| Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities | REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES FERC Proceedings By order issued January 16, 2019, the FERC initiated a review of Panhandle’s existing rates pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act to determine whether the rates currently charged by Panhandle are just and reasonable and set the matter for hearing. Panhandle filed a cost and revenue study on April 1, 2019. An initial decision is expected to be issued in the first quarter of 2020. By order issued February 19, 2019, the FERC initiated a review of Southwest Gas Storage Company’s existing rates pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act to determine whether the rates currently charged by Southwest Gas Storage Company are just and reasonable and set the matter for hearing. Southwest Gas Storage Company filed a cost and revenue study on May 6, 2019. On July 10, 2019, Southwest Gas Storage Company filed an Offer of Settlement in this Section 5 proceeding, which settlement was supported or not opposed by Commission Trial Staff and all active parties. In addition, on November 30, 2018, Sea Robin filed a rate case pursuant to Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act. On July 22, 2019, Sea Robin filed an Offer of Settlement in this Section 4 proceeding, which settlement was supported or not opposed by Commission Trial Staff and all active parties. Commitments In the normal course of business, ETO purchases, processes and sells natural gas pursuant to long-term contracts and enters into long-term transportation and storage agreements. Such contracts contain terms that are customary in the industry. ETO believes that the terms of these agreements are commercially reasonable and will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. ETO’s joint venture agreements require that they fund their proportionate share of capital contributions to their unconsolidated affiliates. Such contributions will depend upon their unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital projects or repayment of long-term obligations. We have certain non-cancelable rights-of-way (“ROW”) commitments, which require fixed payments and either expire upon our chosen abandonment or at various dates in the future. The table below reflects ROW expense included in operating expenses in the accompanying statements of operations: Three Months Ended Six Months Ended 2019 2018 2019 2018 ROW expense $ 6 $ 7 $ 12 $ 13 PES Refinery Fire and Bankruptcy We own an approximately 7.4% non-operating interest in PES, which owns a refinery in Philadelphia. In addition, Sunoco LP has historically purchased refined products from PES. In June 2019, an explosion and fire occurred at the refinery complex. On July 21, 2019 (the "Petition Date"), PES Holdings, LLC and seven of its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors") filed voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, as a result of the explosion and fire at the Philadelphia refinery complex. The Debtors have announced an intent to temporarily cease refinery operations. The Debtors have also defaulted on a $75 million note payable to a subsidiary of the Partnership. The Partnership has not recorded a valuation allowance related to the note receivable as of June 30, 2019, because management is not yet able to determine the collectability of the note in bankruptcy. In addition, the Partnership’s subsidiaries retained certain environmental remediation liabilities when the refinery was sold to PES. As of June 30, 2019, the Partnership has funded these environmental remediation liabilities through its wholly-owned captive insurance company, based upon actuarially determined estimates for such claims, and these liabilities are included in the total environmental liabilities discussed below under “Environmental Remediation.” It may be necessary for the Partnership to record additional environmental remediation liabilities in the future; however, management is not currently able to estimate such additional liabilities. Sunoco LP has been successful at acquiring alternative supplies to replace fuel volume lost from PES and does not anticipate any material impact to its business going forward. The impact of the bankruptcy on the Partnership’s commercial contracts and related revenue loss (temporary or permanent) is unknown at this time, as the Debtors have expressed an intent to rebuild the refinery with the proceeds of insurance claims while concurrently running a sale process for its assets and operations. Litigation and Contingencies We may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Natural gas and crude oil are flammable and combustible. Serious personal injury and significant property damage can arise in connection with their transportation, storage or use. In the ordinary course of business, we are sometimes threatened with or named as a defendant in various lawsuits seeking actual and punitive damages for product liability, personal injury and property damage. We maintain liability insurance with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles management believes are reasonable and prudent, and which are generally accepted in the industry. However, there can be no assurance that the levels of insurance protection currently in effect will continue to be available at reasonable prices or that such levels will remain adequate to protect us from material expenses related to product liability, personal injury or property damage in the future. Dakota Access Pipeline On July 25, 2016, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) issued permits to Dakota Access, LLC (“Dakota Access”) to make two crossings of the Missouri River in North Dakota. The USACE also issued easements to allow the pipeline to cross land owned by the USACE adjacent to the Missouri River. On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“SRST”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“the Court”) against the USACE and challenged the legality of these permits and claimed violations of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). SRST also sought a preliminary injunction to rescind the USACE permits while the case was pending, which the Court denied on September 9, 2016. Dakota Access intervened in the case. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”) also intervened. SRST filed an amended complaint and added claims based on treaties between SRST and CRST and the United States and statutes governing the use of government property. In February 2017, in response to a Presidential memorandum, the Department of the Army delivered an easement to Dakota Access allowing the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe. CRST moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to block operation of the pipeline, which motion was denied, and raised claims based on the religious rights of CRST. In June 2017, SRST and CRST amended their complaints to incorporate religious freedom and other claims. In addition, the Oglala Sioux and Yankton Sioux tribes (collectively, “Tribes”) have filed related lawsuits to prevent construction of the Dakota Access pipeline project. These lawsuits have been consolidated into the action initiated by SRST. Several individual members of the Tribes have also intervened in the lawsuit asserting claims that overlap with those brought by the four Tribes. On June 14, 2017, the Court ruled on SRST’s and CRST’s motions for partial summary judgment and the USACE’s cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The Court concluded that the USACE had not violated trust duties owed to the Tribes and had generally complied with its obligations under the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and other related statutes; however, the Court remanded to the USACE three discrete issues for further analysis and explanation of its prior determinations under certain of these statutes. In November 2017, the Yankton Sioux Tribe (“YST”), moved for partial summary judgment asserting claims similar to those already litigated and decided by the Court in its June 14, 2017 decision on similar motions by CRST and SRST. YST argues that the USACE and Fish and Wildlife Service violated NEPA, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and YST’s treaty and trust rights when the government granted the permits and easements necessary for the pipeline. On December 4, 2017, the Court imposed three conditions on continued operation of the pipeline during the remand process. First, Dakota Access must retain an independent third party to review its compliance with the conditions and regulations governing its easements and to assess integrity threats to the pipeline. The assessment report was filed with the Court. Second, the Court directed Dakota Access to continue its work with the Tribes and the USACE to revise and finalize its emergency spill response planning for the section of the pipeline crossing Lake Oahe. Dakota Access filed the revised plan with the Court. And third, the Court directed Dakota Access to submit bi-monthly reports during the remand period disclosing certain inspection and maintenance information related to the segment of the pipeline running between the valves on either side of the Lake Oahe crossing. The first and second reports were filed with the Court on December 29, 2017 and February 28, 2018, respectfully. On February 8, 2018, the Court docketed a motion by CRST to “compel meaningful consultation on remand.” SRST then made a similar motion for “clarification re remand process and remand conditions.” The motions sought an order from the Court directing the USACE as to how it should conduct its additional review on remand. Dakota Access and the USACE opposed both motions. On April 16, 2018, the Court denied both motions. On March 19, 2018, the Court denied YST’s motion for partial summary judgment and instead granted judgment in favor of Dakota Access pipeline and the USACE on the claims raised in YST’s motion. The Court concluded that YST’s NHPA claims are moot because construction of the pipeline is complete and that the government’s review process did not violate NEPA or the various treaties cited by the YST. On May 3, 2018, the Court ordered the USACE to file a status report by June 8, 2018 informing the Court when the USACE expects the remand process to be complete. On June 8, 2018, the USACE filed a status report stating that they would conclude the remand process by August 10, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the USACE informed the Court that they would need until August 31, 2018 to finish the remand process. On August 31, 2018, the USACE informed the Court that it had completed the remand process and that it had determined that the three issues remanded by the Court had been correctly decided. On October 1, 2018, the USACE produced a detailed remand analysis document supporting that determination. The Tribes and certain of the individuals sought leave of the Court to amend their complaints to challenge the remand process and the USACE’s decision on remand. On January 3, 2019, the Court granted the Tribes’ requests to supplement their respective complaints challenging the remand process, subject to defendants’ right to argue later that such supplementation may be overbroad and not permitted by law. On January 10, 2019, the Court denied the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s motion to amend its complaint to expand one of its pre-remand claims. On January 17, 2019, the DOJ, on behalf of the USACE, moved to stay the litigation in light of the lapse in appropriations for the DOJ. The Tribes and individual plaintiffs opposed that request. On January 28, 2019, the USACE moved to withdraw this motion because appropriations for the DOJ had been restored. The Court granted this motion the next day. On January 31, 2019, the USACE notified the Court that it had provided the administrative record for the remand to all parties. On February 27, 2019, the four Tribes filed a joint motion challenging the completeness of the record. The USACE opposed this motion in part, and Dakota Access opposed in full. The Tribes filed their reply brief on March 18, 2019 and the motion is now fully briefed and before the Court. On May 8, 2019, the Court issued an order on Plaintiffs’ motion to complete the administrative record, requiring the parties to submit additional information so that the Court can determine what documents, if any, should be added to the record. Following submittal of additional information by the parties, the Court issued an order on June 11, 2019 that determined which documents were to be added to the record. The Court has set a briefing schedule for summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is due by August 16, 2019 and defendants’ opposition and cross motions are due by October 9, 2019. Briefing is scheduled to conclude by November 20, 2019. While we believe that the pending lawsuits are unlikely to halt or suspend operation of the pipeline, we cannot assure this outcome. Energy Transfer cannot determine when or how these lawsuits will be resolved or the impact they may have on the Dakota Access project. Mont Belvieu Incident On June 26, 2016, a hydrocarbon storage well located on another operator’s facility adjacent to Lone Star NGL Mont Belvieu’s (“Lone Star”) facilities in Mont Belvieu, Texas experienced an over-pressurization resulting in a subsurface release. The subsurface release caused a fire at Lone Star’s South Terminal and damage to Lone Star’s storage well operations at its South and North Terminals. Normal operations have resumed at the facilities with the exception of one of Lone Star’s storage wells. Lone Star is still quantifying the extent of its incurred and ongoing damages and has obtained, and will continue to seek, reimbursement for these losses. MTBE Litigation ETC Sunoco and Sunoco (R&M) (collectively, “Sunoco”) are defendants in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs, state-level governmental entities, assert product liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws, and/or deceptive business practices claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. As of June 30, 2019 , Sunoco is a defendant in five cases, including one case each initiated by the States of Maryland and Rhode Island, one by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and two by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The more recent Puerto Rico action is a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. The actions brought by the State of Maryland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have also named as defendants ETO, ETP Holdco Corporation, and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. (“SPMT”). It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized in the remaining cases; however, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. An adverse determination with respect to one or more of the MTBE cases could have a significant impact on results of operations during the period in which any such adverse determination occurs, but such an adverse determination likely would not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position. Regency Merger Litigation Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the Regency-ETO merger (the “Regency Merger”). All but one Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman (“Dieckman”), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Regency Merger Litigation”), on behalf of Regency’s common unitholders against Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC, ET, ETO, ETP GP, and the members of Regency’s board of directors (“Defendants”). The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency’s conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not approved in good faith or fair to Regency. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Dieckman appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint. Defendants then filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery on May 19, 2017. On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC (the “Regency Defendants”). On March 6, 2018, the Regency Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 26, 2019, the Court of Chancery granted Dieckman’s unopposed motion for class certification. On May 14, 2019, the Regency Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Dieckman’s claims fail because the Regency Defendants relied on the advice of their financial advisor in approving the Regency Merger. Also on May 14, 2019, Dieckman filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing, among other things, that Regency’s conflicts committee was not properly formed. Trial is currently set for December 10-16, 2019. The Regency Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Regency Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it and any others that may be filed in connection with the Regency Merger. Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating LLC Litigation On January 27, 2014, a trial commenced between ETO against Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating LLC (collectively, “Enterprise”) and Enbridge (US) Inc. Trial resulted in a verdict in favor of ETO against Enterprise that consisted of $319 million in compensatory damages and $595 million in disgorgement to ETO. The jury also found that ETO owed Enterprise $1 million under a reimbursement agreement. On July 29, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of ETO and awarded ETO $536 million , consisting of compensatory damages, disgorgement, and pre-judgment interest. The trial court also ordered that ETO shall be entitled to recover post-judgment interest and costs of court and that Enterprise is not entitled to any net recovery on its counterclaims. Enterprise filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals. On July 18, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion and reversed the trial court’s judgment. ETO’s motion for rehearing to the Court of Appeals was denied. On June 8, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court ordered briefing on the merits. On June 28, 2019, the Texas Supreme Court granted ETO’s petition for review and set oral argument for October 8, 2019. Litigation Filed By or Against Williams On April 6, 2016, The Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams”) filed a complaint against ET and LE GP in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “First Delaware Williams Litigation”). Williams sought, among other things, to (a) rescind the issuance of the Partnership’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units (the “Issuance”) and (b) invalidate an amendment to ET’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance. On May 3, 2016, ET and LE GP filed an answer and counterclaim in the First Delaware Williams Litigation. The counterclaim asserts in general that Williams materially breached its obligations under the ET-Williams merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) by (a) blocking ET’s attempts to complete a public offering of the Series A Convertible Preferred Units, including, among other things, by declining to allow Williams’ independent registered public accounting firm to provide the auditor consent required to be included in the registration statement for a public offering and (b) bringing a lawsuit concerning the Issuance against Mr. Warren in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, which the Texas state court later dismissed based on the Merger Agreement’s forum-selection clause. On May 13, 2016, Williams filed a second lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) against ET and LE GP and added Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC as additional defendants (collectively, “Defendants”) (the “Second Delaware Williams Litigation”). In general, Williams alleged that Defendants breached the Merger Agreement by (a) failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain from Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) the delivery of a tax opinion concerning Section 721 of the Internal Revenue Code (“721 Opinion”), (b) breaching a representation and warranty in the Merger Agreement concerning Section 721 of the Internal Revenue Code, and (c) taking actions that allegedly delayed the SEC in declaring the Form S-4 filed in connection with the merger (the “Form S-4”) effective. Williams asked the Court, in general, to (a) issue a declaratory judgment that ET breached the Merger Agreement, (b) enjoin ET from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that it failed to obtain a 721 Opinion, (c) enjoin ET from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that the transaction failed to close by the outside date, and (d) force ET to close the merger or take various other affirmative actions. ET filed an answer and counterclaim in the Second Delaware Williams Litigation. In addition to the counterclaims previously asserted, ET asserted that Williams materially breached the Merger Agreement by, among other things, (a) modifying or qualifying the Williams board of directors’ recommendation to its stockholders regarding the merger, (b) failing to provide material information to ET for inclusion in the Form S-4 related to the merger, (c) failing to facilitate the financing of the merger, (d) failing to use its reasonable best efforts to consummate the merger, and (e) breaching the Merger Agreement’s forum-selection clause. ET sought, among other things, a declaration that it could validly terminate the Merger Agreement after June 28, 2016 in the event that Latham was unable to deliver the 721 Opinion on or prior to June 28, 2016. After a two-day trial on June 20 and 21, 2016, the Court ruled in favor of ET on Williams’ claims in the Second Delaware Williams Litigation and issued a declaratory judgment that ET could terminate the merger after June 28, 2016 because of Latham’s inability to provide the required 721 Opinion. The Court also denied Williams’ requests for injunctive relief. The Court did not reach a decision regarding Williams’ claims related to the Issuance or ET’s counterclaims. Williams filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware on June 27, 2016. Williams filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2016 and sought a $410 million termination fee, and Defendants filed amended counterclaims and affirmative defenses. In response, Williams filed a motion to dismiss Defendants’ amended counterclaims and to strike certain of Defendants’ affirmative defenses. On March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court’s ruling on the June trial, and as a result, Williams has conceded that its $10 billion damages claim is foreclosed, although its $410 million termination fee claim remains pending. On December 1, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Williams’ motion to dismiss in part and denying Williams’ motion to dismiss in part. On April 16, 2018, the Court denied ET’s motion for re-argument of the Court decision granting Williams’ motion to dismiss in part. Discovery is ongoing, and a trial is expected in mid-2020. Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the First Delaware Williams Litigation, the Second Delaware Williams Litigation, or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. Defendants believe that Williams’ claims are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. Unitholder Litigation Relating to the Issuance On April 12, 2016, two purported ET unitholders (the “Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against ET, LE GP, Kelcy Warren, John McReynolds, Marshall McCrea, Matthew Ramsey, Ted Collins, K. Rick Turner, William Williams, Ray Davis, and Richard Brannon (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Issuance Litigation”). Another purported ET unitholder, Chester County Employees’ Retirement Fund, later joined the Issuance Litigation. The Plaintiffs allege that the Issuance breached various provisions of ET’s partnership agreement. The Plaintiffs sought, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that (a) prevents ET from making distributions to holders of the Series A Convertible Preferred Units and (b) invalidates an amendment to ET’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance. On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, and in addition to the injunctive relief described above, seek class-wide damages allegedly resulting from the Issuance. The matter was tried in front of Vice Chancellor Glasscock on February 19-21, 2018. Post-trial arguments were heard on April 16, 2018. In a post-trial opinion dated May 17, 2018, the Court found that one provision of the Issuance breached ET’s partnership agreement but that this breach caused no damages. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief and declined to award damages or any other form of relief. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking $8.5 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses from the Defendants, which the Defendants opposed. On May 6, 2019, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment consistent with its May 2018 post-trial opinion. The Court ordered that Energy Transfer pay $4.5 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses and also granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. On June 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from, among other things, the May 17, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and the May 6, 2019 Order and Final Judgment. Plaintiffs’ opening brief is due on or before July 22, 2019. The Defendants cannot predict the outcome of this appeal or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve this lawsuit. The Defendants believe that the Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. Rover On November 3, 2017, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) filed suit against Rover and Pretec Directional Drilling, LLC (“Pretec”) seeking to recover approximately $2.6 million in civil penalties allegedly owed and certain injunctive relief related to permit compliance. Laney Directional Drilling Co., Atlas Trenchless, LLC, Mears Group, Inc., D&G Directional Drilling, Inc. d/b/a D&G Directional Drilling, LLC, and B&T Directional Drilling, Inc. (collectively, with Rover and Pretec, “Defendants”) were added as defendants on April 17, 2018 and July 18, 2018. Ohio EPA alleges that the Defendants illegally discharged millions of gallons of drilling fluids into Ohio’s waters that caused pollution and degraded water quality, and that the Defendants harmed pristine wetlands in Stark County. Ohio EPA further alleges that the Defendants caused the degradation of Ohio’s waters by discharging pollution in the form of sediment-laden storm water into Ohio’s waters and that Rover violated its hydrostatic permits by discharging effluent with greater levels of pollutants than those permits allowed and by not properly sampling or monitoring effluent for required parameters or reporting those alleged violations. Rover and other Defendants filed several motions to dismiss and Ohio EPA filed a motion in opposition. The State’s opposition to those motions was filed on October 12, 2018. Rover and other Defendants filed their replies on November 2, 2018. On March 13, 2019, the court granted Rover and the other Defendants’ motion to dismiss on all counts. On April 10, 2019, the Ohio EPA filed a notice of appeal. The Ohio EPA’s appeal is now pending before the Fifth District court of appeals and briefing is underway. In January 2018, Ohio EPA sent a letter to the FERC to express concern regarding drilling fluids lost down a hole during horizontal directional drilling (“HDD”) operations as part of the Rover Pipeline construction. Rover sent a January 24, 2018 response to the FERC and stated, among other things, that as Ohio EPA conceded, Rover was conducting its drilling operations in accordance with specified procedures that had been approved by the FERC and reviewed by the Ohio EPA. In addition, although the HDD operations were crossing the same resource as that which led to an inadvertent release of drilling fluids in April 2017, the drill in 2018 had been redesigned since the original crossing. Ohio EPA expressed concern that the drilling fluids could deprive organisms in the wetland of oxygen. Rover, however, has now fully remediated the site, a fact with which Ohio EPA concurs. Construction of Rover is now complete and the pipeline is fully operational. Bayou Bridge On January 11, 2018, environmental groups and a trade association filed suit against the USACE in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that the USACE’s issuance of permits authorizing the construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline through the Atchafalaya Basin (“Basin”) violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Act. They asked the district court to vacate these permits and to enjoin construction of the project through the Basin until the USACE corrects alleged deficiencies in its decision-making process. ETO, through its subsidiary Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC (“Bayou Bridge”), intervened on January 26, 2018. On March 27, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed an answer to the complaint. On January 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction and TRO. United States District Court Judge Shelly Dick denied the TRO on January 30, 2018, but subsequently granted the preliminary injunction on February 23, 2018. On February 26, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the February 23, 2018 preliminary injunction order. On February 27, 2018, Judge Dick issued an opinion that clarified her February 23, 2018 preliminary injunction order and denied Bayou Bridge’s February 26, 2018 motion to stay as moot. On March 1, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a new notice of appeal and motion to stay the February 27, 2018 preliminary injunction order in the district court. On March 5, 2018, the district court denied the March 1, 2018 motion to stay the February 27, 2018 order. On March 2, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction in the Fifth Circuit. On March 15, 2018, the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of injunction pending appeal and found that Bayou Bridge “is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.” Oral arguments were heard on the merits of the appeal, that is, whether the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction in the Fifth Circuit on April 30, 2018. The district court has stayed the merits case pending decision of the Fifth Circuit. On May 10, 2018, the district court stayed the litigation pending a decision from the Fifth Circuit. On July 6, 2018, the Fifth Circuit vacated the Preliminary Injunction and remanded the case back to the district court. Construction is ongoing. On August 14, 2018, Plaintiffs sought leave of court to amend their complaint to add an “as applied” challenge to the USACE’s application of the Louisiana Rapid Asses |
