REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES:

Contingent Residual Support Agreement – AmeriGas

In connection with the closing of the contribution of its propane operations in January 2012, ETP previously provided contingent residual support of certain debt obligations of AmeriGas. AmeriGas has subsequently repaid the remainder of the related obligations and ETP no longer provides contingent residual support for any AmeriGas notes.

Guarantee of Sunoco LP Notes

In connection with previous transactions whereby Retail Holdings contributed assets to Sunoco LP, Retail Holdings provided a limited contingent guarantee of collection, but not of payment, to Sunoco LP with respect to (i) $800 million principal amount of 6.375% senior notes due 2023 issued by Sunoco LP, (ii) $800 million principal amount of 6.25% senior notes due 2021 issued by Sunoco LP and (iii) $2.035 billion aggregate principal for Sunoco LP’s term loan due 2019. In December 2016, Retail Holdings contributed its interests in Sunoco LP, along with the assignment of the guarantee of Sunoco LP’s senior notes, to its subsidiary, ETC M-A Acquisition LLC (“ETC M-A”).

On January 23, 2018, Sunoco LP redeemed the previously guaranteed senior notes and issued the following notes for which ETC M-A has also guaranteed collection with respect to the payment of principal amounts:


•	$1.00 billion aggregate principal amount of 4.875%, senior notes due 2023;


•	$800 million aggregate principal amount of 5.50% senior notes due 2026; and


•	$400 million aggregate principal amount of 5.875% senior notes due 2028.

Under the guarantee of collection, ETC M-A would have the obligation to pay the principal of each series of notes once all remedies, including in the context of bankruptcy proceedings, have first been fully exhausted against Sunoco LP with respect to such payment obligation, and holders of the notes are still owed amounts in respect of the principal of such notes. ETC M-A will not otherwise be subject to the covenants of the indenture governing the notes.

FERC Audit

In March 2016, the FERC commenced an audit of Trunkline for the period from January 1, 2013 to present to evaluate Trunkline’s compliance with the requirements of its FERC gas tariff, the accounting regulations of the Uniform System of Accounts as prescribed by the FERC, and the FERC’s annual reporting requirements. The audit is ongoing.

Commitments

In the normal course of business, ETP purchases, processes and sells natural gas pursuant to long-term contracts and enters into long-term transportation and storage agreements. Such contracts contain terms that are customary in the industry. We believe that the terms of these agreements are commercially reasonable and will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

ETP’s joint venture agreements require that they fund their proportionate share of capital contributions to their unconsolidated affiliates. Such contributions will depend upon their unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital projects or repayment of long-term obligations.

We have certain non-cancelable leases for property and equipment, which require fixed monthly rental payments with typical initial terms of 5 to 15 years, with some having a term of 40 years or more. The table below reflects rental expense under these operating leases included in operating expenses in the accompanying statements of operations, which include contingent rentals, and rental expense recovered through related sublease rental income:



	Years Ended December 31,
	2017			2016			2015
Rental expense⁽¹⁾	$	196		$	187		$	281
Less: Sublease rental income	(25		)	(26		)	(26		)
Rental expense, net	$	171		$	161		$	255


⁽¹⁾	Includes contingent rentals totaling $16 million, $18 million and $20 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Future minimum lease commitments for such leases are:



Years Ending December 31:
2018	$	113
2019	100
2020	96
2021	83
2022	71
Thereafter	606
Future minimum lease commitments	1,069
Less: Sublease rental income	(152		)
Net future minimum lease commitments	$	917

Litigation and Contingencies

We may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Natural gas and crude oil are flammable and combustible. Serious personal injury and significant property damage can arise in connection with their transportation, storage or use. In the ordinary course of business, we are sometimes threatened with or named as a defendant in various lawsuits seeking actual and punitive damages for product liability, personal injury and property damage. We maintain liability insurance with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles management believes are reasonable and prudent, and which are generally accepted in the industry. However, there can be no assurance that the levels of insurance protection currently in effect will continue to be available at reasonable prices or that such levels will remain adequate to protect us from material expenses related to product liability, personal injury or property damage in the future.

Dakota Access Pipeline

On July 25, 2016, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) issued permits to Dakota Access consistent with environmental and historic preservation statutes for the pipeline to make two crossings of the Missouri River in North Dakota, including a crossing of the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. After significant delay, the USACE also issued easements to allow the pipeline to cross land owned by the USACE adjacent to the Missouri River in two locations. Also in July, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“SRST”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the USACE that challenged the legality of the permits issued for the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline across those waterways and claimed violations of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). The SRST also sought a preliminary injunction to rescind the USACE permits while the case is pending. Dakota Access intervened in the case. The SRST soon added a request for an emergency temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to stop construction on the pipeline project. On September 9, 2016, the Court denied SRST’s motion for a preliminary injunction, rendering the TRO request moot.

After the September 9, 2016 ruling, the Department of the Army, the DOJ, and the Department of the Interior released a joint statement that the USACE would not grant the easement for the land adjacent to Lake Oahe until the Department of the Army completed a review to determine whether it was necessary to reconsider the USACE’s decision under various federal statutes relevant to the pipeline approval.

The SRST appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and filed an emergency motion in the United States District Court for an injunction pending the appeal, which was denied. The D.C. Circuit then denied the SRST’s application for an injunction pending appeal and later dismissed SRST’s appeal of the order denying the preliminary injunction motion. The SRST filed an amended complaint and added claims based on treaties between the tribes and the United States and statutes governing the use of government property.

In December 2016, the Department of the Army announced that, although its prior actions complied with the law, it intended to conduct further environmental review of the crossing at Lake Oahe. In February 2017, in response to a presidential memorandum, the Department of the Army decided that no further environmental review was necessary and delivered an easement to Dakota Access allowing the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe. Almost immediately, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”), which had intervened in the lawsuit in August 2016, moved for a preliminary injunction and TRO to block operation of the pipeline. These motions raised, for the first time, claims based on the religious rights of the Tribe. The District Court denied the TRO and preliminary injunction, and the CRST appealed and requested an injunction pending appeal in the district court and the D.C. Circuit. Both courts denied the CRST’s request for an injunction pending appeal. Shortly thereafter, at CRST’s request, the D.C. Circuit dismissed CRST’s appeal.

The SRST and the CRST amended their complaints to incorporate religious freedom and other claims. In addition, the Oglala and Yankton Sioux tribes (collectively, “Tribes”) have filed related lawsuits to prevent construction of the Dakota Access pipeline project. These lawsuits have been consolidated into the action initiated by the SRST. Several individual members of the Tribes have also intervened in the lawsuit asserting claims that overlap with those brought by the four Tribes.

On June 14, 2017, the Court ruled on SRST’s and CRST’s motions for partial summary judgment and the USACE’s cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The Court rejected the majority of the Tribes’ assertions and granted summary judgment on most claims in favor of the USACE and Dakota Access. In particular, the Court concluded that the USACE had not violated any trust duties owed to the Tribes and had generally complied with its obligations under the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and other related statutes; however, the Court remanded to the USACE three discrete issues for further analysis and explanation of its prior determinations under certain of these statutes. The Court ordered briefing to determine whether the pipeline should remain in operation during the pendency of the USACE’s review process or whether to vacate the existing permits. The USACE and Dakota Access opposed any shutdown of operations of the pipeline during this review process. On October 11, 2017, the Court issued an order allowing the pipeline to remain in operation during the pendency of the USACE’s review process. In early October 2017, USACE advised the Court that it expects to complete the additional analysis and explanation of its prior determinations requested by the Court by April 2018.

On December 4, 2017, the Court imposed three conditions on continued operation of the pipeline during the remand process. First, Dakota Access must retain an independent auditor to review its compliance with the conditions and regulations governing its easements and to assess integrity threats to the pipeline. The auditor’s report is required to be filed with the Court by April 1, 2018. Second, the Court has directed Dakota Access to continue its work with the Tribes and the USACE to revise and finalize its emergency spill response planning for the section of the pipeline crossing Lake Oahe. Dakota Access is required to file the revised plan with the Court by April 1, 2018. And third, the Court has directed Dakota Access to submit bi-monthly reports during the remand period disclosing certain inspection and maintenance information related to the segment of the pipeline running between the valves on either side of the Lake Oahe crossing. The first report was filed with the court on December 29, 2017.

In November 2017, the Yankton Sioux Tribe (“YST”), moved for partial summary judgment asserting claims similar to those already litigated and decided by the Court in its June 14, 2017 decision on similar motions by CRST and SRST. YST argues that the USACE and Fish and Wildlife Service violated NEPA, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and YST’s treaty and trust rights when the government granted the permits and easements necessary for the pipeline. Briefing on YST’s motion is ongoing.

While we believe that the pending lawsuits are unlikely to halt or suspend the operation of the pipeline, we cannot assure this outcome. We cannot determine when or how these lawsuits will be resolved or the impact they may have on the Dakota Access project.

Mont Belvieu Incident

On June 26, 2016, a hydrocarbon storage well located on another operator’s facility adjacent to Lone Star NGL Mont Belvieu’s (“Lone Star”) facilities in Mont Belvieu, Texas experienced an over-pressurization resulting in a subsurface release. The subsurface release caused a fire at Lone Star’s South Terminal and damage to Lone Star’s storage well operations at its South and North Terminals. Normal operations have resumed at the facilities with the exception of one of Lone Star’s storage wells. Lone Star is still quantifying the extent of its incurred and ongoing damages and has or will be seeking reimbursement for these losses.

MTBE Litigation

Sunoco, Inc. and/or Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), (now known as Sunoco (R&M), LLC) along with other members of the petroleum industry, are defendants in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs, state-level governmental entities, assert product liability claims and additional claims including nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws, and/or deceptive business practices. The plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.

As of December 31, 2017, Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in seven cases, including one case each initiated by the States of Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont, Rhode Island, one by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and two by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The more recent Puerto Rico action is a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. The actions brought by the State of Maryland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have also named as defendants Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., ETP Holdco Corporation, and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. Four of these cases are pending in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in a New York federal court; one is pending in federal court in Rhode Island, one is pending in state court in Vermont, and one is pending in state court in Maryland.

Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) have reached a settlement with the State of New Jersey. The Court approved the Judicial Consent Order on December 5, 2017. Dismissal of the case against Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) is expected shortly. The Maryland complaint was filed in December 2017 but was not served until January 2018.

It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized in the remaining cases; however, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. An adverse determination with respect to one or more of the MTBE cases could have a significant impact on results of operations during the period in which any such adverse determination occurs, but such an adverse determination likely would not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position.

Regency Merger Litigation

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the Regency-ETP merger (the “Regency Merger”), purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the Regency Merger. All but one Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman (“Dieckman”), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint, Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, et al., C.A. No. 11130-CB, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Regency Merger Litigation”), on behalf of Regency’s common unitholders against Regency GP, LP; Regency GP LLC; ETE, ETP, ETP GP, and the members of Regency’s board of directors (the “Regency Litigation Defendants”).

The Regency Merger litigation alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency’s conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not approved in good faith. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the Regency Litigation Defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Dieckman appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint. The Regency Litigation Defendants then filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery on May 19, 2017. On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP, LP and Regency GP LLC.

The Regency Litigation Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Regency Litigation Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency Litigation Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it and any others that may be filed in connection with the Regency Merger.

Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating LLC Litigation

On January 27, 2014, a trial commenced between ETP against Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating LLC (collectively, “Enterprise”) and Enbridge (US) Inc. Trial resulted in a verdict in favor of ETP against Enterprise that consisted of $319 million in compensatory damages and $595 million in disgorgement to ETP. The jury also found that ETP owed Enterprise $1 million under a reimbursement agreement. On July 29, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of ETP and awarded ETP $536 million, consisting of compensatory damages, disgorgement, and pre-judgment interest. The trial court also ordered that ETP shall be entitled to recover post-judgment interest and costs of court and that Enterprise is not entitled to any net recovery on its counterclaims. Enterprise filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals. On July 18, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion and reversed the trial court’s judgment. ETP’s motion for rehearing to the Court of Appeals was denied. ETP filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. Enterprise’s response is due February 26, 2018.

Sunoco Logistics Merger Litigation

Seven purported Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. common unitholders (the “ETP Unitholder Plaintiffs”) separately filed seven putative unitholder class action lawsuits against ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, the members of the ETP Board, and ETE (the “ETP-SXL Defendants”) in connection with the announcement of the Sunoco Logistics Merger. Two of these lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed in March 2017. The five remaining lawsuits were consolidated as In re Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. Shareholder Litig., C.A. No. 1:17-cv-00044-CCC, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Sunoco Logistics Merger Litigation”). The ETP Unitholder Plaintiffs allege causes of action challenging the merger and the proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Sunoco Logistics Merger (the “ETP-SXL Merger Proxy”). The ETP Unitholder Plaintiffs sought rescission of the Sunoco Logistics Merger or rescissory damages for ETP unitholders, as well as an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On October 5, 2017, the ETP-SXL Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the ETP Unitholder Plaintiffs’ claims. Rather than respond to the Motion to Dismiss, the ETP Unitholder Plaintiffs chose to voluntarily dismiss their claims without prejudice in November 2017.

The ETP-SXL Defendants cannot predict whether the ETP Unitholder Plaintiffs will refile their claims against the ETP-SXL Defendants or what the outcome of any such lawsuits might be. Nor can the ETP-SXL Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that would be required to resolve such lawsuits. The ETP-SXL Defendants believe the Sunoco Logistics Merger Litigation was without merit and intend to defend vigorously against any future lawsuits challenging the Sunoco Logistics Merger.

Litigation Filed By or Against Williams

On April 6, 2016, Williams filed a complaint, The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., C.A. No. 12168-VCG, against ETE and LE GP in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “First Delaware Williams Litigation”). Williams sought, among other things, to (a) rescind the Issuance and (b) invalidate an amendment to ETE’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance.

On May 3, 2016, ETE and LE GP filed an answer and counterclaim in the First Delaware Williams Litigation. The counterclaim asserts in general that Williams materially breached its obligations under the Merger Agreement by (a) blocking ETE’s attempts to complete a public offering of the Convertible Units, including, among other things, by declining to allow Williams’ independent registered public accounting firm to provide the auditor consent required to be included in the registration statement for a public offering and (b) bringing a lawsuit concerning the Issuance against Mr. Warren in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, which the Texas state court later dismissed based on the Merger Agreement’s forum-selection clause.

On May 13, 2016, Williams filed a second lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) against ETE and LE GP and added Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC as additional defendants (collectively, “Defendants”). This lawsuit is styled The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., et al., C.A. No. 12337-VCG (the “Second Delaware Williams Litigation”). In general, Williams alleged that Defendants breached the Merger Agreement by (a) failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain from Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) the delivery of a tax opinion concerning Section 721 of the Internal Revenue Code (“721 Opinion”), (b) breaching a representation and warranty in the Merger Agreement concerning Section 721 of the Internal Revenue Code, and (c) taking actions that allegedly delayed the SEC in declaring the Form S-4 filed in connection with the merger (the “Form S-4”) effective. Williams asked the Court, in general, to (a) issue a declaratory judgment that ETE breached the Merger Agreement, (b) enjoin ETE from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that it failed to obtain a 721 Opinion, (c) enjoin ETE from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that the transaction failed to close by the outside date, and (d) force ETE to close the merger or take various other affirmative actions.

ETE filed an answer and counterclaim in the Second Delaware Williams Litigation. In addition to the counterclaims previously asserted, ETE asserted that Williams materially breached the Merger Agreement by, among other things, (a) modifying or qualifying the Williams board of directors’ recommendation to its stockholders regarding the merger, (b) failing to provide material information to ETE for inclusion in the Form S-4 related to the merger, (c) failing to facilitate the financing of the merger, (d) failing to use its reasonable best efforts to consummate the merger, and (e) breaching the Merger Agreement’s forum-selection clause. ETE sought, among other things, a declaration that it could validly terminate the Merger Agreement after June 28, 2016 in the event that Latham was unable to deliver the 721 Opinion on or prior to June 28, 2016.

After a two-day trial on June 20 and 21, 2016, the Court ruled in favor of ETE on Williams’ claims in the Second Delaware Williams Litigation and issued a declaratory judgment that ETE could terminate the merger after June 28, 2016 because of Latham’s inability to provide the required 721 Opinion. The Court also denied Williams’ requests for injunctive relief. The Court did not reach a decision regarding Williams’ claims related to the Issuance or ETE’s counterclaims. Williams filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware on June 27, 2016, styled The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., No. 330, 2016.

Williams filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2016 and sought a $410 million termination fee and additional damages of up to $10 billion based on the purported lost value of the merger consideration. These damages claims are based on the alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement detailed above, as well as new allegations that Defendants breached an additional representation and warranty in the Merger Agreement.

Defendants filed amended counterclaims and affirmative defenses on September 23, 2016 and sought a $1.48 billion termination fee under the Merger Agreement and additional damages caused by Williams’ misconduct. These damages claims are based on the alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement detailed above, as well as new allegations that Williams breached the Merger Agreement by failing to disclose material information that was required to be disclosed in the Form S-4. On September 29, 2016, Williams filed a motion to dismiss Defendants’ amended counterclaims and to strike certain of Defendants’ affirmative defenses. Following briefing by the parties on Williams’ motion, the Delaware Court of Chancery held oral arguments on November 30, 2016.

On March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s Opinion and Order on the June 2016 trial and denied Williams’ motion for reargument on April 5, 2017. As a result of the Delaware Supreme Court’s affirmance, Williams has conceded that its $10 billion damages claim is foreclosed, although its $410 million termination fee claim remains pending.

Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the First Delaware Williams Litigation, the Second Delaware Williams Litigation, or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. Defendants believe that Williams’ claims are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them.

Unitholder Litigation Relating to the Issuance

In April 2016, two purported ETE unitholders (the “Issuance Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against ETE, LE GP, Kelcy Warren, John McReynolds, Marshall McCrea, Matthew Ramsey, Ted Collins, K. Rick Turner, William Williams, Ray Davis, and Richard Brannon (collectively, the “Issuance Defendants”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery. These lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12197-VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Issuance Litigation”). Another purported ETE unitholder, Chester County Employees’ Retirement Fund, joined the consolidated action as an additional plaintiff of April 25, 2016.

The Issuance Plaintiffs allege that the Issuance breached various provisions of ETE’s limited partnership agreement. The Issuance Plaintiffs seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that (a) prevents ETE from making distributions to the Convertible Units and (b) invalidates an amendment to ETE’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance.

On August 29, 2016, the Issuance Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, and in addition to the injunctive relief described above, seek class-wide damages allegedly resulting from the Issuance.

The Issuance Defendants and the Issuance Plaintiffs filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. On February 28, 2017, the Court denied both motions for partial summary judgment. A trial in the Issuance Litigation is currently set for February 19-21, 2018.

The Issuance Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Issuance Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Issuance Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Issuance Litigation. The Issuance Defendants believe the Issuance Litigation is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against it and any other actions challenging the Issuance.

Litigation filed by BP Products

On April 30, 2015, BP Products North America Inc. (“BP”) filed a complaint with the FERC, BP Products North America Inc. v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P., FERC Docket No. OR15-25-000, alleging that Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (“SPLP”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETP, entered into certain throughput and deficiency (“T&D”) agreements with shippers other than BP regarding SPLP’s crude oil pipeline between Marysville, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio, and revised its proration policy relating to that pipeline in an unduly discriminatory manner in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”). The complaint asked FERC to (1) terminate the agreements with the other shippers, (2) revise the proration policy, (3) order SPLP to restore BP’s volume history to the level that existed prior to the execution of the agreements with the other shippers, and (4) order damages to BP of approximately $62 million, a figure that BP reduced in subsequent filings to approximately $41 million.

SPLP denied the allegations in the complaint and asserted that neither its contracts nor proration policy were unlawful and that BP’s complaint was barred by the ICA’s two-year statute of limitations provision. Interventions were filed by the two companies with which SPLP entered into T&D agreements, Marathon Petroleum Company (“Marathon”) and PBF Holding Company and Toledo Refining Company (collectively, “PBF”). A hearing on the matter was held in November 2016.

On May 26, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge Patricia E. Hurt (“ALJ”) issued its initial decision (“Initial Decision”) and found that SPLP had acted discriminatorily by entering into T&D agreements with the two shippers other than BP and recommended that the FERC (1) adopt the FERC Trial Staff’s $13 million alternative damages proposal, (2) void the T&D agreements with Marathon and PBF, (3) re-set each shipper’s volume history to the level prior to the effective date of the proration policy, and (4) investigate the proration policy. The ALJ held that BP’s claim for damages was not time-barred in its entirety, but that it was not entitled to damages more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint.

On July 26, 2017, each of the parties filed with the FERC a brief on exceptions to the Initial Decision. SPLP challenged all of the Initial Decision’s primary findings (except for the adjustment to the individual shipper volume histories). BP and FERC Trial Staff challenged various aspects of the Initial Decision related to remedies and the statute of limitations issue. On September 18 and 19, 2017, all parties filed briefs opposing the exceptions of the other parties. The matter is now awaiting a decision by FERC.

Other Litigation and Contingencies

We or our subsidiaries are a party to various legal proceedings and/or regulatory proceedings incidental to our businesses. For each of these matters, we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter, possible legal or settlement strategies, the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and the availability of insurance coverage. If we determine that an unfavorable outcome of a particular matter is probable and can be estimated, we accrue the contingent obligation, as well as any expected insurance recoverable amounts related to the contingency. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, accruals of approximately $33 million and $77 million, respectively, were reflected on our consolidated balance sheets related to these contingent obligations. As new information becomes available, our estimates may change. The impact of these changes may have a significant effect on our results of operations in a single period.

The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and there can be no assurance that the outcome of a particular matter will not result in the payment of amounts that have not been accrued for the matter. Furthermore, we may revise accrual amounts prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome. Currently, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued.

No amounts have been recorded in our December 31, 2017 or 2016 consolidated balance sheets for contingencies and current litigation, other than amounts disclosed herein.

Environmental Matters

Our operations are subject to extensive federal, tribal, state and local environmental and safety laws and regulations that require expenditures to ensure compliance, including related to air emissions and wastewater discharges, at operating facilities and for remediation at current and former facilities as well as waste disposal sites. Historically, our environmental compliance costs have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations but there can be no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future or that such future compliance with existing, amended or new legal requirements will not have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. Costs of planning, designing, constructing and operating pipelines, plants and other facilities must incorporate compliance with environmental laws and regulations and safety standards. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory, remedial and corrective action obligations, the issuance of injunctions in affected areas and the filing of federally authorized citizen suits. Contingent losses related to all significant known environmental matters have been accrued and/or separately disclosed. However, we may revise accrual amounts prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome.

Environmental exposures and liabilities are difficult to assess and estimate due to unknown factors such as the magnitude of possible contamination, the timing and extent of remediation, the determination of our liability in proportion to other parties, improvements in cleanup technologies and the extent to which environmental laws and regulations may change in the future. Although environmental costs may have a significant impact on the results of operations for any single period, we believe that such costs will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position.

Based on information available at this time and reviews undertaken to identify potential exposure, we believe the amount reserved for environmental matters is adequate to cover the potential exposure for cleanup costs.

In February 2017, we received letters from the DOJ and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality notifying Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (“SPLP”) and Mid-Valley Pipeline Company (“Mid-Valley”) that enforcement actions were being pursued for three crude oil releases: (a) an estimated 550 barrels released from the Colmesneil-to-Chester pipeline in Tyler County, Texas (“Colmesneil”) operated and owned by SPLP in February of 2013; (b) an estimated 4,509 barrels released from the Longview-to-Mayersville pipeline in Caddo Parish, Louisiana (a/k/a Milepost 51.5) operated by SPLP and owned by Mid-Valley in October of 2014; and (c) an estimated 40 barrels released from the Wakita 4-inch gathering line in Oklahoma operated and owned by SPLP in January of 2015. In May of this year, we presented to the DOJ, EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality a summary of the emergency response and remedial efforts taken by SPLP after the releases occurred as well as operational changes instituted by SPLP to reduce the likelihood of future releases. In July, we had a follow-up meeting with the DOJ, EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality during which the agencies presented their initial demand for civil penalties and injunctive relief. In short, the DOJ and EPA proposed federal penalties totaling $7 million for the three releases along with a demand for injunctive relief, and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality proposed a state penalty of approximately $1 million to resolve the Caddo Parish release. Neither Texas nor Oklahoma state agencies have joined the penalty discussions at this point. We are currently working on a counteroffer to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.

On January 3, 2018, PADEP issued an Administrative Order to Sunoco Pipeline L.P. directing that work on the Mariner East 2 and 2X pipelines be stopped. The Administrative Order detailed alleged violations of the permits issued by PADEP in February of 2017, during the construction of the project. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. began working with PADEP representatives immediately after the Administrative Order was issued to resolve the compliance issues. Those compliance issues could not be fully resolved by the deadline to appeal the Administrative Order, so Sunoco Pipeline L.P. took an appeal of the Administrative Order to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board on February 2, 2018. On February 8, 2018, Sunoco Pipeline L.P. entered into a Consent Order and Agreement with PADEP that (1) withdraws the Administrative Order; (2) establishes requirements for compliance with permits on a going forward basis; (3) resolves the non-compliance alleged in the Administrative Order; and (4) conditions restart of work on an agreement by Sunoco Pipeline L.P. to pay a $12.6 million civil penalty to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the Consent Order and agreement, Sunoco Pipeline L.P. admits to the factual allegations, but does not admit to the conclusions of law that were made by PADEP. PADEP also found in the Consent Order and Agreement that Sunoco Pipeline L.P. had adequately addressed the issues raised in the Administrative Order and demonstrated an ability to comply with the permits. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. concurrently filed a request to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board to discontinue the appeal of the Administrative Order. That request was granted on February 8, 2018.

Environmental Remediation

Our subsidiaries are responsible for environmental remediation at certain sites, including the following:


•	Certain of our interstate pipelines conduct soil and groundwater remediation related to contamination from past uses of PCBs. PCB assessments are ongoing and, in some cases, our subsidiaries could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties.


•	Certain gathering and processing systems are responsible for soil and groundwater remediation related to releases of hydrocarbons.


•	Legacy sites related to Sunoco, Inc. that are subject to environmental assessments, including formerly owned terminals and other logistics assets, retail sites that Sunoco, Inc. no longer operates, closed and/or sold refineries and other formerly owned sites.

•

Sunoco, Inc. is potentially subject to joint and several liability for the costs of remediation at sites at which it has been identified as a “potentially responsible party” (“PRP”). As of December 31, 2017, Sunoco, Inc. had been named as a PRP at approximately 43 identified or potentially identifiable “Superfund” sites under federal and/or comparable state law. Sunoco, Inc. is usually one of a number of companies identified as a PRP at a site. Sunoco, Inc. has reviewed the nature and extent of its involvement at each site and other relevant circumstances and, based upon Sunoco, Inc.’s purported nexus to the sites, believes that its potential liability associated with such sites will not be significant.

To the extent estimable, expected remediation costs are included in the amounts recorded for environmental matters in our consolidated balance sheets. In some circumstances, future costs cannot be reasonably estimated because remediation activities are undertaken as claims are made by customers and former customers. To the extent that an environmental remediation obligation is recorded by a subsidiary that applies regulatory accounting policies, amounts that are expected to be recoverable through tariffs or rates are recorded as regulatory assets on our consolidated balance sheets.

The table below reflects the amounts of accrued liabilities recorded in our consolidated balance sheets related to environmental matters that are considered to be probable and reasonably estimable. Currently, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued. Except for matters discussed above, we do not have any material environmental matters assessed as reasonably possible that would require disclosure in our consolidated financial statements.



	December 31,
	2017		2016
Current	$	35	$	26
Non-current	337		318
Total environmental liabilities	$	372	$	344

In 2013, we established a wholly-owned captive insurance company to bear certain risks associated with environmental obligations related to certain sites that are no longer operating. The premiums paid to the captive insurance company include estimates for environmental claims that have been incurred but not reported, based on an actuarially determined fully developed claims expense estimate. In such cases, we accrue losses attributable to unasserted claims based on the discounted estimates that are used to develop the premiums paid to the captive insurance company.

During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Partnership recorded $32 million and $43 million, respectively, of expenditures related to environmental cleanup programs.

On December 2, 2010, Sunoco, Inc. entered an Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement to sell the Toledo Refinery to Toledo Refining Company LLC (TRC) wherein Sunoco, Inc. retained certain liabilities associated with the pre-Closing time period. On January 2, 2013, USEPA issued a Finding of Violation (FOV) to TRC and, on September 30, 2013, EPA issued an NOV/FOV to TRC alleging Clean Air Act violations. To date, EPA has not issued an FOV or NOV/FOV to Sunoco, Inc. directly but some of EPA’s claims relate to the time period that Sunoco, Inc. operated the refinery. Specifically, EPA has claimed that the refinery flares were not operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions and/or in conformance with their design, and that Sunoco, Inc. submitted semi-annual compliance reports in 2010 and 2011 and EPA that failed to include all of the information required by the regulations. EPA has proposed penalties in excess of $200,000 to resolve the allegations and discussions continue between the parties. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time, however, we do not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Our pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the United States Department of Transportation under the PHMSA, pursuant to which the PHMSA has established requirements relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of pipeline facilities. Moreover, the PHMSA, through the Office of Pipeline Safety, has promulgated a rule requiring pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs to comprehensively evaluate their pipelines, and take measures to protect pipeline segments located in what the rule refers to as “high consequence areas.” Activities under these integrity management programs involve the performance of internal pipeline inspections, pressure testing or other effective means to assess the integrity of these regulated pipeline segments, and the regulations require prompt action to address integrity issues raised by the assessment and analysis. Integrity testing and assessment of all of these assets will continue, and the potential exists that results of such testing and assessment could cause us to incur future capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of our pipelines; however, no estimate can be made at this time of the likely range of such expenditures.

In January 2012, ETP experienced a release on its products pipeline in Wellington, Ohio. In connection with this release, the PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order under which ETP is obligated to follow specific requirements in the investigation of the release and the repair and reactivation of the pipeline. This PHMSA Corrective Action Order was closed via correspondence dated November 4, 2016. No civil penalties were associated with the PHMSA Order. ETP also entered into an Order on Consent with the EPA regarding the environmental remediation of the release site. All requirements of the Order on Consent with the EPA have been fulfilled and the Order has been satisfied and closed. ETP has also received a “No Further Action” approval from the Ohio EPA for all soil and groundwater remediation requirements. In May 2016, ETP received a proposed penalty from the EPA and DOJ associated with this release, and continues to work with the involved parties to bring this matter to closure. The timing and outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time. However, ETP does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In October 2016, the PHMSA issued a Notice of Probable Violation (“NOPVs”) and a Proposed Compliance Order (“PCO”) related to ETP’s West Texas Gulf pipeline in connection with repairs being carried out on the pipeline and other administrative and procedural findings. The proposed penalty is in excess of $100,000. The case went to hearing in March 2017 and remains open with PHMSA. ETP does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In April 2016, the PHMSA issued a NOPV, PCO and Proposed Civil Penalty related to certain procedures carried out during construction of ETP’s Permian Express 2 pipeline system in Texas. The proposed penalties are in excess of $100,000. The case went to hearing in November 2016 and remains open with PHMSA. ETP does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In July 2016, the PHMSA issued a NOPV and PCO to our West Texas Gulf pipeline in connection with inspection and maintenance activities related to a 2013 incident on our crude oil pipeline near Wortham, Texas. The proposed penalties are in excess of $100,000. The case went to hearing in March 2017 and remains open with PHMSA. ETP does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

In August 2017, the PHMSA issued a NOPV and a PCO in connection with alleged violations on ETP’s Nederland to Kilgore pipeline in Texas. The case remains open with PHMSA and the proposed penalties are in excess of $100,000. ETP does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Our operations are also subject to the requirements of the federal OSHA, and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of employees. In addition, Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s hazardous communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe that our past costs for OSHA required activities, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations but there is no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future.