Note 17 – Contingent Liabilities and Commitments

Reporting of Natural Gas-Related Information to Trade Publications

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed an individual and class actions against us, our former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. We have agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter.

In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc. (Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one of our co-defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Farmland’s claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to us, entering final judgment in our favor. Farmland has appealed.

In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal the order, and the appeal is now pending.

Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to future developments in this matter.

Alaska Refinery Contamination Litigation

We are involved in litigation arising from our ownership and operation of the North Pole Refinery in North Pole, Alaska, from 1980 until 2004, through our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI) and MAPCO Inc. We sold the refinery to Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., in 2004. The litigation involves three cases, with filing dates ranging from 2010 to 2014. The actions arise from sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the refinery. A putative class action lawsuit was filed by James West in 2010 naming us, WAPI, and FHRA as defendants. We and FHRA filed claims against each other seeking, among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane contamination. In 2011, we and FHRA settled the claim with James West. Certain claims by FHRA against us were resolved by the Alaska Supreme Court in our favor. FHRA’s claims against us for contractual indemnification and statutory claims for damages related to off-site sulfolane remain pending. The State of Alaska filed its action in March 2014, seeking damages. The City of North Pole (North Pole) filed its lawsuit in November 2014, seeking past and future damages, as well as punitive damages. Both we and WAPI asserted counterclaims against the State of Alaska and North Pole, and cross-claims against FHRA. FHRA has also filed cross-claims against us.

The underlying factual basis and claims in the cases are similar and may duplicate exposure. As such, in February 2017, the three cases were consolidated into one action in state court containing the remaining claims from the James West case and those of the State of Alaska and North Pole. A trial encompassing all three cases was originally scheduled to commence in May 2017, but has been continued. A new trial date has not been scheduled. Due to the ongoing assessment of the level and extent of sulfolane contamination, the lack of an articulated cleanup level for sulfolane, and the lack of a concrete remedial proposal and cost estimate, we are unable to estimate a range of exposure to the State of Alaska or North Pole at this time. We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure to FHRA could range from an insignificant amount up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our exposure to exceed that amount.

Independent of the litigation matter described in the preceding paragraphs, in 2013, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation indicated that it views FHRA and us as responsible parties, and that it intended to enter a compliance order to address the environmental remediation of sulfolane and other possible contaminants including cleanup work outside the refinery’s boundaries. To date, no compliance order has been issued. Due to the ongoing assessment of the level and extent of sulfolane contamination, the ultimate cost of remediation and division of costs among the potentially responsible parties, and the previously described separate litigation, we are unable to estimate a range of exposure at this time.

Royalty Matters

Certain of our customers, including one major customer, have been named in various lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalties and claiming, among other things, violations of anti-trust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We have also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases filed in Pennsylvania based on allegations that we improperly participated with that major customer in causing the alleged royalty underpayments. We believe that the claims asserted are subject to indemnity obligations owed to us by that major customer. Due to the preliminary status of the cases, we are unable to estimate a range of potential loss at this time.

Shareholder Litigation

A purported shareholder filed a class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2016. The putative class action complaint alleged that the individual members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to the WPZ Merger Agreement, which purportedly reduced the merger consideration to have been received in the subsequently proposed but now terminated merger with Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (Energy Transfer). The plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss, which the court granted on January 13, 2017. On September 2, 2016, the same purported shareholder filed a derivative action claiming that the members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by executing the WPZ Merger Agreement as a defensive measure against Energy Transfer. On September 28, 2016, we requested the court dismiss this action, and on May 15, 2017, the court dismissed the action. On June 6, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on December 18, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of WPZ filed a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of WPZ units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as defendants us, WPZ, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and former Chief Financial Officer Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer’s intention to pursue a purchase of us conditioned on us not closing the WPZ Merger Agreement when announcing the WPZ Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 31, 2016. On October 17, 2016, we requested the court dismiss the action, and on March 8, 2017, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On April 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss related to these matters at this time.

Litigation Against Energy Transfer and Related Parties

On April 6, 2016, we filed suit in Delaware Chancery Court against Energy Transfer and LE GP, LLC (the general partner for Energy Transfer) alleging willful and material breaches of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) with Energy Transfer resulting from the private offering by Energy Transfer on March 8, 2016, of Series A Convertible Preferred Units (Special Offering) to certain Energy Transfer insiders and other accredited investors. The suit seeks, among other things, an injunction ordering the defendants to unwind the Special Offering and to specifically perform their obligations under the Merger Agreement. On April 19, 2016, we filed an amended complaint seeking the same relief. On May 3, 2016, Energy Transfer and LE GP, LLC filed an answer and counterclaims.

On May 13, 2016, we filed a separate complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against Energy Transfer, LE GP, LLC, and the other Energy Transfer affiliates that are parties to the Merger Agreement, alleging material breaches of the Merger Agreement for failing to cooperate and use necessary efforts to obtain a tax opinion required under the Merger Agreement (Tax Opinion) and for otherwise failing to use necessary efforts to consummate the merger under the Merger Agreement wherein we would be merged with and into the newly formed Energy Transfer Corp LP (ETC) (ETC Merger). The suit sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment and injunction preventing Energy Transfer from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under the Merger Agreement due to any failure to obtain the Tax Opinion.

The Court of Chancery coordinated the Special Offering and Tax Opinion suits. On May 20, 2016, the Energy Transfer defendants filed amended affirmative defenses and verified counterclaims in the Special Offering and Tax Opinion suits, alleging certain breaches of the Merger Agreement by us and seeking, among other things, a declaration that we were not entitled to specific performance, that Energy Transfer could terminate the ETC Merger, and that Energy Transfer is entitled to a $1.48 billion termination fee. On June 24, 2016, following a two-day trial, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying our requested relief in the Tax Opinion suit. The court did not rule on the substance of our claims related to the Special Offering or on the substance of Energy Transfer’s counterclaims. On June 27, 2016, we filed an appeal of the court’s decision with the Supreme Court of Delaware, seeking reversal and remand to pursue damages. On March 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery’s ruling. On March 30, 2017, we filed a motion for reargument with the Supreme Court of Delaware, which was denied on April 5, 2017.

On September 16, 2016, we filed an amended complaint with the Court of Chancery seeking damages for breaches of the Merger Agreement by defendants. On September 23, 2016, Energy Transfer filed a second amended and supplemental affirmative defenses and verified counterclaim with the Court of Chancery seeking, among other things, payment of the $1.48 billion termination fee due to our alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement. On December 1, 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss certain of Energy Transfer’s counterclaims, including its claim seeking payment of the $1.48 billion termination fee. On December 8, 2017, Energy Transfer filed a motion for reargument with the Court of Chancery.

Environmental Matters

We are a participant in certain environmental activities in various stages including assessment studies, cleanup operations, and/or remedial processes at certain sites, some of which we currently do not own. We are monitoring these sites in a coordinated effort with other potentially responsible parties, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or other governmental authorities. We are jointly and severally liable along with unrelated third parties in some of these activities and solely responsible in others. Certain of our subsidiaries have been identified as potentially responsible parties at various Superfund and state waste disposal sites. In addition, these subsidiaries have incurred, or are alleged to have incurred, various other hazardous materials removal or remediation obligations under environmental laws. As of December 31, 2017, we have accrued liabilities totaling $38 million for these matters, as discussed below. Estimates of the most likely costs of cleanup are generally based on completed assessment studies, preliminary results of studies, or our experience with other similar cleanup operations. At December 31, 2017, certain assessment studies were still in process for which the ultimate outcome may yield different estimates of most likely costs. Therefore, the actual costs incurred will depend on the final amount, type, and extent of contamination discovered at these sites, the final cleanup standards mandated by the EPA or other governmental authorities, and other factors.

The EPA and various state regulatory agencies routinely promulgate and propose new rules, and issue updated guidance to existing rules. More recent rules and rulemakings include, but are not limited to, rules for reciprocating internal combustion engine maximum achievable control technology, air quality standards for one hour nitrogen dioxide emissions, and volatile organic compound and methane new source performance standards impacting design and operation of storage vessels, pressure valves, and compressors. On October 1, 2015, the EPA issued its rule regarding National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone, setting a stricter standard of 70 parts per billion. We are monitoring the rule’s implementation as the reduction will trigger additional federal and state regulatory actions that may impact our operations. Implementation of the regulations is expected to result in impacts to our operations and increase the cost of additions to Property, plant, and equipment – net in the Consolidated Balance Sheet for both new and existing facilities in affected areas. We are unable to reasonably estimate the cost of additions that may be required to meet the regulations at this time due to uncertainty created by various legal challenges to these regulations and the need for further specific regulatory guidance.

Continuing operations

Our interstate gas pipelines are involved in remediation activities related to certain facilities and locations for polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury, and other hazardous substances. These activities have involved the EPA and various state environmental authorities, resulting in our identification as a potentially responsible party at various Superfund waste sites. At December 31, 2017, we have accrued liabilities of $7 million for these costs. We expect that these costs will be recoverable through rates.

We also accrue environmental remediation costs for natural gas underground storage facilities, primarily related to soil and groundwater contamination. At December 31, 2017, we have accrued liabilities totaling $8 million for these costs.

Former operations, including operations classified as discontinued

We have potential obligations in connection with assets and businesses we no longer operate. These potential obligations include remediation activities at the direction of federal and state environmental authorities and the indemnification of the purchasers of certain of these assets and businesses for environmental and other liabilities existing at the time the sale was consummated. Our responsibilities relate to the operations of the assets and businesses described below.


•	Former agricultural fertilizer and chemical operations and former retail petroleum and refining operations;


•	Former petroleum products and natural gas pipelines;


•	Former petroleum refining facilities;


•	Former exploration and production and mining operations;


•	Former electricity and natural gas marketing and trading operations.

At December 31, 2017, we have accrued environmental liabilities of $23 million related to these matters.

Other Divestiture Indemnifications

Pursuant to various purchase and sale agreements relating to divested businesses and assets, we have indemnified certain purchasers against liabilities that they may incur with respect to the businesses and assets acquired from us. The indemnities provided to the purchasers are customary in sale transactions and are contingent upon the purchasers incurring liabilities that are not otherwise recoverable from third parties. The indemnities generally relate to breach of warranties, tax, historic litigation, personal injury, property damage, environmental matters, right of way, and other representations that we have provided.

At December 31, 2017, other than as previously disclosed, we are not aware of any material claims against us involving the indemnities; thus, we do not expect any of the indemnities provided pursuant to the sales agreements to have a material impact on our future financial position. Any claim for indemnity brought against us in the future may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the claim is made.

In addition to the foregoing, various other proceedings are pending against us which are incidental to our operations, none of which are expected to be material to our expected future annual results of operations, liquidity, and financial position.

Summary

We have disclosed our estimated range of reasonably possible losses for certain matters above, as well as all significant matters for which we are unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. We estimate that for all other matters for which we are able to reasonably estimate a range of loss, our aggregate reasonably possible losses beyond amounts accrued are immaterial to our expected future annual results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. These calculations have been made without consideration of any potential recovery from third parties.

Commitments

Commitments for construction and acquisition of property, plant, and equipment are approximately $348 million at December 31, 2017.