ITEM 1A.    RISK FACTORS

         There are many factors that could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution. New risks may emerge at any time, and the Partnership cannot predict those risks or estimate the extent to which they may affect financial performance. Each of the risks described below could adversely impact the value of the Partnership's common units.

Risks Inherent in Our Business

We may not have sufficient cash from operations following the establishment of cash reserves and payment of costs and expenses, including cost reimbursements to our General Partner and its affiliates, to enable us to pay quarterly distributions to our unitholders at our current distribution rate.

        We may not have sufficient cash each quarter to enable us to pay quarterly distributions at our current distribution rate. The amount of cash we can distribute on our common and subordinated units principally depends upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which fluctuates from quarter to quarter based on the following factors, some of which are beyond our control:

•

the volume of products that we are able to sell;



•

the price at which we are able to sell our products;



•

failure of the Partnership's customers to pay or perform their contractual obligations to the Partnership;



•

the amount of low-cost wood fiber that we are able to procure and process, which could be adversely affected by, among other things, operating or financial difficulties suffered by our suppliers;



•

the amount of products that we are able to produce, which could be adversely affected by, among other things, operating difficulties;



•

failure of the Partnership's shipping partners to perform their contractual obligations to the Partnership;



•

changes in the price and availability of natural gas, coal or other sources of energy;



•

changes in prevailing economic conditions;



•

our ability to complete acquisitions, including acquisitions from our sponsor;



•

unanticipated ground, grade or water conditions;



•

inclement or hazardous weather conditions, including extreme precipitation, temperatures and flooding;



•

environmental hazards;



•

fires, explosions or other accidents;



•

changes in domestic and foreign laws and regulations (or the interpretation thereof) related to renewable or low-carbon energy, the forestry products industry or power generators;



•

changes in the regulatory treatment of biomass in core and emerging markets for utility-scale generation;



•

inability to acquire or maintain necessary permits or rights for our production, transportation and terminaling operations;



•

inability to obtain necessary production equipment or replacement parts;

20

Table of Contents

•

technical difficulties or failures;



•

labor disputes;



•

late delivery of raw materials;



•

inability of our customers to take delivery of products or their rejection of delivery of products;



•

changes in the price and availability of transportation;



•

changes in foreign currency exchange rates;



•

changes in the quality specifications for our products that are required by our customers; and



•

our ability to borrow funds and access capital markets.

        In addition, the actual amount of cash we have available for distribution depends on other factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:

•

the level of capital expenditures we make;



•

costs associated with construction projects at our existing facilities and future construction projects;



•

fluctuations in our working capital needs;



•

our treatment as a flow-through entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes;



•

our debt service requirements and other liabilities;



•

restrictions contained in our existing or future debt agreements; and



•

the amount of cash reserves established by our General Partner.

The amount of cash we have available for distribution to holders of our units depends primarily on our cash flow and not solely on profitability, which may prevent us from making cash distributions during periods when we record net income.

        The amount of cash we have available for distribution depends primarily upon our cash flow, including cash flow from reserves and working capital or other borrowings, and not solely on profitability, which will be affected by non-cash items. As a result, we may pay cash distributions during periods when we record net losses for financial accounting purposes and may be unable to pay cash distributions during periods when we record net income.

We have incurred losses from operations during certain periods since our inception and may do so in the future.

        We incurred a net loss of $5.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. Additionally, we may incur net losses in the future. The uncertainty and risks described in this Annual Report may impede our ability to remain profitable or have positive cash flows from operating activities in the future.

Substantially all of our revenues are generated under contracts with two customers, and the loss of any of them could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make cash distributions. We may not be able to renew or obtain new and favorable contracts with these customers when our existing contracts expire, and we may not be able to obtain contracts with new customers, which could adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

        Our contracts with Drax and ENGIE represent substantially all of our sales volumes. Because we have a small number of customers, our off-take contracts subject us to counterparty risk concentration. The ability of each of our customers to perform its obligations under a contract with us will depend on

21

Table of Contents

a number of factors that are beyond our control and may include, among other things, the overall financial condition of the counterparty, the counterparty's access to capital, the condition of the Northern European power generation industry, continuing economic support for wood pellet-generated power and general economic conditions. In addition, in depressed market conditions, our customers may no longer need the amount of our products they have contracted for or may be able to obtain comparable products at a lower price. If our customers experience a significant downturn in their business or financial condition, they may attempt to renegotiate or declare force majeure under our contracts. Recently, an affiliate of the owner of the Langerlo power station filed for insolvency in a German court, and although our customer is not party to the proceedings, the impact of the affiliate's insolvency on our customer's ability to perform its obligations under the Langerlo Contract remains uncertain. Should any counterparty fail to honor its obligations under a contract with us, we could sustain losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution. We may also decide to renegotiate our existing contracts on less favorable terms and at reduced volumes in order to preserve our relationships with our customers.

        Upon the expiration of our off-take contracts, our customers may decide not to recontract on terms as favorable to us as our current contracts, or at all. For example, our current customers may acquire wood pellets from other providers that offer more competitive pricing or logistics or develop their own sources of wood pellets. Some of our customers could also exit their current business or be acquired by other companies that purchase wood pellets from other providers. The demand for wood pellets or their prevailing prices at the time our current off-take contracts expire may also render entry into new long-term off-take contracts difficult or impossible.

        Any reduction in the amount of wood pellets purchased by our customers, renegotiation on less favorable terms, or inability to enter into new contracts on economically acceptable terms upon the expiration of our current contracts could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position, as well as our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders.

We derive substantially all of our revenues from customers in Northern Europe. If we fail to diversify our customer base in the future, our results of operations, business and financial position and ability to make cash distributions could be materially adversely affected.

        A substantial portion of our revenues has historically been derived from customers in Northern Europe, and our revenues have been heavily dependent on developments in the Northern European markets. If economic, political and financial market conditions in Europe remain uncertain as a result of continued weakness in European economies, our customers may respond by suspending, delaying or reducing their expenditures. Our failure to successfully penetrate markets outside of Northern Europe in the future could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders.

Our exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations may result in fluctuations in our cash flows and could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

        Fluctuations in currency exchange rates could be material to us depending upon, among other things, the currency denominations of our off-take contracts. In particular, we may in the future be sensitive to fluctuations in currency exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the British Pound as sales under the EVA-MGT Contract are denominated in pounds. Deliveries under the EVA-MGT Contract do not begin until 2019 and the contract is contingent upon the Tees REP reaching financial close.

        There may be instances in which costs and revenue will not be matched with respect to currency denomination. As a result, to the extent that we continue to expand our customer base as anticipated,

22

Table of Contents

it is possible that increasing portions of revenue, costs, assets and liabilities will be subject to fluctuations in foreign currency valuations. We may experience economic loss and a negative impact on earnings or net assets solely as a result of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations.

Changes in government policies, incentives and taxes implemented to support increased generation of low-carbon and renewable energy may affect customer demand for our products.

        Consumers of utility-grade wood pellets currently use our products either as part of a binding obligation to generate a certain percentage of low-carbon energy or because they receive direct or indirect financial support or incentives to do so. Financial support is often necessary to cover the generally higher costs of wood pellets compared to conventional fossil fuels like coal. In most countries, once the government implements a tax (e.g., the UK's carbon price floor tax) or a preferable tariff or a specific renewable energy policy either supporting a renewable energy generator or the energy generating sector as a whole, such tax, tariff or policy is guaranteed for a specified period of time, sometimes for the investment lifetime of any electricity generator's project. However, the government may modify its tax, tariff, or incentive regimes, and the future availability of such taxes, tariffs or policies, either in current jurisdictions beyond the prescribed timeframes or in new jurisdictions, is uncertain. Demand for wood pellets could be substantially lower than expected if government support is reduced or delayed or, in the future, is insufficient to enable successful deployment of biomass power to the levels currently projected. In addition, regulatory changes such as new requirements to install additional pollution control technology or curtail operations to meet new GHG emission limits, may also affect demand for our products. For example, in the U.S., current regulations exempt biomass-fired generating units from GHG emission regulations of U.S. EPA. In July 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court, in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA vacated U.S. EPA's July 1, 2011 decision to grant a three-year deferral of the applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") and Title V permitting requirements for carbon dioxide emissions to certain biomass-fired generators. However, the D.C. Circuit Court also stayed its ruling and delayed any rehearing until after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, effectively leaving U.S. EPA's deferral in place. Although the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in UARG v. EPA in June 2014, generally upholding U.S. EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions from certain stationary sources, there has been no resolution of the validity of U.S. EPA's exemption for biomass-fired facilities. On September 19, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an order extending the deadline to submit petitions for rehearing in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA until the D.C. Circuit Court issues its mandate in a related case, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. In June 2015, U.S. EPA requested the D.C. Circuit Court deny a rehearing since U.S. EPA's three-year deferral expired last year, making any challenges to the rule moot.

        In August 2015, U.S. EPA issued its final CPP rule that establishes carbon pollution standards for existing power plants, called Carbon Dioxide ("CO ₂ ") emission performance rates. U.S. EPA expects each state to develop implementation plans for power plants in its state to meet the individual state targets established in the CPP. Although the rule calls for state plans to be submitted in September 2016, subject to potential extensions of up to two years for final plan submission, the recent Supreme Court stay of the rule creates significant uncertainty with respect to the timing of the development of state plans. The first Clean Power Plan compliance period begins in 2022, and emission reductions will be phased in up to 2030. U.S. EPA also proposed a federal compliance plan to implement the CPP in the event that an approvable state plan is not submitted to U.S. EPA. After the final rule was published in October 2015, over two dozen states and various industry groups filed several petitions that were later consolidated in the D.C. Circuit Court challenging the rule and seeking a stay of the CPP while litigation is ongoing. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the implementation of the CPP before the D.C. Circuit Court even issued a decision. By its terms, this stay will remain in effect throughout the pendency of the appeals process including at the D.C. Circuit Court and the Supreme Court through any certiorari petition that may be granted. The stay suspends

23

Table of Contents

the rule, including the requirement that states submit their initial plans by September 2016. The Supreme Court's stay applies only to U.S. EPA's regulations for CO ₂ emissions from existing power plants and will not affect U.S. EPA's standards for new power plants. It is not yet clear how either the D.C. Circuit Court or the Supreme Court will rule on the legality of the CPP.

        Even if the final CPP withstands judicial review, the status of biomass under the rule is not clear. Although the final rule contemplates that states may use biomass as a tool to comply with their obligations to reduce GHG emissions from existing power plants, it does not provide clear guidance on how biomass policies may be implemented under the rule. U.S. EPA may issue supplemental guidance as part of its Model Trading Rules, but the timing of any future rulemakings or guidance to clarify the status of biomass under the CPP remains uncertain in light of the Supreme Court's stay of the rule. An additional source of uncertainty regarding future biomass guidance or rules from U.S. EPA is the outcome of its ongoing scientific process to assess biogenic carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources. In November 2014, U.S. EPA released a revised methodological framework for assessing biogenic carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources. U.S. EPA also released a memorandum explaining that it expects to recognize biogenic carbon dioxide emissions and climate policy benefits of waste-derived and certain forest-derived industrial byproduct feedstocks when considering state compliance plans under the CPP and the PSD program going forward. The updated draft framework is currently subject to review by U.S. EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (the "SAB"), and the SAB's final report should be submitted to U.S. EPA in 2016, raising the possibility that U.S. EPA will adopt a policy approach to address biogenic carbon dioxide emissions based upon the SAB's review of its proposed framework. Therefore, it is possible that in the future, U.S. EPA or individual states may seek (or be required) to regulate carbon dioxide or other GHG emissions from biomass-fired power plants, including requiring such plants to retroactively obtain permits or install pollution control technology. Such developments could negatively impact the demand for wood pellets and limit our growth in the U.S. market. In addition, regulatory actions to address GHG emissions from biomass in the U.S. could be used as precedents by regulators in our primary markets, and any subsequent changes in the regulatory schemes in Europe could impact demand for wood pellets.

The international nature of our business subjects us to a number of risks, including foreign exchange and unfavorable political, regulatory and tax conditions in foreign countries.

        Substantially all of our current product sales are to customers that operate outside of the United States. As a result, we face certain risks inherent to maintaining international operations that include, but are not limited to, the following:

•

foreign exchange movements, which may make it more difficult for our customers to make payments denominated in U.S. dollars or exert pricing pressure on new contracts compared to competitors that source in a weaker currency;



•

restrictions on foreign trade and investment, including currency exchange controls imposed by or in other countries; and



•

trade barriers such as export requirements, tariffs, taxes and other restrictions and expenses, which could increase the prices of our products and make our products less competitive in some countries.

        Our business in foreign countries requires us to respond to rapid changes in market conditions in these countries. Our overall success as a global business depends, in part, on our ability to succeed under differing legal, regulatory, economic, social and political conditions. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to develop, implement and maintain policies and strategies that will be effective in each location where our customers operate. Any of the foregoing factors could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position and our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders.

24

Table of Contents

Federal, state and local legislative and regulatory initiatives relating to forestry products and the potential for related litigation could result in increased costs, additional operating restrictions or delays for our suppliers and customers, respectively, which could cause a decline in the demand for our products and negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Currently, our raw materials are byproducts of traditional timber harvesting, principally the tops and limbs of trees as well as other low-value wood materials that are generated in a harvest, and industrial residuals (chips, sawdust and other wood industry byproducts). Commercial forestry is regulated by complex regulatory frameworks at each of the federal, state, and local levels. Among other federal laws, the Clean Water Act and ESA have been applied to commercial forestry operations through agency regulations and court decisions, as well as through the delegation to states to implement and monitor compliance with such laws. State forestry laws, as well as land use regulations and zoning ordinances at the local level, are also used to manage forests in the Southeastern U.S., as well as other regions from which we may need to source raw materials in the future. Any new or modified laws or regulations at any of these levels could have the effect of reducing forestry operations in areas where we procure our raw materials, and consequently may prevent us from purchasing raw materials in an economic manner, or at all. In addition, future regulation of, or litigation concerning, the use of timberlands, the protection of endangered species, the promotion of forest biodiversity, and the response to and prevention of wildfires, as well as litigation, campaigns or other measures advanced by environmental activist groups, could also reduce the availability of the raw materials required for our operations.

The actions of certain non-governmental organizations could result in increased or adverse regulation of our business.

        Certain non-governmental organizations with an interest in environmental issues have expressed their opposition to the use of biomass for power generation, both publicly and directly to domestic and foreign regulators, policy makers, power generators and other industrial users of biomass. These organizations are also actively lobbying domestically and abroad to significantly increase the regulation of, and reduce or eliminate the incentives and support for, the production and use of biomass for power generation. These organizations may also seek to increase regulation through litigation. For example, in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, environmental groups contested U.S. EPA's decision to defer regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from biomass-fired power plants. It is possible that the continued efforts of these organizations, whether through lobbying, litigation or other means, will result in the adoption of regulation that could adversely affect our current operations or those of our customers or impede expansions. The occurrence of any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial condition, and our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders.

The viability of our customers' businesses may also affect demand for our products and the results of our business and operations.

        The viability of our customers' businesses is dependent on their ability to compete in their respective electricity and heat markets. Our customers' competitiveness is a function of, among other things, the market price of electricity, the market price of competing fuels (e.g. coal and natural gas), the relative cost of carbon and the costs of generating heat or electricity using other renewable energy technologies. Changes in the values of the inputs and outputs of our customers' businesses, or of the businesses of their competitors, could have a material adverse effect on our customers and, as a result, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders.

25

Table of Contents

The growth of our business depends in part upon locating and acquiring interests in additional production plants and deep-water marine terminals at favorable prices.

        Our business strategy includes growing our business through drop-down and third-party acquisitions that result in an increase in our cash available for distribution per unit. Various factors could affect the availability of attractive projects to grow our business, including:

•

our sponsor's failure to complete its or the Hancock JV's development projects in a timely manner or at all, which could result from, among other things, permitting challenges, failure to procure the requisite financing or equipment, construction difficulties or an inability to obtain an off-take contract on acceptable terms;



•

our sponsor's failure to offer its assets or the assets of the Hancock JV for sale;



•

our failure or inability to exercise our right of first offer with respect to any asset that our sponsor offers, or compels the Hancock JV to offer, to us; and



•

fewer third-party acquisition opportunities than we expect, which could result from, among other things, available projects having less desirable economic returns, anti-trust concerns or higher risk profiles than we believe suitable for our business plan and investment strategy.

        Any of these factors could prevent us from executing our growth strategy or otherwise could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders.

Any acquisitions we make may reduce, rather than increase, our cash generated from operations on a per unit basis.

        We may consummate acquisitions that we believe will be accretive, but that result in a decrease in our cash available for distribution per unit. Any acquisition involves potential risks, some of which are beyond our control, including, among other things:

•

mistaken assumptions about revenues and costs, including synergies;



•

the inability to successfully integrate the businesses we acquire;



•

the inability to hire, train or retain qualified personnel to manage and operate our business and newly acquired assets;



•

the assumption of unknown liabilities;



•

limitations on rights to indemnity from the seller;



•

mistaken assumptions about the overall costs of equity or debt;



•

the diversion of management's attention to other business concerns;



•

unforeseen difficulties in connection with operating in new product areas or new geographic areas;



•

customer or key employee losses at the acquired businesses; and



•

the inability to meet the obligations in off-take contracts associated with acquired production plants.

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

26

Table of Contents

If there are significant increases in the cost of raw materials or our suppliers suffer from operating or financial difficulties, we could generate lower revenue, operating profits and cash flows or lose our ability to meet commitments to our customers.

        We purchase wood fiber from third-party landowners and other suppliers for use at our production plants. Our reliance on third parties to secure wood fiber exposes us to potential price volatility and unavailability of such raw materials, and the associated costs may exceed our ability to pass through such price increases under our contracts with our customers. Further, delays or disruptions in obtaining wood fiber may result from a number of factors affecting our suppliers, including extreme weather, production or delivery disruptions, inadequate logging capacity, labor disputes, impaired financial condition of a particular supplier, the inability of suppliers to comply with regulatory or sustainability requirements or decreased availability of raw materials. In addition, other companies, whether or not in our industry, could procure wood fiber within our procurement areas and adversely change regional market dynamics, resulting in insufficient quantities of raw material or higher prices. Any of these events could increase our operating costs or prevent us from meeting our commitments to our customers, and thereby could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

        Any interruption or delay in the supply of wood fiber, or our inability to obtain wood fiber at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impair our ability to meet the demands of our customers and expand our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

We are exposed to the credit risk of customers for our products, and any material nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers could adversely affect our financial results and cash available for distribution.

        We are subject to the risk of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers, whose operations are concentrated in the Northern European power generation industry. Our credit procedures and policies may not be adequate to fully eliminate customer credit risk. If we fail to adequately assess the creditworthiness of existing or future customers, or if their creditworthiness deteriorates unexpectedly, any resulting unremedied nonpayment or nonperformance by them could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders.

We could suffer a catastrophic failure of the shiploading equipment at the Port of Chesapeake or Port Panama City or be adversely impacted by a port closure.

        A significant portion of our total production is loaded for shipment utilizing automated conveyor and ship loading equipment at the Port of Chesapeake and Port Panama City. Should we suffer a catastrophic failure of this equipment, we could be unable to fulfill off-take obligations or incur substantial additional transportation costs that would reduce cash flow. We may also lose access to the ports or our facilities if they are closed for security or weather-related reasons.

Fluctuations in transportation costs and the availability or reliability of shipping, rail or truck transportation could reduce revenues by causing us to reduce our production or by impairing our ability to deliver products to our customers or the ability of our customers to take delivery.

        Disruptions of local or regional transportation services due to shortages of vessels, barges, railcars or trucks, weather-related problems, flooding, drought, accidents, mechanical difficulties, bankruptcy, strikes, lockouts, bottlenecks or other events could temporarily impair our ability to deliver products to our customers and might, in certain circumstances, constitute a force majeure event under our customer contracts, permitting our customers to suspend taking delivery of and paying for our products.

27

Table of Contents

In addition, persistent disruptions in marine transportation may force us to halt production as we reach storage capacity at our deep-water marine terminals. Accordingly, if the transportation services we use to transport our products are disrupted, and we are unable to find alternative transportation providers, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders.

Our long-term, fixed price off-take contracts with our customers may preclude us from taking advantage of an increase in spot market prices for our products and only partially offset certain cost increases.

        Our off-take contracts set base prices subject to annual price escalation and other pricing adjustments for changes in certain of our underlying costs of operations. In periods of increased spot market prices, our revenues could be significantly lower than they would otherwise be as a result of being party to such contracts, reducing the net income and cash available for distribution that we would otherwise generate. In addition, our current and future competitors may be in a better position to take advantage of increases in spot market prices.

        Each of our off-take contracts provides for an annual price escalator, and certain of our off-take contracts provide for cost pass-through mechanisms for either stumpage or shipping fuel. However, these cost pass-through mechanisms only pass a portion of our total costs through to our customers. If our operating costs increase significantly during the terms of our off-take contracts beyond the levels of pricing and cost protection afforded to us under the terms of our contracts, our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders could be materially adversely affected.

Termination penalties within our off-take contracts may not fully compensate us for total economic losses suffered by us.

        Certain of our off-take contracts provide the customer with a right of termination for various events of convenience or changes in law or policy. Although certain of these contracts are subject to certain protective termination payments, the termination payments made by our customers may not fully compensate us for losses resulting from a termination by such counterparty. In each case, we may be unable to re-contract our production at favorable prices or at all, and our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders may be materially adversely affected as a result.

We may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to maintain our facilities.

        Although we currently use a portion of our cash reserves and cash generated from our operations to maintain, develop and improve our assets and facilities, such investment may, over time, be insufficient to preserve the operating profile required for us to meet our planned profitability. Accordingly, if additional capital expenditures are required, our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders may be materially adversely affected.

We compete with other wood pellet producers, and, if growth in domestic and global demand for wood pellets meets or exceeds management's expectations, the competition within our industry may grow significantly.

        We compete with other wood pellet production companies in the United States for the customers to whom we sell our products. Other current producers of utility-grade wood pellets in North America include Fram Renewable Fuels, LLC, which is owned by an individual investor, Georgia Biomass, LLC, a plant owned by RWE Innogy, Rentech, Inc., Pacific BioEnergy, Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc., Drax Biomass Inc., affiliates of German Pellets GmbH, The Navigator Company, S.A., Zilkha Biomass LLC and The Westervelt Company. Competition in our industry is based on price, consistency

28

Table of Contents

and quality of product, site location, distribution and logistics capabilities, customer service and reliability of supply. Some of our competitors may have greater financial and other resources than we do, may develop technology superior to ours or may have production plants that are sited in more advantageous locations from a transport or other cost perspective.

        In addition, we expect global demand for solid biomass to increase significantly in the coming years. This demand growth may lead to a significant increase in the production levels of our existing competitors and may incentivize new, well-capitalized competitors to enter the industry, both of which could reduce the demand and the prices we are able to obtain under future off-take contracts. Significant price decreases or reduced demand could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders.

For our products to be acceptable to our customers, they must comply with stringent sustainability requirements, of which some elements are still under development.

        Biomass energy generation requires the use of biomass that is from acceptable sources and is demonstrably sustainable. Within Europe (and the United Kingdom, in particular), this is implemented through biomass sustainability criteria, which will become a mandatory element of eligibility for financial subsidies to biomass energy generators in the future. As a biomass fuel supplier, the viability of our business is therefore dependent upon our ability to comply with such requirements. This may restrict the types of biomass we can use and the geographic regions from which we source our raw materials, and may require us to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with our supply and production processes. Currently, some elements of the criteria with which we will have to comply, including rules relating to forest management practices, are not yet finalized. If more stringent sustainability requirements are adopted in the future, demand for our products could be materially reduced in certain markets, and our results of operations, business and financial position, and our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders may be materially adversely affected as a result.

Our level of indebtedness may increase and reduce our financial flexibility.

        In April 2015, we entered into a Credit Agreement (the "Credit Agreement") providing for (i) a $174.5 million term loan facility and (ii) a $25.0 million revolving credit facility (collectively, the "Original Credit Facilities"). In December 2015, we entered into the First Incremental Term Loan Assumption Agreement (the "Assumption Agreement") providing for $36.5 million of incremental borrowing (the "Incremental Term Advances" and, together with the Original Credit Facilities, the "Senior Secured Credit Facilities") under the Credit Agreement. As of December 31, 2015, our total debt was $213.2 million, which was primarily comprised of $206.8 million outstanding under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities, $3.3 million related to a construction loan and working capital line due 2016 related to our Wiggins plant, a note in the amount of $2.0 million due 2017 related to the acquisition of our Amory plant and a promissory note of $0.7 million due 2017 related to the land purchase for the Southampton plant development and other loans and capital leases totaling $0.4 million. In the future, we may incur additional indebtedness in order to make acquisitions or to develop our properties. Our level of indebtedness could affect our operations in several ways, including the following:

•

a significant portion of our cash flows could be used to service our indebtedness;



•

the covenants contained in the agreements governing our outstanding indebtedness may limit our ability to borrow additional funds, dispose of assets, pay distributions and make certain investments;



•

our debt covenants may also affect our flexibility in planning for, and reacting to, changes in the economy and in our industry;

29

Table of Contents

•

a high level of debt would increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;



•

a high level of debt may place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that are less leveraged and therefore may be able to take advantage of opportunities that our indebtedness would prevent us from pursuing; and



•

a high level of debt may impair our ability to obtain additional financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, debt service requirements, acquisitions, general partnership or other purposes.

        In addition, borrowings under the Senior Secured Credit Facilities and potentially other credit facilities we or our subsidiaries may enter into in the future will bear interest at variable rates. If market interest rates increase, such variable-rate debt will create higher debt service requirements, which could adversely affect our cash flow.

        In addition to our debt service obligations, our operations require substantial expenditures on a continuing basis. Our ability to make scheduled debt payments, to refinance our obligations with respect to our indebtedness and to fund capital and non-capital expenditures necessary to maintain the condition of our operating assets and properties, as well as to provide capacity for the growth of our business, depends on our financial and operating performance. General economic conditions and financial, business and other factors affect our operations and our future performance. Many of these factors are beyond our control. We may not be able to generate sufficient cash flows to pay the interest on our debt, and future working capital, borrowings or equity financing may not be available to pay or refinance such debt.

An increase in the price or a significant interruption in the supply of electricity could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

        Our production plants use a substantial amount of electricity. The price and supply of electricity are unpredictable and can fluctuate significantly based on international, political and economic circumstances, as well as other events outside our control, such as changes in supply and demand due to weather conditions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. In addition, potential climate change regulations or carbon or emissions taxes could result in higher production costs for electricity, which may be passed on to us in whole or in part. A significant increase in the price of electricity or an extended interruption in the supply of electricity to our production plants could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and ability to make cash distributions.

Changes in the price of diesel fuel may adversely affect our results of operations.

        Diesel fuel costs generally fluctuate with world crude oil prices, and accordingly are subject to political, economic and market factors that are outside of our control. Our operations are dependent on rolling stock and trucks, and diesel fuel costs are a significant component of the operating expense of these vehicles. In addition, diesel fuel is consumed by our wood suppliers in the harvesting and transport of our raw material and is therefore a component of the delivered cost we pay for wood fiber. It is also consumed by the changes in handling equipment at our facilities. Some of our off-take contracts contain mechanisms that are intended to reduce the impact that changes in the price of diesel fuel would have on us, but these mechanisms may not be effective. Accordingly, changes in diesel fuel prices could have an adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and ability to make cash distributions.

30

Table of Contents

Our business may suffer if we lose, or are unable to attract and retain, key personnel.

        We depend to a large extent on the services of our senior management team and other key personnel. Members of our senior management and other key employees collectively have extensive expertise in designing, building and operating wood pellet production plants, negotiating long-term off-take contracts and managing businesses such as ours. Competition for management and key personnel is intense, and the pool of qualified candidates is limited. The loss of any of these individuals or the failure to attract additional personnel, as needed, could have a material adverse effect on our operations and could lead to higher labor costs or the use of less-qualified personnel. In addition, if any of our executives or other key employees were to join a competitor or form a competing company, we could lose customers, suppliers, know-how and key personnel. Our success is dependent on our ability to continue to attract, employ and retain highly skilled personnel.

Failure to maintain effective quality control systems at our production plants and deep-water marine terminals could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.

        The performance and quality of our products are critical to the success of our business. These factors depend significantly on the effectiveness of our quality control systems which, in turn, depends on a number of factors. These include the design of our quality control systems, our quality training program and our ability to ensure that our employees adhere to our quality control policies and guidelines. Any significant failure or deterioration of our quality control systems could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation.

Our operations are subject to operational hazards and downtimes or interruptions, which may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operation. We may also not be adequately insured against such events.

        We produce a combustible product. Fires and explosions have occurred in our industry. As a result, our business could be adversely affected by these and other operational hazards and could suffer catastrophic loss due to unanticipated events such as explosions, fires, natural disasters or severe weather conditions. Severe weather, such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes or other catastrophes, or climatic phenomena, such as drought, may impact our operations by causing weather-related damage to our facilities and equipment and impact our customers' ability to take delivery of our products. Such severe weather may also adversely affect the ability of our suppliers to provide us with the raw materials we require or the ability of vessels to load, transport and unload our product. In addition, our facilities are subject to the risk of unexpected equipment failures. At our production plants, our manufacturing processes are dependent upon critical pieces of equipment, and such equipment may, on occasion, be out of service as a result of such failures. As a result, we may experience material plant shutdowns or periods of reduced production.

        Any interference with or curtailment of our operations could result in a loss of productivity, an increase in our operating costs or a breach of our obligations to deliver contracted volumes to our customers. Any breach of our contractual obligations as a result of periods of downtime or reduced production may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make cash distributions.

        In addition, we may not be fully insured against all risks incident to our business, including the risk of our operations being interrupted due to severe weather and natural disasters. Furthermore, we may be unable to maintain or obtain insurance of the type and amount we desire at reasonable rates. As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain of our insurance policies could escalate. In some instances, insurance could become unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage. If we were to incur a significant liability for which we are not fully insured, it could have a

31

Table of Contents

material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to unitholders.

Our operations are subject to stringent environmental and occupational health and safety laws and regulations that may expose us to significant costs and liabilities.

        Our operations are subject to stringent federal, regional, state and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These laws and regulations govern environmental protection, occupational health and safety, the release or discharge of materials into the environment, air emissions, wastewater discharges, the investigation and remediation of contaminated sites and allocation of liability for cleanup of such sites. These laws and regulations may restrict or impact our business in many ways, including by requiring us to acquire permits or other approvals to conduct regulated activities; limiting our air emissions or wastewater discharges or requiring us to install costly equipment to control, reduce or treat such emissions or discharges; imposing requirements on the handling or disposal of wastes; impacting our ability to modify or expand our operations (for example, by limiting or prohibiting construction and operating activities in environmentally sensitive areas); and imposing health and safety requirements for worker protection. We may be required to make significant capital and operating expenditures to comply with these laws and regulations. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, imposition of investigatory or remedial obligations, suspension or revocation of permits and the issuance of orders limiting or prohibiting some or all of our operations. Adoption of new or modified environmental laws and regulations may impair the operation of our business, delay or prevent expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities and otherwise result in increased costs and liabilities, which may be material.

        Certain environmental laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and analogous state laws, impose strict as well as joint and several liability without regard to comparative fault. Under these laws, we may be required to remediate contaminated properties currently or formerly operated by us, or facilities of third parties that received waste generated by our operations. Such remediation obligations may be imposed regardless of whether such contamination resulted in whole or in part from the conduct of others and whether such contamination resulted from actions (by us or third parties) that complied with all applicable laws in effect at the time of those actions. In addition, claims for damages to persons or property, including natural resources, may result from the environmental, health and safety impacts of our operations, including accidental spills or releases in the course of our operations or those of a third party. Although we are not presently aware of any material contamination on our properties or any material remediation liabilities, there is no assurance that we will not be exposed to significant remediation obligations or liabilities in the future.

Climate change legislation, regulatory initiatives and litigation could result in increased operating costs.

        U.S. EPA has recently issued regulations that would limit GHGs from certain existing and new electric generating units, and the Supreme Court has upheld U.S. EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions from certain stationary sources. In August 2015, U.S. EPA issued its final CPP rule establishing carbon pollution standards for power plants and setting a target carbon emissions reduction in the power sector of 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. U.S. EPA expected each state to develop implementation plans for power plants in its state to meet the individual state targets established in the CPP. U.S. EPA also proposed a federal compliance plan to implement the CPP in the event that an approvable state plan was not submitted to U.S. EPA. After the final rule was published in October 2015, over two dozen states and various industry groups filed several petitions that were later consolidated in the D.C. Circuit Court challenging the rule and seeking a stay of the CPP while litigation is ongoing. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the

32

Table of Contents

implementation of the CPP before the D.C. Circuit Court even issued a decision. By its terms, this stay will remain in effect throughout the pendency of the appeals process including at the D.C. Circuit Court and the Supreme Court through any certiorari petition that may be granted. The stay suspends the rule, including the requirement that states submit their initial plans by September 2016. The Supreme Court's stay applies only to U.S. EPA's regulations for CO2 emissions from existing power plants and will not affect U.S. EPA's standards for new power plants. It is not yet clear how either the D.C. Circuit Court or the Supreme Court will rule on the legality of the CPP.

        Although the legal challenges to the CPP are ongoing, U.S. EPA may still proceed with other activities to address climate change that could impact our operations. Previously, U.S. EPA adopted GHG regulations under its existing Clean Air Act authority, including regulations requiring monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions and consideration of potential emission controls for certain new or modified facilities. In a November 2014 memorandum, U.S. EPA exempted biogenic carbon dioxide from consideration under the existing permitting regime for GHGs from stationary sources (the PSD permitting program). However, recent progress in the SAB's review of U.S. EPA's proposed framework to assess biogenic carbon dioxide emissions increases the likelihood that U.S. EPA will finalize an approach to include biogenic carbon dioxide emissions in stationary source permitting.

        Should U.S. EPA finalize an approach to biogenic carbon dioxide emissions under either the CPP or a framework for permitting GHG emissions from new sources, the use of biomass to reduce GHG emissions reductions in the U.S. regulatory context could require us to undertake substantial additional tracking and monitoring of sources within our supply chain, which could increase our operating costs.

        In addition, U.S. EPA is still evaluating its approach to the treatment of biogenic carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources. The adoption of a different approach in the United States could be treated as precedential by European regulators and impact the regulatory treatment of our product in our primary markets.

        Also, almost half of U.S. states, either individually or through multi-state regional initiatives, have begun to address GHG emissions, primarily through the planned development of GHG emission inventories and/or regional GHG cap-and-trade programs. Although neither the U.S. Congress nor the states in which our facilities are located have adopted such legislation at this time, they may do so in the future.

        Many nations have agreed to limit emissions of GHGs pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and more recently, in December 2015, 195 countries met in Paris, France to approve a landmark climate accord. The United States is one of the nations participating in the adoption of the new Paris Agreement to cut GHG emissions. If the Paris agreement enters into force, it could be the basis for individual countries to undertake efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

        Although it is not possible at this time to accurately estimate how potential future laws or regulations addressing GHG emissions would impact our business, any such future laws or implementing regulations could require us to incur increased operating or maintenance costs, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business and operating results are subject to seasonal fluctuations.

        Our business is affected to some extent by seasonal fluctuations. The cost of producing wood pellets tends to be higher in the winter months because the delivered cost of fiber typically increases with wet weather and our raw materials have, on average, higher moisture content during such period of the year, resulting in a lower product yield. In addition, lower ambient temperatures increase the cost of drying wood fiber. 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.

33

Table of Contents

A terrorist attack or armed conflict could harm our business.

        Terrorist activities and armed conflicts could adversely affect the U.S. and global economies and could prevent us from meeting financial and other obligations or prevent our customers from meeting their obligations to us. We could experience loss of business, delays or defaults in payments from customers or disruptions of fuel supplies and markets, including if domestic and global power generators are direct targets or indirect casualties of an act of terror or war. Terrorist activities and the threat of potential terrorist activities and any resulting economic downturn could adversely affect our results of operations, impair our ability to raise capital or otherwise adversely impact our ability to realize certain business strategies.

Risks Related to Our Partnership Structure

Enviva Holdings, LP owns and controls our General Partner, which has sole responsibility for conducting our business and managing our operations. Our General Partner and its affiliates, including Enviva Holdings, LP, have conflicts of interest with us and limited duties, and they may favor their own interests to our detriment and that of our unitholders.

        Enviva Holdings, LP, owns and controls our General Partner and appoints all of the directors of our General Partner. Although our General Partner has a duty to manage us in a manner that it believes is not adverse to our interest, the executive officers and directors of our General Partner have a fiduciary duty to manage our General Partner in a manner beneficial to our sponsor. Therefore, conflicts of interest may arise between our sponsor or any of its affiliates, including our General Partner, on the one hand, and us or any of our unitholders, on the other hand. In resolving these conflicts of interest, our General Partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the interests of our common unitholders. These conflicts include the following situations, among others:

•

our General Partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us, such as our sponsor, in exercising certain rights under our partnership agreement;



•

neither our partnership agreement nor any other agreement requires our sponsor to pursue a business strategy that favors us;



•

our partnership agreement eliminates and replaces the fiduciary duties that would otherwise be owed by our General Partner with contractual standards governing its duties, limits our General Partner's liabilities and restricts the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that, without such eliminations and limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty;



•

except in limited circumstances, our General Partner has the power and authority to conduct our business without unitholder approval;



•

our General Partner determines the amount and timing of asset purchases and sales, borrowings, issuances of additional partnership securities and the level of reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is distributed to our unitholders;



•

our General Partner determines the amount and timing of any cash expenditure and whether an expenditure is classified as a maintenance capital expenditure, which reduces operating surplus, or an expansion capital expenditure, which does not reduce operating surplus. This determination can affect the amount of cash from operating surplus that is distributed to our unitholders which, in turn, may affect the ability of the subordinated units to convert into common units;



•

our General Partner may cause us to borrow funds in order to permit the payment of cash distributions;

34

Table of Contents

•

our partnership agreement permits us to distribute up to $39.3 million as operating surplus, even if it is generated from asset sales, borrowings other than working capital borrowings or other sources that would otherwise constitute capital surplus. This cash may be used to fund distributions on our subordinated units or the incentive distribution rights;



•

our General Partner determines which costs incurred by it and its affiliates are reimbursable by us;



•

our partnership agreement does not restrict our General Partner from causing us to pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered to us or entering into additional contractual arrangements with its affiliates on our behalf;



•

our General Partner intends to limit its liability regarding our contractual and other obligations;



•

our General Partner may exercise its right to call and purchase common units if it and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units;



•

our General Partner controls the enforcement of obligations that it and its affiliates owe to us;



•

our General Partner decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for us; and



•

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

        In addition, we may compete directly with our sponsor and entities in which it has an interest for acquisition opportunities and potentially will compete with these entities for new business or extensions of the existing services provided by us.

The board of directors of our General Partner may modify or revoke our cash distribution policy at any time at its discretion. Our partnership agreement does not require us to pay any distributions at all.

        Pursuant to our cash distribution policy, we intend to distribute quarterly at least $0.4125 per unit on all of our units to the extent we have sufficient cash after the establishment of cash reserves and the payment of our expenses, including payments to our General Partner and its affiliates. However, the board may change such policy at any time at its discretion and could elect not to pay distributions for one or more quarters. Please read Part II, Item 5. "Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities—Cash Distribution Policy."

        In addition, our partnership agreement does not require us to pay any distributions at all. Accordingly, investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the permanence of such a policy in making an investment decision. Any modification or revocation of our cash distribution policy could substantially reduce or eliminate the amounts of distributions to our unitholders. The amount of distributions we make, if any, and the decision to make any distribution at all will be determined by the board of directors of our General Partner, whose interests may differ from those of our common unitholders. Our General Partner has limited duties to our unitholders, which may permit it to favor its own interests or the interests of our sponsor to the detriment of our common unitholders.

Our General Partner limits its liability regarding our obligations.

        Our General Partner limits its liability under contractual arrangements between us and third parties so that the counterparties to such arrangements have recourse only against our assets, and not against our General Partner or its assets. Our General Partner may therefore cause us to incur

35

Table of Contents

indebtedness or other obligations that are nonrecourse to our General Partner. Our partnership agreement provides that any action taken by our General Partner to limit its liability is not a breach of our General Partner's duties, even if we could have obtained more favorable terms without the limitation on liability. In addition, we are obligated to reimburse or indemnify our General Partner to the extent that it incurs obligations on our behalf. Any such reimbursement or indemnification payments would reduce the amount of cash otherwise available for distribution to our unitholders.

We intend to distribute a significant portion of our cash available for distribution to our partners, which could limit our ability to grow and make acquisitions.

        We intend to distribute most of our cash available for distribution, which may cause our growth to proceed at a slower pace than that of businesses that reinvest their cash to expand ongoing operations. To the extent we issue additional units in connection with any acquisitions or expansion capital expenditures, the payment of distributions on those additional units may increase the risk that we will be unable to maintain or increase our per unit distribution level. There are no limitations in our partnership agreement on our ability to issue additional units, including units ranking senior to the common units. The incurrence of additional commercial borrowings or other debt to finance our growth strategy would result in increased interest expense, which, in turn, may impact the cash that we have available to distribute to our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement eliminates and replaces our General Partner's fiduciary duties to holders of our units.

        Our partnership agreement contains provisions that eliminate and replace the fiduciary standards to which our General Partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement permits our General Partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our general partner, or otherwise free of fiduciary duties to us and our unitholders. This entitles our General Partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires and relieves it of any duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or our limited partners. Examples of decisions that our General Partner may make in its individual capacity include:

•

how to allocate business opportunities among us and its affiliates;



•

whether to exercise its call right;



•

whether to seek approval of the resolutions of a conflict of interest by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our General Partner;



•

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



•

whether to exercise its registration rights;



•

whether to elect to reset target distribution levels; and



•

whether or not to consent to any merger or consolidation of the partnership or amendment to the partnership agreement.

        Limited partners who own common units are treated as having consented to the provisions in the partnership agreement, including the provisions discussed above.

36

Table of Contents

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

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

•

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



•

our General Partner and its officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages or otherwise to us or our limited partners resulting from any act or omission unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that such losses or liabilities were the result of conduct in which our General Partner or its officers or directors engaged in bad faith, meaning that they believed that the decision was adverse to the interest of the partnership or, with respect to any criminal conduct, with knowledge that such conduct was unlawful; and



•

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



(1)

approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our General Partner, although our General Partner is not obligated to seek such approval; or



(2)

approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding common units, excluding any common units owned by our General Partner and its affiliates.

        In connection with a situation involving a transaction with an affiliate or a conflict of interest, other than one where our General Partner is permitted to act in its sole discretion, any determination by our General Partner must be made in good faith. If an affiliate transaction or the resolution of a conflict of interest is not approved by our common unitholders or the conflicts committee then it will be presumed that, in making its decision, taking any action or failing to act, the board of directors acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of any limited partner or the partnership, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption.

Our sponsor and other affiliates of our General Partner may compete with us.

        Our partnership agreement provides that our General Partner is restricted from engaging in any business activities other than acting as our general partner, engaging in those activities incidental to its ownership interest in us and providing management, advisory and administrative services to its affiliates or to other persons. However, affiliates of our General Partner, including our sponsor, are not prohibited from engaging in other businesses or activities, including those that might be in direct competition with us. In addition, our sponsor may compete with us for investment opportunities and may own an interest in entities that compete with us.

        Pursuant to the terms of our partnership agreement, the doctrine of corporate opportunity, or any analogous doctrine, does not apply to our General Partner or any of its affiliates, including its executive officers and directors and our sponsor. Any such person or entity that becomes aware of a potential transaction, agreement, arrangement or other matter that may be an opportunity for us will not have any duty to communicate or offer such opportunity to us. Any such person or entity will not be liable

37

Table of Contents

to us or to any limited partner for breach of any fiduciary duty or other duty by reason of the fact that such person or entity pursues or acquires such opportunity for itself, directs such opportunity to another person or entity or does not communicate such opportunity or information to us. This may create actual and potential conflicts of interest between us and affiliates of our General Partner and result in less than favorable treatment of us and our unitholders.

The holder or holders of our incentive distribution rights may elect to cause us to issue common units to it in connection with a resetting of the incentive distribution without the approval of our unitholders. This election may result in lower distributions to our common unitholders in certain situations.

        The holder or holders of a majority of our incentive distribution rights (currently our General Partner) have the right, at any time when there are no subordinated units outstanding and we have made cash distributions in excess of the then-applicable third target distribution for each of the prior four consecutive fiscal quarters, to reset the initial target distribution levels at higher levels based on our cash distribution levels at the time of the exercise of the reset election. Following a reset election, a baseline distribution amount will be calculated equal to an amount equal to the prior cash distribution per common unit for the fiscal quarter immediately preceding the reset election (such amount is referred to as the "reset minimum quarterly distribution"), and the target distribution levels will be reset to correspondingly higher levels based on percentage increases above the reset minimum quarterly distribution.

        We anticipate that our General Partner would exercise this reset right in order to facilitate acquisitions or internal growth projects that would not be sufficiently accretive to cash distributions per unit without such conversion. However, our General Partner may transfer the incentive distribution rights at any time. It is possible that our General Partner or a transferee could exercise this reset election at a time when we are experiencing declines in our aggregate cash distributions or at a time when the holders of the incentive distribution rights expect that we will experience declines in our aggregate cash distributions in the foreseeable future. In such situations, the holders of the incentive distribution rights may be experiencing, or may expect to experience, declines in the cash distributions it receives related to the incentive distribution rights and may therefore desire to be issued our common units, which are entitled to specified priorities with respect to our distributions and which therefore may be more advantageous for them to own in lieu of the right to receive incentive distribution payments based on target distribution levels that are less certain to be achieved. As a result, a reset election may cause our common unitholders to experience dilution in the amount of cash distributions that they would have otherwise received had we not issued new common units to the holders of the incentive distribution rights in connection with resetting the target distribution levels.

Holders of our common units have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our General Partner or its directors, which could reduce the price at which our common units will trade.

        Compared to the holders of common stock in a corporation, unitholders have limited voting rights and, therefore, limited ability to influence management's decisions regarding our business. Unitholders have no right on an annual or ongoing basis to elect our General Partner or its board of directors. The board of directors of our General Partner, including the independent directors, is chosen entirely by our sponsor, as a result of it owning our General Partner, and not by our unitholders. Unlike publicly traded corporations, we do not conduct annual meetings of our unitholders to elect directors or conduct other matters routinely conducted at annual meetings of stockholders of corporations. As a result of these limitations, the price at which the common units trade could be diminished because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

38

Table of Contents

Even if holders of our common units are dissatisfied, they cannot currently remove our General Partner without our sponsor's consent.

        If our unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our General Partner, they have limited ability to remove our General Partner. Unitholders are currently unable to remove our General Partner without our sponsor's consent because our sponsor and its affiliates own sufficient units to be able to prevent its removal. The vote of the holders of at least 66 ² / 3 % of all outstanding common and subordinated units voting together as a single class is required to remove our General Partner. As of March 1, 2016, our sponsor owned an aggregate of 53.5% of our common and subordinated units. In addition, any vote to remove our General Partner during the subordination period must provide for the election of a successor General Partner by the holders of a majority of the common units and a majority of the subordinated units, voting as separate classes. Both of these conditions provide our sponsor the ability to prevent the removal of our General Partner.

Our general partner interest or the control of our General Partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.

        Our General Partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party without the consent of our unitholders. Furthermore, our partnership agreement does not restrict the ability of the owner of our General Partner to transfer its membership interests in our General Partner to a third party. The new owner of our General Partner would then be in a position to replace the board of directors and executive officers of our General Partner with its own designees and thereby exert significant control over the decisions taken by the board of directors and executive officers of our General Partner. This effectively permits a "change of control" without the vote or consent of the unitholders.

The incentive distribution rights may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.

        Our General Partner may transfer the incentive distribution rights to a third party at any time without the consent of our unitholders. If our General Partner transfers the incentive distribution rights to a third party, our General Partner would not have the same incentive to grow our partnership and increase quarterly distributions to unitholders over time. For example, a transfer of incentive distribution rights by our General Partner could reduce the likelihood of our sponsor accepting offers made by us relating to assets owned by our sponsor, as it would have less of an economic incentive to grow our business, which in turn would impact our ability to grow our asset base.

Our General Partner has a call right that may require unitholders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price.

        If at any time our General Partner and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units, our General Partner will have the right, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, but not the obligation, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price equal to the greater of (1) the average of the daily closing price of the common units over the 20 trading days preceding the date three days before notice of exercise of the call right is first mailed and (2) the highest per-unit price paid by our General Partner or any of its affiliates for common units during the 90-day period preceding the date such notice is first mailed. As a result, unitholders may be required to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return or a negative return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their units. Our General Partner is not obligated to obtain a fairness opinion regarding the value of the common units to be repurchased by it upon exercise of the call right. There is no restriction in our partnership agreement that prevents our General Partner from causing us to issue additional common units and then exercising its call right. If our General Partner exercised its call right, the effect would be to take us private and, if the units were subsequently deregistered, we would no longer be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act.

39

Table of Contents

We may issue additional units without unitholder approval, which would dilute existing unitholder ownership interests.

        Our partnership agreement does not limit the number of additional limited partner interests we may issue at any time without the approval of our unitholders. The issuance of additional common units or other equity interests of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:

•

our existing unitholders' proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;



•

the amount of cash available for distribution on each unit may decrease;



•

because a lower percentage of total outstanding units will be subordinated units, the risk that a shortfall in the payment of the minimum quarterly distribution will be borne by our common unitholders will increase;



•

the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;



•

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



•

the market price of the common units may decline.

There are no limitations in our partnership agreement on our ability to issue units ranking senior to the common units.

        In accordance with Delaware law and the provisions of our partnership agreement, we may issue additional partnership interests that are senior to the common units in right of distribution, liquidation and voting. The issuance by us of units of senior rank may (i) reduce or eliminate the amount of cash available for distribution to our common unitholders; (ii) diminish the relative voting strength of the total common units outstanding as a class; or (iii) subordinate the claims of the common unitholders to our assets in the event of our liquidation.

The market price of our common units could be adversely affected by sales of substantial amounts of our common units in the public or private markets, including sales by our sponsor or other large holders.

        All of the subordinated units will convert into common units on a one-for-one basis at the end of the subordination period. Additionally, our sponsor has registration rights with respect to the common units it holds. Sales by our sponsor or other large holders of a substantial number of our common units in the public markets, or the perception that such sales might occur, could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common units or could impair our ability to obtain capital through an offering of equity securities.

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

        Our partnership agreement restricts unitholders' voting rights by providing that any units held by a person or group that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our General Partner and its affiliates, their transferees and persons who acquired such units with the prior approval of the board of directors of our General Partner, cannot vote on any matter.

Cost reimbursements due to our General Partner and its affiliates for services provided to us or on our behalf will reduce cash available for distribution to our unitholders. The amount and timing of such reimbursements will be determined by our General Partner.

        Under our management services agreement with Enviva Management (the "MSA"), we are obligated to reimburse Enviva Management for all direct or indirect costs and expenses incurred by, or chargeable to, Enviva Management in connection with its provision of services necessary for the

40

Table of Contents

operation of our business. If the MSA were terminated without replacement, or our General Partner or its affiliates provided services outside of the scope of the MSA, our partnership agreement would require us to reimburse our General Partner and its affiliates for all expenses they incur and payments they make on our behalf. Our partnership agreement does not set a limit on the amount of expenses for which our General Partner and its affiliates may be reimbursed. These expenses include salary, bonus, incentive compensation and other amounts paid to persons who perform services for us or on our behalf and expenses allocated to our General Partner by its affiliates. Our partnership agreement provides that our General Partner determines the expenses that are allocable to us. The reimbursement of expenses and payment of fees, if any, to our General Partner and its affiliates will reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

The price of our common units may fluctuate significantly and unitholders could lose all or part of their investment.

        The market price of our common units may be influenced by many factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:

•

our quarterly distributions;



•

our quarterly or annual earnings or those of other companies in our industry;



•

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



•

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



•

general economic conditions;



•

the failure of securities analysts to cover our common units or changes in financial estimates by analysts;



•

future sales of our common units; and



•

the other factors described in these "Risk Factors."

Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions.

        Under certain circumstances, unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, we may not make a distribution to our unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Delaware law provides that for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted.

For as long as we are an emerging growth company, we will not be required to comply with certain disclosure requirements that apply to other public companies.

        For as long as we remain an "emerging growth company" as defined in the JOBS Act, we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including not being required to provide an auditor's attestation report on management's assessment of the effectiveness of our system of internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports. We will remain an emerging growth company for up to five years, although we will lose that status earlier if we have more

41

Table of Contents

than $1.0 billion of revenues in a fiscal year, have more than $700.0 million in market value of our common units held by non-affiliates, or issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period.

        To the extent that we rely on any of the exemptions available to emerging growth companies, our unitholders will receive less information about our executive compensation and internal control over financial reporting than issuers that are not emerging growth companies. If some investors find our common units to be less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common units and our trading price may be more volatile.

The New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE") does not require a publicly traded partnership like us to comply with certain of its corporate governance requirements.

        Our common units are listed on the NYSE. Because we are a publicly traded partnership, the NYSE does not require us to have a majority of independent directors on our General Partner's board of directors or to establish a compensation committee or a nominating and corporate governance committee. Accordingly, unitholders do not have the same protections afforded to certain corporations that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements. Please read Part III, Item 10. "Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance—Director Independence."

Tax Risks to Common Unitholders

Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as well as us not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, were to treat us as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, or we become subject to entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced.

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

        Despite the fact that we are organized as a limited partnership under Delaware law, we would be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a "qualifying income" requirement. Based upon our current operations, we believe we satisfy the qualifying income requirement. We have requested and obtained a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS to the effect that, based on facts presented in the private letter ruling request, our income from processing timber feedstocks into pellets and transporting, storing, marketing and distributing such timber feedstocks and wood pellets constitute "qualifying income" within the meaning of Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code. However, no ruling has been or will be requested regarding our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity.

        If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would pay U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%. Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to our unitholders. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to the unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.

        Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects us to

42

Table of Contents

entity-level taxation for U.S. federal, state, local or foreign income tax purposes, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law or interpretation on us. At the state level, several states have been evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise or other forms of taxation. Specifically, we currently own assets and conduct business in Mississippi, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia, each of which imposes a margin or franchise tax. In the future, we may expand our operations. Imposition of a similar tax on us in other jurisdictions that we may expand to could substantially reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

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

        The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations at any time. For example, from time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships. One such legislative proposal would have eliminated the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations upon which we rely for our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A recent legislative proposal for comprehensive tax reform included a provision that would restrict the activities that generate qualifying income to exclude timber activities.

        In addition, the IRS, on May 5, 2015, issued proposed regulations concerning which activities give rise to qualifying income within the meaning of Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code. We do not believe the proposed regulations affect our ability to qualify as a publicly traded partnership. However, finalized regulations could modify the amount of our gross income that we are able to treat as qualifying income for the purposes of the qualifying income requirement and modify or revoke existing private letter rulings, including ours.

        Any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws may be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for us to meet the exception for certain publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.

If the IRS were to contest the federal income tax positions we take, it may adversely impact the market for our common units, and the costs of any such contest would reduce cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Recently enacted legislation alters the procedures for assessing and collecting taxes due for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, in a manner that could substantially reduce cash available for distribution to you.

        We have requested and obtained a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS to the effect that, based on facts presented in the private letter ruling request, our income from processing timber feedstocks into pellets and transporting, storing, marketing and distributing such timber feedstocks and wood pellets will constitute "qualifying income" within the meaning of Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code. However, no ruling has been or will be requested regarding our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions we take in the future. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of the positions we take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units and the price at which they trade. Moreover, the costs of any contest between us and the IRS will

43

Table of Contents

result in a reduction in cash available for distribution to our unitholders and thus will be borne indirectly by our unitholders.

        Recently enacted legislation applicable to us for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 alters the procedures for auditing large partnerships and also alters the procedures for assessing and collecting taxes due (including applicable penalties and interest) as a result of an audit. Unless we are eligible to (and choose to) elect to issue revised Schedules K-1 to our partners with respect to an audited and adjusted return, the IRS may assess and collect taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly from us in the year in which the audit is completed under the new rules. If we are required to pay taxes, penalties and interest as the result of audit adjustments, cash available for distribution to our unitholders may be substantially reduced. In addition, because payment would be due for the taxable year in which the audit is completed, unitholders during that taxable year would bear the expense of the adjustment even if they were not unitholders during the audited taxable year.

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

        Unitholders are required to pay federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes, on unitholders' share of our taxable income, whether or not they receive cash distributions from us. For example, if we sell assets and use the proceeds to repay existing debt or fund capital expenditures, you may be allocated taxable income and gain resulting from the sale, and our cash available for distribution would not increase. Similarly, taking advantage of opportunities to reduce our existing debt, such as debt exchanges, debt repurchases, or modifications of our existing debt could result in "cancellation of indebtedness income" being allocated to our unitholders as taxable income without any increase in our cash available for distribution. Unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax due from them with respect to that income.

A tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be more or less than unitholders expect.

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

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

        Investment in common units by tax-exempt entities, such as employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs), and non-U.S. persons raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to organizations that are exempt from federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable income and will be taxable to them. Distributions to non-U.S. persons are subject to withholding taxes at the highest effective tax rate applicable to such non-U.S. persons, and each non-U.S. persons will be required to file United States federal tax returns and pay tax on their share of our taxable income. Any tax-exempt entity or non-U.S. person should consult their tax advisor before investing in our common units.

44

Table of Contents

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

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

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

        We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The U.S. Department of the Treasury recently adopted final Treasury Regulations allowing a similar monthly simplifying convention for taxable years beginning on or after August 3, 2015. However, such regulations do not specifically authorize the use of the proration method we adopted for our 2015 taxable year and may not specifically authorize all aspects of our proration method thereafter. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

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

        Because there are no specific rules governing the U.S. federal income tax consequence of loaning a partnership interest, a unitholder whose units are the subject of a securities loan may be considered as having disposed of the loaned units. In that case, the unitholder may no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the period of the loan to the short seller and the unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those units may not be reportable by the unitholder and any cash distributions received by the unitholder as to those units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a securities loan are urged to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing their units.

We have adopted certain valuation methodologies in determining a unitholder's allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction. The IRS may challenge these methodologies or the resulting allocations, which could adversely affect the value of the common units.

        In determining the items of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to our unitholders, we must routinely determine the fair market value of our assets. Although we may, from time to time, consult with professional appraisers regarding valuation matters, we make many fair market value estimates using a methodology based on the market value of our common units as a means to measure the fair market value of our assets. The IRS may challenge these valuation methods and the resulting allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction.

45

Table of Contents

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

The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profits interests during any twelve-month period will result in the termination of our partnership for federal income tax purposes.

        We will be considered to have terminated our partnership for federal income tax purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of the total interests in our capital and profits within a twelve-month period. As of March 1, 2016, our sponsor owned 53.5% of the total interests in our capital and profits. Therefore, a transfer by our sponsor of all or a portion of its interests in us could, in conjunction with the trading of common units held by the public, result in a termination of our partnership for federal income tax purposes. For purposes of determining whether the 50% threshold has been met, multiple sales of the same interest will be counted only once.

        Our termination would, among other things, result in the closing of our taxable year for all unitholders, which would result in us filing two tax returns for one calendar year and could result in a significant deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing our taxable income. In the case of a unitholder reporting on a taxable year other than a calendar year, the closing of our taxable year may also result in more than twelve months of our taxable income or loss being includable in taxable income for the unitholder's taxable year that includes our termination. Our termination would not affect our classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, but it would result in our being treated as a new partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes following the termination. If we were treated as a new partnership, we would be required to make new tax elections and could be subject to penalties if we were unable to determine that a termination occurred. The IRS has announced a relief procedure whereby if a publicly traded partnership that has technically terminated requests and the IRS grants special relief, among other things, the partnership may be permitted to provide only a single Schedule K-1 to unitholders for the two short tax periods included in the year in which the termination occurs.

Our unitholders will likely be subject to state and local taxes and income tax return filing requirements in jurisdictions where they do not live as a result of investing in our common units.

        In addition to U.S. federal income taxes, our unitholders may be subject to other taxes, including foreign, state and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we conduct business or own property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. Our unitholders will likely be required to file foreign, state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these various jurisdictions. Further, our unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.

        We currently own assets and conduct business in Mississippi, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia, each of which currently impose a personal income tax on individuals, corporations and other entities. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may own assets or conduct business in additional states that impose a personal income tax. It is our unitholders' responsibility to file all United States federal, foreign, state and local tax returns.