| Litigation and Environmental | 9. Litigation and Environmental 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 to our business. 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 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 sought 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. Comments were filed by industry groups, pipeline companies and shippers for review and evaluation by the FERC. On May 21, 2020, the FERC issued its Policy Statement on Determining Return on Equity for Natural Gas and Oil Pipelines (Policy Statement). As it applies to natural gas and oil pipelines, the Policy Statement requires averaging the results of the discounted cash flow model and capital asset pricing model, giving equal weight to each model, retains its existing two-thirds/one-third weighting of short and long-term growth projections in the discounted cash flow model, and excludes the risk premium or expected earnings models. On other matters raised in this proceeding, the FERC declined to adopt rigid policy changes, and will address issues, such as the appropriate sources for data sets and the specific companies to use for a given proxy group, as those issues arise in future rate proceedings on a pipeline-by-pipeline, case-by-case basis. The Policy Statement does not result in any immediate changes to any existing rates or ROEs for any of our pipelines, and any future changes to rates or ROEs for a pipeline will depend on a variety of factors that remain to be determined when they are raised and argued in connection with future or existing rate proceedings, including the OR16-6 proceeding referenced in “ SFPP FERC Proceedings” below. SFPP FERC Proceedings The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP are subject to a number of ongoing shipper-initiated proceedings at the FERC. These include IS08-390, filed in June 2008, in which various shippers are challenging SFPP’s West Line rates (pending before the D.C. Circuit Court on rehearing following an order that upheld the FERC’s underlying decision); IS09-437, filed in July 2009, in which various shippers are challenging SFPP’s East Line rates (pending before the FERC on rehearing); OR11-13/16/18, filed in June 2011, in which various shippers are seeking to challenge SFPP’s North Line, Oregon Line, and West Line rates (pending before the FERC for an order on the complaint); OR14-35/36, filed in June 2014, in which various shippers are challenging SFPP’s index increases in 2012 and 2013 (dismissed by the FERC, but remanded back to the FERC from the D.C. Circuit for further consideration); OR16-6, filed in December 2015, in which various shippers are challenging SFPP’s East line rates (the FERC issued Order 571 which largely confirmed the initial decision, but granted SFPP’s motion to reopen the record and allowed the parties to file written submissions addressing the FERC’s Policy Statement on ROE for purposes of establishing SFPP’s ROE in this matter); and OR19-21/33/37, filed beginning in April 2019, in which various shippers are challenging SFPP’s index increases in 2018 (pending before the FERC for an order on the complaints). 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. 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. If the shippers prevail on their arguments or claims, they would be entitled to seek reparations for the two year period preceding the filing date of their complaints (OR cases) and/or prospective refunds in protest cases from the date of protest (IS cases), 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. SFPP paid refunds to shippers in May 2019, in the IS08-390 proceeding as ordered by the FERC based on its denial of an income tax allowance. With respect to the various SFPP related complaints and protest proceedings at the FERC (including IS08-390), we estimate that the shippers are seeking approximately $50 million in annual rate reductions and approximately $425 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 FERC Proceedings 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 would 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. 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. EPNG’s appeals in the 2008 and 2010 rate cases as well as the intervenors’ appeal in the 2010 rate case were consolidated. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for review on July 24, 2020. Gulf LNG Facility Disputes 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. 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 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 into 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. This lawsuit remains pending. On June 3, 2019, Eni USA filed a second Notice of Arbitration against GLNG asserting the same breach of contract claims that had been asserted in the first arbitration and alleging that GLNG negligently misrepresented certain facts or contentions in the first arbitration. By its second Notice of Arbitration, Eni USA seeks to recover as damages some or all of the payments made by Eni USA to satisfy the Final Order and Judgment of the Court of Chancery. In response to the second Notice of Arbitration, GLNG filed a complaint with the Court of Chancery together with a motion seeking to permanently enjoin the arbitration. On January 10, 2020, the Court of Chancery entered an Order and Final Judgment granting GLNG’s motion to enjoin arbitration of the negligent misrepresentation claim, but denying the motion to enjoin arbitration of the breach of contract claims. The parties filed cross appeals of the Final Judgment. The Delaware cross appeals were argued to the Delaware Supreme Court on September 9, 2020. The arbitration proceeding remains pending, but has been stayed by agreement pending the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision. On December 20, 2019, GLNG’s remaining customer, Angola LNG Supply Services LLC (ALSS), filed a Notice of Arbitration seeking a declaration that its terminal use agreement should be deemed terminated as of March 1, 2016 on substantially the same terms and conditions as set forth in the arbitration award pertaining to Eni USA. ALSS also seeks a declaration that activities allegedly undertaken by affiliates of Gulf LNG Holdings Group LLC in connection with the pursuit of an LNG liquefaction export project have given rise to a contractual right on the part of ALSS to terminate the agreement. ALSS also seeks a monetary award directing GLNG to reimburse ALSS for all reservation charges and operating fees paid by ALSS after December 31, 2016 plus interest. A final decision in this arbitration is expected by the end of the second quarter of 2021. GLNG intends to continue to vigorously prosecute and defend all of the foregoing proceedings. Continental Resources, Inc. v. Hiland Partners Holdings, LLC On December 8, 2017, Continental Resources, Inc. (CLR) filed an action in Garfield County, Oklahoma state court alleging that Hiland Partners Holdings, LLC (Hiland Partners) breached a Gas Purchase Agreement, dated November 12, 2010, as amended (GPA), by failing to receive and purchase all of CLR’s dedicated gas under the GPA (produced in three North Dakota counties). CLR also alleged fraud, maintaining that Hiland Partners promised the construction of several additional facilities to process the gas without an intention to build the facilities. Hiland Partners denied these allegations, but the parties entered into a settlement agreement in June 2018, under which CLR agreed to release all of its claims in exchange for Hiland Partners’ construction of 10 infrastructure projects by November 1, 2020. CLR has filed an amended petition in which it asserts that Hiland Partners’ failure to construct certain facilities by specific dates nullifies the release contained in the settlement agreement. CLR’s amended petition makes additional claims under both the GPA and a May 8, 2008 gas purchase contract covering additional North Dakota counties, including CLR’s contention that Hiland Partners is not allowed to deduct third-party processing fees from the gas purchase price. CLR seeks damages in excess of $225 million. Hiland Partners denies and will vigorously defend against these claims. 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, 2020 and December 31, 2019, our total reserve for legal matters was $280 million and $203 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 could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us, 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. 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 will be material, individually or in the aggregate. 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 or 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 (PHSS). 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). Effective January 31, 2020, KMLT entered into separate Administrative Settlement Agreements and Orders on Consent (ASAOC) to complete remedial design for two distinct areas within the PHSS associated with KMLT’s facilities. The ASAOC obligates KMLT to pay a share of the remedial design costs for cleanup activities related to these two areas as required by the ROD. Our share of responsibility for the PHSS costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded 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 PHSS. 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 PHSS. 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 20 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 environmental assessments 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. The U.S. District Court issued an order on April 16, 2019 that allocated 35% of past and future response costs to the U.S. 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. 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 our share of the costs of the remediation will have a material adverse impact to our business. 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. At that time the final cleanup plan in the ROD was 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 underway. Initial expectations were that the design work would take four years to complete. The cleanup is expected to take at least six years to complete once it begins. 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. We anticipate that process will be completed by December 31, 2020. 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 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 the allocation process and FS are completed, and the RI/FS is finalized, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability. 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) and that those operations caused substantial damage to the coastal waters of Louisiana and nearby lands. The Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the affected areas. 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 the defendants’ operations in Plaquemines Parish violated SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Plaquemines Parish seeks, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected areas. In May 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In May 2019, the case was remanded to the state district court for Plaquemines Parish. At the same time, the U.S. District Court certified a federal jurisdiction issue for review by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 10, 2020, the Fifth Circuit affirmed remand. The defendants filed a motion for rehearing which is pending. The case remains effectively stayed pending a final ruling by the Court of Appeals. Until these and other issues are determined, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We will continue to vigorously defend this case. On March 29, 2019, the City of New Orleans and Orleans Parish (collectively, 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 waters and nearby lands. Orleans seeks, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected areas. In April 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In May 2019, Orleans moved to remand the case to the state district court. In January 2020, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be stayed and administratively closed pending the resolution of issues in a separate case to which SNG is not a party; Parish of Cameron vs. Auster Oil & Gas, Inc. , pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; after which either party may move to re-open the case. Until these and other issues are determined, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We will continue to 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 the 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, and damage to timber and wildlife. The plaintiffs allege the 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. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney 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. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the defendants are obligated to take steps to maintain canals and canal banks going forward. One of these cases filed by Vintage Assets, Inc. and several landowners against SNG, TGP, and another defendant was tried in 2017 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On May 4, 2018, the U.S. District Court entered a judgment ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on certain of their contract claims. The Court stayed the judgment pending appeal. The parties each filed a separate appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In April 2019, the case was remanded to the state district court for Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana for further proceedings. On October 2, 2020, the case was settled for an amount which is not material to our business. We will continue to vigorously defend the remaining 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. As of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we have accrued a total reserve for environmental liabilities in the amount of $253 million and $259 million, respectively. In addition, as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we have recorded a receivable of $12 million and $15 million, respectively, for expected cost recoveries that have been deemed probable. |
