Litigation and Environmental (Notes)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Litigation and Environmental	18. Litigation and Environmental We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company. Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact to our business. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company. When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range. We disclose the following contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material or, in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed. EPNG FERC Proceeding On April 21, 2022, EPNG was notified by the FERC of the commencement of a rate proceeding against it pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act. This proceeding sets the matter for hearing to determine whether EPNG’s current rates remain just and reasonable. A proceeding under Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act is prospective in nature such that a change in rates charged to customers, if any, would likely only occur after the FERC has issued a final order. On November 18, 2022, EPNG filed a Stipulation and Agreement (S&A) to establish base rates and rate reductions during the term of the S&A, including a cumulative 16% reduction on average across mainline rate zones, to be phased in over 3 years beginning January 1, 2023, and a rate moratorium until September 30, 2027. FERC approved the S&A without modification on January 31, 2023. Gulf LNG Facility Disputes On September 28, 2018, GLNG filed a lawsuit against Eni S.p.A. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County to enforce a Guarantee Agreement (Guarantee) entered into by Eni S.p.A. on December 10, 2007 in connection with a contemporaneous terminal use agreement entered into by its affiliate, Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC (Eni USA). The suit to enforce the Guarantee against Eni S.p.A. was filed after an arbitration tribunal delivered an award on June 29, 2018 which called for the termination of the terminal use agreement and payment of compensation by Eni USA to GLNG. In response to GLNG’s lawsuit to enforce the Guarantee, Eni S.p.A. filed counterclaims based on the terminal use agreement and a parent direct agreement with Gulf LNG Energy (Port), LLC. The foregoing counterclaims asserted by Eni S.p.A seek unspecified damages and involve the same substantive allegations which were dismissed with prejudice in previous separate arbitrations with Eni USA described above and with GLNG’s remaining customer Angola LNG Supply Services LLC (ALSS), a consortium of international oil companies including Eni S.p.A. On January 4, 2022, the trial court entered a decision granting Eni S.p.A’s motion for summary judgment on the claims asserted by GLNG to enforce the Guarantee. GLNG filed an interlocutory appeal of the decision, which remains pending. Pending resolution of GLNG’s appeal and further proceedings in the trial court, the foregoing counterclaims and other claims asserted by Eni S.p.A based on the terminal use agreement and parent direct agreement remain pending in the trial court. We vigorously dispute that the foregoing counterclaims and other claims asserted by Eni S.p.A. have any merit, particularly since they were dismissed with prejudice in previous arbitrations involving both Eni USA and ALSS. We intend to vigorously pursue our appeal to enforce the Guarantee and are seeking summary judgment on any remaining counterclaims or other claims asserted by Eni S.p.A. Continental Resources, Inc. v. Hiland Partners Holdings, LLC On December 8, 2017, Continental Resources, Inc. (CLR) filed a lawsuit in Garfield County, Oklahoma state court alleging among other claims that Hiland Partners Holdings, LLC (Hiland Partners) breached a Gas Purchase Agreement, dated November 12, 2010, as amended (GPA), by failing to receive and purchase all of CLR’s dedicated gas under the GPA produced in three counties in North Dakota. CLR sought damages in excess of $276 million. While Hiland Partners denied all of the claims asserted in the lawsuit, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement on September 14, 2022, including an unconditional release and dismissal of the litigation with prejudice. Freeport LNG Winter Storm Litigation On September 13, 2021, Freeport LNG Marketing, LLC (Freeport) filed a lawsuit against Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC and Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline LLC in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2021-58787) alleging that defendants breached the parties’ base contract for sale and purchase of natural gas by failing to repurchase natural gas nominated by Freeport between February 10-22, 2021 during Winter Storm Uri. We deny that we were obligated to repurchase natural gas from Freeport given our declaration of force majeure during the storm and our compliance with emergency orders issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas providing heightened priority for the delivery of gas to human needs customers. Freeport alleges that it is owed approximately $104 million, plus attorney fees and interest. On October 24, 2022, the trial court granted our motion for summary judgment on all of Freeport’s claims. On November 21, 2022, Freeport filed a notice of intent to appeal the trial court’s decision. We believe that our declaration of force majeure was valid and we intend to vigorously defend this case. Pension Plan Litigation On February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation (Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso) and our company by virtue of our acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and our assumption of certain of El Paso’s pension plan obligations. The lawsuit, which was filed initially in federal court in Michigan and then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590), alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs’ retirement benefits which are now contested on a purported class-wide basis in the lawsuit. The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all seek the same plan modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal plan. These claims challenge plan provisions which are alleged to constitute impermissible “backloading” or “cutback” of benefits. Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. The complaint alleges that the purported class includes over 10,000 individuals. The lawsuit is in the early stages of discovery and no class has been certified. Plaintiffs seek to recover early retirement benefits as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, but have not pleaded, disclosed or otherwise specified a calculation of alleged damages. Accordingly, the extent of our potential liability for past or future benefits, if any, remains to be determined. We believe that none of the claims are valid and intend to vigorously defend this case. Pipeline Integrity and Releases From time to time, despite our best efforts, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, and damage to the environment, damage to property and/or personal injury or death. In connection with these incidents, we may be sued for damages caused by an alleged failure to properly mark the locations of our pipelines and/or to properly maintain our pipelines. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular incident, state and federal regulatory authorities may seek civil and/or criminal fines and penalties. Arizona Line 2000 Rupture On August 15, 2021, the 30” EPNG Line 2000 natural gas transmission pipeline ruptured in a rural area in Coolidge, Arizona. The failure resulted in a fire which destroyed a home, resulting in two fatalities and one injury. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident. EPNG began the process of returning the impacted pipeline segment to service on February 6, 2023. While no litigation is pending at this time, we notified our insurers of the incident and do not expect that the resolution of claims will have a material adverse impact to our business. General As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, our total reserve for legal matters was $70 million and $231 million, respectively. Environmental Matters We and our subsidiaries are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, CERCLA generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to local, state and federal laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal and CO2 field and oil field operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us, such as increasingly stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies under the terms of authority of those laws, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from our operations. We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of local, state and federal environmental and safety regulations. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. These alleged violations may result in fines and penalties, but we do not believe any such fines and penalties will be material to our business, individually or in the aggregate. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under state or federal administrative orders or related remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the remediation efforts. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in several federal and state Superfund sites. Environmental reserves have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. In addition, we are from time to time involved in civil proceedings relating to damages alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental leaks or spills of refined petroleum products, crude oil, NGL, natural gas or CO2, including natural resource damage (NRD) claims. PHMSA Enforcement Matter for KMLT Midwest Terminals On July 11, 2022, Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals (KMLT) received a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) from PHMSA relating to inspections conducted during 2021 at KMLT’s Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Dayton, Argo, O’Hare, and Wood River Terminals. The NOPV alleged violations of Department of Transportation regulations, proposed a penalty of approximately $455,000 and sought a compliance agreement relating to certain of the alleged violations. On February 3, 2023, PHMSA and KMLT entered into a Consent Agreement resolving the allegations in the NOPV. Also on February 3, 2023, PHMSA issued a Consent Order approving the Consent Agreement. We do not anticipate the costs to resolve this matter, including any costs to implement the Consent Agreement, will have a material adverse impact to our business. Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that established a final remedy and cleanup plan for an industrialized area on the lower reach of the Willamette River commonly referred to as the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (PHSS). The cost for the final remedy is estimated to be more than $2.8 billion and active cleanup is expected to take more than 10 years to complete. KMLT, KMBT, and some 90 other PRPs identified by the EPA are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs related to the final remedy set forth by the ROD. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities) and KMBT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities). Effective January 31, 2020, KMLT entered into separate Administrative Settlement Agreements and Orders on Consent (ASAOC) to complete remedial design for two distinct areas within the PHSS associated with KMLT’s facilities. The ASAOC obligates KMLT to pay a share of the remedial design costs for cleanup activities related to these two areas as required by the ROD. Our share of responsibility for the PHSS costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded or a lawsuit is filed that results in a judicial decision allocating responsibility. At this time we anticipate the non-judicial allocation process will be complete in or around December 2024. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the PHSS. Because costs associated with any remedial plan are expected to be spread over at least several years, we do not anticipate that our share of the costs of the remediation will have a material adverse impact to our business. In addition to CERCLA cleanup costs, we are reviewing and will attempt to settle, if possible, NRD claims in the amount of approximately $5 million asserted by state and federal trustees following their natural resource assessment of the PHSS. Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, New Jersey EPEC Polymers, Inc. and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (collectively EPEC) are identified as PRPs in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River in New Jersey. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the lower eight miles of the Site. At that time the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $1.7 billion. The cleanup is expected to take at least six years to complete once it begins. In addition, the EPA and numerous PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in an allocation process for the implementation of the remedy for the lower eight miles of the Site. That process was completed December 28, 2020 and certain PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in discussions with the EPA as a result thereof. On October 4, 2021, the EPA issued a ROD for the upper nine miles of the Site. At that time, the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $440 million. No timeline for the cleanup has been established. On December 16, 2022, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and EPA announced a settlement and proposed consent decree with 85 PRPs, including EPEC, to resolve their collective liability at the Site. The total amount of the settlement is $150 million. Also on December 16, 2022, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA filed a Complaint against the 85 PRPs, including EPEC, a Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree, and a Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. We believe our share of the costs to resolve this matter, including our share of the settlement with EPA and the costs to remediate the Site, if any, will not have a material adverse impact to our business. Louisiana Governmental Coastal Zone Erosion Litigation Beginning in 2013, several parishes in Louisiana and the City of New Orleans filed separate lawsuits in state district courts in Louisiana against a number of oil and gas companies, including TGP and SNG. In these cases, the parishes and New Orleans, as Plaintiffs, allege that certain of the defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended (SLCRMA) and that those operations caused substantial damage to the coastal waters of Louisiana and nearby lands. The Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the affected areas. There are more than 40 of these cases pending in Louisiana against oil and gas companies, one of which is against TGP and one of which is against SNG, both described further below. On November 8, 2013, the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana filed a petition for damages in the state district court for Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana against TGP and 17 other energy companies, alleging that the defendants’ operations in Plaquemines Parish violated SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Plaquemines Parish seeks, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected areas. In December 2013, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In April 2015, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be remanded to the state district court for Plaquemines Parish. In May 2018, the case was removed for a second time to the U.S. District Court. In May 2019, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be remanded to the state district court. The case has been effectively stayed pending the resolution of jurisdictional issues in separate, consolidated cases to which TGP is not a party; The Parish of Plaquemines, et al. vs. Chevron USA, Inc. et al. consolidated with The Parish of Cameron, et al. v. BP America Production Company, et al. Those cases were removed to federal court and ordered to be remanded to the state district courts for Plaquemines and Cameron Parishes, respectively. The defendants to those consolidated cases pursued an appeal of the remand decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to determine whether there is federal officer jurisdiction. On October 17, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered those consolidated cases to be remanded to the state district courts. On November 14, 2022, the defendants to those consolidated cases filed separate Petitions for Panel Rehearing, and for Rehearing En Banc. On November 29, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied both Petitions. On December 15, 2022, the case against TGP was remanded to the state district court. On January 30, 2023, the defendants to those consolidated cases filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals. At this time, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We intend to vigorously defend this case. On March 29, 2019, the City of New Orleans and Orleans Parish (collectively, Orleans) filed a petition for damages in the state district court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana against SNG and 10 other energy companies alleging that the defendants’ operations in Orleans Parish violated the SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Orleans seeks, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected areas. In April 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In May 2019, Orleans moved to remand the case to the state district court. In January 2020, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be stayed and administratively closed pending the resolution of issues in a separate case to which SNG is not a party; Parish of Cameron vs. Auster Oil & Gas, Inc., pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; after which either party may move to re-open the case. On January 23, 2023, the City of New Orleans filed an Ex parte Motion to Reopen Case and Notice of Supplemental Authority asking the U.S. District Court to re-open the case. Until these and other issues are determined, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We intend to vigorously defend this case. Products Pipeline Incident, Walnut Creek, California On November 20, 2020, SFPP identified an issue on its Line Section 16 (LS-16) which transports petroleum products in California from Concord to San Jose. We shut down the pipeline and notified the appropriate regulatory agencies of a “threatened release” of gasoline. We investigated the issue over the next several days and on November 24, 2020, identified a crack in the pipeline and notified the regulatory agencies of a “confirmed release.” The damaged section of the pipeline was removed and replaced, and the pipeline resumed operations on November 26, 2020. We reported the estimated volume of gasoline released to be 8.1 Bbl. On December 2, 2020, complaints of gasoline odors were reported along the LS-16 pipeline corridor in Walnut Creek. A unified response was implemented by us along with the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response, the California Fire Marshall, and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. On December 8, 2020, we reported an updated estimated spill volume of up to 1,000 Bbl. On October 28, 2021, we were informed by the California Attorney General it was contemplating criminal charges against us asserting the November 2020 discharge of gasoline affected waters of the State of California, and there was a failure to make timely notices of this discharge to appropriate state agencies. On December 16, 2021, we entered into a plea agreement with the State of California to resolve misdemeanor charges of the unintentional, non-negligent discharge of gasoline resulting from the release and the claimed failure to provide timely notices of the discharge to appropriate state agencies. Under the plea agreement, SFPP plead no-contest to two misdemeanors and paid approximately $2.5 million in fines, penalties, restitution, environmental improvement project funding, and for enforcement training in the State of California, and was placed on informal, unsupervised probation for a term of 18 months. Since the November 2020 release, we have cooperated fully with federal and state agencies and have worked diligently to remediate the affected areas. We anticipate civil enforcement actions by federal and state agencies arising from the November 2020 release as well as ongoing monitoring and, where necessary, remediation under the oversight of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board until site conditions demonstrate no further actions are required. We do not anticipate the costs to resolve those enforcement matters, including the costs to monitor and further remediate the site, will have a material adverse impact to our business. General Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcomes, we believe that the resolution of the environmental matters set forth in this note, and other matters to which we and our subsidiaries are a party, will not have a material adverse effect on our business. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, we have accrued a total reserve for environmental liabilities in the amount of $221 million and $243 million, respectively. In addition, as of both December 31, 2022 and 2021, we had recorded a receivable of $12 million for expected cost recoveries that have been deemed probable.

We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company. Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact to our business. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company. When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range. We disclose the following contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material or, in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed.

On April 21, 2022, EPNG was notified by the FERC of the commencement of a rate proceeding against it pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act. This proceeding sets the matter for hearing to determine whether EPNG’s current rates remain just and reasonable. A proceeding under Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act is prospective in nature such that a change in rates charged to customers, if any, would likely only occur after the FERC has issued a final order. On November 18, 2022, EPNG filed a Stipulation and Agreement (S&A) to establish base rates and rate reductions during the term of the S&A, including a cumulative 16% reduction on average across mainline rate zones, to be phased in over 3 years beginning January 1, 2023, and a rate moratorium until September 30, 2027. FERC approved the S&A without modification on January 31, 2023.

to enforce the Guarantee against Eni S.p.A. was filed after an arbitration tribunal delivered an award on June 29, 2018 which called for the termination of the terminal use agreement and payment of compensation by Eni USA to GLNG. In response to GLNG’s lawsuit to enforce the Guarantee, Eni S.p.A. filed counterclaims based on the terminal use agreement and a parent direct agreement with Gulf LNG Energy (Port), LLC. The foregoing counterclaims asserted by Eni S.p.A seek unspecified damages and involve the same substantive allegations which were dismissed with prejudice in previous separate arbitrations with Eni USA described above and with GLNG’s remaining customer Angola LNG Supply Services LLC (ALSS), a consortium of international oil companies including Eni S.p.A. On January 4, 2022, the trial court entered a decision granting Eni S.p.A’s motion for summary judgment on the claims asserted by GLNG to enforce the Guarantee. GLNG filed an interlocutory appeal of the decision, which remains pending. Pending resolution of GLNG’s appeal and further proceedings in the trial court, the foregoing counterclaims and other claims asserted by Eni S.p.A based on the terminal use agreement and parent direct agreement remain pending in the trial court. We vigorously dispute that the foregoing counterclaims and other claims asserted by Eni S.p.A. have any merit, particularly since they were dismissed with prejudice in previous arbitrations involving both Eni USA and ALSS. We intend to vigorously pursue our appeal to enforce the Guarantee and are seeking summary judgment on any remaining counterclaims or other claims asserted by Eni S.p.A.

On December 8, 2017, Continental Resources, Inc. (CLR) filed a lawsuit in Garfield County, Oklahoma state court alleging among other claims that Hiland Partners Holdings, LLC (Hiland Partners) breached a Gas Purchase Agreement, dated November 12, 2010, as amended (GPA), by failing to receive and purchase all of CLR’s dedicated gas under the GPA produced in three counties in North Dakota. CLR sought damages in excess of $276 million. While Hiland Partners denied all of the claims asserted in the lawsuit, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement on September 14, 2022, including an unconditional release and dismissal of the litigation with prejudice.

On September 13, 2021, Freeport LNG Marketing, LLC (Freeport) filed a lawsuit against Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC and Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline LLC in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2021-58787) alleging that defendants breached the parties’ base contract for sale and purchase of natural gas by failing to repurchase natural gas nominated by Freeport between February 10-22, 2021 during Winter Storm Uri. We deny that we were obligated to repurchase natural gas from Freeport given our declaration of force majeure during the storm and our compliance with emergency orders issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas providing heightened priority for the delivery of gas to human needs customers. Freeport alleges that it is owed approximately $104 million, plus attorney fees and interest. On October 24, 2022, the trial court granted our motion for summary judgment on all of Freeport’s claims. On November 21, 2022, Freeport filed a notice of intent to appeal the trial court’s decision. We believe that our declaration of force majeure was valid and we intend to vigorously defend this case.

On February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation (Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso) and our company by virtue of our acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and our assumption of certain of El Paso’s pension plan obligations. The lawsuit, which was filed initially in federal court in Michigan and then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590), alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs’ retirement benefits which are now contested on a purported class-wide basis in the lawsuit. The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all seek the same plan modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal plan. These claims challenge plan provisions which are alleged to constitute impermissible “backloading” or “cutback” of benefits. Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. The complaint alleges that the purported class includes over 10,000 individuals. The lawsuit is in the early stages of discovery and no class has been certified. Plaintiffs seek to recover early retirement benefits as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, but have not pleaded, disclosed or otherwise specified a calculation of alleged damages. Accordingly, the extent of our potential liability for past or future benefits, if any, remains to be determined. We believe that none of the claims are valid and intend to vigorously defend this case.

From time to time, despite our best efforts, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, and damage to the environment, damage to property and/or personal injury or death. In connection with these incidents, we may be sued for damages caused by an alleged failure to properly mark the locations of our pipelines and/or to properly maintain our pipelines. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular incident, state and federal regulatory authorities may seek civil and/or criminal fines and penalties.

On August 15, 2021, the 30” EPNG Line 2000 natural gas transmission pipeline ruptured in a rural area in Coolidge, Arizona. The failure resulted in a fire which destroyed a home, resulting in two fatalities and one injury. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident. EPNG began the process of returning the impacted pipeline segment to service on February 6, 2023. While no litigation is pending at this time, we notified our insurers of the incident and do not expect that the resolution of claims will have a material adverse impact to our business.

We and our subsidiaries are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, CERCLA generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to local, state and federal laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal and CO2 field and oil field operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us, such as increasingly stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies under the terms of authority of those laws, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from our operations.

We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of local, state and federal environmental and safety regulations. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. These alleged violations may result in fines and penalties, but we do not believe any such fines and penalties will be material to our business, individually or in the aggregate. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under state or federal administrative orders or related remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the remediation efforts.

In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in several federal and state Superfund sites. Environmental reserves have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. In addition, we are from time to time involved in civil proceedings relating to damages alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental leaks or spills of refined petroleum products, crude oil, NGL, natural gas or CO2, including natural resource damage (NRD) claims.

On July 11, 2022, Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals (KMLT) received a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) from PHMSA relating to inspections conducted during 2021 at KMLT’s Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Dayton, Argo, O’Hare, and Wood River Terminals. The NOPV alleged violations of Department of Transportation regulations, proposed a penalty of approximately $455,000 and sought a compliance agreement relating to certain of the alleged violations. On February 3, 2023, PHMSA and KMLT entered into a Consent Agreement resolving the allegations in the NOPV. Also on February 3, 2023, PHMSA issued a Consent Order approving the Consent Agreement. We do not anticipate the costs to resolve this matter, including any costs to implement the Consent Agreement, will have a material adverse impact to our business.

On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that established a final remedy and cleanup plan for an industrialized area on the lower reach of the Willamette River commonly referred to as the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (PHSS). The cost for the final remedy is estimated to be more than $2.8 billion and active cleanup is expected to take more than 10 years to complete. KMLT, KMBT, and some 90 other PRPs identified by the EPA are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs related to the final remedy set forth by the ROD. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities) and KMBT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities). Effective January 31, 2020, KMLT entered into separate Administrative Settlement Agreements and Orders on Consent (ASAOC) to complete remedial design for two distinct areas within the PHSS associated with KMLT’s facilities. The ASAOC obligates KMLT to pay a share of the remedial design costs for cleanup activities related to these two areas as required by the ROD. Our share of responsibility for the PHSS costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded or a lawsuit is filed that results in a judicial decision allocating responsibility. At this time we anticipate the non-judicial allocation process will be complete in or around December 2024. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the PHSS. Because costs associated with any remedial plan are expected to be spread over at least several years, we do not anticipate that our share of the costs of the remediation will have a material adverse impact to our business.

EPEC Polymers, Inc. and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (collectively EPEC) are identified as PRPs in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River in New Jersey. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the lower eight miles of the Site. At that time the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $1.7 billion. The cleanup is expected to take at least six years to complete once it begins. In addition, the EPA and numerous PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in an allocation process for the implementation of the remedy for the lower eight miles of the Site. That process was completed December 28, 2020 and certain PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in discussions with the EPA as a result thereof. On October 4, 2021, the EPA issued a ROD for the upper nine miles of the Site. At that time, the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $440 million. No timeline for the cleanup has been established. On December 16, 2022, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and EPA announced a settlement and proposed consent decree with 85 PRPs, including EPEC, to resolve their collective liability at the Site. The total amount of the settlement is $150 million. Also on December 16, 2022, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA filed a Complaint against the 85 PRPs, including EPEC, a Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree, and a Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. We believe our share of the costs to resolve this matter, including our share of the settlement with EPA and the costs to remediate the Site, if any, will not have a material adverse impact to our business.

Beginning in 2013, several parishes in Louisiana and the City of New Orleans filed separate lawsuits in state district courts in Louisiana against a number of oil and gas companies, including TGP and SNG. In these cases, the parishes and New Orleans, as Plaintiffs, allege that certain of the defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended (SLCRMA) and that those operations caused substantial damage to the coastal waters of Louisiana and nearby lands. The Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the affected areas. There are more than 40 of these cases pending in Louisiana against oil and gas companies, one of which is against TGP and one of which is against SNG, both described further below.

On November 8, 2013, the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana filed a petition for damages in the state district court for Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana against TGP and 17 other energy companies, alleging that the defendants’ operations in Plaquemines Parish violated SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Plaquemines Parish seeks, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected areas. In December 2013, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In April 2015, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be remanded to the state district court for Plaquemines Parish. In May 2018, the case was removed for a second time to the U.S. District Court. In May 2019, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be remanded to the state district court. The case has been effectively stayed pending the

resolution of jurisdictional issues in separate, consolidated cases to which TGP is not a party; The Parish of Plaquemines, et al. vs. Chevron USA, Inc. et al. consolidated with The Parish of Cameron, et al. v. BP America Production Company, et al. Those cases were removed to federal court and ordered to be remanded to the state district courts for Plaquemines and Cameron Parishes, respectively. The defendants to those consolidated cases pursued an appeal of the remand decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to determine whether there is federal officer jurisdiction. On October 17, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered those consolidated cases to be remanded to the state district courts. On November 14, 2022, the defendants to those consolidated cases filed separate Petitions for Panel Rehearing, and for Rehearing En Banc. On November 29, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied both Petitions. On December 15, 2022, the case against TGP was remanded to the state district court. On January 30, 2023, the defendants to those consolidated cases filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals. At this time, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We intend to vigorously defend this case.

On March 29, 2019, the City of New Orleans and Orleans Parish (collectively, Orleans) filed a petition for damages in the state district court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana against SNG and 10 other energy companies alleging that the defendants’ operations in Orleans Parish violated the SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Orleans seeks, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected areas. In April 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In May 2019, Orleans moved to remand the case to the state district court. In January 2020, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be stayed and administratively closed pending the resolution of issues in a separate case to which SNG is not a party; Parish of Cameron vs. Auster Oil & Gas, Inc., pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; after which either party may move to re-open the case. On January 23, 2023, the City of New Orleans filed an Ex parte Motion to Reopen Case and Notice of Supplemental Authority asking the U.S. District Court to re-open the case. Until these and other issues are determined, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We intend to vigorously defend this case.

On November 20, 2020, SFPP identified an issue on its Line Section 16 (LS-16) which transports petroleum products in California from Concord to San Jose. We shut down the pipeline and notified the appropriate regulatory agencies of a “threatened release” of gasoline. We investigated the issue over the next several days and on November 24, 2020, identified a crack in the pipeline and notified the regulatory agencies of a “confirmed release.” The damaged section of the pipeline was removed and replaced, and the pipeline resumed operations on November 26, 2020. We reported the estimated volume of gasoline released to be 8.1 Bbl. On December 2, 2020, complaints of gasoline odors were reported along the LS-16 pipeline corridor in Walnut Creek. A unified response was implemented by us along with the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response, the California Fire Marshall, and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. On December 8, 2020, we reported an updated estimated spill volume of up to 1,000 Bbl.

On October 28, 2021, we were informed by the California Attorney General it was contemplating criminal charges against us asserting the November 2020 discharge of gasoline affected waters of the State of California, and there was a failure to make timely notices of this discharge to appropriate state agencies. On December 16, 2021, we entered into a plea agreement with the State of California to resolve misdemeanor charges of the unintentional, non-negligent discharge of gasoline resulting from the release and the claimed failure to provide timely notices of the discharge to appropriate state agencies. Under the plea agreement, SFPP plead no-contest to two misdemeanors and paid approximately $2.5 million in fines, penalties, restitution, environmental improvement project funding, and for enforcement training in the State of California, and was placed on informal, unsupervised probation for a term of 18 months.

Since the November 2020 release, we have cooperated fully with federal and state agencies and have worked diligently to remediate the affected areas. We anticipate civil enforcement actions by federal and state agencies arising from the November 2020 release as well as ongoing monitoring and, where necessary, remediation under the oversight of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board until site conditions demonstrate no further actions are required. We do not anticipate the costs to resolve those enforcement matters, including the costs to monitor and further remediate the site, will have a material adverse impact to our business.