Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies We are party to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses that may result in claims against the Partnership. Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or distributions to limited partners. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Partnership. When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range. We disclose contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material, or in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proceedings The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP, L.P. (SFPP) and El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC (EPNG) are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC. A substantial portion of our legal reserves relate to these FERC cases and the CPUC cases described below them. SFPP The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC, including the complaints and protests of various shippers. In general, these complaints and protests allege the rates and tariffs charged by SFPP are not just and reasonable under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). If the shippers are successful in proving their claims, they are entitled to seek reparations (which may reach up to two years prior to the filing of their complaints) or refunds of any excess rates paid, and SFPP may be required to reduce its rates going forward. These proceedings tend to be protracted, with decisions of the FERC often appealed to the federal courts. The issues involved in these proceedings include, among others, whether indexed rate increases are justified, and the appropriate level of return and income tax allowance we may include in our rates. With respect to all of the SFPP proceedings at the FERC, we estimate that the shippers are seeking approximately $20 million in annual rate reductions and approximately $100 million in refunds. However, applying the principles of several recent FERC decisions in SFPP cases, as applicable, to other pending cases would result in substantially lower rate reductions and refunds than those sought by the shippers. We do not expect refunds in these cases to have an impact on our distributions to our limited partners. EPNG The tariffs and rates charged by EPNG are subject to two ongoing FERC proceedings (the “2008 rate case” and the “2010 rate case”). With respect to the 2008 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (“Opinion 517”) in May 2012 and EPNG implemented certain aspects of that decision. The FERC subsequently issued an order requiring EPNG to decrease its rates related to the 2010 rate case in accordance with Opinion 517. EPNG has sought rehearing on that order as well as Opinion 517. With respect to the 2010 rate case, the presiding administrative law judge issued an initial decision in June 2012. This initial decision is currently being reviewed by the FERC. EPNG is pursuing settlement with its shippers in both open rate cases and believes the accruals established for these matters are adequate. California Public Utilities Commission Proceedings We have previously reported ratemaking and complaint proceedings against SFPP pending with the CPUC. The ratemaking and complaint cases generally involve challenges to rates charged by SFPP for intrastate transportation of refined petroleum products through its pipeline system in the state of California and request prospective rate adjustments and refunds with respect to tariffed and previously untariffed charges for certain pipeline transportation and related services. These matters have generally been consolidated and assigned to two administrative law judges. On May 26, 2011, the CPUC issued a decision in several intrastate rate cases involving SFPP and a number of its shippers (the “Long” cases). The decision includes determinations on issues, such as SFPP’s entitlement to an income tax allowance, allocation of environmental expenses, and refund liability which we believe are contrary both to CPUC policy and precedent and to established federal regulatory policies for pipelines. On March 8, 2012, the CPUC issued another decision related to the Long cases. This decision largely reflected the determinations made on May 26, 2011, including the denial of an income tax allowance for SFPP. The CPUC’s order denied SFPP’s request for rehearing of the CPUC’s income tax allowance treatment, while granting requested rehearing of various, other issues relating to SFPP’s refund liability and staying the payment of refunds until resolution of the outstanding issues on rehearing. On March 23, 2012, SFPP filed a petition for writ of review in the California Court of Appeals, seeking a court order vacating the CPUC’s determination that SFPP is not entitled to recover an income tax allowance in its intrastate rates. The Court has granted review with respect to SFPP’s petition and oral arguments were held on April 25, 2013. On April 6, 2011, in proceedings unrelated to the above-referenced CPUC dockets, a CPUC administrative law judge issued a proposed decision (Bemesderfer case) substantially reducing SFPP’s authorized cost of service and ordering SFPP to pay refunds from May 24, 2007 to the present of revenues collected in excess of the authorized cost of service. The proposed decision was subsequently withdrawn, and the presiding administrative law judge is expected to reissue a proposed decision at some indeterminate time in the future. On January 30, 2012, SFPP filed an application reducing its intrastate rates by approximately 7%. This matter remains pending before the CPUC. The matter is scheduled for hearing in April, 2013, with a decision expected in the third or fourth quarter of 2013. Based on our review of these CPUC proceedings and the shipper comments thereon, we estimate that the shippers are requesting approximately $375 million in reparation payments and approximately $30 million in annual rate reductions. The actual amount of reparations will be determined through further proceedings at the CPUC and, potentially, the California Court of Appeals. We believe that the appropriate application of the income tax allowance and corrections of errors in law and fact should result in a considerably lower amount. We do not expect any reparations that we would pay in these matters to have a material impact on our distributions to our limited partners. Copano Shareholders’ Litigation Three putative class action lawsuits are currently pending in connection with our proposed merger with Copano: (i) Schultes v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 06966), in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, which is referred to as the Texas State Action; (ii) Bruen v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 4:13-CV-00540) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which is referred to as the Texas Federal Action; and (iii) In re Copano Energy, L.L.C. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 8284-VCN in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, which is referred to as the Delaware Action, which reflects the consolidation of three actions originally filed in the Court of Chancery. The Texas State Action, the Texas Federal Action and the Delaware Action are collectively referred to as the “Actions.” The Actions name Copano, R. Bruce Northcutt, William L. Thacker, James G. Crump, Ernie L. Danner, T. William Porter, Scott A. Griffiths, Michael L. Johnson, Michael G. MacDougall, Kinder Morgan GP, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and Merger Sub as defendants. The Actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class seeking to enjoin the merger and allege, among other things, that the members of Copano’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Copano for inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair process, and that Copano, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, Kinder Morgan GP and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches. In addition, the plaintiffs in each of the Texas State Action and the Delaware Action allege that the Copano directors breached their duty of candor to unitholders by failing to provide the unitholders with all material information regarding the merger and/or made misstatements in the preliminary proxy statement. The plaintiffs in the Texas Federal Action also assert a claim under the federal securities laws alleging that the preliminary proxy statement omits and/or misrepresents material information in connection with the merger. On April 21, 2013, the parties in all the Actions executed a Memorandum of Understanding by which, in exchange for the full settlement and dismissal with prejudice of each of the Actions, Copano agreed to make certain additional disclosures concerning the merger in a Form 8-K filed by Copano on April 22, 2013. The parties are in the process of preparing and filing a Stipulation of Settlement and such other additional documents as may be required to in the Delaware Chancery Court for approval of the settlement. Other Commercial Matters Union Pacific Railroad Company Easements SFPP and 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 v. 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 September 2011, the judge determined that the annual rent payable as of January 1, 2004 was $15 million, subject to annual consumer price index increases. SFPP intends to appeal the judge’s determination, but if that determination is upheld, SFPP would owe approximately $75 million in back rent. Accordingly, during 2011, we increased our rights-of-way liability to cover this liability amount. In addition, the judge determined that UPRR is entitled to an estimated $20 million for interest on the outstanding back rent liability. We believe the award of interest is without merit and we are pursuing our appellate rights. 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. 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 appealed this decision, and in December 2008, the appellate court affirmed the decision. In addition, UPRR contends that SFPP must comply with the more expensive AREMA standards in determining when relocations are necessary and in completing relocations. Each party is seeking declaratory relief with respect to its positions regarding the application of these standards with respect to relocations. A trial occurred in the fourth quarter of 2011, with a verdict having been reached that SFPP was obligated to comply with AREMA standards in connection with a railroad project in Beaumont Hills, California. SFPP is evaluating its post-trial and appellate options. Since SFPP does not know UPRR’s plans for projects or other activities that would cause pipeline relocations, it is difficult to quantify the effects of the outcome of these cases on SFPP. 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, our results of operations, our cash flows, and our distributions to our limited partners. These effects would be even greater in the event SFPP is unsuccessful in one or more of these litigations. Severstal Sparrows Point Crane Collapse On June 4, 2008, a bridge crane owned by Severstal and located in Sparrows Point, Maryland collapsed while being operated by KMBT. According to our investigation, the collapse was caused by unexpected, sudden and extreme winds. On June 24, 2009, Severstal filed suit against KMBT in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 09CV1668-WMN. Severstal and its successor in interest, RG Steel, allege that KMBT was contractually obligated to replace the collapsed crane and that its employees were negligent in failing to properly secure the crane prior to the collapse. RG Steel seeks to recover in excess of $30 million for the alleged value of the crane and lost profits. KMBT denies each of RG Steel’s allegations. On or about June 1, 2012, RG Steel filed for bankruptcy in Case No. 12-11669 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware; consequently, the trial date has been postponed indefinitely. Pipeline Integrity and Releases From time to time, despite our best efforts, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, and damage to the environment, damage to property and/or personal injury or death. In connection with these incidents, we may be sued for damages caused by an alleged failure to properly mark the locations of our pipelines and/or to properly maintain our pipelines. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular incident, state and federal regulatory authorities may seek civil and/or criminal fines and penalties. General As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we have recorded a total reserve for legal fees, transportation rate cases and other potential litigation liabilities in the amount of $431 million and $404 million, respectively. The reserve is primarily related to various claims from regulatory proceedings arising from our products pipeline and natural gas pipeline transportation rates. We regularly assess the likelihood of potential adverse outcomes in pending matters in order to determine the adequacy of our reserves. Environmental Matters We are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also know as CERCLA, generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental law and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal and carbon dioxide 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, 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, could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us. We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of environmental and safety regulations. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. Specifically, we are involved in matters including incidents at terminal facilities in New Jersey and Texas involving PHMSA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, respectively, which may result in fines and penalties for alleged violations. We do not believe that these alleged violations will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or distributions to limited partners. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under administrative orders or related state remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the cleanup. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party 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, natural gas liquids, natural gas and carbon dioxide. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Inspections In Fall 2012, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) performed inspections at multiple well sites in Southwestern Colorado owned by Kinder Morgan CO₂Company, L.P. and some of these inspections resulted in alleged violations of COGCC’s rules. Kinder Morgan took immediate steps to correct the alleged deficiencies and has engaged COGCC and other agencies in its efforts to maintain compliance. In April 2013, COGCC proposed a penalty of $300,000 to resolve the matter. We are evaluating the proposed penalty as well as potential responses to the alleged violations. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, et al. (Defendants), Maxus Energy Corp. and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Third Party Plaintiffs) v. 3M Company et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Essex County, Docket No. L-9868-05 The NJDEP sued Occidental Chemical and others under the New Jersey Spill Act for contamination in the Newark Bay Complex including numerous waterways and rivers. Occidental et al. then brought in approximately 300 third party defendants for contribution. NJDEP claimed damages related to forty years of discharges of TCDD (a form of dioxin), DDT and “other hazardous substances.” GATX Terminals Corporation (n/k/a/ KMLT) was brought in as a third party defendant because of the noted hazardous substances language and because the Carteret, New Jersey facility (a former GATX Terminals facility) is located on the Arthur Kill River, one of the waterways included in the litigation. This case was filed against third party defendants in 2009. Recently, KMLT, as part of a joint defense group, entered a settlement agreement (Consent Judgment) with the NJDEP whereby the settling parties for a prescribed payment, get a contribution bar against first party defendants Occidental, Maxus and Tierra in addition to a release. This third-party Consent Judgment will be published in the New Jersey Register followed by a 60-day comment period after which it will be lodged with the court. Additionally, we have information that the NJDEP has reached an agreement in principle on terms for a settlement with Maxus and Tierra. Occidental is not part of the settlement. As part of this settlement, these defendants agree to dismiss all direct claims against third-party defendants and to not oppose the third-party settlement. We expect the first-party settlement to be finalized over the next 60 days. All discovery and trial proceedings are stayed during these settlement negotiations. Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon In December 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) sent out General Notice letters to potentially responsible parties including GATX Terminals Corporation (n/k/a KMLT). At that time, GATX owned two liquids terminals along the lower reach of the Willamette River, an industrialized area known as Portland Harbor. Portland Harbor is listed on the National Priorities List and is designated as a Superfund Site under CERCLA. A group of potentially responsible parties formed what is known as the Lower Willamette Group (LWG), of which KMLT is a non-voting member and pays a minimal fee to be part of the group. The LWG agreed to conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study leading to the proposed remedy for cleanup of the Portland Harbor site. Once the U.S. EPA determines the cleanup remedy from the remedial investigations and feasibility studies conducted during the last decade at the site, it will issue a Record of Decision. Currently, KMLT and 90 other parties are involved in an allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs. This is a non-judicial allocation process. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of both KMLT and KMBT. Each entity has two facilities located in Portland Harbor. We expect the allocation to conclude in 2013 or 2014, depending upon when the U.S. EPA issues its Record of Decision. Roosevelt Irrigation District v. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. , U.S. District Court, Arizona This is a CERCLA case brought against a number of defendants by a water purveyor whose wells have allegedly been contaminated due to the presence of a number of contaminants. The Roosevelt Irrigation District is seeking up to $175 million from approximately 70 defendants. The plume of contaminants has traveled under Kinder Morgan’s Phoenix Terminal. The plaintiffs have advanced a novel theory that the releases of petroleum from the Phoenix Terminal (which are exempt under the petroleum exclusion under CERCLA) have facilitated the natural degradation of certain hazardous substances and thereby have resulted in a release of hazardous substances regulated under CERCLA. We are part of a joint defense group consisting of other terminal operators at the Phoenix Terminal including Chevron, BP, Salt River Project, Shell and a number of others, collectively referred to as the terminal defendants. Together, we filed a motion to dismiss all claims based on the petroleum exclusion under CERCLA. This case was assigned to a new judge, who has deemed all previous motions withdrawn and will grant leave to re-file such motions at a later date. We plan to re-file the motion to dismiss as well as numerous summary judgment motions as the judge allows. The City of Los Angeles v. Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC, Shell Oil Company, Equilon Enterprises LLC; California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No. NC041463 KMLT is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in 2005 alleging claims for environmental cleanup costs at the former Los Angeles Marine Terminal in the Port of Los Angeles. The lawsuit was stayed beginning in 2009 and remained stayed following the last case management conference in March 2013. During the stay, the parties deemed responsible by the local regulatory agency (including the City of Los Angeles) have worked with that agency concerning the scope of the required cleanup. We anticipate that cleanup activities by the Port at the site will begin in the summer of 2013. On April 9, 2013, KMLT and the Port of Los Angeles entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement the terms of which provide for the dismissal of the litigation by the Port upon the payment by KMLT of 60% of the Port’s costs to remediate the former terminal site; the amount of payment not to exceed $15 million. The parties also filed a Good Faith Settlement motion in the Superior Court as part of the process of dismissal of the case. Further, according to terms of the Settlement and Release, we received a 5-year lease extension that allows KMLT to continue fuel loading and offloading operations at another KMLT Port of Los Angeles terminal property. Exxon Mobil Corporation v. GATX Corporation, Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC and ST Services, Inc. On April 23, 2003, ExxonMobil filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. 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 Support Terminals and Pacific Atlantic Terminals, LLC. The terminal is now owned by Plains Products, and it too is a party to the lawsuit. On June 25, 2007, the NJDEP, 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 and KMLT, formerly known as GATX Terminals Corporation, alleging natural resource damages related to historic contamination at the Paulsboro terminal. The complaint was filed in Gloucester County, New Jersey. Both ExxonMobil and KMLT filed third party complaints against Support Terminals/Plains and successfully brought Support Terminals/Plains into the case. The court consolidated the two cases. In mid 2011, KMLT and Plains Products entered into a settlement agreement with the NJDEP for settlement of the state’s alleged natural resource damages claim. The parties then entered into a Consent Judgment concerning the claim. The natural resource damage settlement includes a monetary award of $1 million and a series of remediation and restoration activities at the terminal site. KMLT and Plains Products have joint responsibility for this settlement. Simultaneously, KMLT and Plains Products entered into a settlement agreement that settled each party’s relative share of responsibility (50/50) to the NJDEP under the Consent Judgment noted above. The Consent Judgment is now entered with the Court and the settlement is final. According to the agreement, Plains will conduct remediation activities at the site and KMLT will provide oversight and 50% of the costs. The settlement with the state did not resolve the original complaint brought by ExxonMobil. On or around, April 10, 2013, KMLT, Plains and ExxonMobil settled the original Exxon complaint for past remediation costs for $750,000 to be split 50/50 between KMLT and Plains. All parties have now executed the agreement and the litigation is settled and dismissed. 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 us and several affiliates seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages allegedly resulting from hydrocarbon and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) impacted soils and groundwater beneath the City’s stadium property in San Diego arising from historic 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, we removed the case to the United States District Court, Southern District of California, case number 07CV1883WCAB. The City disclosed in discovery that it is seeking approximately $170 million in damages for alleged lost value/lost profit from the redevelopment of the City’s property and alleged lost use of the water resources underlying the property. Later, in 2010, the City amended its initial disclosures to add claims for restoration of the site as well as a number of other claims that increased their claim for damages to approximately $365 million. In accordance with the Case Management Order, the parties filed their respective summary adjudication motions and motions to exclude experts on June 29, 2012. On November 29, 2012, the Court issued a Notice of Tentative Rulings on the parties’ pending motions. The Court tentatively granted our motions to exclude certain of the City’s proposed expert witnesses, tentatively granted our partial motions for summary judgment on the City’s claims for water and real estate damages and the State’s claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, tentatively denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on its claims of liability for nuisance and trespass, and tentatively granted our cross motion for summary judgment on such claims. On January 25, 2013, the Court issued its final order reaffirming in all respects its tentative rulings and rendered judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims asserted by the City. This site has been, and currently is, under the regulatory oversight and order of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. SFPP continues to conduct an extensive remediation effort at the City’s stadium property site. Uranium Mines in Vicinity of Cameron, Arizona In the 1950s and 1960s, Rare Metals Inc., an historical subsidiary of EPNG, operated approximately twenty uranium mines in the vicinity of Cameron, Arizona, many of which are located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. The mining activities were in response to numerous incentives provided to industry by the United States to locate and produce domestic sources of uranium to support the Cold War-era nuclear weapons program. In May 2012, EPNG received a general notice letter from the U.S. EPA notifying EPNG of the EPA's investigation of certain sites and its determination that the EPA considers EPNG to be a potentially responsible party within the meaning of CERCLA. In February 2013, the EPA delivered a proposed Administrative Order on Consent and proposed Scope of Work regarding the government's proposed next steps to investigate the mines. We are negotiating the terms and conditions of both the Administrative Order on Consent and the Scope of Work. We are also seeking contribution from the United States toward the cost of environmental activities associated with the mines, given its pervasive control over all aspects of the nuclear weapons program. 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 are a party, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, we are not able to reasonably estimate when the eventual resolution of such claims will occur, and changing circumstances could cause these matters to have a material adverse impact. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we have accrued a total reserve for environmental liabilities in the amount of $163 million and $166 million, respectively. Additionally, many factors may change in the future affecting our reserve estimates, such as (i) regulatory changes; (ii) groundwater and land use near our sites; and (iii) changes in cleanup technology.

Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies

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

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proceedings

The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP, L.P. (SFPP) and El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC (EPNG) are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC. A substantial portion of our legal reserves relate to these FERC cases and the CPUC cases described below them.

SFPP

The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC, including the complaints and protests of various shippers. In general, these complaints and protests allege the rates and tariffs charged by SFPP are not just and reasonable under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). If the shippers are successful in proving their claims, they are entitled to seek reparations (which may reach up to two years prior to the filing of their complaints) or refunds of any excess rates paid, and SFPP may be required to reduce its rates going forward. These proceedings tend to be protracted, with decisions of the FERC often appealed to the federal courts. The issues involved in these proceedings include, among others, whether indexed rate increases are justified, and the appropriate level of return and income tax allowance we may include in our rates. With respect to all of the SFPP proceedings at the FERC, we estimate that the shippers are seeking approximately $20 million in annual rate reductions and approximately $100 million in refunds. However, applying the principles of several recent FERC decisions in SFPP cases, as applicable, to other pending cases would result in substantially lower rate reductions and refunds than those sought by the shippers. We do not expect refunds in these cases to have an impact on our distributions to our limited partners.

EPNG

The tariffs and rates charged by EPNG are subject to two ongoing FERC proceedings (the “2008 rate case” and the “2010 rate case”). With respect to the 2008 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (“Opinion 517”) in May 2012 and EPNG implemented certain aspects of that decision. The FERC subsequently issued an order requiring EPNG to decrease its rates related to the 2010 rate case in accordance with Opinion 517. EPNG has sought rehearing on that order as well as Opinion 517. With respect to the 2010 rate case, the presiding administrative law judge issued an initial decision in June 2012. This initial decision is currently being reviewed by the FERC. EPNG is pursuing settlement with its shippers in both open rate cases and believes the accruals established for these matters are adequate.

California Public Utilities Commission Proceedings

We have previously reported ratemaking and complaint proceedings against SFPP pending with the CPUC. The ratemaking and complaint cases generally involve challenges to rates charged by SFPP for intrastate transportation of refined petroleum products through its pipeline system in the state of California and request prospective rate adjustments and refunds with respect to tariffed and previously untariffed charges for certain pipeline transportation and related services. These matters have generally been consolidated and assigned to two administrative law judges.

On May 26, 2011, the CPUC issued a decision in several intrastate rate cases involving SFPP and a number of its shippers (the “Long” cases). The decision includes determinations on issues, such as SFPP’s entitlement to an income tax allowance, allocation of environmental expenses, and refund liability which we believe are contrary both to CPUC policy and precedent and to established federal regulatory policies for pipelines. On March 8, 2012, the CPUC issued another decision related to the Long cases. This decision largely reflected the determinations made on May 26, 2011, including the denial of an income tax allowance for SFPP. The CPUC’s order denied SFPP’s request for rehearing of the CPUC’s income tax allowance treatment, while granting requested rehearing of various, other issues relating to SFPP’s refund liability and staying the payment of refunds until resolution of the outstanding issues on rehearing. On March 23, 2012, SFPP filed a petition for writ of review in the California Court of Appeals, seeking a court order vacating the CPUC’s determination that SFPP is not entitled to recover an income tax allowance in its intrastate rates. The Court has granted review with respect to SFPP’s petition and oral arguments were held on April 25, 2013.

On April 6, 2011, in proceedings unrelated to the above-referenced CPUC dockets, a CPUC administrative law judge issued a proposed decision (Bemesderfer case) substantially reducing SFPP’s authorized cost of service and ordering SFPP to pay refunds from May 24, 2007 to the present of revenues collected in excess of the authorized cost of service. The proposed decision was subsequently withdrawn, and the presiding administrative law judge is expected to reissue a proposed decision at some indeterminate time in the future.

On January 30, 2012, SFPP filed an application reducing its intrastate rates by approximately 7%. This matter remains pending before the CPUC. The matter is scheduled for hearing in April, 2013, with a decision expected in the third or fourth quarter of 2013.

Based on our review of these CPUC proceedings and the shipper comments thereon, we estimate that the shippers are requesting approximately $375 million in reparation payments and approximately $30 million in annual rate reductions. The actual amount of reparations will be determined through further proceedings at the CPUC and, potentially, the California Court of Appeals. We believe that the appropriate application of the income tax allowance and corrections of errors in law and fact should result in a considerably lower amount. We do not expect any reparations that we would pay in these matters to have a material impact on our distributions to our limited partners.

Copano Shareholders’ Litigation

Three putative class action lawsuits are currently pending in connection with our proposed merger with Copano: (i) Schultes v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 06966), in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, which is referred to as the Texas State Action; (ii) Bruen v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 4:13-CV-00540) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which is referred to as the Texas Federal Action; and (iii) In re Copano Energy, L.L.C. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 8284-VCN in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, which is referred to as the Delaware Action, which reflects the consolidation of three actions originally filed in the Court of Chancery. The Texas State Action, the Texas Federal Action and the Delaware Action are collectively referred to as the “Actions.”

The Actions name Copano, R. Bruce Northcutt, William L. Thacker, James G. Crump, Ernie L. Danner, T. William Porter, Scott A. Griffiths, Michael L. Johnson, Michael G. MacDougall, Kinder Morgan GP, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and Merger Sub as defendants. The Actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class seeking to enjoin the merger and allege, among other things, that the members of Copano’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Copano for inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair process, and that Copano, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, Kinder Morgan GP and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches. In addition, the plaintiffs in each of the Texas State Action and the Delaware Action allege that

the Copano directors breached their duty of candor to unitholders by failing to provide the unitholders with all material information regarding the merger and/or made misstatements in the preliminary proxy statement. The plaintiffs in the Texas Federal Action also assert a claim under the federal securities laws alleging that the preliminary proxy statement omits and/or misrepresents material information in connection with the merger.

On April 21, 2013, the parties in all the Actions executed a Memorandum of Understanding by which, in exchange for the full settlement and dismissal with prejudice of each of the Actions, Copano agreed to make certain additional disclosures concerning the merger in a Form 8-K filed by Copano on April 22, 2013. The parties are in the process of preparing and filing a Stipulation of Settlement and such other additional documents as may be required to in the Delaware Chancery Court for approval of the settlement.

Other Commercial Matters

Union Pacific Railroad Company Easements

SFPP and 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 v. 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 September 2011, the judge determined that the annual rent payable as of January 1, 2004 was $15 million, subject to annual consumer price index increases. SFPP intends to appeal the judge’s determination, but if that determination is upheld, SFPP would owe approximately $75 million in back rent. Accordingly, during 2011, we increased our rights-of-way liability to cover this liability amount. In addition, the judge determined that UPRR is entitled to an estimated $20 million for interest on the outstanding back rent liability. We believe the award of interest is without merit and we are pursuing our appellate rights.

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. 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 appealed this decision, and in December 2008, the appellate court affirmed the decision. In addition, UPRR contends that SFPP must comply with the more expensive AREMA standards in determining when relocations are necessary and in completing relocations. Each party is seeking declaratory relief with respect to its positions regarding the application of these standards with respect to relocations. A trial occurred in the fourth quarter of 2011, with a verdict having been reached that SFPP was obligated to comply with AREMA standards in connection with a railroad project in Beaumont Hills, California. SFPP is evaluating its post-trial and appellate options.

Since SFPP does not know UPRR’s plans for projects or other activities that would cause pipeline relocations, it is difficult to quantify the effects of the outcome of these cases on SFPP. 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, our results of operations, our cash flows, and our distributions to our limited partners. These effects would be even greater in the event SFPP is unsuccessful in one or more of these litigations.

Severstal Sparrows Point Crane Collapse

On June 4, 2008, a bridge crane owned by Severstal and located in Sparrows Point, Maryland collapsed while being operated by KMBT. According to our investigation, the collapse was caused by unexpected, sudden and extreme winds. On June 24, 2009, Severstal filed suit against KMBT in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 09CV1668-WMN. Severstal and its successor in interest, RG Steel, allege that KMBT was contractually obligated to replace the collapsed crane and that its employees were negligent in failing to properly secure the crane prior to the collapse. RG Steel seeks to recover in excess of $30 million for the alleged value of the crane and lost profits. KMBT denies each of RG Steel’s allegations. On or about June 1, 2012, RG Steel filed for bankruptcy in Case No. 12-11669 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware; consequently, the trial date has been postponed indefinitely.

Pipeline Integrity and Releases

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

General

As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we have recorded a total reserve for legal fees, transportation rate cases and other potential litigation liabilities in the amount of $431 million and $404 million, respectively. The reserve is primarily related to various claims from regulatory proceedings arising from our products pipeline and natural gas pipeline transportation rates. We regularly assess the likelihood of potential adverse outcomes in pending matters in order to determine the adequacy of our reserves.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also know as CERCLA, generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental law and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal and carbon dioxide 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, 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, could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us.

We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of environmental and safety regulations. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. Specifically, we are involved in matters including incidents at terminal facilities in New Jersey and Texas involving PHMSA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, respectively, which may result in fines and penalties for alleged violations. We do not believe that these alleged violations will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or distributions to limited partners.

We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under administrative orders or related state remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the cleanup.

In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party 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, natural gas liquids, natural gas and carbon dioxide.

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Inspections

In Fall 2012, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) performed inspections at multiple well sites in Southwestern Colorado owned by Kinder Morgan CO₂Company, L.P. and some of these inspections resulted in alleged violations of COGCC’s rules. Kinder Morgan took immediate steps to correct the alleged deficiencies and has engaged COGCC and other agencies in its efforts to maintain compliance. In April 2013, COGCC proposed a penalty of $300,000 to resolve the matter. We are evaluating the proposed penalty as well as potential responses to the alleged violations.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, et al. (Defendants), Maxus Energy Corp. and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Third Party Plaintiffs) v. 3M Company et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Essex County, Docket No. L-9868-05

The NJDEP sued Occidental Chemical and others under the New Jersey Spill Act for contamination in the Newark Bay Complex including numerous waterways and rivers. Occidental et al. then brought in approximately 300 third party defendants for contribution. NJDEP claimed damages related to forty years of discharges of TCDD (a form of dioxin), DDT and “other hazardous substances.” GATX Terminals Corporation (n/k/a/ KMLT) was brought in as a third party defendant because of the noted hazardous substances language and because the Carteret, New Jersey facility (a former GATX Terminals facility) is located on the Arthur Kill River, one of the waterways included in the litigation. This case was filed against third party defendants in 2009. Recently, KMLT, as part of a joint defense group, entered a settlement agreement (Consent Judgment) with the NJDEP whereby the settling parties for a prescribed payment, get a contribution bar against first party defendants Occidental, Maxus and Tierra in addition to a release. This third-party Consent Judgment will be published in the New Jersey Register followed by a 60-day comment period after which it will be lodged with the court. Additionally, we have information that the NJDEP has reached an agreement in principle on terms for a settlement with Maxus and Tierra. Occidental is not part of the settlement. As part of this settlement, these defendants agree to dismiss all direct claims against third-party defendants and to not oppose the third-party settlement. We expect the first-party settlement to be finalized over the next 60 days. All discovery and trial proceedings are stayed during these settlement negotiations.

Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon

In December 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) sent out General Notice letters to potentially responsible parties including GATX Terminals Corporation (n/k/a KMLT). At that time, GATX owned two liquids terminals along the lower reach of the Willamette River, an industrialized area known as Portland Harbor. Portland Harbor is listed on the National Priorities List and is designated as a Superfund Site under CERCLA. A group of potentially responsible parties formed what is known as the Lower Willamette Group (LWG), of which KMLT is a non-voting member and pays a minimal fee to be part of the group. The LWG agreed to conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study leading to the proposed remedy for cleanup of the Portland Harbor site. Once the U.S. EPA determines the cleanup remedy from the remedial investigations and feasibility studies conducted during the last decade at the site, it will issue a Record of Decision. Currently, KMLT and 90 other parties are involved in an allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs. This is a non-judicial allocation process. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of both KMLT and KMBT. Each entity has two facilities located in Portland Harbor. We expect the allocation to conclude in 2013 or 2014, depending upon when the U.S. EPA issues its Record of Decision.

Roosevelt Irrigation District v. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. , U.S. District Court, Arizona

This is a CERCLA case brought against a number of defendants by a water purveyor whose wells have allegedly been contaminated due to the presence of a number of contaminants. The Roosevelt Irrigation District is seeking up to $175 million from approximately 70 defendants. The plume of contaminants has traveled under Kinder Morgan’s Phoenix Terminal. The plaintiffs have advanced a novel theory that the releases of petroleum from the Phoenix Terminal (which are exempt under the petroleum exclusion under CERCLA) have facilitated the natural degradation of certain hazardous substances and thereby have resulted in a release of hazardous substances regulated under CERCLA. We are part of a joint defense group consisting of other terminal operators at the Phoenix Terminal including Chevron, BP, Salt River Project, Shell and a number of others, collectively referred to as the terminal defendants. Together, we filed a motion to dismiss all claims based on the petroleum exclusion under CERCLA. This case was assigned to a new judge, who has deemed all previous motions withdrawn and will grant leave to re-file such motions at a later date. We plan to re-file the motion to dismiss as well as numerous summary judgment motions as the judge allows.

The City of Los Angeles v. Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC, Shell Oil Company, Equilon Enterprises LLC; California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No. NC041463

KMLT is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in 2005 alleging claims for environmental cleanup costs at the former Los Angeles Marine Terminal in the Port of Los Angeles. The lawsuit was stayed beginning in 2009 and remained stayed following the last case management conference in March 2013. During the stay, the parties deemed responsible by the local regulatory agency (including the City of Los Angeles) have worked with that agency concerning the scope of the required cleanup. We anticipate that cleanup activities by the Port at the site will begin in the summer of 2013. On April 9, 2013, KMLT and the Port of Los Angeles entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement the terms of which provide for the dismissal of the litigation by the Port upon the payment by KMLT of 60% of the Port’s costs to remediate the former terminal site; the amount of payment not to exceed $15 million. The parties also filed a Good Faith Settlement motion in the Superior Court as part of the process of dismissal of the case. Further, according to terms of the Settlement and Release, we received a 5-year lease extension that allows KMLT to continue fuel loading and offloading operations at another KMLT Port of Los Angeles terminal property.

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. GATX Corporation, Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC and ST Services, Inc.

On April 23, 2003, ExxonMobil filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. 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 Support Terminals and Pacific Atlantic Terminals, LLC. The terminal is now owned by Plains Products, and it too is a party to the lawsuit.

On June 25, 2007, the NJDEP, 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 and KMLT, formerly known as GATX Terminals Corporation, alleging natural resource damages related to historic contamination at the Paulsboro terminal. The complaint was filed in Gloucester County, New Jersey. Both ExxonMobil and KMLT filed third party complaints against Support Terminals/Plains and successfully brought Support Terminals/Plains into the case. The court consolidated the two cases.

In mid 2011, KMLT and Plains Products entered into a settlement agreement with the NJDEP for settlement of the state’s alleged natural resource damages claim. The parties then entered into a Consent Judgment concerning the claim. The natural resource damage settlement includes a monetary award of $1 million and a series of remediation and restoration activities at the terminal site. KMLT and Plains Products have joint responsibility for this settlement. Simultaneously, KMLT and Plains Products entered into a settlement agreement that settled each party’s relative share of responsibility (50/50) to the NJDEP under the Consent Judgment noted above. The Consent Judgment is now entered with the Court and the settlement is final. According to the agreement, Plains will conduct remediation activities at the site and KMLT will provide oversight and 50% of the costs.

The settlement with the state did not resolve the original complaint brought by ExxonMobil. On or around, April 10, 2013, KMLT, Plains and ExxonMobil settled the original Exxon complaint for past remediation costs for $750,000 to be split 50/50 between KMLT and Plains. All parties have now executed the agreement and the litigation is settled and dismissed.

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 us and several affiliates seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages allegedly resulting from hydrocarbon and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) impacted soils and groundwater beneath the City’s stadium property in San Diego arising from historic 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, we removed the case to the United States District Court, Southern District of California, case number 07CV1883WCAB. The City disclosed in discovery that it is seeking approximately $170 million in damages for alleged lost value/lost profit from the redevelopment of the City’s property and alleged lost use of the water resources underlying the property. Later, in 2010, the City amended its initial disclosures to add claims for restoration of the site as well as a number of other claims that increased their claim for damages to approximately $365 million.

In accordance with the Case Management Order, the parties filed their respective summary adjudication motions and motions to exclude experts on June 29, 2012. On November 29, 2012, the Court issued a Notice of Tentative Rulings on the parties’ pending motions. The Court tentatively granted our motions to exclude certain of the City’s proposed expert witnesses, tentatively granted our partial motions for summary judgment on the City’s claims for water and real estate damages and the State’s claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, tentatively denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on its claims of liability for nuisance and trespass, and tentatively granted our cross motion for summary judgment on such claims. On January 25, 2013, the Court issued its final order reaffirming in all respects its tentative rulings and rendered judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims asserted by the City. This site has been, and currently is, under the regulatory oversight and order of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. SFPP continues to conduct an extensive remediation effort at the City’s stadium property site.

Uranium Mines in Vicinity of Cameron, Arizona

In the 1950s and 1960s, Rare Metals Inc., an historical subsidiary of EPNG, operated approximately twenty uranium mines in the vicinity of Cameron, Arizona, many of which are located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. The mining activities were in response to numerous incentives provided to industry by the United States to locate and produce domestic sources of uranium to support the Cold War-era nuclear weapons program. In May 2012, EPNG received a general notice letter from the U.S. EPA notifying EPNG of the EPA's investigation of certain sites and its determination that the EPA considers EPNG to be a potentially responsible party within the meaning of CERCLA. In February 2013, the EPA delivered a proposed Administrative Order on Consent and proposed Scope of Work regarding the government's proposed next steps to investigate the mines. We are negotiating the terms and conditions of both the Administrative Order on Consent and the Scope of Work. We are also seeking contribution from the United States toward the cost of environmental activities associated with the mines, given its pervasive control over all aspects of the nuclear weapons program.

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 are a party, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, we are not able to reasonably estimate when the eventual resolution of such claims will occur, and changing circumstances could cause these matters to have a material adverse impact. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we have accrued a total reserve for environmental liabilities in the amount of $163 million and $166 million, respectively. Additionally, many factors may change in the future affecting our reserve estimates, such as (i) regulatory changes; (ii) groundwater and land use near our sites; and (iii) changes in cleanup technology.