beneficiary because the equity owners are our stockholders; our ability to direct the activities that most significantly impacted Landlord’s economic performance; and, the design of the leasing arrangement that ultimately gave us the majority of the benefit from the use of Landlord’s assets. We elected the fair value option available under ASC Topic 825 on the $4.0 million investment made by Seneca Holdco and the associated put and call options. Changes in the fair value after the date of the transaction were recorded in earnings. Those assets were owned by and those liabilities were obligations of Landlord, which we consolidated as the primary beneficiary. On January 24, 2012, the Company acquired the Seneca Facility pursuant to the exercise of its option under the Put/Call Agreement. See “Note 5 – Acquisitions and Equity Transactions” to our consolidated financial statements for a description of the acquisition.

During 2007, we invested, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, in Bell, LLC, a VIE joint venture, whereby we own 50% of the outstanding units. Commencing January 1, 2011, we have the right to execute a call option with the joint venture member, Dayton Park, LLC, to purchase Bell, LLC; therefore, we determined we were the primary beneficiary of Bell, LLC and consolidated Bell, LLC into our financial statements in accordance with ASC Topic 810. See “Note 6—Variable Interest Entities” to our consolidated financial statements for a description of the consolidation.

Derivatives instruments and hedging activities. The Financial Accounting Standards Board issued ASC Topic 815-40, “Derivatives and Hedging” or ASC 815-40. ASC 815-40 established accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments and required that an entity recognize all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in the balance sheet and measure those instruments at fair value. We utilize futures contracts, swaps and options to hedge feedstock purchases and biodiesel sales contracts. We have designated the derivatives as non-hedge derivatives that are utilized to manage cash flow. Additionally, we have entered into an interest rate swap with the objective of managing risk caused by fluctuations in market interest rate risks associated with the REG Danville loan. Unrealized gains and losses on the futures contracts, swaps and options are therefore recognized as a component of biodiesel cost of goods sold, and are reflected in current results of operations. Unrealized gains and losses on the interest rate swap are recorded in other income or expense, net.

Valuation of Preferred Stock Embedded Derivatives. In connection with our IPO on January 24, 2012, we gave effect to the one-time conversion of Series A Preferred Stock and certain common stock warrants into

50

Table of Contents

7,660,612 shares of newly-issued Class A common stock and 2,999,493 shares of Series B preferred stock with a $74,987 aggregate liquidation preference and cumulative dividends of 4.5% per annum. No shares of Series A Preferred Stock remain outstanding after the IPO.

We determined that the conversion feature of Series A Preferred Stock was an embedded derivative because the redemption feature allowed the holder to redeem Series A Preferred Stock for cash at a price which could vary based on the fair market value of the Series A Preferred Stock, which effectively provided the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock with a mechanism to “net settle” the conversion option. Consequently, the embedded conversion option were bifurcated and accounted for separately because the economic characteristics of this conversion option were not considered to be clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics of the Series A Preferred Stock, which was considered more akin to a debt instrument than equity.

Upon issuance of Series A Preferred Stock, we recorded a liability representing the estimated fair value of the right of holders of the Series A Preferred Stock to receive the fair market value of the common stock issuable upon conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock on the redemption date. This liability was adjusted each quarter based on changes in the estimated fair value of such right, and a corresponding income or expense was recorded in change in fair value of the preferred stock conversion feature embedded derivatives in our statements of operations.

We used the option pricing method to value the embedded derivative. We used the Black-Scholes options pricing model to estimate the fair value of the conversion option embedded in the Series A Preferred Stock. The Black-Scholes options pricing model requires the development and use of highly subjective assumptions. These assumptions include the expected volatility of the value of our equity, the expected conversion date, an appropriate risk-free interest rate and the estimated fair value of our equity. The expected volatility of our equity was estimated based on the volatility of the value of the equity of publicly traded companies in a similar industry and general stage of development as us. The expected term of the conversion option was based on the period remaining until the contractually stipulated redemption date of February 26, 2014. The risk-free interest rate is based on the yield on United States Treasury STRIPs with a remaining term equal to the expected term of the conversion option. The development of the estimated fair value of our equity is discussed below in the “Valuation of the Company’s Equity.”

The significant assumptions utilized in our valuation of the embedded derivative are as follows:

The estimated fair values of the conversion feature embedded in the Series A Preferred Stock was recorded as a derivative liability. The derivative liability was adjusted to reflect fair value at each period end, with any increase or decrease in the fair value being recorded in results of operations as change in fair value of Series A Preferred Stock embedded derivative. The impact of the change in the value of the embedded derivative was not included in the determination of taxable income.

Valuation of Seneca Holdco, LLC Liability. On January 24, 2012, we acquired the Seneca Facility pursuant to the exercise of its call option and the Seneca Holdco liability no longer exists. See “Note 5 – Acquisitions and Equity Transactions” to our consolidated financial statements for a description of the transaction.

In connection with the agreements under which we leased the Seneca facility (See “Note 6—Variable Interest Entities” to our consolidated financial statements), we had the option to purchase, or Call Option, and Seneca Holdco had the option to require us to purchase, or Put Option, the membership interest of Landlord whose assets consist primarily of a biodiesel plant located in Seneca, Illinois. Both the Put Option and the Call Option had a term of seven years and were exercisable by either party at a price based on a pre-defined formula. We valued the amounts financed by Seneca Holdco, the Put Option and the Call Option using an option pricing model. The fair values of the Put Option and the Call Option were estimated using an option pricing model, and

51

Table of Contents

represent the probability weighted present value of the gain that is realized upon exercise of each option. The option pricing model requires the development and use of highly subjective assumptions. These assumptions include (i) the value of our equity, (ii) expectations regarding future changes in the value of our equity, (iii) expectations about the probability of either option being exercised, including the our ability to list our securities on an exchange or complete a public offering and (iv) an appropriate risk-free rate. We considered current public equity markets, relevant regulatory issues, biodiesel industry conditions and our position within the industry when estimating the probability that we will raise additional capital. Differences in the estimated probability and timing of this event along with current available working capital may significantly impact the fair value assigned to the Seneca Holdco, LLC liability as we determined it was not likely that the Put Option will become exercisable in the absence of this event.

The significant assumptions utilized in our valuation of the Seneca Holdco, LLC liability were as follows:

Preferred Stock Accretion. Beginning October 1, 2007, we determined that there was a more than remote likelihood that our then outstanding preferred stock would become redeemable; therefore, commenced accretion of the carrying value of the Series A Preferred Stock over the period until the earliest redemption date to the Series A Preferred Stock’s redemption value, plus accrued but unpaid dividends using the effective interest method. This determination was based upon the current state of the public equity markets which restricted our ability to execute a qualified public offering, our historical operating results and the volatility in the biodiesel and renewable fuels industries which have resulted in lower projected profitability. Prior to October 1, 2007, we had determined that it was not probable that the preferred stock would become redeemable; therefore, the carrying value was not adjusted in accordance with ASC Topic 480-10-S99, “Classification and Measurement of Redeemable Securities,” or ASC Topic 480-10-S99.

On February 26, 2010, after issuance of the Series A Preferred Stock, we determined that there was a more than remote likelihood that the Series A Preferred Stock would become redeemable and we commenced accretion of the carrying value of the Series A Preferred Stock over the period until the earliest redemption date (February 26, 2014) to the Series A Preferred Stock’s redemption value, plus dividends, using the effective interest method. This determination was based upon the state of the public equity markets at the time which restricted our ability to execute a qualified public offering, our historical operating results and the volatility in the biodiesel and renewable fuels industries.

Accretion of $1.8, $25.3 and $27.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, has been recognized as a reduction to income available to common stockholders in accordance with paragraph 15 of ASC Topic 480-10-S99.

On January 24, 2012, in connection with our IPO, the Series A Preferred Stock was converted into a combination of shares of Series B preferred stock and Class A Common Stock. Accretion of the Series A Preferred Stock was terminated at the time of the conversion. We recorded the Series B preferred stock at fair value, which was a premium over its redemption value; therefore, no accretion is recorded for the Series B preferred stock.

Valuation of the Company’s Equity. Since quoted market prices for our securities were not available prior to the commencement of trading of our Common Stock on the NASDAQ Global Market on January 19, 2012, we estimated the fair value of our equity based on the best information available at the time of the valuation.

Stock based compensation. We maintain a stock-based compensation program for employees and directors under the Amended and Restated 2009 Stock Incentive Plan, or our 2009 Plan. The 2009 Plan replaced our 2006 Stock Option Plan. Eligible award recipients are employees, non-employee directors and advisors. We account

52

Table of Contents

for stock-based compensation in accordance with ASC Topic 718, “Stock Compensation”. Compensation expense was recorded for stock options, restricted stock units and stock appreciation rights awarded to employees and non-employee directors in return for service. The total compensation cost was measured at the grant-date fair value of the award.

Results of Operations

Fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011

Set forth below is a summary of certain financial information (in thousands) for the periods indicated:

Revenues. Our total revenues increased $191.0 million, or 23%, to $1,015.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, from $824.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. This increase was primarily due to an increase in gallons sold as follows:

Biodiesel. Biodiesel revenues including government incentives increased $191.0 million, or 23%, to $1,014.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2012, from $823.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. This increase in biodiesel revenues was due to an increase in gallons sold. Due to lower RIN and energy prices in 2012, our average B100 sales price per gallon decreased $0.63, or 12%, to $4.60 during the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $5.23 during the year ended December 31, 2011. The decrease in average sales price from 2011 to 2012 contributed to a $90.8 million revenue decrease when applied to the number of gallons sold during 2011. Gallons sold, excluding tolled gallons, increased 44.2 million, or 31%, to 188.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to 144.2 million

53

Table of Contents

during the year ended December 31, 2011. The increase in gallons for the year ended December 31, 2012 accounted for a revenue increase of $203.3 million using pricing for the year 2012. We did not toll manufacture any gallons in 2012 for others, compared to 2011 when we tolled 5.6 million gallons at the REG Houston facility. This increase in gallons sold reflects increased production capacity at our Seneca facility and the Albert Lea facility. The $57.5 million decrease in biodiesel government incentives for the year ended December 31, 2012 was due to the blenders tax credit expiring on December 31, 2011. The credit was reinstated on January 2, 2013 retroactively for 2012 through December 31, 2013.

Services. Services revenues remained unchanged from the prior year. Service revenues were $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. This was due to our decision to cancel our remaining MOSAs during 2010.

Costs of goods sold. Our costs of goods sold increased $259.9 million, or 37%, to $956.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, from $696.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. This increase was primarily due to costs associated with the increase in gallons sold in the 2012 period as follows:

Biodiesel. Biodiesel costs of goods sold increased $259.8 million, or 37%, to $956.4 for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $696.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The increase in biodiesel costs of goods sold is primarily the result of the additional gallons sold in the 2012 period partially offset by slightly lower feedstock prices in 2012 as compared to 2011. Average lower cost feedstocks prices for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $0.43 per pound, compared to $0.47 per pound for the year ended December 31, 2011. Soybean oil costs for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $0.55 per pound, and was $0.58 per pound for the year ended December 31, 2011. We had losses of $4.6 million from risk management trading activity for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to gains of $3.0 million from risk management trading for the year ended December 31, 2011, respectively. Our increased losses were largely due to a decrease in soybean oil prices in September 2012 and an increase in heating oil prices during the third quarter of 2012 which resulted in reduced market value of our derivative financial instruments related to fourth quarter biodiesel sales. In addition, the decrease in the value of RINs during 2012 resulted in a $19.6 million write-down to lower of cost or market on RIN inventory held throughout the year.

Services. Costs of services increased $0.1 million to $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, from $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. Costs incurred to perform services under the MOSAs decreased due to our decision to cancel the MOSAs during 2010.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. Our selling, general and administrative, or SG&A, expenses were $42.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $34.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. SG&A expenses increased $7.9 million, or 23%, for the year ended December 31, 2012. The increase was primarily related to the additional non-cash stock compensation expense of $13.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $5.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. We also incurred a $0.5 million increase in insurance expense, a $0.4 million increase in advertising and an increase of $0.4 million related to computer expenses. This increase was offset by a $0.8 million decrease in the provision for bad debt expense and a decrease of $0.9 million in professional fee expense. During 2012 and 2011, we accrued $1.6 million and $3.6 million, respectively in expense related to the annual incentive plan based upon achievement of certain operating and financial results for the respective years.

Other income (expense), net. Other income was $7.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to other expense of $1.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. Other income is primarily comprised of the changes in fair value of the Series A Preferred Stock conversion feature embedded derivative, changes in fair value of Seneca Holdco liability, interest expense, interest income and the other non-operating items. The change in fair value of the Series A Preferred Stock conversion feature embedded derivative resulted in $12.0 million of income for the year ended December 31, 2012 and $7.9 million of income for the year ended December 31, 2011. The change in fair value of the Seneca Holdco liability was $0.3 million of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2012 and was $2.1 million of expense for the year ended December 31, 2011. Interest expense decreased $3.4 million to $4.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, from $8.1 million for the year

54

Table of Contents

ended December 31, 2011. This decrease was primarily attributable to a decrease in the amortization expense associated with debt financing fees taken during the 2012 year compared to 2011, as well as the decrease in term debt for the same period.

Income tax benefit (expense). There was income tax expense recorded during the year ended December 31, 2012 of $1.5 million, compared to an income tax expense of $3.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. During 2010, deferred tax liabilities were recorded as a result of the Blackhawk Merger and CIE Asset Acquisition. As the deferred tax liabilities were recorded, the resulting decrease in net deferred tax assets required a lower valuation allowance. The release of the associated valuation allowance recorded after finalization of the Blackhawk and CIE purchase accounting transactions resulted in an income tax benefit for the year ended December 31, 2010. During the third quarter 2011, we revised our forecasted taxable income for year end and projected we would incur an income tax liability for the twelve-months ending December 31, 2011. The forecasted income tax liability results from a significant increase in taxable income, as well as, limitations on our ability to utilize our entire carry-forward net operating losses in 2011. At December 31, 2012, we had net deferred income tax assets of approximately $3.5 million with a valuation allowance of $0 million, partially offset by an accrued liability of $1.9 million for uncertain tax benefits. We have an income tax receivable of $4.7 million as of December 31, 2012.

Income (loss) from equity investments. There was no gain or loss from equity investments during 2012 compared to a gain of $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The change is due to the change of investments from equity method to cost method during the last half of 2010 coupled with a gain of $0.7 from our investment in SoyMor biodiesel when we purchased the assets of SoyMor during July 2011.

Effects of Recapitalization. In January 2012, we completed an initial public offering of our common stock. Due to the IPO, we recorded the effects from recapitalization of $39.1 million. To account for the exchange of Series A preferred stock for the newly issued Series B preferred stock and common stock, we compared the fair value of the Series B preferred stock and common shares issued to the carrying amount of the Series A preferred shares that were redeemed. The excess of the carrying amount of Series A Preferred stock that were redeemed over the fair value of the Series B preferred stock and common shares that were issued was recorded as an increase to additional paid-in capital and was added to net earnings available to common shareholders.

Preferred stock accretion. Preferred stock accretion was $1.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $25.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 associated with the Series A Preferred Stock that was terminated upon completion of the IPO. During January 2012, as part of our IPO and the conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock to Series B preferred stock, the accretion of the Series A Preferred Stock was terminated and we determined that no accretion was deemed necessary on the newly issued Series B preferred stock. See “Note 4 – Redeemable Preferred Stock” in our consolidated financial statements for a description of the transaction.

Change in undistributed dividends. Undistributed preferred stock dividends were $0.8 million and $12.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. During January 2012, the Series A Preferred Stock converted to Series B preferred stock as part of our IPO. All previous undistributed dividends were cancelled as part of the conversion. The new Series B preferred stock agreement requires us to pay dividends on a semi-annual basis.

Distributed dividends. Distributed preferred stock dividends were $3.2 million and $0 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Based upon the terms of the Series B preferred stockholders, we are required to pay dividends to stockholders on a semi-annual basis. The dividends were paid in June 2012 and December 2012.

Effects of participating preferred stock. Effects of participating preferred stock was $9.0 and $4.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. During the fourth quarter 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2012, we had participation of preferred stockholders in net income attributable to REG.

55

Table of Contents

Effects of participating share-based awards. Effects of participating restricted stock units was $3.1 and $3.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. During the fourth quarter 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2012, we had participation of restricted stock units in net income attributable to REG.

Fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010

Set forth below is a summary of certain financial information (in thousands) for the periods indicated: