SEC Filing | Energy Transfer

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company

Emerging growth company

View:

Download DOC

Download PDF

Download XLS

Download XBRL

Document

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)



ý	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018



¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number 1-31219

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Delaware		73-1493906
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

8111 Westchester Drive, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75225

(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)

(214) 981-0700

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ý No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No ý

At August 3, 2018, the registrant had 1,166,403,685 Common Units outstanding.

Table of Contents

FORM 10-Q

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS



PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

Consolidated Balance Sheets	1

Consolidated Statements of Operations	3

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income	4

Consolidated Statement of Equity	5

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	6

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements	7

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS	43

ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK	65

ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES	67

PART II – OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	68

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS	68

ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS	73

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS	74

SIGNATURE	76

Table of Contents

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain matters discussed in this report, excluding historical information, as well as some statements by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership” or “ETP”) in periodic press releases and some oral statements of the Partnership’s officials during presentations about the Partnership, include forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are identified as any statement that does not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Statements using words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “project,” “plan,” “expect,” “continue,” “estimate,” “goal,” “forecast,” “may,” “will” or similar expressions help identify forward-looking statements. Although the Partnership and its General Partner believe such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions and current expectations and projections about future events, no assurance can be given that such assumptions, expectations, or projections will prove to be correct. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of risks, uncertainties and assumptions. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or if underlying assumptions prove incorrect, the Partnership’s actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, projected or expected, forecasted, estimated or expressed in forward-looking statements since many of the factors that determine these results are subject to uncertainties and risks that are difficult to predict and beyond management’s control. For additional discussion of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, see “Part I – Item 1A. Risk Factors” in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2018 and “Part II – Item 1A. Risk Factors,” in the Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 filed on May 10, 2018.

Definitions

The following is a list of certain acronyms and terms generally used in the energy industry and throughout this document:



	/d		per day

	AOCI		accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

	BBtu		billion British thermal units

	Btu		British thermal unit, an energy measurement used by gas companies to convert the volume of gas used to its heat equivalent, and thus calculate the actual energy used

	Capacity		capacity of a pipeline, processing plant or storage facility refers to the maximum capacity under normal operating conditions and, with respect to pipeline transportation capacity, is subject to multiple factors (including natural gas injections and withdrawals at various delivery points along the pipeline and the utilization of compression) which may reduce the throughput capacity from specified capacity levels

	CDM		CDM Resource Management LLC and CDM Environmental & Technical Services LLC, collectively

	Citrus		Citrus, LLC

	DOJ		United States Department of Justice

	EPA		United States Environmental Protection Agency

	ETC OLP		La Grange Acquisition, L.P., which conducts business under the assumed name of Energy Transfer Company

	ETE		Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., a publicly traded partnership and the owner of ETP LLC for the periods presented herein

	ETP GP		Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., the general partner of ETP

	ETP Holdco		ETP Holdco Corporation

	ETP LLC		Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., the general partner of ETP GP

	Exchange Act		Securities Exchange Act of 1934

	FEP		Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC

	FERC		Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

	FGT		Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC

	GAAP		accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America

	HPC		RIGS Haynesville Partnership Co.

Table of Contents



	IDRs		incentive distribution rights

	Legacy ETP Preferred Units		legacy ETP Series A cumulative convertible preferred units

	LIBOR		London Interbank Offered Rate

	MBbls		thousand barrels

	MEP		Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC

	MTBE		methyl tertiary butyl ether

	NGL		natural gas liquid, such as propane, butane and natural gasoline

	NYMEX		New York Mercantile Exchange

	OSHA		federal Occupational Safety and Health Act

	OTC		over-the-counter

	Panhandle		Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP and its subsidiaries

	PennTex		PennTex Midstream Partners, LP

	PES		Philadelphia Energy Solutions

	Regency		Regency Energy Partners LP

	Retail Holdings		ETP Retail Holdings, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sunoco, Inc.

	RIGS		Regency Intrastate Gas LP

	Rover		Rover Pipeline LLC, a subsidiary of ETP

	SEC		Securities and Exchange Commission

	Series A Preferred Units		6.250% Series A Fixed-to-Floating Rate Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Units

	Series B Preferred Units		6.625% Series B Fixed-to-Floating Rate Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Units

	Series C Preferred Units		7.375% Series C Fixed-to-Floating Rate Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Units

	Series D Preferred Units		7.625% Series D Fixed-to-Floating Rate Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Units

	Sunoco Logistics		Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.

	Transwestern		Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC

	Trunkline		Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Panhandle

	USAC		USA Compression Partners, LP

Adjusted EBITDA is a term used throughout this document, which we define as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization and other non-cash items, such as non-cash compensation expense, gains and losses on disposals of assets, the allowance for equity funds used during construction, unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities, non-cash impairment charges, losses on extinguishments of debt and other non-operating income or expense items. Unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities include unrealized gains and losses on commodity derivatives and inventory fair value adjustments. Adjusted EBITDA reflects amounts for less than wholly-owned subsidiaries based on 100% of the subsidiaries’ results of operations and for unconsolidated affiliates based on the Partnership’s proportionate ownership.

iii

Table of Contents

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Dollars in millions)

(unaudited)



	June 30, 2018			December 31, 2017
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	494		$	306
Accounts receivable, net	3,684			3,946
Accounts receivable from related companies	334			318
Inventories	1,256			1,589
Income taxes receivable	172			135
Derivative assets	57			24
Other current assets	550			210
Total current assets	6,547			6,528

Property, plant and equipment	69,637			67,699
Accumulated depreciation and depletion	(9,861		)	(9,262		)
	59,776			58,437

Advances to and investments in unconsolidated affiliates	3,636			3,816
Other non-current assets, net	762			758
Intangible assets, net	4,988			5,311
Goodwill	2,861			3,115
Total assets	$	78,570		$	77,965

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Dollars in millions)

(unaudited)



	June 30, 2018		December 31, 2017
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	3,488	$	4,126
Accounts payable to related companies	329		209
Derivative liabilities	385		109
Accrued and other current liabilities	2,284		2,143
Current maturities of long-term debt	155		407
Total current liabilities	6,641		6,994

Long-term debt, less current maturities	33,741		32,687
Non-current derivative liabilities	135		145
Deferred income taxes	2,917		2,883
Other non-current liabilities	1,079		1,084

Commitments and contingencies
Redeemable noncontrolling interests	21		21

Equity:
Limited Partners:
Series A Preferred Unitholders	958		944
Series B Preferred Unitholders	556		547
Series C Preferred Unitholders	442		—
Common Unitholders	25,546		26,531
General Partner	359		244
Accumulated other comprehensive income	4		3
Total partners’ capital	27,865		28,269
Noncontrolling interest	6,171		5,882
Total equity	34,036		34,151
Total liabilities and equity	$	78,570	$	77,965

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Dollars in millions, except per unit data)

(unaudited)



	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2018			2017*			2018			2017*
REVENUES:
Natural gas sales	$	1,024		$	1,022		$	2,086		$	2,034
NGL sales	2,141			1,485			4,171			3,032
Crude sales	4,241			2,345			7,495			4,887
Gathering, transportation and other fees	1,464			1,067			2,861			2,091
Refined product sales	413			304			852			775
Other	127			353			225			652
Total revenues	9,410			6,576			17,690			13,471
COSTS AND EXPENSES:
Cost of products sold	7,140			4,624			13,128			9,674
Operating expenses	627			539			1,231			1,031
Depreciation, depletion and amortization	588			557			1,191			1,117
Selling, general and administrative	112			120			224			230
Total costs and expenses	8,467			5,840			15,774			12,052
OPERATING INCOME	943			736			1,916			1,419
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE):
Interest expense, net	(358		)	(336		)	(704		)	(668		)
Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates	106			(61		)	34			12
Gain on Sunoco LP common unit repurchase	—			—			172			—
Loss on deconsolidation of CDM	(86		)	—			(86		)	—
Gains (losses) on interest rate derivatives	20			(25		)	72			(20		)
Other, net	46			61			106			80
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAX EXPENSE	671			375			1,510			823
Income tax expense	69			79			29			134
NET INCOME	602			296			1,481			689
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest	170			94			334			156
NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARTNERS	432			202			1,147			533
Series A Preferred Unitholders’ interest in net income	15			—			30			—
Series B Preferred Unitholders’ interest in net income	9			—			18			—
Series C Preferred Unitholders’ interest in net income	6			—			6			—
General Partner’s interest in net income	402			251			804			457
Class H Unitholder’s interest in net income	—			—			—			93
Common Unitholders’ interest in net income (loss)	$	—		$	(49	)	$	289		$	(17	)
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON UNIT:
Basic	$	(0.01	)	$	(0.04	)	$	0.23		$	(0.02	)
Diluted	$	(0.01	)	$	(0.04	)	$	0.23		$	(0.02	)

* As adjusted. See Note 1.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Dollars in millions)

(unaudited)



	Three Months Ended June 30,					Six Months Ended June 30,
	2018		2017*			2018			2017*
Net income	$	602	$	296		$	1,481		689
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:
Change in value of available-for-sale securities	—		1			(2		)	3
Actuarial loss relating to pension and other postretirement benefit plans	—		(1		)	(2		)	(3		)
Change in other comprehensive income from unconsolidated affiliates	2		(1		)	7			(1		)
	2		(1		)	3			(1		)
Comprehensive income	604		295			1,484			688
Less: Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interest	170		94			334			156
Comprehensive income attributable to partners	$	434	$	201		$	1,150		$	532

* As adjusted. See Note 1.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EQUITY

FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2018

(Dollars in millions)

(unaudited)



	Limited Partners
	Series A Preferred Units			Series B Preferred Units			Series C Preferred Units		Common Units			General Partner			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)			Noncontrolling Interest			Total
Balance, December 31, 2017	$	944		$	547		$	—	$	26,531		$	244		$	3		$	5,882		$	34,151
Distributions to partners	(15		)	(9		)	—		(1,315		)	(672		)	—			—			(2,011		)
Distributions to noncontrolling interest	—			—			—		—			—			—			(359		)	(359		)
Units issued for cash	—			—			436		39			—			—			—			475
Capital contributions from noncontrolling interest	—			—			—		—			—			—			318			318
Repurchases of common units	—			—			—		(24		)	—			—			—			(24		)
Other comprehensive income, net of tax	—			—			—		—			—			3			—			3
Other, net	(1		)	—			—		26			(17		)	(2		)	(4		)	2
Net income	30			18			6		289			804			—			334			1,481
Balance, June 30, 2018	$	958		$	556		$	442	$	25,546		$	359		$	4		$	6,171		$	34,036

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Dollars in millions)

(unaudited)



	Six Months Ended June 30,
	2018			2017*
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income	$	1,481		$	689
Reconciliation of net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation, depletion and amortization	1,191			1,117
Deferred income taxes	52			121
Non-cash compensation expense	41			38
Gain on Sunoco LP common unit repurchase	(172		)	—
Loss on deconsolidation of CDM	86			—
Distributions on unvested awards	(17		)	(15		)
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates	(34		)	(12		)
Distributions from unconsolidated affiliates	215			197
Other non-cash	(122		)	(98		)
Net change in operating assets and liabilities, net of effects of acquisitions and deconsolidations	229			(387		)
Net cash provided by operating activities	2,950			1,650
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Cash proceeds from CDM contribution	1,227			—
Cash proceeds from Sunoco LP common unit repurchase	540			—
Cash proceeds from Bakken pipeline transaction	—			2,000
Cash paid for acquisition of PennTex noncontrolling interest	—			(280		)
Cash paid for all other acquisitions	(29		)	(261		)
Capital expenditures, excluding allowance for equity funds used during construction	(3,409		)	(2,842		)
Contributions in aid of construction costs	60			10
Contributions to unconsolidated affiliates	(13		)	(225		)
Distributions from unconsolidated affiliates in excess of cumulative earnings	31			94
Proceeds from the sale of assets	2			25
Other	—			(7		)
Net cash used in investing activities	(1,591		)	(1,486		)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from borrowings	12,476			11,466
Repayments of debt	(12,018		)	(10,953		)
Cash paid to affiliate notes	—			(255		)
Common units issued for cash	39			990
Preferred units issued for cash	436			—
Capital contributions from noncontrolling interest	318			456
Distributions to partners	(2,011		)	(1,702		)
Distributions to noncontrolling interest	(359		)	(186		)
Repurchases of common units	(24		)	—
Redemption of Legacy ETP Preferred Units	—			(53		)
Debt issuance costs	(38		)	(20		)
Other	10			5
Net cash used in financing activities	(1,171		)	(252		)
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	188			(88		)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period	306			360
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	494		$	272

* As adjusted. See Note 1.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Tabular dollar and unit amounts, except per unit data, are in millions)

(unaudited)


1.	ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

Organization

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (“ETP”) is a consolidated subsidiary of ETE. In August 2018, ETE and ETP announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement providing for the merger of ETP with a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE in a unit-for-unit exchange. In connection with the transaction, ETE’s IDRs in ETP will be cancelled. Under the terms of the transaction, ETP unitholders (other than ETE and its subsidiaries) will receive 1.28 common units of ETE for each common unit of ETP they own. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2018, subject to the approval by a majority of the unaffiliated unitholders of ETP and other customary closing conditions.

In April 2017, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. and Sunoco Logistics completed a merger transaction in which Sunoco Logistics acquired Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. in a unit-for-unit transaction (the “Sunoco Logistics Merger”), with the Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. unitholders receiving 1.5 common units of Sunoco Logistics for each Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. common unit they owned. In connection with the Sunoco Logistics Merger, Sunoco Logistics was renamed Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. and Sunoco Logistics’ general partner was merged with and into ETP GP, with ETP GP surviving as an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE.

The Sunoco Logistics Merger resulted in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. being treated as the surviving consolidated entity from an accounting perspective, while Sunoco Logistics (prior to changing its name to “Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.”) was the surviving consolidated entity from a legal and reporting perspective. Therefore, for the pre-merger periods, the consolidated financial statements reflect the consolidated financial statements of the legal acquiree (i.e., the entity that was named “Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.” prior to the merger and name changes).

The consolidated financial statements of the Partnership presented herein include our operating subsidiaries (collectively, the “Operating Companies”), through which our activities are primarily conducted, as follows:

•

ETC OLP, Regency and PennTex, which are primarily engaged in midstream and intrastate transportation and storage natural gas operations. ETC OLP and Regency own and operate, through their wholly and majority-owned subsidiaries, natural gas gathering systems, intrastate natural gas pipeline systems and gas processing plants and are engaged in the business of purchasing, gathering, transporting, processing, and marketing natural gas and NGLs in the states of Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Colorado and Ohio.


•	Energy Transfer Interstate Holdings, LLC, (“ETIH”) with revenues consisting primarily of fees earned from natural gas transportation services and operational gas sales, which is the parent company of:


•	Transwestern, engaged in interstate transportation of natural gas. Transwestern’s revenues consist primarily of fees earned from natural gas transportation services and operational gas sales.


•	ETC Fayetteville Express Pipeline, LLC, which directly owns a 50% interest in FEP, which owns 100% of the Fayetteville Express interstate natural gas pipeline.


•	ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC, engaged in interstate transportation of natural gas.


•	CrossCountry Energy, LLC, which indirectly owns a 50% interest in Citrus, which owns 100% of the FGT interstate natural gas pipeline.


•	ETC Midcontinent Express Pipeline, L.L.C., which directly owns a 50% interest in MEP.


•	ET Rover Pipeline, LLC, which ETIH directly owns a 50.1% interest in, which owns a 65% interest in the Rover pipeline.


•	ETC Compression, LLC, engaged in natural gas compression services and related equipment sales. As discussed further in Note 2 below, in April 2018, we contributed certain assets to USAC.

•

ETP Holdco, which indirectly owns Panhandle and Sunoco, Inc. Panhandle owns and operates assets in the regulated and unregulated natural gas industry and is primarily engaged in the transportation and storage of natural gas in the United States. Sunoco Inc.’s assets primarily consist of its ownership in Retail Holdings, which owns noncontrolling interests in Sunoco LP and PES. ETP Holdco also holds an equity method investment in ETP through its ownership of ETP Class E, Class G, and Class K units, which investment is eliminated in ETP’s consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents


•	Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations L.P., which owns and operates a logistics business, consisting of a geographically diverse portfolio of complementary pipeline, terminalling, and acquisition and marketing assets, which are used to facilitate the purchase and sale of crude oil, NGLs and refined products.

We currently have the following reportable business segments:

•intrastate transportation and storage;

•interstate transportation and storage;

•midstream;

•NGL and refined products transportation and services;

•crude oil transportation and services; and

•all other.

Prior periods have been retrospectively adjusted to reflect the impact of the Sunoco Logistics Merger on our reportable business segments.

Basis of Presentation

The unaudited financial information included in this Form 10-Q has been prepared on the same basis as the audited consolidated financial statements of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2017, included in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 23, 2018. In the opinion of the Partnership’s management, such financial information reflects all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position and the results of operations for such interim periods in accordance with GAAP. All intercompany items and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC.

The historical common units and net income per limited partner unit amounts presented in these consolidated financial statements have been retrospectively adjusted to reflect the 1.5 to one unit-for-unit exchange in connection with the Sunoco Logistics Merger.

For prior periods reported herein, certain transactions related to the business of legacy Sunoco Logistics have been reclassified from cost of products sold to operating expenses; these transactions include sales between operating subsidiaries and their marketing affiliates. These reclassifications had no impact on net income or total equity.

Change in Accounting Policy

Inventory Accounting Change

During the fourth quarter of 2017, the Partnership elected to change its method of inventory costing to weighted-average cost for certain inventory that had previously been accounted for using the last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) method. The inventory impacted by this change included the crude oil, refined products and NGLs associated with the legacy Sunoco Logistics business. Management believes that the weighted-average cost method is preferable to the LIFO method as it more closely aligns the accounting policies across the consolidated entity, given that the legacy ETP inventory has been accounted for using the weighted-average cost method.

Table of Contents

As a result of this change in accounting policy, the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income in prior periods have been retrospectively adjusted, as follows:



	Three Months Ended June 30, 2017									Six Months Ended June 30, 2017
	As Originally Reported			Effect of Change			As Adjusted			As Originally Reported			Effect of Change			As Adjusted
Cost of products sold ⁽¹⁾	$	4,628		$	(4	)	$	4,624		$	9,707		$	(33	)	$	9,674
Operating income	732			4			736			1,386			33			1,419
Income before income tax expense	371			4			375			790			33			823
Net income	292			4			296			656			33			689
Net income attributable to partners	199			3			202			523			10			533
Net loss per common unit – basic	(0.04		)	—			(0.04		)	(0.04		)	0.02			(0.02		)
Net loss per common unit – diluted	(0.04		)	—			(0.04		)	(0.04		)	0.02			(0.02		)
Comprehensive income	291			4			295			655			33			688
Comprehensive income attributable to partners	198			3			201			522			10			532

⁽¹⁾As originally reported amounts reflect certain reclassifications made to conform to the current year presentation.

As a result of this change in accounting policy, the consolidated statement of cash flows in prior periods have been retrospectively adjusted, as follows:



	Six Months Ended June 30, 2017
	As Originally Reported			Effect of Change			As Adjusted
Net income	$	656		$	33		$	689
Inventory valuation adjustments	56			(56		)	—
Net change in operating assets and liabilities, net of effects from acquisitions (change in inventories)	(410		)	23			(387		)

Revenue Recognition Standard

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”), which clarifies the principles for recognizing revenue based on the core principle that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The Partnership adopted ASU 2014-09 on January 1, 2018.

Upon the adoption of ASU 2014-09, the amount of revenue that the Partnership recognizes on certain contracts has changed, primarily due to decreases in revenue (with offsetting decreases to cost of sales) resulting from recognition of non-cash consideration as revenue when received and as cost of sales when sold to third parties. In addition, income statement reclassifications were required for fuel usage and loss allowances related to multiple segments as well as contracts deemed to be in-substance supply agreements in our midstream segment. In addition to the evaluation performed, we have made appropriate design and implementation updates to our business processes, systems and internal controls to support recognition and disclosure under the new standard.

Utilizing the practical expedients allowed under the modified retrospective adoption method, Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 606 was only applied to existing contracts for which the Partnership has remaining performance obligations as of January 1, 2018, and new contracts entered into after January 1, 2018. ASC Topic 606 was not applied to contracts that were completed prior to January 1, 2018.

Table of Contents

The Partnership has elected to apply the modified retrospective method to adopt the new standard. For contracts in scope of the new revenue standard as of January 1, 2018, the cumulative effect adjustment to partners’ capital was not material. The comparative information has not been restated under the modified retrospective method and continues to be reported under the accounting standards in effect for those periods.

The adoption of the new revenue standard resulted in reclassifications between revenue, cost of sales and operating expenses. There were no material changes in the timing of recognition of revenue and therefore no material impacts to the balance sheet upon adoption.

The disclosure below shows the impact of adopting the new standard during the period of adoption compared to amounts that would have been reported under the Partnership’s previous revenue recognition policies:



	Three Months Ended June 30, 2018							Six Months Ended June 30, 2018
	As Reported		Balances Without Adoption of ASC 606		Effect of Change: Higher/(Lower)			As Reported		Balances Without Adoption of ASC 606		Effect of Change: Higher/(Lower)
Revenues:
Natural gas sales	$	1,024	$	1,024	$	—		$	2,086	$	2,086	$	—
NGL sales	2,141		2,134		7			4,171		4,153		18
Crude sales	4,241		4,238		3			7,495		7,488		7
Gathering, transportation and other fees	1,464		1,611		(147		)	2,861		3,194		(333		)
Refined product sales	413		413		—			852		852		—
Other	127		127		—			225		225		—

Costs and expenses:
Cost of products sold	$	7,140	$	7,287	$	(147	)	$	13,128	$	13,461	$	(333	)
Operating expenses	627		617		10			1,231		1,206		25

Additional disclosures related to revenue are included in Note 12.

Use of Estimates

The unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with GAAP, which includes the use of estimates and assumptions made by management that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities that exist at the date of the consolidated financial statements. Although these estimates are based on management’s available knowledge of current and expected future events, actual results could be different from those estimates.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

ASU 2016-02

In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (“ASU 2016-02”), which establishes the principles that lessees and lessors shall apply to report useful information to users of financial statements about the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from a lease. In January 2018, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-01 (“ASU 2018-01”), which provides an optional transition practical expedient to not evaluate under Topic 842 existing or expired land easements that were not previously accounted for as leases under Topic 840. The Partnership expects to adopt ASU 2016-02 and elect the practical expedient under ASU 2018-01 in the first quarter of 2019 and is currently evaluating the impact that adopting this new standard will have on the consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

ASU 2017-12

In August 2017, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2017-12, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities. The amendments in this update improve the financial reporting of hedging relationships to better portray the economic results of an entity’s risk management activities in its financial statements. In addition, the amendments in this update make certain targeted improvements to simplify the application of the hedge accounting

Table of Contents

guidance in current GAAP. This ASU is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted. The Partnership is currently evaluating the impact that adopting this new standard will have on the consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

ASU 2018-02

In February 2018, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-02, Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, which allows a reclassification from accumulated other comprehensive income to partners’ capital for stranded tax effects resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The Partnership elected to early adopt this ASU in the first quarter of 2018. The effect of the adoption was not material.


2.	ACQUISITIONS AND OTHER INVESTING TRANSACTIONS

CDM Contribution

On April 2, 2018, ETP contributed to USAC all of the issued and outstanding membership interests of CDM for aggregate consideration of approximately $1.7 billion, consisting of (i) 19,191,351 common units representing limited partner interests in USAC, (ii) 6,397,965 units of a newly authorized and established class of units representing limited partner interests in USAC (“USAC Class B Units”) and (iii) $1.23 billion in cash, including customary closing adjustments (the “CDM Contribution”). The USAC Class B Units are a new class of partnership interests of USAC that have substantially all of the rights and obligations of a USAC common unit, except the USAC Class B Units will not participate in distributions for the first four quarters following the closing date of April 2, 2018. Each USAC Class B Unit will automatically convert into one USAC common unit on the first business day following the record date attributable to the quarter ending June 30, 2019.

Prior to the CDM Contribution, the CDM entities were indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries of ETP. Beginning April 2018, ETP’s consolidated financial statements reflected an equity method investment in USAC. CDM’s assets and liabilities were not reflected as held for sale, nor were CDM’s results reflected as discontinued operations in these financial statements. At June 30, 2018, the carrying value of ETP’s investment in USAC was $399 million, which is reflected in the all other segment. ETP recorded a $86 million loss on the deconsolidation of CDM including a $45 million accrual related to the indemnification of USAC related to an ongoing CDM sales and use tax audit.

In connection with the CDM Contribution, ETE acquired (i) all of the outstanding limited liability company interests in USA Compression GP, LLC, the general partner of USAC, and (ii) 12,466,912 USAC common units for cash consideration equal to $250 million.


3.	ADVANCES TO AND INVESTMENTS IN UNCONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

HPC

ETP previously owned a 49.99% interest in HPC, which owns RIGS. In April 2018, ETP acquired the remaining 50.01% interest in HPC. Prior to April 2018, HPC was reflected as an unconsolidated affiliate in ETP’s financial statements; beginning in April 2018, RIGS is reflected as a wholly-owned subsidiary in ETP’s financial statements.

Sunoco LP

In February 2018, after the record date for Sunoco LP’s fourth quarter 2017 cash distributions, Sunoco LP repurchased 17,286,859 Sunoco LP common units owned by ETP for aggregate cash consideration of approximately $540 million. ETP used the proceeds from the sale of the Sunoco LP common units to repay amounts outstanding under its revolving credit facility.

As of June 30, 2018, ETP owns 26.2 million Sunoco LP common units representing 31.8% of Sunoco LP’s total outstanding common units. Our investment in Sunoco LP is reflected in the all other segment. As of June 30, 2018, the carrying value of our investment in Sunoco LP is $535 million.

USAC

As of June 30, 2018, ETP owns 19.2 million USAC common units and 6.4 million USAC Class B Units, together representing 26.6% of the limited partner interests in USAC. USAC provides compression services to producers, processors, gatherers and transporters of natural gas and crude oil. Our investment in USAC is reflected in the all other segment. As of June 30, 2018, the carrying value of our investment in USAC is $399 million.

Table of Contents


4.	CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS

Cash and cash equivalents include all cash on hand, demand deposits, and investments with original maturities of three months or less. We consider cash equivalents to include short-term, highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash and that are subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value.

We place our cash deposits and temporary cash investments with high credit quality financial institutions. At times, our cash and cash equivalents may be uninsured or in deposit accounts that exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limit.

The net change in operating assets and liabilities (net of effects of acquisitions and deconsolidations) included in cash flows from operating activities is comprised as follows:



	Six Months Ended June 30,
	2018			2017*
Accounts receivable	$	236		$	88
Accounts receivable from related companies	156			(115		)
Inventories	299			160
Other current assets	(375		)	77
Other non-current assets, net	(3		)	(39		)
Accounts payable	(465		)	(286		)
Accounts payable to related companies	(99		)	131
Accrued and other current liabilities	249			(389		)
Other non-current liabilities	(2		)	7
Derivative assets and liabilities, net	233			(21		)
Net change in operating assets and liabilities, net of effects of acquisitions and deconsolidations	$	229		$	(387	)

* As adjusted. See Note 1.

Non-cash investing and financing activities are as follows:



	Six Months Ended June 30,
	2018		2017
NON-CASH INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Accrued capital expenditures	$	1,007	$	1,363
USAC limited partner interests received in the CDM Contribution (see Note 2)	411		—
NON-CASH FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Contribution of property, plant and equipment from noncontrolling interest	$	—	$	988


5.	INVENTORIES

Inventories consisted of the following:



	June 30, 2018		December 31, 2017
Natural gas, NGLs and refined products	$	434	$	733
Crude oil	571		551
Spare parts and other	251		305
Total inventories	$	1,256	$	1,589

Table of Contents

We utilize commodity derivatives to manage price volatility associated with our natural gas inventory. Changes in fair value of designated hedged inventory are recorded in inventory on our consolidated balance sheets and cost of products sold in our consolidated statements of operations.


6.	FAIR VALUE MEASURES

Based on the estimated borrowing rates currently available to us and our subsidiaries for loans with similar terms and average maturities, the aggregate fair value and carrying amount of our consolidated debt obligations as of June 30, 2018 was $33.64 billion and $33.90 billion, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, the aggregate fair value and carrying amount of our consolidated debt obligations was $34.28 billion and $33.09 billion, respectively. The fair value of our consolidated debt obligations is a Level 2 valuation based on the observable inputs used for similar liabilities.

We have commodity derivatives and interest rate derivatives that are accounted for as assets and liabilities at fair value in our consolidated balance sheets. We determine the fair value of our assets and liabilities subject to fair value measurement by using the highest possible “level” of inputs. Level 1 inputs are observable quotes in an active market for identical assets and liabilities. We consider the valuation of marketable securities and commodity derivatives transacted through a clearing broker with a published price from the appropriate exchange as a Level 1 valuation. Level 2 inputs are inputs observable for similar assets and liabilities. We consider OTC commodity derivatives entered into directly with third parties as a Level 2 valuation since the values of these derivatives are quoted on an exchange for similar transactions. Additionally, we consider our options transacted through our clearing broker as having Level 2 inputs due to the level of activity of these contracts on the exchange in which they trade. We consider the valuation of our interest rate derivatives as Level 2 as the primary input, the LIBOR curve, is based on quotes from an active exchange of Eurodollar futures for the same period as the future interest swap settlements. Level 3 inputs are unobservable. During the six months ended June 30, 2018, no transfers were made between any levels within the fair value hierarchy.

Table of Contents

The following tables summarize the gross fair value of our financial assets and liabilities measured and recorded at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 based on inputs used to derive their fair values:



				Fair Value Measurements at June 30, 2018
	Fair Value Total			Level 1			Level 2
Assets:
Commodity derivatives:
Natural Gas:
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX	$	22		$	22		$	—
Swing Swaps IFERC	1			—			1
Fixed Swaps/Futures	11			11			—
Forward Physical Contracts	9			—			9
Power:
Forwards	69			—			69
Options – Puts	1			1			—
NGLs – Forwards/Swaps	300			300			—
Total commodity derivatives	413			334			79
Other non-current assets	21			14			7
Total assets	$	434		$	348		$	86
Liabilities:
Interest rate derivatives	$	(147	)	$	—		$	(147	)
Commodity derivatives:
Natural Gas:
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX	(70		)	(70		)	—
Swing Swaps IFERC	(2		)	(1		)	(1		)
Fixed Swaps/Futures	(14		)	(14		)	—
Forward Physical Contracts	(5		)	—			(5		)
Power – Forwards	(57		)	—			(57		)
NGLs – Forwards/Swaps	(316		)	(316		)	—
Refined Products – Futures	(5		)	(5		)	—
Crude – Forwards/Swaps	(307		)	(307		)	—
Total commodity derivatives	(776		)	(713		)	(63		)
Total liabilities	$	(923	)	$	(713	)	$	(210	)

Table of Contents



				Fair Value Measurements at December 31, 2017
	Fair Value Total			Level 1			Level 2
Assets:
Commodity derivatives:
Natural Gas:
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX	$	11		$	11		$	—
Swing Swaps IFERC	13			—			13
Fixed Swaps/Futures	70			70			—
Forward Physical Swaps	8			—			8
Power – Forwards	23			—			23
NGLs – Forwards/Swaps	191			191			—
Crude:
Forwards/Swaps	2			2			—
Futures	2			2			—
Total commodity derivatives	320			276			44
Other non-current assets	21			14			7
Total assets	$	341		$	290		$	51
Liabilities:
Interest rate derivatives	$	(219	)	$	—		$	(219	)
Commodity derivatives:
Natural Gas:
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX	(24		)	(24		)	—
Swing Swaps IFERC	(15		)	(1		)	(14		)
Fixed Swaps/Futures	(57		)	(57		)	—
Forward Physical Swaps	(2		)	—			(2		)
Power – Forwards	(22		)	—			(22		)
NGLs – Forwards/Swaps	(186		)	(186		)	—
Refined Products – Futures	(25		)	(25		)	—
Crude:
Forwards/Swaps	(6		)	(6		)	—
Futures	(1		)	(1		)	—
Total commodity derivatives	(338		)	(300		)	(38		)
Total liabilities	$	(557	)	$	(300	)	$	(257	)


7.	NET INCOME (LOSS) PER LIMITED PARTNER UNIT

Table of Contents

A reconciliation of net income and weighted average units used in computing basic and diluted net income per unit is as follows:



	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2018			2017*			2018			2017*
Net income	$	602		$	296		$	1,481		$	689
Less: Income attributable to noncontrolling interest	170			94			334			156
Net income, net of noncontrolling interest	432			202			1,147			533
Series A Preferred Unitholders’ interest in net income	15			—			30			—
Series B Preferred Unitholders’ interest in net income	9			—			18			—
Series C Preferred Unitholders’ interest in net income	6			—			6			—
General Partner’s interest in net income	402			251			804			457
Class H Unitholder’s interest in net income	—			—			—			93
Common Unitholders’ interest in net income (loss)	—			(49		)	289			(17		)
Additional (earnings) distributions allocated to General Partner	(1		)	15			(3		)	12
Distributions on employee unit awards, net of allocation to General Partner	(7		)	(6		)	(15		)	(13		)
Net income (loss) available to Common Unitholders	$	(8	)	$	(40	)	$	271		$	(18	)
Weighted average Common Units – basic	1,165.4			1,021.7			1,164.6			922.5
Basic net income (loss) per Common Unit	$	(0.01	)	$	(0.04	)	$	0.23		$	(0.02	)

Weighted average Common Units – diluted	1,165.4			1,021.7			1,169.4			922.5
Diluted net income (loss) per Common Unit	$	(0.01	)	$	(0.04	)	$	0.23		$	(0.02	)

* As adjusted. See Note 1.

For certain periods reflected above, distributions paid for the period exceeded net income attributable to partners. Accordingly, the distributions paid to preferred unitholders and the General Partner, including incentive distributions, further exceeded net income, and as a result, a net loss was allocated to the Limited Partners for the period.


8.	DEBT OBLIGATIONS

ETP Senior Notes Offering and Redemption

In June 2018, ETP issued the following senior notes:

•$500 million aggregate principal amount of 4.20% senior notes due 2023;

•$1.00 billion aggregate principal amount of 4.95% senior notes due 2028;

•$500 million aggregate principal amount of 5.80% senior notes due 2038; and

•$1.00 billion aggregate principal amount of 6.00% senior notes due 2048.

The senior notes were registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (as amended). The Partnership may redeem some or all of the senior notes at any time, or from time to time, pursuant to the terms of the indenture and related indenture supplements related to the senior notes. The principal on the senior notes is payable upon maturity and interest is paid semi-annually.

The senior notes rank equally in right of payment with ETP’s existing and future senior debt, and senior in right of payment to any future subordinated debt ETP may incur. The notes of each series will initially be fully and unconditionally guaranteed by our subsidiary, Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations L.P., on a senior unsecured basis so long as it guarantees any of our other long-term debt. The guarantee for each series of notes ranks equally in right of payment with all of the existing and future senior debt of Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations L.P., including its senior notes.

Table of Contents

The $2.96 billion net proceeds from the offering were used to repay borrowings outstanding under ETP’s revolving credit facility, for general partnership purposes and to redeem all of the following senior notes:

•ETP’s $650 million aggregate principal amount of 2.50% senior notes due June 15, 2018;

•Panhandle’s $400 million aggregate principal amount of 7.00% senior notes due June 15, 2018; and

•ETP’s $600 million aggregate principal amount of 6.70% senior notes due July 1, 2018.

The aggregate amount paid to redeem these notes was approximately $1.65 billion.

Credit Facilities and Commercial Paper

ETP Five-Year Credit Facility

ETP’s revolving credit facility (the “ETP Five-Year Credit Facility”) allows for unsecured borrowings up to $4.00 billion and matures in December 2022. The ETP Five-Year Credit Facility contains an accordion feature, under which the total aggregate commitment may be increased up to $6.00 billion under certain conditions.

As of June 30, 2018, the ETP Five-Year Credit Facility had $1.23 billion outstanding, all of which was commercial paper. The amount available for future borrowings was $2.61 billion after taking into account letters of credit of $167 million. The weighted average interest rate on the total amount outstanding as of June 30, 2018 was 2.87%.

ETP 364-Day Facility

ETP’s 364-day revolving credit facility (the “ETP 364-Day Facility”) allows for unsecured borrowings up to $1.00 billion and matures on November 30, 2018. As of June 30, 2018, the ETP 364-Day Facility had no outstanding borrowings.

Bakken Credit Facility

In August 2016, ETP and Phillips 66 completed project-level financing of the Bakken pipeline. The $2.50 billion credit facility matures in August 2019 (the “Bakken Credit Facility”). As of June 30, 2018, the Bakken Credit Facility had $2.50 billion of outstanding borrowings. The weighted average interest rate on the total amount outstanding as of June 30, 2018 was 3.72%.

Compliance with Our Covenants

We were in compliance with all requirements, tests, limitations, and covenants related to our credit agreements as of June 30, 2018.


9.	EQUITY

The changes in outstanding common units during the six months ended June 30, 2018 were as follows:



	Number of Units
Number of common units at December 31, 2017	1,164.1
Common units issued in connection with the distribution reinvestment plan	2.1
Common units issued in connection with certain transactions	1.3
Issuance of common units under equity incentive plans	0.1
Repurchases of common units in open-market transactions	(1.2	)
Number of common units at June 30, 2018	1,166.4

Equity Distribution Program

During the six months ended June 30, 2018, there were no units issued under the Partnership’s equity distribution agreement. As of June 30, 2018, $752 million of the Partnership’s common units remained available to be issued under the Partnership’s existing $1.00 billion equity distribution agreement.

Distribution Reinvestment Program

During the six months ended June 30, 2018, distributions of $39 million were reinvested under the Partnership’s distribution reinvestment plan.

Table of Contents

Preferred Units

ETP issued 950,000 Series A Preferred Units and 550,000 Series B Preferred Units in November 2017.

Series C Preferred Units Issuance

In April 2018, ETP issued 18 million of its 7.375% Series C Preferred Units at a price of $25 per unit, resulting in total gross proceeds of $450 million. The proceeds were used to repay amounts outstanding under ETP’s revolving credit facility and for general partnership purposes.

Distributions on the Series C Preferred Units will accrue and be cumulative from and including the date of original issue to, but excluding, May 15, 2023, at a rate of 7.375% per annum of the stated liquidation preference of $25. On and after May 15, 2023, distributions on the Series C Preferred Units will accumulate at a percentage of the $25 liquidation preference equal to an annual floating rate of the three-month LIBOR, determined quarterly, plus a spread of 4.530% per annum. The Series C Preferred Units are redeemable at ETP’s option on or after May 15, 2023 at a redemption price of $25 per Series C Preferred Unit, plus an amount equal to all accumulated and unpaid distributions thereon to, but excluding, the date of redemption.

Series D Preferred Units Issuance

In July 2018, ETP issued 17.8 million of its 7.625% Series D Preferred Units at a price of $25 per unit, resulting in total gross proceeds of $445 million. The proceeds were used to repay amounts outstanding under ETP’s revolving credit facility and for general partnership purposes.

Distributions on the Series D Preferred Units will accrue and be cumulative from and including the date of original issue to, but excluding, August 15, 2023, at a rate of 7.625% per annum of the stated liquidation preference of $25. On and after August 15, 2023, distributions on the Series D Preferred Units will accumulate at a percentage of the $25 liquidation preference equal to an annual floating rate of the three-month LIBOR, determined quarterly, plus a spread of 4.378% per annum. The Series D Preferred Units are redeemable at ETP’s option on or after August 15, 2023 at a redemption price of $25 per Series D Preferred Unit, plus an amount equal to all accumulated and unpaid distributions thereon to, but excluding, the date of redemption.

Cash Distributions

Under our limited partnership agreement, within 45 days after the end of each quarter, the Partnership distributes all cash on hand at the end of the quarter, less reserves established by the general partner in its discretion. This is defined as “available cash” in the partnership agreement. The general partner has broad discretion to establish cash reserves that it determines are necessary or appropriate to properly conduct the Partnership’s business. The Partnership will make quarterly distributions to the extent there is sufficient cash from operations after establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including payments to the general partner.

Distributions on common units declared and/or paid by the Partnership subsequent to December 31, 2017 were as follows:



Quarter Ended	Record Date	Payment Date	Rate
December 31, 2017	February 8, 2018	February 14, 2018	$	0.5650
March 31, 2018	May 7, 2018	May 15, 2018	0.5650
June 30, 2018	August 6, 2018	August 14, 2018	0.5650

ETE agreed to relinquish its right to the following amounts of incentive distributions in future periods:



	Year Ending December 31,
2018 (remainder)	$	69
2019	128
Each year beyond 2019	33

Table of Contents

Distributions on preferred units declared and/or paid by the Partnership subsequent to December 31, 2017 were as follows:



Period Ended	Record Date	Payment Date	Rate
Series A Preferred Units
December 31, 2017	February 1, 2018	February 15, 2018	$	15.451
June 30, 2018	August 1, 2018	August 15, 2018	31.250
Series B Preferred Units
December 31, 2017	February 1, 2018	February 15, 2018	$	16.378
June 30, 2018	August 1, 2018	August 15, 2018	33.125
Series C Preferred Units
June 30, 2018	August 1, 2018	August 15, 2018	$	0.56337

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income

The following table presents the components of AOCI, net of tax:



	June 30, 2018			December 31, 2017
Available-for-sale securities ⁽¹⁾	$	4		$	8
Foreign currency translation adjustment	(5		)	(5		)
Actuarial loss related to pensions and other postretirement benefits	(7		)	(5		)
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates, net	12			5
Total AOCI, net of tax	$	4		$	3


⁽¹⁾	Effective January 1, 2018, the Partnership adopted Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, which resulted in the reclassification of $2 million from accumulated other comprehensive income related to available-for-sale securities to common unitholders.


10.	INCOME TAXES

The Partnership’s effective tax rate differs from the statutory rate primarily due to partnership earnings that are not subject to United States federal and most state income taxes at the partnership level. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Partnership’s income tax benefit also reflected $3 million and $70 million, respectively, of deferred benefit adjustments as the result of a state statutory rate reduction.


11.	REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES

Guarantee of Sunoco LP Notes

In connection with previous transactions whereby Retail Holdings contributed assets to Sunoco LP, Retail Holdings provided a limited contingent guarantee of collection, but not of payment, to Sunoco LP with respect to certain of Sunoco LP’s senior notes and $2.035 billion aggregate principal for Sunoco LP’s term loan due 2019. In December 2016, Retail Holdings contributed its interests in Sunoco LP, along with the assignment of the guarantee of Sunoco LP’s senior notes, to its subsidiary, ETC M-A Acquisition LLC (“ETC M-A”).

On January 23, 2018, Sunoco LP redeemed the previously guaranteed senior notes, repaid and terminated the term loan and issued the following notes for which ETC M-A has also guaranteed collection with respect to the payment of principal amounts:


•	$1.00 billion aggregate principal amount of 4.875% senior notes due 2023;


•	$800 million aggregate principal amount of 5.50% senior notes due 2026; and


•	$400 million aggregate principal amount of 5.875% senior notes due 2028.

Under the guarantee of collection, ETC M-A would have the obligation to pay the principal of each series of notes once all remedies, including in the context of bankruptcy proceedings, have first been fully exhausted against Sunoco LP with respect to such payment obligation, and holders of the notes are still owed amounts in respect of the principal of such notes. ETC M-A will not otherwise be subject to the covenants of the indenture governing the notes.

Table of Contents

FERC Audit

In March 2016, the FERC commenced an audit of Trunkline for the period from January 1, 2013 to present to evaluate Trunkline’s compliance with the requirements of its FERC gas tariff, the accounting regulations of the Uniform System of Accounts as prescribed by the FERC, and the FERC’s annual reporting requirements. The audit is ongoing.

Commitments

In the normal course of business, ETP purchases, processes and sells natural gas pursuant to long-term contracts and enters into long-term transportation and storage agreements. Such contracts contain terms that are customary in the industry. ETP believes that the terms of these agreements are commercially reasonable and will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Our joint venture agreements require that we fund our proportionate share of capital contributions to our unconsolidated affiliates. Such contributions will depend upon our unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital projects or repayment of long-term obligations.

We have certain non-cancelable leases for property and equipment, which require fixed monthly rental payments and expire at various dates through 2034. The table below reflects rental expense under these operating leases included in operating expenses in the accompanying statements of operations, which include contingent rentals, and rental expense recovered through related sublease rental income:



	Three Months Ended June 30,				Six Months Ended June 30,
	2018		2017		2018		2017
Rental expense	$	22	$	19	$	39	$	39

Litigation and Contingencies

We may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Natural gas and crude oil are flammable and combustible. Serious personal injury and significant property damage can arise in connection with their transportation, storage or use. In the ordinary course of business, we are sometimes threatened with or named as a defendant in various lawsuits seeking actual and punitive damages for product liability, personal injury and property damage. We maintain liability insurance with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles management believes are reasonable and prudent, and which are generally accepted in the industry. However, there can be no assurance that the levels of insurance protection currently in effect will continue to be available at reasonable prices or that such levels will remain adequate to protect us from material expenses related to product liability, personal injury or property damage in the future.

Dakota Access Pipeline

On July 25, 2016, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) issued permits to Dakota Access to make two crossings of the Missouri River in North Dakota. The USACE also issued easements to allow the pipeline to cross land owned by the USACE adjacent to the Missouri River. On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“SRST”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the USACE and challenged the legality of these permits and claimed violations of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). The SRST also sought a preliminary injunction to rescind the USACE permits while the case was pending, which the court denied on September 9, 2016. Dakota Access intervened in the case. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”) also intervened. The SRST filed an amended complaint and added claims based on treaties between the Tribes and the United States and statutes governing the use of government property.

In February 2017, in response to a presidential memorandum, the Department of the Army delivered an easement to Dakota Access allowing the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe. The CRST moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to block operation of the pipeline, which was denied, and raised claims based on the religious rights of the Tribe.

The SRST and the CRST amended their complaints to incorporate religious freedom and other claims. In addition, the Oglala and Yankton Sioux tribes (collectively, “Tribes”) have filed related lawsuits to prevent construction of the Dakota Access pipeline project. These lawsuits have been consolidated into the action initiated by the SRST. Several individual members of the Tribes have also intervened in the lawsuit asserting claims that overlap with those brought by the four Tribes.

Table of Contents

On June 14, 2017, the Court ruled on SRST’s and CRST’s motions for partial summary judgment and the USACE’s cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The Court concluded that the USACE had not violated trust duties owed to the Tribes and had generally complied with its obligations under the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and other related statutes; however, the Court remanded to the USACE three discrete issues for further analysis and explanation of its prior determinations under certain of these statutes. On May 3, 2018, the District Court ordered the USACE to file a status report by June 8, 2018 informing the Court when the USACE expects the remand process to be complete. On June 8, 2018, the USACE filed a status report stating that they will conclude the remand process by August 10, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the USACE informed the Court that they will need until August 31, 2018 to finish the remand process. Following the completion of the remand process by the USACE, the Court will make a determination regarding the three discrete issues covered by the remand order.

On December 4, 2017, the Court imposed three conditions on continued operation of the pipeline during the remand process. First, Dakota Access must retain an independent third-party to review its compliance with the conditions and regulations governing its easements and to assess integrity threats to the pipeline. The assessment report was filed with the Court. Second, the Court has directed Dakota Access to continue its work with the Tribes and the USACE to revise and finalize its emergency spill response planning for the section of the pipeline crossing Lake Oahe. Dakota Access filed the revised plan with the Court. And third, the Court has directed Dakota Access to submit bi-monthly reports during the remand period disclosing certain inspection and maintenance information related to the segment of the pipeline running between the valves on either side of the Lake Oahe crossing. The first and second reports were filed with the court on December 29, 2017 and February 28, 2018, respectfully.

In November 2017, the Yankton Sioux Tribe (“YST”), moved for partial summary judgment asserting claims similar to those already litigated and decided by the Court in its June 14, 2017 decision on similar motions by CRST and SRST. YST argues that the USACE and Fish and Wildlife Service violated NEPA, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and YST’s treaty and trust rights when the government granted the permits and easements necessary for the pipeline.

On March 19, 2018, the District Court denied YST’s motion for partial summary judgment and instead granted judgment in favor of Dakota Access pipeline and the USACE on the claims raised in YST’s motion. The Court concluded that YST’s NHPA claims are moot because construction of the pipeline is complete and that the government’s review process did not violate NEPA or the various treaties cited by the YST.

On February 8, 2018, the Court docketed a motion by CRST to “compel meaningful consultation on remand.” SRST then made a similar motion for “clarification re remand process and remand conditions.” The motions seek an order from the Court directing the USACE as to how it should conduct its additional review on remand. Dakota Access pipeline and the USACE opposed both motions. On April 16, 2018, the Court denied both motions.

While ETP believes that the pending lawsuits are unlikely to halt or suspend operation of the pipeline, we cannot assure this outcome. ETP cannot determine when or how these lawsuits will be resolved or the impact they may have on the Dakota Access project.

Mont Belvieu Incident

On June 26, 2016, a hydrocarbon storage well located on another operator’s facility adjacent to Lone Star NGL Mont Belvieu’s (“Lone Star”) facilities in Mont Belvieu, Texas experienced an over-pressurization resulting in a subsurface release. The subsurface release caused a fire at Lone Star’s South Terminal and damage to Lone Star’s storage well operations at its South and North Terminals. Normal operations have resumed at the facilities with the exception of one of Lone Star’s storage wells. Lone Star is still quantifying the extent of its incurred and ongoing damages and has or will be seeking reimbursement for these losses.

MTBE Litigation

Sunoco, Inc. and/or Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) (now known as Sunoco (R&M), LLC) are defendants in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs, state-level governmental entities, assert product liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws, and/or deceptive business practices claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.

As of June 30, 2018, Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in six cases, including one case each initiated by the States of Maryland, Vermont and Rhode Island, one by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and two by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The more recent Puerto Rico action is a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial

Table of Contents

Puerto Rico action. The actions brought by the State of Maryland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have also named as defendants Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., ETP Holdco Corporation, and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P.

Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) have reached a settlement with the State of New Jersey. The Court approved the Judicial Consent Order on December 5, 2017. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered an Order dismissing the matter with prejudice.

It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized in the remaining cases; however, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. An adverse determination with respect to one or more of the MTBE cases could have a significant impact on results of operations during the period in which any such adverse determination occurs, but such an adverse determination likely would not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position.

Regency Merger Litigation

Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the Regency-ETP merger (the “Regency Merger”). All but one Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman (“Dieckman”), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Regency Merger Litigation”), on behalf of Regency’s common unitholders against Regency GP, LP; Regency GP LLC; ETE, ETP, ETP GP, and the members of Regency’s board of directors (“Defendants”).

The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency’s conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not approved in good faith. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Dieckman appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint. Defendants then filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery on May 19, 2017. On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP, LP and Regency GP LLC (the “Regency Defendants”). On March 6, 2018, the Regency Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. Trial is currently set for September 23-27, 2019.

The Regency Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Regency Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it and any others that may be filed in connection with the Regency Merger.

Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating LLC Litigation

On January 27, 2014, a trial commenced between ETP against Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating LLC (collectively, “Enterprise”) and Enbridge (US) Inc. Trial resulted in a verdict in favor of ETP against Enterprise that consisted of $319 million in compensatory damages and $595 million in disgorgement to ETP. The jury also found that ETP owed Enterprise $1 million under a reimbursement agreement. On July 29, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of ETP and awarded ETP $536 million, consisting of compensatory damages, disgorgement, and pre-judgment interest. The trial court also ordered that ETP shall be entitled to recover post-judgment interest and costs of court and that Enterprise is not entitled to any net recovery on its counterclaims. Enterprise filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals. On July 18, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion and reversed the trial court’s judgment. ETP’s motion for rehearing to the Court of Appeals was denied. On June 8, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court ordered briefing on the merits. ETP’s petition for review remains under consideration by the Texas Supreme Court.

Bayou Bridge

On January 11, 2018, environmental groups and a trade association filed suit against the USACE in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that the USACE’s issuance of permits authorizing the construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline through the Atchafalaya Basin (“Basin”) violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Act. They asked the district court to vacate these permits and to enjoin construction of the project through the Basin until the USACE corrects alleged deficiencies in its decision-making process. ETP, through its subsidiary Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC (“Bayou Bridge”), intervened on January 26, 2018. On March 27, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed an answer to the complaint.

On January 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction and TRO. United States District Court Judge Shelly Dick denied the TRO on January 30, 2018, but subsequently granted the preliminary injunction on February 23, 2018. On February 26, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the February 23, 2018 preliminary injunction

Table of Contents

order. On February 27, 2018, Judge Dick issued an opinion that clarified her February 23, 2018 preliminary injunction order and denied Bayou Bridge’s February 26, 2018 motion to stay as moot. On March 1, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a new notice of appeal and motion to stay the February 27, 2018 preliminary injunction order in the district court. On March 5, 2018, the district court denied the March 1, 2018 motion to stay the February 27, 2018 order.

On March 2, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction in the Fifth Circuit. On March 15, 2018, the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of injunction pending appeal and found that Bayou Bridge “is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.” Oral arguments were heard on the merits of the appeal, that is, whether the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction in the Fifth Circuit on April 30, 2018. The district court has stayed the merits case pending decision of the Fifth Circuit. On May 10, 2018, the District Court stayed the litigation pending a decision from the Fifth Circuit. On July 6, 2018, the Fifth Circuit vacated the Preliminary Injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court. Construction is ongoing.

Rover

On November 3, 2017, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) filed suit against Rover and Pretec Directional Drilling, LLC (“Pretec”) seeking to recover approximately $2.6 million in civil penalties allegedly owed and certain injunctive relief related to permit compliance. Laney Directional Drilling Co., Atlas Trenchless, LLC, Mears Group, Inc., D&G Directional Drilling, Inc. d/b/a D&G Directional Drilling, LLC, and B&T Directional Drilling, Inc. (collectively, with Rover and Pretec, “Defendants”) were added as defendants on April 17, and July 18, 2018.

Ohio EPA alleges that the Defendants illegally discharged millions of gallons of drilling fluids into Ohio’s waters that caused pollution and degraded water quality, and that the Defendants harmed pristine wetlands in Stark County. Ohio EPA further alleges that the Defendants caused the degradation of Ohio’s waters by discharging pollution in the form of sediment-laden storm water into Ohio’s waters and that Rover violated its hydrostatic permits by discharging effluent with greater levels of pollutants than those permits allowed and by not properly sampling or monitoring effluent for required parameters or reporting those alleged violations. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are due on or before September 10, 2018.

In January 2018, Ohio EPA sent a letter to the FERC to express concern regarding drilling fluids lost down a hole during horizontal directional drilling (“HDD”) operations as part of the Rover Pipeline construction. Rover sent a January 24 response to the FERC and stated, among other things, that as Ohio EPA conceded, Rover was conducting its drilling operations in accordance with specified procedures that had been approved by the FERC and reviewed by the Ohio EPA. In addition, although the HDD operations were crossing the same resource as that which led to an inadvertent release of drilling fluids in April 2017, the drill in 2018 had been redesigned since the original crossing. Ohio EPA expressed concern that the drilling fluids could deprive organisms in the wetland of oxygen. Rover, however, has now fully remediated the site, a fact with which Ohio EPA concurs.

Other Litigation and Contingencies

We or our subsidiaries are a party to various legal proceedings and/or regulatory proceedings incidental to our businesses. For each of these matters, we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter, possible legal or settlement strategies, the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and the availability of insurance coverage. If we determine that an unfavorable outcome of a particular matter is probable and can be estimated, we accrue the contingent obligation, as well as any expected insurance recoverable amounts related to the contingency. As of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, accruals of approximately $52 million and $53 million, respectively, were reflected on our consolidated balance sheets related to these contingent obligations. As new information becomes available, our estimates may change. The impact of these changes may have a significant effect on our results of operations in a single period.

The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and there can be no assurance that the outcome of a particular matter will not result in the payment of amounts that have not been accrued for the matter. Furthermore, we may revise accrual amounts prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome. Currently, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued.

On April 25, 2018, and as amended on April 30, 2018, State Senator Andrew Dinniman filed a Formal Complaint and Petition for Interim Emergency Relief (“Complaint”) against Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (“SPLP”) before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that (i) the services and facilities provided by the Mariner East Pipeline (“ME1,” “ME2” or “ME2x”) in West Whiteland Township (“the Township”) are unreasonable, unsafe, inadequate, and insufficient for, among other reasons, selecting an improper and unsafe route through densely populated portions of the Township with homes, schools, and infrastructure and causing inadvertent returns and sinkholes during construction because of unstable geology in the Township; (ii) SPLP failed to warn the public of the dangers of the pipeline; (iii) the construction of ME2 and ME2x increases the risk of damage to the existing co-located ME1 pipeline; and (iv) ME1, ME2 and ME2x are

Table of Contents

not public utility facilities. Based on these allegations, Senator Dinniman’s Complaint seeks emergency relief by way of an order (i) prohibiting construction of ME2 and ME2x in West Whiteland Township; (ii) prohibiting operation of ME1; (iii) in the alternative to (i) and (ii) prohibiting the construction of ME2 and ME2x and the operation of ME1 until SPLP fully assesses and the PUC approves the condition, adequacy, efficiency, safety, and reasonableness of those pipelines and the geology in which they sit; (iv) requiring SPLP to release to the public its written integrity management plan and risk analysis for these pipelines; and (v) finding that these pipelines are not public utility facilities. In short, the relief, if granted, would continue the suspension of operation of ME1 and suspend further construction of ME2 and ME2x in West Whiteland Township.

Following a hearing on May 7 and 10, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth H. Barnes (“ALJ”) issued an Order on May 24, 2018 that granted Senator Dinniman’s petition for interim emergency relief and required SPLP to shut down ME1, to discontinue construction of ME2 and ME2x within the Township, and required SPLP to provide various types of information and perform various geotechnical and geophysical studies within the Township. The ALJ’s Order was immediately effective, and SPLP complied by shutting down service on ME1 and discontinuing all construction in the Township on ME2 and ME2x. The ALJ’s Order was automatically certified as a material question to the PUC, which issued an Opinion and Order on June 15, 2018 (following a public meeting on June 14, 2018) that reversed in part and affirmed in part the ALJ’s Order. PUC’s Opinion and Order permitted SPLP to resume service on ME1, but continued the shutdown of construction on ME2 and ME2x pending the submission of the following three types of information to PUC: (i) inspection and testing protocols; (ii) comprehensive emergency response plan; and (iii) safety training curriculum for employees and contractors. SPLP submitted the required information on June 22, 2018. On July 2, 2018, Senator Dinniman and intervenors responded to the submission. SPLP is also required to provide an affidavit that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) has issued appropriate approvals for construction of ME2 and ME2x in the Township before recommencing construction of ME2 and ME2x locations within the Township. SPLP submitted all necessary affidavits. On August 2, 2018 the PUC entered an Order lifting the stay of construction on ME2 and ME2x in West Whiteland Township with respect to all areas within the Township where the necessary environmental permits had been issued. Also on August 2, 2018, the PUC ratified its prior action by notational voting of certifying for interlocutory appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court the legal issue of whether Senator Dinniman has standing to pursue the action.

Service on ME1 was resumed in accordance with PUC’s Opinion and Order. Senator Dinniman’s Complaint will proceed forward under a schedule to be determined by the ALJ. A prehearing conference with the ALJ is scheduled for August 28, 2018.

On July 25, 2017, the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (“EHB”) issued an order to SPLP to cease HDD activities in Pennsylvania related to the Mariner East 2 project. On August 1, 2017 the EHB lifted the order as to two drill locations. On August 3, 2017, the EHB lifted the order as to 14 additional locations. The EHB issued the order in response to a complaint filed by environmental groups against SPLP and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”). The EHB Judge encouraged the parties to pursue a settlement with respect to the remaining HDD locations and facilitated a settlement meeting. On August 7, 2017 a final settlement was reached. A stipulated order has been submitted to the EHB Judge with respect to the settlement. The settlement agreement requires that SPLP reevaluate the design parameters of approximately 26 drills on the Mariner East 2 project and approximately 43 drills on the Mariner East 2X project. The settlement agreement also provides a defined framework for approval by PADEP for these drills to proceed after reevaluation. Additionally, the settlement agreement requires modifications to several of the HDD plans that are part of the PADEP permits. Those modifications have been completed and agreed to by the parties and the reevaluation of the drills has been initiated by the company. On July 31, 2018 the underlying permit appeals in which the above settlements occurred were withdrawn in a settlement between the appellants and PADEP. That settlement did not involve SPLP.

In addition, on June 27, 2017 and July 25, 2017, the PADEP entered into a Consent Order and Agreement with SPLP regarding inadvertent returns of drilling fluids at three HDD locations in Pennsylvania related to the Mariner East 2 project. Those agreements require SPLP to cease HDD activities at those three locations until PADEP reauthorizes such activities and to submit a corrective action plan for agency review and approval. SPLP has fulfilled the requirements of those agreements and has been authorized by PADEP to resume drilling the locations.

No amounts have been recorded in our June 30, 2018 or December 31, 2017 consolidated balance sheets for contingencies and current litigation, other than amounts disclosed herein.

Environmental Matters

Our operations are subject to extensive federal, tribal, state and local environmental and safety laws and regulations that require expenditures to ensure compliance, including related to air emissions and wastewater discharges, at operating facilities and for remediation at current and former facilities as well as waste disposal sites. Historically, our environmental compliance costs have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations but there can be no assurance that such costs will not

Table of Contents

be material in the future or that such future compliance with existing, amended or new legal requirements will not have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. Costs of planning, designing, constructing and operating pipelines, plants and other facilities must incorporate compliance with environmental laws and regulations and safety standards. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory, remedial and corrective action obligations, the issuance of injunctions in affected areas and the filing of federally authorized citizen suits. Contingent losses related to all significant known environmental matters have been accrued and/or separately disclosed. However, we may revise accrual amounts prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome.

Environmental exposures and liabilities are difficult to assess and estimate due to unknown factors such as the magnitude of possible contamination, the timing and extent of remediation, the determination of our liability in proportion to other parties, improvements in cleanup technologies and the extent to which environmental laws and regulations may change in the future. Although environmental costs may have a significant impact on the results of operations for any single period, we believe that such costs will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position.

Based on information available at this time and reviews undertaken to identify potential exposure, we believe the amount reserved for environmental matters is adequate to cover the potential exposure for cleanup costs.

In February 2017, we received letters from the DOJ and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality notifying SPLP and Mid-Valley Pipeline Company (“Mid-Valley”) that enforcement actions were being pursued for three crude oil releases: (a) an estimated 550 barrels released from the Colmesneil-to-Chester pipeline in Tyler County, Texas (“Colmesneil”) operated and owned by SPLP in February 2013; (b) an estimated 4,509 barrels released from the Longview-to-Mayersville pipeline in Caddo Parish, Louisiana (a/k/a Milepost 51.5) operated by SPLP and owned by Mid-Valley in October 2014; and (c) an estimated 40 barrels released from the Wakita 4-inch gathering line in Oklahoma operated and owned by SPLP in January 2015. In May 2017, we presented to the DOJ, EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality a summary of the emergency response and remedial efforts taken by SPLP after the releases occurred as well as operational changes instituted by SPLP to reduce the likelihood of future releases. In July 2017, we had a follow-up meeting with the DOJ, EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality during which the agencies presented their initial demand for civil penalties and injunctive relief. Since then, the parties have reached an agreement in principal to resolve all penalties. We are currently working on a counteroffer to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, and we are involved in settlement discussion with the agencies.

On January 3, 2018, PADEP issued an Administrative Order to SPLP directing that work on the Mariner East 2 and 2X pipelines be stopped. The Administrative Order detailed alleged violations of the permits issued by PADEP in February 2017, during the construction of the project. SPLP began working with PADEP representatives immediately after the Administrative Order was issued to resolve the compliance issues. Those compliance issues could not be fully resolved by the deadline to appeal the Administrative Order, so SPLP took an appeal of the Administrative Order to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board on February 2, 2018. On February 8, 2018, SPLP entered into a Consent Order and Agreement with PADEP that (i) withdraws the Administrative Order; (ii) establishes requirements for compliance with permits on a going forward basis; (iii) resolves the non-compliance alleged in the Administrative Order; and (iv) conditions restart of work on an agreement by SPLP to pay a $12.6 million civil penalty to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the Consent Order and agreement, SPLP admits to the factual allegations, but does not admit to the conclusions of law that were made by PADEP. PADEP also found in the Consent Order and Agreement that SPLP had adequately addressed the issues raised in the Administrative Order and demonstrated an ability to comply with the permits. SPLP concurrently filed a request to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board to discontinue the appeal of the Administrative Order. That request was granted on February 8, 2018.

Environmental Remediation

Our subsidiaries are responsible for environmental remediation at certain sites, including the following:


•	certain of our interstate pipelines conduct soil and groundwater remediation related to contamination from past uses of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). PCB assessments are ongoing and, in some cases, our subsidiaries could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties.


•	certain gathering and processing systems are responsible for soil and groundwater remediation related to releases of hydrocarbons.


•	legacy sites related to Sunoco, Inc. that are subject to environmental assessments, including formerly owned terminals and other logistics assets, retail sites that Sunoco, Inc. no longer operates, closed and/or sold refineries and other formerly owned sites.

Table of Contents

•

Sunoco, Inc. is potentially subject to joint and several liability for the costs of remediation at sites at which it has been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”). As of June 30, 2018, Sunoco, Inc. had been named as a PRP at approximately 41 identified or potentially identifiable “Superfund” sites under federal and/or comparable state law. Sunoco, Inc. is usually one of a number of companies identified as a PRP at a site. Sunoco, Inc. has reviewed the nature and extent of its involvement at each site and other relevant circumstances and, based upon Sunoco, Inc.’s purported nexus to the sites, believes that its potential liability associated with such sites will not be significant.

To the extent estimable, expected remediation costs are included in the amounts recorded for environmental matters in our consolidated balance sheets. In some circumstances, future costs cannot be reasonably estimated because remediation activities are undertaken as claims are made by customers and former customers. To the extent that an environmental remediation obligation is recorded by a subsidiary that applies regulatory accounting policies, amounts that are expected to be recoverable through tariffs or rates are recorded as regulatory assets on our consolidated balance sheets.

The table below reflects the amounts of accrued liabilities recorded in our consolidated balance sheets related to environmental matters that are considered to be probable and reasonably estimable. Currently, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued. Except for matters discussed above, we do not have any material environmental matters assessed as reasonably possible that would require disclosure in our consolidated financial statements.



	June 30, 2018		December 31, 2017
Current	$	42	$	36
Non-current	276		314
Total environmental liabilities	$	318	$	350

In 2013, we established a wholly-owned captive insurance company to bear certain risks associated with environmental obligations related to certain sites that are no longer operating. The premiums paid to the captive insurance company include estimates for environmental claims that have been incurred but not reported, based on an actuarially determined fully developed claims expense estimate. In such cases, we accrue losses attributable to unasserted claims based on the discounted estimates that are used to develop the premiums paid to the captive insurance company.

During the three months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Partnership recorded $6 million and $7 million, respectively, of expenditures related to environmental cleanup programs. During the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Partnership recorded $11 million and $13 million, respectively, of expenditures related to environmental programs.

On December 2, 2010, Sunoco, Inc. entered an Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement to sell the Toledo Refinery to Toledo Refining Company LLC (“TRC”) wherein Sunoco, Inc. retained certain liabilities associated with the pre-closing time period. On January 2, 2013, EPA issued a Finding of Violation (“FOV”) to TRC and, on September 30, 2013, EPA issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”)/ FOV to TRC alleging Clean Air Act violations. To date, EPA has not issued an FOV or NOV/FOV to Sunoco, Inc. directly but some of EPA’s claims relate to the time period that Sunoco, Inc. operated the refinery. Specifically, EPA has claimed that the refinery flares were not operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions and/or in conformance with their design, and that Sunoco, Inc. submitted semi-annual compliance reports in 2010 and 2011 to the EPA that failed to include all of the information required by the regulations. EPA has proposed penalties in excess of $200,000 to resolve the allegations and discussions continue between the parties. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time, however, we do not expect there to be a material impact to our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Our pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the United States Department of Transportation under the PHMSA, pursuant to which the PHMSA has established requirements relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of pipeline facilities. Moreover, the PHMSA, through the Office of Pipeline Safety, has promulgated a rule requiring pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs to comprehensively evaluate their pipelines, and take measures to protect pipeline segments located in what the rule refers to as “high consequence areas.” Activities under these integrity management programs involve the performance of internal pipeline inspections, pressure testing or other effective means to assess the integrity of these regulated pipeline segments, and the regulations require prompt action to address integrity issues raised by the assessment and analysis. Integrity testing and assessment of all of these assets will continue, and the potential exists that results of such testing and assessment could cause us to incur future capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of our pipelines; however, no estimate can be made at this time of the likely range of such expenditures.

Table of Contents