COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

PEPL Holdings Guarantee of Collection

In accordance with the Contribution Agreement pursuant to which the Company contributed SUGS to Regency, Regency issued $600 million of 4.50% Senior Notes due 2023 (the “Regency Debt”), the proceeds of which were used by Regency to fund the cash portion of the consideration, as adjusted, under the Contribution Agreement and pay certain other expenses or disbursements directly related to the closing of the SUGS contribution. In connection with the closing of the SUGS contribution, on April 30, 2013, Regency entered into the guarantee of collection with PEPL Holdings, a subsidiary of the Company, pursuant to which PEPL Holdings provided a guarantee of collection (on a nonrecourse basis to the Company) to Regency and Regency Energy Finance Corp. with respect to the payment of the principal amount of the Regency Debt.

Environmental Matters

The Company’s operations are subject to federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations regarding water quality, hazardous and solid waste management, air quality control and other environmental matters. These laws, rules and regulations require the Company to conduct its operations in a specified manner and to obtain and comply with a wide variety of environmental registrations, licenses, permits, inspections and other approvals. Failure to comply with environmental laws, rules and regulations may expose the Company to significant fines, penalties and/or interruptions in operations. The Company’s environmental policies and procedures are designed to achieve compliance with such applicable laws and regulations. These evolving laws and regulations and claims for damages to property, employees, other persons and the environment resulting from current or past operations may result in significant expenditures and liabilities in the future. The Company engages in a process of updating and revising its procedures for the ongoing evaluation of its operations to identify potential environmental exposures and enhance compliance with regulatory requirements.

Environmental Remediation

Transportation and Storage Segment

Panhandle is responsible for environmental remediation at certain sites on its natural gas transmission systems for contamination resulting from the past use of lubricants containing PCBs in compressed air systems; the past use of paints containing PCBs; and the prior use of wastewater collection facilities and other on-site disposal areas. Panhandle has implemented a program to remediate such contamination. The primary remaining remediation activity on the Panhandle systems is associated with past use of paints containing PCBs or PCB impacts to equipment surfaces and to a building at one location. The PCB assessments are ongoing and the related estimated remediation costs are subject to further change. Other remediation typically involves the management of contaminated soils and may involve remediation of groundwater. Activities vary with site conditions and locations, the extent and nature of the contamination, remedial requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. The ultimate liability and total costs associated with these sites will depend upon many factors. If remediation activities involve statutory joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, Panhandle could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties. In some instances, Panhandle may share liability associated with contamination with other potentially responsible parties. Panhandle may also benefit from contractual indemnities that cover some or all of the cleanup costs. These sites are generally managed in the normal course of business or operations.

The Company’s environmental remediation activities are undertaken in cooperation with and under the oversight of appropriate regulatory agencies, enabling the Company under certain circumstances to take advantage of various voluntary cleanup programs in order to perform the remediation in the most effective and efficient manner.

Distribution Segment

The Company is allowed to recover environmental remediation expenditures through rates in certain jurisdictions within its Distribution segment. Significant charges to earnings could be required prior to rate recovery for jurisdictions that do not have rate recovery mechanisms.

The Company is responsible for environmental remediation at various contaminated sites that are primarily associated with former MGPs and sites associated with the operation and disposal activities of former MGPs that produced a fuel known as “town gas.” Some byproducts of the historic manufactured gas process may be regulated substances under various federal and state environmental laws. To the extent these byproducts are present in soil or groundwater at concentrations in excess of applicable standards, investigation and remediation may be required. The sites include properties that are part of the Company’s ongoing operations, sites formerly owned or used by the Company and sites owned by third parties. Remediation typically involves the management of contaminated soils and may involve removal of old MGP structures and remediation of groundwater. Activities vary with site conditions and locations, the extent and nature of the contamination, remedial requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility; some contamination may be unrelated to former MGPs. The ultimate liability and total costs associated with these sites will depend upon many factors. If remediation activities involve statutory joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Company could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties. In some instances, the Company may share liability associated with contamination with other potentially responsible parties and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all of the cleanup costs. These sites are generally managed in the normal course of business or operations.

North Attleboro MGP Site in Massachusetts (“North Attleboro Site”). In November 2003, the Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection issued a Notice of Responsibility to New England Gas Company, acknowledging receipt of prior notifications and investigative reports submitted by New England Gas Company, following the discovery of suspected coal tar material at the North Attleboro Site. Subsequent sampling in the adjacent river channel revealed sediment impacts necessitating the investigation of off-site properties. Assessment activities have recently been completed and it is estimated that the Company will spend approximately $11 million over the next several years to complete remediation activities at the North Attleboro Site, as well as maintain the engineered barrier constructed in 2008 at the upland portion of the site. As New England Gas Company is allowed to recover environmental remediation expenditures through rates associated with its Massachusetts operations, the estimated costs associated with the North Attleboro Site have been included in regulatory assets in the consolidated balance sheets.

Environmental Remediation Liabilities

The table below reflects the amount of accrued liabilities recorded in the consolidated balance sheets at the dates indicated to cover environmental remediation actions where management believes a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. Except for matters discussed above, the Company does not have any material environmental remediation matters assessed as reasonably possible that would require disclosure in the financial statements.



	March 31, 2013		December 31, 2012
Current	$	7	$	7
Noncurrent	26		26
Total environmental liabilities	$	33	$	33

Litigation and Other Claims

Will Price. Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of companies, including Panhandle, alleging mis-measurement of natural gas volumes and Btu content, resulting in lower royalties to mineral interest owners. On September 19, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs’ request for class certification. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on March 31, 2010. Panhandle believes that its measurement practices conformed to the terms of its FERC natural gas tariffs, which were filed with and approved by the FERC. As a result, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the Will Price lawsuit (including FERC-related affirmative defenses, such as the filed rate/tariff doctrine, the primary/exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC, and the defense that Panhandle complied with the terms of its tariffs). In the event that Plaintiffs refuse Panhandle’s pending request for voluntary dismissal, Panhandle will continue to vigorously defend the case. The Company believes it has no liability associated with this proceeding.

Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v New England Gas Company. On July 7, 2011, the Massachusetts Attorney General (“AG”) filed a regulatory complaint with the MDPU against New England Gas Company with respect to certain environmental cost recoveries. The AG is seeking a refund to New England Gas Company customers for alleged “excessive and imprudently incurred costs” related to legal fees associated with the Company’s environmental response activities. In the complaint, the AG requests that the MDPU initiate an investigation into the New England Gas Company’s collection and reconciliation of recoverable environmental costs including: (i) the prudence of any and all legal fees, totaling $19 million, that were charged by the Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman firm and passed through the recovery mechanism since 2005, the year when a partner in the firm, the Company’s former Vice Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer, joined the Company’s management team; (ii) the prudence of any and all legal fees that were charged by the Bishop, London & Dodds firm and passed through the recovery mechanism since 2005, the period during which a member of the firm served as the Company’s Chief Ethics Officer; and (iii) the propriety and allocation of certain legal fees charged that were passed through the recovery mechanism that the AG contends only qualify for a lesser, 50%, level of recovery. The Company has filed its answer denying the allegations and moved to dismiss the complaint, in part on a theory of collateral estoppel. The hearing officer has deferred consideration of the Company’s motion to dismiss. The AG’s motion to be reimbursed expert and consultant costs by the Company of up to $150,000 was granted. The hearing officer has stayed discovery until resolution of a separate matter concerning the applicability of attorney-client privilege to legal billing invoices. The Company believes it has complied with all applicable requirements regarding its filings for cost recovery and has not recorded any accrued liability; however, the Company will continue to assess its potential exposure for such cost recoveries as the matter progresses.

Litigation Relating to the ETE Merger

In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas naming as defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE. The lawsuits were styled Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas and Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37134, in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The lawsuits were consolidated into an action styled In re: Southern Union Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the ETE Merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended petitions allege that the ETE Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern Union's directors entered into the ETE Merger to benefit themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete agreements, and that defendants have failed to disclose all material information related to the ETE Merger to Southern Union stockholders. The amended petitions seek injunctive relief, including an injunction of the ETE Merger, and an award of attorneys’ and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. On October 21, 2011, the court denied ETE's October 13, 2011, motion to stay the Texas proceeding in favor of cases pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Also in June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE. Three of the lawsuits also named Merger Sub as a defendant. These lawsuits are styled: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al. v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6615-CS; KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6622-CS; LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-CS; and Memo v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS. These cases were consolidated with the following style: In re Southern Union Co. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The consolidated complaint asserts similar claims and allegations as the Texas state-court consolidated action. On July 25, 2012, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims without prejudice. In the notice, plaintiffs stated their claims were being dismissed to avoid duplicative litigation and indicated their intent to join the Texas case.

The Texas case remains pending, and discovery is ongoing.

In November 2011, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas naming as defendants ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, the boards of directors of ETP LLC (collectively with ETP GP and ETP LLC, the “ETP Defendants”), certain members of management for ETP and ETE, ETE, and Southern Union. The lawsuit is styled W. J. Garrett Trust v. Bill W. Byrne, et al., Cause No. 2011-71702, in the 157th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiffs assert claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of contractual duties, and acts of bad faith against each of the ETP Defendants and the individual defendants. Plaintiffs also assert claims for aiding and abetting and tortious interference with contract against Southern Union. On October 5, 2012, certain defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the primary allegations in this action. On December 13, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Defendants filed a reply on December 19, 2012. On December 20, 2012, the court conducted an oral hearing on the motion. Plaintiffs filed a post-hearing sur-reply on January 7, 2013. On January 16, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The deadline for the remaining defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond is late April, 2013. Trial in this action is not currently set.

Mercury Release

In October 2004, New England Gas Company discovered that one of its facilities, formerly associated with discontinued operations which were sold in 2006, had been broken into and that mercury had been released both inside a building and in the immediate vicinity, including a parking lot in a neighborhood several blocks away. Mercury from the parking lot was apparently tracked into nearby apartment units, as well as other buildings. Cleanup was completed at the property and nearby apartment units. The vandals who broke into the facility were arrested and convicted. In October 2007, the U.S. Attorney in Rhode Island filed a three-count indictment against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (“District Court”) alleging violation of permitting requirements under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and notification requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (“EPCRA”) relating to the 2004 incident. Trial commenced on September 22, 2008, and on October 15, 2008, the jury acquitted Southern Union on the EPCRA count and one of the two RCRA counts and found the Company guilty on the other RCRA count. On October 2, 2009, the District Court imposed a fine of $6 million and a payment of $12 million in community service.

On December 22, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (“First Circuit”) affirmed the conviction and the sentence. On February 17, 2011, the First Circuit denied the Company’s petition for en banc rehearing. The Company, on October 31, 2011, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”), which review was granted and the case was heard by the Supreme Court on March 19, 2012.

On June 21, 2012, the United States Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit, holding that the sentence imposed on the Company was unconstitutional, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceeding consistent with that holding.

On July 17, 2012, the Government moved for “clarification” of the First Circuit’s December 22, 2010 decision urging the First Circuit to find that, in addition to resolving whether (i) the alternative fine statute increases the maximum fine that may be imposed on the Company from $50,000 to $500,000; (ii) the $12 million community service obligation is a fine or restitution; and (iii) a new jury should be empanelled to hear evidence regarding the number of days RCRA was violated.

On July 26, 2012, the First Circuit vacated the fine imposed by the District Court and remanded the matter to the District Court for resentencing consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. In the same order, the First Circuit denied without prejudice the Government’s motion for clarification, holding that the issues raised by the Government in its July 17, 2012 motion could be addressed by the parties on remand. Accordingly, the Government petitioned the District Court for consideration of the same issues and the hearing took place on December 3, 2012. The District Court has ruled in favor of the Company and limited the penalty to “community service” of up to $500,000.

Simmons v. Southern Union Company. Cause No. 1316-CV-07265, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Kansas City: On March 22, 2013, the first lawsuit related to the February 19, 2013 natural gas incident at JJ's Restaurant was filed in Missouri state court on behalf of six injured restaurant employees. The defendants include Southern Union Company d/b/a MGE, USIC Locating Services, Inc. (the utility marking service), Heartland Midwest, LLC (the directional boring company and contractor of Time Warner Cable Media, Inc.), Time Warner Cable Media, Inc., Missouri One Call System, Inc., (Missouri's notification center for utility locates), and Mike Palier (MGE's first responder). Plaintiffs' claims include negligence and strict liability for inherently dangerous activities. Plaintiffs have not specified an amount of damages, but seek punitive damages against MGE and certain other defendants in a jury trial. No trial date has been set.

Liabilities for Litigation and Other Claims

In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is involved in legal, tax and regulatory proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions and governmental agencies regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of business.

The Company records accrued liabilities for litigation and other claim costs when management believes a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. When management believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss or an additional material loss may have been incurred, the Company discloses (i) an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued; or (ii) a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company recorded litigation and other claim-related accrued liabilities of $27 million and $27 million, respectively. Except for the matters discussed above, the Company does not have any material litigation or other claim contingency matters assessed as probable or reasonably possible that would require disclosure in the financial statements.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

Regulation and Rates. See Note 13 for potential contingent matters associated with the Company’s regulated operations.

Unclaimed Property Audits. The Company is subject to the laws and regulations of states and other jurisdictions concerning the identification, reporting and escheatment (the transfer of property to the state) of unclaimed or abandoned funds, and is subject to audit and examination for compliance with these requirements. The Company is currently being examined by a third party auditor on behalf of nine states for compliance with unclaimed property laws.

Air Quality Control

Oil and Natural Gas Sector New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. On April 17, 2012 the EPA issued the Oil and Natural Gas Sector New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The standards revise the new source performance standards for volatile organic compounds from leaking components at onshore natural gas processing plants and new source performance standards for sulfur dioxide emissions from natural gas processing plants. The EPA also established standards for certain oil and gas operations not covered by the existing standards. In addition to the operations covered by the existing standards, the newly established standards regulate volatile organic compound emissions from gas wells, centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic controllers and storage vessels. The Company is reviewing the new standards to determine the impact on its operations.

Transportation and Storage Segment. In August 2010, the EPA finalized a rule that requires reductions in a number of pollutants, including formaldehyde and carbon monoxide, for certain engines regardless of size at Area Sources (sources that emit less than 10 tons per year of any one Hazardous Air Pollutant (“HAP”) or 25 tons per year of all HAPs) and engines less than 500 horsepower at Major Sources (sources that emit 10 tons per year or more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of all HAPs). Compliance is required by October 2013. It is anticipated that the limits adopted in this rule will be used in a future EPA rule that is scheduled to be finalized in 2013, with compliance required in 2016. This future rule is expected to require reductions in formaldehyde and carbon monoxide emissions from engines greater than 500 horsepower at Major Sources.

Nitrogen oxides are the primary air pollutant from natural gas-fired engines. Nitrogen oxide emissions may form ozone in the atmosphere. In 2008, the EPA lowered the ozone standard to 75 ppb with compliance anticipated in 2013 to 2015. In January 2010, the EPA proposed lowering the standard to 60 to 70 ppb in lieu of the 75 ppb standard, with compliance required in 2014 or later. In September 2011, the EPA decided to rescind the proposed lower ozone standard and begin the process to implement the 75 ppb ozone standard established in 2008.

In January 2010, the EPA finalized a 100 ppb one-hour nitrogen dioxide standard. The rule requires the installation of new nitrogen dioxide monitors in urban communities and roadways by 2013. This new monitoring may result in additional nitrogen dioxide non-attainment areas. In addition, ambient air quality modeling may be required to demonstrate compliance with the new standard.

The Company is currently reviewing the potential impacts of the August 2010 Area Source National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants rule, implementation of the 2008 ozone standard and the new nitrogen dioxide standard on operations in its Transportation and Storage and Gathering and Processing segments and the potential costs associated with the installation of emission control systems on its existing engines. The ultimate costs associated with these activities cannot be estimated with any certainty at this time, but the Company believes, based on the current understanding of the current and proposed rules, such costs will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows