REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES

FERC Proceedings

By order issued January 16, 2019, the FERC initiated a review of Panhandle’s existing rates pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act to determine whether the rates currently charged by Panhandle are just and reasonable and set the matter for hearing. Panhandle filed a cost and revenue study on April 1, 2019. An initial decision is expected to be issued in the first quarter of 2020. In addition, on November 30, 2018, Sea Robin filed a rate case pursuant to Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act. A hearing date is scheduled for October 23, 2019 and an initial decision is expected to be issued in the first quarter of 2020.

By order issued February 19, 2019, the FERC initiated a review of Southwest Gas Storage Company’s existing rates pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act to determine whether the rates currently charged by Southwest Gas Storage Company are just and reasonable and set the matter for hearing. Southwest Gas Storage Company filed a cost and revenue study on May 6, 2019. An initial decision is expected to be issued in the first quarter of 2020.

Commitments

In the normal course of business, ETO 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. ETO believes 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.

ETO’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 right-of-way (“ROW”) commitments, which require fixed payments and either expire upon our chosen abandonment or at various dates in the future. The table below reflects ROW expense included in operating expenses in the accompanying statements of operations:



	Three Months Ended March 31,
	2019		2018
ROW expense	$	6	$	6

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, LLC (“Dakota Access”) to make two crossings of the Missouri River in North Dakota. The USACE also issued easements to allow the pipeline to cross land owned by the USACE adjacent to the Missouri River. On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“SRST”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“the Court”) against the USACE and challenged the legality of these permits and claimed violations of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). SRST also sought a preliminary injunction to rescind the USACE permits while the case was pending, which the court denied on September 9, 2016. Dakota Access intervened in the case. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”) also intervened. SRST filed an amended complaint and added claims based on treaties between SRST and CRST and the United States and statutes governing the use of government property.

In February 2017, in response to a Presidential memorandum, the Department of the Army delivered an easement to Dakota Access allowing the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe. CRST moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to block operation of the pipeline, which motion was denied, and raised claims based on the religious rights of CRST.

In June 2017, SRST and CRST amended their complaints to incorporate religious freedom and other claims. In addition, the Oglala Sioux 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 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 concluded that the USACE had not violated 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.

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.

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 third party to review its compliance with the conditions and regulations governing its easements and to assess integrity threats to the pipeline. The assessment report was filed with the Court. Second, the Court 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 filed the revised plan with the Court. And third, the Court 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 and second reports were filed with the court on December 29, 2017 and February 28, 2018, respectfully.

On February 8, 2018, the Court docketed a motion by CRST to “compel meaningful consultation on remand.” SRST then made a similar motion for “clarification re remand process and remand conditions.” The motions sought an order from the Court directing the USACE as to how it should conduct its additional review on remand. Dakota Access and the USACE opposed both motions. On April 16, 2018, the Court denied both motions.

On March 19, 2018, the District Court denied YST’s motion for partial summary judgment and instead granted judgment in favor of Dakota Access pipeline and the USACE on the claims raised in YST’s motion. The Court concluded that YST’s NHPA claims are moot because construction of the pipeline is complete and that the government’s review process did not violate NEPA or the various treaties cited by the YST.

On May 3, 2018, the District Court ordered the USACE to file a status report by June 8, 2018 informing the Court when the USACE expects the remand process to be complete. On June 8, 2018, the USACE filed a status report stating that they would conclude the remand process by August 10, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the USACE informed the Court that they would need until August 31, 2018 to finish the remand process. On August 31, 2018, the USACE informed the Court that it had completed the remand process and that it had determined that the three issues remanded by the Court had been correctly decided. On October 1, 2018, the USACE produced a detailed remand analysis document supporting that determination. The Tribes and certain of the individuals sought leave of the Court to amend their complaints to challenge the remand process and the USACE’s decision on remand.

On January 3, 2019, the Court granted the Tribes’ requests to supplement their respective complaints challenging the remand process, subject to defendants’ right to argue later that such supplementation may be overbroad and not permitted by law. On January 10, 2019, the Court denied the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s motion to amend its complaint to expand one of its pre-remand claims.

On January 17, 2019, the DOJ, on behalf of the USACE, moved to stay the litigation in light of the lapse in appropriations for the DOJ. The Tribes and individual plaintiffs opposed that request. On January 28, 2019, the USACE moved to withdraw this motion because appropriations for the DOJ had been restored. The Court granted this motion the next day.

On January 31, 2019, the USACE notified the Court that it had provided the administrative record for the remand to all parties. On February 27, 2019, the four Tribes filed a joint motion challenging the completeness of the record. The USACE opposed this motion in part, and Dakota Access opposed in full. The Tribes filed their reply brief on March 18, 2019 and the motion is now fully briefed and before the Court.

On May 8, 2019, the Court issued an order on Plaintiffs’ motion to complete the administrative record, requiring the parties to submit additional information so that the Court can determine what documents, if any, should be added to the record. The Court’s previous orders require that the parties must file a joint proposed schedule for the final round of summary judgment briefing within seven days of a final order on the challenges to the record.

While Energy Transfer believes that the pending lawsuits are unlikely to halt or suspend operation of the pipeline, we cannot assure this outcome. Energy Transfer 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 obtained, and will continue to seek, reimbursement for these losses.

MTBE Litigation

Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) (now known as Sunoco (R&M), LLC) (collectively, “Sunoco”) are defendants in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs, state-level governmental entities, assert product liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws, and/or deceptive business practices claims. 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 March 31, 2019, Sunoco is a defendant in five cases, including one case each initiated by the States of Maryland and 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. (“SPMT”).

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

Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the Regency-ETO merger (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 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; ET, ETO, ETP GP, and the members of Regency’s board of directors (“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 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. 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 Defendants”). On March 6, 2018, the Regency Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. Trial is currently set for September 23-27, 2019.

The Regency 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 Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency 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 ETO 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 ETO against Enterprise that consisted of $319 million in compensatory damages and $595 million in disgorgement to ETO. The jury also found that ETO owed Enterprise $1 million under a reimbursement agreement. On July 29, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of ETO and awarded ETO $536 million, consisting of compensatory damages, disgorgement, and pre-judgment interest. The trial court also ordered that ETO 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. ETO’s motion for rehearing to the Court of Appeals was denied. On June 8, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court ordered briefing on the merits. ETO’s petition for review remains under consideration by the Texas Supreme Court.

Litigation Filed By or Against Williams

On April 6, 2016, The Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams”) filed a complaint against ET and LE GP in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “First Delaware Williams Litigation”). Williams sought, among other things, to (a) rescind the issuance of the Partnership’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units (the “Issuance”) and (b) invalidate an amendment to ET’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance.

On May 3, 2016, ET 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 ET-Williams merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) by (a) blocking ET’s attempts to complete a public offering of the Series A Convertible Preferred 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 ET and LE GP and added Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC as additional defendants (collectively, “Defendants”) (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 ET breached the Merger Agreement, (b) enjoin ET from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that it failed to obtain a 721 Opinion, (c) enjoin ET from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that the transaction failed to close by the outside date, and (d) force ET to close the merger or take various other affirmative actions.

ET filed an answer and counterclaim in the Second Delaware Williams Litigation. In addition to the counterclaims previously asserted, ET 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 ET 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. ET 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 ET on Williams’ claims in the Second Delaware Williams Litigation and issued a declaratory judgment that ET 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 ET’s counterclaims. Williams filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware on June 27, 2016. Williams filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2016 and sought a $410 million termination fee, and Defendants filed amended counterclaims and affirmative defenses. In response, Williams filed a motion to dismiss Defendants’ amended counterclaims and to strike certain of Defendants’ affirmative defenses.

On March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court’s ruling on the June trial, and as a result, Williams has conceded that its $10 billion damages claim is foreclosed, although its $410 million termination fee claim remains pending.

On December 1, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Williams’ motion to dismiss in part and denying Williams’ motion to dismiss in part. Discovery is ongoing, and a trial is expected in early 2020.

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

On April 12, 2016, two purported ET unitholders (the “Issuance Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against ET, 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 (the “Issuance Litigation”). Another purported ET unitholder, Chester County Employees’ Retirement Fund, later joined the Issuance Litigation.

The Issuance Plaintiffs allege that the Issuance breached various provisions of ET’s partnership agreement. The Issuance Plaintiffs seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that (a) prevents ET from making distributions to holders of the Series A Convertible Preferred Units and (b) invalidates an amendment to ET’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 matter was tried in front of Vice Chancellor Glasscock on February 19-21, 2018. Post-trial arguments were heard on April 16, 2018. In a post-trial opinion dated May 17, 2018, the Court found that one provision of the Issuance breached ET’s partnership agreement but that this breach caused no damages. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief and declined to award damages other than nominal damages. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking $8.5 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses from the Issuance Defendants, which the Issuance Defendants opposed. On May 6, 2019, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment consistent with its May 2018 post-trial opinion. The Court ordered that Energy Transfer pay $4.5 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses and also granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.

Rover

On November 3, 2017, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) filed suit against Rover and Pretec Directional Drilling, LLC (“Pretec”) seeking to recover approximately $2.6 million in civil penalties allegedly owed and certain injunctive relief related to permit compliance. Laney Directional Drilling Co., Atlas Trenchless, LLC, Mears Group, Inc., D&G Directional Drilling, Inc. d/b/a D&G Directional Drilling, LLC, and B&T Directional Drilling, Inc. (collectively, with Rover and Pretec, “Defendants”) were added as defendants on April 17, 2018 and July 18, 2018.

Ohio EPA alleges that the Defendants illegally discharged millions of gallons of drilling fluids into Ohio’s waters that caused pollution and degraded water quality, and that the Defendants harmed pristine wetlands in Stark County. Ohio EPA further alleges that the Defendants caused the degradation of Ohio’s waters by discharging pollution in the form of sediment-laden storm water into Ohio’s waters and that Rover violated its hydrostatic permits by discharging effluent with greater levels of pollutants than those permits allowed and by not properly sampling or monitoring effluent for required parameters or reporting those alleged violations. Rover and other Defendants filed several motions to dismiss and Ohio EPA filed a motion in opposition. The State’s opposition to those motions was filed on October 12, 2018. Rover and other Defendants filed their replies on November 2, 2018. On March 13, 2019, the court granted Rover and the other Defendants’ motion to dismiss on all counts. On April 10, 2019, the Ohio EPA filed a notice of appeal.

In January 2018, Ohio EPA sent a letter to the FERC to express concern regarding drilling fluids lost down a hole during horizontal directional drilling (“HDD”) operations as part of the Rover Pipeline construction. Rover sent a January 24, 2018 response to the FERC and stated, among other things, that as Ohio EPA conceded, Rover was conducting its drilling operations in accordance with specified procedures that had been approved by the FERC and reviewed by the Ohio EPA. In addition, although the HDD operations were crossing the same resource as that which led to an inadvertent release of drilling fluids in April 2017, the drill in 2018 had been redesigned since the original crossing. Ohio EPA expressed concern that the drilling fluids could deprive organisms in the wetland of oxygen. Rover, however, has now fully remediated the site, a fact with which Ohio EPA concurs. Construction of Rover is now complete and the pipeline is fully operational.

Bayou Bridge

On January 11, 2018, environmental groups and a trade association filed suit against the USACE in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that the USACE’s issuance of permits authorizing the construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline through the Atchafalaya Basin (“Basin”) violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Act. They asked the district court to vacate these permits and to enjoin construction of the project through the Basin until the USACE corrects alleged deficiencies in its decision-making process. ETO, through its subsidiary Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC (“Bayou Bridge”), intervened on January 26, 2018. On March 27, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed an answer to the complaint.

On January 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction and TRO. United States District Court Judge Shelly Dick denied the TRO on January 30, 2018, but subsequently granted the preliminary injunction on February 23, 2018. On February 26, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the February 23, 2018 preliminary injunction order. On February 27, 2018, Judge Dick issued an opinion that clarified her February 23, 2018 preliminary injunction order and denied Bayou Bridge’s February 26, 2018 motion to stay as moot. On March 1, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a new notice of appeal and motion to stay the February 27, 2018 preliminary injunction order in the district court. On March 5, 2018, the district court denied the March 1, 2018 motion to stay the February 27, 2018 order.

On March 2, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction in the Fifth Circuit. On March 15, 2018, the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of injunction pending appeal and found that Bayou Bridge “is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.” Oral arguments were heard on the merits of the appeal, that is, whether the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction in the Fifth Circuit on April 30, 2018. The district court has stayed the merits case pending decision of the Fifth Circuit. On May 10, 2018, the District Court stayed the litigation pending a decision from the Fifth Circuit. On July 6, 2018, the Fifth Circuit vacated the Preliminary Injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court. Construction is ongoing.

On August 14, 2018, Plaintiffs sought leave of court to amend their complaint to add an “as applied” challenge to the USACE’s application of the Louisiana Rapid Assessment Method to Bayou Bridge’s permits. Defendants’ filed motions in opposition on September 18, 2018. On September 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the USACE’s analysis of the risks of an oil spill once the pipeline is in operation. On November 6, 2018 the court struck plaintiffs’ motion as premature.

At an October 2, 2018 scheduling conference, the USACE agreed to lodge the administrative record for Plaintiffs’ original complaint, which it has done. Challenges to the completeness of the record have been briefed and are currently pending before the Court. At the October 18 conference, the Court also scheduled summary judgment briefing on Plaintiffs’ original complaint; briefing is scheduled to conclude by the Spring of 2019.

On December 28, 2018, Judge Dick issued a General Order for the Middle District of Louisiana holding in abeyance all civil matters where the United States is a party. Notwithstanding the General Order, on January 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on their National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Waters Act claims.

On January 11, 2019, Plaintiffs attempted to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on its National Environmental Policy Act and Coastal Water Authority claims. On January 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction based on alleged permit violations, which the Court later denied. On February 11, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ August 14, 2018 motion for leave to amend their complaint.

On February 14, 2019, Judge Dick ordered that all summary judgment briefing is stayed until the Court rules on the motions challenging the completeness of the administrative record. Judge Dick further ordered that once those motions are decided, the parties will be allowed to update any summary judgment briefs they have already filed, if necessary, and that the Court will set new briefing deadlines.

On April 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking reconsideration of Judge Dick’s February 14, 2019 order staying summary judgment briefing. Defendants filed their oppositions on May 6, 2019.

Revolution

On September 10, 2018, a pipeline release and fire (the “Incident”) occurred on the Revolution pipeline, a natural gas gathering line, in the vicinity of Ivy Lane located in Center Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. There were no injuries, but there were evacuations of local residents as a precautionary measure. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) are investigating the incident. On October 29, 2018, PADEP issued a Compliance Order requiring our subsidiary, ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC (“ETC Northeast”), to cease all earth disturbance activities at the site (except as necessary to repair and maintain existing Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) and temporarily stabilize disturbed areas), implement and/or maintain the Erosion and Sediment BMPs at the site, stake the limit of disturbance, identify and report all areas of non-compliance, and submit an updated Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a Temporary Stabilization Plan, and an updated Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan. The scope of the Compliance Order has been expanded to include the disclosure to PADEP of alleged violations of environmental permits with respect to various construction and post-construction activities and restoration obligations along the 42-mile route of the Revolution line. ETC Northeast filed an appeal of the Compliance Order with the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board.

On February 8, 2019, PADEP filed a Petition to Enforce the Compliance Order with Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court. The Court issued an Order on February 14, 2019 requiring the submission of an answer to the Petition on or before March 12, 2019, and scheduled a hearing on the Petition for March 26, 2019. On March 12, 2019, ETC Northeast answered the Petition. ETC Northeast and PADEP have since agreed to a Stipulated Order regarding the issues raised in the Compliance Order, which obviated the need for a hearing. The Commonwealth Court approved the Stipulated Order on March 26, 2019. On February 8, 2019, PADEP also issued a Permit Hold on any requests for approvals/permits or permit amendments made by us or any of our subsidiaries for any projects in Pennsylvania pursuant to the state’s water laws. The Partnership filed an appeal of the Permit Hold with the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board on March 11, 2019. The Partnership continues to work through these issues with PADEP.

Chester County, Pennsylvania Investigation

In December 2018, the Chester County District Attorney (“Chester County D.A.”) sent a letter to the Partnership stating that it was investigating the Partnership and related entities for “potential crimes” related to the Mariner East pipelines.

On April 11, 2019, the Partnership was served with twenty-two grand jury subpoenas seeking a variety of documents and records sought by the Chester County Investigation Grand Jury. While the Partnership intends to cooperate with the investigation, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these allegations.

Delaware County, Pennsylvania Investigation

On March 11, 2019, the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office (“Delaware County D.A.”) announced that the Delaware County D.A. and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office (“Pennsylvania A.G.”), at the request of the Delaware County D.A., are conducting an investigation of alleged criminal misconduct involving the construction and related activities of the Mariner East pipelines in Delaware County. There are neither specifics with regard to who has made the allegations of criminal misconduct nor specifics of any such conduct. While the Partnership intends to cooperate with the investigation, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these allegations.

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 March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, accruals of approximately $43 million and $55 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.

On April 25, 2018, and as amended on April 30, 2018, State Senator Andrew Dinniman filed a Formal Complaint and Petition for Interim Emergency Relief (“Complaint”) against Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (“SPLP”) before the PUC. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that (i) the services and facilities provided by the Mariner East Pipeline (“ME1,” “ME2” or “ME2x”) in West Whiteland Township (“the Township”) are unreasonable, unsafe, inadequate, and insufficient for, among other reasons, selecting an improper and unsafe route through densely populated portions of the Township with homes, schools, and infrastructure and causing inadvertent returns and sinkholes during construction because of unstable geology in the Township; (ii) SPLP failed to warn the public of the dangers of the pipeline; (iii) the construction of ME2 and ME2x increases the risk of damage to the existing co-located ME1 pipeline; and (iv) ME1, ME2 and ME2x are not public utility facilities. Based on these allegations, Senator Dinniman’s Complaint seeks emergency relief by way of an order (i) prohibiting construction of ME2 and ME2x in the Township; (ii) prohibiting operation of ME1; (iii) in the alternative to (i) and (ii) prohibiting the construction of ME2 and ME2x and the operation of ME1 until SPLP fully assesses and the PUC approves the condition, adequacy, efficiency, safety, and reasonableness of those pipelines and the geology in which they sit; (iv) requiring SPLP to release to the public its written integrity management plan and risk analysis for these pipelines; and (v) finding that these pipelines are not public utility facilities. In short, the relief, if granted, would continue the suspension of operation of ME1 and suspend further construction of ME2 and ME2x in the Township.

Following a hearing on May 7, 2018 and 10, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth H. Barnes (“ALJ”) issued an Order on May 24, 2018 that granted Senator Dinniman’s petition for interim emergency relief and required SPLP to shut down ME1, to discontinue construction of ME2 and ME2x within the Township, and required SPLP to provide various types of information and perform various geotechnical and geophysical studies within the Township. The ALJ’s Order was immediately effective, and SPLP complied by shutting down service on ME1 and discontinuing all construction in the Township on ME2 and ME2x. The ALJ’s Order was automatically certified as a material question to the PUC, which issued an Opinion and Order on June 15, 2018 (following a public meeting on June 14, 2018) that reversed in part and affirmed in part the ALJ’s Order. PUC’s Opinion and Order permitted SPLP to resume service on ME1, but continued the shutdown of construction on ME2 and ME2x pending the submission of the following three types of information to PUC: (i) inspection and testing protocols; (ii) comprehensive emergency response plan; and (iii) safety training curriculum for employees and contractors. SPLP submitted the required information on June 22, 2018. On July 2, 2018, Senator Dinniman and intervenors responded to the submission. SPLP is also required to provide an affidavit that the PADEP has issued appropriate approvals for construction of ME2 and ME2x in the Township before recommencing construction of ME2 and ME2x locations within the Township. SPLP submitted all necessary affidavits. On August 2, 2018 the PUC entered an Order lifting the stay of construction on ME2 and ME2x in the Township with respect to four of the eight areas within the Township where the necessary environmental permits had been issued. Subsequently, after PADEP’s issuance of permit modifications for two of the four remaining construction sites, the PUC lifted the construction stay on those two sites as well. Also on August 2, 2018, the PUC ratified its prior action by notational voting of certifying for interlocutory appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court the legal issue of whether Senator Dinniman has standing to pursue this matter. Sunoco submitted a petition for permission to appeal on this issue of standing. Senator Dinniman and intervenors opposed that petition. On September 27, 2018, the Commonwealth Court issued an Order that certified for appeal the issue of Senator Dinniman’s standing. The Order stays all proceedings in the PUC.

On September 27, 2018, the Commonwealth Court issued an Order that certified for appeal the issue of Senator Dinniman’s standing. The Order stays all proceedings in the PUC. Briefing in the Commonwealth Court has been completed and oral argument has been scheduled for June 3, 2019.

On March 29, 2019, SPLP filed a supplemental affidavit with the PUC in accordance with the established procedure to request the PUC lift the stay of construction of ME2 for one of the remaining work locations in the Township – Shoen Road. That same day, Senator Dinniman filed a letter objecting to SPLP’s request, arguing the Commonwealth Court’s order staying all proceedings barred the PUC from issuing an approval to lift the stay of construction of ME2 at Shoen Road. SPLP filed a reply to Senator Dinniman’s letter on April 4, 2019 explaining that the Commonwealth Court’s order did not prevent the PUC from lifting the stay of construction of ME2 at Shoen Road. On April 25, 2019, the PUC issued an Opinion and Order that it lacked jurisdiction to lift the stay of construction of ME2 at Shoen Road in light of the Commonwealth Court’s order staying proceedings in the PUC. That same day, SPLP filed an Application for Expedited Clarification to the Commonwealth Court, which seeks to clarify that the Commonwealth Court’s stay of proceedings does not prevent the PUC from issuing an approval to lift the stay of construction of ME2 at Shoen Road, or any of the other remaining work locations in the Township. Senator Dinniman’s response to SPLP’s application was filed on May 8, 2019, and oral argument is set for May 15, 2019.

No amounts have been recorded in our March 31, 2019 or December 31, 2018 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, natural resource damages, 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 on behalf of EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) notifying SPLP and Mid-Valley Pipeline Company (“Mid-Valley”) that enforcement actions were being pursued for three separate crude oil releases: (a) an estimated 550 barrels released from the Colmesneil-to-Chester pipeline in Tyler County, Texas (“Colmesneil”) which allegedly occurred 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) which allegedly occurred in October of 2014; and (c) an estimated 40 barrels released from the Wakita 4-inch gathering line in Oklahoma which allegedly occurred in January of 2015. In January of 2019, a Consent Decree approved by all parties as well as an accompanying Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana seeking public comment and final court approval to resolve all penalties with DOJ and LDEQ for the three releases. The Consent Decree requires certain injunctive relief to be completed on the Longview-to-Mayersville pipeline within three years but the injunctive relief is not expected to have any material impact on operations. In addition to resolution of the civil penalty and injunctive relief, we continue to discuss natural resource damages with the Louisiana trustees.

On January 3, 2018, PADEP issued an Administrative Order to SPLP 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 2017, during the construction of the project. SPLP 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 SPLP took an appeal of the Administrative Order to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board on February 2, 2018. On February 8, 2018, SPLP entered into a Consent Order and Agreement with PADEP that (i) withdraws the Administrative Order; (ii) establishes requirements for compliance with permits on a going forward basis; (iii) resolves the non-compliance alleged in the Administrative Order; and (iv) conditions restart of work on an agreement by SPLP to pay a $12.6 million civil penalty to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the Consent Order and agreement, SPLP 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 SPLP had adequately addressed the issues raised in the Administrative Order and demonstrated an ability to comply with the permits. SPLP 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.

In October 2018, Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) issued a notice of proposed safety order (the “Notice”) to SPMT, a wholly owned subsidiary of ET. The Notice alleged that conditions exist on certain pipeline facilities owned and operated by SPMT in Nederland, Texas that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property or the environment. The Notice also made preliminary findings of fact and proposed corrective measures. SPMT responded to the Notice by submitting a timely written response on November 2, 2018, attended an informal consultation held on January 30, 2019 and entered into a consent agreement with PHMSA resolving the issues in the Notice as of March 2019.

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 polychlorinated biphenyls (“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 March 31, 2019, Sunoco, Inc. had been named as a PRP at approximately 38 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.



	March 31, 2019		December 31, 2018
Current	$	48	$	42
Non-current	289		295
Total environmental liabilities	$	337	$	337

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 three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, the Partnership recorded $6 million and $6 million, respectively, of expenditures related to environmental cleanup programs.

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.

Our operations are also subject to the requirements of OSHA, and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of employees. In addition, the 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.