Part I

Item 1. Business.

What is UGA?

The United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”) is a Delaware limited partnership organized on April 13, 2007. UGA maintains its main business office at 1850 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 640, Walnut Creek, California 94596. UGA is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests (“shares”) traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “NYSE Arca”). UGA’s shares began trading on February 26, 2008. It operates pursuant to the terms of the Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of December 15, 2017 (as amended from time to time, the “LP Agreement”), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC (“USCF”).

The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”), for delivery to the New York harbor), as measured by the daily changes in the price of a specified short-term futures contract on gasoline called the “Benchmark Futures Contract,” plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses. The Benchmark Futures Contract is the futures contract on gasoline as traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”), that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case it will be the futures contract that is the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”).

UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in futures contracts for gasoline, other types of gasoline, crude oil, diesel-heating oil, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures Europe and ICE Futures U.S. (together, “ICE Futures”) or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and, to a lesser extent, in order to comply with regulatory requirements or in view of market conditions, other gasoline-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, cleared swap contracts and non-exchange traded (“over-the-counter” or “OTC”) transactions that are based on the price of gasoline, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Gasoline-Related Investments”). Market conditions that USCF currently anticipates could cause UGA to invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments, include those allowing UGA to obtain greater liquidity, or to execute transactions with more favorable pricing. For convenience and unless otherwise specified, Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments collectively are referred to as “Gasoline Interests” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

In addition, USCF believes that market arbitrage opportunities cause the daily changes in UGA’s share price on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis to closely track the daily changes in UGA’s per share NAV on a percentage basis. USCF further believes that the daily changes in the prices of the Benchmark Futures Contract have historically closely tracked the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline. USCF believes that the net effect of these relationships will be that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis will closely track the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline on a percentage basis, less UGA’s expenses.

Specifically, UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing so that the average daily percentage change in UGA’s NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period.

Investors should be aware that UGA’s investment objective is not for its NAV or market price of shares to equal, in dollar terms, the spot price of gasoline or any particular futures contract based on gasoline, nor is UGA’s investment objective for the percentage change in its NAV to reflect the percentage change of the price of any particular futures contract as measured over a time period greater than one day. This is because natural market forces called contango and backwardation have impacted the total return on an investment in UGA’s shares during the past year relative to a hypothetical direct investment in gasoline and, in the future, it is likely that the relationship between the market price of UGA’s shares and changes in the spot prices of gasoline will continue to be impacted by contango and backwardation. (It is important to note that the disclosure above ignores the potential costs associated with physically owning and storing gasoline, which could be substantial).

Who is USCF?

USCF is a single member limited liability company that was formed in the state of Delaware on May 10, 2005. USCF maintains its main business office at 1850 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 640, Walnut Creek, California 94596. USCF is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wainwright Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Wainwright”), which is an intermediate holding company that owns USCF and

Table of Contents

another advisor of exchange traded funds. Wainwright is a wholly owned subsidiary of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (publicly traded under the ticker CNCG) (“Concierge”), a publicly traded holding company that owns various financial and non-financial businesses. Mr. Nicholas Gerber (discussed below), along with certain family members and certain other shareholders, owns the majority of the shares in Concierge. Wainwright is a holding company that currently holds both USCF, as well as USCF Advisers LLC, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“USCF Advisers”). USCF Advisers serves as the investment adviser for the USCF SummerHaven Dynamic Commodity Strategy No K-1 Fund (“SDCI”), USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund (“UMI”) and USCF Gold Strategy Plus Income Fund (“GLDX”), each a series of the USCF ETF Trust. USCF Advisers was also the investment adviser for the USCF Commodity Strategy Fund (the “Mutual Fund”), a series of the USCF Mutual Funds Trust, until March 2019, when the Mutual Fund liquidated all of its assets and distributed cash pro rata to all remaining shareholders. It was also the investment adviser for two series of the USCF ETF Trust that liquidated all of their assets and distributed cash pro rata to all remaining shareholders: the USCF SummerHaven SHPEI Index Fund (“BUY”), until October 2020, and the USCF SummerHaven SHPEN Index Fund (“BUYN”), until May 2020. USCF ETF Trust and USCF Mutual Funds Trust are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Board of Trustees for the USCF ETF Trust and USCF Mutual Funds Trust consist of different independent trustees than those independent directors who serve on the Board of Directors of USCF. USCF is a member of the National Futures Association (the “NFA”) and registered as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) on December 1, 2005 and as a swaps firm on August 8, 2013.

USCF serves as the general partner of UGA.

USCF is also the general partner of the United States Oil Fund, LP (“USO”), the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (“USL”) and the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNG”), which listed their limited partnership shares on the American Stock Exchange (the “AMEX”) under the ticker symbols “USO” on April 10, 2006, “USL” on December 6, 2007 and “UNG” on February 26, 2008, respectively. As a result of the acquisition of the AMEX by NYSE Euronext, each of USO’s, USL’s and UNG’s shares commenced trading on the NYSE Arca on November 25, 2008. USCF is also the general partner of the United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNL”) and the United States Brent Oil Fund, LP (“BNO”), which listed their limited partnership shares on the NYSE Arca under the ticker symbols “UNL” on November 18, 2009 and “BNO” on June 2, 2010, respectively.

USCF is also the sponsor of the United States Commodity Index Fund (“USCI”) and the United States Copper Index Fund (“CPER”) each a series of the United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (“USCIFT”). USCI and CPER listed their shares on the NYSE Arca under the ticker symbols “USCI” on August 10, 2010 and “CPER” on November 15, 2011, respectively.

USO, UNG, UNL, USL, BNO, USCI and CPER are referred to collectively herein as the “Related Public Funds.”

The Related Public Funds are subject to reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). For more information about each of the Related Public Funds, investors in UGA may call 1-800-920-0259 or visit www.uscfinvestments.com or the website of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) at www.sec.gov.

USCF is required to evaluate the credit risk of UGA to the futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), oversee the purchase and sale of UGA’s shares by certain authorized purchasers (“Authorized Participants”), review daily positions and margin requirements of UGA and manage UGA’s investments. USCF also pays the fees of ALPS Distributors, Inc. (“ALPS Distributors”), which serves as the marketing agent for UGA (the “Marketing Agent”), and The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”), which serves as the administrator (the “Administrator”) and the custodian (the “Custodian”), and provides accounting and transfer agent services for, UGA since April 1, 2020. Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH&Co.”) served as the administrator and custodian for UGA prior to BNY Mellon. Certain fund accounting and fund administration services rendered by BBH&Co. to UGA and the Related Public Funds terminated on May 31, 2020 to allow for the transition to BNY Mellon.

The limited partners take no part in the management or control of, and have a minimal voice in UGA’s operations or business. Limited partners have no right to elect USCF as the general partner on an annual or any other continuing basis. If USCF voluntarily withdraws as general partner, however, the holders of a majority of UGA’s outstanding shares (excluding for purposes of such determination shares owned, if any, by the withdrawing USCF and its affiliates) may elect its successor. USCF may not be removed as general partner except upon approval by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 66 and 2/3 percent of UGA’s outstanding shares (excluding shares owned, if any, by USCF and its affiliates), subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the LP Agreement.

The business and affairs of USCF are managed by a board of directors (the “Board”), which is comprised of four management directors (the “Management Directors”), each of whom are also executive officers or employees of USCF, and three independent directors who

Table of Contents

meet the independent director requirements established by the NYSE Arca Equities Rules and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Management Directors have the authority to manage USCF pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of USCF, dated as of May 15, 2015 (as amended from time to time, the “LLC Agreement”). Through its Management Directors, USCF manages the day-to-day operations of UGA. The Board has an audit committee which is made up of the three independent directors (Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes III and Peter M. Robinson). For additional information relating to the audit committee, please see “Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance – Audit Committee” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

UGA has no executive officers or employees. Pursuant to the terms of the LP Agreement, UGA’s affairs are managed by USCF.

How Does UGA Operate?

An investment in the shares provides a means for diversifying an investor’s portfolio or hedging exposure to changes in gasoline prices. An investment in the shares allows both retail and institutional investors to easily gain this exposure to the gasoline market in a transparent, cost-effective manner.

The net assets of UGA consist primarily of investments in futures contracts for gasoline, other types of gasoline, crude oil, diesel-heating oil, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and, to a lesser extent, in order to comply with regulatory requirements or in view of market conditions, other gasoline-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, cleared swap contracts and non-exchange traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) transactions that are based on the price of gasoline, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Gasoline-Related Investments”). Market conditions that USCF currently anticipates could cause UGA to invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments include those allowing UGA to obtain greater liquidity or to execute transactions with more favorable pricing. For convenience and unless otherwise specified, Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments collectively are referred to as “Gasoline Interests” in this annual report on Form 10-K. UGA invests substantially the entire amount of its assets in Futures Contracts while supporting such investments by holding the amounts of its margin, collateral and other requirements relating to these obligations in short-term obligations of the United States of two years or less (“Treasuries”), cash and cash equivalents. The daily holdings of UGA are available on UGA’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com.

UGA may invest in interests other than the Benchmark Futures Contract to comply with accountability levels and position limits. For a detailed discussion of accountability levels and position limits, see “Item 1. Business – What are Futures Contracts?” below in this annual report on Form 10-K.

USCF employs a “neutral” investment strategy in order to track changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract regardless of whether the price goes up or goes down. UGA’s “neutral” investment strategy is designed to permit investors generally to purchase and sell UGA’s shares for the purpose of investing indirectly in gasoline in a cost-effective manner, and/or to permit participants in the gasoline or other industries to hedge the risk of losses in their gasoline-related transactions. Accordingly, depending on the investment objective of an individual investor, the risks generally associated with investing in gasoline and/or the risks involved in hedging may exist. In addition, an investment in UGA involves the risk that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares, in percentage terms, will not accurately track the daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract, in percentage terms, and that daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract, in percentage terms, will not closely correlate with daily changes in the spot prices of gasoline, in percentage terms.

The Benchmark Futures Contract is changed from the near month contract to the next month contract over a four-day period. Each month, the Benchmark Futures Contract changes starting at the end of the day on the date two weeks prior to expiration of the near month contract for that month. During the first three days of the period, the applicable value of the Benchmark Futures Contract is based on a combination of the near month contract and the next month contract as follows: (1) day 1 consists of 75% of the then near month contract’s price plus 25% of the price of the next month contract, divided by 75% of the near month contract’s prior day’s price plus 25% of the price of the next month contract, (2) day 2 consists of 50% of the then near month contract’s price plus 50% of the price of the next month contract, divided by 50% of the near month contract’s prior day’s price plus 50% of the price of the next month contract, and (3) day 3 consists of 25% of the then near month contract’s price plus 75% of the price of the next month contract, divided by 25% of the near month contract’s prior day’s price plus 75% of the price of the next month contract. On day 4, the Benchmark Futures Contract is the next month contract to expire at that time and that contract remains the Benchmark Futures Contract until the beginning of the following month’s change in the Benchmark Futures Contract over a one-day period.

Table of Contents

On each day during the four-day period, USCF anticipates it will “roll” UGA’s positions in Gasoline Interests by closing, or selling, a percentage of UGA’s positions in Gasoline Interests and reinvesting the proceeds from closing those positions in new Gasoline Interests that reflect the change in the Benchmark Futures Contract.

The anticipated dates on which the Benchmark Futures Contracts will be changed and UGA’s Gasoline Interests will be “rolled” are posted on UGA’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com, and are subject to change without notice.

UGA’s total portfolio composition is disclosed on its website each business day that the NYSE Arca is open for trading. The website disclosure of portfolio holdings is made daily and includes, as applicable, the name and value of each Gasoline Interest, the specific types of Other Gasoline-Related Investments and characteristics of such Other Gasoline-Related Investments, the name and value of each Treasury and cash equivalent, and the amount of cash held in UGA’s portfolio. UGA’s website is publicly accessible at no charge. UGA’s assets used for margin and collateral are held in segregated accounts pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”) and CFTC regulations.

The shares issued by UGA may only be purchased by Authorized Participants and only in blocks of 50,000 shares, called “Creation Baskets”. The amount of the purchase payment for a Creation Basket is equal to the aggregate NAV of the shares in the Creation Basket. Similarly, only Authorized Participants may redeem shares and only in blocks of 50,000 shares, called “Redemption Baskets”. The amount of the redemption proceeds for a Redemption Basket is equal to the aggregate NAV of shares in the Redemption Basket. The purchase price for Creation Baskets and the redemption price for Redemption Baskets are the actual NAV calculated at the end of the business day when a request for a purchase or redemption is received by UGA. The NYSE Arca publishes an approximate per share NAV intra-day based on the prior day’s per share NAV and the current price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, but the price of Creation Baskets and Redemption Baskets is determined based on the actual per share NAV calculated at the end of the day.

While UGA issues shares only in Creation Baskets, shares are listed on the NYSE Arca and investors may purchase and sell shares at market prices like any listed security.

What is UGA’s Investment Strategy?

In managing UGA’s assets, USCF does not use a technical trading system that issues buy and sell orders. USCF instead employs a quantitative methodology whereby each time a Creation Basket is sold, USCF purchases Futures Contracts or Other Gasoline-Related Investments, such as the Benchmark Futures Contract, that have an aggregate market value that approximates the amount of Treasuries and/or cash received upon the issuance of the Creation Basket.

UGA intends to continue to pursue its investment objective as described above. By remaining invested as fully as possible in Futures Contracts or Other Gasoline-Related Investments, USCF believes that the daily changes in percentage terms of UGA’s NAV will continue to closely track the daily changes in percentage terms in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. USCF believes that certain arbitrage opportunities result in the price of the shares traded on the NYSE Arca closely tracking the per share NAV of UGA. Additionally, Futures Contracts as traded on the NYMEX have closely tracked the spot price of gasoline for delivery to the New York harbor. Based on these expected interrelationships, USCF believes that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares traded on the NYSE Arca, on a percentage basis, have closely tracked and will continue to closely track the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline, on a percentage basis. For performance data relating to UGA’s ability to track its benchmark, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Tracking UGA’s Benchmark” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

As a specific benchmark, USCF endeavors to place UGA’s trades in Gasoline Interests and otherwise manage UGA’s investments so that “A” will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of “B”, where:

●

A is the average daily percentage change in UGA’s per share NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days; i.e., any NYSE Arca trading day as of which UGA calculates its per share NAV; and

●

B is the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period.

USCF believes that market arbitrage opportunities will cause the daily changes in UGA’s share price on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis to closely track daily changes in UGA’s per share NAV on a percentage basis. USCF further believes that daily changes in prices of the Benchmark Futures Contract have historically closely tracked the daily changes in spot prices of gasoline. USCF believes that the net effect of these relationships will be that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis will

Table of Contents

closely track, the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline on a percentage basis, plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses. For performance data relating to UGA’s ability to track its benchmark, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Tracking UGA’s Benchmark” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

The specific Futures Contracts purchased depend on various factors, including a judgment by USCF as to the appropriate diversification of UGA’s investments in Futures Contracts with respect to the month of expiration, and the prevailing price volatility of particular contracts. While USCF has made significant investments in NYMEX Futures Contracts, for various reasons, including the ability to enter into the precise amount of exposure to the crude oil market, position limits or other regulatory requirements limiting UGA’s holdings, and market conditions, it may invest in Futures Contracts traded on other exchanges or invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments. To the extent that UGA invests in Other Gasoline-Related Investments, it would prioritize investments in contracts and instruments that are economically equivalent to the Benchmark Futures Contract, including cleared swaps that satisfy such criteria, and then, to a lesser extent, it would invest in other types of cleared swaps and other contracts, instruments and non-cleared swaps, such as swaps in the over-the-counter market (or commonly referred to as the “OTC market”). If UGA is required by law or regulation, or by one of its regulators, including a futures exchange, to reduce its position in the Benchmark Futures Contract to the applicable position limit or to a specified accountability level or if market conditions dictate it would be more appropriate to invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments, a substantial portion of UGA’s assets could be invested in accordance with such priority in Other Gasoline-Related Investments that are intended to replicate the return on the Benchmark Futures Contract. As UGA’s assets reach higher levels, it is more likely to exceed position limits, accountability levels or other regulatory limits and, as a result, it is more likely that it will invest in accordance with such priority in Other Gasoline-Related Investments at such higher levels. In addition, market conditions that USCF currently anticipates could cause UGA to invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments include those allowing UGA to obtain greater liquidity or to execute transactions with more favorable pricing. See “Item 1. Business – Commodities Regulation” in this annual report on Form 10-K for a discussion of the potential impact of regulation on UGA’s ability to invest in OTC transactions and cleared swaps.

USCF may not be able to fully invest UGA’s assets in Benchmark Futures Contracts having an aggregate notional amount exactly equal to UGA’s NAV. For example, as standardized contracts, the Benchmark Futures Contracts are for a specified amount of a particular commodity, and UGA’s NAV and the proceeds from the sale of a Creation Basket are unlikely to be an exact multiple of the amounts of those contracts. As a result, in such circumstances, UGA may be better able to achieve the exact amount of exposure to changes in price of the Benchmark Futures Contract through the use of Other Gasoline-Related Investments, such as OTC contracts that have better correlation with changes in price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.

UGA anticipates that to the extent it invests in Futures Contracts other than contracts on gasoline (such as futures contracts for diesel-heating oil, natural gas, and other petroleum-based fuels) and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, it will enter into various non-exchange-traded derivative contracts to hedge the short-term price movements of such Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments against the current Benchmark Futures Contract.

USCF does not anticipate letting UGA’s Futures Contracts expire and taking delivery of the underlying commodity. Instead, USCF closes existing positions, e.g., when it changes the Benchmark Futures Contract or Other Gasoline-Related Investments or it otherwise determines it would be appropriate to do so and reinvests the proceeds in new Futures Contracts or Other Gasoline-Related Investments. Positions may also be closed out to meet orders for Redemption Baskets and in such case proceeds for such baskets will not be reinvested.

What is the Gasoline Market and the Petroleum-Based Fuel Market?

UGA may purchase Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX that are based on gasoline. The ICE Futures also offers an RBOB Gasoline Futures Contract which trades in units of 42,000 U.S. gallons (1,000 barrels). The RBOB Gasoline Futures Contract is cash settled against the prevailing market price for RBOB gasoline in the New York harbor. It may also purchase contracts on other exchanges, including the NYMEX, ICE Futures Exchange and other U.S. and foreign exchanges.

Gasoline. Gasoline is the largest single volume refined product sold in the U.S. and accounts for almost half of national oil consumption. The gasoline futures contract listed and traded on the NYMEX trades in units of 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels) and is based on delivery at petroleum products terminals in the New York harbor, the major East Coast trading center for imports and domestic shipments from refineries in the New York harbor area or from the Gulf Coast refining centers. The price of gasoline has historically been volatile.

Light, Sweet Crude Oil. Light, sweet crudes are preferred by refiners because of their low sulfur content and relatively high yields of high-value products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, diesel-heating oil, and jet fuel. The price of light, sweet crude oil has historically exhibited periods of significant volatility.

Table of Contents

Demand for petroleum products by consumers, as well as agricultural, manufacturing and transportation industries, determines demand for crude oil by refiners. Since the precursors of product demand are linked to economic activity, crude oil demand will tend to reflect economic conditions. However, other factors such as weather also influence product and crude oil demand.

Crude oil supply is determined by both economic and political factors. Oil prices (along with drilling costs, availability of attractive prospects for drilling, taxes and technology, among other factors) determine exploration and development spending, which influence output capacity with a lag. In the short run, production decisions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) also affect supply and prices. Oil export embargoes and the current conflicts in the Middle East represent other routes through which political developments move the market. It is not possible to predict the aggregate effect of all or any combination of these factors.

Diesel-Heating Oil. Diesel-heating oil, also known as No. 2 fuel oil, accounts for 25% of the yield of a barrel of crude oil, the second largest “cut” from oil after gasoline. The diesel-heating Oil Futures Contract listed and traded on the NYMEX trades in units of 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels) and is based on delivery in the New York harbor, the principal cash market center. The ICE Futures also offers a diesel-heating Oil Futures Contract which trades in units of 42,000 U.S. gallons (1,000 barrels). The diesel-heating Oil Futures Contract is cash-settled against the prevailing market price for heating oil delivered to the New York Harbor.

Natural Gas. Natural gas accounts for almost a quarter of U.S. energy consumption. The natural gas futures contract listed and traded on the NYMEX trades in units of 10,000 million British thermal units and is based on delivery at the Henry Hub in Louisiana, the nexus of 16 intra- and interstate natural gas pipeline systems that draw supplies from the region’s prolific gas deposits. The pipelines serve markets throughout the U.S. East Coast, the Gulf Coast, the Midwest, and up to the Canadian border. The price of natural gas has historically been volatile.

What are Futures Contracts?

Futures contracts are agreements between two parties. One party agrees to buy a commodity such as gasoline from the other party at a later date at a price and quantity agreed-upon when the contract is made. Futures Contracts are traded on futures exchanges, including the NYMEX. For example, the Benchmark Futures Contract is traded on the NYMEX in units of 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels). Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX are priced by floor brokers and other exchange members both through an “open outcry” of offers to purchase or sell the contracts and through an electronic, screen-based system that determines the price by matching electronically offers to purchase and sell. Additional risks of investing in Futures Contracts are included in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

Accountability Levels, Position Limits and Price Fluctuation Limits. Designated contract markets (“DCMs”), such as the NYMEX and ICE Futures, have established accountability levels and position limits on the maximum net long or net short futures contracts in commodity interests that any person or group of persons under common trading control (other than as a hedge, which an investment by UGA is not) may hold, own or control. These levels and position limits apply to the futures contracts that UGA invests in to meet its investment objective. In addition to accountability levels and position limits, the NYMEX and ICE Futures also set daily price limits on futures contracts. The daily price limit establishes the maximum amount that the price of a futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s settlement price. Once the daily price fluctuation limit has been reached in a particular futures contract, no trades may be made at a price beyond that limit.

The accountability levels for the Benchmark Futures Contract and other Futures Contracts traded on U.S. based futures exchanges, such as the NYMEX, are not a fixed ceiling, but rather a threshold above which the NYMEX may exercise greater scrutiny and control over an investor’s positions. The current accountability level for investments for any one month in the Benchmark Futures Contract is 5,000 contracts. In addition, the NYMEX imposes an accountability level for all months of 7,000 net futures contracts for gasoline. In addition, the ICE Futures maintains the same accountability levels, position limits and monitoring authority for its gasoline contract as the NYMEX. If UGA and the Related Public Funds exceed these accountability levels for investments in the futures contracts for gasoline, the NYMEX and ICE Futures will monitor such exposure and may ask for further information on their activities, including the total size of all positions, investment and trading strategy, and the extent of liquidity resources of UGA and the Related Public Funds. If deemed necessary by the NYMEX and/or ICE Futures, UGA could be ordered to reduce its aggregate position back to the accountability level. As of December 31, 2021, UGA held 769 NYMEX RBOB Gasoline Futures RB contracts. During the year ended December 31, 2021 UGA did not exceed accountability levels on the NYMEX or ICE Futures.

Table of Contents

levels and position limits that may apply at any time, the NYMEX and ICE Futures impose position limits on contracts held in the last few days of trading in the near month contract to expire. It is unlikely that UGA will run up against such position limits because of UGA’s investment strategy is to close out its positions and “roll” from the near month contract to expire to the next month contract to expire during one day each month. For the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not exceed position limits imposed by the NYMEX and ICE Futures.

On October 15, 2020, the CFTC approved a final rule that amends the existing federal position limits regime set forth in Part 150 of the CFTC’s regulations as well as the framework for exchange-set position limits and exemptions (such final rule, the “Position Limits Rule”). The Position Limits Rule establishes federal position limits for 25 core referenced futures contracts (comprised of agricultural, energy and metals futures contracts), futures and options linked to the core referenced futures contracts, and swaps that are economically equivalent to the core referenced futures contracts.

The Benchmark Futures Contract will be subject to position limits under the Position Limits Rule, and UGA’s trading does not qualify for an exemption therefrom. Accordingly, the Position Limits Rule could negatively impact the ability of UGA to meet its investment objective by inhibiting USCF’s ability to effectively invest the proceeds from sales of Creation Baskets of UGA in particular amounts and types of its permitted investments.

Price Volatility. The price volatility of Futures Contracts generally has been historically greater than that for traditional securities such as stocks and bonds. Price volatility often is greater day-to-day as opposed to intra-day. Futures Contracts tend to be more volatile than stocks and bonds because price movements for gasoline are more currently and directly influenced by economic factors for which current data is available and are traded by gasoline futures traders throughout the day. Because UGA invests a significant portion of its assets in Futures Contracts, the assets of UGA, and therefore the prices of UGA shares, may be subject to greater volatility than traditional securities.

Marking-to-Market Futures Positions. Futures Contracts are marked to market at the end of each trading day and the margin required with respect to such contracts is adjusted accordingly. This process of marking-to-market is designed to prevent losses from accumulating in any futures account. Therefore, if UGA’s futures positions have declined in value, UGA may be required to post “variation margin” to cover this decline. Alternatively, if UGA futures positions have increased in value, this increase will be credited to UGA’s account.

Why Does UGA Purchase and Sell Futures Contracts?

UGA’s investment objective is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share NAV to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the Benchmark Futures Contract, plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses. UGA invests primarily in Futures Contracts. UGA seeks to have its aggregate NAV approximate at all times the aggregate market value of the Futures Contracts (or Other Gasoline-Related Investments) it holds.

In connection with investing in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, UGA holds Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents that serve as segregated assets supporting UGA’s positions in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments. For example, the purchase of a Futures Contract with a notional value of $10 million would not require UGA to pay $10 million upon entering into the contract; rather, only a margin deposit, generally of 5% to 30% of the stated value of the Futures Contract, would be required. To secure its Futures Contract obligations, UGA would deposit the required margin with the FCMs and would separately hold, through its Custodian or FCMs, Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents in an amount equal to the balance of the current market value of the contract, which at the contract’s inception would be $10 million minus the amount of the margin deposit, or $9 million (assuming a 10% margin).

As a result of the foregoing, typically 5% to 30% of UGA’s assets are held as margin in segregated accounts with an FCM. In addition to the Treasuries and cash it posts with the FCM for the Futures Contracts it owns, UGA may hold, through the Custodian, Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents that can be posted as additional margin or as other collateral to support its OTC contracts. UGA earns income from the Treasuries and/or cash equivalents that it purchases, and on the cash it holds through the Custodian or FCM. UGA anticipates that the earned income will increase the NAV and limited partners’ capital contribution accounts. UGA reinvests the earned income, holds it in cash, or uses it to pay its expenses. If UGA reinvests the earned income, it makes investments that are consistent with its investment objective.

Table of Contents

UGA may enter into certain transactions where an OTC component is exchanged for a corresponding futures contract (“Exchange for Related Position” or “EFRP” transactions). In the most common type of EFRP transaction entered into by UGA, the OTC component is the purchase or sale of one or more baskets of UGA’s shares. These EFRP transactions may expose UGA to counterparty risk during the interim period between the execution of the OTC component and the exchange for a corresponding futures contract. Generally, the counterparty risk from the EFRP transaction will exist only on the day of execution.

UGA may employ spreads or straddles in its trading to mitigate the differences in its investment portfolio and its goal of tracking the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. UGA would use a spread when it chooses to take simultaneous long and short positions in futures written on the same underlying asset, but with different delivery months.

During the reporting period of this annual report on Form 10-K, UGA limited its derivatives activities to futures contracts in gasoline and EFRP transactions.

Pyramiding

UGA has not employed and will not employ the technique, commonly known as pyramiding, in which the speculator uses unrealized profits on existing positions as variation margin for the purchase or sale of additional positions in the same or another commodity interest.

Who are the Service Providers?

Custodian, Registrar, Transfer Agent, and Administrator

USCF engaged The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”), a New York corporation authorized to do a banking business (“BNY Mellon”), to provide UGA and each of the Related Public Funds with certain custodial, administrative and accounting, and transfer agency services, pursuant to the following agreements with BNY Mellon dated as of March 20, 2020 (together, the “BNY Mellon Agreements”), which were effective as of April 1, 2020: (i) a Custody Agreement; (ii) a Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement; and (iii) a Transfer Agency and Service Agreement. USCF pays the fees of BNY Mellon for its services under the BNY Mellon Agreements and such fees are determined by the parties from time to time.

Brown Brothers Harriman and Co. (“BBH&Co.”) previously served as the Administrator, Custodian, Transfer Agent and Fund Accounting Agent for UGA and the Related Public Funds prior to BNY Mellon commencing such services on April 1, 2020. Certain fund accounting and fund administration services rendered by BBH&Co. to UGA and the Related Public Funds terminated on May 31, 2020 to allow for the transition to BNY Mellon.

Marketing Agent

UGA also employs ALPS Distributors as its marketing agent. USCF pays the Marketing Agent an annual fee. In no event may the aggregate compensation paid to the Marketing Agent and any affiliate of USCF for distribution-related services in connection with the offering of shares exceed ten percent (10%) of the gross proceeds of the offering.

ALPS Distributors’ principal business address is 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, CO 80203. ALPS Distributors is a broker-dealer registered with the SEC and is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.

Payments to Certain Third Parties

USCF or the Marketing Agent, or an affiliate of USCF or the Marketing Agent, may directly or indirectly make cash payments to certain broker-dealers for participating in activities that are designed to make registered representatives and other professionals more knowledgeable about exchange-traded funds and exchange-traded products, including UGA and the Related Public Funds, or for other activities, such as participation in marketing activities and presentations, educational training programs, conferences, the development of technology platforms and reporting systems.

Additionally, pursuant to written agreements, USCF may make payments, out of its own resources, to financial intermediaries in exchange for providing services in connection with the sale or servicing of the Fund’s shares, including waiving commissions on the purchase or sale of shares of participating exchange-traded products.

Table of Contents

Payments to a broker-dealer or intermediary may create potential conflicts of interest between the broker-dealer or intermediary and its clients. The amounts described above, which may be significant, are paid by USCF and/or the Marketing Agent from their own resources and not from the assets of UGA or the Related Public Funds.

Futures Commission Merchants

RBC Capital Markets LLC

On October 8, 2013, USCF entered into a Futures and Cleared Derivatives Transactions Customer Account Agreement with RBC Capital Markets, LLC (“RBC Capital” or “RBC”) to serve as UGA’s FCM, effective October 10, 2013. This agreement requires RBC Capital to provide services to UGA, as of October 10, 2013, in connection with the purchase and sale of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments that may be purchased or sold by or through RBC Capital for UGA’s account. For the period October 10, 2013 and after, UGA pays RBC Capital commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA.

RBC Capital’s primary address is 3 World Financial Center, 200 Vesey St., New York, NY 10281. Effective October 10, 2013, RBC Capital became the futures clearing broker for UGA. RBC Capital is registered in the United States with FINRA as a broker-dealer and with the CFTC as an FCM. RBC Capital is a member of various U.S. futures and securities exchanges.

RBC Capital is a large broker dealer subject to many different complex legal and regulatory requirements. As a result, certain of RBC Capital’s regulators may from time to time conduct investigations, initiate enforcement proceedings and/or enter into settlements with RBC Capital with respect to issues raised in various investigations. RBC Capital complies fully with its regulators in all investigations being conducted and in all settlements it reaches. In addition, RBC Capital is and has been subject to a variety of civil legal claims in various jurisdictions, a variety of settlement agreements and a variety of orders, awards and judgments made against it by courts and tribunals, both in regard to such claims and investigations. RBC Capital complies fully with all settlements it reaches and all orders, awards and judgments made against it.

RBC Capital has been named as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation including those described below, arising in connection with its activities. Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. RBC Capital is also involved, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding RBC Capital’s business, including among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.

RBC Capital contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages or where investigations and proceedings are in the early stages, RBC Capital cannot predict the loss or range of loss, if any, related to such matters; how or if such matters will be resolved; when they will ultimately be resolved; or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, might be. Subject to the foregoing, RBC Capital believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of RBC Capital.

On April 27, 2017, pursuant to an offer of settlement, a Panel of the Chicago Board of Trade Business Conduct Committee (“Panel”) found that RBC Capital engaged in EFRP transactions which failed to satisfy the Rules of the Chicago Board of Trade (the “Chicago Board of Trade”) in one or more ways. Specifically, the Panel found that RBC Capital traders entered into EFRP trades in which RBC Capital accounts were on both sides of the transactions. While the purpose of the transactions was to transfer positions between the RBC Capital accounts, the Panel found that the manner in which the trades occurred violated the Chicago Board of Trade’s prohibition on wash trades. The Panel found that RBC Capital thereby violated CBOT Rules 534 and (legacy) 538.B. and C. In accordance with the settlement offer, the Panel ordered RBC Capital to pay a $175,000 fine. On October 1, 2019, the CFTC issued an order filing and settling charges against RBCCM for the above activity, as well as related charges. The order required that RBCCM cease and desist from violating the applicable regulations, pay a $5 million civil monetary penalty, and comply with various conditions, including conditions regarding public statements and future cooperation with the CFTC.

On June 18, 2015, in connection with the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation initiative of the SEC, the SEC commenced and settled an administrative proceeding against RBC Capital for willful violations of Sections 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“1933 Act”) after the firm self-reported instances in which it conducted inadequate due diligence in certain municipal

Table of Contents

securities offerings and as a result, failed to form a reasonable basis for believing the truthfulness of certain material representations in official statements issued in connection with those offerings. RBC Capital paid a fine of $500,000.

RBC Capital and certain affiliates were named as defendants in a lawsuit relating to their role in transactions involving investments made by a number of Wisconsin school districts in certain collateralized debt obligations. These transactions were also the subject of a regulatory investigation, which was resolved in 2011. RBC Capital reached a final settlement with all parties in the civil litigation, and the civil action against RBC Capital was dismissed with prejudice on December 6, 2016.

Beginning in 2015, putative class actions were brought against RBC Capital and/or Royal Bank of Canada in the U.S., Canada and Israel. These actions were each brought against multiple foreign exchange dealers and allege, among other things, collusive behavior in foreign exchange trading. Various regulators are also conducting inquiries regarding potential violations of law by a number of banks and other entities, including RBC Capital, regarding foreign exchange trading. In August 2018, the U.S. District Court entered a final order approving RBC Capital’s pending settlement with class plaintiffs. Certain institutional plaintiffs opted out of participating in the settlement and have brought their own claims. The Canadian class actions, and one other U.S. action that is purportedly brought on behalf of different classes of plaintiffs and an action filed in Israel, remain pending. Based on the facts currently known, it is not possible at this time for us to predict the ultimate outcome of these investigations or proceedings or the timing of their resolution.

On July 31, 2015, RBC Capital was added as a new defendant in a pending putative class action initially filed in November 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action is brought against multiple foreign exchange dealers and alleges collusive behavior, among other allegations, in foreign exchange trading. Based on the facts currently known, the ultimate resolution of these collective matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on RBC.

On April 13, 2015, RBC Capital’s affiliate, Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (Bahamas) Limited (“RBC Bahamas”), was charged in France with complicity in tax fraud. RBC Bahamas believes that its actions did not violate French law and contested the charge in the French court. The trial of this matter has concluded and a verdict was delivered on January 12, 2017, acquitting the company and the other defendants and on June 29, 2018, the French appellate court affirmed the acquittals. The acquittals are being appealed.

Various regulators and competition and enforcement authorities around the world, including in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the U.S., are conducting investigations related to certain past submissions made by panel banks in connection with the setting of the U.S. dollar London interbank offered rate (“LIBOR”). These investigations focus on allegations of collusion between the banks that were on the panel to make submissions for certain LIBOR rates. Royal Bank of Canada, RBC Capital’s indirect parent, is a member of certain LIBOR panels, including the U.S. dollar LIBOR panel, and has in the past been the subject of regulatory requests for information. In addition, Royal Bank of Canada and other U.S. dollar panel banks have been named as defendants in private lawsuits filed in the U.S. with respect to the setting of LIBOR including a number of class action lawsuits which have been consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints in those private lawsuits assert claims against us and other panel banks under various U.S. laws, including U.S. antitrust laws, the CEA, and state law. On February 28, 2018, the motion by the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits to have the class certified was denied in relation to Royal Bank of Canada. As such, unless that ruling is reversed on appeal, Royal Bank of Canada is no longer a defendant in any pending class action. Royal Bank of Canada is still a party to the various individual LIBOR actions. Based on the facts currently known, it is not possible at this time for us to predict the ultimate outcome of these investigations or proceedings or the timing of their resolution.

Thornburg Mortgage Inc. (“TMST”) and RBC Capital were parties to a master repurchase agreement executed in September 2003 whereby TMST financed its purchase of residential mortgage-backed securities. Upon TMST’s default during the financial crisis, RBC Capital valued TMST’s collateral at allegedly deflated prices. After TMST’s bankruptcy filing, TMST’s trustee brought suit against RBC Capital in 2011 for breach of contract. In 2015, TMST was awarded more than $45 million in damages. RBC Capital has appealed. The appeals court set a briefing schedule and simultaneously ordered the parties to participate in a mediation. The parties subsequently reached an agreement to settle the matter; a motion to approve the settlement was filed with the bankruptcy court on January 10, 2016 and granted on February 27, 2017.

On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court of Chancery”) in a class action brought by former shareholders of Rural/Metro Corporation, held RBC Capital liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by three Rural/Metro directors, but did not make an additional award for attorney’s fees. A final judgment was entered on February 19, 2015 in the amount of US$93 million plus post judgment interest. RBC Capital appealed the Court of Chancery’s determination of liability and quantum of damages, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the ruling on additional attorneys’ fees. On November 30, 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery with respect to both the appeal and cross-appeal. RBC Capital is cooperating with an investigation by the SEC

Table of Contents

relating to this matter. In particular, the SEC contended that RBC Capital caused materially false and misleading information to be included in the proxy statement that Rural filed to solicit shareholder approval for the sale in violation of section 14(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14A-9 thereunder. On August 31, 2016, RBC Capital was ordered by the SEC to cease and desist and paid $500,000 in disgorgement, plus interest of $77,759 and a civil penalty of $2 million.

Please see RBC Capital’s Form BD, which is available on the FINRA BrokerCheck program, for more details.

RBC Capital will act only as clearing broker for UGA and as such will be paid commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA. RBC Capital has not passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this annual report on Form 10-K. RBC Capital will not act in any supervisory capacity with respect to USCF or participate in the management of USCF or UGA.

RBC Capital is not affiliated with UGA or USCF. Therefore, neither USCF nor UGA believes that there are any conflicts of interest with RBC Capital or its trading principals arising from its acting as UGA’s FCM.

RCG Division of Marex Spectron

On May 28, 2020, UGA entered into a Commodity Futures Customer Agreement with RCG Division of Marex Spectron (“RCG”) to serve as a FCM for UGA. This agreement requires RCG to provide services to UGA in connection with the purchase and sale of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments that may be purchased or sold by or through RCG for UGA’s account. Under this agreement, UGA pays RCG commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA.

RCG’s primary address is 360 Madison Avenue, 3^rd Floor, New York, NY 10017. RCG is registered in the United States with FINRA as a broker-dealer and with the CFTC as an FCM. RCG is a member of various U.S. futures and securities exchanges.

RCG is a large broker dealer subject to many different complex legal and regulatory requirements. As a result, certain of RCG’s regulators may from time to time conduct investigations, initiate enforcement proceedings and/or enter into settlements with RCG with respect to issues raised in various investigations. RCG complies fully with its regulators in all investigations which may be conducted and in all settlements it may reach. As of the date hereof, RCG has no material litigation to disclose as that term is defined under the CEA and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

RCG will act only as clearing broker for UGA and as such will be paid commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA. RCG has not passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this annual report on Form 10-K. RCG will not act in any supervisory capacity with respect to USCF or participate in the management of USCF or UGA.

RCG is not affiliated with UGA or USCF. Therefore, neither USCF nor UGA believes that there are any conflicts of interest with RCG or its trading principals arising from its acting as UGA’s FCM.

E D & F Man Capital Markets Inc.

On June 5, 2020, UGA entered into a Customer Agreement E D & F Man Capital Markets Inc. (“MCM”) to serve as an FCM for UGA. This agreement requires MCM to provide services to UGA in connection with the purchase and sale of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments that may be purchased or sold by or through MCM for UGA’s account. Under this agreement, UGA pays MCM commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA.

MCM’s primary address is 140 East 45^th Street, 10^th Floor, New York, NY 10017. MCM is registered in the United States with FINRA as a broker-dealer and with the CFTC as an FCM. MCM is a member of various U.S. futures and securities exchanges.

MCM is a large broker dealer subject to many different complex legal and regulatory requirements. As a result, certain of MCM’s regulators may from time to time conduct investigations, initiate enforcement proceedings and/or enter into settlements with MCM with respect to issues raised in various investigations. MCM complies fully with its regulators in all investigations which may be conducted and in all settlements it may reach. As of the date hereof, MCM has no material litigation to disclose as that term is defined under the CEA and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

MCM will act only as clearing broker for UGA and as such will be paid commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA. MCM has not passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this annual report on Form 10-K. MCM will not act in any supervisory capacity with respect to USCF or participate in the management of USCF or UGA.

Table of Contents

MCM is not affiliated with UGA or USCF. Therefore, neither USCF nor UGA believes that there are any conflicts of interest with MCM or its trading principals arising from its acting as UGA’s FCM.

Macquarie Futures USA LLC

On December 3, 2020, UGA engaged Macquarie Futures USA LLC (“MFUSA”) to serve as an additional futures commission merchant for UGA. The Customer Agreement between UGA and MFUSA requires MFUSA to provide services to UGA in connection with the purchase and sale of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments that may be purchased or sold by or through MFUSA for UGA’s account. Under this agreement, UGA pays MFUSA commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA.

MFUSA’s primary address is 125 West 55^th Street, New York, NY 10019. MFUSA is registered in the United States with the CFTC as an FCM providing futures execution and clearing services covering futures exchanges globally. MFUSA is a member of various U.S. futures and securities exchanges.

MFUSA is a large broker dealer subject to many different complex legal and regulatory requirements. As a result, certain of MFUSA’s regulators may from time to time conduct investigations, initiate enforcement proceedings and/or enter into settlements with MFUSA with respect to issues raised in various investigations. MFUSA complies fully with its regulators in all investigations which may be conducted and in all settlements it may reach. As of the date hereof, MFUSA has no material litigation to disclose as that term is defined under the CEA and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

MFUSA will act only as clearing broker for UGA and as such will be paid commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA. MFUSA has not passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this annual report on Form 10-K. MFUSA will not act in any supervisory capacity with respect to USCF or participate in the management of USCF or UGA.

MFUSA is not affiliated with UGA or USCF. Therefore, neither USCF nor UGA believes that there are any conflicts of interest with MFUSA or its trading principals arising from its acting as UGA’s FCM.

Commodity Trading Advisor

Currently, USCF does not employ commodity trading advisors for the trading of UGA contracts. USCF currently does, however, employ SummerHaven Investment Management, LLC as a trading advisor for USCI and CPER. If, in the future, USCF does employ commodity trading advisors for UGA, it will choose each advisor based on arm’s-length negotiations and will consider the advisor’s experience, fees and reputation.

Summary of Risk Factors

Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the information in “Item 1A. Risk Factors”, including, but not limited to, the following risks:

●

The NAV of UGA’s shares relates directly to the value of the Benchmark Futures Contracts and other assets held by UGA and fluctuations in the prices of these assets could materially adversely affect an investment in UGA’s shares. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results; all or substantially all of an investment in UGA could be lost.

●

COVID-19 and other infectious disease outbreaks could negatively affect the valuation and performance of UGA’s investments.

●

An investment in UGA may provide little or no diversification benefits. Thus, in a declining market, UGA may have no gains to offset losses from other investments, and an investor may suffer losses on an investment in UGA while incurring losses with respect to other asset classes.

●

Historical performance of UGA and the Benchmark Futures Contracts is not indicative of future performance.

●

The market price at which investors buy or sell shares may be significantly less or more than NAV.

●

Daily percentage changes in UGA’s NAV may not correlate with daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.

●

An investment in UGA is not a proxy for investing in the gasoline markets, and the daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, or the NAV of UGA, may not correlate with daily percentage changes in the spot price of gasoline.

Table of Contents

Fees of UGA

Fees and Compensation Arrangements with USCF and Non-Affiliated Service Providers


Service Provider		Compensation Paid by USCF⁽¹⁾
BBH&Co., Custodian and Administrator(3)		Minimum amount of $75,000 annually for its custody, fund accounting and fund administration services rendered to all funds, as well as a $20,000 annual fee for its transfer agency services. In addition, an asset-based charge of (a) 0.06% for the first $500 million of UGA’s and the Related Public Funds’ combined net assets, (b) 0.0465% for UGA’s and the Related Public Funds’ combined net assets greater than $500 million but less than $1 billion, and (c) 0.035% once UGA’s and the Related Public Funds’ combined net assets exceed $1 billion.⁽²⁾
BNY Mellon, Custodian and Administrator(4)		Provides custody, fund accounting fund administration and transfer agency services to UGA and the Related Public Funds’ based on average AUM. The annual fees for UGA and the combined Related Public Funds’ may range from $0.4 million to $2.4 million depending on average AUM for any given year.
ALPS Distributors-Marketing Agent		0.06% on UGA’s assets up to $3 billion and 0.04% on UGA’s assets in excess of $3 billion.

(1)	USCF pays this compensation.

(2)	The annual minimum amount will not apply if the asset-based charge for all accounts in the aggregate exceeds $75,000. USCF also will pay transaction charge fees to BBH&Co., ranging from $7 to $15 per transaction for the funds.

(3)	BBH&Co. provided certain fund accounting and fund administration services to UGA through May 31, 2020.

(4)	BNY Mellon has served as the Custodian and Administrator of UGA since April 1, 2020.

Compensation to USCF

UGA is contractually obligated to pay USCF a management fee based on 0.60% per annum on its average daily total net assets. Fees are calculated on a daily basis (accrued at 1/365 of the applicable percentage of total net assets on that day) and paid on a monthly basis. Total net assets are calculated by taking the current market value of UGA’s total assets and subtracting any liabilities.

Fees and Compensation Arrangements between UGA and Non-Affiliated Service Providers⁽⁵⁾


Service Provider		Compensation Paid by UGA
RBC Capital Futures Commission Merchant		Approximately $3.50 per buy or sell; charges may vary
RCG Division of Marex Spectron, Futures Commission Merchant
E D & F Man Capital Markets Inc., Futures Commission Merchant
MFUSA, Futures Commission Merchant

(5)	UGA pays this compensation.

New York Mercantile Exchange Licensing Fee⁽⁶⁾– 0.015% on all net assets.

(6)	Fees are calculated on a daily basis (accrued at 1/365 of the applicable percentage of NAV on that day) and paid on a monthly basis. UGA is responsible for its pro rata share of the assets held by UGA and the Related Public Funds, other than BNO, USCI and CPER.

Table of Contents

Expenses Paid or Accrued by UGA from Inception through December 31, 2021 in dollar terms:


Expenses:	Amount in Dollar Terms
Amount Paid or Accrued to USCF:	$	5,650,350
Amount Paid or Accrued in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:	$	974,039
Other Amounts Paid or Accrued⁽⁷⁾:	$	3,534,890
Total Expenses Paid or Accrued:	$	10,159,279
Expenses Waived⁽⁸⁾:	$	(2,447,530)
Total Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:	$	7,711,749

(7)	Includes expenses relating to the registration of additional shares, legal fees, auditing fees, printing expenses, licensing fees, tax reporting fees, prepaid insurance expenses and miscellaneous expenses and fees and expenses paid to the independent directors of USCF.

(8)	USCF has voluntarily agreed to pay certain expenses typically borne by UGA, to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15 basis points) of UGA’s NAV, on an annualized basis, through April 30, 2021. As of April 30, 2021, the expense waiver ended.

Expenses Paid or Accrued by UGA from Inception through December 31, 2021 as a Percentage of Average Daily Net Assets:


		Amount as a Percentage of
Expenses:		Average Daily Net Assets
Amount Paid or Accrued to USCF:		0.61% annualized
Amount Paid or Accrued in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:		0.10% annualized
Other Amounts Paid or Accrued⁽⁹⁾:		0.37% annualized
Total Expenses Paid or Accrued:		1.08% annualized
Expenses Waived⁽¹⁰⁾:		(0.26)% annualized
Total Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:		0.82% annualized

(9)	Includes expenses relating to the registration of additional shares, legal fees, auditing fees, printing expenses, licensing fees, tax reporting fees, prepaid insurance expenses and miscellaneous expenses and fees and expenses paid to the independent directors of USCF.

(10)	USCF has voluntarily agreed to pay certain expenses typically borne by UGA, to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15 basis points) of UGA’s NAV, on an annualized basis, through April 30, 2021. As of April 30, 2021, the expense waiver ended.

Other Fees. UGA also pays the fees and expenses associated with its audit expenses, professional fees, and tax accounting and reporting requirements. These fees were approximately $218,400 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021. In addition, UGA is responsible for paying its portion of the directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for UGA and the Related Public Funds and the fees and expenses of the independent directors who also serve as audit committee members of UGA and the Related Public Funds organized as limited partnerships and, as of July 8, 2011, those Related Public Funds organized as a series of a Delaware statutory trust. UGA shares the fees and expenses on a pro rata basis with each Related Public Fund, as described above, based on the relative assets of each fund computed on a daily basis. These fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2021 were $1,082,000 for UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA’s portion of such fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2021 was $23,962.

Form of Shares

Registered Form. Shares are issued in registered form in accordance with the LP Agreement. The Administrator has been appointed registrar and transfer agent for the purpose of transferring shares in certificated form. The Administrator keeps a record of all limited partners and holders of the shares in certificated form in the registry. USCF recognizes transfers of shares in certificated form only if done in accordance with the LP Agreement. The beneficial interests in such shares are held in book-entry form through participants and/or accountholders in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”).

Book Entry. Individual certificates are not issued for the shares. Instead, shares are represented by one or more global certificates, which are deposited by the Administrator with DTC and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC. The global certificates evidence all of the shares outstanding at any time. Shareholders are limited to: (1) participants in DTC such as banks, brokers, dealers and trust companies (“DTC Participants”), (2) those who maintain, either directly or indirectly, a custodial relationship with a DTC Participant (“Indirect Participants”), and (3) those banks, brokers, dealers, trust companies and others who hold interests in the shares through DTC Participants or Indirect Participants, in each case who satisfy the requirements for transfers of shares. DTC Participants acting on behalf of investors holding shares through such participants’ accounts in DTC will follow the delivery practice applicable to

Table of Contents

securities eligible for DTC’s Same-Day Funds Settlement System. Shares are credited to DTC Participants’ securities accounts following confirmation of receipt of payment.

DTC. DTC has advised UGA as follows: It is a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York and is a member of the Federal Reserve System, a “clearing corporation” within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code and a “clearing agency” registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Exchange Act. DTC holds securities for DTC Participants and facilitates the clearance and settlement of transactions between DTC Participants through electronic book-entry changes in accounts of DTC Participants.

Calculating Per Share NAV

UGA’s per share NAV is calculated by:

●

Taking the current market value of its total assets;

●

Subtracting any liabilities; and

●

Dividing that total by the total number of outstanding shares.

The Administrator calculates the per share NAV of UGA once each NYSE Arca trading day. The per share NAV for a normal trading day is released after 4:00 p.m. New York time. Trading during the core trading session on the NYSE Arca typically closes at 4:00 p.m. New York time. The Administrator uses the NYMEX closing price (determined at the earlier of the close of the NYMEX or 2:30 p.m. New York time) for the Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX, but calculates or determines the value of all other UGA investments (including Gasoline Futures Contracts not traded on the NYMEX, Other Gasoline-Related Investments and Treasuries) using market quotations, if available, or other information customarily used to determine the fair value of such investments as of the earlier of the close of the NYSE Arca or 4:00 p.m. New York time, in accordance with the current Administrative Agency Agreement among the Administrator, UGA and USCF. “Other information” customarily used in determining fair value includes information consisting of market data in the relevant market supplied by one or more third parties including, without limitation, relevant rates, prices, yields, yield curves, volatilities, spreads, correlations or other market data in the relevant market; or information of the types described above from internal sources if that information is of the same type used by UGA in the regular course of its business for the valuation of similar transactions. The information may include costs of funding, to the extent costs of funding are not and would not be a component of the other information being utilized. Third parties supplying quotations or market data may include, without limitation, dealers in the relevant markets, end-users of the relevant product, information vendors, brokers and other sources of market information.

In addition, in order to provide updated information relating to UGA for use by investors and market professionals, the NYSE Arca calculates and disseminates throughout the core trading session on each trading day an updated indicative fund value. The indicative fund value is calculated by using the prior day’s closing per share NAV of UGA as a base and updating that value throughout the trading day to reflect changes in the most recently reported trade price for the Futures Contracts on the NYMEX. The prices reported for the active Futures Contract month are adjusted based on the prior day’s spread differential between settlement values for the relevant contract and the spot month contract. In the event that the spot month contract is also the Benchmark Futures Contract, the last sale price for that contract is not adjusted. The indicative fund value share basis disseminated during NYSE Arca core trading session hours should not be viewed as an actual real time update of the per share NAV, because the per share NAV is calculated only once at the end of each trading day based upon the relevant end of day values of UGA’s investments.

The indicative fund value is disseminated on a per share basis every 15 seconds during regular NYSE Arca core trading session hours of 9:30 a.m. New York time to 4:00 p.m. New York time. The normal trading hours of the NYMEX are 10:00 a.m. New York time to 2:30 p.m. New York time. This means that there is a gap in time at the beginning and the end of each day during which UGA’s shares are traded on the NYSE Arca, but real-time NYMEX trading prices for gasoline Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX are not available. During such gaps in time, the indicative fund value will be calculated based on the end of day price of such Futures Contracts from the NYMEX immediately preceding trading session. In addition, other Gasoline Interests and Treasuries held by UGA will be valued by the Administrator, using rates and points received from client-approved third party vendors (such as Reuters and WM Company) and advisor quotes. These investments will not be included in the indicative fund value.

The NYSE Arca disseminates the indicative fund value through the facilities of CTA/CQ High Speed Lines. In addition, the indicative fund value is published on the NYSE Arca’s website and is available through on-line information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters.

Table of Contents

Dissemination of the indicative fund value provides additional information that is not otherwise available to the public and is useful to investors and market professionals in connection with the trading of UGA shares on the NYSE Arca. Investors and market professionals are able throughout the trading day to compare the market price of UGA and the indicative fund value. If the market price of UGA shares diverges significantly from the indicative fund value, market professionals will have an incentive to execute arbitrage trades. For example, if UGA appears to be trading at a discount compared to the indicative fund value, a market professional could buy UGA shares on the NYSE Arca and sell short gasoline Futures Contracts. Such arbitrage trades can tighten the tracking between the market price of UGA and the indicative fund value and thus can be beneficial to all market participants.

UGA reserves the right to adjust the Share price of UGA in the future to maintain convenient trading ranges for investors. Any adjustments would be accomplished through stock splits or reverse stock splits. Such splits would decrease (in the case of a split) or increase (in the case of a reverse split) the proportionate net asset value per Share, but would have no effect on the net assets of the Fund or the proportionate voting rights of shareholders or limited partners.

Creation and Redemption of Shares

UGA creates and redeems shares from time to time, but only in one or more Creation Baskets or Redemption Baskets. The creation and redemption of baskets are only made in exchange for delivery to UGA or the distribution by UGA of the amount of Treasuries and any cash represented by the baskets being created or redeemed, the amount of which is based on the combined NAV of the number of shares included in the baskets being created or redeemed determined as of 4:00 p.m. New York time on the day the order to create or redeem baskets is properly received.

Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem baskets. Authorized Participants must be: (1) registered broker-dealers or other securities market participants, such as banks and other financial institutions, that are not required to register as broker-dealers to engage in securities transactions as described below, and (2) DTC Participants. To become an Authorized Participant, a person must enter into an Authorized Participant Agreement with USCF on behalf of UGA (each such agreement, an “Authorized Participant Agreement”). The Authorized Participant Agreement provides the procedures for the creation and redemption of baskets and for the delivery of the Treasuries and any cash required for such creations and redemptions. The Authorized Participant Agreement and the related procedures attached thereto may be amended by UGA, without the consent of any limited partner or shareholder or Authorized Participant. Authorized Participants pay a transaction fee of $350 to UGA for each order placed to create one or more Creation Baskets or to redeem one or more Redemption Baskets. The transaction fee may be reduced, increased, or otherwise changed by USCF. Authorized Participants who make deposits with UGA in exchange for baskets receive no fees, commissions or other form of compensation or inducement of any kind from either UGA or USCF, and no such person will have any obligation or responsibility to UGA or USCF to effect any sale or resale of shares. As of December 31, 2021, 12 Authorized Participants had entered into agreements with USCF on behalf of UGA. During the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA issued 28 Creation Baskets and redeemed (59) Redemption Baskets.

Certain Authorized Participants are expected to be capable of participating directly in the physical gasoline market and the gasoline futures market. In some cases, Authorized Participants or their affiliates may from time to time buy or sell gasoline or Gasoline Interests and may profit in these instances. USCF believes that the size and operation of the gasoline market make it unlikely that an Authorized Participant’s direct activities in the gasoline or securities markets will significantly affect the price of gasoline, Gasoline Interests or the price of the shares.

Each Authorized Participant is required to be registered as a broker-dealer under the Exchange Act and is a member in good standing with FINRA, or exempt from being or otherwise not required to be registered as a broker-dealer or a member of FINRA, and qualified to act as a broker or dealer in the states or other jurisdictions where the nature of its business so requires. Certain Authorized Participants may also be regulated under federal and state banking laws and regulations. Each Authorized Participant has its own set of rules and procedures, internal controls and information barriers as it determines is appropriate in light of its own regulatory regime.

Under the Authorized Participant Agreement, USCF, and UGA under limited circumstances, have agreed to indemnify the Authorized Participants against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the 1933 Act, and to contribute to the payments the Authorized Participants may be required to make in respect of those liabilities.

The following description of the procedures for the creation and redemption of baskets is only a summary and an investor should refer to the relevant provisions of the LP Agreement and the form of Authorized Participant Agreement for more detail, each of which is incorporated by reference into this annual report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

Creation Procedures

On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Marketing Agent to create one or more baskets. For purposes of processing purchase and redemption orders, a “business day” means any day other than a day when any of the NYSE Arca, the NYMEX or the NYSE is closed for regular trading. Purchase orders must be placed by 12:00 p.m. New York time or the close of regular trading on the NYSE Arca, whichever is earlier. The day on which the Marketing Agent receives a valid purchase order is referred to as the purchase order date.

By placing a purchase order, an Authorized Participant agrees to deposit Treasuries, cash, or a combination of Treasuries and cash, as described below. Prior to the delivery of baskets for a purchase order, the Authorized Participant must also have wired to the Custodian the non-refundable transaction fee due for the purchase order. Authorized Participants may not withdraw a creation request, except as otherwise set forth in the procedures in the Authorized Participant Agreement.

The manner by which creations are made is dictated by the terms of the Authorized Participant Agreement. By placing a purchase order, an Authorized Participant agrees to (1) deposit Treasuries, cash, or a combination of Treasuries and cash with the Custodian, and (2) if required by USCF in its sole discretion, enter into or arrange for a block trade, an exchange for physical or exchange for swap, or any other OTC energy transaction (through itself or a designated acceptable broker) with UGA for the purchase of a number and type of futures contracts at the closing settlement price for such contracts on the purchase order date. If an Authorized Participant fails to consummate (1) and (2), the order shall be cancelled. The number and types of contracts specified shall be determined by USCF, in its sole discretion, to meet UGA’s investment objective and shall be purchased as a result of the Authorized Participant’s purchase of shares.

Determination of Required Deposits

The total deposit required to create each Creation Basket (“Creation Basket Deposit”) is the amount of Treasuries and/or cash that is in the same proportion to the total assets of UGA (net of estimated accrued but unpaid fees, expenses and other liabilities) on the purchase order date as the number of shares to be created under the purchase order is in proportion to the total number of shares outstanding on the purchase order date. USCF determines, directly in its sole discretion or in consultation with the Administrator, the requirements for Treasuries and the amount of cash, including the maximum permitted remaining maturity of a Treasury and proportions of Treasury and cash that may be included in deposits to create baskets. The Marketing Agent will publish such requirements at the beginning of each business day. The amount of cash deposit required is the difference between the aggregate market value of the Treasuries required to be included in a Creation Basket Deposit as of 4:00 p.m. New York time on the date the order to purchase is properly received and the total required deposit.

Delivery of Required Deposits

An Authorized Participant who places a purchase order is responsible for transferring to UGA’s account with the Custodian the required amount of Treasuries and cash by the end of the second business day following the purchase order date. Upon receipt of the deposit amount, the Administrator directs DTC to credit the number of baskets ordered to the Authorized Participant’s DTC account on the second business day following the purchase order dates. The expense and risk of delivery and ownership of Treasuries until such Treasuries have been received by the Custodian on behalf of UGA shall be borne solely by the Authorized Participant.

Because orders to purchase baskets must be placed by 12:00 p.m., New York time, but the total payment required to create a basket during the continuous offering period will not be determined until after 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the date the purchase order is received, Authorized Participants will not know the total amount of the payment required to create a basket at the time they submit an irrevocable purchase order for the basket. UGA’s NAV and the total amount of the payment required to create a basket could rise or fall substantially between the time an irrevocable purchase order is submitted and the time the amount of the purchase price in respect thereof is determined.

Rejection of Purchase Orders

USCF acting by itself or through the Marketing Agent shall have the absolute right but no obligation to reject a purchase order or a Creation Basket Deposit if:

●

it determines that the investment alternative available to UGA at that time will not enable it to meet its investment objective;

●

it determines that the purchase order or the Creation Basket Deposit is not in proper form;

Table of Contents

Delivery of Redemption Distribution

The redemption distribution due from UGA will be delivered to the Authorized Participant by 3:00 p.m. New York time on the second business day following the redemption order date if, by 3:00 p.m. New York time on such second business day, UGA’s DTC account has been credited with the baskets to be redeemed. If UGA’s DTC account has not been credited with all of the baskets to be redeemed by such time, the redemption distribution will be delivered to the extent of whole baskets received. Any remainder of the redemption distribution will be delivered on the next business day to the extent of remaining whole baskets received if UGA receives the fee applicable to the extension of the redemption distribution date which USCF may, from time to time, determine and the remaining baskets to be redeemed are credited to UGA’s DTC account by 3:00 p.m. New York time on such next business day. Any further outstanding amount of the redemption order shall be cancelled. Pursuant to information from USCF, the Custodian will also be authorized to deliver the redemption distribution notwithstanding that the baskets to be redeemed are not credited to UGA’s DTC account by 3:00 p.m. New York time on the second business day following the redemption order date if the Authorized Participant has collateralized its obligation to deliver the baskets through DTC’s book entry-system on such terms as USCF may from time to time determine.

Suspension or Rejection of Redemption Orders

USCF may, in its discretion, suspend the right of redemption, or postpone the redemption settlement date, (1) for any period during which the NYSE Arca or the NYMEX is closed other than customary weekend or holiday closings, or trading on the NYSE Arca or the NYMEX is suspended or restricted, (2) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which delivery, disposal or evaluation of Treasuries is not reasonably practicable, or (3) for such other period as USCF determines to be necessary for the protection of the limited partners or shareholders. For example, USCF may determine that it is necessary to suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of UGA’s assets at an appropriate value to fund a redemption. If USCF has difficulty liquidating its positions, e.g., because of a market disruption event in the futures markets, a suspension of trading by the exchange where the futures contracts are listed or an unanticipated delay in the liquidation of a position in an OTC contract, it may be appropriate to suspend redemptions until such time as such circumstances are rectified. None of USCF, the Marketing Agent, the Administrator, or the Custodian will be liable to any person or in any way for any loss or damages that may result from any such suspension or postponement.

Redemption orders must be made in whole baskets. USCF will reject a redemption order if the order is not in proper form as described in the Authorized Participant Agreement or if the fulfillment of the order, in the opinion of its counsel, might be unlawful. USCF may also reject a redemption order if the number of shares being redeemed would reduce the remaining outstanding shares to 100,000 shares (i.e., two baskets) or less, unless USCF has reason to believe that the placer of the redemption order does in fact possess all the outstanding shares and can deliver them.

Creation and Redemption Transaction Fee

To compensate UGA for its expenses in connection with the creation and redemption of baskets, an Authorized Participant is required to pay a transaction fee to UGA of $350 per order to create or redeem baskets, regardless of the number of baskets in such order. An order may include multiple baskets. The transaction fee may be reduced, increased or otherwise changed by USCF. USCF shall notify DTC of any change in the transaction fee and will not implement any increase in the fee for the redemption of baskets until thirty (30) days after the date of the notice.

Tax Responsibility

Authorized Participants are responsible for any transfer tax, sales or use tax, stamp tax, recording tax, value added tax or similar tax or governmental charge applicable to the creation or redemption of baskets, regardless of whether or not such tax or charge is imposed directly on the Authorized Participant, and agree to indemnify USCF and UGA if they are required by law to pay any such tax, together with any applicable penalties, additions to tax and interest thereon.

Secondary Market Transactions

As noted, UGA creates and redeems shares from time to time, but only in one or more Creation Baskets or Redemption Baskets. The creation and redemption of baskets are only made in exchange for delivery to UGA or the distribution by UGA of the amount of Treasuries and cash represented by the baskets being created or redeemed, the amount of which will be based on the aggregate NAV of the number of shares included in the baskets being created or redeemed determined on the day the order to create or redeem baskets is properly received.

Table of Contents

As discussed above, Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem baskets. Authorized Participants must be registered broker-dealers or other securities market participants, such as banks and other financial institutions that are not required to register as broker-dealers to engage in securities transactions. An Authorized Participant is under no obligation to create or redeem baskets, and an Authorized Participant is under no obligation to offer to the public shares of any baskets it does create. Authorized Participants that do offer to the public shares from the baskets they create will do so at per-share offering prices that are expected to reflect, among other factors, the trading price of the shares on the NYSE Arca, the NAV of UGA at the time the Authorized Participant purchased the Creation Baskets and the NAV of the shares at the time of the offer of the shares to the public, the supply of and demand for shares at the time of sale, the liquidity of the Futures Contract market and the market for Other Gasoline-Related Investments.

The prices of shares offered by Authorized Participants are expected to fall between UGA’s NAV and the trading price of the shares on the NYSE Arca at the time of sale. Shares initially comprising the same basket but offered by Authorized Participants to the public at different times may have different offering prices. An order for one or more baskets may be placed by an Authorized Participant on behalf of multiple clients. Authorized Participants who make deposits with UGA in exchange for baskets receive no fees, commissions or other forms of compensation or inducement of any kind from either UGA or USCF, and no such person has any obligation or responsibility to USCF or UGA to effect any sale or resale of shares. Shares trade in the secondary market on the NYSE Arca. Shares may trade in the secondary market at prices that are lower or higher relative to their NAV per share. The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price relative to the NAV per share may be influenced by various factors, including, among other things, the number of investors who seek to purchase or sell shares in the secondary market and the liquidity of the Futures Contracts market and the market for Other Gasoline-Related Investments. While the shares trade during the core trading session on the NYSE Arca until 4:00 p.m. New York time, liquidity in the market for Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments may be reduced after the close of the NYMEX at 2:30 p.m. New York time. As a result, during this time, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on the shares may widen.

Use of Proceeds

USCF causes UGA to transfer the proceeds from the sale of Creation Baskets to the Custodian or other custodian for trading activities. USCF will invest UGA’s assets in Gasoline-Interests and investments in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents. When UGA purchases a Futures Contract and certain exchange-traded Other Gasoline-Related Investments, UGA is required to deposit typically 5% to 30% with the selling FCMs on behalf of the exchange a portion of the value of the contract or other interest as security to ensure payment for the obligation under Gasoline Interests at maturity. This deposit is known as initial margin. Counterparties in transactions in OTC Gasoline Interests will generally impose similar collateral requirements on UGA. USCF will invest the assets that remain after margin and collateral are posted in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents subject to these margin and collateral requirements. USCF has sole authority to determine the percentage of assets that are:

●

held on deposit with the FCMs or other custodian;

●

used for other investments, and

●

held in bank accounts to pay current obligations and as reserves.

Approximately 5% to 30% of UGA’s assets have normally been committed as margin for commodity futures contracts. However, from time to time, the percentage of assets committed as margin may be substantially more, or less than, such range. An FCM, counterparty, government agency or commodity exchange could increase margin or collateral requirements applicable to UGA to hold trading positions at any time. Ongoing margin and collateral payments will generally be required for both exchange-traded and OTC contracts based on changes in the value of the Gasoline Interests. Furthermore, ongoing collateral requirements with respect to OTC contracts are negotiated by the parties, and may be affected by overall market volatility, volatility of the underlying commodity or index, the ability of the counterparty to hedge its exposure under a Gasoline Interests, and each party’s creditworthiness. Margin is merely a security deposit and has no bearing on the profit or loss potential for any positions held. In light of the differing requirements for initial payments under exchange-traded and OTC contracts and the fluctuating nature of ongoing margin and collateral payments, it is not possible to estimate what portion of UGA’s assets will be posted as margin or collateral at any given time. The Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents held by UGA will constitute reserves that will be available to meet ongoing margin and collateral requirements. All interest income will be used for UGA’s benefit. USCF invests the balance of UGA’s assets not invested in Gasoline Interests or held in margin as reserves to be available for changes in margin. All interest income is used for UGA’s benefit.

The assets of UGA posted as margin for Futures Contracts are held in segregated accounts pursuant to the CEA and CFTC regulations.

Table of Contents

If UGA enters into a swap agreement, UGA must post both collateral and independent amounts to its swap counterparties. The amount of collateral UGA posts changes according to the amounts owed by UGA to its counterparty on a given swap transaction, while independent amounts are fixed amounts posted by UGA at the start of a swap transaction. Collateral and independent amounts posted to swap counterparties will be held by a third-party custodian.

The Commodity Interest Markets

General

The CEA governs the regulation of commodity interest transactions, markets and intermediaries. The CEA provides for varying degrees of regulation of commodity interest transactions depending upon: (1) the type of instrument being traded (e.g., contracts for future delivery, forwards, options, swaps or spot contracts), (2) the type of commodity underlying the instrument (distinctions are made between instruments based on agricultural commodities, energy and metals commodities and financial commodities), (3) the nature of the parties to the transaction (e.g., retail or eligible contract participant), (4) whether the transaction is entered into on a principal-to-principal or intermediated basis, (5) the type of market on which the transaction occurs, and (6) whether the transaction is subject to clearing through a clearing organization.

The offer and sale of shares of UGA, as well as shares of each Related Public Fund, is registered under the Securities Act. UGA and the Related Public Funds are subject to the requirements of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder as administered by the SEC. Firms’ participation in the distribution of shares is regulated as described above, as well as by the self-regulatory association, FINRA.

Futures Contracts

A futures contract is a standardized contract traded on, or subject to the rules of, an exchange that calls for the future delivery of a specified quantity and type of a commodity at a specified time and place. Futures contracts are traded on a wide variety of commodities, including agricultural products, bonds, stock indices, interest rates, currencies, energy and metals. The size and terms of futures contracts on a particular commodity are identical and are not subject to any negotiation, other than with respect to price and the number of contracts traded between the buyer and seller.

The contractual obligations of a buyer or seller may generally be satisfied by taking or making physical delivery of the underlying commodity or by making an offsetting sale or purchase of an identical futures contract on the same or linked exchange before the designated date of delivery. The difference between the price at which the futures contract is purchased or sold and the price paid for the offsetting sale or purchase, after allowance for brokerage commissions, constitutes the profit or loss to the trader. Some futures contracts, such as stock index contracts, settle in cash (reflecting the difference between the contract purchase/sale price and the contract settlement price) rather than by delivery of the underlying commodity.

In market terminology, a trader who purchases a futures contract is long in the market and a trader who sells a futures contract is short in the market. Before a trader closes out his long or short position by an offsetting sale or purchase, his outstanding contracts are known as open trades or open positions. The aggregate amount of open positions held by traders in a particular contract is referred to as the open interest in such contract.

Forward Contracts

A forward contract is a contractual obligation to purchase or sell a specified quantity of a commodity at or before a specified date in the future at a specified price and, therefore, is economically similar to a futures contract. Unlike futures contracts, however, forward contracts are typically traded in the OTC markets and are not standardized contracts. Forward contracts for a given commodity are generally available for various amounts and maturities and are subject to individual negotiation between the parties involved. Moreover, generally there is no direct means of offsetting or closing out a forward contract by taking an offsetting position as one would a futures contract on a U.S. exchange. If a trader desires to close out a forward contract position, he generally will establish an opposite position in the contract but will settle and recognize the profit or loss on both positions simultaneously on the delivery date. Thus, unlike in the futures contract market where a trader who has offset positions will recognize profit or loss immediately, in the forward market a trader with a position that has been offset at a profit will generally not receive such profit until the delivery date, and likewise a trader with a position that has been offset at a loss will generally not have to pay money until the delivery date. Nevertheless, in some instances forward contracts now provide a right of offset or cash settlement as an alternative to making or taking delivery of the underlying commodity.

Table of Contents

In general, the CFTC does not regulate the interbank and forward foreign currency markets with respect to transactions in contracts between certain sophisticated counterparties such as UGA or between certain regulated institutions and retail investors. Although U.S. banks are regulated in various ways by the Federal Reserve Board, the Comptroller of the Currency and other U.S. federal and state banking officials, banking authorities do not regulate the forward markets to the same extent that the swap markets are regulated by the CFTC and SEC.

Regulation exempts both foreign exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards from the definition of “swap” and, by extension, certain regulatory requirements applicable to swaps (such as clearing and margin). The exemption does not extend to other foreign exchange derivatives, such as foreign exchange options, currency swaps, and non-deliverable forwards.

While the U.S. government does not currently impose any restrictions on the movements of currencies, it could choose to do so. The imposition or relaxation of exchange controls in various jurisdictions could significantly affect the market for that and other jurisdictions’ currencies. Trading in the interbank market also exposes UGA to a risk of default since failure of a bank with which UGA had entered into a forward contract would likely result in a default and thus possibly substantial losses to UGA.

Options on Futures Contracts

Options on futures contracts are standardized contracts traded on an exchange. An option on a futures contract gives the buyer of the option the right, but not the obligation, to take a position at a specified price (the striking, strike, or exercise price) in the underlying futures contract or underlying interest. The buyer of a call option acquires the right, but not the obligation, to purchase or take a long position in the underlying interest, and the buyer of a put option acquires the right, but not the obligation, to sell or take a short position in the underlying interest.

The seller, or writer, of an option is obligated to take a position in the underlying interest at a specified price opposite to the option buyer if the option is exercised. The seller of a call option must stand ready to take a short position in the underlying interest at the strike price if the buyer should exercise the option. The seller of a put option, on the other hand, must stand ready to take a long position in the underlying interest at the strike price.

A call option is said to be in-the-money if the strike price is below current market levels and out-of-the-money if the strike price is above current market levels. Conversely, a put option is said to be in-the-money if the strike price is above the current market levels and out-of- the-money if the strike price is below current market levels.

Options have limited life spans, usually tied to the delivery or settlement date of the underlying interest. Some options, however, expire significantly in advance of such date. The purchase price of an option is referred to as its premium, which consists of its intrinsic value (which is related to the underlying market value) plus its time value. As an option nears its expiration date, the time value shrinks and the market and intrinsic values move into parity. An option that is out-of-the-money and not offset by the time it expires becomes worthless. On certain exchanges, in-the-money options are automatically exercised on their expiration date, but on others unexercised options simply become worthless after their expiration date.

Regardless of how much the market swings, the most an option buyer can lose is the option premium. The option buyer deposits his premium with his broker, and the money goes to the option seller. Option sellers, on the other hand, face risks similar to participants in the futures markets. For example, since the seller of a call option is assigned a short futures position if the option is exercised, his risk is the same as someone who initially sold a futures contract. Because no one can predict exactly how the market will move, the option seller typically posts margin to demonstrate his ability to meet any potential contractual obligations.

Options on Forward Contracts or Commodities

Options on forward contracts or commodities operate in a manner similar to options on futures contracts. An option on a forward contract or commodity gives the buyer of the option the right, but not the obligation, to take a position at a specified price in the underlying forward contract or commodity. However, unlike options on futures contracts, options on forward contracts or on commodities are individually negotiated contracts between counterparties and are typically traded in the OTC market. Therefore, options on forward contracts and physical commodities possess many of the same characteristics of forward contracts with respect to offsetting positions and credit risk that are described above.

Table of Contents

Swap Contracts

Swap transactions generally involve contracts between two parties to exchange a stream of payments computed by reference to a notional amount and the price of the asset that is the subject of the swap. Swap contracts are principally traded off-exchange, although certain swap contracts are also being traded in electronic trading facilities and cleared through clearing organizations.

Swaps are usually entered into on a net basis, that is, the two payment streams are netted out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the agreement, with the parties receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments. Swaps do not generally involve the delivery of underlying assets or principal. Accordingly, the risk of loss with respect to swaps is generally limited to the net amount of payments that the party is contractually obligated to make. In some swap transactions one or both parties may require collateral deposits from the counterparty to support that counterparty’s obligation under the swap agreement. If the counterparty to such a swap defaults, the risk of loss consists of the net amount of payments that the party is contractually entitled to receive less any collateral deposits it is holding.

Some swap transactions are cleared through central counterparties. “Clearing” refers to the process by which a trade that is bilaterally executed by two parties is submitted to a central clearing counterparty, via a clearing member (i.e., an FCM), and replaced by two mirror swaps, with the central clearing counterparty becoming the counterparty to both of the initial parties to the swap. These transactions, known as cleared swaps, involve two counterparties first agreeing to the terms of a swap transaction, then submitting the transaction to a clearing house that acts as the central counterparty. Once accepted by the clearing house, the original swap transaction is terminated and replaced by two mirror trades for which the central counterparty becomes the counterparty to each of the original parties based upon the trade terms determined in the original transaction. In this manner each individual swap counterparty reduces its risk of loss due to counterparty nonperformance because the clearing house acts as the counterparty to each transaction.

Commodities Regulation

Futures exchanges in the United States are subject to varying degrees of regulation under the CEA depending on whether such exchange is a designated contract market, exempt board of trade or electronic trading facility. Clearing organizations are also subject to the CEA and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder and administered by the CFTC. The CFTC is the governmental agency charged with responsibility for regulation of futures exchanges and commodity interest trading. The CFTC’s function is to implement the CEA’s objectives of preventing price manipulation and excessive speculation and promoting orderly and efficient commodity interest markets. In addition, the various exchanges and clearing organizations themselves exercise regulatory and supervisory authority over their member firms.

The CFTC also regulates the activities of “commodity trading advisors” and “commodity pool operators” and the CFTC has adopted regulations with respect to certain of such persons’ activities. Pursuant to its authority, the CFTC requires a CPO, such as USCF, to keep accurate, current and orderly records with respect to each pool it operates. The CFTC may suspend, modify or terminate the registration of any registrant for failure to comply with CFTC rules or regulations. Suspension, restriction or termination of USCF’s registration as a CPO would prevent it, until such time (if any) as such registration were to be reinstated, from managing, and might result in the termination of, UGA or the Related Public Funds.

Under certain circumstances, the CEA grants shareholders the right to institute a reparations proceeding before the CFTC against USCF (as a registered commodity pool operator), as well as those of their respective employees who are required to be registered under the CEA. Shareholders may also be able to maintain a private right of action for certain violations of the CEA.

Pursuant to authority in the CEA, the NFA has been formed and registered with the CFTC as a registered futures association. The NFA is the only self-regulatory association for commodities professionals other than the exchanges. As such, the NFA promulgates rules governing the conduct of commodity professionals and disciplines those professionals that do not comply with such standards. The CFTC has delegated to the NFA responsibility for the registration of commodity pool operators. USCF is a member of the NFA. As a member of the NFA, USCF is subject to NFA standards relating to fair trade practices, financial condition, and consumer protection.

The CEA requires all FCMs, i.e., UGA’s clearing brokers, to meet and maintain specified fitness and financial requirements, to segregate customer funds from proprietary funds and account separately for all customers’ funds and positions, and to maintain specified books and records open to inspection by the staff of the CFTC. The CFTC has similar authority over introducing brokers, or persons who solicit or accept orders for commodity interest trades but who do not accept margin deposits for the execution of trades. The CEA authorizes the CFTC to regulate trading by FCMs and by their officers and directors, permits the CFTC to require action by exchanges

Table of Contents

in the event of market emergencies, and establishes an administrative procedure under which customers may institute complaints for damages arising from alleged violations of the CEA.

The regulations of the CFTC and the NFA prohibit any representation by a person registered with the CFTC or by any member of the NFA, that registration with the CFTC, or membership in the NFA, in any respect indicates that the CFTC or the NFA, as the case may be, has approved or endorsed that person or that person’s trading program or objectives. The registrations and memberships of the parties described in this summary must not be considered as constituting any such approval or endorsement. Likewise, no futures exchange has given or will give any similar approval or endorsement.

CFTC regulations require enhanced customer protections, risk management programs, internal monitoring and controls, capital and liquidity standards, customer disclosures and auditing and examination programs for FCMs. These regulations are intended to afford greater assurances to market participants that customer segregated funds and secured amounts are protected, customers are provided with appropriate notice of the risks of futures trading and of the FCMs with which they may choose to do business, FCMs are monitoring and managing risks in a robust manner, the capital and liquidity of FCMs are strengthened to safeguard the continued operations, and the auditing and examination programs of the CFTC and the self-regulatory organizations are monitoring the activities of FCMs in a thorough manner.

UGA’s investors are afforded prescribed rights for reparations under the CEA against USCF (as a registered commodity pool operator), as well as its respective employees who are required to be registered under the CEA. Investors may also be able to maintain a private right of action for violations of the CEA. The CFTC has adopted rules implementing the reparation provisions of the CEA, which provide that any person may file a complaint for a reparations award with the CFTC for violation of the CEA against a floor broker or an FCM, introducing broker, commodity trading advisor, CPO, and their respective associated persons.

The regulation of commodity interest trading in the United States and other countries is an evolving area of the law. Below are discussed several key regulatory items that are relevant to UGA. The various statements made in this summary are subject to modification by legislative action and changes in the rules and regulations of the CFTC, the NFA, the futures exchanges, clearing organizations and other regulatory bodies. In addition, with regard to any other rules that the CFTC or SEC may adopt in the future, the effect of any such regulatory changes on UGA is impossible to predict, but it could be substantial and adverse.

Futures Contracts and Position Limits

On October 15, 2020, the CFTC approved the Position Limits Rule. The Position Limits Rule establishes federal position limits for 25 core referenced futures contracts (comprised of agricultural, energy and metals futures contracts), futures and options linked to the core referenced futures contracts, and swaps that are economically equivalent to the core referenced futures contracts.

Margin Requirements

Futures and Cleared Swaps

Original or initial margin is the minimum amount of funds that must be deposited by a commodity interest trader with the trader’s broker to initiate and maintain an open position in futures contracts. Maintenance margin is the amount (generally less than the original margin) to which a trader’s account may decline before he must deliver additional margin. A margin deposit is like a cash performance bond. It helps assure the trader’s performance of the futures contracts that he or she purchases or sells.

Futures contracts are customarily bought and sold on initial margin that represents a very small percentage (ranging upward from 5%) of the aggregate purchase or sales price of the contract. Because of such low margin requirements, price fluctuations occurring in the futures markets may create profits and losses that, in relation to the amount invested, are greater than are customary in other forms of investment or speculation. As discussed below, adverse price changes in the futures contract may result in margin requirements that greatly exceed the initial margin. In addition, the amount of margin required in connection with a particular futures contract is set from time to time by the exchange on which the contract is traded and may be modified from time to time by the exchange during the term of the contract.

Table of Contents

Brokerage firms, such as UGA’s clearing brokers, carrying accounts for traders in commodity interest contracts may not accept lower, and generally require higher, amounts of margin as a matter of policy to further protect themselves. The clearing brokers require UGA to make margin deposits equal to exchange minimum levels for all commodity interest contracts. This requirement may be altered from time to time in the clearing brokers’ discretion.

Margin requirements are computed each day by the relevant clearing organization and a trader’s clearing broker. When the market value of a particular open commodity interest position changes to a point where the margin on deposit does not satisfy maintenance margin requirements, a margin call is made by the broker. With respect to trading by UGA, UGA (and not its investors personally) is subject to margin calls.

Finally, many major U.S. exchanges have passed certain cross margining arrangements involving procedures pursuant to which the futures and options positions held in an account would, in the case of some accounts, be aggregated and margin requirements would be assessed on a portfolio basis, measuring the total risk of the combined positions.

Options

When a trader purchases an option, there is no margin requirement; however, the option premium must be paid in full. When a trader sells an option, on the other hand, he or she may be required to deposit margin in an amount determined by the margin requirements established for the underlying interest and, in addition, an amount substantially equal to the current premium for the option. The margin requirements imposed on the selling of options, although adjusted to reflect the probability that out-of-the-money options will not be exercised, can in fact be higher than those imposed in dealing in the futures markets directly. Complicated margin requirements apply to spreads and conversions, which are complex trading strategies in which a trader acquires a mixture of options positions and positions in the underlying interest.

OTC Swaps

In October 2015, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (each an “Agency” and, collectively, the “Agencies”) jointly adopted final rules to establish minimum margin and capital requirements for registered swap dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers, and major security-based swap participants (“Swap Entities”) that are subject to the jurisdiction of one of the Agencies (such entities, “Covered Swap Entities”, and the joint final rules, the “Final Margin Rules”).

The Final Margin Rules will subject non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps between Covered Swap Entities and Swap Entities, and between Covered Swap Entities and financial end users that have material swaps exposure (i.e., an average daily aggregate notional of $8 billion or more in non-cleared swaps calculated in accordance with the Final Margin Rules), to a mandatory two-way minimum initial margin requirement. The minimum amount of the initial margin required to be posted or collected would be either the amount calculated by the Covered Swap Entity using a standardized schedule set forth as an appendix to the Final Margin Rules, which provides the gross initial margin (as a percentage of total notional exposure) for certain asset classes, or an internal margin model of the Covered Swap Entity conforming to the requirements of the Final Margin Rules that is approved by the Agency having jurisdiction over the particular Covered Swap Entity. The Final Margin Rules specify the types of collateral that may be posted or collected as initial margin for non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps with financial end users (generally cash, certain government, government- sponsored enterprise securities, certain liquid debt, certain equity securities, certain eligible publicly traded debt, and gold); and sets forth haircuts for certain collateral asset classes.

The Final Margin Rules require minimum variation margin to be exchanged daily for non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps between Covered Swap Entities and Swap Entities and between Covered Swap Entities and all financial end-users (without regard to the swaps exposure of the particular financial end-user). The minimum variation margin amount is the daily mark-to-market change in the value of the swap to the Covered Swap Entity, taking into account variation margin previously posted or collected. For non-cleared swaps and security-based swaps between Covered Swap Entities and financial end-users, variation margin may be posted or collected in cash or non-cash collateral that is considered eligible for initial margin purposes. Variation margin is not subject to segregation with an independent, third-party custodian, and may, if permitted by contract, be rehypothecated.

The initial margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules are being phased in over time, and the variation margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules are currently in effect. UGA is not a Covered Swap Entity under the Final Margin Rules but it is a financial end-

Table of Contents

user. Accordingly, UGA is currently subject to the variation margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules. However, UGA does not have material swaps exposure and, accordingly, UGA will not be subject to the initial margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required the CFTC and the SEC to adopt their own margin rules to apply to a limited number of registered swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, major swap participants, and major security-based swap participants that are not subject to the jurisdiction of one of the Agencies. On December 16, 2015 the CFTC finalized its margin rules, which are substantially the same as the Final Margin Rules and have the same implementation timeline. The SEC adopted margin rules for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants on June 21, 2019. The SEC’s margin rules are generally aligned with the Final Margin Rules and the CFTC’s margin rules, but they differ in a few key respects relating to timing for compliance and the manner in which initial margin must be segregated. UGA does not currently engage in security-based swap transactions and, therefore, the SEC’s margin rules are not expected to apply to UGA.

Mandatory Trading and Clearing of Swaps

CFTC regulations require that certain swap transactions be executed on organized exchanges or “swap execution facilities” and cleared through regulated clearing organizations (“derivative clearing organizations” (“DCOs”)), if the CFTC mandates the central clearing of a particular class of swap and such swap is “made available to trade” on a swap execution facility. Currently, swap dealers, major swap participants, commodity pools, certain private funds and entities predominantly engaged in activities that are financial in nature are required to execute on a swap execution facility, and clear, certain interest rate swaps and index-based credit default swaps. As a result, if UGA enters into an interest rate or index-based credit default swap that is subject to these requirements, such swap will be required to be executed on a swap execution facility and centrally cleared. Mandatory clearing and “made available to trade” determinations with respect to additional types of swaps are expected in the future, and, when finalized, could require UGA to electronically execute and centrally clear certain OTC instruments presently entered into and settled on a bi-lateral basis. If a swap is required to be cleared, initial and variation margin requirements are set by the relevant clearing organization, subject to certain regulatory requirements and guidelines. Additional margin may be required and held by UGA’s FCMs.

Other Requirements for Swaps

In addition to the margin requirements described above, swaps that are not required to be cleared and executed on a SEF but that are executed bilaterally are also subject to various requirements pursuant to CFTC regulations, including, among other things, reporting and recordkeeping requirements and, depending on the status of the counterparties, trading documentation requirements and dispute resolution requirements.

Derivatives Regulations in Non-U.S. Jurisdictions

In addition to U.S. laws and regulations, UGA may be subject to non-U.S. derivatives laws and regulations if it engages in futures and/or swap transactions with non-U.S. persons. For example, UGA may be impacted by European laws and regulations to the extent that it engages in futures transactions on European exchanges or derivatives transactions with European entities. Other jurisdictions impose requirements applicable to futures and derivatives that are similar to those imposed by the U.S., including position limits, margin, clearing and trade execution requirements.

The CFTC is generally prohibited by statute from regulating trading on non-U.S. futures exchanges and markets. The CFTC, however, has adopted regulations relating to the marketing of non-U.S. futures contracts in the United States. These regulations permit certain contracts on non-U.S. exchanges to be offered and sold in the United States.

SEC Reports

UGA makes available, free of charge, on its website, its annual reports on Form 10-K, its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, its current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after these forms are filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. These reports are also available from the SEC through its website at: www.sec.gov.

CFTC Reports

UGA also makes available its monthly reports and its annual reports required to be prepared and filed with the NFA under the CFTC regulations.

Table of Contents

Intellectual Property

USCF owns trademark registrations for UNITED STATES GASOLINE FUND (U.S. Reg. No. 3486625) for “Fund investment services in the field of gasoline futures contracts, cash-settled options on gasoline futures contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, over-the-counter transactions based on the price of gasoline, and indices based on the foregoing,” in use since February 22, 2008, and UGA UNITED STATES GASOLINE FUND, LP (and Flame Design) (U.S. Reg. No. 4440923) for “Financial investment services in the field of gasoline futures contracts, cash-settled options on gasoline futures contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, over-the-counter transactions based on the price of gasoline, and indices based on the foregoing,” in use since September 30, 2012. USCF relies upon these trademarks through which it markets its services and strives to build and maintain brand recognition in the market and among current and potential investors. So long as USCF continues to use these trademarks to identify its services, without challenge from any third party, and properly maintains and renews the trademark registrations under applicable laws, rules and regulations, it will continue to have indefinite protection for these trademarks under current laws, rules and regulations.

USCF owns trademark registrations for USCF (and Design) (U.S. Reg. No. 5127374) for “Fund investment services,” in use since April 10, 2016, USCF (U.S. Reg No. 5040755) for “Fund investment services,” in use since June 24, 2008, and INVEST IN WHAT’S REAL (U.S. Reg. No. 5450808) for “Fund investment services,” in use since April 2016. USCF relies upon these trademarks and service mark through which it markets its services and strives to build and maintain brand recognition in the market and among current and potential investors. So long as USCF continues to use these trademarks to identify its services, without challenge from any third party, and properly maintains and renews the trademark registrations under applicable laws, rules and regulations, it will continue to have indefinite protection for these trademarks under current laws, rules and regulations. USCF has been granted two patents Nos. 7,739,186 and 8,019,675, for systems and methods for an exchange traded fund (ETF) that tracks the price of one or more commodities.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

The following risk factors should be read in connection with the other information included in this annual report on Form 10-K, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and UGA’s financial statements and the related notes.

UGA’s investment objective is for the daily percentage changes in the NAV per share to reflect the daily percentage changes of the spot price of gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”, for delivery to the New York harbor), as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for gasoline traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”), that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case the futures contract will be the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses. UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing so that the average daily percentage change in UGA’s NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period. UGA’s investment strategy is designed to provide investors with a cost-effective way to invest indirectly in unleaded gasoline and to hedge against movements in the spot price of unleaded gasoline. An investment in UGA involves investment risk similar to a direct investment in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, but it is not a proxy for trading directly in gasoline markets. Investing in UGA also involves correlation risk, or the risk that investors purchasing shares to hedge against movements in the price of unleaded gasoline will have an efficient hedge only if the price they pay for their shares closely correlates with the price of unleaded gasoline. In addition to investment risk and correlation risk, an investment in UGA involves tax risks, OTC risks, and other risks.

Investment Risk

The net assets of UGA consist primarily of investments in Futures Contracts and, to a lesser extent, in Other Gasoline-Related Investments. The NAV of UGA’s shares relates directly to the value of these assets (less liabilities, including accrued but unpaid expenses), which in turn relates to the price of unleaded gasoline in the marketplace. Unleaded gasoline prices depend on local, regional and global events or conditions that affect supply and demand for oil.

Table of Contents

COVID-19 and other infectious disease outbreaks could negatively affect the valuation and performance of UGA’s investments.

An outbreak of infectious respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 was first detected in China in December 2019 and spread globally. In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. COVID-19 has resulted in numerous deaths, travel restrictions, closed international borders, enhanced health screenings at ports of entry and elsewhere, disruption of and delays in healthcare service preparation and delivery, prolonged quarantines and the imposition of both local and more widespread “work from home” measures, cancellations, loss of employment, supply chain disruptions, and lower consumer and institutional demand for goods and services, as well as general concern and uncertainty. The ongoing spread of COVID-19 has had, and is expected to continue to have, a material adverse impact on local economies in the affected jurisdictions and also on the global economy, as cross border commercial activity and market sentiment are impacted by the outbreak and government and other measures seeking to contain its spread. The impact of COVID-19, and other infectious disease outbreaks that may arise in the future, could adversely affect individual issuers and capital markets in ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen. In addition, actions taken by government and quasi-governmental authorities and regulators throughout the world in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, including significant fiscal and monetary policy changes, may affect the value, volatility, pricing and liquidity of some investments or other assets, including those held by or invested in by UGA. Public health crises caused by the COVID-19 outbreak may exacerbate other pre-existing political, social and economic risks in certain countries or globally. The duration of the COVID-19 outbreak and its ultimate impact on UGA and, on the global economy, cannot be determined with certainty. The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects may last for an extended period of time, and could result in significant and continued market volatility, exchange trading suspensions and closures, declines in global financial markets, higher default rates, and a substantial economic downturn or recession. The foregoing could impair UGA’s ability to maintain operational standards (such as with respect to satisfying redemption requests), disrupt the operations of UGA’s service providers, adversely affect the value and liquidity of UGA’s investments, and negatively impact UGA’s performance and your investment in UGA. The extent to which COVID-19 continues to affect UGA and UGA’s service providers and portfolio investments will depend on future developments. There continues to be uncertainty around the COVID-19 pandemic as the Delta variant of COVID-19, which appears to be the most transmissible and contagious variant to date, has caused an increase in COVID-19 cases globally. The full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business will depend on factors such as the length of time of the pandemic; how federal, state and local governments are responding, the impact of the Delta variant, the Omicron variant, and other variants that may emerge; vaccination rates among the population; the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines against the Delta variant, Omicron variant, and other variants that may emerge; and the longer-term impact of the pandemic on the economy and consumer behavior. Given the significant economic and financial market disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the valuation and performance of UGA’s investments could be impacted adversely.

Historically, Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments have generally been non-correlated to the performance of other asset classes such as stocks and bonds. Non-correlation means that there is a low statistically valid relationship between the performance of futures and other commodity interest transactions, on the one hand, and stocks or bonds, on the other hand.

However, there can be no assurance that such non-correlation will continue during future periods. If, contrary to historic patterns, UGA’s performance were to move in the same general direction as the financial markets, investors will obtain little or no diversification benefits from an investment in UGA’s shares. In such a case, UGA may have no gains to offset losses from other investments, and investors may suffer losses on their investment in UGA at the same time they incur losses with respect to other investments.

Variables such as drought, floods, weather, pandemics (such as COVID-19), embargoes, tariffs and other political events may have a larger impact on unleaded gasoline prices and unleaded gasoline-linked instruments, including Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, than on traditional securities. These additional variables may create additional investment risks that subject UGA's investments to greater volatility than investments in traditional securities.

Non-correlation should not be confused with negative correlation, where the performance of two asset classes would be opposite of each other. There is no historical evidence that the spot price of unleaded gasoline and prices of other financial assets, such as stocks and bonds, are negatively correlated. In the absence of negative correlation, UGA cannot be expected to be automatically profitable during unfavorable periods for the stock market, or vice versa.

Table of Contents

Historical performance of UGA and the Benchmark Futures Contracts is not indicative of future performance.

Past performance of UGA or the Benchmark Futures Contract is not necessarily indicative of future results. Therefore, past performance of UGA or the Benchmark Futures Contract should not be relied upon in deciding whether to buy shares of UGA.

Correlation Risk

Investors purchasing shares to hedge against movements in the price of unleaded gasoline will have an efficient hedge only if the price investors pay for their shares closely correlates with the price of unleaded gasoline. Investing in UGA’s shares for hedging purposes involves the following risks:

●

The market price at which the investor buys or sells shares may be significantly less or more than NAV.

●

Daily percentage changes in NAV may not closely correlate with daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.

●

Daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract may not closely correlate with daily percentage changes in the price unleaded gasoline.

As of the date of this annual report on Form 10-K, significant market volatility has occurred in the oil markets and the oil futures markets. Such volatility is attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, related supply chain disruptions and continuing disputes among oil-producing countries. Although the volatility has abated in recent months, future volatility cannot be predicted. Volatility in the gasoline market was also elevated, but it did not reach the same extreme levels as the volatility in the oil futures market did. However, the COVID-19 pandemic could cause increased volatility in the future, the impact of which could limit UGA's ability to have a substantial portion of its assets invested in the Benchmark Futures Contract. In such a circumstance, UGA could, if it determined it appropriate to do so in light of market conditions and regulatory requirements, invest in other Futures Contract and/or Other Gasoline Related Investments.

The market price at which investors buy or sell shares may be significantly less or more than NAV.

UGA’s NAV per share will change throughout the day as fluctuations occur in the market value of UGA’s portfolio investments. The public trading price at which an investor buys or sells shares during the day from their broker may be different from the NAV of the shares, which is also the price shares can be redeemed with UGA by Authorized Participants in Redemption Baskets. USCF expects that exploitation of certain arbitrage opportunities by Authorized Participants and their clients will tend to cause the public trading price to track NAV per share closely over time, but there can be no assurance of that. For example, a shortage of UGA's shares in the market and other factors could cause UGA’s shares to trade at a premium. Investors should be aware that such premiums can be transitory. To the extent an investor purchases shares that include a premium (e.g., because of a shortage of shares in the market due to the inability of Authorized Participants to purchase additional shares from UGA that could be resold into the market) and the cause of the premium no longer exists causing the premium to disappear (e.g., because more shares are available for purchase from UGA by Authorized Participants that could be resold into the market) such investor’s return on its investment would be adversely impacted due to the loss of the premium. See the risk factor, An unanticipated number of Creation Basket requests during a short period of time could result in a shortage of shares, below.

The NAV of UGA’s shares may also be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours between the NYSE Arca and the various futures exchanges on which unleaded gasoline is traded. While the shares trade on the NYSE Arca from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, the trading hours for the futures exchanges on which unleaded gasoline trades may not necessarily coincide during all of this time. For example, while the shares trade on the NYSE Arca until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, liquidity in the global gasoline market will be reduced after the close of the NYMEX at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. As a result, during periods when the NYSE Arca is open and the futures exchanges on which unleaded gasoline is traded are closed, trading spreads and the resulting premium or discount on the shares may widen and, therefore, increase the difference between the price of the shares and the NAV of the shares.

Daily percentage changes in UGA’s NAV may not correlate with daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.

It is possible that the daily percentage changes in UGA’s NAV per share may not closely correlate to daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. Non- correlation may be attributable to disruptions in the market for unleaded gasoline, the

Table of Contents

imposition of position or accountability limits by regulators or exchanges, or other extraordinary circumstances. As UGA approaches or reaches position limits with respect to the Benchmark Futures Contract and other Futures Contracts or in view of market conditions, UGA may begin investing in Other Gasoline-Related Investments. In addition, UGA is not able to replicate exactly the changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract because the total return generated by UGA is reduced by expenses and transaction costs, including those incurred in connection with UGA’s trading activities, and increased by interest income from UGA’s holdings of Treasuries (defined below). Tracking the Benchmark Futures Contract requires trading of UGA’s portfolio with a view to tracking the Benchmark Futures Contract over time and is dependent upon the skills of USCF and its trading principals, among other factors.

In addition, UGA is not able to replicate exactly the changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract because the total return generated by UGA is reduced by expenses and transaction costs, including those incurred in connection with UGA’s trading activities, and increased by interest income from UGA’s holdings of Treasuries (defined below). Tracking the Benchmark Futures Contract requires trading of UGA’s portfolio with a view to tracking the Benchmark Futures Contract over time and is dependent upon the skills of USCF and its trading principals, among other factors.

An investment in UGA is not a proxy for investing in the gasoline markets, and the daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Future Contract, or the NAV of UGA, may not correlate with daily percentage changes in the spot price of unleaded gasoline.

An investment in UGA is not a proxy for investing in the gasoline markets. To the extent that investors use UGA as a means of indirectly investing in gasoline, there is the risk that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares on the NYSE Arca, on a percentage basis, will not closely track the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline on a percentage basis. This could happen if the price of shares traded on the NYSE Arca does not correlate closely with the value of UGA’s NAV; the changes in UGA’s NAV do not correlate closely with the changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract; or the changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract do not closely correlate with the changes in the cash or spot price of gasoline. This is a risk because if these correlations do not exist, then investors may not be able to use UGA as a cost-effective way to indirectly invest in gasoline or as a hedge against the risk of loss in gasoline-related transactions. The degree of correlation among UGA’s share price, the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract and the spot price of gasoline depends upon circumstances such as variations in the speculative gasoline market, supply of and demand for Futures Contracts (including the Benchmark Futures Contract) and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, and technical influences on trading gasoline futures contracts. Investors who are not experienced in investing in gasoline futures contracts or the factors that influence that market or speculative trading in the gasoline markets and may not have the background or ready access to the types of information that investors familiar with these markets may have and, as a result, may be at greater risk of incurring losses from trading in UGA shares than such other investors with such experience and resources.

Daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract may not correlate with daily percentage changes in the spot price of gasoline.

The correlation between changes in prices of the Benchmark Futures Contract and the spot price of gasoline may at times be only approximate. The degree of imperfection of correlation depends upon circumstances such as variations in the speculative gasoline market, supply of and demand for Futures Contracts (including the Benchmark Futures Contract) and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, and technical influences in gasoline futures trading.

Natural forces in the gasoline futures market known as “backwardation” and “contango” may increase UGA’s tracking error and/or negatively impact total return.

The design of UGA’s Benchmark Futures Contract is such that every month it begins by using the near month contract to expire until the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, when, over a one-day period, it transitions to the next month contract to expire as its benchmark contract and keeps that contract as its benchmark until it becomes the near month contract and close to expiration. In the event of a gasoline futures market where near month contracts trade at a higher price than next month to expire contracts, a situation described as “backwardation” in the futures market, then absent the impact of the overall movement in gasoline prices the value of the benchmark contract would tend to rise as it approaches expiration. Conversely, in the event of a gasoline futures market where near month contracts trade at a lower price than next month contracts, a situation described as “contango” in the futures market, then absent the impact of the overall movement in gasoline prices the value of the benchmark contract would tend to decline as it approaches expiration. When compared to total return of other price indices, such as the spot price of gasoline, the impact of

Table of Contents

backwardation and contango may cause the total return of UGA’s per share NAV to vary significantly. Moreover, absent the impact of rising or falling gasoline prices, a prolonged period of contango could have a significant negative impact on UGA’s per share NAV and total return and investors could lose part or all of their investment.

While contango and backwardation are consistently present in trading in the futures markets, such conditions can be exacerbated by market forces. For example, extraordinary market conditions in the crude oil markets, including “super contango” (a higher level of contango arising from the overabundance of oil being produced and the limited availability of storage for such excess supply), occurred in the crude oil futures markets in 2020 due to over-supply of crude oil in the face of weak demand during the COVID-19 pandemic when disputes among oil-producing countries regarding limitations on the production of oil also were occurring. Volatility in the gasoline market was also elevated, but it did not reach the same extreme levels as the volatility in the oil futures market did. However, the COVID-19 pandemic could cause increased volatility in the future, the impact of which could limit UGA’s ability to have a substantial portion of its assets invested in the Benchmark Futures Contract. In such a circumstance, UGA could, if it determined it appropriate to do so in light of market conditions and regulatory requirements, invest in other Futures Contract and/or Gasoline Related Investments. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this annual report on Form 10-K for a discussion of the potential effects of contango and backwardation.

Accountability levels, position limits, and daily price fluctuation limits set by the exchanges have the potential to cause tracking error, by limiting UGA’s investments, including its ability to fully invest in the Benchmark Futures Contract, which could cause the price of shares to substantially vary from the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.

Designated contract markets, such as the NYMEX and ICE Futures, have established accountability levels and position limits on the maximum net long or net short futures contracts in commodity interests that any person or group of persons under common trading control (other than as a hedge, which an investment by UGA is not) may hold, own or control. These levels and position limits apply to the futures contracts that UGA invests in to meet its investment objective. In addition to accountability levels and position limits, the NYMEX and ICE Futures also set daily price limits on futures contracts. The daily price fluctuation limit establishes the maximum amount that the price of a futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s settlement price. Once the daily price fluctuation limit has been reached in a particular futures contract, no trades may be made at a price beyond that limit.

The accountability levels for the Benchmark Futures Contract and other Futures Contracts traded on U.S. based futures exchanges, such as the NYMEX, are not a fixed ceiling, but rather a threshold above which the NYMEX may exercise greater scrutiny and control over an investor’s positions. The current accountability level for investments for any one month in the Benchmark Futures Contract is 5,000 contracts. In addition, the NYMEX imposes an accountability level for all months of 7,000 net futures contracts for gasoline. In addition, the ICE Futures maintains the same accountability levels, position limits and monitoring authority for its gasoline contract as the NYMEX. If UGA and the Related Public Funds exceed these accountability levels for investments in the futures contracts for gasoline, the NYMEX and ICE Futures will monitor such exposure and may ask for further information on their activities, including the total size of all positions, investment and trading strategy, and the extent of liquidity resources of UGA and the Related Public Funds. If deemed necessary by the NYMEX and/or ICE Futures, UGA could be ordered to reduce its aggregate position back to the accountability level. As of December 31, 2021, UGA held 769 NYMEX RBOB Gasoline Futures RB contracts. As of December 31, 2021, UGA did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on the ICE Futures. For the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not exceed accountability levels on the NYMEX or ICE Futures.

Position limits differ from accountability levels in that they represent fixed limits on the maximum number of futures contracts that any person may hold and cannot be exceeded without express CFTC authority to do so. In addition to accountability levels and position limits that may apply at any time, the NYMEX and the ICE Futures impose position limits on contracts held in the last few days of trading in the near month contract to expire. It is unlikely that UGA will run up against such position limits because UGA’s investment strategy is to close out its positions and “roll” from the near month contract to expire to the next month contract to expire beginning two weeks from expiration of the contract. For the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not exceed position limits imposed by the NYMEX or ICE Futures.

Table of Contents

The Benchmark Futures Contract will be subject to position limits under the Position Limits Rule, and UNG’s trading does not qualify for an exemption therefrom. Accordingly, the Position Limits Rule could negatively impact the ability of UNG to meet its investment objective by inhibiting USCF’s ability to effectively invest the proceeds from sales of Creation Baskets of UNG in particular amounts and types of its permitted investments.

Risk mitigation measures that could be imposed by UGA’s FCMs have the potential to cause tracking error by limiting UGA’s investments, including its ability to fully invest in the Benchmark Futures Contract and other Futures Contracts, which could cause the price of UGA’s shares to substantially vary from the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.

UGA’s FCMs have discretion to impose limits on the positions that UGA may hold in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract as well as certain other months. To date, UGA’s FCMs have not imposed any such limits. However, were UGA’s FCMs to impose limits, UGA’s ability to have a substantial portion of its assets invested in the Benchmark Futures Contract and other Futures Contracts could be severely limited, which could lead UGA to invest in other Futures Contracts or, potentially, Other Gasoline Related Investments. UGA could also have to more frequently rebalance and adjust the types of holdings in its portfolio than is currently the case. This could inhibit UGA from pursuing its investment objective in the same manner that it has historically and currently.

In addition, when offering Creation Baskets for purchase, limitations imposed by exchanges and/or any of UGA’s FCMs could limit UGA’s ability to invest the proceeds of the purchases of Creation Baskets in Benchmark Futures Contracts and other Futures Contracts. If this were the case, UGA may invest in other permitted investments, including Other Gasoline Related Investments, and may hold larger amounts of Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents, which could impair UGA’s ability to meet its investment objective.

Tax Risk

An investor’s tax liability may exceed the amount of distributions, if any, on its shares.

Cash or property will be distributed at the sole discretion of USCF. USCF has not and does not currently intend to make cash or other distributions with respect to shares. Investors will be required to pay U.S. federal income tax and, in some cases, state, local, or foreign income tax, on their allocable share of UGA’s taxable income, without regard to whether they receive distributions or the amount of any distributions. Therefore, the tax liability of an investor with respect to its shares may exceed the amount of cash or value of property (if any) distributed.

An investor’s allocable share of taxable income or loss may differ from its economic income or loss on its shares.

Due to the application of the assumptions and conventions applied by UGA in making allocations for tax purposes and other factors, an investor’s allocable share of UGA’s income, gain, deduction or loss may be different than its economic profit or loss from its shares for a taxable year. This difference could be temporary or permanent and, if permanent, could result in it being taxed on amounts in excess of its economic income.

Items of income, gain, deduction, loss and credit with respect to shares could be reallocated, and UGA could be liable for U.S. federal income tax, if the IRS does not accept the assumptions and conventions applied by UGA in allocating those items, with potential adverse consequences for an investor.

The U.S. tax rules pertaining to partnerships are complex and their application to large, publicly traded partnerships such as UGA is in many respects uncertain. UGA applies certain assumptions and conventions in an attempt to comply with the intent of the applicable rules and to report taxable income, gains, deductions, losses and credits in a manner that properly reflects shareholders’ economic gains and losses. These assumptions and conventions may not fully comply with all aspects of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) and applicable Treasury Regulations, however, and it is possible that the IRS will successfully challenge UGA’s allocation methods and require UGA to reallocate items of income, gain, deduction, loss or credit in a manner that adversely affects investors.

UGA may be liable for U.S. federal income tax on any “imputed understatement” of tax resulting from an adjustment as a result of an IRS audit. The amount of the imputed understatement generally includes increases in allocations of items of income or gains to any investor and decreases in allocations of items of deduction, loss, or credit to any investor without any offset for any corresponding reductions in allocations of items of income or gain to any investor or increases in allocations of items of deduction, loss, or credit to any investor. If UGA is required to pay any U.S. federal income taxes on any imputed understatement, the resulting tax liability would reduce the net assets of UGA and would likely have an adverse impact on the value of the shares. Under certain circumstances, UGA

Table of Contents

may be eligible to make an election to cause the investors to take into account the amount of any imputed understatement, including any interest and penalties. The ability of a publicly traded partnership such as UGA to make this election is uncertain. If the election is made, UGA would be required to provide investors who owned beneficial interests in the shares in the year to which the adjusted allocations relate with a statement setting forth their proportionate shares of the adjustment (“Adjusted K-1s”). The investors would be required to take the adjustment into account in the taxable year in which the Adjusted K-1s are issued.

UGA could be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, which may substantially reduce the value of the shares.

UGA has received an opinion of counsel that, under current U.S. federal income tax laws, UGA will be treated as a partnership that is not taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, provided that (i) at least 90 percent of UGA’s annual gross income will be derived from (a) income and gains from commodities (not held as inventory) or futures, forwards, options, swaps and other notional principal contracts with respect to commodities, and (b) interest income, (ii) UGA is organized and operated in accordance with its governing agreements and applicable law and (iii) UGA does not elect to be taxed as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Although USCF anticipates that UGA has satisfied and will continue to satisfy the “qualifying income” requirement for all of its taxable years, that result cannot be assured. UGA has not requested and will not request any ruling from the IRS with respect to its classification as a partnership not taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If the IRS were to successfully assert that UGA is taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes in any taxable year, rather than passing through its income, gains, losses and deductions proportionately to shareholders, UGA would be subject to tax on its net income for the year at corporate tax rates. In addition, although USCF does not currently intend to make distributions with respect to shares, any distributions would be taxable to shareholders as dividend income to the extent of UGA’s current and accumulated earnings and profits. Taxation of UGA as a corporation could materially reduce the after-tax return on an investment in shares and could substantially reduce the value of the shares.

UGA is organized and operated as a limited partnership in accordance with the provisions of the LP Agreement and applicable state law, and therefore, UGA has a more complex tax treatment than traditional mutual funds.

UGA is organized and operated as a limited partnership in accordance with the provisions of the LP Agreement and applicable state law. No U.S. federal income tax is paid by UGA on its income. Instead, UGA will furnish shareholders each year with tax information on IRS Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) and each U.S. shareholder is required to report on its U.S. federal income tax return its allocable share of the income, gain, loss and deduction of UGA.

This must be reported without regard to the amount (if any) of cash or property the shareholder receives as a distribution from UGA during the taxable year. A shareholder, therefore, may be allocated income or gain by UGA but receive no cash distribution with which to pay the tax liability resulting from the allocation, or may receive a distribution that is insufficient to pay such liability.

In addition to U.S. federal income taxes, shareholders may be subject to other taxes, such as state and local income taxes, unincorporated business taxes, business franchise taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that may be imposed by the various jurisdictions in which UGA does business or owns property or where the shareholders reside. Although an analysis of those various taxes is not presented here, each prospective shareholder should consider their potential impact on its investment in UGA. It is each shareholder’s responsibility to file the appropriate U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax returns.

If UGA is required to withhold tax with respect to any Non-U.S. shareholders, the cost of such withholding may be borne by all shareholders.

Under certain circumstances, UGA may be required to pay withholding tax with respect to allocations to Non-U.S. shareholders. Although the LP Agreement provides that any such withholding will be treated as being distributed to the Non-U.S. shareholder, UGA may not be able to cause the economic cost of such withholding to be borne by the Non-U.S. shareholder on whose behalf such amounts were withheld since it does not generally expect to make any distributions. Under such circumstances, the economic cost of the withholding may be borne by all shareholders, not just the shareholders on whose behalf such amounts were withheld. This could have a material impact on the value of the shares.

Table of Contents

The impact of U.S. tax reform on UGA is uncertain.

Legislative or other actions relating to taxes could have a negative effect on UGA or our investors. The rules dealing with U.S. federal income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department. The Biden Administration has proposed significant changes to the existing U.S. tax rules, and there are a number of proposals in Congress that would similarly modify the existing U.S. tax rules. The likelihood of any such legislation being enacted is uncertain, and we cannot predict with certainty how any changes in the tax laws might affect UGA, our investors or our investments. Investors are urged to consult with their tax advisor with respect to the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on an investment in our securities.

OTC Contract Risk

UGA will be subject to credit risk with respect to counterparties to OTC contracts entered into by UGA or held by special purpose or structured vehicles.

UGA faces the risk of non-performance by the counterparties to the OTC contracts. Unlike in futures contracts, the counterparty to these contracts is generally a single bank or other financial institution, rather than a clearing organization backed by a group of financial institutions. As a result, there will be greater counterparty credit risk in these transactions. A counterparty may not be able to meet its obligations to UGA, in which case UGA could suffer significant losses on these contracts. The two-way margining requirements imposed by U.S. regulators, discussed in “Item 1. Business – Commodities Regulation,” are intended to mitigate this risk.

If a counterparty becomes bankrupt or otherwise fails to perform its obligations due to financial difficulties, UGA may experience significant delays in obtaining any recovery in a bankruptcy or other reorganization proceeding. UGA may obtain only limited recovery or may obtain no recovery in such circumstances.

Valuing OTC derivatives may be less certain than actively traded financial instruments.

In general, valuing OTC derivatives is less certain than valuing actively traded financial instruments such as exchange traded futures contracts and securities or cleared swaps because, for OTC derivatives, the price and terms on which such OTC derivatives are entered into or can be terminated are individually negotiated, and those prices and terms may not reflect the best price or terms available from other sources. In addition, while market makers and dealers generally quote indicative prices or terms for entering into or terminating OTC contracts, they typically are not contractually obligated to do so, particularly if they are not a party to the transaction. As a result, it may be difficult to obtain an independent value for an outstanding OTC derivatives transaction.

Other Risks

UGA is not leveraged.

UGA has not leveraged, and does not intend to leverage, its assets through borrowings or otherwise, and makes its investments accordingly. Consistent with the foregoing, UGA’s announced investment intentions, and any changes thereto, will take into account the need for UGA to make permitted investments that also allow it to maintain adequate liquidity to meet its margin and collateral requirements and to avoid, to the extent reasonably possible, UGA becoming leveraged. If market conditions require it, UGA may implement risk reduction procedures, which may include changes to UGA’s investments, and such changes may occur on short notice if they occur other than during a roll or rebalance period.

UGA may temporarily limit the offering of Creation Baskets.

UGA may determine to limit the issuance of its shares through the offering of Creation Baskets to its Authorized Participants in order to allow it to reinvest the proceeds from sales of its Creation Baskets in currently permitted assets in a manner that meets its investment objective. UGA will announce to the market through the filing of a Current Report on Form 8-K if it intends to limit the offering of Creation Baskets at any time. In such case, orders for Creation Baskets will be considered for acceptance in the order they are received by UGA and UGA would continue to accept requests for redemption of its shares from Authorized Participants through Redemption Baskets during the period of the limited offering of Creation Baskets.

Table of Contents

Certain of UGA’s investments could be illiquid, which could cause large losses to investors at any time or from time to time.

Futures positions cannot always be liquidated at the desired price. It is difficult to execute a trade at a specific price when there is a relatively small volume of buy and sell orders in a market. A market disruption, such as a foreign government taking political actions that disrupt the market for its currency, its unleaded gasoline production or exports, or another major export, can also make it difficult to liquidate a position. Because both Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments may be illiquid, UGA’s Gasoline Interests may be more difficult to liquidate at favorable prices in periods of illiquid markets and losses may be incurred during the period in which positions are being liquidated. The large size of the positions that UGA may acquire increases the risk of illiquidity both by making its positions more difficult to liquidate and by potentially increasing losses while trying to do so.

OTC contracts that are not subject to clearing may be even less marketable than futures contracts because they are not traded on an exchange, do not have uniform terms and conditions, and are entered into based upon the creditworthiness of the parties and the availability of credit support, such as collateral, and in general, they are not transferable without the consent of the counterparty. These conditions make such contracts less liquid than standardized futures contracts traded on a commodities exchange and could adversely impact UGA’s ability to realize the full value of such contracts. In addition, even if collateral is used to reduce counterparty credit risk, sudden changes in the value of OTC transactions may leave a party open to financial risk due to a counterparty default since the collateral held may not cover a party’s exposure on the transaction in such situations.

UGA is not actively managed and its investment objective is to track the Benchmark Futures Contract so that the average daily percentage change in UGA's NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period.

UGA is not actively managed by conventional methods. Accordingly, if UGA’s investments in Gasoline Interests are declining in value, in the ordinary course, UGA will not close out such positions except in connection with paying the proceeds to an Authorized Participant upon the redemption of a basket or closing out its positions in Futures Contracts and other permitted investments (i) in connection with the monthly change in the Benchmark Futures Contract or when UGA otherwise determines it would be appropriate to do so, e.g., due to regulatory requirements or risk mitigation measures, or to avoid UGA becoming leveraged, and it reinvests the proceeds in new Futures Contracts or Other Gasoline-Related Investments to the extent possible. USCF will seek to cause the NAV of UGA’s shares to track the Benchmark Futures Contract during periods in which its price is flat or declining as well as when the price is rising.

UGA's ability to invest in the Benchmark Futures Contract could be limited as a result of any or all of the following: evolving market conditions, a change in regulatory accountability levels and position limits imposed on UGA with respect to its investment in Futures Contracts, additional or different risk mitigation measures taken by market participants, generally, including UGA, with respect to UGA acquiring additional Futures Contracts, or UGA selling additional shares. Accordingly, for the foreseeable future, to address and comply with the market conditions, regulatory requirements and other factors that have influenced, and will continue to influence, its investment decisions, UGA intends to buy or sell its permitted investments when UGA increases or decreases either its portfolio overall or its holdings of particular investments.

UGA may not meet the listing standards of NYSE Arca, which would adversely impact an investor’s ability to sell shares.

NYSE Arca may suspend UGA’s shares from trading on the exchange with or without prior notice to UGA, upon failure of UGA to comply with the NYSE’s listing requirements, or when in its sole discretion, the NYSE Arca determines that such suspension of dealings is in the public interest or otherwise warranted. There can be no assurance that the requirements necessary to maintain the listing of UGA’s shares will continue to be met or will remain unchanged. If UGA were unable to meet the NYSE’s listing standards and were to become delisted, an investor’s ability to sell its shares would be adversely impacted.

The NYSE Arca may halt trading in UGA’s shares, which would adversely impact an investor’s ability to sell shares.

Trading in shares may be halted due to market conditions or, in light of NYSE Arca rules and procedures, for reasons that, in the view of the NYSE Arca, make trading in shares inadvisable. In addition, trading is subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to “circuit breaker” rules that require trading to be halted for a specified period based on a specified market decline.

Table of Contents

The liquidity of UGA’s shares may also be affected by the withdrawal from participation of Authorized Participants, which could adversely affect the market price of the shares.

In the event that one or more Authorized Participants which have substantial interests in the shares withdraw from participation, the liquidity of the shares will likely decrease, which could adversely affect the market price of the shares and result in investors incurring a loss on their investment.

Shareholders that are not Authorized Participants may only purchase or sell their shares in secondary trading markets, and the conditions associated with trading in secondary markets may adversely affect investors’ investment in the shares.

Only Authorized Participants may directly purchase from or redeem shares with UGA through Creation Baskets or Redemption Baskets respectively. All other investors that desire to purchase or sell shares must do so through the NYSE Arca or in other markets, if any, in which the shares may be traded. Shares may trade at a premium or discount relative to NAV per share.

The lack of an active trading market for UGA’s shares may result in losses on an investor’s investment in UGA at the time the investor sells the shares.

Although UGA’s shares are listed and traded on the NYSE Arca, there can be no guarantee that an active trading market for the shares will be maintained. If an investor needs to sell shares at a time when no active trading market for them exists, the price the investor receives upon sale of the shares, assuming they were able to be sold, likely would be lower than if an active market existed.

Limited partners and shareholders do not participate in the management of UGA and do not control USCF, so they do not have any influence over basic matters that affect UGA.

The limited partners and shareholders take no part in the management or control, and have a minimal voice in UGA’s operations or business. Limited partners and shareholders must therefore rely upon the duties and judgment of USCF to manage UGA’s affairs. Limited partners and shareholders have no right to elect USCF on an annual or any other continuing basis. If USCF voluntarily withdraws, however, the holders of a majority of UGA’s outstanding shares (excluding for purposes of such determination shares owned, if any, by the withdrawing general partner and its affiliates) may elect its successor. USCF may not be removed as general partner except upon approval by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3 percent of UGA’s outstanding shares (excluding shares, if any, owned by USCF and its affiliates), subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the LP Agreement.

UGA could become leveraged if it had insufficient assets to completely meet its margin or collateral requirements relating to its investments.

Although UGA does not and will not borrow money or use debt to satisfy its margin or collateral obligations in respect of its investments, it could become leveraged if UGA were to hold insufficient assets that would allow it to meet not only the current, but also future, margin or collateral obligations required for such investments. Such a circumstance could occur if UGA were to hold assets that have a value of less than zero.

USCF endeavors to have the value of UGA's Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents, whether held by UGA or posted as margin or other collateral, at all times approximate the aggregate market value of its obligations under its Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments. Although permitted to do so under its Limited Partnership Agreement, UGA has not and does not intend to leverage its assets by making investments beyond its potential ability to meet the potential margin and collateral obligations relating to such investments. Consistent with this, UGA's investment decisions will take into account the need for UGA to make permitted investments that also allow it to maintain adequate liquidity to meet its margin and collateral requirements and to avoid, to the extent reasonably possible, UGA becoming leveraged, including by its holding of assets that have a high probability of having a value of less than zero.

Limited partners may have limited liability in certain circumstances, including potentially having liability for the return of wrongful distributions.

Under Delaware law, a limited partner might be held liable for UGA’s obligations as if it were a general partner if the limited partner participates in the control of the partnership’s business and the persons who transact business with the partnership think the limited partner is the general partner.

Table of Contents

A limited partner will not be liable for assessments in addition to its initial capital investment in any of UGA’s shares. However, a limited partner may be required to repay to UGA any amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to it under some circumstances. Under Delaware law, UGA may not make a distribution to limited partners if the distribution causes UGA’s liabilities (other than liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and nonrecourse liabilities) to exceed the fair value of UGA’s assets. Delaware law provides that a limited partner who receives such a distribution and knew at the time of the distribution that the distribution violated the law will be liable to the limited partnership for the amount of the distribution for three years from the date of the distribution.

The LLC Agreement provides limited authority to the Non-Management Directors, and any Director of USCF may be removed by USCF’s parent company, which is wholly owned by Concierge, a controlled public company where the majority of shares are owned by Nicholas D. Gerber along with certain of his other family members and certain other shareholders.

USCF’s Board of Directors currently consists of four Management Directors, who are also executive officers or employees of USCF, and three Non-Management Directors, who are considered independent for purposes of applicable NYSE Arca and SEC rules. Under USCF’s LLC Agreement, the Non-Management Directors have only such authority as the Management Directors expressly confer upon them, which means that the Non-Management Directors may have less authority to control the actions of the Management Directors than is typically the case with the independent members of a company’s Board of Directors. In addition, any Director may be removed by written consent of Wainwright Holdings, Inc. (“Wainwright”), which is the sole member of USCF. The sole shareholder of Wainwright is Concierge Technologies, Inc., a company publicly traded under the ticker symbol “CNCG” (“Concierge”). Mr. Nicholas D. Gerber, along with certain of his family members and certain other shareholders, owns the majority of the shares in Concierge, which is the sole shareholder of Wainwright, the sole member of USCF. Accordingly, although USCF is governed by the USCF Board of Directors, which consists of both Management Directors and Non-Management Directors, pursuant to the LLC Agreement, it is possible for Mr. Gerber to exercise his indirect control of Wainwright to affect the removal of any Director (including the Non-Management Directors which comprise the Audit Committee) and to replace that Director with another Director. Having control in one person could have a negative impact on USCF and UGA, including their regulatory obligations.

There is a risk that UGA will not earn trading gains sufficient to compensate for the fees and expenses that it must pay and as such UGA may not earn any profit.

UGA pays brokerage charges of approximately 0.10% of average total net assets based on brokerage fees of $3.50 per buy or sell, management fees of 0.60% of NAV on its average net assets, and OTC spreads and extraordinary expenses (e.g., subsequent offering expenses, other expenses not in the ordinary course of business, including the indemnification of any person against liabilities and obligations to the extent permitted by law and required under the LP Agreement and under agreements entered into by USCF on UGA’s behalf and the bringing and defending of actions at law or in equity and otherwise engaging in the conduct of litigation and the incurring of legal expenses and the settlement of claims and litigation) that cannot be quantified.

These fees and expenses must be paid in all cases regardless of whether UGA’s activities are profitable. Accordingly, UGA must earn trading gains sufficient to compensate for these fees and expenses before it can earn any profit.

UGA is subject to extensive regulatory reporting and compliance.

UGA is subject to a comprehensive scheme of regulation under the federal commodities and securities laws. UGA could be subject to sanctions for a failure to comply with those requirements, which could adversely affect its financial performance (in the case of financial penalties) or ability to pursue its investment objective (in the case of a limitation on its ability to trade).

Because UGA’s shares are publicly traded, UGA is subject to certain rules and regulations of federal, state and financial market exchange entities charged with the protection of investors and the oversight of companies whose securities are publicly traded. These entities include the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”), the SEC, the CFTC and NYSE Arca and these authorities have continued to develop additional regulations or interpretations of existing regulations. UGA’s ongoing efforts to comply with these regulations and interpretations have resulted in, and are likely to continue resulting in, a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance related activities.

UGA is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. UGA’s internal control system is designed to provide reasonable assurance to its management regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective may provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

Table of Contents

Regulatory changes or actions, including the implementation of new legislation is impossible to predict but may significantly and adversely affect UGA.

The futures markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations, and margin requirements. In addition, the CFTC and futures exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of a market emergency, including, for example, the retroactive implementation of speculative position limits or higher margin requirements, the establishment of daily price limits and the suspension of trading. Regulation of commodity interest transactions in the United States is a rapidly changing area of law and is subject to ongoing modification by governmental and judicial action. Considerable regulatory attention has been focused on non-traditional investment pools that are publicly distributed in the United States. In addition, the SEC, CFTC and the exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of a market emergency, including, for example, the retroactive implementation of speculative position limits or higher margin requirements, the establishment of daily price limits and the suspension of trading. Further, various national governments outside of the United States have expressed concern regarding the disruptive effects of speculative trading in the energy markets and the need to regulate the derivatives markets in general. The effect of any future regulatory change on UGA is impossible to predict, but it could be substantial and adverse. For a more detailed discussion of the regulations to be imposed by the CFTC and the SEC and the potential impacts thereof on UGA, please see “Item 1. Business – Commodities Regulation” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

UGA is not a registered investment company so shareholders do not have the protections of the 1940 Act.

UGA is not an investment company subject to the 1940 Act. Accordingly, investors do not have the protections afforded by that statute, which, for example, requires investment companies to have a majority of disinterested directors and regulates the relationship between the investment company and its investment manager.

Trading in international markets could expose UGA to credit and regulatory risk.

UGA invests primarily in Futures Contracts, a significant portion of which are traded on United States exchanges, including the NYMEX. However, a portion of UGA’s trades may take place on markets and exchanges outside the United States. Trading on such non-U.S. markets or exchanges presents risks because they are not subject to the same degree of regulation as their U.S. counterparts, including potentially different or diminished investor protections. In trading contracts denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars, UGA is subject to the risk of adverse exchange-rate movements between the dollar and the functional currencies of such contracts. Additionally, trading on non-U.S. exchanges is subject to the risks presented by exchange controls, expropriation, increased tax burdens and exposure to local economic declines and political instability. An adverse development with respect to any of these variables could reduce the profit or increase the loss earned on trades in the affected international markets.

UGA and USCF may have conflicts of interest, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of shareholders.

UGA is subject to actual and potential inherent conflicts involving USCF, various commodity futures brokers and Authorized Participants. USCF’s officers, directors and employees do not devote their time exclusively to UGA and also are directors, officers or employees of other entities that may compete with UGA for their services. They could have a conflict between their responsibilities to UGA and to those other entities. As a result of these and other relationships, parties involved with UGA have a financial incentive to act in a manner other than in the best interests of UGA and the shareholders. USCF has not established any formal procedure to resolve conflicts of interest. Consequently, investors are dependent on the good faith of the respective parties subject to such conflicts of interest to resolve them equitably. Although USCF attempts to monitor these conflicts, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for USCF to ensure that these conflicts do not, in fact, result in adverse consequences to the shareholders.

USCF serves as the general partner or sponsor to each of UGA and the Related Public Funds. USCF may have a conflict to the extent that its trading decisions for UGA may be influenced by the effect they would have on the other funds it manages. By way of example, if, as a result of reaching position limits imposed by the NYMEX, UGA purchased gasoline futures contracts, this decision could impact UGA's ability to purchase additional gasoline futures contracts if the number of contracts held by funds managed by USCF reached the maximum allowed by the NYMEX. Similar situations could adversely affect the ability of any fund to track its Benchmark Futures Contract.

UGA may also be subject to certain conflicts with respect to its FCMs, including, but not limited to, conflicts that result from receiving greater amounts of compensation from other clients, or purchasing opposite or competing positions on behalf of third party accounts traded through the FCMs. In addition, USCF’s principals, officers, directors or employees may trade futures and related contracts for

Table of Contents

their own account. A conflict of interest may exist if their trades are in the same markets and at the same time as UGA trades using the clearing broker to be used by UGA. A potential conflict also may occur if USCF’s principals, officers, directors or employees trade their accounts more aggressively or take positions in their accounts which are opposite, or ahead of, the positions taken by UGA.

UGA could terminate at any time and cause the liquidation and potential loss of an investor’s investment and could upset the overall maturity and timing of an investor’s investment portfolio.

UGA may terminate at any time, regardless of whether UGA has incurred losses, subject to the terms of the LP Agreement. In particular, unforeseen circumstances, including, but not limited to, (i) market conditions, regulatory requirements, risk mitigation measures taken by UGA or third parties or otherwise that would lead UGA to determine that it could no longer foreseeably meet its business objective or that UGA's aggregate net assets in relation to its operating expenses or its margin or collateral requirements make the continued operation of UGA unreasonable or imprudent, or (ii) adjudication of incompetence, bankruptcy, dissolution, withdrawal, or removal of USCF as the general partner of UGA could cause UGA to terminate unless a majority interest of the limited partners within 90 days of the event elects to continue the partnership and appoints a successor general partner, or the affirmative vote of a majority in interest of the limited partners subject to certain conditions. However, no level of losses will require USCF to terminate UGA. UGA’s termination would cause the liquidation and potential loss of an investor’s investment. Termination could also negatively affect the overall maturity and timing of an investor’s investment portfolio.

UGA does not expect to make cash distributions.

UGA has not previously made any cash distributions and intends to reinvest any realized gains in additional Gasoline Interests rather than distributing cash to limited partners, or other shareholders. Therefore, unlike mutual funds, commodity pools or other investment pools that actively manage their investments in an attempt to realize income and gains from their investing activities and distribute such income and gains to their investors, UGA generally does not expect to distribute cash to limited partners. An investor should not invest in UGA if the investor will need cash distributions from UGA to pay taxes on its share of income and gains of UGA, if any, or for any other reason. Nonetheless, although UGA does not intend to make cash distributions, the income earned from its investments held directly or posted as margin may reach levels that merit distribution, e.g., at levels where such income is not necessary to support its underlying investments in Gasoline Interests and investors adversely react to being taxed on such income without receiving distributions that could be used to pay such tax. If this income becomes significant then cash distributions may be made.

An unanticipated number of Redemption Basket requests during a short period of time could have an adverse effect on UGA’s NAV.

While USCF makes every effort to predict and maintain an adequate amount of shares outstanding, if a substantial number of requests for Creation Baskets are received by UGA during a relatively short period of time that substantially differs from past creation volumes, due to market volatility or otherwise, it could result in circumstances where, because of high demand for its shares, UGA may not have sufficient shares available for sale to satisfy demand. Authorized Participants may, therefore, be unable to purchase additional Creation Baskets.

An unanticipated number of Creation Basket requests during a short period of time could result in a shortage of shares.

USCF makes every effort to predict and maintain an adequate amount of shares outstanding. However, if a substantial number of requests for Creation Baskets are received by UGA during a relatively short period of time that substantially differ from past creation volumes, due to market volatility or otherwise, including, for example, occurrence of a pandemic like COVID-19, UGA may not have sufficient shares available for sale to satisfy demand and Authorized Participants may, therefore, be unable to purchase additional Creation Baskets.

In the event that there was a suspension in the ability of Authorized Participants to purchase additional Creation Baskets, Authorized Participants and other groups that make a market in shares of UGA would likely still continue to actively trade the shares. However, in such a situation, Authorized Participants and other market makers may seek to adjust the market they make in the shares. Specifically, such market participants may increase the spread between the prices that they quote for offers to buy and sell shares to allow them to adjust to the potential uncertainty as to when they might be able to purchase additional Creation Baskets of shares. In addition, Authorized Participants may be less willing to offer to quote offers to buy or sell shares in large numbers. The potential impact of either wider spreads between bid and offer prices, or reduced number of shares on which quotes may be available, could increase the trading costs to investors in UGA compared to the quotes and the number of shares on which bids and offers are made if the Authorized Participants still were able to freely create new baskets of shares. In addition, there could be a significant variation between the market price at which shares are traded and the shares’ NAV, which is also the price shares can be redeemed with UGA by Authorized

Table of Contents

Participants in Redemption Baskets. The foregoing could also create significant deviations from UGA's investment objective. Any potential impact to the market in shares of UGA that could occur from the Authorized Participant's inability to create new baskets would likely not extend beyond the time when additional shares would be registered and available for distribution.

UGA may determine that to allow it to reinvest the proceeds from sales of its Creation Baskets in currently permitted assets in a manner that meets its investment objective it may limit its offers of Creation Baskets.

UGA may determine that UGA will limit the issuance of its shares through the offering of Creation Baskets to its Authorized Participants. As a result of certain circumstances described herein, including (1) the need to comply with regulatory requirements (including, but not limited to, exchange accountability levels and position limits); (2) market conditions (including but not limited to those allowing UGA to obtain greater liquidity or to execute transactions with more favorable pricing); and (3) risk mitigation measures taken by UGA's current and other FCMs that limit UGA and other market participants from investing in particular gasoline futures contracts, UGA's management can determine that it will limit the issuance of shares and the offerings of Creation Baskets because it is unable to invest the proceeds from such offerings in investments that would permit it to reasonably meet its investment objective.

If such a determination is made, the same consequences associated with a suspension of the offering of Creation Baskets, as described in the foregoing risk factor, an unanticipated number of Creation Baskets requests during a short period of time could result in a shortage of shares, could also occur as a result of UGA determining to limit the offering of creation baskets.

The value of Treasury Bills and Money Market securities held by UGA will fluctuate in value with changes in interest rates.

Interest rate risk is generally lower for shorter term investments and higher for longer term investments. UGA may be subject to a greater risk of rising interest rates than would normally be the case due to the current period of historically low rates and the effect of potential fiscal policy initiatives and resulting market reaction to those initiatives. When interest rates fall, UGA may be required to reinvest the proceeds from the sale, redemption or early prepayment of a Treasury Bill or money market security at a lower interest rate.

UGA may lose money by investing in government money market funds.

UGA invests in government money market funds. Although such government money market funds seek to preserve the value of an investment at $1.00 per share, there is no guarantee that they will be able to do so and UGA may lose money by investing in a government money market fund. An investment in a government money market fund is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, referred to herein as the FDIC, or any other government agency. The share price of a government money market fund can fall below the $1.00 share price. UGA cannot rely on or expect a government money market fund’s adviser or its affiliates to enter into support agreements or take other actions to maintain the government money market fund’s $1.00 share price. The credit quality of a government money market fund’s holdings can change rapidly in certain markets, and the default of a single holding could have an adverse impact on the government money market fund’s share price. Due to fluctuations in interest rates, the market value of securities held by a government money market fund may vary. A government money market fund’s share price can also be negatively affected during periods of high redemption pressures and/or illiquid markets.

The failure or bankruptcy of a clearing broker or UGA’s Custodian could result in a substantial loss of UGA’s assets and could impair UGA in its ability to execute trades.

The CEA and CFTC regulations impose several requirements on FCMs and clearing houses that are designed to protect customers, including mandating the implementation of risk management programs, internal monitoring and controls, capital and liquidity standards, customer disclosures, and auditing and examination programs. In particular, the CEA and CFTC regulations require FCMs and clearing houses to segregate all funds received from customers from proprietary assets. There can be no assurance that the requirements imposed by the CEA and CFTC regulations will prevent losses to, or not materially adversely affect, UGA or its investors.

In particular, in the event of an FCM’s or clearing house’s bankruptcy, UGA could be limited to recovering either a pro rata share of all available funds segregated on behalf of the FCM’s combined customer accounts or UGA may not recover any assets at all. UGA may also incur a loss of any unrealized profits on its open and closed positions. This is because if such a bankruptcy were to occur, UGA would be afforded the protections granted to customers of an FCM, and participants to transactions cleared through a clearing house, under the United States Bankruptcy Code and applicable CFTC regulations. Such provisions generally provide for a pro rata distribution to customers of customer property held by the bankrupt FCMs or an exchange’s clearing house if the customer property held by the FCMs or the exchange’s clearing house is insufficient to satisfy all customer claims.

Table of Contents

Bankruptcy of a clearing FCMs can be caused by, among other things, the default of one of the FCM’s customers. In this event, the exchange’s clearing house is permitted to use the entire amount of margin posted by UGA (as well as margin posted by other customers of the FCM) to cover the amounts owed by the bankrupt FCM. Consequently, UGA could be unable to recover amounts due to it on its futures positions, including assets posted as margin, and could sustain substantial losses.

Notwithstanding that UGA could sustain losses upon the failure or bankruptcy of its FCM, the majority of UGA’s assets are held in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents with the Custodian and would not be impacted by the bankruptcy of an FCM.

The failure or bankruptcy of the Custodian could result in a substantial loss of UGA’s assets.

The majority of UGA’s assets are held in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents with the Custodian. The insolvency of the Custodian could result in a complete loss of UGA’s assets held by that Custodian, which, at any given time, would likely comprise a substantial portion of UGA’s total assets.

Third parties may infringe upon or otherwise violate intellectual property rights or assert that USCF has infringed or otherwise violated their intellectual property rights, which may result in significant costs and diverted attention.

It is possible that third parties might utilize UGA’s intellectual property or technology, including the use of its business methods, trademarks and trading program software, without permission. USCF has a patent for UGA’s business method and has registered its trademarks. UGA does not currently have any proprietary software. However, if it obtains proprietary software in the future, any unauthorized use of UGA’s proprietary software and other technology could also adversely affect its competitive advantage. UGA may not have adequate resources to implement procedures for monitoring unauthorized uses of its patents, trademarks, proprietary software and other technology. Also, third parties may independently develop business methods, trademarks or proprietary software and other technology similar to that of USCF or claim that USCF has violated their intellectual property rights, including their copyrights, trademark rights, trade names, trade secrets and patent rights. As a result, USCF may have to litigate in the future to protect its trade secrets, determine the validity and scope of other parties’ proprietary rights, defend itself against claims that it has infringed or otherwise violated other parties’ rights, or defend itself against claims that its rights are invalid. Any litigation of this type, even if USCF is successful and regardless of the merits, may result in significant costs, divert its resources from UGA, or require it to change its proprietary software and other technology or enter into royalty or licensing agreements.

Due to the increased use of technologies, intentional and unintentional cyber-attacks pose operational and information security risks.

With the increased use of technologies such as the Internet and the dependence on computer systems to perform necessary business functions, UGA is susceptible to operational and information security risks. In general, cyber incidents can result from deliberate attacks or unintentional events such as a cyber-attack against UGA, a natural catastrophe, an industrial accident, failure of UGA’s disaster recovery systems, or consequential employee error. Cyber-attacks include, but are not limited to, gaining unauthorized access to digital systems for purposes of misappropriating assets or sensitive information, corrupting data, or causing operational disruption. Cyber-attacks may also be carried out in a manner that does not require gaining unauthorized access, such as causing denial-of-service attacks on websites. Cyber security failures or breaches of UGA’s clearing broker or third party service provider (including, but not limited to, index providers, the administrator and transfer agent, the custodian), have the ability to cause disruptions and impact business operations, potentially resulting in financial losses, the inability of UGA shareholders to transact business, violations of applicable privacy and other laws, regulatory fines, penalties, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and/or additional compliance costs. Adverse effects can become particularly acute if those events affect UGA’s electronic data processing, transmission, storage, and retrieval systems, or impact the availability, integrity, or confidentiality of our data.

In addition, a service provider that has experienced a cyber-security incident may divert resources normally devoted to servicing UGA to addressing the incident, which would be likely to have an adverse effect on UGA's operations. Cyber-attacks may also cause disruptions to the futures exchanges and clearinghouses through which UGA invests in futures contracts, which could result in disruptions to UGA's ability to pursue its investment objective, resulting in financial losses to UGA and its shareholders.

In addition, substantial costs may be incurred in order to prevent any cyber incidents in the future. UGA and its shareholders could be negatively impacted as a result. While USCF and the Related Public Funds, including UGA, have established business continuity plans, there are inherent limitations in such plans, including the possibility that certain risks have not been identified or that new risks will

Table of Contents

emerge before countervailing measures can be implemented. Furthermore, UGA cannot control cybersecurity plans and systems of its service providers, market makers or Authorized Participants.

UGA’s investment returns could be negatively affected by climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions.

Driven by concern over the risks of climate change, a number of countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or production and use of oil and gas. These include adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, trade tariffs, minimum renewable usage requirements, restrictive permitting, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. Political and other actors and their agents increasingly seek to advance climate change objectives indirectly, such as by seeking to reduce the availability of or increase the cost for, financial and investment in the oil and gas sector and taking actions intended to promote changes in business strategy for oil and gas companies. Many governments are also providing tax advantages and other subsidies to support transitioning to alternative energy sources or mandating the use of specific fuels other than oil or natural gas. Depending on how policies are formulated and applied, they could have the potential to negatively affect UGA’s investment returns and make oil and natural gas products more expensive or less competitive.

USCF is the subject of class action litigation. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in litigation matters, an adverse outcome in this litigation could materially adversely affect USCF’s financial condition.

USCF and USCF’s directors and certain of its officers are currently subject to class action litigation. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings to USCF is inherently difficult and requires an extensive degree of judgment, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages and are subject to appeal. In addition, because most legal proceedings are resolved over extended periods of time, potential losses are subject to change due to, among other things, new developments, changes in legal strategy, the outcome of intermediate procedural and substantive rulings and other parties’ settlement posture and their evaluation of the strength or weakness of their case against USCF. For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of, or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting therefrom. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in such matters, an adverse outcome in this litigation could materially adversely affect USCF’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. In addition, litigation could result in substantial costs and divert USCF’s management’s attention and resources from conducting USCF’s operations, including the management of UGA and the Related Public Funds. For more information, see “Item 3. Legal Proceedings” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties.

Not applicable.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

From time to time, UGA may be involved in legal proceedings arising primarily from the ordinary course of its business. In addition, USCF, as the general partner of UGA and the Related Public Funds may, from time to time, be involved in litigation arising out of its operations in the ordinary course of business. Except as described herein, UGA and USCF are not currently party to any material legal proceedings.

Settlement of SEC and CFTC Investigations

On November 8, 2021, USCF and USO announced a resolution with each of the SEC and the CFTC relating to matters set forth in certain Wells Notices issued by the staffs of each of the SEC and CFTC as more fully described below. On August 17, 2020, USCF, USO, and John Love received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC (the “SEC Wells Notice”). The SEC Wells Notice stated that the SEC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against USCF, USO, and Mr. Love alleging violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Table of Contents

Subsequently, on August 19, 2020, USCF, USO, and Mr. Love received a Wells Notice from the staff of the CFTC (the “CFTC Wells Notice”). The CFTC Wells Notice stated that the CFTC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the CFTC file an enforcement action against USCF, USO, and Mr. Love alleging violations of Sections 4o(1)(A) and (B) and 6(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended (the “CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6o(1)(A) and (B) and 9(1) (2018), and CFTC Regulations 4.26, 4.41, and 180.1(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.26, 4.41, 180.1(a) (2019).

On November 8, 2021, acting pursuant to an offer of settlement submitted by USCF and USO, the SEC issued an order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings, making findings, and imposing a cease-and-desist order pursuant to Section 8A of the 1933 Act, directing USCF and USO to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3) (the “SEC Order”). In the SEC Order, the SEC made findings that, from April 24, 2020 to May 21, 2020, USCF and USO violated Section 17(a)(3) of 1933 Act, which provides that it is “unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.” USCF and USO consented to entry of the SEC Order without admitting or denying the findings contained therein, except as to jurisdiction.

Separately, on November 8, 2021, acting pursuant to an offer of settlement submitted by USCF, the CFTC issued an order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings, making findings, and imposing a cease-and-desist order pursuant to Section 6(c) and (d) of the CEA, directing USCF to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Section 4o(1)(B) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) (B), and CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(2), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(2) (the “CFTC Order”). In the CFTC Order, the CFTC made findings that, from on or about April 22, 2020 to June 12, 2020, USCF violated Section 4o(1)(B) of the CEA and CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(2), which make it unlawful for any commodity pool operator (“CPO”) to engage in “any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant” and prohibit a CPO from advertising in a manner which “operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant,” respectively. USCF consented to entry of the CFTC Order without admitting or denying the findings contained therein, except as to jurisdiction.

Pursuant to the SEC Order and the CFTC Order, in addition to the command to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the 1933 Act, Section 4o(1)(B) of the CEA, and CFTC Regulation 4.14(a)(2), civil monetary penalties totaling two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) in the aggregate were required to be paid to the SEC and CFTC, of which one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000) was paid by USCF to each of the SEC and the CFTC, respectively, pursuant to the offsets permitted under the orders.

In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation

On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the “Lucas Class Action”). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.

On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Lucas Class Complaint”). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney’s fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.

Table of Contents

The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.

USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal.

Wang Class Action

On July 10, 2020, purported shareholder Momo Wang filed a putative class action complaint, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against defendants USO, USCF, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes, III, ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, JP Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-4596 (the “Wang Class Action”).

The Wang Class Action asserted federal securities claims under the 1933 Act, challenging disclosures in a March 19, 2020 registration statement. It alleged that the defendants failed to disclose to investors in USO certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Wang Class Action was voluntarily dismissed on August 4, 2020.

Mehan Action

On August 10, 2020, purported shareholder Darshan Mehan filed a derivative action on behalf of nominal defendant USO, against defendants USCF, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes, III (the “Mehan Action”). The action is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda as Case No. RG20070732.

The Mehan Action alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to USO and failed to act in good faith in connection with a March 19, 2020 registration statement and offering and disclosures regarding certain extraordinary market conditions that caused demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The complaint seeks, on behalf of USO, compensatory damages, restitution, equitable relief, attorney’s fees, and costs. All proceedings in the Mehan Action are stayed pending disposition of the motion(s) to dismiss in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation.

USCF, USO, and the other defendants intend to vigorously contest such claims.

In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation

On August 27, 2020, purported shareholders Michael Cantrell and AML Pharm. Inc. DBA Golden International filed two separate derivative actions on behalf of nominal defendant USO, against defendants USCF, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Andrew F Ngim, Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes, III, Nicholas D. Gerber, Robert L. Nguyen, and Peter M. Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York at Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06974 (the “Cantrell Action”) and Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06981 (the “AML Action”), respectively.

The complaints in the Cantrell and AML Actions are nearly identical. They each allege violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 21D of the 1934 Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and common law claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. These allegations stem from USO’s disclosures and defendants’ alleged actions in light of the extraordinary market conditions in 2020 that caused demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The complaints seek, on behalf of USO, compensatory damages, restitution, equitable relief, attorney’s fees, and costs. The plaintiffs in the Cantrell and AML Actions have marked their actions as related to the Lucas Class Action.

The Court consolidated the Cantrell and AML Actions under the caption In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06974 and appointed co-lead counsel. All proceedings in In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation are stayed pending disposition of the motion(s) to dismiss in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation.

Table of Contents

USCF, USO, and the other defendants intend to vigorously contest the claims in In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

Part II

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

Price Range of Shares

UGA’s shares have traded on the NYSE Arca under the symbol “UGA” since November 25, 2008. Prior to trading on the NYSE Arca, UGA’s shares traded on the American Stock Exchange (the “AMEX”) under the symbol “UGA” since its initial public offering on February 26, 2008.

As of December 31, 2021, UGA had approximately 20,166 holders of shares.

Dividends

UGA has not made and does not currently intend to make cash distributions to its shareholders.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

UGA does not purchase shares directly from its shareholders. In connection with its redemption of baskets held by Authorized Participants, UGA redeemed 10 baskets (comprising 500,000 shares) and 59 baskets (comprising 2,950,000 shares) for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2021, respectively. Monthly redemptions for the last three months are detailed below.


	Total Number of	Average Price Per
Period	Shares Redeemed	Share
10/1/21 to 10/31/21	50,000	$	43.51
11/1/21 to 11/30/21	100,000		40.51
12/1/21 to 12/31/21	350,000		40.92
Total	500,000

Item 6. [Reserved].

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

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto of the United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”) included elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K.

Forward-Looking Information

This annual report on Form 10-K, including this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains forward-looking statements regarding the plans and objectives of management for future operations. This information may involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause UGA’s actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements. UGA believes these factors include, but are not limited to, the following: changes in inflation in the United States; movements in U.S. and foreign currencies; market volatility in the oil markets and futures markets, in part attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, uncertainties associated with the impact from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, including: its impact on the global and U.S. capital markets and the global and U.S. economy, the length and duration of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States as well as worldwide and the magnitude of the economic impact of that outbreak, the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on UGA’s business prospects, including its ability to achieve its objectives, and the effect of the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on our

Table of Contents

ability to continue to effectively manage our business. Forward-looking statements, which involve assumptions and describe UGA’s future plans, strategies and expectations, are generally identifiable by use of the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “believe,” “intend” or “project,” the negative of these words, other variations on these words or comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that may be incorrect, and UGA cannot assure investors that the projections included in these forward-looking statements will come to pass. UGA’s actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors.

UGA has based the forward-looking statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K on information available to it on the date of this annual report on Form 10-K, and UGA assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Although UGA undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, investors are advised to consult any additional disclosures that UGA may make directly to them or through reports that UGA files in the future with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K.

Introduction

UGA, a Delaware limited partnership, is a commodity pool that issues shares that may be purchased and sold on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes, in percentage terms, of its shares’ per share NAV to reflect the daily changes, in percentage terms, of the spot price of gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”, for delivery to the New York harbor), as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for gasoline traded on the NYMEX that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case it will be the futures contract that is the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses. “Near month contract” means the next contract traded on the NYMEX due to expire. “Next month contract” means the first contract traded on the NYMEX due to expire after the near month contract. UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing so that the average daily percentage change in UGA’s NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period.

UGA’s investment objective is not for its NAV or market price of shares to equal, in dollar terms, the spot price of gasoline or any particular futures contract based on gasoline, nor is UGA’s investment objective for the percentage change in its NAV to reflect the percentage change of the price of any particular futures contract as measured over a time period greater than one day. The general partner of UGA, United States Commodity Funds LLC (“USCF”) believes that it is not practical to manage the portfolio to achieve such an investment goal when investing in Futures Contracts (as defined below) and Other Gasoline-Related Investments (as defined below).

UGA invests primarily in futures contracts for gasoline, crude oil, natural gas, heating oil and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and to a lesser extent, in order to comply with regulatory requirements or in view of market conditions, other gasoline-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter (“OTC”) swaps that are based on the price of gasoline, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Gasoline-Related Investments”). For convenience and unless otherwise specified, Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments collectively are referred to as “Gasoline Interests” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

USCF believes that market arbitrage opportunities will cause daily changes in UGA’s share price on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis to closely track daily changes in UGA’s per share NAV on a percentage basis. USCF further believes that daily changes in prices of the Benchmark Futures Contract have historically closely tracked the daily changes in spot prices of gasoline. USCF believes that the net effect of these relationships will be that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis will closely track, the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline on a percentage basis, plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses.

UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing so that the average daily percentage change in UGA’s NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period.

On any valuation day, the Benchmark Futures Contract is the near month futures contract for gasoline traded on the NYMEX unless the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration in which case the Benchmark Futures Contract is the next month contract for

Table of Contents

gasoline traded on the NYMEX. The regulation of commodity interest trading in the United States and other countries is an evolving area of the law. The various statements made in this summary are subject to modification by legislative action and changes in the rules and regulations of the SEC, FINRA, CFTC, the NFA, the futures exchanges, clearing organizations and other regulatory bodies. Pending final resolution of all applicable regulatory requirements, some examples of how new rules and regulations could impact UGA are discussed in “Item 1. Business” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

Regulatory Disclosure

Accountability Levels, Position Limits and Price Fluctuation Limits. Designated contract markets (“DCMs”), such as the NYMEX and ICE Futures, have established accountability levels and position limits on the maximum net long or net short futures contracts in commodity interests that any person or group of persons under common trading control (other than as a hedge, which an investment by UGA is not) may hold, own or control. These levels and position limits apply to the futures contracts that UGA invests in to meet its investment objective. In addition to accountability levels and position limits, the NYMEX and ICE Futures also set daily price fluctuation limits on futures contracts. The daily price fluctuation limit establishes the maximum amount that the price of a futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s settlement price. Once the daily price fluctuation limit has been reached in a particular futures contract, no trades may be made at a price beyond that limit.

The accountability levels for the Benchmark Futures Contract and other Futures Contracts traded on U.S.-based futures exchanges, such as the NYMEX, are not a fixed ceiling, but rather a threshold above which the NYMEX may exercise greater scrutiny and control over an investor’s positions. The current accountability level for investments for any one month in the Benchmark Futures Contract is 5,000 contracts. In addition, the NYMEX imposes an accountability level for all months of 7,000 net futures contracts for investments in futures contracts for gasoline. In addition, the ICE Futures maintains accountability levels, position limits and monitoring authority for its unleaded gasoline futures contracts. If UGA and the Related Public Funds (as defined below) exceed these accountability levels for investments in the futures contract for gasoline, the NYMEX and ICE Futures will monitor UGA’s and the Related Public Funds’ exposure and may ask for further information on their activities including the total size of all positions, investment and trading strategy, and the extent of liquidity resources of UGA and the Related Public Funds. If deemed necessary by the NYMEX and/or ICE Futures, UGA could be ordered to reduce its aggregate net position back to the accountability level. As of December 31, 2021, UGA held 769 futures contracts for gasoline traded on the NYMEX. As of December 31, 2021, UGA did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on ICE Futures. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not exceed any accountability levels on the NYMEX or ICE Futures.

Position limits differ from accountability levels in that they represent fixed limits on the maximum number of futures contracts that any person may hold and cannot allow such limits to be exceeded without express CFTC authority to do so. In addition to accountability levels and position limits that may apply at any time, the NYMEX and ICE Futures impose position limits on contracts held in the last few days of trading in the near month contract to expire. It is unlikely that UGA will run up against such position limits because UGA’s investment strategy is to close out its positions and “roll” from the near month contract to expire to the next month contract beginning two weeks from expiration of the contract. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not exceed any position limits imposed by the NYMEX and ICE Futures.

Futures Contracts and Position Limits

OTC Swaps

Table of Contents

based swap dealers, and major security-based swap participants (“Swap Entities”) that are subject to the jurisdiction of one of the Agencies (such entities, “Covered Swap Entities”, and the joint final rules, the “Final Margin Rules”).

The Final Margin Rules will subject non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps between Covered Swap Entities and Swap Entities, and between Covered Swap Entities and financial end users that have material swaps exposure (i.e., an average daily aggregate notional of $8 billion or more in non-cleared swaps calculated in accordance with the Final Margin Rules), to a mandatory two-way minimum initial margin requirement. The minimum amount of the initial margin required to be posted or collected would be either the amount calculated by the Covered Swap Entity using a standardized schedule set forth as an appendix to the Final Margin Rules, which provides the gross initial margin (as a percentage of total notional exposure) for certain asset classes, or an internal margin model of the Covered Swap Entity conforming to the requirements of the Final Margin Rules that is approved by the Agency having jurisdiction over the particular Covered Swap Entity. The Final Margin Rules specify the types of collateral that may be posted or collected as initial margin for non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps with financial end users (generally cash, certain government, government-sponsored enterprise securities, certain liquid debt, certain equity securities, certain eligible publicly traded debt, and gold); and sets forth haircuts for certain collateral asset classes.

The Final Margin Rules require minimum variation margin to be exchanged daily for non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security- based swaps between Covered Swap Entities and Swap Entities and between Covered Swap Entities and all financial end-users (without regard to the swaps exposure of the particular financial end-user). The minimum variation margin amount is the daily mark- to-market change in the value of the swap to the Covered Swap Entity, taking into account variation margin previously posted or collected. For non-cleared swaps and security-based swaps between Covered Swap Entities and financial end-users, variation margin may be posted or collected in cash or non-cash collateral that is considered eligible for initial margin purposes. Variation margin is not subject to segregation with an independent, third-party custodian, and may, if permitted by contract, be rehypothecated.

The initial margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules are being phased in over time, and the variation margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules are currently in effect. The Fund is not a Covered Swap Entity under the Final Margin Rules, but it is a financial end-user. Accordingly, the Fund is currently subject to the variation margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules. However, the Fund does not have material swaps exposure and, accordingly, the Fund will not be subject to the initial margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules.

Mandatory Trading and Clearing of Swaps

CFTC regulations require that certain swap transactions be executed on organized exchanges or “swap execution facilities” and cleared through regulated clearing organizations (“derivative clearing organizations” (“DCOs”)), if the CFTC mandates the central clearing of a particular class of swap and such swap is “made available to trade” on a swap execution facility. Currently, swap dealers, major swap participants, commodity pools, certain private funds and entities predominantly engaged in activities that are financial in nature are required to execute on a swap execution facility, and clear, certain interest rate swaps and index-based credit default swaps. As a result, if UGA enters into an interest rate or index-based credit default swap that is subject to these requirements, such swap will be required to be executed on a swap execution facility and centrally cleared. Mandatory clearing and “made available to trade” determinations with respect to additional types of swaps may be issued in the future, and, when finalized, could require UGA to electronically execute and centrally clear certain OTC instruments presently entered into and settled on a bi-lateral basis. If a swap is required to be cleared, initial and variation margin requirements are set by the relevant clearing organization, subject to certain regulatory requirements and guidelines. Additional margin may be required and held by UGA’s FCM.

Table of Contents

Other Requirements for Swaps

Derivatives Regulations in Non-U.S. Jurisdictions

Money Market Funds

The SEC adopted amendments to Rule 2a-7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”), which became effective in 2016, to reform money market funds (“MMFs”). While the rule applies only to MMFs, it may indirectly affect institutional investors such as UGA. A portion of UGA’s assets that are not used for margin or collateral in the Futures Contracts currently are invested in government MMFs. UGA does not hold any non-government MMFs and does not anticipate investing in any non- government MMFs. However, if UGA invests in other types of MMFs besides government MMFs in the future, UGA could be negatively impacted by investing in an MMF that does not maintain a stable $1.00 NAV or that has the potential to impose redemption fees and gates (temporary suspension of redemptions).

Although such government MMFs seek to preserve the value of an investment at $1.00 per share, there is no guarantee that they will be able to do so and UGA may lose money by investing in a government MMF. An investment in a government MMF is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) or any other government agency. The share price of a government MMF can fall below the $1.00 share price. UGA cannot rely on or expect a government MMF’s adviser or its affiliates to enter into support agreements or take other actions to maintain the government MMF’s $1.00 share price. The credit quality of a government MMF’s holdings can change rapidly in certain markets, and the default of a single holding could have an adverse impact on the government MMF’s share price. Due to fluctuations in interest rates, the market value of securities held by a government MMF may vary. A government MMF’s share price can also be negatively affected during periods of high redemption pressures and/or illiquid markets.

Price Movements

Gasoline futures prices were volatile during the year ended December 31, 2021. The price of the Benchmark Futures Contract started the year at $1.4101 per gallon. The high of the year was on October 15, 2021when the price reached $2.4864 per gallon. The low for the year was on January 4, 2021, which was $1.3729 per gallon. The year ended with the Benchmark Futures Contract at $2.2246 per gallon, an increase of approximately 57.76% over the year (investors are cautioned that these represent prices for gasoline on a wholesale basis and should not be directly compared to retail prices at a gasoline service station). UGA’s per share NAV began the year at $24.29 and ended the year at $41.04 on December 31, 2021, an increase of approximate 68.96% over the year. The Benchmark Futures Contract prices listed above began with the February 2021contracts and ended with the February 2022 contracts. The increase of approximately 57.76% on the Benchmark Futures Contract listed above is a hypothetical return only and could not actually be achieved by an investor holding Futures Contracts. An investment in Futures Contracts would need to be rolled forward during the time period described in order to simulate such a result. Furthermore, the change in the nominal price of these differing Futures Contracts, measured from the start of the year to the end of the year, does not represent the actual benchmark results that UGA seeks to track, which are more fully described below in the section titled “Tracking UGA’s Benchmark.”

Table of Contents

For the Year Ended December 31, 2021 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2020


	Year ended			Year ended
	December 31,			December 31,
	2021			2020
Per share net asset value, end of year	$	41.04		$	24.29
Average daily total net assets	$	98,396,880		$	71,975,291
Dividend and interest income earned on Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents	$	39,836		$	206,012
Annualized yield based on average daily total net assets		0.04	%		0.29	%
Management fee	$	590,381		$	431,847
Total fees and other expenses excluding management fees	$	356,719		$	303,850
Total amount of the expense waiver	$	58,573		$	195,888
Expenses before the allowance of the expense waiver	$	947,100		$	735,697
Expenses after the allowance of the expense waiver	$	888,527		$	539,809
Total commissions accrued to brokers	$	99,596		$	137,982
Total commissions as annualized percentage of average total net assets		0.10	%		0.19	%
Commissions accrued as a result of rebalancing	$	93,744		$	122,376
Percentage of commissions accrued as a result of rebalancing		94.12	%		88.69	%
Commissions accrued as a result of creation and redemption activity	$	5,852		$	15,606
Percentage of commissions accrued as a result of creation and redemption activity		5.88	%		11.31	%

Portfolio Expenses. UGA’s expenses consist of investment management fees, brokerage fees and commissions, certain offering costs, licensing fees, registration fees, the fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF and expenses relating to tax accounting and reporting requirements. The management fee that UGA pays to USCF is calculated as a percentage of the total net assets of UGA. The fee is accrued daily and paid monthly.

The increase in the per share NAV for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020, was due primarily to higher prices for gasoline and the related increase in the value of the Gasoline Futures Contracts in which UGA held and traded.

Average interest rates earned on short-term investments held by UGA, including cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries, were lower during the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020. As a result, the amount of income earned by UGA as a percentage of average daily total net assets was lower during the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020. To the degree that the aggregate yield is lower, the net expense ratio, inclusive of income, will be higher.

The increase in total fees and other expenses excluding management fees for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020 was due primarily to an increase in professional fees and directors’ fees and insurance partially offset by a decrease in commissions.

The decrease in total commissions accrued to brokers for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020, was due primarily to a lower number of Gasoline Futures Contracts being held and traded.

Tracking UGA’s Benchmark

USCF seeks to manage UGA's portfolio such that changes in its average daily per share NAV, on a percentage basis, closely track the daily changes in the average price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, also on a percentage basis. Specifically, USCF seeks to manage the portfolio such that over any rolling period of 30-valuation days, the average daily change in UGA's per share NAV is within a range of 90% to 110% (0.9 to 1.1) of the average daily change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. As an example, if the average daily movement of the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract for a particular 30-valuation day time period was 0.50% per day, USCF would attempt to manage the portfolio such that the average daily movement of the per share NAV during that same time period fell between 0.45% and 0.55% (i.e., between 0.9 and 1.1 of the benchmark’s results). UGA's portfolio management goals do not include trying to make the nominal price of UGA's per share NAV equal to the nominal price of the current Benchmark Futures Contract or the

Table of Contents

There are currently three factors that have impacted or are most likely to impact UGA’s ability to accurately track Benchmark Futures Contract.

First, UGA may buy or sell its holdings in the then current Benchmark Futures Contract at a price other than the closing settlement price of that contract on the day during which UGA executes the trade. In that case, UGA may pay a price that is higher, or lower, than that of the Benchmark Futures Contract, which could cause the changes in the daily per share NAV of UGA to either be too high or too low relative to the daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. During the year ended December 31, 2021, USCF attempted to minimize the effect of these transactions by seeking to execute its purchase or sale of the Benchmark Futures Contract at, or as close as possible to, the end of the day settlement price. However, it may not always be possible for UGA to obtain the closing settlement price and there is no assurance that failure to obtain the closing settlement price in the future will not adversely impact UGA’s attempt to track the Benchmark Futures Contract.

Second, UGA incurs expenses primarily composed of the management fee, brokerage commissions for the buying and selling of futures contracts, and other expenses. The impact of these expenses tends to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA to track slightly lower than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. At the same time, UGA earns dividend and interest income on its cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries. UGA is not required to distribute any portion of its income to its shareholders and did not make any distributions to shareholders during the year ended December 31, 2021. Interest payments, and any other income, were retained within the portfolio and added to UGA’s NAV. When this income exceeds the level of UGA’s expenses for its management fee, brokerage commissions and other expenses (including ongoing registration fees, licensing fees and the fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF), UGA will realize a net yield that will tend to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA to track slightly higher than daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. If short-term interest rates rise above these levels, the level of deviation created by the yield would increase. Conversely, if short-term interest rates were to decline, the amount of error created by the yield would decrease. When short-term yields drop to a level lower than the combined expenses of the management fee and the brokerage commissions, then the tracking error becomes a negative number and would tend to cause the daily returns of the per share NAV to underperform the daily returns of the Benchmark Futures Contract. USCF anticipates that interest rates may rise over the near future from historical lows. It is anticipated that fees and expenses paid by UGA may be higher than interest earned by UGA. As such, USCF anticipates that UGA could possibly underperform its benchmark so long as interest earned is lower than the fees and expenses paid by UGA.

Third, UGA may hold Other Gasoline-Related Investments in its portfolio that may fail to closely track the Benchmark Futures Contract’s total return movements. In that case, the error in tracking the Benchmark Futures Contract could result in daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA that are either too high, or too low, relative to the daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. During the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not hold any Other Gasoline-Related Investments. If UGA increases in size, and due to its obligations to comply with market conditions and regulatory limits, UGA may invest in Other Gasoline- Related Investments which may have the effect of increasing transaction related expenses and may result in increased tracking error.

Term Structure of Gasoline Futures Prices and the Impact on Total Returns. Several factors determine the total return from investing in futures contracts. One factor arises from “rolling” futures contracts that will expire at the end of the current month (the “near” or “front” month contract) forward each month prior to expiration. For a strategy that entails holding the near month contract, the price relationship between that futures contract and the next month futures contract will impact returns. For example, if the price of the near month futures contract is higher than the next futures month contract (a situation referred to as “backwardation”), then absent any other change, the price of a next month futures contract tends to rise in value as it becomes the near month futures contract and approaches expiration. Conversely, if the price of a near month futures contract is lower than the next month futures contract (a situation referred to as “contango”), then absent any other change, the price of a next month futures contract tends to decline in value as it becomes the near month futures contract and approaches expiration.

As an example, assume that the price of gasoline for immediate delivery, is $1.50 per gallon, and the value of a position in the near month futures contract is also $1.50. Over time, the price of gasoline will fluctuate based on a number of market factors, including demand for oil relative to supply. The value of the near month futures contract will likewise fluctuate in reaction to a number of market factors. If an investor seeks to maintain a position in a near month futures contract and not take delivery of physical gallons of gasoline, the investor must sell the current near month futures contract as it approaches expiration and invest in the next month futures contract. In order to continue holding a position in the current near month futures contract, this “roll” forward of the futures contract must be executed every month.

Table of Contents

by 17.05% (note: this comparison ignores the potential costs associated with physically owning and storing gasoline, which could be substantial).

Periods of contango or backwardation do not materially impact UGA’s investment objective of having the daily percentage changes in its per share NAV track the daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract since the impact of backwardation and contango tend to equally impact the daily percentage changes in price of both UGA’s shares and the Benchmark Futures Contract. It is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty whether backwardation or contango will occur in the future. It is likely that both conditions will occur during different periods.

Gasoline Market. During the year ended December 31, 2021, the price of the front month gasoline futures contracts traded in a range between $1.3729 and $2.5168. Prices increased 57.76% from December 31, 2020 through December 31, 2021, finishing the fourth quarter of 2021 at $2.2285.

USCF believes that over both the medium-term and the long-term, changes in the price of crude oil will exert the greatest influence on the price of refined petroleum products such as gasoline. At the same time, there can be other factors that, particularly in the short term, cause the price of gasoline to rise (or fall), more (or less) than the price of crude oil. For example, higher gasoline prices cause American consumers to reduce their gasoline consumption, particularly during the high demand period of the summer driving season and gasoline prices are impacted by the availability of refining capacity. Furthermore, a slowdown or recession in the U.S. economy may have a greater impact on U.S. gasoline prices than on global crude oil prices. As a result, it is possible that changes in gasoline prices may not match the changes in crude oil prices.

Crude Oil Market. During the year ended December 31, 2021, the price of the front month WTI crude oil futures contract traded in a range between $47.62 to $84.65. Prices increased 55.01% from December 31, 2020 through December 31, 2021, finishing the year at $75.21.

The simultaneous demand and supply shocks from the COVID-19 pandemic and Saudi-Russia price war precipitated unparalleled risk and volatility in crude oil markets during the first half of 2020. Global demand for crude oil plummeted by as much as 30% in the spring of 2020 as workers around the world stopped driving, airlines cut flight schedules, and companies suspended operations. Meanwhile, U.S. crude oil supply reached 13 million barrels per day (mbd), capping a period of almost continuous growth since 2016. To offset the seemingly unstoppable U.S. production juggernaut, OPEC+ (a loose coalition between OPEC and non-member nations such as Russia and Mexico) had maintained an uneasy series of agreements to curtail their crude oil output in order to support crude oil prices. However, in early March of 2020, Russia refused Saudi Arabia’s proposal to extend cuts in response to the COVID-19 demand shock. The kingdom retaliated with a massive production increase, launching an all-out price war in the middle of a pandemic. Although the members of OPEC+ reached a record-shattering agreement in mid-April of 2020, the implementation of new supply cuts came too late to prevent crude oil prices from plummeting to historic lows, culminating in a drop into negative territory for the May WTI crude oil futures contract on April 20, 2020.

As economies reopened and OPEC+ supply cuts were absorbed by the market, WTI crude oil prices rose from all-time lows in the spring of 2020 to an average of $68.00 per barrel during calendar year 2021.

WTI crude oil inventories in the United States fell from a modern record of 541 mb in June 2020 to 418 mb by the end of the fourth quarter of 2021. Crude oil production in the United States fell below 10 mbd twice in 2020 and once in early 2021 after peaking at 13.1 mbd in March of 2020. U.S. Production rose to 11.8 mbd by December 31, 2021. Similarly, OPEC production declined from over 30 mbd pre-COVID-19 to a pandemic low of 22.5 mbd before gradually recovering to 28.1 mbd by December 31, 2021. It is uncertain how quickly OPEC, Russia, or the U.S. can or will return to pre-pandemic 2019 production levels. Meanwhile, U.S. vehicle miles traveled and jet fuel use have nearly recovered to pre-pandemic levels. The ongoing demand recovery for crude oil has resulted in higher prices. Supply constraints, worker shortages, infrastructure and manufacturing energy usage, and geopolitical tensions, all suggest potential further upside for crude oil. However, elevated risk remains in the oil markets until the full impact of past, current, and future COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures is known.

Table of Contents

Unleaded Gasoline Price Movements in Comparison to Other Energy Commodities and Investment Categories. USCF believes that investors frequently measure the degree to which prices or total returns of one investment or asset class move up or down in value in concert with another investment or asset class. Statistically, such a measure is usually done by measuring the correlation of the price movements of the two different investments or asset classes over some period of time. The correlation is scaled between 1 and -1, where 1 indicates that the two investment options move up or down in price or value together, known as “positive correlation,” and -1 indicates that they move in completely opposite directions, known as “negative correlation.” A correlation of 0 would mean that the movements of the two are neither positively nor negatively correlated, known as “non-correlation.” That is, the investment options sometimes move up and down together and other times move in opposite directions.

For the ten-year time period between December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2021, the table below compares the monthly movements of unleaded gasoline prices versus the monthly movements of the prices of several other energy commodities, such as natural gas, crude oil and diesel-heating oil, as well as several major non-commodity investment asset classes, such as large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds and global equities. It can be seen that over this particular time period, the movement of gasoline on a monthly basis was strongly correlated with crude oil and diesel-heating oil and somewhat correlated with large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds, global equities and natural gas.

*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS

Gasoline - 10 Years


			Global
	Large Cap US	US Gov’t	Equities
	Equities	Bonds	(FTSE World				Unleaded
Correlation Matrix 10 Years	(S&P 500)	(BEUSG4 Index)	Index)	Crude Oil	Heating Oil	Natural Gas	Gasoline
Large Cap US Equities (S&P 500)	1.000	0.895	0.995	0.669	0.717	0.584	0.716
US Gov’t Bonds (BEUSG4 Index)		1.000	0.893	0.521	0.616	0.585	0.540
Global Equities (FTSE World Index)			1.000	0.686	0.737	0.577	0.729
Crude Oil				1.000	0.867	0.350	0.837
Heating Oil					1.000	0.419	0.807
Natural Gas						1.000	0.403
Unleaded Gasoline							1.000
Source: Bloomberg, NYMEX

The table below covers a more recent, but much shorter, range of dates than the above table. Over the one year period ended December 31, 2021, gasoline was strongly correlated with crude oil, diesel-heating oil, large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds, global equities and natural gas.

*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS

Gasoline - 1 Year


			Global
	Large Cap US	US Gov’t	Equities
	Equities	Bonds	(FTSE World				Unleaded
Correlation Matrix 1 Year	(S&P 500)	(BEUSG4 Index)	Index)	Crude Oil	Heating Oil	Natural Gas	Gasoline
Large Cap US Equities (S&P 500)	1.000	0.993	1.000	0.944	0.956	0.868	0.959
US Gov’t Bonds (BEUSG4 Index)		1.000	0.994	0.937	0.953	0.891	0.945
Global Equities (FTSE World Index)			1.000	0.949	0.962	0.873	0.963
Crude Oil				1.000	0.995	0.887	0.988
Heating Oil					1.000	0.896	0.989
Natural Gas						1.000	0.857
Unleaded Gasoline							1.000
Source: Bloomberg, NYMEX

Table of Contents

Investors are cautioned that the historical price relationships between gasoline and various other energy commodities, as well as other investment asset classes, as measured by correlation may not be reliable predictors of future price movements and correlation results. The results pictured above would have been different if a different range of dates had been selected. USCF believes that gasoline has historically not demonstrated a strong correlation with equities or bonds over long periods of time. However, USCF also believes that in the future it is possible that gasoline could have long term correlation results that indicate prices of gasoline more closely track the movements of equities or bonds. In addition, USCF believes that, when measured over time periods shorter than ten years, there will always be some periods where the correlation of gasoline to equities and bonds will be either more strongly positively correlated or more strongly negatively correlated than the long-term historical results suggest.

The correlations between gasoline, crude oil, natural gas and diesel-heating oil are relevant because USCF endeavors to invest UGA’s assets in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments so that daily changes in percentage terms in UGA’s per share NAV correlate as closely as possible with daily changes in percentage terms in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. If certain other fuel-based commodity futures contracts do not closely correlate with the gasoline Futures Contract, then their use could lead to greater tracking error. As noted above, USCF also believes that the changes in percentage terms in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract will closely correlate with changes in percentage terms in the spot price of gasoline.

For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2019

The comparison of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 can be found in UGA’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 located within Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, which is incorporated by reference herein.

Critical Accounting Policies

Preparation of the financial statements and related disclosures in compliance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires the application of appropriate accounting rules and guidance, as well as the use of estimates. UGA’s application of these policies involves judgments and actual results may differ from the estimates used.

USCF has evaluated the nature and types of estimates that it makes in preparing UGA’s financial statements and related disclosures and has determined that the valuation of its investments, which are not traded on a United States or internationally recognized futures exchange (such as forward contracts and OTC swaps) involves a critical accounting policy. The values which are used by UGA for its Futures Contracts are provided by its commodity broker who uses market prices when available, while OTC swaps are valued based on the present value of estimated future cash flows that would be received from or paid to a third party in settlement of these derivative contracts prior to their delivery date and valued on a daily basis. In addition, UGA estimates interest and dividend income on a daily basis using prevailing rates earned on its cash and cash equivalents. These estimates are adjusted to the actual amount received on a monthly basis and the difference, if any, is not considered material.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

UGA has not made, and does not anticipate making, use of borrowings or other lines of credit to meet its obligations. UGA has met, and it is anticipated that UGA will continue to meet, its liquidity needs in the normal course of business from the proceeds of the sale of its investments, or from the Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents that it intends to hold at all times. UGA’s liquidity needs include: redeeming shares, providing margin deposits for its existing Futures Contracts or the purchase of additional Futures Contracts and posting collateral for its OTC swaps, if applicable, and payment of its expenses, summarized below under “Contractual Obligations.”

UGA currently generates cash primarily from: (i) the sale of baskets consisting of 50,000 shares (“Creation Baskets”) and (ii) income earned on Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents. UGA has allocated substantially all of its net assets to trading in Gasoline Interests. UGA invests in Gasoline Interests to the fullest extent possible without being leveraged or unable to satisfy its current or potential margin or collateral obligations with respect to its investments in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments. A significant portion of UGA’s NAV is held in cash and cash equivalents that are used as margin and as collateral for its trading in Gasoline Interests. The balance of the assets is held in UGA’s account at its custodian bank and in investments in money market funds and Treasuries at the FCMs. Income received from UGA’s investments in money market funds and Treasuries is paid to UGA. During the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA’s expenses, pre and post expense waiver, exceeded the income UGA earned and the cash earned from the sale of Creation Baskets and the redemption of Redemption Baskets. During the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA used other assets to pay expenses. To the extent expenses exceed income, UGA’s NAV will be negatively impacted.

Table of Contents

UGA’s investments in Gasoline Interests may be subject to periods of illiquidity because of market conditions, regulatory considerations and other reasons. For example, most commodity exchanges limit the fluctuations in futures contracts prices during a single day by regulations referred to as “daily limits.” During a single day, no trades may be executed at prices beyond the daily limit. Once the price of a futures contract has increased or decreased by an amount equal to the daily limit, positions in the contracts can neither be taken nor liquidated unless the traders are willing to effect trades at or within the specified daily limit. Such market conditions could prevent UGA from promptly liquidating its positions in Futures Contracts. During the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not purchase or liquidate any of its positions while daily limits were in effect; however, UGA cannot predict whether such an event may occur in the future.

Since the initial offering of shares, UGA has been responsible for expenses relating to: (i) management fees, (ii) brokerage fees and commissions, (iii) licensing fees for the use of intellectual property, (iv) ongoing registration expenses in connection with offers and sales of its shares subsequent to the initial offering, (v) other expenses, including tax reporting costs, (vi) fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF and (vii) other extraordinary expenses not in the ordinary course of business.

UGA may terminate at any time, regardless of whether UGA has incurred losses, subject to the terms of the LP Agreement. In particular, unforeseen circumstances, including, but not limited to, (i) market conditions, regulatory requirements, risk mitigation measures taken by UGA or third parties or otherwise that would lead UGA to determine that it could no longer foreseeably meet its investment objective or that UGA’s aggregate net assets in relation to its operating expenses or its margin or collateral requirements make the continued operation of UGA unreasonable or imprudent, or (ii) adjudication of incompetence, bankruptcy, dissolution, withdrawal or removal of USCF as the general partner of UGA could cause UGA, to terminate unless a majority interest of the limited partners within 90 days of the event elects to continue the partnership and appoints a successor general partner, or the affirmative vote of a majority in interest of the limited partners subject to certain conditions. UGA’s termination would cause the liquidation and potential loss of an investor’s investment. Termination could also negatively affect the overall maturity and timing of an investor’s investment portfolio.

Market Risk

Trading in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, such as forwards, involves UGA entering into contractual commitments to purchase or sell gasoline at a specified date in the future. The aggregate market value of the contracts will significantly exceed UGA’s future cash requirements since UGA intends to close out its open positions prior to settlement. As a result, UGA is generally only subject to the risk of loss arising from the change in value of the contracts. UGA considers the “fair value” of its derivative instruments to be the unrealized gain or loss on the contracts. The market risk associated with UGA’s commitments to purchase gasoline is limited to the aggregate market value of the contracts held. However, should UGA enter into a contractual commitment to sell gasoline, it would be required to make delivery of the gasoline at the contract price, repurchase the contract at prevailing prices or settle in cash. Since there are no limits on the future price of gasoline, the market risk to UGA could be unlimited.

UGA’s exposure to market risk depends on a number of factors, including the markets for gasoline, the volatility of interest rates and foreign exchange rates, the liquidity of the Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments markets and the relationships among the contracts held by UGA. Drastic market occurrences could ultimately lead to the loss of all or substantially all of an investor’s capital.

Credit Risk

When UGA enters into Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, it is exposed to the credit risk that the counterparty will not be able to meet its obligations. The counterparty for the Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX and on most other futures exchanges is the clearinghouse associated with the particular exchange. In general, in addition to margin required to be posted by the clearinghouse in connection with cleared trades, clearinghouses are backed by their members who may be required to share in the financial burden resulting from the nonperformance of one of their members and, therefore, this additional member support should significantly reduce credit risk. UGA is not currently a member of any clearinghouse. Some foreign exchanges are not backed by their clearinghouse members but may be backed by a consortium of banks or other financial institutions. There can be no assurance that any counterparty, clearinghouse, or their members or their financial backers will satisfy their obligations to UGA in such circumstances.

USCF attempts to manage the credit risk of UGA by following various trading limitations and policies. In particular, UGA generally posts margin and/or holds liquid assets that are approximately equal to the market value of its obligations to counterparties under the Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments it holds. USCF has implemented procedures that include, but are not limited to, executing and clearing trades only with creditworthy parties and/or requiring the posting of collateral or margin by such parties for

Table of Contents

the benefit of UGA to limit its credit exposure. An FCM, when acting on behalf of UGA in accepting orders to purchase or sell Futures Contracts on United States exchanges, is required by CFTC regulations to separately account for and segregate as belonging to UGA, all assets of UGA relating to domestic Futures Contracts trading. These FCMs are not allowed to commingle UGA’s assets with their other assets. In addition, the CFTC requires FCMs to hold in a secure account UGA’s assets related to foreign Futures Contracts.

In the future UGA may purchase OTC swaps, see “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” in this annual report on Form 10-K for a discussion of OTC swaps.

As of December 31, 2021, UGA held cash deposits and investments in Treasuries and money market funds in the amount of $76,840,846 with the custodian and FCMs. Some or all of these amounts held by a custodian or an FCM, as applicable, may be subject to loss should UGA’s custodian or FCMs, as applicable, cease operations.

Off Balance Sheet Financing

As of December 31, 2021, UGA had no loan guarantee, credit support or other off-balance sheet arrangements of any kind other than agreements entered into in the normal course of business, which may include indemnification provisions relating to certain risks that service providers undertake in performing services which are in the best interests of UGA. While UGA’s exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated, they are not expected to have a material impact on UGA’s financial position.

Redemption Basket Obligation

In order to meet its investment objective and pay its contractual obligations described below, UGA requires liquidity to redeem shares, which redemptions must be in blocks of 50,000 shares called “Redemption Baskets.” UGA has to date satisfied this obligation by paying from the cash or cash equivalents it holds or through the sale of its Treasuries in an amount proportionate to the number of shares being redeemed.

Contractual Obligations

UGA’s primary contractual obligations are with USCF. In return for its services, USCF is entitled to a management fee calculated daily and paid monthly as a fixed percentage of UGA’s NAV, currently 0.60% of NAV on its average daily total net assets.

USCF agreed to pay the start-up costs associated with the formation of UGA, primarily its legal, accounting and other costs in connection with USCF’s registration with the CFTC as a CPO and the registration and listing of UGA and its shares with the SEC, FINRA and NYSE Arca (formerly, AMEX), respectively. However, since UGA’s initial offering of shares, offering costs incurred in connection with registering and listing additional shares of UGA have been directly borne on an ongoing basis by UGA, and not by USCF.

USCF pays the fees of the Marketing Agent as well as BNY Mellon’s fees for performing administrative, custodial, and transfer agency services. BNY Mellon’s fees for performing administrative services include those in connection with the preparation of UGA’s financial statements and its SEC, NFA and CFTC reports. USCF and UGA have also entered into a licensing agreement with the NYMEX pursuant to which UGA and the Related Public Funds, other than BNO, USCI and CPER, pay a licensing fee to the NYMEX. UGA also pays the fees and expenses associated with its tax accounting and reporting requirements. USCF had voluntarily agreed to pay certain expenses typically borne by UGA to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15 basis points) of UGA‘s NAV, on an annualized basis. USCF terminated such expense waiver as of April 30, 2021. This voluntary expense waiver was in addition to those amounts USCF is contractually obligated to pay as described in Note 4 to the Notes to Financial Statements in Item 8 of this annual report on Form 10-K and terminated on April 30, 2021.

USCF paid BBH&Co.’s fees for performing administrative services, including those in connection with the preparation of UGA’s financial statements and its SEC, NFA and CFTC reports through May 31, 2020.

In addition to USCF’s management fee, UGA pays its brokerage fees (including fees to an FCM), OTC dealer spreads, any licensing fees for the use of intellectual property, and, subsequent to the initial offering, registration and other fees paid to the SEC, FINRA, or other regulatory agencies in connection with the offer and sale of shares, as well as legal, printing, accounting and other expenses associated therewith, and extraordinary expenses. The latter are expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of UGA’s business, including expenses relating to the indemnification of any person against liabilities and obligations to the extent permitted by law and under the LP Agreement, the bringing or defending of actions in law or in equity or otherwise conducting litigation and incurring legal expenses and the settlement of claims and litigation. Commission payments to an FCM are on a contract-by-contract, or round turn,

Table of Contents

basis. UGA also pays a portion of the fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF. See Note 3 to the Notes to Financial Statements in Item 8 of this annual report on Form 10-K.

The parties cannot anticipate the amount of payments that will be required under these arrangements for future periods, as UGA’s per share NAVs and trading levels to meet its investment objective will not be known until a future date. These agreements are effective for a specific term agreed upon by the parties with an option to renew, or, in some cases, are in effect for the duration of UGA’s existence. Either party may terminate these agreements earlier for certain reasons described in the agreements.

As of December 31, 2021, UGA’s portfolio held 769 Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX. As of December 31, 2021 UGA did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on the ICE Futures. For a list of UGA’s current holdings, please see UGA’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Commodity Price Risk.

UGA is exposed to commodity price risk. In particular, UGA is exposed to gasoline price risk through its holdings of Futures Contracts together with any other derivatives in which it may invest, which are discussed below. As a result, fluctuations in the value of the Futures Contracts that UGA holds in its portfolio, as described in “Contractual Obligations” under “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” above, are expected to directly affect the value of UGA’s shares.

OTC Contract Risk

UGA may purchase OTC contracts, such as forward contracts or swap or spot contracts. Unlike most exchange-traded futures contracts or exchange-traded options on such futures, each party to an OTC swap bears the credit risk that the other party may not be able to perform its obligations under its contract.

UGA may enter into certain transactions where an OTC component is exchanged for a corresponding futures contract (“Exchange for Related Position” or “EFRP” transactions). In the most common type of EFRP transaction entered into by UGA, the OTC component is the purchase or sale of one or more baskets of UGA shares. These EFRP transactions may expose UGA to counterparty risk during the interim period between the execution of the OTC component and the exchange for a corresponding futures contract. Generally, the counterparty risk from the EFRP transaction will exist only on the day of execution.

Swap transactions, like other financial transactions, involve a variety of significant risks. The specific risks presented by a particular swap transaction necessarily depend upon the terms and circumstances of the transaction. In general, however, all swap transactions involve some combination of market risk, credit risk, counterparty credit risk, funding risk, liquidity risk and operational risk.

Highly customized swap transactions in particular may increase liquidity risk, which may result in a suspension of redemptions. Highly leveraged transactions may experience substantial gains or losses in value as a result of relatively small changes in the value or level of an underlying or related market factor.

In evaluating the risks and contractual obligations associated with a particular swap transaction, it is important to consider that a swap transaction may be modified or terminated only by mutual consent of the original parties and subject to agreement on individually negotiated terms. Therefore, it may not be possible for USCF to modify, terminate or offset UGA’s obligations or its exposure to the risks associated with a transaction prior to its scheduled termination date.

To reduce the credit risk that arises in connection with such contracts, UGA will generally enter into an agreement with each counterparty based on the Master Agreement published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association that provides for the netting of its overall exposure to its counterparty, if the counterparty is unable to meet its obligations to UGA due to the occurrence of a specified event, such as the insolvency of the counterparty.

USCF assesses or reviews, as appropriate, the creditworthiness of each potential or existing counterparty to an OTC swap pursuant to guidelines approved by the Board. Furthermore, USCF on behalf of UGA only enters into OTC swaps with counterparties who are, or are affiliates of, (a) banks regulated by a United States federal bank regulator, (b) broker-dealers regulated by the SEC, (c) insurance companies domiciled in the United States, or (d) producers, users or traders of energy, whether or not regulated by the CFTC. Any entity acting as a counterparty shall be regulated in either the United States or the United Kingdom unless otherwise approved by the Board

Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Partners of

United States Gasoline Fund, LP

Opinions on the Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited the accompanying statements of financial condition of United States Gasoline Fund, LP (the “Fund”), including the schedule of investments, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, and the related statements of operations, changes in partners’ capital and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2021, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). We also have audited the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”).

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of United States Gasoline Fund, LP as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2021, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, the Fund maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021 based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.

Basis for Opinion

The Fund’s management is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Fund’s financial statements and an opinion on the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Fund in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.

Our audits of the financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

A Fund’s internal control over financial reporting is a process 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. A Fund’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Fund; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the Fund are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the Fund; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the Fund’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Table of Contents

United States Gasoline Fund, LP

Statements of Financial Condition

At December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020


	December 31, 2021		December 31, 2020
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents (at cost $50,117,855 and $72,554,979, respectively) (Notes 2 and 5)	$	50,117,855	$	72,554,979
Equity in trading accounts:
Cash and cash equivalents (at cost $26,722,991 and $7,167,433, respectively)		26,722,991		7,167,433
Unrealized gain (loss) on open commodity futures contracts		3,617,376		1,613,858
Receivable from General Partner (Note 3)		—		195,888
Dividends receivable		948		48
Interest receivable		2,216		2,724
Prepaid insurance^*		4,696		826
ETF transaction fees receivable		350		350

Total Assets	$	80,466,432	$	81,536,106

Liabilities and Partners’ Capital
Payable for shares redeemed	$	8,453,811	$	1,206,970
General Partner management fees payable (Note 3)		40,160		39,960
Professional fees payable		141,116		117,792
Brokerage commissions payable		14,621		8,231
Directors’ fees payable^*		1,475		1,076
License fees payable		3,527		3,211

Total Liabilities		8,654,710		1,377,240

Commitments and Contingencies (Notes 3, 4 & 5)

Partners’ Capital
General Partners		—		—
Limited Partners		71,811,722		80,158,866
Total Partners’ Capital		71,811,722		80,158,866

Total Liabilities and Partners’ Capital	$	80,466,432	$	81,536,106

Limited Partners’ shares outstanding		1,750,000		3,300,000
Net asset value per share	$	41.04	$	24.29
Market value per share	$	40.96	$	24.31

* Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified for consistency with the current presentation.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Table of Contents

United States Gasoline Fund, LP

Schedule of Investments

At December 31, 2021


				Fair
				Value/Unrealized
				Gain (Loss) on
				Open
			Number of	Commodity		% of Partners’
	Notional Amount		Contracts	Contracts		Capital
Open Commodity Futures Contracts - Long
United States Contracts
NYMEX RBOB Gasoline Futures RB February 2022 contracts, expiring January 2022*	$	68,232,755	769	$	3,617,376	5.04


	Shares/Principal				% of Partners’
	Amount		Market Value		Capital
Cash Equivalents
United States Money Market Funds
Goldman Sachs Financial Square Government Fund - Institutional Shares, 0.03%^#		27,200,000	$	27,200,000	37.88
Morgan Stanley Institutional Liquidity Funds - Government Portfolio - Institutional Shares, 0.03%^#		7,500,000		7,500,000	10.44
RBC U.S. Government Money Market Fund - Institutional Shares, 0.03%#		13,053,000		13,053,000	18.18
Total United States Money Market Funds			$	47,753,000	66.50

#	Reflects the 7-day yield at December 31, 2021.

*	Collateral amounted to $26,722,991 on open commodity futures contracts.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Table of Contents

United States Gasoline Fund, LP

Schedule of Investments

At December 31, 2020


				Fair
				Value/Unrealized
				Gain (Loss) on
				Open
			Number of	Commodity		% of Partners’
	Notional Amount		Contracts	Contracts		Capital
Open Commodity Futures Contracts - Long
United States Contracts
NYMEX RBOB Gasoline Future RB February 2021 contracts, expiring January 2021^*	$	78,516,484	1,353	$	1,613,858	2.01


	Shares/Principal				% of Partners’
	Amount		Market Value		Capital
Cash Equivalents
United States Money Market Funds
Fidelity Investments Money Market Funds - Government Portfolio, 0.01%^#		200,000	$	200,000	0.25
RBC U.S. Government Money Market Fund - Institutional Share Class, 0.02%^#		5,303,000		5,303,000	6.62
Total United States Money Market Funds			$	5,503,000	6.87

# Reflects the 7-day yield at December 31, 2020.

* Collateral amounted to $7,167,433 on open commodity futures contracts.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Table of Contents

United States Gasoline Fund, LP

Statements of Operations

For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019


	Year ended		Year ended		Year ended
	December 31, 2021		December 31, 2020		December 31, 2019
Income
Gain (loss) on trading of commodity futures contracts:
Realized gain (loss) on closed commodity futures contracts	$	47,089,661	$	41,204,932	$	10,449,487
Change in unrealized gain (loss) on open commodity futures contracts		2,003,518		1,603,526		2,399,027
Realized gain (loss) on short-term investments		—		7,730		—
Dividend income		13,752		50,122		199,099
Interest income^*		26,084		155,890		588,870
ETF transaction fees		12,600		24,150		4,550
Total Income (Loss)	$	49,145,615	$	43,046,350	$	13,641,033

Expenses
General Partner management fees (Note 3)	$	590,381	$	431,847	$	219,691
Professional fees		218,402		146,835		65,523
Brokerage commissions		99,596		137,982		41,772
Directors’ fees and insurance		23,962		8,237		8,291
License fees		14,759		10,796		5,492
Total Expenses		947,100		735,697		340,769
Expense waiver (Note 4)		(58,573)		(195,888)		(66,155)
Net Expenses	$	888,527	$	539,809	$	274,614
Net Income (Loss)	$	48,257,088	$	42,506,541	$	13,366,419
Net Income (Loss) per limited partner share	$	16.75	$	(8.02)	$	9.57
Net Income (Loss) per weighted average limited partner share	$	16.85	$	11.14	$	10.69
Weighted average limited partner shares outstanding		2,863,425		3,816,849		1,250,685

* Interest income does not exceed paid in kind of 5%.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Table of Contents

United States Gasoline Fund, LP

Statement of Changes in Partners’ Capital

For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019


	Limited Partners^*
	Year ended		Year ended		Year ended
	December 31,		December 31,		December 31,
	2021		2020		2019
Balances at beginning of year	$	80,158,866	$	29,079,283	$	31,830,449
Addition of 1,400,000, 7,900,000 and 200,000 partnership shares, respectively		49,606,639		105,098,000		5,206,294
Redemption of (2,950,000), (5,500,000) and (700,000) partnership shares, respectively		(106,210,871)		(96,524,958)		(21,323,879)
Net income (loss)		48,257,088		42,506,541		13,366,419

Balances at end of year	$	71,811,722	$	80,158,866	$	29,079,283

* General Partners’ shares outstanding and capital for the periods presented were zero.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Table of Contents

United States Gasoline Fund, LP

Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019


	Year ended December 31,		Year ended December 31,		Year ended December 31,
	2021		2020		2019
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
Net income (loss)	$	48,257,088	$	42,506,541	$	13,366,419
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Change in unrealized (gain) loss on open commodity futures contracts		(2,003,518)		(1,603,526)		(2,399,027)
(Increase) decrease in receivable from General Partner		195,888		(129,733)		122,018
(Increase) decrease in dividends receivable		(900)		7,671		(7,719)
(Increase) decrease in interest receivable		508		(1,218)		(704)
(Increase) decrease in prepaid insurance^*		(3,870)		109		(171)
(Increase) decrease in ETF transaction fees receivable		—		(350)		—
Increase (decrease) in payable due to Broker		—		(524,417)		524,417
Increase (decrease) in General Partner management fees payable		200		23,893		231
Increase (decrease) in professional fees payable		23,324		(20,935)		(65,952)
Increase (decrease) in brokerage commissions payable		6,390		6,878		—
Increase (decrease) in directors’ fees payable^*		399		(114)		152
Increase (decrease) in license fees payable		316		2,549		(146)
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		46,475,825		40,267,348		11,539,518

Cash Flows from Financing Activities:
Addition of partnership shares		49,606,639		105,098,000		5,206,294
Redemption of partnership shares		(98,964,030)		(95,317,988)		(21,323,879)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		(49,357,391)		9,780,012		(16,117,585)

Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents		(2,881,566)		50,047,360		(4,578,067)

Total Cash, Cash Equivalents and Equity in Trading Accounts, beginning of year		79,722,412		29,675,052		34,253,119
Total Cash, Cash Equivalents and Equity in Trading Accounts, end of year	$	76,840,846	$	79,722,412	$	29,675,052

Components of Cash and Cash Equivalents:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	50,117,855	$	72,554,979	$	26,678,989
Equity in Trading Accounts:
Cash and cash equivalents		26,722,991		7,167,433		2,996,063
Total Cash, Cash Equivalents and Equity in Trading Accounts	$	76,840,846	$	79,722,412	$	29,675,052

* Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified for consistency with the current presentation.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Table of Contents

United States Gasoline Fund, LP

Notes to Financial Statements

For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019

NOTE 1 — ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS

The United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”) was organized as a limited partnership under the laws of the state of Delaware on April 13, 2007. UGA is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests (“shares”) traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “NYSE Arca”). UGA’s shares began trading on February 26, 2008. Prior to November 25, 2008, UGA’s shares traded on the American Stock Exchange (the “AMEX”). UGA will continue in perpetuity, unless terminated sooner upon the occurrence of one or more events as described in its Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of December 15, 2017 (the “LP Agreement”), which grants full management and control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC (“USCF”).

The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ NAV per share to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”), for delivery to the New York harbor), as measured by the daily changes in the price of a specified short-term futures contract on gasoline called the “Benchmark Futures Contract,” plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses. The Benchmark Futures Contract is the futures contract on gasoline as traded on the NYMEX that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case it will be the futures contract that is the next month contract to expire.

Specifically, UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing so that the average daily percentage change in UGA’s NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days will be within plus/minus ten percent (10)% of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period.

As of December 31, 2021, UGA held 769 Futures Contracts for gasoline traded on the NYMEX and did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on the ICE Futures.

Table of Contents

UGA commenced investment operations on February 26, 2008 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. USCF is responsible for the management of UGA. USCF is a member of the National Futures Association (the “NFA”) and became registered as a commodity pool operator with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) effective December 1, 2005 and a swaps firm on August 8, 2013. USCF serves as the general partner of UGA. USCF also served as also the general partner of the United States Oil Fund, LP (“USO”), the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNG”) and the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (“USL”), the United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNL”) and the United States Brent Oil Fund, LP (“BNO”).

USCF is also the sponsor of the United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (“USCIFT”), as Delaware statutory trust, and each of its series: the United States Commodity Index Fund (“USCI”) and United States Copper Index Fund (“CPER”). USCI and CPER listed their shares on the NYSE Arca under the ticker symbols “USCI” on August 10, 2010 and “CPER” on November 15, 2011, respectively.

USO, UNG, UNL, USL, BNO, USCI and CPER are referred to collectively herein as the “Related Public Funds.”

UGA issues shares to certain authorized purchasers (“Authorized Participants”) by offering baskets consisting of 50,000 shares (“Creation Baskets”) through ALPS Distributors, Inc., as the marketing agent (the “Marketing Agent”). The purchase price for a Creation Basket is based upon the NAV of a share calculated shortly after the close of the core trading session on the NYSE Arca on the day the order to create the basket is properly received.

Authorized Participants pay a transaction fee to UGA of $350 per order placed to create one or more Creation Baskets or to redeem one or more baskets (“Redemption Baskets”), consisting of 50,000 shares. Shares may be purchased or sold on a nationally recognized securities exchange in smaller increments than a Creation Basket or Redemption Basket. Shares purchased or sold on a nationally recognized securities exchange are not purchased or sold at the per share NAV of UGA but rather at market prices quoted on such exchange.

In November 2007, UGA initially registered 30,000,000 shares on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). On February 26, 2008, UGA listed its shares on the AMEX under the ticker symbol “UGA” and switched to trading on the NYSE Arca under the same ticker symbol on November 25, 2008. On that day, UGA established its’ initial per share NAV by setting the price at $50.00 and issued 300,000 shares in exchange for $15,000,000. UGA also commenced investment operations on February 26, 2008 by purchasing Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX based on gasoline. As of December 31, 2021, UGA had registered a total of 80,000,000 shares.

NOTE 2 — SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of Presentation

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP as detailed in the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification. UGA is an investment company for accounting purposes and follows the accounting and reporting guidance in FASB Topic 946.

Revenue Recognition

Commodity futures contracts, forward contracts, physical commodities and related options are recorded on the trade date. All such transactions are recorded on the identified cost basis and marked to market daily. Unrealized gains or losses on open contracts are reflected in the statements of financial condition and represent the difference between the original contract amount and the market value (as determined by exchange settlement prices for futures contracts and related options and cash dealer prices at a predetermined time for forward contracts, physical commodities, and their related options) as of the last business day of the year or as of the last date of the financial statements. Changes in the unrealized gains or losses between periods are reflected in the statements of operations. UGA earns income on funds held at the custodian or futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) at prevailing market rates earned on such investments.

Brokerage Commissions

Brokerage commissions on all open commodity futures contracts are accrued on a full-turn basis.

Table of Contents

Income Taxes

UGA is not subject to federal income taxes; each partner reports his/her allocable share of income, gain, loss deductions or credits on his/her own income tax return.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, UGA is required to determine whether a tax position is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination by the applicable taxing authority, including resolution of any tax related appeals or litigation processes, based on the technical merits of the position. UGA files an income tax return in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and may file income tax returns in various U.S. states. UGA is not subject to income tax return examinations by major taxing authorities for years before 2018. The tax benefit recognized is measured as the largest amount of benefit that has a greater than fifty percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement. De-recognition of a tax benefit previously recognized results in UGA recording a tax liability that reduces net assets. However, UGA’s conclusions regarding this policy may be subject to review and adjustment at a later date based on factors including, but not limited to, on-going analysis of and changes to tax laws, regulations and interpretations thereof. UGA recognizes interest accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax fees payable, if assessed. No interest expense or penalties have been recognized as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021.

Creations and Redemptions

Authorized Participants may purchase Creation Baskets or redeem Redemption Baskets only in blocks of 50,000 shares at a price equal to the NAV of the shares calculated shortly after the close of the core trading session on the NYSE Arca on the day the order is placed.

UGA receives or pays the proceeds from shares sold or redeemed within two business days after the trade date of the purchase or redemption. The amounts due from Authorized Participants are reflected in UGA’s statements of financial condition as receivable for shares sold and amounts payable to Authorized Participants upon redemption are reflected as payable for shares redeemed.

Authorized Participants pay UGA a $350 transaction fee for each order placed to create one or more Creation Baskets or to redeem one or more Redemption Baskets.

Partnership Capital and Allocation of Partnership Income and Losses

Profit or loss shall be allocated among the partners of UGA in proportion to the number of shares each partner holds as of the close of each month. USCF may revise, alter or otherwise modify this method of allocation as described in the LP Agreement.

Calculation of Per Share NAV

UGA’s per share NAV is calculated on each NYSE Arca trading day by taking the current market value of its total assets, subtracting any liabilities and dividing that amount by the total number of shares outstanding. UGA uses the closing price for the contracts on the relevant exchange on that day to determine the value of contracts held on such exchange.

Net Income (Loss) Per Share

Net income (loss) per share is the difference between the per share NAV at the beginning of each period and at the end of each period. The weighted average number of shares outstanding was computed for purposes of disclosing net income (loss) per weighted average share. The weighted average shares are equal to the number of shares outstanding at the end of the period, adjusted proportionately for shares added and redeemed based on the amount of time the shares were outstanding during such period. There were no shares held by USCF at December 31, 2021.

Offering Costs

Offering costs incurred in connection with the registration of additional shares after the initial registration of shares are borne by UGA. These costs include registration fees paid to regulatory agencies and all legal, accounting, printing and other expenses associated with such offerings. These costs are accounted for as a deferred charge and thereafter amortized to expense over twelve months on a straight-line basis or a shorter period if warranted.

Table of Contents

Cash Equivalents

Cash equivalents include money market funds and overnight deposits or time deposits with original maturity dates of six months or less.

Reclassification

Certain amounts in the accompanying financial statements were reclassified to conform to the current presentation.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires USCF to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of the revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results may differ from those estimates and assumptions.

NOTE 3 — FEES PAID BY THE FUND AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

USCF Management Fee

Under the LP Agreement, USCF is responsible for investing the assets of UGA in accordance with the objectives and policies of UGA. In addition, USCF has arranged for one or more third parties to provide administrative, custody, accounting, transfer agency and other necessary services to UGA. For these services, UGA is contractually obligated to pay USCF a fee, which is paid monthly, equal to 0.60% per annum of average daily total net assets.

Ongoing Registration Fees and Other Offering Expenses

UGA pays all costs and expenses associated with the ongoing registration of its shares subsequent to the initial offering. These costs include registration or other fees paid to regulatory agencies in connection with the offer and sale of shares, and all legal, accounting, printing and other expenses associated with such offer and sale. For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, UGA did not incur in registration fees and other offering expenses.

Independent Directors’ and Officers’ Expenses

UGA is responsible for paying its portion of the directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for UGA and the Related Public Funds and the fees and expenses of the independent directors who also serve as audit committee members of UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA shares the fees and expenses on a pro rata basis with each Related Public Fund, as described above, based on the relative assets of each Related Public Fund computed on a daily basis. These fees and expenses for the year ending December 31, 2021 totaled of $23,962 for UGA and, in the aggregate for UGA and the Related Public Funds, $1,081,963. For the year ended December 31, 2020, these fees and expenses were $585,896 for UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA’s portion of such fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $8,237. For the year ended December 31, 2019, these fees and expenses were $556,951 for UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA’s portion of such fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $8,291.

Licensing Fees

As discussed in Note 4 below, UGA entered into a licensing agreement with the NYMEX on April 10, 2006, as amended on October 20, 2011. Pursuant to the agreement, UGA and the Related Public Funds, other than BNO, USCI and CPER, pay a licensing fee that is equal to 0.015% on all net assets. During the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, UGA incurred $14,759, $10,796 and $5,492, respectively under this arrangement.

Investor Tax Reporting Cost

The fees and expenses associated with UGA’s audit expenses and tax accounting and reporting requirements are paid by UGA. These costs are estimated to be $199,000 for the year ending December 31, 2021. For the years ending December 31, 2020 and 2019 UGA’s investor reporting costs totaled $146,835 and $65,523 respectively. Tax reporting costs fluctuate between years due to the number of shareholders during any given year.

Table of Contents

Other Expenses and Fees and Expense Waivers

In addition to the fees described above, UGA pays all brokerage fees and other expenses in connection with the operation of UGA, excluding costs and expenses paid by USCF as outlined in Note 4 – Contracts and Agreements below. USCF paid certain expenses on a discretionary basis typically borne by UGA, where expenses exceed 0.15% (15 basis points) of UGA’s NAV, on an annualized basis. USCF terminated such expense waiver as of April 30, 2021. For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019 USCF waived $58,573, $195,888, and $66,155, respectively, of UGA’s expenses. This voluntary expense waiver is in addition to those amounts USCF is contractually obligated to pay as described in Note 4 – Contracts and Agreement and terminated on April 30, 2021.

NOTE 4 — CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS

Marketing Agent Agreement

UGA is party to a marketing agent agreement, dated as of February 15, 2008, as amended from time to time, with the Marketing Agent and USCF, whereby the Marketing Agent provides certain marketing services for UGA as outlined in the agreement. The fee of the Marketing Agent, which is borne by USCF, is equal to 0.06% on UGA’s assets up to $3 billion and 0.04% on UGA’s assets in excess of $3 billion. In no event may the aggregate compensation paid to the Marketing Agent and any affiliate of USCF for distribution-related services exceed 10% of the gross proceeds of UGA’s offering.

The above fee does not include website construction and development, which are also borne by USCF.

Custody, Transfer Agency and Fund Administration and Accounting Services Agreements

USCF engaged The Bank of New York Mellon, a New York corporation authorized to do a banking business (“BNY Mellon”), to provide UGA and each of the Related Public Funds with certain custodial, administrative and accounting, and transfer agency services, pursuant to the following agreements with BNY Mellon dated as of March 20, 2020 (together, the “BNY Mellon Agreements”), which were effective as of April 1, 2020: (i) a Custody Agreement; (ii) a Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement; and (iii) a Transfer Agency and Service Agreement. USCF pays the fees of BNY Mellon for its services under the BNY Mellon Agreements and such fees are determined by the parties from time to time.

Brokerage and Futures Commission Merchant Agreements

UGA entered into a brokerage agreement with RBC Capital Markets LLC (“RBC”) to serve as UGA’s FCM effective October 10, 2013. UGA has engaged each of RCG Division of Marex Spectron (“RCG”), E D & F Man Capital Markets Inc. (“MCM”) and Macquarie Futures USA LLC (“MFUSA”) to serve as an additional FCM to UGA effective on May 28, 2020, June 5, 2020, and December 3, 2020, respectively. The agreements with UGA’s FCMs require the FCMs to provide services to UGA in connection with the purchase and sale of Gasoline Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments that may be purchased and sold by or through the applicable FCM for UGA’s account. In accordance with the FCM agreements, UGA pays each FCM commissions of approximately $7 to $8 per round-turn trade, including applicable exchange, clearing and NFA fees for Gasoline Futures Contracts and options on Gasoline Futures Contracts. Such fees include those incurred when purchasing Gasoline Futures Contracts and options on Gasoline Futures Contracts when UGA issues shares as a result of a Creation Basket, as well as fees incurred when selling Gasoline Futures Contracts and options on Gasoline Futures Contracts when UGA redeems shares as a result of a Redemption Basket. Such fees are also incurred when Gasoline Futures Contracts and options on Gasoline Futures Contracts are purchased or redeemed for the purpose of rebalancing the portfolio.

Table of Contents

UGA also incurs commissions to brokers for the purchase and sale of Gasoline Futures Contracts, Other Gasoline-Related Investments or short-term obligations of the United States of two years or less (“Treasuries”).


	Year ended			Year ended			Year ended
	December 31, 2021			December 31, 2020			December 31, 2019
Total commissions accrued to brokers	$	99,596		$	137,982		$	41,772
Total commissions as annualized percentage of average total net assets		0.10	%		0.19	%		0.11	%
Commissions accrued as a result of rebalancing	$	93,744		$	122,376		$	39,760
Percentage of commissions accrued as a result of rebalancing		94.12	%		88.69	%		95.18	%
Commissions accrued as a result of creation and redemption activity	$	5,852		$	15,606		$	2,012
Percentage of commissions accrued as a result of creation and redemption activity		5.88	%		11.31	%		4.82	%

The decrease in total commissions accrued to brokers for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020, was due primarily to a lower number of gasoline futures contracts being held and traded.

NYMEX Licensing Agreement

UGA and the NYMEX entered into a licensing agreement on April 10, 2006, as amended on October 20, 2011, whereby UGA was granted a non-exclusive license to use certain of the NYMEX’s settlement prices and service marks. Under the licensing agreement, UGA and the Related Public Funds, other than BNO, USCI, and CPER, pay the NYMEX an asset-based fee for the license, the terms of which are described in Note 3. UGA expressly disclaims any association with the NYMEX or endorsement of UGA by the NYMEX and acknowledges that “NYMEX” and “New York Mercantile Exchange” are registered trademarks of the NYMEX.

NOTE 5 — FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, OFF-BALANCE SHEET RISKS AND CONTINGENCIES

UGA may engage in the trading of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, cleared swaps and OTC swaps (collectively, “derivatives”). UGA is exposed to both market risk, which is the risk arising from changes in the market value of the contracts, and credit risk, which is the risk of failure by another party to perform according to the terms of a contract.

UGA may enter into futures contracts, options on futures contracts, cleared swaps, and OTC-swaps to gain exposure to changes in the value of an underlying commodity. A futures contract obligates the seller to deliver (and the purchaser to accept) the future delivery of a specified quantity and type of a commodity at a specified time and place. Some futures contracts may call for physical delivery of the asset, while others are settled in cash. The contractual obligations of a buyer or seller may generally be satisfied by taking or making physical delivery of the underlying commodity or by making an offsetting sale or purchase of an identical futures contract on the same or linked exchange before the designated date of delivery. Cleared swaps are agreements that are eligible to be cleared by a clearinghouse, e.g., ICE Clear Europe, and provide the efficiencies and benefits that centralized clearing on an exchange offers to traders of futures contracts, including credit risk intermediation and the ability to offset positions initiated with different counterparties. OTC swaps are entered into between two parties in private contracts. In an OTC swap, each party bears credit risk to the other party, i.e., the risk that the other party may not be able to perform its obligations under the OTC swap.

The purchase and sale of futures contracts, options on futures contracts and cleared swaps require margin deposits with an FCM. Additional deposits may be necessary for any loss on contract value. The Commodity Exchange Act requires FCMs to segregate all customer transactions and assets from the FCM’s proprietary transactions and assets. To reduce the credit risk that arises in connection with OTC swaps, UGA will generally enter into an agreement with each counterparty based on the Master Agreement published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc., which provides for the netting of its overall exposure to its counterparty. The Master Agreement is negotiated as between the parties and would address, among other things, the exchange of margin between the parties.

Futures contracts, options on futures contracts and cleared swaps involve, to varying degrees, elements of market risk (specifically commodity price risk) and exposure to loss in excess of the amount of variation margin. The face or contract amounts reflect the extent

Table of Contents

of the total exposure UGA has in the particular classes of instruments. Additional risks associated with the use of futures contracts are an imperfect correlation between movements in the price of the futures contracts and the market value of the underlying securities and the possibility of an illiquid market for a futures contract. Buying and selling options on futures contracts exposes investors to the risks of purchasing or selling futures contracts.

As to OTC swaps, valuing OTC derivatives is less certain than valuing actively traded financial instruments such as exchange-traded futures contracts and securities or cleared swaps, because the price and terms on which such OTC derivatives are entered into or can be terminated are individually negotiated, and those prices and terms may not reflect the best price or terms available from other sources. In addition, while market makers and dealers generally quote indicative prices or terms for entering into or terminating OTC contracts, they typically are not contractually obligated to do so, particularly if they are not a party to the transaction. As a result, it may be difficult to obtain an independent value for an outstanding OTC derivatives transaction.

A novel strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. The situation is evolving with various cities and countries around the world responding in different ways to address the outbreak. There are direct and indirect economic effects developing for various industries and individual companies throughout the world. Management will continue to monitor the impact COVID-19 has on UGA and reflect the consequences as appropriate in UGA’s accounting and financial reporting. The pandemic spread of the novel coronavirus and related geopolitical events could lead to increased market volatility, disruption to U.S. and world economies and markets and may have significant adverse effects on UGA and its investments.

All of the futures contracts held by UGA through December 31, 2021 were exchange-traded. The risks associated with exchange-traded contracts are generally perceived to be less than those associated with OTC swaps since, in OTC swaps, a party must rely solely on the credit of its respective individual counterparties. However, in the future, if UGA were to enter into non-exchange traded contracts, it would be subject to the credit risk associated with counterparty non-performance. The credit risk from counterparty non-performance associated with such instruments is the net unrealized gain, if any, on the transaction. UGA has credit risk under its futures contracts since the sole counterparty to all domestic and foreign futures contracts is the clearinghouse for the exchange on which the relevant contracts are traded. In addition, UGA bears the risk of financial failure by the clearing broker.

UGA’s cash and other property, such as Treasuries, deposited with its FCMs are considered commingled with all other customer funds, subject to such FCM’s segregation requirements. In the event of an FCM’s insolvency, recovery may be limited to a pro rata share of segregated funds available. It is possible that the recovered amount could be less than the total of cash and other property deposited. The insolvency of an FCM could result in the complete loss of UGA’s assets posted with that FCM; however, the majority of UGA’s assets are held in investments in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents with UGA’s custodian and would not be impacted by the insolvency of an FCM. The failure or insolvency of UGA’s custodian, however, could result in a substantial loss of UGA’s assets.

USCF invests a portion of UGA’s cash in money market funds that seek to maintain a stable per share NAV. UGA is exposed to any risk of loss associated with an investment in such money market funds. As of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, UGA held investments in money market funds in the amounts of $47,753,000 and $5,503,000, respectively. UGA also holds cash deposits with its custodian. As of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, UGA held cash deposits and investments in Treasuries in the amounts of $29,087,846 and $74,219,412 respectively, with the custodian and FCMs. Some or all of these amounts may be subject to loss should UGA’s custodian and/or FCMs cease operations.

For derivatives, risks arise from changes in the market value of the contracts. Theoretically, UGA is exposed to market risk equal to the value of futures contracts purchased and unlimited liability on such contracts sold short or that the value of the futures contract could fall below zero. As both a buyer and a seller of options, UGA pays or receives a premium at the outset and then bears the risk of unfavorable changes in the price of the contract underlying the option.

UGA’s policy is to continuously monitor its exposure to market and counterparty risk through the use of a variety of financial, position and credit exposure reporting controls and procedures. In addition, UGA has a policy of requiring review of the credit standing of each broker or counterparty with which it conducts business.

The financial instruments held by UGA are reported in its statements of financial condition at market or fair value, or at carrying amounts that approximate fair value, because of their highly liquid nature and short-term maturity.

Table of Contents

NOTE 6 — FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The following table presents per share performance data and other supplemental financial data for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019 for the shareholders. This information has been derived from information presented in the financial statements.


	Year ended December 31,			Year ended December 31,			Year ended December 31,
		2021		2020			2019

Per Share Operating Performance:
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	24.29		$	32.31		$	22.74
Total income (loss)		17.06			(7.88)			9.79
Total expenses		(0.31)			(0.14)			(0.22)
Net increase (decrease) in net asset value		16.75			(8.02)			9.57
Net asset value, end of year	$	41.04		$	24.29		$	32.31

Total Return		68.96	%		(24.82)	%		42.08	%

Ratios to Average Net Assets
Total income (loss)		49.95	%		59.81	%		37.26	%
Management fees		0.60	%		0.60	%		0.60	%
Total expenses excluding management fees		0.36	%		0.42	%		0.33	%
Expense waived		(0.06)	%		(0.27)	%		(0.18)	%
Net expense excluding management fees		0.30	%		0.15	%		0.15	%
Net income (loss)		49.04	%		59.06	%		36.51	%

Total returns are calculated based on the change in value during the period. An individual shareholder’s total return and ratio may vary from the above total returns and ratios based on the timing of contributions to and withdrawals from UGA.

NOTE 7 - QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (Unaudited)

The following summarized (unaudited) quarterly financial information presents the results of operations and other data for the three-month periods ended March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31, 2021 and 2020


	First		Second		Third		Fourth
	Quarter		Quarter		Quarter		Quarter
	2021		2021		2021		2021
Total Income (Loss)	$	23,821,985	$	15,495,508	$	4,944,989	$	4,883,133
Total Expenses		219,445		297,117		223,334		207,204
Expense Waivers		(35,397)		(23,176)		—		—
Net Expenses		184,048		273,941		223,334		207,204
Net Income (Loss)	$	23,637,937	$	15,221,567	$	4,721,655	$	4,675,929
Net Income (Loss) per Share	$	7.16	$	4.41	$	2.59	$	2.59

Table of Contents


	First		Second		Third		Fourth
	Quarter		Quarter		Quarter		Quarter
	2020		2020		2020		2020
Total Income (Loss)	$	(23,999,896)	$	45,098,421	$	6,969,392	$	14,978,433
Total Expenses		65,240		220,795		250,690		198,972
Expense Waivers		(17,650)		(70,132)		(55,927)		(52,179)
Net Expenses		47,590		150,663		194,763		146,793
Net Income (Loss)	$	(24,047,486)	$	44,947,758	$	6,774,629	$	14,831,640
Net Income (Loss) per Share	$	(22.10)	$	8.68	$	1.14	$	4.26

NOTE 8 — FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

UGA values its investments in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 820 – Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820”). ASC 820 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurement. The changes to past practice resulting from the application of ASC 820 relate to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurement. ASC 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between: (1) market participant assumptions developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of UGA (observable inputs) and (2) UGA’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions developed based on the best information available under the circumstances (unobservable inputs). The three levels defined by the ASC 820 hierarchy are as follows:

Level I – Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date.

Level II – Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level I that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level II assets include the following: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability, and inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means (market-corroborated inputs).

Level III – Unobservable pricing input at the measurement date for the asset or liability. Unobservable inputs shall be used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available.

In some instances, the inputs used to measure fair value might fall within different levels of the fair value hierarchy. The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls shall be determined based on the lowest input level that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.

The following table summarizes the valuation of UGA’s securities at December 31, 2021 using the fair value hierarchy:


At December 31, 2021	Total		Level I		Level II		Level III
Short-Term Investments	$	47,753,000	$	47,753,000	$	—	$	—
Exchange-Traded Futures Contracts
United States Contracts		3,617,376		3,617,376		—		—

The following table summarizes the valuation of UGA’s securities at December 31, 2020 using the fair value hierarchy:


At December 31, 2020	Total		Level I		Level II		Level III
Short-Term Investments	$	5,503,000	$	5,503,000	$	—	$	—
Exchange-Traded Futures Contracts
United States Contracts	$	1,613,858	$	1,613,858	$	—	$	—

Effective January 1, 2009, UGA adopted the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification 815 — Derivatives and Hedging, which require presentation of qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts and gains and losses on derivatives.

Table of Contents

Fair Value of Derivative Instruments


	Statements of
	Financial
	Condition	Fair Value at		Fair Value at
Derivatives not Accounted for as Hedging Instruments	Location	December 31, 2021		December 31, 2020
Futures - Commodity Contracts	Assets	$	3,617,376	$	1,613,858

The Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Statements of Operations

For the year ended

December 31, 2021

December 31, 2020

December 31, 2019

Change in

Location of

Realized

Unrealized

Realized

Unrealized

Realized

Unrealized

Derivatives not

Gain (Loss)

gain (Loss)

Gain (Loss) on

Gain (Loss)

Gain (Loss) on

Gain (Loss)

Gain (Loss) on

Accounted for

on Derivatives

Derivatives

in Derivatives

Derivatives

in Derivatives

Derivatives

as Hedging

Recognized in

Instruments

Income

Futures - Commodity Contracts

Realized gain (loss) on closed positions

47,089,661

41,204,932

10,449,487

Change in unrealized gain (loss) on open positions

2,003,518

1,603,526

2,399,027

NOTE 9 - RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In August 2018, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2018-13, which changes certain fair value measurement disclosure requirements. The new ASU, in addition to other modifications and additions, removes the requirement to disclose the amount and reasons for transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, and UGA’s policy for the timing of transfers between levels. The amendments are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within those fiscal years. UGA has evaluated the implications of certain provisions of the ASU and has determined that there will be no material impacts to the financial statements.

NOTE 10 — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

UGA has performed an evaluation of subsequent events through the date the financial statements were issued. This evaluation did not result in any subsequent events that necessitated disclosures and/or adjustments.

Table of Contents

Part III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

Principals and Key Personnel of USCF. UGA has no executive officers. Pursuant to the terms of the LP Agreement, UGA’s affairs are managed by USCF. The following principals of USCF serve in the below mentioned capacities:

Name	Age	Capacity
Nicholas D. Gerber	59	Management Director, Vice President
Andrew F Ngim	61	Chief Operating Officer, Management Director and Portfolio Manager
Robert L. Nguyen	62	Management Director
John P. Love	50	Management Director, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer
Stuart P. Crumbaugh	58	Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
Carolyn M. Yu	63	Chief Compliance Officer
Ray W. Allen	65	Portfolio Manager
Kevin A. Baum	51	Chief Investment Officer
Gordon L. Ellis	75	Independent Director
Malcolm R. Fobes III	57	Independent Director
Peter M. Robinson	64	Independent Director

Ray W. Allen, 65, Portfolio Manager of USCF since January 2008. Mr. Allen was the portfolio manager of: (1) UGA from February 2008 until March 2010, and then portfolio manager since May 2015, (2) UHN from April 2008 until March 2010, and then portfolio manager from May 2015 to September 2018, (3) UNL from November 2009 until March 2010, and then portfolio manager since May 2015. In addition, he has been the portfolio manager of: (1) DNO from September 2009 to September 2018, (2) USO and USL since March 2010, (3) BNO since June 2010, (4) UNG since May 2015, (4) United States 3x Oil Fund and United States 3x Short Oil Fund from July 2017 to December 2019, and (5) the USCF Commodity Strategy Fund, a series of USCF Mutual Funds Trust, from October 2017 to March 2019. Mr. Allen also has served as the portfolio manager of the USCF SummerHaven Dynamic Commodity Strategy No K-1 Fund, a series of the USCF ETF Trust, from May 2018 to October 2021 and then portfolio manager since January 2022. Mr. Allen has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since March 2009 and has been registered as an associated person of USCF since July 2015 and from March 2008 to November 2012. Additionally, Mr. Allen has been approved as an NFA swaps associated person of USCF since July 2015. As of February 2017, he also is an associated person and swap associated person of USCF Advisers, LLC (“USCF Advisers”). USCF Advisers, an affiliate of USCF, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and, as of February 2017, is registered as a commodity pool operator, NFA member and swap firm. Mr. Allen earned a B.A. in Economics from the University of California at Berkeley and holds an NFA Series 3 registration.

Kevin A. Baum, 51, has served as the Chief Investment Officer of USCF since September 1, 2016 and as a Portfolio Manager of USCF from March 2016 to April 2017. He also serves as the Chief Investment Officer of USCF Advisers since June 2021. Prior to joining USCF, Mr. Baum temporarily retired from December 2015 to March 2016. Mr. Baum served as the Vice President and Senior Portfolio Manager for Invesco, an investment manager that manages a family of exchange-traded funds, from October 2014 through December 2015. Mr. Baum was temporarily retired from May 2012 through September 2014. From May 1993 to April 2012, Mr. Baum worked as the Senior Portfolio Manager, Head of Commodities for OppenheimerFunds, Inc., a global asset manager. Mr. Baum has been approved with respect to USCF as an NFA principal and associated person since April 2016, a branch manager since January 2017, and a swap associated person since November 2020. He also is an associated person and branch manager of USCF Advisers as of February 2017, and, as of June 2021, a swap associated person. USCF Advisers, an affiliate of USCF, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and, as of February 2017, is registered as a commodity pool operator, NFA member and swap firm. Mr. Baum is a CFA Charterholder, CAIA Charterholder, earned a B.B.A. in Finance from Texas Tech University and holds an NFA Series 3 registration.

Stuart P. Crumbaugh, 58, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of USCF since May 2015 and also the Chief Financial Officer of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (“Concierge”), the parent of Wainwright Holdings, Inc. (“Wainwright”) since December 2017. He is also the Treasurer and a member of the Board of Directors of Marygold & Co., a subsidiary of Concierge, since November 2019. In addition, Mr. Crumbaugh has served as a director of Wainwright, the parent and sole member of USCF, since December 2016.

Table of Contents

Mr. Crumbaugh has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since July 1, 2015 and, as of January 2017, he is a principal of USCF Advisers. USCF Advisers, an affiliate of USCF, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and, as of February 2017, is registered as a commodity pool operator, NFA member and swap firm. Since June 2015, Mr. Crumbaugh has been the Treasurer and Secretary of USCF Advisers. He has served as a Management Trustee, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of (1) USCF ETF Trust since May 2015 and (2) USCF Mutual Funds Trust since October 2016. Mr. Crumbaugh joined USCF as the Assistant Chief Financial Officer on April 6, 2015. Prior to joining USCF, Mr. Crumbaugh was the Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Sikka Software Corporation, a software service healthcare company providing optimization software and data solutions from April 2014 to April 6, 2015. Mr. Crumbaugh served as a consultant providing technical accounting, IPO readiness and M&A consulting services to various early stage companies with the Connor Group, a technical accounting consulting firm, for the periods of January 2014 through March 2014; October 2012 through November 2012; and January 2011 through February 2011. From December 2012 through December 2013, Mr. Crumbaugh was Vice President, Corporate Controller and Treasurer of Auction.com, LLC, a residential and commercial real estate online auction company. From March 2011 through September 2012, Mr. Crumbaugh was Chief Financial Officer of IP Infusion Inc., a technology company providing network routing and switching software enabling software-defined networking solutions for major mobile carriers and network infrastructure providers. Mr. Crumbaugh earned a B.A. in Accounting and Business Administration from Michigan State University in 1987 and is a Certified Public Accountant – Michigan (inactive).

Nicholas D. Gerber, 59, Vice President since May 15, 2015 and Management Director since June 2005. Mr. Gerber served as President and Chief Executive Officer of USCF from June 2005 through May 15, 2015 and Chairman of the Board of Directors of USCF from June 2005 through October 2019. Mr. Gerber co-founded USCF in 2005 and prior to that, he co-founded Ameristock Corporation in March 1995, a California-based investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 from March 1995 until January 2013. Since January 26, 2015, Mr. Gerber also has served as the Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (“Concierge”), which is a company publicly traded under the ticker symbol “CNCG.” Concierge is the sole shareholder of Wainwright. He is also the CEO and a member of the Board of Directors of Marygold & Co., a subsidiary of Concierge, since November 2019. Mr. Gerber serves as CEO of a newly formed Concierge subsidiary, Marygold & Co. (UK) Limited in London, England, since August 2021. Mr. Gerber also is the President and a director of Wainwright, a position he has held since March of 2004. From August 1995 to January 2013, Mr. Gerber served as Portfolio Manager of Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. On January 11, 2013, the Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. merged with and into the Drexel Hamilton Centre American Equity Fund, a series of Drexel Hamilton Mutual Funds. Drexel Hamilton Mutual Funds is not affiliated with Ameristock Corporation, the Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. or USCF. Mr. Gerber also has served USCF Advisers on the Board of Managers from June 2013 to present, as the President from June 2013 through June 18, 2015, and as Vice President from June 18, 2015 to present. USCF Advisers, an affiliate of USCF, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and, since February 2017, is registered as a commodity pool operator, NFA member and swap firm. He also has served as Chairman of the Boards of Trustees of USCF ETF Trust since 2014 and USCF Mutual Funds Trust since October 2016, respectively, (USCF ETF Trust and together with USCF Mutual Funds Trust are referred to as the “Trusts”) and each of the Trusts are investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. In addition, Mr. Gerber served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of USCF ETF Trust from June 2014 until December 2015. Mr. Gerber has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since November 2005, an NFA associate member and associated person of USCF since December 2005 and a Branch Manager of USCF since May 2009. Additionally, effective as of January 2017, he is a principal of USCF Advisers and, effective as of February 2017, he is an associated person, swap associated person, and branch manager of USCF Advisers. Mr. Gerber earned an MBA degree in finance from the University of San Francisco, a B.A. from Skidmore College and holds an NFA Series 3 registration.

John P. Love, 50, President and Chief Executive Officer of USCF since May 15, 2015, Management Director of USCF since October 2016 and Chairman of the Board of Directors of USCF since October 2019. Mr. Love also is a director of Wainwright, a position he has held since December 2016. Mr. Love previously served as a Senior Portfolio Manager for the Related Public Funds from March 2010 through May 15, 2015. Prior to that, while still at USCF, he was a Portfolio Manager beginning with the launch of USO in April 2006. Mr. Love was the portfolio manager of USO from April 2006 until March 2010 and the portfolio manager for USL from December 2007 until March 2010. Mr. Love has been the portfolio manager of UNG since April 2007, and the portfolio manager of UGA, UHN, and UNL since March 2010. Mr. Love has served as on the Board of Managers of USCF Advisers since November 2016 and as its President since June 18, 2015. USCF Advisers, an affiliate of USCF, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and, as of February 2017, is registered as a commodity pool operator, NFA member and swap firm. He also acted as co-portfolio manager of the Stock Split Index Fund, a series of the USCF ETF Trust for the period from September 2014 to December 2015, when he was promoted to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of the USCF ETF Trust. Since October 2016 to present, he also has served as the President and Chief Executive of the USCF Mutual Funds Trust. Mr. Love has been a principal of

Table of Contents

USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since January 17, 2006. Mr. Love has been registered as an associated person of USCF since February 2015 and from December 1, 2005 to April 16, 2009. Mr. Love has also been registered as a branch manager of USCF since March 2016. Additionally, Mr. Love has been approved as an NFA swaps associated person since February 2015. Mr. Love is a principal of USCF Advisers LLC as of January 2017. Additionally, effective as of February 2017, he is an associated person, swap associated person, and branch manager of USCF Advisers. Mr. Love earned a B.A. from the University of Southern California, holds an NFA Series 3 and FINRA Series 7 registrations and is a CFA Charterholder.

Andrew F Ngim, 61, co-founded USCF in 2005 and has served as a Management Director since May 2005 and, since August 15, 2016, has served as the Chief Operating Officer of USCF. Mr. Ngim has served as the portfolio manager for USCI and CPER since January 2013 and as the portfolio manager of the United States Agriculture Index Fund from January 2013 to September 2018. Mr. Ngim also served as USCF’s Treasurer from June 2005 to February 2012. In addition, he has been on the Board of Managers and has served as the Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer of USCF Advisers since its inception in June 2013 and Chief Operating Officer of USCF Advisers since March 2021. Prior to and concurrent with his services to USCF and USCF Advisers, from January 1999 to January 2013, Mr. Ngim served as a Managing Director for Ameristock Corporation, a California-based investment adviser, which he co-founded in March 1995, and was Co-Portfolio Manager of Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. from January 2000 to January 2013. Mr. Ngim also served as portfolio manager of (a) the following series of the USCF ETF Trust: (1) the Stock Split Index Fund from September 2014 to October 2017, (2) the USCF Restaurant Leaders Fund from November 2016 to October 2017, (3) USCF SummerHaven SHPEI Index Fund from December 2017 to October 2020, (4) USCF SummerHaven SHPEN Index Fund from December 2017 to April 2020, and (b) a series of USCF Mutual Funds Trust, the USCF Commodity Strategy Fund, from March 2017 to March 2019. Mr. Ngim also serves as the portfolio manager for the USCF SummerHaven Dynamic Commodity Strategy No K-1 Fund, a series of the USCF ETF Trust, from May 2018 to present. Mr. Ngim serves as a Management Trustee of: (1) the USCF ETF Trust from August 2014 to the present and (2) the USCF Mutual Funds Trust from October 2016 to present. Mr. Ngim has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since November 2005 and a principal of USCF Advisers LLC since January 2017. USCF Advisers, an affiliate of USCF, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and, as of February 2017, is registered as a commodity pool operator, NFA member and swap firm. Mr. Ngim earned his B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley.

Robert L. Nguyen, 62, Management Director and principal since July 2015. Mr. Nguyen served on the Board of Wainwright from December 2014 to December 2016. Mr. Nguyen co-founded USCF in 2005 and served as a Management Director until March 2012. Mr. Nguyen was an Investment Manager with Ribera Investment Management, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, from January 2013 to March 2015. Prior to and concurrent with his services to USCF, from January 2000 to January 2013, Mr. Nguyen served as a Managing Principal for Ameristock Corporation, a California-based investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which he co-founded in March 1995. Mr. Nguyen was a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA from November 2005 through March 2012 and an associated person of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA from November 2007 through March 2012. Mr. Nguyen has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since July 2015 and an associated person of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since December 2015. As of February 2017, he also is an associated person of USCF Advisers. USCF Advisers, an affiliate of USCF, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and, as of February 2017, is registered as a commodity pool operator, NFA member and swap firm. Mr. Nguyen earned his B.S. from California State University at Sacramento, and holds NFA Series 3 and FINRA Series 7 registrations.

Carolyn M. Yu, 63, Chief Compliance Officer of USCF since February 2013. In addition, she served USCF as the General Counsel from May 2015 through April 2018 and the Assistant General Counsel from August 2011 through April 2015. Ms. Yu also served as the General Counsel of Concierge, the parent of Wainwright from November 2017 through December 2018. Ms. Yu has served as (1) Chief Compliance Officer of USCF Advisers and USCF ETF Trust since May 2015 and of USCF Mutual Funds Trust since October 2016, (2) Chief AML Officer of USCF ETF Trust since May 2015 and of USCF Mutual Funds Trust since October 2016, and (3) Chief Legal Officer of USCF Advisers and USCF ETF Trust from May 2015 through April 2018 and of USCF Mutual Funds Trust from October 2016 through April 2018. Prior to May 2015, Ms. Yu was the Assistant Chief Compliance Officer and AML Officer of the USCF ETF Trust. Since August 2013, in the case of USCF, and January 2017, in the case of USCF Advisers LLC, Ms. Yu has been a principal listed with the CFTC and NFA. USCF Advisers LLC, an affiliate of USCF, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and, as of February 2017, is registered as a commodity pool operator, NFA member and swap firm. Ms. Yu earned her JD from Golden Gate University School of Law and a B.S. in business administration from San Francisco State University.

Gordon L. Ellis, 75, Independent Director of USCF since September 2005. Previously, Mr. Ellis was a founder of International Absorbents, Inc., Director and Chairman since July 1985 and July 1988, respectively, and Chief Executive Officer and President since November 1996. He also served as Chairman of Absorption Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of International Absorbents, Inc., which

Table of Contents

is a leading developer and producer of environmentally friendly pet care and industrial products, from May July 1985 until July 2010 when it was sold to Kinderhook Industries, a private investment banking firm and remained as a director until March 2013 when Absorption Corp was sold again to J. Rettenmaier & Söhne Group, a German manufacturing firm. Concurrent with that, he founded and has served as Chairman from November 2010 to present of Lupaka Gold Corp., a firm that acquires, explores and developed mining properties and is currently driving an arbitration suit against the Republic of Peru. He also serves as a director of Goldhaven Resources, a firm that acquires, explores and develops mining properties in Canada and Chile, from August 2020 to present. Mr. Ellis has his Chartered Directors designation from The Director’s College (a joint venture of McMaster University and The Conference Board of Canada). He has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since November 2005. Mr. Ellis is a professional engineer, retired, and earned an MBA in international finance.

Malcolm R. Fobes III, 57, Independent Director of USCF and Chairman of USCF’s audit committee since September 2005. He founded and is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Berkshire Capital Holdings, Inc., a California-based investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that has been sponsoring and providing portfolio management services to mutual funds since June 1997. Mr. Fobes serves as Chairman and President of The Berkshire Funds, a mutual fund investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Since 1997, Mr. Fobes has also served as portfolio manager of the Berkshire Focus Fund, a mutual fund registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which concentrates its investments in the electronic technology industry. He was also contributing editor of Start a Successful Mutual Fund: The Step-by-Step Reference Guide to Make It Happen (JV Books, 1995). Mr. Fobes has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since November 2005. He earned a B.S. in finance with a minor in economics from San Jose State University in California.

Peter M. Robinson, 64, Independent Director of USCF since September 2005. Mr. Robinson has been a Research Fellow since 1993 with the Hoover Institution, a public policy think tank located on the campus of Stanford University. He authored three books and has been published in the New York Times, Red Herring, and Forbes ASAP and is the editor of Can Congress Be Fixed?: Five Essays on Congressional Reform (Hoover Institution Press, 1995). Mr. Robinson has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since December 2005. He earned an MBA from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, graduated from Oxford University in 1982 after studying politics, philosophy, and economics and graduated summa cum laude from Dartmouth College in 1979.

The following are individual Principals, as that term is defined in CFTC Rule 3.1, for USCF: John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Melinda D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Scott Schoenberger, Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes III, Ray W. Allen, Kevin A. Baum, Carolyn M. Yu and Wainwright Holdings, Inc. The individuals who are Principals due to their positions are John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes III, Ray W. Allen, Kevin A. Baum and Carolyn M. Yu. In addition, Wainwright is a Principal because it is the sole member of USCF. None of the Principals owns or has any other beneficial interest in UGA. Ray W. Allen and Andrew F Ngim make trading and investment decisions for, and execute trades on behalf of, UGA. In addition, Nicholas D. Gerber, John P. Love, Robert L. Nguyen, Ray W. Allen, Kevin A. Baum, Kathryn Rooney, Maya Lowry, and Ryan Katz are registered with the CFTC as Associated Persons of USCF and are NFA Associate Members. John P. Love, Kevin A. Baum and Ray W. Allen are also registered with the CFTC as Swaps Associated Persons.

Audit Committee

The Board of USCF has an audit committee which is made up of the three independent directors (Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes III, and Peter M. Robinson). The audit committee is governed by an audit committee charter that is posted on UGA’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com. Any shareholder of UGA may also obtain a printed copy of the audit committee charter, free of charge, by calling 1-800-920-0259. The Board has determined that each member of the audit committee meets the financial literacy requirements of the NYSE Arca and the audit committee charter. The Board has further determined that each of Messrs. Ellis and Fobes have accounting or related financial management expertise, as required by the NYSE Arca, such that each of them is considered an “Audit Committee Financial Expert” as such term is defined in Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K.

Other Committees

Since the individuals who perform work on behalf of UGA are not compensated by UGA, but instead by USCF, UGA does not have a compensation committee. Similarly, since the directors noted above serve on the Board of USCF, there is no nominating committee of the Board that acts on behalf of UGA. USCF believes that it is necessary for each member of the Board to possess many qualities and skills. USCF further believes that all directors should possess a considerable amount of business management and educational experience. When vacancies in USCF’s Board occur, the members of the Board consider a candidate’s management experience as well

Table of Contents

as his/her background, stature, conflicts of interest, integrity and ethics. In connection with this, the Board also considers issues of diversity, such as diversity of gender, race and national origin, education, professional experience and differences in viewpoints and skills. The Board does not have a formal policy with respect to diversity; however, the Board believes that it is essential that the Board members represent diverse viewpoints.

Corporate Governance Policy

The Board of USCF has adopted a Corporate Governance Policy that applies to UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA has posted the text of the Corporate Governance Policy on its website at www.uscfinvestments.com. Any shareholder of UGA may also obtain a printed copy of the Corporate Governance Policy, free of charge, by calling 1-800-920-0259.

Code of Ethics

USCF has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”) that applies to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, and also to UGA. UGA has posted the text of the Code of Ethics on its website at www.uscfinvestments.com. Any shareholder of UGA may also obtain a printed copy of the Code of Ethics, free of charge, by calling 1-800-920-0259. UGA intends to disclose any amendments or waivers to the Code of Ethics applicable to USCF’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, on its website.

Executive Sessions of the Non-Management Directors

In accordance with the Corporate Governance Policy of USCF, the non-management directors of the Board (who are the same as the independent directors of the Board) meet separately from the other directors in regularly scheduled executive sessions, without the presence of Management Directors or executive officers of USCF. The non-management directors have designated Gordon L. Ellis to preside over each such executive session. Interested parties who wish to make their concerns known to the non-management directors may communicate directly with Mr. Ellis by writing to 475 Milan Drive, No. 103, San Jose, CA 95134-2453 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Board Leadership Structure and Role in Risk Oversight

The Board of USCF is led by a Chairman, Mr. John P. Love, who also serves as USCF’s President and Chief Executive Officer. The Board’s responsibilities include: (i) the selection, evaluation, retention and succession of the Chief Executive Officer and the oversight of the selection and performance of other executive officers, (ii) understanding, reviewing and monitoring the implementation of strategic plans, annual operating plans and budgets, (iii) the selection and oversight of UGA’s independent auditors and the oversight of UGA’s financial statements, (iv) advising management on significant issues, (v) the review and approval of significant company actions and certain other matters, (vi) nominating directors and committee members and overseeing effective corporate governance and (vii) the consideration of other constituencies, such as USCF’s and UGA’s customers, employees, suppliers and the communities impacted by UGA. The non- management directors have designated Gordon L. Ellis as the presiding independent director. Mr. Ellis’ role as the presiding independent director includes presiding over each executive session of the non-management directors, facilitating communications by shareholders and employees with the non-management directors and may also include representing the non-management directors with respect to certain matters as to which the views of the non-management directors are sought pursuant to UGA’s Corporate Governance Policy.

The Board believes that Mr. Love is best situated to serve as Chairman of USCF because he is the director most familiar with the business of USCF as the President and CEO of USCF. Because of his background, he is most capable of effectively leading discussions and execution of new strategic objectives while facilitating information flow between USCF and the full Board, including the independent directors, which is essential to effective governance. The independent directors of USCF are actively involved in the oversight of USCF and, because of their varied backgrounds, provide different perspectives in connection with the oversight of USCF, UGA and the Related Public Funds. USCF’s independent directors bring expertise from outside USCF and the commodities industry, while Mr. Love brings company-specific and industry-specific experience and expertise.

Risk Management

The full Board is actively involved in overseeing the management and operation of USCF, including oversight of the risks that face UGA and the Related Public Funds. For example, the Board has adopted an Investment Policy and a Policy for Use of Derivatives. The policies

Table of Contents

Director Compensation

The following table sets forth compensation earned during the year ended December 31, 2021, by the directors of USCF. UGA’s portion of the aggregate fees paid for director’s fees and insurance for the year ended December 31, 2021 was $23,962.


						Change in
						Pension Value
	Fees					and
	Earned					Nonqualified
	or Paid				Non-Equity	Deferred
	in		Stock	Option	Incentive Plan	Compensation		All Other
Name	Cash		Awards	Awards	Compensation	Plan		Compensation	Total
Management Directors
Nicholas D. Gerber	$	—	NA	NA	NA	$	—	$	$	—
John P. Love	$	—	NA	NA	NA	$	—	$	$	—
Andrew F Ngim	$	—	NA	NA	NA	$	—	$	$	—
Robert L. Nguyen	$	—	NA	NA	NA	$	—	$	$	—
Independent Directors
Peter M. Robinson	$	1,984	NA	NA	NA	$	—	$	$	1,984
Gordon L. Ellis	$	1,984	NA	NA	NA	$	—	$	$	1,984
Malcolm R. Fobes III⁽¹⁾	$	2,381	NA	NA	NA	$	—	$	$	2,381

(1)	Mr. Fobes serves as chairman of the audit committee of USCF and receives additional compensation from USCF, in recognition of the additional responsibilities he has undertaken in this role.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

None of the directors or executive officers of USCF own any shares of UGA. In addition, UGA is not aware of any 5% holder of its shares.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

UGA has and will continue to have certain relationships with USCF and its affiliates. However, there have been no direct financial transactions between UGA and the directors or officers of USCF that have not been disclosed herein. See “Item 11. Executive Compensation” and “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.” Any transaction with a related person that must be disclosed in accordance with SEC Regulation S-K item 404(a), including financial transactions by UGA with directors or executive officers of USCF or holders of beneficial interests in USCF or UGA of more than 5%, will be subject to the provisions regarding “Resolutions of Conflicts of Interest; Standard of Care” as set forth in Section 7.7 of the LP Agreement and will be reviewed and approved by the audit committee of the Board of USCF.

Director Independence

In February 2019, the Board undertook a review of the independence of the directors of USCF and considered whether any director has a material relationship or other arrangement with USCF, UGA or the Related Public Funds that could compromise his ability to exercise independent judgment in carrying out his responsibilities. As a result of this review, the Board determined that each of Messrs. Fobes, Ellis and Robinson is an “independent director,” as defined under the rules of NYSE Arca.

Table of Contents

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

The fees for services billed to UGA by its independent auditors for the last two fiscal years are as follows:


	2021		2020
Audit fees	$	45,000	$	45,000
Audit-related fees		—		—
Tax fees		—		—
All other fees		—		—
	$	45,000	$	45,000

Audit fees consist of fees paid to Spicer Jeffries LLP for (i) the audit of UGA’s annual financial statements included in the annual report on Form 10-K, and review of financial statements included in the quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and certain of UGA’s current reports on Form 8-K; (ii) the audit of UGA’s internal control over financial reporting included in the annual report on Form 10-K; and (iii) services that are normally provided by the Independent Registered Public Accountants in connection with statutory and regulatory filings of registration statements.

Tax fees consist of fees paid to Spicer Jeffries LLP for professional services rendered in connection with tax compliance and partnership income tax return filings.

The audit committee has established policies and procedures which are intended to control the services provided by UGA’s independent auditors and to monitor their continuing independence. Under these policies and procedures, no audit or permitted non-audit services (including fees and terms thereof), except for the de minimis exceptions for non-audit services described in Section 10A(i)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act, may be undertaken by UGA’s independent auditors unless the engagement is specifically pre-approved by the audit committee. The audit committee may form and delegate authority to subcommittees consisting of one or more members when appropriate, including the authority to grant pre-approvals of audit and permitted non-audit services, provided that decisions of such subcommittee to grant pre-approvals must be presented to the full audit committee at its next scheduled meeting.

Table of Contents

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


Signature	Title (Capacity)	Date

/s/ Nicholas D. Gerber	Management Director	February 25, 2022
Nicholas D. Gerber

/s/ John P. Love	Management Director	February 25, 2022
John P. Love

/s/ Andrew F Ngim	Management Director	February 25, 2022
Andrew F Ngim

/s/ Robert L. Nguyen	Management Director	February 25, 2022
Robert L. Nguyen

/s/ Peter M. Robinson	Independent Director	February 25, 2022
Peter M. Robinson

/s/ Gordon L. Ellis	Independent Director	February 25, 2022
Gordon L. Ellis

/s/ Malcolm R. Fobes III	Independent Director	February 25, 2022
Malcolm R. Fobes III

100


Part I		Page

Item 1. Business.		1

Item 1A. Risk Factors.		29

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.		45

Item 2. Properties.		45

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.		45

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.		48

Part II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.		48

Item 6. [Reserved].		48

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.		48

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.		66

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.		68

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.		88

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.		88

Item 9B. Other Information.		88

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections.		88

Part III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.		89

Item 11. Executive Compensation.		94

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.		95

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.		95

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.		96

Part IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.		97

Item 16. Form 10-K Summary.		98

Exhibit Index.		97

Signatures.		99


Documents		Page
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.		69

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm. (PCAOB ID 349)		70

Statements of Financial Condition at December 31, 2021 and 2020.		72

Schedules of Investments at December 31, 2021 and 2020.		73

Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019.		75

Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019.		76

Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019.		77

Notes to Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019.		78


Exhibit Number		Description of Document
3.1(1)		Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Registrant.
3.2(9)		Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership.
3.3(8)		Sixth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of USCF.
4.1(16)		Description of Securities.
10.1(10)		Form of Authorized Participant Agreement.
10.2(3)		License Agreement between United States Commodity Funds LLC and New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
10.3(4)		Third Amendment Agreement to License Agreement between United States Commodity Funds LLC and New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
10.4(12)		Form of Custody Agreement with The Bank of New York Mellon.
10.5(12)		Form of Transfer Agency and Service Agreement with The Bank of New York Mellon.
10.6(12)		Form of Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement with Administrative Agency Agreement with The Bank of New York Mellon.
10.7(7)		Marketing Agent Agreement.
10.8(5)		Amendment Agreement to the Marketing Agent Agreement.
10.9(6)		Amendment No. 2 to the Marketing Agent Agreement.
10.10(2)		Amendment No. 3 to the Marketing Agent Agreement.
10.11(11)		Form of Futures and Cleared Derivatives Transactions Customer Account Agreement with RBC Capital Markets LLC.
10.12(13)		Form of Commodity Futures Customer Agreement with RCG Division of Marex Spectron.
10.13(14)		Form of Customer Agreement with E D & F Man Capital Markets Inc.
10.14(15)		Form of Customer Agreement with Macquarie Futures USA LLC.
23.1(17)		Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
31.1(17)		Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
31.2(17)		Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
32.1(17)		Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U. S. C. 1350).
32.2(17)		Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U. S. C. 1350).

101.INS		XBRL Instance Document.
101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema.
101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase.
101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase.
101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase.
101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase.


By:	/s/ John P. Love
	John P. Love
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	(Principal executive officer)

Date:	February 25, 2022

By:	/s/ Stuart P. Crumbaugh
	Stuart P. Crumbaugh
	Chief Financial Officer
	(Principal financial and accounting officer)

Date:	February 25, 2022