XML 44 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.24.0.1
Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2023
Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities [Abstract]  
Commitments Contingencies and Guarantees REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES:
FERC Proceedings
Rover – FERC - Stoneman House
In late 2016, FERC Enforcement Staff began a non-public investigation related to Rover’s purchase and removal of a potentially historic home (known as the Stoneman House) while Rover’s application for permission to construct the new 711-mile interstate natural gas pipeline and related facilities was pending. On March 18, 2021, FERC issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty (Docket No. IN19-4-000), ordering Rover to explain why it should not pay a $20 million civil penalty for alleged violations of FERC regulations requiring certificate holders to be forthright in their submissions of information to the FERC. Rover filed its answer and denial to the order on June 21, 2021 and a surreply on September 15, 2021. FERC issued an order on January 20, 2022 setting the matter for hearing before an administrative law judge. The hearing was set to commence on March 6, 2023; as explained below, this FERC proceeding has been stayed.
On February 1, 2022, Energy Transfer and Rover filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“Federal District Court”) seeking an order declaring that FERC must bring its enforcement action in federal district court (instead of before an administrative law judge). Also on February 1, 2022, Energy Transfer and Rover filed an expedited request to stay the proceedings before the FERC administrative law judge pending the outcome of the Federal District Court case. On May 24, 2022, the Federal District Court ordered a stay of the FERC’s enforcement case and the District Court case pending the resolution of two cases pending before the United States Supreme Court. Arguments were heard in those cases on November 7, 2022. On April 14, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held against the government in both cases, finding that the federal district courts had jurisdiction to hear those suits and to resolve the parties’ constitutional challenges. The cases were remanded to the federal district courts for further proceedings.
On September 13, 2023 the District Court ordered that the District Court case would be stayed pending the resolution of another case pending before the United States Supreme Court and that the FERC enforcement case would remain stayed. Energy Transfer and Rover intend to vigorously defend this claim. On November 13, 2023, the FERC appealed the District Court order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On December 11, 2023, FERC filed a motion to withdraw that appeal, which the Fifth Circuit granted on December 12, 2023. The FERC and District Court proceedings remain stayed pending resolution of the case pending before the United States Supreme Court. A decision on that Supreme Court case is expected by June 2024.
Rover – FERC - Tuscarawas
In mid-2017, FERC Enforcement Staff began a non-public investigation regarding allegations that diesel fuel may have been included in the drilling mud at the Tuscarawas River horizontal directional drilling (“HDD”) operations. Rover and the Partnership are cooperating with the investigation. In 2019, Enforcement Staff provided Rover with a notice pursuant to Section 1b.19 of the FERC regulations that Enforcement Staff intended to recommend that the FERC pursue an enforcement action against Rover and the Partnership. On December 16, 2021, FERC issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty (Docket No. IN17-4-000), ordering Rover and Energy Transfer to show cause why they should not be found to have violated Section 7(e) of the NGA, Section 157.20 of FERC’s regulations, and the Rover Pipeline Certificate Order, and assessed civil penalties of $40 million.
Rover and Energy Transfer filed their answer to this order on March 21, 2022, and Enforcement Staff filed a reply on April 20, 2022. Rover and Energy Transfer filed their surreply to this order on May 13, 2022. FERC has taken no further action on the case since that time. The primary contractor (and one of the subcontractors) responsible for the HDD operations of the Tuscarawas River site have agreed to indemnify Rover and the Partnership for any and all losses, including any fines and penalties from government agencies, resulting from their actions in conducting such HDD operations. Given the stage of the proceedings, the Partnership is unable at this time to provide an assessment of the potential outcome or range of potential liability, if any; however, the Partnership believes the indemnity described above will be applicable to the penalty proposed by Enforcement Staff and intends to vigorously defend itself against the subject claims.
Other FERC Proceedings
By an order issued on January 16, 2019, the FERC initiated a review of Panhandle’s then existing rates pursuant to Section 5 of the NGA to determine whether the rates charged by Panhandle are just and reasonable and set the matter for hearing. On August 30, 2019, Panhandle filed a general rate proceeding under Section 4 of the NGA. The NGA Section 5 and Section 4 proceedings were consolidated by order of the Chief Judge on October 1, 2019. The initial decision by the administrative law judge was issued on March 26, 2021, and on December 16, 2022, the FERC issued its order on the initial decision. On January 17, 2023, Panhandle and the Michigan Public Service Commission each filed a request for rehearing of FERC’s order on the initial decision, which were denied by operation of law as of February 17, 2023. On March 23, 2023, Panhandle appealed these orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“Court of Appeals”), and the Michigan Public Service Commission also subsequently appealed these orders. On April 25, 2023, the Court of Appeals consolidated Panhandle’s and Michigan Public Service Commission’s appeals and stayed the consolidated appeal proceeding while the FERC further considered the requests for rehearing of its December 16, 2022 order. On September 25, 2023, the FERC issued its order addressing arguments raised on rehearing and compliance, which denied our requests for rehearing. Panhandle has timely filed its Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals regarding the September 25, 2023 order. On October 25, 2023, Panhandle filed a limited request for rehearing of the September 25 order addressing arguments raised on rehearing and compliance, which was subsequently denied by operation of law on November 27, 2023. On November 30, 2023, Panhandle submitted a refund report regarding the consolidated rate proceedings, which has been protested by several parties. On January 5, 2024, the FERC issued a second order addressing arguments raised on rehearing in which it modified certain discussion from its September 25, 2023 order and sustained its prior conclusions. Panhandle has timely filed its Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals regarding the January 5, 2024 order.
On December 1, 2022, Sea Robin filed a rate case pursuant to Section 4 of the NGA. By order dated June 29, 2023, a revised procedural schedule was adopted in this proceeding setting the commencement of the hearing for January 9, 2024, with an initial decision anticipated by May 21, 2024. Subsequently, by Order of the Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge, deadlines in the procedural schedule were extended, including revised hearing commencement and initial decisions deadlines to March 26, 2024 and August 8, 2024, respectively. On November 29, 2023, the parties reached a settlement in principle and the settlement was filed with the FERC on December 29, 2023.
In May 2021, the FERC commenced an audit of SPLP for the period from January 1, 2018 to present to evaluate SPLP’s compliance with its FERC oil tariffs, the accounting requirements of the Uniform System of Accounts as prescribed by the FERC, and the FERC’s Form No. 6 reporting requirements. An audit report was received in September 2023 noting no issues that would have a material impact on the Partnership's financial position or results of operations.
Commitments
In the normal course of business, Energy Transfer 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. Energy Transfer believes that the terms of these agreements are commercially reasonable and will not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial position or results of operations.
Our joint venture agreements require that we fund our proportionate share of capital contributions to our unconsolidated affiliates. Such contributions will depend upon the unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital projects or repayment of long-term obligations.
We have certain non-cancelable rights-of-way (“ROW”) commitments which require fixed payments and either expire upon our chosen abandonment or at various dates in the future. The following table reflects ROW expense included in operating expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations:
Years Ended December 31,
202320222021
ROW expense$68 $64 $48 
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. Due to the flammable and combustible nature of natural gas and crude oil, the potential exists for personal injury and/or property damage to occur 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.
We or our subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings, arbitrations 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 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.
As of December 31, 2023 and 2022, accruals of approximately $285 million and $200 million, respectively, were reflected on our consolidated balance sheets related to contingent obligations that met both the probable and reasonably estimable criteria. In addition, we may recognize additional contingent losses in the future related to (i) contingent matters for which a loss is currently considered reasonably possible but not probable and/or (ii) losses in excess of amounts that have already been accrued for such contingent matters. In some of these cases, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued. For such matters where additional contingent losses can be reasonably estimated, the range of additional losses is estimated to be up to approximately $200 million.
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 or our estimates of reasonably possible losses prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome.
The following sections include descriptions of certain matters that could impact the Partnership’s financial position, results of operations and/or cash flows in future periods. The following sections also include updates to certain matters that have previously been disclosed, even if those matters are not anticipated to have a potentially significant impact on future periods. In addition to the matters disclosed in the following sections, the Partnership is also involved in multiple other matters that could impact future periods, including other lawsuits and arbitration related to the Partnership’s commercial agreements. With respect to such matters, contingencies that met both the probable and reasonably estimable criteria have been included in the accruals disclosed above, and the range of additional losses disclosed above also reflects any relevant amounts for such matters.
Dakota Access Pipeline
On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“SRST”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”) challenging permits issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) that allowed Dakota Access to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The case was subsequently amended to challenge an easement issued by the USACE that allowed the pipeline to cross land owned by the
USACE adjacent to the Missouri River. Dakota Access and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”) intervened. Separate lawsuits filed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe (“OST”) and the Yankton Sioux Tribe (“YST”) were consolidated with this action and several individual tribal members intervened (collectively, with SRST and CRST, the “Tribes”). On March 25, 2020, the District Court remanded the case back to the USACE for preparation of an Environment Impact Statement (“EIS”). On July 6, 2020, the District Court vacated the easement and ordered the Dakota Access Pipeline to be shut down and emptied of oil by August 5, 2020. Dakota Access and the USACE appealed to the Court of Appeals which granted an administrative stay of the District Court’s July 6 order and ordered further briefing on whether to fully stay the July 6 order. On August 5, 2020, the Court of Appeals (1) granted a stay of the portion of the District Court order that required Dakota Access to shut the pipeline down and empty it of oil, (2) denied a motion to stay the March 25 order pending a decision on the merits by the Court of Appeals as to whether the USACE would be required to prepare an EIS and (3) denied a motion to stay the District Court’s order to vacate the easement during this appeal process. The August 5 order also states that the Court of Appeals expected the USACE to clarify its position with respect to whether USACE intended to allow the continued operation of the pipeline notwithstanding the vacatur of the easement and that the District Court may consider additional relief, if necessary.
On August 10, 2020, the District Court ordered the USACE to submit a status report by August 31, 2020, clarifying its position with regard to its decision-making process with respect to the continued operation of the pipeline. On August 31, 2020, the USACE submitted a status report that indicated that it considered the presence of the pipeline at the Lake Oahe crossing without an easement to constitute an encroachment on federal land, and that it was still considering whether to exercise its enforcement discretion regarding this encroachment. The Tribes subsequently filed a motion seeking an injunction to stop the operation of the pipeline and both USACE and Dakota Access filed briefs in opposition of the motion for injunction. The motion for injunction was fully briefed as of January 8, 2021.
On January 26, 2021, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s March 25, 2020 order requiring an EIS and its July 6, 2020 order vacating the easement. In this same January 26 order, the Court of Appeals also overturned the District Court’s July 6, 2020 order that the pipeline shut down and be emptied of oil. Dakota Access filed for rehearing en banc on April 12, 2021, which the Court of Appeals denied. On September 20, 2021, Dakota Access filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Oppositions were filed by the Solicitor General (December 17, 2021) and the Tribes (December 16, 2021). Dakota Access filed their reply on January 4, 2022. On February 22, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
The District Court scheduled a status conference for February 10, 2021 to discuss the effects of the Court of Appeals’ January 26, 2021 order on the pending motion for injunctive relief, as well as USACE’s expectations as to how it will proceed regarding its enforcement discretion regarding the easement. On May 3, 2021, USACE advised the District Court that it had not changed its position with respect to its opposition to the Tribes’ motion for injunction. On May 21, 2021, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. On June 22, 2021, the District Court terminated the consolidated lawsuits and dismissed all remaining outstanding counts without prejudice.
On September 8, 2023, the USACE published the Draft EIS. Comments to the Draft EIS were due on December 13, 2023. The USACE anticipates that a Final EIS and Record of Decision would be issued in 2024. The pipeline continues to operate pending completion of the EIS. Energy Transfer cannot determine when or how future lawsuits will be resolved or the impact they may have on the Bakken Pipeline, which consists of both Dakota Access and the Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline; however, Energy Transfer expects that after the law and complete record are fully considered, any such proceeding will be resolved in a manner that will allow the pipeline to continue to operate.
In addition, lawsuits and/or regulatory proceedings or actions of this or a similar nature could result in interruptions to construction or operations of current or future projects, delays in completing those projects and/or increased project costs, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
Louisiana Dispute with New Generation Gas Gathering LLC
On August 31, 2023, Energy Partners, LP and ETC Texas Pipeline, LTD—corrected the next day to be ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd, Gulf Run Transmission LLC, Enable Midstream Partners LP and ETC Tiger Pipeline LLC (collectively “Energy Transfer”), filed a petition for declaratory judgment against New Generation Gas Gathering LLC (“NG3”) in the 42nd Judicial District Court of DeSoto Parish, Louisiana. In relation to seven specific servitudes in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana underlying Energy Transfer natural gas pipelines, Energy Transfer requested declarations from the Court that pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code Article 720, NG3 must obtain Energy Transfer’s permission to install NG3’s proposed pipelines across the Energy Transfer servitudes so that Energy Transfer may determine if NG3’s proposed installation of its proposed pipelines would interfere with Energy Transfer’s use of its existing servitudes.
On November 13, 2023, NG3 filed its answer and reconventional demand, a Louisiana term for counterclaim, asserting six causes of action against of all the entities asserting the claim as well as Energy Transfer LP. In Count I, NG3 seeks declaratory judgment that Energy Transfer lacks the right to object to its proposed crossings of Energy Transfer’s natural gas pipelines that adversely affect Energy Transfer. In Counts II–VI, NG3 asserts five causes of action alleging that Energy Transfer’s objection and lawsuit seeking court determination that it has the right to object to NG3’s request to cross Energy Transfer’s pipelines more than one hundred times constitutes tortious conduct, an abuse of Energy Transfer’s rights, an unfair trade practice, and a violation of Louisiana Monopolies Act sections prohibiting conspiracies and monopolies/attempted monopolies.
On December 7, 2023, the trial court set the deadline for Energy Transfer to respond to NG3’s reconventional demand as February 9, 2024, set a hearing on any exceptions for March 25, 2024, and tentatively set a trial date for September 9, 2024. The parties have begun written discovery. The Court’s schedule is subject to dispute among the parties and has not yet been resolved by the Court.
On February 7, 2024, the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Public Protection Division (the “AG”) gave notice of a complaint filed by NG3. NG3 asserts that Energy Transfer violated Louisiana Revised Statutes 51:1401, et seq., the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The AG has not investigated this matter and it makes no determination as to the merits of same.
Energy Transfer cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation but intends to vigorously defend themselves.
Mont Belvieu Incident
On June 26, 2016, a hydrocarbon storage well located on another operator’s facility adjacent to Lone Star NGL Mont Belvieu LP’s (“Lone Star,” now known as Energy Transfer Mont Belvieu NGLs LP) 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 resumed at the facilities in the fall of 2016, with the exception of one of Lone Star’s storage wells at the North Terminal that has not been returned to service. Lone Star has obtained payment for most of the losses it has submitted to the adjacent operator. Lone Star continues to quantify and seek reimbursement for outstanding losses.
MTBE Litigation
ETC Sunoco and Energy Transfer R&M (collectively, “Sunoco Defendants”) 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 December 31, 2023, Sunoco Defendants are defendants in two cases: one case initiated by the State of Maryland and one by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The actions brought also named as defendants ETO, ETP Holdco Corporation and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P., now known as Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. ETP Holdco Corporation and Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Energy Transfer.
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.
Litigation Filed By or Against Williams
In April and May 2016, The Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams”) filed two lawsuits (the “Williams Litigation”) against Energy Transfer, LE GP, LLC, and, in one of the lawsuits, Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC (collectively, “Energy Transfer Defendants”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (“the Court”), alleging that the Energy Transfer Defendants breached their obligations under the Energy Transfer-Williams merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”). In general, Williams alleges that the Energy Transfer 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) issuing the Partnership’s Series A convertible preferred units (the “Issuance”) and (c) making allegedly untrue representations and
warranties in the Merger Agreement. Williams asked the Court to compel the Energy Transfer Defendants to close the merger or take various other affirmative actions.
After a two-day trial on June 20 and 21, 2016, the Court ruled in favor of the Energy Transfer Defendants and issued a declaratory judgment that Energy Transfer could terminate the merger after June 28, 2016 because of Latham’s inability to provide the required 721 Opinion. The Court did not reach a decision regarding Williams’ claims related to the Issuance or certain of the alleged untrue representations and warranties. On March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed this ruling on the June 2016 trial. In September 2016, the parties filed amended pleadings. Williams filed an amended complaint seeking a $410 million termination fee (the “Termination Fee”) based on the alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement listed above. The Energy Transfer Defendants filed amended counterclaims and affirmative defenses, asserting that Williams materially breached the Merger Agreement by, among other things, (a) modifying and qualifying its board recommendation in a manner adverse to the merger, (b) failing to use its reasonable best efforts to consummate the merger, (c) failing to provide material information to Energy Transfer for inclusion in the Form S-4 related to the merger, (d) failing to facilitate the financing of the merger and (e) breaching the Merger Agreement’s forum-selection clause. The Energy Transfer Defendants sought a $1.48 billion termination fee under the Merger Agreement and additional damages caused by Williams’ misconduct.
On September 29, 2016, Williams filed a motion to dismiss the Energy Transfer Defendants’ amended counterclaims and to strike certain of the Energy Transfer Defendants’ affirmative defenses. On December 1, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Williams’ motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed, among other things, the Energy Transfer Defendants’ claim for a $1.48 billion termination fee.
Trial was held on all remaining claims on May 10-17, 2021, and on December 29, 2021, the Court ruled in favor of Williams and awarded it the Termination Fee plus certain fees and expenses, holding that the Issuance breached the Merger Agreement and that Williams had not materially breached the Merger Agreement, though the Court awarded sanctions against Williams due to its CEO’s intentional spoliation of evidence. The Court subsequently awarded Williams approximately $190 million in attorneys’ fees, expenses and pre-judgment interest.
On September 21, 2022, the Court entered a final judgment against the Energy Transfer Defendants in the amount of approximately $601 million plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 3.5% per year, compounded quarterly. The Energy Transfer Defendants filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 2022 and filed their opening brief in support of their appeal on December 30, 2022. Williams filed their answering brief on January 20, 2023, and the Energy Transfer Defendants filed their reply brief on February 6, 2023. The Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument on July 12, 2023.
On October 10, 2023, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. On October 25, 2023, Energy Transfer Defendants filed a motion for reargument. On November 17, 2023, the Delaware Supreme Court denied the motion.
The mandate issued upon the disposition of that motion; at which time the previously-stayed judgment became effective, plus additional post-judgment interest.
The Energy Transfer Defendants paid the judgment (in the amount of approximately $627 million) on November 28, 2023, concluding this matter.
Rover - State of Ohio
On November 3, 2017, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) filed suit against Rover and other defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”) seeking to recover approximately $2.6 million in civil penalties allegedly owed and certain injunctive relief related to permit compliance. The Defendants filed several motions to dismiss, which were granted on all counts. The Ohio EPA appealed, and on December 9, 2019, the Fifth District Court of Appeals entered a unanimous judgment affirming the trial court. The Ohio EPA sought review from the Ohio Supreme Court. On April 22, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court granted the review. On March 17, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded to the Ohio trial court. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Rover that the State of Ohio had waived its rights under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act but remanded to the trial court to determine whether any of the allegations fell outside the scope of the waiver.
On remand, the Ohio EPA voluntarily dismissed four of the other five defendants and dismissed one of its counts against Rover. In its Fourth Amended Complaint, the Ohio EPA removed all paragraphs that alleged violations by the four dismissed defendants, including those where the dismissed defendants were alleged to have acted jointly with Rover or others. At a June 2, 2022, status conference, the trial judge set a schedule for Rover and the other remaining defendant to file motions to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On August 1, 2022, Rover and the other remaining defendant each
filed their respective motions. Briefing on those motions was completed on November 4, 2022. By order issued on October 20, 2023, the trial judge dismissed the Ohio EPA’s Fourth Amended Complaint.
On November 17, 2023, the State of Ohio appealed the trial judge’s decision to Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals. The State filed its initial brief on January 8, 2024 and Energy Transfer’s and Rover’s responsive brief is currently due February 20, 2024. Energy Transfer and Rover intend to vigorously defend this claim.
Unitholder Litigation Regarding Pipeline Construction
Various purported unitholders of Energy Transfer have filed derivative actions against various past and current members of Energy Transfer’s Board of Directors, LE GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer, as a nominal defendant that assert claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, breach of Energy Transfer’s Partnership Agreement, tortious interference, abuse of control and gross mismanagement related primarily to matters involving the construction of pipelines in Pennsylvania and Ohio. They also seek damages and changes to Energy Transfer’s corporate governance structure. See Bettiol v. LE GP, Case No. 3:19-cv-02890-X (N.D. Tex.); Davidson v. Kelcy L. Warren, Cause No. DC-20-02322 (44th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas); Harris v. Kelcy L. Warren, Case No. 2:20-cv-00364-GAM (E.D. Pa.); Barry King v. LE GP, Case No. 3:20-cv-00719-X (N.D. Tex.); Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc. v. LE GP, et al., Case No. 2022-0139-SG (Del. Ch.); Elliot v. LE GP LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01527-B (N.D. Tex.); Chapa v. Kelcy L. Warren, et al., Index No. 611307/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Elliott v. LE GP et al, Cause No. DC-22-14194 (Dallas County, Tex.); and Charles King v. LE GP, LLC et al, Cause No. DC-22-14159 (Dallas County, Texas). The Barry King action that was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:20-cv-00719-X) has been consolidated with the Bettiol action. On August 9, 2022, the Elliot action that was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:22-cv-01527-B) was voluntarily dismissed.
Another purported unitholder of Energy Transfer, Allegheny County Employees’ Retirement System (“ACERS”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a suit under the federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class, against Energy Transfer and three of Energy Transfer’s directors: Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds and Thomas E. Long. See Allegheny County Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Energy Transfer LP, Case No. 2:20-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.). On June 15, 2020, ACERS filed an amended complaint and added as additional defendants Energy Transfer directors Marshall S. McCrea and Matthew S. Ramsey, as well as Michael J. Hennigan and Joseph McGinn. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related primarily to matters involving the construction of pipelines in Pennsylvania. On August 14, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss ACERS’ amended complaint. On April 6, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court held that ACERS could proceed with its claims regarding certain statements put at issue by the amended complaint while also dismissing claims based on other statements. The court also dismissed without prejudice the claims against defendants McReynolds, McGinn and Hennigan. Discovery is ongoing. On August 23, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part ACERS’ motion for class certification. The court certified a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired common units of Energy Transfer between February 25, 2017 and November 11, 2019.
On June 3, 2022, another purported unitholder of Energy Transfer, Mike Vega, filed suit, purportedly on behalf of a class, against Energy Transfer and Messrs. Warren, Long, McCrea and Whitehurst. See Vega v. Energy Transfer LP et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-4614 (S.D.N.Y.). The action asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related primarily to statements made in connection with the construction of Rover. On August 10, 2022, the court appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council and Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico (the “New Mexico Funds”) as lead plaintiffs. New Mexico Funds filed an amended complaint on September 30, 2022 and added as additional defendants Energy Transfer directors John W. McReynolds and Matthew S. Ramsey. On November 7, 2022, the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer and transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the New Mexico Funds’ amended complaint.
The defendants cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing, nor can the defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. However, the defendants believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously contest them.
Cline Class Action
On July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Oklahoma against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), LLC (now known as Energy Transfer R&M) and Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. (collectively, “ETMT”) that alleged ETMT failed to make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments. On October 3, 2019, the District Court certified a class to include all persons
who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or after July 7, 2012, and who have not already been paid statutory interest on the untimely payments (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds that qualify as “minimum pay,” prior period adjustments and pass through payments, as well as governmental agencies and publicly traded oil and gas companies.
After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion that awarded the Class actual damages of $74.8 million for late payment interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and interest-on-interest. This amount was later amended to $80.7 million to account for interest accrued from trial (the “Order”). Judge Gibney also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $75 million. The Class is also seeking attorneys’ fees.
On August 27, 2020, ETMT filed its Notice of Appeal with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (“10th Circuit”) and appealed the entirety of the Order. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was set for November 15, 2021. However, on November 1, 2021, the 10th Circuit dismissed the appeal due to jurisdictional concerns with finality of the Order. En banc rehearing of this decision was denied on November 29, 2021. On December 1, 2021, ETMT filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the 10th Circuit to correct the jurisdictional problems and secure final judgment. On February 2, 2022, the 10th Circuit denied the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, citing that there are other avenues for ETMT to obtain adequate relief. On February 10, 2022, ETMT filed a Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation Order and Issue a Rule 58 Judgment with the trial court, requesting the District Court to enter a final judgment in compliance with the Rules. ETMT also filed an injunction with the trial court to enjoin all efforts by plaintiffs to execute on any non-final judgment. On March 31, 2022, Judge Gibney denied the Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation, reiterating his thoughts that the order constitutes a final judgment. Judge Gibney granted the injunction in part (placing a hold on enforcement efforts for 60 days) and denied the injunction in part. The injunction has since been lifted.
Despite the fact that ETMT has taken the position that the judgment is not final and not subject to execution, the Class engaged in asset discovery and actively tried to collect on the judgment through garnishment proceedings from ETMT’s customers. ETMT unsuccessfully tried to deposit the funds into the District Court’s Registry. Accordingly, to stop the garnishment proceedings, on December 2, 2022, ETMT wired approximately $161 million to the Plaintiff’s approved Plan Administrator, which represented at the time the full amount of the judgment with attorney’s fees and post-judgment interest. ETMT did so without waiving its ability to pursue its pending appeal or its right to appeal the merits of the judgment. Plaintiff has since dismissed the garnishment actions.
ETMT cannot predict the outcome of the case, nor can ETMT predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the appeal. ETMT has been vigorous and diligent in its appeals relating to the finality issues underlying the Order and appealed the denial of the Motion to Modify to the 10th Circuit in an attempt to get a decision on finality. The appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument was held on March 21, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the 10th Circuit ruled in favor of ETMT and found that the district court’s plan of allocation (which was part of the final judgment) did not satisfy all finality requirements. The Court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying ETMT’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion to Modify and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The case was sent back to the trial court so that the district court could fix the finality requirements with the judgment. Further, ETMT sought and recovered a return of funds deposited with the Plan Administrator; Class Counsel did not oppose this motion.
At a status hearing on September 28, 2023, Class Counsel indicated that it would seek additional interest up until the date that the final judgment is entered. The District Court asked for briefing on the issue of additional interest and held a hearing on October 17, 2023 to address this issue further and enter a ruling as to whether additional interest should be added to the judgment total. During the hearing, the District Court ruled that additional interest should be awarded at the 12% statutory rate from the date of the prior improper judgment up until October 17, 2023. However, the Judge tolled the running of interest for the time period during which the Plan Administrator was in possession of ETMT’s funds (between November 2, 2022 and October 10, 2023). Based on this ruling, the Class calculated that approximately $23 million in additional interest should be added to the final judgment. On October 19, 2023, the District Court entered the new final judgment with a corrected Plan of Allocation. Both parties agree that this newly entered judgment fixes the finality concerns and will allow an appeal to the 10th Circuit on the merits. With the inclusion of additional interest, the total amount awarded to the Plaintiffs is approximately $104 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages. ETMT intends on appealing the entirety of the judgment and filed its Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit on December 15, 2023.
Energy Transfer LP and ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd. v. Culberson Midstream LLC, et al.
On April 8, 2022, Energy Transfer and ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd. (“ETC,” and together with Energy Transfer, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Culberson Midstream LLC (“Culberson”), Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC (“Culberson Equity”), and Moontower Resources Gathering, LLC (“Moontower”). On October 1, 2018, ETC and Culberson entered into a Gas
Gathering and Processing Agreement (the “Bypass GGPA”) under which Culberson was to gather gas from its dedicated acreage and deliver all committed gas exclusively to ETC. In connection with the Bypass GGPA, on October 18, 2018, Energy Transfer and Culberson Equity also entered into an Option Agreement. Under the Option Agreement, Culberson Equity and Moontower had the right (but not the obligation) to require Energy Transfer to purchase their respective interests in Culberson by way of a put option. Notably, the Option Agreement is only enforceable so long as the parties comply with the Bypass GGPA. In late March 2022, Culberson Equity and Moontower submitted a put notice to Energy Transfer seeking to require Energy Transfer to purchase their respective interests in Culberson for approximately $93 million. On April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed suit against Culberson, Culberson Equity and Moontower asserting claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract, contending that they materially breached the Bypass GGPA by sending some committed gas to third parties and also by failing to send any gas to Plaintiffs since March 2020, and thus that Culberson Equity’s and Moontower’s put notice is void. Culberson, Culberson Equity, and Moontower have answered the lawsuit. Additionally, Culberson filed a counterclaim against ETC for breach of the Bypass GGPA, seeking the recovery of damages and attorneys’ fees. Culberson Equity and Moontower also filed a counterclaim against Energy Transfer for (1) breach of the Option Agreement, and (2) a declaratory judgment concerning Energy Transfer’s alleged obligation to purchase the Culberson interests. The lawsuit is pending in the 193rd Judicial District Court (“the Court”) in Dallas County, Texas. On April 27, 2022, Culberson filed an application for a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction, and Culberson Equity and Moontower joined in that request. The Court held a hearing on the application on April 28 and denied the injunction. In early May, Culberson filed a motion to enforce the appraisal process and confirm the validity of their put price calculation, to which Plaintiffs objected. On July 11, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the motion, and on July 19, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to engage in an appraisal process regarding the put price. An independent appraiser was appointed and issued his decision on October 15, 2022, concluding that the put price totals $93 million. Plaintiffs have consistently reiterated their objection to the appraisal process and conclusion.
On October 6, 2022, Culberson, Culberson Equity and Moontower filed a motion for summary judgment, but the Court postponed considering it until after further document discovery and depositions. On December 7, 2022, Plaintiffs amended their petition to add Moontower Resources Operating, LLC and Moontower Resources WI, LLC as Defendants, and to assert a claim against all Defendants for fraudulent inducement.
Defendants refiled updated motions for summary judgment on May 5, 2023, seeking summary judgment on: (1) Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims on a no-evidence basis; (2) Plaintiffs’ fraud and alter ego claims on a no-evidence basis; and (3) Plaintiffs’ fraud claim on a traditional basis. Plaintiffs responded on June 6, 2023. Defendants submitted their replies in support of summary judgment on June 12, 2023.
On June 5, 2023, counsel for Defendants informed the Court via a letter that Defendants were continuing the submission date of the no-evidence motion regarding Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims, noting that such submission would be rescheduled along with a traditional summary judgment motion regarding the same subject matter. To that end, on July 17, 2023, Defendant Culberson Midstream, LLC filed a Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract and Declaratory Judgment Claims, while Defendants Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC and Moontower Resources Gathering filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Breach of the Option Agreement. Further, on July 25, 2023, Defendants filed a Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Damages and Recission. On July 28, 2023, in turn, Plaintiff ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd. filed a Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract and Declaratory Judgment.
On September 20, 2023, the Court held oral argument on the various Motions for Summary Judgment. Following oral argument, on September 26, 2023, the Court ruled on each of the Motions. The Court denied Defendants’ Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Fraud, Defendants’ No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs’ Fraud and Alter Ego Claims, Defendants’ Traditional and No Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Damages and Rescission, and Plaintiff ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd.’s Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract and Declaratory Judgment. The Court granted Culberson Midstream, LLC’s Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Seeking Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract and Declaratory Judgment Claims and Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC and Moontower Resources Gathering, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Breach of the Option Agreement. Defendants have filed a motion seeking permission from the appellate court to allow an interlocutory appeal of the order denying their Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Fraud. That motion remains pending before the appellate court.
Discovery has closed in this matter. Trial on Plaintiff Energy Transfer LP’s fraud claim is currently set for June 18, 2024. Plaintiffs cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation or the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve it.
Massachusetts Attorney General v. New England Gas Company
On July 7, 2011, the Massachusetts Attorney General (the “MA AG”) filed a regulatory complaint with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (“DPU”) against New England Gas Company (“NEG”) with respect to certain environmental cost recoveries. NEG was an operating division of Southern Union Company (“SUG”), and the NEG assets were acquired in connection with the merger transaction with Energy Transfer in March 2012. Subsequent to the merger, in 2013, SUG sold the NEG assets to Liberty Utilities (“Liberty,” and together with NEG and SUG, “Respondents”) and retained certain potential liabilities, including the environmental cost recoveries with respect to the pending complaint before the DPU. Specifically, the MA AG seeks a refund to NEG’s ratepayers for approximately $18 million in legal fees associated with SUG environmental response activities. The MA AG requests that the DPU initiate an investigation into NEG’s collection and reconciliation of recoverable environmental costs, namely: (1) the legal fees charged by the Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman firm and passed through the recovery mechanism since 2005; (2) the legal fees charged by the Bishop, London & Dodds firm and passed through the recovery mechanisms since 2005; and (3) the legal fees passed through the recovery mechanism that the MA AG contends only qualify for a lesser (i.e., 50%) level of recovery. Respondents maintain that, by tariff, these costs are recoverable through rates charged to NEG customers pursuant to the environmental remediation adjustment clause program. After the Respondents answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss in 2011, the Hearing Officer deferred decision on the motion to dismiss and issued a stay of discovery pending resolution of a discovery dispute, which it later lifted on June 24, 2013, permitting the case to resume. However, the MA AG failed to take any further steps to prosecute its claims for nearly seven years. The case remained largely dormant until February 2022, when the Hearing Officer denied the motion to dismiss. After receiving input from the parties, the Hearing Officer entered a procedural schedule on March 16, 2022 (which was amended slightly on August 22, 2022). The parties engaged in discovery and the preparation of pre-filed testimony. Respondents submitted their pre-filed testimony on July 11, 2022. The MA AG served three sets of discovery requests on Respondents on September 9, September 12, and September 20, respectively, to which Respondents timely responded. On October 5, 2022, the MA AG requested that the DPU issue a ruling on whether the information that Respondents redacted in their attorneys’ fees invoices is protected by the attorney-client privilege. On the same day, the MA AG also filed a Motion to Stay the Procedural Schedule pending a ruling on the privilege issue. On October 6, 2022, without even affording Respondents the opportunity to respond, the DPU granted the MA AG’s request to stay the procedural schedule. Accordingly, all previous deadlines (including the MA AG’s October 7, 2022, deadline to submit direct pre-filed testimony) are presently stayed. On October 18, 2023, the DPU issued an Order on Attorney General’s Motion to Compel, ruling on issues originally raised in a motion to compel that the MA AG filed in 2013. The October 18, 2023 Order directs NEG to review its redactions again and, to the extent any invoices are completely redacted or heavily redacted, to provide more lightly redacted versions within 30 days. The October 18, 2023 Order also states that the MDPU will set a new procedural schedule in this matter sometime after NEG complies with the directives in the order, which the Company has completed as of January 17, 2024.
Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP – Linde Litigation
On December 23, 2019, Linde Engineering North America Inc. (“Linde”) filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Harris County, Texas alleging that Arrow Field Services, LLC, our consolidated subsidiary, and Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP (collectively, “Crestwood”) breached a contract entered into in March 2018 under which Linde was to provide engineering, procurement and construction services to Crestwood related to the completion of the construction of the Bear Den II cryogenic processing plant.
Trial was held in June 2022, and a final judgment was entered on October 24, 2022. The final judgment includes an award of damages of approximately $20.7 million, a pre-judgment interest award of approximately $17.7 million and attorney fees and other costs of approximately $4.7 million. Crestwood has insurance coverage related to certain pre-judgment interest awards but has not recorded a receivable related to any potential insurance recovery on June 30, 2023. On January 9, 2023, Crestwood paid approximately $21.2 million to the Court Registry under protest to mitigate the impact of post-judgment interest. Crestwood filed a Notice of Appeal on January 13, 2023, and filed its Appellate Brief on September 29, 2023. Linde’s response was filed on February 8, 2024. Crestwood anticipates that oral argument will be held in late 2024. Crestwood is unable to predict the ultimate outcome on the appeal related to this matter.
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 our 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.
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 be contractually 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 the Partnership no longer operates, closed and/or sold refineries and other formerly owned sites.
•The Partnership 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, 2023, the Partnership had been named as a PRP at approximately 32 identified or potentially identifiable “Superfund” sites under federal and/or comparable state law. The Partnership is usually one of a number of companies identified as a PRP at a site. The Partnership has reviewed the nature and extent of its involvement at each site and other relevant circumstances and, based upon the Partnership’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 following table 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,
 20232022
Current$42 $54 
Non-current235 228 
Total environmental liabilities$277 $282 
We have 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, 2023 and 2022, the Partnership recorded $29 million and $30 million, respectively, of expenditures related to environmental cleanup programs.
Our pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the DOT under PHMSA, pursuant to which PHMSA has established requirements relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of pipeline facilities. Moreover, 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 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; however, there is no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future.