Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	ContingenciesWe are a party to various litigation and legal proceedings which we believe, based on advice of counsel, will not either individually or in the aggregate have a materially adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement, all pre-closing RINs obligations of Sinclair HoldCo’s subsidiaries (which are now subsidiaries of HF Sinclair as a result of the HFC Transactions) remain with Sinclair HoldCo. Sinclair HoldCo is required to transfer to HF Sinclair the number of each applicable type of RIN required for Sinclair HoldCo to demonstrate compliance for any pre-closing obligations it retained by the deadlines set forth in the Business Combination Agreement. If Sinclair HoldCo does not deliver all the required RINs by the applicable deadline, then, within five days following the delivery of an invoice therefor, Sinclair HoldCo is required to pay to HF Sinclair the amount of all out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by HF Sinclair to comply with Sinclair HoldCo’s pre-closing obligations prior to such deadline, including the price of any RINs purchased by HF Sinclair. In relation to this, 2,570,000 shares of HF Sinclair common stock and 5,290,000 HEP common units, in each case, out of the purchase consideration paid to Sinclair HoldCo, are held in escrow to secure Sinclair HoldCo’s RINs credit obligations under the Business Combination Agreement. HF Sinclair, and not HEP, would be entitled to the HEP common units held in escrow in the event of Sinclair HoldCo’s breach of its RINs credit obligations under the Business Combination Agreement. During 2017, 2018 and 2019, the EPA granted the Cheyenne Refinery and the refinery in Woods Cross, Utah (the “Woods Cross Refinery”) each a one-year small refinery exemption from the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) program requirements for the 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively, calendar years. As a result, the Cheyenne Refinery’s and Woods Cross Refinery’s gasoline and diesel production are not subject to the Renewable Volume Obligation for the respective years. Upon each exemption granted, we increased our inventory of RINs and reduced our cost of products sold. On April 7, 2022, the EPA issued a decision reversing the grant of small refinery exemptions for our Woods Cross and Cheyenne refineries for the 2018 compliance year. On June 3, 2022, the EPA issued a decision reversing the grant of small refinery exemptions for our Woods Cross and Cheyenne refineries for the 2016 compliance year and denying small refinery exemption petitions for our Woods Cross and Cheyenne refineries for the 2019 and 2020 compliance years. Various subsidiaries of HollyFrontier are currently pursuing legal challenges to the EPA’s decisions to reverse its grant of small refinery exemptions for the 2016 and 2018 compliance years. The first lawsuit, filed against the EPA on May 6, 2022 and currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, seeks to have the EPA’s reversal of our 2018 small refinery exemption petitions overturned. The second lawsuit, filed against the EPA on August 5, 2022 and currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, seeks to have the EPA’s reversal of our 2016 small refinery exemption petitions overturned and to have the EPA’s denial of our 2019 and 2020 small refinery exemption petitions reversed. In addition, for both the 2016 and 2018 compliance years, pursuant to the June 2022 and April 2022 decisions, respectively, the EPA established an alternative compliance demonstration for small refineries pursuant to which the EPA is not imposing any obligations for the small refineries whose exemptions were reversed. On June 24, 2022, Growth Energy filed two lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit against the EPA challenging the alternative compliance demonstration for the 2016 and 2018 compliance years. On July 25, 2022, various subsidiaries of HollyFrontier intervened on behalf of the EPA to aid the defense of the EPA’s alternative compliance demonstration decision. It is too early to predict the outcome of these matters. We are unable to estimate the costs we may incur, if any, at this time. We have been party to multiple proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) challenging the rates charged by SFPP, L.P. (“SFPP”) on its East Line pipeline facilities from El Paso, Texas to Phoenix, Arizona. In March 2018, FERC ruled that SFPP, as a master limited partnership, was prohibited from including an allowance for investor income taxes in the cost of service underlying its East Line rates. We reached a negotiated settlement with SFPP that provides for a payment to us of $51.5 million. FERC approved the settlement on December 31, 2020 subject to a rehearing period that resulted in a settlement effective date of February 2, 2021. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, SFPP made the $51.5 million payment to us on February 10, 2021 and we recorded a “Gain on tariff settlement” on our consolidated statements of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2021.

Pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement, all pre-closing RINs obligations of Sinclair HoldCo’s subsidiaries (which are now subsidiaries of HF Sinclair as a result of the HFC Transactions) remain with Sinclair HoldCo. Sinclair HoldCo is required to transfer to HF Sinclair the number of each applicable type of RIN required for Sinclair HoldCo to demonstrate compliance for any pre-closing obligations it retained by the deadlines set forth in the Business Combination Agreement. If Sinclair HoldCo does not deliver all the required RINs by the applicable deadline, then, within five days following the delivery of an invoice therefor, Sinclair HoldCo is required to pay to HF Sinclair the amount of all out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by HF Sinclair to comply with Sinclair HoldCo’s pre-closing obligations prior to such deadline, including the price of any RINs purchased by HF Sinclair. In relation to this, 2,570,000 shares of HF Sinclair common stock and 5,290,000 HEP common units, in each case, out of the purchase consideration paid to Sinclair HoldCo, are held in escrow to secure Sinclair HoldCo’s RINs credit obligations under the Business Combination Agreement. HF Sinclair, and not HEP, would be entitled to the HEP common units held in escrow in the event of Sinclair HoldCo’s breach of its RINs credit obligations under the Business Combination Agreement.

During 2017, 2018 and 2019, the EPA granted the Cheyenne Refinery and the refinery in Woods Cross, Utah (the “Woods Cross Refinery”) each a one-year small refinery exemption from the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) program requirements for the 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively, calendar years. As a result, the Cheyenne Refinery’s and Woods Cross Refinery’s gasoline and diesel production are not subject to the Renewable Volume Obligation for the respective years. Upon each exemption granted, we increased our inventory of RINs and reduced our cost of products sold.

On April 7, 2022, the EPA issued a decision reversing the grant of small refinery exemptions for our Woods Cross and Cheyenne refineries for the 2018 compliance year. On June 3, 2022, the EPA issued a decision reversing the grant of small refinery exemptions for our Woods Cross and Cheyenne refineries for the 2016 compliance year and denying small refinery exemption petitions for our Woods Cross and Cheyenne refineries for the 2019 and 2020 compliance years. Various subsidiaries of HollyFrontier are currently pursuing legal challenges to the EPA’s decisions to reverse its grant of small refinery exemptions for the 2016 and 2018 compliance years. The first lawsuit, filed against the EPA on May 6, 2022 and currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, seeks to have the EPA’s reversal of our 2018 small refinery exemption petitions overturned. The second lawsuit, filed against the EPA on August 5, 2022 and currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, seeks to have the EPA’s reversal of our 2016 small refinery exemption petitions overturned and to have the EPA’s denial of our 2019 and 2020 small refinery exemption petitions reversed. In addition, for both the 2016 and 2018 compliance years, pursuant to the June 2022 and April 2022 decisions, respectively, the EPA established an alternative compliance demonstration for small refineries pursuant to which the EPA is not imposing any obligations for the small refineries whose exemptions were reversed. On June 24, 2022, Growth Energy filed two lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit against the EPA challenging the alternative compliance demonstration for the 2016 and 2018 compliance years. On July 25, 2022, various subsidiaries of HollyFrontier intervened on behalf of the EPA to aid the defense of the EPA’s alternative compliance demonstration decision. It is too early to predict the outcome of these matters. We are unable to estimate the costs we may incur, if any, at this time.

We have been party to multiple proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) challenging the rates charged by SFPP, L.P. (“SFPP”) on its East Line pipeline facilities from El Paso, Texas to Phoenix, Arizona. In March 2018, FERC ruled that SFPP, as a master limited partnership, was prohibited from including an allowance for investor income taxes in the cost of service underlying its East Line rates. We reached a negotiated settlement with SFPP that provides for a payment to us of $51.5 million. FERC approved the settlement on December 31, 2020 subject to a rehearing period that resulted in a settlement effective date of February 2, 2021. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, SFPP made the $51.5 million payment to us on February 10, 2021 and we recorded a “Gain on tariff settlement” on our consolidated statements of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2021.