Litigation and Environmental (Notes)	12 Months Ended
Litigation and Environmental (Notes)	Dec. 31, 2024
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Litigation and Environmental	17. Litigation and Environmental 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 to our financial position, cash flows or operating results, unless otherwise indicated below. We believe we have numerous and substantial 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 the following contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material or, in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed. Gulf LNG Facility Disputes Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (GLNG) filed a lawsuit in 2018 against Eni S.p.A. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York to enforce a Guarantee Agreement (Guarantee) entered into by Eni S.p.A. in 2007 in connection with a contemporaneous terminal use agreement entered into by its affiliate, Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC (Eni USA). GLNG filed suit to enforce the Guarantee against Eni S.p.A. after an arbitration tribunal delivered an award which called for the termination of the terminal use agreement and payment of compensation by Eni USA to GLNG. In response to GLNG’s lawsuit, Eni S.p.A. filed counterclaims based on the terminal use agreement and a parent direct agreement with Gulf LNG Energy (Port), LLC. The foregoing counterclaims asserted by Eni S.p.A sought unspecified damages based on the same substantive allegations that were dismissed with prejudice in previous separate arbitrations with Eni USA described above and with GLNG’s remaining customer Angola LNG Supply Services LLC, a consortium of international oil companies including Eni S.p.A. In early 2022, the trial court granted Eni S.p.A’s motion for summary judgment on GLNG’s claims to enforce the Guarantee. The Appellate Division denied GLNG’s appeal. GLNG elected not to pursue further recourse to the state Court of Appeals, which is the state’s highest appellate court, thereby concluding GLNG’s efforts to enforce the Guarantee. With respect to the counterclaims asserted by Eni S.p.A., the trial court granted GLNG’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment dismissing all of Eni S.p.A.’s claims with prejudice on September 15, 2023. On September 24, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed the entry of summary judgment in GLNG’s favor. On December 17, 2024, the Appellate Division denied Eni S.p.A.’s motion for reargument. On January 16, 2025, Eni S.p.A. filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which we will vigorously oppose. Freeport LNG Winter Storm Litigation On September 13, 2021, Freeport LNG Marketing, LLC (Freeport) filed a lawsuit against Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC and Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline LLC in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2021-58787) alleging that defendants breached the parties’ base contract for sale and purchase of natural gas by failing to repurchase natural gas nominated by Freeport between February 10-22, 2021 during Winter Storm Uri. We deny that we were obligated to repurchase natural gas from Freeport given our declaration of force majeure during the storm and our compliance with emergency orders issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas providing heightened priority for the delivery of gas to human needs customers. Freeport alleges that it is owed approximately $104 million, plus attorney fees and interest. On October 24, 2022, the trial court granted our motion for summary judgment on all of Freeport’s claims. On November 21, 2022, Freeport filed a notice of appeal to the 14th Court of Appeals, where the matter remains pending. We believe we have numerous and substantial defenses and intend to continue to vigorously defend this case. Pension Plan Litigation On February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation (Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso) and our company by virtue of our acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and our assumption of certain of El Paso’s pension plan obligations. The complaint, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590) and later amended to include the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan B, alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs’ retirement benefits which are now contested on a class-wide basis in the lawsuit. The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all challenge plan provisions that are alleged to constitute impermissible “backloading” or “cutback” of benefits, and seek the same plan modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal plan. Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. On February 8, 2024, the Court certified a class defined as any and all persons who participated in the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A or B who are current or former employees of ANR or Coastal, and participated in the El Paso pension plan after El Paso acquired Coastal in 2001, and are members of at least one of three subclasses of individuals who are allegedly due benefits under one or more of the six claims asserted in the complaint. On July 25, 2024, the Court decided the parties’ respective cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court granted our motion for summary judgment with respect to Claims I and II based on the Court’s determination that the formula used to calculate projected service was neither backloaded nor a violation of ERISA’s anti-cutback rule. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Claim III because the Court found that the summary plan description did not include any clarifying examples or illustrations of accrued benefits using the applicable formula. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim IV based upon the Court’s finding that an amendment to the plan in 2007 violated ERISA’s anti-cutback protection by terminating the accrual of early retirement benefits in connection with the sale of ANR. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim V because the Court found that the plan administrator used an inconsistent interpretation to calculate benefits for some retirees. The Court dismissed Claim VI without prejudice based upon its determination that the claim was moot given that the Court had allowed plaintiffs’ motion as to Counts IV and V. Neither the parties’ respective motions nor the Court’s decision addressed the extent of potential plan liabilities for past or future benefits or other potential damage or equitable relief associated with the claims. The Court instructed the parties to propose a schedule to determine the scope of potential remedies associated with the remaining claims or obtain a referral to mediation before the presiding Magistrate Judge. On October 8, 2024, the case was referred to the presiding Magistrate Judge for mediation that is scheduled to commence on March 11, 2025. We believe plaintiffs seek to recover early retirement benefits, monetary damages, or equitable relief in excess of $100 million. In the event a settlement cannot be achieved through the mediation process, we believe we have numerous and substantial defenses to support our vigorous defense at the trial or appellate levels if necessary. To the extent an adverse judgment or settlement results in an increase in plan liabilities, we may elect as the sponsor of the plans to address them in accordance with applicable ERISA provisions, including provisions that allow for contributions to the plans over several years. 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 December 31, 2024 and 2023, our total reserve for legal matters was $48 million and $23 million, respectively. 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 local, state and federal laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal, CO2 field and oil field, and our other operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us, 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. 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 financial position, cash flows or operating results. We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of local, state and federal environmental and safety regulations. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. These alleged violations may result in fines and penalties, but except as disclosed herein we do not believe any such fines and penalties will be material to our financial position, cash flows or operating results, individually or in the aggregate. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under state or federal administrative orders or related remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the remediation efforts. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in several federal and state Superfund sites. Environmental reserves have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. Because costs associated with remedial plans are generally expected to be spread over at least several years, we do not anticipate that our share of the cost of remediation will have a material adverse impact to our financial position, cash flows or operating results. 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, crude oil, NGL, natural gas or CO2, including natural resource damage (NRD) claims. Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that established a final remedy and cleanup plan for an industrialized area on the lower reach of the Willamette River commonly referred to as the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (PHSS). The cost for the final remedy is estimated to be more than $2.8 billion and active cleanup is expected to take more than 10 years to complete. KMLT, KMBT, and some 90 other PRPs identified by the EPA are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs related to the final remedy set forth by the ROD. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities) and KMBT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities). Effective January 31, 2020, KMLT entered into separate Administrative Settlement Agreements and Orders on Consent (ASAOC) to complete remedial design for two distinct areas within the PHSS associated with KMLT’s facilities. The ASAOC obligates KMLT to pay a share of the remedial design costs for cleanup activities related to these two areas as required by the ROD. Our share of responsibility for the PHSS costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded or a lawsuit is filed that results in a judicial decision allocating responsibility. At this time, we anticipate the non-judicial allocation process will be complete by December 31, 2026. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the PHSS. In August 2024, we reached an agreement to settle claims first made in January 2021 asserted by state and federal trustees following their natural resource assessment of the PHSS. Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, New Jersey EPEC Polymers, Inc. and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (collectively EPEC) are identified as PRPs in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River in New Jersey. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a ROD for the lower eight miles of the Site. At that time the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $1.7 billion. The cleanup is expected to take at least six years to complete once it begins. In addition, the EPA and numerous PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in an allocation process for the implementation of the remedy for the lower eight miles of the Site. That process was completed December 28, 2020 and certain PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in discussions with the EPA as a result thereof. On October 4, 2021, the EPA issued a ROD for the upper nine miles of the Site. At that time, the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $440 million. No timeline for the cleanup has been established. On December 16, 2022, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the EPA announced a settlement and proposed consent decree with 85 PRPs, including EPEC, to resolve their collective liability at the Site. The total amount of the settlement is $150 million. Also on December 16, 2022, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA filed a Complaint against the 85 PRPs, including EPEC, a Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree, and a Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On January 17, 2024, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA voluntarily dismissed its Complaint against 3 PRPs, filed an Amended Complaint against 82 PRPs, including EPEC, and a modified Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court. On January 31, 2024, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA filed a motion to Enter Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court. On December 18, 2024, the U.S. District Court entered the Consent Decree. On January 9, 2025, a Notice of Appeal was filed in the U.S. District Court indicating the Consent Decree is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Louisiana Governmental Coastal Zone Erosion Litigation Beginning in 2013, several parishes in Louisiana and the City of New Orleans filed separate lawsuits in state district courts in Louisiana against a number of oil and gas companies, including TGP and SNG. The lawsuits allege that certain of the defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended (SLCRMA) and that those operations caused substantial damage to the coastal waters of Louisiana and nearby lands. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and restoration costs. There are more than 40 of these cases pending in Louisiana against oil and gas companies, one of which is against TGP and one of which is against SNG, both described further below. On November 8, 2013, the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana and others filed a petition in the state district court for Plaquemines Parish against TGP and 17 other energy companies, alleging that the defendants’ operations in Plaquemines Parish violated SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and restoration costs. In May 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The case has been stayed pending the resolution of federal question jurisdictional issues in separate, consolidated cases to which TGP is not a party: The Parish of Plaquemines, et al. vs. Chevron USA, Inc. et al. consolidated with The Parish of Cameron, et al. v. BP America Production Company, et al. At this time, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We intend to vigorously defend this case. On March 29, 2019, the City of New Orleans (Orleans) filed a petition in the state district court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana against SNG and 10 other energy companies alleging that the defendants’ operations in Orleans Parish violated the SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Orleans seeks, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and restoration costs. In April 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On February 28, 2024, the U.S. District Court entered partial Final Judgment dismissing a co-defendant and stayed the case pending an appeal by Orleans to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s judgment, thereby retaining jurisdiction and dismissing a co-defendant on the basis that SLCRMA does not apply to a co-defendant’s pipeline constructed prior to the regulation’s effective date. Considering this ruling and that SNG’s pipelines were constructed prior to the regulation’s effective date, SNG intends to seek to be dismissed from this suit on the same basis through subsequent motion practice. We intend to vigorously defend this case. General As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, we have accrued a total reserve for environmental liabilities in the amount of $188 million and $199 million, respectively. In addition, as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, we had receivables of $10 million and $11 million, respectively, recorded for expected cost recoveries that have been deemed probable. Challenge to Federal “Good Neighbor Plan” On July 14, 2023, we filed a Petition for Review against the EPA and others in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking review of the EPA’s final action promulgating the EPA’s final rule known as the “Good Neighbor Plan” (the Plan). The case was styled Kinder Morgan, Inc. v. EPA, et al. and has since been consolidated with other cases and is styled Utah, et al. v, EPA, et al. The Plan was published in the Federal Register as a final rule on June 5, 2023. The Plan is a federal implementation plan to address certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). We believe that the Plan is deeply flawed and that numerous and substantial bases for challenging the Plan exist. If the Plan were fully implemented, its emission standards would require installation of more stringent air pollution controls on hundreds of existing internal combustion engines used by our Natural Gas Pipelines business segment. On July 27, 2023, in combination with other parties, we filed a Motion to Stay the Plan Pending Review, and on September 25, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the Motion. On October 13, 2023, in combination with other parties, we filed an Emergency Application for Stay of Final Agency Action in the United States Supreme Court. The case was styled Kinder Morgan, Inc, et al. v. EPA, et al. and has since been consolidated with other cases and is styled Ohio, et al. v. EPA, et al. The Supreme Court issued an order deferring consideration of the Emergency Application for Stay pending oral argument which took place February 21, 2024. On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the Emergency Application ruling that enforcement of the Plan shall be stayed pending the disposition of the case on the merits by the U.S. Court of Appeals, and any subsequent petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, if such writ is timely sought. In reaching its decision to grant the Emergency Application, the Supreme Court found that the parties challenging the Plan are likely to prevail on their argument that the Plan was not reasonably explained, that the EPA failed to supply a satisfactory explanation for its action, and that the EPA ignored an important aspect of the problem it was attempting to solve by promulgating the Plan. On August 5, 2024, the EPA filed a Motion for Partial Voluntary Remand asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for an opportunity to cure the deficiency in the record identified by the Supreme Court. On September 12, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals granted EPA’s motion, remanded the record to permit EPA to further respond to comments, and ordered the case be held in abeyance. On December 10, 2024, the EPA published the Notice on Remand of the Record in the Federal Register. On January 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the case be returned to its active docket for further proceedings. On February 6, 2025, the EPA filed a Motion to Hold Consolidated Cases in Abeyance asking the U.S. Court of Appeals to hold the case in abeyance for 60 days to allow the Trump Administration time to familiarize themselves with the Plan, receive briefing from the EPA about the case and the Plan, and decide what action on the Plan, if any, is necessary. The EPA has no legal basis to enforce the Plan while the Supreme Court stay remains in place. If the Plan ultimately were to take effect in its current form (including full compliance by a revised compliance deadline accounting for the stays, and assuming failure of all challenges to state implementation plan disapprovals and to the Plan), we anticipate that it would have a material adverse impact on us. Due to the extensive pending litigation, impacts of the Plan are difficult to predict. Should the Plan take effect, we would seek to mitigate the impacts, and to recover expenditures through adjustments to our rates on our regulated assets where available.