Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L P 8K Financial Statements and Exhibits | SEC 19 Sep 08

Exhibit 99.1

KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Unaudited)

As of June 30, 2008

(In millions)

ASSETS:
Current Assets:
Cash and Cash Equivalents	$	78.7
Restricted Deposits		275.0
Accounts, Notes and Interest Receivable, Net		1,438.1
Inventories		93.6
Gas Imbalances		9.7
Prepayments and Other		101.7
		1,996.8

Notes Receivable – Related Parties		86.4

Investments		1,011.8

Goodwill		5,521.8

Other Intangibles, Net		254.7

Property, Plant and Equipment, Net		15,097.7

Deferred Charges and Other Assets		357.7

Total Assets	$	24,326.9

KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Unaudited)

As of June 30, 2008

(In millions)

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY:
Current Liabilities:
Current Maturities of Long-term Debt	$	270.9
Cash Book Overdrafts		46.4
Accounts Payable		1,297.1
Accrued Interest		150.1
Accrued Taxes		58.7
Gas Imbalances		16.4
Other		1,466.9
		3,306.5

Other Liabilities and Deferred Credits:
Deferred Income Taxes		1,158.6
Other		2,485.0
		3,643.6

Long-term Debt:
Outstanding Notes and Debentures		7,803.3
Cumulative Preferred Stock		100.0
Value of Interest Rate Swaps		143.6
		8,046.9

Minority Interests in Equity of Subsidiaries		3,631.6

Commitments and Contingencies (Note 7)

Stockholder’s Equity:
Common Stock, $10 Par Value, Authorized, Issued and Outstanding 1,000,000 Shares		10.0
Additional Paid-in Capital		6,389.4
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss		(701.1	)
Total Stockholder’s Equity		5,698.3

Total Liabilities and Stockholder’s Equity	$	24,326.9

KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Unaudited)

1. General

Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. is a Delaware limited liability company. In this report, unless the context requires otherwise, references to “we,” “us” or “our” are intended to mean Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. (the “General Partner”) and its consolidated subsidiaries.

We own an interest in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., a publicly traded pipeline master limited partnership, referred to in these Notes as Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, consisting of (i) a 1% general partner interest; (ii) a 1.0101% general partner interest in each of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ five operating limited partnerships, (iii) an approximate 1% limited partner interest, represented by the ownership of 1,724,000 common units of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, and (iv) our investment in i-units of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, as discussed following.

Kinder Morgan Management, LLC, a limited liability company, referred to in these Notes as Kinder Morgan Management, was formed as a direct subsidiary of Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act. The General Partner owns the only two Kinder Morgan Management voting shares, which are the only shares entitled to vote in the election of its directors. The shares in Kinder Morgan Management (our consolidated subsidiary – see “Basis of Presentation” in Note 2) with limited voting rights owned by Kinder Morgan, Inc. and the public has created a minority interest on our Consolidated Balance Sheet. The i-units are a separate class of limited partner interests in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and are issued only to Kinder Morgan Management. The i-units are similar to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ common units, except that quarterly distributions are paid in additional i-units rather than in cash. Kinder Morgan Management trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “KMR.” At June 30, 2008, Knight Inc. owned approximately 10.7 million or 14.3% of Kinder Morgan Management’s outstanding shares.

Pursuant to a delegation of control agreement between Kinder Morgan Management and the General Partner, Kinder Morgan Management manages and controls Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ business and affairs, and the business and affairs of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ operating limited partnerships. Under the delegation of control agreement, the General Partner delegated to Kinder Morgan Management, to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ partnership agreement, all of its power and authority to manage and control Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ business and affairs, except that Kinder Morgan Management cannot take certain specified actions without the approval of the General Partner. In accordance with its limited liability company agreement, Kinder Morgan Management’s activities will be restricted to being a limited partner in, and managing and controlling the business and affairs of, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and its operating limited partnerships.

Kinder Morgan (Delaware), Inc. is our sole stockholder and it is wholly owned by Knight Inc.

Information in this report should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Balance Sheet and related notes as of December 31, 2007 filed as Exhibit 99.1 of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 20, 2008 (“2007 Form 8-K”), the consolidated financial statements and related notes included in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, and the consolidated financial statements and related notes included in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

We have prepared the accompanying unaudited interim Consolidated Balance Sheet under the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Under such SEC rules and regulations, we have condensed or omitted certain information and notes normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). Our management believes, however, that our disclosures are adequate to make the information presented not misleading. The accompanying interim Consolidated Balance Sheet reflects normal adjustments, and also recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of a financial position for an interim period.

The accompanying interim Consolidated Balance Sheet includes the accounts of Kinder Morgan, G.P., Inc. and our majority-owned and controlled subsidiaries, as well as those of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and Kinder Morgan Management. Except for Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and Kinder Morgan Management, investments in 50% or less owned operations

are accounted for under the equity method. These investments reported under the equity method include jointly owned operations in which we have the ability to exercise significant influence over their operating and financial policies.

Under the provisions of SFAS No. 94, Consolidation of All Majority-Owned Subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries – companies in which a parent has a controlling financial interest through direct or indirect ownership of a majority voting interest – are consolidated. Through its ownership of Kinder Morgan Management’s only two voting shares, the General Partner owns a majority voting interest in Kinder Morgan Management and, accordingly, the accounts of Kinder Morgan Management and its subsidiary, Kinder Morgan Services LLC, have been included in the accompanying interim Consolidated Balance Sheet. In addition, we wholly own KMGP Services Company, Inc. All material intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

New Accounting Standards - SFAS No. 157

On September 15, 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements.” In general, fair value measurements and disclosures are made in accordance with the provisions of this Statement and, while not requiring material new fair value measurements, SFAS No. 157 established a single definition of fair value in generally accepted accounting principles and expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. The provisions of this Statement apply to other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements; the Financial Accounting Standards Board having previously concluded in those accounting pronouncements that fair value is the relevant measurement attribute. On February 12, 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position FAS 157-2, “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157,” referred to as FAS 157-2 in this report. FAS 157-2 delayed the effective date of SFAS No. 157 for all nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually).

Accordingly, we have not applied the provisions of SFAS No. 157 to (i) nonfinancial assets and liabilities initially measured at fair value in business combinations; (ii) reporting units or nonfinancial assets and liabilities measured at fair value in conjunction with goodwill impairment testing; (iii) other nonfinancial assets measured at fair value in conjunction with impairment assessments; and (iv) asset retirement obligations initially measured at fair value, although the fair value measurements made in these circumstances are not necessarily different from those that would be made had the provisions of SFAS No. 157 been applied. We adopted the remainder of SFAS No. 157 effective January 1, 2008, and the adoption did not have a material impact to our balance sheet in measuring fair values.

The degree of judgment utilized in measuring the fair value of financial instruments generally correlates to the level of pricing observability. Pricing observability is affected by a number of factors, including the type of financial instrument, whether the financial instrument is new to the market and the characteristics specific to the transaction. Financial instruments with readily available active quoted prices or for which fair value can be measured from actively quoted prices generally will have a higher degree of pricing observability and a lesser degree of judgment utilized in measuring fair value. Conversely, financial instruments rarely traded or not quoted will generally have less (or no) pricing observability and a higher degree of judgment utilized in measuring fair value.

SFAS No. 157 established a hierarchal disclosure framework associated with the level of pricing observability utilized in measuring fair value. This framework defined three levels of inputs to the fair value measurement process, and requires that each fair value measurement be assigned to a level corresponding to the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. The three broad levels of inputs defined by the SFAS No. 157 hierarchy are as follows:

Level 1 Inputs—quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date;

Level 2 Inputs—inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. If the asset or liability has a specified (contractual) term, a Level 2 input must be observable for substantially the full term of the asset or liability; and

Level 3 Inputs—unobservable inputs for the asset or liability. These unobservable inputs reflect the entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, and are developed based on the best information available in the circumstances (which might include the reporting entity’s own data).

Derivative contracts can be exchange-traded or over-the-counter, referred to in this report as OTC. Exchange-traded derivative contracts typically fall within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy if they are traded in an active market. We value exchange-traded derivative contracts using quoted market prices for identical securities.

OTC derivative contracts are valued using models utilizing a variety of inputs including contractual terms; commodity, interest rate and foreign currency curves; and measures of volatility. The selection of a particular model and particular inputs to value an OTC derivative depends upon the contractual terms of the instrument as well as the availability of pricing information in the market. We use similar models to value similar instruments. For OTC derivative contracts that trade in liquid markets, such as generic forwards and swaps, model inputs can generally be verified and model selection does not involve significant management judgment. Such contracts are typically classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Certain OTC derivative contracts trade in less liquid markets with limited pricing information, and the determination of fair value for these derivative contracts is inherently more difficult. Such contracts are classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The valuations of these less liquid OTC derivative contracts are typically impacted by Level 1 and/or Level 2 inputs that can be observed in the market, as well as unobservable Level 3 inputs. Use of a different valuation model or different valuation input values could produce a significantly different estimate of fair value. However, derivative contracts valued using inputs unobservable in active markets are generally not material to our financial statements.

When appropriate, valuations are adjusted for various factors including credit considerations. Such adjustments are generally based on available market evidence. In the absence of such evidence, management’s best estimate is used.

The following tables summarize the fair value measurements of (i) energy commodity derivative contracts; and (ii) interest rate swap agreements as of June 30, 2008, based on the three levels established by SFAS No. 157, and does not include cash margin deposits, which are reported as “Restricted deposits” in the accompanying interim Consolidated Balance Sheets:

	Asset Fair Value Measurements as of June 30, 2008 Using
	Total		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)			Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)			Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	(In millions)
Energy Commodity Derivative Contracts1	$	115.0		$	—		$	79.1		$	35.9

Interest Rate Swap Agreements	$	158.9		$	—		$	158.9		$	—

	Liability Fair Value Measurements as of June 30, 2008 Using
	Total			Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Liabilities (Level 1)				Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)				Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	(In millions)
Energy Commodity Derivative Contracts2	$	(3,165.9	)		$	(6.7	)		$	(2,890.3	)		$	(268.9	)

Interest Rate Swap Agreements	$	(30.0	)		$	—			$	(30.0	)		$	—

____________

1	Level 2 consists primarily of OTC West Texas Intermediate hedges. Level 3 consists primarily of West Texas Sour hedges and West Texas Intermediate options.

2	Level 1 consists primarily of NYMEX Natural Gas futures. Level 2 consists primarily of OTC West Texas Intermediate hedges. Level 3 consists primarily of West Texas Sour hedges and West Texas Intermediate options.

The table below provides a summary of changes in the fair value of Level 3 energy commodity derivative contracts for the six months ended June 30, 2008:

Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

	Six Months Ended June 30, 2008
	(In millions)
Net asset/(liability)
Beginning of Period	$	(100.3	)
Realized and unrealized net losses		(186.3	)
Purchases and settlements		53.6
Transfers in (out) of Level 3		—
End of Period		(233.0	)

Change in unrealized net losses relating to contracts still held as of June 30, 2008	$	(160.8	)

3.	Business Combinations, Investments, and Sales

Trans Mountain Pipeline System

On April 30, 2007, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners acquired the Trans Mountain pipeline system from Knight Inc. for $549.1 million in cash. The transaction was approved by the independent directors of both Knight Inc. and Kinder Morgan Management following the receipt, by such directors, of separate fairness opinions from different investment banks. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners paid $549.0 million of the purchase price on April 30, 2007, and paid the remaining $0.1 million in July 2007.

In April 2008, as a result of finalizing certain “true-up” provisions in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ acquisition agreement related to Trans Mountain pipeline expansion commitments, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners received a cash contribution of $23.4 million from Knight Inc. Pursuant to the accounting provisions concerning transfers of net assets between entities under common control, and consistent with Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ treatment of cash payments made to Knight Inc. for Trans Mountain net assets in 2007, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners accounted for this cash contribution as an adjustment to equity.

Effective January 1, 2006, we, according to the provisions of Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 04-5, Determining Whether a General Partner, or the General Partners as a Group, Controls a Limited Partnership or Similar Entity When the Limited Partners Have Certain Rights, were deemed to have control over Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and no longer account for this investment under the equity method of accounting, but instead include Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ accounts, balances and results of operations in our consolidated financial statements. As required by the provisions of SFAS No. 141, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners accounted for its acquisition of Trans Mountain as a transfer of net assets between entities under common control. For combinations of entities under common control, the purchase cost provisions (as they relate to purchase business combinations involving unrelated entities) of SFAS No. 141 explicitly do not apply; instead, the method of accounting prescribed by SFAS No. 141 for such transfers is similar to the pooling-of-interests method of accounting. Under this method, the carrying amount of net assets recognized in the balance sheets of each combining entity are carried forward to the balance sheet of the combined entity, and no other assets or liabilities are recognized as a result of the combination (that is, no recognition is made for a purchase premium or discount representing any difference between the cash consideration paid and the book value of the net assets acquired).

Therefore, following Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ acquisition of Trans Mountain from Knight Inc. on April 30, 2007, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners recognized the Trans Mountain assets and liabilities acquired at their carrying amounts (historical cost) in the accounts of Knight Inc. (the transferring entity) at the date of transfer. The accounting treatment for combinations of entities under common control is consistent with the concept of poolings as combinations of common shareholder (or unitholder) interests, as all of Trans Mountain’s equity accounts were also carried forward intact initially, and subsequently adjusted due to the cash consideration paid for the acquired net assets.

The Trans Mountain pipeline system, which transports crude oil and refined products from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada to marketing terminals and refineries in British Columbia and the state of Washington, completed a pump station expansion in April 2007 that increased pipeline throughput capacity to approximately 260,000 barrels per day. An additional expansion

that increased pipeline capacity by 25,000 barrels per day was completed and began service on May 1, 2008. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners expects to complete construction on a final 15,000 barrel per day expansion by the fourth quarter of 2008, and upon completion, total pipeline capacity will then be approximately 300,000 barrels per day. In addition, due to the fact that Trans Mountain’s operations are managed separately, involve different products and marketing strategies, and produce discrete financial information that is separately evaluated internally by management, the Trans Mountain pipeline system has been identified as a separate reportable business segment.

Investment in Rockies Express Pipeline

In the first six months of 2008, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners made capital contributions of $306.0 million to West2East Pipeline LLC (the sole owner of Rockies Express Pipeline LLC) to partially fund its Rockies Express Pipeline construction costs. This cash contribution was included within “Investments” in the accompanying interim Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2008. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners owns a 51% equity interest in the Rockies Express joint venture pipeline.

4.	Goodwill and Other Intangibles, Net

Goodwill

Changes in the carrying amount of our goodwill for the six months ended June 30, 2008 are summarized as follows:

	January 1, 2008		Acquisitions and Purchase Price Adjustments1			Impairment			Other2			June 30, 2008
	(In millions)
Products Pipelines Segment – KMP	$	2,218.4	$	(311.9	)	$	(664.9	)	$	(6.0	)	$	1,235.6
Natural Gas Pipelines Segment – KMP		2,796.8		275.0			(1,493.9	)		(9.2	)		1,568.7
CO2 Segment – KMP		1,083.5		264.5			-			(3.2	)		1,344.8
Terminals Segment – KMP		1,402.5		(96.6	)		(172.5	)		(3.9	)		1,129.5
Trans Mountain Segment – KMP		250.5		-			-			(7.3	)		243.2

Consolidated Total – KMP	$	7,751.7	$	131.0		$	(2,331.3	)	$	(29.6	)	$	5,521.8

_______________

1	Adjustments relate to a reallocation between goodwill and property, plant and equipment in our final purchase price allocation.

2	Adjustments include (i) the translation of goodwill denominated in foreign currencies and (ii) reductions in the allocation of equity method goodwill due to reductions in our ownership percentage of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners.

We evaluate for the impairment of goodwill in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. For this purpose, we have six reporting units as follows: (i) Products Pipelines – KMP (excluding associated terminals), (ii) Products Pipelines Terminals – KMP (evaluated separately from Products Pipelines for goodwill purposes), (iii) Natural Gas Pipelines – KMP, (iv) CO2 – KMP, (v) Terminals – KMP and (vi) TransMountain – KMP. For the investments we continue to account for under the equity method of accounting, the premium or excess cost over underlying fair value of net assets is referred to as equity method goodwill and is not subject to amortization but rather to impairment testing in accordance with APB No. 18, The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock. As of June 30, 2008, we have reported $138.2 million of equity method goodwill within the caption “Investments” in the accompanying interim Consolidated Balance Sheet.

In 2008, we finalized the purchase price allocation associated with our May 2007 Going Private transaction, establishing the fair values of our individual assets and liabilities including assigning the associated goodwill to our six reporting units, in each case as of the May 31, 2007 acquisition date. The goodwill that arose in conjunction with this acquisition, which constitutes all of our recorded goodwill, was determined to be associated with the General Partner’s interests in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (a publicly traded master limited partnership, “MLP”). The goodwill was attributable, in part, to the difference between the market multiples that are paid to acquire the general partner interest in an MLP and the market multiples that are (or would be) paid to acquire the individual assets that comprise the MLP.

In conjunction with our annual impairment test of the carrying value of this goodwill, performed as of May 31, 2008, we determined that the fair value of certain reporting units that are part of our investment in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners were less than the carrying values. In addition, the fair value of each reporting unit was determined from the present value of the expected future cash flows from the applicable reporting unit (inclusive of a terminal value calculated using a market multiple for the individual assets). For the reporting units where the fair value was less than the carrying value, we

determined the implied fair value of goodwill. The implied fair value of goodwill within each reporting unit was then compared to the carrying value of goodwill of each such unit, resulting in the following goodwill impairments by our reporting unit: Products Pipelines – KMP (excluding associated terminals) – $626.5 million, Products Pipelines Terminals – KMP (separate from Products Pipelines – KMP for goodwill impairment purposes) - $38.4 million, Natural Gas Pipelines – KMP – $1,493.9 million, and Terminals – KMP – $172.5 million, for a total impairment of $2,331.3 million. While the impairment test is substantially complete, final adjustments may be recorded during the last six months of 2008. The goodwill impairment charges do not affect cash.

Other Intangibles, Net

Our intangible assets other than goodwill include customer relationships, contracts and agreements, technology-based assets, and lease value. These intangible assets have definite lives, are being amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, and are reported separately as “Other Intangibles, Net” in the accompanying interim Consolidated Balance Sheet. Following is information related to our intangible assets:

	June 30, 2008
	(In millions)
Customer Relationships, Contracts and Agreements:
Gross Carrying Amount	$	263.9
Accumulated Amortization		(20.4	)
Net Carrying Amount		243.5

Technology-based Assets, Lease Value and Other:
Gross Carrying Amount		11.7
Accumulated Amortization		(0.5	)
Net Carrying Amount		11.2

Total Other Intangibles, Net	$	254.7

As of June 30, 2008, the weighted-average amortization period for our intangible assets was approximately 17.0 years.

5.	Capitalization

Common Unit Offerings

On February 12, 2008, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners completed an offering of 1,080,000 of its common units at a price of $55.65 per unit in a privately negotiated transaction. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners received net proceeds of $60.1 million for the issuance of these 1,080,000 common units, and the proceeds were used to reduce the borrowings under its commercial paper program. This transaction had the associated effects of increasing our (i) minority interests associated with Kinder Morgan Energy Partners by $60.0 million and (ii) associated accumulated deferred income taxes by $0.1 million and reducing our (i) goodwill by $3.6 million and (ii) paid-in capital by $3.6 million.

On March 10, 2008, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners completed a public offering of 5,750,000 of its common units at a price of $57.70 per unit, including common units sold pursuant to the underwriters’ over-allotment option, less commissions and underwriting expenses. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners received net proceeds of $324.2 million for the issuance of these common units, and used the proceeds to reduce the borrowings under its commercial paper program. This transaction had the associated effects of increasing our (i) minority interests associated with Kinder Morgan Energy Partners by $323.5 million and (ii) associated accumulated deferred income taxes by $0.5 million and reducing our (i) goodwill by $18.8 million and (ii) paid-in capital by $18.6 million.

Dividends

On July 16, 2008, our board of directors declared a quarterly cash dividend on our Series A Fixed-to-Floating Rate Term Cumulative Preferred Stock of $20.825 per share which was paid on August 18, 2008 to shareholders of record as of July 31, 2008.

On April 16, 2008, our board of directors declared a quarterly cash dividend on our Series A Fixed-to-Floating Rate Term Cumulative Preferred Stock of $20.825 per share, which was paid on May 15, 2008 to shareholders of record as of April 30, 2008.

Debt

On February 12, 2008, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners completed a public offering of senior notes. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners issued a total of $900 million in principal amount of senior notes, consisting of $600 million of 5.95% notes due February 15, 2018, and $300 million of 6.95% notes due January 15, 2038. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners received proceeds from the issuance of the notes, after underwriting discounts and commissions, of approximately $894.1 million, and used the proceeds to reduce the borrowings under its commercial paper program. The issuance of the $900 million senior notes due in 2038 constitute a further issuance of the $550 million aggregate principal amount of 6.95% notes Kinder Morgan Energy Partners issued on June 21, 2007 and form a single series with those notes.

On June 6, 2008, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners completed an additional public offering of senior notes. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners issued a total of $700 million in principal amount of senior notes, consisting of $375 million of 5.95% notes due February 15, 2018, and $325 million of 6.95% notes due January 15, 2038. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners received proceeds from the issuance of the notes, after underwriting discounts and commissions, of approximately $687.7 million, and used the proceeds to reduce the borrowings under its commercial paper program. Additionally, following the issuance of $700 million of senior notes on that date, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners entered into two fixed-to-floating interest rate swap agreements having the same notional principal amount associated with these senior notes. The notes due in 2018 constitute a further issuance of the $600 million aggregate principal amount of 5.95% notes issued on February 12, 2008 and will form a single series with those notes. The notes due in 2038 constitute a further issuance of the combined $850 million aggregate principal amount of 6.95% notes issued on June 21, 2007 and February 12, 2008, respectively, and will form a single series with those notes.

Distributions

During the six months ended June 30, 2008, we distributed $367.0 million to our sole stockholder, Kinder Morgan (Delaware), Inc. all of which was designated as a return of capital and deducted from additional paid-in capital.

Effective March 31, 2008, our sole stockholder, Kinder Morgan (Delaware), Inc., made a capital contribution in the amount of $167.8 million. This capital contribution was made in the form of converting the $167.8 million balance of our long-term related party note payable into equity.

6.	Regulatory Matters

FERC Order No. 2004/690

Since November 2003, the FERC issued Orders No. 2004, 2004-A, 2004-B, 2004-C, and 2004-D, adopting new Standards of Conduct as applied to natural gas pipelines. The primary change from existing regulation was to make such standards applicable to an interstate natural gas pipeline’s interaction with many more affiliates (“energy affiliates”). The Standards of Conduct require, among other things, separate staffing of interstate pipelines and their energy affiliates (but support functions and senior management at the central corporate level may be shared) and strict limitations on communications from an interstate pipeline to an energy affiliate.

However, on November 17, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Docket No. 04-1183, vacated FERC Orders 2004, 2004-A, 2004-B, 2004-C, and 2004-D as applied to natural gas pipelines, and remanded these same orders back to the FERC.

On January 9, 2007, the FERC issued an Interim Rule, effective January 9, 2007, in response to the court’s action. In the Interim Rule, the FERC readopted the Standards of Conduct, but revised or clarified with respect to issues that had been appealed to the court. Specifically, the following changes were made:

the Standards of Conduct apply only to the relationship between interstate natural gas transmission pipelines and their marketing affiliates, not their energy affiliates;

all risk management personnel can be shared;

the requirement to post discretionary tariff actions was eliminated (but interstate natural gas pipelines must still maintain a log of discretionary tariff waivers);

lawyers providing legal advice may be shared employees; and

new interstate natural gas transmission pipelines are not subject to the Standards of Conduct until they commence service.

The FERC clarified that all exemptions and waivers issued under Order No. 2004 remain in effect. On January 18, 2007, the FERC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments regarding whether or not the Interim Rule should be made permanent for natural gas transmission providers (“January 18 NOPR”). On March 21, 2007, the FERC issued an Order on Clarification and Rehearing of the Interim Rule that granted clarification that the Standards of Conduct only apply to natural gas transmission providers that are affiliated with a marketing or brokering entity that conducts transportation transactions on such natural gas transmission provider’s pipeline.

On March 21, 2008, as part of an effort to undertake a broader review of the existing Standards of Conduct, the FERC issued a new notice of proposed rulemaking revamping the Standards of Conduct in order to make compliance and enforcement easier, rather than issuing a Final Rule on the January 18 NOPR. The intention of this action is to return to the core principles of the original Standards of Conduct, which established a functional separation between transmission and merchant personnel for natural gas and electric transmission providers. The new NOPR is made up of three rules: independent functioning of transmission function employees from marketing function employees, the no-conduit rule prohibiting the passing and receipt of non-public transmission information, and the transparency rule to detect undue discrimination. Comments on the revised NOPR were filed by numerous parties on May 12, 2008.

Notice of Inquiry – Financial Reporting

On February 15, 2007, the FERC issued a notice of inquiry seeking comment on the need for changes or revisions to the FERC’s reporting requirements contained in the financial forms for gas and oil pipelines and electric utilities. Initial comments were filed by numerous parties on March 27, 2007, and reply comments were filed on April 27, 2007.

On September 20, 2007, FERC issued for public comment in Docket No. RM07-9 a proposed rule that would revise its financial forms to require that additional information be reported by natural gas companies. The proposed rule would require, among other things, that natural gas companies: (i) submit additional revenue information, including revenue from shipper-supplied gas, (ii) identify the costs associated with affiliate transactions, and (iii) provide additional information on incremental facilities and on discounted and negotiated rates. The FERC proposes an effective date of January 1, 2008, which means that forms reflecting the new requirements for 2008 would be filed in early 2009. Comments on the proposed rule were filed by numerous parties on November 13, 2007.

On March 21, 2008, the FERC issued a Final Rule regarding changes to the Form 2, 2-A and 3Q. The revisions were designed to enhance the forms’ usefulness by updating them to reflect current market and cost information relevant to interstate pipelines and their customers. The rule is effective January 1, 2008 with the filing of the revised Form 3-Q beginning with the first quarter of 2009. The revised Form 2 and 2-A for calendar year 2008 material would be filed by April 30, 2009. On June 20, 2008, the FERC issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Rehearing and Granting Request for Clarification. No substantive changes were made to the March 21, 2008 Final Rule. On August 15, 2008, the American Gas Association filed a petition for review in the DC Court of Appeals appealing the Commission’s March 21 and June 30, 2008 Orders in this proceeding.

Notice of Inquiry – Fuel Retention Practices

On September 20, 2007, the FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on whether it should change its current policy and prescribe a uniform method for all interstate gas pipelines to use in recovering fuel gas and gas lost and unaccounted for. The Notice of Inquiry included numerous questions regarding fuel recovery issues and the effects of fixed fuel percentages as compared with tracking provisions. Comments on the Notice of Inquiry were filed by numerous parties on November 30, 2007.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Promotion of a More Efficient Capacity Release Market

On November 15, 2007, the FERC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in Docket No. RM 08-1-000 regarding proposed modifications to its Part 284 regulations concerning the release of firm capacity by shippers on interstate natural gas pipelines. The FERC proposes to remove, on a permanent basis, the rate ceiling on capacity release transactions of one year or less. Additionally, the FERC proposes to exempt capacity releases made as part of an asset management arrangement from the prohibition on tying and from the bidding requirements of section 284.8. Initial comments were filed by numerous parties on January 25, 2008. On June 19, 2008, the FERC issued a final rule regarding changes to the capacity release program. The Commission permitted market based pricing for short-term capacity releases of a year or less. Long-term capacity releases and the pipelines sale of its own capacity remains subject to a price cap. The ruling would facilitate asset management

arrangements by relaxing the FERC prohibitions on tying and on its bidding requirements for certain capacity releases. The FERC further clarified that its prohibition on tying does not apply to conditions associated with gas inventory held in storage for releases for firm storage capacity. Finally, the FERC waived the prohibition on tying and bidding requirements for capacity releases made as part of state-approved retail open access programs. The final rule became effective on July 30, 2008. On August 15, 2008, FERC issued an Order Granting Rehearing for Further Consideration due to the numerous requests for rehearing that it received.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Natural Gas Price Transparency

On April 19, 2007, the FERC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in Docket Nos. RM07-10-000 and AD06-11-000 regarding price transparency provisions of Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act and the Energy Policy Act. In the notice, the FERC proposed to revise its regulations to (i) require that intrastate pipelines post daily the capacities of, and volumes flowing through, their major receipt and delivery points and mainline segments in order to make available the information to track daily flows of natural gas throughout the United States; and (ii) require that buyers and sellers of more than a de minimis volume of natural gas report annual numbers and volumes of relevant transactions to the FERC in order to make possible an estimate of the size of the physical U.S. natural gas market, assess the importance of the use of index pricing in that market, and determine the size of the fixed-price trading market that produces the information. The FERC believes these revisions to its regulations will facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale or transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce. Initial comments were filed on July 11, 2007 and reply comments were filed on August 23, 2007. In addition, the FERC conducted an informal workshop in this proceeding on July 24, 2007, to discuss implementation and other technical issues associated with the proposals set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

In addition, on December 21, 2007, the FERC issued a new notice of proposed rulemaking in Docket No. RM08-2-000 regarding the daily posting provisions that were contained in Docket Nos. RM07-10-000 and AD06-11-000. The new notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to exempt from the daily posting requirements those non-interstate pipelines that (i) flow less than 10 million MMBtus of natural gas per year, (ii) fall entirely upstream of a processing plant, and (iii) deliver more than ninety-five percent (95%) of the natural gas volumes they flow directly to end-users. However, the new notice of proposed rulemaking expands the proposal to require that both interstate and non-exempt non-interstate pipelines post daily the capacities of, volumes scheduled at, and actual volumes flowing through, their major receipt and delivery points and mainline segments. Initial comments were filed by numerous parties on March 13, 2008. A Technical Conference was held on April 3, 2008. Numerous parties filed reply comments on April 14, 2008.

On December 26, 2007, the FERC issued Order No. 704 in this docket implementing only the annual reporting provisions of the notice of proposed rulemaking with minimal changes to the original proposal. The order became effective February 4, 2008. The initial report is due May 1, 2009 for calendar year 2008. Subsequent reports are due by May 1 of each year for the previous calendar year. Order 704 will require most, if not all Kinder Morgan natural gas pipelines to report annual volumes of relevant transactions to the FERC. Technical workshops were held on April 22, 2008 and May 19, 2008.

FERC Equity Return Allowance

On April 17, 2008, the FERC adopted a new policy under Docket No. PL07-2-000 that allows master limited partnerships to be included in proxy groups for the purpose of determining rates of return for both interstate natural gas and oil pipelines. Additionally, the policy statement concluded that (i) there should be no cap on the level of distributions included in the FERC’s current discounted cash flow methodology, (ii) the Institutional Brokers Estimated System forecasts should remain the basis for the short-term growth forecast used in the discounted cash flow calculation, (iii) there should be an adjustment to the long-term growth rate used to calculate the equity cost of capital for a master limited partnership, specifically the long term growth rate would be set at 50% of the gross domestic product, and (iv) there should be no modification to the current respective two-thirds and one-third weightings of the short-term and long-term growth factors. Additionally, the FERC decided not to explore other methods for determining a pipeline’s equity cost of capital at this time. The policy statement governs all future gas and oil rate proceedings involving the establishment of a return on equity, as well as those cases that are currently pending before either the FERC or an administrative law judge. On May 19, 2008, an application for rehearing was filed by The American Public Gas Association. On June 13, 2008, the FERC dismissed the request for rehearing.

Notice of Proposed RuleMaking - Rural Onshore Low Stress Hazardous Liquids Pipelines

On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, referred to in this report as the PHMSA, published a notice of proposed rulemaking (PHMSA 71 FR 52504) that proposed to extend certain threat-focused pipeline safety regulations to rural onshore low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines within a prescribed buffer of previously defined U.S. states. Low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines, except those in populated areas or that cross commercially navigable waterways, have not been subject to the safety regulations in PHMSA 49 C.F.R. Part

195.1. According to the PHMSA, unusually sensitive areas are areas requiring extra protection because of the presence of sole-source drinking water resources, endangered species, or other ecological resources that could be adversely affected by accidents or leaks occurring on hazardous liquid pipelines.

The notice proposed to define a category of “regulated rural onshore low-stress lines” (rural lines operating at or below 20% of specified minimum yield strength, with a diameter of eight and five-eighths inches or greater, located in or within a quarter-mile of a U.S. state) and to require operators of these lines to comply with a threat-focused set of requirements in Part 195 that already apply to other hazardous liquid pipelines. The proposed safety requirements addressed the most common threats—corrosion and third party damage—to the integrity of these rural lines. The proposal is intended to provide additional integrity protection, to avoid significant adverse environmental consequences, and to improve public confidence in the safety of unregulated low-stress lines.

Since the new notice is a proposed rulemaking in which the PHMSA will consider initial and reply comments from industry participants, it is not clear what impact the final rule will have on the business of our intrastate and interstate liquids pipeline companies.

Natural Gas Pipeline Expansion Filings

Rockies Express Pipeline-Currently Certificated Facilities

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners operates and owns a 51% ownership interest in West2East Pipeline LLC, a limited liability company that is the sole owner of Rockies Express Pipeline LLC, and operates Rockies Express Pipeline. ConocoPhillips owns a 24% ownership interest in West2East Pipeline LLC and Sempra Energy holds the remaining 25% interest. When construction of the entire Rockies Express Pipeline project is completed, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ ownership interest will be reduced to 50% at which time the capital accounts of West2East Pipeline LLC will be trued up to reflect Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ 50% economics in the project. According to the provisions of current accounting standards, due to the fact that Kinder Morgan Energy Partners will receive 50% of the economic benefits from the Rockies Express project on an ongoing basis, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners is not considered the primary beneficiary of West2East Pipeline LLC and thus, accounts for its investment under the equity method of accounting.

On August 9, 2005, the FERC approved the application of Rockies Express Pipeline LLC, formerly known as Entrega Gas Pipeline LLC, to construct 327 miles of pipeline facilities in two phases. For phase I (consisting of two pipeline segments), Rockies Express was granted authorization to construct and operate approximately 136 miles of pipeline extending northward from the Meeker Hub, located at the northern end of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ TransColorado pipeline system in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, to the Wamsutter Hub in Sweetwater County, Wyoming (segment 1), and then construct approximately 191 miles of pipeline eastward to the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado (segment 2). Construction of segments 1 and 2 has been completed, with interim service commencing on segment 1 on February 24, 2006, and full in-service of both segments on February 14, 2007. For phase II, Rockies Express was authorized to construct three compressor stations, referred to as the Meeker, Big Hole and Wamsutter compressor stations. The Meeker and Wamsutter stations went into service in January 2008. Construction of the Big Hole compressor station has commenced in the second quarter of 2008.

Rockies Express Pipeline-West Project

On April 19, 2007, the FERC issued a final order approving the Rockies Express application for authorization to construct and operate certain facilities comprising its proposed “Rockies Express-West Project.” This project is the first planned segment extension of the Rockies Express’ facilities described above, and it is comprised of approximately 713 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline extending from the Cheyenne Hub to an interconnection with Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line located in Audrain County, Missouri. The project also includes certain improvements to existing Rockies Express facilities located to the west of the Cheyenne Hub. Construction on Rockies Express-West commenced on May 21, 2007. Rockies Express-West began interim service for up to 1.4 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas on the West segment’s first 503 miles of pipe on January 12, 2008. The project commenced deliveries to Panhandle Eastern Pipeline, at Audrain County, Missouri, on the remaining 210 miles of pipe on May 20, 2008. The Rockies Express-West pipeline segment transports approximately 1.5 million cubic feet per day of natural gas across five states: Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri.

Rockies Express expects to conduct further hydrostatic testing of portions of its system during September to satisfy DOT testing requirements to operate at its targeted higher operating pressure. This hydrostatic test will result in the temporary outage of pipeline delivery points and an overall reduction of firm capacity available to firm shippers. By the terms of the Rockies Express FERC Gas Tariff, firm shippers are entitled to daily reservation revenue credits for non-force majeure and planned maintenance outages. We believe any revenue credits resulting from the temporary pipeline outage will not have a material adverse impact on our business, cash flows, financial position or results of operations.

Rockies Express Pipeline-East Project

On April 30, 2007, Rockies Express filed an application with the FERC requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity that would authorize construction and operation of the Rockies Express-East Project. The Rockies Express-East Project will be comprised of approximately 639 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline commencing from the terminus of the Rockies Express-West pipeline to a terminus near the town of Clarington in Monroe County, Ohio and will be capable of transporting approximately 1.8 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.

By order issued May 30, 2008, the FERC authorized the certificate to construct the Rockies Express Pipeline-East Project. Construction commenced on the Rockies Express-East pipeline on June 26, 2008. Subject to receipt of regulatory approvals, the project is expected to begin interim service to the Lebanon Hub in Warren County, Ohio by December 31, 2008, and be fully operational in the third quarter of 2009. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners is overseeing construction of the project and it will operate the pipeline.

Current market conditions for consumables, labor and construction equipment along with certain provisions in the final Environmental Impact Study have resulted in increased costs for the project and have affected certain projected completion dates. For example, the current estimate of total construction costs on the Rockies Express Pipeline is approximately $5.6 billion (consistent with Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ July 16, 2008 second quarter earnings press release), and interim service on the East Project is expected to begin by December 31, 2008 to the Lebanon Hub, as opposed to the initial projection of Clarington.

TransColorado Pipeline

On April 19, 2007, the FERC issued an order approving TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC’s application for authorization to construct and operate certain facilities comprising its proposed “Blanco-Meeker Expansion Project.” This compression and expansion project provides transportation capacity to move 250 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from the Blanco Hub area in San Juan County, New Mexico to the Rockies Express Pipeline at an existing point of interconnection located in the Meeker Hub in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Construction commenced on May 9, 2007, and the project was completed and entered service January 1, 2008.

Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission Pipeline

On August 6, 2007, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC (referred to in this report as KMIGT) filed in FERC Docket CP07-430, for regulatory approval to construct and operate a 41-mile, $30 million natural gas pipeline from the Cheyenne Hub to markets in and around Greeley, Colorado, referred to in this report as the Colorado Lateral. When completed, the Colorado Lateral will provide firm transportation of up to 55 million cubic feet per day to a local utility under long-term contract. The FERC issued a draft environmental assessment on the project on January 11, 2008, and comments on the project were received February 11, 2008. On February 21, 2008, the FERC granted the certificate application. On July 8, 2008, in response to a rehearing request by Public Service Company of Colorado (referred to in this report as PSCo) the FERC granted rehearing and denied KMIGT recovery in initial transportation rates $6.2 million in costs associated with non-jurisdictional laterals constructed by KMIGT to serve Atmos. The recourse rate adjustment is not expected to have any material effect on the negotiated rate paid by Atmos to KMIGT or the economics of the project. On July 25, 2008, KMIGT filed an amendment to its certification application seeking authorization to revise its initial rates for transportation service on the Colorado Lateral to reflect updated construction costs for jurisdictional mainline facilities.

PSCo, a competitor serving markets off the Colorado Lateral, also filed a complaint before the State of Colorado Public Utilities Commission (referred to in this report as PUC) against Atmos, the anchor shipper on the project. The PUC conducted a hearing on April 14, 2008 on the complaint, which is pending a ruling. On June 9, 2008, PSCo also filed before the PUC seeking a temporary cease and desist order to halt construction of the lateral facilities being constructed. Atmos filed a response to that motion on June 24, 2008. By order dated June 27, 2008 an administrative law judge for the PUC denied PSCo’s request for a temporary cease and desist order. Construction on the Colorado Lateral commenced May 12, 2008 and is targeted to be completed by October 1, 2008.

On December 21, 2007, KMIGT filed, in Docket CP 08-44, for approval to expand its system in Nebraska to serve incremental ethanol and industrial load. No protests to the application were filed and the project was approved by the FERC. Construction commenced on April 9, 2008 and is targeted to be completed by October 1, 2008. On August 22, 2008, the FERC approved KMIGT’s amendment to include higher costs in the derivation of the initial recourse rates.

Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline

On September 8, 2006, in FERC Docket No. CP06-449-000, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC filed an application with the FERC requesting approval to construct and operate the Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline. The natural gas pipeline will extend approximately 135 miles from Cheniere’s Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, to various delivery points in Louisiana and will provide interconnects with many other natural gas pipelines, including NGPL. The project is supported by fully subscribed capacity and long-term customer commitments with Chevron and Total.

On March 15, 2007, the FERC issued a preliminary determination that the authorizations requested, subject to some minor modifications, will be in the public interest. This order does not consider or evaluate any of the environmental issues in this proceeding. On April 19, 2007, the FERC issued the final environmental impact statement, or (“EIS”), which addressed the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline. The final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. It concluded that approval of the Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline project would have limited adverse environmental impacts. On June 22, 2007, the FERC issued an order granting construction and operation of the project. Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline officially accepted the order on July 10, 2007. Construction on the project commenced in January 2008. The entire estimated project cost is approximately $594 million and is expected to be in service by April 1, 2009.

On July 11, 2008, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline filed an amendment to its certificate application, seeking authorization to revise its initial rates for transportation service on the Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline system to reflect updated construction costs for the project. On August 14, 2008, the FERC approved the Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline’s filing to amend to its certificate application to revise its initial rates for transportation service and reflect updated construction costs for the project.

Midcontinent Express Pipeline

On October 9, 2007, in Docket No. CP08-6-000, Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC filed an application with the FERC requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity that would authorize construction and operation of the approximate 500-mile Midcontinent Express Pipeline natural gas transmission system.

The Midcontinent Express Pipeline will create long-haul, firm transportation takeaway capacity either directly or indirectly connected to natural gas producing regions located in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. The pipeline will originate in southeastern Oklahoma and traverse east through Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and terminate at an interconnection with the Transco Pipeline near Butler, Alabama. The Midcontinent Express Pipeline is a 50/50 joint venture between Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., and it has an estimated total capital cost of approximately $1.45 billion (consistent with Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ July 16, 2008 second quarter earnings press release). Initial design capacity for the pipeline was 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, which was fully subscribed with long-term binding commitments from creditworthy shippers. A successful binding open season was recently completed which would increase the main segment of the pipeline’s capacity to 1.8 billion cubic feet per day subject to regulatory approval.

On July 25, 2008, the FERC approved the application made by Midcontinent Express Pipeline to construct and operate the 500-mile Midcontinent Express Pipeline natural gas transmission system along with the lease of 272 million cubic feet of capacity on the Oklahoma intrastate system of Enogex Inc. Midcontinent Express Pipeline accepted the FERC Certificate on July 30, 2008. Construction of the pipeline is expected to commence in September of 2008 and be in service by the second quarter of 2009. On August 25, 2008, Midcontinent Express Pipeline filed a Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative for Rehearing with the FERC regarding whether the cost and revenue study requirement should be filed within three years after Midcontinent Express Pipeline’s in-service date for interim service or when the pipeline is fully operational.

Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners has undertaken a U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) compliance program for certain of its tanks and internal piping at six of its liquid terminals. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners anticipates the program will result in an incremental $3 million to $5 million of annual capital expenditures over the next six to ten years to improve and/or add facilities. These improvements will allow the tanks and piping previously considered as in plant piping to conduct

DOT jurisdictional transfers of products.

Other

Current market conditions for, among other things, consumables, labor and construction equipment, and permitting conditions, have adversely affected and will likely continue to adversely affect, final costs and completion dates for Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ natural gas construction projects.

7.	Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies

The following updates the disclosure in Note 17 to the Consolidated Balance Sheet included in the 2007 Form 8-K.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proceedings

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ SFPP, L.P. and Calnev Pipe Line LLC subsidiaries are involved in various proceedings before the FERC. The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP and Calnev are subject to numerous ongoing proceedings at the FERC, including shippers’ complaints and protests regarding interstate rates on these pipeline systems. In general, these complaints allege the rates and tariffs charged by SFPP and Calnev are not just and reasonable.

As to SFPP, the issues involved in these proceedings include, among others: (i) whether certain of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Pacific operations’ rates are “grandfathered” under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, referred to in this note as EPAct 1992, and therefore deemed to be just and reasonable, (ii) whether “substantially changed circumstances” have occurred with respect to any grandfathered rates such that those rates could be challenged, (iii) whether indexed rate increases may become effective without investigation, (iv) the capital structure to be used in computing the “starting rate base” of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Pacific operations, (v) the level of income tax allowance SFPP may include in its rates, and (vi) the recovery of civil and regulatory litigation expenses and certain pipeline reconditioning and environmental costs incurred by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Pacific operations.

In May 2005, the FERC issued a statement of general policy stating it will permit pipelines to include in cost of service a tax allowance to reflect actual or potential tax liability on their public utility income attributable to all partnership or limited liability company interests, if the ultimate owner of the interest has an actual or potential income tax liability on such income. Whether a pipeline’s owners have such actual or potential income tax liability will be reviewed by the FERC on a case-by-case basis. Although the new policy is generally favorable for pipelines that are organized as pass-through entities, it still entails rate risk due to the case-by-case review requirement.

In this note, we refer to SFPP, L.P. as SFPP; Calnev Pipe Line LLC as Calnev; Chevron Products Company as Chevron; Navajo Refining Company, L.P. as Navajo; ARCO Products Company as ARCO; BP West Coast Products, LLC as BP WCP; Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. as Texaco; Western Refining Company, L.P. as Western Refining; Mobil Oil Corporation as Mobil; ExxonMobil Oil Corporation as ExxonMobil ; Tosco Corporation as Tosco; ConocoPhillips Company as ConocoPhillips; Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation as Ultramar; Valero Energy Corporation as Valero; Valero Marketing and Supply Company as Valero Marketing; and America West Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co. and US Airways, Inc., collectively, as the Airline Complainants.

Following are a summary of developments during the six months of 2008 and a listing of certain active FERC proceedings pertaining to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Pacific operations:

FERC Docket No. OR92-8, et al.—Complainants/Protestants: Chevron; Navajo; ARCO; BP WCP; Western Refining; ExxonMobil ; Tosco; and Texaco (Ultramar is an intervenor)—Defendant: SFPP

Consolidated proceeding involving shipper complaints against certain East Line and West Line rates. All six issues (and others) described above are involved in these proceedings. Portions of this proceeding were appealed (and re-appealed) to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, referred to in this note as the D.C. Court, and remanded to the FERC. Portions of this proceeding are currently being held in abeyance by the D.C. Court pending completion of agency proceedings. BP WCP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil requested a hearing before the FERC on remanded grandfathering and income tax allowance issues. The FERC issued an Order on Rehearing, Remand, Compliance, and Tariff Filings on December 26, 2007, which denied the requests for a hearing, and ruled on SFPP’s March 7, 2006 compliance filing and remand issues. The FERC, inter alia, affirmed its income tax allowance policy, further clarified the implementation of that policy with respect to SFPP, and required SFPP to file a compliance filing. On February 15, 2008, the FERC issued an order granting and denying rehearing regarding certain findings in the December 2007 order;

FERC Docket No. OR92-8-025—Complainants/Protestants: BP WCP; ExxonMobil ; Chevron; ConocoPhillips; and Ultramar—Defendant: SFPP

Proceeding involving shipper complaints against rates charged prior to April 1, 1999 at SFPP’s Watson Station drain-dry facilities. A settlement reserved the issue of whether reparations were owed for the period prior to April 1, 1999. On February 12, 2008, the FERC ruled that SFPP owed reparations for shipments prior to April 1, 1999, and in March 2008, SFPP made the required reparation payments of $23.3 million;

FERC Docket No. OR96-2, et al.—Complainants/Protestants: All Shippers except Chevron (which is an intervenor)—Defendant: SFPP

Consolidated proceeding involving shipper complaints against all SFPP rates. All six issues (and others) described above are involved in these proceedings. Portions of this proceeding were appealed (and re-appealed) to the D.C. Court and remanded to the FERC. Portions of this proceeding are currently being held in abeyance by the D.C. Court pending completion of agency proceedings. The FERC issued an Order on Rehearing, Remand, Compliance, and Tariff Filings on December 26, 2007, which denied the requests for a hearing and ruled on SFPP’s March 7, 2006 compliance filing and remand issues. The FERC, inter alia, affirmed its income tax allowance policy and further clarified the implementation of that policy with respect to SFPP, and required SFPP to file a compliance filing. On February 15, 2008, the FERC issued an order granting and denying rehearing regarding certain findings in the December 2007 order. On May 2, 2008, the FERC issued an order reopening the record for a paper hearing on issues related to rate of return on equity applicable to the Sepulveda Line service in light of the FERC’s policy statement issued in April 2008 regarding the methodology for determining returns on equity. The parties have reached a settlement regarding the sole issue of the numeric value of the rate of return on equity to be applied in this proceeding with respect to the Sepulveda Line service that, upon approval by the FERC, would obviate the need for the paper hearing;

FERC Docket Nos. OR02-4 and OR03-5—Complainant/Protestant: Chevron—Defendant: SFPP

Chevron initiated proceeding to permit Chevron to become complainant in OR96-2. Appealed to the D.C. Court and held in abeyance pending final disposition of the OR96-2 proceedings;

FERC Docket No. OR04-3—Complainants/Protestants: America West Airlines; Southwest Airlines; Northwest Airlines; and Continental Airlines—Defendant: SFPP

Complaint alleges that West Line and Watson Station rates are unjust and unreasonable. Watson Station issues severed and consolidated into a proceeding focused only on Watson-related issues. The FERC has set the complaints against the West Line rates for hearing but denied the request to consolidate the dockets with the ongoing proceedings involving SFPP’s North and Oregon Line rates;

FERC Docket Nos. OR03-5, OR05-4 and OR05-5—Complainants/Protestants: BP WCP; ExxonMobil ; and ConocoPhillips (other shippers intervened)—Defendant: SFPP

Complaints allege that SFPP’s interstate rates are not just and reasonable. The FERC has set the complaints against the West and East Line rates for hearing, but denied the request to consolidate the dockets with the ongoing proceedings involving SFPP’s North and Oregon Line rates;

FERC Docket No. OR03-5-001—Complainants/Protestants: BP WCP; ExxonMobil ; and ConocoPhillips (other shippers intervened)—Defendant: SFPP

The FERC severed the portions of the complaints in Docket Nos. OR03-5, OR05-4, and OR05-5 regarding SFPP’s North and Oregon Line rates into a separate proceeding in Docket No. OR03-5-001. A hearing was held in May 2008 and an initial decision is expected in September 2008;

FERC Docket No. OR07-1—Complainant/Protestant: Tesoro—Defendant: SFPP

Complaint alleges that SFPP’s North Line rates are not just and reasonable. Complaint held in abeyance pending resolution at the D.C. Court of, among other things, income tax allowance and grandfathering issues. The D.C. Court issued an opinion on these issues on May 29, 2007, upholding the FERC’s income tax allowance policy;

FERC Docket No. OR07-2—Complainant/Protestant: Tesoro—Defendant: SFPP

Complaint alleges that SFPP’s West Line rates are not just and reasonable. Complaint held in abeyance pending resolution at the D.C. Court of, among other things, income tax allowance and grandfathering issues. The D.C. Court issued an opinion on these issues on May 29, 2007, upholding the FERC’s income tax allowance policy. A request that the FERC set the complaint for hearing – which SFPP opposed – is pending before the FERC;

FERC Docket No. OR07-3—Complainants/Protestants: BP WCP; Chevron; ExxonMobil; Tesoro; and Valero Marketing—Defendant: SFPP

Complaint alleges that SFPP’s North Line indexed rate increase was not just and reasonable. The FERC has dismissed the complaint and denied rehearing of the dismissal. Petitions for review were filed by BP WCP and ExxonMobil at the D.C. Court. On July 8, 2008, the FERC filed an unopposed motion to hold this proceeding in abeyance pending the D.C. Court’s ruling in the Tesoro review proceeding related to Docket No. OR07-16. The D.C. Court has not yet ruled upon this motion;

FERC Docket No. OR07-4—Complainants/Protestants: BP WCP; Chevron; and ExxonMobil—Defendants: SFPP; Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.; and Knight Inc.

Complaint alleges that SFPP’s rates are not just and reasonable. Complaint held in abeyance pending resolution at the D.C. Court of, among other things, income tax allowance and grandfathering issues. The D.C. Court issued an opinion on these issues on May 29, 2007, upholding the FERC’s income tax allowance policy. Complainants have withdrawn the portions of the complaint directed to SFPP’s affiliates;

FERC Docket Nos. OR07-5 and OR07-7 (consolidated)—Complainants/Protestants: ExxonMobil and Tesoro—Defendants: Calnev; Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.; and Knight Inc.

Complaints allege that none of Calnev’s current rates are just or reasonable. On July 19, 2007, the FERC accepted and held in abeyance the portion of the complaints against the non-grandfathered portion of Calnev’s rates, dismissed with prejudice the complaints against Calnev’s affiliates, and allowed complainants to file amended complaints regarding the grandfathered portion of Calnev’s rates. ExxonMobil filed a request for rehearing of the dismissal of the complaints against Calnev’s affiliates, which is currently pending before the FERC. Following a FERC decision in December 2007, ExxonMobil and Tesoro filed amended complaints in these dockets, which Calnev answered. The FERC has not acted on the amended complaints. Calnev and ExxonMobil have reached an agreement in principle to settle this and other dockets. On April 18, 2008, ExxonMobil filed a notice withdrawing its complaint in Docket No. OR07-5 and its motion to intervene in Docket No. OR07-7;

FERC Docket No. OR07-6—Complainant/Protestant: ConocoPhillips—Defendant: SFPP

Complaint alleges that SFPP’s North Line indexed rate increase was not just and reasonable. The FERC dismissed the complaints in Docket Nos. OR07-3 and OR07-6 in a single order, without consolidating the complaints, and denied the request for rehearing of the dismissal filed in Docket No. OR07-3. Although the FERC orders in these dockets have been appealed by certain of the complainants in Docket No. OR07-3, they were not appealed by ConocoPhillips in Docket No. OR07-6. The FERC’s decision in Docket No. OR07-6 is now final;

FERC Docket No. OR07-8 (consolidated with Docket No. OR07-11)—Complainant/Protestant: BP WCP—Defendant: SFPP

Complaint alleges that SFPP’s 2005 indexed rate increase was not just and reasonable. On June 6, 2007, the FERC dismissed challenges to SFPP’s underlying rate but held in abeyance the portion of the Complaint addressing SFPP’s July 1, 2005 index-based rate increases. SFPP requested rehearing on July 6, 2007, which the FERC denied. On February 13, 2008, the FERC set this complaint for hearing, but referred it to settlement negotiations that are ongoing. It is consolidated with the complaint in Docket No. OR07-11. The parties have reached an agreement in principle and expect to file an offer of settlement in the near future;

FERC Docket No. OR07-9—Complainant/Protestant: BP WCP—Defendant: SFPP

Complaint alleges that SFPP’s ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) recovery fee violates the filed rate doctrine and that, in any event, the recovery fee is unjust and unreasonable. On July 6, 2007, the FERC dismissed the complaint. BP WCP requested rehearing, which the FERC denied. A petition for review was filed by BP WCP, which was dismissed by the D.C. Court on March 17, 2008;

FERC Docket No. OR07-11 (consolidated with Docket No. OR07-8)—Complainant/Protestant: ExxonMobil —Defendant: SFPP

Complaint alleges that SFPP’s 2005 indexed rate increase was not just and reasonable. On February 13, 2008, the FERC set this complaint for hearing, but referred it to settlement negotiations that are ongoing. It is consolidated with the complaint in Docket No. OR07-8. The parties have reached an agreement in principle and expect to file an offer of settlement in the near future;

FERC Docket No. OR07-14—Complainants/Protestants: BP WCP and Chevron—Defendants: SFPP; Calnev, and several affiliates

Complaint alleges violations of the Interstate Commerce Act and FERC’s cash management regulations, seeks

review of the FERC Form 6 annual reports of SFPP and Calnev, and again requests interim refunds and reparations. The FERC dismissed the complaints, but directed SFPP and Calnev to review their cash management agreements and records to confirm compliance with FERC requirements and to make corrections, if necessary;

FERC Docket No. OR07-16—Complainant/Protestant: Tesoro—Defendant: Calnev

Complaint challenges Calnev’s 2005, 2006, and 2007 indexing adjustments. The FERC dismissed the complaint. A petition for review was filed by Tesoro and the case is in briefing phase before the D.C. Court;

FERC Docket No. OR07-18—Complainants/Protestants: Airline Complainants; Chevron; and Valero Marketing—Defendant: Calnev

Complaint alleges that Calnev’s rates are unjust and unreasonable and that none of Calnev’s rates are grandfathered under EPAct 1992. In December 2007, the FERC issued an order accepting and holding in abeyance the portion of the complaint against the non-grandfathered portion of Calnev’s rates. The order also gave complainants 45 days to amend their complaint against the grandfathered portion of Calnev’s rates in light of clarifications provided in the FERC’s order. The FERC has not acted on the amended complaint;

FERC Docket No. OR07-19—Complainant/Protestant: ConocoPhillips—Defendant: Calnev

Complaint alleges that Calnev’s rates are unjust and unreasonable and that none of Calnev’s rates are grandfathered under EPAct 1992. In December 2007, the FERC issued an order accepting and holding in abeyance the portion of the complaint against the non-grandfathered portion of Calnev’s rates. The order also gave complainant 45 days to amend its complaint against the grandfathered portion of Calnev’s rates in light of clarifications provided in the FERC’s order. The FERC has not acted on the amended complaint;

FERC Docket No. OR07-20—Complainant/Protestant: BP WCP—Defendant: SFPP

Complaint alleges that SFPP’s 2007 indexed rate increase was not just and reasonable. The FERC dismissed the complaint and complainant filed a request for rehearing. Prior to a FERC ruling on the request for rehearing, the parties reached a settlement. In February 2008, FERC accepted a joint offer of settlement that dismissed, with prejudice, the East Line index rate portion of the complaint in OR07-20 for the period from June 1, 2006 through and to November 30, 2007. Petition for review filed by BP WCP at the D.C. Court;

FERC Docket No. OR07-22—Complainant/Protestant: BP WCP—Defendant: Calnev

Complaint alleges that Calnev’s rates are unjust and unreasonable and that none of Calnev’s rates are grandfathered under EPAct 1992. In December 2007, the FERC issued an order giving complainant 45 days to amend its complaint in light of guidance provided by the FERC. The FERC has not acted on the amended complaint;

FERC Docket No. IS05-230 (North Line rate case)—Complainants/Protestants: Shippers—Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed to increase North Line rates to reflect increased costs due to installation of new pipe between Concord and Sacramento, California. Various shippers protested. The administrative law judge’s decision is pending before the FERC on exceptions. On August 31, 2007, BP WCP and ExxonMobil filed a motion to reopen the record on the issue of SFPP’s appropriate rate of return on equity, which SFPP answered on September 18, 2007. On May 2, 2008, the FERC issued an order reopening the record in Docket No. IS05-230 for a paper hearing on issues related to rate of return on equity in light of the FERC’s policy statement issued in April of 2008 regarding the methodology for determining returns on equity. The parties have reached a settlement regarding the sole issue of the numeric value of the rate of return on equity to be applied in this proceeding that, upon approval by the FERC, would obviate the need for the paper hearing;

FERC Docket No. IS05-327—Complainants/Protestants: Shippers—Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed to increase certain rates on its pipelines pursuant to the FERC’s indexing methodology. Various shippers protested, but the FERC determined that the tariff filings were consistent with its regulations. The FERC denied rehearing. The D.C. Court dismissed a petition for review, citing a lack of jurisdiction to review a decision by the FERC not to order an investigation;

FERC Docket No. IS06-283 (East Line rate case)—Complainants/Protestants: Shippers—Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed to increase East Line rates to reflect increased costs due to installation of new pipe between El Paso, Texas and Tucson, Arizona. Various shippers protested. In November 2007, the parties submitted a joint offer of settlement that was certified to the FERC in December 2007. In February 2008, as clarified in April 2008, the FERC accepted the joint offer of settlement, which among other things, resolved all protests and complaints related to the East Line Phase I Expansion Tariff. SFPP made the payments to the parties to the settlement on April 8, 2008 and certified to the FERC that such payments were made on April 9, 2008;

FERC Docket No. IS06-296—Complainant/Protestant: ExxonMobil —Defendant: Calnev

Calnev increased its interstate rates pursuant to the FERC’s indexing methodology. ExxonMobil protested the indexing adjustment, and the FERC set the proceeding for investigation and hearing. Calnev filed a motion to dismiss that is currently pending before the FERC. This proceeding is currently in abeyance pending ongoing settlement discussions. Calnev and ExxonMobil have reached an agreement in principle to settle this and other dockets. On April 18, 2008, ExxonMobil filed a notice withdrawing its protest in Docket No. IS06-296;

FERC Docket No. IS06-356—Complainants/Protestants: Shippers—Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed to increase certain rates on its pipelines pursuant to the FERC’s indexing methodology. Various shippers protested, but the FERC found the tariff filings consistent with its regulations. The FERC has rescinded the index increase for the East Line rates, and SFPP has requested rehearing. The D.C. Court dismissed a petition for review, citing the rehearing request pending before the FERC. On September 20, 2007, the FERC denied SFPP’s request for rehearing. In November 2007, all parties submitted a joint offer of settlement. In February 2008, the FERC accepted the joint offer of settlement which, among other things, resolved all protests and complaints related to the East Line 2006 Index Tariff. SFPP made the payments to the parties to the settlement on April 8, 2008 and certified to the FERC that such payments were made on April 9, 2008;

FERC Docket No. IS07-137 (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) surcharge)—Complainants/Protestants: Shippers—Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed tariffs reflecting a ULSD recovery fee on diesel products and a ULSD litigation surcharge, and various shippers protested the tariffs. The FERC accepted, subject to refund, the ULSD recovery fee, rejected the ULSD litigation surcharge, and has held the proceeding in abeyance pending resolution of other proceedings involving SFPP. Chevron and Tesoro filed requests for rehearing, which the FERC denied by operation of law. BP WCP petitioned the D.C. Court for review of the FERC’s denial, the FERC filed a motion to dismiss, and the D.C. Court granted the FERC’s motion. In May 2008, the FERC set this proceeding for hearing and held the proceeding in abeyance pending ongoing settlement negotiations

FERC Docket No. IS07-229—Complainants/Protestants: BP WCP and ExxonMobil —Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed to increase certain rates on its pipelines pursuant to the FERC’s indexing methodology. Two shippers filed protests. The FERC found the tariff filings consistent with its regulations but suspended the increased rates subject to refund pending challenges to SFPP’s underlying rates. In November 2007, all parties submitted a joint offer of settlement. In February 2008, the FERC accepted the joint offer of settlement, which among other things, resolved all protests and complaints related to the East Line 2007 Index Tariff. In April 2008, SFPP certified payments under the settlement agreement;

FERC Docket No. IS07-234—Complainants/Protestants: BP WCP and ExxonMobil —Defendant: Calnev

Calnev filed to increase certain rates on its pipeline pursuant to FERC’s indexing methodology. Two shippers protested. The FERC found the tariff filings consistent with its regulations but suspended the increased rates subject to refund pending challenges to SFPP’s underlying rates. Calnev and ExxonMobil have reached an agreement in principle to settle this and other dockets. On April 18, 2008, ExxonMobil filed a notice withdrawing its protest in Docket No. IS07-234;

FERC Docket No. IS08-28—Complainants/Protestants: ConocoPhillips; Chevron; BP WCP; ExxonMobil ; Southwest Airlines; Western; and Valero—Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed to increase its East Line rates based on costs incurred related to an expansion. Various shippers filed protests, which SFPP answered. The FERC issued an order on November 29, 2007 accepting and suspending the tariff subject to refund. The proceeding is being held in abeyance pursuant to ongoing settlement negotiations. Docket No. IS08-389 has been consolidated with this preceding;

FERC Docket No. IS08-302—Complainants/Protestants: Chevron; BP WCP; ExxonMobil; and Tesoro—Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed to increase certain rates on its pipelines pursuant to FERC’s indexing methodology. Certain shippers protested. The FERC found the tariff filings consistent with its regulations but suspended the increased rates subject to refund (except for the Oregon Line rate) pending challenges to SFPP’s underlying rates;

FERC Docket No. IS08-389—Complainants/Protestants: ConocoPhillips, Valero, Southwest Airlines Co., Navajo, Western—Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed to decrease rates on its East Line. In July of 2008, various shippers protested, claiming that the rates should have been further decreased. On July 29, 2008, the FERC accepted and suspended the tariff, subject to

refund, to become effective August 1, 2008, consolidated the proceeding with Docket No. IS08-28, and held in abeyance further action pending the outcome of settlement negotiations;

FERC Docket No. IS08-390—Complainants/Protestants: BP WCP, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Chevron, the Airlines—Defendant: SFPP

SFPP filed to increase rates on its West Line. In July 2008, various shippers protested, claiming that the rates are unjust and unreasonable. On July 29, 2008, the FERC suspended the tariffs, to become effective August 1, 2008, subject to refund, established a hearing, and held the hearing in abeyance pending the outcome of settlement negotiation; and

Motions to compel payment of interim damages (various dockets)—Complainants/Protestants: Shippers—Defendants: SFPP; Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.; and Knight Inc.

Motions seek payment of interim refunds or escrow of funds pending resolution of various complaints and protests involving SFPP. The FERC denied shippers’ refund requests in an order issued on December 26, 2007 in Docket Nos. OR92-8, et al. On March 19, 2008, ConocoPhillips and Tosco filed a Motion for Interim Refund and Reparations Order. SFPP filed a response on April 3, 2008. The FERC has yet to act on the parties’ motion.

In December 2005, SFPP received a FERC order in Docket Nos. OR92-8, et al. and OR96-2, et al. that directed it to submit compliance filings and revised tariffs. In accordance with the FERC’s December 2005 order and its February 2006 order on rehearing, SFPP submitted a compliance filing to the FERC in March 2006, and rate reductions were implemented on May 1, 2006.

In December 2007, as a follow-up to the March 2006 compliance filing, SFPP received a FERC order that directed it to submit revised compliance filings and revised tariffs. In conjunction with this order, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Pacific operations’ other FERC and California Public Utilities Commission rate cases, and other unrelated litigation matters, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners increased its litigation reserves by $140.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2007. We assume that, with respect to SFPP litigation reserves, any reparations and accrued interest thereon will be paid no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2008. In accordance with the FERC’s December 2007 order and its February 2008 order on rehearing, SFPP submitted a compliance filing to the FERC in February 2008, and further rate reductions were implemented on March 1, 2008. We estimate that the impact of the new rates on Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ 2008 budget will be less than $3.0 million.

In the second quarter of 2008, SFPP and Calnev made combined settlement payments to various shippers totaling approximately $6.9 million and in general, if the shippers are successful in proving their claims, they are entitled to reparations or refunds of any excess tariffs or rates paid during the two year period prior to the filing of their complaint, and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ SFPP and Calnev operations may be required to reduce the amount of their tariffs or rates for particular services. These proceedings tend to be protracted, with decisions of the FERC often appealed to the federal courts. Based on our review of these FERC proceedings, we estimate that as of June 30, 2008, shippers are seeking approximately $267 million in reparation and refund payments and approximately $45 million in additional annual rate reductions.

California Public Utilities Commission Proceedings

On April 7, 1997, ARCO, Mobil and Texaco filed a complaint against SFPP with the California Public Utilities Commission, referred to in this note as the CPUC. The complaint challenges rates charged by SFPP for intrastate transportation of refined petroleum products through its pipeline system in the state of California and requests prospective rate adjustments and refunds with respect to previously untariffed charges for certain pipeline transportation and related services.

In October 2002, the CPUC issued a resolution, referred to in this note as the Power Surcharge Resolution, approving a 2001 request by SFPP to raise its California rates to reflect increased power costs. The resolution approving the requested rate increase also required SFPP to submit cost data for 2001, 2002, and 2003, and to assist the CPUC in determining whether SFPP’s overall rates for California intrastate transportation services are reasonable. The resolution reserves the right to require refunds, from the date of issuance of the resolution, to the extent the CPUC’s analysis of cost data to be submitted by SFPP demonstrates that SFPP’s California jurisdictional rates are unreasonable in any fashion.

On December 26, 2006, Tesoro filed a complaint challenging the reasonableness of SFPP’s intrastate rates for the three-year period from December 2003 through December 2006 and requesting approximately $8 million in reparations. As a result of previous SFPP rate filings and related protests, the rates that are the subject of the Tesoro complaint are being collected subject to refund.

SFPP also has various, pending ratemaking matters before the CPUC that are unrelated to the above-referenced complaints and the Power Surcharge Resolution. Protests to these rate increase applications have been filed by various shippers. As a consequence of the protests, the related rate increases are being collected subject to refund.

All of the above matters have been consolidated and assigned to a single administrative law judge. At the time of this report, it is unknown when a decision from the CPUC regarding the CPUC complaints and the Power Surcharge Resolution will be received. No schedule has been established for hearing and resolution of the consolidated proceedings other than the 1997 CPUC complaint and the Power Surcharge Resolution. Based on our review of these CPUC proceedings, we estimate that shippers are seeking approximately $100 million in reparation and refund payments and approximately $35 million in annual rate reductions.

On June 6, 2008, as required by CPUC order, SFPP and Calnev Pipe Line Company filed separate general rate case applications, neither of which request a change in existing pipeline rates and both of which assert that existing pipeline rates are reasonable. No action has been taken by the CPUC with respect to either of these filings.

Carbon Dioxide Litigation

Shores and First State Bank of Denton Lawsuits

Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P. (referred to in this note as Kinder Morgan CO2), Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., and Cortez Pipeline Company were among the named defendants in Shores, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp., et al., No. GC-99-01184 (Statutory Probate Court, Denton County, Texas filed December 22, 1999) and First State Bank of Denton, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp., et al., No. 8552-01 (Statutory Probate Court, Denton County, Texas filed March 29, 2001). These cases were originally filed as class actions on behalf of classes of overriding royalty interest owners (Shores) and royalty interest owners (Bank of Denton) for damages relating to alleged underpayment of royalties on carbon dioxide produced from the McElmo Dome Unit. On February 22, 2005, the trial judge dismissed both cases for lack of jurisdiction. Some of the individual plaintiffs in these cases re-filed their claims in new lawsuits (discussed below).

Gerald O. Bailey et al. v. Shell Oil Co. et al/Southern District of Texas Lawsuit

Kinder Morgan CO2, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and Cortez Pipeline Company are among the defendants in a proceeding in the federal courts for the southern district of Texas. Gerald O. Bailey et al. v. Shell Oil Company et al., (Civil Action Nos. 05-1029 and 05-1829 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas—consolidated by Order dated July 18, 2005). The plaintiffs are asserting claims for the underpayment of royalties on carbon dioxide produced from the McElmo Dome Unit. The plaintiffs assert claims for fraud/fraudulent inducement, real estate fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary and agency duties, breach of contract and covenants, violation of the Colorado Unfair Practices Act, civil theft under Colorado law, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and open account. Plaintiffs Gerald O. Bailey, Harry Ptasynski, and W.L. Gray & Co. have also asserted claims as private relators under the False Claims Act and for violation of federal and Colorado antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, a constructive trust and accounting, and declaratory relief. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment on all claims.

On April 22, 2008, the federal district court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment and ruled that plaintiffs Bailey, Ptasynski, and Gray take nothing on their claims. The court entered final judgment in favor of defendants on April 30, 2008. Defendants have filed a motion seeking sanctions against plaintiff Bailey. The plaintiffs have appealed the final judgment to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

CO2 Claims Arbitration

Cortez Pipeline Company and Kinder Morgan CO2, successor to Shell CO2 Company, Ltd., were among the named defendants in CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., an arbitration initiated on November 28, 2005. The arbitration arose from a dispute over a class action settlement agreement, which became final on July 7, 2003 and disposed of five lawsuits formerly pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado. The plaintiffs in such lawsuits primarily included overriding royalty interest owners, royalty interest owners, and small share working interest owners who alleged underpayment of royalties and other payments on carbon dioxide produced from the McElmo Dome Unit. The settlement imposed certain future obligations on the defendants in the underlying litigation. The plaintiff in the arbitration is an entity that was formed as part of the settlement for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the obligations imposed by the settlement agreement. The plaintiff alleged that, in calculating royalty and other payments, defendants used a transportation expense in excess of what is allowed by the settlement agreement, thereby causing alleged underpayments of approximately $12 million. The plaintiff also alleged that Cortez Pipeline Company should have used certain funds to further reduce its debt, which, in turn, would have allegedly increased the value of royalty and other payments by approximately $0.5 million.

Defendants denied that there was any breach of the settlement agreement. On August 7, 2006, the arbitration panel issued its opinion finding that defendants did not breach the settlement agreement. On October 25, 2006, the defendants filed an application to confirm the arbitration decision in New Mexico federal district court. On June 21, 2007, the New Mexico federal district court entered final judgment confirming the August 7, 2006 arbitration decision.

On October 2, 2007, the plaintiff initiated a second arbitration (CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell CO2 Company, Ltd., aka Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., et al.) against Cortez Pipeline Company, Kinder Morgan CO2 and an ExxonMobil entity. The second arbitration asserts claims similar to those asserted in the first arbitration. On October 11, 2007, the defendants filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief in federal district court in New Mexico. The Complaint seeks dismissal of the second arbitration on the basis of res judicata. In November 2007, the plaintiff in the arbitration moved to dismiss the defendants’ Complaint on the grounds that the issues presented should be decided by a panel in a second arbitration. In December 2007, the defendants in the arbitration filed a motion seeking summary judgment on their Complaint and dismissal of the second arbitration. On May 16, 2008, the federal district court in New Mexico granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. On June 2, 2008, the defendants in the arbitration filed a motion in the New Mexico federal district court seeking an order confirming that the panel in the first arbitration can preside over the second arbitration. On June 3, 2008, the plaintiff filed a request with the American Arbitration Association seeking administration of the arbitration.

MMS Notice of Noncompliance and Civil Penalty

On December 20, 2006, Kinder Morgan CO2 received a “Notice of Noncompliance and Civil Penalty: Knowing or Willful Submission of False, Inaccurate, or Misleading Information—Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., Case No. CP07-001” from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, referred to in this note as the MMS. This Notice, and the MMS’ position that Kinder Morgan CO2 has violated certain reporting obligations, relates to a disagreement between the MMS and Kinder Morgan CO2 concerning the approved transportation allowance to be used in valuing McElmo Dome carbon dioxide for purposes of calculating federal royalties. The Notice of Noncompliance and Civil Penalty assesses a civil penalty of approximately $2.2 million as of December 15, 2006 (based on a penalty of $500.00 per day for each of 17 alleged violations) for Kinder Morgan CO2’s alleged submission of false, inaccurate, or misleading information relating to the transportation allowance, and federal royalties for CO2 produced at McElmo Dome, during the period from June 2005 through October 2006. The MMS contends that false, inaccurate, or misleading information was submitted in the 17 monthly Form 2014s containing remittance advice reflecting the royalty payments for the referenced period because they reflected Kinder Morgan CO2’s use of the Cortez Pipeline tariff as the transportation allowance. The MMS claims that the Cortez Pipeline tariff is not the proper transportation allowance and that Kinder Morgan CO2 should have used its “reasonable actual costs” calculated in accordance with certain federal product valuation regulations as amended effective June 1, 2005. The MMS stated that civil penalties will continue to accrue at the same rate until the alleged violations are corrected.

The MMS set a due date of January 20, 2007 for Kinder Morgan CO2’s payment of the approximately $2.2 million in civil penalties, with interest to accrue daily on that amount in the event payment is not made by such date. Kinder Morgan CO2 has not paid the penalty. On January 2, 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 submitted a response to the Notice of Noncompliance and Civil Penalty challenging the assessment in the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of the Interior. On February 1, 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition to stay the accrual of penalties until the dispute is resolved. On February 22, 2007, an administrative law judge of the U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order denying Kinder Morgan CO2’s petition to stay the accrual of penalties. A hearing on the Notice of Noncompliance and Civil Penalty was originally set for December 10, 2007. In November 2007, the MMS and Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a joint motion to vacate the hearing date and stay the accrual of additional penalties to allow the parties to discuss settlement. In November 2007, the administrative law judge granted the joint motion, stayed accrual of additional penalties for the period from November 6, 2007 to February 18, 2008, and reset the hearing date to March 24, 2008. The parties conducted settlement conferences on February 4, 2008 and February 12, 2008. On February 14, 2008, the parties filed a joint motion seeking to vacate the March 24, 2008 hearing and to stay the accrual of additional penalties to allow the parties to continue their settlement discussions. On March 4, 2008, the administrative law judge granted the joint motion. The matter remains continued pending the parties’ settlement discussions.

Kinder Morgan CO2 disputes the Notice of Noncompliance and Civil Penalty and believes that it has meritorious defenses. Kinder Morgan CO2 contends that use of the Cortez Pipeline tariff as the transportation allowance for purposes of calculating federal royalties was approved by the MMS in 1984. This approval was later affirmed as open-ended by the Interior Board of Land Appeals in the 1990s. Accordingly, Kinder Morgan CO2 has stated to the MMS that its use of the Cortez Pipeline tariff as the approved federal transportation allowance is authorized and proper. Kinder Morgan CO2 also disputes the allegation that it has knowingly or willfully submitted false, inaccurate, or misleading information to the MMS. Kinder Morgan CO2’s use of the Cortez Pipeline tariff as the approved federal transportation allowance has been the subject of extensive discussion between the parties. The MMS was, and is, fully apprised of that fact and of the royalty valuation and payment process followed by Kinder Morgan CO2 generally.

MMS Order to Report and Pay

On March 20, 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 received an “Order to Report and Pay” from the MMS. The MMS contends that Kinder Morgan CO2 has over-reported transportation allowances and underpaid royalties in the amount of approximately $4.6 million for the period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006 as a result of its use of the Cortez Pipeline tariff as the transportation allowance in calculating federal royalties. As noted in the discussion of the Notice of Noncompliance and Civil Penalty proceeding, the MMS claims that the Cortez Pipeline tariff is not the proper transportation allowance and that Kinder Morgan CO2 must use its “reasonable actual costs” calculated in accordance with certain federal product valuation regulations. The MMS set a due date of April 13, 2007 for Kinder Morgan CO2’s payment of the $4.6 million in claimed additional royalties, with possible late payment charges and civil penalties for failure to pay the assessed amount. Kinder Morgan CO2 has not paid the $4.6 million, and on April 19, 2007, it submitted a notice of appeal and statement of reasons in response to the Order to Report and Pay, challenging the Order and appealing it to the Director of the MMS in accordance with 30 C.F.R. 290.100, et seq. Also on April 19, 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 submitted a petition to suspend compliance with the Order to Report and Pay pending the appeal. The MMS granted Kinder Morgan CO2’s petition to suspend, and approved self-bonding on June 12, 2007. Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a supplemental statement of reasons in support of its appeal of the Order to Report and Pay on June 15, 2007.

In addition to the March 2007 Order to Report and Pay, in April 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 received an “Audit Issue Letter” sent by the Colorado Department of Revenue on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior. In the letter, the Department of Revenue states that Kinder Morgan CO2 has over-reported transportation allowances and underpaid royalties (due to the use of the Cortez Pipeline tariff as the transportation allowance for purposes of federal royalties) in the amount of $8.5 million for the period from April 2000 through December 2004. Kinder Morgan CO2 responded to the letter in May 2007, outlining its position why use of the Cortez tariff-based transportation allowance is proper. On August 8, 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 received an “Order to Report and Pay Additional Royalties” from the MMS. As alleged in the Colorado Audit Issue Letter, the MMS contends that Kinder Morgan CO2 has over-reported transportation allowances and underpaid royalties in the amount of approximately $8.5 million for the period from April 2000 through December 2004. The MMS’s claims underlying the August 2007 Order to Report and Pay are similar to those at issue in the March 2007 Order to Report and Pay. On September 7, 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 submitted a notice of appeal and statement of reasons in response to the August 2007 Order to Report and Pay, challenging the Order and appealing it to the Director of the MMS in accordance with 30 C.F.R. 290.100, et seq. Also on September 7, 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 submitted a petition to suspend compliance with the Order to Report and Pay pending the appeal. The MMS granted Kinder Morgan CO2’s petition to suspend, and approved self-bonding on September 11, 2007.

The MMS and Kinder Morgan CO2 have agreed to stay the March 2007 and August 2007 Order to Report and Pay proceedings to allow the parties to discuss settlement. The parties conducted settlement conferences on February 4, 2008 and February 12, 2008 and continue to engage in settlement discussions.

Kinder Morgan CO2 disputes both the March and August 2007 Orders to Report and Pay and the Colorado Department of Revenue Audit Issue Letter, and as noted above, it contends that use of the Cortez Pipeline tariff as the transportation allowance for purposes of calculating federal royalties was approved by the MMS in 1984 and was affirmed as open-ended by the Interior Board of Land Appeals in the 1990s. The appeals to the MMS Director of the Orders to Report and Pay do not provide for an oral hearing. No further submission or briefing deadlines have been set.

J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of all other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., No. 04-26-CL (8th Judicial District Court, Union County New Mexico)

This case involves a purported class action against Kinder Morgan CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and overriding royalty (“royalty interests”) on the true and proper settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome Unit during the period beginning January 1, 2000. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. The purported class is comprised of current and former owners, during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands, the United States of America, and those private royalty interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit. The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class previously certified as a class action by the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter Doris Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC N.M. Civ. No. 95-0012 (the “Feerer Class Action”). Plaintiffs allege that Kinder Morgan CO2’s method of paying royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer Class Action. Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel arbitration of this matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the Feerer Class Action settlement agreement, which motion was

denied. Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The New Mexico Supreme Court granted further review in October 2006, and after hearing oral argument, the New Mexico Supreme Court quashed its prior order granting review. In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking further review. The petition was denied in December 2007. The case is now proceeding in the trial court as a certified class action and the case is set for trial in September 2008.

In addition to the matters listed above, audits and administrative inquiries concerning Kinder Morgan CO2’s payments on carbon dioxide produced from the McElmo Dome and Bravo Dome Units are currently ongoing. These audits and inquiries involve federal agencies and the States of Colorado and New Mexico.

Commercial Litigation Matters

Union Pacific Railroad Company Easements

SFPP and Union Pacific Railroad Company (the successor to Southern Pacific Transportation Company and referred to in this note as UPRR) are engaged in a proceeding to determine the extent, if any, to which the rent payable by SFPP for the use of pipeline easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR should be adjusted pursuant to existing contractual arrangements for the ten-year period beginning January 1, 2004 (Union Pacific Railroad Company vs. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., SFPP, L.P., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D”, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, filed July 28, 2004). In February 2007, a trial began to determine the amount payable for easements on UPRR rights-of-way. The trial is ongoing and is expected to conclude in the first quarter of 2009.

SFPP and UPRR are also engaged in multiple disputes over the circumstances under which SFPP must pay for a relocation of its pipeline within the UPRR right-of-way and the safety standards that govern relocations. SFPP believes that it must pay for relocation of the pipeline only when so required by the railroad’s common carrier operations, and in doing so, it need only comply with standards set forth in the federal Pipeline Safety Act in conducting relocations. In July 2006, a trial before a judge regarding the circumstances under which SFPP must pay for relocations concluded, and the judge determined that SFPP must pay for any relocations resulting from any legitimate business purpose of the UPRR. SFPP has appealed this decision. In addition, UPRR contends that it has complete discretion to cause the pipeline to be relocated at SFPP’s expense at any time and for any reason, and that SFPP must comply with the more expensive American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way standards. Each party is seeking declaratory relief with respect to its positions regarding relocations.

It is difficult to quantify the effects of the outcome of these cases on SFPP because SFPP does not know UPRR’s plans for projects or other activities that would cause pipeline relocations. Even if SFPP is successful in advancing its positions, significant relocations for which SFPP must nonetheless bear the expense (i.e. for railroad purposes, with the standards in the federal Pipeline Safety Act applying) would have an adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. These effects would be even greater in the event SFPP is unsuccessful in one or more of these litigations.

United States of America, ex rel., Jack J. Grynberg v. K N Energy (Civil Action No. 97-D-1233, filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado).

This multi-district litigation proceeding involves four lawsuits filed in 1997 against numerous Kinder Morgan companies. These suits were filed pursuant to the federal False Claims Act and allege underpayment of royalties due to mismeasurement of natural gas produced from federal and Indian lands. The complaints are part of a larger series of similar complaints filed by Mr. Grynberg against 77 natural gas pipelines (approximately 330 other defendants) in various courts throughout the country that were consolidated and transferred to the District of Wyoming.

In May 2005, a Special Master appointed in this litigation found that because there was a prior public disclosure of the allegations and that Grynberg was not an original source, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the Special Master recommended that the Court dismiss all the Kinder Morgan defendants. In October 2006, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming upheld the dismissal of each case against the Kinder Morgan defendants on jurisdictional grounds. Grynberg has appealed this Order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal will be argued in September 2008.

Prior to the dismissal order on jurisdictional grounds, the Kinder Morgan defendants filed Motions to Dismiss and for Sanctions alleging that Grynberg filed his Complaint without evidentiary support and for an improper purpose. On January 8, 2007, after the dismissal order, the Kinder Morgan defendants also filed a Motion for Attorney Fees under the False Claim Act. On April 24, 2007, the Court held a hearing on the Motions to Dismiss and for Sanctions and the Requests for Attorney Fees. A decision is still pending on the Motions to Dismiss and for Sanctions and the Requests for Attorney Fees.

Weldon Johnson and Guy Sparks, individually and as Representative of Others Similarly Situated v. Centerpoint Energy, Inc. et. al., No. 04-327-2 (Circuit Court, Miller County Arkansas).

On October 8, 2004, plaintiffs filed the above-captioned matter against numerous defendants including Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline L.P.; Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.; Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.; KM Texas Pipeline, L.P.; Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline G.P., Inc.; Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline G.P., Inc.; Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.P.; Gulf Energy Marketing, LLC; Tejas Gas, LLC; and MidCon Corp. (the “Kinder Morgan defendants”). The complaint purports to bring a class action on behalf of those who purchased natural gas from the CenterPoint defendants from October 1, 1994 to the date of class certification.

The complaint alleges that CenterPoint Energy, Inc., by and through its affiliates, has artificially inflated the price charged to residential consumers for natural gas that it allegedly purchased from the non-CenterPoint defendants, including the Kinder Morgan defendants. The complaint further alleges that in exchange for CenterPoint’s purchase of such natural gas at above market prices, the non-CenterPoint defendants, including the Kinder Morgan defendants, sell natural gas to CenterPoint’s non-regulated affiliates at prices substantially below market, which affiliates in turn sell such natural gas to commercial and industrial consumers and gas marketers at market price. The complaint purports to assert claims for fraud, unlawful enrichment and civil conspiracy against all of the defendants, and seeks relief in the form of actual, exemplary and punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. On June 8, 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the Arkansas Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over any Arkansas plaintiffs’ claims that consumers were overcharged for gas in Arkansas and mandated that any such claims be dismissed from this lawsuit. On February 14, 2008, the Arkansas Supreme Court clarified its previously issued order and mandated that the trial court dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. On February 29, 2008, the trial court dismissed the case in its entirety.

On August 8, 2007, Weldon Johnson filed a complaint against the Kinder Morgan defendants before the Arkansas Public Service Commission (“APSC”) alleging the same causes of action that were alleged in the Arkansas class action described above. The case before the ASPC is still pending.

Queen City Railcar Litigation

On August 28, 2005, a railcar containing the chemical styrene began leaking styrene gas in Cincinnati, Ohio while en route to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Queen City Terminal. The railcar was sent by the Westlake Chemical Corporation from Louisiana, transported by Indiana & Ohio Railway, and consigned to Westlake at its dedicated storage tank at Queen City Terminals, Inc., a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals, Inc. The railcar leak resulted in the evacuation of many residents and the alleged temporary closure of several businesses in the Cincinnati area. A class action complaint and separate suits by the City of Cincinnati and the Estate of George W. Dameron (who opted out of the class settlement) have been settled without admission of fault or liability.

As part of the settlement of the class action claims, the non-Kinder Morgan defendants agreed to settle remaining claims asserted by businesses and obtain a release of such claims favoring all defendants, including Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and its affiliates, subject to the retention by all defendants of their claims against each other for contribution and indemnity. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners expects that a claim will be asserted by other defendants against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners seeking contribution or indemnity for any settlements funded exclusively by other defendants, and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners expects to vigorously defend against any such claims.

Leukemia Cluster Litigation

Richard Jernee, et al. v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, et al., No. CV03-03482 (Second Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, County of Washoe) (“Jernee”).

Floyd Sands, et al. v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, et al., No. CV03-05326 (Second Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, County of Washoe) (“Sands”).

On May 30, 2003, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of Adam Jernee, filed a civil action in the Nevada State trial court against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and several Kinder Morgan related entities and individuals and additional unrelated defendants. Plaintiffs in the Jernee matter claim that defendants negligently and intentionally failed to inspect, repair and replace unidentified segments of their pipeline and facilities, allowing “harmful substances and emissions and gases” to damage “the environment and health of human beings.” Plaintiffs claim “Adam Jernee’s death was caused by leukemia that, in turn, is believed to be due to exposure to industrial chemicals and toxins.” Plaintiffs purport to assert claims for wrongful death, premises liability, negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, nuisance, fraud, strict liability (ultra hazardous acts), and aiding and abetting, and seek

unspecified special, general and punitive damages. On August 28, 2003, a separate group of plaintiffs, represented by the counsel for the plaintiffs in the Jernee matter, individually and on behalf of Stephanie Suzanne Sands, filed a civil action in the Nevada State trial court against the same defendants and alleging the same claims as in the Jernee case with respect to Stephanie Suzanne Sands. The Jernee case has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Sands case. In May 2006, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss as to the counts purporting to assert claims for fraud, but denied defendants’ motions to dismiss as to the remaining counts, as well as defendants’ motions to strike portions of the complaint. Defendant Kennametal, Inc. has filed a third-party complaint naming the United States and the United States Navy (the “United States”) as additional defendants. In response, the United States removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to dismiss the United States and/or to remand the case back to state court. By order dated September 25, 2007, the United States District Court granted the motion to dismiss the United States from the case and remanded the Jernee and Sands cases back to the Second Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, County of Washoe. The cases will now proceed in the State Court. Based on the information available to date, our own preliminary investigation, and the positive results of investigations conducted by State and Federal agencies, we believe that the remaining claims against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners in these matters are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.

Pipeline Integrity and Releases

From time to time, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, 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.

We believe that we conduct our operations in accordance with applicable law. We seek to cooperate with state and federal regulatory authorities in connection with the cleanup of the environment caused by such leaks and ruptures and with any investigations as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the incidents.

Walnut Creek, California Pipeline Rupture

On November 9, 2004, excavation equipment operated by Mountain Cascade, Inc., a third-party contractor on a water main installation project hired by East Bay Municipal Utility District, struck and ruptured an underground petroleum pipeline owned and operated by SFPP in Walnut Creek, California. An explosion occurred immediately following the rupture that resulted in five fatalities and several injuries to employees or contractors of Mountain Cascade, Inc. The explosion and fire also caused property damage.

On May 5, 2005, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“CalOSHA”) issued two civil citations against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners relating to this incident assessing civil fines of approximately $0.1 million based upon its alleged failure to mark the location of the pipeline properly prior to the excavation of the site by the contractor. On March 24, 2008, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners agreed to a settlement with CalOSHA by which the two citations would be reduced to two “unclassified” violations of the CalOSHA regulations and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners would pay a fine of $140,000. The settlement is currently awaiting approval by the CalOSHA Appeals Board.

On June 27, 2005, the Office of the California State Fire Marshal, Pipeline Safety Division, referred to in this report as the CSFM, issued a notice of violation against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, which also alleged that it did not properly mark the location of the pipeline in violation of state and federal regulations. The CSFM assessed a proposed civil penalty of $0.5 million. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners has reached an agreement in principle with the CSFM to settle the proposed civil penalty for $325,000 with no admission of liability.

As a result of the accident, nineteen separate lawsuits were filed. The majority of the cases were personal injury and wrongful death actions that alleged, among other things, that SFPP/Kinder Morgan Energy Partners failed to properly field mark the area where the accident occurred.

Following court ordered mediation, the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners defendants have settled with plaintiffs in all of the wrongful death cases and the personal injury and property damages cases. The only remaining civil case is a claim for equitable indemnity by an engineering company defendant against Kinder Morgan G.P. Services Co., Inc. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to all of the claims in this matter, which motion is currently pending.

EPA Notice of Proposed Debarment

On August 21, 2007, SFPP received a Notice of Proposed Debarment issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, referred to in this report as the EPA. Pursuant to the Notice, the Suspension and Debarment Division (“SDD”) of the EPA is proposing to debar SFPP from participation in future Federal contracts and assistance activities for a period of three years. The purported basis for the proposed debarment is SFPP’s April 2005 agreement with the California Attorney General and the District Attorney of Solano County, California to settle misdemeanor charges of the unintentional, non-negligent discharge of diesel fuel, and the failure to provide timely notice of a threatened discharge to appropriate state agencies, in connection with the April 28, 2004 spill of diesel fuel into a marsh near Cordelia, California. SFPP believed that the proposed debarment was factually and legally unwarranted and contested it. On June 2, 2008, the EPA’s SDD agreed to withdraw the Notice of Proposed Debarment and terminated the matter without additional action.

Soda Springs, California

In August 2006, the SFPP pipeline experienced a failure near Soda Springs, California, resulting in a release of product that affected a limited area along Interstate Highway 80. Product impacts were primarily limited to soil in an area between the pipeline and Interstate Highway 80. Remediation and monitoring activities are ongoing under the supervision of the California Department of Fish & Game and Nevada County. The cause of the release was determined to be pinhole corrosion in an unpiggable 2-inch diameter bypass to the mainline valve. The bypass was installed to allow pipeline maintenance activity. The bypass piping was replaced at this location and all other similar designs on the pipeline segment were excavated, evaluated and replaced as necessary to avoid future risk of release. On January 30, 2008, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners entered into a settlement agreement with Nevada County and the state of California to resolve any outstanding civil penalties claims related to this release for $75,000.

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC Wyoming Construction Incident

On November 11, 2006, a bulldozer operated by an employee of Associated Pipe Line Contractors, Inc., (a third-party contractor to Rockies Express Pipeline LLC, referred to in this note as REX), struck an existing subsurface natural gas pipeline owned by Wyoming Interstate Company, a subsidiary of El Paso Pipeline Group. The pipeline was ruptured, resulting in an explosion and fire. The incident occurred in a rural area approximately nine miles southwest of Cheyenne, Wyoming. The incident resulted in one fatality (the operator of the bulldozer) and there were no other reported injuries. The cause of the incident is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, referred to in this report as the PHMSA. In March 2008, the PHMSA issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order (“NOPV”) to El Paso Corporation in which it concluded that El Paso failed to comply with federal law and its internal policies and procedures regarding protection of its pipeline, resulting in this incident. To date, the PHMSA has not issued any NOPV’s to REX, and we do not expect that it will do so. Immediately following the incident, REX and El Paso Pipeline Group reached an agreement on a set of additional enhanced safety protocols designed to prevent the reoccurrence of such an incident.

In September 2007, the family of the deceased bulldozer operator filed a wrongful death action against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, REX and several other parties in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 189 Judicial District, at case number 2007-57916. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners has asserted contractual claims for complete indemnification for any and all costs arising from this incident, including any costs related to this lawsuit, against third parties and their insurers. On March 25, 2008, the defendants entered into a settlement agreement with one of the plaintiffs, the decedent’s daughter, resolving any and all of her claims against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, REX and its contractors. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners was indemnified for the full amount of this settlement by one of REX’s contractors. The parties are currently engaged in discovery on the remaining claims. We do not expect the cost of any settlement or eventual judgment, if any, to be material.

Charlotte, North Carolina

On November 27, 2006, the Plantation Pipeline experienced a release of approximately 4,000 gallons of gasoline from a Plantation Pipe Line Company block valve on a delivery line into a terminal owned by a third party company. Upon discovery of the release, Plantation immediately locked out the delivery of gasoline through that pipe to prevent further releases. Product had flowed onto the surface and into a nearby stream, which is a tributary of Paw Creek, and resulted in loss of fish and other biota. Product recovery and remediation efforts were implemented immediately, including removal of product from the stream. The line was repaired and put back into service within a few days. Remediation efforts are continuing under the direction of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (the “NCDENR”), which issued a Notice of Violation and Recommendation of Enforcement against Plantation on January 8, 2007. Plantation continues to cooperate fully with the NCDENR.

Although Plantation does not believe that penalties are warranted, it is engaging in settlement discussions with the EPA regarding a potential civil penalty for the November 2006 release as part of broader settlement negotiations with the EPA regarding this spill and two other historic releases from Plantation, including a February 2003 release near Hull, Georgia. Plantation has reached an agreement in principle with the Department of Justice and the EPA for all four releases for approximately $0.7 million, plus some additional work to be performed to prevent future releases. The parties are negotiating a consent decree. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome, we believe, based on our experiences to date, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition, in April 2007, during pipeline maintenance activities near Charlotte, North Carolina, Plantation discovered the presence of historical soil contamination near the pipeline, and reported the presence of impacted soils to the NCDENR. Subsequently, Plantation contacted the owner of the property to request access to the property to investigate the potential contamination. The results of that investigation indicate that there is soil and groundwater contamination, which appears to be from an historical turbine fuel release. The groundwater contamination is underneath at least two lots on which there is current construction of single-family homes as part of a new residential development. Further investigation and remediation are being conducted under the oversight of the NCDENR. Plantation has reached a settlement with the builder of the residential subdivision. Plantation continues to negotiate with the owner of the property to address any potential claims that it may bring.

Barstow, California

The United States Department of Navy has alleged that historical releases of methyl tertiary-butyl ether, referred to in this report as MTBE, from Calnev’s Barstow terminal have (i) migrated underneath the Navy’s Marine Corps Logistics Base (the “MCLB”) in Barstow, (ii) impacted the Navy’s existing groundwater treatment system for unrelated groundwater contamination not alleged to have been caused by Calnev, and (iii) could affect the MCLB’s water supply system. Although Calnev believes that it has certain meritorious defenses to the Navy’s claims, it is working with the Navy to agree upon an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for CERCLA Removal Action to reimburse the Navy for $0.5 million in past response actions, plus perform other work to ensure protection of the Navy’s existing treatment system and water supply.

Oil Spill Near Westridge Terminal, Burnaby, British Columbia

On July 24, 2007, a third-party contractor installing a sewer line for the City of Burnaby struck a crude oil pipeline segment included within Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Trans Mountain pipeline system near its Westridge terminal in Burnaby, BC, resulting in a release of approximately 1,400 barrels of crude oil. The release impacted the surrounding neighborhood, several homes and nearby Burrard Inlet. No injuries were reported. To address the release, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners initiated a comprehensive emergency response in collaboration with, among others, the City of Burnaby, the BC Ministry of Environment, the National Energy Board, and the National Transportation Safety Board. Cleanup and environmental remediation is nearly complete. The incident is currently under investigation by Federal and Provincial agencies. We do not expect this matter to have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On December 20, 2007, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners initiated a lawsuit entitled Trans Mountain Pipeline LP, Trans Mountain Pipeline Inc. and Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. v. The City of Burnaby, et al., Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry No. S078716. The suit alleges that the City of Burnaby and its agents are liable for damages including, but not limited to, all costs and expenses incurred by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners as a result of the rupture of the pipeline and subsequent release of crude oil. Defendants have denied liability and discovery has begun.

Although no assurance can be given, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to all pending pipeline integrity actions set forth in this note and, to the extent an assessment of the matter is possible, if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, we believe that we have established an adequate reserve to cover potential liability.

Environmental Matters

ExxonMobil Corporation v. GATX Corporation, Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, Inc. and ST Services, Inc.

On April 23, 2003, ExxonMobil Corporation filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners filed its answer to the complaint on June 27, 2003, in which it denied ExxonMobil ’s claims and allegations as well as included counterclaims against ExxonMobil. The lawsuit relates to environmental remediation obligations at a Paulsboro, New Jersey liquids terminal owned by ExxonMobil from the mid-1950s through November 1989,

by GATX Terminals Corp. from 1989 through September 2000 and later owned by ST Services, Inc. Prior to selling the terminal to GATX Terminals, ExxonMobil performed the environmental site assessment of the terminal required prior to sale pursuant to state law. During the site assessment, ExxonMobil discovered items that required remediation and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection issued an order that required ExxonMobil to perform various remediation activities to remove hydrocarbon contamination at the terminal. ExxonMobil, we understand, is still remediating the site and has not been removed as a responsible party from the state’s cleanup order; however, ExxonMobil claims that the remediation continues because of GATX Terminals’ storage of a fuel additive, MTBE, at the terminal during GATX Terminals’ ownership of the terminal. When GATX Terminals sold the terminal to ST Services, the parties indemnified one another for certain environmental matters. When GATX Terminals was sold to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, GATX Terminals’ indemnification obligations, if any, to ST Services may have passed to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. Consequently, at issue is any indemnification obligation Kinder Morgan Energy Partners may owe to ST Services for environmental remediation of MTBE at the terminal. The complaint seeks any and all damages related to remediating MTBE at the terminal, and, according to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, treble damages may be available for actual dollars incorrectly spent by the successful party in the lawsuit for remediating MTBE at the terminal. The parties are currently involved in mandatory mediation and the most recent mediation occurred in June 2008. No progress was made at this latest mediation. The mediation judge is now allowing the parties to conduct limited discovery up to the date of the next mediation, which is anticipated to be in October 2008.

On June 25, 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, referred to collectively as the plaintiffs, filed a complaint against ExxonMobil Corporation and GATX Terminals Corporation. The complaint was filed in Gloucester County, New Jersey. Both ExxonMobil and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners filed third-party complaints against ST Services seeking to bring ST Services into the case. ST Services filed motions to dismiss the third-party complaints. Recently, the court denied ST Services’ motions to dismiss and ST Services is now joined in the case. Defendants will now file their answers in the case. The plaintiffs seek the costs and damages that the plaintiffs allegedly have incurred or will incur as a result of the discharge of pollutants and hazardous substances at the Paulsboro, New Jersey facility. The costs and damages that the plaintiffs seek include damages to natural resources. In addition, the plaintiffs seek an order compelling the defendants to perform or fund the assessment and restoration of those natural resource damages that are the result of the defendants’ actions. As in the case brought by ExxonMobil against GATX Terminals, the issue is whether the plaintiffs’ claims are within the scope of the indemnity obligations between GATX Terminals (and therefore, Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals) and ST Services. ST Services is the current owner and operator at the facility. The court may consolidate the two cases.

Mission Valley Terminal Lawsuit

In August 2007, the City of San Diego, on its own behalf and purporting to act on behalf of the People of the state of California, filed a lawsuit against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and several affiliates seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages allegedly resulting from hydrocarbon and MTBE impacted soils and groundwater beneath the city’s stadium property in San Diego arising from historical operations at the Mission Valley terminal facility. The case was filed in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, case number 37-2007-00073033-CU-OR-CTL. On September 26, 2007, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners removed the case to the United States District Court, Southern District of California, case number 07CV1883WCAB. On October 3, 2007, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners filed a Motion to Dismiss all counts of the Complaint. The court denied in part and granted in part the Motion to Dismiss and gave the city leave to amend their complaint. The city submitted its Amended Complaint and defendants will soon file an answer. It is anticipated that the parties will then commence discovery. This site has been, and currently is, under the regulatory oversight and order of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. We do not expect the cost of any settlement and remediation to be material.

In June 2008, we received an Administrative Civil Liability Complaint from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for violations and penalties associated with surface water discharge from the remediation system operating at the Mission Valley terminal facility. Currently, we are negotiating a settlement that should include a reduction of alleged violations and associated penalties as well as resolve any past and future issues related to the discharge from the remediation system. We do not expect the cost of the settlement to be material.

Portland Harbor DOJ/EPA Investigation

In April 2008, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners reached an agreement in principle with the United States Attorney’s office for the District of Oregon and the United States Department of Justice regarding a former employee’s involvement in the improper disposal of potash (potassium chloride) into the Pacific Ocean in August 2003 at Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Portland, Oregon bulk terminal facility. The incident involved an employee making arrangements to have a customer’s

shipment of potash, which had become wet and no longer met specifications for commercial use, improperly disposed of at sea without a permit.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners has fully cooperated with the government’s investigation and promptly adopted measures at the terminal to avoid future incidents of this nature. To settle the matter, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals, Inc., entered a plea on August 13, 2008 to a criminal violation of the Ocean Dumping Act, paid a fine of approximately $0.2 million, and made a community service payment of approximately $0.1 million to the Oregon Governor’s Fund for the Environment. As part of the plea agreement, the government and Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals acknowledged in a statement of fact filed with the court that (i) no harm was done to the environment, (ii) the former employee’s actions constituted a violation of company policy, (iii) Kinder Morgan Energy Partners did not benefit financially from the incident, and (iv) no personnel outside of the Portland terminal either approved or had any knowledge of the former employee’s arrangements.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Settlement

After conducting a voluntary compliance self-audit in April 2006, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners voluntarily disclosed certain findings from the audit related to compliance with environmental regulations and permits at Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Harvey and St. Gabriel Terminals to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, referred to in this report as the LDEQ. Following further discussion between the LDEQ and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, in August 2007, the LDEQ issued a Consolidated Compliance Order and Notice of Potential Penalty for each of the two facilities. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners reached a settlement with LDEQ under which Kinder Morgan Energy Partners agreed to finalize certain work, which it has already undertaken to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations at these two facilities, and paid a penalty of $0.3 million. Therefore, the matter is resolved.

Litigation and Environmental

As of June 30, 2008, we have recorded a total reserve for environmental claims, without discounting and without regard to anticipated insurance recoveries, in the amount of $88.1 million. In addition, we have recorded a receivable of $30.2 million for expected cost recoveries that have been deemed probable. The reserve is primarily established to address and clean up soil and ground water impacts from former releases to the environment at facilities we have acquired or accidental spills or releases at facilities that we own. Reserves for each project are generally established by reviewing existing documents, conducting interviews and performing site inspections to determine the overall size and impact to the environment. Reviews are made on a quarterly basis to determine the status of the cleanup and the costs associated with the effort. In assessing environmental risks in conjunction with proposed acquisitions, we review records relating to environmental issues, conduct site inspections, interview employees, and, if appropriate, collect soil and groundwater samples.

Additionally, as of June 30, 2008 we have recorded a total reserve for legal fees, transportation rate cases and other litigation liabilities in the amount of $219.4 million. The reserve is primarily related to various claims from lawsuits arising from Kinder Morgan Energy Partner’s Pacific operations, and the contingent amount is based on both the circumstances of probability and reasonability of dollar estimates. We regularly assess the likelihood of adverse outcomes resulting from these claims in order to determine the adequacy of our liability provision.

Though no assurance can be given, we believe we have established adequate environmental and legal reserves such that the resolution of pending environmental matters and litigation will not have a material adverse impact on our business or financial position. However, changing circumstances could cause these matters to have a material adverse impact.

Pursuant to our continuing commitment to operational excellence and our focus on safe, reliable operations, we have implemented, and intend to implement in the future, enhancements to certain of our operational practices in order to strengthen our environmental and asset integrity performance. These enhancements have resulted and may result in higher operating costs and sustaining capital expenditures; however, we believe these enhancements will provide us the greater long term benefits of improved environmental and asset integrity performance.

8.	Related Party Transactions

Plantation Pipe Line Company Note Receivable

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners has a seven-year note receivable bearing interest at the rate of 4.72% per annum from Plantation Pipe Line Company, its 51.17%-owned equity investee. The outstanding note receivable balance was $88.5 million as of June 30, 2008. Of this amount, $2.5 million was included within “Accounts, Notes and Interest Receivable, Net─Related Parties,” and the remainder was included within “Notes Receivable─Related Parties.”

Knight (formerly Kinder Morgan, Inc.) Asset Contributions

In conjunction with Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ acquisition of (i) certain Natural Gas Pipelines assets and partnership interests from Knight in December 1999 and December 2000; and (ii) all of the partnership interest in TransColorado Gas Transmission Company from two wholly-owned subsidiaries of Knight on November 1, 2004, Knight agreed to indemnify Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and the General Partner with respect to approximately $733.5 million of debt. Knight would be obligated to perform under this indemnity only if either indemnified party is unable, and/or assets were insufficient to satisfy the indemnified parties’ obligations.

Knight Note Receivable

As of June 30, 2008, an affiliate of Knight owed to us a long-term note with a principal amount of $0.3 million, and this balance is included within “Notes Receivable─Related Parties” on our consolidated balance sheet. This note currently has no fixed terms of repayment and is denominated in Canadian dollars. The above amount represents the translated amount included in our consolidated balance sheet in U.S. dollars.

Fair Value of Energy Commodity Derivative Contracts

As a result of the May 2007 going-private transaction of Knight, as discussed in Note 1 of the 2007 Form 8-K, a number of individuals and entities became significant investors in Knight. By virtue of the size of their ownership interest in Knight, two of those investors became “related parties” to us (as that term is defined in authoritative accounting literature): (i) American International Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliates (“AIG”); and (ii) Goldman Sachs Capital Partners and certain of its affiliates (“Goldman Sachs”).

	June 30, 2008
Derivatives-net asset/(liability)
Deferred charges and other assets	$	7.8
Accrued other current liabilities	$	(566.7	)
Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits	$	(1,154.5	)

Other

We own all of Kinder Morgan Management’s voting securities and are its sole managing member. Knight, through its wholly owned and controlled subsidiary Kinder Morgan (Delaware), Inc., owns all the common stock of us. Certain conflicts of interest could arise as a result of the relationships among Kinder Morgan Management, Knight and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and us; however, the audit committee of Kinder Morgan Management’s board of directors will, at the request of Kinder Morgan Management, review (and is one of the means for resolving) conflicts of interest that may arise between Knight or its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and us, on the other hand. For a more complete discussion of related-party transactions, see Note 12 to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners consolidated financial statements included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.

9.	Reportable Segments

We divide our operations into five reportable business segments: (i) Products Pipelines – KMP segment derives its revenues primarily from the transportation and terminaling of refined petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and natural gas liquids, (ii) Natural Gas Pipelines – KMP segment derives its revenues primarily from the sale, transport, processing, treating, storage and gathering of natural gas, (iii) CO2 – KMP segment derives its revenues primarily from the production and sale of crude oil from fields in the Permian Basin of West Texas and from the transportation and marketing of carbon dioxide used as a flooding medium for recovering crude oil from mature oil fields, (iv) Terminals – KMP segment derives its revenues primarily from the transloading and storing of refined petroleum products and dry and liquid bulk products, including coal, petroleum coke, cement, alumina, salt, and other bulk chemicals, and (v) Trans Mountain – KMP segment derives its revenues primarily from the transportation of crude oil and refined products from Edmonton, Alberta to marketing terminals and refineries in the Greater Vancouver area and Puget Sound in Washington state.

Segment Information

	Six Months Ended June 30, 2008
	(In millions)
Capital Expenditures:
Products Pipelines – KMP	$	120.8
Natural Gas Pipelines – KMP		416.8
CO2 – KMP		248.4
Terminals – KMP		240.6
Trans Mountain – KMP		236.0
Total Consolidated Capital Expenditures	$	1,262.6

	As of June 30, 2007
	(In millions)
Assets by Segment1:
Products Pipelines – KMP	$	5,754.1
Natural Gas Pipelines – KMP		7,748.8
CO2 – KMP		4,165.0
Terminals – KMP		4,511.2
Trans Mountain – KMP		1,577.7
Total segment assets		23,756.8
Other2		570.1
Total Consolidated Assets	$	24,326.9

___________

1	Segment assets include goodwill allocated to the segments, including impairment adjustments recorded during the six months ended June 30, 2008; see Note 4.

2	Includes assets of cash, restricted deposits, market value of derivative instruments (including interest rate swaps) and miscellaneous corporate assets not allocated to individual segments.

Geographic Information

Following is geographic information regarding long-lived assets of our business segments.

Long-lived Assets2

	As of June 30, 2008
	United States		Canada		Mexico and Other1		Total
	(In millions)
Products Pipelines – KMP	$	4,324.0	$	110.2	$	-	$	4,434.2
Natural Gas Pipelines – KMP		4,958.5		-		89.2		5,047.7
CO2 – KMP		2,525.4		-		-		2,525.4
Terminals – KMP		2,808.3		228.3		8.7		3,045.3
Trans Mountain – KMP		25.8		1,281.3		-		1,307.1
Other		193.9		-		-		193.9
	$	14,835.9	$	1,619.8	$	97.9	$	16,553.6

___________

1	Terminals – KMP includes long-lived assets of $8.7 million at June 30, 2008, attributable to operations in the Netherlands.

2	Long-lived assets exclude goodwill and other intangibles, net.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L P 8-KFinancial Statements and Exhibits