| Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies | Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company. Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or dividends to our shareholders. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company. When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range. We disclose contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material or, in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed. FERC Proceedings FERC Rulemaking on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for Jurisdictional Natural Gas Pipelines On March 15, 2018, FERC issued a notice of proposed rule-making (NOPR) which proposed a process to implement for ratemaking purposes the 2017 Tax Reform. The NOPR proposed that each regulated interstate natural gas pipeline make a mandatory filing (Form 501-G) to reflect, based upon certain required assumptions, the rate impact of the reduced statutory corporate tax rate, and in the case of master limited partnerships and other pass-through entities, the elimination of an income tax allowance and unspecified resulting treatment of accumulated deferred income tax (ADIT) in the cost of service. The FERC’s NOPR also provided four options for regulated entities to consider: (1) make a limited filing under section 4 of the NGA to reduce rates for the impact of the 2017 Tax Reform; (2) commit to file a general section 4 rate case in the near future; (3) file an explanation why no rate change is needed, or (4) take no further action other than filing the required Form 501-G report. On July 18, 2018, FERC issued Order No. 849 (Final Rule) promulgating a final rule to implement the 2017 Tax Reform for jurisdictional natural gas pipelines. The Final Rule continues to require the regulated interstate pipelines to file the Form 501-G reflecting certain mandatory assumptions. The Final Rule also maintains substantially the same four options for regulated entities to implement the reduced corporate tax rate. The Final Rule clarifies that pass-through entities whose income consolidates up to a federal income tax paying entity are eligible for a tax allowance. It also clarifies that the required filing is a one-time informational filing and that FERC is not mandating any adjustment in rates as a function of complying with the Final Rule. Companies are also allowed to file an addendum which may reflect an income tax allowance, alternative capital structure and alternative equity returns. The Final Rule establishes a presumption that negotiated rate contracts should not be disturbed. We believe that the required, one-time, informational Form 501-G filings will be distorted, misleading and confusing to customers and investors. The Form 501-G filings will be made in three batches. The first filings were made on October 11, 2018 with additional filings by the remaining companies to be made in November and December of 2018. We continue to believe any initial, downward rate pressure will be mitigated and spread out over multiple years given the procedural options presented in the Final Rule, the prospective nature of rate changes under section 5 of the NGA and the fact that the FERC affirmed its intention to respect negotiated rate contracts. Many of our transportation and storage services are rendered pursuant to negotiated rate agreements that, consistent with the Final Rule, will not be subject to adjustment due to changes in tax law. Also, many of our current transactions are provided at discounted rates that are below maximum tariff rates, many of which would not be impacted by a change in the maximum tariff rate. Further, on many of our pipelines we are operating under settlements that preclude customers from requesting rate changes at the FERC during the life of the settlement. SFPP The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC, including the complaints and protests of various shippers, the most recent of which was filed in 2015 (docketed at OR16-6) challenging SFPP’s filed East Line rates. In general, these complaints and protests allege the rates and tariffs charged by SFPP are not just and reasonable under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). In some of these proceedings shippers have challenged the overall rate being charged by SFPP, and in others the shippers have challenged SFPP’s index-based rate increases. If the shippers prevail on their arguments or claims, they are entitled to seek reparations (which may reach back up to two years prior to the filing date of their complaints) or refunds of any excess rates paid, and SFPP may be required to reduce its rates going forward. These proceedings tend to be protracted, with decisions of the FERC often appealed to the federal courts. The issues involved in these proceedings include, among others, whether indexed rate increases are justified, and the appropriate level of return and income tax allowance SFPP may include in its rates. On March 22, 2016, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC remanding to FERC for further consideration of two issues: (1) the appropriate data to be used to determine the return on equity for SFPP in the underlying docket, and (2) the just and reasonable return to be provided to a tax pass-through entity that includes an income tax allowance in its underlying cost of service. On July 21, 2017, an initial decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in OR16-6 concluded that the Complainants are due reparations, with appropriate interest, equal to the difference between what SFPP collected from the Complainants for service on the East Line and the amounts SFPP would have collected had it charged just and reasonable rates for that line. The ALJ ruled that an income tax allowance should be included in the cost of service both to determine reparations and to set going forward rates, and found that the new just and reasonable rates are not knowable until the FERC reviews the initial decision and orders a compliance filing. The FERC will determine which portions of the initial decision to affirm, reject or amend. On March 15, 2018, the FERC announced certain policy changes including a Revised Policy Statement on Treatment of Income Taxes (Revised Policy Statement) and, that same day, the FERC issued orders in a series of pending SFPP proceedings which combined to deny income tax allowance to SFPP, direct SFPP to make compliance filings in its 2008 and 2009 rate filing documents, and restart the 2011 SFPP complaint proceeding which had been abated. Requests for rehearing were filed in the Revised Policy Statement docket as well as the SFPP dockets in which the Revised Policy Statement was applied. The requests for rehearing in the SFPP dockets remain pending at the FERC. On July 18, 2018, the FERC issued an Order on Rehearing in the Revised Policy Statement docket in which it denied the rehearing petitions and clarified that the issue of entitlement to an income tax allowance will continue to be resolved in individual proceedings, including proceedings involving income tax pass-through entities. The FERC also clarified that when an income tax allowance is eliminated from cost of service, previously ADIT balances associated with such income tax allowance may also be eliminated. With respect to the various SFPP related complaints and protest proceedings at the FERC, we estimate that the shippers are seeking approximately $30 million in annual rate reductions and approximately $320 million in refunds. Management believes SFPP has meritorious arguments supporting SFPP’s rates and intends to vigorously defend SFPP against these complaints and protests. However, to the extent the shippers are successful in one or more of the complaints or protest proceedings, SFPP estimates that applying the principles of FERC precedent, as applicable, to pending SFPP cases would result in rate reductions and refunds substantially lower than those sought by the shippers. EPNG The tariffs and rates charged by EPNG are subject to two ongoing FERC proceedings (the “2008 rate case” and the “2010 rate case”). With respect to the 2008 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 517-A) in July 2015. The FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, ordered refunds to be paid within 60 days, and stated that it will apply its findings in Opinion 517-A to the same issues in the 2010 rate case. All refund obligations related to the 2008 rate case were satisfied during calendar year 2015. EPNG sought federal appellate review of Opinion 517-A and oral arguments were held on February 15, 2017. On February 21, 2017, the reviewing court delayed the case until the FERC rules on the rehearing requests pending in the 2010 Rate Case. With respect to the 2010 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 528-A) on February 18, 2016. The FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, affirmed prior findings of an Administrative Law Judge that certain shippers qualify for lower rates and required EPNG to file revised pro forma recalculated rates consistent with the terms of Opinions 517-A and 528-A. EPNG and two intervenors sought rehearing of certain aspects of the decision. On February 23, 2018, a customer group filed a motion in the 2010 rate case requesting the FERC order us to recalculate the rates to be effective on January 1, 2018 to include impacts of the 2017 Tax Reform. We answered in opposition on March 12, 2018. On May 3, 2018, the FERC issued Opinion 528-B upholding its decisions in Opinion 528-A, effectively denying the motion of the customer group, and requiring EPNG to implement the rates required by its rulings and provide refunds within 60 days. On July 2, 2018, EPNG reported to the FERC the refund calculations, and that the refunds had been provided as ordered. Also on July 2, 2018, EPNG initiated appellate review of Opinions 528, 528-A and 528-B. On August 23, 2018, the reviewing court established a briefing schedule and consolidated EPNG’s delayed appeal from the 2008 rate case, EPNG’s appeal from the 2010 rate case, and the intervenors’ delayed appeal in the 2010 case. Other Commercial Matters Union Pacific Railroad Company Easements Landowner Litigation A purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in a U.S. District Court in California against Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR), SFPP, KMGP and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D” by private landowners who claimed to be the lawful owners of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP for pipeline easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR. Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were filed in federal courts by landowners in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. These suits, which were brought purportedly as class actions on behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in those respective states, asserted claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP, and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D” alleging that the defendants’ occupation and use of the subsurface real property was improper. Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification were denied by the federal courts in Arizona and California. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied interlocutory review of the class certification decisions. The New Mexico and Nevada lawsuits were stayed. All pending lawsuits have been settled and dismissed on terms that are not material to KMI’s results of operations, cash flows or dividends to shareholders. Gulf LNG Facility Arbitration On March 1, 2016, Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (GLNG) received a Notice of Disagreement and Disputed Statements and a Notice of Arbitration from Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC (Eni USA), one of two companies that entered into a terminal use agreement for capacity of the Gulf LNG Facility in Mississippi for an initial term that was not scheduled to expire until the year 2031. Eni USA is an indirect subsidiary of Eni S.p.A., a multi-national integrated energy company headquartered in Milan, Italy. Pursuant to its Notice of Arbitration, Eni USA sought declaratory and monetary relief based upon its assertion that (i) the terminal use agreement should be terminated because changes in the U.S. natural gas market since the execution of the agreement in December 2007 have “frustrated the essential purpose” of the agreement and (ii) activities allegedly undertaken by affiliates of Gulf LNG Holdings Group LLC “in connection with a plan to convert the LNG Facility into a liquefaction/export facility have given rise to a contractual right on the part of Eni USA to terminate” the agreement. As set forth in the terminal use agreement, disputes are meant to be resolved by final and binding arbitration. A three-member arbitration panel conducted an arbitration hearing in January 2017. On June 29, 2018, the arbitration panel delivered its Award, and the panel's ruling calls for the termination of the agreement and Eni USA's payment of compensation to GLNG. The Award resulted in our recording a net loss in the previous quarter of our equity investment in GLNG due to a non-cash impairment of our investment in GLNG partially offset by our share of earnings recognized by GLNG. On September 25, 2018, GLNG filed a lawsuit against Eni USA in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enforce the Award. On September 28, 2018, GLNG filed a lawsuit against Eni S.p.A. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County to enforce a Guarantee Agreement entered by Eni S.p.A. in connection with the terminal use agreement. GLNG intends to vigorously prosecute both lawsuits. Brinckerhoff Merger Litigation In April 2017, a purported class action suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Peter Brinckerhoff, a former EPB unitholder on behalf of a class of former unaffiliated unitholders of EPB, seeking to challenge the $9.2 billion merger of EPB into a subsidiary of KMI as part of a series of transactions in November 2014 whereby KMI acquired all of the outstanding equity interests in KMP, Kinder Morgan Management, LLC and EPB that KMI and its subsidiaries did not already own. The suit alleged that the merger consideration did not sufficiently compensate EPB unitholders for the value of three derivative suits concerning drop down transactions which the derivative plaintiff lost standing to pursue after the merger. The suit claimed that the alleged failure to obtain sufficient merger consideration for the drop down lawsuits constituted a breach of the EPB limited partnership agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The suit also asserted claims against KMI and certain individual defendants for allegedly tortiously interfering with and/or aiding and abetting the alleged breach of the limited partnership agreement. In November 2017, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. On June 8, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. Also in November 2017, counsel for Brinckerhoff filed a separate lawsuit against KMEP and KMI seeking to recover up to $44 million in attorneys’ fees allegedly incurred in connection with the assertion of derivative claims that Brinckerhoff lost standing to pursue. On April 9, 2018, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety, and that dismissal is final. Price Reporting Litigation Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P. and numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the price of natural gas by providing false price information to industry trade publications that published gas indices. Several of the cases have been settled or dismissed. The remaining cases, which are pending in a U.S. District Court in Nevada, include a lawsuit brought by an industrial consumer in Kansas in which approximately $500 million in damages plus interest has been alleged against all defendants, and a Wisconsin class action in which approximately $300 million in damages plus interest has been alleged against all defendants. In the Wisconsin class action, the U.S. District Court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification, but on appeal the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions to the U.S. District Court to provide a more detailed analysis of class certification issues. There remains significant uncertainty regarding the validity of the causes of action, the damages asserted and the level of damages, if any, which may be allocated to us in the remaining lawsuits and therefore, our legal exposure, if any, and costs are not currently determinable. Pipeline Integrity and Releases From time to time, despite our best efforts, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, and damage to the environment, damage to property and/or personal injury or death. In connection with these incidents, we may be sued for damages caused by an alleged failure to properly mark the locations of our pipelines and/or to properly maintain our pipelines. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular incident, state and federal regulatory authorities may seek civil and/or criminal fines and penalties. General As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, our total reserve for legal matters was $200 million and $350 million , respectively. The reduction in the reserve primarily resulted from the payment of refunds in the EPNG rate case matter discussed above in “— FERC Proceedings — EPNG.” The remaining reserve primarily relates to various claims from regulatory proceedings arising in our Products Pipelines business segment. Environmental Matters We and our subsidiaries are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, CERCLA generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal and CO 2 field and oil field operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments, such as increasingly stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies under the terms of authority of those laws, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from our operations, could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us. We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of environmental and safety regulations, including alleged violations of the Risk Management Program and leak detection and repair requirements of the Clean Air Act. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. These alleged violations may result in fines and penalties, but we do not believe any such fines and penalties, individually or in the aggregate, will be material. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under administrative orders or related state remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the cleanup. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party in several federal and state superfund sites. Environmental reserves have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. In addition, we are from time to time involved in civil proceedings relating to damages alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental leaks or spills of refined petroleum products, NGL, natural gas and CO 2 . Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon In December 2000, the EPA issued General Notice letters to potentially responsible parties including GATX Terminals Corporation (n/k/a KMLT). At that time, GATX owned two liquids terminals along the lower reach of the Willamette River, an industrialized area known as Portland Harbor. Portland Harbor is listed on the National Priorities List and is designated as a Superfund Site under CERCLA. A group of potentially responsible parties formed what is known as the Lower Willamette Group (LWG), of which KMLT is a non-voting member. The LWG agreed to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) leading to the proposed remedy for cleanup of the Portland Harbor site. The EPA issued the FS and the Proposed Plan on June 8, 2016 which included a proposed combination of dredging, capping, and enhanced natural recovery. On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the final cleanup plan. The final remedy is more stringent than the remedy proposed in the EPA’s Proposed Plan. The estimated cost increased from approximately $750 million to approximately $1.1 billion , and active cleanup is now expected to take as long as 13 years to complete. KMLT and 90 other parties are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT and KMBT in connection with their current or former ownership or operation of four facilities located in Portland Harbor. Our share of responsibility for Portland Harbor Superfund Site costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded in several years or a lawsuit is filed that results in a judicial decision allocating responsibility. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the site. In addition to CERCLA cleanup costs, we are reviewing and will attempt to settle, if possible, natural resource damage (NRD) claims asserted by state and federal trustees following their natural resource assessment of the site. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential NRD liability. Roosevelt Irrigation District v. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., U.S. District Court, Arizona The Roosevelt Irrigation District filed a lawsuit in 2010 against KMGP, KMEP and others under CERCLA for alleged contamination of the water purveyor’s wells. The First Amended Complaint sought $175 million in damages from approximately 70 defendants. KMGP was dismissed from the suit. On August 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint seeking monetary damages in unspecified amounts and reducing the number of defendants to 26 including KMEP and SFPP. The claims against KMEP and SFPP were related to alleged releases from a specific parcel within the SFPP Phoenix Terminal and the alleged impact of such releases on water wells owned by the plaintiffs and located in the vicinity of the Terminal. During the first quarter of 2018, KMEP and SFPP settled all claims made by the Roosevelt Irrigation District on terms that are not material to KMI’s results of operations, cash flows or dividends to shareholders. Uranium Mines in Vicinity of Cameron, Arizona In the 1950s and 1960s, Rare Metals Inc., a historical subsidiary of EPNG, mined approximately twenty uranium mines in the vicinity of Cameron, Arizona, many of which are located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. The mining activities were in response to numerous incentives provided to industry by the U.S. to locate and produce domestic sources of uranium to support the Cold War-era nuclear weapons program. In May 2012, EPNG received a general notice letter from the EPA notifying EPNG of the EPA’s investigation of certain sites and its determination that the EPA considers EPNG to be a potentially responsible party within the meaning of CERCLA. In August 2013, EPNG and the EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent and Scope of Work pursuant to which EPNG is conducting a radiological assessment of the surface of the mines and the immediate vicinity. On September 3, 2014, EPNG filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona seeking cost recovery and contribution from the applicable federal government agencies toward the cost of environmental activities associated with the mines, given the U.S. is the owner of the Navajo Reservation, the U.S.’s exploration and reclamation activities at the mines, and the pervasive control of such federal agencies over all aspects of the nuclear weapons program. Defendants filed an answer and counterclaims seeking contribution and recovery of response costs allegedly incurred by the federal agencies in investigating uranium impacts on the Navajo Reservation. The counterclaim of defendant EPA has been settled, and no viable claims for reimbursement by the other defendants are known to exist. In August 2017, the District Court found the U.S. liable under CERCLA as owner of the Navajo Reservation. The matter seeking cost recovery and contribution from federal government agencies is set for trial in February 2019. We intend to continue to prosecute and defend this case vigorously. Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties, New Jersey EPEC Polymers, Inc. (EPEC Polymers) and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (EPEC Oil Trust), former El Paso Corporation entities now owned by KMI, are involved in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area Superfund Site (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River. It has been alleged that EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust may be potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under CERCLA based on prior ownership and/or operation of properties located along the relevant section of the Passaic River. EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust entered into two Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs) which obligate them to investigate and characterize contamination at the Site. They are also part of a joint defense group of approximately 44 cooperating parties, referred to as the Cooperating Parties Group (CPG), which has entered into AOCs and is directing and funding the work required by the EPA. Under the first AOC, draft remedial investigation and feasibility studies (RI/FS) of the Site were submitted to the EPA in 2015, and EPA approval remains pending. Under the second AOC, the CPG members conducted a CERCLA removal action at the Passaic River Mile 10.9, and the group is currently conducting EPA-directed post-remedy monitoring in the removal area. We have established a reserve for the anticipated cost of compliance with the AOCs. On April 11, 2014, the EPA announced the issuance of its Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for the lower eight miles of the Passaic River Study Area, and its proposed plan for remedial alternatives to address the dioxin sediment contamination from the mouth of Newark Bay to River Mile 8.3. The EPA estimates the cost for the alternatives will range from $365 million to $3.2 billion . The EPA’s preferred alternative would involve dredging the river bank-to-bank and installing an engineered cap at an estimated cost of $1.7 billion . On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the lower eight miles of the Passaic River Study area. The final cleanup plan in the ROD is substantially similar to the EPA’s preferred alternative announced on April 11, 2014. On October 5, 2016, the EPA entered into an AOC with Occidental Chemical Company (OCC), a member of the PRP group requiring OCC to spend an estimated $165 million to perform engineering and design work necessary to begin the cleanup of the lower eight miles of the Passaic River. The design work is expected to take four years to complete and the cleanup is expected to take six years to complete. On June 30, 2018 and July 13, 2018, respectively, OCC filed two separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA from more than 120 defendants, including EPEC Polymers. OCC alleges that each defendant is responsible to reimburse OCC for a proportionate share of the $165 million OCC is required to spend pursuant to its AOC. EPEC Polymers was dismissed without prejudice from the lawsuit on August 8, 2018. In addition, the EPA and numerous PRPs, including EPEC Polymers, are engaged in an allocation process for the implementation of the remedy for the lower eight miles of the Passaic River Study area. There remains significant uncertainty as to the implementation and associated costs of the remedy set forth in the FFS and ROD. There is also uncertainty as to the impact of the recent EPA FS directive for the upper nine mile segment not subject to the lower eight mile FFS and ROD. In a letter dated October 10, 2018, the EPA directed the CPG to prepare a streamlined FS for the Site that evaluates interim remedy alternatives for sediments in the upper nine miles of the Site. Until this FS is completed and the RI/FS is finalized, the scope of potential EPA claims for the Site is not reasonably estimable. Plaquemines Parish Louisiana Coastal Zone Litigation On November 8, 2013, the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana filed a petition for damages in the state district court for Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana against TGP and 17 other energy companies, alleging that defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations in the Bastian Bay, Buras, Empire and Fort Jackson oil and gas fields of Plaquemines Parish caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands (Coastal Zone) within the Parish, including the erosion of marshes and the discharge of oil waste and other pollutants which detrimentally affected the quality of state waters and plant and animal life, in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (Coastal Zone Management Act). The case is one of numerous similar cases pending in Louisiana. As a result of such alleged violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act, Plaquemines Parish seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary relief, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected Coastal Zone to its original condition, including costs to clear, vegetate and detoxify the Coastal Zone. In connection with this suit, TGP has made two tenders for defense and indemnity: (1) to Anadarko, as successor to the entity that purchased TGP’s oil and gas assets in Bastian Bay, and (2) to Kinetica, which purchased TGP’s pipeline assets in Bastian Bay in 2013. Anadarko has accepted TGP’s tender (limited to oil and gas assets), and Kinetica rejected TGP’s tender. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) and the Louisiana Attorney General (LAG) have intervened in the lawsuit. The Court has separated the defendants into several trial groups and set trials to begin in 2019. The case involving TGP was set for trial in 2020. During May 2018, the defendants removed numerous cases which allege violations under the Coastal Zone Management Act to federal court in Louisiana; the case involving TGP was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Thereafter, the defendants moved the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all such cases, including the case involving TGP, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for coo |
