| 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 In July 2018, the FERC issued an order requiring an informational filing by interstate natural gas pipelines on a new Form 501-G, evaluating the impact of the 2017 Tax Reform and the Revised Tax Policy on tax allowances for the pipelines. In the fourth quarter of 2018, KMI filed Form 501-G for 19 of its FERC-regulated assets. The FERC granted SNG a waiver from filing the 501-G based on its previously filed negotiated settlement and TGP was granted an extension from filing based on ongoing negotiations with customers. On April 8, 2019, KMI announced that TGP and EPNG agreed to settlements with their shippers to address FERC’s 501-G process. KMI successfully worked with its shippers without the need for litigation or any additional intervention by the FERC. Rate adjustments have been set forth in the agreements with TGP and EPNG shippers. FERC has approved a settlement that Young Gas Storage reached with its customers and has terminated all but three of the remaining 501-G proceedings without taking further action. FERC initiated a rate investigation of Bear Creek Storage Company. Bear Creek Storage Company filed a cost and revenue study in compliance with the FERC investigation on April 1, 2019. Two other KMI 501-G filings remain pending but relate to systems under rate moratoria. KMI expects the vast majority of KMI's 501-G exposure to be resolved upon FERC’s approval of the EPNG and TGP settlements discussed above. FERC Inquiry Regarding the Commission’s Policy for Determining Return on Equity On March 21, 2019, the FERC issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) seeking comments regarding whether the FERC should revise its policies for determining the base return on equity (ROE) used in setting cost of service rates charged by jurisdictional public utilities and interstate natural gas and liquids pipelines. The NOI seeks comment on whether any aspects of the existing methodologies used by the FERC to set an ROE for a regulated entity should be changed, whether the ROE methodology should be the same across all three industries, and whether alternative methodologies should be considered. Initial comments are due in June 2019. ROE is an important component of a regulated entity’s cost of service calculation, including for our interstate natural gas and liquids pipeline assets. We expect broad industry, pipeline company, and shipper participation in the comment process. 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 2019 (docketed at OR19-21) challenging SFPP’s 2018 index rate increases on certain of its lines. 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. On March 22, 2016, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC remanding to the 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 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 dockets, and restart the 2011 SFPP complaint proceeding which had been abated. SFPP made its compliance filings and expects to pay in 2019 refunds in the 2008 docket. On March 15, 2019, SFPP filed with the D.C. Circuit a petition for review of the FERC’s decision in the 2008 docket, including the denial of an income tax allowance. SFPP’s request for rehearing in the 2009 docket remains pending at the FERC. SFPP is awaiting a FERC decision in a 2015 complaint against its East Line rates. The FERC has not yet acted on the shippers’ revised complaints in the 2011 SFPP complaint proceeding. 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. SFPP along with another pipeline entity appealed the Revised Policy Statement along with the Order on Rehearing to the D.C. Circuit, and the Court has ordered briefing on the merits. 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 $330 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, as well as the compliance filing methodology recently approved by the FERC 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 in 2015. EPNG sought federal appellate review of Opinion 517-A. On February 21, 2017, the reviewing court delayed the case until the FERC ruled 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. On May 3, 2018, the FERC issued Opinion 528-B upholding its decisions in Opinion 528-A 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. In accordance with that schedule, all briefing will be completed by April 29, 2019. Other Commercial Matters Gulf LNG Facility Arbitration On March 1, 2016, Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (GLNG) received 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. 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 called 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 second quarter of 2018 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 February 1, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a Final Order and Judgment confirming the Award, which was paid by Eni USA on February 20, 2019. 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. On December 12, 2018, Eni S.p.A. filed a counterclaim seeking unspecified damages from GLNG. GLNG intends to vigorously prosecute and defend the lawsuit. 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. All of the cases have been settled or dismissed, including a Wisconsin class action lawsuit pending in a U.S. District Court in Nevada, in which approximately $300 million in damages plus interest was alleged against all defendants and in which a settlement in principal has been reached that will require class notice and final court approval in 2019. The amount to be paid in settlement of this matter is not material to our results of operations, cash flows or dividends to shareholders. 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 March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, our total reserve for legal matters was $222 million and $207 million , respectively. 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 remediation. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) 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 On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that established a final remedy and cleanup plan for an industrialized area on the lower reach of the Willamette River commonly referred to as the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The cost for the final remedy is estimated by the EPA to be approximately $1.1 billion and active cleanup is expected to take as long as 13 years to complete. KMLT, KMBT, and 90 other PRPs identified by the EPA are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs related to the final remedy set forth by the ROD. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities acquired from GATX Terminals Corporation) and KMBT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities). 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. 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 PRP 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. After a trial which concluded in March 2019, the U.S. District Court issued an order on April 16, 2019 that allocated 35% of past and future response costs to the government. The decision may be appealed by any party to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The decision does not provide or establish the scope of a remedial plan with respect to the sites, nor does it establish the total cost for addressing the sites, all of which remain to be determined in subsequent proceedings and adversarial actions, if necessary, with the EPA. Until such issues are determined, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability. However, because costs associated with any remedial plan approved by the EPA are expected to be spread over at least several years, we do not anticipate that this decision will have a material adverse impact to our results of operations, cash flows, or dividends to KMI shareholders. Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, 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 (Site) concerning the lower 17 -mile stretch of the Passaic River. It has been alleged that EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust may be 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) with the EPA 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 is directing and funding the AOC work required by the EPA. Under the first AOC, the CPG submitted draft remedial investigation and feasibility studies (RI/FS) of the Site to the EPA in 2015, and EPA approval remains pending. Under the second AOC, the CPG conducted a CERCLA removal action at the Passaic River Mile 10.9, and is obligated to conduct EPA-directed post-remedy monitoring in the removal area. We have established a reserve for the anticipated cost of compliance with these two AOCs. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the lower eight miles of the Site. The final cleanup plan in the ROD is estimated by the EPA to cost $1.7 billion . 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 Site. 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 Site. There remains significant uncertainty as to the implementation and associated costs of the remedy set forth in the ROD. There is also uncertainty as to the impact of the recent EPA FS directive for the upper nine miles of the Site not subject to the lower eight mile 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 and allocations are determined, the scope of potential EPA claims for the Site and liability therefor are not reasonably estimable. Louisiana Governmental Coastal Zone Erosion Litigation Beginning in 2013, several parishes in Louisiana and the City of New Orleans filed separate lawsuits in state district courts in Louisiana against a number of oil and gas companies, including TGP and SNG. In these cases, the parishes and New Orleans, as Plaintiffs, allege that certain of the defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended (SLCRMA). The Plaintiffs allege the defendants’ operations caused substantial damage to the coastal waters of Louisiana and nearby lands, including marsh (Coastal Zone). The alleged damages include erosion of property within the Coastal Zone, and discharge of pollutants that are alleged to have adversely impacted the Coastal Zone, including plants and wildlife. The Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the affected Coastal Zone to its original condition. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) and the Louisiana Attorney General (LAG) routinely intervene in these cases, and we expect the LDNR and LAG to intervene in any additional cases that may be filed. There are more than 40 of these cases pending in Louisiana against oil and gas companies, one of which is against TGP and one of which is against SNG, both described further below. 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’ operations in Plaquemines Parish violated SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and that those operations caused substantial damage to the Coastal Zone. 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 remediate, restore, vegetate and detoxify the affected Coastal Zone property. In 2016, the LAG and LDNR intervened in the lawsuit. In May 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaquemines Parish, along with the intervenors, moved to remand the case to the state district court. That motion is pending. The case is effectively stayed pending resolution of the removal and remand issues. We will continue to vigorously defend this case. On March 29, 2019, the City of New Orleans and Orleans Parish (Orleans) filed a petition for damages in the state district court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana against SNG and 10 other energy companies alleging that the defendants’ operations in Orleans Parish violated the SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the Coastal Zone. Orleans 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 remediate, restore, vegetate and detoxify the affected Coastal Zone property. On April 5, 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. We will vigorously defend this case. Louisiana Landowner Coastal Erosion Litigation Beginning in January 2015, several private landowners in Louisiana, as Plaintiffs, filed separate lawsuits in state district courts in Louisiana against a number of oil and gas pipeline companies, including two cases against TGP, two cases against SNG, and two cases against both TGP and SNG. In these cases, the Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to properly maintain pipeline canals and canal banks on their property, which caused the canals to erode and widen and resulted in substantial land loss, including significant damage to the ecology and hydrology of the affected property, including damage to timber and wildlife. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ conduct constitutes a breach of the subject right of way agreements, is inconsistent with prudent operating practices, violates Louisiana law, and that defendants’ failure to maintain canals and canal banks constitutes negligence and trespass. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to return the canals and canal banks to their as-built conditions and restore and remediate the affected property. Plaintiffs allege that defendants are obligated to restore and remediate the affected property without regard to the value of the property. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the defendants are obligated to take steps to maintain canals and canal banks going forward. There are no trial dates established in any of the pending cases. In one case filed by Vintage Assets, Inc. and several landowners against SNG and TGP that was tried in 2017 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, $80 million was sought in money damages, including recovery of litigation costs, damages for trespass, and money damages associated with an alleged loss of natural resources and projected reconstruction cost of replacing or restoring wetlands. On May 4, 2018, the District Court entered a judgment dismissing the tort and negligence claims against all of the defendants, and dismissing certain of the contract claims against TGP. In ruling in favor of plaintiffs on the remaining contract claims, the District Court ordered the defendants to pay $1,104 in money damages, and issued a permanent injunction ordering the defendants to restore a total of 9.6 acres of land and maintain certain canals at widths designated by the right of way agreements in effect. The Court stayed the judgment and the injunction pending appeal. The parties each filed a separate appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On September 13, 2018, a third-party defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and dismiss all of the appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On October 2, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals and on April 17, 2019 the case was remanded to the State District Court of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana for further proceedings. We will continue to vigorously defend these cases. General Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcomes, we believe that the resolution of the environmental matters set forth in this note, and other matters to which we and our subsidiaries are a party, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, we have accrued a total reserve for environmental liabilities in the amount of $270 million and $271 million , respectively. In addition, as of both March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, we have recorded a receivable of $13 million for expected cost recoveries that have been deemed probable. Other Contingencies We have agreed to fund our proportionate share of $700 million of 2019 maturing debt obligations at certain of our equity investees and we would be obligated for our $350 million share of these obligations if the equity investees are unable to satisfy their obligations. |
