cumulative adjustment to retained earnings and as a reduction of the investment in direct financing leases balance on our consolidated balance sheets on January 1, 2020.

For leases in which we are the lessee, ASU 2016-02 requires leases with durations greater than twelve months to be recognized on our consolidated balance sheets. We elected the package of transition provisions available for expired or existing contracts, which allowed us to carryforward our historical assessments of (i) whether contracts are or contain leases, (ii) lease classification and (iii) initial direct costs.

As of January 1, 2019, we recognized operating lease right-of-use assets of $25,561,000 (net of deferred rent expense) and operating lease liabilities of $26,087,000, which were presented on our consolidated financial statements. The right-of-use assets and lease liabilities are carried at the present value of the remaining expected future lease payments. When available, we use the rate implicit in the lease to discount lease payments to present value; however, our current leases did not provide a readily determinable implicit rate. Therefore, we estimated our incremental borrowing rate to discount the lease payments based on information available and considered factors such as interest rates available to us on a fully collateralized basis and terms of the leases. ASU 2016-02 did not have a material impact on our consolidated balance sheets or on our consolidated statements of operations. The most significant impact was the recognition of right-of-use assets and lease liabilities for operating leases, while our accounting for finance leases remained substantially unchanged.

Major Tenants

As of March 31, 2020, we had three significant tenants by revenue:

Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc.

Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. (“Marketing”) was our largest tenant from 1997 until 2012 under a unitary triple-net master lease that was terminated in April 2012, as a consequence of Marketing’s bankruptcy, at which time we either sold or released these properties. As of March 31, 2020, 362 of the properties we own or lease were previously leased to Marketing, of which 320 properties are subject to long-term triple-net leases with petroleum distributors in 14 separate property portfolios and 32 properties are leased as single unit triple-net leases. The leases covering properties previously leased to Marketing are unitary triple-net lease agreements generally with an initial term of 15 years and options for successive renewal terms of up to 20 years. Rent is scheduled to increase at varying intervals during both the initial and renewal terms of the leases. Several of the leases provide for additional rent based on the aggregate volume of fuel sold. In addition, the majority of the leases require the tenants to invest capital in our properties, substantially all of which are related to the replacement of USTs that are owned by our tenants. As of March 31, 2020, we have a remaining commitment to fund up to $7,048,000 in the aggregate with our tenants for our portion of such capital improvements. Our

commitment provides us with the option to either reimburse our tenants or to offset rent when these capital expenditures are made. This deferred expense is recognized on a straight-line basis as a reduction of rental revenue in our consolidated statements of operations over the life of the various leases.

As part of the triple-net leases for properties previously leased to Marketing, we transferred title of the USTs to our tenants, and the obligation to pay for the retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs at the end of their useful lives, or earlier if circumstances warranted, was fully or partially transferred to our new tenants. We remain contingently liable for this obligation in the event that our tenants do not satisfy their responsibilities. Accordingly, through March 31, 2020, we removed $13,813,000 of asset retirement obligations and $10,808,000 of net asset retirement costs related to USTs from our balance sheet. The cumulative change of $1,476,000 (net of accumulated amortization of $1,529,000) is recorded as deferred rental revenue and will be recognized on a straight-line basis as additional revenues from rental properties over the terms of the various leases.

Group (“CPG”). The CPG agreed to an interim allocation formula for purposes of allocating the costs to complete the RI/FS among its members, with the understanding that this interim allocation formula is not binding on the parties in terms of any potential liability for the costs to remediate the Lower Passaic River. The CPG submitted to the EPA its draft RI/FS in 2015, which sets forth various alternatives for remediating the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. In October 2018, the EPA issued a letter directing the CPG to prepare a streamlined feasibility study for the upper 9-miles of the Lower Passaic River based on an iterative approach using adaptive management strategies. On August 12, 2019, the CPG submitted a draft Interim Remedy Feasibility Study to the EPA which identifies various targeted dredge and cap alternatives, which the EPA is still evaluating.

In addition to the RI/FS activities, other actions relating to the investigation and/or remediation of the Lower Passaic River have proceeded as follows. First, in June 2012, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) with the EPA to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing. The EPA also issued a Unilateral Order to Occidental directing Occidental to participate and contribute to the cost of the river mile 10.9 work. Concurrent with the CPG’s work on the RI/FS, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to remediate the lower 8-miles of the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. The FFS was subject to public comments and objections, and on March 4, 2016, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the lower 8-miles selecting a remedy that involves bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap with an estimated cost of $1,380,000,000. On March 31, 2016, we and more than 100 other PRPs received from the EPA a “Notice of Potential Liability and Commencement of Negotiations for Remedial Design” (“Notice”), which informed the recipients that the EPA intends to seek an Administrative Order on Consent and Settlement Agreement with Occidental (who the EPA considers the primary contributor of dioxin and other pesticides in the Lower Passaic River generated from the production of Agent Orange at its Diamond Alkali Company plant and a discharger of other contaminants of concern (“COCs”) to the Lower Passaic River), for remedial design of the remedy selected in the ROD, after which the EPA plans to begin negotiations with “major” PRPs for implementation and/or payment of the selected remedy. The Notice also stated that the EPA believes that some of the PRPs and other parties not yet identified as will be eligible for a cash out settlement with the EPA. On September 30, 2016, Occidental entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for the remedy selected for the lower 8-miles of the Lower Passaic River. In December 2019, Occidental submitted a report to the EPA on the progress of the remedial design work, which is still ongoing.

Occidental has asserted that it is entitled to indemnification by Maxus and Tierra for its liability in connection with the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. Occidental has also asserted that Maxus and Tierra’s parent company, YPF, S.A. (“YPF”) and certain of its affiliates must indemnify Occidental. On June 16, 2016, Maxus and Tierra filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In the Chapter 11 proceedings, YPF sought bankruptcy approval of a settlement under which YPF would pay $130,000,000 to the bankruptcy estate in exchange for a release in favor of Maxus, Tierra, YPF and YPF’s affiliates of Maxus and Tierra’s contractual environmental liability to Occidental. We and the CPG filed proofs of claims in the Maxus/Tierra bankruptcy proceedings for costs incurred by the CPG relating to the Lower Passaic River. In July 2017, an amended Chapter 11 plan of liquidation became effective and, in connection therewith, Maxus/Tierra and certain other parties, including us, entered into a mutual contribution release agreement pertaining to certain past costs, but not future remedy costs.

By letter dated March 30, 2017, the EPA advised the recipients of the Notice that it would be entering into cash out settlements with 20 PRPs to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD, who the EPA stated did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as a COC in the ROD. The letter also stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the COCs posing the greatest risk to the river) may also be eligible for cash out settlements, and that the EPA would begin a process for identifying other PRPs for negotiation of similar cash out settlements. We were not included in the initial group of 20 parties identified by the EPA for cash out settlements. In January 2018, the EPA published a notice of its intent to enter into a final settlement agreement with 15 of the identified 20 parties to resolve their respective alleged liability for the ROD work, each for a payment to the EPA in the amount of $280,600. In August 2017, the EPA appointed an independent third party allocation expert to conduct allocation proceedings with most of the remaining recipients of the Notice, which is anticipated to lead to additional offers of cash out settlements to certain additional parties and/or a consent decree in which parties that are not offered a cash out settlement will agree to perform the lower 8-mile remedial action. The allocation proceedings, which we are participating in, were scheduled to conclude by mid-2019, but have been extended and are still ongoing.

On June 30, 2018, Occidental filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking cost recovery and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for its alleged expenses with respect to the investigation, design, and anticipated implementation of the remedy for the lower 8-miles of the Passaic River. The complaint lists over 120 defendants, including us, many of who were also named in the NJDEP’s 2003 Directive and the EPA’s 2016 Notice. Factual discovery is ongoing, and we are defending the claims consistent with our defenses in the related proceedings.

Many uncertainties remain regarding how the EPA intends to implement the ROD. We anticipate that performance of the EPA’s selected remedy will be subject to future negotiation, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation. The RI/FS, AOC, 10.9 AOC and Notice do not obligate us to fund or perform any remedial action contemplated by either the ROD or RI/FS and do not

resolve liability issues for remedial work or the restoration of or compensation for alleged natural resource damages to the Lower Passaic River, which are not known at this time.

Based on currently known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material impact on our results of operations, including, among other factors, because we do not believe that there was any use or discharge of dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls in connection with our former petroleum storage operations at our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal, and because there are numerous other parties who will likely bear any costs of remediation and/or damages. However, our ultimate liability, if any, in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the Lower Passaic River, and/or one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, are uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. Therefore, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on our results of operations could be material.

MTBE Litigation – State of New Jersey

We are defending against a lawsuit brought by various governmental agencies of the State of New Jersey, including the NJDEP, alleging various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater with MTBE involving multiple locations throughout the State of New Jersey (the “New Jersey MDL Proceedings”). The complaint names as defendants approximately 50 petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The State of New Jersey is seeking reimbursement of significant clean-up and remediation costs arising out of the alleged release of MTBE containing gasoline in the State of New Jersey and is asserting various natural resource damage claims as well as liability against the owners and operators of gasoline station properties from which the releases occurred. The majority of the named defendants have already settled their cases with the State of New Jersey. A portion of the case (“bellwether” trials) has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for pre-trial proceedings and trial, although a trial date has not yet been set. We continue to engage in settlement negotiations and a dialogue with the plaintiffs’ counsel to educate them on the unique role of the Company and our business as compared to other defendants in the litigation. Although the ultimate outcome of the New Jersey MDL Proceedings cannot be ascertained at this time, we believe that it is probable that this litigation will be resolved in a manner that is unfavorable to us. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued for the New Jersey MDL Proceedings as we do not believe that plaintiffs’ settlement proposal is realistic and there remains uncertainty as to the allegations in this case as they relate to us, our defenses to the claims, our rights to indemnification or contribution from other parties and the aggregate possible amount of damages for which we may be held liable. It is possible that losses related to the New Jersey MDL Proceedings could exceed the amounts accrued as of March 31, 2020, which could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania

On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary, Getty Properties Corp., was served with a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “State”) in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County relating to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania. The complaint names us and more than 50 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and acts in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violation of consumer protection law.

The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, but was removed by defendants to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York so that it may be managed as part of the ongoing MTBE MDL proceedings. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint naming additional defendants and adding factual allegations intended to bolster their claims against the defendants. We have joined with other defendants in the filing of a motion to dismiss the claims against us. This motion is pending with the Court. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

MTBE Litigation – State of Maryland

On December 17, 2017, the State of Maryland, by and through the Attorney General on behalf of the Maryland Department of Environment and the Maryland Department of Health (the “State of Maryland”), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City related to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Maryland. The complaint was served upon us on January 19, 2018. The complaint names us and more than 60 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of the defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiffs

also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Maryland to detect, investigate, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater, punitive damages and the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violations of Titles 4, 7 and 9 of the Maryland Environmental Code.

On February 14, 2018, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. It is unclear whether the matter will ultimately be removed to the MTBE MDL proceedings or remain in federal court in Maryland. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

Uniondale, New York Litigation

In September 2004, the State of New York commenced an action against us, United Gas Corp., Costa Gas Station, Inc., Vincent Costa, Sharon Irni, The Ingraham Bedell Corporation, Richard Berger and Exxon Mobil Corporation in New York Supreme Court in Albany County seeking recovery for reimbursement of investigation and remediation costs claimed to have been incurred by the New York Environmental Protection and Spill Compensation Fund relating to contamination it alleges emanated from various gasoline station properties located in the same vicinity in Uniondale, New York, including a site formerly owned by us and at which a petroleum release and cleanup occurred. The complaint also seeks future costs for remediation, as well as interest and penalties. We have served an answer to the complaint denying responsibility. In 2007, the State of New York commenced action against Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and related parties, in the New York Supreme Court, Albany County seeking basically the same relief sought in the action involving us. We have also filed a third-party complaint against Hess Corporation, Sprague Operating Resources LLC (successor to RAD Energy Corp.), Service Station Installation of NY, Inc., and certain individual defendants based on alleged contribution to the contamination that is the subject of the State of New York’s claims arising from a petroleum discharge at a gasoline station up-gradient from the site formerly owned by us. In 2016, the various actions filed by the State of New York and our third-party actions were consolidated for discovery proceedings and trial. Discovery in this case is in later stages and, as it nears completion, a schedule for trial will be established. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount we have accrued for this lawsuit. It is possible that losses related to this case could exceed the amounts accrued, as of March 31, 2020, which could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

2018 to March 2022, (c) extended the maturity date of the Term Loan from June 2020 to March 2023 and (d) amended certain financial covenants and provisions.

On September 19, 2018, we entered into an amendment (the “First Amendment”) of our Restated Credit Agreement. The First Amendment modifies the Restated Credit Agreement to, among other things: (i) reflect that we had previously entered into (a) an amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement with The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) and certain of its affiliates and (b) a note purchase and guarantee agreement with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and certain of its affiliates; and (ii) permit borrowings under each of the Revolving Facility and the Term Loan at three different interest rates, including a rate based on the LIBOR Daily Floating Rate (as defined in the First Amendment) plus the Applicable Rate (as defined in the First Amendment) for such facility.

On September 12, 2019, in connection with prepayment of the Term Loan, we entered into a consent and amendment (the “Second Amendment”) of our Restated Credit Agreement. The Second Amendment modifies the Restated Credit Agreement to, among other things, (a) increase our borrowing capacity under the Revolving Facility from $250,000,000 to $300,000,000 and (b) decrease lender commitments under the Term Loan to $0.

Subject to the terms of the Restated Credit Agreement and our continued compliance with its provisions, we have the option to (a) extend the term of the Revolving Facility for one additional year to March 2023 and (b) request that the lenders approve an increase of up to $300,000,000 in the amount of the Revolving Facility to $600,000,000 in the aggregate. The Restated Credit Agreement incurs interest and fees at various rates based on our total indebtedness to total asset value ratio at the end of each quarterly reporting period. The Revolving Facility permits borrowings at an interest rate equal to the sum of a base rate plus a margin of 0.50% to 1.30% or a LIBOR rate plus a margin of 1.50% to 2.30%. The annual commitment fee on the undrawn funds under the Revolving Facility is 0.15% to 0.25%.

Senior Unsecured Notes

On September 12, 2019, we entered into a fourth amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “Fourth Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement”) amending and restating our existing senior note purchase agreement with Prudential and certain of its affiliates. Pursuant to the Fourth Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement, we agreed that our (a) 6.0% Series A Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 25, 2021, in the original aggregate principal amount of $100,000,000 (the “Series A Notes”), (b) 5.35% Series B Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 2, 2023, in the original aggregate principal amount of $75,000,000 (the “Series B Notes”), (c) 4.75% Series C Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 25, 2025, in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Series C Notes”) and (d) 5.47% Series D Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 21, 2028, in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Series D Notes”) that were outstanding under the existing senior note purchase agreement would continue to remain outstanding under the Fourth Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement and we authorized and issued our 3.52% Series F Guaranteed Senior Notes due September 12, 2029, in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Series F Notes” and, together with the Series A Notes, Series B Notes, Series C Notes and Series D Notes, the “Notes”). The Fourth Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Notes prior to their respective maturities.

On June 21, 2018, we entered into a note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “MetLife Note Purchase Agreement”) with MetLife and certain of its affiliates. Pursuant to the MetLife Note Purchase Agreement, we authorized and issued our 5.47% Series E Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 21, 2028, in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Series E Notes”). The MetLife Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Series E Notes prior to their maturity.

On September 12, 2019, we entered into a note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “AIG Note Purchase Agreement”) with American General Life Insurance Company. Pursuant to the AIG Note Purchase Agreement, we authorized and issued our 3.52% Series G Guaranteed Senior Notes due September 12, 2029, in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Series G Notes”). The AIG Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Series G Notes prior to their maturity.

On September 12, 2019, we entered into a note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “MassMutual Note Purchase Agreement”) with Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and certain of its affiliates. Pursuant to the MassMutual Note Purchase Agreement, we authorized and issued our 3.52% Series H Guaranteed Senior Notes due September 12, 2029, in the aggregate principal amount of $25,000,000 (the “Series H Notes”). The MassMutual Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Series H Notes prior to their maturity.

Covenants

The Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes contain customary financial covenants such as leverage, coverage ratios and minimum tangible net worth, as well as limitations on restricted payments, which may limit our ability to incur additional debt or pay dividends. The Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes also contain customary events of

default, including cross defaults to each other, change of control and failure to maintain REIT status (provided that the senior unsecured notes require a mandatory offer to prepay the notes upon a change in control in lieu of a change of control event of default). Any event of default, if not cured or waived in a timely manner, would increase by 200 basis points (2.00%) the interest rate we pay under the Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes, and could result in the acceleration of our indebtedness under the Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes. We may be prohibited from drawing funds under the Revolving Facility if there is any event or condition that constitutes an event of default under the Restated Credit Agreement or that, with the giving of any notice, the passage of time, or both, would be an event of default under the Restated Credit Agreement.

As of March 31, 2020, we are in compliance with all of the material terms of the Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes, including the various financial covenants described herein.

Debt Maturities

is contractually allocated to our tenant. Our tenants at properties previously leased to Marketing are in all cases responsible for the cost of any remediation of contamination that results from their use and occupancy of our properties. Under substantially all of our other triple-net leases, responsibility for remediation of all environmental contamination discovered during the term of the lease (including known and unknown contamination that existed prior to commencement of the lease) is the responsibility of our tenant.

We anticipate that a majority of the USTs at properties previously leased to Marketing will be replaced over the next several years because these USTs are either at or near the end of their useful lives. For long-term, triple-net leases covering sites previously leased to Marketing, our tenants are responsible for the cost of removal and replacement of USTs and for remediation of contamination found during such UST removal and replacement, unless such contamination was found during the first 10 years of the lease term and also existed prior to commencement of the lease. In those cases, we are responsible for costs associated with the remediation of such preexisting contamination. We have also agreed to be responsible for environmental contamination that existed prior to the sale of certain properties assuming the contamination is discovered (other than as a result of a voluntary site investigation) during the first five years after the sale of the properties.

In the course of certain UST removals and replacements at properties previously leased to Marketing where we retained continuing responsibility for preexisting environmental obligations, previously unknown environmental contamination was and continues to be discovered. As a result, we have developed an estimate of fair value for the prospective future environmental liability resulting from preexisting unknown environmental contamination and have accrued for these estimated costs. These estimates are based primarily upon quantifiable trends which we believe allow us to make reasonable estimates of fair value for the future costs of environmental remediation resulting from the removal and replacement of USTs. Our accrual of the additional liability represents our estimate of the fair value of cost for each component of the liability, net of estimated recoveries from state UST remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with the funds. In arriving at our accrual, we analyzed the ages of USTs at properties where we would be responsible for preexisting contamination found within 10 years after commencement of a lease (for properties subject to long-term triple-net leases) or five years from a sale (for divested properties), and projected a cost to closure for preexisting unknown environmental contamination.

We measure our environmental remediation liabilities at fair value based on expected future net cash flows, adjusted for inflation (using a range of 2.0% to 2.75%), and then discount them to present value (using a range of 4.0% to 7.0%). We adjust our environmental remediation liabilities quarterly to reflect changes in projected expenditures, changes in present value due to the passage of time and reductions in estimated liabilities as a result of actual expenditures incurred during each quarter. As of March 31, 2020, we had accrued a total of $50,358,000 for our prospective environmental remediation obligations. This accrual consisted of (a) $12,439,000, which was our estimate of reasonably estimable environmental remediation liability, including obligations to remove USTs for which we are responsible, net of estimated recoveries and (b) $37,919,000 for future environmental liabilities related to preexisting unknown contamination. As of December 31, 2019, we had accrued a total of $50,723,000 for our prospective environmental remediation obligations. This accrual consisted of (a) $12,470,000, which was our estimate of reasonably estimable environmental remediation liability, including obligations to remove USTs for which we are responsible, net of estimated recoveries and (b) $38,253,000 for future environmental liabilities related to preexisting unknown contamination.

Environmental liabilities are accreted for the change in present value due to the passage of time and, accordingly, $466,000 and $538,000 of net accretion expense was recorded for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively, which is included in environmental expenses. In addition, during the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, we recorded credits to environmental expenses aggregating $788,000 and $341,000, respectively, where decreases in estimated remediation costs exceeded the depreciated carrying value of previously capitalized asset retirement costs. Environmental expenses also include project management fees, legal fees and environmental litigation accruals. For the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, changes in environmental estimates aggregating, $32,000 and $49,000, respectively, were related to properties that were previously disposed of by us.

During the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, we increased the carrying values of certain of our properties by $812,000 and $759,000, respectively, due to changes in estimated environmental remediation costs. The recognition and subsequent changes in estimates in environmental liabilities and the increase or decrease in carrying values of the properties are non-cash transactions which do not appear on our consolidated statements of cash flows.

Capitalized asset retirement costs are being depreciated over the estimated remaining life of the UST, a 10-year period if the increase in carrying value is related to environmental remediation obligations or such shorter period if circumstances warrant, such as the remaining lease term for properties we lease from others. Depreciation and amortization expense related to capitalized asset retirement costs in our consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, was $1,002,000 and $1,047,000, respectively. Capitalized asset retirement costs were $39,288,000 (consisting of $22,279,000 of known environmental liabilities and $17,009,000 of reserves for future environmental liabilities) as of March 31, 2020, and $39,684,000 (consisting of $22,150,000 of known environmental liabilities and $17,534,000 of reserves for future environmental liabilities) as of December 31, 2019. We recorded impairment charges aggregating $941,000 and $749,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively, for capitalized asset retirement costs.

Environmental exposures are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons, including the amount of data available upon initial assessment of contamination, alternative treatment methods that may be applied, location of the property which subjects it to differing local laws and regulations and their interpretations, changes in costs associated with environmental remediation services and equipment, the availability of state UST remediation funds and the possibility of existing legal claims giving rise to allocation of responsibilities to others, as well as the time it takes to remediate contamination and receive regulatory approval. In developing our liability for estimated environmental remediation obligations on a property by property basis, we consider, among other things, laws and regulations, assessments of contamination and surrounding geology, quality of information available, currently available technologies for treatment, alternative methods of remediation and prior experience. Environmental accruals are based on estimates derived upon facts known to us at this time, which are subject to significant change as circumstances change, and as environmental contingencies become more clearly defined and reasonably estimable.

Any changes to our estimates or our assumptions that form the basis of our estimates may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental remediation liabilities.

In July 2012, we purchased a 10-year pollution legal liability insurance policy covering substantially all of our properties at that time for preexisting unknown environmental liabilities and new environmental events. The policy has a $50,000,000 aggregate limit and is subject to various self-insured retentions and other conditions and limitations. Our intention in purchasing this policy was to obtain protection predominantly for significant events. In addition to the environmental insurance policy purchased by the Company, we also took assignment of certain environmental insurance policies, and rights to reimbursement for claims made thereunder, from Marketing, by order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court during Marketing’s bankruptcy proceedings. Under these assigned polices, we have received and expect to continue to receive reimbursement of certain remediation expenses for covered claims.

In light of the uncertainties associated with environmental expenditure contingencies, we are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty; however, we believe that it is possible that the fair value of future actual net expenditures could be substantially higher than amounts currently recorded by us. Adjustments to accrued liabilities for environmental remediation obligations will be reflected in our consolidated financial statements as they become probable and a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made.

On March 2, 2020, our Board of Directors granted 176,050 restricted stock units (“RSU” or “RSUs”) under our Amended and Restated 2004 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan. On March 1, 2019, our Board of Directors granted 156,750 of RSUs under our Amended and Restated 2004 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan.

ATM Program

In March 2018, we established an at-the-market equity offering program (the “ATM Program”), pursuant to which we are able to issue and sell shares of our common stock with an aggregate sales price of up to $125,000,000 through a consortium of banks acting as agents. Sales of the shares of common stock may be made, as needed, from time to time in at-the-market offerings as defined in Rule 415 of the Securities Act, including by means of ordinary brokers’ transactions on the New York Stock Exchange or otherwise at market prices prevailing at the time of sale, at prices related to prevailing market prices or as otherwise agreed to with the applicable agent.

During the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, no shares of common stock were issued under the ATM Program. Future sales, if any, will depend on a variety of factors to be determined by us from time to time, including among others, market conditions, the trading price of our common stock, determinations by us of the appropriate sources of funding for us and potential uses of funding available to us.

Dividends

For the three months ended March 31, 2020, we paid regular quarterly dividends of $15,557,000 or $0.37 per share. For the three months ended March 31, 2019, we paid regular quarterly dividends of $14,495,000 or $0.35 per share.

Dividend Reinvestment Plan

Our dividend reinvestment plan provides our common stockholders with a convenient and economical method of acquiring additional shares of common stock by reinvesting all or a portion of their dividend distributions. During the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, we issued 12,309 and 12,363 shares of common stock, respectively, under the dividend reinvestment plan and received proceeds of $394,000 and $357,000, respectively.

Stock-Based Compensation

Compensation cost for our stock-based compensation plans using the fair value method was $732,000 and $474,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively, and is included in general and administrative expense in our consolidated statements of operations.

charges. Rent is scheduled to increase annually during the initial and renewal terms of the lease. The properties are located in Missouri and Kansas. We accounted for the acquisitions as asset acquisitions. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $4,775,000 of the purchase price to land, $41,093,000 to buildings and improvements, $3,727,000 to in-place leases, $1,955,000 to above-market leases and $1,247,000 to below-market leases which is accounted for as a deferred liability.