UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

OR

Commission file number: 000-21467

PACIFIC ETHANOL, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (916) 403-2123

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers in response to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting common equity held by nonaffiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the closing sale price of such stock, was approximately $30.7 million as of June 29, 2012, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter. The registrant has no non-voting common equity.

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock, $0.001 par value, outstanding as of March 29, 2013 was 157,437,360.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: None

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT

All statements included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, other than statements or characterizations of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements concerning projected net sales, costs and expenses and gross margins; our accounting estimates, assumptions and judgments; the demand for ethanol and its co-products; the competitive nature of and anticipated growth in our industry; production capacity and goals; our ability to consummate acquisitions and integrate their operations successfully; and our prospective needs for additional capital. These forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations, estimates, approximations and projections about our industry and business, management’s beliefs, and certain assumptions made by us, all of which are subject to change. Forward-looking statements can often be identified by words such as “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “predicts,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “would,” “could,” “potential,” “continue,” “ongoing,” similar expressions and variations or negatives of these words. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those expressed in any forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, some of which are listed under “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this report. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report. We undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statement for any reason, except as otherwise required by law.

PART I

Business Overview

We are the leading marketer and producer of low-carbon renewable fuels in the Western United States.

We market all the ethanol produced by four ethanol production facilities located in California, Idaho and Oregon, or the Pacific Ethanol Plants, all the ethanol produced by three other ethanol producers in the Western United States and ethanol purchased from other third-party suppliers throughout the United States. We also market ethanol co-products, including wet distillers grains and syrup, or WDG, for the Pacific Ethanol Plants.

We have extensive customer relationships throughout the Western United States. Our ethanol customers are integrated oil companies and gasoline marketers who blend ethanol into gasoline. We arrange for transportation, storage and delivery of ethanol purchased by our customers through our agreements with third-party service providers in the Western United States, primarily in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Colorado, Idaho and Washington. Our WDG customers are dairies and feedlots located near the Pacific Ethanol Plants.

We have extensive supplier relationships throughout the Western and Midwestern United States. In some cases, we have marketing agreements with suppliers to market all of the output of their facilities.

We hold an 83% ownership interest in New PE Holdco LLC, or New PE Holdco, the owner of each of the plant holding companies, or the Plant Owners, that collectively own the Pacific Ethanol Plants. We operate and maintain the Pacific Ethanol Plants under the terms of an asset management agreement with New PE Holdco and the Plant Owners, including supplying all goods and materials necessary to operate and maintain each Pacific Ethanol Plant. In operating the Pacific Ethanol Plants, we direct the production process to obtain optimal production yields, lower costs by leveraging our infrastructure, enter into risk management agreements such as insurance policies and manage commodity risk practices. We are also in complete charge of, and have care and custody over, each Pacific Ethanol Plant that is not operational, and provide recommendations as to when a Pacific Ethanol Plant should become operational. We perform all activities necessary to support a cost effective return of any idled Pacific Ethanol Plant to operational status once New PE Holdco approves our recommendation to re-start an idled Pacific Ethanol Plant.

We market ethanol and WDG produced by the Pacific Ethanol Plants under the terms of separate marketing agreements with the Plant Owners whose facilities are operational. The marketing agreements provide us with the absolute discretion to solicit, negotiate, administer (including payment collection), enforce and execute ethanol and co-product sales agreements with any third party.

The Pacific Ethanol Plants are comprised of the four facilities described immediately below and have an aggregate annual production capacity of up to 200 million gallons. Three of the facilities are currently operational and one of the facilities is currently idled. As market conditions change, we may increase, decrease or idle production at one or more operational facilities or resume operations at any idled facility.

We also provide operations, maintenance and accounting services for a 250,000 gallon per year cellulosic integrated biorefinery owned by ZeaChem Inc. in Boardman, Oregon, which is adjacent to the Pacific Ethanol Columbia plant.

Company History

We are a Delaware corporation formed in February 2005. Our main Internet address is http://www.pacificethanol.net. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, amendments to those reports and other Securities and Exchange Commission filings are available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after the reports are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Our common stock trades on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “PEIX.” The inclusion of our Internet address in this report does not include or incorporate by reference into this report any information contained on our website.

Business Strategy

Our primary goal is to advance our position as the leading marketer and producer of low-carbon renewable fuels in the Western United States. The key elements of our business and growth strategy to achieve this objective include:

In addition to these location-related efficiencies, we believe that we can continue to increase operating efficiencies by incorporating advanced design elements into the Pacific Ethanol Plants to take advantage of state-of-the-art technical and operational efficiencies.

Competitive Strengths

We believe that our competitive strengths include the following:

We believe that these advantages will allow us to capture an increasing share of the total market for ethanol and its co-products.

Industry Overview and Market Opportunity

Overview of Ethanol Market

The primary applications for fuel-grade ethanol in the United States include:

The United States ethanol industry is highly dependent upon federal and state legislation and regulation. For example, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was signed into law in December 2007, significantly increased the prior national RFS. The national RFS increases the mandated use of all renewable fuels to approximately 16.6 billion gallons in 2013 and 18.1 billion gallons in 2014. Under the national RFS, the mandated use of all renewable fuels rises incrementally in succeeding years and peaks at 36.0 billion gallons by 2022. Under the national RFS, approximately 13.8 billion gallons in 2013 and 14.4 billion gallons in 2014 are required from conventional, or corn-based, ethanol, which also rises incrementally in succeeding years and peaks at 15.0 billion gallons by 2015. We believe that these increases will bolster demand for ethanol.

According to the RFA, the domestic ethanol industry produced approximately 14.9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2012. We believe that the ethanol market in California alone represented approximately 10% of the national market. However, the Western United States has relatively few ethanol facilities and local ethanol production levels are substantially below the local demand for ethanol. The balance of ethanol is shipped via rail from the Midwest to the Western United States. Gasoline and diesel fuel that supply the major fuel terminals are shipped in pipelines throughout portions of the Western United States. Unlike gasoline and diesel fuel, however, ethanol is not shipped in these pipelines because ethanol has an affinity for mixing with water already present in the pipelines. When mixed, water dilutes ethanol and creates significant quality control issues. Therefore, ethanol must be trucked from rail terminals to regional fuel terminals, or blending racks. In addition, we believe that ethanol prices in the Western United States are typically $0.15 to $0.20 per gallon higher than in the Midwest due to the freight costs of delivering ethanol from Midwest production facilities.

We believe that approximately 90% of the ethanol produced in the United States is made in the Midwest from corn. According to the Department of Energy, or DOE, ethanol is generally blended at 10% by volume, but is also blended at up to 85% by volume for vehicles designed to operate on 85% ethanol. The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, recently increased the allowable blend of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15% for model year 2001 and newer automobiles, pending final approvals by certain state regulatory authorities. Some retailers have begun blending at higher rates in states that have approved higher blend rates.

Compared to gasoline, ethanol is generally considered to be cleaner burning and contains higher octane. We anticipate that the increasing demand for renewable transportation fuels coupled with limited opportunities for gasoline refinery expansions and the growing importance of reducing CO₂ emissions through the use of renewable fuels will generate additional growth in the demand for ethanol in the Western United States.

According to the DOE, total annual gasoline consumption in the United States is approximately 134 billion gallons and total annual ethanol consumption represented approximately 10% of this amount in 2012. The domestic ethanol industry has substantially reached the initial 10% blend ratio, and we believe the industry has significant potential for growth as the industry migrates to an up to 15% blend ratio, which equals an annual demand of between 13.4 billion and 20.1 billion gallons of ethanol. Furthermore, the national RFS requires an increase of up to 36.0 billion gallons of ethanol annually by 2022, subject to an annual EPA review to adjust targets based on availability of commercially produced advanced and cellulose biofuels.

Overview of Ethanol Production Process

The production of ethanol from starch- or sugar-based feedstock has been refined considerably in recent years, leading to a highly-efficient process that we believe now yields substantially more energy from ethanol and its co-products than is required to make the products. The modern production of ethanol requires large amounts of corn, or other high-starch grains, and water as well as chemicals, enzymes and yeast, and denaturants including unleaded gasoline or liquid natural gas, in addition to natural gas and electricity.

In the dry milling process, corn or other high-starch grains are first ground into meal and then slurried with water to form a mash. Enzymes are then added to the mash to convert the starch into the simple sugar, dextrose. Ammonia is also added for acidic (pH) control and as a nutrient for the yeast. The mash is processed through a high temperature cooking procedure, which reduces bacteria levels prior to fermentation. The mash is then cooled and transferred to fermenters, where yeast is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol and CO₂ begins.

After fermentation, the resulting “beer” is transferred to distillation, where the ethanol is separated from the residual “stillage.” The ethanol is concentrated to 190 proof using conventional distillation methods and then is dehydrated to approximately 200 proof, representing 100% alcohol levels, in a molecular sieve system. The resulting anhydrous ethanol is then blended with about 2.5% denaturant, which is usually gasoline, and is then ready for shipment to market.

The residual stillage is separated into a coarse grain portion and a liquid portion through a centrifugation process. The soluble liquid portion is concentrated to about 40% dissolved solids by an evaporation process. This intermediate state is called condensed distillers solubles, or syrup. The coarse grain and syrup portions are then mixed to produce WDG or can be mixed and dried to produce dried distillers grains with solubles, or DDGS. Both WDG and DDGS are high-protein animal feed products.

Overview of Distillers Grains Market

Most distillers grains are produced in the Midwest, where producers dry the grains before shipping. Successful and profitable delivery of DDGS from the Midwest to markets in the Western United States faces a number of challenges, including drying of distiller grains which may increase the energy cost to dry the grains and reduce the quality of the feed product, and longer distance to market, which may increase the handling and transportation costs to deliver the grains to market. By not drying the distillers grains and by shipping WDG locally, we believe that we will be able to better preserve the feed value of this product, as the WDG retains a higher percentage of nutrients than DDGS.

Historically, the market price for distillers grains has generally tracked the value of corn. We believe that the market price of DDGS is determined by a number of factors, including the market value of corn, soybean meal and other competitive ingredients, the performance or value of DDGS in a particular feed formulation and general market forces of supply and demand. The market price of distillers grains is also often influenced by nutritional models that calculate the feed value of distillers grains by nutritional content, as well as reliability of consistent supply.

Customers

We sell ethanol produced by the Pacific Ethanol Plants and other third-parties to various customers in the Western United States. We also arrange for transportation, storage and delivery of ethanol purchased by our customers through our agreements with third-party service providers. In addition, we sell WDG produced by the Pacific Ethanol Plants to customers comprised of dairies and feedlots located near the Pacific Ethanol Plants.

During 2012 and 2011, we produced or purchased ethanol from third parties and resold an aggregate of approximately 285 million and 283 million gallons of fuel-grade ethanol to approximately 52 and 55 customers, respectively. Sales to our three largest customers, Chevron Products USA, Valero Energy Corporation and Sinclair Oil Corporation in 2012 and 2011 represented an aggregate of approximately 49% and 38%, of our net sales, respectively. Sales to each of our other customers represented less than 10% of our net sales in each of 2012 and 2011.

Most of the major metropolitan areas in the Western United States have fuel terminals served by rail, but other major metropolitan areas and more remote smaller cities and rural areas do not. We believe that we have a competitive advantage due to our experience in marketing to the segment of customers in major metropolitan and rural markets in the Western United States. We manage the complicated logistics of shipping ethanol purchased from third-parties from the Midwest by rail to intermediate storage locations throughout the Western United States and trucking the ethanol from these storage locations to blending racks where the ethanol is blended with gasoline. We believe that by establishing an efficient service for truck deliveries to these more remote locations, we have differentiated ourselves from our competitors. In addition, by producing ethanol in the Western United States, we believe that we will benefit from our ability to increase spot sales of ethanol from this additional supply following ethanol price spikes caused from time to time by rail delays in delivering ethanol from the Midwest to the Western United States. In addition to producing ethanol, we produce ethanol co-products, including WDG. We endeavor to position WDG as the protein feed of choice for cattle based on its nutritional composition, consistency of quality and delivery, ease of handling and its mixing ability with other feed ingredients. We are one of the few WDG producers with production facilities located in the Western United States and we primarily sell our WDG to dairy farmers in close proximity to the Pacific Ethanol Plants.

Suppliers

Our marketing operations are dependent upon various third-party producers of fuel-grade ethanol. In addition, we provide ethanol transportation, storage and delivery services through third-party service providers with whom we have contracted to receive ethanol at agreed upon locations from our suppliers and to store and/or deliver the ethanol to agreed-upon locations on behalf of our customers. These contracts generally run from year-to-year, subject to termination by either party upon advance written notice before the end of the then current annual term.

During 2012 and 2011, we purchased fuel-grade ethanol and corn, the largest component in producing ethanol, from our suppliers. Purchases from our two largest suppliers in 2012 represented an aggregate of approximately 54% of our total ethanol and corn purchases. Purchases from our three largest suppliers in 2011 represented an aggregate of approximately 64% of our total ethanol and corn purchases. Purchases from each of our other suppliers represented less than 10% of total ethanol and corn purchases in each of 2012 and 2011.

The ethanol production operations of the Pacific Ethanol Plants are dependent upon various raw materials suppliers, including suppliers of corn, natural gas, electricity and water. The cost of corn is the most important variable cost associated with the production of ethanol. An ethanol facility must be able to efficiently ship corn from the Midwest via rail and cheaply and reliably truck ethanol to local markets. We believe that our existing grain receiving facilities at the Pacific Ethanol Plants are some of the most efficient grain receiving facilities in the United States. We source corn for the Pacific Ethanol Plants using standard contracts, including spot purchase, forward purchase and basis contracts. When resources are available to do so, we seek to limit the exposure of the Pacific Ethanol Plants to raw material price fluctuations by purchasing forward a portion of their corn requirements on a fixed price basis and by purchasing corn and other raw materials futures contracts.

Pacific Ethanol Plants

The table below provides an overview of the Pacific Ethanol Plants owned by New PE Holdco and operated by us. Three of the Pacific Ethanol Plants are currently operational and one of the facilities is currently idled. As market conditions change, we may increase, decrease or idle production at one or more operational facilities or resume operations at any idled facility.

Commodity Risk Management

We employ various risk mitigation techniques. For example, we may seek to mitigate our exposure to commodity price fluctuations by purchasing forward a portion of our corn and natural gas requirements through fixed-price or variable-price contracts with our suppliers, as well as entering into derivative contracts for ethanol, corn and natural gas. To mitigate ethanol inventory price risks, we may sell a portion of our production forward under fixed- or index-price contracts, or both. We may hedge a portion of the price risks by selling exchange-traded futures contracts. Proper execution of these risk mitigation strategies can reduce the volatility of our gross profit margins. However, given the nature of our business, we cannot effectively hedge against extreme volatility or certain market conditions. For example, over a period of four weeks at the end of 2011, the west coast market price of ethanol declined by approximately 28%, which substantially reduced our fourth quarter and full year profitability.

Marketing Arrangements

In addition to our marketing agreements with the Plant Owners whose facilities are operational to market all of the ethanol produced at those Pacific Ethanol Plants, we have exclusive ethanol marketing agreements with third-party ethanol producers, including Calgren Renewable Fuels, LLC, Front Range Energy, LLC and AE Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc. to market and sell their entire ethanol production volumes. Calgren Renewable Fuels, LLC owns and operates an ethanol production facility in Pixley, California with annual production capacity of 55 million gallons. Front Range Energy, LLC owns and operates an ethanol production facility in Windsor, Colorado with annual production capacity of 50 million gallons. AE Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc. owns and operates an ethanol production facility in Keyes, California with annual production capacity of 55 million gallons. We intend to evaluate and pursue opportunities to enter into marketing arrangements with other ethanol producers as business prospects make these marketing arrangements advisable.

Competition

We operate in the highly competitive ethanol marketing and production industry. The largest ethanol producers in the United States are Archer Daniels Midland Company and Valero Energy Corporation, collectively with over 20% of the total installed capacity of ethanol in the United States. In addition, there are many mid-size producers with several plants under ownership, smaller producers with one or two plants, and several ethanol marketers that create significant competition. Overall, we believe there are over 200 ethanol facilities in the United States with an installed operating capacity of approximately 14.9 billion gallons and many brokers and marketers with whom we compete for sales of ethanol and its co-products.

We believe that our competitive strengths include our strategic locations in the Western United States, our extensive ethanol distribution network, our extensive customer and supplier relationships, our use of modern technologies at our production facilities and our experienced management. We believe that these advantages will allow us to capture an increasing share of the total market for ethanol and its co-products and earn favorable margins on ethanol and its co-products that we produce.

Our strategic focus on particular geographic locations designed to exploit cost efficiencies may nevertheless result in higher than expected costs as a result of more expensive raw materials and related shipping costs, including corn, which generally must be transported from the Midwest. If the costs of producing and shipping ethanol and its co-products over short distances are not advantageous relative to the costs of obtaining raw materials from the Midwest, then the planned benefits of our strategic locations may not be realized.

Governmental Regulation

Our business is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the production of renewable fuels, the protection of the environment and in support of the corn and ethanol industries. These laws, their underlying regulatory requirements and their enforcement, some of which are described below, impact, or may impact, our existing and proposed business operations by imposing:

In addition, some governmental regulations are helpful to our ethanol marketing and production business. The ethanol fuel industry is greatly dependent upon mandates and environmental regulations that favor the use of ethanol in motor fuel blends in North America. Some of the governmental regulations applicable to our ethanol marketing and production business are briefly described below.

National Energy Legislation

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was signed into law in December 2007, significantly increased the prior national RFS. The national RFS significantly increases the mandated use of renewable fuels to approximately 16.6 billion gallons in 2013, and rises incrementally and peaks at 36.0 billion gallons by 2022.

E15 (a Blend of Gasoline and Ethanol)

The EPA has allowed fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to introduce into commercial gasoline that contains greater than 10 volume percent of ethanol, up to 15 volume percent of ethanol, or E15, for vehicles from model year 2001 and beyond. Additional changes to some states’ laws to allow for the use of E15 are still required, however, commercial sale of E15 has begun in some states.

State Energy Legislation and Regulations

In January 2007, California’s Governor signed an executive order directing the California Air Resources Board to implement California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels. The Governor’s office estimates that the standard will have the effect of increasing current renewable fuels use in California by three to five times by 2020.

The State of California has established a policy to support ethanol produced in California with the California Ethanol Producer Incentive Program, or CEPIP, a producer incentive which offers up to $0.25 per gallon when ethanol production profitability is less than prescribed levels determined by the California Energy Commission, or CEC. The Pacific Ethanol Plants located in California are eligible for the CEPIP, and the Stockton facility participated in the program in 2010 and 2011. In 2012, this program was not funded and no assurances can be given that the CEC will decide to fund the CEPIP or that the CEC will not alter the program thresholds, participant eligibility or other policy choices that may impact the ability of the Pacific Ethanol Plants located in California to be eligible for the CEPIP in 2013 or future years.

Additional Environmental Regulations

In addition to the governmental regulations applicable to the ethanol marketing and production industries described above, our business is subject to additional federal, state and local environmental regulations, including regulations established by the EPA, the San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the California Air Resources Board. We cannot predict the manner or extent to which these regulations will harm or help our business or the ethanol production and marketing industry in general.

Employees

As of March 29, 2013, we had approximately 136 full-time employees. We believe that our employees are highly-skilled, and our success will depend in part upon our ability to retain our employees and attract new qualified employees, many of whom are in great demand. We have never had a work stoppage or strike, and no employees are presently represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.

Risks Related to our Business

We have incurred significant losses and negative operating cash flow in the past and we may incur significant losses and negative operating cash flow in the foreseeable future. Continued losses and negative operating cash flow will hamper our operations and prevent us from expanding our business.

We have incurred significant losses and negative operating cash flow in the past. For 2012 and 2011, we incurred consolidated net losses of approximately $43.4 million and $4.0 million and negative operating cash flows of approximately $20.8 million and $4.0 million, respectively. We believe that we may incur significant losses and negative operating cash flows in the foreseeable future. We expect to rely on cash on hand, cash, if any, generated from our operations and cash, if any, generated from future financing activities, to fund all of the cash requirements of our business. Continued losses and negative operating cash flow may hamper our operations and impede us from expanding our business. Continued losses and negative operating cash flows are also likely to make our capital raising needs more acute while limiting our ability to raise additional financing on favorable terms.

We may be unable to restructure or repay the Plant Owners’ term and revolving debt in the aggregate amount of $4.0 million prior to its June 25, 2013 maturity date. Our inability to timely restructure or repay the debt will likely result in material adverse effects on us and our direct and indirect subsidiaries, including Kinergy and the Plant Owners.

As of March 28, 2013, the Plant Owners had up to $106.3 million in combined term and revolving debt, of which $4.0 million is due on June 25, 2013, up to $15.0 million in revolving debt is due on June 25, 2015 and $87.3 million in combined term and revolving debt is due on June, 30, 2016, of which Pacific Ethanol owns $24.2 million. The Plant Owners do not and may not have sufficient funds to repay the up to $4.0 million in debt on or prior to its maturity on June 25, 2013. We have entered into agreements to raise capital to repay the debt, but the closing under the agreements requires stockholder approval. If we are unable to timely restructure the debt or raise sufficient capital to repay the debt, the Plant Owners will be in default on that debt and in cross-default on the $87.3 million in revolving and term debt due on June 30, 2016 plus up to an additional $15.0 million in revolving debt due June 25, 2015, all of which may be accelerated and become immediately due and payable on June 25, 2013. The Plant Owners’ inability to restructure or repay the $4.0 million of debt due on June 25, 2013 prior to its maturity will likely have a material adverse effect on us and our direct and indirect subsidiaries, including Kinergy and the Plant Owners. A material adverse effect on the Plant Owners would likewise materially and adversely harm our business, results of operations and future prospects.

The results of our operations and our ability to operate at a profit is largely dependent on managing the prices of corn, natural gas, ethanol and WDG, all of which are subject to significant volatility and uncertainty.

Our results of operations are highly impacted by commodity prices, including the cost of corn and natural gas that we must purchase, and the prices of ethanol and WDG that we sell. Prices and supplies are subject to and determined by market forces over which we have no control, such as weather, domestic and global demand, shortages, export prices and various governmental policies in the United States and around the world. For example, over a period of four weeks at the end of 2011, the market price of ethanol declined by approximately 28%, which substantially reduced our profitability during the fourth quarter and full year of 2011.

As a result of price volatility of corn, natural gas, ethanol and WDG, our results of operations may fluctuate substantially. In addition, increases in corn or natural gas prices or decreases in ethanol or WDG prices may make it unprofitable to operate. In fact, some of our marketing activities will likely be unprofitable in a market of generally declining ethanol prices due to the nature of our business. For example, to satisfy customer demands, we must maintain certain quantities of ethanol inventory for subsequent resale. Moreover, we procure much of our inventory outside the context of a marketing arrangement and therefore must buy ethanol at a price established at the time of purchase and sell ethanol at an index price established later at the time of sale that is generally reflective of movements in the market price of ethanol. As a result, our margins for ethanol sold in these transactions generally decline and may turn negative as the market price of ethanol declines.

No assurance can be given that corn or natural gas can be purchased at, or near, current or any particular prices or that ethanol or WDG will sell at, or near, current or any particular prices. Consequently, our results of operations and financial position may be adversely affected by increases in the price of corn or natural gas or decreases in the price of ethanol or WDG.

Over the past several years, the spread between ethanol and corn prices has fluctuated widely and narrowed significantly. Fluctuations are likely to continue to occur. A sustained narrow spread or any further reduction in the spread between ethanol and corn prices, whether as a result of sustained high or increased corn prices or sustained low or decreased ethanol prices, would adversely affect our results of operations and financial position. Further, combined revenues from sales of ethanol and WDG could decline below the marginal cost of production, which could cause us to suspend production of ethanol and WDG at some or all of the Pacific Ethanol Plants.

We are currently a member of New PE Holdco with limited control over certain business decisions. As a result, our interests may not be as well served as if we were in control of all aspects of the business of New PE Holdco, which could adversely affect its contribution to our results of operations and our business prospects related to that entity.

New PE Holdco owns, and we operate, the Pacific Ethanol Plants. We currently have an 83% ownership interest in New PE Holdco. While this represents the single largest ownership position in New PE Holdco and although we have the power to make decisions regarding the activities of New PE Holdco that most significantly impact New PE Holdco’s economic performance by virtue of the terms of the asset management agreement we have with New PE Holdco and the Plant Owners and by virtue of the fact that Neil Koehler, our President and Chief Executive Officer, is the sole manager of New PE Holdco, the consent of the other owners is required to approve certain actions, including restarting an idle plant. Some actions require the consent of holders of 100% of the ownership interests and other actions require the consent of holders of 85% of the ownership interests. In addition, we are precluded from voting on matters in which we have a direct financial interest, such as the amendment or extension of the asset management agreement we have with New PE Holdco and the Plant Owners and/or the marketing agreements we have with the Plant Owners whose facilities are operational. As a result of these limitations, we are dependent on the business judgment of the other owners of New PE Holdco in respect of a number of significant matters bearing on the operations of the Pacific Ethanol Plants. Consequently, our interests may not be as well served as if we were in complete control of New PE Holdco, and the contribution by New PE Holdco to our results of operations and our business prospects related to that entity may be adversely affected by our lack of control over that entity.

Increased ethanol production may cause a decline in ethanol prices or prevent ethanol prices from rising, and may have other negative effects, adversely impacting our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

We believe that the most significant factor influencing the price of ethanol has been the substantial increase in ethanol production in recent years. Domestic ethanol production capacity has increased steadily from an annualized rate of 1.5 billion gallons per year in January 1999 to 14.9 billion gallons in 2012 according to the RFA. See “Business—Governmental Regulation.” However, increases in the demand for ethanol may not be commensurate with increases in the supply of ethanol, thus leading to lower ethanol prices. Demand for ethanol could be impaired due to a number of factors, including regulatory developments and reduced United States gasoline consumption. Reduced gasoline consumption has occurred in the past and could occur in the future as a result of increased gasoline or oil prices.

The market price of ethanol is volatile and subject to large fluctuations, which may cause our profitability or losses to fluctuate significantly.

The market price of ethanol is volatile and subject to large fluctuations. The market price of ethanol is dependent upon many factors, including the supply of ethanol and the price of gasoline, which is in turn dependent upon the price of petroleum which is highly volatile and difficult to forecast. For example, although the market price of ethanol increased by approximately 42% for the year ended December 31, 2011 as compared to 2010, during a period of four weeks at the end of 2011, the market price of ethanol declined by approximately 28%, which substantially reduced our profitability during the fourth quarter and full year of 2011. Fluctuations in the market price of ethanol may cause our profitability or losses to fluctuate significantly.

Some of our marketing activities will likely be unprofitable in a market of generally declining ethanol prices due to the nature of our business.

Some of our marketing activities will likely be unprofitable in a market of generally declining ethanol prices due to the nature of our business. For example, to satisfy customer demands, we must maintain certain quantities of ethanol inventory for subsequent resale. Moreover, we procure much of our inventory outside the context of a marketing arrangement and therefore must buy ethanol at a price established at the time of purchase and sell ethanol at an index price established later at the time of sale that is generally reflective of movements in the market price of ethanol. As a result, our margins for ethanol sold in these transactions generally decline and may turn negative as the market price of ethanol declines.

Disruptions in ethanol production infrastructure may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our business depends on the continuing availability of rail, road, port, storage and distribution infrastructure. In particular, due to limited storage capacity at the Pacific Ethanol Plants and other considerations related to production efficiencies, the Pacific Ethanol Plants depend on just-in-time delivery of corn. The production of ethanol also requires a significant and uninterrupted supply of other raw materials and energy, primarily water, electricity and natural gas. The prices of electricity and natural gas have fluctuated significantly in the past and may fluctuate significantly in the future. Local water, electricity and gas utilities may not be able to reliably supply the water, electricity and natural gas that the Pacific Ethanol Plants will need or may not be able to supply those resources on acceptable terms. Any disruptions in the ethanol production infrastructure, whether caused by labor difficulties, earthquakes, storms, other natural disasters or human error or malfeasance or other reasons, could prevent timely deliveries of corn or other raw materials and energy and may require the Pacific Ethanol Plants to halt production which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We and the Pacific Ethanol Plants may engage in hedging transactions and other risk mitigation strategies that could harm our results of operations.

In an attempt to partially offset the effects of volatility of ethanol prices and corn and natural gas costs, the Pacific Ethanol Plants may enter into contracts to fix the price of a portion of their ethanol production or purchase a portion of their corn or natural gas requirements on a forward basis. In addition, we may engage in other hedging transactions involving exchange-traded futures contracts for corn, natural gas and unleaded gasoline from time to time. The financial statement impact of these activities is dependent upon, among other things, the prices involved and our ability to sell sufficient products to use all of the corn and natural gas for which forward commitments have been made. Hedging arrangements also expose us to the risk of financial loss in situations where the other party to the hedging contract defaults on its contract or, in the case of exchange-traded contracts, where there is a change in the expected differential between the underlying price in the hedging agreement and the actual prices paid or received by us. As a result, our results of operations and financial position may be adversely affected by fluctuations in the price of corn, natural gas, ethanol and unleaded gasoline.

Operational difficulties at the Pacific Ethanol Plants could negatively impact sales volumes and could cause us to incur substantial losses.

Operations at the Pacific Ethanol Plants are subject to labor disruptions, unscheduled downtimes and other operational hazards inherent in the ethanol production industry, including equipment failures, fires, explosions, abnormal pressures, blowouts, pipeline ruptures, transportation accidents and natural disasters. Some of these operational hazards may cause personal injury or loss of life, severe damage to or destruction of property and equipment or environmental damage, and may result in suspension of operations and the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. Insurance obtained by the Pacific Ethanol Plants may not be adequate to fully cover the potential operational hazards described above or the Pacific Ethanol Plants may not be able to renew this insurance on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Moreover, the production facilities at the Pacific Ethanol Plants may not operate as planned or expected. All of these facilities are designed to operate at or above a specified production capacity. The operation of these facilities is and will be, however, subject to various uncertainties. As a result, these facilities may not produce ethanol and its co-products at expected levels. In the event any of these facilities do not run at their expected capacity levels, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be materially and adversely affected.

The United States ethanol industry is highly dependent upon myriad federal and state legislation and regulation and any changes in legislation or regulation could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Various studies have criticized the efficiency of ethanol in general, and corn-based ethanol in particular, which could lead to the reduction or repeal of mandates that require the use and domestic production of ethanol or otherwise negatively impact public perception and acceptance of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

Although many trade groups, academics and governmental agencies have supported ethanol as a fuel additive that promotes a cleaner environment, others have criticized ethanol production as consuming considerably more energy and emitting more greenhouse gases than other biofuels and as potentially depleting water resources. Other studies have suggested that ethanol negatively impacts consumers by causing higher prices for dairy, meat and other foodstuffs from livestock that consume corn. If these views gain acceptance, support for existing measures requiring the use and domestic production of corn-based ethanol could decline, leading to a reduction or repeal of these measures. These views could also negatively impact public perception of the ethanol industry and acceptance of ethanol as a component for blending in transportation fuel.

Waivers or repeal of the national Renewable Fuel Standard’s minimum levels of renewable fuels included in gasoline could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Shortly after passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which increased the minimum mandated required usage of ethanol, a Congressional sub-committee held hearings on the potential impact of the national RFS on commodity prices. While no action was taken by the sub-committee towards repeal of the national RFS, any attempt by Congress to re-visit, repeal or grant waivers of the national RFS could adversely affect demand for ethanol and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

The ethanol production and marketing industry is extremely competitive. Many of our significant competitors have greater production and financial resources and one or more of these competitors could use their greater resources to gain market share at our expense. In addition, a number of Kinergy’s suppliers may circumvent the marketing services we provide, causing our sales and profitability to decline.

The ethanol production and marketing industry is extremely competitive. Many of our significant competitors in the ethanol production and marketing industry, including Archer Daniels Midland Company and Valero Energy Corporation, have substantially greater production and/or financial resources. As a result, our competitors may be able to compete more aggressively and sustain that competition over a longer period of time. Successful competition will require a continued high level of investment in marketing and customer service and support. Our limited resources relative to many significant competitors may cause us to fail to anticipate or respond adequately to new developments and other competitive pressures. This failure could reduce our competitiveness and cause a decline in market share, sales and profitability. Even if sufficient funds are available, we may not be able to make the modifications and improvements necessary to compete successfully.

We also face increasing competition from international suppliers. Currently, international suppliers produce ethanol primarily from sugar cane and have cost structures that are generally substantially lower than the cost structures of the Pacific Ethanol Plants. Any increase in domestic or foreign competition could cause the Pacific Ethanol Plants to reduce their prices and take other steps to compete effectively, which could adversely affect their and our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, some of our suppliers are potential competitors and, especially if the price of ethanol reaches historically high levels, they may seek to capture additional profits by circumventing our marketing services in favor of selling directly to our customers. If one or more of our major suppliers, or numerous smaller suppliers, circumvent our marketing services, our sales and profitability may decline.

If Kinergy fails to satisfy its financial covenants under its credit facility, it may experience a loss or reduction of that facility, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are substantially dependent on Kinergy’s credit facility to help finance its operations. Kinergy must satisfy quarterly financial covenants under its credit facility, including covenants regarding its quarterly EBITDA and fixed coverage ratios. Kinergy will be in default under its credit facility if it fails to satisfy any financial covenant. A default may result in the loss or reduction of the credit facility. The loss of Kinergy’s credit facility, or a significant reduction in Kinergy’s borrowing capacity under the facility, would result in Kinergy’s inability to finance a significant portion of its business and would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The high concentration of our sales within the ethanol marketing and production industry could result in a significant reduction in sales and negatively affect our profitability if demand for ethanol declines.

We expect to be completely focused on the marketing and production of ethanol and its co-products for the foreseeable future. We may be unable to shift our business focus away from the marketing and production of ethanol to other renewable fuels or competing products. Accordingly, an industry shift away from ethanol or the emergence of new competing products may reduce the demand for ethanol. A downturn in the demand for ethanol would likely materially and adversely affect our sales and profitability.

In addition to ethanol produced by the Pacific Ethanol Plants, we also depend on a small number of third-party suppliers for a significant portion of the ethanol we sell. If any of these suppliers does not continue to supply us with ethanol in adequate amounts, we may be unable to satisfy the demands of our customers and our sales, profitability and relationships with our customers will be adversely affected.

In addition to the ethanol produced by the Pacific Ethanol Plants, we also depend, and expect to continue to depend for the foreseeable future, on a small number of third-party suppliers for a significant portion of the total amount of ethanol that we sell. Our third-party suppliers are primarily located in the Midwestern United States. The delivery of ethanol from these suppliers is therefore subject to delays resulting from inclement weather and other conditions. If any of these suppliers is unable or declines for any reason to continue to supply us with ethanol in adequate amounts, we may be unable to replace that supplier and source other supplies of ethanol in a timely manner, or at all, to satisfy the demands of our customers. If this occurs, our sales, profitability and our relationships with our customers will be adversely affected.

We may be adversely affected by environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and liabilities.

We are subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, including those relating to the discharge of materials into the air, water and ground, the generation, storage, handling, use, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials, and the health and safety of our employees. In addition, some of these laws and regulations require us to operate under permits that are subject to renewal or modification. These laws, regulations and permits can often require expensive pollution control equipment or operational changes to limit actual or potential impacts to the environment. A violation of these laws and regulations or permit conditions can result in substantial fines, natural resource damages, criminal sanctions, permit revocations and/or facility shutdowns. In addition, we have made, and expect to make, significant capital expenditures on an ongoing basis to comply with increasingly stringent environmental laws, regulations and permits.

We may be liable for the investigation and cleanup of environmental contamination at each of the Pacific Ethanol Plants or other third-party plants that we operate and at off-site locations where we arrange for the disposal of hazardous substances. If these substances have been or are disposed of or released at sites that undergo investigation and/or remediation by regulatory agencies, we may be responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or other environmental laws for all or part of the costs of investigation and/or remediation, and for damages to natural resources. We may also be subject to related claims by private parties alleging property damage and personal injury due to exposure to hazardous or other materials at or from those properties. Some of these matters may require us to expend significant amounts for investigation, cleanup or other costs.

In addition, new laws, new interpretations of existing laws, increased governmental enforcement of environmental laws or other developments could require us to make significant additional expenditures. Continued government and public emphasis on environmental issues can be expected to result in increased future investments for environmental controls at the Pacific Ethanol Plants. Present and future environmental laws and regulations, and interpretations of those laws and regulations, applicable to our operations, more vigorous enforcement policies and discovery of currently unknown conditions may require substantial expenditures that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

The hazards and risks associated with producing and transporting our products (including fires, natural disasters, explosions and abnormal pressures and blowouts) may also result in personal injury claims or damage to property and third parties. As protection against operating hazards, we maintain insurance coverage against some, but not all, potential losses. However, we could sustain losses for uninsurable or uninsured risks, or in amounts in excess of existing insurance coverage. Events that result in significant personal injury or damage to our property or third parties or other losses that are not fully covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

If we are unable to attract and retain key personnel, our ability to operate effectively may be impaired.

Our ability to operate our business and implement strategies depends, in part, on the efforts of our executive officers and other key employees. Our future success will depend on, among other factors, our ability to retain our current key personnel and attract and retain qualified future key personnel, particularly executive management. Failure to attract or retain key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We depend on a small number of customers for the majority of our sales. A reduction in business from any of these customers could cause a significant decline in our overall sales and profitability.

The majority of our sales are generated from a small number of customers. During 2012 and 2011, three customers accounted for an aggregate of approximately 49% and 38% of our net sales, respectively. We expect that we will continue to depend for the foreseeable future upon a small number of customers for a significant portion of our sales. Our agreements with these customers generally do not require them to purchase any specified amount of ethanol or dollar amount of sales or to make any purchases whatsoever. Therefore, in any future period, our sales generated from these customers, individually or in the aggregate, may not equal or exceed historical levels. If sales to any of these customers cease or decline, we may be unable to replace these sales with sales to either existing or new customers in a timely manner, or at all. A cessation or reduction of sales to one or more of these customers could cause a significant decline in our overall sales and profitability.

Our lack of long-term ethanol orders and commitments by our customers could lead to a rapid decline in our sales and profitability.

We cannot rely on long-term ethanol orders or commitments by our customers for protection from the negative financial effects of a decline in the demand for ethanol or a decline in the demand for our marketing services. The limited certainty of ethanol orders can make it difficult for us to forecast our sales and allocate our resources in a manner consistent with our actual sales. Moreover, our expense levels are based in part on our expectations of future sales and, if our expectations regarding future sales are inaccurate, we may be unable to reduce costs in a timely manner to adjust for sales shortfalls. Furthermore, because we depend on a small number of customers for a significant portion of our sales, the magnitude of the ramifications of these risks is greater than if our sales were less concentrated. As a result of our lack of long-term ethanol orders and commitments, we may experience a rapid decline in our sales and profitability.

Risks Related to Ownership of our Common Stock

We have received a delisting notice from The NASDAQ Stock Market. Our common stock may be involuntarily delisted from trading on The NASDAQ Capital Market if we fail to regain compliance with the minimum closing bid price requirement of $1.00 per share. A delisting of our common stock is likely to reduce the liquidity of our common stock and may inhibit or preclude our ability to raise additional financing and may also materially and adversely impact our credit terms with our vendors.

The quantitative listing standards of The NASDAQ Stock Market, or NASDAQ, require, among other things, that listed companies maintain a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share. We failed to satisfy this threshold for 30 consecutive trading days and on June 6, 2012, we received a letter from NASDAQ indicating that we have been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until December 3, 2012, in which to regain compliance. On December 5, 2012, we received a letter from NASDAQ granting us a 180-day extension period, or until June 3, 2013, in which to regain compliance by meeting the minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share for ten consecutive business days. If we do not regain compliance by June 3, 2013, the NASDAQ staff will provide written notice that our common stock is subject to delisting. We have filed a definitive proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to solicit proxies from our stockholders to effect a reverse split of our common stock that we believe will result in us regaining compliance with the closing bid price requirement by June 3, 2013. We can provide no assurance that our stockholders will approve the reverse split or that a reverse split will result in us regaining compliance with the closing bid price requirement. In addition, given the increased market volatility arising in part from economic turmoil resulting from the ongoing credit crisis, the challenging environment in the biofuels industry and our lack of liquidity, we may be unable to regain compliance with the closing bid price requirement by June 3, 2013. A delisting of our common stock is likely to reduce the liquidity of our common stock and may inhibit or preclude our ability to raise additional financing and may also materially and adversely impact our credit terms with our vendors.

In order to raise any financing from the sale of equity securities, we need to increase our authorized capital stock.

We are presently authorized to issue 300,000,000 shares of common stock, all of which are issued or reserved for issuance to cover the potential conversion or exercise of our outstanding Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, or Series B Preferred Stock, options and warrants and the issuance of shares upon conversion or otherwise of outstanding promissory notes. We may not have sufficient shares of authorized common stock to issue upon conversion or exercise of outstanding securities. We have filed a definitive proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to solicit proxies from our stockholders to effect a reverse split of our common stock that will result in increasing the authorized shares of our common stock. We can provide no assurance that our stockholders will approve the reverse stock split, and thereby allow us to increase the authorized number of shares of our common stock.

Our future ability to raise capital may be limited by applicable laws and regulations.

Our capital raising activities have benefited from using a “shelf” registration on Form S-3, which typically enables an issuer to raise additional capital on a more timely and cost effective basis than through other means, such as registration of a securities offering under a Form S-1 registration statement. Our future ability to raise additional capital through the sale and issuance of our equity securities may be limited by, among other things, current Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations. Under current Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations, to be eligible to use a Form S-3 registration statement for primary offerings without restriction as to the amount of securities to be sold and issued, the aggregate market value of our common equity held by non-affiliates (i.e., our “public float”) must be at least $75.0 million at the time we file the Form S-3 (calculated pursuant to the General Instructions to Form S-3). Furthermore, with respect to our effective Form S-3 registration statement, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and regulations require that we periodically re-evaluate the value of our public float (typically when we file our Annual Report on Form 10-K) to determine whether we continue to satisfy the foregoing public float requirement. We expect that at the next re-evaluation date, which is as of the filing of this report, we will not satisfy the $75.0 million public float requirement. If we do not meet the $75.0 million public float requirement at that time, the amount we could raise through primary offerings of our securities in any 12-month period using a Form S-3 registration statement would be limited to an aggregate of one-third of our public float. Moreover, the market value of all securities sold by us under our Form S-3 registration statements during the 12-month period prior to any intended sale will be subtracted from that amount to determine the amount we can then raise under our Form S-3 registration statements. If after we become subject to the foregoing one-third limitation our public float increases to $75.0 million or more, such limitation would cease to apply until we conduct our next re-evaluation.

The conversion of convertible securities, the issuance of the shares of our common stock in payment of interest on outstanding promissory notes, and the exercise of outstanding options and warrants to purchase our common stock could substantially dilute your investment, impede our ability to obtain additional financing and cause us to incur additional expenses.

Our Series B Preferred Stock and convertible promissory notes, which are convertible into our common stock, and outstanding options to acquire our common stock issued to employees, directors and others, and warrants to purchase our common stock, allow the holders of these securities an opportunity to profit from a rise in the market price of our common stock such that conversion of the securities will result in dilution of the equity interests of our common stockholders. In addition, the issuance of shares of our common stock at our election in payment of interest on our outstanding promissory notes will result in dilution of the equity interests of our common stockholders. The terms on which we may obtain additional financing may be adversely affected by the existence and potentially dilutive impact of our outstanding convertible and other promissory notes, Series B Preferred Stock, options and warrants. In addition, holders of our outstanding promissory notes and certain warrants have registration rights with respect to the common stock underlying those notes and warrants, the registration of which involves substantial expense.

The voting power and value of your investment could decline if our outstanding securities that are convertible or exercisable into shares of our common stock are converted or exercised.

We have issued a significant amount of securities, the conversion or exercise of which could have a substantial negative impact on the price of our common stock and could result in a dramatic decrease in the value of your investment. The conversion or exercise prices applicable to some of our outstanding securities are subject to market-price protection that may cause the conversion or exercise prices to be reduced in the event of a decline in the market price of our common stock. In addition, the conversion or exercise prices of some of our outstanding securities are subject to downward anti-dilution adjustments, from time to time, if we issue securities at a purchase, exercise or conversion price that is less than the then-applicable conversion or exercise price of the applicable security. Consequently, the voting power and value of your investment in each of these events would decline if the securities are converted or exercised for shares of our common stock at lower prices as a result of the declining market price or sales of our securities are made below the conversion or exercise prices of some of our securities.

The market-price protection features of our convertible notes could also allow the convertible notes to become convertible into a greatly increased number of additional shares of our common stock, particularly if a holder of a convertible note sequentially converts portions of the note into shares of our common stock at alternate conversion prices and resells those shares into the market. If a holder of a convertible note sequentially converts portions of the note into shares of our common stock or if we issue shares of common stock in lieu of cash payments of principal and interest, each at alternate conversion prices, and the holder of the note resells those shares into the market, then the market price of our common stock could decline due to the additional shares available in the market, particularly in the event of any thin trading volume of our common stock. Consequently, if a holder of a convertible note repeatedly converts portions of the note or we repeatedly issue shares of common stock in lieu of cash payments of principal and interest on the note at alternate conversion prices and then the holder resells those underlying shares into the market, a continuous downward spiral of the market price of our common stock could occur that would benefit a holder of the convertible note at the expense of other existing or potential holders of our common stock, potentially creating a divergence of interests between a holder of the convertible note and investors who purchase the shares of common stock resold by a holder of the convertible note following conversion of the note.

The market price of our common stock and the value of your investment could substantially decline if our convertible notes or Series B Preferred Stock are converted into shares of our common stock, if we issue shares of our common stock in payment of principal or interest on our outstanding promissory notes or if our options and warrants are exercised for shares of our common stock and these shares of common stock are resold into the market, or if a perception exists that a substantial number of shares will be issued upon conversion of our convertible notes or Series B Preferred Stock, upon payment of principal or interest on our outstanding promissory notes or upon exercise of our options or warrants and then resold into the market.

If the conversion prices at which the Series B Preferred Stock is converted, the conversion prices at which shares of common stock in payment of principal and interest on our convertible or other promissory notes are issued, and the exercise prices at which options or warrants are exercised are lower than the price at which you made your investment, immediate dilution of the value of your investment will occur. In addition, sales of a substantial number of shares of common stock issued upon conversion of Series B Preferred Stock, in lieu of cash payments of principal or interest on our convertible or other promissory notes and upon exercise of our options or warrants, or even the perception that these sales could occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. As a result, you could experience a substantial decline in the value of your investment as a result of both the actual and potential conversion of our outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock, issuance of shares of common stock in lieu of cash payments of principal or interest on our convertible or other promissory notes and exercise of our outstanding options or warrants.

The issuance of shares upon conversion of our convertible notes or Series B Preferred Stock, upon the payment of principal or interest on our convertible and other promissory notes and upon the exercise of outstanding options and warrants could result in a change of control of Pacific Ethanol.

As of March 29, 2013, we had outstanding convertible notes, Series B Preferred Stock, options and warrants that were convertible into or exercisable for an aggregate of approximately 137,481,408 shares of common stock based on conversion and exercise prices as of that date. A change of control of Pacific Ethanol could occur if a significant number of shares of our common stock are issued to the holders of our outstanding Series B Preferred Stock, options, warrants or promissory notes. If a change of control occurs, then the stockholders who historically have controlled our company would no longer have the ability to exert significant control over matters that could include the election of our directors, changes in the size and composition of our board of directors, or Board, and mergers and other business combinations involving Pacific Ethanol. Instead, one or more other stockholders could gain the ability to exert this type of control and may also, through control of our Board and voting power, be able to control a number of decisions, including decisions regarding the qualification and appointment of officers, dividend policy, access to capital (including borrowing from third-party lenders and the issuance of additional equity securities), and the acquisition or disposition of our assets.

Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock, or securities convertible or exchangeable into shares of our common stock, into the public market, including shares of our common stock issued upon conversion of our convertible notes or Series B Preferred Stock or exercise of options and warrants, or perceptions that those sales could occur, could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock and our ability to raise capital in the future.

Our stock price is highly volatile, which could result in substantial losses for investors purchasing shares of our common stock and in litigation against us.

The market price of our common stock has fluctuated significantly in the past and may continue to fluctuate significantly in the future. The market price of our common stock may continue to fluctuate in response to one or more of the following factors, many of which are beyond our control:

Furthermore, we believe that the economic conditions in California and other Western states, as well as the United States as a whole, could have a negative impact on our results of operations. Demand for ethanol could also be adversely affected by a slow-down in overall demand for oxygenate and gasoline additive products. The levels of our ethanol production and purchases for resale will be based upon forecasted demand. Accordingly, any inaccuracy in forecasting anticipated revenues and expenses could adversely affect our business. The failure to receive anticipated orders or to complete delivery in any quarterly period could adversely affect our results of operations for that period. Quarterly results are not necessarily indicative of future performance for any particular period, and we may not experience revenue growth or profitability on a quarterly or an annual basis.

The price at which you purchase shares of our common stock may not be indicative of the price that will prevail in the trading market. You may be unable to sell your shares of common stock at or above your purchase price, which may result in substantial losses to you and which may include the complete loss of your investment. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following periods of high stock price volatility. We may be the target of similar litigation in the future. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and our resources away from our business.

Any of the risks described above could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, the price of our common stock, or both.

None.

Our corporate headquarters, located in Sacramento, California, consists of a 10,000 square foot office under a lease expiring in 2018. The Pacific Ethanol Plants are located in Madera, California, at a 137 acre facility; Boardman, Oregon, at a 25 acre facility; Burley, Idaho, at a 160 acre facility; and Stockton, California, at a 30 acre facility. The land in Madera, California and Burley, Idaho is owned by the Plant Owners. The land in Boardman, Oregon and Stockton, California are leased by the Plant Owners under leases expiring in 2026 and 2022, respectively. See “Business—Production Facilities.”

We are subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. While the amounts claimed may be substantial, the ultimate liability cannot presently be determined because of considerable uncertainties that exist. Therefore, it is possible that the outcome of those legal proceedings, claims and litigation could adversely affect our quarterly or annual operating results or cash flows when resolved in a future period. However, based on facts currently available, management believes such matters will not adversely affect in any material respect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Not applicable.

PART II

Market Information

Our common stock has traded on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “PEIX” since May 3, 2010. Between October 10, 2005 and May 3, 2010, our common stock traded on The NASDAQ Global Market (formerly, The NASDAQ National Market). On June 8, 2011, we effected a one-for-seven reverse split of our common stock. The table below shows, for each fiscal quarter indicated, the high and low sales prices of shares of our common stock. The prices for periods prior June 8, 2011 have been retroactively restated as if the reverse split had occurred on January 1, 2011. The prices shown reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission, and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

Security Holders

As of March 29, 2013, we had 157,437,360 shares of common stock outstanding held of record by approximately 420 stockholders. These holders of record include depositories that hold shares of stock for brokerage firms which, in turn, hold shares of stock for numerous beneficial owners. On March 28, 2013, the closing sales price of our common stock on The NASDAQ Capital Market was $0.34 per share.

Dividend Policy

We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We anticipate that we will retain any earnings for use in the continued development of our business.

Our current and future debt financing arrangements may limit or prevent cash distributions from our subsidiaries to us, depending upon the achievement of specified financial and other operating conditions and our ability to properly service our debt, thereby limiting or preventing us from paying cash dividends. Further, the holders of our outstanding Series B Preferred Stock are entitled to dividends of 7% per annum, payable quarterly in arrears. In 2012, we declared and paid in cash dividends on our outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock as they became due. As of March 29, 2013, we had accrued unpaid dividends in respect of our Series B Preferred Stock aggregating approximately $5.1 million. The holders of our outstanding Series B Preferred Stock have agreed to forbear until September 2014 from exercising any and all of their rights and remedies, if any, against us with respect to such unpaid dividends, provided we remain current in the payment of future dividends. Accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of our Series B Preferred Stock must be paid prior to the payment of any dividends in respect of shares of our common stock.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

Not applicable.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

We granted to certain employees and directors shares of restricted stock under our 2006 Stock Incentive Plan pursuant to Restricted Stock Agreements dated and effective as of their respective grant dates by and between us and those employees and directors.

We were obligated to withhold minimum withholding tax amounts with respect to vested shares of restricted stock and upon future vesting of shares of restricted stock granted to our employees. Each employee was entitled to pay the minimum withholding tax amounts to us in cash or to elect to have us withhold a vested amount of shares of restricted stock having a value equivalent to our minimum withholding tax requirements, thereby reducing the number of shares of vested restricted stock that the employee ultimately receives. If an employee failed to timely make such election, we automatically withheld the necessary shares of vested restricted stock.

In 2012, in connection with satisfying our withholding requirements, we withheld the following number of shares of our common stock and remitted cash payments to cover the minimum withholding tax amounts, thereby effectively repurchasing from the employees such number of shares of our common stock at the following deemed purchase prices:

Not applicable.

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes to consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements, reflecting our plans and objectives that involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results and the timing of events may differ materially from those contained in these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, including those discussed in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report.

Overview

We are the leading marketer and producer of low-carbon renewable fuels in the Western United States.

We market all the ethanol produced by the Pacific Ethanol Plants, all the ethanol produced by three other ethanol producers in the Western United States and ethanol purchased from other third-party suppliers throughout the United States. We also market ethanol co-products for the Pacific Ethanol Plants, including WDG.

We have extensive customer relationships throughout the Western United States. Our ethanol customers are integrated oil companies and gasoline marketers who blend ethanol into gasoline. We arrange for transportation, storage and delivery of ethanol purchased by our customers through our agreements with third-party service providers in the Western United States, primarily in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Colorado, Idaho and Washington. Our WDG customers are dairies and feedlots located near the Pacific Ethanol Plants.

We have extensive supplier relationships throughout the Western and Midwestern United States. In some cases, we have marketing agreements with suppliers to market all of the output of their facilities.

We hold an 83% ownership interest in New PE Holdco which indirectly owns the Pacific Ethanol Plants through its ownership of the Plant Owners. We operate and maintain the Pacific Ethanol Plants under the terms of an asset management agreement with New PE Holdco and the Plant Owners. We also market ethanol and WDG produced by the Pacific Ethanol Plants under the terms of separate marketing agreements with the Plant Owners whose facilities are operational. In addition, we provide operations, maintenance and accounting services for a 250,000 gallon per year cellulosic integrated biorefinery owned by ZeaChem Inc. in Boardman, Oregon, which is adjacent to the Pacific Ethanol Columbia plant.

The Pacific Ethanol Plants are comprised of the four facilities described immediately below and have an aggregate annual production capacity of up to 200 million gallons. Three of the facilities are currently operational and one of the facilities is currently idled. As market conditions change, we may increase, decrease or idle production at one or more operational facilities or resume operations at any idled facility.

We earn fees as follows under our asset management and other agreements with New PE Holdco and the Plant Owners:

We intend to advance our position as the leading marketer and producer of low-carbon renewable fuels in the Western United States, in part by expanding our relationships with customers and third-party ethanol producers to market higher volumes of ethanol and by expanding the market for ethanol by continuing to work with state governments to encourage the adoption of policies and standards that promote ethanol as a fuel additive and transportation fuel. Further, we may seek to provide management services for other third-party ethanol production facilities in the Western United States.

Financial Performance Summary

Consolidation

We consolidate New PE Holdco’s financial results due to the nature of our ownership in and control over New PE Holdco. However, since we do not wholly-own New PE Holdco, we must adjust our consolidated net income (loss) for the income (loss) attributed to New PE Holdco’s other owners. This adjustment results in net income (loss) attributed to Pacific Ethanol, Inc. See “—Results of Operations-Accounting for the Results of New PE Holdco” below.

Summary

Our consolidated net sales decreased by 9%, or $85.2 million, to $816.0 million for 2012 from $901.2 million for 2011. Our net income (loss) attributed to Pacific Ethanol, Inc. decreased by $22.2 million to a net loss of $19.1 million for 2012 from net income of $3.1 million for 2011.

Factors that contributed to our results of operations for 2012 include:

Sales and Margins

We generate sales by marketing all the ethanol produced by the Pacific Ethanol Plants, all the ethanol produced by three other ethanol producers in the Western United States and ethanol purchased from other third-party suppliers throughout the United States. We also market ethanol co-products, including WDG, for the Pacific Ethanol Plants.

Our profitability is highly dependent on various commodity prices, including the market prices of ethanol, corn and natural gas.

Average ethanol sales prices decreased in 2012 as compared to 2011. The average price of ethanol, as reported by the Chicago Board of Trade, or CBOT, decreased by 10% to $2.31 for 2012 from $2.58 for 2011. The drop in the price of ethanol was due to a drop in demand for gasoline, of which ethanol is a primary blend stock component.

Average corn prices, on the other hand, increased in 2012 as compared to 2011, further negatively impacting corn crush margins. Specifically, the average price of corn, as reported by the CBOT, increased by 2% to $6.95 for 2012 from $6.80 for 2011.

We have three principal methods of selling ethanol: as a merchant, as a producer and as an agent. See “—Critical Accounting Policies—Revenue Recognition” below.

When acting as a merchant or as a producer, we generally enter into sales contracts to ship ethanol to a customer’s desired location. We support these sales contracts through purchase contracts with several third-party suppliers or through our own production. We manage the necessary logistics to deliver ethanol to our customers either directly from a third-party supplier or from our inventory via truck or rail. Our sales as a merchant or as a producer expose us to significant price risks resulting from potential fluctuations in the market price of ethanol and corn. Our exposure varies depending on the magnitude of our sales and purchase commitments compared to the magnitude of our existing inventory, as well as the pricing terms—such as market index or fixed pricing—of our contracts. We seek to mitigate our exposure to price risks by implementing appropriate risk management strategies.

When acting as an agent for third-party suppliers, we conduct back-to-back purchases and sales in which we match ethanol purchase and sale contracts of like quantities and delivery periods. When acting in this capacity, we receive a predetermined service fee and have little or no exposure to price risks resulting from potential fluctuations in the market price of ethanol. For these sales, we record the marketing fee as net sales.

We believe that our gross profit margins depend primarily on five key factors:

We seek to optimize our gross profit margins by anticipating the factors above and, when resources are available, implementing hedging transactions and taking other actions designed to limit risk and address these factors. For example, we may seek to decrease inventory levels in anticipation of declining ethanol prices and increase inventory levels in anticipation of rising ethanol prices. We may also seek to alter our proportion or timing, or both, of purchase and sales commitments.

Our limited resources to act upon the anticipated factors described above and/or our inability to anticipate these factors or their relative importance, and adverse movements in the factors themselves, could result in declining or even negative gross profit margins over certain periods of time. Our ability to anticipate these factors or favorable movements in these factors may enable us to generate above-average gross profit margins. However, given the difficulty associated with successfully forecasting any of these factors, we are unable to estimate our future gross profit margins.

Results of Operations

Accounting for the Results of New PE Holdco

Since October 6, 2010, our consolidated financial statements have included the financial statements of New PE Holdco, which in turn include the financial statements of the Plant Owners. On October 6, 2010, we purchased a 20% ownership interest in New PE Holdco, which gave us the single largest equity position in New PE Holdco. Based on our ownership interest as well as our asset management and marketing agreements with New PE Holdco, we determined that, beginning on October 6, 2010, we were the primary beneficiary of New PE Holdco, and as such, we consolidated New PE Holdco’s financial results with our financial results. As of December 31, 2012, we held a 67% ownership interest in New PE Holdco. We increased our ownership interest in New PE Holdco to 83% in the first quarter of 2013.

Selected Financial Information

The following selected financial information should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report, and the other sections of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in this report.

Certain performance metrics that we believe are important indicators of our results of operations include:

Year Ended December 31, 2012 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Net Sales

The decrease in our net sales for 2012 as compared to 2011 was primarily due to a decrease in total production gallons sold and a decrease in our average sales price per gallon.

Total volume of production gallons sold decreased 7%, or 10.2 million gallons, to 140.6 million gallons for 2012 as compared to 150.8 million gallons for 2011. The decrease in production gallons sold is primarily due to reduced production rates. We reduced production rates due to industry-wide lower corn crush margins resulting from reduced ethanol demand. Third-party gallons sold, however, increased by 10%, or 26.9 million gallons, to 300.2 million gallons for 2012 as compared to 273.3 million gallons for 2011. The increase in third-party gallons sold is primarily due to increased sales under our third-party ethanol marketing arrangements. Our net sales for the period decreased because the decline in production gallons sold, which are recorded at gross sales prices, was greater than the increase in third party gallons sold, which are predominantly recorded at net sales prices.

Our average sales price per gallon decreased 12% to $2.45 for 2012 from $2.79 for 2011. This decrease in average sales price per gallon is consistent with the average CBOT price per gallon, which decreased 10% to $2.31 for 2012 from $2.58 for 2011.

Cost of Goods Sold and Gross Profit (Loss)

Our gross profit (loss) declined to a gross loss of $19.5 million for 2012 from a gross profit of $19.4 million for 2011 primarily due to poor commodity margins predominately related to the spread between ethanol prices and corn and energy costs. Our gross margin declined to negative 2.4% for 2012 as compared to positive 2.2% for 2011.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Our SG&A decreased by $3.3 million to $12.1 million for 2012 as compared to $15.4 million for 2011. The decrease in SG&A is primarily due to the following factors:

Fair Value Adjustments

We issued senior convertible notes and warrants in the fourth quarter of 2010 for $35.0 million in cash. The senior convertible notes and warrants were recorded at fair value and adjusted quarterly. As a result of quarterly adjustments to their fair values, we recorded income of $2.0 million for 2012 as compared to $7.6 million for 2011. This decrease is primarily due to the retirement of the senior convertible notes in 2011 upon their conversion.

Interest Expense

Interest expense decreased by $1.8 million to $13.0 million for 2012 from $14.8 million for 2011. The decrease is primarily due to decreased average debt balances, which included our senior convertible notes and the term loans and credit facilities for New PE Holdco and Kinergy.

Other Expense, Net

Other expense decreased by $0.1 million to $0.6 million for 2012 from $0.7 million for 2011. The decrease in other expense is primarily due to a reduction in bank fees.

Net Loss Attributed to Noncontrolling Interest in Variable Interest Entity

Net loss attributed to noncontrolling interest in variable interest entity relates to the consolidated treatment of New PE Holdco, and represents the noncontrolling interest of other owners in New PE Holdco’s earnings. We consolidated New PE Holdco’s financial results for the periods presented, however, we owned less than 100% of New PE Holdco, and accordingly reduced our net loss for the noncontrolling interest, which represents the remaining ownership interest that we do not own.

Preferred Stock Dividends

Shares of our Series B Preferred Stock are entitled to quarterly cumulative dividends payable in arrears in an amount equal to 7% per annum of the purchase price per share of the Series B Preferred Stock. We accrued dividends of $1.3 million for each of 2012 and 2011.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

During 2012, we funded our operations primarily from cash provided by operations, borrowings under our credit facilities and various capital raising transactions in which we raised aggregate net proceeds of $20.9 million through the issuance of an aggregate of 55.5 million shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of up to 69.5 million shares of our common stock.

As of March 28, 2013, the Plant Owners had up to $106.3 million in combined term and revolving debt, of which $4.0 million is due on June 25, 2013, up to $15.0 million in revolving debt is due on June 25, 2015 and $87.3 million in combined term and revolving debt is due on June, 30, 2016, of which Pacific Ethanol owns $24.2 million. See “—Plant Owners’ Term Debt and Operating Lines of Credit” below. The Plant Owners do not and may not have sufficient funds to repay the up to $4.0 million in debt on or prior to its maturity on June 25, 2013. We have entered into agreements to raise capital to repay the debt, but the closing under the agreements requires stockholder approval. If we are unable to timely restructure the debt or raise sufficient capital to repay the debt, the Plant Owners will be in default on that debt and in cross-default on the $87.3 million in revolving and term debt due on June 30, 2016 plus up to an additional $15.0 million in revolving debt due June 25, 2015, all of which may be accelerated and become immediately due and payable on June 25, 2013. The Plants Owners’ inability to restructure or repay the $4.0 million of debt due on June 25, 2013 prior to its maturity will likely have a material adverse effect on us and our direct and indirect subsidiaries, including Kinergy and the Plant Owners.

Our current available capital resources consist of cash on hand and amounts available for borrowing under Kinergy’s credit facility. In addition, the Plant Owners have credit facilities for use in the operations of the Pacific Ethanol Plants. We expect that our future available capital resources will consist primarily of our remaining cash balances, amounts available for borrowing, if any, under Kinergy’s credit facility, cash generated from Kinergy’s ethanol marketing business, fees paid under our asset management agreement relating to our operation of the Pacific Ethanol Plants, distributions, if any, in respect of our ownership interest in New PE Holdco, and the remaining proceeds of any future debt and/or equity financings.

Subject to closing under our existing agreements to raise capital to repay the debt due June 25, 2013, which requires stockholder approval of the transaction, we believe that current and future available capital resources, revenues generated from operations, and other existing sources of liquidity, including our credit facilities, will be adequate to meet our anticipated working capital and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next twelve months. If, however, our capital requirements or cash flow vary materially from our current projections, if unforeseen circumstances occur, or if we require a significant amount of cash to fund future acquisitions, we may require additional financing. Our failure to raise capital, if needed, could restrict its growth, or hinder our ability to compete.

Quantitative Year-End Liquidity Status

We believe that the following amounts provide insight into our liquidity and capital resources. The following selected financial information should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes to consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report, and the other sections of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in this report (dollars in thousands):

Change in Working Capital and Cash Flows

Working capital decreased from $50.1 million at December 31, 2011 to $45.0 million at December 31, 2012 as a result of a decrease in current assets of $9.0 million, partially offset by a decrease in current liabilities of $3.9 million.

Current assets decreased primarily due to a decrease in inventories, due to the timing of sales at the end of 2012 as compared to 2011. Current liabilities decreased primarily due to the reclassification of accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of our Series B Preferred Stock to noncurrent liabilities.

Cash used in our operating activities of $20.8 million resulted primarily from our consolidated net loss of $43.4 million and $2.0 million in income from fair value adjustments, partially offset by $12.2 million in depreciation and amortization of intangibles, interest expense added to the Plant Owners’ debt, a $3.8 million decrease in prepaid inventory, a $2.3 million decrease in prepaid expenses and other assets and a $2.1 million decrease in accounts receivable.

Cash used in our investing activities of $12.3 million resulted primarily from our part purchase of additional ownership interests in New PE Holdco for $10.0 million in cash and additions to property and equipment of $2.3 million.

Cash provided by our financing activities of $31.8 million resulted primarily from $24.0 million in proceeds from the Plant Owners’ borrowings, $21.0 million in net proceeds from the issuance and sale of our common stock and warrants, partially offset by $10.0 million in principal payments on our senior notes, $1.3 million in cash dividend payments in respect of our Series B Preferred Stock and $1.2 million in debt issuance costs.

Kinergy Operating Line of Credit

Kinergy maintains an operating line of credit for an aggregate amount of up to $30.0 million, with an optional accordion feature for up to an additional $10.0 million. The credit facility expires on December 31, 2015. Interest accrues under the credit facility at a rate equal to (i) the three-month London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), plus (ii) a specified applicable margin ranging between 2.50% and 3.50%. The credit facility’s monthly unused line fee is 0.50% of the amount by which the maximum credit under the facility exceeds the average daily principal balance. Payments that may be made by Kinergy to Pacific Ethanol as reimbursement for management and other services provided by Pacific Ethanol to Kinergy are limited under the terms of the credit facility to $0.8 million per fiscal quarter in 2012, $0.9 million per fiscal quarter in 2013, $1.0 million per fiscal quarter in 2014 and $1.1 million per fiscal quarter in 2015.

The credit facility also includes the accounts receivable of PAP as additional collateral. Payments that may be made by PAP to Pacific Ethanol as reimbursement for management and other services provided by Pacific Ethanol to PAP are limited under the terms of the credit facility to the extent that quarterly payments would result in PAP recording less than $0.1 million of net income in the quarter.

For the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012 and each fiscal quarter thereafter, Kinergy and PAP are collectively required to generate aggregate earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, of $450,000 for the quarter and aggregate EBITDA of $1.1 million for each two consecutive quarters. These amounts are required through December 31, 2013. In 2014, the required EBITDA amounts increase to $0.5 million per quarter and $1.3 million for each two consecutive quarters. Further, for all monthly periods, Kinergy and PAP must collectively maintain a fixed charge coverage ratio (calculated as a twelve-month rolling EBITDA divided by the sum of interest expense, capital expenditures, principal payments of indebtedness, indebtedness from capital leases and taxes paid during such twelve-month rolling period) of at least 2.0 and are prohibited from incurring any additional indebtedness (other than specific intercompany indebtedness) or making any capital expenditures in excess of $0.1 million absent the lender’s prior consent. Kinergy and PAP’s obligations under the credit facility are secured by a first-priority security interest in all of their assets in favor of the lender.

Pacific Ethanol has guaranteed all of Kinergy’s obligations under the credit facility. As of December 31, 2012, Kinergy had an available borrowing base under the credit facility of $27.0 million and an outstanding balance of $19.7 million.

Plant Owners’ Term Debt and Operating Lines of Credit

The Plant Owners’ debt, prior to any of the amendments discussed below, consisted of a $25.0 million tranche A-1 term loan, a $26.3 million tranche A-2 term loan and a $35.0 million revolving credit facility. Except as noted below, the term and revolving debt require monthly interest payments at a floating rate equal to the three-month LIBOR or the Prime Rate of interest, at the Plant Owners’ election, plus 10.0%. At December 31, 2012, the interest rate was approximately 13.25%. Repayments of principal are based on available free cash flow of the borrower, until maturity, when all principal amounts are due.

From July 13, 2012 through March 28, 2013, the Plant Owners entered into transactions which amended the term and revolving debt and extended the maturity dates in respect of $51.9 million of the combined term loans and $30.4 million of the original $35.0 million in revolving debt from June 25, 2013 to June 30, 2016. In addition, the aggregate commitment amount under the revolving credit facility was increased by $5.0 million to $40.0 million, with a maturity date of June 30, 2016.

Further, monthly interest payments due to certain lenders on both the amended term and revolving debt, at the option of the Plant Owners, may, through June 30, 2013, be deferred and added to the principal amount of the loans maturing on the extended maturity date of June 30, 2016. The amendments also provide the Plant Owners with the ability to repay amounts owed to the lenders who have not extended their loans without penalty while keeping the extended loans in place.

New Operating Line of Credit

On October 29, 2012, the Plant Owners entered into a new revolving credit facility that initially provided up to an additional $10.0 million. The Plant Owners were able to request increases in the amount of the facility in increments of not less than $1.0 million, up to a maximum additional credit limit of $5.0 million. On March 28, 2013, the lenders approved $5.0 million in additional availability for a maximum total credit limit of $15.0 million under the facility. Loans made under the credit facility originally matured on June 25, 2013 or such later date on or prior to June 25, 2016, as may be agreed to by certain of the lenders. The Plant Owners have the right at any time, and from time to time, but subject to limitations imposed by an intercreditor agreement, to prepay in whole or in part the revolving loans and tranche A-1 loans (and the tranche A-2 loans following the payment in full of the revolving loans and tranche A-1 loans). However, in the event of any prepayment of the tranche A-1 loans that have a maturity date of June 30, 2016, the Plant Owners must pay a premium equal to the present value of all interest payments that would have accrued from the date of such payment through June 30, 2016, calculated using a discount rate, applied quarterly, equal to the Treasury Rate as of such prepayment date plus 50 basis points. The credit agreement also provides for mandatory prepayments in connection with certain customary events, including any sale of material assets; however, certain mandatory prepayments are not subject to the prepayment premium. On January 4, 2013, the Plant Owners entered into an amendment to the new revolving credit facility and extended the maturity date of the facility from June 25, 2013 to June 25, 2015.

As of December 31, 2012, the Plant Owners had unused availability under the new revolving credit facility of $4.0 million.

All of the term loans and revolving credit facilities represent permanent financing and are secured by a perfected, first-priority security interest in all of the assets, including inventories and all rights, title and interest in all tangible and intangible assets, of the Plant Owners. The Plant Owners’ creditors do not have recourse to Pacific Ethanol, Inc.

Pacific Ethanol Debt

January 2013 Notes

On January 11, 2013 we issued and sold $22.2 million in aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured notes and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 25.6 million shares of our common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of $22.2 million. The warrants have an exercise price of $0.52 per share and expire in January 2018. The notes mature on March 30, 2016 and bear interest at the rate of 5% per annum, subject to adjustment. If the aggregate outstanding principal balance of the January 2013 Notes is not less than $10.8 million by January 15, 2014, the interest rate will increase commencing on January 15, 2014 by 1% per annum on each of January 15, April 15, July 15 and October 15 until the aggregate outstanding principal balance of the January 2013 Notes is less than $10.8 million. If we issue equity or equity-linked securities, conduct certain sales of assets or incur certain indebtedness, then we will be obligated to prepay the January notes using all net cash proceeds from the transaction, provided that any proceeds received in connection with an equity-linked issuance must be used to either prepay the notes or purchase certain outstanding debt issued by the Plant Owners. Interest on the notes is payable in cash in arrears on the fifteenth day of each month beginning on March 15, 2013. Subject to the satisfaction of certain equity conditions, at our option, we may elect to pay interest due and payable in shares of our common stock, provided that the interest rate applicable to any outstanding amounts we pay in shares of common stock will increase by 2% per annum from the then applicable interest rate for the period for which such interest is paid. The number of shares to be issued for any particular interest payment equals the quotient of (x) the amount of interest payable (assuming payment in shares), divided by (y) the product of (i) the weighted average price of our common stock for the thirty trading days immediately preceding (but excluding) the payment due date, and (ii) 0.95.

March 2013 Notes

On March 28, 2013, we issued $6.0 million in Series A Subordinated Convertible Notes, or Series A Notes, and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 27.6 million shares of our common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of $6.0 million. The warrants have an exercise price of $0.52 per share. Of the warrants issued in the transaction, warrants to purchase 11.8 million shares of common stock expire in March 2015 and warrants to purchase 15.8 million shares of common stock expire two years after the closing of the issuance of an $8.0 million tranche of Series B Subordinated Convertible Notes, which is anticipated to close, subject to stockholder approval, in June 2013. Unless converted or redeemed earlier, the Series A Notes will mature on March 28, 2014. The Series A Notes bear interest at 5% per annum, compounded monthly. All amounts due under the Series A Notes are convertible at any time, in whole or in part, at the option of the holders into shares of our common stock at a conversion price, or Fixed Conversion Price, which is subject to adjustment as described below.

The Series A Notes are initially convertible into shares of our common stock at the initial Fixed Conversion Price of $1.00 per share. If we sell or issue any securities with “floating” conversion prices based on the market price of our common stock, the holder of a Series A Note will have the right thereafter to substitute the “floating” conversion price for the Fixed Conversion Price upon conversion of all or part of the Series A Note.

Amortization payments, together with accrued and unpaid interest on the Series A Notes, will be payable on monthly installment dates. On or prior to the tenth calendar day before each installment date, we are required to deliver a notice electing to effect a redemption in cash or a conversion of the installment amount due on the installment date into shares of our common stock. Our ability to pay an installment amount in shares of our common stock is subject to numerous equity conditions, the failure of any of which, unless waived, will require that we pay an installment amount solely in cash. On the applicable installment date, we are required to deliver to the holders of Series A Notes an amount of shares of common stock equal to that portion of the installment amount being converted divided by the lesser of the then existing Fixed Conversion Price and 85% of the Market Price on the installment date, or the Company Conversion Price. The Market Price on any given date is equal to the lesser of (i) the volume weighted average price on the trading day immediately preceding the date of determination, and (ii) the average of the three lowest volume weighted average prices during the ten trading day period ending on the trading day immediately prior to the date of determination.

The holder of a Series A Note may, at the holder’s election by giving notice to us, defer the payment of the installment amount due on any installment date to another installment date, in which case the amount deferred will become part of the subsequent installment date and will continue to accrue interest.

On any day during the period commencing on an installment date and ending on the trading day prior to the next installment date, the holder of a Series A Note may, at its election, convert the installment amounts due on up to four future installment dates at the Company Conversion Price in effect on the current installment date, provided that if we had elected to convert the installment amount due on the current installment date, the holder may only convert up to three future installment amounts. Upon the occurrence of certain events of default, there will be no limitation on the number of installment amounts that the holder may accelerate and the Company Conversion Price applicable to conversions made pursuant to this acceleration feature will equal the lesser of (i) the Company Conversion Price on the current installment date, (ii) 85% of the Market Price (as defined below), and (iii) the Fixed Conversion Price then in effect.

Note Payable to Related Party

On March 31, 2009, our Chief Executive Officer provided funds in an aggregate amount of $1.0 million for general working capital purposes, in exchange for an unsecured promissory note issued by us. Interest on the unpaid principal amount accrues at a rate of 8.00% per annum. As of December 31, 2012, the remaining amount of $0.8 million was due and payable on the extended maturity date of March 31, 2013. On February 7, 2013, the maturity date was further extended to March 31, 2014.

Critical Accounting Policies

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amount of net sales and expenses for each period. The following represents a summary of our critical accounting policies, defined as those policies that we believe are the most important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations and that require management’s most difficult, subjective or complex judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates about the effects of matters that are inherently uncertain.

Revenue Recognition

We recognize revenue when it is realized or realizable and earned. We consider revenue realized or realizable and earned when there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is reasonably assured. We derive revenue primarily from sales of ethanol and related co-products. We recognize revenue when title transfers to our customers, which is generally upon the delivery of these products to a customer’s designated location. These deliveries are made in accordance with sales commitments and related sales orders entered into with customers either verbally or in written form. The sales commitments and related sales orders provide quantities, pricing and conditions of sales. In this regard, we engage in three basic types of revenue generating transactions:

Revenue from sales of third-party ethanol and its co-products is recorded net of costs when we are acting as an agent between a customer and a supplier and gross when we are a principal to the transaction. Several factors are considered to determine whether we are acting as an agent or principal, most notably whether we are the primary obligor to the customer, whether we have inventory risk and related risk of loss or whether we add meaningful value to the supplier’s product or service. Consideration is also given to whether we have latitude in establishing the sales price or have credit risk, or both. When we act as an agent, we record revenues on a net basis, or our predetermined fees and any associated freight, based upon the amount of net revenues retained in excess of amounts paid to suppliers.

We record revenues based upon the gross amounts billed to our customers in transactions where we act as a producer or a merchant and obtain title to ethanol and its co-products and therefore own the product and any related unmitigated inventory risk for the ethanol, regardless of whether we actually obtain physical control of the product.

Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity

We analyze whether any of our variable interests constitute controlling financial interests in a variable interest entity. This analysis identifies the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity as the enterprise that has both of the following characteristics: (i) the power to direct the activities of a variable interest entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance, and (ii) the obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be significant to the variable interest entity or the right to receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be significant to the variable interest entity. Additionally, an enterprise is required to assess whether it has an implicit financial responsibility to ensure that a variable interest entity operates as designed when determining whether it has the power to direct the activities of the variable interest entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance. We perform ongoing reassessments of whether an enterprise is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity at the end of each reporting period.

On October 6, 2010, upon our initial purchase of a 20% interest in New PE Holdco, we determined that we were New PE Holdco’s primary beneficiary and began consolidating the results of New PE Holdco. As of December 31, 2012, we held a 67% ownership interest in New PE Holdco. We increased our ownership interest in New PE Holdco to 83% in the first quarter of 2013. As long as we believe we are deemed the primary beneficiary of New PE Holdco, we will treat New PE Holdco as a consolidated subsidiary for financial reporting purposes. These determinations will be reassessed for appropriateness at each future reporting period.

Warrants and Convertible Notes Carried at Fair Value

We have recorded our warrants issued since 2010 and our senior convertible notes issued in 2010 at fair value. We believe the valuation of these warrants and convertible notes is a critical accounting estimate because valuation estimates obtained from third parties involve inputs other than quoted prices to value the exercise and conversion features. Changes in these estimates, and in particular, certain of the inputs to the valuation estimates, can be volatile from period to period and may markedly impact the total mark-to-market valuation of the warrants and convertible notes recorded as fair value adjustments in our consolidated statements of operations. We recorded fair value adjustments on warrants and convertible notes as income of $2.0 million and $7.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Our senior convertible notes issued in 2010 were retired in 2011.

Impairment of Long-Lived and Intangible Assets

Our long-lived assets have been primarily associated with the Pacific Ethanol Plants, reflecting their original book value, adjusted for any subsequent impairment.

We assess the impairment of long-lived assets, including property and equipment and purchased intangibles subject to amortization, when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the fair value of an asset could be less than the net book value of the asset. We assess long-lived assets for impairment by first determining the forecasted, undiscounted cash flows each asset is expected to generate plus the net proceeds expected from the sale of the asset. If the amount of proceeds is less than the carrying value of the asset, we then determine the fair value of the asset. An impairment loss would be recognized when the fair value is less than the related net book value, and an impairment expense would be recorded in the amount of the difference. Forecasts of future cash flows are judgments based on our experience and knowledge of our operations and the industry in which we operate. These forecasts could be significantly affected by future changes in market conditions, the economic environment, including inflation, and the purchasing decisions of our customers.

We review our intangible assets with indefinite lives at least annually or more frequently if impairment indicators arise. In our review, we determine the fair value of these assets using market multiples and discounted cash flow modeling and compare it to the net book value of the acquired assets.

We did not recognize any asset impairment charges associated with the Pacific Ethanol Plants in 2012 or 2011.

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

We sell ethanol primarily to gasoline refining and distribution companies and sell WDG to dairy operators and animal feed distributors. We had significant concentrations of credit risk from sales of our ethanol as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, as described in Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report. However, historically, those ethanol customers have had good credit ratings and we have collected the amounts billed to those customers. Receivables from customers are generally unsecured. We continuously monitor our customer account balances and actively pursue collections on past due balances.

We maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts for balances that appear to have specific collection issues. Our collection process is based on the age of the invoice and requires attempted contacts with the customer at specified intervals. If after a specified number of days, we have been unsuccessful in our collection efforts, we consider recording a bad debt allowance for the balance in question. We would eventually write-off accounts included in our allowance when we have determined that collection is not likely. The factors considered in reaching this determination are the apparent financial condition of the customer, and our success in contacting and negotiating with the customer.

We recognized a recovery of bad debt expense of less than $0.1 million and $0.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Impact of New Accounting Pronouncements

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Reference is made to the financial statements, which begin at page F-1 of this report.

None.

We conducted an evaluation under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures. The term “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), means controls and other procedures of a company that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the company in the reports it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures also include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded as of December 31, 2012 that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level.

Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Our internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Our internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

A material weakness is defined by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s Audit Standard No. 5 as being a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by the company’s internal controls.

Management assessed and evaluated the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012. Based on the results of management’s assessment and evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that as of December 31, 2012, our internal control over financial reporting was effective.

In making its assessment of our internal control over financial reporting, management used criteria issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in its Internal Control—Integrated Framework.

Management’s report was not subject to attestation by our certified registered public accounting firm pursuant to rules established by the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit us to provide only management’s report in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Inherent Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls

Management does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control systems are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, no evaluation of internal control over financial reporting can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been or will be detected.

These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of a simple error or mistake. Controls can also be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is based in part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Projections of any evaluation of controls effectiveness to future periods are subject to risks. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or procedures.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the most recently completed fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

None.

PART III

Directors

The following table sets forth certain information regarding our directors as of March 29, 2013:

Experience and Background

The biographies below describe the skills, qualities and attributes and business experience of each of our directors, including the capacities in which they served during the past five years:

William L. Jones has served as Chairman of the Board and as a director since March 2005. Mr. Jones is a co-founder of Pacific Ethanol California, Inc., or PEI California, which is one of our predecessors, and served as Chairman of the Board of PEI California since its formation in January 2003 through March 2004, when he stepped off the board of directors of PEI California to focus on his candidacy for one of California’s United States Senate seats. Mr. Jones was California’s Secretary of State from 1995 to 2003. Since May 2002, Mr. Jones has also been the owner of Tri-J Land & Cattle, a diversified farming and cattle company in Fresno County, California. Mr. Jones has a B.A. degree in Agribusiness and Plant Sciences from California State University, Fresno.

Mr. Jones’s qualifications to serve on our Board include:

Neil M. Koehler has served as Chief Executive Officer, President and as a director since March 2005. Mr. Koehler is a co-founder of PEI California and served as its Chief Executive Officer since its formation in January 2003 and as a member of its board of directors from March 2004 until its dissolution in March 2012. Prior to his association with PEI California, Mr. Koehler was the co-founder and General Manager of Parallel Products, one of the first ethanol production facilities in California, which was sold to a public company in 1997. Mr. Koehler was also the sole manager and sole limited liability company member of Kinergy Marketing, LLC, which he founded in September 2000, and which is one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. Mr. Koehler has over 30 years of experience in the ethanol production, sales and marketing industry in the Western United States. Mr. Koehler is a Director of the California Renewable Fuels Partnership, a Director of the Renewable Fuels Association and is a nationally-recognized speaker on the production and marketing of renewable fuels. Mr. Koehler has a B.A. degree in Government from Pomona College.

Mr. Koehler’s qualifications to serve on our Board include:

Michael D. Kandris has served as a director since June 2008 and as our Chief Operating Officer since January 6, 2013. Mr. Kandris served as an independent contractor with supervisory responsibility for ethanol plant operations, under the direction of our Chief Executive Officer, from January 1, 2012 to January 5, 2013. Mr. Kandris was President, Western Division of Ruan Transportation Management Systems from November 2007 until his retirement in September 2009. From January 2000 to November 2007, Mr. Kandris served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Ruan Transportation Management Systems, where he had overall responsibility for all operations, finance and administrative functions. Mr. Kandris has 30 years of experience in all modes of transportation and logistics. Mr. Kandris served on the Executive Committee of the American Trucking Association and as a board member for the National Tank Truck Organization until his retirement from Ruan Transportation Management Systems in September 2009. Mr. Kandris has a B.S. degree in Business from California State University, Hayward.

Mr. Kandris’ qualifications to serve on our Board include:

Terry L. Stone has served as a director since March 2005. Mr. Stone is a Certified Public Accountant with over thirty years of experience in accounting and taxation. He has been the owner of his own accountancy firm since 1990 and has provided accounting and taxation services to a wide range of industries, including agriculture, manufacturing, retail, equipment leasing, professionals and not-for-profit organizations. Mr. Stone has served as a part-time instructor at California State University, Fresno, teaching classes in taxation, auditing and financial and management accounting. Mr. Stone is also a financial advisor and franchisee of Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. Mr. Stone has a B.S. degree in Accounting from California State University, Fresno.

Mr. Stone’s qualifications to serve on our Board include:

John L. Prince has served as a director since July 2005. Mr. Prince is retired but also works as a consultant to Ruan Transport Corp. and other companies. Mr. Prince was an Executive Vice President with Land O’ Lakes, Inc. from July 1998 until his retirement in 2004. Prior to that time, Mr. Prince was President and Chief Executive Officer of Dairyman’s Cooperative Creamery Association located in Tulare, California, until its merger with Land O’ Lakes, Inc. in July 1998. Land O’ Lakes, Inc. is a farmer-owned, national branded organization based in Minnesota with annual sales in excess of $6 billion and membership and operations in over 30 states. Prior to joining the Dairyman’s Cooperative Creamery Association, Mr. Prince was President and Chief Executive Officer for nine years until 1994, and was Operations Manager for the preceding ten years commencing in 1975, of the Alto Dairy Cooperative in Waupun, Wisconsin. Mr. Prince has a B.A. degree in Business Administration from the University of Northern Iowa.

Mr. Prince’s qualifications to serve on our Board include:

Douglas L. Kieta has served as a director since April 2006. Mr. Kieta is currently retired. Prior to retirement in January 2009, Mr. Kieta was employed by BE&K, Inc., a large engineering and construction company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, where he served as the Vice President of Power from May 2006 to January 2009. From April 1999 to April 2006, Mr. Kieta was employed at Calpine Corporation where he was the Senior Vice President of Construction and Engineering. Calpine Corporation is a major North American power company which leases and operates integrated systems of fuel-efficient natural gas-fired and renewable geothermal power plants and delivers clean, reliable and fuel-efficient electricity to customers and communities in 21 states and three Canadian provinces. Mr. Kieta has a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from Clarkson University and a Master’s degree in Civil Engineering from Cornell University.

Mr. Kieta’s qualifications to serve on our Board include:

Larry D. Layne has served as a director since December 2007. Mr. Layne joined First Western Bank in 1963 and served in various capacities with First Western Bank and its acquiror, Lloyds Bank of California, and Lloyd’s acquiror, Sanwa Bank, until his retirement in 2000. Sanwa Bank was subsequently acquired by Bank of the West. From 1999 to 2000, Mr. Layne was Vice Chairman of Sanwa Bank in charge of its Commercial Banking Group which encompassed all of Sanwa Bank’s 38 commercial and business banking centers and 12 Pacific Rim branches as well as numerous internal departments. From 1997 to 2000, Mr. Layne was also Chairman of the Board of The Eureka Funds, a mutual fund family of five separate investment funds with total assets of $900,000,000. From 1996 to 2000, Mr. Layne was Group Executive Vice President of the Relationship Banking Group of Sanwa Bank in charge of its 107 branches and 13 commercial banking centers as well as numerous internal departments. Mr. Layne has also served in various capacities with many industry and community organizations, including as Director and Chairman of the Board of the Agricultural Foundation at California State University, Fresno; Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Ag. Foundation at California State University, Fresno; board member of the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District; and Chairman of the Ag Lending Committee of the California Bankers Association. Mr. Layne has a B.S. degree in Dairy Husbandry from California State University, Fresno and is a graduate of the California Agriculture Leadership Program.

Mr. Layne’s qualifications to serve on our Board include:

Relationships

There are no family relationships among our directors.

Corporate Governance

Corporate Governance Guidelines

Our Board believes that good corporate governance is paramount to ensure that Pacific Ethanol is managed for the long-term benefit of our stockholders. Our Board has adopted corporate governance guidelines that guide its actions with respect to, among other things, the composition of the Board and its decision making processes, Board meetings and involvement of management, the Board’s standing committees and procedures for appointing members of the committees, and its performance evaluation of our Chief Executive Officer.

Our Board has adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to all of our directors, officers and employees and an additional Code of Ethics that applies to our Chief Executive Officer and senior financial officers. The Codes of Ethics, as applied to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer constitutes our “code of ethics” within the meaning of Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is our “code of conduct” within the meaning of NASDAQ’s listing standards. Our Codes of Ethics are available at our website at http://www.pacificethanol.net. Information on our Internet website is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this report or incorporated into any other filings we make with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Board Committees

Our Board has established standing Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees. Each committee operates pursuant to a written charter that has been approved by our Board and the corresponding committee and that is reviewed annually and revised as appropriate. Each charter is available at our website at http://www.pacificethanol.net.

Our Audit Committee selects our independent auditors, reviews the results and scope of the audit and other services provided by our independent auditors, reviews our financial statements for each interim period and for our year and implements and manages our enterprise risk management program. The Audit Committee also has the authority to retain consultants, and other advisors. Messrs. Stone, Prince and Layne served on our Audit Committee for all of 2012. Mr. Jones was appointed to, and Mr. Prince rotated off of, our Audit Committee on March 21, 2013. Our Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is “independent” under the current NASDAQ listing standards and satisfies the other requirements under NASDAQ listing standards and Securities and Exchange Commission rules regarding audit committee membership. Our Board has determined that Mr. Stone qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under applicable Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations governing the composition of the Audit Committee, and satisfies the “financial sophistication” requirements of NASDAQ’s listing standards. During 2012, our Audit Committee held eight meetings.

Executive Officers

The following table sets forth certain information regarding our executive officers as of March 29, 2013:

Neil M. Koehler has served as Chief Executive Officer, President and as a director since March 2005. Mr. Koehler is a co-founder of PEI California and served as its Chief Executive Officer since its formation in January 2003 and as a member of its board of directors from March 2004 until its dissolution in March 2012. Prior to his association with PEI California, Mr. Koehler was the co-founder and General Manager of Parallel Products, one of the first ethanol production facilities in California, which was sold to a public company in 1997. Mr. Koehler was also the sole manager and sole limited liability company member of Kinergy Marketing, LLC, which he founded in September 2000, and which is one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. Mr. Koehler has over 30 years of experience in the ethanol production, sales and marketing industry in the Western United States. Mr. Koehler is a Director of the California Renewable Fuels Partnership, a Director of the Renewable Fuels Association and is a nationally-recognized speaker on the production and marketing of renewable fuels. Mr. Koehler has a B.A. degree in Government from Pomona College.

Bryon T. McGregor has served as our Chief Financial Officer since November 19, 2009. Mr. McGregor served as Vice President, Finance at Pacific Ethanol from September 2008 until he became Interim Chief Financial Officer in April 2009. Prior to joining Pacific Ethanol, Mr. McGregor was employed as Senior Director for E*TRADE Financial from February 2002 to August 2008, serving in various capacities including International Treasurer based in London, England from 2006 to 2008, Brokerage Treasurer and Director from 2003 to 2006 and Assistant Treasurer and Director of Finance and Investor Relations from 2002 to 2003. Prior to joining E*TRADE, Mr. McGregor served as Manager of Finance and Head of Project Finance for BP (formerly Atlantic Richfield Company – ARCO) from 1998 to 2001. Mr. McGregor has extensive experience in banking and served as a Director of International Project Finance for Credit Suisse from 1992 to 1998, as Assistant Vice President for Sumitomo Mitsubishi Banking Corp (formerly The Sumitomo Bank Limited) from 1989 to 1992, and as Commercial Banking Officer for Bank of America from 1987 to 1989. Mr. McGregor has a B.S. degree in Business Management from Brigham Young University.

Christopher W. Wright has served as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since June 2006. From April 2004 until he joined Pacific Ethanol in June 2006, Mr. Wright operated an independent consulting practice, advising companies on complex transactions, including acquisitions and financings. Prior to that time, from January 2003 to April 2004, Mr. Wright was a partner with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, and from July 1998 to December 2002, Mr. Wright was a partner with Cooley Godward LLP, where he served as Partner-in-Charge of the Pacific Northwest office. Mr. Wright has extensive experience advising boards of directors on compliance, securities matters and strategic transactions, with a particular focus on guiding the development of rapidly growing companies. He has acted as general counsel for numerous technology enterprises in all aspects of corporate development, including fund-raising, business and technology acquisitions, mergers and strategic alliances. Mr. Wright has an A.B. degree in History from Yale College and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School.

Michael D. Kandris has served as a director since June 2008 and as our Chief Operating Officer since January 6, 2013. Mr. Kandris served as an independent contractor with supervisory responsibility for ethanol plant operations, under the direction of our Chief Executive Officer, from January 1, 2012 to January 5, 2013. Mr. Kandris was President, Western Division of Ruan Transportation Management Systems from November 2007 until his retirement in September 2009. From January 2000 to November 2007, Mr. Kandris served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Ruan Transportation Management Systems, where he had overall responsibility for all operations, finance and administrative functions. Mr. Kandris has 30 years of experience in all modes of transportation and logistics. Mr. Kandris served on the Executive Committee of the American Trucking Association and as a board member for the National Tank Truck Organization until his retirement from Ruan Transportation Management Systems in September 2009. Mr. Kandris has a B.S. degree in Business from California State University, Hayward.

Our officers are appointed by and serve at the discretion of our Board. There are no family relationships among our executive officers and directors.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) requires our executive officers and directors, and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of a registered class of our common stock, to file initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These officers, directors and stockholders are required by Securities and Exchange Commission regulations to furnish us with copies of all reports that they file.

Based solely upon a review of copies of the reports furnished to us during the year ended December 31, 2012 and thereafter, or any written representations received by us from directors, officers and beneficial owners of more than 10% of our common stock (“reporting persons”) that no other reports were required, we believe that, except as set forth below, all reporting persons filed on a timely basis all reports required by Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act during the year ended December 31, 2012 or prior fiscal years.

Each of Neil M. Koehler and William L. Jones did not timely file one Form 4 to report one transaction. We believe that each of the foregoing persons has prepared and filed his required Form 4 to report his transaction.

Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth summary information concerning the compensation of our (i) Chief Executive Officer and President, who serves as our principal executive officer, (ii) Chief Financial Officer, who serves as our principal financial officer, and (iii) Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary (collectively, the “named executive officers”), for all services rendered in all capacities to us for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.

Executive Employment Agreements

Neil M. Koehler

Our Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement with Mr. Koehler dated as of December 11, 2007 provides for at-will employment as our President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Koehler initially received a base salary of $300,000 per year, which was increased to $375,000 effective March 1, 2008 and further increased to $384,375 effective April 3, 2011, and is eligible to receive an annual discretionary cash bonus of up to 70% of his base salary, to be paid based upon performance criteria set by the Board.

Upon termination by Pacific Ethanol without cause, resignation by Mr. Koehler for good reason or upon Mr. Koehler’s disability, Mr. Koehler is entitled to receive (i) severance equal to twelve months of base salary, (ii) continued health insurance coverage for twelve months, and (iii) accelerated vesting of 25% of all shares or options subject to any equity awards granted to Mr. Koehler prior to Mr. Koehler’s termination which are unvested as of the date of termination. However, if Mr. Koehler is terminated without cause or resigns for good reason within three months before or twelve months after a change in control, Mr. Koehler is entitled to (a) severance equal to eighteen months of base salary, (b) continued health insurance coverage for eighteen months, and (c) accelerated vesting of 100% of all shares or options subject to any equity awards granted to Mr. Koehler prior to Mr. Koehler’s termination that are unvested as of the date of termination.

The term “for good reason” is defined in the Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement as (i) the assignment to Mr. Koehler of any duties or responsibilities that result in the material diminution of Mr. Koehler’s authority, duties or responsibility, (ii) a material reduction by Pacific Ethanol in Mr. Koehler’s annual base salary, except to the extent the base salaries of all other executive officers of Pacific Ethanol are accordingly reduced, (iii) a relocation of Mr. Koehler’s place of work, or Pacific Ethanol’s principal executive offices if Mr. Koehler’s principal office is at these offices, to a location that increases Mr. Koehler’s daily one-way commute by more than thirty-five miles, or (iv) any material breach by Pacific Ethanol of any material provision of the Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement.

The term “cause” is defined in the Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement as (i) Mr. Koehler’s indictment or conviction of any felony or of any crime involving dishonesty, (ii) Mr. Koehler’s participation in any fraud or other act of willful misconduct against Pacific Ethanol, (iii) Mr. Koehler’s refusal to comply with any lawful directive of Pacific Ethanol, (iv) Mr. Koehler’s material breach of his fiduciary, statutory, contractual, or common law duties to Pacific Ethanol, or (v) conduct by Mr. Koehler which, in the good faith and reasonable determination of the Board, demonstrates gross unfitness to serve; provided, however, that in the event that any of the foregoing events is reasonably capable of being cured, Pacific Ethanol shall, within twenty days after the discovery of the event, provide written notice to Mr. Koehler describing the nature of the event and Mr. Koehler shall thereafter have ten business days to cure the event.

A “change in control” of Pacific Ethanol is deemed to have occurred if, in a single transaction or series of related transactions (i) any person (as the term is used in Section 13(d) and 14(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange Act), or persons acting as a group, other than a trustee or fiduciary holding securities under an employee benefit program, is or becomes a “beneficial owner” (as defined in Rule 13-3 under the Exchange Act), directly or indirectly of securities of Pacific Ethanol representing a majority of the combined voting power of Pacific Ethanol, (ii) there is a merger, consolidation or other business combination transaction of Pacific Ethanol with or into another corporation, entity or person, other than a transaction in which the holders of at least a majority of the shares of voting capital stock of Pacific Ethanol outstanding immediately prior to the transaction continue to hold (either by the shares remaining outstanding or by their being converted into shares of voting capital stock of the surviving entity) a majority of the total voting power represented by the shares of voting capital stock of Pacific Ethanol (or the surviving entity) outstanding immediately after the transaction, or (iii) all or substantially all of our assets are sold.

Bryon T. McGregor

Our Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement with Mr. McGregor effective as of November 25, 2009 provides for at-will employment as our Chief Financial Officer. Mr. McGregor initially received a base salary of $240,000 per year, which was increased to $246,000 effective April 3, 2011, and is eligible to receive an annual discretionary cash bonus of up to 50% of his base salary, to be paid based upon performance criteria set by the Board. All other terms and conditions of Mr. McGregor’s Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement are substantially the same as those contained in Mr. Koehler’s Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement.

Christopher W. Wright

Our Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement with Mr. Wright dated as of December 11, 2007 provides for at-will employment as our Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary. Mr. Wright initially received a base salary of $225,000 per year, which was increased to $240,000 effective March 1, 2008 and further increased to $246,000 effective April 3, 2011, and is eligible to receive an annual discretionary cash bonus of up to 50% of his base salary, to be paid based upon performance criteria set by the Board. All other terms and conditions of Mr. Wright’s Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement are substantially the same as those contained in Mr. Koehler’s Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement.

Michael Kandris

Our Executive Employment Agreement with Mr. Kandris dated as of January 6, 2013 provides for at-will employment as our Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Kandris’ base salary is $246,000 per year and he is eligible to receive an annual discretionary cash bonus of up to 50% of his base salary, to be paid based upon performance criteria set by the Board. All other terms and conditions of Mr. Kandris’s Executive Employment Agreement are substantially the same as those contained in Mr. Koehler’s Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement.

Clawback Policy

In 2011, our Compensation Committee instituted a “clawback” policy with respect to incentive compensation. Except as otherwise required by applicable law and regulations, the clawback policy applies to any incentive-based compensation awarded or paid after January 1, 2011. The clawback policy mitigates the risks associated with our compensation policies, because certain executive officers will be required to repay compensation in the circumstances identified in the policy. The clawback policy requires recoupment of the incentive based compensation paid or granted to certain executive officers in the event of a material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirements under the federal securities laws (other than to comply with changes in applicable accounting principles).

Our Compensation Committee will reevaluate and, if necessary, revise our clawback policy to comply with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act once the rules implementing the clawback requirements have been finalized by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End – 2012

The following table sets forth information about outstanding equity awards held by our named executive officers as of December 31, 2012.

Compensation of Directors

We use a combination of cash and equity-based incentive compensation to attract and retain qualified candidates to serve on our Board. In setting the compensation of directors, we consider the significant amount of time that Board members spend in fulfilling their duties to Pacific Ethanol as well as the experience level we require to serve on our Board. The Board, through its Compensation Committee, annually reviews the compensation and compensation policies for Board members. In recommending director compensation, the Compensation Committee is guided by the following three goals:

In addition, as with our executive compensation, in making compensation decisions as to our directors, our Compensation Committee compared our cash and equity compensation payable to directors against market data obtained by Aon Hewitt in 2007 and market data obtained from survey data provided by Equilar, Inc. The Aon Hewitt data included a general industry survey of 235 companies with less than $1,000,000,000 in annual revenues and a general industry survey of 51 companies with between $500,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 in annual revenues. The data provided by Equilar, Inc. included a survey of 20 companies in the chemicals sector with between $200,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 in annual revenues. The Compensation Committee sets compensation for our directors at approximately the median of compensation paid to directors of the companies surveyed by Aon Hewitt and Equilar, Inc.

Cash Compensation

Our cash compensation plan for directors provides the Chairman of our Board annual compensation of $80,000, the Chairman of our Audit Committee annual compensation of $42,000, the Chairman of our Compensation Committee annual compensation of $36,000, the Chairman of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee annual compensation of $36,000, the Chairman of our Operations and Feed Committee annual compensation of $36,000 and the Chairman of our Strategic Transactions Committee annual compensation of $36,000. All other directors, except employee directors, are to receive annual compensation of $24,000. These amounts are paid in advance in bi-weekly installments. In addition, directors are reimbursed for specified reasonable and documented expenses in connection with attendance at meetings of our Board and its committees. Employee directors do not receive director compensation in connection with their service as directors.

Equity Compensation

Our Compensation Committee or our full Board typically grants equity compensation to our newly elected or reelected directors which normally vests as to 100% of the grants no later than one year after the date of grant. Vesting is normally subject to continued service on our Board during the full year.

In determining the amount of equity compensation, the Compensation Committee determines the value of total compensation, approximately targeting the median of compensation paid to directors of the companies comprising the market data provided to us by Aon Hewitt in 2007. The Compensation Committee then determines the cash component based on this market data. The balance of the total compensation target is then allocated to equity awards, and the number of shares to be granted to our directors is based on the estimated value of the underlying shares on the expected grant date.

In addition, our Compensation Committee may grant, and has from time to time granted, additional equity compensation to directors at its discretion.

Compensation of Employee Director

Mr. Koehler was compensated as a full-time employee and officer but received no additional compensation for service as a Board member during 2012. Information regarding the compensation awarded to Mr. Koehler is included in “Executive Compensation—Summary Compensation Table” above.

Director Compensation Table – 2012

The following table summarizes the compensation of our non-employee directors for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Indemnification of Directors and Officers

Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law permits a corporation to indemnify its directors and officers against expenses, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred in connection with a pending or completed action, suit or proceeding if the officer or director acted in good faith and in a manner the officer or director reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the corporation.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that, except in certain specified instances, our directors shall not be personally liable to us or our stockholders for monetary damages for breach of their fiduciary duty as directors, except liability for the following:

In addition, our certificate of incorporation and bylaws obligate us to indemnify our directors and officers against expenses and other amounts reasonably incurred in connection with any proceeding arising from the fact that such person is or was an agent of ours. Our bylaws also authorize us to purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any of our directors or officers against any liability asserted against that person in that capacity, whether or not we would have the power to indemnify that person under the provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law. We have entered and expect to continue to enter into agreements to indemnify our directors and officers as determined by our Board. These agreements provide for indemnification of related expenses including attorneys’ fees, judgments, fines and settlement amounts incurred by any of these individuals in any action or proceeding. We believe that these bylaw provisions and indemnification agreements are necessary to attract and retain qualified persons as directors and officers. We also maintain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance.

The limitation of liability and indemnification provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may discourage stockholders from bringing a lawsuit against our directors for breach of their fiduciary duty. They may also reduce the likelihood of derivative litigation against our directors and officers, even though an action, if successful, might benefit us and other stockholders. Furthermore, a stockholder’s investment may be adversely affected to the extent that we pay the costs of settlement and damage awards against directors and officers as required by these indemnification provisions.

Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act may be permitted to our directors, officers and controlling persons under the foregoing provisions of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws, or otherwise, we have been informed that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is therefore unenforceable.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

The following table sets forth information with respect to the beneficial ownership of our voting securities as of March 29, 2013, the date of the table, by:

Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and includes voting or investment power with respect to the securities. To our knowledge, except as indicated by footnote, and subject to community property laws where applicable, the persons named in the table below have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock shown as beneficially owned by them. Shares of common stock underlying derivative securities, if any, that currently are exercisable or convertible or are scheduled to become exercisable or convertible for or into shares of common stock within 60 days after the date of the table are deemed to be outstanding in calculating the percentage ownership of each listed person or group but are not deemed to be outstanding as to any other person or group. Except as indicated by footnote, percentage of beneficial ownership is based on 157,437,360 shares of common stock and 926,942 shares of Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, or Series B Preferred Stock, outstanding as of the date of the table.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table provides information about our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options, warrants and rights under all of our existing equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2012.

Director Independence

Our corporate governance guidelines provide that a majority of the Board and all members of our Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees shall be independent. On an annual basis, each director and executive officer is obligated to complete a Director and Officer Questionnaire that requires disclosure of any transactions with Pacific Ethanol in which a director or executive officer, or any member of his or her immediate family, have a direct or indirect material interest. Following completion of these questionnaires, the Board, with the assistance of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, makes an annual determination as to the independence of each director using the current standards for “independence” established by the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASDAQ, additional criteria contained in our corporate governance guidelines and consideration of any other material relationship a director may have with Pacific Ethanol.

The Board has determined that all of its directors are independent under these standards, except for Neil M. Koehler, who serves as our Chief Executive Officer and President, and Michael D. Kandris, who serves as our Chief Operating Officer.

Policies and Procedures for Approval of Related Party Transactions

Our Board has the responsibility to review and discuss with management and approve, and has adopted written policies and procedures relating to approval or ratification of, interested transactions with related parties. During this process, the material facts as to the related party’s interest in a transaction are disclosed to all Board members or the Audit Committee. Under the policies and procedures, the Board, through the Audit Committee, is to review each interested transaction with a related party that requires approval and either approve or disapprove of the entry into the interested transaction. An interested transaction is any transaction in which we are a participant and in which any related party has or will have a direct or indirect interest. Transactions that are in the ordinary course of business and would not require either disclosure required by Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act or approval of the Board or an independent committee of the Board as required by applicable NASDAQ rules would not be deemed interested transactions. No director may participate in any approval of an interested transaction with respect to which he or she is a related party. Our Board intends to approve only those related party transactions that are in the best interests of Pacific Ethanol and our stockholders.

Other than as described below or elsewhere in this report, since January 1, 2012, there has not been a transaction or series of related transactions to which Pacific Ethanol was or is a party involving an amount in excess of $120,000 and in which any director, executive officer, holder of more than 5% of any class of our voting securities, or any member of the immediate family of any of the foregoing persons, had or will have a direct or indirect material interest. All of the below transactions were separately approved by our Board.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

Miscellaneous

We are or have been a party to employment and compensation arrangements with related parties, as more particularly described above in “Executive Compensation.” We have entered into an indemnification agreement with each of our directors and executive officers. The indemnification agreements and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws require us to indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law.

Neil M. Koehler

Series B Preferred Stock

On May 20, 2008, we sold to Neil M. Koehler, who is our President and Chief Executive Officer and one of our directors, 256,410 shares of our Series B Preferred Stock, all of which were initially convertible into an aggregate of 109,890 shares of our common stock based on an initial preferred-to-common conversion ratio of approximately 1-for-0.43, and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 54,945 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $49.00 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $5,000,000. As a result of various anti-dilution adjustments, the conversion ratio of the Series B Preferred Stock has declined to approximately 1-for-7.3. For the year ended December 31, 2012, we accrued cash dividends in the amount of $350,000 in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler.

On August 21, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Koehler under which $105,000 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.31. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 338,709 shares of common stock to Mr. Koehler on August 24, 2012. On December 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Koehler under which $105,000 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.34. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 311,301 shares of common stock to Mr. Koehler on December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2012, in aggregate, dividends totaling $840,000 had not been paid. On March 27, 2013, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Koehler under which $105,000 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.35. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 300,000 shares of common stock to Mr. Koehler on March 28, 2013.

Loan Transaction

On March 30, 2009, we entered into an unsecured promissory note in favor of Mr. Koehler. The promissory note was for the principal amount of $1,000,000. Interest on the unpaid principal amount of the promissory note accrues at a rate per annum of 8.00%. On March 29, 2010, we entered into an amendment to the promissory note to extend its maturity date to January 5, 2011. On October 29, 2010, we paid all accrued interest under the promissory note, totaling $126,500. On November 5, 2010, we entered into an amendment to the promissory note extending its maturity date to March 31, 2012. On December 31, 2010, we paid all accrued interest under the promissory note, totaling $13,774. On November 30, 2011, we made a principal payment of $250,000, resulting in an unpaid principal balance of $750,000. On March 7, 2012, we entered into an amendment to the promissory note further extending its maturity date to March 31, 2013. On February 7, 2013, we entered into an amendment to the promissory note further extending its maturity date to March 31, 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2012, we paid all accrued interest under the promissory note, totaling $60,164.

Paul P. Koehler

Paul P. Koehler, a brother of Neil M. Koehler, is employed by us as Vice President of Corporate Development at an annual salary of $220,000.

On May 20, 2008, we sold to Mr. Koehler 12,820 shares of our Series B Preferred Stock, all of which were initially convertible into an aggregate of 5,494 shares of our common stock based on an initial preferred-to-common conversion ratio of approximately 1-for-0.43, and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 2,747 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $49.00 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $250,000. As a result of various anti-dilution adjustments, the conversion ratio of the Series B Preferred Stock has declined to approximately 1-for-7.3. For the year ended December 31, 2012, we accrued cash dividends in the amount of $17,500 in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler.

On August 21, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Koehler under which $5,250 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.31. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 16,935 shares of common stock to Mr. Koehler on August 24, 2012. On December 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Koehler under which $5,250 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.34. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 15,564 shares of common stock to Mr. Koehler on December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2012, in aggregate, dividends totaling $42,000 had not been paid. On March 27, 2013, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Koehler under which $5,250 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.35. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 14,999 shares of common stock to Mr. Koehler on March 28, 2013.

Thomas D. Koehler

On May 20, 2008, we sold to Thomas D. Koehler, a brother of Neil M. Koehler, who is our President and Chief Executive Officer and one of our directors, 12,820 shares of our Series B Preferred Stock, all of which were initially convertible into an aggregate of 5,494 shares of our common stock based on an initial preferred-to-common conversion ratio of approximately 1-for-0.43, and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 2,747 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $49.00 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $250,000. As a result of various anti-dilution adjustments, the conversion ratio of the Series B Preferred Stock has declined to approximately 1-for-7.3. For the year ended December 31, 2012, we accrued cash dividends in the amount of $17,500 in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler.

On August 21, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Koehler under which $5,250 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.31. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 16,935 shares of common stock to Mr. Koehler on August 24, 2012. On December 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Koehler under which $5,250 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.34. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 15,564 shares of common stock to Mr. Koehler on December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2012, in aggregate, dividends totaling $42,000 had not been paid. On March 27, 2013, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Koehler under which $5,250 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Koehler were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.35. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 14,999 shares of common stock to Mr. Koehler on March 28, 2013.

On April 1, 2008, we entered into an Independent Contractor Services Agreement with Mr. Koehler for the provision of strategic consulting services, including in connection with promoting Pacific Ethanol, and ethanol as a fuel additive and transportation fuel, with governmental agencies. Mr. Koehler was compensated at a rate of $5,000 per month under this arrangement from April 1, 2008 through September 30, 2010. Effective October 1, 2010, Mr. Koehler’s compensation was increased to $7,500 per month.

William L. Jones

Series B Preferred Stock

On May 20, 2008, we sold to Mr. Jones 12,820 shares of our Series B Preferred Stock, all of which were initially convertible into an aggregate of 5,494 shares of our common stock based on an initial preferred-to-common conversion ratio of approximately 1-for-0.43, and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 2,747 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $49.00 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $250,000. As a result of various anti-dilution adjustments, the conversion ratio of the Series B Preferred Stock has declined to approximately 1-for-7.3. For the year ended December 31, 2012, we accrued cash dividends in the amount of $17,500 in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Jones.

On August 21, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Jones under which $5,250 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Jones were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.31. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 16,935 shares of common stock to Mr. Jones on August 24, 2012. On December 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Jones under which $5,250 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Jones were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.34. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 15,564 shares of common stock to Mr. Jones on December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2012, in aggregate, dividends totaling $42,000 had not been paid. On March 27, 2013, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Jones under which $5,250 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Mr. Jones were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.35. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 14,999 shares of common stock to Mr. Jones on March 28, 2013.

Michael D. Kandris

Consulting Services

During the year ended December 31, 2012, Mr. Kandris provided consulting services to us concerning ethanol plant operations and was paid $239,135 for his services.

Lyles United, LLC

Series B Preferred Stock

On March 27, 2008, we sold to Lyles United, LLC, or Lyles United, 2,051,282 shares of our Series B Preferred Stock, all of which were initially convertible into an aggregate of 879,121 shares of our common stock based on an initial preferred-to-common conversion ratio of approximately 1-for-0.43, and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 439,560 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $49.00 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $40,000,000. As a result of various anti-dilution adjustments, the conversion ratio of the Series B Preferred Stock has declined to approximately 1-for-7.3. For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, we accrued cash dividends in the amount of $700,000, $700,000 and $2,270,000, respectively, in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Lyles United.

On August 21, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Lyles United under which $367,068 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Lyles United were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.31. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 1,184,091 shares of common stock to Lyles United on August 24, 2012. On December 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Lyles United under which $367,068 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Lyles United were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.34. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 1,088,275 shares of common stock to Lyles United on December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2012, in aggregate, dividends totaling $2,936,546 had not been paid. On March 27, 2013, we entered into an agreement with Lyles United under which $367,068 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Lyles United were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.35. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 1,048,767 shares of common stock to Lyles United on March 28, 2013.

Frank P. Greinke

Series B Preferred Stock

For the year ended December 31, 2012, we accrued cash dividends in the amount of $116,000 in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by the Greinke Personal Living Trust Dated April 20, 1999 (“Greinke Trust”). Frank P. Greinke is one of our former directors and the trustee of the holder of shares of our issued and outstanding Series B Preferred Stock. The Greinke Trust acquired its shares of Series B Preferred Stock from Lyles United in December 2009.

Shares of our Series B Preferred Stock, which were initially convertible into shares of our common stock based on an initial preferred-to-common conversion ratio of approximately 1-for-0.43, were converted into shares of our common stock based on lower conversion ratios resulting from various anti-dilution adjustments, thereby increasing the number of shares of common stock issued to the Greinke Trust in connection with its conversions of our Series B Preferred Stock. The current conversion ratio is approximately 1-for-7.3.

On August 21, 2012, we entered into an agreement with the Greinke Trust under which $189,656 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by the Greinke Trust were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.31. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 611,795 shares of common stock to the Greinke Trust on August 24, 2012. On December 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement with the Greinke Trust under which $189,656 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by the Greinke Trust were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.34. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 562,288 shares of common stock to the Greinke Trust on December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2012, in aggregate, dividends totaling $1,517,250 had not been paid. On March 27, 2013, we entered into an agreement with the Greinke Trust under which $189,656 of the accrued and unpaid dividends in respect of shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by the Greinke Trust were to be paid in shares of our common stock at a price per share of $0.35. We made such payment by issuing an aggregate of 541,875 shares of common stock to the Greinke Trust on March 28, 2013.

Sales of Ethanol

During the year ended December 31, 2012, we contracted with Southern Counties Oil Co., an entity controlled by Mr. Greinke, for sales of ethanol in an aggregate amount of approximately $1,062,600.

The following table presents fees for professional audit services rendered by Hein & Associates LLP for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.

Audit Fees. Consist of amounts billed for professional services rendered for the audit of our annual consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, and reviews of our interim consolidated financial statements included in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and our Registration Statements on Forms S-1, S-3 and S-8, including amendments thereto.

Audit-Related Fees. Audit-Related Fees consist of fees billed for professional services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our consolidated financial statements but are not reported under “Audit Fees.” Such fees include amounts billed for professional services performed in connection with mergers and acquisitions. The fees for 2012 and 2011 represent amounts billed for professional services performed in connection with the audit of a 401K plan.

Tax Fees. Tax Fees consist of fees for professional services for tax compliance activities, including the preparation of federal and state tax returns and related compliance matters.

All Other Fees. Consists of amounts billed for services other than those noted above.

Hein & Associates LLP did not provide any non-audit services for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. The Audit Committee did not, therefore, consider whether the provision of non-audit services by Hein & Associates LLP is compatible with maintaining its independence; however, the Audit Committee has satisfied itself with respect to Hein & Associates LLP’s independence.

Our Audit Committee is responsible for approving all audit, audit-related, tax and other services. The Audit Committee pre-approves all auditing services and permitted non-audit services, including all fees and terms to be performed for us by our independent auditor at the beginning of the fiscal year. Non-audit services are reviewed and pre-approved by project at the beginning of the fiscal year. Any additional non-audit services contemplated by us after the beginning of the fiscal year are submitted to the Chairman of our Audit Committee for pre-approval prior to engaging our independent auditor for such services. These interim pre-approvals are reviewed with the full Audit Committee at its next meeting for ratification. During 2012 and 2011, all services performed by Hein & Associates LLP were pre-approved by our Audit Committee in accordance with these policies and applicable Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.

PART IV

(a)(1) Financial Statements

Reference is made to the financial statements listed on and attached following the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements contained on page F-1 of this report.

(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules

None.

(a)(3) Exhibits

Reference is made to the exhibits listed on the Index to Exhibits.

Index to Consolidated Financial Statements

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders

Pacific Ethanol, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Pacific Ethanol, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Pacific Ethanol, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ HEIN & ASSOCIATES LLP

Irvine, California

April 1, 2013

PACIFIC ETHANOL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in thousands, except shares and par value)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

PACIFIC ETHANOL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (CONTINUED)
(in thousands, except shares and par value)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

PACIFIC ETHANOL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(in thousands, except per share data)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

PACIFIC ETHANOL, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 and 2011
(in thousands)

 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

PACIFIC ETHANOL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(in thousands)