---

---

Item 1.	Business

•

Domestic Coke consists of our Jewell Coke Company, L.P. ("Jewell"), Indiana Harbor Coke Company ("Indiana Harbor"), Haverhill Coke Company LLC ("Haverhill"), Gateway Energy and Coke Company, LLC ("Granite City") and Middletown Coke Company, LLC ("Middletown") cokemaking and heat recovery operations located in Vansant, Virginia; East Chicago, Indiana; Franklin Furnace, Ohio; Granite City, Illinois; and Middletown, Ohio, respectively.

•	Brazil Coke consists of our operations in Vitória, Brazil, where we operate a cokemaking facility, ArcelorMittal Brasil S.A. ("ArcelorMittal Brazil”), for a Brazilian subsidiary of ArcelorMittal S.A. ("ArcelorMittal");

•

Coal Logistics consists of our Convent Marine Terminal ("CMT"), Kanawha River Terminals, LLC ("KRT"), SunCoke Lake Terminal, LLC ("Lake Terminal"), and Dismal River Terminal, LLC ("DRT") coal handling and/or mixing service operations in Convent, Louisiana; Ceredo and Belle, West Virginia; East Chicago, Indiana; and Vansant, Virginia. Lake Terminal and DRT are located adjacent to our Indiana Harbor and Jewell cokemaking facilities, respectively.

•	Coal Mining consisted of our metallurgical coal mining activities conducted in Virginia and West Virginia, until the business was divested in April 2016.

---

(1)	Cokemaking capacity represents stated capacity for production of blast furnace coke. Middletown production and sales volumes are based on “run of oven” capacity, which includes both blast furnace coke and small coke. Using the stated capacity, Middletown capacity on a “run of oven” basis is approximately 578 thousand tons per year.

(2)	We hold a 49 percent investment in a cokemaking joint venture with VISA Steel Limited ("VISA Steel") in India called VISA SunCoke Limited ("VISA SunCoke"), which was fully impaired in 2015, and consequently, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, we no longer included our share of VISA SunCoke in our financial results. Cokemaking capacity represents 100 percent of VISA SunCoke.

---

---

---

---

---

•

Permitting Process for Cokemaking Facilities. The permitting process for our cokemaking facilities is administered by the individual states. However, the main requirements for obtaining environmental construction and operating permits are found in the federal regulations. Once all requirements are satisfied, a state or local agency produces an initial draft permit. Generally, the facility reviews and comments on the initial draft. After accepting or rejecting the facility’s comments, the agency typically publishes a notice regarding the issuance of the draft permit and makes the permit and supporting documents available for public review and comment. A public hearing may be scheduled, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") also has the opportunity to comment on the draft permit. The state or local agency responds to comments on the draft permit and may make revisions before a final construction permit is issued. A construction permit allows construction and commencement of operations of the facility and is generally valid for at least 18 months. Generally, construction commences during this period, while many states allow this period to be extended in certain situations.

•

Air Quality. Our cokemaking facilities employ Maximum Available Control Technology (“MACT”) standards designed to limit emissions of certain hazardous air pollutants. Specific MACT standards apply to door leaks, charging, oven pressure, pushing and quenching. Certain MACT standards for new cokemaking facilities were developed using test data from SunCoke's Jewell cokemaking facility located in Vansant, Virginia. Under applicable federal air quality regulations, permitting requirements may differ among facilities, depending upon whether the cokemaking facility will be located in an “attainment” area—i.e., one that meets the national ambient air quality standards (“NAAQS”) for certain pollutants, or in a “non-attainment” or "unclassifiable" area. The status of an area may change over time as new NAAQS standards are adopted, resulting in an area change from one status or classification to another. In an attainment area, the facility must install air pollution control equipment or employ Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”).

---

•

Stringent NAAQS for ambient nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide went into effect in 2010. In July 2013, the EPA identified or "designated" as non-attainment 29 areas in 16 states where monitored air quality showed violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. In August 2015, the EPA finalized a new rulemaking to assist in implementation of the primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that requires either additional monitoring, or modeling of ambient air SO2 levels in various areas including where certain of our facilities are located. By July 2016, states subject to this rulemaking were required to provide EPA with either a modeling approach using existing emissions data, or a plan to undertake ambient air monitoring for SO2 to begin in 2017. For states that choose to install ambient air SO2 monitoring stations, after three years of data has been collected, or sometime in 2020, the EPA will evaluate this data relative to the appropriate attainment designation for the areas under the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. This rulemaking will require certain of our facilities to undertake this ambient air monitoring. We may be required to install additional pollution controls and incur greater costs of operating at those of our facilities located in areas that EPA determines to be non-attainment with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on its evaluation of this data. In 2012, a NAAQS for fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5, went into effect. In November 2015, the EPA revised the existing NAAQS for ground level ozone to make the standard more stringent. These new standards and any future more stringent standard for ozone have two impacts on permitting: (1) demonstrating compliance with the standard using dispersion modeling from a new facility will be more difficult; and (2) additional areas of the country may become designated as non-attainment areas. Facilities operating in areas that become non-attainment areas due to the application of new standards may be required to install Reasonably Available Control Technology (“RACT”). A number of states have also filed or joined suits to challenge the EPA’s new standard in court. While we are not able to determine the extent to which this new standard will impact our business at this time, it does have the potential to have a material impact on our operations and cost structure.

•	The EPA adopted a rule in 2010 requiring a new facility that is a major source of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) to install equipment or employ BACT procedures. Currently, there is little information on what may be acceptable as BACT to control GHGs (primarily carbon dioxide from our facilities), but the database and additional guidance may be enhanced in the future.

•	Several states have additional requirements and standards other than those in the federal statutes and regulations. Many states have lists of “air toxics” with emission limitations determined by dispersion modeling. States also often have specific regulations that deal with visible emissions, odors and nuisance. In some cases, the state delegates some or all of these functions to local agencies.

•	Wastewater and Stormwater. Our heat recovery cokemaking technology does not produce process wastewater as is typically associated with by-product cokemaking. Our cokemaking facilities, in some cases, have wastewater discharge and stormwater permits.

•

Waste. The primary solid waste product from our heat recovery cokemaking technology is calcium sulfate from flue gas desulfurization, which is generally taken to a solid waste landfill. The material from periodic cleaning of heat recovery steam generators is disposed of as hazardous waste. On the whole, our heat recovery cokemaking process does not generate substantial quantities of hazardous waste.

•

U.S. Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Endangered Species Act and certain counterpart state regulations are intended to protect species whose populations allow for categorization as either endangered or threatened. With respect to permitting additional cokemaking facilities, protection of endangered or threatened species may have the effect of prohibiting, limiting the extent of or placing permitting conditions on soil removal, road building and other activities in areas containing the affected species. Based on the species that have been designated as endangered or threatened on our properties and the current application of these laws and regulations, we do not believe that they are likely to have a material adverse effect on our operations.

•	Permitting Process for Former Coal Mining Operations. The U.S. coal mining permit application process is initiated by collecting baseline data to adequately assess and model the pre-mine environmental condition of the permit area, including geologic data, soil and rock structures, cultural resources, soils, surface and

---

•

Bonding Requirements for Permits Related to Former Coal Mining Operations. Before a SMCRA permit is issued, a mine operator must submit a bond or other form of financial security to guarantee the payment and performance of certain long-term mine closure and reclamation obligations. The costs of these bonds or other forms of financial security have fluctuated in recent years and the market terms of surety bonds generally have become more unfavorable to mine operators. Surety providers are requiring greater amounts of collateral to secure a bond, which has required us to provide increasing quantities of cash to collateralize bonds or other forms of financial security to allow us to continue mining. These changes in the terms of the bonds have been accompanied, at times, by a decrease in the number of companies willing to issue surety bonds. As of December 31, 2016, we have posted an aggregate of approximately $25 million in surety bonds or other forms of financial security for reclamation purposes.

•

Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act and similar state laws and regulations affect our cokemaking operations, primarily through permitting and/or emissions control requirements relating to particulate matter (“PM”) and sulfur dioxide (“SO2”). The Clean Air Act air emissions programs that may affect our operations, directly or indirectly, include, but are not limited to: the Acid Rain Program; NAAQS implementation for SO2, PM and nitrogen oxides (“NOx”); GHG rules; the Clean Air Interstate Rule; MACT emissions limits for hazardous air pollutants; the Regional Haze Program; New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”); and New Source Review. The Clean Air Act requires, among other things, the regulation of hazardous air pollutants through the development and promulgation of various industry-specific MACT standards. Our cokemaking facilities are subject to two categories of MACT standards. The first category applies to pushing and quenching. The EPA is to make a risk-based determination for pushing and quenching emissions and determine whether additional emissions reductions are necessary, but the EPA has yet to publish or propose any residual risk standards; therefore, the impact of potential additional EPA regulation in this area cannot be estimated at this time. The second category of MACT standards applicable to our cokemaking facilities applies to emissions from charging and coke oven doors.

•

Terminal Operations. Our terminal operations located along waterways and the Gulf of Mexico are also governed by permitting requirements under the CWA and CAA. These terminals are subject to U.S. Coast Guard regulations and comparable state statutes regarding design, installation, construction, and management. Many such terminals owned and operated by other entities that are also used to transport coal, including for export, have been pursued by environmental interest groups for alleged violations of their permits’ requirements, or have seen their efforts to obtain or renew such permits contested by such groups. While we believe that our operations are in material compliance with these permits, we cannot assure you that no such challenges or claims will be made against our operations in the future. Moreover, our terminal operations may be affected by the impacts of additional regulation on the mining of all types of coal and use of thermal coal for fuel, which is restricting supply in some markets and may reduce the volumes of coal that our terminals manage.

•

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) regulates the sales of electricity from our Haverhill and Middletown facilities, including the implementation of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”). The nature of the operations of the Haverhill and Middletown facilities makes each facility a qualifying facility under

---

•

Clean Water Act of 1972. Although our cokemaking facilities generally do not have water discharge permits, the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) may affect our operations by requiring water quality standards generally and through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”). Regular monitoring, reporting requirements and performance standards are requirements of NPDES permits that govern the discharge of pollutants into water. Discharges must either meet state water quality standards or be authorized through available regulatory processes such as alternate standards or variances. Additionally, through the CWA Section 401 certification program, states have approval authority over federal permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to their waters.

•

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We may generate wastes, including “solid” wastes and “hazardous” wastes that are subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and comparable state statutes, although certain mining and mineral beneficiation wastes and certain wastes derived from the combustion of coal currently are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes under RCRA. The EPA has limited the disposal options for certain wastes that are designated as hazardous wastes under RCRA. Furthermore, it is possible that certain wastes generated by our operations that currently are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes may in the future be designated as hazardous wastes, and therefore be subject to more rigorous and costly management, disposal and clean-up requirements.

•

Climate Change Legislation and Regulations. Our facilities are presently subject to the GHG reporting rule, which obligates us to report annual emissions of GHGs. The EPA also finalized a rule in 2010 requiring a new facility that is a major source of GHGs to install equipment or employ BACT procedures. Currently there is little information as to what may constitute BACT for GHG in most industries. We may also be subject to the EPA’s “Tailoring Rule,” where certain modifications to our facilities could subject us to the additional permitting and other obligations relative to emissions of GHGs under the New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("NSR/PSD") and Title V programs of the Clean Air Act based on whether the facility triggered NSR/PSD because of emissions of another pollutant such as SO2, NOx, PM, ozone or lead. The EPA has engaged in rulemaking to regulate GHG emissions from existing and new coal fired power plants, and we expect continued legal challenges to this rulemaking and any future rulemaking for other industries. For instance, in August 2015, the EPA issued its final Clean Power Plan rules establishing carbon pollution standards for power plants. The EPA expects each state to develop implementation plans for power plants in its state to meet the individual state targets established in the Clean Power Plan, and has also proposed a federal compliance plan to implement the Clean Power Plan in the event that approvable state plans are not submitted. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the implementation of the Clean Power Plan before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (“D.C. Circuit”) issued a decision on the rule. By its terms, this stay will remain in effect throughout the pendency of the appeals process including at the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court through any certiorari petition that may be granted. Additionally, it is unclear how the Clean Power Plan will be impacted by the actions of the new presidential administration beginning in 2017. Depending on the method of implementation selected by the states, and whether the rule is ultimately upheld, the Clean Power Plan could increase the demand for natural gas-generated electricity.

•

Currently, we do not anticipate these new or existing power plan GHG rules to apply directly to our facilities. However, the impact current and future GHG-related legislation and regulations have on us will depend on a number of factors, including whether GHG sources in multiple sectors of the economy are regulated, the overall GHG emissions cap level, the degree to which GHG offsets are allowed, the allocation of emission allowances to specific sources, actions by the states in implementing these requirements and the indirect impact of carbon regulation on coal prices. We may not recover the costs related to compliance with regulatory requirements imposed on us from our customers due to limitations in our agreements. The imposition of a carbon tax or similar regulation could materially and adversely affect our revenues. Collectively, these requirements along with restrictions and requirements regarding the mining of all types of coal may reduce the volumes of coal that we manage and may ultimately adversely impact our revenues.

---

•	Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006. The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (the “Miner Act”), has increased significantly the enforcement of safety and health standards and imposed safety and health standards on all aspects of mining operations. There also has been a significant increase in the dollar penalties assessed for citations issued.

•	Security. CMT is subject to regulation by the United States Coast Guard pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act. We have an internal inspection program designed to monitor and ensure compliance by CMT with these requirements. We believe that we are in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the security of the facility.

•

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The SMCRA established comprehensive operational, environmental, reclamation and closure standards for all aspects of U.S. surface mining as well as many aspects of deep mining. Where state regulatory agencies have adopted federal mining programs under SMCRA, the state becomes the regulatory authority, and states that operate federally approved state programs may impose standards that are more stringent than the requirements of SMCRA. Permitting under SMCRA generally has become more difficult in recent years, which adversely affects the cost and availability of coal. The Abandoned Mine Land Fund, which is part of SMCRA, assesses a fee on all coal produced in the U.S. From October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2012, the fee was $0.315 per ton of surface-mined coal and $0.135 per ton of underground mined coal. From October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2021, the fee has been reduced to $0.28 per ton of surface-mined coal and $0.12 per ton of underground mined coal. Our reclamation obligations under applicable environmental laws could be substantial. Under accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. ("GAAP"), we are required to account for the costs related to the closure of mines and the reclamation of the land upon exhaustion of coal reserves. The fair value of an asset retirement obligation is recognized in the period in which it is incurred if a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. The present value of the estimated asset retirement costs is capitalized as part of the carrying amount of the long-lived asset. At December 31, 2016, we had asset retirement obligation of $4.9 million related to estimated mine reclamation costs. The amounts recorded are dependent upon a number of variables, including the estimated future retirement costs, estimated proven reserves, assumptions involving profit margins, inflation rates, and the assumed credit-adjusted interest rates. Our future operating results would be adversely affected if these accruals were determined to be insufficient. These obligations are unfunded. Further, although specific criteria varies from state to state as to what constitutes an “owner” or “controller” relationship, under SMCRA the responsibility for reclamation or remediation, unabated violations, unpaid civil penalties and unpaid reclamation fees of independent contract mine operators can be imputed to other companies which are deemed, according to the regulations, to have “owned” or “controlled” the contract mine operator. Sanctions are quite severe and can include being denied new permits, permit amendments, permit revisions and revocation or suspension of permits issued since the violation or penalty or fee due date.

•

Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977 and Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, as amended in 1981. Under these laws, each U.S. coal mine operator must pay federal black lung benefits and medical expenses to claimants who are current and former employees and last worked for the operator after July 1, 1973. Coal mine operators also must make payments to a trust fund for the payment of benefits and medical expenses to claimants who last worked in the coal industry prior to July 1, 1973. The trust fund is funded by an excise tax on U.S. coal production of up to $1.10 per ton for deep-mined coal and up to $0.55 per ton for surface-mined coal, neither amount to exceed 4.4 percent of the gross sales price. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), which was implemented in 2010, amended previous legislation and provides for the automatic extension of awarded lifetime benefits to surviving spouses and changes the legal criteria used to assess and award claims. Our obligation related to black lung benefits at December 31, 2016 was $50.2 million and was estimated based on various assumptions, including actuarial estimates, discount rates, number of active claims, changes in health care costs and the impact of PPACA.

---

•

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), also known as Superfund, and similar state laws, responsibility for the entire cost of clean-up of a contaminated site, as well as natural resource damages, can be imposed upon current or former site owners or operators, or upon any party who released one or more designated “hazardous substances” at the site, regardless of the lawfulness of the original activities that led to the contamination. In the course of our operations we may have generated and may generate wastes that fall within CERCLA’s definition of hazardous substances. We also may be an owner or operator of facilities at which hazardous substances have been released by previous owners or operators. Under CERCLA, we may be responsible for all or part of the costs of cleaning up facilities at which such substances have been released and for natural resource damages. We also must comply with reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

---

---

---

Item 1A.	Risk Factors

---

---

---

•	making it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations with respect to the notes and our other debt;

---

•	limiting our ability to obtain additional financing to fund future working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other general corporate requirements;

•	requiring a substantial portion of our cash flows to be dedicated to debt service payments instead of other purposes, thereby reducing the amount of cash flows available for the payment of dividends, working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and other general corporate purposes;

•	increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;

•	exposing us to the risk of increased interest rates as certain of our borrowings, including borrowings under the credit facilities, are at variable rates of interest;

•	limiting our flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes in the industry in which we compete;

•	placing us at a competitive disadvantage to other, less leveraged competitors; and

•	increasing our cost of borrowing.

---

---

•	earthquakes, subsidence and unstable ground or other conditions that may cause damage to infrastructure or personnel;

---

•	fire, explosion, or other major incident causing injury to personnel and/or equipment, resulting in all or part of the cokemaking operations at one of our facilities to cease, or be severely curtailed for a period of time;

•	processing and plant equipment failures, operating hazards and unexpected maintenance problems affecting our cokemaking operations or our customers; and

•	adverse weather and natural disasters, such as severe winds, heavy rains, snow, flooding, extremes of temperature, and other natural events affecting cokemaking operations, transportation, or our customers.

---

---

---

•

The demand for thermal coal can be impacted by changes in the energy consumption pattern of industrial consumers, electricity generators and residential users, as well as weather conditions and extreme temperatures. The amount of thermal coal consumed for electric power generation is affected primarily by the overall demand for electricity, the availability, quality and price of competing fuels for power generation, and governmental regulation. For example, over the past few years, production of natural gas in the U.S. has increased dramatically, which has resulted in lower natural-gas prices. As a result of sustained low natural gas prices, coal-fuel generation plants have been displaced by natural-gas fueled generation plants. In addition, state and federal mandates for increased use of electricity from renewable energy sources, or the retrofitting of existing coal-fired generators with pollution control systems, also could adversely impact the demand for thermal coal. Finally, unusually warm winter weather may reduce the commercial and residential needs for heat and electricity which, in turn, may reduce the demand for thermal coal; and

•

The demand for metallurgical coal for use in the steel industry may be impacted adversely by economic downturns resulting in decreased demand for steel and an overall decline in steel production. A decline in blast furnace production of steel may reduce the demand for furnace coke, an intermediate product made from metallurgical coal. Decreased demand for metallurgical coal also may result from increased steel industry utilization of processes that do not use, or reduce the need for, furnace coke, such as electric arc furnaces, or blast furnace injection of pulverized coal or natural gas.

---

•	geological, hydrologic, or other conditions that may cause damage to infrastructure or personnel;

•	a major incident that causes all or part of the coal logistics operations at a site to cease for a period of time;

•	processing and plant equipment failures and unexpected maintenance problems;

•	adverse weather and natural disasters, such as heavy rains or snow, flooding, extreme temperatures and other natural events affecting coal logistics operations, transportation, or customers;

•	possible legal challenges to the renewal of key permits, which may lead to their renewal on terms that restrict our terminalling operations, or impose additional costs on our operations.

•	demand for electricity in the U.S. is impacted by industrial production, which if weakened would negatively impact the revenues, margins and profitability of our coal logistics business;

•	demand for metallurgical coal depends on steel demand in the U.S. and globally, which if weakened would negatively impact the revenues, margins and profitability of our coal logistics business;

•	the tightening of credit or lack of credit availability to our customers could adversely affect our ability to collect our trade receivables; and

•	our ability to access the capital markets may be restricted at a time when we would like, or need, to raise capital for our business including for potential acquisitions, or other growth opportunities.

---

•	a Board of Directors that is divided into three classes with staggered terms;

•	action by written consent of stockholders may only be taken unanimously by holders of all our shares of common stock;

•	rules regarding how our stockholders may present proposals or nominate directors for election at stockholder meetings;

•	the right of our Board of Directors to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval;

•	limitations on the right of stockholders to remove directors; and

•	limitations on our ability to be acquired.

---

•	the current market price of our common stock and of the common units of the Partnership may be adversely affected and a failure to agree upon, approve and consummate a transaction could result in negative publicity or a negative impression of us or of the Partnership in the investment community, and in turn cause a decline in the market price of our shares and the Partnership’s common units.

•	our shareholders may not realize the potential benefits from the Simplification Transaction.

---

---

•

If the Partnership’s income from cokemaking operations “was qualified income under the statute as reasonably interpreted prior to May 6, 2015,” then the Partnership will have a transition period ending on December 31, 2027, during which it can treat income from its existing cokemaking activities as qualifying income. The Partnership’s transitional status during this period is likely to impair the growth prospects of the Partnership, and we do not expect that the Partnership would acquire additional cokemaking operations from third parties or from us without receipt of an IRS private letter ruling confirming the availability of the transition period as applied to the income from such an acquisition.

•

The IRS might challenge treatment by the Partnership of income from its cokemaking operations as qualifying income by asserting that such treatment did not rely upon a reasonable interpretation of the statute prior to May 6, 2015. If so, nothing would preclude the IRS from challenging the Partnership’s status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes from the time of the Partnership’s initial public offering.  If this challenge were to occur and prevail, (i) the Partnership would be taxed retroactively as if it were a corporation at federal and state tax rates, likely resulting in a material amount of taxable income and taxes in certain open years, (ii) historical and future distributions would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions and (iii) no income, gains, losses, deductions or credits recognized by the Partnership would flow to unitholders of the Partnership. This would result in a material reduction in the Partnership’s cash flow and after-tax return to the Partnership’s unitholders and the recording of an income tax provision and a reduction in net income.

---

---

Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments

Item 2.	Properties

•

Approximately 66 acres in Vansant (Buchanan County), Virginia, on which the Jewell cokemaking facility is located, along with an additional approximately 1,675 acres including the offices, warehouse and support buildings for our Jewell coal and coke affiliates located in Buchanan County, Virginia, as well as other general property holdings and unoccupied land in Buchanan County, Virginia and McDowell County, West Virginia.

•	Approximately 400 acres in Franklin Furnace (Scioto County), Ohio, on which the Haverhill cokemaking facility (both the first and second phases) is located.

•

Approximately 41 acres in Granite City (Madison County), Illinois, adjacent to the U.S. Steel Granite City Works facility, on which the Granite City cokemaking facility is located. Upon the earlier of ceasing production at the facility or the end of 2044, U.S. Steel has the right to repurchase the property, including the facility, at the fair market value of the land. Alternatively, U.S. Steel may require us to demolish and remove the facility and remediate the site to original condition upon exercise of its option to repurchase the land.

•	Approximately 250 acres in Middletown (Butler County), Ohio near AK Steel’s Middletown Works facility, on which the Middletown cokemaking facility is located.

•	Approximately 180 acres in Ceredo (Wayne County), West Virginia on which KRT has one coal terminal and one liquids terminal for its coal mixing and/or handling services along the Ohio and Big Sandy Rivers.

•	Approximately 174 acres in Convent (St. James Parish), Louisiana, on which CMT is located.

•	Approximately 88 acres of land located in East Chicago (Lake County), Indiana, on which the Indiana Harbor cokemaking facility is located and the coal handling and/or mixing facilities that service the Indiana Harbor cokemaking facility. The leased property is inside ArcelorMittal’s Indiana Harbor Works facility and is part of an enterprise zone.

•	Approximately 22 acres of land located in Buchanan County, Virginia, on which one of our coal handling terminals is located.

•	Approximately 25 acres in Belle (Kanawha County), West Virginia, on which KRT has a coal terminal for its coal mixing and/or handling services along the Kanawha River.

•	Our corporate headquarters is located in leased office space in Lisle, Illinois under an 11-year lease that commenced in 2011.

Item 3.	Legal Proceedings

---

Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures

---

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

---

---

---

Item 6.	Selected Financial Data

(1)

The results of CMT have been included in the combined and consolidated financial statements since it was acquired on August 12, 2015. CMT added combined assets of $411.7 million and $426.1 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. During 2016 and 2015, CMT contributed revenues of $62.7 million and $28.6 million, as well as operating income of $46.5 million and $18.4 million, respectively.

(2)

In April 2016, the Company recorded losses related to the divestiture of its coal mining business to Revelation Energy, LLC of $14.7 million, which included a $10.7 million asset impairment charge and transaction-related costs of $1.1 million. During 2014, we recorded total impairment charges related to the Coal Mining business of $150.3 million, which included both long-lived asset and goodwill impairment charges.

(3)	During 2015 and 2014, we recorded other-than-temporary impairment charges on our investment in VISA SunCoke of $19.4 million and $30.5 million, respectively. The 2015 impairment charges brought our investment in VISA SunCoke to zero.

(4)

On January 13, 2015 and on August 12, 2015 the Partnership acquired ownership interests in the Company's Granite City cokemaking facility of 75 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Additionally, on January 24, 2013, in conjunction with the Partnership's IPO, and on May 9, 2014, the Partnership acquired ownership interests in each of the Company's Haverhill and Middletown cokemaking facilities of 65 percent and 33 percent, respectively.

---

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

•	Achieved financial objectives and strengthened our balance sheet;

•	Managed through challenging market conditions;

•	Delivered operational excellence; and

•	Progressed towards stabilizing our Indiana Harbor cokemaking operations.

---

---

•	Deliver operational excellence and optimize our asset base;

•	Execute further oven rebuilds at our Indiana Harbor cokemaking operations;

•	Complete the proposed Simplification Transaction; and

•	Accomplish our 2017 financial objectives.

---

---

(1)	Includes $10.1 million of favorable fair value adjustment to our contingent consideration liability in 2016.

•

Debt Activities. During 2016, debt balances decreased approximately $145 million, driven primarily by the Partnership's repurchase of approximately $85 million of Partnership Notes as well as repayments on both our and the Partnership's Revolver. During 2015, debt balances increased approximately $365 million in connection with the acquisition of CMT and the Granite City dropdowns discussed below, net of the Partnership's repurchase of approximately $48 million of Partnership Notes. Significant comparability impacts of these debt activities are discussed below:

◦

Gains and Losses on Extinguishment of Debt. Gain on extinguishment of debt was $25.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 and the net loss on extinguishment of debt was $0.5 million and $15.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The redemption of Partnership Notes resulted in gains on extinguishment of debt of $25.0 million and $12.1 million in 2016 and 2015, respectively.  The Partnership’s gain on de-levering activities in 2015 was offset by losses on debt extinguishment of $12.6 million associated with the debt activities related to the Granite City dropdown and the Company's redemption of $60.4 million of Notes. In 2014, debt activities associated with the dropdown of additional interest in our Haverhill and Middletown facilities generated a loss on extinguishment of debt of $15.4 million.

◦

Interest Expense, net. Interest expense, net was $53.5 million, $56.2 million and $47.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Debt activities throughout 2016, 2015 and 2014 resulted in weighted average debt balances of $920.2 million, $819.6 million and $661.5 million, respectively.  Higher average debt balances in 2016 were the result of a full year of debt outstanding in connection with the acquisition of CMT and dropdowns of Granite City in 2015, partially offset by de-levering activities.  The decrease in interest expense, net in 2016 was the result of the higher average debt balance, more than offset by favorable interest rates on new debt as compared to rates on debt repurchased.  The increase in interest expense, net in 2015 was the result of the higher debt balances discussed above.

•

Redemption of Investment in Brazilian Cokemaking Operations. On November 28, 2016, ArcelorMittal Brazil redeemed SunCoke’s indirectly held preferred and common equity interest in Sol Coqueria Tubarão S.A. ("Brazil Investment") for consideration of $41.0 million, an amount equal to our carrying value of the investment. The Company received $20.5 million in cash at closing and will receive the remaining $20.5 million in cash, plus interest at an annual interest rate of 3 percent, in the second quarter of 2017. With the redemption of the Brazil Investment, the Company will no longer receive the $9.5 million annual preferred dividend. Additionally, in 2016, SunCoke added certain new patents to its existing intellectual property licensing agreement for which SunCoke will earn an incremental $5.1 million in annual licensing fees through 2023. The Company also extended the life of its patents with the Brazilian authorities through 2033, providing opportunity to extend the existing licensing agreement beyond 2023. Overall, these transactions resulted in a near term redemption of the investment and a reduction of $4.4 million to total revenues and Adjusted EBITDA in 2016 and each subsequent year through the end of the contract.

•	Loss on Divestiture of Business and Impairments. In April 2016, the Company completed the disposal of its coal mining business, included in the Coal Mining segment, to Revelation who assumed substantially all of the Company's remaining coal mining assets, mineral leases, real estate and a substantial portion of our mining

---

•

Black Lung Obligation. The Company recognized expense of $8.1 million, $9.8 million and $14.3 million during 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, in connection with our black lung obligation. In prior years, this expense was recorded in cost of products sold and operating expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. However, with the divestiture of our coal mining business in 2016, the Company's operations no longer include the coal mining activities giving rise to our black lung liability. Therefore, black lung expense in 2016 was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

•

Haverhill Energy Arrangement. Prior to the second quarter of 2015, Haverhill I facility sold steam to Haverhill Chemicals LLC ("Haverhill Chemicals"), which filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code during 2015. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, Haverhill I provided steam, at no cost, to Altivia Petrochemicals, LLC ("Altivia"), which purchased the facility from Haverhill Chemicals. While the Partnership is not currently generating revenues from providing steam to Altivia, the current arrangement, which may be renegotiated beginning in 2018, mitigates costs associated with disposing of steam. The absence of steam sales to Haverhill Chemicals resulted in lower energy revenues of $2.6 million and $4.9 million in 2016 and 2015, respectively, as compared to the prior year periods. The net impact of lower energy revenues and incremental operating and maintenance costs incurred in 2015 prior to our arrangement with Altivia decreased Adjusted EBITDA $1.1 million and $6.4 million in 2016 and 2015, respectively, as compared to the prior year periods.

•	Severance. In 2016, 2015, and 2014, we reduced the workforce in our corporate office and incurred total charges of $0.3 million, $4.1 million and $1.4 million, respectively, in Corporate and Other. The 2015 and 2014 reduction in workforce at our corporate office provided savings of approximately $4.1 million in 2015 compared to 2014 and additional savings of $1.3 million in 2016 compared to 2015.

•

Dropdowns. On May 9, 2014, we contributed an additional 33 percent interest in the Haverhill and Middletown cokemaking facilities to the Partnership ("Haverhill and Middletown Dropdown"). During 2015, we contributed 98 percent interest in Granite City to the Partnership, 75 percent of which was contributed on January 13, 2015 ("Granite City Dropdown") and 23 percent of which was contributed on August 12, 2015 ("Granite City Supplemental Dropdown"). Significant comparability impacts of the dropdowns are discussed below:

◦	Financing. As a part of the Granite City Dropdown and the Haverhill and Middletown Dropdown, the Partnership assumed and repaid $135.0 million and $160.0 million of the Company's senior notes, respectively, resulting in losses on extinguishment of debt of $9.4 million in 2015 and $15.4 million in 2014.

◦	Noncontrolling Interest. Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest includes the common public unitholders’ interest in the Partnership. The Granite City dropdowns and the Haverhill and Middletown Dropdown resulted in higher noncontrolling interest for SunCoke's decreased ownership in our Haverhill, Middletown and Granite City cokemaking facilities.

•

Pension Plan Termination. Effective May 30, 2014, Dominion Coal Corporation ("Dominion Coal"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, terminated its defined benefit plan, which was previously offered generally to all full-time employees of Dominion Coal. In June 2015, the plan settled its obligations by purchasing annuities using plan assets, which triggered settlement accounting and resulted in a non-cash loss of

---

•

India Equity Method Investment. As a result of market conditions, we recorded impairment charges of $19.4 million and $30.5 million related to our equity method investment in VISA SunCoke during 2015 and 2014, respectively, included in loss from equity method investment on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. The 2015 impairment brought our investment in VISA SunCoke to zero, and consequently, we no longer include our share of VISA SunCoke in our financial results. See Note 20 to our consolidated financial statements.

---

(1)	See year-over-year changes described in "Items Impacting Comparability."

---

•

Domestic Coke consists of our Jewell Coke Company, L.P. ("Jewell"), Indiana Harbor Coke Company ("Indiana Harbor"), Haverhill Coke Company LLC ("Haverhill"), Gateway Energy and Coke Company, LLC ("Granite City") and Middletown Coke Company, LLC ("Middletown") cokemaking and heat recovery operations located in Vansant, Virginia; East Chicago, Indiana; Franklin Furnace, Ohio; Granite City, Illinois; and Middletown, Ohio, respectively.

•	Brazil Coke consists of our operations in Vitória, Brazil, where we operate a cokemaking facility, ArcelorMittal Brasil S.A. ("ArcelorMittal Brazil”), for a Brazilian subsidiary of ArcelorMittal S.A. ("ArcelorMittal");

•	Coal Logistics consists of CMT, KRT, SunCoke Lake Terminal, LLC ("Lake Terminal"), and Dismal River Terminal, LLC ("DRT") coal handling and/or mixing service operations in Convent, Louisiana; Ceredo and Belle, West Virginia; East Chicago, Indiana; and Vansant, Virginia, respectively. Lake Terminal and DRT are located adjacent to our Indiana Harbor and Jewell cokemaking facilities, respectively.

•	Coal Mining consisted of our metallurgical coal mining activities conducted in Virginia and West Virginia, until the business was divested in April 2016.

---

(1)	See definition of Adjusted EBITDA and reconciliation to the most comparable GAAP measures at the end of this Item and Note 21 to our consolidated financial statements.

(3)	Reflects Domestic Coke Adjusted EBITDA divided by Domestic Coke sales volumes.

(4)	Reflects inbound tons handled during the period.

---

(1)

Revenues were lower in 2016 primarily driven by lower sales volumes at Indiana Harbor, which decreased revenues and Adjusted EBITDA by $20.6 million and $6.2 million, respectively, in 2016 compared to 2015. Additionally, lower sales volumes of 75 thousand tons to AK Steel, for which AK Steel provided make-whole payments reduced revenues by $11.4 million in 2016 compared to 2015. The 2015 results were impacted by lower sales volumes across the fleet, but primarily at Indiana Harbor, which decreased revenues and Adjusted EBITDA by $12.5 million and $4.3 million, respectively, in 2015 as compared to 2014.

(2)	In 2016 and 2015, the impact of on-going oven rebuilds at Indiana Harbor as well as lower coal prices contributed to lower coal-to-coke yield gains. Lower yield gains in 2016 were partially offset by record yield performance at our Middletown facility. Additionally, in 2015, higher coal moistures also contributed to lower coal-to-coke yield gains.

(3)	The increase in Adjusted EBITDA in 2015 was primarily driven by the $12.4 million impact of lower overall operating and maintenance spending at Indiana Harbor as compared to 2014, while an additional decrease in spending at Indiana Harbor of $13.2 million in 2016 further improved Adjusted EBTIDA as compared to 2015.

(4)

This decrease in revenues and Adjusted EBITDA primarily relates to the change in Indiana Harbor's cost recovery mechanism in 2015 to a fixed recovery per ton from an annually negotiated budget amount with a cap for certain expenses and cost sharing of any differences from budgeted amounts. This fixed cost recovery per ton mechanism is in place for 2015, 2016 and 2017 and will revert back to an annually negotiated budget mechanism starting in 2018 through the end of the contract.  Had the annually negotiated budget mechanism been in place for 2016, we estimate both revenue and Adjusted EBITDA would have been higher by approximately $15 million, which is based on actual 2016 production at the facility and assumes that the actual O&M spend at the facility for the year was equal to the annually negotiated budget amount agreed to with our customer. The actual impact in 2018 when the contract reverts back to an annually negotiated budget mechanism will depend on actual volumes and actual operating and maintenance spending as it relates to the agreed upon budget with our customer.

(5)	In 2016, the divestiture of the coal mining business and the transition to a 100 percent purchased third-party coal model resulted in a shift of coal transportation costs from the Coal Mining segment to our Jewell cokemaking facility of approximately $5.5 million. This shift of costs has no impact on consolidated Adjusted EBITDA.

(6)	See discussion of activities related to our Haverhill energy arrangement in "Items Impacting Comparability."

(7)	In October 2016, the Partnership sustained a turbine failure at its Haverhill II facility, the impact of which was partially mitigated by insurance recoveries. The Haverhill II turbine was fully restored in January 2017, and we continue to pursue additional insurance recoveries.

---

(8)	Results in 2016 included lower energy sales as compared to the prior year as a result of planned maintenance outages in 2016. Results in 2015 included lower transportation costs, which were passed through to our customer.

(1)	Results in 2016 reflect a full year's contribution of CMT, which was acquired in August 2015, while 2015 includes only a partial year of results.

(2)	DRT was formed in early 2016 to accommodate our Jewell cokemaking facility in its direct procurement of third-party coal.

(3)	In both 2016 and 2015, lower transloading volumes were driven by challenging market conditions in both the thermal and metallurgical coal markets.

---

---

---

---

•

Ongoing capital expenditures required to maintain equipment reliability, the integrity and safety of our coke ovens and steam generators and to comply with environmental regulations. Ongoing capital expenditures are made to replace partially or fully depreciated assets in order to maintain the existing operating capacity of the assets and/or to extend their useful lives and also include new equipment that improves the efficiency, reliability or effectiveness of existing assets. Ongoing capital expenditures do not include normal repairs and maintenance expenses, which are expensed as incurred;

•	Environmental remediation project expenditures required to implement design changes to ensure that our existing facilities operate in accordance with existing environmental permits; and

•	Expansion capital expenditures to acquire and/or construct complementary assets to grow our business and to expand existing facilities as well as capital expenditures made to enable the renewal of a coke sales agreement and/or coal logistics service agreement and on which we expect to earn a reasonable return.

(1)	Includes $14.0 million and $12.1 million of capital expenditures in connection with our current oven rebuild initiative at our Indiana Harbor facility, which began in 2015, for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

(2)	Includes $2.7 million, $2.9 million and $3.2 million of interest capitalized in connection with the environmental gas sharing projects for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

(3)	Excludes the acquisition of CMT.

(4)	Represents capital expenditures for the ship loader expansion project funded with cash withheld in conjunction with the acquisition of CMT. Additionally, this includes capitalized interest of $2.3 million and $0.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

•	Total ongoing capital expenditures of approximately $52 million, of which approximately $17 million will be spent at the Partnership and approximately $20 million will be spent on the Indiana Harbor oven rebuild project.

---

•	Total capital expenditures on environmental remediation projects of approximately $25 million, all of which will be spent at the Partnership; and

•	Total expansion capital of approximately $3 million in our Coal Logistics segment.

(1)	At December 31, 2016, debt consists of $44.6 million of Company Notes, $463.0 million of Partnership Notes, $113.2 million of Partnership Promissory Note, $172.0 million of Partnership Revolver, $15.2 million of Partnership Financing Obligation and $50.0 million of Partnership Term Loan. Projected interest costs on variable rate instruments were calculated using market rates at December 31, 2016.

(2)	Our operating leases include leases for land, locomotives, office equipment and other property and equipment. Operating leases include all operating leases that have initial noncancelable terms in excess of one year.

(3)	Certain coal procurement contracts were not executed at December 31, 2016. We estimate these contracts to be approximately $100 million of additional purchase obligations in 2017 and expect these to be finalized in the first quarter of 2017.

(4)	Transportation and coal handling services consist primarily of railroad and terminal services attributable to delivery and handling of coal purchases and coke sales. Long-term commitments generally relate to locations for which limited transportation options exist and match the length of the related coke sales agreement.

(5)	Primarily represents open purchase orders for materials, supplies and services.

---

---

---

---

(1)	Reflects non-controlling interest in Indiana Harbor and the portion of the Partnership owned by public unitholders.

---