SEC Filing | Energy Transfer

View:

Download DOC

Download PDF

Download XLS

Download XBRL

ETE-12.31.2014-10K

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K



ý	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014



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

Commission file number 1-32740

ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Delaware		30-0108820
(state or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

3738 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219

(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (214) 981-0700

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:



Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Units		New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes ý No ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes ¨ No ý

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 Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T 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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

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

Large accelerated filer ý Accelerated filer ¨ Non-accelerated filer ¨ Smaller reporting company ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes ¨ No ý

The aggregate market value as of June 30, 2014, of the registrant’s Common Units held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the reported closing price of such Common Units on the New York Stock Exchange on such date, was $22.91 billion. Common Units held by each executive officer and director and by each person who owns 5% or more of the outstanding Common Units have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

At February 18, 2015, the registrant had 538,772,023 Common Units outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS



PART I
		PAGE

ITEM 1.	BUSINESS	1

ITEM 1A.	RISK FACTORS	32

ITEM 1B.	UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS	64

ITEM 2.	PROPERTIES	64

ITEM 3.	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	65

ITEM 4.	MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES	66

PART II

ITEM 5.	MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON UNITS, RELATED UNITHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES	66

ITEM 6.	SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA	68

ITEM 7.	MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS	68

ITEM 7A.	QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK	106

ITEM 8.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA	111

ITEM 9.	CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE	111

ITEM 9A.	CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES	111

ITEM 9B.	OTHER INFORMATION	114

PART III

ITEM 10.	DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	114

ITEM 11.	EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION	119

ITEM 12.	SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED UNITHOLDER MATTERS	137

ITEM 13.	CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE	139

ITEM 14.	PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES	141

PART IV

ITEM 15.	EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES	142

Signatures		143

Table of Contents

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain matters discussed in this report, excluding historical information, as well as some statements by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (the “Partnership” or “ETE”) 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,” “project,” “expect,” “plan,” “goal,” “forecast,” “estimate,” “intend,” “continue,” “could,” “believe,” “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, estimated, projected, forecasted, expressed or expected 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 “Item 1.A Risk Factors” included in this annual report.

Definitions

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



/d		per day

AmeriGas		AmeriGas Partners, L.P.

AOCI		accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

AROs		asset retirement obligations

Bbls		barrels

Bcf		billion cubic feet

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 content

Canyon		ETC Canyon Pipeline, LLC

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

Citrus		Citrus, LLC which owns 100% of FGT

Coal Handling		Coal Handling Solutions LLC, Kingsport Handling LLC and Kingsport Services LLC, now known as Materials Handling Solutions LLC

CrossCountry		CrossCountry Energy, LLC

CFTC		Commodities Futures Trading Commission

DOE		U.S. Department of Energy

DOT		U.S. Department of Transportation

Eagle Rock		Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P.

Enterprise		Enterprise Products Partners L.P., together with its subsidiaries

EPA		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ETC Compression		ETC Compression, LLC

ETC FEP		ETC Fayetteville Express Pipeline, LLC

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

ETC Tiger		ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC

iii

Table of Contents



ETG		Energy Transfer Group, L.L.C.

ET Interstate		Energy Transfer Interstate Holdings, LLC

ETP		Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.

ETP Credit Facility		ETP’s revolving credit facility

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

FDOT/FTE		Florida Department of Transportation, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise

FEP		Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC

FERC		Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FGT		Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, which owns a natural gas pipeline system that originates in Texas and delivers natural gas to the Florida peninsula

GAAP		accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America

General Partner		LE GP, LLC, the general partner of ETE

HPC		RIGS Haynesville Partnership Co.

HOLP		Heritage Operating, L.P.

Hoover Energy		Hoover Energy Partners, LP

IDRs		incentive distribution rights

Lake Charles LNG		Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC (previously named Trunkline LNG Company, LLC)

LCL		Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC, a subsidiary of ETP and ETE

LIBOR		London Interbank Offered Rate

LNG		Liquefied natural gas

LNG Holdings		Lake Charles LNG Holdings, LLC

LPG		liquefied petroleum gas

Lone Star		Lone Star NGL LLC

MACS		Mid-Atlantic Convenience Stores, LLC

MEP		Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC

MGE		Missouri Gas Energy

MGP		manufactured gas plant

MMBtu		million British thermal units

MMcf		million cubic feet

NGA		Natural Gas Act of 1938

NGPA		Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978

NEG		New England Gas Company

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

NMED		New Mexico Environmental Department

Table of Contents



NYMEX		New York Mercantile Exchange

NYSE		New York Stock Exchange

OSHA		Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act

Panhandle		Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP and its subsidiaries

PCBs		polychlorinated biphenyls

PEPL		Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP

PEPL Holdings		PEPL Holdings, LLC

PES		Philadelphia Energy Solutions

PHMSA		Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PVR		PVR Partners, L.P.

RIGS		Regency Intrastate Gas System

RGS		Regency Gas Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regency

Preferred Units		ETE’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units

Ranch JV		Ranch Westex JV LLC

Regency		Regency Energy Partners LP

Regency GP		Regency GP LP, the general partner of Regency

Regency LLC		Regency GP LLC, the general partner of Regency GP

Regency Preferred Units		Regency’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units, the Preferred Units of a Subsidiary

Sea Robin		Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC

SEC		Securities and Exchange Commission

Southern Union		Southern Union Company

Southwest Gas		Pan Gas Storage, LLC

SUGS		Southern Union Gas Services

Sunoco Logistics		Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.

Sunoco Partners		Sunoco Partners LLC, the general partner of Sunoco Logistics

Susser		Susser Holdings Corporation

TCEQ		Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Titan		Titan Energy Partners, L.P.

Transwestern		Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC

TRRC		Texas Railroad Commission

Trunkline		Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Panhandle

WTI		West Texas Intermediate Crude

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, loss on extinguishment of debt, gain on deconsolidation 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 (excluding lower of cost or market adjustments). Adjusted EBITDA reflects

Table of Contents

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.

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We were formed in September 2002 and completed our initial public offering in February 2006. We are a Delaware limited partnership with common units publicly traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “ETE.”

Unless the context requires otherwise, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Partnership” and “ETE” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries, which include ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, Regency, Regency GP, Regency LLC, Panhandle (or Southern Union prior to its merger into Panhandle in January 2014), Sunoco, Inc., Sunoco Logistics, Sunoco LP, Susser and ETP Holdco. References to the “Parent Company” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. on a stand-alone basis.

During 2014, our consolidated subsidiaries, Trunkline LNG Company, LLC, Trunkline LNG Export, LLC and Susser Petroleum Partners LP, changed their names to Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC, Lake Charles LNG Export, LLC and Sunoco LP, respectively. All references to these subsidiaries throughout this document reflect the new names of those subsidiaries, regardless of whether the disclosure relates to periods or events prior to the dates of the name changes.

In January 2014, the Partnership completed a two-for-one split of its outstanding common units. All references to units and per unit amounts in this document have been adjusted to reflect the effect of the unit split for all periods presented.

On March 26, 2012, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of Southern Union and contributed our ownership in Southern Union for a 60% interest in ETP Holdco at the time of ETP’s acquisition of Sunoco, Inc. on October 5, 2012. On April 30, 2013, ETP acquired ETE’s 60% interest in ETP Holdco.

At December 31, 2014, our interests in ETP and Regency consisted of 100% of the respective general partner interests and IDRs, as well as the following:



	ETP	Regency
Units held by wholly-owned subsidiaries:
Common units	30,841,069	57,157,356
ETP Class H units	50,160,000	—
Units held by less than wholly-owned subsidiaries:
Common units	—	31,372,419
Regency Class F units	—	6,274,483

The Parent Company’s primary cash requirements are for distributions to its partners, general and administrative expenses, debt service requirements and at ETE’s election, capital contributions to ETP and Regency in respect of ETE’s general partner interests in ETP and Regency. The Parent Company-only assets and liabilities are not available to satisfy the debts and other obligations of subsidiaries.

Table of Contents

Organizational Structure

The following chart summarizes our organizational structure as of December 31, 2014. For simplicity, certain immaterial entities and ownership interests have not been depicted.


⁽¹⁾	Pursuant to an agreement between ETE and ETP entered into in December 2014, ETE has agreed to transfer its 45% equity interest in the Bakken Pipeline Project to ETP. This transaction is expected to close in March 2015.

Table of Contents

Significant Achievements in 2014 and Beyond

Strategic Transactions

Our significant strategic transactions in 2014 and beyond included the following, as discussed in more detail herein:

•

In January 2015, ETP and Regency entered into a definitive merger agreement, as amended on February 18, 2015 (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which Regency will merge with a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETP, with Regency continuing as the surviving entity and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETP (the “Regency Merger”). At the effective time of the Regency Merger (the “Effective Time”), each Regency common unit and Class F unit will be converted into the right to receive 0.4066 ETP Common Units, plus a number of additional ETP Common Units equal to $0.32 per Regency common unit divided by the lesser of (i) the volume weighted average price of ETP Common Units for the five trading days ending on the third trading day immediately preceding the Effective Time and (ii) the closing price of ETP Common Units on the third trading day immediately preceding the Effective Time, rounded to the nearest ten thousandth of a unit. Each Regency series A preferred unit will be converted into the right to receive a preferred unit representing a limited partner interest in ETP, a new class of units in ETP to be established at the Effective Time. The transaction is subject to other customary closing conditions including approval by Regency’s unitholders. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2015.

•

In December 2014, ETP and ETE announced the final terms of a transaction, whereby ETE will transfer 30.8 million ETP Common Units, ETE’s 45% interest in the Dakota Access Pipeline and Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline (collectively, the “Bakken pipeline project”), and $879 million in cash (less amounts funded prior to closing by ETE for capital expenditures for the Bakken pipeline project) in exchange for 30.8 million newly issued ETP Class H Units that, when combined with the 50.2 million previously issued ETP Class H Units, generally entitle ETE to receive 90.05% of the cash distributions and other economic attributes of the general partner interest and IDRs of Sunoco Logistics. In addition, ETE and ETP agreed to reduce the IDR subsidies that ETE previously agreed to provide to ETP, with such reductions occurring in 2015 and 2016. This transaction is expected to close in March 2015.


•	In October 2014, Sunoco LP acquired MACS from a subsidiary of ETP in a transaction valued at approximately $768 million. The transaction included approximately 110 company-operated retail convenience stores and 200 dealer-operated and consignment sites from MACS.


•	In August 2014, ETP and Susser completed the merger of an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ETP, with and into Susser, with Susser surviving the merger as a subsidiary of ETP for total consideration valued at approximately $1.8 billion (the “Susser Merger”).

•

In July 2014, Regency acquired Eagle Rock’s midstream business for $1.3 billion, including the issuance of 8.2 million Regency common units to Eagle Rock and the assumption of $499 million of Eagle Rock’s 8.375% senior notes due 2019 (the “Eagle Rock Acquisition”). The remainder of the purchase price was funded by $400 million in common units issued to ETE and borrowing under Regency’s revolving credit facility. This acquisition complements Regency’s core gathering and processing business, and when combined with the PVR Acquisition, further diversifies Regency’s basin exposure in the Texas Panhandle, east Texas and south Texas.

•

In March 2014, Regency acquired PVR for a total purchase price of $5.7 billion, including $1.8 billion principal amount of assumed debt (the “PVR Acquisition”). PVR unitholders received (on a per unit basis) 1.02 Regency Common Units and a one-time cash payment of $36 million, which was funded through borrowings under Regency’s revolving credit facility. The PVR Acquisition enhanced Regency’s geographic diversity with a strategic presence in the Marcellus and Utica shales in the Appalachian Basin and the Granite Wash in the Mid-Continent region.


•	In February 2014, ETP completed the transfer to ETE of Lake Charles LNG, the entity that owns a LNG regasification facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana, in exchange for the redemption by ETP of 18.7 million ETP Common Units held by ETE. This transaction was effective as of January 1, 2014.


•	In 2014, ETP sold 18.9 million of the AmeriGas common units that ETP originally received in connection with the contribution of ETP’s Propane Business to AmeriGas in January 2012.

Business Strategy

Our primary business objective is to increase cash available for distributions to our unitholders by actively assisting our subsidiaries in executing their business strategies by assisting in identifying, evaluating and pursuing strategic acquisitions and growth opportunities. In general, we expect that we will allow our subsidiaries the first opportunity to pursue any acquisition or internal growth project that may be presented to us which may be within the scope of their operations or business strategies. In the future, we may also support the growth of our subsidiaries through the use of our capital resources which could involve loans, capital

Table of Contents

contributions or other forms of credit support to our subsidiaries. This funding could be used for the acquisition by one of our subsidiaries of a business or asset or for an internal growth project. In addition, the availability of this capital could assist our subsidiaries in arranging financing for a project, reducing its financing costs or otherwise supporting a merger or acquisition transaction.

Segment Overview

As a result of the Lake Charles LNG Transaction in 2014, our reportable segments were re-evaluated and currently reflect the following reportable segments:

•Investment in ETP, including the consolidated operations of ETP;


•	Investment in Regency, including the consolidated operations of Regency;


•	Investment in Lake Charles LNG, including the operations of Lake Charles LNG; and


•	Corporate and Other, including the activities of the Parent Company.

The businesses within these segments are described below. See Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements for additional financial information about our reportable segments.

Investment in ETP

ETP’s operations include the following:

Intrastate Transportation and Storage Operations

ETP also generates revenues and margin from the sale of natural gas to electric utilities, independent power plants, local distribution companies, industrial end-users and other marketing companies on the HPL System. In addition, ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations generate revenues from fees charged for storing customers’ working natural gas in ETP’s storage facilities and from margin from managing natural gas for its own account.

Interstate Transportation and Storage Operations

ETP’s natural gas transportation pipelines receive natural gas from other mainline transportation pipelines and gathering systems and deliver the natural gas to industrial end-users, utilities and other pipelines. Through its interstate transportation and storage operations, ETP directly owns and operates approximately 12,800 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline with approximately 11.3 Bcf per day of transportation capacity and has a 50% interest in the joint venture that owns the 185-mile Fayetteville Express pipeline. ETP also owns a 50% interest in Citrus which owns 100% of FGT, an approximately 5,400 mile pipeline system that extends from south Texas through the Gulf Coast to south Florida.

ETP’s interstate transportation and storage operations include Panhandle, which owns and operates a large natural gas open-access interstate pipeline network. The pipeline network, consisting of the PEPL, Trunkline and Sea Robin transmission systems, serves customers in the Midwest, Gulf Coast and Midcontinent United States with a comprehensive array of transportation and storage services. In connection with its natural gas pipeline transmission and storage systems, Panhandle has five natural gas storage fields located in Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan and Oklahoma. Southwest Gas operates four of these fields and Trunkline operates one.

We are currently developing plans to convert a portion of the Trunkline gas pipeline to crude oil transportation.

The results from ETP’s interstate transportation and storage operations are primarily derived from the fees ETP earns from natural gas transportation and storage services.

Midstream Operations

The midstream natural gas industry is the link between the exploration and production of natural gas and the delivery of its components to end-use markets. The midstream industry consists of natural gas gathering, compression, treating, processing and transportation, and is generally characterized by regional competition based on the proximity of gathering systems and processing plants to natural gas producing wells.

Table of Contents

Through ETP’s midstream operations, ETP owns and operates approximately 7,200 miles of in service natural gas and NGL gathering pipelines with approximately 5.7 Bcf/d of gathering capacity, 6 natural gas processing plants, 15 natural gas treating facilities and 3 natural gas conditioning facilities with an aggregate processing, treating and conditioning capacity of approximately 4.6 Bcf/d. ETP’s midstream operations focus on the gathering, compression, treating, blending, and processing, and its operations are currently concentrated in major producing basins and shales, including the Austin Chalk trend and Eagle Ford Shale in South and Southeast Texas, the Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico, the Barnett Shale and Woodford Shale in North Texas, the Bossier Sands in East Texas, the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia, and the Haynesville Shale in East Texas and Louisiana. Many of ETP’s midstream assets are integrated with its intrastate transportation and storage assets.

Liquids Transportation and Services Operations

NGL transportation pipelines transport mixed NGLs and other hydrocarbons from natural gas processing facilities to fractionation plants and storage facilities. NGL storage facilities are used for the storage of mixed NGLs, NGL products and petrochemical products owned by third-parties in storage tanks and underground wells, which allow for the injection and withdrawal of such products at various times of the year to meet demand cycles. NGL fractionators separate mixed NGL streams into purity products, such as ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane and natural gasoline.

Through ETP’s liquids transportation and services operations ETP has a 70% interest in Lone Star, which owns approximately 2,000 miles of NGL pipelines with an aggregate transportation capacity of approximately 388,000 Bbls/d, three NGL processing plants with an aggregate processing capacity of approximately 904 MMcf/d, four NGL and propane fractionation facilities with an aggregate capacity of 325,000 Bbls/d and NGL storage facilities with aggregate working storage capacity of approximately 53 million Bbls. Three NGL and propane fractionation facilities and the NGL storage facilities are located at Mont Belvieu, Texas, one NGL fractionation facility is located in Geismar, Louisiana, and the NGL pipelines primarily transport NGLs from the Permian and Delaware basins and the Barnett and Eagle Ford Shales to Mont Belvieu. ETP also owns and operates approximately 274 miles of NGL pipelines including a 50% interest in the joint venture that owns the Liberty pipeline, an approximately 87-mile NGL pipeline and the recently converted 83-mile Rio Bravo crude oil pipeline.

ETP’s Investment in Sunoco Logistics

ETP’s interests in Sunoco Logistics consist of a 1.9% general partner interest, 100% of the IDRs and 67.1 million Sunoco Logistics common units representing 29.7% of the limited partner interests in Sunoco Logistics as of December 31, 2014. Because ETP controls Sunoco Logistics through its ownership of the general partner, the operations of Sunoco Logistics are consolidated into ETP.

Sunoco Logistics 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 and refined petroleum products pipelines primarily in the northeast, midwest and southwest regions of the United States. In 2013, Sunoco Logistics expanded its operations of pipeline transportation, acquisition, storage and marketing of NGLs. In addition, Sunoco Logistics has ownership interests in several product pipeline joint ventures.

Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines transport crude oil in the southwest and midwest United States, principally in Oklahoma and Texas. Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines consist of approximately 5,300 miles of crude oil trunk pipelines for high-volume, long-distance transportation and approximately 500 miles of crude oil gathering lines that supply the trunk pipelines.

Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil acquisition and marketing business gathers, purchases, markets and sells crude oil principally in the mid-continent United States, utilizing its proprietary fleet of approximately 335 crude oil transport trucks and approximately 135 crude oil truck unloading facilities as well as third-party assets.

Sunoco Logistics’ terminal facilities consist of crude oil, refined products and NGL terminals which receive products from pipelines, barges, railcars, and trucks and distribute them to third parties and certain affiliates, who in turn deliver them to end-users and retail outlets. Sunoco Logistics’ terminal facilities operate with an aggregate storage capacity of approximately 48 million barrels, including the 25 million barrel Nederland, Texas crude oil terminal; the 6 million barrel Eagle Point, New Jersey refined products and crude oil terminal; the 3 million barrel Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania refined products and NGL facility (the “Marcus Hook Industrial Complex”); approximately 39 active refined products marketing terminals located in the northeast, midwest and southwest United States; and refinery terminals located in the northeast United States.

Sunoco Logistics’ product pipelines transport refined products and NGLs including multiple grades of gasoline, middle distillates (such as heating oil, diesel and jet fuel) and LPGs (such as propane and butane) from refineries to markets. Sunoco Logistics’ products pipelines consist of approximately 2,400 miles of refined products and NGL pipelines and joint venture interests in four products pipelines in selected areas of the United States.

Table of Contents

Retail Marketing Operations

ETP’s retail marketing business operations are conducted through various wholly-owned subsidiaries as well as through Sunoco LP, which ETP controls through its ownership of the general partner.

ETP’s retail marketing and wholesale distribution operations include the following activities conducted in 30 states, primarily on the east cost, midwest and south regions of the United States:


•	Sale of motor fuel (gasoline and diesel) and merchandise at company-operated retail locations and branded convenience stores.


•	Distribution of gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products to convenience stores, independent dealers, distributors and other commercial customers.

ETP’s Other Operations and Investments

ETP’s other operations and investments include the following:


•	ETP owns an investment in Regency consisting of the Regency common units and Class F units received by Southern Union (now Panhandle) in exchange for the contribution of its interest in Southern Union Gathering Company, LLC to Regency on April 30, 2013.


•	Sunoco, Inc. owns an approximate 33% non-operating interest in PES, a refining joint venture with The Carlyle Group, L.P. (“The Carlyle Group”), which owns a refinery in Philadelphia. Sunoco, Inc. has a supply contract for gasoline and diesel produced at the refinery for its retail marketing business.

•

ETP conducts marketing operations in which it markets the natural gas that flows through its gathering and intrastate transportation assets, referred to as on-system gas. ETP also attracts other customers by marketing volumes of natural gas that do not move through its assets, referred to as off-system gas. For both on-system and off-system gas, ETP purchases natural gas from natural gas producers and other suppliers and sells that natural gas to utilities, industrial consumers, other marketers and pipeline companies, thereby generating gross margins based upon the difference between the purchase and resale prices of natural gas, less the costs of transportation. For the off-system gas, ETP purchases gas or acts as an agent for small independent producers that may not have marketing operations.


•	ETP owns all of the outstanding equity interests of a natural gas compression equipment business with operations in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas.


•	ETP owns 100% of the membership interests of ETG, which owns all of the partnership interests of Energy Transfer Technologies, Ltd. (“ETT”). ETT provides compression services to customers engaged in the transportation of natural gas, including ETP’s other operations.


•	ETP owns a 40% interest in LCL, which is developing a LNG liquefaction project.

Investment in Regency

Regency’s operations include the following:

Gathering and Processing Operations

Regency provides “wellhead-to-market” services to producers of natural gas, which include transporting raw natural gas from the wellhead through gathering systems, processing raw natural gas to separate NGLs from the raw natural gas and selling or delivering the pipeline-quality natural gas and NGLs to various markets and pipeline systems, and the gathering of oil (crude and/or condensate, a lighter oil) received from producers, the gathering and disposing of salt water, and natural gas and NGL marketing and trading. These operations also include Regency’s 60% interest in Edwards Lime Gathering LLC, which operates natural gas gathering, oil pipeline, and oil stabilization facilities in south Texas, Regency’s 33.33% membership interest in Ranch Westex JV LLC, which processes natural gas delivered from the NGLs-rich shale formations in west Texas, Regency’s 50% interest in Sweeny Gathering LP, which operates a natural gas gathering facility in south Texas, Regency’s 51% membership interest in Aqua - PVR Water Services, LLC, which transports and supplies fresh water to natural gas producers in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania, Regency’s 75% membership interest in Ohio River System LLC, which will operate a natural gas gathering system in the Utica shale in Ohio, and Regency’s 50% interest in Mi Vida JV LLC, which will operate a cryogenic processing plant and related facilities in west Texas.

Table of Contents

Natural Gas Transportation Operations

Regency owns a 49.99% general partner interest in HPC, which owns RIGS, a 450-mile intrastate pipeline that delivers natural gas from northwest Louisiana to downstream pipelines and markets, and a 50% membership interest in MEP, which owns a 500-mile interstate natural gas pipeline stretching from southeast Oklahoma through northeast Texas, northern Louisiana and central Mississippi to an interconnect with the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line system in Butler, Alabama. These operations also include Gulf States, which owns a 10-mile interstate pipeline that extends from Harrison County, Texas to Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

NGL Services Operations

Regency owns a 30% membership interest in Lone Star with ETP owning the remaining 70% membership interest.

Contract Services Operations

Regency owns and operates a fleet of compressors used to provide turn-key natural gas compression services for customer specific systems. Regency also owns and operates a fleet of equipment used to provide treating services, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide removal, natural gas cooling, dehydration and BTU management.

Natural Resources Operations

Regency is involved in the management of coal and natural resources properties and the related collection of royalties. Regency also earns revenues from other land management activities, such as selling standing timber, leasing coal-related infrastructure facilities, and collecting oil and gas royalties. These operations also included Regency’s 50% interesting in Coal Handling, which owns and operates end-user coal handling facilities. Regency purchased the remaining 50% interest in Coal Handling effective December 31, 2014.

Investment in Lake Charles LNG

Lake Charles LNG provides terminal services for shippers by receiving LNG at the facility for storage and delivering such LNG to shippers, either in liquid state or gaseous state after regasification. Lake Charles LNG derives all of its revenue from a series of long term contracts with a wholly-owned subsidiary of BG Group plc (“BG”).

Lake Charles LNG is currently developing a planned liquefaction facility with BG for the export of LNG.

Asset Overview

Investment in ETP

The following details the assets in ETP’s operations:

Intrastate Transportation and Storage

The following details pipelines and storage facilities in ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations:

ET Fuel System


•	Capacity of 5.2 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 2,870 miles of natural gas pipeline


•	Two storage facilities with 12.4 Bcf of total working gas capacity


•	Bi-directional capabilities

The ET Fuel System serves some of the most prolific production areas in the United States and is comprised of intrastate natural gas pipeline and related natural gas storage facilities. The ET Fuel System has many interconnections with pipelines providing direct access to power plants, other intrastate and interstate pipelines and is strategically located near high-growth production areas and provides access to the Waha Hub near Midland, Texas, the Katy Hub near Houston, Texas and the Carthage Hub in East Texas, the three major natural gas trading centers in Texas.

The ET Fuel System also includes ETP’s Bethel natural gas storage facility, with a working capacity of 6.4 Bcf, an average withdrawal capacity of 300 MMcf/d and an injection capacity of 75 MMcf/d, and ETP’s Bryson natural gas storage facility, with a working capacity of 6.0 Bcf, an average withdrawal capacity of 120 MMcf/d and an average injection capacity of 96 MMcf/d. All of ETP’s storage capacity on the ET Fuel System is contracted to third parties under fee-based arrangements that extend through 2017.

Table of Contents

In addition, the ET Fuel System is integrated with ETP’s Godley processing plant which gives ETP the ability to bypass the plant when processing margins are unfavorable by blending the untreated natural gas from the North Texas System with natural gas on the ET Fuel System while continuing to meet pipeline quality specifications.

Oasis Pipeline


•	Capacity of 1.2 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 600 miles of natural gas pipeline


•	Connects Waha to Katy market hubs


•	Bi-directional capabilities

The Oasis pipeline is primarily a 36-inch natural gas pipeline. It has bi-directional capability with approximately 1.2 Bcf/d of throughput capacity moving west-to-east and greater than 750 MMcf/d of throughput capacity moving east-to-west. The Oasis pipeline has many interconnections with other pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, municipalities and producers.

The Oasis pipeline is integrated with ETP’s Southeast Texas System and is an important component to maximizing ETP’s Southeast Texas System’s profitability. The Oasis pipeline enhances the Southeast Texas System by (i) providing access for natural gas on the Southeast Texas System to other third party supply and market points and interconnecting pipelines and (ii) allowing ETP to bypass ETP’s processing plants and treating facilities on the Southeast Texas System when processing margins are unfavorable by blending untreated natural gas from the Southeast Texas System with gas on the Oasis pipeline while continuing to meet pipeline quality specifications.

HPL System


•	Capacity of 5.3 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 3,800 miles of natural gas pipeline


•	Bammel storage facility with 52.5 Bcf of total working gas capacity

The HPL System is an extensive network of intrastate natural gas pipelines, an underground Bammel storage reservoir and related transportation assets. The system has access to multiple sources of historically significant natural gas supply reserves from South Texas, the Gulf Coast of Texas, East Texas and the western Gulf of Mexico, and is directly connected to major gas distribution, electric and industrial load centers in Houston, Corpus Christi, Texas City and other cities located along the Gulf Coast of Texas. The HPL System is well situated to gather and transport gas in many of the major gas producing areas in Texas including a strong presence in the key Houston Ship Channel and Katy Hub markets, allowing ETP to play an important role in the Texas natural gas markets. The HPL System also offers its shippers off-system opportunities due to its numerous interconnections with other pipeline systems, its direct access to multiple market hubs at Katy, the Houston Ship Channel and Agua Dulce, and ETP’s Bammel storage facility.

The Bammel storage facility has a total working gas capacity of approximately 52.5 Bcf, a peak withdrawal rate of 1.3 Bcf/d and a peak injection rate of 0.6 Bcf/d. The Bammel storage facility is located near the Houston Ship Channel market area and the Katy Hub and is ideally suited to provide a physical backup for on-system and off-system customers. As of December 31, 2014, ETP had approximately 9.3 Bcf committed under fee-based arrangements with third parties and approximately 40.2 Bcf stored in the facility for ETP’s own account.

East Texas Pipeline


•	Capacity of 2.4 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 370 miles of natural gas pipeline

The East Texas pipeline connects three treating facilities, one of which ETP owns, with ETP’s Southeast Texas System. The East Texas pipeline serves producers in East and North Central Texas and provides access to the Katy Hub. The East Texas pipeline includes the 36-inch East Texas extension to connect ETP’s Reed compressor station in Freestone County to ETP’s Grimes County compressor station, the 36-inch Katy expansion connecting Grimes to the Katy Hub, and the 42-inch Southeast Bossier pipeline connecting ETP’s Cleburne to Carthage pipeline to the HPL System.

Table of Contents

Interstate Transportation and Storage

The following details ETP’s pipelines in the interstate transportation and storage operations.

Florida Gas Transmission Pipeline


•	Capacity of 3.1 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 5,400 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline


•	FGT is owned by Citrus, a 50/50 joint venture with Kinder Morgan, Inc. (“KMI”)

The Florida Gas Transmission pipeline is an open-access interstate pipeline system with a mainline capacity of 3.1 Bcf/d and approximately 5,400 miles of pipelines extending from south Texas through the Gulf Coast region of the United States to south Florida. The Florida Gas Transmission pipeline system receives natural gas from various onshore and offshore natural gas producing basins. FGT is the principal transporter of natural gas to the Florida energy market, delivering over 65% of the natural gas consumed in the state. In addition, Florida Gas Transmission’s pipeline system operates and maintains over 75 interconnects with major interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines, which provide FGT’s customers access to diverse natural gas producing regions.

FGT’s customers include electric utilities, independent power producers, industrials and local distribution companies.

Transwestern Pipeline


•	Capacity of 2.1 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 2,600 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline


•	Bi-directional capabilities

The Transwestern pipeline is an open-access interstate natural gas pipeline extending from the gas producing regions of West Texas, eastern and northwestern New Mexico, and southern Colorado primarily to pipeline interconnects off the east end of its system and to pipeline interconnects at the California border. The Transwestern pipeline has access to three significant gas basins: the Permian Basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico; the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico and southern Colorado; and the Anadarko Basin in the Texas and Oklahoma panhandle. Natural gas sources from the San Juan Basin and surrounding producing areas can be delivered eastward to Texas intrastate and mid-continent connecting pipelines and natural gas market hubs as well as westward to markets in Arizona, Nevada and California. Transwestern’s Phoenix lateral pipeline, with a throughput capacity of 500 MMcf/d, connects the Phoenix area to the Transwestern mainline.

Transwestern’s customers include local distribution companies, producers, marketers, electric power generators and industrial end-users.

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line


•	Capacity of 2.8 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 6,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline


•	Bi-directional capabilities

The Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line’s transmission system consists of four large diameter pipelines extending approximately 1,300 miles from producing areas in the Anadarko Basin of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas through Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and into Michigan. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line is owned by a subsidiary of ETP Holdco.

Trunkline Gas Company


•	Capacity of 1.7 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 3,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline


•	Bi-directional capabilities

The Trunkline Gas pipeline’s transmission system consists of two large diameter pipelines extending approximately 1,400 miles from the Gulf Coast areas of Texas and Louisiana through Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana and to Michigan. Trunkline Gas pipeline is owned by a subsidiary of ETP Holdco.

ETP is currently developing plans to convert a portion of the Trunkline gas pipeline to crude oil transportation.

Table of Contents

Tiger Pipeline


•	Capacity of 2.4 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 195 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline


•	Bi-directional capabilities

The Tiger pipeline is an approximately 195-mile interstate natural gas pipeline that connects to ETP’s dual 42-inch pipeline system near Carthage, Texas, extends through the heart of the Haynesville Shale and ends near Delhi, Louisiana, with interconnects to at least seven interstate pipelines at various points in Louisiana. The pipeline has a capacity of 2.4 Bcf/d, all of which is sold under long-term contracts ranging from 10 to 15 years.

Fayetteville Express Pipeline


•	Capacity of 2.0 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 185 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline


•	50/50 joint venture through ETC FEP with KMI

The Fayetteville Express pipeline is an approximately 185-mile interstate natural gas pipeline that originates near Conway County, Arkansas, continues eastward through White County, Arkansas and terminates at an interconnect with Trunkline Gas Company in Panola County, Mississippi. The pipeline has long-term contracts for 1.85 Bcf/d ranging from 10 to 12 years.

Sea Robin Pipeline


•	Capacity of 2.3 Bcf/d


•	Approximately 1,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline

The Sea Robin pipeline’s transmission system consists of two offshore Louisiana natural gas supply systems extending approximately 120 miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

Midstream

The following details the assets in ETP’s midstream operations:

Southeast Texas System


•	Approximately 6,400 miles of natural gas pipeline


•	One natural gas processing plant (La Grange) with aggregate capacity of 210 MMcf/d


•	11 natural gas treating facilities with aggregate capacity of 1.4 Bcf/d


•	One natural gas conditioning facility with aggregate capacity of 200 MMcf/d

The Southeast Texas System is an integrated system that gathers, compresses, treats, processes and transports natural gas from the Austin Chalk trend. The Southeast Texas System is a large natural gas gathering system covering thirteen counties between Austin and Houston. This system is connected to the Katy Hub through the East Texas pipeline and is connected to the Oasis pipeline, as well as two power plants. This allows ETP to bypass processing plants and treating facilities when processing margins are unfavorable by blending untreated natural gas from the Southeast Texas System with natural gas on the Oasis pipeline while continuing to meet pipeline quality specifications.

The La Grange processing plant is a natural gas processing plant that processes the rich natural gas that flows through ETP’s system to produce residue gas and NGLs. Residue gas is delivered into ETP’s intrastate pipelines and NGLs are delivered into ETP’s NGL pipelines and then to Lone Star.

ETP’s treating facilities remove carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from natural gas gathered into ETP’s system before the natural gas is introduced to transportation pipelines to ensure that the gas meets pipeline quality specifications. In addition, ETP’s conditioning facilities remove heavy hydrocarbons from the gas gathered into ETP’s systems so the gas can be redelivered and meet downstream pipeline hydrocarbon dew point specifications.

North Texas System


•	Approximately 160 miles of natural gas pipeline


•	One natural gas processing plant (the Godley plant) with aggregate capacity of 700 MMcf/d


•	One natural gas conditioning facility with capacity of 100 MMcf/d

Table of Contents

The North Texas System is an integrated system located in four counties in North Texas that gathers, compresses, treats, processes and transports natural gas from the Barnett and Woodford Shales. The system includes ETP’s Godley processing plant, which processes rich natural gas produced from the Barnett Shale and is integrated with the North Texas System and the ET Fuel System. The facility consists of a processing plant and a conditioning facility.

Northern Louisiana


•	Approximately 280 miles of natural gas pipeline


•	Three natural gas treating facilities with aggregate capacity of 385 MMcf/d

ETP’s Northern Louisiana assets comprise several gathering systems in the Haynesville Shale with access to multiple markets through interconnects with several pipelines, including ETP’s Tiger pipeline. The Northern Louisiana assets include the Bistineau, Creedence, and Tristate Systems.

Eagle Ford System


•	Approximately 245 miles of natural gas pipeline


•	Three processing plants (Chisholm, Kenedy and Jackson) with capacity of 1,160 MMcf/d


•	One natural gas treating facility with capacity of 300 MMcf/d

The Eagle Ford gathering system consists of 30-inch and 42-inch natural gas transportation pipelines delivering 1.4 Bcf/d of capacity originating in Dimmitt County, Texas and extending to ETP’s Chisholm pipeline for ultimate deliveries to ETP’s existing processing plants. The Chisholm, Kenedy and Jackson processing plants are connected to ETP’s intrastate transportation pipeline systems for deliveries of residue gas and are also connected with ETP’s NGL pipelines for delivery of NGLs to Lone Star.

Other Midstream Assets

The midstream operations also include ETP’s interests in various midstream assets located in Texas, New Mexico and Louisiana, with approximately 60 miles of gathering pipelines aggregating a combined capacity of approximately 115 MMcf/d, as well as one conditioning facility and the recently commissioned Rebel processing plant with capacity of 130 MMcf/d. ETP also owns approximately 50 miles of gathering pipelines serving the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia with aggregate capacity of approximately 250 MMcf/d.

Liquids Transportation and Services

The following details ETP’s assets in the liquids transportation and services operations. Certain assets, as discussed below, are owned by Lone Star, a joint venture with Regency in which ETP has a 70% interest.

West Texas System


•	Capacity of 137,000 Bbls/d


•	Approximately 1,170 miles of NGL transmission pipelines

The West Texas System, owned by Lone Star, is an intrastate NGL pipeline consisting of 3-inch to 16-inch long-haul, mixed NGLs transportation pipeline that delivers 137,000 Bbls/d of capacity from processing plants in the Permian Basin and Barnett Shale to the Mont Belvieu NGL storage facility.

West Texas Gateway Pipeline


•	Capacity of 209,000 Bbls/d


•	Approximately 570 miles of NGL transmission pipeline

The West Texas Gateway Pipeline, owned by Lone Star, began service in December 2012 and transports NGLs produced in the Permian and Delaware Basins and the Eagle Ford Shale to Mont Belvieu, Texas.

Other NGL Pipelines


•	Aggregate capacity of 490,000 Bbls/d


•	Approximately 274 miles of NGL transmission pipelines

Other NGL pipelines include the 127-mile Justice pipeline with capacity of 340,000 Bbls/d, the 87-mile Liberty pipeline with a capacity of 90,000 Bbls/d, the 45-mile Freedom pipeline with a capacity of 40,000 Bbls/d and the 15-mile Spirit pipeline with a capacity of 20,000 Bbls/d.

Table of Contents

Rio Bravo Pipeline


•	Aggregate capacity of 100,000 Bbls/d


•	Approximately 83 miles of crude oil transmission pipeline

In 2014, ETP converted approximately 80 miles of natural gas pipeline from the HPL and Southeast Texas Systems to crude service and constructed approximately 3 miles of new crude oil pipeline.

Mont Belvieu Facilities


•	Working storage capacity of approximately 48 million Bbls


•	Approximately 185 miles of NGL transmission pipelines


•	300,000 Bbls/d NGL and propane fractionation facilities

The Mont Belvieu storage facility, owned by Lone Star, is an integrated liquids storage facility with over 48 million Bbls of salt dome capacity providing 100% fee-based cash flows. The Mont Belvieu storage facility has access to multiple NGL and refined product pipelines, the Houston Ship Channel trading hub, and numerous chemical plants, refineries and fractionators.

The Lone Star Fractionators I and II, completed in December 2012 and October 2013, respectively, handle NGLs delivered from several sources, including Lone Star’s West Texas Gateway pipeline and the Justice pipeline.

Hattiesburg Storage Facility


•	Working storage capacity of approximately 4.5 million Bbls

The Hattiesburg storage facility, owned by Lone Star, is an integrated liquids storage facility with approximately 4.5 million Bbls of salt dome capacity, providing 100% fee-based cash flows.

Sea Robin Processing Plant


•	One processing plant with 850 MMcf/d residue capacity and 26,000 Bbls/d NGL capacity


•	20% non-operating interest held by Lone Star

Sea Robin is a rich gas processing plant located on the Sea Robin Pipeline in southern Louisiana. The plant, which is connected to nine interstate and four intrastate residue pipelines as well as various deep-water production fields, has a residue capacity of 850 MMcf/d and an NGL capacity of 26,000 Bbls/d.

Refinery Services


•	Two processing plants (Chalmette and Sorrento) with capacity of 54 MMcf/d


•	One NGL fractionator with 25,000 Bbls/d capacity


•	Approximately 100 miles of NGL pipelines

Refinery Services, owned by Lone Star, consists of a refinery off-gas processing and O-grade NGL fractionation complex located along the Mississippi River refinery corridor in southern Louisiana that cryogenically processes refinery off-gas and fractionates the O-grade NGL stream into its higher value components. The O-grade fractionator located in Geismar, Louisiana is connected by approximately 100 miles of pipeline to the Chalmette processing plant.

Investment in Sunoco Logistics

The following details the assets in ETP’s investment in Sunoco Logistics:

Crude Oil Pipelines

Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines consist of approximately 5,300 miles of crude oil trunk pipelines for high-volume, long-distance transportation and approximately 500 miles of crude oil gathering pipelines in the southwest and midwest United States. These lines primarily deliver crude oil and other feedstocks to refineries in those regions. Following is a description of Sunoco Logistics’ crude pipelines:

•

Southwest United States: The Southwest United States pipeline system includes approximately 3,150 miles of crude oil trunk pipelines and approximately 300 miles of crude oil gathering pipelines in Texas. The Texas system includes the West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company’s common carrier crude oil pipelines, which originate from the West Texas oil fields at Colorado City, Texas and is connected to the Mid-Valley pipeline, other third-party pipelines and the Nederland Terminal. In December 2014, Sunoco Logistics acquired an additional 28.3% ownership interest in the West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company from

Table of Contents

Chevron Pipe Line Company, increasing its controlling financial interest in the consolidated subsidiary to 88.6%. The remaining 11.4% was acquired from Southwest Pipeline Holding Company, LLC in January 2015.

The Southwest United States pipeline system also includes the Oklahoma crude oil pipeline and gathering system that consists of approximately 1,050 miles of crude oil trunk pipelines and approximately 200 miles of crude oil gathering pipelines. Sunoco Logistics has the ability to deliver substantially all of the crude oil gathered on the Oklahoma system to Cushing, Oklahoma and is one of the largest purchasers of crude oil from producers in the state.

•

Midwest United States: The Midwest United States pipeline system includes Sunoco Logistics’ majority interest in the Mid-Valley Pipeline Company and consists of approximately 1,000 miles of a crude oil pipeline that originates in Longview, Texas and passes through Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio, and terminates in Samaria, Michigan. This pipeline provides crude oil to a number of refineries, primarily in the midwest United States.

Sunoco Logistics also owns approximately 100 miles of crude oil pipeline that runs from Marysville, Michigan to Toledo, Ohio, and a truck injection point for local production at Marysville. This pipeline receives crude oil from the Enbridge pipeline system for delivery to refineries located in Toledo, Ohio and to Marathon’s Samaria, Michigan tank farm, which supplies its refinery in Detroit, Michigan.

Crude Oil Acquisition and Marketing

Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil acquisition and marketing activities include the gathering, purchasing, marketing and selling of crude oil primarily in the mid-continent United States. The operations are conducted using Sunoco Logistics’ assets, which include approximately 335 crude oil transport trucks and approximately 135 crude oil truck unloading facilities, as well as third-party truck, rail and marine assets. Specifically, the crude oil acquisition and marketing activities include:


•	purchasing crude oil at the wellhead from producers, and in bulk from aggregators at major pipeline interconnections and trading locations;


•	storing inventory during contango market conditions (when the price of crude oil for future delivery is higher than current prices);


•	buying and selling crude oil of different grades, at different locations in order to maximize value;


•	transporting crude oil on Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines and trucks or, when necessary or cost effective, pipelines or trucks owned and operated by third parties; and


•	marketing crude oil to major integrated oil companies, independent refiners and resellers through various types of sale and exchange transactions.

Terminal Facilities

Sunoco Logistics’ 39 active refined products terminals receive refined products from pipelines, barges, railcars, and trucks and distribute them to third parties and certain affiliates, who in turn deliver them to end-users and retail outlets. Terminals are facilities where products are transferred to or from storage or transportation systems, such as a pipeline, to other transportation systems, such as trucks or other pipelines.

Terminals play a key role in moving product to the end-user markets by providing the following services: storage; distribution; blending to achieve specified grades of gasoline and middle distillates; and other ancillary services that include the injection of additives and the filtering of jet fuel. Typically, Sunoco Logistics’ refined products terminal facilities consist of multiple storage tanks and are equipped with automated truck loading equipment that is operational 24 hours a day. This automated system provides controls over allocations, credit, and carrier certification.

•

Nederland Terminal: The Nederland Terminal, located on the Sabine-Neches waterway between Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas, is a large marine terminal providing storage and distribution services for refiners and other large transporters of crude oil and NGLs. The terminal receives, stores, and distributes crude oil, NGLs, feedstocks, lubricants, petrochemicals, and bunker oils (used for fueling ships and other marine vessels), and also blends lubricants. The terminal currently has a total storage capacity of approximately 25 million barrels in approximately 130 above ground storage tanks with individual capacities of up to 660,000 barrels.

The Nederland Terminal can receive crude oil at each of its five ship docks and three barge berths. The five ship docks are capable of receiving over 2 million Bbls/d of crude oil. In addition to Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines, the terminal can also receive crude oil through a number of other pipelines, including the DOE. The DOE pipelines connect the terminal to the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve’s West Hackberry caverns at Hackberry, Louisiana and Big Hill near Winnie, Texas, which have an aggregate storage capacity of approximately 400 million barrels.

Table of Contents

The Nederland Terminal can deliver crude oil and other petroleum products via pipeline, barge, ship, rail, or truck. In total, the terminal is capable of delivering over 2 million Bbls/d of crude oil to Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines or a number of third-party pipelines including DOE. The Nederland Terminal can also receive NGLs in connection with the Mariner South pipeline.

•

Fort Mifflin Terminal Complex: The Fort Mifflin Terminal Complex is located on the Delaware River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and includes the Fort Mifflin Terminal, the Hog Island Wharf, the Darby Creek tank farm and connecting pipelines. Revenues are generated from the Fort Mifflin Terminal Complex by charging fees based on throughput. The Fort Mifflin Terminal contains two ship docks with freshwater drafts and a total storage capacity of approximately 570,000 barrels. Crude oil and some refined products enter the Fort Mifflin Terminal primarily from marine vessels on the Delaware River. One Fort Mifflin dock is designed to handle crude oil from very large crude carrier-class (“VLCC”) tankers and smaller crude oil vessels. The other dock can accommodate only smaller crude oil vessels.

The Hog Island Wharf is located next to the Fort Mifflin Terminal on the Delaware River and receives crude oil via two ship docks, one of which can accommodate crude oil tankers and smaller crude oil vessels, and the other of which can accommodate some smaller crude oil vessels.

The Darby Creek tank farm is a primary crude oil storage terminal for the Philadelphia refinery, which is operated by PES. This facility has a total storage capacity of approximately 3 million barrels. Darby Creek receives crude oil from the Fort Mifflin Terminal and Hog Island Wharf via Sunoco Logistics pipelines. The tank farm then stores the crude oil and transports it to the PES refinery via Sunoco Logistics pipelines.

•

Marcus Hook Industrial Complex: In 2013, Sunoco Logistics acquired Sunoco, Inc.’s Marcus Hook Industrial Complex. The acquisition included terminalling and storage assets with a capacity of approximately 3 million barrels located in Pennsylvania and Delaware, including approximately 2 million barrels of NGL storage capacity in underground caverns, and related commercial agreements. The facility can receive NGLs via marine vessel, pipeline, truck and rail, and can deliver via marine vessel, pipeline and truck. In addition to providing NGL storage and terminalling services to both affiliates and third-party customers, the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex also provides customers with the use of industrial space and equipment at the facility, as well as logistical, utility and infrastructure services.

•

Eagle Point Terminal: The Eagle Point Terminal is located in Westville, New Jersey and consists of docks, truck loading facilities and a tank farm. The docks are located on the Delaware River and can accommodate three marine vessels (ships or barges) to receive and deliver crude oil, intermediate products and refined products to outbound ships and barges. The tank farm has a total active storage capacity of approximately 6 million barrels and can receive crude oil and refined products via barge, pipeline and rail. The terminal can deliver via barge, truck, rail or pipeline, providing customers with access to various markets. The terminal generates revenue primarily by charging fees based on throughput, blending services and storage for clean products and dark oils.

•

Inkster Terminal: The Inkster Terminal, located near Detroit, Michigan, consists of eight salt caverns with a total storage capacity of approximately 975,000 barrels. The Inkster Terminal’s storage is used in connection with the Toledo, Ohio to Sarnia, Canada pipeline system and for the storage of NGLs from local producers and a refinery in western Ohio. The terminal can receive and ship by pipeline in both directions and has a truck loading and offloading rack.

Table of Contents

The following table outlines the number of Sunoco Logistics’ active terminals and storage capacity by state:



State	Number of Terminals	Storage Capacity (thousands of Bbls)
Indiana	1	206
Louisiana	1	161
Maryland	1	710
Massachusetts	1	1,144
Michigan	3	760
New Jersey	3	650
New York⁽¹⁾	4	920
Ohio	7	957
Pennsylvania	13	1,743
Texas	4	548
Virginia	1	403
Total	39	8,202


⁽¹⁾	Sunoco Logistics has a 45% ownership interest in a terminal at Inwood, New York and a 50% ownership interest in a terminal at Syracuse, New York. The storage capacities included in the table represent the proportionate share of capacity attributable to Sunoco Logistics’ ownership interests in these terminals.

Products Pipelines

Sunoco Logistics owns and operates approximately 2,400 miles of products pipelines in several regions of the United States. The products pipelines primarily transport refined products and NGLs from refineries in the northeast, midwest and southwest United States to markets in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Texas. These pipelines include approximately 350 miles of products pipelines owned by Sunoco Logistics’ consolidated joint venture, Inland Corporation (“Inland”).

The refined products transported in these pipelines include multiple grades of gasoline, middle distillates (such as heating oil, diesel and jet fuel), and LPGs (such as propane and butane). In addition, certain of these pipelines transport NGLs from processing and fractionation areas to marketing and distribution facilities. Rates for shipments on the products pipelines are regulated by the FERC and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PA PUC”), among other state regulatory agencies.

•

Mariner East: Mariner East 1 and Mariner East 2 are pipeline projects to deliver NGLs from the Marcellus and Utica Shale areas in western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and eastern Ohio to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex on the Delaware River in Pennsylvania, where it will be processed, stored and distributed to various local, domestic and waterborne markets. Mariner East 2 is the second phase of the project, which will expand the total take-away capacity to 345,000 Bbls/d. Mariner East 1 commenced initial operations in the fourth quarter of 2014 and Mariner East 2 is expected to commence operations in the fourth quarter 2016.


•	Mariner Souther: The Mariner South pipeline provides transportation of propane and butane products from the Mont Belvieu, Texas area to the Nederland Terminal, where such products can be sold by way of ship. Mariner South commenced initial operations in December 2014, with an initial capacity of 200,000 Bbls/d of NGLs and other products.

•

Inland: Inland is Sunoco Logistics’ 83.8% owned joint venture consisting of approximately 350 miles of active products pipelines in Ohio. The pipeline connects three refineries in Ohio to terminals and major markets within the state. As Sunoco Logistics owns a controlling financial interest in Inland, the joint venture is reflected as a consolidated subsidiary in its consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

Sunoco Logistics owns equity interests in several common carrier products pipelines, summarized in the following table:



Pipeline	Equity Ownership		Pipeline Mileage
Explorer Pipeline Company⁽¹⁾	13.3	%	1,850
Yellowstone Pipe Line Company⁽²⁾	14.0	%	700
West Shore Pipe Line Company⁽³⁾	17.1	%	650
Wolverine Pipe Line Company⁽⁴⁾	31.5	%	700

⁽¹⁾

The system, which is operated by Explorer employees, originates from the refining centers of Beaumont, Port Arthur and Houston, Texas, and extends to Chicago, Illinois, with delivery points in the Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Tulsa, St. Louis, and Chicago areas. Explorer charges market-based rates for all its tariffs. An additional 3.9% ownership interest was purchased in the first quarter of 2014.


⁽²⁾	The system, which is operated by Phillips 66, originates from the Billings, Montana refining center and extends to Moses Lake, Washington with delivery points along the way. Tariff rates are regulated by the FERC for interstate shipments and the Montana Public Service Commission for intrastate shipments in Montana.


⁽³⁾	The system, which is operated by Buckeye Partners, L.P., originates from the Chicago, Illinois refining center and extends to Madison and Green Bay, Wisconsin with delivery points along the way. West Shore charges market-based tariff rates in the Chicago area.


⁽⁴⁾	The system, which is operated by Wolverine employees, originates from Chicago, Illinois and extends to Detroit, Grand Haven, and Bay City, Michigan with delivery points along the way. Wolverine charges market-based rates for tariffs at the Detroit, Jackson, Niles, Hammond, and Lockport destinations.

Retail Marketing

ETP’s retail marketing and wholesale distribution operations consist of the retail sale of motor fuel and merchandise through company-operated locations, and the distribution of branded and unbranded motor fuel purchased primarily from refiners to company-operated retail sites, independently-operated retail sites, as well as other wholesale and commercial customers.

The business is operated through various wholly-owned subsidiaries as well as through Sunoco LP which ETP controls through its ownership of the general partner. ETP currently plans to contribute all of the retail operations and fuel distributions business to Sunoco LP in future periods. In October 2014, ETP completed the first of such transactions, when one of ETP’s subsidiaries contributed all of the ownership of MACS to Sunoco LP.

The retail marketing operations have a portfolio of outlets operating under three channels of trade: company-operated, dealer-operated and distributor-operated sites. The portfolio of sites in these channels differ in various ways including: site ownership and operation, product distribution to the outlets, and types/brands of products and services provided.

Company-operated sites, which are operated by one of our subsidiaries, and independent dealer-operated sites are sites at which fuel products are delivered directly to the site by company-operated trucks or by contract carriers. One of our subsidiaries may own or lease the property and collect rental income or an independent dealer owns or leases the property. Independent dealers are supplied under a contract with one of our subsidiaries. Most of the company-operated sites include a convenience store under the Aplus®, Stripes®, MACS, Tigermarket or Aloha Island Mart® brands. As of December 31, 2014, our subsidiaries were operating or supplying under a long-term contract a total of 75 Sunoco®-branded outlets on turnpikes and expressways in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ohio and Delaware.

Distributor outlets are primarily Sunoco®-branded sites in which the distributor takes delivery of fuel products at a terminal where branded products are available. ETP subsidiaries supply the distributor under a long-term contract, but do not own, lease or operate these distributor locations.

The highest concentration of retail outlets are located in Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida and Ohio.

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth ETP’s retail gasoline outlets at December 31, 2014 (including sites operated through its subsidiaries):



Retail and Fuel Distribution Outlets:	Sunoco LP	Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries	Total
Company-Owned or Leased:
Company-Operated⁽¹⁾	155	1,096	1,251
Dealer-Operated	138	425	563
Total	293	1,521	1,814
Dealer Owned	655	541	1,196
Distributor Outlets	—	3,640	3,640
Total	948	5,702	6,650


⁽¹⁾	Gasoline and diesel throughput per company-operated site averaged 177,236 gallons per month during 2014.

Brands

ETP manages a portfolio of strong proprietary fuel and convenience store brands through its retail and wholesale portfolio of outlets, including Sunoco®, Stripes®, Aplus®, and Aloha Island Mart®.

Of the total retail outlets that are company-operated or operating under a long-term contract by an independent third-party, 4,961 operate under the Sunoco® fuel brand as of December 31, 2014. The Sunoco® brand is positioned as a premium fuel brand. Brand improvements in recent years have focused on physical image, customer service and product offerings. In addition, Sunoco, Inc. believes its brands and high performance gasoline business have benefited from its sponsorship agreements with NASCAR®, INDYCAR® and the NHRA®. Under the sponsorship agreement with NASCAR®, which continues until 2022, Sunoco® is the Official Fuel of NASCAR® and APlus® is the Official Convenience Store of NASCAR®. Sunoco, Inc. has exclusive rights to use certain NASCAR® trademarks to advertise and promote Sunoco, Inc. products and is the exclusive fuel supplier for the three major NASCAR® racing series. The sponsorship agreements with INDYCAR® and NHRA® continue through 2018 and 2024, respectively.

In addition to operating premium proprietary brands, our subsidiaries operate as a significant distributor to multiple top-tier fuel brands, including Exxon®, Mobil®, Valero®, Shell® and Chevron®.

Convenience Store and Restaurant Operations

ETP subsidiaries operate 1,185 convenience stores primarily under our proprietary Stripes®, Aplus® and Aloha Island Mart® convenience store brands as of December 31, 2014. These stores complement sales of fuel products with a broad mix of merchandise, food service, and other services. As of December 31, 2014, 474 of these stores featured in-store restaurants allowing us to make fresh food on the premises daily. Laredo Taco Company® is ETP’s in-house proprietary restaurant operation featuring breakfast and lunch tacos, a wide variety of handmade authentic Mexican food and other hot food offerings targeted to local populations in the markets served. Some of these stores also offer other proprietary and third party food options, including Subway® sandwiches and Godfather® pizza.

The following table sets forth information concerning the company-operated convenience stores during 2014:



Number of stores at December 31, 2014	1,185
Merchandise sales (thousands of dollars/store/month)	$	127
Merchandise margin (% sales)	31.4		%

ETP’s retail marketing operations also include the distribution of gasoline, distillate and other petroleum products to wholesalers, unbranded retailers and other commercial customers.

Table of Contents

Investment in Regency

The following details the assets in Regency’s natural gas operations:

Gathering and Processing Operations

Arklatex Region


•	Four cryogenic natural gas processing facilities, two refrigeration plants, a conditioning plant and two amine treating plants


•	Compression horsepower of 96,834

Regency’s Arklatex assets gather, compress, treat and dehydrate natural gas in several Parishes of north and west Louisiana and several counties in east Texas. Its assets also include cryogenic natural gas processing facilities, a refrigeration plant, a conditioning plant, amine treating plants, and an interstate NGL pipeline.

Through the gathering and processing systems described above and their interconnections with RIGS in north Louisiana, Regency offers producers wellhead-to-market services, including natural gas gathering, compression, processing, treating and transportation.

In May 2014, Regency announced the construction of a new 200 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant and 47-mile, 40,000 bbls/d capacity NGL pipeline, for a combined total of $191 million, which is expected to be completed in mid-2015.

South Texas Region


•	Three treating plants


•	Compression horsepower of 187,723

Regency’s south Texas assets gather, compress, treat and dehydrate natural gas in Bee, LaSalle, Webb, Karnes, Atascosa, McMullen, Frio and Dimmitt counties. Some of the natural gas produced in this region can have significant quantities of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide that require treating to remove these impurities. The pipeline systems that gather this gas are connected to third-party processing plants and Regency’s treating facilities that include an acid gas reinjection wells located in McMullen County, Texas. Regency also gathers oil for producers in the region and delivers it to tanks for further transportation by truck or pipeline.

The natural gas supply for Regency’s south Texas gathering systems is derived from a combination of natural gas wells located in a mature basin that generally have long lives and predictable gas flow rates, including the Frio, Vicksburg, Miocene, Canyon Sands and Wilcox formations, and the NGLs-rich and oil-rich Eagle Ford shale formation, which lies directly under Regency’s existing south Texas gathering system infrastructure.

Regency owns a 60% interest in Edwards Lime Gathering LLC with Talisman Energy USA Inc. and Statoil Texas Onshore Properties LP owning the remaining 40% interest. Regency operates a natural gas gathering oil pipeline and oil stabilization facilities for the joint venture while its joint venture partners operate a lean gas gathering system in the Edwards Lime natural gas trend that delivers to this system.

Permian Region


•	Six processing and treating plants, two processing plants and two treating plants


•	Compression horsepower of 387,932

Regency’s Permian Basin gathering system assets offer wellhead-to-market services to producers in the Texas counties of Ward, Winkler, Reeves, Pecos, Crocket, Upton, Crane, Ector, Culberson, Reagan and Andrews counties, as well as into Eddy and Lea counties in New Mexico which surround the Waha Hub, one of Texas’s developing NGLs-rich natural gas market areas. As a result of the proximity of Regency’s system to the Waha Hub, the Waha gathering system has a variety of market outlets for the natural gas that Regency gathers and processes, including several major interstate and intrastate pipelines serving California, the mid-continent region of the United States and Texas natural gas markets. The NGL market outlets include Lone Star’s NGL pipeline.

Regency’s Permian region assets consist of a network of natural gas and NGL pipelines, six processing and treating plants, two processing plants, and two treating plants. These assets offer a broad array of services to producers including field gathering and compression of natural gas; treating, dehydration, sulfur recovery and reinjection and other conditioning; and natural gas processing and marketing of natural gas and NGLs.

In October 2014, Regency entered into a joint venture with Anadarko Mi Vida LLC (“Anadarko”). Anadarko and Regency each own a 50% membership interest in the new joint venture, Mi Vida JV. Regency will construct and operate a 200 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant and related facilities in west Texas, on behalf of Mi Vida JV.

Table of Contents

Regency owns a 33.33% membership interest in Ranch JV which processes natural gas delivered from the NGLs-rich Bone Spring and Avalon shale formations in west Texas. The joint venture owns a 25 MMcf/d refrigeration plant and a 100 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant.

Mid-Continent Region


•	14 processing facilities


•	Compression horsepower of 425,394

Regency’s mid-continent systems are located in two large natural gas producing regions in the United States, the Hugoton Basin in southwest Kansas, and the Anadarko Basin in western Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle. These mature basins have continued to provide generally long-lived, predictable production volume. Regency’s mid-continent gathering assets are extensive systems that gather, compress and dehydrate low-pressure gas. Regency has 14 natural gas producing facilities and approximately 12,995 miles of gathering pipeline.

Regency operates its mid-continent gathering systems at low pressures to maximize the total throughput volumes from the connected wells. Wellhead pressures are therefore adequate to allow for flow of natural gas into the gathering lines without the cost of wellhead compression.

Regency also owns the Hugoton gathering system that has 1,900 miles of pipeline extending over nine counties in Kansas and Oklahoma. This system is operated by a third party.

Eastern Region


•	Compression horsepower of 112,282

Regency’s eastern region assets are located in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, and gather natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica basins. Regency’s eastern gathering assets include approximately 370 miles of natural gas gathering pipeline, natural gas trunkline pipelines, and fresh water pipelines, and the Lycoming, Wyoming, East Lycoming, Bradford, Green County, and Preston gathering and processing systems. Regency’s Eastern operations earn revenues primarily from fees charged to producers for natural gas gathering, transportation, compression and other related services.

Regency also own a 51% membership interest in Aqua - PVR Water Services, LLC, a joint venture that transports and supplies fresh water to natural gas producers drilling in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania.

In August 2014, Regency entered into a joint venture with American Energy - Midstream, LLC (“AEM”). Regency and AEM own a 75% and 25% membership interest, respectively, in the new joint venture Ohio River System LLC (“ORS”). On behalf of ORS, Regency is constructing and will operate its Ohio Utica River System, (the “ORS System”) which consists of a 52-mile, 36-inch gathering trunkline that will be capable of delivering up to 2.1 bcf/d to Rockies Express Pipeline (“REX”) and Texas Eastern Transmission, and potentially others and the construction of 25,000 horsepower of compression at the REX interconnect. This project will also include the construction of a 12-mile, 30-inch lateral that will initially connect to the tailgate of the Cadiz processing plant and Harrison County wellhead production. The system is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2015. Total costs for the ORS System are expected to be approximately $500 million; 75% contributed from Regency and 25% contributed from AEM. Additionally, Regency and American Energy - Utica, LLC (“AEU”), an affiliate of AEM, entered into a gathering agreement for gas produced from the Utica Shale in eastern Ohio by AEU.

Natural Gas Transportation Operations

RIGS has the capacity to transport up to 2.1 Bcf/d of natural gas. Results of RIGS’s operations are determined primarily by the volumes of natural gas transported and subscribed on its intrastate pipeline system and the level of fees charged to customers or the margins received from purchases and sales of natural gas. RIGS generates revenues and margins principally under fee-based transportation contracts. The fixed capacity reservation charges related to RIGS that are not directly dependent on throughput volumes or commodity prices represent 93% of HPC’s margin.

MEP pipeline system, operated by KMI, has the capability to transport up to 1.8 Bcf/d of natural gas, and the pipeline capacity is nearly fully subscribed, Zone 1 is 95% subscribed and Zone 2 is fully subscribed, with long-term binding commitments from creditworthy shippers. Results of MEP’s operations are determined primarily by the volumes of natural gas transported and subscribed on its interstate pipeline system and the level of fees charged to customers. MEP generates revenues and margins principally under fee-based transportation contracts. The margin MEP earns is primarily related to fixed capacity reservation charges that are not directly dependent on throughput volumes or commodity prices. If a sustained decline in commodity prices should result in a decline in volumes, MEP’s revenues would not be significantly impacted until expiration of the current contracts.

Table of Contents

Gulf States is a small interstate pipeline that uses cost-based rates and terms and conditions of service for shippers wishing to secure capacity for interstate transportation service. Rates charged are largely governed by long-term negotiated rate agreements.

NGL Services Operations

Regency owns a 30% membership interest in Lone Star. ETP owns the remaining 70% membership interest. See “Liquids Transportation and Services” under ETP’s asset overview discussion for additional details.

Contract Services Operations

Regency’s contract services operations include contract compression services and contract treating services. The natural gas contract compression services include designing, sourcing, owning, installing, operating, servicing, repairing and maintaining compressors and related equipment for which Regency guarantees their customers 98% mechanical availability for land installations and 96% mechanical availability for over-water installations. Regency focuses on meeting the complex requirements of field-wide compression applications, as opposed to targeting the compression needs of individual wells within a field. These field-wide applications include compression for natural gas gathering and natural gas processing. Regency believes that it improves the stability of its cash flow by focusing on field-wide compression applications because such applications generally involve long-term installations of multiple large horsepower compression units. Regency’s contract compression operations are located in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Colorado and California.

Regency owns and operates a fleet of equipment used to provide treating services, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide removal, natural gas cooling, dehydration and BTU management. Regency’s contract treating services are primarily located in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas.

Natural Resources Operations

Regency’s Natural Resources operations primarily involve the management and leasing of coal properties and the subsequent collection of royalties. Regency also earn revenues from other land management activities, such as selling standing timber, leasing fee-based coalrelated infrastructure facilities to certain lessees and end-user industrial plants, collecting oil and gas royalties and from coal transportation, or wheelage fees. As of December 31, 2014, Regency owned or controlled approximately 821 million tons of proven and probable coal reserves in central and northern Appalachia, properties in eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia; and the Illinois Basin, properties in southern Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky and as the operator of end-user coal handling facilities. Since 2004, the Natural Resources segment held a 50% interest in a coal services company with Alpha Natural Resources. In December 2014, we acquired the remaining 50% membership interest. The company, now know as Materials Handling Solutions, LLC, owns and operates facilities for industrial customers on a fee basis. During 2014, our coal reserves located in the San Juan basin depleted and our associated coal royalties revenues ceased.

Coal reserves are coal tons that can be economically extracted or produced at the time of determination considering legal, economic and technical limitations. All of the estimates of Regency’s coal reserves are classified as proven and probable reserves. Proven and probable coal reserves are defined as follows:

Proven Coal Reserves. Proven coal reserves are reserves for which: (i) quantity is computed from dimensions revealed in outcrops, trenches, workings or drill holes; (ii) grade and/or quality are computed from the results of detailed sampling; and (iii) the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are spaced so closely, and the geologic character is so well defined, that the size, shape, depth and mineral content of reserves are well-established.

Probable Coal Reserves. Probable coal reserves are reserves for which quantity and grade and/or quality are computed from information similar to that used for proven reserves, but the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are more widely spaced or are otherwise less adequately spaced. The degree of assurance, although lower than that for proven coal reserves, is high enough to assume continuity between points of observation.

In areas where geologic conditions indicate potential inconsistencies related to coal reserves, Regency performs additional exploration to ensure the continuity and mineability of the coal reserves. Consequently, sampling in those areas involves drill holes or channel samples that are spaced closer together than those distances cited above.

Coal reserve estimates are adjusted annually for production, unmineable areas, acquisitions and sales of coal in place. The majority of Regency’s coal reserves are high in energy content, low in sulfur and suitable for either the steam or to a lesser extent the metallurgical market.

The amount of coal that a lessee can profitably mine at any given time is subject to several factors and may be substantially different from “proven and probable coal reserves.” Included among the factors that influence profitability are the existing market price, coal quality and operating costs.

Table of Contents

Regency enters into long-term leases with experienced, third-party mine operators, providing them the right to mine coal reserves in exchange for royalty payments. Regency actively works with its lessees to develop efficient methods to exploit its reserves and to maximize production from its properties. Regency does not operate any mines. In 2014, Regency’s lessees produced 15.9 million tons of coal (11.3 million tons from March 21, 2014 (the date of acquisition) to December 31, 2014) from Regency’s properties and paid coal royalty revenues of $59 million ($44 million from March 21, 2014 (the date of acquisition) to December 31, 2014). Approximately 84% of Regency’s coal royalty revenues in 2014 were derived from coal mined on properties under leases containing royalty rates based on the higher of a fixed base price or a percentage of the gross sales price. The balance of Regency’s coal royalty revenues for the respective periods was derived from coal mined on properties under leases containing fixed royalty rates that escalate annually.

Regency’s lessees mine coal using both underground and surface methods. As of December 31, 2014, Regency’s lessees operated 24 surface mines and 24 underground mines. Approximately 57% of the coal produced from our properties in 2014 came from underground mines and 43% came from surface mines. Most of Regency’s lessees use the continuous mining method in their underground mines located on its properties. In continuous mining, main airways and transportation entries are developed and remote-controlled continuous miners extract coal from “entries,” leaving “pillars” to support the roof. Shuttle cars transport coal to a conveyor belt for transportation to the surface. In several underground mines, Regency’s lessees use two continuous miners running at the same time, also known as a supersection, to improve productivity and reduce unit costs.

The following tables set forth production data for the periods presented and reserve information with respect to each of Regency’s properties for the period presented (tons in millions):



	Production for the Years Ended December 31,
Property	2014	2013
Central Appalachia	9.0	10.2
Northern Appalachia	2.7	3.3
Illinois Basin	2.4	2.4
San Juan Basin ⁽¹⁾	1.8	9.2
Total	15.9	25.1

⁽¹⁾ Regency’s San Juan reserves were fully depleted in the first quarter of 2014.

The following table sets forth the coal reserves Regency owned and leased with respect to each of its coal properties as of December 31, 2014 (tons in millions):



Property	Owned	Leased	Total Controlled
Central Appalachia	482.3	141.0	623.3
Northern Appalachia	16.6	—	16.6
Illinois Basin	150.5	30.7	181.2
Total	649.4	171.7	821.1

The following table sets forth Regency’s coal reserve activity for the periods presented and ended (tons in millions):



	2014		2013
Reserves - beginning of year	847.0		871.0
Purchase of coal reserves	—		2.3
Tons mined by lessees	(15.9	)	(25.1	)
Revisions of estimates and other	(10.0	)	(1.2	)
Reserves - end of year	821.1		847.0

Regency’s coal reserve estimates are prepared from geological data assembled and analyzed by our general partner’s or its affiliates’ geologists and engineers. These estimates are compiled using geological data taken from thousands of drill holes, geophysical logs, adjacent mine workings, outcrop prospect openings and other sources. These estimates also take into account legal, qualitative, technical and economic limitations that may keep coal from being mined. Coal reserve estimates will change from time to time due to mining activities, analysis of new engineering and geological data, acquisition or divestment of reserve holdings, modification of mining plans or mining methods and other factors.

Table of Contents

Investment in Lake Charles LNG

Regasification Facility

Lake Charles LNG, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE, owns a LNG import terminal and regasification facility located on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast near Lake Charles, Louisiana. The import terminal has approximately 9.0 Bcf of above ground LNG storage capacity and the regasification facility has a run rate send out capacity of 1.8 bcf/day.

Liquefaction Project

LCL, an entity owned 60% by ETE and 40% by ETP, is in the process of developing the liquefaction project in conjunction with BG pursuant to a project development agreement entered into in September 2013. Pursuant to this agreement, each of LCL and BG are obligated to pay 50% of the development expenses for the liquefaction project, subject to reimbursement by the other party if such party withdraws from the project prior to both parties making an affirmative FID to become irrevocably obligated to fully develop the project, subject to certain exceptions. The liquefaction project is expected to consist of three LNG trains with a combined design nameplate outlet capacity of 16.2 metric tonnes per annum. Once completed, the liquefaction project will enable LCL to liquefy domestically produced natural gas and export it as LNG. By adding the new liquefaction facility and integrating with the existing LNG regasification/import facility, the enhanced facility will become a bi-directional facility capable of exporting and importing LNG. BG is the sole customer for the existing regasification facility and is obligated to pay reservation fees for 100% of the regasification capacity regardless of whether it actually utilizes such capacity pursuant to a regasification services agreement that terminates in 2030. The liquefaction project will be constructed on 400 acres of land, of which 200 acres are owned or leased by Lake Charles LNG and 200 acres are to be leased by LCL under a long-term lease from the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District or purchased by LCL pursuant to the exercise of an option agreement entered into in connection with the liquefaction project.

The construction of the liquefaction project is subject to each of LCL and BG making an affirmative FID to proceed with the project, which decision is in the sole discretion of each party. In the event an affirmative FID is made by both parties, LCL and BG will enter into several agreements related to the project, including a liquefaction services agreement pursuant to which BG will pay LCL for liquefaction services on a tolling basis for a minimum 25-year term with evergreen extension options for 20 years. In addition, a subsidiary of BG, a highly experienced owner and operator of LNG facilities, would oversee construction of the liquefaction facility and, upon completion of construction, manage the operations of the liquefaction facility on behalf of LCL. Subject to receipt of regulatory approvals, we anticipate that each of LCL and BG will make an affirmative FID in 2016 and then commence construction of the liquefaction project in order to place the first LNG train in service in late 2019 and the second and third trains in service during 2020.

The export of LNG produced by the liquefaction project from the U.S. will be undertaken under long-term export authorizations issued by the DOE to Lake Charles Exports, LLC (“LCE”), which is currently a jointly owned subsidiary of BG and ETP and following FID, will be 100% owned by BG. In July 2011, LCE obtained a DOE authorization to export LNG to countries with which the U.S. has or will have Free Trade Agreements (“FTA”) for trade in natural gas (the “FTA Authorization”). In August 2013, LCE obtained a conditional DOE authorization to export LNG to countries that do not have an FTA for trade in natural gas (the “Non-FTA Authorization”). The FTA Authorization and Non-FTA Authorization have 25- and 20-year terms, respectively. In January 2013, LCL filed for a secondary, non-cumulative FTA and Non-FTA Authorization to be held by LCL. FTA Authorization was granted in March 2013 and we expect the DOE to issue the Non-FTA Authorization to LCL in due course.

Prior to being authorized to export LNG, we must also receive (i) approvals from the FERC to construct and operate the facilities, (ii) wetlands permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) to perform wetlands mitigation work and to perform modification and dredging work for the temporary and permanent dock facilities at the Lake Charles LNG facilities, and (iii) air permits from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) for emissions from the liquefaction project. We expect to receive the wetlands permit from the USACE and the air permit from the LDEQ in the third quarter of 2015.

In January 2015, LCL received from FERC its notice of schedule. The FERC notice of schedule provides an important timeline for the issuance of the Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement (the “FEIS”). The issuance of the FEIS is scheduled for August 14, 2015, which then starts the 90-day period in which other federal agencies are to complete their review of the project and issue any required agency authorizations. The federal decision deadline date is November 12, 2015 and the FERC authorization for the project is anticipated during this 90-day period.

Competition

Natural Gas

Table of Contents

The business of providing natural gas gathering, compression, treating, transporting, storing and marketing services is highly competitive. Since pipelines are generally the only practical mode of transportation for natural gas over land, the most significant competitors of our transportation and storage operations are other pipelines. Pipelines typically compete with each other based on location, capacity, price and reliability.

We face competition with respect to retaining and obtaining significant natural gas supplies under terms favorable to us for the gathering, treating and marketing portions of our business. Our competitors include major integrated oil companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines and companies that gather, compress, treat, process, transport and market natural gas. Many of our competitors, such as major oil and gas and pipeline companies, have capital resources and control supplies of natural gas substantially greater than ours.

In marketing natural gas, we have numerous competitors, including marketing affiliates of interstate pipelines, major integrated oil companies, and local and national natural gas gatherers, brokers and marketers of widely varying sizes, financial resources and experience. Local utilities and distributors of natural gas are, in some cases, engaged directly, and through affiliates, in marketing activities that compete with our marketing operations.

NGL

In markets served by our NGL pipelines, we face competition with other pipeline companies, including those affiliated with major oil, petrochemical and natural gas companies, and barge, rail and truck fleet operations. In general, our NGL pipelines compete with these entities in terms of transportation fees, reliability and quality of customer service. We face competition with other storage facilities based on fees charged and the ability to receive and distribute the customer’s products. We compete with a number of NGL fractionators in Texas and Louisiana. Competition for such services is primarily based on the fractionation fee charged.

Crude Oil and Products

In markets served by our products and crude oil pipelines, we face competition with other pipelines. Generally, pipelines are the lowest cost method for long-haul, overland movement of products and crud oil. Therefore, the most significant competitors for large volume shipments in the areas served by our pipelines are other pipelines. In addition, pipeline operations face competition from trucks that deliver products in a number of areas that our pipeline operations serve. While their costs may not be competitive for longer hauls or large volume shipments, trucks compete effectively for incremental and marginal volume in many areas served by our pipelines.

We also face competition among common carrier pipelines carrying crude oil. This competition is based primarily on transportation charges, access to crude oil supply and market demand. Similar to pipelines carrying products, the high capital costs deter competitors for the crude oil pipeline systems from building new pipelines. Competitive factors in crude oil purchasing and marketing include price and contract flexibility, quantity and quality of services, and accessibility to end markets.

Our refined product terminals compete with other independent terminals with respect to price, versatility and services provided. The competition primarily comes from integrated petroleum companies, refining and marketing companies, independent terminal companies and distribution companies with marketing and trading operations.

Retail Marketing

We face strong competition in the market for the sale of retail gasoline and merchandise. Our competitors include service stations of large integrated oil companies, independent gasoline service stations, convenience stores, fast food stores, and other similar retail outlets, some of which are well-recognized national or regional retail systems. The number of competitors varies depending on the geographical area. It also varies with gasoline and convenience store offerings. The principal competitive factors affecting our retail marketing operations include gasoline and diesel acquisition costs, site location, product price, selection and quality, site appearance and cleanliness, hours of operation, store safety, customer loyalty and brand recognition. We compete by pricing gasoline competitively, combining retail gasoline business with convenience stores that provide a wide variety of products, and using advertising and promotional campaigns. We believe that we are in a position to compete effectively as a marketer of refined products because of the location of our retail network, which is well integrated with the distribution system operated by Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP.

Credit Risk and Customers

Credit risk refers to the risk that a counterparty may default on its contractual obligations resulting in a loss to the Partnership. Credit policies have been approved and implemented to govern the Partnership’s portfolio of counterparties with the objective of mitigating credit losses. These policies establish guidelines, controls and limits to manage credit risk within approved tolerances by mandating an appropriate evaluation of the financial condition of existing and potential counterparties, monitoring agency

Table of Contents

credit ratings, and by implementing credit practices that limit exposure according to the risk profiles of the counterparties. Furthermore, the Partnership may at times require collateral under certain circumstances to mitigate credit risk as necessary. We also implement the use of industry standard commercial agreements which allow for the netting of positive and negative exposures associated with transactions executed under a single commercial agreement. Additionally, we utilize master netting agreements to offset credit exposure across multiple commercial agreements with a single counterparty or affiliated group of counterparties.

The Partnership’s counterparties consist of a diverse portfolio of customers across the energy industry, including petrochemical companies, commercial and industrials, oil and gas producers, municipalities, gas and electric utilities and midstream companies. Our overall exposure may be affected positively or negatively by macroeconomic or regulatory changes that impact our counterparties to one extent or another. Currently, management does not anticipate a material adverse effect in our financial position or results of operations as a consequence of counterparty non-performance.

Natural gas transportation and midstream revenues are derived significantly from companies that engage in exploration and production activities. The discovery and development of new shale formations across the United States has created an abundance of natural gas and crude oil resulting in a negative impact on prices in recent years for natural gas and in recent months for crude oil. As a result, some of our exploration and production customers have been negatively impacted; however, we are monitoring these customers and mitigating credit risk as necessary.

During the year ended December 31, 2014, none of our customers individually accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated revenues.

Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines. The FERC has broad regulatory authority over the business and operations of interstate natural gas pipelines. Under the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”), the FERC generally regulates the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce. For FERC regulatory purposes, “transportation” includes natural gas pipeline transmission (forwardhauls and backhauls), storage and other services. The Florida Gas Transmission, Transwestern, Panhandle Eastern, Trunkline Gas, Tiger, Fayetteville Express and Sea Robin pipelines transport natural gas in interstate commerce and thus each qualifies as a “natural-gas company” under the NGA subject to the FERC’s regulatory jurisdiction. We also hold certain storage facilities that are subject to the FERC’s regulatory oversight.

The FERC’s NGA authority includes the power to regulate:


•	the certification and construction of new facilities;


•	the review and approval of transportation rates;


•	the types of services that our regulated assets are permitted to perform;


•	the terms and conditions associated with these services;


•	the extension or abandonment of services and facilities;


•	the maintenance of accounts and records;


•	the acquisition and disposition of facilities; and


•	the initiation and discontinuation of services.

Under the NGA, interstate natural gas companies must charge rates that are just and reasonable. In addition, the NGA prohibits natural gas companies from unduly preferring or unreasonably discriminating against any person with respect to pipeline rates or terms and conditions of service.

The maximum rates to be charged by NGA-jurisdictional natural gas companies and their terms and conditions for service are generally required to be on file with the FERC in FERC-approved tariffs. Most natural gas companies are authorized to offer discounts from their FERC-approved maximum just and reasonable rates when competition warrants such discounts. Natural gas companies are also generally permitted to offer negotiated rates different from rates established in their tariff if, among other requirements, such companies’ tariffs offer a cost-based recourse rate available to a prospective shipper as an alternative to the negotiated rate. Natural gas companies must make offers of rate discounts and negotiated rates on a basis that is not unduly discriminatory. Existing tariff rates may be challenged by complaint, and if found unjust and unreasonable, may be altered on a prospective basis by the FERC. We cannot guarantee that the FERC will continue to pursue its approach of pro-competitive policies as it considers matters such as pipeline rates and rules and policies that may affect rights of access to natural gas transportation capacity, transportation and storage facilities.

In 2011, in lieu of filing a new NGA Section 4 general rate case, Transwestern filed a proposed settlement with the FERC, which was approved by the FERC on October 31, 2011. In general, the settlement provides for the continued use of Transwestern’s currently effective transportation and fuel tariff rates, with the exception of certain San Juan Lateral fuel rates, which we were

Table of Contents

required to reduce over a three year period beginning in April 2012. The settlement also resolves certain non-rate matters, and approves Transwestern’s use of certain previously approved accounting methodologies. On October 1, 2014, Transwestern filed a general NGA Section 4 rate case pursuant to the 2011 settlement agreement with its shippers. On December 2, 2014, the FERC issued an order accepting and suspending the rates to be effective April 1, 2015, subject to refund, and setting a procedural schedule with a hearing scheduled in August 2015.

On October 31, 2014, FGT filed a general NGA Section 4 rate case pursuant to a 2010 settlement agreement with its shippers. On November 28, 2014, the FERC issued an order accepting and suspending the rates to be effective May 1, 2015, subject to refund, and setting a procedural schedule with a hearing scheduled in late 2015.

The rates charged for services on the Fayetteville Express pipeline are largely governed by long-term negotiated rate agreements. The FERC also approved cost-based recourse rates available to prospective shippers as an alternative to negotiated rates.

The rates charged for services on the Tiger pipeline are largely governed by long-term negotiated rate agreements.

Pursuant to the FERC’s rules promulgated under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it is unlawful for any entity, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy or natural gas or the purchase or sale of transmission or transportation services subject to FERC jurisdiction: (i) to defraud using any device, scheme or artifice; (ii) to make any untrue statement of material fact or omit a material fact; or (iii) to engage in any act, practice or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) also holds authority to monitor certain segments of the physical and futures energy commodities market pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). With regard to our physical purchases and sales of natural gas, NGLs or other energy commodities; our gathering or transportation of these energy commodities; and any related hedging activities that we undertake, we are required to observe these anti-market manipulation laws and related regulations enforced by the FERC and/or the CFTC. These agencies hold substantial enforcement authority, including the ability to assess civil penalties of up to $1 million per day per violation, to order disgorgement of profits and to recommend criminal penalties. Should we violate the anti-market manipulation laws and regulations, we could also be subject to related third party damage claims by, among others, sellers, royalty owners and taxing authorities.

Failure to comply with the NGA, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the other federal laws and regulations governing our operations and business activities can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.

Regulation of Intrastate Natural Gas and NGL Pipelines. Intrastate transportation of natural gas and NGLs is largely regulated by the state in which such transportation takes place. To the extent that our intrastate natural gas transportation systems transport natural gas in interstate commerce, the rates and terms and conditions of such services are subject to FERC jurisdiction under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (“NGPA”). The NGPA regulates, among other things, the provision of transportation services by an intrastate natural gas pipeline on behalf of a local distribution company or an interstate natural gas pipeline. The rates and terms and conditions of some transportation and storage services provided on the Oasis pipeline, HPL System, East Texas pipeline and ET Fuel System are subject to FERC regulation pursuant to Section 311 of the NGPA. Under Section 311, rates charged for intrastate transportation must be fair and equitable, and amounts collected in excess of fair and equitable rates are subject to refund with interest. The terms and conditions of service set forth in the intrastate facility’s statement of operating conditions are also subject to FERC review and approval. Should the FERC determine not to authorize rates equal to or greater than our currently approved Section 311 rates, our business may be adversely affected. Failure to observe the service limitations applicable to transportation and storage services under Section 311, failure to comply with the rates approved by the FERC for Section 311 service, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions of service established in the pipeline’s FERC-approved statement of operating conditions could result in an alteration of jurisdictional status, and/or the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.

Our intrastate natural gas operations are also subject to regulation by various agencies in Texas, principally the TRRC. Our intrastate pipeline and storage operations in Texas are also subject to the Texas Utilities Code, as implemented by the TRRC. Generally, the TRRC is vested with authority to ensure that rates, operations and services of gas utilities, including intrastate pipelines, are just and reasonable and not discriminatory. The rates we charge for transportation services are deemed just and reasonable under Texas law unless challenged in a customer or TRRC complaint. We cannot predict whether such a complaint will be filed against us or whether the TRRC will change its regulation of these rates. Failure to comply with the Texas Utilities Code can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.

Our NGL pipelines and operations may also be or become subject to state public utility or related jurisdiction which could impose additional safety and operational regulations relating to the design, siting, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of NGL gathering facilities.

Table of Contents

Regulation of Sales of Natural Gas and NGLs. The price at which we buy and sell natural gas currently is not subject to federal regulation and, for the most part, is not subject to state regulation. The price at which we sell NGLs is not subject to federal or state regulation.

To the extent that we enter into transportation contracts with natural gas pipelines that are subject to FERC regulation, we are subject to FERC requirements related to use of such capacity. Any failure on our part to comply with the FERC’s regulations and policies, or with an interstate pipeline’s tariff, could result in the imposition of civil and criminal penalties.

Our sales of natural gas are affected by the availability, terms and cost of pipeline transportation. As noted above, the price and terms of access to pipeline transportation are subject to extensive federal and state regulation. The FERC is continually proposing and implementing new rules and regulations affecting those operations of the natural gas industry. These initiatives also may affect the intrastate transportation of natural gas under certain circumstances. The stated purpose of many of these regulatory changes is to promote competition among the various sectors of the natural gas industry and these initiatives generally reflect more light-handed regulation. We cannot predict the ultimate impact of these regulatory changes to our natural gas marketing operations, and we note that some of the FERC’s regulatory changes may adversely affect the availability and reliability of interruptible transportation service on interstate pipelines. We do not believe that we will be affected by any such FERC action in a manner that is materially different from other natural gas marketers with whom we compete.

Regulation of Gathering Pipelines. Section 1(b) of the NGA exempts natural gas gathering facilities from the jurisdiction of the FERC under the NGA. We own a number of natural gas pipelines in Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia that we believe meet the traditional tests the FERC uses to establish a pipeline’s status as a gatherer not subject to FERC jurisdiction. However, the distinction between FERC-regulated transmission services and federally unregulated gathering services has been the subject of substantial litigation and varying interpretations, so the classification and regulation of our gathering facilities could be subject to change based on future determinations by the FERC, the courts and Congress. State regulation of gathering facilities generally includes various safety, environmental and, in some circumstances, nondiscriminatory take requirements and complaint-based rate regulation.

In Texas, our gathering facilities are subject to regulation by the TRRC under the Texas Utilities Code in the same manner as described above for our intrastate pipeline facilities. Louisiana’s Pipeline Operations Section of the Department of Natural Resources’ Office of Conservation is generally responsible for regulating intrastate pipelines and gathering facilities in Louisiana and has authority to review and authorize natural gas transportation transactions and the construction, acquisition, abandonment and interconnection of physical facilities.

Historically, apart from pipeline safety, Louisiana has not acted to exercise this jurisdiction respecting gathering facilities. In Louisiana, our Chalkley System is regulated as an intrastate transporter, and the Louisiana Office of Conservation has determined that our Whiskey Bay System is a gathering system.

We are subject to state ratable take and common purchaser statutes in all of the states in which we operate. The ratable take statutes generally require gatherers to take, without undue discrimination, natural gas production that may be tendered to the gatherer for handling. Similarly, common purchaser statutes generally require gatherers to purchase without undue discrimination as to source of supply or producer. These statutes are designed to prohibit discrimination in favor of one producer over another producer or one source of supply over another source of supply. These statutes have the effect of restricting the right of an owner of gathering facilities to decide with whom it contracts to purchase or transport natural gas.

Natural gas gathering may receive greater regulatory scrutiny at both the state and federal levels. For example, the TRRC has approved changes to its regulations governing transportation and gathering services performed by intrastate pipelines and gatherers, which prohibit such entities from unduly discriminating in favor of their affiliates. Many of the producing states have adopted some form of complaint-based regulation that generally allows natural gas producers and shippers to file complaints with state regulators in an effort to resolve grievances relating to natural gas gathering access and rate discrimination allegations. Our gathering operations could be adversely affected should they be subject in the future to the application of additional or different state or federal regulation of rates and services. Our gathering operations also may be or become subject to safety and operational regulations relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of gathering facilities. Additional rules and legislation pertaining to these matters are considered or adopted from time to time. We cannot predict what effect, if any, such changes might have on our operations, but the industry could be required to incur additional capital expenditures and increased costs depending on future legislative and regulatory changes.

Regulation of Interstate Crude Oil and Products Pipelines. Interstate common carrier pipeline operations are subject to rate regulation by the FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”), the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and related rules and orders. The ICA requires that tariff rates for petroleum pipelines be “just and reasonable” and not unduly discriminatory and that such rates and terms and conditions of service be filed with the FERC. This statute also permits interested persons to challenge proposed new or changed rates. The FERC is authorized to suspend the effectiveness of such rates for up to seven months, though rates are

Table of Contents

typically not suspended for the maximum allowable period. If the FERC finds that the new or changed rate is unlawful, it may require the carrier to pay refunds for the period that the rate was in effect. The FERC also may investigate, upon complaint or on its own motion, rates that are already in effect and may order a carrier to change its rates prospectively. Upon an appropriate showing, a shipper may obtain reparations for damages sustained for a period of up to two years prior to the filing of a complaint.

The FERC generally has not investigated interstate rates on its own initiative when those rates, like those we charge, have not been the subject of a protest or a complaint by a shipper. However, the FERC could investigate our rates at the urging of a third party if the third party is either a current shipper or has a substantial economic interest in the tariff rate level. Although no assurance can be given that the tariffs charged by us ultimately will be upheld if challenged, management believes that the tariffs now in effect for our pipelines are within the maximum rates allowed under current FERC guidelines.

We have been approved by the FERC to charge market-based rates in most of the products locations served by our pipeline systems. In those locations where market-based rates have been approved, we are able to establish rates that are based upon competitive market conditions.

Regulation of Intrastate Crude Oil and Products Pipelines. Some of our crude oil and products pipelines are subject to regulation by the TRRC, the PA PUC, and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. The operations of our joint venture interests are also subject to regulation in the states in which they operate. The applicable state statutes require that pipeline rates be nondiscriminatory and provide no more than a fair return on the aggregate value of the pipeline property used to render services. State commissions generally have not initiated an investigation of rates or practices of petroleum pipelines in the absence of shipper complaints. Complaints to state agencies have been infrequent and are usually resolved informally. Although management cannot be certain that our intrastate rates ultimately would be upheld if challenged, we believe that, given this history, the tariffs now in effect are not likely to be challenged or, if challenged, are not likely to be ordered to be reduced.

Regulation of Pipeline Safety. Our pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the DOT, under the PHMSA, pursuant to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended (“NGPSA”), with respect to natural gas and the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, as amended (“HLPSA”), with respect to crude oil, NGLs and condensates. Both the NGPSA and the HLPSA were amended by the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (“PSI Act”) and the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (“PIPES Act”). The NGPSA and HLPSA, as amended, govern the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of natural gas as well as crude oil, NGL and condensate pipeline facilities. Pursuant to these acts, PHMSA has promulgated regulations governing pipeline wall thickness, design pressures, maximum operating pressures, pipeline patrols and leak surveys, minimum depth requirements, and emergency procedures, as well as other matters intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent accidents and failures. Additionally, PHMSA has established a series of rules requiring pipeline operators to develop and implement integrity management programs for certain gas and hazardous liquid pipelines that, in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture, could affect high consequence areas (“HCAs”), which are areas where a release could have the most significant adverse consequences, including high population areas, certain drinking water sources and unusually sensitive ecological areas. Failure to comply with the safety laws and regulations may result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies. The “rural gathering exemption” under the NGPSA presently exempts substantial portions of our gathering facilities from jurisdiction under the NGPSA, but does not apply to our intrastate natural gas pipelines. The portions of our facilities that are exempt include those portions located outside of cities, towns or any area designated as residential or commercial, such as a subdivision or shopping center. Changes to federal pipeline safety laws and regulations are being considered by Congress or PHMSA including changes to the “rural gathering exemption,” which may be restricted in the future. Most recently, in an August 2014 U.S. Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) report to Congress, the GAO acknowledged PHMSA’s continued assessment of the safety risks posed by these gathering lines as part of the rulemaking process, and recommended that PHMSA move forward with rulemaking to address larger-diameter, higher-pressure gathering lines, including subjecting such pipelines to emergency response planning requirements that currently do not apply. While we believe our pipeline operations are in substantial compliance with applicable pipeline safety laws, safety laws and regulations may be made more stringent and penalties could be increased. Such legislative and regulatory changes could have a material effect on our operations and costs of transportation service.

Most recently, the NGPSA and HLPSA were amended on January 3, 2012 when President Obama signed into law the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (“2011 Pipeline Safety Act”) which increases pipeline safety regulation. Among other things, the legislation doubles the maximum administrative fines for safety violations from $100,000 to $200,000 for a single violation and from $1 million to $2 million for a related series of violations, and provides that these maximum penalty caps do not apply to civil enforcement actions; permits the DOT Secretary to mandate automatic or remote controlled shut off valves on new or entirely replaced pipelines; requires the DOT Secretary to evaluate whether integrity management system requirements should be expanded beyond HCAs, within 18 months of enactment; and provides for regulation of carbon dioxide transported by pipeline in a gaseous state and requires the DOT Secretary to prescribe minimum safety regulations for such transportation.

Table of Contents

In addition, states have adopted regulations, similar to existing PHMSA regulations, for intrastate gathering and transmission lines. The states in which we conduct operations typically have developed regulatory programs that parallel the federal regulatory scheme and are applicable to intrastate pipelines transporting natural gas and NGLs. Under such state regulatory programs, states have the authority to conduct pipeline inspections, to investigate accidents and to oversee compliance and enforcement, safety programs and record maintenance and reporting. Congress, PHMSA and individual states may pass or implement additional safety requirements that could result in increased compliance costs for us and other companies in our industry. For instance, notwithstanding the applicability of the OSHA’s Process Safety Management (“PSM”) regulations and the EPA’s Risk Management Planning (“RMP”) requirements at regulated facilities, PHMSA and one or more state regulators, including the Texas Railroad Commission, have in the recent past, expanded the scope of their regulatory inspections to include certain in-plant equipment and pipelines found within NGL fractionation facilities and associated storage facilities, in order to assess compliance of such equipment and pipelines with hazardous liquid pipeline safety requirements. These recent actions by PHMSA are currently subject to judicial and administrative challenges by one or more midstream operators; however, to the extent that such legal challenges are unsuccessful, midstream operators of NGL fractionation facilities and associated storage facilities subject to such inspection may be required to make operational changes or modifications at their facilities to meet standards beyond current PSM and RMP requirements, which changes or modifications may result in additional capital costs, possible operational delays and increased costs of operation that, in some instances, may be significant.

Environmental Matters

General. Our operation of processing plants, pipelines and associated facilities, including compression, in connection with the gathering, processing, storage and transmission of natural gas and the storage and transportation of NGLs, crude oil and refined products is subject to stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations, including those governing, among other things, air emissions, wastewater discharges, the use, management and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous materials and wastes, and the cleanup of contamination. Noncompliance with such laws and regulations, or incidents resulting in environmental releases, could cause us to incur substantial costs, penalties, fines and criminal sanctions, third party claims for personal injury or property damage, capital expenditures to retrofit or upgrade our facilities and programs, or curtailment of operations. As with the industry generally, compliance with existing and anticipated environmental laws and regulations increases our overall cost of doing business, including our cost of planning, constructing and operating our plants, pipelines and other facilities. Included in our construction and operation costs are capital, operating and maintenance cost items necessary to maintain or upgrade our equipment and facilities to remain in compliance with environmental laws and regulations.

We have implemented procedures to ensure that all governmental environmental approvals for both existing operations and those under construction are updated as circumstances require. We believe that our operations and facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that the cost of compliance with such laws and regulations will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We cannot be certain, however, that identification of presently unidentified conditions, more rigorous enforcement by regulatory agencies, enactment of more stringent environmental laws and regulations or other unanticipated events will not arise in the future and give rise to environmental liabilities that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Hazardous Substances and Waste Materials. To a large extent, the environmental laws and regulations affecting our operations relate to the release of hazardous substances and waste materials into soils, groundwater and surface water and include measures to prevent, minimize or remediate contamination of the environment. These laws and regulations generally regulate the generation, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances and waste materials and may require investigatory and remedial actions at sites where such material has been released or disposed. For example, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, (“CERCLA”), also known as the “Superfund” law, and comparable state laws, impose liability without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct on certain classes of persons that contributed to a release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the owner and operator of the site where a release occurred and companies that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substance that has been released into the environment. Under CERCLA, these persons may be subject to joint and several liability, without regard to fault, for, among other things, the costs of investigating and remediating the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. CERCLA and comparable state law also authorize the federal EPA, its state counterparts, and, in some instances, third parties to take actions in response to threats to the public health or the environment and to seek to recover from the responsible classes of persons the costs they incur. It is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous substances or other pollutants released into the environment. Although “petroleum” as well as natural gas and NGLs are excluded from CERCLA’s definition of a “hazardous substance,” in the course of our ordinary operations we generate wastes that may fall within that definition or that may be subject to other waste disposal laws and regulations. We may be responsible under CERCLA or state laws for all or part of the costs required to clean up sites at which such substances or wastes have been disposed.

Table of Contents

We also generate both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes that are subject to requirements of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, (“RCRA”), and comparable state statutes. We are not currently required to comply with a substantial portion of the RCRA requirements at many of our facilities because the minimal quantities of hazardous wastes generated there make us subject to less stringent management standards. From time to time, the EPA has considered the adoption of stricter handling, storage and disposal standards for nonhazardous wastes, including certain wastes associated with the exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas. It is possible that some wastes generated by us that are currently classified as nonhazardous may in the future be designated as “hazardous wastes,” resulting in the wastes being subject to more rigorous and costly disposal requirements, or that the full complement of RCRA standards could be applied to facilities that generate lesser amounts of hazardous waste. Changes such as these examples in applicable regulations may result in a material increase in our capital expenditures or plant operating and maintenance expense.

We currently own or lease sites that have been used over the years by prior owners and by us for various activities related to gathering, processing, storage and transmission of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and products. Solid waste disposal practices within the oil and gas industry have improved over the years with the passage and implementation of various environmental laws and regulations. Nevertheless, some hydrocarbons and wastes have been disposed of or otherwise released on or under various sites during the operating history of those facilities that are now owned or leased by us. Notwithstanding the possibility that these releases may have occurred during the ownership of these assets by others, these sites may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and comparable state laws. Under these laws, we could be required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes (including wastes disposed of or released by prior owners or operators) or contamination (including soil and groundwater contamination) or to prevent the migration of contamination.

As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, accruals of $401 million and $403 million, respectively, were recorded in our consolidated balance sheets as accrued and other current liabilities and other non-current liabilities to cover estimated material environmental liabilities including, for example, certain matters assumed in connection with our acquisition of the HPL System, our acquisition of Transwestern, potential environmental liabilities for three sites that were formerly owned by Titan or its predecessors, and the predecessor owner’s share of certain environmental liabilities of ETC OLP.

The Partnership is subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local laws and regulations, including those relating to the discharge of materials into the environment or that otherwise relate to the protection of the environment, waste management and the characteristics and composition of fuels. These laws and regulations require environmental assessment and remediation efforts at many of Sunoco, Inc.’s facilities and at formerly owned or third-party sites. Accruals for these environmental remediation activities amounted to $363 million and $377 million at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, which is included in the total accruals above. These legacy sites that are subject to environmental assessments include formerly owned terminals and other logistics assets, retail sites that are no longer operated by Sunoco, Inc., closed and/or sold refineries and other formerly owned sites. In December 2013, a wholly-owned captive insurance company was established for these legacy sites. As of December 31, 2014 the captive insurance company held $267 million of cash and investments.

The Partnership’s accrual for environmental remediation activities reflects anticipated work at identified sites where an assessment has indicated that cleanup costs are probable and reasonably estimable. The accrual for known claims is undiscounted and is based on currently available information, estimated timing of remedial actions and related inflation assumptions, existing technology and presently enacted laws and regulations. It is often extremely difficult to develop reasonable estimates of future site remediation costs due to changing regulations, changing technologies and their associated costs, and changes in the economic environment. Engineering studies, historical experience and other factors are used to identify and evaluate remediation alternatives and their related costs in determining the estimated accruals for environmental remediation activities.

We have 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.

Under various environmental laws, including the RCRA (which relates to non-hazardous and hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal), the Partnership has initiated corrective remedial action at its facilities, formerly owned facilities and third-party sites. At the Partnership’s major manufacturing facilities, we have consistently assumed continued industrial use and a containment/remediation strategy focused on eliminating unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. The remediation accruals for these sites reflect that strategy. Accruals include amounts to prevent off-site migration and to contain the impact on the facility property, as well as to address known, discrete areas requiring remediation within the plants. Activities include closure of RCRA solid waste management units, recovery of hydrocarbons, handling of impacted soil, mitigation of surface water impacts and prevention of off-site migration. A change in this approach as a result of changing the intended use of a property or a sale to a third party could result in a higher cost remediation strategy in the future.

Table of Contents

The Partnership currently owns or operates certain retail gasoline outlets where releases of petroleum products have occurred. Federal and state laws and regulations require that contamination caused by such releases at these sites and at formerly owned sites be assessed and remediated to meet the applicable standards. Our obligation to remediate this type of contamination varies, depending on the extent of the release and the applicable laws and regulations. A portion of the remediation costs may be recoverable from the reimbursement fund of the applicable state, after any deductible has been met.

In general, each remediation site or issue is evaluated individually based upon information available for the site or issue and no pooling or statistical analysis is used to evaluate an aggregate risk for a group of similar items (e.g., service station sites) in determining the amount of probable loss accrual to be recorded. The estimates of environmental remediation costs also frequently involve evaluation of a range of estimates. In many cases, it is difficult to determine that one point in the range of loss estimates is more likely than any other. In these situations, existing accounting guidance allows that the minimum of the range be accrued. Accordingly, the low end of the range often represents the amount of loss which has been recorded.

In addition to the probable and estimable losses which have been recorded, management believes it is reasonably possible (i.e., less than probable but greater than remote) that additional environmental remediation losses will be incurred. At December 31, 2014, the aggregate of the estimated maximum additional reasonably possible losses, which relate to numerous individual sites, totaled approximately $6 million. This estimate of reasonably possible losses comprises estimates for remediation activities at current logistics and retail assets, and in many cases, reflects the upper end of the loss ranges which are described above. Such estimates include potentially higher contractor costs for expected remediation activities, the potential need to use more costly or comprehensive remediation methods and longer operating and monitoring periods, among other things.

In summary, total future costs for environmental remediation activities will depend upon, among other things, the identification of any additional sites, the determination of the extent of the contamination at each site, the timing and nature of required remedial actions, the nature of operations at each site, the technology available and needed to meet the various existing legal requirements, the nature and terms of cost-sharing arrangements with other potentially responsible parties, the availability of insurance coverage, the nature and extent of future environmental laws and regulations, inflation rates, terms of consent agreements or remediation permits with regulatory agencies and the determination of the Partnership’s liability at the sites, if any, in light of the number, participation level and financial viability of the other parties. The recognition of additional losses, if and when they were to occur, would likely extend over many years. Management believes that the Partnership’s exposure to adverse developments with respect to any individual site is not expected to be material. However, if changes in environmental laws or regulations occur or the assumptions used to estimate losses at multiple sites are adjusted, such changes could impact multiple facilities, formerly owned facilities and third-party sites at the same time. As a result, from time to time, significant charges against income for environmental remediation may occur; however, management does not believe that any such charges would have a material adverse impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position.

Transwestern conducts soil and groundwater remediation at a number of its facilities. Some of the cleanup activities include remediation of several compressor sites on the Transwestern system for contamination by PCBs, and the costs of this work are not eligible for recovery in rates. The total accrued future estimated cost of remediation activities expected to continue through 2025 is $7 million, which is included in the total environmental accruals mentioned above. Transwestern received FERC approval for rate recovery of projected soil and groundwater remediation costs not related to PCBs effective April 1, 2007. Transwestern, as part of ongoing arrangements with customers, continues to incur costs associated with containing and removing potential PCB contamination. Future costs cannot be reasonably estimated because remediation activities are undertaken as potential claims are made by customers and former customers. However, such future costs are not expected to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Air Emissions. Our operations are subject to the federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and comparable state laws and regulations. These laws and regulations regulate emissions of air pollutants from various industrial sources, including our processing plants, and also impose various monitoring and reporting requirements. Such laws and regulations may require that we obtain pre-approval for the construction or modification of certain projects or facilities, such as our processing plants and compression facilities, expected to produce air emissions or to result in the increase of existing air emissions, that we obtain and strictly comply with air permits containing various emissions and operational limitations, or that we utilize specific emission control technologies to limit emissions. We will be required to incur capital expenditures in the future for air pollution control equipment in connection with obtaining and maintaining operating permits and approvals for air emissions. In addition, our processing plants, pipelines and compression facilities are subject to increasingly stringent regulations, including regulations that require the installation of control technology or the implementation of work practices to control hazardous air pollutants. Moreover, the Clean Air Act requires an operating permit for major sources of emissions and this requirement applies to some of our facilities. We believe that our operations are in substantial compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and comparable state laws. The EPA and state agencies are continually considering, proposing or finalizing new regulations that could impact our existing operations and the costs and timing of new infrastructure development. For example, in December 2014, the EPA published a proposed regulation that it expects to finalize by October 1, 2015, which rulemaking proposed to revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ozone

Table of Contents

between 65 to 70 parts per billion (“ppb”) for both the 8-hour primary and secondary standards. The current primary and secondary ozone standards are set at 75 ppb. EPA also requested public comments on whether the standard should be set as low as 60 ppb or whether the existing 75 ppb standard should be retained. If EPA lowers the ozone standard, states could be required to implement new more stringent regulations, which could apply to our operations. Compliance with this or other new regulations could, among other things, require installation of new emission controls on some of our equipment, result in longer permitting timelines, and significantly increase our capital expenditures and operating costs, which could adversely impact our business.

Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, also known as Clean Water Act and comparable state laws impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of pollutants, including hydrocarbon-bearing wastes, into state waters and waters of the United States. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and similar state laws, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or state permit, or both, must be obtained to discharge pollutants into federal and state waters. In addition, the Clean Water Act and comparable state laws require that individual permits or coverage under general permits be obtained by subject facilities for discharges of storm water runoff. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with Clean Water Act permitting requirements as well as the conditions imposed thereunder, and that our continued compliance with such existing permit conditions will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Spills. Our operations can result in the discharge of regulated substances, including NGLs, crude oil or other products. The Clean Water Act, or amended by the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended, (“OPA”) and comparable state laws impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of regulated substances into state waters or waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act and comparable state laws can impose substantial administrative, civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance including spills and other non-authorized discharges. The OPA subjects owners of covered facilities to strict joint and potentially unlimited liability for removal costs and other consequences of a release of oil, where the release is into navigable waters, along shorelines or in the exclusive economic zone of the United States. Spill prevention control and countermeasure requirements of the Clean Water Act and some state laws require that containment dikes and similar structures be installed to help prevent the impact on navigable waters in the event of a release. The PHMSA, the EPA, or various state regulatory agencies, has approved our oil spill emergency response plans, and our management believes we are in substantial compliance with these laws.

In addition, some states maintain groundwater protection programs that require permits for discharges or operations that may impact groundwater conditions. Our management believes that compliance with existing permits and compliance with foreseeable new permit requirements will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or expected cash flows.

Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act restricts activities that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat. Similar protection is offered to migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We may operate in areas that are currently designated as a habitat for endangered or threatened species or where the discovery of previously unidentified endangered species, or the designation of additional species as endangered or threatened may occur in which event such one or more developments could cause us to incur additional costs, to develop habitat conservation plans, to become subject to expansion or operating restrictions, or bans in the affected areas.

Climate Change. Based on findings made by the EPA that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases present an endangerment to public health and the environment, the EPA has adopted regulations under existing provisions of the federal Clean Air Act that, among other things, establish Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) and Title V permitting reviews for greenhouse gas emission from certain large stationary sources that already are potential major sources of certain principal, or criteria, pollutant emissions. Facilities required to obtain PSD permits for their greenhouse gas emissions will be required to also reduce those emissions according to “best available control technology” standards for greenhouse gases, which are typically developed by the states. Any regulatory or permitting obligation that limits emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to incur costs to reduce or sequester emissions of greenhouse gases associated with our operations and also could adversely affect demand for the natural gas and other hydrocarbon products that we transport, process, or otherwise handle in connection with our services.

In addition, the EPA adopted regulations requiring the annual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas sources in the United States, including onshore oil and natural gas production, processing, transmission, storage and distribution facilities. On December 9, 2014, the EPA published a proposed rule that would expand the petroleum and natural gas system sources for which annual greenhouse gas emissions reporting is currently required to include greenhouse gas emissions reporting beginning in the 2016 reporting year for certain onshore gathering and boosting systems consisting primarily of gathering pipelines, compressors and process equipment used to perform natural gas compression, dehydration and acid gas removal. We are monitoring greenhouse gas emissions from certain of our facilities in accordance with current greenhouse emissions reporting requirements in a manner that we believe is in substantial compliance with applicable reporting obligations and are currently assessing the potential impact that the December 9, 2014 proposed rule may have on our future reporting obligations, should the proposal be adopted.

Table of Contents

Various pieces of legislation to reduce emissions of, or to create cap and trade programs for, greenhouse gases have been proposed by the U.S. Congress over the past several years, but no proposal has yet passed. Numerous states have already taken legal measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily through the planned development of greenhouse gas emission inventories and/or regional greenhouse gas cap and trade programs. The passage of legislation that limits emissions of greenhouse gases from our equipment and operations could require us to incur costs to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from our own operations, and it could also adversely affect demand for our transportation, storage and processing services by reducing demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs. For example, in January 2015, the Obama Administration announced plans for the EPA to issue final standards in 2016 that would reduce methane emissions from new and modified oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing and transmission facilities by up to 45% from 2012 levels by 2025.

Some have suggested that one consequence of climate change could be increased severity of extreme weather, such as increased hurricanes and floods. If such effects were to occur, our operations could be adversely affected in various ways, including damages to our facilities from powerful winds or rising waters, or increased costs for insurance. Another possible consequence of climate change is increased volatility in seasonal temperatures. The market for our NGLs and natural gas is generally improved by periods of colder weather and impaired by periods of warmer weather, so any changes in climate could affect the market for the fuels that we produce. Despite the use of the term “global warming” as a shorthand for climate change, some studies indicate that climate change could cause some areas to experience temperatures substantially colder than their historical averages. As a result, it is difficult to predict how the market for our products could be affected by increased temperature volatility, although if there is an overall trend of warmer temperatures, it would be expected to have an adverse effect on our business.

Employee Health and Safety. We are subject to the requirements of the federal OSHA and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe that our operations are in substantial compliance with the OSHA requirements including general industry standards, recordkeeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances.

Employees

As of January 30, 2015, ETE and its consolidated subsidiaries employed an aggregate of 27,605 employees, 1,609 of which are represented by labor unions. We and our subsidiaries believe that our relations with our employees are satisfactory.

SEC Reporting

We file or furnish annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any related amendments and supplements thereto with the SEC. From time to time, we may also file registration and related statements pertaining to equity or debt offerings. You may read and copy any materials we file or furnish with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information regarding the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-732-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains an internet website at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

We provide electronic access, free of charge, to our periodic and current reports on our internet website located at http://www.energytransfer.com. These reports are available on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with the SEC. Information contained on our website is not part of this report.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

In addition to risks and uncertainties in the ordinary course of business that are common to all businesses, important factors that are specific to our structure as a limited partnership, our industry and our company could materially impact our future performance and results of operations. We have provided below a list of these risk factors that should be reviewed when considering an investment in our securities. ETP, Regency, Panhandle, Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP file Annual Reports on Form 10-K that include risk factors that can be reviewed for further information. The risk factors set forth below, and those included in ETP’s, Regency’s, Panhandle’s, Sunoco Logistics’ and Sunoco LP’s Annual Report, are not all the risks we face and other factors currently considered immaterial or unknown to us may impact our future operations.

Risks Inherent in an Investment in Us

Cash distributions are not guaranteed and may fluctuate with our performance or other external factors.

The source of our earnings and cash flow is cash distributions from ETP, Regency and Sunoco Logistics via the Class H Units. Therefore, the amount of distributions we are currently able to make to our Unitholders may fluctuate based on the level of distributions ETP, Regency or Sunoco Logistics makes to their partners. ETP, Regency or Sunoco Logistics may not be able to

Table of Contents

continue to make quarterly distributions at their current level or increase their quarterly distributions in the future. In addition, while we would expect to increase or decrease distributions to our Unitholders if ETP, Regency or Sunoco Logistics increases or decreases distributions to us, the timing and amount of such increased or decreased distributions, if any, will not necessarily be comparable to the timing and amount of the increase or decrease in distributions made by ETP, Regency or Sunoco Logistics to us.

Our ability to distribute cash received from ETP and Regency to our Unitholders is limited by a number of factors, including:


•	interest expense and principal payments on our indebtedness;


•	restrictions on distributions contained in any current or future debt agreements;


•	our general and administrative expenses;


•	expenses of our subsidiaries other than ETP or Regency, including tax liabilities of our corporate subsidiaries, if any; and


•	reserves our General Partner believes prudent for us to maintain for the proper conduct of our business or to provide for future distributions.

We cannot guarantee that in the future we will be able to pay distributions or that any distributions we do make will be at or above our current quarterly distribution. The actual amount of cash that is available for distribution to our Unitholders will depend on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control or the control of our General Partner.

Our only significant assets are our partnership interests, including the incentive distribution rights, in ETP and Regency and, therefore, our cash flow is dependent upon the ability of ETP and Regency to make distributions in respect of those partnership interests.

We do not have any significant assets other than our partnership interests in ETP and Regency. Our interest in ETP include Class H Units, for which distributions to us are based on a percentage of the general partner and incentive distribution right interests in Sunoco Logistics. As a result, our cash flow depends on the performance of ETP, Regency and Sunoco Logistics and their respective subsidiaries and ETP’s and Regency’s ability to make cash distributions to us, which is dependent on the results of operations, cash flows and financial condition of ETP, Regency and Sunoco Logistics.

The amount of cash that ETP, Regency and Sunoco Logistics can distribute to their partners, including us, each quarter depends upon the amount of cash they generate from their operations, which will fluctuate from quarter to quarter and will depend upon, among other things:


•	the amount of natural gas, crude oil and products transported through ETP’s, Regency’s and Sunoco Logistics’ transportation pipelines and gathering systems;


•	the level of throughput in processing and treating operations;


•	the fees charged and the margins realized by ETP, Regency and Sunoco Logistics for their services;


•	the price of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and products;


•	the relationship between natural gas, NGL and crude oil prices;


•	the amount of cash distributions ETP receives with respect to the Regency and AmeriGas common units that ETP or their subsidiaries own;


•	the weather in their respective operating areas;


•	the level of competition from other midstream, transportation and storage and retail marketing companies and other energy providers;


•	the level of their respective operating costs;


•	prevailing economic conditions; and


•	the level and results of their respective derivative activities.

In addition, the actual amount of cash that ETP and Regency will have available for distribution will also depend on other factors, such as:


•	the level of capital expenditures they make;


•	the level of costs related to litigation and regulatory compliance matters;

Table of Contents


•	the cost of acquisitions, if any;


•	the levels of any margin calls that result from changes in commodity prices;


•	debt service requirements;


•	fluctuations in working capital needs;


•	their ability to borrow under their respective revolving credit facilities;


•	their ability to access capital markets;


•	restrictions on distributions contained in their respective debt agreements; and


•	the amount, if any, of cash reserves established by the board of directors and their respective general partners in their discretion for the proper conduct of their respective businesses.

ETE does not have any control over many of these factors, including the level of cash reserves established by the board of directors and ETP’s and Regency’s respective General Partners. Accordingly, we cannot guarantee that ETP, Regency or Sunoco Logistics will have sufficient available cash to pay a specific level of cash distributions to its partners.

Furthermore, Unitholders should be aware that the amount of cash that ETP and Regency have available for distribution depends primarily upon cash flow and is not solely a function of profitability, which is affected by non-cash items. As a result, ETP and Regency may declare and/or pay cash distributions during periods when they record net losses. Please read “Risks Related to the Businesses of Energy Transfer Partners and Regency Energy Partners” included in this Item 1A for a discussion of further risks affecting ETP’s and Regency’s ability to generate distributable cash flow.

We may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests without the consent of our Unitholders, which will dilute Unitholders’ ownership interest in us and may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase our per unit distribution level.

Our partnership agreement allows us to issue an unlimited number of additional limited partner interests, including securities senior to the Common Units, without the approval of our Unitholders. The issuance of additional Common Units or other equity securities by us will have the following effects:


•	our Unitholders’ current proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;


•	the amount of cash available for distribution on each Common Unit or partnership security may decrease;


•	the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;


•	the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding Common Unit may be diminished; and


•	the market price of our Common Units may decline.

In addition, ETP and Regency may sell an unlimited number of limited partner interests without the consent of the respective Unitholders, which will dilute existing interests of the respective Unitholders, including us. The issuance of additional Common Units or other equity securities by ETP will have essentially the same effects as detailed above.

ETP or Regency may issue additional Common Units, which may increase the risk that ETP or Regency will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase its per unit distribution level.

The partnership agreements of each ETP and Regency allow ETP and Regency, respectively, to issue an unlimited number of additional limited partner interests. The issuance of additional common units or other equity securities by ETP or Regency will have the following effects:


•	Unitholders’ current proportionate ownership interest in ETP or Regency, as applicable, will decrease;


•	the amount of cash available for distribution on each common unit or partnership security may decrease;


•	the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;


•	the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding common unit may be diminished; and


•	the market price of ETP’s or Regency’s Common Units, as applicable, may decline.

The payment of distributions on any additional units issued by ETP or Regency may increase the risk that ETP or Regency, as applicable, may not have sufficient cash available to maintain or increase its per unit distribution level, which in turn may impact the available cash that we have to meet our obligations.

Table of Contents

Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP may issue additional common units, which may increase the risk that Sunoco Logistics or Sunoco LP will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase their per unit distribution level.

Sunoco Logistics’ and Sunoco LP’s partnership agreements allow the issuance of an unlimited number of additional limited partner interests. The issuance of additional common units or other equity securities by Sunoco Logistics or Sunoco LP will have the following effects:


•	Unitholders’ current proportionate ownership interest in Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP, as applicable, will decrease;


•	the amount of cash available for distribution on each common unit or partnership security may decrease;


•	the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;


•	the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding common unit may be diminished; and


•	the market price of Sunoco Logistics’ and Sunoco LP’s common units may decline.

The payment of distributions on any additional units issued by Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP may increase the risk that Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP may not have sufficient cash available to maintain or increase their per unit distribution level, which in turn may impact the available cash that we have to meet our obligations.

Unitholders have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect the General Partner or its directors. In addition, even if Unitholders are dissatisfied, they cannot easily remove the General Partner.

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, Unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business, and therefore limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. Unitholders did not elect our General Partner and will have no right to elect our General Partner or the officers or directors of our General Partner on an annual or other continuing basis.

Furthermore, if our Unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our General Partner, they may be unable to remove our General Partner. Our General Partner may not be removed except, among other things, upon the vote of the holders of at least 66²/3% of our outstanding units. As of December 31, 2014, our directors and executive officers directly or indirectly own approximately 20% of our outstanding Common Units. It will be particularly difficult for our General Partner to be removed without the consent of our directors and executive officers. As a result, the price at which our Common Units will trade may be lower because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

Furthermore, Unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by the partnership agreement provision providing that any units held by a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than the General Partner and its affiliates, cannot be voted on any matter. If the Regency Merger is completed and the Bakken Pipeline Transaction is completed, ETE’s aggregate ownership percentage of the outstanding ETP Common Units would decrease to approximately 5% on a pro forma basis.

Our General Partner may, in its sole discretion, approve the issuance of partnership securities and specify the terms of such partnership securities.

Pursuant to our partnership agreement, our General Partner has the ability, in its sole discretion and without the approval of the Unitholders, to approve the issuance of securities by the Partnership at any time and to specify the terms and conditions of such securities. The securities authorized to be issued may be issued in one or more classes or series, with such designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties (which may be senior to existing classes and series of partnership securities), as shall be determined by our General Partner, including:


•	the right to share in the Partnership’s profits and losses;


•	the right to share in the Partnership’s distributions;


•	the rights upon dissolution and liquidation of the Partnership;


•	whether, and the terms upon which, the Partnership may redeem the securities;


•	whether the securities will be issued, evidenced by certificates and assigned or transferred; and


•	the right, if any, of the security to vote on matters relating to the Partnership, including matters relating to the relative rights, preferences and privileges of such security.

Please see “—We may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests without the consent of our Unitholders, which will dilute Unitholders’ ownership interest in us and may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase our per unit distribution level.” above.

Table of Contents

The control of our General Partner may be transferred to a third party without Unitholder consent.

The General Partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party without the consent of the Unitholders. Furthermore, the members of our General Partner may transfer all or part of their ownership interest in our General Partner to a third party without the consent of the Unitholders. Any new owner or owners of our General Partner or the general partner of the General Partner would be in a position to replace the directors and officers of our General Partner with its own choices and to control the decisions made and actions taken by the board of directors and officers.

We are dependent on third parties, including key personnel of ETP under a shared services agreement, to provide the financial, accounting, administrative and legal services necessary to operate our business.

We rely on the services of key personnel of ETP, including the ongoing involvement and continued leadership of Kelcy L. Warren, one of the founders of ETP’s midstream business, as well as other key members of ETP’s management team such as Marshall S. (Mackie) McCrea, III, President and Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Warren and Mr. McCrea have been integral to the success of ETP’s midstream and intrastate transportation and storage businesses because of their ability to identify and develop strategic business opportunities. Losing the leadership of either Mr. Warren or Mr. McCrea could make it difficult for ETP to identify internal growth projects and accretive acquisitions, which could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s ability to increase the cash distributions paid on its partnership interests.

ETP’s executive officers that provide services to us pursuant to a shared services agreement allocate their time between us and ETP. To the extent that these officers face conflicts regarding the allocation of their time, we may not receive the level of attention from them that the management of our business requires. If ETP is unable to provide us with a sufficient number of personnel with the appropriate level of technical accounting and financial expertise, our internal accounting controls could be adversely impacted.

Cost reimbursements due to our General Partner may be substantial and may reduce our ability to pay the distributions to our Unitholders.

Prior to making any distributions to our Unitholders, we will reimburse our General Partner for all expenses it has incurred on our behalf. In addition, our General Partner and its affiliates may provide us with services for which we will be charged reasonable fees as determined by our General Partner. The reimbursement of these expenses and the payment of these fees could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our Unitholders. Our General Partner has sole discretion to determine the amount of these expenses and fees.

In addition, under Delaware partnership law, our General Partner has unlimited liability for our obligations, such as our debts and environmental liabilities, except for our contractual obligations that are expressly made without recourse to our General Partner. To the extent our General Partner incurs obligations on our behalf, we are obligated to reimburse or indemnify it. If we are unable or unwilling to reimburse or indemnify our General Partner, our General Partner may take actions to cause us to make payments of these obligations and liabilities. Any such payments could reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our Unitholders and cause the value of our Common Units to decline.

A reduction in ETP’s or Regency’s distributions will disproportionately affect the amount of cash distributions to which we are entitled.

Through our ownership of equity interests in ETP GP, the holder of the incentive distribution rights in ETP, we are entitled to receive our pro rata share of specified percentages of total cash distributions made by ETP as it reaches established target cash distribution levels as specified in the ETP partnership agreement. We currently receive our pro rata share of cash distributions from ETP based on the highest incremental percentage, 48%, to which ETP GP is entitled pursuant to its incentive distribution rights in ETP. A decrease in the amount of distributions by ETP to less than $0.4125 per Common Unit per quarter would reduce ETP GP’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions above $0.3175 per Common Unit per quarter from 48% to 23%. As a result, any such reduction in quarterly cash distributions from ETP would have the effect of disproportionately reducing the amount of all distributions that we receive from ETP based on our ownership interest in the incentive distribution rights in ETP as compared to cash distributions we receive from ETP on our General Partner interest in ETP and our ETP Common Units.

Similarly, we currently receive a pro rata share of incremental cash distributions from Regency at the 23% level pursuant to Regency GP’s incentive distribution rights in Regency as specified in the Regency partnership agreement. A decrease in the amount of distributions by Regency to less than $0.4375 per Common Unit per quarter would have reduced Regency GP’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions above $0.4025 per Common Unit per quarter from 23% to 13%. As a result, any such reduction in quarterly cash distributions from Regency would have the effect of disproportionately reducing the amount of all distributions that we receive from Regency based on our ownership interest in the incentive distribution rights of Regency as compared to cash distributions we receive from Regency on our General Partner interest in Regency and our Regency Common Units.

Table of Contents

A reduction in Sunoco Logistics’ distributions will disproportionately affect the amount of cash distributions to which we are entitled.

Through our ownership of equity interests in Sunoco Partners, the holder of the incentive distribution rights in Sunoco Logistics, we are entitled to receive our pro rata share of specified percentages of total cash distributions made by Sunoco Logistics as it reaches established target cash distribution levels as specified in the Sunoco Logistics partnership agreement. We currently receive our pro rata share of cash distributions from Sunoco Logistics based on the highest incremental percentage, 48%, to which Sunoco Partners is entitled pursuant to its incentive distribution rights in Sunoco Logistics. A decrease in the amount of distributions by Sunoco Logistics to less than $0.2638 per common unit per quarter would reduce Sunoco Partners’ percentage of the incremental cash distributions above $0.0958 per common unit per quarter from 48% to 35%. As a result, any such reduction in quarterly cash distributions from Sunoco Logistics would have the effect of disproportionately reducing the amount of all distributions that we receive from Sunoco Logistics based on our ownership interest in the incentive distribution rights in Sunoco Logistics as compared to cash distributions we receive from Sunoco Logistics on our General Partner interest in Sunoco Logistics and our Sunoco Logistics common units.

The consolidated debt level and debt agreements of ETP and Regency and those of their subsidiaries may limit the distributions we receive from ETP and Regency, as well as our future financial and operating flexibility.

ETP’s and Regency’s levels of indebtedness affect their operations in several ways, including, among other things:


•	a significant portion of ETP’s, Regency’s and their subsidiaries’ cash flows from operations will be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on outstanding debt and will not be available for other purposes, including payment of distributions to us;


•	covenants contained in ETP’s, Regency’s and their subsidiaries’ existing debt agreements require ETP, Regency and their subsidiaries, as applicable, to meet financial tests that may adversely affect their flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes in their respective businesses;


•	ETP’s, Regency’s and their subsidiaries’ ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and general partnership, corporate or limited liability company purposes, as applicable, may be limited;


•	ETP and Regency may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to similar companies that have less debt;


•	ETP and Regency may be more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions as a result of their significant debt levels; and


•	failure by ETP, Regency or their subsidiaries to comply with the various restrictive covenants of the respective debt agreements could negatively impact ETP’s and Regency’s ability to incur additional debt, including their ability to utilize the available capacity under their revolving credit facilities, and to pay distributions.

We do not have the same flexibility as other types of organizations to accumulate cash, which may limit cash available to service our debt or to repay debt at maturity.

Unlike a corporation, our partnership agreement requires us to distribute, on a quarterly basis, 100% of our Available Cash (as defined in our partnership agreement) to our Unitholders of record and our General Partner. Available Cash is generally all of our cash on hand as of the end of a quarter, adjusted for cash distributions and net changes to reserves. Our General Partner will determine the amount and timing of such distributions and has broad discretion to establish and make additions to our reserves or the reserves of our operating subsidiaries in amounts it determines in its reasonable discretion to be necessary or appropriate:


•	to provide for the proper conduct of our business and the businesses of our operating subsidiaries (including reserves for future capital expenditures and for our anticipated future credit needs);


•	to provide funds for distributions to our Unitholders and our General Partner for any one or more of the next four calendar quarters; or


•	to comply with applicable law or any of our loan or other agreements.

A downgrade of our credit rating could impact our liquidity, access to capital and our costs of doing business, and maintaining credit ratings is under the control of independent third parties.

A downgrade of our credit rating might increase our cost of borrowing and could require us to post collateral with third parties, negatively impacting our available liquidity. Our ability to access capital markets could also be limited by a downgrade of our credit rating and other disruptions. Such disruptions could include:


•	economic downturns;

Table of Contents


•	deteriorating capital market conditions;


•	declining market prices for natural gas, NGLs and other commodities;


•	terrorist attacks or threatened attacks on our facilities or those of other energy companies; and


•	the overall health of the energy industry, including the bankruptcy or insolvency of other companies.

Credit rating agencies perform independent analysis when assigning credit ratings. The analysis includes a number of criteria including, but not limited to, business composition, market and operational risks, as well as various financial tests. Credit rating agencies continue to review the criteria for industry sectors and various debt ratings and may make changes to those criteria from time to time. Credit ratings are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold investments in the rated entity. Ratings are subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the rating agencies, and we cannot assure you that we will maintain our current credit ratings.

Our subsidiaries are not prohibited from competing with us.

Neither our partnership agreement nor the partnership agreements of our subsidiaries, including ETP, Sunoco Logistics, Sunoco LP and Regency, prohibit our subsidiaries from owning assets or engaging in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. In addition, our subsidiaries may acquire, construct or dispose of any assets in the future without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to purchase or construct any of those assets.

Capital projects will require significant amounts of debt and equity financing which may not be available to ETP or Regency on acceptable terms, or at all.

ETP and Regency plan to fund their growth capital expenditures, including any new future pipeline construction projects and improvements or repairs to existing facilities that ETP or Regency may undertake, with proceeds from sales of ETP’s or Regency’s debt and equity securities and borrowings under their respective revolving credit facilities; however, ETP or Regency cannot be certain that they will be able to issue debt and equity securities on terms satisfactory to them, or at all. In addition, ETP or Regency may be unable to obtain adequate funding under their current revolving credit facility because ETP’s or Regency’s lending counterparties may be unwilling or unable to meet their funding obligations. If ETP or Regency are unable to finance their expansion projects as expected, ETP or Regency could be required to seek alternative financing, the terms of which may not be attractive to ETP or Regency, or to revise or cancel its expansion plans.

A significant increase in ETP’s or Regency’s indebtedness that is proportionately greater than ETP’s or Regency’s respective issuances of equity could negatively impact ETP’s or Regency’s respective credit ratings or their ability to remain in compliance with the financial covenants under their respective revolving credit agreements, which could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Increases in interest rates could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

In addition to our exposure to commodity prices, we have significant exposure to changes in interest rates. Approximately $5.89 billion of our consolidated debt as of December 31, 2014 bears interest at variable interest rates and the remainder bears interest at fixed rates. To the extent that we have debt with floating interest rates, our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could be materially adversely affected by increases in interest rates. We manage a portion of our interest rate exposures by utilizing interest rate swaps.

An increase in interest rates may also cause a corresponding decline in demand for equity investments, in general, and in particular for yield-based equity investments such as our Common Units. Any such reduction in demand for our Common Units resulting from other more attractive investment opportunities may cause the trading price of our Common Units to decline.

The credit and risk profile of our General Partner and its owners could adversely affect our credit ratings and profile.

The credit and business risk profiles of our General Partner or indirect owners of our General Partner may be factors in credit evaluations of us as a publicly traded limited partnership due to the significant influence of our General Partner and indirect owners over our business activities, including our cash distributions, acquisition strategy and business risk profile. Another factor that may be considered is the financial condition of our General Partner and its owners, including the degree of their financial leverage and their dependence on cash flow from us to service their indebtedness.

ETE has significant indebtedness outstanding and is dependent principally on the cash distributions from its general and limited partner equity interests in us and in Regency to service such indebtedness. Any distributions by us to ETE will be made only after satisfying our then current obligations to our creditors. Although we have taken certain steps in our organizational structure, financial reporting and contractual relationships to reflect the separateness of us, ETP GP and ETP LLC from the entities that

Table of Contents

control ETP GP (ETE and its general partner), our credit ratings and business risk profile could be adversely affected if the ratings and risk profiles of such entities were viewed as substantially lower or riskier than ours.

Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions.

Under certain circumstances, Unitholders may have to repay us amounts wrongfully distributed to them. Under Delaware law, we may not make a distribution to Unitholders if the distribution causes our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and non-recourse liabilities are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted. Delaware law provides that a limited partner who receives such a distribution and knew at the time of the distribution that the distribution violated Delaware law, will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount for three years from the distribution date. Under Delaware law, an assignee who becomes a substituted limited partner of a limited partnership is liable for the obligations of the assignor to make contributions to the partnership. However, such an assignee is not obligated for liabilities unknown to him at the time he or she became a limited partner if the liabilities could not be determined from the partnership agreement.

We have a holding company structure in which our subsidiaries conduct our operations and own our operating assets.

We are a holding company, and our subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. We do not have significant assets other than the partnership interests and the equity in our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to pay distributions to our Unitholders and to service our debt depends on the performance of our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. The ability of our subsidiaries to make distributions to us may be restricted by, among other things, credit facilities and applicable state partnership laws and other laws and regulations. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries we may not be able to pay distributions to our Unitholders or to pay interest or principal on our debt when due.

Unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that unitholder actions constitute control of our business.

Under Delaware law, a unitholder could be held liable for our obligations to the same extent as a general partner if a court determined that the right of unitholders to remove our general partner or to take other action under our partnership agreement constituted participation in the “control” of our business.

Our general partner generally has unlimited liability for our obligations, such as our debts and environmental liabilities, except for those contractual obligations that are expressly made without recourse to our general partner. Our partnership agreement allows the general partner to incur obligations on our behalf that are expressly non-recourse to the general partner. The general partner has entered into such limited recourse obligations in most instances involving payment liability and intends to do so in the future.

In addition, Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act provides that under some circumstances, a unitholder may be liable to us for the amount of a distribution for a period of three years from the date of the distribution.

Our debt level and debt agreements may limit our ability to make distributions to Unitholders and may limit our future financial and operating flexibility.

As of December 31, 2014, we had approximately $30.66 billion of consolidated debt, excluding the debt of our joint ventures. Our level of indebtedness affects our operations in several ways, including, among other things:


•	a significant portion of our and our subsidiaries’ cash flow from operations will be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on outstanding debt and will not be available for other purposes, including payment of distributions;


•	covenants contained in our and our subsidiaries’ existing debt agreements require us and them, as applicable, to meet financial tests that may adversely affect our flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes in our business;


•	our and our subsidiaries’ ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and general partnership, corporate or limited liability company purposes, as applicable, may be limited;


•	we may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to similar companies that have less debt;


•	we may be more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions as a result of our significant debt level; and


•	failure by us or our subsidiaries to comply with the various restrictive covenants of our respective debt agreements could negatively impact our ability to incur additional debt, including our ability to utilize the available capacity under our revolving credit facility, and our ability to pay our distributions.

Unitholders may be required to sell their units to our general partner at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time less than 10% of the outstanding units of any class are held by persons other than the general partner and its affiliates, the general partner will have the right to acquire all, but not less than all, of those units at a price no less than their then-current

Table of Contents

market price. As a consequence, a unitholder may be required to sell his Common Units at an undesirable time or price. The general partner may assign this purchase right to any of its affiliates or to us.

Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest

Although we control ETP and Regency through our ownership of their respective General Partners, ETP’s General Partner owes fiduciary duties to ETP and ETP’s Unitholders, and Regency’s General Partner owes fiduciary duties to Regency and Regency’s Unitholders, which may conflict with our interests.

Conflicts of interest exist and may arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and ETP, Regency and their respective limited partners, on the other hand. The directors and officers of ETP’s and Regency’s General Partners have fiduciary duties to manage ETP and Regency, respectively, in a manner beneficial to us. At the same time, the General Partners have fiduciary duties to manage ETP and Regency, respectively, in a manner beneficial to ETP, Regency and their respective limited partners. The board of directors of ETP’s General Partner or Regency’s general partner will resolve any such conflict and have broad latitude to consider the interests of all parties to the conflict. The resolution of these conflicts may not always be in our best interest.

For example, conflicts of interest with ETP or Regency may arise in the following situations:


•	the allocation of shared overhead expenses to ETP, Regency and us;


•	the interpretation and enforcement of contractual obligations between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and ETP or Regency, on the other hand;


•	the determination of the amount of cash to be distributed to ETP’s or Regency’s partners and the amount of cash to be reserved for the future conduct of ETP’s or Regency’s business;


•	the determination whether to make borrowings under ETP’s or Regency’s respective revolving credit facility to pay distributions to ETP’s or Regency’s partners, as applicable;


•	the determination of whether a business opportunity (such as a commercial development opportunity or an acquisition) that we may become aware of independently of ETP or Regency is made available for either ETP or Regency, or both, to pursue; and


•	any decision we make in the future to engage in business activities independent of ETP or Regency.

The fiduciary duties of our General Partner’s officers and directors may conflict with those of ETP’s or Regency’s respective General Partners.

Conflicts of interest may arise because of the relationships among ETP, Regency, their General Partners and us. Our General Partner’s directors and officers have fiduciary duties to manage our business in a manner beneficial to us and our Unitholders. Some of our General Partner’s directors are also directors and officers of ETP’s General Partner or Regency’s General Partner, and have fiduciary duties to manage the respective businesses of ETP and Regency in a manner beneficial to ETP, Regency and their respective Unitholders. The resolution of these conflicts may not always be in our best interest or that of our Unitholders.

Potential conflicts of interest may arise among our General Partner, its affiliates and us. Our General Partner and its affiliates have limited fiduciary duties to us, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of us.

Conflicts of interest may arise among our General Partner and its affiliates, on the one hand, and us, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our General Partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over our interests. These conflicts include, among others, the following:


•	Our General Partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us, including ETP, Regency and their respective affiliates and any General Partners and limited partnerships acquired in the future, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of limiting its fiduciary duties to us.

•

Our General Partner has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties under the terms of our partnership agreement, while also restricting the remedies available for actions that, without these limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing our units, Unitholders consent to various actions and conflicts of interest that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable state law.


•	Our General Partner determines the amount and timing of our investment transactions, borrowings, issuances of additional partnership securities and reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is available for distribution.


•	Our General Partner determines which costs it and its affiliates have incurred are reimbursable by us.

Table of Contents


•	Our partnership agreement does not restrict our General Partner from causing us to pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered, or from entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf, so long as the terms of any such payments or additional contractual arrangements are fair and reasonable to us.


•	Our General Partner controls the enforcement of obligations owed to us by it and its affiliates.


•	Our General Partner decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for us.

Our partnership agreement limits our General Partner’s fiduciary duties to us and restricts the remedies available for actions taken by our General Partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the standards to which our General Partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement:


•	permits our General Partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our General Partner. This entitles our General Partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or any limited partner;


•	provides that our General Partner is entitled to make other decisions in “good faith” if it reasonably believes that the decisions are in our best interests;

•

generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not approved by the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the board of directors of our General Partner and not involving a vote of Unitholders must be on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or be “fair and reasonable” to us and that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is “fair and reasonable,” our General Partner may consider the totality of the relationships among the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly advantageous or beneficial to us;


•	provides that unless our General Partner has acted in bad faith, the action taken by our General Partner shall not constitute a breach of its fiduciary duty;


•	provides that our General Partner may resolve any conflicts of interest involving us and our General Partner and its affiliates, and any resolution of a conflict of interest by our General Partner that is “fair and reasonable” to us will be deemed approved by all partners, including the Unitholders, and will not constitute a breach of the partnership agreement;

•

provides that our General Partner may, but is not required, in connection with its resolution of a conflict of interest, to seek “special approval” of such resolution by appointing a conflicts committee of the General Partner’s board of directors composed of two or more independent directors to consider such conflicts of interest and to recommend action to the board of directors, and any resolution of the conflict of interest by the conflicts committee shall be conclusively deemed “fair and reasonable” to us; and

•

provides that our General Partner and its officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages to us, our limited partners or assignees for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that the General Partner or those other persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud, willful misconduct or gross negligence.

Our General Partner has a limited call right that may require Unitholders to sell their units at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time our General Partner and its affiliates own more than 90% of our outstanding units, our General Partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than their then-current market price. As a result, Unitholders may be required to sell their units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their units. As of December 31, 2014, the directors and executive officers of our General Partner owned approximately 20% of our Common Units.

The general partner’s absolute discretion in determining the level of cash reserves may adversely affect our ability to make cash distributions to our Unitholders.

Our partnership agreement requires the general partner to deduct from operating surplus cash reserves that in its reasonable discretion are necessary to fund our future operating expenditures. In addition, our partnership agreement permits the general partner to reduce available cash by establishing cash reserves for the proper conduct of our business, to comply with applicable law or agreements to which we are a party or to provide funds for future distributions to partners. These cash reserves will affect the amount of cash available for distribution to unitholders.

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Businesses of ETP and Regency

Since our cash flows consist exclusively of distributions from ETP and Regency, risks to the businesses of ETP and Regency are also risks to us. We have set forth below risks to the businesses of ETP and Regency, the occurrence of which could have a negative impact on their respective financial performance and decrease the amount of cash they are able to distribute to us.

ETP and Regency do not control, and therefore may not be able to cause or prevent certain actions by, certain of their joint ventures.

Certain of ETP’s and Regency’s joint ventures have their own governing boards, and ETP or Regency may not control all of the decisions of those boards. Consequently, it may be difficult or impossible for ETP or Regency to cause the joint venture entity to take actions that ETP or Regency believe would be in their or the joint venture’s best interests. Likewise, ETP or Regency may be unable to prevent actions of the joint venture.

ETP and Regency are exposed to the credit risk of their respective customers, and an increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by their respective customers could reduce their respective ability to make distributions to their Unitholders, including to us.

The risks of nonpayment and nonperformance by ETP’s and Regency’s respective customers are a major concern in their respective businesses. Participants in the energy industry have been subjected to heightened scrutiny from the financial markets in light of past collapses and failures of other energy companies. ETP and Regency are subject to risks of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by their respective customers. The current tightening of credit in the financial markets may make it more difficult for customers to obtain financing and, depending on the degree to which this occurs, there may be a material increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by ETP’s and Regency’s customers. Any substantial increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by ETP’s or Regency’s customers could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s respective results of operations and operating cash flows.

Income from ETP’s midstream, transportation, terminalling and storage operations is exposed to risks due to fluctuations in the demand for and price of natural gas, NGLs and oil that are beyond our control.

The prices for natural gas, NGLs and oil (including refined petroleum products) reflect market demand that fluctuates with changes in global and U.S. economic conditions and other factors, including:


•	the level of domestic natural gas, NGL, and oil production;


•	the level of natural gas, NGL, and oil imports and exports, including liquefied natural gas;


•	actions taken by natural gas and oil producing nations;


•	instability or other events affecting natural gas and oil producing nations;


•	the impact of weather and other events of nature on the demand for natural gas, NGLs and oil;


•	the availability of storage, terminal and transportation systems, and refining, processing and treating facilities;


•	the price, availability and marketing of competitive fuels;


•	the demand for electricity;


•	the cost of capital needed to maintain or increase production levels and to construct and expand facilities


•	the impact of energy conservation and fuel efficiency efforts; and


•	the extent of governmental regulation, taxation, fees and duties.

In the past, the prices of natural gas, NGLs and oil have been extremely volatile, and we expect this volatility to continue.

Any loss of business from existing customers or our inability to attract new customers due to a decline in demand for natural gas, NGLs, or oil could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations. In addition, significant price fluctuations for natural gas, NGL and oil commodities could materially affect our profitability

A material decrease in demand or distribution of crude oil available for transport through Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines or terminal facilities could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Table of Contents

in the price of crude oil supplied from any of these areas, as compared to alternative sources of crude oil available to Sunoco Logistics’ customers, could materially reduce demand for crude oil in these areas. In either case, the volumes of crude oil transported in Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines and terminal facilities could decline, and it could likely be difficult to secure alternative sources of attractively priced crude oil supply in a timely fashion or at all. If Sunoco Logistics is unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

ETP and Regency are affected by competition from other midstream, transportation and storage and retail marketing companies.

We experience competition in all of our business segments. With respect to ETP’s midstream operations, ETP competes for both natural gas supplies and customers for its services. Competitors include major integrated oil companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines and companies that gather, compress, treat, process, transport, store and market natural gas.

ETP’s and Regency’s natural gas and NGL transportation pipelines and storage facilities compete with other interstate and intrastate pipeline companies and storage providers in the transportation and storage of natural gas and NGLs. The principal elements of competition among pipelines are rates, terms of service, access to sources of supply and the flexibility and reliability of service. Natural gas and NGLs also competes with other forms of energy, including electricity, coal, fuel oils and renewable or alternative energy. Competition among fuels and energy supplies is primarily based on price; however, non-price factors, including governmental regulation, environmental impacts, efficiency, ease of use and handling, and the availability of subsidies and tax benefits also affects competitive outcomes.

In markets served by our NGL pipelines, we compete with other pipeline companies and barge, rail and truck fleet operations. We also face competition with other storage and fractionation facilities based on fees charged and the ability to receive, distribute and/or fractionate the customer’s products.

ETP’s crude oil and refined products pipeline operations face significant competition from other pipelines for large volume shipments. These operations also face competition from trucks for incremental and marginal volumes in areas served by Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines. Further, our refined product terminals compete with terminals owned by integrated petroleum companies, refining and marketing companies, independent terminal companies and distribution companies with marketing and trading operations.

ETP also faces strong competition in the market for the sale of retail gasoline and merchandise. ETP’s competitors include service stations operated by fully integrated major oil companies and other well-recognized national or regional retail outlets, often selling gasoline or merchandise at aggressively competitive prices. The actions of retail marketing competitors, including the impact of foreign imports, could lead to lower prices or reduced margins for the products we sell, which could have an adverse effect on our business or results of operations.

ETP and Regency may be unable to retain or replace existing midstream, transportation, terminalling and storage customers or volumes due to declining demand or increased competition in oil, natural gas and NGL markets, which would reduce revenues and limit future profitability.

The retention or replacement of existing customers and the volume of services that ETP and Regency provide at rates sufficient to maintain or increase current revenues and cash flows depends on a number of factors beyond our control, including the price of and demand for oil, natural gas, and NGLs in the markets we serve and competition from other service providers.

A significant portion of ETP and Regency’s sales of natural gas are to industrial customers and utilities. As a consequence of the volatility of natural gas prices and increased competition in the industry and other factors, industrial customers, utilities and other gas customers are increasingly reluctant to enter into long-term purchase contracts. Many customers purchase natural gas from more than one supplier and have the ability to change suppliers at any time. Some of these customers also have the ability to switch between gas and alternate fuels in response to relative price fluctuations in the market. Because there are many companies of greatly varying size and financial capacity that compete with us in the marketing of natural gas, we often compete in natural gas sales markets primarily on the basis of price.

ETP and Regency also receive a substantial portion of revenues by providing natural gas gathering, processing, treating, transportation and storage services. While a substantial portion of their services are sold under long-term contracts for reserved service, they also provide service on an unreserved or short-term basis. Demand for our services may be substantially reduced due to changing market prices. Declining prices may result in lower rates of natural gas production resulting in less use of services, while rising prices may diminish consumer demand and also limit the use of services. In addition, our competitors may attract our customers’ business. If demand declines or competition increases, we may not be able to sustain existing levels of unreserved service or renew or extend long-term contracts as they expire or we may reduce our rates to meet competitive pressures.

Table of Contents

Revenue from ETP and Regency’s NGL transportation systems and refined products storage is also exposed to risks due to fluctuations in demand for transportation and storage service as a result of unfavorable commodity prices, competition from nearby pipelines, and other factors. ETP and Regency receive substantially all of their transportation revenues through dedicated contracts under which the customer agrees to deliver the total output from particular processing plants that are connected only to their transportation system. Reduction in demand for natural gas or NGLs due to unfavorable prices or other factors, however, may result lower rates of production under dedicated contracts and lower demand for our services. In addition, ETP’s refined products storage revenues are primarily derived from fixed capacity arrangements between us and our customers, a portion of its revenue is derived from fungible storage and throughput arrangements, under which ETP’s revenue is more dependent upon demand for storage from its customers.

The volume of crude oil and products transported through ETP’s oil pipelines and terminal facilities depends on the availability of attractively priced crude oil and refined products in the areas serviced by our assets. A period of sustained price reductions for crude oil or products could lead to a decline in drilling activity, production and refining of crude oil, or import levels in these areas. A period of sustained increases in the price of crude oil or products supplied from or delivered to any of these areas could materially reduce demand for crude oil or products in these areas. In either case, the volumes of crude oil or products transported in our oil pipelines and terminal facilities could decline.

The loss of existing customers by ETP and Regency’s midstream, transportation, terminalling and storage facilities or a reduction in the volume of the services customers purchase from them, or their inability to attract new customers and service volumes would negatively affect revenues, be detrimental to growth, and adversely affect results of operations.

ETP’s midstream facilities and transportation pipelines are attached to basins with naturally declining production, which it may not be able to replace with new sources of supply.

In order to maintain or increase throughput levels on ETP’s gathering systems and transportation pipeline systems and asset utilization rates at our treating and processing plants, ETP must continually contract for new natural gas supplies and natural gas transportation services.

A substantial portion of ETP’s assets, including its gathering systems and processing and treating plants, are connected to natural gas reserves and wells that experience declining production over time. ETP’s gas transportation pipelines are also dependent upon natural gas production in areas served by our gathering systems or in areas served by other gathering systems or transportation pipelines that connect with our transportation pipelines. ETP may not be able to obtain additional contracts for natural gas supplies for its natural gas gathering systems, and may be unable to maintain or increase the levels of natural gas throughput on its transportation pipelines. The primary factors affecting our ability to connect new supplies of natural gas to our gathering systems include our success in contracting for existing natural gas supplies that are not committed to other systems and the level of drilling activity and production of natural gas near our gathering systems or in areas that provide access to its transportation pipelines or markets to which ETP’s systems connect. ETP has no control over the level of drilling activity in its areas of operation, the amount of reserves underlying the wells and the rate at which production from a well will decline. In addition, ETP has no control over producers or their production and contracting decisions.

While a substantial portion of ETP’s services are provided under long-term contracts for reserved service, it also provides service on an unreserved basis. The reserves available through the supply basins connected to our gathering, processing, treating, transportation and storage facilities may decline and may not be replaced by other sources of supply. A decrease in development or production activity could cause a decrease in the volume of unreserved services ETP provides and a decrease in the number and volume of its contracts for reserved transportation service over the long run, which in each case would adversely affect revenues and results of operations.

If we are unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, our results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

ETP is entirely dependent upon third parties for the supply of refined products such as gasoline and diesel for its retail marketing business.

ETP is required to purchase refined products from third party sources, including the joint venture that acquired Sunoco, Inc.’s Philadelphia refinery. ETP may also need to contract for new ships, barges, pipelines or terminals which it has not historically used to transport these products to its markets. The inability to acquire refined products and any required transportation services at favorable prices may adversely affect ETP’s business and results of operations.

Table of Contents

The profitability of certain activities in ETP’s and Regency’s natural gas gathering, processing, transportation and storage operations are largely dependent upon natural gas commodity prices, price spreads between two or more physical locations and market demand for natural gas and NGLs.

For a portion of the natural gas gathered on ETP’s and Regency’s systems, they purchase natural gas from producers at the wellhead and then gather and deliver the natural gas to pipelines where they typically resell the natural gas under various arrangements, including sales at index prices. Generally, the gross margins they realize under these arrangements decrease in periods of low natural gas prices.

ETP and Regency also enter into percent-of-proceeds arrangements, keep-whole arrangements, and processing fee agreements pursuant to which we agree to gather and process natural gas received from the producers.

Under percent-of-proceeds arrangements, ETP and Regency generally sell the residue gas and NGLs at market prices and remit to the producers an agreed upon percentage of the proceeds based on an index price. In other cases, instead of remitting cash payments to the producer, ETP and Regency deliver an agreed upon percentage of the residue gas and NGL volumes to the producer and sell the volumes ETP and Regency keep to third parties at market prices. Under these arrangements, revenues and gross margins decline when natural gas prices and NGL prices decrease. Accordingly, a decrease in the price of natural gas or NGLs could have an adverse effect on ETP’s and Regency’s revenues and results of operations.

Under keep-whole arrangements, ETP and Regency generally sell the NGLs produced from our gathering and processing operations at market prices. Because the extraction of the NGLs from the natural gas during processing reduces the Btu content of the natural gas, ETP and Regency must either purchase natural gas at market prices for return to producers or make a cash payment to producers equal to the value of this natural gas. Under these arrangements, gross margins generally decrease when the price of natural gas increases relative to the price of NGLs.

When ETP and Regency process the gas for a fee under processing fee agreements, they may guarantee recoveries to the producer. If recoveries are less than those guaranteed to the producer, ETP or Regency may suffer a loss by having to supply liquids or its cash equivalent to keep the producer whole.

ETP and Regency also receive fees and retain gas in kind from our natural gas transportation and storage customers. ETP and Regency’s fuel retention fees and the value of gas that they retain in kind are directly affected by changes in natural gas prices. Decreases in natural gas prices tend to decrease fuel retention fees and the value of retained gas.

In addition, ETP receives revenue from its off-gas processing and fractionating system in South Louisiana primarily through customer agreements that are a combination of keep-whole and percent-of-proceeds arrangements, as well as from transportation and fractionation fees. Consequently, a large portion of our off-gas processing and fractionation revenue is exposed to risks due to fluctuations in commodity prices. In addition, a decline in NGL prices could cause a decrease in demand for ETP’s off-gas processing and fractionation services and could have an adverse effect on ETP’s results of operations.

The use of derivative financial instruments could result in material financial losses by ETP and Regency.

From time to time, ETP and Regency have sought to reduce our exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices and interest rates by using derivative financial instruments and other risk management mechanisms and by their trading, marketing and/or system optimization activities. To the extent that either ETP or Regency hedges its commodity price and interest rate exposures, it foregoes the benefits it would otherwise experience if commodity prices or interest rates were to change favorably. In addition, even though monitored by management, ETP’s and Regency’s derivatives activities can result in losses. Such losses could occur under various circumstances, including if a counterparty does not perform its obligations under the derivative arrangement, the hedge is imperfect, commodity prices move unfavorably related to ETP’s or Regency’s physical or financial positions, or internal hedging policies and procedures are not followed.

The accounting standards regarding hedge accounting are very complex, and even when we engage in hedging transactions that are effective economically (whether to mitigate our exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices, or to balance our exposure to fixed and variable interest rates), these transactions may not be considered effective for accounting purposes. Accordingly, our consolidated financial statements may reflect some volatility due to these hedges, even when there is no underlying economic impact at that point. It is also not always possible for us to engage in a hedging transaction that completely mitigates our exposure to commodity prices. Our consolidated financial statements may reflect a gain or loss arising from an exposure to commodity prices for which we are unable to enter into a completely effective hedge.

In addition, even though monitored by management, our derivatives activities can result in losses. Such losses could occur under various circumstances, including if a counterparty does not perform its obligations under the derivative arrangement, the hedge

Table of Contents

is imperfect, commodity prices move unfavorably related to our physical or financial positions or hedging policies and procedures are not followed.

ETP’s and Regency’s natural gas and NGL revenues depend on their customers’ ability to use ETP’s and Regency’s pipelines and third-party pipelines over which we have no control.

ETP’s and Regency’s natural gas transportation, storage and NGL businesses depend, in part, on their customers’ ability to obtain access to pipelines to deliver gas to and receive gas from ETP and Regency. Many of these pipelines are owned by parties not affiliated with us. Any interruption of service on our pipelines or third party pipelines due to testing, line repair, reduced operating pressures, or other causes or adverse change in terms and conditions of service could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s and Regency’s ability, and the ability of their customers, to transport natural gas to and from their pipelines and facilities and a corresponding material adverse effect on their transportation and storage revenues. In addition, the rates charged by interconnected pipelines for transportation to and from ETP’s and Regency’s facilities affect the utilization and value of their storage services. Significant changes in the rates charged by those pipelines or the rates charged by other pipelines with which the interconnected pipelines compete could also have a material adverse effect on storage revenues.

Shippers using ETP’s and Regency’s oil pipelines and terminals are also dependent upon their pipelines and connections to third-party pipelines to receive and deliver crude oil and products. Any interruptions or reduction in the capabilities of these pipelines due to testing, line repair, reduced operating pressures, or other causes could result in reduced volumes transported in ETP’s and Regency’s pipelines or through their terminals. Similarly, if additional shippers begin transporting volume over interconnecting oil pipelines, the allocations of pipeline capacity to ETP and Regency’s existing shippers on these interconnecting pipelines could be reduced, which also could reduce volumes transported in their pipelines or through their terminals. Allocation reductions of this nature are not infrequent and are beyond our control. Any such interruptions or allocation reductions that, individually or in the aggregate, are material or continue for a sustained period of time could have a material adverse effect on ETP and Regency’s results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The inability to continue to access lands owned by third parties, including tribal lands, could adversely affect our ability to operate and adversely affect our financial results.

Our ability to operate our pipeline systems and terminal facilities on certain lands owned by third parties, including lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of a Native American tribe, will depend on our success in maintaining existing rights-of-way and obtaining new rights-of-way on those lands. Securing extensions of existing and any additional rights-of-way is also critical to our ability to pursue expansion projects. We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to acquire new rights-of-way or maintain access to existing rights-of-way upon the expiration of the current grants or that all of the rights-of-way will be obtainable in a timely fashion. Transwestern’s existing right-of-way agreements with the Navajo Nation, Southern Ute, Pueblo of Laguna and Fort Mojave tribes extend through November 2029, September 2020, December 2022 and April 2019, respectively. Our financial position could be adversely affected if the costs of new or extended right-of-way grants cannot be recovered in rates.

Further, whether we have the power of eminent domain for our pipelines varies from state to state, depending upon the type of pipeline and the laws of the particular state. In either case, we must compensate landowners for the use of their property and, in eminent domain actions, such compensation may be determined by a court. The inability to exercise the power of eminent domain could negatively affect our business if we were to lose the right to use or occupy the property on which our pipelines are located.

In addition, we do not own all of the land on which our oil terminal facilities and our retail service stations are located. We have rental agreements for approximately 41.8% of the company- or dealer-operated retail service stations where we currently control the real estate and we have rental agreements for certain logistics facilities. As such, we are subject to the possibility of increased costs under rental agreements with landowners, primarily through rental increases and renewals of expired agreements. We are also subject to the risk that such agreements may not be renewed. Additionally, certain facilities and equipment (or parts thereof) used by us are leased from third parties for specific periods. Our inability to renew leases or otherwise maintain the right to utilize such facilities and equipment on acceptable terms, or the increased costs to maintain such rights, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

ETP and Regency may not be able to fully execute their growth strategies if they encounter increased competition for qualified assets.

ETP and Regency each have strategies that contemplate growth through the development and acquisition of a wide range of midstream and other energy infrastructure assets while maintaining strong balance sheets. These strategies include constructing and acquiring additional assets and businesses to enhance their ability to compete effectively and diversify their respective asset portfolios, thereby providing more stable cash flow. ETP and Regency regularly consider and enter into discussions regarding the acquisition of additional assets and businesses, stand-alone development projects or other transactions that ETP and Regency believe will present opportunities to realize synergies and increase cash flow.

Table of Contents

Consistent with their strategies, managements of ETP and Regency may, from time to time, engage in discussions with potential sellers regarding the possible acquisition of additional assets or businesses. Such acquisition efforts may involve ETP or Regency management’s participation in processes that involve a number of potential buyers, commonly referred to as “auction” processes, as well as situations in which ETP or Regency believes it is the only party or one of a very limited number of potential buyers in negotiations with the potential seller. We cannot assure that ETP’s or Regency’s acquisition efforts will be successful or that any acquisition will be completed on favorable terms.

In addition, ETP and Regency each are experiencing increased competition for the assets they purchase or contemplate purchasing. Increased competition for a limited pool of assets could result in ETP or Regency losing to other bidders more often or acquiring assets at higher prices, both of which would limit ETP’s or Regency’s ability to fully execute their respective growth strategies. Inability to execute their respective growth strategies may materially adversely impact ETP’s or Regency’s results of operations.

An impairment of goodwill and intangible assets could reduce our earnings.

As of December 31, 2014, our consolidated balance sheets reflected $7.87 billion of goodwill and $5.58 billion of intangible assets. Goodwill is recorded when the purchase price of a business exceeds the fair value of the tangible and separately measurable intangible net assets. Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States require us to test goodwill for impairment on an annual basis or when events or circumstances occur, indicating that goodwill might be impaired. Long-lived assets such as intangible assets with finite useful lives are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. If we determine that any of our goodwill or intangible assets were impaired, we would be required to take an immediate charge to earnings with a correlative effect on partners’ capital and balance sheet leverage as measured by debt to total capitalization.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $689 million on our Lake Charles LNG reporting unit. During the fourth quarter of 2014, a $370 million goodwill impairment was recorded related to Regency’s Permian Basin gathering and processing operations. See Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements for additional information.

If ETP and Regency do not make acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, their future growth could be limited.

ETP’s and Regency’s results of operations and their ability to grow and to increase distributions to Unitholders will depend in part on their ability to make acquisitions that are accretive to their respective distributable cash flow.

ETP and Regency may be unable to make accretive acquisitions for any of the following reasons, among others:


•	inability to identify attractive acquisition candidates or negotiate acceptable purchase contracts with them;


•	inability to raise financing for such acquisitions on economically acceptable terms; or


•	inability to outbid by competitors, some of which are substantially larger than ETP or Regency and may have greater financial resources and lower costs of capital.

Furthermore, even if ETP or Regency consummates acquisitions that it believes will be accretive, those acquisitions may in fact adversely affect its results of operations or result in a decrease in distributable cash flow per unit. Any acquisition involves potential risks, including the risk that ETP or Regency may:


•	fail to realize anticipated benefits, such as new customer relationships, cost-savings or cash flow enhancements;


•	decrease its liquidity by using a significant portion of its available cash or borrowing capacity to finance acquisitions;


•	significantly increase its interest expense or financial leverage if the acquisition is financed with additional debt;


•	encounter difficulties operating in new geographic areas or new lines of business;


•	incur or assume unanticipated liabilities, losses or costs associated with the business or assets acquired for which there is no indemnity or the indemnity is inadequate;


•	be unable to hire, train or retrain qualified personnel to manage and operate its growing business and assets;


•	less effectively manage its historical assets, due to the diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns; or


•	incur other significant charges, such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets, asset devaluation or restructuring charges.

If ETP and Regency consummate future acquisitions, their respective capitalization and results of operations may change significantly. As ETP and Regency determine the application of their funds and other resources, Unitholders will not have an opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and other relevant information that ETP and Regency will consider.

Table of Contents

If ETP and Regency do not continue to construct new pipelines, their future growth could be limited.

ETP’s and Regency’s results of operations and their ability to grow and to increase distributable cash flow per unit will depend, in part, on their ability to construct pipelines that are accretive to their respective distributable cash flow. ETP or Regency may be unable to construct pipelines that are accretive to distributable cash flow for any of the following reasons, among others:


•	inability to identify pipeline construction opportunities with favorable projected financial returns;


•	inability to raise financing for its identified pipeline construction opportunities; or


•	inability to secure sufficient transportation commitments from potential customers due to competition from other pipeline construction projects or for other reasons.

Furthermore, even if ETP or Regency constructs a pipeline that it believes will be accretive, the pipeline may in fact adversely affect its results of operations or fail to achieve results projected prior to commencement of construction.

Expanding ETP’s and Regency’s business by constructing new pipelines and related facilities subjects ETP and Regency to risks.

One of the ways that ETP and Regency have grown their respective businesses is through the construction of additions to existing gathering, compression, treating, processing and transportation systems. The construction of a new pipeline and related facilities (or the improvement and repair of existing facilities) involves numerous regulatory, environmental, political and legal uncertainties beyond ETP’s and Regency’s control and require the expenditure of significant amounts of capital to be financed through borrowings, the issuance of additional equity or from operating cash flow. If ETP or Regency undertakes these projects, they may not be completed on schedule or at all or at the budgeted cost. A variety of factors outside ETP’s or Regency’s control, such as weather, natural disasters and difficulties in obtaining permits and rights-of-way or other regulatory approvals, as well as the performance by third-party contractors may result in increased costs or delays in construction. Cost overruns or delays in completing a project could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, revenues may not increase immediately following the completion of a particular project. For instance, if ETP or Regency builds a new pipeline, the construction will occur over an extended period of time, but ETP or Regency, as applicable, may not materially increase its revenues until long after the project’s completion. In addition, the success of a pipeline construction project will likely depend upon the level of oil and natural gas exploration and development drilling activity and the demand for pipeline transportation in the areas proposed to be serviced by the project as well as ETP’s and Regency’s abilities to obtain commitments from producers in the area to utilize the newly constructed pipelines. In this regard, ETP and Regency may construct facilities to capture anticipated future growth in oil or natural gas production in a region in which such growth does not materialize. As a result, new facilities may be unable to attract enough throughput or contracted capacity reservation commitments to achieve ETP’s or Regency’s expected investment return, which could adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition.

ETP and Regency depend on certain key producers for a significant portion of their supplies of natural gas. The loss of, or reduction in, any of these key producers could adversely affect ETP’s or Regency’s respective business and operating results.

ETP and Regency rely on a limited number of producers for a significant portion of their natural gas supplies. These contracts have terms that range from month-to-month to life of lease. As these contracts expire, ETP and Regency will have to negotiate extensions or renewals or replace the contracts with those of other suppliers. ETP and Regency may be unable to obtain new or renewed contracts on favorable terms, if at all. The loss of all or even a portion of the volumes of natural gas supplied by these producers and other customers, as a result of competition or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s and Regency’s business, results of operations, and financial condition.

ETP and Regency depend on key customers to transport natural gas through their pipelines.

ETP and Regency rely on a limited number of major shippers to transport certain minimum volumes of natural gas on their respective pipelines, and Regency maintains contracts for compression services with a limited number of key customers. The failure of the major shippers on ETP’s, Regency’s or their joint ventures’ pipelines or of other key customers to fulfill their contractual obligations under these contracts could have a material adverse effect on the cash flow and results of operations of us, ETP, Regency or their joint ventures, as applicable, were unable to replace these customers under arrangements that provide similar economic benefits as these existing contracts.

Mergers among Sunoco Logistics’ customers and competitors could result in lower volumes being shipped on its pipelines or products stored in or distributed through its terminals, or reduced crude oil marketing margins or volumes.

Table of Contents

lose some or all of the volumes and associated revenues from these customers and could experience difficulty in replacing those lost volumes and revenues, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

A portion of Sunoco Logistics’ general and administrative services have been outsourced to third-party service providers. Fraudulent activity or misuse of proprietary data involving its outsourcing partners could expose us to additional liability.

Sunoco Logistics utilizes both affiliate entities and third parties in the processing of its information and data. Breaches of its security measures or the accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure or unapproved dissemination of proprietary information or sensitive or confidential data about Sunoco Logistics or its customers, including the potential loss or disclosure of such information or data as a result of fraud or other forms of deception, could expose Sunoco Logistics to a risk of loss or misuse of this information, result in litigation and potential liability for Sunoco Logistics, lead to reputational damage, increase compliance costs, or otherwise harm its business.

ETP and Regency’s interstate pipelines are subject to laws, regulations and policies governing the rates they are allowed to charge for their services, which may prevent us from fully recovering our costs.

Laws, regulations and policies governing interstate natural gas pipeline rates could affect the ability of ETP’s and Regency’s interstate pipelines to establish rates, to charge rates that would cover future increases in its costs, or to continue to collect rates that cover current costs.

ETP and Regency are required to file tariff rates (also known as recourse rates) with the FERC that shippers may elect to pay for interstate natural gas transportation services. We may also agree to discount these rates on a not unduly discriminatory basis or negotiate rates with shippers who elect not to pay the recourse rates. ETP and Regency must also file with the FERC all negotiated rates that do not conform to our tariff rates and all changes to our tariff or negotiated rates. The FERC must approve or accept all rate filings for us to be allowed to charge such rates.

The FERC may review existing tariffs rates on its own initiative or upon receipt of a complaint filed by a third party. The FERC may, on a prospective basis, order refunds of amounts collected if it finds the rates to have been shown not to be just and reasonable or to have been unduly discriminatory. The FERC has recently exercised this authority with respect to several other pipeline companies. If the FERC were to initiate a proceeding against ETP or Regency and find that their rates were not just and reasonable or unduly discriminatory, the maximum rates customers could elect to pay ETP and Regency may be reduced and the reduction could have an adverse effect on their revenues and results of operations.

The costs of ETP’s and Regency’s interstate pipeline operations may increase and ETP or Regency may not be able to recover all of those costs due to FERC regulation of their rates. If ETP or Regency propose to change their tariff rates, their proposed rates may be challenged by the FERC or third parties, and the FERC may deny, modify or limit ETP’s or Regency’s proposed changes if they are unable to persuade the FERC that changes would result in just and reasonable rates that are not unduly discriminatory. ETP and Regency also may be limited by the terms of rate case settlement agreements or negotiated rate agreements with individual customers from seeking future rate increases, or ETP and Regency may be constrained by competitive factors from charging their tariff rates.

To the extent ETP’s and Regency’s costs increase in an amount greater than their revenues increase, or there is a lag between their cost increases and their ability to file for, and obtain rate increases, their operating results would be negatively affected. Even if a rate increase is permitted by the FERC to become effective, the rate increase may not be adequate. ETP and Regency cannot guarantee that their interstate pipelines will be able to recover all of their costs through existing or future rates.

The ability of interstate pipelines held in tax-pass-through entities, like us, to include an allowance for income taxes as a cost-of-service element in their regulated rates has been subject to extensive litigation before the FERC and the courts for a number of years. It is currently the FERC’s policy to permit pipelines to include in cost-of-service a tax allowance to reflect actual or potential income tax liability on their public utility income attributable to all partnership or limited liability company interests, if the ultimate owner of the interest has an actual or potential income tax liability on such income. Whether a pipeline’s owners have such actual or potential income tax liability will be reviewed by the FERC on a case-by-case basis. Under the FERC’s policy, we thus remain eligible to include an income tax allowance in the tariff rates we charge for interstate natural gas transportation. The effectiveness of the FERC’s policy and the application of that policy remains subject to future challenges, refinement or change by the FERC or the courts.

Table of Contents

The interstate pipelines are subject to laws, regulations and policies governing terms and conditions of service, which could adversely affect their business and operations.

In addition to rate oversight, the FERC’s regulatory authority extends to many other aspects of the business and operations of ETP’s and Regency’s interstate pipelines, including:


•	operating terms and conditions of service;


•	the types of services interstate pipelines may or must offer their customers;


•	construction of new facilities;


•	acquisition, extension or abandonment of services or facilities;


•	reporting and information posting requirements;


•	accounts and records; and


•	relationships with affiliated companies involved in all aspects of the natural gas and energy businesses.

Compliance with these requirements can be costly and burdensome. In addition, we cannot guarantee that the FERC will authorize tariff changes and other activities we might propose to do so in a timely manner and free from potentially burdensome conditions. Future changes to laws, regulations, policies and interpretations thereof in these areas may impair the ability of ETP’s and Regency’s interstate pipelines to compete for business, may impair their ability to recover costs or may increase the cost and burden of operation.

Rate regulation or market conditions may not allow ETP to recover the full amount of increases in the costs of its crude oil and products pipeline operations.

Transportation provided on ETP’s common carrier interstate crude oil and products pipelines is subject to rate regulation by the FERC, which requires that tariff rates for transportation on these oil pipelines be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. If ETP proposes new or changed rates, the FERC or interested persons may challenge those rates and the FERC is authorized to suspend the effectiveness of such rates for up to seven months and to investigate such rates. If, upon completion of an investigation, the FERC finds that the proposed rate is unjust or unreasonable, it is authorized to require the carrier to refund revenues in excess of the prior tariff during the term of the investigation. The FERC also may investigate, upon complaint or on its own motion, rates that are already in effect and may order a carrier to change its rates prospectively. Upon an appropriate showing, a shipper may obtain reparations for damages sustained for a period of up to two years prior to the filing of a complaint.

The primary ratemaking methodology used by the FERC to authorize increases in the tariff rates of petroleum pipelines is price indexing. The FERC’s ratemaking methodologies may limit our ability to set rates based on our costs or may delay the use of rates that reflect increased costs. In addition, if the FERC’s indexing methodology changes, the new methodology could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Under the Energy Policy Act adopted in 1992, certain interstate pipeline rates were deemed just and reasonable or “grandfathered.” Revenues are derived from such grandfathered rates on most of our FERC-regulated pipelines. A person challenging a grandfathered rate must, as a threshold matter, establish a substantial change since the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act, in either the economic circumstances or the nature of the service that formed the basis for the rate. If the FERC were to find a substantial change in circumstances, then the existing rates could be subject to detailed review and there is a risk that some rates could be found to be in excess of levels justified by the pipeline’s costs. In such event, the FERC could order us to reduce pipeline rates prospectively and to pay refunds to shippers.

If the FERC’s petroleum pipeline ratemaking methodologies procedures changes, the new methodology or procedures could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

State regulatory measures could adversely affect the business and operations of ETP and Regency’s midstream and intrastate pipeline and storage assets.

ETP’s and Regency’s midstream and intrastate transportation and storage operations are generally exempt from FERC regulation under the NGA, but FERC regulation still significantly affects their business and the market for their products. The rates, terms and conditions of service for the interstate services they provide in their intrastate gas pipelines and gas storage are subject to FERC regulation under Section 311 of the NGPA. ETP’s HPL System, East Texas pipeline, Oasis pipeline and ET Fuel System provide such services. Under Section 311, rates charged for transportation and storage must be fair and equitable. Amounts collected in excess of fair and equitable rates are subject to refund with interest, and the terms and conditions of service, set forth

Table of Contents

in the pipeline’s statement of operating conditions, are subject to FERC review and approval. Should the FERC determine not to authorize rates equal to or greater than ETP’s or Regency’s costs of service, their cash flow would be negatively affected.

ETP and Regency’s midstream and intrastate gas and oil transportation pipelines and their intrastate gas storage operations are subject to state regulation. All of the states in which they operate midstream assets, intrastate pipelines or intrastate storage facilities have adopted some form of complaint-based regulation, which allow producers and shippers to file complaints with state regulators in an effort to resolve grievances relating to the fairness of rates and terms of access. The states in which ETP and Regency operate have ratable take statutes, which generally require gatherers to take, without undue discrimination, production that may be tendered to the gatherer for handling. Similarly, common purchaser statutes generally require gatherers to purchase without undue discrimination as to source of supply or producer. These statutes have the effect of restricting our right as an owner of gathering facilities to decide with whom we contract to purchase or transport natural gas. Should a complaint be filed in any of these states or should regulation become more active, ETP’s or Regency’s businesses may be adversely affected.

ETP’s and Regency’s intrastate transportation operations located in Texas are also subject to regulation as gas utilities by the TRRC. Texas gas utilities must publish the rates they charge for transportation and storage services in tariffs filed with the TRRC, although such rates are deemed just and reasonable under Texas law unless challenged in a complaint.

ETP and Regency are subject to other forms of state regulation, including requirements to obtain operating permits, reporting requirements, and safety rules (see description of federal and state pipeline safety regulation below). Violations state laws, regulations, orders and permit conditions can result in the modification, cancellation or suspension of a permit, civil penalties and other relief.

Certain of ETP’s and Regency’s assets may become subject to regulation.

The distinction between federally unregulated gathering facilities and FERC-regulated transmission pipelines under the NGA has been the subject of extensive litigation and may be determined by the FERC on a case-by-case basis, although the FERC has made no determinations as to the status of our facilities. Consequently, the classification and regulation of our gathering facilities could change based on future determinations by the FERC, the courts or Congress. If our gas gathering operations become subject to FERC jurisdiction, the result may adversely affect the rates we are able to charge and the services we currently provide, and may include the potential for a termination of our gathering agreements with our customers.

Intrastate transportation of NGLs is largely regulated by the state in which such transportation takes place. Lone Star’s NGL Pipeline transports NGLs within the state of Texas and is subject to regulation by the TRRC. This NGLs transportation system offers services pursuant to an intrastate transportation tariff on file with the TRRC. Lone Star’s NGL pipeline also commenced the interstate transportation of NGLs in 2013, which is subject to FERC’s jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Both intrastate and interstate NGL transportation services must be provided in a manner that is just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. The tariff rates established for interstate services were based on a negotiated agreement; however, if FERC’s rate making methodologies were imposed, they may, among other things, delay the use of rates that reflect increased costs and subject us to potentially burdensome and expensive operational, reporting and other requirements. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect revenues and cash flow related to these assets.

ETP and Regency may incur significant costs and liabilities resulting from performance of pipeline integrity programs and related repairs.

Pursuant to authority under the NGPSA and HLPSA, as amended by the PSI Act, the PIPES Act and the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act, PHMSA has established a series of rules requiring pipeline operators to develop and implement integrity management programs for gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines that, in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture could affect “high consequence areas,” which are areas where a release could have the most significant adverse consequences, including high population areas, certain drinking water sources, and unusually sensitive ecological areas.

These regulations require operators of covered pipelines to:


•	perform ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity;


•	identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline operations that could impact a high consequence area;


•	improve data collection, integration and analysis;


•	repair and remediate the pipeline as necessary; and


•	implement preventive and mitigating actions.

Table of Contents

In addition, states have adopted regulations similar to existing PHMSA regulations for intrastate gathering and transmission lines. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of compliance with applicable pipeline integrity management regulations, as the cost will vary significantly depending on the number and extent of any repairs found to be necessary as a result of the pipeline integrity testing. We will continue our pipeline integrity testing programs to assess and maintain the integrity of our pipelines. The results of these tests could cause us to incur significant and unanticipated capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of our pipelines. Any changes to pipeline safety laws by Congress and regulations by PHMSA that result in more stringent or costly safety standards could have a significant adverse effect on us and similarly situated midstream operators. For instance, changes to regulations governing the safety of gas transmission pipelines and gathering lines are being considered by PHMSA, including, for example, revising the definitions of “high consequence areas” and “gathering lines” and strengthening integrity management requirements as they apply to existing regulated operators and to currently exempt operators should certain exemptions be removed. Most recently, in an August 2014 GAO report to Congress, the agency acknowledged PHMSA’s continued assessment of the safety risks posed by these gathering lines as part of rulemaking process, and recommended that PHMSA move forward with rulemaking to address such lines.

Federal and state legislative and regulatory initiatives relating to pipeline safety that require the use of new or more stringent safety controls or result in more stringent enforcement of applicable legal requirements could subject us to increased capital costs, operational delays and costs of operation.

The 2011 Pipeline Safety Act is the most recent federal legislation to amend the NGPSA and HLPSA pipeline safety laws, requiring increased safety measures for gas and hazardous liquids pipelines. Among other things, the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations relating to expanded integrity management requirements, automatic or remote-controlled valve use, excess flow valve use, leak detection system installation, material strength testing, and verification of the maximum allowable pressure of certain pipelines. The 2011 Pipeline Safety Act also increases the maximum penalty for violation of pipeline safety regulations from $100,000 to $200,000 per violation per day of violation and from $1.0 million to $2.0 million for a related series of violations. The safety enhancement requirements and other provisions of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act as well as any implementation of PHMSA rules thereunder could require us to install new or modified safety controls, pursue additional capital projects, or conduct maintenance programs on an accelerated basis, any or all of which tasks could result in our incurring increased operating costs that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

ETP’s and Regency’s businesses involve the generation, handling and disposal of hazardous substances, hydrocarbons and wastes and may be adversely affected by environmental and worker health and safety laws and regulations.

ETP’s and Regency’s operations are subject to stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment, worker health and safety and protection of the environment. These laws and regulations may require the acquisition of permits for ETP’s and Regency’s operations, result in capital expenditures to manage, limit, or prevent emissions, discharges or releases of various materials from ETP’s and Regency’s pipelines, plants and facilities, impose specific health and safety standards addressing worker protection, and impose substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from ETP’s and Regency’s operations. Several governmental authorities, such as the EPA and state agencies have the power to enforce compliance with these laws and regulations and the permits issued under them and frequently mandate difficult and costly remediation measures and other actions. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations and permits may result in the assessment of significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial obligations and the issuance of injunctive relief. Certain environmental laws impose strict, joint and several liability for costs required to clean up and restore sites where hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or wastes have been disposed or released, even under circumstances where the substances, hydrocarbons or wastes have been released by a predecessor operator. Moreover, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by noise, odor or the release of hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or wastes into the environment.

ETP and Regency may incur substantial environmental costs and liabilities because of the underlying risk inherent to its operations. Although we have established financial reserves for our estimated environmental remediation liabilities, additional contamination or conditions may be discovered, resulting in increased remediation costs, liabilities for natural resource damages that could substantially increase our costs for site remediation projects. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that our current reserves are adequate to cover all future liabilities, even for currently known contamination.

Changes in environmental laws and regulations occur frequently, and changes that result in significantly more stringent and costly waste handling, emission standards, or storage, transport, disposal or remediation requirements could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s and Regency’s operations or financial position. For example, in December 2014, the EPA published a proposed regulation that it expects to finalize by October 1, 2015, which rulemaking proposed to revise the NAAQS for ozone between 65 to 70 ppb for both the 8-hour primary and secondary standards. The current primary and secondary ozone standards are set at 75 ppb. EPA also requested public comments on whether the standard should be set as low as 60 ppb or whether the existing 75 ppb standard should be retained. If EPA lowers the ozone standard, states could be required to implement more stringent regulations,

Table of Contents

which could apply to our operations. Compliance with this or other new regulations could, among other things, require installation of new emission controls on some of our equipment, result in longer permitting timelines, and significantly increase our capital expenditures and operating costs, which could adversely impact our business. ETP and Regency have previously been able to satisfy the more stringent NOx emission reduction requirements that affect its compressor units in ozone non-attainment areas at reasonable cost, but there is no assurance that ETP and Regency will not incur material costs in the future to meet any new, more stringent ozone standard.

Product liability claims and litigation could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Product liability is a significant commercial risk. Substantial damage awards have been made in certain jurisdictions against manufacturers and resellers based upon claims for injuries caused by the use of or exposure to various products. There can be no assurance that product liability claims against us would not have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations.

Along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in numerous lawsuits that allege methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”) contamination in groundwater. Plaintiffs, who include water purveyors and municipalities responsible for supplying drinking water and private well owners, are seeking compensatory damages (and in some cases injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees) for claims relating to the alleged manufacture and distribution of a defective product (MTBE-containing gasoline) that contaminates groundwater, and general allegations of product liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and deceptive business practices. There has been insufficient information developed about the plaintiffs’ legal theories or the facts that would be relevant to an analysis of the ultimate liability to Sunoco, Inc. These allegations or other product liability claims against Sunoco, Inc. could have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations.

The adoption of climate change legislation or regulations restricting emissions of greenhouse gases could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for the services we provide.

The EPA has determined that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases present an endangerment to public health and the environment because emissions of such gases are, according to the EPA, contributing to warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. Based on these findings, the EPA has adopted rules under the Clean Air Act that, among other things, establish PSD construction and Title V operating permit reviews for greenhouse gas emissions from certain large stationary sources that already are potential major sources of certain principal, or criteria, pollutant emissions, which reviews could require securing PSD permits at covered facilities emitting greenhouse gases and meeting “best available control technology” standards for those greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the EPA has adopted rules requiring the monitoring and annual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from specified onshore and offshore production facilities and onshore processing, transmission and storage facilities in the United States, which includes certain of our operations. More recently, on December 9, 2014, the EPA published a proposed rule that would expand the petroleum and natural gas system sources for which annual greenhouse gas emissions reporting is currently required to include greenhouse gas emissions reporting beginning in the 2016 reporting year for certain onshore gathering and boosting systems consisting primarily of gathering pipelines, compressors and process equipment used to perform natural gas compression, dehydration and acid gas removal. While Congress has from time to time considered adopting legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, there has not been significant activity in the form of adopted legislation. In the absence of such federal climate legislation, a number of state and regional efforts have emerged that are aimed at tracking and/or reducing greenhouse gas emissions by means of cap and trade programs. The adoption of any legislation or regulations that requires reporting of greenhouse gases or otherwise restricts emissions of greenhouse gases from our equipment and operations could require us to incur significant added costs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or could adversely affect demand for the natural gas and NGLs we gather and process or fractionate. For example, in January 2015, the Obama Administration announced plans for the EPA to issue final standards in 2016 that would reduce methane emissions from new and modified oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing and transmission facilities by up to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025.

The adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act could have an adverse effect on our ability to use derivative instruments to reduce the effect of commodity price, interest rate and other risks associated with our business, resulting in our operations becoming more volatile and our cash flows less predictable.

Congress has adopted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"), a comprehensive financial reform legislation that establishes federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in that market. This legislation was signed into law by President Obama on July 21, 2010 and requires the CFTC, the SEC and other regulators to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the new legislation. While certain regulations have been promulgated and are already in effect, the rulemaking and implementation process is still ongoing, and we cannot yet predict the ultimate effect of the rules and regulations on our business.

The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the types of entities that are required to register with the CFTC and the SEC as a result of their activities in the derivatives markets or otherwise become specifically qualified to enter into derivatives contracts. We will be

Table of Contents

required to assess our activities in the derivatives markets, and to monitor such activities on an ongoing basis, to ascertain and to identify any potential change in our regulatory status.

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements also could significantly increase operating costs and expose us to penalties for non-compliance, and require additional compliance resources. Added public transparency as a result of the reporting rules may also have a negative effect on market liquidity which could also negatively impact commodity prices and our ability to hedge.

In October 2011, the CFTC has also issued regulations to set position limits for certain futures and option contracts in the major energy markets and for swaps that are their economic equivalents. However, in September 2012, the CFTC’s position limits rules were vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In November 2013, the CFTC proposed new rules that would place limits on positions in certain core futures and equivalent swaps contracts for or linked to certain physical commodities, subject to exceptions for certain bona fide hedging transactions. As these new position limit rules are not yet final, the impact of those provisions on us is uncertain at this time.

The CFTC has designated certain interest rate swaps and credit default swaps for mandatory clearing and exchange trading. The associated rules require us, in connection with covered derivative activities, to comply with such requirements or take steps to qualify for an exemption to such requirements. We must obtain approval from the board of directors of our General Partner and make certain filings in order to rely on the end-user exception from the mandatory clearing requirements for swaps entered into to hedge our commercial risks. The application of mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging. The CFTC has not yet proposed rules designating any other classes of swaps, including physical commodity swaps, for mandatory clearing and exchange trading.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that regulators establish margin rules for uncleared swaps. The application of such requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps we use for hedging. If any of our swaps do not qualify for the commercial end-user exception, posting of collateral could impact our liquidity and reduce cash available to us for capital expenditures, reducing our ability to execute hedges to reduce risk and protect cash flow.

Rules promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act further defined forwards as well as instances where forwards may become swaps. Because the CFTC rules, interpretations, no-action letters, and case law are still developing, it is possible that some arrangements that previously qualified as forwards or energy service contracts may fall in the regulatory category of swaps or options. In addition, the CFTC’s rules applicable to trade options may further impose burdens on our ability to conduct our traditional hedging operations and could become subject to CFTC investigations in the future.

The new legislation and any new regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts, materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, or reduce our ability to monetize or restructure existing derivative contracts. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the legislation and regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable. Finally, if we fail to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations, we may be subject to fines, cease-and-desist orders, civil and criminal penalties or other sanctions.

A natural disaster, catastrophe or other event could result in severe personal injury, property damage and environmental damage, which could curtail ETP’s and Regency’s operations and otherwise materially adversely affect their cash flow.

Some of ETP’s and Regency’s operations involve risks of personal injury, property damage and environmental damage, which could curtail its operations and otherwise materially adversely affect its cash flow. For example, natural gas facilities operate at high pressures, sometimes in excess of 1,100 pounds per square inch. Virtually all of ETP’s and Regency’s operations are exposed to potential natural disasters, including hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, floods and/or earthquakes.

If one or more facilities that are owned by ETP or Regency or that deliver natural gas or other products to ETP or Regency are damaged by severe weather or any other disaster, accident, catastrophe or event, ETP’s or Regency’s operations could be significantly interrupted. Similar interruptions could result from damage to production or other facilities that supply ETP’s or Regency’s facilities or other stoppages arising from factors beyond its control. These interruptions might involve significant damage to people, property or the environment, and repairs might take from a week or less for a minor incident to six months or more for a major interruption. Any event that interrupts the revenues generated by ETP’s or Regency’s operations, or which causes it to make significant expenditures not covered by insurance, could reduce ETP’s or Regency’s cash available for paying distributions to its Unitholders, including us.

As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain insurance policies can increase substantially, and in some instances, certain insurance may become unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage. As a result, ETP and Regency may not be able to renew existing insurance policies or procure other desirable insurance on commercially reasonable

Table of Contents

terms, if at all. If ETP or Regency were to incur a significant liability for which it was not fully insured, it could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s financial position and results of operations, as applicable. In addition, the proceeds of any such insurance may not be paid in a timely manner and may be insufficient if such an event were to occur.

Terrorist attacks aimed at our facilities could adversely affect its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

The United States government has issued warnings that energy assets, including the nation’s pipeline infrastructure, may be the future target of terrorist organizations. Some of our facilities are subject to standards and procedures required by the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. We believe we are in compliance with all material requirements; however, such compliance may not prevent a terrorist attack from causing material damage to our facilities or pipelines. Any such terrorist attack on ETP’s or Regency’s facilities or pipelines, those of their customers, or in some cases, those of other pipelines could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Cybersecurity breaches and other disruptions could compromise our information and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation to suffer.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information and that of our customers, suppliers and business partners, and personal identification information of our employees, in our data centers and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, regulatory penalties, disruption of our operations, damage to our reputation, and cause a loss of confidence in our products and services, which could adversely affect our business.

Additional deepwater drilling laws and regulations, delays in the processing and approval of drilling permits and exploration and oil spill-response plans, and other related restrictions arising after the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

In response to the Deepwater Horizon incident and resulting oil spill in the United States Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, each agencies of the U.S. Department of the Interior, have imposed new and more stringent permitting procedures and regulatory safety and performance requirements for new wells to be drilled in federal waters. These governmental agencies have implemented and enforced new rules, Notices to Lessees and Operators and temporary drilling moratoria that imposed safety and operational performance measures on exploration, development and production operators in the Gulf of Mexico or otherwise resulted in a temporary cessation of drilling activities. Compliance with these added and more stringent regulatory restrictions in addition to any uncertainties or inconsistencies in current decisions and rulings by governmental agencies and delays in the processing and approval of drilling permits and exploration, development and oil spill-response plans could adversely affect or delay new drilling and ongoing development efforts. Moreover, these governmental agencies are continuing to evaluate aspects of safety and operational performance in the Gulf of Mexico and, as a result, developing and implementing new, more restrictive requirements. One example is the 2013 amendments to the federal Workplace Safety Rule regarding the utilization of a more comprehensive SEMS, which amended rule is sometimes referred to as SEMS II. A second, and more recent, example is the August 2014 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that ultimately seeks to bolster the offshore financial assurance and bonding program. Among other adverse impacts, these additional measures could delay or disrupt our and our customers’ operations, increase the risk of expired leases due to the time required to develop new technology, result in increased supplemental bonding requirements and incurrence of associated added costs, limit operational activities in certain areas, or cause us or out customers to incur penalties, fines, or shut-in production. If similar material spill incidents were to occur in the future, the United States could elect to again issue directives to temporarily cease drilling activities and, in any event, may from time to time issue further safety and environmental laws and regulations regarding offshore oil and natural gas exploration, development and production. We cannot predict with any certainty the full impact of any new laws or regulations on our customers’ drilling operations or on the cost or availability of insurance to cover some or all of the risks associated with such operations. The occurrence of any of these developments has the potential to adversely impact our business as well as our financial position, results of operation and liquidity.

Table of Contents

Our business is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations that govern the product quality specifications of the petroleum products that we store and transport.

The petroleum products that we store and transport through Sunoco Logistics’ operations are sold by our customers for consumption into the public market. Various federal, state and local agencies have the authority to prescribe specific product quality specifications to commodities sold into the public market. Changes in product quality specifications could reduce our throughput volume, require us to incur additional handling costs or require the expenditure of significant capital. In addition, different product specifications for different markets impact the fungibility of products transported and stored in our pipeline systems and terminal facilities and could require the construction of additional storage to segregate products with different specifications. We may be unable to recover these costs through increased revenues.

In addition, our butane blending services are reliant upon gasoline vapor pressure specifications. Significant changes in such specifications could reduce butane blending opportunities, which would affect our ability to market our butane blending service licenses and which would ultimately affect our ability to recover the costs incurred to acquire and integrate our butane blending assets.

Our business could be affected adversely by union disputes and strikes or work stoppages by Panhandle’s and Sunoco, Inc.’s unionized employees.

As of December 31, 2014, approximately 6% of our workforce is covered by a number of collective bargaining agreements with various terms and dates of expiration. There can be no assurances that Panhandle or Sunoco, Inc. will not experience a work stoppage in the future as a result of labor disagreements. Any work stoppage could, depending on the affected operations and the length of the work stoppage, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Governmental regulations and policies, particularly in the areas of taxation, energy and the environment, have a significant impact on our retail marketing business.

Federally mandated standards for use of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel in the production of refined products, are transforming traditional gasoline and diesel markets in North America. These regulatory mandates present production and logistical challenges for both the petroleum refining and ethanol industries, and may require us to incur additional capital expenditures or expenses particularly in our retail marketing business. We may have to enter into arrangements with other parties to meet our obligations to use advanced biofuels, with potentially uncertain supplies of these new fuels. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient quantities of ethanol to support our blending needs, our sale of ethanol blended gasoline could be interrupted or suspended which could result in lower profits. There also will be compliance costs related to these regulations. We may experience a decrease in demand for refined petroleum products due to new federal requirements for increased fleet mileage per gallon or due to replacement of refined petroleum products by renewable fuels. In addition, tax incentives and other subsidies making renewable fuels more competitive with refined petroleum products may reduce refined petroleum product margins and the ability of refined petroleum products to compete with renewable fuels. A structural expansion of production capacity for such renewable biofuels could lead to significant increases in the overall production, and available supply, of gasoline and diesel in markets that we supply. In addition, a significant shift by consumers to more fuel-efficient vehicles or alternative fuel vehicles (such as ethanol or wider adoption of gas/electric hybrid vehicles), or an increase in vehicle fuel economy, whether as a result of technological advances by manufacturers, legislation mandating or encouraging higher fuel economy or the use of alternative fuel, or otherwise, also could lead to a decrease in demand, and reduced margins, for the refined petroleum products that we market and sell.

It is possible that any, or a combination, of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco, Inc.’s business or results of operations.

We have outsourced various functions related to our retail marketing business to third-party service providers, which decreases our control over the performance of these functions. Disruptions or delays of our third-party outsourcing partners could result in increased costs, or may adversely affect service levels. Fraudulent activity or misuse of proprietary data involving our outsourcing partners could expose us to additional liability.

Sunoco, Inc. has previously outsourced various functions related to our retail marketing business to third parties and expects to continue this practice with other functions in the future.

While outsourcing arrangements may lower our cost of operations, they also reduce our direct control over the services rendered. It is uncertain what effect such diminished control will have on the quality or quantity of products delivered or services rendered, on our ability to quickly respond to changing market conditions, or on our ability to ensure compliance with all applicable domestic and foreign laws and regulations. We believe that we conduct appropriate due diligence before entering into agreements with our outsourcing partners. We rely on our outsourcing partners to provide services on a timely and effective basis. Although we continuously monitor the performance of these third parties and maintain contingency plans in case they are unable to perform as

Table of Contents

agreed, we do not ultimately control the performance of our outsourcing partners. Much of our outsourcing takes place in developing countries and, as a result, may be subject to geopolitical uncertainty. The failure of one or more of our third-party outsourcing partners to provide the expected services on a timely basis at the prices we expect, or as required by contract, due to events such as regional economic, business, environmental or political events, information technology system failures, or military actions, could result in significant disruptions and costs to our operations, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and cash flow.

Our failure to generate significant cost savings from these outsourcing initiatives could adversely affect our profitability and weaken Sunoco, Inc.’s competitive position. Additionally, if the implementation of our outsourcing initiatives is disruptive to our retail marketing business, we could experience transaction errors, processing inefficiencies, and the loss of sales and customers, which could cause our business and results of operations to suffer.

As a result of these outsourcing initiatives, more third parties are involved in processing our retail marketing information and data. Breaches of security measures or the accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure or unapproved dissemination of proprietary information or sensitive or confidential data about our retail marketing business or our clients, including the potential loss or disclosure of such information or data as a result of fraud or other forms of deception, could expose us to a risk of loss or misuse of this information, result in litigation and potential liability for us, lead to reputational damage to the Sunoco, Inc. brand, increase our compliance costs, or otherwise harm our business.

Our operations could be disrupted if our information systems fail, causing increased expenses and loss of sales.

Our business is highly dependent on financial, accounting and other data processing systems and other communications and information systems, including our enterprise resource planning tools. We process a large number of transactions on a daily basis and rely upon the proper functioning of computer systems. If a key system was to fail or experience unscheduled downtime for any reason, even if only for a short period, our operations and financial results could be affected adversely. Our systems could be damaged or interrupted by a security breach, fire, flood, power loss, telecommunications failure or similar event. We have a formal disaster recovery plan in place, but this plan may not entirely prevent delays or other complications that could arise from an information systems failure. Our business interruption insurance may not compensate us adequately for losses that may occur.

Security breaches and other disruptions could compromise our information and operations, and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation to suffer.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information and that of our customers, suppliers and business partners, and personally identifiable information of our employees, in our data centers and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, regulatory penalties for divulging shipper information, disruption of our operations, damage to our reputation, and loss of confidence in our products and services, which could adversely affect our business.

Our information technology infrastructure is critical to the efficient operation of our business and essential to our ability to perform day-today operations. Breaches in our information technology infrastructure or physical facilities, or other disruptions, could result in damage to our assets, safety incidents, damage to the environment, potential liability or the loss of contracts, and have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial position and results of operations.

The costs of providing pension and other postretirement health care benefits and related funding requirements are subject to changes in pension fund values, changing demographics and fluctuating actuarial assumptions and may have a material adverse effect on our financial results. In addition, the passage of the Health Care Reform Act in 2010 could significantly increase the cost of providing health care benefits for employees.

Certain of our subsidiaries provide pension plan and other postretirement healthcare benefits to certain of their employees. The costs of providing pension and other postretirement health care benefits and related funding requirements are subject to changes in pension and other postretirement fund values, changing demographics and fluctuating actuarial assumptions that may have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s future consolidated financial results. In addition, the passage of the Health Care Reform Act of 2010 could significantly increase the cost of health care benefits for our employees. While certain of the costs incurred in providing such pension and other postretirement healthcare benefits are recovered through the rates charged by the Partnership’s regulated businesses, the Partnership’s subsidiaries may not recover all of the costs and those rates are generally not immediately responsive to current market conditions or funding requirements. Additionally, if the current cost recovery mechanisms are changed or eliminated, the impact of these benefits on operating results could significantly increase.

Table of Contents

Regency’s contract compression operations depend on particular suppliers and is vulnerable to parts and equipment shortages and price increases, which could have a negative impact on its results of operations.

The principal manufacturers of components for Regency’s natural gas compression equipment include Caterpillar, Inc. for engines, Air-X-Changers for coolers, and Ariel Corporation for compressors and frames. Regency’s reliance on these suppliers involves several risks, including price increases and a potential inability to obtain an adequate supply of required components in a timely manner. Regency also relies primarily on two vendors, Spitzer Industries Corp. and Standard Equipment Corp., to package and assemble its compression units. Regency does not have long-term contracts with these suppliers or packagers, and a partial or complete loss of certain of these sources could have a negative impact on Regency’s results of operations and could damage its customer relationships. In addition, since Regency expects any increase in component prices for compression equipment or packaging costs will be passed on to Regency, a significant increase in their pricing could have a negative impact on Regency’s results of operations.

Mergers between existing customers could provide strong economic incentives for the combined entities to utilize their existing systems instead of Sunoco Logistics’ systems in those markets where the systems compete. As a result, Sunoco Logistics could lose some or all of the volumes and associated revenues from these customers and could experience difficulty in replacing those lost volumes and revenues, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The volume of crude oil transported through Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines and terminal facilities depends on the availability of attractively priced crude oil produced or received in the areas serviced by its assets. A period of sustained crude oil price declines could lead to a decline in drilling activity, production and import levels in these areas. Similarly, a period of sustained increases in the price of crude oil supplied from any of these areas, as compared to alternative sources of crude oil available to Sunoco Logistics’ customers, could materially reduce demand for crude oil in these areas. In either case, the volumes of crude oil transported in Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines and terminal facilities could decline, and it could likely be difficult to secure alternative sources of attractively priced crude oil supply in a timely fashion or at all. If Sunoco Logistics is unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

LCL is dependent on project financing to fund the costs necessary to construct the liquefaction project. If project financing is unavailable to supply the funding necessary to complete the liquefaction project, LCL may not be able to secure alternative funding and FID may not be achieved.

LCL, an entity owned 60% by ETE and 40% by ETP, is in the process of developing a proposed liquefaction project in conjunction with BG Group plc (“BG”) pursuant to a project development agreement entered into in September 2013. Pursuant to this agreement, each of LCL and BG are obligated to pay 50% of the development expenses for the liquefaction project, subject to reimbursement by the other party if such party withdraws from the project prior to both parties making a final investment decision (“FID”) to become irrevocably obligated to fully develop the project, subject to certain exceptions. Through December 31, 2014, LCL had incurred $75 million of development costs associated with the liquefaction project that were funded by ETE and ETP, and ETE and ETP have indicated that they intend to provide the funding necessary for the remaining development costs, but they have no obligation to do so. If ETE and ETP are unwilling or unable to provide funding to LCL for its share of the remaining development costs, or if BG is unwilling or unable to provide funding for its share of the remaining development costs, the liquefaction project could be delayed or cancelled.

Table of Contents

The liquefaction project is subject to the right of each of LCL and BG to withdraw from the project in its sole discretion at any time prior to an affirmative FID.

The project development agreement provides that either LCL or BG may withdraw from the liquefaction project at any time prior to each party making an affirmative FID. LCL’s determination of whether to reach an affirmative FID is expected to be based upon a number of factors, including the expected cost to construct the liquefaction facility, the expected revenue to be generated by LCL pursuant to the terms of the liquefaction services agreement anticipated to be entered into between LCL and BG in connection with both parties reaching an affirmative FID, and the terms and conditions of the financing for the construction of the liquefaction facility. BG’s determination of whether to reach an affirmative FID is expected be based on a number of factors, including the expected tolling charges it would be required to pay under the terms of the liquefaction services agreement, the costs anticipated to be incurred by BG to purchase natural gas for delivery to the liquefaction facility, the costs to transport natural gas to the liquefaction facility, the costs to operate the liquefaction facility and the costs to transport LNG from the liquefaction facility to customers in foreign markets (particularly Europe and Asia) over the expected 25-year term of the liquefaction services agreement. As the tolling charges payable to LCL under the liquefaction services agreement are anticipated to be based on a rate of return formula tied to the construction costs for the liquefaction facility, these costs are anticipated to also have a significant bearing with respect to BG’s determination whether to reach an affirmative FID. As these costs fluctuate based on a variety of factors, including supply and demand factors affecting the price of natural gas in the United States, supply and demand factors affecting the price of LNG in foreign markets, supply and demand factors affecting the costs for construction services for large infrastructure projects in the United States, and general economic conditions, there can be no assurance that both LCL and BG will reach an affirmative FID to construct the liquefaction facility.

The construction of the liquefaction project remains subject to further approvals and some approvals may be subject to further conditions, review and/or revocation.

The liquefaction project remains subject to (i) the receipt of approval by the FERC to construct and operate the facilities, (ii) approvals and permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) for wetlands mitigation and permanent and temporary marine dock modifications and dredging at the Lake Charles LNG facility and (iii) other governmental and regulatory approvals and permits, including air permits under the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, while a subsidiary of BG has received authorization from the DOE to export LNG to non-FTA countries, the non-FTA authorization is subject to review, and the DOE may impose additional approval and permit requirements in the future or revoke the non-FTA authorization should the DOE conclude that such export authorization is inconsistent with the public interest. Certain of the permits and approvals must be obtained before construction on the liquefaction project can begin and are still under review by state and federal authorities. We do not know whether or when any such approvals or permits can be obtained, or whether any existing or potential interventions or other actions by third parties will interfere with its ability to obtain and maintain such permits or approvals. The failure by LCL to timely receive and maintain the remaining approvals necessary to complete and operate the liquefaction project could have a material adverse effect on its operations and financial condition.

Tax Risks to Common Unitholders

Our tax treatment depends on our continuing status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as well as our not being subject to a material amount of additional entity-level taxation by individual states. If the IRS were to treat us, ETP or Regency as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or if we, ETP or Regency become subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then our cash available for distribution would be substantially reduced.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our Common Units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not requested, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on this matter. The value of our investments in ETP and Regency depends largely on ETP and Regency being treated as partnerships for federal income tax purposes.

Despite the fact that we, ETP and Regency are each a limited partnership under Delaware law, we would each be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a “qualifying income” requirement. Based upon our current operations, we believe we, ETP and Regency satisfy the qualifying income requirement. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause us, ETP or Regency to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us, ETP or Regency to taxation as an entity.

If we, ETP or Regency were treated as a corporation, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%, and we would likely pay additional state income taxes at varying rates. Distributions to Unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and none of our income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to Unitholders. Because a tax would then be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to Unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation would result in a material

Table of Contents

reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to the Unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our Common Units.

Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or to additional taxation as an entity for federal, state or local income tax purposes, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us. At the state level, several states have been evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise, or other forms of taxation. Imposition of a similar tax on us in the jurisdictions in which we operate or in other jurisdictions to which we may expand could substantially reduce our case available for distribution to our unitholders.

The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment in ETP or Regency’s common units could be subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.

The present federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in ETP or Regency’s common units may be modified by legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations at any time. For example, the Obama administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 recommends that certain publicly traded partnerships earning income from activities related to fossil fuels be taxed as corporations beginning in 2021. From time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships. If successful, the Obama administration’s proposal or other similar proposals could eliminate the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations upon which we rely for our, ETP’s and Regency’s treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws may be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for us to meet the exception for certain publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.

The tax treatment of Sunoco Logistics depends on its status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as well as its not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If the IRS were to treat Sunoco Logistics as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or if it were to become subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, it would substantially reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to its unitholders.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of our investment in the common units of Sunoco Logistics depends largely on Sunoco Logistics being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. Sunoco Logistics has not requested, and does not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on this matter. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the ones Sunoco Logistics has taken. A successful IRS contest of the federal income tax positions Sunoco Logistics takes may impact adversely the market for its common units, and the costs of any IRS contest will reduce Sunoco Logistics’ cash available for distribution to its unitholders. If Sunoco Logistics were to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, it would pay federal income tax at the corporate tax rate, and likely would pay state income tax at varying rates. Distributions to its unitholders generally would be subject to tax again as corporate distributions. Treatment of Sunoco Logistics as a corporation would result in a material reduction in its anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to its unitholders. Current law may change so as to cause Sunoco Logistics to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or to otherwise subject it to a material amount of entity-level taxation. States are evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. If any states were to impose a tax on Sunoco Logistics, the cash available for distribution to its unitholders would be reduced.

As discussed above, the present federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including Sunoco Logistics, or our investment in its common units, may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial interpretation at any time. Any modification to the federal income tax laws and interpretations thereof may or may not be applied retroactively. Moreover, any such modification could make it more difficult or impossible for Sunoco Logistics to meet the exception which allows publicly traded partnerships that generate qualifying income to be treated as partnerships (rather than corporations) for U.S. federal income tax purposes, affect or cause Sunoco Logistics to change its business activities, or affect the tax consequences of our investment in Sunoco Logistics’ common units. Any such changes could negatively impact the value of our investment in Sunoco Logistics’ common units.

If the IRS contests the federal income tax positions we or our subsidiaries take, the market for our Common Units, ETP Common Units or Regency Common Units may be adversely affected and the costs of any such contest will reduce cash available for distributions to our Unitholders.

Neither we nor our subsidiaries have requested a ruling from IRS with respect to our treatment as partnerships for federal income tax purposes. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions we or our subsidiaries take. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of the positions we or our subsidiaries take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we or our subsidiaries take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the

Table of Contents

market for our Common Units, ETP’s Common Units or Regency’s Common Units and the prices at which they trade. In addition, the costs of any contest with the IRS will be borne by us or our subsidiaries, and therefore indirectly by us, as a Unitholder and as the owner of the general partner of interests in ETP and Regency, reducing the cash available for distribution to our Unitholders.

Unitholders may be required to pay taxes on their share of our income even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us.

Unitholders will be required to pay any federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they receive no cash distributions from us. Unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax liability that results from the taxation of their share of our taxable income.

Tax gain or loss on disposition of our Common Units could be more or less than expected.

If Unitholders sell their Common Units, they will recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and the tax basis in those Common Units. Because distributions in excess of the Unitholder’s allocable share of our net taxable income result in a decrease in the Unitholder’s tax basis in their Common Units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the units sold will, in effect, become taxable income to the Unitholder if they sell such units at a price greater than their adjusted tax basis in those units, even if the price received is less than their original cost. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be taxed as ordinary income due to potential recapture of depreciation deductions and certain other items. In addition, because the amount realized includes a Unitholder’s share of our nonrecourse liabilities, if a Unitholder sells units, the Unitholders may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash received from the sale.

Tax-exempt entities and non-U.S. persons face unique tax issues from owning Common Units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

Investment in Common Units by tax-exempt entities, including employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs) and non-U.S. persons raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to Unitholders who are organizations exempt from federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be “unrelated business taxable income” and will be taxable to them. Allocations and/or distributions to non-U.S. persons will be reduced by withholding taxes, imposed at the highest effective tax rate applicable to non-U.S. persons, and each non-U.S. person will be required to file United States federal and state income tax returns and pay tax on their share of our taxable income. If you are a tax exempt entity or non-U.S. person, you should consult your tax advisor before investing in our common units.

We have subsidiaries that will be treated as corporations for federal income tax purposes and subject to corporate-level income taxes.

Even though we (as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes) are not subject to U.S. federal income tax, some of our operations are conducted through subsidiaries that are organized as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The taxable income, if any, of subsidiaries that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is subject to corporate-level U.S. federal income taxes, which may reduce the cash available for distribution to us and, in turn, to our unitholders. If the IRS or other state or local jurisdictions were to successfully assert that these corporations have more tax liability than we anticipate or legislation was enacted that increased the corporate tax rate, the cash available for distribution could be further reduced. The income tax return filings positions taken by these corporate subsidiaries require significant judgment, use of estimates, and the interpretation and application of complex tax laws. Significant judgment is also required in assessing the timing and amounts of deductible and taxable items. Despite our belief that the income tax return positions taken by these subsidiaries are fully supportable, certain positions may be successfully challenged by the IRS, state or local jurisdictions.

We treat each purchaser of Common Units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the actual Common Units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could result in a Unitholder owing more tax and may adversely affect the value of the Common Units.

Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of Common Units and because of other reasons, we will adopt depreciation, depletion and amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations. A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to our Unitholders. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale of Common Units and could have a negative impact on the value of our Common Units or result in audit adjustments to tax returns of our Unitholders. Moreover, because we have subsidiaries that are organized as C corporations for federal income tax purposes owns units in us, a successful IRS challenge could result in this subsidiary having a greater tax liability than we anticipate and, therefore, reduce the cash available for distribution to our partnership and, in turn, to our Unitholders.

Table of Contents

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our Unitholders.

We generally prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The use of this proration method may not be permitted under existing Treasury Regulations. Recently, however, the Department of the Treasury and the IRS issued proposed Treasury Regulations that provide a safe harbor pursuant to which a publicly traded partnership may use a similar monthly simplifying convention to allocate tax items among transferor and transferee unitholders. Nonetheless, the proposed regulations do not specifically authorize the use of the proration method we have adopted. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method or new Treasury Regulations were issued, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

A Unitholder whose units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g. a loan to a “short seller”) to cover a short sale of units may be considered as having disposed of those units. If so, the Unitholder would no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from the disposition.

Because there are no specific rules governing the federal income tax consequences of loaning a partnership interest, a Unitholder whose units are the subject of a securities loan may be considered as having disposed of the loaned units. In that case, the Unitholder may no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those units may not be reportable by the Unitholder and any cash distributions received by the Unitholder as to those units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a loan of their units are urged to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing their units.

ETP and Regency have adopted certain valuation methodologies in determining unitholder’s allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction. The IRS may challenge these methods or the resulting allocations, and such a challenge could adversely affect the value of ETP’s or Regency’s Common Units and our Common Units.

In determining the items of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to our, ETP’s or Regency’s unitholders, we must routinely determine the fair market value of our respective assets. Although we may from time to time consult with professional appraisers regarding valuation matters, we make many fair market value estimates using a methodology based on the market value of our, ETP’s or Regency’s common units as a means to measure the fair market value of our respective assets. The IRS may challenge these valuation methods and the resulting allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction.

A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the amount, character, and timing of taxable income or loss being allocated to our Unitholders, the ETP Unitholders or the Regency Unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain on the sale of Common Units by our Unitholders, ETP’s Unitholders or Regency’s Unitholders and could have a negative impact on the value of our Common Units or those of ETP or Regency or result in audit adjustments to the tax returns of our, ETP’s or Regency’s Unitholders without the benefit of additional deductions.

The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profits interests during any twelve month period will result in the termination of our partnership for federal income tax purposes.

We will be considered to have technically terminated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of the total interests in our capital and profits within a twelve-month period. For purposes of determining whether the 50% threshold has been met, multiple sales of the same unit during the applicable twelve-month period will be counted only once. Our technical termination would, among other things, result in the closing of our taxable year for all Unitholders which would require us to file two federal partnership tax returns (and our Unitholders could receive two Schedules K-1 if relief was not available, as described below) for one fiscal year, and could result in a deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing our taxable income. In the case of a Unitholder reporting on a taxable year other than a calendar year, the closing of our taxable year may also result in more than twelve months of our taxable income or loss being includable in such Unitholder’s taxable income for the year of termination. A technical termination currently would not affect our classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We would be treated as a new partnership for tax purposes on the technical termination date, and would be required to make new tax elections and could be subject to penalties if we were unable to determine in a timely manner that a termination occurred. The IRS has recently announced a relief procedure whereby a publicly traded partnership that has technically terminated may be permitted to provide only a single Schedule K-1 to unitholders for the two tax years within the fiscal year in which the termination occurs.

Table of Contents

Unitholders will likely be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements in states where they do not live as a result of investing in our Common Units.

In addition to federal income taxes, the Unitholders may be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we, ETP or Regency conduct business or own property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. We currently own property or conduct business in many states, most of which impose an income tax on individuals, corporations and other entities. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may control assets or conduct business in additional states that impose a personal or corporate income tax. Unitholders may be required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of the jurisdictions. Further, Unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. It is the responsibility of each Unitholder to file all federal, state and local tax returns.

Risks Related to ETP’s Pending Acquisition of Regency

The completion of the Regency Merger is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions to closing, and the date that the Regency Merger would be consummated is uncertain.

The completion of the Regency Merger is subject to the absence of a material adverse change to the business or results of operation of ETP and Regency, the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, the approval of the Regency Merger by a majority of the outstanding Regency common units and the satisfaction or waiver of other conditions specified in the merger agreement related to the Regency transaction. In the event those conditions to closing are not satisfied or waived, we would not complete the Regency Merger.

While ETP expects to complete the Regency Merger in the second quarter of 2015, the completion date of the Regency Merger might be later than expected due to delays in obtaining required regulatory approvals or other unforeseen events.

Failure to complete the merger, or significant delays in completing the merger, could negatively affect the trading price of our common units and our future business and financial results.

Completion of the merger is not assured and is subject to risks, including the risks that approval of the merger by Regency’s unitholders or governmental agencies is not obtained or that other closing conditions are not satisfied. If the merger is not completed, or if there are significant delays in completing the merger, it could negatively affect the trading price of ETP’s common units and ETP’s future business and financial results, and ETP will be subject to several risks, including the following:


•	liability for damages under the terms and conditions of the merger agreement;


•	negative reactions from the financial markets, including declines in the price of ETP’s common units due to the fact that current prices may reflect a market assumption that the merger will be completed; and


•	the attention of ETP’s management will have been diverted to the merger rather than its own operations and pursuit of other opportunities that could have been beneficial to ETP.

ETP may have difficulty attracting, motivating and retaining executives and other employees in light of the merger.

Uncertainty about the effect of the merger on ETP’s employees may have an adverse effect on us and the combined organization. This uncertainty may impair ETP’s ability to attract, retain and motivate personnel until the merger is completed. Employee retention may be particularly challenging during the pendency of the merger, as employees may feel uncertain about their future roles with the combined organization. In addition, ETP may have to provide additional compensation in order to retain employees. If ETP’s employees depart because of issues relating to the uncertainty and difficulty of integration or a desire not to become employees of the combined organization, the ability of ETP to realize the anticipated benefits of the merger could be reduced. Also, if ETP fails to complete the merger, it may be difficult and expensive to recruit and hire replacements for such employees.

Regency is subject to contractual restrictions while the merger is pending, which could materially and adversely affect each party’s business and operations, and, pending the completion of the transaction, our business and operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Under the terms of the Regency Merger agreement, Regency is subject to certain restrictions on the conduct of business prior to completing the transaction, which may adversely affect their ability to execute certain business strategies without first obtaining consent from ETP, including their ability in certain cases to enter into contracts, incur capital expenditures or grow its business. The merger agreement also restricts Regency’s ability to solicit, initiate or encourage alternative acquisition proposals with any third party and may deter a potential acquirer from proposing an alternative transaction or may limit our ability to pursue any such proposal. Such limitations could negatively affect our business and operations prior to the completion of the proposed transaction.

Table of Contents

Furthermore, the process of planning to integrate two businesses and organizations for the post-merger period can divert management attention and resources and could ultimately have an adverse effect on us.

In connection with the pending merger, it is possible that some customers, suppliers and other persons with whom Regency has business relationships may delay or defer certain business decisions or might decide to seek to terminate, change or renegotiate their relationship as a result of the transaction, which could negatively affect our revenues, earnings and cash flows, as well as the market price of our common units, regardless of whether the transaction is completed.

Lawsuits have been filed against ETP, ETP GP, Regency, Regency GP LP, Regency GP LP’s board of directors, and ETE challenging the merger, and any injunctive relief or adverse judgment for monetary damages could prevent the merger from occurring or could have a material adverse effect on us following the merger.

ETP, ETP GP, Regency, Regency GP LP, the directors of the Regency GP LP, and ETE are named defendants in purported class actions and derivative petitions brought by purported Regency unitholders in Dallas County, Texas, generally alleging claims of breach of duties under the partnership agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the merger transactions, and aiding and abetting arising out of the defendants’ pursuit of the merger by way of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process. Similar lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger and, to the extent that the merger is implemented before relief is granted, plaintiffs seek to have the merger rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek money damages and attorneys’ fees. One of the conditions to the completion of the merger is that no order, decree, or injunction of any court or agency of competent jurisdiction shall be in effect, and no law shall have been enacted or adopted, that enjoins, prohibits, or makes illegal consummation of any of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the merger. An adverse judgment for rescission or for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on us following the merger.

ETP will incur substantial transaction-related costs in connection with the merger.

ETP expects to incur a number of non-recurring merger-related costs associated with completing the merger, combining the operations of the two companies, and achieving desired synergies. These fees and costs will be substantial. Non-recurring transaction costs include, but are not limited to, fees paid to legal, financial and accounting advisors, filing fees and printing costs. Additional unanticipated costs may be incurred in the integration of Regency and ETP’s businesses. There can be no assurance that the elimination of certain duplicative costs, as well as the realization of other efficiencies related to the integration of the two businesses, will offset the incremental transaction-related costs over time. Thus, any net benefit may not be achieved in the near term, the long term or at all.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

A description of our properties is included in “Item 1. Business.” In addition, we and our subsidiaries own an executive office building in Dallas, Texas and office buildings in Houston, Corpus Christi and San Antonio, Texas. While we may require additional office space as our business expands, we believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our needs for the immediate future, and that additional facilities will be available on commercially reasonable terms as needed.

We believe that we have satisfactory title to or valid rights to use all of our material properties. Although some of our properties are subject to liabilities and leases, liens for taxes not yet due and payable, encumbrances securing payment obligations under non-competition agreements and immaterial encumbrances, easements and restrictions, we do not believe that any such burdens will materially interfere with our continued use of such properties in our business, taken as a whole. In addition, we believe that we have, or are in the process of obtaining, all required material approvals, authorizations, orders, licenses, permits, franchises and consents of, and have obtained or made all required material registrations, qualifications and filings with, the various state and local government and regulatory authorities which relate to ownership of our properties or the operations of our business.

Substantially all of our subsidiaries’ pipelines, which are described in “Item 1. Business” are constructed on rights-of-way granted by the apparent record owners of the property. Lands over which pipeline rights-of-way have been obtained may be subject to prior liens that have not been subordinated to the right-of-way grants. Our subsidiaries have obtained, where necessary, easement agreements from public authorities and railroad companies to cross over or under, or to lay facilities in or along, watercourses, county roads, municipal streets, railroad properties and state highways, as applicable. In some cases, properties on which our

Table of Contents

subsidiaries’ pipelines were built were purchased in fee. ETP also owns and operates multiple natural gas and NGL storage facilities and owns or leases other processing, treating and conditioning facilities in connection with its midstream operations.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Sunoco, Inc., along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, is a defendant in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs typically include water purveyors and municipalities responsible for supplying drinking water and governmental authorities. The plaintiffs are asserting primarily product liability claims and additional claims including nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and deceptive business practices. The plaintiffs in all of the cases are seeking to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

As of December 31, 2014, Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in five cases, including cases initiated by the States of New Jersey, Vermont, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and two others by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the more recent Puerto Rico action being a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. Four of these cases are venued in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in a New York federal court. The New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Pennsylvania cases assert natural resource damage claims.

Fact discovery has concluded with respect to an initial set of 19 sites each that will be the subject of the first trial phase in the New Jersey case and the initial Puerto Rico case. Insufficient information has been developed about the plaintiffs’ legal theories or the facts with respect to statewide natural resource damage claims to provide an analysis of the ultimate potential liability of Sunoco, Inc. in these matters. It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized; however, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. Management believes that 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 said adverse determination occurs, but does not believe that any such adverse determination would have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position.

In January 2012, Sunoco Logistics experienced a release on its products pipeline in Wellington, Ohio. In connection with this release, the PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order under which Sunoco Logistics is obligated to follow specific requirements in the investigation of the release and the repair and reactivation of the pipeline. Sunoco Logistics also entered into an Order on Consent with the EPA regarding the environmental remediation of the release site. All requirements of the Order of Consent with the EPA have been fulfilled and the Order has been satisfied and closed. Sunoco Logistics has also received a "No Further Action" approval from the Ohio EPA for all soil and groundwater remediation requirements. Sunoco Logistics has not received any proposed penalties associated with this release and continues to cooperate with both PHMSA and the EPA to complete the investigation of the incident and repair of the pipeline.

In 2012, the EPA issued a proposed consent agreement related to the releases that occurred at Sunoco Logistics’ pump station/tank farm in Barbers Hill, Texas and pump station/tank farm located in Cromwell, Oklahoma in 2010 and 2011, respectively. These matters were referred to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) by the EPA. In November 2012, Sunoco Logistics received an initial assessment of $1.4 million associated with these releases. Sunoco Logistics is in discussions with the EPA and the DOJ on this matter and hopes to resolve the issue during 2015. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time; however, Sunoco Logistics does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In September 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) issued a Notice of Violation and proposed penalties in excess of $0.1 million based on alleged violations of various safety regulations relating to the November 2008 products release by Sunoco Pipeline L.P., a subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics, in Murrysville, Pennsylvania. Sunoco Logistics is currently in discussions with the PADEP. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time. However, Sunoco Logistics does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In November 2014, the PADEP issued a Notice of Violation and proposed penalties potentially in excess of $100,000 relating to unpermitted wetlands and streams along the second phase of construction of the Canton Pipeline Project by Regency Marcellus Gas Gathering LLC (“Regency Marcellus”), a subsidiary of Regency. Regency Marcellus has submitted amended permit applications for this phase of construction and is working the PADEP to acquire amended permits for the proposed crossings of the wetland resources. Regency Marcellus is in discussions with the PADEP regarding the aforementioned Notice of Violation. The timing of outcome of this matter cannot reasonably be determined at this time, however we do not expect there to be a material impact on our business or results of operations.

In November 2013, the DOT issued a Notice of Violation and proposed penalties in excess of $0.1 million based on alleged violations of various safety regulations relating to the February 2012 products release by FGT in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. ETP received an initial assessment of $0.2 million associated with this release. ETP is in discussions with the DOT on this matter and

Table of Contents

hopes to resolve this issue in 2015. 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.

On or around December 24, 2014, PHMSA issued to ETP’s Panhandle a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (the “Notice”) regarding the ETP\PEPL pipeline system. The Notice stated that PHMSA had initiated an investigation of the safety of the ETP/PEPL pipeline system and specifically referenced two incidents: 1) a November 28, 2013, incident on ETP/PEPL’s 400 line approximately 4.7 miles downstream of the Houstonia compressor station near Hughesville, Missouri, and 2) an October 13, 2014, failure on the ETP/PEPL 100 line near Centerview, Missouri. The Notice further mentioned other incidents on the ETP/PEPL pipeline system that PHMSA claims to have addressed with ETP/PEPL. The Notice also stated that “[a]s a result of [PHMSA’s] investigation, it appears that conditions exist on the ETP/PEPL pipeline system that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property or the environment.” ETP/PEPL is fully cooperating with PHMSA and its investigation.

Additionally, we have received notices of violations and potential fines under various federal, state and local provisions relating to the discharge of materials into the environment or protection of the environment. While we believe that even if any one or more of the environmental proceedings listed above were decided against us, it would not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, we are required to report environmental proceedings if we reasonably believe that such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions in excess of $0.1 million.

For a description of legal proceedings, see Note 12 to our consolidated financial statements.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON UNITS, RELATED UNITHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Parent Company

Market Price of and Distributions on Common Units and Related Unitholder Matters

The Parent Company’s common units are listed on the NYSE under the symbol “ETE.” The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per ETE Common Unit, as reported on the NYSE Composite Tape, and the amount of cash distributions paid per ETE Common Unit for the periods indicated.



	Price Range ⁽¹⁾				Cash Distribution⁽²⁾
	High		Low		Cash Distribution⁽²⁾
Fiscal Year 2014:
Fourth Quarter	$	66.21	$	45.88	$	0.4500
Third Quarter	63.53		53.17		0.4150
Second Quarter	60.58		46.04		0.3800
First Quarter	43.11		38.99		0.3588

Fiscal Year 2013:
Fourth Quarter	$	42.58	$	32.01	$	0.3463
Third Quarter	34.20		29.47		0.3363
Second Quarter	31.25		26.56		0.3275
First Quarter	29.54		23.04		0.3225


⁽¹⁾	Prices and distributions have been adjusted to reflect the effect of the two-for-one split of ETE Common Units completed on January 27, 2014. See Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements.


⁽²⁾	Distributions are shown in the quarter with respect to which they relate. For each of the indicated quarters for which distributions have been made, an identical per unit cash distribution was paid on any units subordinated to our Common Units outstanding at such time. Please see “Cash Distribution Policy” below for a discussion of our policy regarding the payment of distributions.

Table of Contents

Description of Units

As of February 18, 2015, there were approximately 129,213 individual common unitholders, which includes common units held in street name. Common units represent limited partner interest in us that entitle the holders to the rights and privileges specified in the Parent Company’s Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended to date (the “Partnership Agreement”).

As of December 31, 2014, limited partners owns an aggregate 99.7% limited partner interest in us. Our General Partner owns an aggregate 0.3% General Partner interest in us. Our common units are registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and are listed for trading on the NYSE. Each holder of a common unit is entitled to one vote per unit on all matters presented to the limited partners for a vote. In addition, if at any time any person or group (other than our General Partner and its affiliates) owns beneficially 20% or more of all common units, any Common Units owned by that person or group may not be voted on any matter and are not considered to be outstanding when sending notices of a meeting of unitholders (unless otherwise required by law), calculating required votes, determining the presence of a quorum or for other similar purposes under our Partnership Agreement. The common units are entitled to distributions of Available Cash as described below under “Cash Distribution Policy.”

Cash Distribution Policy

General. The Parent Company will distribute all of its “Available Cash” to its unitholders and its General Partner within 50 days following the end of each fiscal quarter.

Definition of Available Cash. Available Cash is defined in the Parent Company’s Partnership Agreement and generally means, with respect to any calendar quarter, all cash on hand at the end of such quarter less the amount of cash reserves that are necessary or appropriate in the reasonable discretion of the General Partner to:


•	provide for the proper conduct of its business;


•	comply with applicable law and/or debt instrument or other agreement; and


•	provide funds for distributions to unitholders and its General Partner in respect of any one or more of the next four quarters.

The total amount of distributions declared is reflected in Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

No repurchases were made during the fourth quarter of 2014.

Table of Contents

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The selected historical financial data should be read in conjunction with “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the historical consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes thereto included elsewhere in this report. The amounts in the table below, except per unit data, are in millions.



	Years Ended December 31,
	2014		2013		2012		2011		2010
Statement of Operations Data:
Total revenues	$	55,691	$	48,335	$	16,964	$	8,190	$	6,556
Operating income	2,470		1,551		1,360		1,237		1,044
Income from continuing operations	1,060		282		1,383		531		345
Basic income from continuing operations per limited partner unit	1.15		0.33		0.59		0.69		0.44
Diluted income from continuing operations per limited partner unit	1.14		0.33		0.59		0.69		0.44
Cash distribution per unit	1.60		1.33		1.26		1.22		1.08
Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
Total assets	64,469		50,330		48,904		20,897		17,379
Long-term debt, less current maturities	29,653		22,562		21,440		10,947		9,346
Total equity	22,314		16,279		16,350		7,388		6,248

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

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

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership whose common units are publicly traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “ETE.” ETE was formed in September 2002 and completed its initial public offering in February 2006.

The following is a discussion of our historical consolidated financial condition and results of operations, and should be read in conjunction with our historical consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes thereto included in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this report. This discussion includes forward-looking statements that are subject to risk and uncertainties. Actual results may differ substantially from the statements we make in this section due to a number of factors that are discussed in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” of this report.

In 2014, our consolidated subsidiaries, Trunkline LNG Company, LLC, Trunkline LNG Export, LLC and Susser Petroleum Partners LP, changed their names to Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC, Lake Charles LNG Export, LLC and Sunoco LP, respectively. All references to these subsidiaries throughout this document reflect the new names of those subsidiaries, regardless of whether the disclosure relates to periods or events prior to the dates of the name changes.

Table of Contents

OVERVIEW

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. directly and indirectly owns equity interests in ETP and Regency, both publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related services.

At December 31, 2014, our interests in ETP and Regency consisted of 100% of the respective general partner interests and IDRs, as well as the following:



	ETP	Regency
Units held by wholly-owned subsidiaries:
Common units	30.8	57.2
ETP Class H units	50.2	—
Units held by less than wholly-owned subsidiaries:
Common units	—	31.4
Regency Class F units	—	6.3

The Parent Company’s principal sources of cash flow are derived from its direct and indirect investments in the limited partner and general partner interests in ETP and Regency, both of which are publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related services, and the Partnership’s ownership of Lake Charles LNG. The Parent Company’s primary cash requirements are for distributions to its partners, general and administrative expenses, debt service requirements and at ETE’s election, capital contributions to ETP and Regency in respect of ETE’s general partner interests in ETP and Regency. The Parent Company-only assets and liabilities are not available to satisfy the debts and other obligations of subsidiaries.

In order to fully understand the financial condition and results of operations of the Parent Company on a stand-alone basis, we have included discussions of Parent Company matters apart from those of our consolidated group.

General

Our primary objective is to increase the level of our distributable cash flow to our unitholders over time by pursuing a business strategy that is currently focused on growing our subsidiaries’ natural gas and liquids businesses through, among other things, pursuing certain construction and expansion opportunities relating to our subsidiaries’ existing infrastructure and acquiring certain strategic operations and businesses or assets. The actual amounts of cash that we will have available for distribution will primarily depend on the amount of cash our subsidiaries generate from their operations.

As a result of the Lake Charles LNG Transaction in 2014, our reportable segments were re-evaluated and currently reflect the following reportable segments:

•Investment in ETP, including the consolidated operations of ETP;


•	Investment in Regency, including the consolidated operations of Regency;


•	Investment in Lake Charles LNG, including the operations of Lake Charles LNG; and


•	Corporate and Other, including the following:


•	activities of the Parent Company; and


•	the goodwill and property, plant and equipment fair value adjustments recorded as a result of the 2004 reverse acquisition of Heritage Propane Partners, L.P.

Each of the respective general partners of ETP and Regency have separate operating management and boards of directors. We control ETP and Regency through our ownership of their respective general partners.

Recent Developments

Regency Merger

Table of Contents

immediately preceding the Effective Time and (ii) the closing price of ETP Common Units on the third trading day immediately preceding the Effective Time, rounded to the nearest ten thousandth of a unit. Each Regency series A preferred unit will be converted into the right to receive a preferred unit representing a limited partner interest in ETP, a new class of units in ETP to be established at the Effective Time. The transaction is subject to other customary closing conditions including approval by Regency’s unitholders.

In addition, ETE, which owns the general partner and 100% of the incentive distribution rights of both Regency and ETP, has agreed to reduce the incentive distributions it receives from ETP by a total of $320 million over a five year period. The IDR subsidy will be $80 million in the first year post closing and $60 million per year for the following four years. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2015.

Bakken Pipeline Transaction

Acquisition of West Texas Gulf by Sunoco Logistics

In December 2014, Sunoco Logistics acquired an additional 28.3% ownership interest in the West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company from Chevron Pipe Line Company, increasing its controlling financial interest in the consolidated subsidiary to 88.6%. The remaining 11.4% was acquired from Southwest Pipeline Holding Company, LLC in January 2015.

Lone Star NGL Pipeline and Conversion Project

In November 2014, ETP and Regency announced that Lone Star will construct a 533 mile, 24- and 30-inch NGL pipeline from the Permian Basin to Mont Belvieu, Texas and convert Lone Star’s existing West Texas 12-inch NGL pipeline into crude oil/condensate service. The new pipeline and conversion projects, estimated to cost between $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion, are expected to be operational by the third quarter of 2016 and the first quarter of 2017, respectively.

Gathering and Processing Construction Projects

In November 2014, ETP announced its plans to construct two new 200 million cubic feet per day cryogenic gas processing plants and associated gathering systems in the Eagle Ford and Eaglebine production areas. ETP expects to have the first plant online by June 2015 and the second plant by the fourth quarter of 2015.

Lone Star Fractionator

In November 2014, ETP and Regency announced that Lone Star will construct a third natural gas liquids fractionator at its facility in Mont Belvieu, Texas, which will bring Lone Star’s total fractionation capacity at Mont Belvieu to 300,000 Bbls/d. Lone Star’s third fractionator is scheduled to be operational by December 2015.

Phillips 66 Joint Ventures

In October 2014, ETE, ETP and Phillips 66 formed two joint ventures to develop the previously announced Dakota Access Pipeline (“DAPL”) and Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline (“ETCOP”) projects. ETP and ETE hold an aggregate interest of 75% in each joint venture and ETP operates both pipeline systems. Phillips 66 owns the remaining 25% interests and funds its proportionate share of the construction costs. The DAPL and ETCOP projects are expected to begin commercial operations in the fourth quarter of 2016.

ET Rover

In June 2014, ETP announced a natural gas pipeline project (now called “Rover”) to connect Marcellus and Utica shale supplies to markets in the Midwest, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast regions of the United States and Canada. ETP has secured multiple, long-term binding shipper agreements on Rover. As a result of these binding agreements, the pipeline is substantially subscribed with 15- and 20-year fee-based contracts to transport up to 3.25 Bcf/d of capacity. Also, ETP recently announced that AE–Midco Rover, LLC (“AE–Midco”), has exercised its option to increase its equity ownership interest in Rover. As a result, AE–Midco (and an affiliate of AE–Midco) will own 35% of Rover and ETP will own 65%.

Table of Contents

MACS to Sunoco LP

In October 2014, Sunoco LP acquired MACS from a subsidiary of ETP in a transaction valued at approximately $768 million (the “MACS Transaction”). The transaction included approximately 110 company-operated retail convenience stores and 200 dealer-operated and consignment sites from MACS, which had originally been acquired by ETP in October 2013. The consideration paid by Sunoco LP consisted of approximately 4 million Sunoco LP common units issued to ETP and $556 million in cash, subject to customary closing adjustments. Sunoco LP initially financed the cash portion by utilizing availability under its revolving credit facility. In October 2014 and November 2014, Sunoco LP partially repaid borrowings on its revolving credit facility with aggregate net proceeds of $405 million from a public offering of 9.1 million Sunoco LP common units.

ETE Unit Repurchase

From January through May 2014, ETE repurchased approximately $1 billion of ETE common units under its buyback program.

Lake Charles LNG Transaction

In February 2014, ETP completed the transfer to ETE of Lake Charles LNG, the entity that owns a LNG regasification facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana, in exchange for the redemption by ETP of 18.7 million ETP Common Units held by ETE. This transaction was effective as of January 1, 2014.

In connection with ETE’s acquisition of Lake Charles LNG, ETP agreed to continue to provide management services for ETE through 2015 in relation to both Lake Charles LNG’s regasification facility and the development of a liquefaction project at Lake Charles LNG’s facility, for which ETE has agreed to pay incremental management fees to ETP of $75 million per year for the years ending December 31, 2014 and 2015. ETE also agreed to provide additional subsidies to ETP through the relinquishment of future incentive distributions, as discussed further in Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements.

Results of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2014 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2013

We define Segment Adjusted EBITDA as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, depletions, 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, loss on extinguishment of debt, gain on deconsolidation and other non-operating income or expense items. Unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities includes unrealized gains and losses on commodity derivatives and inventory fair value adjustments (excluding lower of cost or market adjustments). Segment Adjusted EBITDA reflects amounts for unconsolidated affiliates based on the Partnership’s proportionate ownership and amounts for less than wholly owned subsidiaries based on 100% of the subsidiaries’ results of operations.

Based on the change in our reportable segments, we have adjusted the presentation of our segment results for the prior years to be consistent with the current year presentation.

Eliminations in the tables below include the following:


•	ETP’s Segment Adjusted EBITDA reflected 100% of Lone Star, which is a consolidated subsidiary of ETP. Regency’s Segment Adjusted EBITDA included its 30% investment in Lone Star. Therefore, 30% of the results of Lone Star were included in eliminations.


•	ETP’s Segment Adjusted EBITDA reflected the results of SUGS from March 26, 2012 to April 30, 2013. Since the SUGS Contribution was a transaction between entities under common control, Regency’s results have been recast to retrospectively consolidate SUGS beginning March 26, 2012. Therefore, the eliminations also included the results of SUGS from March 26, 2012 to April 30, 2013.

•

ETP’s Segment Adjusted EBITDA reflected the results of Lake Charles LNG prior to the Lake Charles LNG Transaction, which was effective January 1, 2014. The Investment in Lake Charles LNG segment reflected the results of operations of Lake Charles LNG for all periods presented. Consequently, the results of operations of Lake Charles LNG were reflected in two segments for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the period from March 26, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Therefore, the results of Lake Charles LNG were included in eliminations for 2013 and 2012.

Table of Contents

Consolidated Results



	Years Ended December 31,
	2014			2013			Change
Segment Adjusted EBITDA:
Investment in ETP	$	4,829		$	3,953		$	876
Investment in Regency	1,172			608			564
Investment in Lake Charles LNG	195			187			8
Corporate and Other	(97		)	(43		)