XML 32 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies (Notes) | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies | Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company. Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or dividends to our shareholders. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company. When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range. We disclose contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material, or in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proceedings SFPP The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC, including the complaints and protests of various shippers the most recent of which was filed in late 2015 with the FERC (docketed at OR16-6) challenging SFPP’s filed East Line rates. In general, these complaints and protests allege the rates and tariffs charged by SFPP are not just and reasonable under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). In some of these proceedings shippers have challenged the overall rate being charged by SFPP, and in others the shippers have challenged SFPP’s index-based rate increases. If the shippers are successful in proving these claims or other of their claims, they are entitled to seek reparations (which may reach back up to two years prior to the filing of their complaints) or refunds of any excess rates paid, and SFPP may be required to reduce its rates going forward. These proceedings tend to be protracted, with decisions of the FERC often appealed to the federal courts. The issues involved in these proceedings include, among others, whether indexed rate increases are justified, and the appropriate level of return and income tax allowance SFPP may include in its rates. With respect to the various SFPP related complaints and protest proceedings at the FERC, we estimate that the shippers are seeking approximately $40 million in annual rate reductions and approximately $169 million in refunds. Management believes SFPP has meritorious arguments supporting SFPP’s rates and intends to vigorously defend SFPP against these complaints and protests. However, to the extent the shippers are successful in one or more of the complaints or protest proceedings, SFPP estimates that applying the principles of several recent FERC decisions in SFPP cases, as applicable, to pending cases would result in rate reductions and refunds substantially lower than those sought by the shippers. EPNG The tariffs and rates charged by EPNG are subject to two ongoing FERC proceedings (the “2008 rate case” and the “2010 rate case”). With respect to the 2008 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 517-A) in July 2015. The FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, ordered refunds to be paid within 60 days, and stated that it will apply its findings in Opinion 517-A to the same issues in the 2010 rate case. EPNG has sought federal appellate review of Opinion 517-A. With respect to the 2010 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 528-A) on February 18, 2016. The FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, affirmed prior findings of an Administrative Law Judge that certain shippers qualify for lower rates, and required EPNG to file revised pro forma recalculated rates consistent with the terms of Opinions 517-A and 528-A. EPNG and two intervenors sought rehearing of certain aspects of the decision, and certain intervenors sought judicial review. All refund obligations related to the 2008 rate case were satisfied during calendar year 2015. With respect to the 2010 rate case, EPNG believes it has an appropriate reserve related to the findings in Opinions 517-A and 528-A. Other Commercial Matters Union Pacific Railroad Company Easements & Related Litigation SFPP and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) are engaged in a proceeding to determine the extent, if any, to which the rent payable by SFPP for the use of pipeline easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR should be adjusted pursuant to existing contractual arrangements for the ten-year period beginning January 1, 2004 (Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., SFPP, L.P., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D”, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, filed July 28, 2004). In September 2011, the trial judge determined that the annual rent payable as of January 1, 2004 was $14 million, subject to annual consumer price index increases. SFPP appealed the judgment. By notice dated October 25, 2013, UPRR demanded the payment of $22.3 million in rent for the first year of the next ten-year period beginning January 1, 2014, which SFPP rejected. On November 5, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion which reversed the judgment, including the award of prejudgment interest, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of UPRR’s property interest in its right-of-way, including whether UPRR has sufficient interest to grant SFPP’s easements. UPRR filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court which was denied. The trial court has not set a date for the retrial. After the above-referenced decision by the California Court of Appeals which held that UPRR does not own the subsurface rights to grant certain easements and may not be able to collect rent from those easements, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by private landowners in California who claim to be the lawful owners of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP. Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were filed and are pending in federal courts by landowners in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. These suits, which are brought purportedly as class actions on behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in those respective states, assert claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP, and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D” for declaratory judgment, trespass, ejectment, quiet title, unjust enrichment, accounting, and alleged unlawful business acts and practices arising from defendants’ alleged improper use or occupation of subsurface real property. SFPP views these cases as primarily a dispute between UPRR and the plaintiffs. UPRR purported to grant SFPP a network of subsurface pipeline easements along UPRR’s railroad right-of-way. SFPP relied on the validity of those easements and paid rent to UPRR for the value of those easements. We believe we have recorded a right-of-way liability sufficient to cover our potential obligation, if any, for back rent. SFPP and UPRR have engaged in multiple disputes over the circumstances under which SFPP must pay for relocations of its pipeline within the UPRR right-of-way and the safety standards that govern relocations. In 2006, following a bench trial regarding the circumstances under which SFPP must pay for relocations, the judge determined that SFPP must pay for any relocations resulting from any legitimate business purpose of the UPRR. The decision was affirmed on appeal. In addition, UPRR contends that SFPP must comply with the more expensive American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards in determining when relocations are necessary and in completing relocations. Each party has sought declaratory relief with respect to its positions regarding the application of these standards with respect to relocations. In 2011, a jury verdict was reached that SFPP was obligated to comply with AREMA standards in connection with a railroad project in Beaumont Hills, California. In 2014, the trial court entered judgment against SFPP, consistent with the jury’s verdict. On June 29, 2015, the parties entered into a confidential settlement of all of the claims relating to the project in Beaumont Hills and the case was dismissed. Since SFPP does not know UPRR’s plans for projects or other activities that would cause pipeline relocations, it is difficult to quantify the effects of the outcome of these cases on SFPP. Even if SFPP is successful in advancing its positions, significant relocations for which SFPP must nonetheless bear the cost (i.e., for railroad purposes, with the standards in the federal Pipeline Safety Act applying) could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, and our dividends to our shareholders. These effects could be even greater in the event SFPP is unsuccessful in one or more of these lawsuits. Gulf LNG Facility Arbitration On March 1, 2016, Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (GLNG) received a Notice of Disagreement and Disputed Statements and a Notice of Arbitration from Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC (Eni USA), one of two companies that entered into a terminal use agreement for capacity of the Gulf LNG Facility in Mississippi for an initial term that is not scheduled to expire until the year 2031. Eni USA is an indirect subsidiary of Eni S.p.A., a multi-national integrated energy company headquartered in Milan, Italy. Pursuant to its Notice of Arbitration, Eni USA seeks declaratory and monetary relief based upon its assertion that (i) the terminal use agreement should be terminated because changes in the U.S. natural gas market since the execution of the agreement in December 2007 have “frustrated the essential purpose” of the agreement and (ii) activities allegedly undertaken by affiliates of Gulf LNG Holdings Group LLC “in connection with a plan to convert the LNG Facility into a liquefaction/export facility have given rise to a contractual right on the part of Eni USA to terminate” the agreement. As set forth in the terminal use agreement, disputes are meant to be resolved by final and binding arbitration. A three-member arbitration panel has been selected and the arbitration hearing is scheduled for January 2017. Eni USA has indicated that it will continue to pay the amounts claimed to be due pending resolution of the dispute. The successful assertion by Eni USA of its claim to terminate or amend its payment obligations under the agreement prior to the expiration of its initial term could have an adverse effect on the business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of GLNG and distributions to KMI, a 50% shareholder of GLNG. We view the allegations in the demand for arbitration to be without merit, and we intend to vigorously contest them in the arbitration. Plains Gas Solutions, LLC v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. et al. On October 16, 2013, Plains Gas Solutions, LLC (Plains) filed a petition in the 151 st Judicial District Court for Harris County, Texas (Case No. 62528) against TGP, Kinetica Partners, LLC and two other Kinetica entities. The suit arises from the sale by TGP of the Cameron System in Louisiana to Kinetica Partners, LLC on September 1, 2013. Plains alleges that defendants breached a straddle agreement requiring that gas on the Cameron System be committed to Plains’ Grand Chenier gas-processing facility, that requisite daily volume reports were not provided, that TGP improperly assigned its obligations under the straddle agreement to Kinetica, and that defendants interfered with Plains’ contracts with producers. The petition alleges damages of at least $100 million. Under the Amended and Restated Purchase and Sale Agreement with Kinetica, Kinetica is obligated to defend and indemnify TGP in connection with the gas commitment and reporting claims. After agreeing initially to defend and indemnify TGP against such claims, Kinetica withdrew its defense, disputed its indemnity obligation, and settled with Plains. Trial of the remaining claims against TGP is scheduled for January 2017. We intend to vigorously defend the suit and pursue Kinetica, if necessary, for indemnity and costs of defense. Brinckerhoff v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, LLC., et al. In December 2011 (Brinckerhoff I), March 2012, (Brinckerhoff II), May 2013 (Brinckerhoff III) and June 2014 (Brinckerhoff IV), derivative lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., the general partner of EPB, and the directors of the general partner at the time of the relevant transactions. EPB was named in these lawsuits as a “Nominal Defendant.” The lawsuits arise from the March 2010, November 2010, May 2012 and June 2011 drop-down transactions involving EPB’s purchase of SLNG, Elba Express, CPG and interests in SNG and CIG. The lawsuits allege various conflicts of interest and that the consideration paid by EPB was excessive. Brinckerhoff I and II were consolidated into one proceeding. Motions to dismiss were filed in Brinckerhoff III and Brinckerhoff IV, and such motions remain pending. On June 12, 2014, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in Brinckerhoff I, dismissing the case in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Brinckerhoff II was granted in part, dismissing certain claims and allowing the matter to go to trial in late 2014 on the remaining claims. On April 20, 2015, the Court issued a post-trial memorandum opinion (Memorandum Opinion) in Brinckerhoff II entering judgment in favor of all of the defendants other than the general partner of EPB, but finding the general partner liable for breach of contract in connection with EPB’s purchase of 49% interests in Elba and SLNG and a 15% interest in SNG in a $1.13 billion drop-down transaction that closed on November 19, 2010 (Fall Dropdown), prior to our acquisition of El Paso Corporation in 2012. In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court determined that EPB suffered damages of $171 million from the Fall Dropdown, which the Court determined to be the amount that EPB overpaid for Elba. We believe the claim is derivative in nature and was extinguished by our acquisition on November 26, 2014, pursuant to a merger agreement, of all of the outstanding common units of EPB that we did not already own. On December 2, 2015, the Court denied our motion to dismiss the remaining claims in Brinckerhoff II based upon our acquisition of all of the outstanding common units of EPB, and held that damages should be calculated by considering the unaffiliated unitholders’ ownership percentage as of the effective date of the merger. Based on this ruling, the Court entered judgment on February 4, 2016 in the amount of $100.2 million plus interest at the legal rate for the period from November 15, 2010 until the date of payment, if any payment is ultimately required. We filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court and Brinckerhoff filed a cross-appeal challenging the dismissal of Brinckerhoff I. The appeal has been fully briefed. Execution on the judgment has been stayed until the appeal is decided. At the present time, we do not believe that an ultimate award, if any, will have a material financial impact on our Company. We continue to believe the transactions at issue were appropriate and in the best interests of EPB and we intend to continue to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Price Reporting Litigation Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P. and numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the price of natural gas by providing false price information to industry trade publications that published gas indices. Several of the cases have been settled or dismissed. The remaining cases, which were pending in Nevada federal court, were dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed by the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision dated April 21, 2015, and the cases were then remanded to the Nevada federal court for further consideration and trial, if necessary, of numerous remaining issues. On May 24, 2016, the Court granted a motion for summary judgment dismissing one of the cases in which approximately $500 million in damages has been alleged. In the remaining cases, approximately $1.5 billion in damages have been alleged against all defendants. There remains significant uncertainty regarding the validity of the causes of action, the damages asserted and the level of damages, if any, which may be allocated to us. Therefore, our costs and legal exposure related to the remaining outstanding lawsuits and claims are not currently determinable. Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation Certain unitholders of KMP and EPB filed five putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in connection with the Merger Transactions, which the Court consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 10093-VCL). On December 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which purported to assert claims on behalf of both the former EPB unitholders and the former KMP unitholders. The EPB plaintiff alleged that (i) El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP), the general partner of EPB, and the directors of EPGP breached duties under the EPB partnership agreement, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the EPB Transaction; (ii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI and individual defendants aided and abetted such breaches; and (iii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the EPB partnership agreement by causing EPGP to breach its duties under the EPB partnership agreement. The KMP plaintiffs alleged that (i) KMR, KMGP, and individual defendants breached duties under the KMP partnership agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately disclose material facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMI, KMP, KMR, P Merger Sub LLC, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the rights of the plaintiffs and the putative class under the KMP partnership agreement by causing KMGP to breach its duties under the KMP partnership agreement. The complaint sought declaratory relief that the transactions were unlawful and unenforceable, reformation, rescission, rescissory or compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs. On December 30, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 2, 2015, the EPB plaintiff and the defendants submitted a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, agreeing to dismiss all claims brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice as to the EPB lead plaintiff and without prejudice to all other members of the putative EPB class. The Court entered such order on April 2, 2015. On August 24, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, captioned Haynes Family Trust et al. v. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al. (Case No. 515). On March 10, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of all claims on appeal and this matter is now concluded. Pipeline Integrity and Releases From time to time, despite our best efforts, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, and damage to the environment, damage to property and/or personal injury or death. In connection with these incidents, we may be sued for damages caused by an alleged failure to properly mark the locations of our pipelines and/or to properly maintain our pipelines. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular incident, state and federal regulatory authorities may seek civil and/or criminal fines and penalties. General As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, our total reserve for legal matters was $490 million and $463 million, respectively. The reserve primarily relates to various claims from regulatory proceedings arising in our products and natural gas pipeline segments and certain corporate matters. Environmental Matters We and our subsidiaries are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, CERCLA generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental law and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal and CO 2 field and oil field operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments, such as increasingly stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies under the terms of authority of those laws, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from our operations, could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us. We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of environmental and safety regulations. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. We do not believe that these alleged violations will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or dividends to our shareholders. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under administrative orders or related state remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the cleanup. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party in several federal and state superfund sites. Environmental reserves have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. In addition, we are from time to time involved in civil proceedings relating to damages alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental leaks or spills of refined petroleum products, NGL, natural gas and CO 2. Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon In December 2000, the EPA issued General Notice letters to potentially responsible parties including GATX Terminals Corporation (n/k/a KMLT). At that time, GATX owned two liquids terminals along the lower reach of the Willamette River, an industrialized area known as Portland Harbor. Portland Harbor is listed on the National Priorities List and is designated as a Superfund Site under CERCLA. A group of potentially responsible parties formed what is known as the Lower Willamette Group (LWG), of which KMLT is a non-voting member and pays a minimal fee to be part of the group. The LWG agreed to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) leading to the proposed remedy for cleanup of the Portland Harbor site. After a dispute with the EPA concerning certain provision of the FS, the parties agreed that the EPA would complete the FS and that the LWG may dispute the FS within 14 days of the publication of the proposed remedy for cleanup. EPA issued the FS and the Proposed Plan on June 8, 2016. The EPA’s Proposed Plan includes a combination of dredging, capping, and enhanced natural recovery. It is expected to take approximately 7 years to implement at an estimated present cost of approximately $750 million. Comments on the FS and the Proposed Plan are due on September 7, 2016. We will submit comments with the LWG and on our own behalf. We anticipate the EPA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) in mid-2017. KMLT and 90 other parties are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT and KMBT in connection with their current or former ownership or operation of four facilities located in Portland Harbor. The allocation process will follow the issuance of the ROD with an expected completion date of 2018. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable at this time to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the site. Roosevelt Irrigation District v. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. , U.S. District Court, Arizona The Roosevelt Irrigation District sued KMGP, KMEP and others under CERCLA for alleged contamination of the water purveyor’s wells. The First Amended Complaint sought $175 million in damages against approximately 70 defendants. On August 6, 2013 plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint seeking monetary damages in unspecified amounts and reducing the number of defendants to 26 including KMEP and SFPP. The claims now presented against KMEP and SFPP are related to alleged releases from a specific parcel within the SFPP Phoenix Terminal and the alleged impact of such releases on water wells owned by the plaintiffs and located in the vicinity of the Terminal. We have filed an answer, general denial, and affirmative defenses in response to the Second Amended Complaint and fact discovery is proceeding. Mission Valley Terminal Lawsuit In August 2007, the City of San Diego, on its own behalf and purporting to act on behalf of the People of the State of California, filed a lawsuit against us and several affiliates seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages allegedly resulting from hydrocarbon and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) impacted soils and groundwater beneath the City’s stadium property in San Diego arising from historic operations at the Mission Valley terminal facility. The case was filed in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County and was removed in 2007 to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (Case No. 07CV1883WCAB). The City disclosed in discovery that it was seeking approximately $170 million in damages for alleged lost value/lost profit from the redevelopment of the City’s property and alleged lost use of the water resources underlying the property. Later, in 2010, the City amended its initial disclosures to add claims for restoration of the site as well as a number of other claims that increased its claim for damages to approximately $365 million. On November 29, 2012, the Court issued a Notice of Tentative Rulings on the parties’ summary adjudication motions. The Court tentatively granted our partial motions for summary judgment on the City’s claims for water and real estate damages and the State’s claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, tentatively denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on its claims of liability for nuisance and trespass, and tentatively granted our cross motion for summary judgment on such claims. On January 25, 2013, the Court rendered judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims asserted by the City. On February 20, 2013, the City of San Diego filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 21, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a memorandum decision which affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment in our favor with respect to the City’s claim under California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, but reversed both the District Court’s summary judgment decision in our favor on the City’s remaining claims and the District Court’s decision to exclude the City’s expert testimony. The Court of Appeals issued a mandate returning the case to the U.S. District Court. On January 25, 2016, the District Court heard oral argument on motions we previously filed to exclude certain expert testimony offered by the City and for partial summary judgment on the City’s claims. By its Order dated February 2, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to exclude certain expert testimony, granted in part and denied in part our motion for partial summary judgment, found that the City is limited to seeking alleged damages relating to the three year period immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit, found that the City lacks expert opinions or testimony to support its claim for water damages, including the alleged loss of use of the Mission Valley aquifer as a source of both supply and storage of potable water, and denied our motion for partial summary judgment on the City’s alleged real estate and restoration damages. As a result of the Court’s Order, the City’s alleged damages were reduced from approximately $365 million to approximately $160 million. On May 10, 2016, the City filed another lawsuit seeking damages for the three year period immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit. On June 17, 2016, the parties entered into a settlement resolving all claims related to the historic contamination at the City’s stadium property. The settlement provides for a $20 million payment to the City, a waiver and release by the City of all claims which were asserted or could have been asserted in the litigation, and an agreement by defendants to indemnify the City for additional, incremental costs, if any, incurred by the City in the redevelopment of the stadium property or the development of groundwater beneath the stadium property, that would not have been incurred but for the historical releases from the Mission Valley Terminal. By Order dated June 17, 2016, the District Court granted dismissal of the litigation. This site remains under the regulatory oversight and order of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). SFPP completed the soil and groundwater remediation at the City of San Diego’s stadium property site and conducted quarterly sampling and monitoring through 2015 as part of the compliance evaluation required by the RWQCB. The RWQCB issued a notice of no further action with respect to the stadium property site on May 4, 2016. SFPP’s remediation effort is now focused on its adjacent Mission Valley Terminal site. Uranium Mines in Vicinity of Cameron, Arizona In the 1950s and 1960s, Rare Metals Inc., a historical subsidiary of EPNG, mined approximately twenty uranium mines in the vicinity of Cameron, Arizona, many of which are located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. The mining activities were in response to numerous incentives provided to industry by the U.S. to locate and produce domestic sources of uranium to support the Cold War-era nuclear weapons program. In May 2012, EPNG received a general notice letter from the EPA notifying EPNG of the EPA’s investigation of certain sites and its determination that the EPA considers EPNG to be a potentially responsible party within the meaning of CERCLA. In August 2013, EPNG and the EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent and Scope of Work pursuant to which EPNG is conducting a radiological assessment of the surface of the mines. On September 3, 2014, EPNG filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Case No. 3:14-08165-DGC) seeking cost recovery and contribution from the applicable federal government agencies toward the cost of environmental activities associated with the mines, given the pervasive control of such federal agencies over all aspects of the nuclear weapons program. Defendants filed an answer and counterclaims seeking contribution and recovery of response costs allegedly incurred by the federal agencies in investigating uranium impacts on the Navajo Reservation. The counterclaim of defendant EPA has been settled, and no viable claims for reimbursement by the other defendants are known to exist. Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties, New Jersey EPEC Polymers, Inc. (EPEC Polymers) and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (EPEC Oil Trust), former El Paso Corporation entities now owned by KMI, are involved in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area Superfund Site (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River. It has been alleged that EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust may be potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under CERCLA based on prior ownership and/or operation of properties located along the relevant section of the Passaic River. EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust entered into two Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs) which obligate them to investigate and characterize contamination at the Site. They are also part of a joint defense group (JDG) of approximately 70 cooperating parties which have entered into AOCs and are directing and funding the work required by the EPA. Under the first AOC, draft remedial investigation and feasibility studies (RI/FS) of the Site were submitted to the EPA in 2015, and comments from the EPA are expected by the end of 2016. Under the second AOC, the JDG members conducted a CERCLA removal action at the Passaic River Mile 10.9, and the group is currently conducting EPA-directed post-remedy monitoring in the removal area. We have established a reserve for the anticipated cost of compliance with the AOCs. On April 11, 2014, the EPA announced the issuance of its Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for the lower eight miles of the Passaic River Study Area, and its proposed plan for remedial alternatives to address the dioxin sediment contamination from the mouth of Newark Bay to River Mile 8.3. The EPA estimates the cost for the alternatives will range from $365 million to $3.2 billion. The EPA’s preferred alternative would involve dredging the river bank-to-bank and installing an engineered cap at an estimated cost of $1.7 billion. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued its ROD for the lower 8.3 miles of the Passaic River Study area. The final cleanup plan in the ROD is substantially similar to the EPA’s preferred alternative announced on April 11, 2014. On March 31, 2016, EPEC Polymers, EPEC Oil Trust, and over 80 other PRPs received a Notice of Potential Liability and Commencement of Negotiations for Remedial Design of the FFS (the Notice). The Notice informed the PRP group that the EPA intends to sign an AOC with one member of the PRP group for the remedial design of the cleanup in the ROD, and initiate negotiations over cash buyouts with parties whom the EPA does not consider “major PRPs.” The Notice also stated that the EPA expects to have the remedial design AOC signed by August 31, 2016. The Notice creates significant uncertainty as to the implementation and associated costs of the remedy set forth in the FFS and ROD, and provides no guidance as to the EPA’s definition of a “major PRP” or the potential amount or range of cash buyouts. There is also uncertainty as to the impact of the RI/FS that the CPG is currently preparing for portions of the Site. The draft RI/FS was submitted by the CPG earlier in 2015 and proposes a different remedy than the FFS announced by the EPA. Therefore, the scope of potential EPA claims for the lower eight miles of the Passaic River is not reasonably estimable at this time. Central Florida Pipeline Release, Tampa, Florida On July 22, 2011, our subsidiary Central Florida Pipeline LLC (CFPL) reported a refined petroleum products release on a section of its 10-inch diameter pipeline near Tampa, Florida. The pipeline carries jet fuel and diesel to Orlando and was carrying jet fuel at the time of the incident. There was no fire and no injuries associated with the incident. CFPL cleaned up the release in coordination with federal, state and local agencies. The cause of the incident was determined to be a third party line strike. In August 2015, the EPA requested that CFPL engage in settlement discussions regarding potential penalties sought by the EPA under the Clean Water Act. Although CFPL does not believe it caused the incident, we engaged in good faith settlement negotiations with the EPA. In June 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation of settlement in federal court, resolving the matter for $0.5 million. Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Litigation On July 24, 2013, the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - East (SLFPA) filed a petition for damages and injunctive relief in state district court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana (Case No. 13-6911) against TGP, SNG and approximately 100 other energy companies, alleging that defendants’ drilling, dredging, pipeline and industrial operations since the 1930’s have caused direct land loss and increased erosion and submergence resulting in alleged increased storm surge risk, increased flood protection costs and unspecified damages to the plaintiff. The SLFPA asserts claims for negligence, strict liability, public nuisance, private nuisance, and breach of contract. Among other relief, the petition seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorney fees, interest, and injunctive relief in the form of abatement and restoration of the alleged coastal land loss including but not limited to backfilling and re-vegetation of canals, wetlands and reef creation, land bridge construction, hydrologic restoration, shoreline protection, structural protection, and bank stabilization. On August 13, 2013, the suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On February 13, 2015, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim, and issued an order dismissing the SLFPA’s claims with prejudice. The SLFPA filed a notice of appeal on February 20, 2015. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on February 29, 2016 and we await the Court’s decision. Plaquemines Parish Louisiana Coastal Zone Litigation On November 8, 2013, the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana filed a petition for damages in the state district court for Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (Docket No. 60-999) against TGP and 17 other energy companies, alleging that defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations in the Bastian Bay, Buras, Empire and Fort Jackson oil and gas fields of Plaquemines Parish caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands (Coastal Zone) within the Parish, including the erosion of marshes and the discharge of oil waste and other pollutants which detrimentally affected the quality of state waters and plant and animal life, in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (Coastal Zone Management Act). As a result of such alleged violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act, Plaquemines Parish seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary relief, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected Coastal Zone to its original condition, including costs to clear, vegetate and detoxify the Coastal Zone. In connection with this suit, TGP has made two tenders for defense and indemnity: (1) to Anadarko, as successor to the entity that purchased TGP’s oil and gas assets in Bastian Bay, and (2) to Kinetica, which purchased TGP’s pipeline assets in Bastian Bay in 2013. Anadarko has accepted TGP’s tender (limited to oil and gas assets), and Kinetica rejected TGP’s tender. TGP responded to Kinetica by reasserting TGP’s demand for defense and indemnity and reserving its rights. On November 12, 2015, the Plaquemines Parish Council adopted a resolution directing its legal counsel in all its Coastal Zone cases to take all actions necessary to cause the dismissal of all such cases. By the end of 2015, the Parish’s legal counsel had not taken any action to dismiss the cases, and the defendants in the cases, including TGP in the instant case, filed motions to dismiss on the basis of the Parish Council’s November 12, 2015 resolution. After the filing of the motions to dismiss, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and Attorney General filed petitions in intervention. On April 14, 2016, the Parish Council passed a resolution rescinding its November 12, 2015 resolution that had directed its counsel to dismiss the suit. This resolution renders moot our pending motion to dismiss. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the suit. General Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcomes, we believe that the resolution of the environmental matters set forth in this note, and other matters to which we and our subsidiaries are a party, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we have accrued a total reserve for environmental liabilities in the amount of $318 million and $284 million, respectively. In addition, as of both June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we have recorded a receivable of $13 million, for expected cost recoveries that have been deemed probable.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration