XML 30 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities [Abstract] |
Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities | 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “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 Federal District Court case pending the resolution of two cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguments were heard in those cases on November 7, 2022. On April 14, 2023, the U.S. 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 Federal District Court ordered that the Federal District Court case would be stayed pending the resolution of another case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and that the FERC enforcement case would remain stayed. On November 13, 2023, the FERC appealed the Federal District Court order to the U.S. 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 the Federal District Court proceedings were stayed pending resolution of the case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a decision in that case on June 27, 2024. The FERC and Federal District Court proceedings remain stayed at this time. Energy Transfer and Rover intend to vigorously defend against this claim. 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 were 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”), and the Michigan Public Service Commission also subsequently appealed these orders. On April 25, 2023, the D.C. Circuit 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 filed its Petition for Review with the D.C. Circuit regarding the September 25, 2023 order. On October 25, 2023, Panhandle filed a limited request for rehearing of the September 25, 2023 order addressing arguments raised on rehearing and compliance, which was subsequently denied by operation of law on November 27, 2023. On November 17, 2023, Panhandle provided refunds to shippers and on November 30, 2023, Panhandle submitted a refund report regarding the consolidated rate proceedings, which was 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 D.C. Circuit regarding the January 5, 2024 order. On May 28, 2024, the FERC issued an order rejecting Panhandle’s refund report. On June 27, 2024, Panhandle filed a revised refund report in compliance with the FERC’s May 28, 2024 order rejecting Panhandle’s refund report and a request for rehearing of the FERC’s May 28, 2024 order rejecting Panhandle’s refund report, and provided revised refunds to shippers, or in the case of shippers whose revised refunds are less than the original amounts refunded, notices of upcoming debits. One party protested Panhandle’s revised refund report, and Panhandle submitted a response to the protest on July 24, 2024. By notice issued July 29, 2024, Panhandle’s rehearing request was deemed denied. In an order issued September 9, 2024, FERC addressed arguments raised on rehearing, modified the discussion in the May 28, 2024 order and continued to reach the same result. On September 18, 2024, Panhandle petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the September 9, 2024, July 29, 2024, and May 28, 2024 orders. On December 5, 2024, the FERC issued an order rejecting Panhandle’s June 27, 2024, refund report, ordering a corrected refund report and directing the issuance of additional refunds. On January 3, 2025, Panhandle submitted an adjusted refund report as well as a request for rehearing of the FERC’s December 5, 2024 order. The FERC approved the adjusted refund report by order dated January 23, 2025. On February 3, 2025, the FERC issued a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing for Further Consideration. On March 24, 2025, Panhandle petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the December 5, 2024 and February 3, 2025 orders. On April 4, 2025, the FERC issued an Order on Rehearing and Clarification. On May 19, 2025, the D.C. Circuit consolidated all cases before it and the consolidated cases remain in abeyance pending further order of the D.C. Circuit. 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:
| Three Months Ended June 30, |  | Six Months Ended June 30,
| 2025 |  | 2024 |  | 2025 |  | 2024
ROW expense | $ | 19 |  |  | $ | 14 |  |  | $ | 35 |  |  | $ | 27 |
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 June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, accruals of approximately $305 million and $281 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 $42 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“D.C. District Court”) challenging permits issued by the U.S. 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 D.C. District Court remanded the case back to the USACE for preparation of an Environment Impact Statement (“EIS”). On July 6, 2020, the D.C 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 D.C. Circuit which granted an administrative stay of the D.C. District Court’s July 6 order and ordered further briefing on whether to fully stay the July 6 order. On August 5, 2020, the D.C. Circuit (1) granted a stay of the portion of the D.C. 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 D.C. Circuit as to whether the USACE would be required to prepare an EIS and (3) denied a motion to stay the D.C. District Court’s order to vacate the easement during this appeal process. The August 5 order also states that the D.C. Circuit expected the USACE to clarify its position with respect to whether the USACE intended to allow the continued operation of the pipeline notwithstanding the vacatur of the easement and that the D.C. District Court may consider additional relief, if necessary. On August 10, 2020, the D.C. 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 the 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 D.C. Circuit affirmed the D.C. 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 D.C. Circuit also overturned the D.C. 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 D.C. Circuit 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 on December 17, 2021 and by the Tribes on 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 D.C. District Court scheduled a status conference for February 10, 2021 to discuss the effects of the D.C. Circuit’s January 26, 2021 order on the pending motion for injunctive relief, as well as the USACE’s expectations as to how it will proceed regarding its enforcement discretion regarding the easement. On May 3, 2021, the USACE advised the D.C. 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 D.C. District Court denied the Tribes’ request for an injunction. On June 22, 2021, the D.C. 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 on the Draft EIS were due on December 13, 2023. The USACE anticipates that a Final EIS will be issued in December 2025 and a Record of Decision will be issued in early 2026. The pipeline continues to operate pending completion of the Final EIS. Energy Transfer cannot determine when or how future lawsuits will be resolved or the impact they may have on the Bakken 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. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in Federal Court in District of Columbia Dakota Access is the subject of litigation in the D.C. District Court. The SRST sued the USACE arguing that the USACE’s alleged failure to stop Dakota Access from operating violates numerous laws, including the Mineral Leasing Act, the Government Acquisition and Streamlining Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act as well as the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. The SRST requests a permanent injunction or writ of mandamus that would compel the USACE to shut Dakota Access down pending the completion of the USACE’s EIS and decision on whether to grant Dakota Access an easement under the Mineral Leasing Act. On October 15, 2024, the SRST filed the above referenced complaint. A summons to the USACE was issued on October 17, 2024. Dakota Access, the state of North Dakota and numerous other states have intervened in the lawsuit in support of the USACE. On January 17, 2025, the USACE, Dakota Access and state intervenors (including North Dakota and thirteen other states) each filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in the new SRST litigation. Also, on January 17, 2025, the SRST filed a motion for partial summary judgment on certain of their claims. Briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete. The D.C. District Court has held briefing on the motion for partial summary judgment in abeyance pending the D.C. District Court’s decision on the motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2025, the D.C. District Court granted the motions to dismiss. On May 27, 2025, the SRST appealed the dismissal to the D.C. Circuit. Dakota Access intends to vigorously defend against this claim. Williams Antitrust Litigation On June 28, 2024, Louisiana Energy Gateway LLC, The Williams Companies, Inc., and Williams Fields Services Group, LLC (collectively, “Williams”) filed a Petition for Damages against Energy Transfer and Gulf Run Transmission, LLC (“Gulf Run”) in the 42nd Judicial District Court, Parish of DeSoto, State of Louisiana (“District Court”), alleging that Energy Transfer and/or Gulf Run have monopolized, conspired to monopolize and/or attempted to monopolize, the relevant product and geographic market for the movement of natural gas from the Haynesville Shale in northwestern Louisiana south to natural gas facilities in the Louisiana Gulf Coast (the “Relevant Market”), engaged in acquisitions that have directly enabled and incentivized to substantially lessen competition, and engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair trade practices. On September 16, 2024, Energy Transfer and Gulf Run removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (“Federal Court”). On October 4, 2024, Williams filed a Motion to Remand with the Federal Court, seeking to remand the case back to the District Court. On October 21, 2024, Energy Transfer and Gulf Run filed a consent to remand based on a subsequent change in circumstances. After the case was remanded, on November 18, 2024, Energy Transfer and Gulf Run filed a Peremptory Exception of No Cause, asserting that Williams failed to state a cause of action. The Peremptory Exception was set for hearing on February 10, 2025 and denied. The District Court has set the case for trial on September 14, 2026. 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 methyl tertiary butyl ether (“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 June 30, 2025, 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. 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 $3 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 Ohio’s 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. Energy Transfer and Rover filed a responsive brief on February 20, 2024. The State filed a reply brief on February 26, 2024. Oral argument on the appeal was held on August 27, 2024. On October 1, 2024, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge’s decision. The State of Ohio sought permission to appeal this decision from the Ohio Supreme Court. Energy Transfer and Rover have opposed such permission. On January 28, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear the State’s appeal. On April 25, 2025, the State of Ohio filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Rover filed a Brief in Opposition on June 30, 2025. The State of Ohio filed a reply brief on July 11, 2025. Energy Transfer and Rover intend to vigorously defend against this claim. Unitholder Litigation Regarding Pipeline Construction Various purported unitholders of Energy Transfer have filed derivative actions against various past and current officers and 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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. 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 January 19, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all of the claims asserted in ACERS’ amended complaint, and ACERS filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The court heard oral argument on the parties’ motions for summary judgment on July 15, 2024. On August 8, 2024, the court ruled on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. The court granted defendants’ motion in part, entering judgment for defendants on loss causation for two categories of challenged statements, thereby significantly reducing the class period and potential damages. The court also granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment in part, entering judgment for plaintiffs on the elements of falsity and the scienter of certain individuals as to four of the challenged statements. The parties settled in principle on April 23, 2025. On July 9, 2025, the court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Authorizing Dissemination of Notice of Settlement. The final settlement hearing is scheduled for October 7, 2025. 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 Exchange Act 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 U.S. 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 (the “Eastern District Court”) 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 Eastern 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 $75 million for late payment interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and interest-on-interest. This amount was later amended to $81 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 Eastern 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 Eastern 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 attorneys’ 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 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 Eastern District Court’s plan of allocation (which was part of the final judgment) did not satisfy all finality requirements. The 10th Circuit held that the Eastern 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 Eastern 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 Eastern 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 Eastern 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 Eastern 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 Class is approximately $104 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages. ETMT has appealed the entirety of the judgment to the 10th Circuit. Oral argument took place on November 20, 2024 and the parties are awaiting a decision. 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. 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, 2022, 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 directed 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 stated that the DPU will set a new procedural schedule in this matter sometime after NEG complies with the directives in the order, which Respondents have completed as of January 17, 2024. The matter remains stayed until the DPU sets a new procedural schedule. 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 and Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, our consolidated subsidiaries (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 $21 million, a pre-judgment interest award of approximately $18 million and attorney fees and other costs of approximately $5 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 January 9, 2023, Crestwood paid approximately $21 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. Oral argument was held on September 26, 2024. On December 17, 2024, the First Court of Appeals in Houston issued its opinion, in which it reversed the trial court judgment in part and affirmed it in part. The appellate court reversed the awards to Linde of $18 million in interest and $5 million for fees and other costs. This reversal reduces the judgment amount by approximately $22 million. The appellate court affirmed the damages award to Linde of $21 million. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to recompute the prejudgment interest award. Linde filed its petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court on March 17, 2025; Crestwood filed its cross petition on April 30, 2025. In July 2025, the Texas Supreme Court requested responses to the petitions for review from both Linde and Crestwood. Currently, the deadline for these responses is August 11, 2025. State of Oklahoma Attorney General – Winter Storm Uri On April 10, 2024, the State of Oklahoma, through Attorney General Gentner Drummond, filed a petition on behalf of Grand River Dam Authority against defendants ET Gathering & Processing LLC, successor by merger to Enable Midstream Partners, LP, Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission, LLC, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC and Enable Energy Resources, LLC arising out of Winter Storm Uri in February 2021. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act (79 O.S. §201, et. seq.) by acting individually and in concert with each other to unreasonably restrain trade in the natural gas market in Oklahoma during the storm. Plaintiff also alleges causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, bad faith, conspiracy and negligence. Plaintiff’s petition seeks actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. However, the actual amount sought was not specified. On June 3, 2024, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Transfer Venue, along with a Brief in Support. In its Motion to Dismiss, defendants argued that plaintiff’s petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and also that such claims should be dismissed because collateral estoppel bars plaintiff from bringing allegations inconsistent with earlier agency and judicial findings that the extreme cold weather—not defendants’ conduct—caused the natural gas shortage and resulting high prices during Winter Storm Uri. Defendants also argued that plaintiff’s suit should be dismissed for filing suit in the wrong forum or, alternatively, should be transferred to the correct county of venue (Oklahoma County). Plaintiff filed its response brief on July 12, 2024. A hearing on both motions was held on October 15, 2024. On January 16, 2025, the Judge denied all motions, noting (1) that venue is proper in Osage County, Oklahoma; (2) collateral estoppel does not bar recovery; (3) the plaintiffs can plead inconsistent theories of recovery; and (4) the recovery is public in nature and not foreclosed by statute of limitations. The case will now proceed into the discovery phase. In a separate matter filed on January 9, 2025, the State of Oklahoma through Gentner Drummond, Attorney General of Oklahoma (“Plaintiff”), filed a petition against ETC Marketing Ltd. and ETC Marketing Inc. (collectively, “ETCM”) and other natural gas marketers in Case No. CJ-25-06 in the District Court of Osage County, Oklahoma, arising out of Winter Storm Uri in February 2021. The Oklahoma Attorney General brought this action on behalf of its state agencies, political subdivisions and the people of the State of Oklahoma. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act (79 O.S. §201, et. seq.) by acting individually and in concert with each other to unreasonably restrain trade in the natural gas market in Oklahoma during the storm. Plaintiff also alleges causes of action for unjust enrichment and violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff’s petition seeks damages in excess of $75,000, including actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. However, the actual amount sought was not specified. On March 17, 2025, all defendants (including ETCM) jointly filed a motion to dismiss and brief in support. In the joint motion to dismiss, defendants asserted that FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction preempts all the Attorney General’s state-law claims and, alternatively, that the petition does not state a claim under Oklahoma antitrust law. Further, the motion argues that the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act claims are time-barred and inconsistent with the statute, and that the unjust enrichment claims are barred by Oklahoma law. Finally, the motion alleges that the Attorney General’s unjust enrichment claims fail as a matter of law because defendants sold natural gas pursuant to valid contracts and the individual consumers were not direct purchasers of natural gas from defendants. A hearing on the motion to dismiss will be held in late summer or early fall of 2025. Defendants cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation but will vigorously defend against these claims. Tax Contingencies Internal Revenue Service Audits The Partnership’s 2020 U.S. Federal income tax return is currently under examination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). In general, Energy Transfer and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to examination by the IRS, and most state tax authorities, for the 2019 and prior tax years. USAC is currently under examination by the IRS for years 2019 and 2020. The IRS has issued preliminary partnership examination changes, resulting in imputed underpayment computations of approximately $29 million, including interest, for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, there are several procedural steps to complete before a final imputed underpayment, if any, is determined. Based on discussions with the IRS, USAC recognized a charge of $1 million, which USAC believes is a reasonable estimate of the potential loss from the aggregate final imputed underpayment for the years 2019 and 2020. This $1 million estimated amount was recognized within income tax expense for the six months ended June 30, 2025. However, USAC’s final imputed underpayment, if any, has not been determined. Once determined, USAC’s general partner may either elect to pay the imputed underpayment, if any, (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly to the IRS or, if eligible, issue a revised information statement to each unitholder, or former unitholder as applicable, of USAC with respect to an audited and adjusted return. Sunoco LP New York Motor Fuel Excise Tax Audit New York State issued a motor fuel excise tax assessment to Sunoco LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunoco LP, in the amount of approximately $20 million, exclusive of penalties and interest, for the periods of March 2017 through May 2020. Sunoco LLC intends to pursue all available avenues of appeal and contest the full amount of the assessment. Sunoco LLC cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time. 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 polychlorinated biphenyls (“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 June 30, 2025, the Partnership had been named as a PRP at approximately 31 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.
| June 30, 2025 |  | December 31, 2024
Current | $ | 55 |  |  | $ | 51 |
Non-current | 218 |  |  | 227 |
Total environmental liabilities | $ | 273 |  |  | $ | 278 |
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 six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, the Partnership recorded $7 million and $4 million, respectively, of expenditures related to environmental cleanup programs. Our pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Transportation 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 the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“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.

X
- Definition REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES [Abstract] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | et_RegulatoryMattersCommitmentsContingenciesAndEnvironmentalLiabilitiesAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | et_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration