DEFM14A

On September 28, 2015, The Williams Companies, Inc. (“WMB”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto (the “merger agreement”), with Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (“ETE”), Energy Transfer Corp LP (“ETC”), Energy Transfer Corp GP, LLC (“ETC GP”), LE GP, LLC (“LE GP”) and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC (“ETE GP”). The merger agreement provides that WMB will be merged with and into ETC (the “merger”), with ETC surviving the merger. ETE formed ETC as a limited partnership that will be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Immediately following the effective time of the merger (the “effective time”), LE GP will merge with and into ETE GP (the “GP merger” and, together with the merger, the “mergers”), with ETE GP surviving the GP merger and becoming the general partner of ETE. ETC will serve as the managing member of ETE GP.

At the effective time, each issued and outstanding share of WMB common stock (other than shares of WMB common stock held by WMB, subsidiaries of WMB, ETC and its affiliates and shares of WMB common stock for which the holder thereof has properly demanded appraisal under Delaware law (and who does not fail to perfect or otherwise effectively withdraw their demand or waive or lose the right to appraisal)) will be cancelled and automatically converted into the right to receive, at the election of each WMB stockholder (subject to the election and proration procedures described below):

WMB stockholders that elect to receive the share consideration or the cash consideration will be subject to proration to ensure that the aggregate number of ETC common shares and the aggregate amount of cash paid in the merger will be the same as if all electing WMB shares received the mixed consideration. The receipt of the merger consideration is expected to be tax-free to the WMB stockholders, except with respect to any cash received. In addition, WMB is entitled to declare a special, one-time dividend of $0.10 per share of WMB common stock, to be paid to holders of record immediately prior to the closing of the merger and contingent upon consummation of the merger.

In connection with the merger, ETE will acquire a number of ETC common shares at the exchange ratio associated with the share consideration, in exchange for the amount of cash needed by ETC to fund the cash portion of the merger consideration (the “Parent Cash Deposit”), and, as a result, based on the number of shares of WMB common stock outstanding as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, ETE will own approximately 19% of the outstanding ETC common shares immediately after the effective time (which percentage becomes 17% after giving effect to the anticipated grant of awards under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan following the merger).

Immediately following the completion of the mergers, ETC will contribute substantially all of the assets and liabilities it assumed from WMB through the merger to ETE in exchange for the issuance by ETE to ETC of a number of Class E units, a new class of units representing limited partner interests in ETE (the “ETE Class E units”), equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in consideration for the Parent Cash Deposit (the “WMB Contribution” and, together with the merger and the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, the “merger transactions”).

day after the closing date of the merger (the “measurement period”). If the ETC common shares VWAP is less than the ETE common units VWAP for the measurement period (such difference, a “shortfall amount”), then each outstanding CCR will be automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive a shortfall payment, which will be settled in ETC common shares or cash, at ETE’s election, and ETE will issue a number of ETE Class E units to ETC equal to the number of ETC common shares so issued, if any. If, however, the ETC common shares VWAP is equal to or greater than the ETE common units VWAP for the measurement period, then each outstanding CCR will be immediately and automatically cancelled and no consideration of any kind will be delivered to CCR holders, and ETE will cancel a portion of the ETE Class E units held by ETC based on the amount of such difference, thereby reducing ETC’s ownership interest in ETE. The CCRs will be automatically cancelled and extinguished prior to the end of the measurement period, without any consideration of any kind being delivered to the CCR holders, if (1) the ETC common shares VWAP is greater than the ETE common units VWAP for 20 consecutive trading days and (2) the ETC common shares VWAP is equal to or greater than the ETE common units VWAP for a period beginning on the twenty-first trading day after the effective date of the merger and ending on the twentieth such trading day as mentioned above. The CCRs will trade with the ETC common shares and will not be separable or separately traded and will have no separate voting rights.

On September 28, 2015, the board of directors of WMB (the “WMB Board”) (a) approved and declared advisable and resolved to recommend to its stockholders the adoption of the merger agreement, the merger and the other merger transactions and (b) declared that it is in the best interests of the WMB stockholders for WMB to enter into the merger agreement and consummate the merger and the other merger transactions.

Prior to the merger, WMB will hold a special meeting of its stockholders (the “special meeting”) for the WMB stockholders to approve (a) the adoption of the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger (the “Merger Proposal”) and (b) the adjournment of the special meeting from time to time, if necessary or appropriate to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the merger agreement (the “Adjournment Proposal”). At the special meeting, the WMB stockholders will also cast a non-binding, advisory vote to approve the compensation that may be paid or become payable to WMB’s named executive officers as a result of the merger (the “Compensatory Proposal”).

The WMB Board set May 19, 2016 as the record date (the “Record Date”) for determining holders of WMB common stock entitled to vote at the special meeting. If you are a record holder of outstanding WMB common stock as of the close of business on the Record Date, you may vote at the special meeting. See the section titled “The Special Meeting” beginning on page 99 of this proxy statement/prospectus. The affirmative vote of holders of at least a majority of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock is required to approve the Merger Proposal. The affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast affirmatively or negatively on the Compensatory Proposal is required to approve, on an advisory basis, the Compensatory Proposal, but this vote will not be binding on WMB, the WMB Board or any of the WMB Board’s committees. The approval of the Adjournment Proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on the Adjournment Proposal at the special meeting, regardless of whether a quorum is present.

This proxy statement/prospectus provides you with detailed information about the merger agreement, the merger transactions and related matters. ETC and WMB encourage you to read the entire document carefully. In particular, please read the “Risk Factors” section beginning on page 45 of this proxy statement/prospectus for a discussion of risks relevant to the merger, ETC, ETE and the combined company.

NEITHER THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION NOR ANY STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION HAS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED OF THE ETC COMMON SHARES OR THE ATTACHED CCR TO BE ISSUED IN THE MERGER OR DETERMINED IF THIS PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS IS TRUTHFUL OR COMPLETE. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

The date of this proxy statement/prospectus is May 25, 2016 and it was first mailed to WMB stockholders on or about May 25, 2016.

Notice is hereby given that a special meeting of stockholders (the “special meeting”) of The Williams Companies, Inc. (“WMB”) will be held on June 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., local time, at The Williams Resource Center Theater, One Williams Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172 to consider and vote upon the following proposals:

Proposal 1: to approve the adoption of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto (the “merger agreement”), among Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., Energy Transfer Corp LP (“ETC”), Energy Transfer Corp GP, LLC, LE GP, LLC, Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC and WMB, and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger of WMB with and into ETC (the “merger”) (the “Merger Proposal”);

Proposal 2: to approve, on an advisory (non-binding) basis, specified compensatory arrangements between WMB and its named executive officers relating to the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement (the “Compensatory Proposal”); and

Proposal 3: to approve the adjournment of the special meeting from time to time, if necessary or appropriate to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the Merger Proposal (the “Adjournment Proposal” and, together with the Merger Proposal and the Compensatory Proposal, the “Proposals”).

The above Proposals and related transactions are described in detail in the accompanying proxy statement/prospectus, which you should read before you vote. If the Merger Proposal is not approved by the WMB stockholders, the merger cannot be completed.

Only holders of record of WMB common stock at the close of business on May 19, 2016 will be entitled to notice of and to vote at the special meeting and any adjournments or postponements thereof.

Your vote is very important. To ensure your representation at the special meeting, complete and return the enclosed proxy card or submit your proxy by telephone or the Internet. Please submit a proxy promptly whether or not you expect to attend the special meeting. Submitting a proxy now will not prevent you from revoking the proxy and voting in person at the special meeting. If your shares are held in the name of a bank, broker or other nominee, follow the instructions on the voting instruction card furnished to you by such bank, broker or other nominee.

On September 28, 2015, the Board of Directors of WMB approved and declared advisable the merger agreement and the other transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger and the Compensatory Proposal, and determined that they are in the best interests of WMB and its stockholders. Since such time, the WMB Board has, among other things, carefully reviewed the developments described in “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus. As of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, a majority of the WMB Board recommend that you vote “FOR” the Merger Proposal and the Compensatory Proposal, and the WMB Board unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the Adjournment Proposal.

This proxy statement/prospectus incorporates by reference important business and financial information about WMB from other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), that are not included in or delivered with this proxy statement/prospectus. See “Where You Can Find More Information.”

Documents incorporated by reference are available to you without charge upon written or oral request. You can obtain any of these documents by requesting them in writing or by telephone from WMB or from MacKenzie Partners, Inc., WMB’s proxy solicitor, at the following addresses and telephone numbers.

To receive timely delivery of the requested documents in advance of the special meeting, you should make your request no later than June 20, 2016.

This document, which forms part of a registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC by ETC (File No. 333- 208187), constitutes a prospectus of ETC under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), with respect to the ETC common shares with CCRs attached thereto to be issued pursuant to the merger agreement. This document also constitutes a notice of meeting and a proxy statement under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), with respect to the special meeting, at which WMB stockholders will be asked to consider and vote on a proposal to adopt the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger, the Compensatory Proposal and the Adjournment Proposal.

Neither ETC nor WMB has authorized anyone to give any information or make any representation about the merger, ETC or WMB that is different from, or in addition to, that contained in this proxy statement/prospectus or in any of the materials that have been incorporated by reference. Therefore, neither ETC nor WMB take any responsibility for, or can provide any assurance as to the reliability of, any information other than the information contained in or incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus. This proxy statement/prospectus is dated May 25, 2016. The information contained in this proxy statement/prospectus is accurate only as of that date or, in the case of information in a document incorporated by reference, as of the date of such document, unless the information specifically indicates that another date applies. Neither the mailing of this proxy statement/prospectus to WMB stockholders nor the issuance by ETC of its common shares and CCRs pursuant to the merger agreement will create any implication to the contrary.

This proxy statement/prospectus does not constitute an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities, or the solicitation of a proxy, in any jurisdiction in which or from any person to whom it is unlawful to make any such offer or solicitation in such jurisdiction.

The information concerning ETC contained in this proxy statement/prospectus has been provided by ETC, and the information concerning WMB contained in or incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus has been provided by WMB.

Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this proxy statement/prospectus to:

ETC expects to grant awards to officers, directors and eligible service providers of ETC and its affiliates under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan shortly following the closing of the merger covering approximately 10% of the outstanding ETC common shares at the consummation of the merger. Unless otherwise stated, the information in this proxy statement/prospectus regarding the ownership of ETC immediately following the merger and other pro forma financial information for ETC does not give effect to the expected award grants. Please see “Additional Information About ETC—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Our 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan.”

The following section provides brief answers to certain questions that you may have regarding the merger agreement and the proposed mergers. Please note that this section does not address all issues that may be important to you as a WMB stockholder. Accordingly, you should carefully read this entire proxy statement/prospectus, including each of the annexes and the documents that have been incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus.

A. WMB and ETE have agreed to merge WMB with and into ETC (the “merger”), with ETC surviving the merger.

WMB is holding a special meeting of stockholders (the “special meeting”) to obtain the stockholder approval necessary to adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto (the “merger agreement”), among ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP, ETE GP and WMB. We will be unable to complete the merger unless, among other things, the WMB stockholders approve the adoption of the merger agreement.

WMB stockholders will also be asked to approve the Adjournment Proposal (as described below) and the Compensatory Proposal (as described below) at the special meeting.

WMB is sending these materials to the WMB stockholders to help them decide how to vote their shares of WMB common stock regarding the matters described herein at the special meeting.

This document constitutes both a proxy statement of WMB and a prospectus of ETC. This document is a proxy statement because the Board of Directors of WMB (the “WMB Board”) is soliciting proxies from the WMB stockholders for the adoption of the merger agreement. This document is a prospectus because ETC, in connection with the merger, is offering common shares representing limited partner interests in ETC (“ETC common shares”) with contingent consideration rights (“CCRs”) attached thereto in exchange for outstanding shares of WMB common stock.

A. If the merger is successfully completed, WMB will be merged with and into ETC, with ETC surviving the merger. Following the merger, WMB will no longer be a publicly held company, and WMB common stock will be delisted from the NYSE and deregistered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

Immediately following the completion of the merger (the “effective time”), ETC will contribute substantially all of the assets and liabilities it assumed from WMB through the merger to ETE in exchange for the issuance by ETE to ETC of a number of Class E units, a new class of units representing limited partner interests in ETE (the “ETE Class E units”), equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in consideration for the Parent Cash Deposit (as defined below) (the “WMB Contribution” and, together with the merger and the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, the “merger transactions”).

A. ETE and WMB are working to complete the merger as soon as possible. Subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions to the merger, we expect to complete the merger in the first half of 2016, but we cannot be certain when or if the conditions to the merger will be satisfied or, to the extent permitted, waived. The merger cannot be completed until a number of conditions are satisfied, including the approval of the adoption of the merger agreement by WMB stockholders at the special meeting, approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) pursuant to the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), clearance under the Canada Competition Act

and the expiration or termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (“HSR Act”). See the section titled “The Merger—Regulatory Approvals and Clearances Required for the Merger.” In addition, completion of the merger is subject to satisfaction or waiver of a condition that ETC and WMB receive a tax opinion from Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) to the effect that the WMB Contribution should qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies (the “721 Opinion”). Latham has advised ETE that, considering the potential claims that the IRS may successfully assert and the level of uncertainty regarding the ultimate outcome of these claims, Latham would not be able to deliver the 721 Opinion were the opinion requested as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus. On advice of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, special counsel to WMB in connection with the transaction, WMB has advised ETE that it disagrees with Latham’s position and that it believes the WMB Contribution should be a transaction to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies. Receipt by ETC and WMB of the 721 Opinion from Latham is a closing condition that must be met or waived by both ETC and WMB. Because ETE believes that ETE and ETC will be materially adversely affected if the WMB Contribution is not an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies, it is unlikely that ETC would waive the condition to closing that ETC receive the 721 Opinion from Latham. Based on the information available to WMB as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, WMB believes that the WMB Contribution should qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies. WMB is, therefore, willing to waive the condition to closing that WMB receive the 721 Opinion from Latham. In addition, on May 13, 2016, WMB filed a lawsuit against ETE in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking, among other remedies, a declaratory judgment and injunction preventing ETE from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under the merger agreement due to any failure of Latham to deliver the 721 Opinion to ETC and WMB. ETE believes that the allegations underlying the lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Please see “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Q. Who do I call if I have further questions about the merger agreement or the merger?

A. If WMB stockholders have further questions or would like additional copies, without charge, of this proxy statement/prospectus, they may call the WMB Investor Relations Departments at 800-600-3782, or MacKenzie Partners, Inc., who is acting as WMB’s proxy solicitation agent for the special meeting, at (800) 322-2885.

A. If for any reason the merger is not consummated, WMB stockholders will retain their shares of WMB common stock, WMB will remain an independent public company and shares of WMB common stock will continue to be listed and traded on the NYSE. WMB stockholders will not receive the merger consideration or the pre-merger special dividend (as defined below).

Additionally, if the merger agreement is terminated, under specified circumstances, WMB may be required to pay ETE a termination fee of $1.48 billion or reimburse ETE for up to $100 million of its expenses. See the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Termination Fees and Expenses” beginning on page 214 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

A. In addition to the approval of the Merger Proposal by the WMB stockholders, completion of the merger is subject to the satisfaction of a number of other conditions, including certain regulatory clearances and the receipt by ETC and WMB of the 721 Opinion. For additional information on the conditions to completing the merger, see the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Conditions to Completion of the Merger” beginning on page 210 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

A. ETC will be managed by its general partner, ETC GP, which will be managed by a board of directors appointed by the Existing GP Owner. The ETC GP board of directors (the “ETC GP Board”) will consist of between five and 11 directors, at least three of which must be independent according to the standards of the NYSE and the Exchange Act. For additional information regarding the management of ETC following the merger, see the section titled “Additional Information About ETC—Management” beginning on page 344 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

After the merger, as a holder of ETC common shares, you will not be entitled to remove ETC GP as the general partner of ETC or to elect or remove directors on the ETC GP Board.

A. ETC will be managed by its general partner, ETC GP, and will also be the managing member of ETE GP, which will be the general partner of ETE following the completion of the GP merger. It is expected that the directors of LE GP immediately prior to the GP merger will continue as directors of ETE GP after the GP merger.

Q. Is the consummation of the merger contingent upon any future approval by the holders of common units representing limited partner interests in ETE (the “ETE common units”)?

A. No. No approvals by the holders of ETE common units are required to consummate the merger.

Q. Do any of the directors or executive officers of WMB have interests in the merger that may differ from or be in addition to interests of WMB stockholders?

A. In considering the recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board to approve the merger, WMB stockholders should be aware that certain WMB directors and executive officers may be deemed to have interests in the merger that are in addition to, or different from, the interests of other WMB stockholders. The WMB Board was aware of these interests and considered them, among other matters, in approving the merger and the merger agreement and in making the recommendations that the WMB stockholders approve the merger agreement, the merger and the other merger transactions. These interests include:

Q. Are there any risks I should consider in deciding whether to vote for the Merger Proposal?

A. Yes. You should read and carefully consider the risks described in the section titled “Risk Factors” beginning on page 45 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Q: What impact has the recent decline in crude oil and natural gas prices had on ETE, WMB and the merger?

A: Please see “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Q. What effect will the merger have on the previously announced merger with WPZ?

A. The merger agreement between WMB and WPZ was terminated before WMB and ETE entered into the merger agreement. There is no longer a planned merger between WMB and WPZ, and WPZ will remain as an independent publicly traded master limited partnership.

A. The special meeting will be held on June 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., local time, at The Williams Resource Center Theater, One Williams Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172.

A. If you are a record holder of WMB common stock as of the close of business on May 19, 2016 (the “Record Date”), you are entitled to vote at the special meeting. See the section titled “The Special Meeting” beginning on page 99 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

A. WMB stockholders are being asked to consider and vote on the following proposals:

A. The approval of the Merger Proposal requires the affirmative vote of holders of at least a majority of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock. The affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast affirmatively or negatively on the Compensatory Proposal is required to approve, on an advisory basis, the Compensatory Proposal, but this vote will not be binding on WMB, the WMB Board or any of its committees. The approval of the Adjournment Proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on the proposal at the special meeting, regardless of whether a quorum is present.

A. The presence, in person or by proxy, of WMB stockholders representing a majority of the shares of WMB common stock outstanding on the Record Date will constitute a quorum for the special meeting.

A. The approval of the Merger Proposal requires the affirmative vote of holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock. Therefore, an abstention or failure to vote has the same effect as a vote against the Merger Proposal.

The affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast affirmatively or negatively on the Compensatory Proposal is required to approve, on an advisory basis, the Compensatory Proposal. Therefore, voting against the Compensatory Proposal increases the number of votes required to approve the Compensatory Proposal, but abstentions or failures to vote do not.

The Adjournment Proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on such proposal at the special meeting. Abstentions will not be treated as votes cast for purposes of the Adjournment Proposal. If you abstain from voting on the Adjournment Proposal, your shares of WMB common stock will be disregarded for purposes of determining the votes cast for the Adjournment Proposal, and the abstention will therefore have no effect on the adoption of that proposal. Neither the Compensatory Proposal nor the Adjournment Proposal affects the approval of the Merger Proposal.

A. If you are a stockholder of record, you may submit a proxy by the Internet, by phone or by mail. If you hold your WMB common stock in “street name” (with a bank, broker or other nominee) you should follow the instructions provided by your bank, broker or other nominee. See the section titled “The Special Meeting” beginning on page 99 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

A. WMB stockholders have one vote per share of WMB common stock on each proposal to be voted upon.

Q. If my shares of WMB common stock are held in street name by my bank, broker or other nominee, will my bank, broker or other nominee automatically vote my shares for me?

A. No. If your shares of WMB common stock are held in street name, you must instruct your bank, broker or other nominee on how to vote your shares. See the section titled “The Special Meeting” beginning on page 99 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Q. What happens if I sell my WMB common stock after the Record Date but before the special meeting?

A. If you transfer your shares of WMB common stock after the Record Date but before the date of the special meeting, you will retain your right to vote at the special meeting.

A. If you are a stockholder of record, you can change your vote within the regular voting deadlines by voting again by telephone or the Internet, executing and returning a later-dated proxy card or attending the special meeting and voting in person. If you are a stockholder of record, you can revoke your proxy by delivering a written notice of your revocation to WMB’s Corporate Secretary at One Williams Center, MD 47, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172. If you hold your WMB common stock in street name, you should follow the instructions provided by your bank, broker or other nominee. See the section titled “The Special Meeting” beginning on page 99 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Q. How does the WMB Board recommend that WMB stockholders vote at the special meeting?

A. A majority of the WMB Board recommend that WMB stockholders vote “FOR” the Merger Proposal. See the sections titled “The Merger—Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger” beginning on page 132 of this proxy statement/prospectus and “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

A majority of the WMB Board recommend that WMB stockholders vote “FOR” the Compensatory Proposal.

The WMB Board unanimously recommends that WMB stockholders vote “FOR” the Adjournment Proposal.

A. No. After the merger is completed, WMB stockholders who held their shares of WMB common stock in certificated or book entry form immediately prior to the effective time will receive written instructions for exchanging their shares of WMB common stock. If you hold shares of WMB common stock in street name, the consideration to be received including ETC common shares, if any, will be credited to your account in accordance with the policies and procedures of your bank, broker or other nominee within a few days following the completion of the merger. Please do not send in any stock certificates with your proxy card.

A. If the merger is successfully completed, each WMB stockholder will be entitled to receive ETC common shares, cash or a combination of ETC common shares and cash in exchange for such holder’s shares of WMB common stock (other than shares of WMB common stock held by WMB, subsidiaries of WMB, ETC and its affiliates and shares of WMB common stock for which the holder thereof has properly demanded appraisal of such holder’s shares under Delaware law (and who does not fail to perfect or otherwise effectively withdraw their demand or waive or lose their right to appraisal)). Specifically, subject to the proration described below, each WMB stockholder may choose to receive one of the following options for each share of WMB common stock:

If the merger would result in a WMB stockholder being entitled to receive a fractional ETC common share, such holder will receive cash (payable in U.S. dollars, without interest) in lieu of such fractional share. See the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Fractional Shares” beginning on page 202 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Each ETC common share issued in the merger, including the ETC common shares issued to ETE in respect of the Parent Cash Deposit, will have attached to it one CCR.

Q. What percentage of outstanding ETC common shares will WMB stockholders own after the successful consummation of the merger?

A. If the merger is successfully completed, based on the number of shares of WMB common stock outstanding as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, and the fact that ETE will subscribe for a number of ETC common shares at the 1.8716x exchange ratio associated with the share consideration in exchange for the amount of cash needed by ETC to fund the cash portion of the merger consideration (the “Parent Cash Deposit”), WMB stockholders will collectively own approximately 81% of the outstanding ETC common shares immediately following completion of the merger (which percentage becomes approximately 74% after giving effect to the anticipated grant of awards under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan following the merger).

A. A CCR is a contingent consideration right attached to each ETC common share issued in connection with the merger that represents the right to receive an additional payment, in cash or ETC common shares at ETE’s election, from ETC under certain circumstances. The CCRs will not be separately listed on any securities exchange and will not have separate voting rights. The right to receive a payment under a CCR will only be transferable in connection with the transfer of the ETC common share to which it is attached. In addition, there is no assurance that any payment will be made under the CCRs. Any amounts to be received in connection with the CCRs are contingent upon the occurrence of certain events that may or may not occur.

The CCR will provide each CCR holder with the right to receive ETC common shares or a cash payment, at ETE’s election, should the average of the daily volume-weighted average price for ETE common units on the NYSE (“ETE common units VWAP”) be greater than the average of the daily volume-weighted average price for ETC common shares on the NYSE (“ETC common shares VWAP”) for a period of 23 months following the 20th trading day after the closing of the merger (the “measurement period”). If the ETC common shares VWAP is less than the ETE common units VWAP for the measurement period (such difference, a “shortfall amount”), then each outstanding CCR will be automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive a shortfall payment, which will be settled in ETC common shares or cash, at ETE’s election, and ETE will issue a number of ETE Class E units to ETC equal to the product of (a) the ratio of ETE Class E units held by ETC and its wholly owned subsidiaries over the number of ETC common shares outstanding (the “CCR exchange ratio”), multiplied by (b) (i) the aggregate number of ETC common shares to be issued to CCR holders pursuant to the shortfall amount, if ETE elects the share payment, or (ii) the aggregate number of ETC common shares to be issued to ETE pursuant to the shortfall amount, if ETE elects the cash payment.

The CCRs will be automatically cancelled and extinguished prior to the end of the measurement period, without any consideration of any kind being delivered to CCR holders, if (1) the ETC common shares VWAP is greater than the ETE common units VWAP for 20 consecutive trading days and (2) the ETC common shares VWAP is equal to or greater than the ETE common units VWAP for a period beginning on the twenty-first trading day after the effective date of the merger and ending on the twentieth such trading day as mentioned above.

For a complete description of the CCRs, see the section titled “CCR Agreement” beginning on page 217 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Q. Are WMB stockholders guaranteed to receive the consideration option they choose?

A. No. Regardless of merger consideration elections made by WMB stockholders, the total amount of cash to be paid to WMB stockholders will be approximately $6.05 billion.

The actual amount of cash to be paid out in the merger will be determined by multiplying the number of shares of WMB common stock issued and outstanding on the closing date (excluding certain cancelled shares, shares for which appraisal has properly been sought and shares owned by WMB subsidiaries) by $8.00. Based on the number of shares of WMB common stock issued and outstanding on the date the parties entered into the merger agreement, the amount of cash available to be paid out as consideration in the merger is expected to be approximately $6.05 billion but is subject to change if shares of WMB common stock are issued or retired during the pendency of the transaction. See the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Proration” beginning on page 198 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Q. How do I calculate the value of the stock portion of the merger consideration I receive, if any?

A. Because WMB stockholders may receive ETC common shares as part of the merger consideration, the value of the merger consideration that WMB stockholders receive will depend on the per share value of ETC common shares at the effective time. Unless a “when issued” trading market for the ETC common shares develops, prior to the effective time, there has not been and will not be an established public trading market for ETC common shares. It is expected that the trading prices of ETC common shares and ETE common units will be closely correlated since, following the completion of the merger transactions:

Due to a variety of factors (many of which are out of the control of ETE and ETC), however, ETC common shares could trade at a discount to ETE common units and, unless a “when issued” trading market for the ETC common shares develops, prior to the effective time, the actual trading price of the ETC common shares will be unknown until the commencement of trading following the effective time. We intend to apply for listing of the ETC common shares and the attached CCRs on the NYSE under the symbol “ETC.”

Q. How do WMB stockholders make their election to receive cash, ETC common shares or a combination of both?

A. Under the merger agreement, WMB stockholders are required to make an election to receive the mixed consideration, the stock consideration or the cash consideration by 5:00 p.m., local time (in the city in which the principal office of the exchange agent is located), on the earlier of (i) the 20th business day after the date on which the election form and this proxy statement/prospectus are mailed to WMB stockholders (the “Mailing Date”) and (ii) 3 business days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger (the “Election Deadline”). An election form will be mailed to each WMB stockholder of record for the special meeting together with this proxy

statement/prospectus. Each WMB stockholder should complete and return the election form according to the instructions included with the form. WMB will also make one or more election forms available, if requested, to each person that subsequently becomes a holder or beneficial owner of shares of WMB common stock.

If you own shares of WMB common stock in street name through a bank, broker or other nominee and you wish to make an election, you should seek instructions from the bank, broker or other nominee holding your shares concerning how to make an election.

If you do not properly submit an election by the Election Deadline, you will receive the share consideration, the cash consideration or the mixed consideration, subject to the proration and adjustment procedures provided for in the merger agreement, in exchange for your shares of WMB common stock. See the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Proration” beginning on page 198 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

If you properly complete and submit an election form, you may not revoke or change your election after the Election Deadline. A revocation of an election prior to the Election Deadline is required in connection with any transfer of shares of WMB common stock. As a result, in the period following the Election Deadline and until the consummation of the proposed merger, you will not be able to transfer (including by sale) your shares of WMB common stock for which a properly completed election form has been submitted. The merger agreement provides that the Election Deadline will occur on the earlier of (i) the 20th business day after the Mailing Date and (ii) 3 business days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger. As a result, you may be unable to transfer your shares of WMB common stock for which a properly completed election form has been submitted for the period between the earlier of (i) the 20th business day after the Mailing Date and (ii) 3 business days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger, and the completion of the merger. If you wish to retain the ability to transfer your shares of WMB common stock between the Election Deadline and the completion of the merger, then you should not return the election form, but you should note that you may still be unable to transfer all or a portion of your shares (including by sale) because, as a result of all shares of WMB common stock for which an election having been validly made no longer being transferable, there may not be a trading market that will provide you with adequate liquidity for such transfer.

Q. Can I make one election for some of my shares and another election for the rest?

A. Yes. Each election form permits the holder to specify the number of such holder’s shares of WMB common stock with respect to which such holder makes an election. Such election will be honored, subject to the proration procedures described in this proxy statement/prospectus. See the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Proration” beginning on page 198 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Q. Will WMB stockholders receive dividends on shares of WMB common stock in the future?

A. Before completion of the merger, WMB expects to pay regular quarterly dividends on shares of its common stock at times and intervals consistent with its prior practice and as permitted by the merger agreement. Once the merger is completed, when distributions are declared and paid by the ETC GP Board, former WMB stockholders will receive distributions on any ETC common shares that they receive in the merger in accordance with ETC’s partnership agreement. Other than the pre-merger special dividend (defined below), WMB stockholders will not receive dividends from WMB and distributions from ETC for the same quarter. A WMB stockholder’s receipt of regular quarterly dividends and the pre-merger special dividend will not reduce their per-share merger consideration.

In addition, if the merger is completed, WMB stockholders will receive a special, one-time dividend of $0.10 per share of WMB common stock (the “pre-merger special dividend”) that such holders held of record immediately prior to the completion of the merger. The pre-merger special dividend will be distributed shortly after the merger is completed. The pre-merger special dividend (if declared and paid) will be payable to all such holders regardless of whether such holders demand appraisal of their shares of WMB common stock under Delaware law.

Once the merger is completed and shares of WMB common stock are exchanged for ETC common shares, all shares of WMB common stock will be canceled and WMB stockholders will no longer receive dividends on such shares. WMB stockholders will instead receive dividends on any ETC common shares they received as part of the merger consideration.

Q. Will the ETC common shares received by WMB stockholders as part of the merger consideration, if any, receive distributions in the future?

A. Yes, to the extent the board of directors of ETC GP declares distributions with respect to ETC common shares in the future. After the merger is completed, the ETC common shares will receive distributions according to ETC’s partnership agreement. WMB stockholders will not be entitled to be paid distributions otherwise payable on the ETC common shares into which their shares of WMB common stock are exchangeable until they surrender their shares of WMB common stock according to the instructions provided to them.

Following the merger, any distributions or changes to ETC’s distribution policy will be made at the discretion of the board of directors of ETC GP and will depend upon many factors, including the financial condition of ETC, ETE, earnings, legal requirements, including limitations imposed by Delaware law and restrictions in ETE or ETC’s debt agreements that limit its ability to pay distributions to its unitholders or shareholders, respectively, and other factors the board of directors of ETC GP deems relevant. Certain of these factors are discussed elsewhere in this proxy statement/prospectus, including in the sections titled “Risk Factors,” “Forward-Looking Statements” and “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on pages 45, 94 and 20, respectively. Until December 31, 2018, ETE will ensure that ETC has sufficient cash to pay distributions on each ETC common share in an amount equal to 100% of the distributions paid by ETE on each ETE common unit. See the section titled “The Merger—Amendment of ETE Partnership Agreement” beginning on page 193 of this proxy statement/prospectus. As discussed in “Summary—Recent Developments—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC,” following the closing of the merger, ETE does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units or ETE Class E Units prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018. If ETE does not make a cash distribution on its ETE Class E Units until such time, then ETC will not have any cash available for distribution on its common shares.

Q. What are the expected U.S. federal income tax consequences to WMB stockholders as a result of the merger?

A. The parties intend to treat the merger as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Based on this treatment, U.S. holders (as defined below under the heading “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger”) of WMB common stock generally will not recognize gain or loss for U.S. federal income tax purposes upon their receipt of ETC common shares in exchange for WMB common stock pursuant to the merger. However, U.S. holders of WMB common stock that receive cash in addition to ETC common shares generally will recognize gain or loss with respect to such cash received, and U.S. holders of WMB common stock that receive cash in connection with the settlement of a CCR will be treated as receiving a distribution with respect to their ETC common shares taxable as a dividend to the extent of such holder’s ratable share of ETC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger” beginning on page 230 of this proxy statement/prospectus. It is possible, however, that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) may treat the merger as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code (instead of Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Code). In such a case, U.S. holders would still not recognize gain or loss upon their receipt of ETC common shares in exchange for WMB common stock, but would be subject to different tax treatment with respect to any cash received pursuant to the merger and in connection with the cash settlement of a CCR, as described under the heading “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger—Possible Treatment of Merger as a Reorganization Pursuant to Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code.”

A. At the effective time, ETC will assume all obligations of WMB under the WMB stock plans with respect to outstanding awards issued thereunder. The number and kind of shares available for issuance under the WMB stock plans assumed by ETC will be converted and adjusted to reflect the fact that converted awards will correspond to ETC common shares, although all converted awards will be settled in cash.

WMB Stock Options. Each WMB stock option will be equitably adjusted immediately prior to the effective time by reducing the exercise price thereof by an amount equal to the pre-merger special dividend, contingent on the consummation of the merger.

At the effective time, each unexercised WMB stock option will be assumed by ETC and converted into a cash-settled stock appreciation right, on otherwise the same terms and conditions as were applicable under the corresponding WMB stock option, adjusted in a manner intended to preserve the aggregate intrinsic value of the original WMB stock option. In order to preserve the intrinsic value, the ETC cash-settled stock appreciation right will correspond to a number of ETC common shares (determined by multiplying the number of shares of WMB common stock subject to the WMB stock option by an exchange ratio (as defined below) and rounding down to the nearest whole share), at a base price per share (rounded up to the nearest whole cent) determined by dividing the per-share exercise price of the WMB stock option by that same exchange ratio. For purposes of adjusting the WMB stock options, the exchange ratio is equal to the ratio of the average of the volume-weighted average prices of WMB common stock over the 10 trading days preceding the closing date to the average of the volume-weighted average prices of ETC common shares over the 10 trading days following the closing date.

WMB Restricted Stock Units and WMB Deferred Stock Units. At the effective time, each WMB restricted stock unit (including WMB performance stock units) and each WMB deferred stock unit will be assumed by ETC and converted into a cash-settled restricted stock unit or deferred stock unit, as applicable, on otherwise the same terms and conditions as were applicable under the corresponding WMB restricted stock unit or WMB deferred stock unit, as applicable, with the number of ETC common shares covered by the award adjusted based on the share consideration ratio, rounded down to the nearest whole share. In addition, with respect to each WMB performance stock unit, performance conditions will generally be deemed to be satisfied at target (in the case of WMB performance stock units) or the greater of target and actual performance (in the case of WMB leveraged performance stock units) and, following the effective time, the vesting of the award will be time-based and subject to continued employment through the end of the applicable performance period or any other date required by the terms of the applicable award. Holders of converted WMB restricted stock units and WMB deferred stock units will also be entitled to receive upon settlement of the unit (1) the pre-merger special dividend and payment of any other accrued dividend equivalents, (2) a cash payment in respect of any fractional ETC common shares that would have resulted from such conversion without regard to rounding and (3) if such unit settles after the end of the CCR measurement period, an amount in cash equal to the shortfall amount (if any). The value of any payments in respect of fractional ETC common shares will be based on the same value of ETC common shares used for purposes of converting WMB stock options.

Q. Are holders of shares of WMB common stock entitled to appraisal rights in connection with the merger?

A. Yes. Holders of WMB common stock who do not vote in favor of adoption of the merger agreement will have the right to seek appraisal and receive the fair value of their shares of WMB common stock in lieu of receiving the merger consideration if the merger closes, but only if they perfect their appraisal rights by complying with the required procedures under Delaware law. Holders of WMB common stock who demand and perfect their appraisal rights will still be entitled to receive the pre-merger special dividend (if declared and paid). See the section titled “Appraisal Rights” beginning on page 254 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

A. The preliminary voting results will be announced at the special meeting. In addition, within four business days following certification of the final voting results, WMB intends to file the final voting results with the SEC on a Current Report on Form 8-K.

SUMMARY

This summary highlights material information in this proxy statement/prospectus. You are urged to carefully read the entire proxy statement/prospectus and the other documents referred to in this proxy statement/prospectus because the information in this section does not provide all of the information that might be important to you with respect to the merger agreement, the merger and other matters being considered at the special meeting. For information on how to obtain the documents that are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), see the section of this proxy statement/prospectus titled “Where You Can Find More Information.” Please see “Certain Defined Terms” and the glossary included as Annex D to this proxy statement/prospectus for the meaning of some of the defined terms used herein.

References in this proxy statement/prospectus to (i) the number of outstanding ETC common shares and the ownership interest of each of the former WMB stockholders and ETE in ETC following the completion of the merger transactions is based on the number of shares of WMB common stock outstanding as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus and (ii) the ownership interest of ETC in ETE following the completion of the merger transactions is based on the number of shares of WMB common stock and common units representing limited partner interests in ETE (the “ETE common units”) outstanding as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus.

You are urged to review the information included in the summary section titled “Recent Developments” since the historical information included herein does not fully reflect the impact on ETE or WMB of the significant decline in crude oil and natural gas prices.

The Parties (see page 97)

Energy Transfer Corp LP

Energy Transfer Corp LP is a Delaware limited partnership that will be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Upon the completion of the merger transactions (as defined below), ETC’s primary cash generating asset will consist of Class E units, a new class of units representing limited partner interests in ETE (the “ETE Class E units”), which will represent an approximate 57% limited partner interest in ETE following the completion of the merger transactions, excluding any interest attributable to the Series A Convertible Preferred Units in ETE (the “Convertible Units”) issued by ETE in March 2016, as further described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

ETE has agreed to provide all administrative services to ETC and to indemnify ETC for all non-tax liabilities incurred by ETC. Therefore, ETC expects to distribute 100% of the quarterly cash distributions it receives from ETE in respect of the ETE Class E units, after deducting federal and state income taxes, if any, to the holders of common shares representing limited partner interests in ETC (the “ETC common shares”).

The ETE Class E units will be entitled to receive the same quarterly cash distribution per unit as the quarterly cash distribution paid per ETE common unit. In addition, for any period ending on or before December 31, 2018 (the “dividend equalization period”), ETE is obligated to make distributions and/or special allocations of depreciation or other forms of cost recovery to the ETE Class E units to ensure that ETC has sufficient cash to pay distributions on each ETC common share in an amount equal to 100% of the distributions paid by ETE on each ETE common unit. As discussed in “—Recent Developments—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC,” following the closing of the merger, ETE does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units or ETE Class E Units prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018. If ETE does not make a cash distribution on its ETE Class E Units until such time, then ETC will not have any cash available for distribution on its common shares.

In general, distributions on ETC common shares will be treated as distributions on corporate stock for federal income tax purposes. No Schedule K-1s will be issued with respect to the ETC common shares, but instead holders of ETC common shares will receive an IRS Form 1099 from ETC or their brokers with respect to the distributions they receive on the ETC common shares.

ETC’s principal executive offices are located at 8111 Westchester Drive, Dallas, Texas 75225, and ETC’s phone number is (214) 981-0700.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.

ETE (NYSE: ETE) is a publicly traded master limited partnership whose principal sources of cash flow are derived from its direct and indirect equity interests in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP), Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. (NYSE: SXL) and Sunoco LP (NYSE: SUN), all of which are publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related businesses. As of March 31, 2016, after giving effect to the Sunoco Retail Acquisition and the Sunoco Equity Offering, ETE’s direct and indirect equity interests in ETP, SXL and Sunoco consisted of the following:


	IDRs			General Partner Interest			Limited Partner Interests
ETE’s Interests in ETP		100	%		100	%	2,571,695 Common Units(1) 81,001,069 Class H Units(2) 100 Class I Units(3)
ETE’s Interests in SXL		0.1	%(2)		0.1	%	—
ETE’s Interests in Sunoco		100	%		100	%	2,263,158 Common Units(4)
ETP’s Interests in SXL		99.9	%(2)		99.9	%	67,061,274 Common Units(5) 9,416,196 Class B Units(5)
ETP’s Interests in Sunoco		—			—		43,487,668 Common Units(6)

(1)	Represents an approximate 0.5% limited partner interest in ETP.

(2)

The ETP Class H Units entitle ETE to receive 90.05% of the cash distributions related to the incentive distribution rights (“IDRs”) and general partner interest of SXL received by ETP. As a result of ETE’s ownership of the ETP Class H Units and its interests in SXL, ETE is entitled to receive 90.15% of the cash distributions related to the IDRs and general partner interest of SXL.

(3)	The ETP Class I Units provide for additional cash distributions from ETP to ETE for the purpose of offsetting a portion of the IDR subsidies that ETE previously agreed to provide to ETP, with such distributions occurring in 2015 and 2016.

(4)	Represents an approximate 2% limited partner interest in Sunoco.

(5)

ETP’s ownership of the SXL common units and SXL Class B units represents an approximate 27% limited partner interest in SXL. The SXL Class B units are not entitled to receive quarterly distributions and are automatically convertible into common units on a one-to-one basis on July 11, 2017, subject to SXL’s call right and ETP’s put right described herein. Pursuant to a unitholder agreement entered into by SXL and ETP, SXL has a right to call the Class B units for redemption during the period beginning on the earlier of (i) the first full service date under a transportation service agreement with a shipper on the Bakken pipeline project and (ii) January 1, 2017, and ending ten days thereafter, and ETP has a right to sell the Class B units to SXL during the period beginning on July 1, 2017 and ending on July 10, 2017, in each case for cash consideration at the respective prices set forth in the unitholder agreement.

(6)	Represents an approximate 39% limited partner interest in Sunoco.

In addition to the equity interests described above, ETE owns all of the equity interests in Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC (“Lake Charles LNG”), an entity that owns a fully constructed liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) import terminal and regasification facility near Lake Charles, Louisiana, and a 60% equity interest in Lake Charles LNG Export, LLC (“LCL”), an entity whose subsidiary is developing an LNG liquefaction and

export terminal facility that will be integrated with Lake Charles LNG’s import/regasification facility. ETP owns the remaining 40% equity interest in LCL.

As of March 31, 2016, the market capitalization of ETE common units totaled approximately $7.45 billion. ETE’s principal executive offices are located at 8111 Westchester Drive, Dallas, Texas 75225, and ETE’s phone number is (214) 981-0700. ETE’s website is located at www.energytransfer.com. Information on ETE’s website or any other website is not incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus and does not constitute part of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The Williams Companies, Inc.

WMB (NYSE: WMB) is a publicly traded Delaware corporation founded in 1908, originally incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 1987. WMB is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America’s hydrocarbon resource plays to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. WMB’s operations span from the deepwater Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian oil sands.

WMB’s interstate gas pipeline and midstream interests are largely held through its significant investment in WPZ, which is a publicly traded energy infrastructure master limited partnership focused on connecting North America’s significant hydrocarbon resource plays to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs and olefins through its gas pipeline and midstream businesses.

The principal executive offices of WMB are located at One Williams Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172-0172, its telephone number is (918) 573-2000, and its website is located at http://co.williams.com. WMB makes available its periodic reports and other information filed with or furnished to the SEC, free of charge, through its website, as soon as reasonably practicable after those reports and other information are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. Information on the website or any other website is not incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus and does not constitute a part of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The Merger (see page 104)

Pursuant to the merger agreement, WMB will merge with and into ETC (the “merger”), with ETC surviving the merger. Immediately thereafter, LE GP will merge with and into ETE GP (the “GP merger” and, together with the merger, the “mergers”), with ETE GP surviving the GP merger and becoming the general partner of ETE.

Immediately following the completion of the mergers, ETC will contribute substantially all of the assets and liabilities it assumed from WMB through the merger to ETE in exchange for the issuance by ETE to ETC of a number of ETE Class E units equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in consideration for the Parent Cash Deposit (as defined below) (the “WMB Contribution” and, together with the merger and the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, the “merger transactions”).

Immediately following the effective time of the mergers, ETC will contribute an amount of cash to ETE GP (the “GP Contribution”), which ETE GP will contribute to ETE in exchange for newly issued ETE common units and general partner units in ETE. As a result of the GP Contribution, the percentage interest in ETE that will be owned by ETE GP after completion of the merger transactions will equal the percentage interest in ETE owned by LE GP immediately prior to the merger transactions.

In connection with the merger, ETE will acquire a number of ETC common shares equal to (i) (a) the share consideration (as defined below) multiplied by (b) the aggregate number of shares of WMB common stock issued and outstanding as of the closing date of the merger (the “closing date”), multiplied by (c) $8.00 (we refer to the product of (b) and (c) as the “cash component”) divided by (ii) the cash consideration (as defined below), in

exchange for the amount of cash needed by ETC to fund the cash portion of the merger consideration (the “Parent Cash Deposit”). As a result, based on the number of shares of WMB common stock outstanding as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, ETE will own approximately 19% of the outstanding ETC common shares immediately after the effective time of the merger (the “effective time”) (which percentage becomes approximately 17% after giving effect to the anticipated grant of awards under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan following the merger). For additional information regarding the financing that ETE plans to obtain to fund the Parent Cash Deposit, see the section titled “The Merger—Financing Commitment” on page 193 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The terms and conditions of the merger are contained in the merger agreement, a composite copy of which, incorporating the amendment into the text of the initial agreement, is attached as Annex A to this proxy statement/prospectus. We encourage you to read the merger agreement carefully and in its entirety, as it is the legal document that governs the merger.

Merger Consideration (see page 197)

Upon completion of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of WMB common stock (other than shares of WMB common stock held by WMB, subsidiaries of WMB, ETC and its affiliates and shares for which the holder thereof has properly demanded appraisal under Delaware law (and who does not fail to perfect or otherwise effectively withdraw their demand or waive or lose the right to appraisal, which shares we refer to as “appraisal shares”)) will be converted into the right to receive, at the election of each WMB stockholder, but subject to the election and proration procedures described below:

•

$8.00 in cash and 1.5274 ETC common shares (the “mixed consideration”); or

•

1.8716 ETC common shares (the “share consideration”); or

•

$43.50 in cash (the “cash consideration”).

In addition, each ETC common share issued in the merger will have attached to it one contingent consideration right (a “CCR”).

WMB stockholders receiving consideration in ETC common shares will not receive any fractional ETC common shares in the merger. Instead, WMB stockholders will receive cash (payable in U.S. dollars, without interest) in lieu of any fractional ETC common shares that they would otherwise have been entitled to receive.

For more information, please see the sections titled “The Merger Agreement—Merger Consideration” and “CCR Agreement” beginning on pages 197 and 217, respectively, of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Appraisal Rights (see page 254)

Under Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), WMB stockholders will be entitled to appraisal rights in connection with the merger. To perfect appraisal rights, a WMB stockholder, among other things, must not vote for the adoption of the merger agreement, must continue to hold his, her or its shares of WMB common stock through the effective time and must comply with all the procedures required under Delaware law, including delivering a written demand for appraisal to WMB before the taking of the vote on the adoption of the merger agreement. Failure to follow any of the statutory procedures set forth in Section 262 will result in the loss of appraisal rights under Delaware law. Because of the complexity of Delaware law relating to appraisal rights, if any WMB stockholder is considering exercising his, her or its appraisal rights, ETC and WMB encourage such WMB stockholder to seek the advice of his, her or its own legal counsel.

A summary of the requirements under Delaware law to exercise appraisal rights is included in this proxy statement/prospectus in the section titled “Appraisal Rights” beginning on page 254, and the text of Section 262 of the DGCL as in effect with respect to the merger is attached as Annex E to this proxy statement/prospectus.

Accounting Treatment of the Merger (see page 190)

In accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification Topic 805—Business Combinations, ETC will account for the merger as an acquisition of a business.

Treatment of WMB Equity Awards (see page 201)

At the effective time, ETC will assume all obligations of WMB under the WMB stock plans with respect to outstanding awards issued thereunder. The number and kind of shares available for issuance under the WMB stock plans assumed by ETC will be converted and adjusted to reflect the fact that converted awards will correspond to ETC common shares, although all converted awards will be settled in cash.

The Special Meeting; Required Vote (see page 100)

The special meeting of WMB stockholders (the “special meeting”) will be held on June 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., local time, at The Williams Resource Center Theater, One Williams Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172. At the special meeting, you will be asked to consider and vote on the following proposals:

•

Proposal 1: to approve the adoption of the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger, which we refer to as the Merger Proposal;

•

Proposal 2: to approve, on an advisory (non-binding) basis, specified compensatory arrangements between WMB and its named executive officers relating to the merger transactions, which we refer to as the Compensatory Proposal; and

•

Proposal 3: to approve the adjournment of the special meeting from time to time, if necessary or appropriate to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the Merger Proposal, which we refer to as the Adjournment Proposal.

Approval of the Merger Proposal requires the affirmative vote of holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock.

The approval of the Adjournment Proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on such proposal at the special meeting, regardless of whether a quorum is present.

Corvex Management LP (“Corvex”) and Soroban Master Fund LP (“Soroban”), as of the close of business on February 26, 2016, held, directly or indirectly, and therefore controlled the power to vote or direct the voting of, 8.38% of the combined voting power of WMB common stock. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, dated as of February 25, 2014, by and among Corvex, Keith Meister, Soroban, Soroban Capital Partners LLC, Eric W. Mandelblatt and WMB, because Keith Meister and Eric W. Mandelblatt, in their capacity as WMB directors voted in favor of the Merger Proposal at a meeting of the WMB Board, Corvex and Soroban are required to cause their shares of WMB common stock to be voted in accordance with the WMB Board’s recommendation with respect to such matter. As a result, due to the WMB Board’s recommendation “for” the Merger Proposal, 8.38% of the combined voting power of WMB common stock will be voted in favor of the Merger Proposal.

Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger (see page 132)

After careful consideration, on September 28, 2015, a majority of the WMB Board (a) approved and declared advisable and resolved to recommend to its stockholders the adoption of the merger agreement, the merger and the other merger transactions and (b) declared that it is in the best interests of the WMB stockholders for WMB to enter into the merger agreement and consummate the merger and the other merger transactions. Since such time, the WMB Board has, among other things, carefully reviewed the developments described in “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus. As of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, a majority of the WMB Board continue to recommend a vote “FOR” the Merger Proposal. Certain members of the WMB Board voted on September 28, 2015 against entering into the merger agreement and continue as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus to disagree with the recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board that WMB stockholders adopt the merger agreement. See section titled “The Merger—Background of the Merger” beginning on page 104 of this proxy statement/prospectus. A majority of the WMB Board also recommend a vote “FOR” the non-binding Compensatory Proposal, and the WMB Board unanimously recommend a vote “FOR” the approval of the Adjournment Proposal, if necessary or appropriate, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the Merger Proposal.

For a discussion of the material factors that the WMB Board considered in determining to approve the Merger Proposal, see the section titled “The Merger—Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger” beginning on page 132 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

WMB’s reasons for the transaction are forward-looking in nature and, therefore, should be read in light of the risk factors discussed in the sections of this proxy statement/prospectus titled “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements, as well as the forward-looking information, including the prospective financial information, in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Opinions of the Financial Advisors to the WMB Board (see page 143)

At a meeting of the WMB Board held on September 28, 2015, each of Barclays Capital Inc. (“Barclays”) and Lazard Freres & Co. (“Lazard”) delivered the fairness opinions further described below. The WMB Board acknowledges that the fairness opinions of Barclays and Lazard only address fairness of the consideration to be received by WMB stockholders as of September 28, 2015 and the WMB Board no longer believes that the projections underlying the fairness opinions are valid. Accordingly, the WMB Board is not relying on the fairness opinions of Barclays and Lazard in evaluating its recommendation to WMB stockholders to adopt the merger agreement in light of the developments described in “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Opinion of Barclays Capital Inc. (see page 143)

At a meeting of the WMB Board held on September 28, 2015, Barclays delivered an oral opinion to the WMB Board, which was subsequently confirmed in writing, to the effect that, as of such date and based upon and subject to the qualifications, limitations and assumptions stated therein, the merger consideration to be paid in the aggregate to the WMB stockholders is fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders.

The terms of the merger were determined through arm’s-length negotiations between WMB, on the one hand, and ETE, on the other hand, and were approved on September 28, 2015 by a majority vote of the WMB Board. Barclays did not recommend any specific form or amount of consideration to WMB or that any specific form or amount of consideration constituted the only appropriate consideration for the merger. Barclays was not requested to address, and its opinion does not in any manner address, WMB’s underlying business decision to proceed with or effect the merger or the likelihood of consummation of the merger or the relative merits of the merger as compared to any strategic alternatives that may be available to WMB. In addition, Barclays expressed no opinion on, and its opinion does not in any manner address, the fairness of the amount or the nature of any compensation to any officers, directors or employees of any parties to the merger, or any class of such persons, relative to the merger consideration to be paid in the aggregate by ETC in the merger or otherwise. No limitations were imposed by the WMB Board upon Barclays with respect to the investigations made or procedures followed by it in rendering its opinion. The full text of Barclays’ written opinion, dated as of September 28, 2015, is attached hereto as Annex F. Barclays’ written opinion sets forth, among other things, the assumptions made, procedures followed, factors considered and limitations upon the review undertaken by Barclays in rendering its opinion. You are encouraged to read the opinion carefully in its entirety. This summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the opinion. See “The Merger—Opinions of the Financial Advisors to the WMB Board—Opinion of Barclays.”

Opinion of Lazard Frères & Co. (see page 155)

At a meeting of the WMB Board held on September 28, 2015, Lazard delivered an oral opinion to the WMB Board, which was subsequently confirmed in writing, to the effect that, as of such date and based upon and subject to the assumptions, procedures, factors, qualifications and limitations stated therein, the merger

consideration to be paid to WMB stockholders (other than certain WMB stockholders excluded from the scope of Lazard’s opinion as set forth in Lazard’s written opinion) in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such WMB stockholders.

The terms of the merger were determined through arm’s-length negotiations between WMB, on the one hand, and ETE, on the other hand, and were approved on September 28, 2015 by a majority vote of the WMB Board. Lazard’s opinion was directed to the WMB Board (in its capacity as such) in connection with the WMB Board’s evaluation of the merger and only addressed the fairness, from a financial point of view, to WMB stockholders (other than certain WMB stockholders excluded from the scope of Lazard’s opinion as set forth in Lazard’s written opinion) of the merger consideration to be paid to such WMB stockholders in the merger. Lazard’s opinion was not intended to and does not constitute a recommendation to any WMB stockholder as to how such stockholder or other person should vote or act with respect to the merger or any matter relating thereto. Lazard did not express any opinion as to the prices at which shares of WMB common stock, the ETC common shares (including the attached CCRs), the ETE common units or the ETE Class E units may trade at any time subsequent to the announcement of the merger. Lazard did not express any opinion as to any tax or other consequences that might result from the merger or related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, nor did its opinion address any legal, tax, regulatory or accounting matters, as to which Lazard understood that WMB obtained such advice as it deemed necessary from qualified professionals. In addition, Lazard’s opinion did not address the relative merits of the merger as compared to any other transaction or business strategy in which WMB might engage or the merits of the underlying decision by WMB to engage in the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. In addition, Lazard expressed no view or opinion as to any terms or other aspects (other than the merger consideration to the extent expressly specified in Lazard’s written opinion) of the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, including, without limitation, the form or structure of the merger or any agreements or arrangements entered into in connection with, or contemplated by, the merger or the related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. The summary of Lazard’s opinion set forth herein is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of Lazard’s opinion, which is attached hereto as Annex G, and which you are encouraged to carefully read in its entirety.

Reasons of ETE General Partner’s Board for the Merger (see page 174)

At a meeting held on September 27, 2015, after due consideration and consultation with ETE’s management and its legal and financial advisors, the board of directors of ETE’s general partner, LE GP, unanimously approved the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger, the GP merger and the WMB Contribution. In reaching its determination to approve the merger agreement, the board of directors of LE GP considered a number of factors based on facts and circumstances that existed as of September 27, 2015, including:

•

the transaction will create the world’s largest energy infrastructure group by combining two of the largest diversified master limited partnerships (each, an “MLP”), the second largest crude and logistics MLP, a fast-growing retail fuel MLP and an attractive LNG export opportunity;

•

the transaction enhances the credit profile of the combined company through greater scale, cash flow diversity and synergy potential;

•

the view that the combination creates a complementary geographic footprint for the assets of the combined company that is expected to provide benefits for producers and end use customers;

•

the view that the combination will generate significant commercial and revenue synergies from ETE’s integrated business model by providing end-to-end solutions for its customers;

•

the merger is expected to be immediately accretive to distributable cash flow and distributions for ETE; and

•

the creation of the entity treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes is expected to broaden the spectrum of institutional investors that can invest in the Energy Transfer family, and the expected liquidity of the ETC common shares will allow investors to build meaningful positions in ETC.

ETE’s reasons for the transaction are forward-looking in nature and, therefore, should be read in light of the factors discussed in the sections of this proxy statement/prospectus titled “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements” and in this Summary section titled “Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus, which section includes a description of certain facts and circumstances arising after September 27, 2015 and the effect that those facts and circumstances have had on certain factors considered by the board of directors of LE GP at the time of approving the merger, as well as certain prospective financial information for ETC that takes into account the facts and circumstances set forth in such section. The reasons of the board of directors of LE GP as of September 27, 2015 for approving the merger do not take into account the facts and circumstances described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments,” including the prospective financial information set forth therein, should not be relied upon as reflective of the current views of the board of directors of LE GP and do not constitute a recommendation by the board of directors of LE GP as to how WMB stockholders should vote with respect to the Merger Proposal. The adverse impact of the decline in crude oil and natural gas prices together with the refinancing risks related to the $6.05 billion in new indebtedness expected to be incurred by ETE in connection with the merger, significantly reduces the value of ETC as compared to the value envisioned by the board of directors of LE GP at the time the merger agreement was entered into.

No ETE Unitholder Approval (see page 190)

Approval of ETE unitholders is not required to adopt the merger agreement or approve the merger or the issuance of the ETC common shares or ETE Class E units in connection with the merger transactions.

Financing Commitment (see page 193)

On October 21, 2015, ETE entered into an Amended and Restated Commitment Letter (the “Commitment Letter”) with a syndicate of 20 banks (collectively, the “Commitment Parties”). Pursuant to the Commitment Letter, the Commitment Parties have committed to provide a 364-day secured term loan credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of $6.05 billion (or such lesser amount that ETE may elect to borrow). The total interest rate on such facility is capped at 5.50%, and the facility can be extended for an additional one year at the election of ETE. The commitment is subject to customary conditions for commitments of this type, including the execution of satisfactory definitive documentation.

Board of Directors of the General Partner of ETC After the Merger (see page 344)

Upon completion of the merger, the board of directors of the general partner of ETC (the “ETC GP Board”) will consist of between five and 11 directors, including at least three independent directors meeting the independence standards established by the NYSE and the Exchange Act. The directors will all be designated and elected by the Existing GP Owner, but the independent directors who will serve on the conflicts committee of the ETC GP Board must also be approved by the WMB Board, with such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. The Existing GP Owner has selected John W. McReynolds, Thomas E. Long, Marshall S. McCrea, III, Thomas P. Mason, James W. Bryant, Imad K. Anbouba and M. Max Yzaguirre as, and such individuals have agreed to serve as, directors of the ETC GP Board, effective in connection with the closing of the merger. The Existing GP Owner has proposed James W. Bryant, Imad K. Anbouba and M. Max Yzaguirre as its nominees for the conflicts committee of the ETC GP Board. On May 18, 2016, the WMB Board approved these nominees.

Interests of Directors and Executive Officers of WMB in the Merger (see page 176)

•

Certain WMB directors and executive officers have previously been granted WMB stock options, restricted stock units and/or deferred stock units. Under the merger agreement, each WMB stock option, including stock options held by WMB directors and executive officers, will be equitably adjusted immediately prior to the effective time by reducing the exercise price thereof by an amount equal to the pre-merger special dividend, contingent on the consummation of the merger. In addition, WMB equity-based awards, including those held by WMB directors and executive officers, outstanding immediately prior to the effective time will, as of the effective time, be assumed by ETC and converted into cash-settled, time-based equity awards of ETC, adjusted as described below in the section of this proxy statement/prospectus titled “The Merger Agreement—Treatment of WMB Equity Awards.” Performance conditions applicable to WMB restricted stock units will generally be deemed to be satisfied at target (in the case of WMB performance stock units) or the greater of target and actual performance (in the case of WMB leveraged performance stock units). The converted stock options and restricted stock units will only be subject to time-based vesting conditions following the merger. All the converted ETC equity awards will otherwise remain subject to their existing terms and conditions, including the accelerated vesting of the stock options and restricted stock units held by WMB executive officers upon a qualifying termination during the two-year period following completion of the merger, and accelerated vesting of restricted stock units held by WMB non-employee directors upon any separation from service. Upon settlement, holders of converted WMB restricted stock units and WMB deferred stock units will also be entitled to receive (1) the pre-merger special dividend and payment of any other accrued dividend equivalents, (2) a cash payment in respect of any fractional ETC common shares that would have resulted from such conversion without regard to rounding and (3) if such unit settles after the end of the CCR measurement period, an amount in cash equal to the shortfall amount (if any).

•

The right to certain contractual severance payments and benefits in the event a WMB executive officer experiences a qualifying termination of employment during the two-year period following the completion of the merger.

•

The right to an accelerated payout of a WMB director’s or executive officer’s earned and accrued account balance under the Williams Companies Amended and Restated Retirement Restoration Plan.

•

The right to indemnification and exculpation benefits following the closing of the merger.

Risk Factors Relating to the Merger and Ownership of ETC Common Shares (see pages 45 and 55)

You should consider all the information contained in or incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus in deciding how to vote for the proposals presented in this proxy statement/prospectus. In particular, you should consider the risks relating to the merger described in the section titled “Risks Related to the Merger” beginning on page 45 of this proxy statement/prospectus, some of which are summarized below:

•

there is no assurance when or if the merger will be completed, and ETE believes there is substantial risk that the merger will not be consummated due to the likelihood that Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”), special counsel to ETC, will not be able to deliver a tax opinion to the effect that the WMB Contribution should qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies (the “721 Opinion”) at closing of the merger and that the related condition to closing will not be satisfied or waived;

•

the number of ETC common shares to be received by holders receiving share consideration or mixed consideration is fixed and will not be adjusted for changes in the market prices of ETE common units or WMB’s common stock;

•

you may not receive the form of merger consideration that you elect;

•

the merger is subject to the receipt of consents and approvals from governmental entities that may impose conditions that could have an adverse effect on ETE and ETC;

•

ETC common shares received by WMB stockholders as consideration in the merger will have different rights from the shares of WMB common stock;

•

ETC may fail to realize many of the anticipated benefits of the merger; and

•

as a result of the adverse impact of the decline in crude oil and natural gas prices on the operations of ETE and WMB, ETE’s expected incurrence of $6.05 billion of new indebtedness in connection with the merger increases the refinancing risks facing ETE compared to the risks anticipated at the time the merger agreement was entered into.

There are also several risks related to the CCRs and the Contingent Consideration Rights Agreement (the “CCR agreement”), which you should consider:

•

as an ETC shareholder, you may not receive any payment in respect of the CCRs;

•

as an ETC shareholder, you will not be able to determine the payments to be received under the CCRs until at least two years following the closing date;

•

the CCRs are stapled to the ETC common shares and are not separately tradeable; and

•

ETC’s ownership in ETE may be diminished if ETC common shares trade at a premium to ETE common units over the measurement period.

You should also consider the risks relating to the ownership of ETC common shares described in the section titled “Risks Related to ETC and the Ownership of ETC Common Shares” beginning on page 55 of this proxy statement/prospectus, some of which are summarized below:

•

ETC’s cash flow, and therefore its ability to make distributions to ETC shareholders, depends primarily upon ETE’s ability to make cash distributions to ETC, which in turn depends on the cash distributions ETE receives from the ETE Entities, cash flows ETE receives from its LNG business, the consolidated debt level and debt agreements of ETE, ETC, the ETE Entities and their respective subsidiaries and the expenses ETE otherwise incurs;

•

no trading market currently exists for ETC common shares, the price of ETC common shares may be volatile, and a trading market that will provide ETC shareholders with adequate liquidity may not develop;

•

ETC common shares and ETE common units may not trade in relation or proportion to one another;

•

starting in 2019, the distributions ETC shareholders receive on their ETC common shares may be lower than the distribution ETE common unitholders receive on their ETE common units;

•

the incentive distributions (including distributions with respect to the ETP Class H units) that ETE is entitled to receive may be limited or modified without the consent of ETC’s shareholders, which may reduce cash distributions to you, as an ETC shareholder;

•

a reduction in the ETE Entities’ distributions will disproportionately affect the amount of cash distributions to which ETE is entitled and, consequently, the amount of cash distributions to which ETC is entitled; and

•

ETC shareholders have limited voting rights on matters affecting ETC’s business and are not entitled to elect or remove ETC GP or its directors. Further, ETC shareholders will not be entitled to direct the manner in which ETC votes the ETE Class E units and, therefore, will not have any voting rights with respect to ETE’s business through their ownership of ETC.

Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger (see page 230)

It is a condition to WMB’s obligation to complete the merger that WMB receive a written opinion from Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (“Cravath”), special counsel to WMB, to the effect that the merger will qualify as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code. It is a condition to ETC’s obligation to complete the merger that ETC receive a written opinion from Latham to the effect that the merger will qualify as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code. In addition, in connection with the filing of the registration statement of which this document is a part, each of Cravath and Latham has delivered an opinion to WMB and ETC, respectively, to the same effect.

The parties intend to treat the merger as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Code. Accordingly, U.S. holders of WMB common stock generally will not recognize gain or loss for U.S. federal income tax purposes upon their receipt of ETC common shares in exchange for WMB common stock pursuant to the merger. However, (a) U.S. holders of WMB common stock that receive cash pursuant to the merger generally will recognize gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount of any cash received and the holder’s adjusted tax basis in the shares of WMB common stock surrendered for such cash consideration (as designated by the holder); (b) U.S. holders of WMB common stock that receive cash in connection with the settlement of a CCR will be treated as receiving a distribution with respect to their ETC common shares taxable as a dividend to the extent of such holder’s ratable share of ETC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits; and (c) U.S. holders of WMB common stock generally will recognize gain or loss with respect to cash received in lieu of fractional ETC common shares that such holders would otherwise be entitled to receive.

It is possible, however, that the IRS will treat the merger as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code (instead of Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Code). In such a case, U.S. holders would still not recognize gain or loss upon their receipt of ETC common shares in exchange for WMB common stock but would be subject to different tax treatment with respect to any cash received pursuant to the merger and in connection with the cash settlement of a CCR, as described under the headings “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger—Possible Treatment of Merger as a Reorganization Pursuant to Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code—Exchange for ETC Common Shares and Cash” and “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger—Possible Treatment of Merger as a Reorganization Pursuant to Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code—Contingent Consideration Rights.”

For further information, please refer to the discussion under the heading “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger.” Holders of WMB common stock should consult their own tax advisors to determine the particular tax consequences to them of the merger (including the application and effect of any state, local or non-U.S. income and other tax laws).

Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations of the WMB Contribution (see page 237)

the receipt by ETC and WMB of the 721 Opinion from Latham. Latham has advised ETE that, considering the potential claims that the IRS may successfully assert and the level of uncertainty regarding the ultimate outcome of these claims, Latham would not be able to deliver the 721 Opinion were the opinion requested as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus.

ETE believes that if the WMB Contribution is not an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies, ETC would likely be required to pay a material amount of tax as a result of the transaction. Under the terms of the contribution agreement, ETE will indemnify ETC pursuant to the contribution agreement for any taxes incurred by ETC as a result of the merger transactions, including the WMB Contribution. However, since ETC’s primary cash generating asset following the merger will consist of ETE Class E units, any material adverse impact on ETE from such indemnification will have a material adverse impact on ETC. As a consequence, it is unlikely that ETC would waive the condition to closing that ETC receive the 721 Opinion from Latham.

Cravath disagrees with Latham’s position and has advised WMB that it is willing to deliver an opinion that the WMB Contribution should qualify as an exchange to which 721(a) of the Code applies. Based on the information available to WMB as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, WMB believes that the WMB Contribution should qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies. WMB is, therefore, willing to waive the condition to closing that WMB receive the 721 Opinion from Latham. In addition, on May 13, 2016, WMB filed a lawsuit against ETE in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking, among other remedies, a declaratory judgment and injunction preventing ETE from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under the merger agreement due to any failure of Latham to deliver the 721 Opinion to ETC and WMB. ETE believes that the allegations underlying the lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Please see “Recent Developments—Litigation Related to the 721 Opinion and the Outside Date.”

Listing of the ETC Common Shares; Delisting and Deregistration of Shares of WMB Common Stock (see page 193)

It is a condition to the completion of the merger that the ETC common shares and attached CCRs to be issued to WMB stockholders and ETE in connection with the merger transactions be approved for listing on the NYSE, subject to official notice of issuance. We intend to apply for listing on the NYSE under the symbol “ETC”. When the merger is completed, the WMB common stock currently listed on the NYSE will be delisted from the NYSE and deregistered under the Exchange Act.

Conditions to Completion of the Merger (see page 210)

The obligations of each of ETE and WMB to effect the merger are subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following conditions:

•

WMB having obtained the requisite WMB stockholder approval;

•

the expiration or termination of the waiting period (and any extensions thereof) applicable to the merger under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder (the “HSR Act”);

•

clearance under the Canada Competition Act (the “Competition Act”) must have been received;

•

the merger having been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) under the Federal Power Act (“FPA”);

•

no injunction, order or other judgment being in effect that restrains consummation of the merger;

•

this registration statement having become effective under the Securities Act and not being the subject of any stop order or proceedings seeking a stop order;

•

the ETC common shares to be issued pursuant to the merger agreement having been approved for listing on the NYSE, subject to official notice of issuance; and

•

the receipt by ETC and WMB of the 721 Opinion from Latham. Latham has advised ETE that considering the potential claims that the IRS may successfully assert and the level of uncertainty regarding the ultimate outcome of these claims, Latham would not be able to deliver the 721 Opinion were the opinion requested as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus. On advice of Cravath, WMB has advised ETE that it disagrees with Latham’s position and that it believes the WMB Contribution should be a transaction to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies. Because ETE believes that ETE and ETC will be materially adversely affected if the WMB Contribution is not an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies, it is unlikely that ETC would waive the condition to closing that ETC receive the 721 Opinion from Latham. Based on the information available to WMB as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, WMB believes that the WMB Contribution should qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies. WMB is, therefore, willing to waive the condition to closing that WMB receive the 721 Opinion from Latham. Please see “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

We cannot be certain when, or if, the conditions to the merger will be satisfied or waived, or that the merger will be completed.

The obligations of ETC and ETE to effect the merger are also subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following conditions:

•

the accuracy of certain representations and warranties of WMB contained in the merger agreement as of the date of the merger agreement and as of the effective time (other than representations that by their terms speak specifically as of another date), subject to the materiality standards provided in the merger agreement;

•

the performance by WMB in all material respects of its obligations required to be performed under the merger agreement;

•

the absence of any change, event or effect that, individually or in the aggregate, has, had or would be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect (as defined in the merger agreement) on WMB since the date of the merger agreement; and

•

the receipt by ETC of a tax opinion from Latham and Watkins LLP, to the effect that the merger will qualify as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code.

The obligation of WMB to effect the merger is also subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following conditions:

•

the accuracy of certain representations and warranties of ETE and ETC contained in the merger agreement as of the date of the merger agreement and as of the effective time (other than representations that by their terms speak specifically as of another date), subject to the materiality standards provided in the merger agreement;

•

the respective performance by each of ETE and ETC in all material respects of its obligations required to be performed under the merger agreement;

•

the absence of any change, event or effect that, individually or in the aggregate, has, had or reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect (as defined in the merger agreement) on ETE since the date of the merger agreement;

•

the receipt by WMB of a tax opinion from Cravath, to the effect that the merger will qualify as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code; and

•

the due execution and delivery of the CCR agreement by ETC, ETE and the exchange agent, and such CCR agreement being in full force and effect.

Regulatory Approvals (see page 190)

To complete the merger, ETE and WMB must obtain approvals or consents from, or make filings with, certain U.S. federal and international authorities. The material regulatory approvals, consents and filings include the following:

•

the expiration or termination of the waiting period (or any extension thereof) under the HSR Act;

•

approval from the FERC pursuant to Section 203 of the FPA; and

•

clearance under the Competition Act.

The merger agreement provides that ETE and WMB will make the necessary filings and submissions for the above-mentioned authorizations and approvals and will use their reasonable best efforts to obtain these authorizations and approvals. In addition, WMB and ETE are required to obtain certain state or local approvals in connection with the merger. Although ETE and WMB believe that they will receive the required authorizations and approvals described above to complete the merger, we cannot give any assurance as to the timing of these consents and approvals or as to ETE’s or WMB’s ultimate ability to obtain such consents or approvals (or any additional consents or approvals that may otherwise become necessary). We also cannot ensure that we will obtain such authorizations or approvals on terms and subject to conditions satisfactory to ETE and WMB.

No Solicitation by WMB of Alternate Proposals (see page 206)

As more fully described in this proxy statement/prospectus and in the merger agreement, and subject to certain exceptions summarized below, WMB has agreed not to solicit, initiate, knowingly encourage, or knowingly facilitate inquiries or proposals with respect to, or engage or participate in any negotiations concerning, or provide any confidential or nonpublic information to any person relating to, an alternative takeover proposal. Notwithstanding these restrictions, the merger agreement provides that WMB may participate in discussions or negotiations or furnish nonpublic information regarding WMB in response to an unsolicited bona fide written takeover proposal, and under specific circumstances, including the WMB Board’s determination (in accordance with the merger agreement and after consultation with WMB’s outside legal counsel and financial advisors) that the failure to take such actions would be more likely than not to result in a violation of its fiduciary duties under applicable law, and that the terms of such transaction would be more favorable to WMB stockholders than the merger.

Change in WMB Board Recommendation (see page 207)

The WMB Board may effect an adverse recommendation change in response to an intervening event, or enter into an alternative acquisition agreement in response to an unsolicited superior proposal, without breaching its no-solicitation obligations under the merger agreement. The WMB Board’s ability to do so is subject to certain other requirements, including the provision of written notice to ETE, the good faith negotiation with ETE to revise the terms of the merger agreement, and, where the adverse recommendation change is in response to an intervening event, the good faith determination that the WMB Board would breach its fiduciary duties under applicable law if it failed to make such recommendation.

Termination of the Merger Agreement (see page 213)

WMB and ETE may mutually agree to terminate the merger agreement and abandon the merger at any time before the consummation of the merger. Subject to conditions and circumstances described in the merger agreement, the merger agreement may be terminated as follows:

•

by mutual written consent of the parties;

•

by either party if the merger is not completed by June 28, 2016 (the “outside date”);

•

by either party if a governmental entity issues a final and nonappealable law, injunction, order or other judgment restraining or enjoining the consummation of the merger;

•

by either party if stockholder approval of the merger agreement has not been obtained at the special meeting;

•

by ETE if: (i) WMB breaches any of its representations or warranties or fails to perform any of the covenants or agreements under the merger agreement, and such breach or failure to perform (a) would give rise to the failure of a closing condition and (b) is incapable of being cured prior to the outside date, or (ii) WMB makes an adverse recommendation change or willfully and materially breaches its obligations under the merger agreement regarding the solicitation of acquisition proposals; or

•

by WMB if: (i) either ETC or ETE breaches any of its representations or warranties or fails to perform any of the covenants or agreements under the merger agreement, and such breach or failure to perform (a) would give rise to the failure of a closing condition and (b) is incapable of being cured prior to the outside date, or (ii) prior to obtaining WMB stockholder approval of the merger agreement, WMB intends to accept a superior takeover proposal.

Expenses (see page 214)

If the merger agreement is terminated by ETE or ETC following the failure of WMB stockholders to approve the merger proposal at the special meeting, then WMB will reimburse ETE for all out-of-pocket fees and expenses incurred in connection with the merger, up to $50.0 million. If the merger agreement is terminated by ETE or WMB due to the breach by the other party of its representations, warranties, covenants or agreements set forth in the merger agreement, then the breaching party will reimburse all out-of-pocket fees and expenses incurred by the other party in connection with the merger, up to $100.0 million.

Termination Fee (see page 214)

WMB will be required to pay ETE a termination fee of $1.48 billion if:

•

WMB terminates the merger agreement to accept a superior proposal from a third party;

•

ETE terminates the merger agreement due to a change in the WMB Board’s recommendation of the merger to WMB stockholders;

•

ETE terminates the merger agreement due to a breach by WMB of its non-solicitation obligations; or

•

(a) after the date of the merger agreement and prior to the special meeting, a takeover proposal is publicly announced, publicly disclosed or otherwise communicated to WMB, which takeover proposal shall not be withdrawn for at least seven business days prior to the special meeting, (b) thereafter, the merger agreement is terminated (i) by either ETE or WMB following the failure of WMB stockholders to approve the merger proposal at the special meeting, (ii) by either ETE or WMB for a failure to consummate the merger on or before the outside date, or (iii) by ETE following a breach by WMB of its covenants or agreements not to solicit a takeover proposal, to hold the special meeting, to aid in the preparation of the prospectus/proxy statement or to negotiate with ETE for three business days after

informing ETE of a superior proposal and (c) WMB enters into a definitive agreement with respect to a transaction contemplated by a takeover proposal or consummates a takeover proposal within 12 months of the date the merger agreement is terminated.

ETE will also be required to reimburse WMB $410.0 million for a portion of the termination fee paid by WMB to terminate its previous merger agreement with WPZ if certain conditions to WMB’s obligation to consummate the merger have not been satisfied and the merger agreement is terminated by ETE or WMB due to: (i) a permanent injunction or final, non-appealable governmental order or action being in effect; (ii) ETE or ETC’s breach of any of its representations, warranties, covenants, or agreements set forth in the merger agreement; or (iii) the failure to consummate the merger within the outside date. Any expenses of ETE reimbursed by WMB are creditable against the termination fee.

Comparison of Rights of ETC Shareholders and WMB Stockholders (see page 240)

The rights of WMB stockholders are currently governed by WMB’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation and by-laws and by the DGCL. WMB stockholders who receive the merger consideration in ETC common shares will become shareholders of ETC upon completion of the merger. Thereafter, their rights will be governed by ETC’s certificate of limited partnership, ETC’s partnership agreement and the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act. As a result, these WMB stockholders will have different rights once they become shareholders of ETC due to the differences in the governing documents of and laws applicable to ETC and WMB. The key differences are described in the section titled “Comparison of Rights of ETC Shareholders and WMB Stockholders.”

Amendment of ETE Partnership Agreement (see page 193)

In conjunction with the GP merger, ETE GP will enter into the ETE partnership agreement amendment providing for the creation and issuance of the ETE Class E units with the rights, privileges and obligations set forth in the partnership agreement amendment.

Litigation Relating to the Merger (see page 193)

Between October 5, 2015, and December 24, 2015, purported WMB stockholders filed six putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger. The suits are captioned Greenwald et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11573-VCG; Ozaki v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11574-VCG; Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11601-VCG; Glener et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11606-VCG; Amaitis et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11809-VCG; and State-Boston Retirement System et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11844-VCG. The complaints assert various claims against the individual members of the WMB Board; ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP and ETE GP (the “ETE Defendants”); WMB; Barclays; and Lazard. The Ozaki and Blystone complaints allege that the individual members of the WMB Board have breached their fiduciary duties to WMB stockholders by agreeing to sell WMB through an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price, and that the ETE Defendants have aided and abetted this purported breach of fiduciary duties. The Greenwald and Glener complaints make similar allegations, but also claim that WMB has aided and abetted the individual members of the WMB Board’s purported breach of fiduciary duties. The Amaitis and State-Boston Retirement System complaints allege that the individual members of the WMB Board who voted for the merger have breached their fiduciary duties to WMB stockholders by agreeing to sell WMB through an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price, and that all the individual members of the WMB Board have violated their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose material information about the merger. The Amaitis complaint additionally alleges that the ETE Defendants, Barclays and Lazard have aided and abetted the individual members of the WMB Board’s supposed breach of fiduciary duties. All the complaints seek, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an

award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On January 13, 2016, the Court consolidated, pursuant to a stipulation among the plaintiffs, these six actions into a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844-VCG (the “Merger Litigation”). In its stipulated order, the Court designated the complaint from the State-Boston action as operative, and it dismissed without prejudice the ETE Defendants, Barclays and Lazard from the consolidated action. On January 19, 2016, the defendants in the Merger Litigation moved to dismiss the operative complaint. On March 22, 2016, the Court stayed briefing and discovery in the Merger Litigation until the merger between ETE and WMB is consummated and plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation have filed an amended complaint.

On December 4, 2015, a purported WMB stockholder filed an amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11236-VCG (the “Stockholder Litigation”). The complaint asserts claims against all of the individual members of the WMB Board other than Mr. Meister and Mr. Mandelblatt. The complaint alleges that WMB’s preliminary proxy statement is false and misleading. As relief, the complaint requests, among other things, an injunction requiring WMB to make supplemental disclosures and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On December 9, 2015, the defendants in the Stockholder Litigation moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 7, 2016, the Court dismissed the amended complaint in a ruling from the bench.

On January 14, 2016, a purported WMB stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against WMB and ETE, captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff alleges that ETE and WMB have violated Section 14 of the Exchange Act by making allegedly false statements concerning the merger. As relief, the complaint seeks an injunction against the proposed merger. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, making substantially the same allegations. On February 19, 2016, the defendants in the Bumgarner action moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 21, 2016, the plaintiff moved for expedited proceedings and expedited discovery. On April 25, 2016, the defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for expedition, and also filed a second motion to dismiss. On April 28, 2016, the court denied the defendants’ second motion to dismiss, but granted the original motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court denied expedited discovery, but granted expedited proceedings and also granted the plaintiff permission to amend his complaint. On May 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed his second amended complaint in the Bumgarner action. The plaintiff alleges that ETE and WMB have violated the Exchange Act by making allegedly false statements concerning the merger and failing to disclose material information concerning, among other topics, (a) the reasons for the changes in the estimated commercial synergies, (b) WMB Board members’ potential conflicts of interest and (c) how the WMB Board ascertained that the directors who voted against the transaction subsequently determined to support the WMB Board’s commitment to consummate the transaction as required by the terms of the merger agreement, including such directors’ current beliefs.

On January 15, 2016, a purported WMB stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the individual members of the WMB Board, captioned Ryan v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11903-VCG. The complaint asserts that all of the individual members of the WMB Board breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the WPZ merger and that a majority of the individual members of the WMB Board breached their fiduciary duties by failing to negotiate for a “collar” provision in connection with the merger with ETE. As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On February 22, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and on March 24, 2016, the defendants filed a brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On April 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

disclosure by issuing a supposedly misleading proxy statement in support of the transaction, that a majority of the individual members of the WMB Board violated their fiduciary duties by voting in favor of the merger and that the ETE Defendants aided and abetted this supposed breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges that the individual members of the WMB Board and WMB have violated Section 14 of the Exchange Act by issuing a supposedly misleading proxy statement and that all defendants have violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act by supposedly causing a misleading proxy statement to be issued. As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, damages and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On February 10, 2016, WMB and the individual members of the WMB Board moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 18, 2016, the ETE Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 7, 2016, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint.

The defendants believe the allegations in the various complaints noted above are without merit.

The CCR Agreement (see page 217)

The rights of ETC shareholders with respect to the CCRs attached to the ETC common shares will be governed by and subject to the terms and conditions of the CCR agreement, which is attached as Annex B to this proxy statement/prospectus and is incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus.

The CCR agreement entitles each CCR holder to receive ETC common shares or a cash payment, at ETE’s election, should the average of the daily volume-weighted average price for ETE common units on the NYSE (“ETE common units VWAP”) be greater than the average of the daily volume-weighted average price for ETC common shares on the NYSE (“ETC common shares VWAP”) for a period of 23 months following the 20th trading day after the closing date (the “measurement period”). If the ETC common shares VWAP is less than the ETE common units VWAP for the measurement period (such difference, a “shortfall amount”), then each outstanding CCR will be automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive a shortfall payment. The shortfall payment will be, at ETE’s election, either:

•

a number of ETC common shares equal to the shortfall amount divided by the settlement calculation VWAP. The settlement calculation VWAP means (a) the sum of the daily dollar volume-weighted average price for the ETC common shares on the NYSE for the five trading days starting with the first trading day after the second anniversary of the closing date, divided by (b) 5; or

•

an amount in cash equal to the shortfall amount.

Notwithstanding the above, the aggregate cash payment cannot exceed an amount of cash equal to (a) 55% of the value of the merger consideration minus (b) the sum of (i) the pre-merger special dividend, (ii) the cash component of the merger consideration, (iii) the aggregate amount of cash paid to former holders of WMB common stock in lieu of issuing fractional ETC common shares and (iv) the aggregate amount of cash paid in respect of appraisal shares. If the aggregate cash payment exceeds this sum, then any difference will be paid in ETC common shares valued at the settlement calculation VWAP.

If, however, the ETC common shares VWAP is equal to or greater than the ETE common units VWAP for the measurement period, then each outstanding CCR will be immediately and automatically cancelled and no consideration of any kind will be delivered to CCR holders in respect of the CCRs. Furthermore, ETE will cancel as an adjustment to the number of ETE Class E units issued to ETC in the WMB Contribution, a number of ETE Class E units equal to (a) (i) the number of outstanding CCRs multiplied by (ii) a fraction, the numerator of which is the excess amount and the denominator of which is the settlement calculation VWAP, multiplied by (b) the ratio of ETE Class E units held by ETC and its subsidiaries over the number of ETC common shares outstanding. See the section titled “The Merger” beginning on page 104 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The CCRs will be automatically cancelled and extinguished, without consideration of any kind being delivered to CCR holders in respect of the CCRs, and ETE, ETC and the rights agent will have no further obligations with respect to the CCRs, in the event that both of the following exist at any time during the period between the start date and the end date:

•

the ETC common shares VWAP is greater than the ETE common units VWAP for twenty consecutive trading days; and

•

the ETC common shares VWAP is equal to or greater than the ETE common units VWAP for a period beginning on the twenty-first trading day after the closing date and ending on the twentieth such trading day as mentioned above.

There are numerous risks associated with the CCRs, including the possibility that CCR holders will not receive any payment in respect thereof. For more information, please see the sections titled “Risks Related to the CCRs” and “CCR Agreement” beginning on pages 54 and 217, respectively, of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The Contribution Agreement (see page 216)

Concurrently with the effective time of the GP merger, ETC, ETE and ETE GP will execute a Contribution, Conveyance and Assumption Agreement (the “contribution agreement”) to effect the WMB Contribution and GP Contribution. In exchange for the contribution by ETC of substantially all of the assets and liabilities it assumed from WMB through the merger to ETE in the WMB Contribution, ETE will issue to ETC a number of ETE Class E units equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in consideration for the Parent Cash Deposit.

The contribution agreement will also provide that ETE will indemnify ETC against all losses suffered or incurred by ETC after the effective date resulting from the consummation of the merger or the other transactions contemplated by the contribution agreement, as well as all losses (other than income taxes) suffered or incurred by ETC before or after the date of the contribution agreement. In addition, pursuant to the contribution agreement, ETE will indemnify ETC for any taxes incurred by ETC for each taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2018.

Recent Developments

Crude oil prices in the United States (based on NYMEX trading prices) have experienced a significant decline recently, dropping from an average of $60.00 per barrel in June 2015 to an average closing price of $37.96 in March 2016. Natural gas prices in the United States (based on NYMEX trading prices) also have experienced a significant decline, dropping from an average of near $3.00 per MMcf in June 2015 to an average closing price of $1.81 per MMcf in March 2016. Other energy commodity prices have also continued to decline or hover at relatively low levels. As a result, energy company equity values have declined sharply and credit has tightened. Equity and debt capital markets are less receptive and the cost of capital for energy companies, in general, is significantly more expensive than the cost of capital in June 2015. Most producers of oil and natural gas have recently reduced their levels of drilling and related projects to preserve existing liquidity and reduce financing needs in light of continued low prices and infrastructure constraints, as well as higher costs of capital. In some areas, producers are shutting-in production until realized prices improve as a result of higher energy prices and/or new infrastructure that improves netbacks. As a result of the current weak energy price environment and increased cost of capital, the industry in which WMB and ETE participate is likely to experience lower growth in terms of volumes, earnings, cash flows, cash distributions and dividends. Energy prices are highly variable and the industry in which WMB and ETE participate may experience lower or higher prices and those prices will effect volumes, earnings, cash flows, cash distributions and dividends.

As disclosed in “The Merger—Reasons of ETE’s General Partner’s Board for the Merger,” during its due diligence process relating to the merger, ETE identified significant commercial synergies ranging from new revenue opportunities, improved operational efficiencies and performance, new capital opportunities and prioritization of existing capital projects. At the time of execution of the merger agreement with WMB, ETE expected that the anticipated EBITDA from those commercial synergies would exceed $2 billion per year by 2020 and would require overall incremental capital investment of more than $5 billion to achieve. As part of ETE’s and WMB’s joint integration planning efforts, the management teams of both companies have devoted a significant amount of time in analyzing commercial synergy opportunities that may be achieved by the combined company following the closing of the merger. Taking into account facts and circumstances occurring since September 28, 2015, including those described in the preceding paragraph, ETE and WMB believe, as of March 23, 2016, that the base case for EBITDA from commercial synergies that is reasonably probable to be achieved by the combined company is approximately $126 million per year by 2020, which is materially less than the $2 billion of anticipated EBITDA from commercial synergies per year by 2020 identified by ETE as of September 28, 2015 and considered by the board of directors of ETE’s general partner when determining to approve entry into the merger agreement. The annual EBITDA that is reasonably probable of being achieved from commercial synergies by 2020 of $126 million is an amount determined by commercial development and finance personnel from ETE and WMB based on their analysis of commercial development projects that are reasonably probable to be successfully completed and based on, among other items, assumptions of WTI crude oil prices ranging from $32.92 per barrel in 2016 to $44.31 per barrel in 2020 and Henry Hub natural gas prices ranging from $2.34 per MMcf in 2016 to $3.11 per MMcf in 2020, which price assumptions were based on the forward price curve for futures contracts as of January 20, 2016. ETE and WMB also anticipate that the net capital savings to be incurred in connection with these commercial synergies would be approximately $220 million.

ETE and WMB also developed a case which assumed a recovery of crude oil and natural gas prices based on the forward price curve for futures contracts for these commodities as of July 22, 2015, which forward price curve indicated WTI crude oil futures prices ranging from $53.97 per barrel in 2016 to $64.26 per barrel in 2020 and Henry Hub natural gas futures prices ranging from $3.21 per MMcf in 2016 to $3.62 per MMcf in 2020. Based on these price assumptions, the commercial development and finance personnel from ETE and WMB determined that the annual EBITDA that may be potentially achieved by 2020 from commercial synergies would be approximately $590 million. ETE and WMB also anticipate that the net capital expenditures anticipated to be incurred to achieve these commercial synergies would be approximately $260 million. The commodity price assumptions related to the commercial synergies in this price recovery case are significantly higher than the average trading prices of these commodities as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus and, as a result, ETE and WMB believe that the commercial synergies in this price recovery case may not be achieved.

The current range of anticipated EBITDA from commercial synergies jointly identified by ETE and WMB as described above in the base case and the price recovery case, however, is consistent with the range of potential synergies considered by WMB’s financial advisors when performing the analyses and arriving at the opinions described in “The Merger—Opinions of the Financial Advisors to the WMB Board.”

The section “The Merger—Financial Forecasts” contains certain prospective financial information for WMB and ETC as prepared by WMB and as made available to the legal and financial advisors of WMB and the WMB Board prior to the execution of the merger agreement. ETE did not review the projections for ETC prepared by WMB, and ETE makes no representations or warranties in respect thereof and such projections did not, at the time they were prepared, and do not currently, reflect the views of ETE. See “—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC” below for updated financial forecasts of ETC provided by the management of ETE. As further noted in “The Merger—Financial Forecasts,” WMB does not intend to update or otherwise revise the prospective financial information contained therein to reflect the occurrence of subsequent events. WMB believes that the prospective financial information prepared by WMB, including forecasts for cash distributions per unit of ETC as described in “The Merger—Financial Forecasts—Pro Forma ETC Unaudited Financial Projections,” is no longer

valid, will likely be materially lower than reflected in the tables containing such prospective financial information and should not be relied upon in light of, among other things, the factors discussed in this “Recent Developments” section.

In addition to the factors described in this “Recent Developments” section, and as noted elsewhere in this proxy statement/prospectus, ETE has a significant amount of debt outstanding. As of March 31, 2016, ETE had approximately $6.4 billion of debt on a stand-alone basis and approximately $37.4 billion of consolidated debt, excluding the debt of its joint ventures. In addition, in connection with the merger, ETE expects to incur an additional $6.05 billion of debt to finance the cash portion of the merger consideration and to assume approximately $4.2 billion of outstanding debt under WMB’s senior notes. In light of the sustained low commodity price environment and ETE’s current leverage and credit profile, there is a risk that the incurrence and assumption of such additional debt could adversely affect ETE’s credit ratings. Any downgrade in ETE’s credit ratings following the transaction could adversely affect the investment grade credit ratings of ETP, SXL and WPZ, and the credit ratings of Sunoco. ETP, SXL and WPZ currently maintain investment grade ratings by Moody’s Investors Services, Inc. (“Moody’s”), Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (“S&P”) and Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”). However, those current ratings may not remain in effect for any given period of time and a rating may be lowered or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstances so warrant. If Moody’s, S&P or Fitch were to downgrade the long-term rating of any of the ETE Entities, particularly below investment grade, ETE’s consolidated borrowing costs could significantly increase, which would adversely affect ETE’s consolidated financial results, and the terms of ETE’s credit agreements could become significantly more restrictive. The potential pool of investors and funding sources could also decrease. Further, due to the relationship between ETE and the ETE Entities, any downgrade of ETE’s credit ratings could also result in a downgrade in one or more of the ETE Entities’ credit ratings. Ratings from credit agencies are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold ETE’s securities, and each rating should be evaluated independently of other ratings. In order for ETE to maintain its credit ratings at current rating levels, it may need to sell assets, issue additional equity securities, reduce cash distributions to unitholders or a combination thereof.

ETE states that in connection with ETE’s efforts to maintain its current credit ratings with Moody’s, S&P and Fitch, on March 8, 2016, ETE completed the private offering of Convertible Units to certain ETE common unitholders who are “accredited investors” (as defined in Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act) (the “offerees”). The Convertible Units were issued to offerees who elected to participate in a plan (the “Plan”) to forgo a portion of their future potential cash distributions on ETE common units participating in the Plan for a period of up to nine fiscal quarters, commencing with distributions for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2016 (the “plan period”), and reinvest those distributions in the Convertible Units. Each offeree who elected to participate in the Plan (an “Electing Unitholder”) received one Convertible Unit for each ETE common unit that such Electing Unitholder validly elected to participate in the Plan (each such ETE common unit, a “Participating Common Unit”). With respect to each quarter for which the declaration date and record date occurs prior to the closing of the merger, or earlier termination of the merger agreement (the “WMB End Date”), each Participating Common Unit will receive the same cash distribution as all other ETE common units up to $0.11 per unit, which represents approximately 40% of the per unit distribution paid with respect to ETE common units for the quarter ended December 31, 2015 (the “Preferred Distribution Amount”), and the holder of such Participating Common Unit will forgo all cash distributions in excess of that amount (other than (i) any non-cash distribution or (ii) any cash distribution that is materially and substantially greater, on a per unit basis, than ETE’s most recent regular quarterly distribution, as determined by the ETE general partner (such distributions in clauses (i) and (ii), “Extraordinary Distributions”)). With respect to each quarter for which the declaration date and record date occurs after the WMB End Date, each Participating Common Unit will forgo all distributions for each such quarter (other than Extraordinary Distributions), and each Convertible Unit will receive the Preferred Distribution Amount payable in cash prior to any distribution on ETE common units (other than Extraordinary Distributions).

At the end of the plan period, each Convertible Unit will automatically convert into ETE common units, the number of which will be determined by dividing (a) the Conversion Value (as defined and described below) at the end of the plan period by (b) $6.56, which is 95% of the five-day volume-weighted average closing price of ETE common units on the NYSE on the date immediately prior to the commencement of the private offering (the “Conversion Price”).

The conversion value of each Convertible Unit (the “Conversion Value”) on the closing date of the offering is zero. The Conversion Value will increase each quarter in an amount equal to $0.285, which is the per unit amount of the cash distribution paid with respect to ETE common units for the quarter ended December 31, 2015 (the “Conversion Value Cap”), less the cash distribution actually paid with respect to each Convertible Unit for such quarter (or, if prior to the WMB End Date, each Participating Common Unit). Any cash distributions in excess of $0.285 per ETE common unit, and any Extraordinary Distributions, made with respect to any quarter during the plan period will be disregarded for purposes of calculating the Conversion Value.

ETE issued 329,299,267 Convertible Units to the Electing Unitholders at the closing of the offering, which represents the participation by common unitholders with respect to approximately 31.5% of ETE’s total outstanding common units. ETE’s Chairman, Kelcy L. Warren, participated in the Plan with respect to substantially all of his common units, which represent approximately 18% of ETE’s total outstanding common units, and was issued 187,313,942 Convertible Units. In addition, John McReynolds, a director of LE GP and President of LE GP; and Matthew S. Ramsey, a director of LE GP, ETP LLC and Sunoco GP LLC and President of ETP LLC, participated in the Plan with respect to substantially all of their common units, and Marshall S. McCrea, III, a director of LE GP, ETP LLC and SXL GP and the Group Chief Operating Officer and Chief Commercial Officer of LE GP, participated in the Plan with respect to a substantial portion of his common units. The common units for which Messrs. McReynolds, Ramsey and McCrea elected to participate in the Plan collectively represent approximately 2.2% of ETE’s total outstanding common units. ETE issued 21,382,155 Convertible Units to Mr. McReynolds, 51,317 Convertible Units to Mr. Ramsey and 1,112,728 Convertible Units to Mr. McCrea. In accordance with the ETE partnership agreement, the board of directors of LE GP determines the amount of cash available for distribution by ETE each quarter and the amount of the quarterly cash distribution to unitholders. Therefore, as directors of LE GP, each of Messrs. Warren, McReynolds, Ramsey and McCrea, together with the other directors of LE GP, exercise control over ETE’s distributions. Mr. Warren, as the owner of 81.2% of the membership interest in LE GP, has the ability to appoint and remove the directors of LE GP. Mr. Ray Davis, who owns the remaining 18.8% membership interests in LE GP, participated in the Plan with respect to substantially all of his ETE common units, which represents approximately 6.9% of ETE’s total outstanding common units, and was issued 72,042,486 Convertible Units. Other than Mr. Davis, no other Electing Unitholder owns a material amount of equity securities of ETE or its affiliates and neither Mr. Davis nor such other Electing Unitholders has the ability to exercise control over ETE’s distributions.

ETE expected cash distribution savings from the offering of Convertible Units that would allow ETE to reduce its outstanding debt. However, ETE no longer expects to pay cash distributions with respect to its common units following the closing of the merger until the quarter ending March 31, 2018, and therefore, does not expect to receive any cash distribution savings until such time from forgone distributions on Participating Common Units, or to repay any debt from such cash distribution savings. See the section titled “Additional Information about ETC—Business—Recent Developments of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.” for additional information regarding the private offering and the terms of the Plan and the Convertible Units.

the merger agreement permitted ETE to provide the opportunity to participate in the Plan to all of its common unitholders. In order to offer participation in the Plan to all of its common unitholders, ETE would have been required to file a registration statement with the SEC relating to the public offering of the Convertible Units. Such a filing would require the consent of WMB’s independent registered accounting firm to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of its report on WMB’s audited financial statements. However, after ETE advised WMB of ETE’s intention to pursue a public offering of the Convertible Units pursuant to the Plan, WMB declined to allow its independent registered accounting firm to provide the auditor consent required to be included in a registration statement for a public offering. As a result, in light of what ETE viewed as an important step to address potential cash needs (including to finance part of the consideration payable to WMB stockholders in the merger), ETE determined to conduct a private offering to certain accredited investors that was not subject to the SEC rules requiring the consent of WMB’s independent registered accounting firm. In connection with the proposed public offering, WMB advised ETE that WMB believed its consent was required under the merger agreement for the public offering and declined to consent. ETE believes that both the proposed public offering and the completed private offering are permitted by the terms of the merger agreement and as a result did not request WMB’s consent to pursue the private offering.

WMB has reviewed the terms of the Plan and the Convertible Units, and ETE’s description of the Plan and the Convertible Units, and believes that the Convertible Units offering required WMB’s consent under the merger agreement and that by proceeding without WMB’s consent, ETE violated the merger agreement. WMB filed lawsuits against ETE, LE GP and Mr. Warren in relation to the Convertible Units offering on April 6, 2016. The lawsuit against ETE and LE GP, which was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 12168-VCG), alleges breach of the merger agreement and seeks, among other things, to unwind the private offering of Convertible Units. The lawsuit against Mr. Warren, which was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Cause No. DC-16-03941), alleges tortious interference with the merger agreement in connection with the Convertible Units offering and seeks damages, among other things. See the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Merger—ETE and WMB do not agree on whether ETE’s offering of the Convertible Units without WMB’s consent was a violation of the merger agreement, and WMB has filed lawsuits against ETE, LE GP and Mr. Warren in relation thereto” beginning on page 51 of this proxy statement/prospectus. ETE believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend its actions.

In addition to the issuance of the Convertible Units that ETE believes is a means to address the rating agency issues described in this proxy statement/prospectus, ETE and WMB have been analyzing the potential cost savings that may be realized with respect to general and administrative expenses as a result of the merger. In light of the decline in energy commodity prices, both ETE and WMB are also analyzing cost reductions that may be achieved on a standalone basis and, in this regard, WMB recently reduced its workforce by 10%.

ETE and WMB have also been analyzing other steps to reduce general and administrative expenses. ETE has determined that it will be necessary to consolidate corporate offices and headquarters of ETE and WMB in Dallas, Texas in order to achieve the appropriate overall reduction in general and administrative costs for the combined company and headquarters and, as a result, the current presence of WMB in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will need to be significantly reduced, particularly with respect to the finance, accounting, engineering and construction, legal, human resources and information technology functions, or potentially eliminated.

The WMB Board has carefully reviewed the developments in this section in connection with the continuing recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board to WMB stockholders to adopt the merger agreement. See the section titled “The Merger—Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger” beginning on page 132 of this proxy statement/prospectus. In particular:

•

The WMB Board notes that (i) ETE has announced that, in connection with its integration planning efforts and in light of the current business environment for WMB and ETE as described above, ETE currently intends to consolidate the corporate offices and headquarters of ETE and WMB in Dallas,

Texas and to significantly reduce or potentially eliminate the current presence of WMB in Tulsa, Oklahoma and in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma as described above and (ii) this current intention differs from ETE’s statement in the WMB-ETE joint press release issued on September 28, 2015 that WPZ would maintain a meaningful presence in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

•

In reviewing the Convertible Units offering, the WMB Board noted the preferential treatment on cash distributions that Electing Unitholders will receive over non-participating holders of ETE common units, as well as the impact that this preferential treatment will have with respect to the payment of cash distributions on the ETC common shares. The WMB Board also considered its view of the preferential treatment as well as the potential dilution to holders of ETC common shares as a result of the pay-in-kind feature of the Convertible Units. See this “Recent Developments” section beginning on page 20. As noted above, the WMB Board views the Convertible Units offering as a breach of the merger agreement and intends to enforce its rights under the merger agreement in relation thereto; as a result, WMB has filed lawsuits against ETE, LE GP and Kelcy L. Warren. The WMB Board has reviewed the concerns raised by ETE regarding the potential material adverse impact on the operations and financial condition of ETC that may arise if WMB’s lawsuits against ETE, LE GP and Mr. Warren are resolved adversely to ETE, LE GP and Mr. Warren, respectively. See the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments—Litigation Relating to the Convertible Unit Offering” beginning on page 31 of this proxy statement/prospectus. The WMB Board notes that WMB remains committed to working with ETE to ensure the strength of the combined company, provided that all ETE and WMB investors are treated fairly and equitably. The WMB Board notes that immediately after the closing of the merger, the lawsuits against ETE, LE GP and Mr. Warren would be contributed from ETC to ETE as part of the WMB Contribution. Accordingly, after closing, ETE will have the right to determine whether to proceed with such lawsuits based on the best interests of the ETE unitholders and the ETC shareholders at such time.

•

The WMB Board has reviewed ETE’s current projections for ETC set forth below under “—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC.” The WMB Board notes that ETE prepared these ETC projections, in part, by using the WMB projections provided by WMB to ETE on April 7, 2016, and, in part, by using the ETE projections prepared by ETE management as of April 12, 2016. The WMB Board further notes that these projections for ETC are subject to a number of assumptions as described below, including (i) ETE’s assumptions regarding the amount and timing of debt repayment, including of the acquisition financing and any assumed refinancings and (ii) ETE’s assumptions regarding the amount of incentive distribution waivers at ETP and WPZ which affect the cash available at ETE and ETC.

•

The WMB Board has reviewed ETE’s statement that it does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units following the closing of the merger and prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018. See the section titled “—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC” beginning on page 29 of this proxy statement/prospectus. The WMB Board further notes that a lack of distributions on ETE common units will lead to a lack of distributions on ETE Class E units, and therefore, on ETC common shares, until that time. This is inconsistent with the WMB Board’s expectation, as of September 28, 2015, that the pro forma dividend per ETC common share would exceed the expected 2016 dividend per share of WMB on a standalone basis. See the section titled “The Merger—Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger” beginning on page 132 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

•

In reviewing the commercial synergies described above, the WMB Board notes that the base case of anticipated EBITDA from commercial synergies jointly identified by ETE and WMB as described above is consistent with the range of potential synergies considered by the WMB Board in approving the merger and by WMB’s financial advisors when performing the analyses and arriving at the opinions described in the section titled “The Merger—Opinions of the Financial Advisors to the WMB Board” beginning on page 143 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

•

The WMB Board recognizes that the impact of the loss of expected commercial synergies under current market conditions is different than the sensitivity analysis regarding synergies considered by the WMB Board at the time of the approval of the merger agreement on September 28, 2015 because the base model against which the sensitivities were applied has been substantially outdated by economic changes since September 28, 2015.

•

The WMB Board has considered the impact of the closing of the merger, in particular the likely negative effects of the incurrence of approximately $6.05 billion of additional indebtedness, on the financial condition and operations of ETE and ETC and the likely trading price of the ETE common units and ETC common shares following the merger. In that regard, WMB has considered the likely adverse impact that the additional indebtedness on the ability of ETE and ETC to pay cash distributions and grow ETE’s operations.

•

The WMB Board has considered ETE’s position that the closing condition that Latham deliver the 721 Opinion is unlikely to be satisfied. See this “Recent Developments” section beginning on page 27 and “Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Merger—There is no assurance when or if the merger will be completed, and ETE believes there is a substantial risk that the merger will not be consummated” beginning on page 45 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The WMB Board believes it is appropriate to continue to rely on the fairness opinions dated September 28, 2015 for purposes of its original decision to enter into the merger agreement. However, the WMB Board acknowledges that those fairness opinions only address fairness of the consideration to be received by WMB stockholders as of September 28, 2015 and the WMB Board no longer believes that the projections underlying those fairness opinions are valid. Accordingly, the WMB Board is not relying on those fairness opinions in evaluating its recommendation to Williams’ stockholders to adopt the merger agreement in light of the developments described in this section. After conferring with its legal advisors, the WMB Board does not believe that it is necessary to request updated fairness opinions from its financial advisors and does not believe that updated fairness opinions would materially assist the WMB Board in evaluating its recommendation to WMB stockholders to adopt the merger agreement. The WMB Board believes it has, with the assistance of WMB management and the WMB Board’s financial advisors, the necessary expertise to evaluate the impact of changed economic conditions on the merits of the merger transaction.

After carefully reviewing the developments described in this section, including those noted above, the WMB Board has not changed its recommendation from its vote on September 28, 2015 that WMB stockholders adopt the merger agreement. Except as described below, the reasons for the WMB Board’s recommendation continue to be those described in the section titled “The Merger—Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger” beginning on page 132 of this proxy statement/prospectus. These reasons include the value certainty provided by the substantial portion of the merger consideration that is payable in cash, the industrial logic of a combination of WMB’s and ETE’s businesses, that the WMB stockholders will have an opportunity to participate in the value created by the combination, the WMB Board’s assessment of WMB’s challenges as a standalone company, the strategic review process conducted by the WMB Board and the protective measures that were negotiated by the WMB Board regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units. As discussed above, the WMB Board continues to rely on the fairness opinions of WMB’s financial advisors dated September 28, 2015 for purposes of its original decision to enter into the merger agreement, but is not relying on such fairness opinions as a basis for the continuing recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board to WMB stockholders to adopt the merger agreement. The following reasons for the WMB Board’s recommendation described in the section titled “The Merger—Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger” beginning on page 132 of this proxy statement/prospectus no longer serve as a basis for the continuing recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board that WMB stockholders adopt the merger agreement:

•

The WMB Board’s expectation that the pro forma dividend per ETC common share would exceed the expected 2016 dividend per share of WMB on a standalone basis given ETE’s statement that it does not

expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units and Class E Units following the closing of the merger and prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018, which will result in ETC being unable to make cash distributions on the ETC common shares.

•

The WMB Board’s expectation that WPZ will retain its current name and remain a publicly traded partnership headquartered with a meaningful ongoing presence in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The WMB Board also notes that changes in the industries in which WMB and ETE operate and market conditions could adversely impact the likelihood of (i) ETC common shares being included in the S&P 500 Index and (ii) the merger resulting in the establishment of the third largest energy franchise in North America and one of the five largest global energy companies.

Certain members of the WMB Board voted on September 28, 2015 against entering into the merger agreement and continue to disagree with the recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board that WMB stockholders adopt the merger agreement. See section titled “The Merger—Background of the Merger” beginning on page 104 of this proxy statement/prospectus. Notwithstanding their continuing disagreement with the recommendation of the majority of the WMB Board, these directors fully support the WMB Board’s commitment to consummate the transaction as required by the terms of the merger agreement. The WMB Board is unanimously committed to enforcing WMB’s rights under the merger agreement and delivering the benefits of the merger agreement to WMB stockholders.

In connection with the merger, there are two other separate transactions that are occurring: (i) the transfer of newly issued ETC common shares from ETC to ETE in exchange for cash (to be used by ETC to fund the cash portion of the merger consideration) and (ii) the transfer by ETC of substantially all of the assets and liabilities it assumes from WMB in the merger to ETE in exchange for newly issued ETE Class E units (i.e., the WMB Contribution). Completion of the merger is subject to satisfaction or waiver of a number of conditions, including the receipt by ETC and WMB of the 721 Opinion from Latham.

Latham has recently advised ETE that it has concluded that there is a substantial risk that the IRS could successfully assert that the WMB Contribution would not be a transaction to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies based, in part, on the belief that the decline in value of ETE’s common units since the merger agreement was executed has increased such risk. In arriving at this conclusion, Latham considered and discussed with ETE claims that the IRS could possibly assert regarding whether the WMB Contribution would not be a transaction to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies, including the possibility that the IRS would successfully disregard the form of the transaction by applying various principles under statutory and case law (including Section 707 of the Code) and, therefore, assert that a portion of the cash consideration being paid by ETE for ETC common shares may be deemed paid by ETE to ETC for the Williams assets in the WMB Contribution. Accordingly, considering the potential claims that the IRS may successfully assert and the level of uncertainty regarding the ultimate outcome of these claims, Latham has advised ETE that it would not be able to deliver the 721 Opinion were the opinion requested as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The ability of Latham to deliver the 721 Opinion is also dependent on ETE not being treated as an investment company for federal income tax purposes if ETE were incorporated. ETE has received favorable private letter rulings from the IRS that address material legal issues with respect to ETE not being treated as an investment company for federal income tax purposes if ETE were incorporated. Accordingly, Latham does not believe that this issue will affect its ability to deliver the 721 Opinion.

After Latham advised ETE that it would not be able to deliver the 721 Opinion as described above, ETE consulted not only with Latham, but also with other legal advisors, regarding the risks that the WMB Contribution would not be a transaction to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies. Following those consultations and based on the information available to it, ETE believes that there is a substantial risk that the WMB Contribution will not be a transaction to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies given the risk that the IRS will successfully disregard the form of the transaction by applying various principles under statutory and case law (including Section 707 of the Code) and, therefore, assert that a portion of the cash consideration being paid by ETE for ETC common shares will be deemed paid by ETE to ETC for the WMB assets in the WMB Contribution.

ETE has also considered WMB’s views. On advice of Cravath, special counsel to WMB in connection with the transaction, WMB has advised ETE that it disagrees with Latham’s position and that it believes the WMB Contribution should be a transaction to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies. Further, in an effort to address ETE’s concerns, WMB has proposed two alternative transaction structures, each of which WMB and Cravath believe fully address ETE’s concerns. On advice of Cravath, WMB believes that the covenants in the merger agreement that require the parties to use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the WMB Contribution to qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies and to obtain the 721 Opinion require ETE and WMB to restructure the existing transaction in a manner such as WMB has suggested. ETE has advised WMB that it does not believe, after consultation with its legal advisors, that the merger agreement requires ETE to restructure the existing transaction as WMB has proposed. ETE has further advised WMB that, reserving its rights to assert that restructuring of the existing transaction is not required under the merger agreement, it has discussed the alternative transaction structures proposed by WMB and that, after consulting with Latham and the other legal advisors and based on their advice, ETE has concluded that there is a substantial risk that the form of either of the proposed alternative transaction structures, if undertaken would not be respected for tax purposes and, therefore, that there would remain the substantial risk of material taxation described above.

ETE is continuing to evaluate the tax risks referred to above and has expressed its willingness to continue to discuss the matter with WMB. Further, although ETE is fully committed to meeting its obligations under the merger agreement and using its reasonable best efforts to have the registration statement on Form S-4 declared effective so that WMB may proceed to a stockholder meeting to vote on the merger, ETE believes that there is a substantial risk that the closing condition relating to the 721 Opinion will not be met. Because ETE believes that ETE and ETC will be materially adversely affected if the WMB Contribution is not an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies, it is unlikely that ETC would waive the condition to closing that ETC receive the 721 Opinion from Latham. Based on the information available to WMB as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, WMB believes that the WMB Contribution should qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies. WMB is, therefore, willing to waive the condition to closing that WMB receive the 721 Opinion from Latham. In addition, on May 13, 2016, WMB filed a lawsuit against ETE in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking, among other remedies, a declaratory judgment and injunction preventing ETE from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under the merger agreement due to any failure of Latham to deliver the 721 Opinion to ETC and WMB. ETE believes that the allegations underlying the lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Please see “Recent Developments—Litigation Related to the 721 Opinion and the Outside Date.”

Currently, neither ETE nor WMB has an estimate as to when the WMB stockholders are likely to learn the outcome of this issue, nor can either party provide any assurance that the outcome of this issue will be determined prior to the special meeting. If the closing condition relating to the 721 Opinion is not met or waived, and as a result the merger is not consummated, ETE expects to announce this outcome in a press release and file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC regarding the same. See the section entitled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Merger—There is no assurance when or if the merger will be completed, and ETE believes there is substantial risk that the merger will not be consummated.”

Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC

In an effort to understand the effects of more challenging business conditions and the merger, management of ETE has prepared projections for ETC, on a pro forma basis after giving effect to the merger, and shared those projections with the board of directors of LE GP and with WMB. The projections were based upon facts and circumstances known to management of ETE as of April 12, 2016, were delivered to WMB on April 12, 2016, and have not been subsequently updated. The ETC projections were based in part on projected financial information prepared by WMB management with respect to WMB that was provided by WMB to ETE on April 7, 2016. In preparing the ETC projections, ETE made a variety of assumptions, as described below. WMB expressly takes no responsibility for the ETC projections and states no view on the reasonableness of such projections.

You should be aware that this forecasted financial information is based on numerous assumptions about future events, as further discussed below. Many of these assumptions are speculative in nature and actual results for ETC will likely vary materially in one manner or another from the forecast. Nevertheless, management of ETE believes the forecast was prepared on a reasonable basis.

Neither ETE’s nor WMB’s independent registered public accounting firm nor any other independent registered public accounting firm has compiled, examined or performed any procedures with respect to the forecasted financial information, nor do they take any responsibility whatsoever for the forecasted financial information. You should consider that ETC and ETE are the only parties responsible for the inclusion herein of the following forecasted financial information.

Pro Forma Forecasted Financial Information


	Year ended December 31,
	2016		2017		2018
Pro Forma ETC ⁽¹⁾
Consolidated EBITDA ($mm) ⁽²⁾	$	10,179	$	11,603	$	13,162
Total cash available for distribution ($mm)⁽²⁾	$	2,243	$	1,710	$	2,870
Distributions per common share ($/common share)	$	0.57	$	0.00	$	0.46
ETE Leverage
Unconsolidated leverage ⁽³⁾		6.8x		5.9x		3.7x
Consolidated leverage⁽⁴⁾		6.8x		6.1x		5.4x
Commodity Price Assumptions
WTI ($/bbl)	$	40.00	$	45.00	$	50.00
Henry Hub ($/mcf)	$	2.50	$	2.75	$	3.00

(1)

ETC expects to grant awards to officers, directors and eligible service providers of ETC and its affiliates under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan shortly following the closing of the merger covering approximately 10% of the outstanding ETC common shares at the consummation of the merger. The pro forma forecasted financial information gives effect to these expected grants, which grants will not have a material impact on the forecasted financial information presented herein. Assuming these grants take place, former holders of WMB common stock and ETE would hold approximately 74% and 17% of the outstanding equity interests in ETC, respectively, and directors and officers of ETC would own approximately 9% of the outstanding equity interests in ETC. Please see “Additional Information About ETC—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Our 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan.”

(2)	At closing, we expect ETC will own an approximate 57% limited partner interest in ETE, excluding any interest attributable to the Convertible Units issued by ETE in March 2016. We expect ETC will consolidate the results of ETE because ETC will control ETE GP, the general partner of ETE.

(3)	Unconsolidated leverage is calculated as ETE’s unconsolidated indebtedness, which consists of borrowings outstanding under ETE’s revolving credit facility and term loans (including the $6.05 billion term loan that

will be incurred in connection with the closing of the merger), ETE’s senior notes and the WMB senior notes to be assumed by ETE in connection with the merger, divided by ETE’s unconsolidated EBITDA. ETE’s unconsolidated EBITDA is calculated as (a) the distributions received by ETE from its ownership interests in ETP, Sunoco, Lake Charles LNG and WPZ, less (b) a management fee to ETP and (c) ETE’s selling, general and administrative expenses.

(4)

Consolidated leverage is calculated as ETE’s consolidated indebtedness, which consists of all of the outstanding indebtedness of ETE, ETP, Sunoco Logistics, Sunoco and WPZ, divided by ETE’s consolidated EBITDA. ETE’s consolidated EBITDA is calculated as (a) the EBITDA of ETP (excluding distributions received from Sunoco Logistics and an ETE management fee), Sunoco Logistics, Sunoco, Lake Charles LNG and WPZ less (b) selling, general and administrative expenses.

In developing the forecasted financial information set forth above, management of ETE made numerous material assumptions with respect to WMB, ETE and ETC for the periods covered by the projections, and management of WMB made numerous material assumptions with respect to the information related to WMB that ETE management utilized in preparing the forecasted financial information set forth above, including:

•

the EBITDA and maintenance capital expenditures from existing assets and business activities;

•

organic growth opportunities, and the amounts and timing of related capital expenditures and future EBITDA to be generated from such organic growth opportunities;

•

the credit risk of customers and the potential impact from future deteriorations of credit quality, including the potential for bankruptcy, of certain customers and the financial impact to ETC related thereto;

•

outstanding debt and debt and equity issuance during applicable periods, and the availability and cost of debt and equity capital;

•

the amount and timing of debt repayments, including that the acquisition financing is only partially repaid with excess cash from the elimination of ETE and ETC distributions or dividends (due to assumed incentive distribution waivers at the underlying partnerships and fixed debt refinancing assumptions at closing);

•

the amount of incentive distribution waivers at ETP and WPZ which affects the cash available at ETE and ETC;

•

the terms under which the acquisition financing will be refinanced and the timing thereof;

•

the prices and production of, and demand for crude oil, natural gas, NGLs, other hydrocarbons and petrochemical products, which could impact volumes and margins;

•

the tax profiles of WMB and ETC;

•

the timing and nature of certain asset sales, including the sale of Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems, L.L.C., and the anticipated net proceeds therefrom;

•

the amounts and timing of synergies expected to be realized by the combined company, and of costs incurred to realize such synergies; and

•

other general business, market, and financial assumptions.

ETE management has assumed in preparing the forecasted financial information set forth above that, commencing with the distributions related to the second quarter of 2016 for each of ETP and WPZ payable on or before August 15, 2016, ETE will agree to waive incentive distributions to which it would otherwise be entitled from each of ETP and WPZ in amounts intended to permit each of ETP and WPZ to maintain their respective investment grade credit ratings without reducing distributions payable with respect to ETP’s or WPZ’s common units. Accordingly, the assumptions underlying the projections with respect to the availability and cost of debt and equity capital to ETP and WPZ during the projection period assume that ETP and WPZ maintain distributions at their respective current levels through 2016 and 2017 and ETP increases distributions in 2018

while WPZ maintains the same, and that ETP and WPZ maintain their respective investment grade credit ratings. While ETE believes these assumptions are reasonable, there can be no assurances that the board of directors of LE GP will ultimately approve incentive distribution waivers in such amounts or at all or that any incentive distribution waivers will permit ETP or WPZ to maintain their respective investment grade credit ratings (with or without reducing distributions payable with respect to their respective common units).

In preparing the forecasted financial information set forth above, ETE management has also assumed that all of the cash distributions that it receives from ETP, WPZ, SXL and SUN following the closing of the merger through mid-2018, after taking into account the waivers of incentive distributions assumed to be agreed to by ETE as described above, will be used to make cash distributions on the Convertible Units and to repay a portion of the indebtedness incurred by ETE in connection with the merger. As a result, ETE does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units or Class E Units prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018. Assuming ETE does not pay any distributions on its common units and pays a distribution of $0.11 per unit with respect to its Convertible Units for each quarter during the forecast period, the Conversion Value at the end of the plan period for each Convertible Unit and for all of the Convertible Units issued in the offering would be $1.575 and approximately $518.6 million, respectively. Upon conversion of the Convertible Units at the end of the plan period, each Convertible Unit would convert into approximately 0.24 ETE common units, resulting in an aggregate issuance of approximately 79.1 million ETE common units. Assuming that ETE does not issue any additional equity securities prior to the end of the plan period, upon the conversion of the Convertible Units, ETC would own an approximate 55% limited partner interest in ETE, which is less than the approximate 57% limited partner interest in ETE that ETC will hold immediately following the completion of the merger transactions. The Convertible Units have a priority distribution over the ETE common units and, following the merger, will have a priority distribution over the ETE Class E Units. Thus, ETE’s unitholders that did not participate in the offering (including ETC, as the future holder of ETE Class E Units) may not receive any cash distributions with respect to their units, including in any quarter in which holders of the Convertible Units receive a cash distribution and/or an increase in the Conversion Value of their Convertible Units. If ETE does not make a cash distribution on its common units, then ETC will not receive a cash distribution on the ETE Class E Units that it will own following the merger and will not have any cash available for distribution on its common shares.

ETE expected cash distribution savings from the offering of Convertible Units that would allow ETE to reduce its outstanding debt. However, ETE no longer expects to pay cash distributions with respect to its common units following the closing of the merger until the quarter ending March 31, 2018, and therefore, does not expect to receive any cash distribution savings until such time from forgone distributions on Participating Common Units, or to repay any debt from such cash distribution savings. As described above, ETE expects to reduce its outstanding debt following the merger with cash distributions it receives from ETP, WPZ, SXL and SUN through mid-2018. As a result, ETE expects that it will be able to reduce its unconsolidated leverage ratio to approximately 3.7x for the year ending December 31, 2018 and ETE believes that its overall plan to reduce its unconsolidated leverage ratio to this level will position ETE to maintain its current debt rating throughout the forecast period.

All of the above assumptions involve variables making them difficult to predict, and most are beyond the control of either WMB, ETE or ETC. Although management of WMB and ETE, as applicable, believe that there was a reasonable basis for their respective internal projections and the underlying assumptions related thereto, any assumptions for near-term and long-term projected cases remain uncertain, and the risk of inaccuracy increases with the length of the forecasted period.

Litigation Relating to the Convertible Unit Offering

On April 6, 2016, WMB filed a complaint, accompanied by a motion for expedited proceedings, against ETE and LE GP in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint is captioned The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy

Transfer Equity, L.P., et al., C.A. No. 12168-VCG. WMB alleges that ETE has breached the merger agreement by making the private offering of Convertible Units, as announced in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by ETE on March 9, 2016. As relief, WMB seeks, among other things, to unwind the private offering and invalidate Amendment No. 5 to the ETE partnership agreement, adopted on March 8, 2016 (the “Amendment”), pursuant to which ETE established the Convertible Units. On April 14, 2016, the Court granted WMB’s motion for expedited proceedings in a ruling from the bench. The Court has ordered that the injunction hearing for this lawsuit be held during the week of June 13, 2016. Therefore, while this lawsuit may not be resolved prior to the special meeting, WMB has advised ETE that it expects that the lawsuit will be resolved prior to the consummation of the merger. Also on April 6, 2016, WMB filed a petition against Mr. Warren, the chairman of ETE, in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, captioned The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Warren, No. DC-16-03941. In the Warren action, WMB alleges that Mr. Warren has tortiously interfered with the merger agreement by inducing ETE to undertake the private offering, and seeks compensatory damages, exemplary damages and other relief. The exact amount of damages is a factual issue to be determined at trial if the case should reach trial. The Warren action is a suit against Mr. Warren individually. Therefore, WMB believes any judgment would be satisfied out of Mr. Warren’s personal funds and would not require payment by ETE or ETC unless Mr. Warren is entitled to indemnification from ETE pursuant to the provisions of the ETE partnership agreement or the separate directors and officers indemnification agreement between ETE and Mr. Warren. WMB has advised ETE that it believes the Warren action will likely not be resolved prior to the special meeting or the consummation of the merger.

On May 3, 2016, ETE and LE GP filed an answer and counterclaim. The counterclaim asserts that WMB materially breached its obligations under the merger agreement by (i) blocking ETE’s attempts to complete a public offering of the Convertible Units pursuant to the Plan, including, among other things, by declining to allow WMB’s independent registered public accounting firm to provide the auditor consent required to be included in the registration statement for a public offering and (ii) bringing the Warren action against Mr. Warren in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. WMB believes that ETE and LE GP’s counterclaim is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously.

ETE has advised WMB that it believes the action against ETE is without merit and that the action is harmful to the merger process. Mr. Warren and ETE have both advised WMB that they believe the action against Mr. Warren is without merit, that it is harmful to the merger process, particularly since WMB is claiming that Mr. Warren, who will control ETC following the closing of the merger, acted in a materially wrongful manner, and that ETE will likely be required to indemnify Mr. Warren against all costs and other payments resulting from the Warren action. ETE believes that the lawsuit against Mr. Warren violates the terms of the merger agreement, including the parties’ agreement to file any lawsuits relating to the merger agreement in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, and that WMB brought the suit against Mr. Warren at least in part to pressure ETE to resolve the action WMB has brought against ETE. WMB believes that the merger agreement’s requirement to bring suit in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware is inapplicable to the lawsuit against Mr. Warren because, among other things, the lawsuit is against Mr. Warren individually and Mr. Warren is not a party to the merger agreement.

ETE is unable at this time to determine when these actions will be resolved. While ETE and Mr. Warren believe they are meritless, ETE believes that if the actions are resolved adversely to ETE or Mr. Warren such resolution could have a material adverse impact on the operations and financial condition of ETC following the merger and, with regard to Mr. Warren, if ETE is not required to indemnify Mr. Warren (which is contrary to ETE’s and Mr. Warren’s belief), Mr. Warren could be required to sell some or all of his ETE common units or his ownership interests in LE GP or ETC GP, to fund any damage award. Any sale of a significant amount of ETE common units by Mr. Warren could have a substantial negative impact on the trading price of ETE common units following the merger, and any sale of Mr. Warren’s interests in LE GP or ETC GP could result in a change of control of ETC and ETE (which, in the case of ETE, could trigger change of control repurchase obligations under its senior notes and an immediate event of default under its credit facilities entitling the lenders thereunder to accelerate repayment or pursue other remedies) and significant disruption in their respective businesses and

operations, any of which could have a negative impact on ETE, ETC and their respective equityholders. Mr. Warren is permitted to sell his interests in LE GP and ETC GP without any approval by ETE or ETC or their respective equityholders. Immediately after the closing of the merger, the actions against ETE, LE GP and Mr. Warren would be contributed from ETC to ETE as part of the WMB Contribution. Accordingly, after closing, ETE will have the right to determine whether to proceed with such actions based on the best interests of the ETE unitholders and the ETC shareholders at such time.

On April 12 and 22, 2016, two purported ETE unitholders filed putative class action lawsuits against ETE, LE GP, LE GP directors and certain recipients of the Convertible Units, captioned Levine v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., et al. and Bowood MLP Return Fund, L.P. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., both in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Bowood plaintiff had previously filed a books and records action on April 11, 2016 in the Delaware Court of Chancery but dismissed this action when it filed the Bowood lawsuit. The complaints allege that the defendants breached various provisions of ETE’s limited partnership agreement due to ETE’s issuance of the Convertible Units. The Bowood complaint also alleges causes of action for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with ETE’s limited partnership agreement in connection with ETE’s issuance of the Convertible Units. The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin ETE from making distributions on the Convertible Units and to invalidate the Amendment. On April 22, 2016, the Court granted the Levine plaintiff’s motion for expedited proceedings and ordered the parties to negotiate a schedule so that a preliminary injunction hearing can be held by early August 2016. The parties are currently negotiating a scheduling order per the Court’s instructions, and the Bowood plaintiff has moved to consolidate its lawsuit with the Levine lawsuit. The defendants believe the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend their actions.

Amendment of the Merger Agreement

On and effective as of May 1, 2016, the parties to the merger agreement approved an amendment to the merger agreement (the “amendment”) to remove the requirement that the Election Deadline be at least 30 days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger, and provide instead that the Election Deadline will be the earlier of (i) the 20th business day after the Mailing Date and (ii) three business days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger. The amendment also removes the requirement in the merger agreement that the election form be mailed to WMB stockholders of record at least 20 business days before the Election Deadline, and provides instead that the election form be mailed on the same date as this proxy statement/prospectus.

Litigation Relating to the 721 Opinion and Outside Date

On May 13, 2016, WMB filed a new lawsuit against ETE in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit is captioned The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity L.P., Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, LE GP, LLC and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC. WMB alleges that ETE has breached the merger agreement by failing to cooperate to obtain the 721 Opinion from Latham and failing otherwise to use its reasonable best efforts to take all actions necessary to close the merger. As relief, WMB seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment and injunction preventing ETE from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under the merger agreement based on either (i) any failure to obtain the 721 Opinion from Latham or (ii) any failure to close the transaction by the Outside Date of June 28, 2016.

ETE believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Specifically, ETE believes that it has complied with its covenants in the merger agreement, including those requiring ETE to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the 721 Opinion and to otherwise use reasonable best efforts to consummate the merger and related transactions. Please see “Summary—Recent Developments” for additional discussion regarding ETE’s efforts to obtain the 721 Opinion and ETE’s beliefs regarding the substantive tax risks associated with the transaction. At the time this suit was filed, the parties were in the midst of resolving the remaining comments from the staff of the SEC related to this proxy statement/prospectus which would facilitate the mailing of the proxy statement/prospectus for the purpose of soliciting WMB stockholder approval or a

meeting to vote on the merger in advance of the June 28, 2016 Outside Date. ETE believes and has informed WMB that, even assuming the WMB stockholders approve the merger, the merger will still not be able to close due to a failure of a closing condition, given the substantial risk that Latham will not be able to deliver the 721 Opinion prior to the Outside Date and ETC’s current expectation that it would not waive such condition. Accordingly, ETE believes this lawsuit is an attempt to gain undue leverage in, and undermine future discussions regarding, the pending merger and that this lawsuit therefore will likely result in further delay in mailing the proxy statement/prospectus.

On May 20, 2016, ETE filed its affirmative defenses and counterclaim. The parties have agreed to expedited proceedings, with a trial scheduled to be held June 20 and June 21, 2016.

Organizational Structure of ETC Prior to the Merger Transactions

The diagram below depicts the simplified structure of the mergers and reflects the ownership structure of ETC, ETE and WMB prior to the consummation of the mergers.

LOGO

(1)	Kelcy L. Warren, the Existing GP Owner, is the sole member of KLW LLC.

(2)

ETE is entitled to receive 90.15% of the cash distributions related to the SXL IDRs and general partner interest on account of its ownership of 0.1% of the IDRs and general partner interest of SXL and ETP Class H Units, which entitle ETE to receive 90.05% of the cash distributions related to the IDRs and general partner interest of SXL received by ETP.

(3)	In connection with the Sunoco Equity Offering, ETE acquired an approximate 2% limited partner interest in Sunoco.

(4)	ETP owns an approximate 39% limited partner interest in Sunoco after giving effect to the Sunoco Retail Acquisition and the Sunoco Equity Offering.

(5)	ETP owns an approximate 27% limited partner interest in SXL and receives 9.85% of the cash distributions related to the IDRs and general partner interest after accounting for the distributions ETP makes to ETE with respect to the ETP Class H Units described above.

Organizational Structure of ETC Following the Merger Transactions

The diagram below depicts the simplified organizational structure of ETC as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, after giving effect to the completion of the merger transactions:

LOGO

(1)

Immediately following the completion of the merger transactions, it is expected that former holders of WMB common stock will hold approximately 81% of the outstanding equity interests of ETC, and that ETE will hold approximately 19% of the outstanding equity interests of ETC. ETC expects to grant awards to officers, directors and eligible service providers of ETC and its affiliates under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan shortly following the consummation of the merger covering approximately 10% of the outstanding ETC common shares at the consummation of the merger. Assuming these grants take place, former holders of WMB common stock and ETE would hold approximately 74% and 17% of the outstanding equity interests in ETC, respectively, and directors and officers of ETC would own approximately 9% of the outstanding equity interests in ETC. Please see “Additional Information About ETC—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Our 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan.”

(2)	Kelcy L. Warren, the Existing GP Owner, is the sole member of KLW LLC.

(3)

After the completion of the merger transactions, ETC will be the managing member of the general partner of ETE and will own approximately 1.4 billion ETE Class E Units, which will represent an approximate 57% limited partner interest in ETE, excluding any interest attributable to Convertible Units issued by ETE in March 2016, as further described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus. ETE will own approximately 260 million ETC common shares, which will represent an approximate 19% interest in ETC (which percentage becomes approximately 17% after giving effect to the anticipated grant of awards under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan).

(4)

(5)	In connection with the Sunoco Equity Offering, ETE acquired an approximate 2% limited partner interest in Sunoco.

(6)	ETP owns an approximate 39% limited partner interest in Sunoco after giving effect to the Sunoco Retail Acquisition and Sunoco Equity Offering.

(7)	ETP owns an approximate 27% limited partner interest in SXL and receives 9.85% of the cash distributions related to the IDRs and general partner interest after accounting for the distributions ETP makes to ETE with respect to the ETP Class H Units described above.

ETC was formed as a corporation in April 2014 and converted into a limited partnership in July 2015. It has not had any operations since its formation and, therefore, does not have historical financial statements. Upon the completion of the merger transactions, ETC will own ETE Class E units and will control ETE GP, the general partner of ETE. Because ETC will have a controlling interest in ETE GP, it will reflect its ownership interest in ETE GP on a consolidated basis, which means that ETC’s financial results will be consolidated with those of ETE GP and ETE.

The following table shows the selected historical financial data of ETE for the periods and as of the dates indicated. The selected historical balance sheet data as of December 31, 2014 and 2015 and March 31, 2016, and the selected historical statements of operations and cash flow data for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2016 are derived from the audited and unaudited financial statements of ETE included elsewhere in this proxy statement/prospectus. The selected historical balance sheet data as of December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013 and March 31, 2015, and the selected historical statements of operations and cash flow data for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012 are derived from ETE’s audited and unaudited financial statements for such years, which have not been incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus.

ETC derived the data in the following table from, and it should be read together with and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the historical financial statements of ETE referenced above and all of the financial information and notes contained therein. The table should also be read together with “Additional Information About ETC—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

The selected historical financial information presented for WMB as of December 31, 2014 and 2015, and for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015, was derived from the audited consolidated financial statements of WMB included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K filed February 26, 2016 (the “WMB 10-K”), which is incorporated by reference in this proxy statement/prospectus. The selected unaudited financial information presented for WMB as of March 31, 2016, and for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2016, was derived from the unaudited consolidated financial statements of WMB included in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 (the “WMB First Quarter 2016 10-Q”), which is incorporated by reference in this proxy statement/prospectus. All other selected historical financial information presented for WMB has been prepared from financial statements not incorporated by reference in this proxy statement/prospectus.

The unaudited consolidated financial statements of WMB have been prepared on the same basis as the audited consolidated financial statements except as stated in the related notes thereto, included in the WMB First Quarter 2016 10-Q and, in the opinion of WMB management, include all normal recurring and other adjustments considered necessary for a fair presentation of the financial condition and results of operations of WMB for such periods. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2016, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ended December 31, 2016.

You should read the financial information with respect to WMB presented below in conjunction with the historical consolidated financial statements, the related notes, and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in the WMB 10-K and the WMB First Quarter 2016 10-Q.

The selected unaudited pro forma condensed combined statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015 and for the three months ended March 31, 2016 have been prepared to give effect to the merger transactions as if the merger transactions were completed on January 1, 2015. The selected unaudited pro forma condensed combined balance sheet as of March 31, 2016 has been prepared to give effect to the merger transactions as if the merger transactions were completed on March 31, 2016.

The unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial statements have been presented for informational purposes only. The pro forma information is not necessarily indicative of what ETC’s financial position or results of operations actually would have been had the proposed combination between ETC and WMB been completed as of the dates indicated. In addition, the unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial statements do not purport to project the future financial position or operating results of ETC. Among other things, the unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial statements do not reflect any cost savings, operating synergies or revenue enhancements that the combined company may achieve as a result of the completion of the merger transactions, the costs to integrate the operations of ETE, the ETE Entities and WMB or the costs necessary to achieve these cost savings, operating synergies and revenue enhancements, or any facts and circumstances subsequent to the dates of such financial statements, including the facts and circumstances described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus. The following selected unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial information should be read in conjunction with the section titled “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Financial Statements” and related notes beginning on page 223 of this proxy statement/prospectus, as well as the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus, which includes a description of facts and circumstances occurring subsequent to the date the parties executed the merger agreement.

Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet Data as of March 31, 2016

Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Statement of Continuing Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2016

Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Statement of Continuing Operations for the Year Ended December 31, 2015

The following table summarizes (i) the historical per unit and per share information for ETE and WMB, respectively; (ii) the unaudited per share information for ETC on a pro forma basis after giving effect to the merger transactions and (iii) the unaudited per share information for WMB on an equivalent pro forma basis based on the exchange ratio of 1.8716 ETC common shares per share of WMB common stock, the exchange ratio associated with the share consideration. The following information should be read in conjunction with the historical financial statements and accompanying notes of ETE and WMB that are included elsewhere in or incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus and the unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial statements beginning on page 223 of this proxy statement/prospectus. The pro forma information is presented for illustrative purposes only and is not necessarily indicative of what the operating results or financial position would have been if the merger transactions had been completed as of the beginning of the period presented, nor is it necessarily indicative of the future operating results or financial position of the ETC and should be read in conjunction with the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus, which includes a description of facts and circumstances occurring subsequent to the date the parties executed the merger agreement.

The historical income per unit/share, distributions or dividends per unit/share and book value per unit/share of ETE and WMB shown in the table below are derived from their respective audited consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 and unaudited consolidated financial statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2016. The historical book value per unit/share is computed by dividing total partners’ equity or stockholders’ equity, as applicable, by the number of common units or shares outstanding, as applicable, at the end of the period on a diluted basis, excluding any treasury shares, in the case of WMB.

The pro forma combined income from continuing operations per share of ETC is computed by dividing the pro forma income from continuing operations available to holders of common shares by the pro forma weighted-average number of shares outstanding. The pro forma combined book value per share of ETC is computed by dividing total pro forma shareholders’ equity by the pro forma number of common shares outstanding at the end of the period on a diluted basis. WMB equivalent pro forma combined per share amounts are calculated by multiplying ETC pro forma combined per share amounts by the exchange ratio of 1.8716 ETC common shares per share of WMB common stock, the exchange ratio associated with the share consideration.

There is currently no public market for ETC common shares; however, in connection with the closing of the merger, ETC intends to list the common shares for trading on the NYSE under the symbol “ETC” and a “when issued” trading market may develop prior to the effective time. Following the completion of the merger transactions, ETC’s primary asset and source of cash flow will initially be the ETE Class E units that it owns.

COMPARATIVE PER UNIT AND PER SHARE MARKET PRICE AND DISTRIBUTION AND DIVIDEND INFORMATION

There is currently no public market for ETC common shares; however, in connection with the closing of the merger transactions, ETC intends to list the common shares for trading on the NYSE under the symbol “ETC.” The common units of ETE are listed on the NYSE under the symbol “ETE.” WMB common stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol “WMB.”

The table below sets forth, for the calendar quarters indicated, the high and low sale prices per unit and share reported on the NYSE and the distributions and dividends declared on ETE common units and on WMB common stock, respectively.

The following table presents trading information for ETE common units and WMB common stock on (i) September 25, 2015, the last trading day before the public announcement of the merger between ETC and WMB and (ii) May 23, 2016 the most recent practicable trading day prior to the date of this proxy statement/prospectus. The table also presents the equivalent market value per share of WMB common stock on September 25, 2015 and May 23, 2016 as determined by adding (i) $8.00, the cash portion of the prorated mixed consideration, and (ii) the product of (a) the closing prices of ETE common units on those dates and (b) 1.5274, the exchange ratio associated with the share portion of the prorated mixed consideration.

The implied value of the share consideration that WMB stockholders may receive in this offer will change as the market price of ETE common units fluctuates during the pendency of the merger. Additionally, although ETC expects the price of its common shares and the price of ETE common units to trade in relation to one another following the completion of the merger transactions, ETC can provide no assurance as to the value at which its common shares will publicly trade. WMB stockholders are encouraged to obtain current market quotations for ETE common units and shares of WMB common stock prior to making any decision with respect to the merger. See the section “Risk Factors” beginning on page 45 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

There is no assurance when or if the merger will be completed, and ETE believes there is substantial risk that the merger will not be consummated.

to restructure the existing transaction as WMB has proposed. ETE has further advised WMB that, reserving its rights to assert that restructuring of the existing transaction is not required under the merger agreement, it has discussed the alternative transaction structures proposed by WMB and that, after consulting with Latham and the other legal advisors and based on their advice, ETE has concluded that there is a substantial risk that the form of either of the proposed alternative transaction structures, if undertaken would not be respected for tax purposes and, therefore, that there would remain the substantial risk of material taxation described above.

ETE is continuing to evaluate the tax risks referred to above and has expressed its willingness to continue to discuss the matter with WMB. Further, although ETE is fully committed to meeting its obligations under the merger agreement and using its reasonable best efforts to have the registration statement on Form S-4 declared effective so that WMB may proceed to a stockholder meeting to vote on the merger, ETE believes that there is a substantial risk that the closing condition relating to the 721 Opinion will not be met. Because ETE believes that ETE and ETC will be materially adversely affected if the WMB Contribution is not an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies, it is unlikely that ETC would waive the condition to closing that ETC receive the 721 Opinion from Latham. Based on the information available to WMB as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, WMB believes that the WMB Contribution should qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies. WMB is, therefore, willing to waive the condition to closing that WMB receive the 721 Opinion from Latham. In addition, on May 13, 2016, WMB filed a lawsuit against ETE in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking, among other remedies, a declaratory judgment and injunction preventing ETE from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under the merger agreement due to any failure of Latham to deliver the 721 Opinion to ETC and WMB. ETE believes that the allegations underlying the lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Please see “Summary—Recent Developments—Litigation Related to the 721 Opinion and the Outside Date.”

Additional conditions that must be satisfied or waived include the WMB stockholder approval of the Merger Proposal, the termination of the waiting period applicable to the merger under antitrust laws, the absence of any law or order prohibiting the closing of the merger, the declaration by the SEC of the effectiveness of the registration statement on Form S-4 of which this proxy statement/prospectus forms a part and the authorization of the listing on the NYSE of the ETC common shares. See the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Conditions to Completion of the Merger” beginning on page 206. There can be no assurance that ETC, ETE and WMB will be able to satisfy the closing conditions or that closing conditions beyond their control will be satisfied or waived.

Completion of the merger is also conditioned on the accuracy of representations and warranties made by the parties to the merger agreement (subject to customary materiality qualifiers and other customary exceptions) and the performance in all material respects by the parties of obligations imposed under the merger agreement.

ETE and WMB can mutually agree at any time to terminate the merger agreement, even if WMB stockholders have already voted to approve the merger agreement. ETE and WMB can also terminate the merger agreement under other specified circumstances. See the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Termination of the Merger Agreement” beginning on page 209.

The number of ETC common shares to be received by WMB stockholders receiving the share consideration or mixed consideration is fixed and will not be adjusted for changes in the market prices of ETE common units or WMB common stock.

The total number of ETC common shares to be issued in the merger is fixed and will not be adjusted for changes in the market price of either ETE common units or WMB common stock. Because ETC’s primary asset will initially consist of ETE Class E units, changes in the price of ETE common units prior to the merger will affect the implied value of the merger consideration that WMB stockholders who have elected to receive the share consideration or mixed consideration (and, in some cases, the cash consideration, if cash is oversubscribed) will receive on the closing date of the merger. Market price changes may result from a variety of factors (many of which are beyond the control of ETE, ETC and WMB), including the following:

The price of ETE common units at the closing of the merger may vary from its price on the date the merger agreement was executed, on the date of this proxy statement/prospectus and on the date of the special meeting. As a result, the implied value of ETC common shares to be received as merger consideration will also vary. For example, based on the range of closing prices of ETE common units during the period from September 25, 2015, the last day of trading before public announcement of the merger agreement, through May 23, 2016, the latest practicable date before the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, the prorated mixed consideration of $8.00 and 1.5274 ETC common shares represented an implied value (based on the trading price of ETE common units) ranging from a low of $4.00 to a high of $24.88. In addition, the trading price of ETE common units substantially increased after the filing of the prior amendment to this proxy statement/prospectus. ETE believes that the increase in the trading price resulted, in part, from the disclosure in the proxy statement/prospectus relating to the increased likelihood that the merger will not be closed due to the advice of Latham to ETE to the effect that it would not be able to render the 721 Opinion were the opinion requested as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, which opinion is a condition to the closing of the merger. See “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus. If the closing of the merger becomes more certain, the trading price of ETE’s common units may decline materially and affect the implied value of ETC common shares to be received as merger consideration. A “when issued” trading market for the ETC common shares may also develop prior to the effective time and affect the value of the ETC common shares to be received as merger consideration.

Because the merger will be completed after the date of the special meeting, at the time of the special meeting, you will not know the exact market value of the ETC common shares that the WMB stockholders who receive the ETC common shares will receive upon completion of the merger.

If you properly make an election before the election deadline, you will not be able to transfer your shares of WMB common stock during the period between the Election Deadline and the consummation of the proposed merger and after the Election Deadline there may not be a liquid market for shares of WMB common stock.

WMB stockholders may elect to receive the mixed consideration, the stock consideration or the cash consideration by the Election Deadline. During the time between the Election Deadline and the consummation of the proposed merger, WMB stockholders will not be able to transfer (including by sale) their shares of WMB common stock for which a properly completed election form has been submitted. The merger agreement provides that the Election Deadline will occur on the earlier of (i) the 20th business day after the Mailing Date and (ii) 3 business days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger. As a result, such stockholders will not be able to transfer (including by sale) their shares of WMB common stock for which a properly completed election form has been submitted for the period between the earlier of (i) the 20th business day after the Mailing Date and (ii) 3 business days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger, and the completion of the merger. WMB stockholders who wish to retain the ability to transfer their shares of WMB common stock between the Election Deadline and the consummation of the proposed merger should not return the election form. However, by not returning an election form prior to the Election Deadline a WMB stockholder is giving up the choice to elect his preferred form of consideration and will instead receive either the share consideration, the cash consideration or the mixed consideration, subject to the proration and adjustment procedures, as provided for in the merger agreement. Furthermore, even if WMB stockholders do not return the election form, they may be unable to transfer (including by sale) all or some of their shares as all shares of WMB common stock for which an election has been validly made will no longer be transferable and as a result there may not be a trading market that will provide WMB stockholders with adequate liquidity to make the desired transfer.

The consideration to be received by WMB stockholders in the proposed merger is subject to proration to ensure that the aggregate number of ETC common shares and the aggregate amount of cash paid in the merger will be the same as if all shares of WMB common stock outstanding at the closing of the merger received the mixed consideration. See the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Proration” beginning on page 198. Accordingly, unless you elect to receive the mixed consideration, there is no assurance that you will receive the form of consideration that you elect with respect to all shares of WMB common stock you hold.

The merger is subject to the receipt of consents and approvals from governmental entities that may impose conditions that could have an adverse effect on ETC and ETE.

Before the merger may be completed, various waivers, approvals, clearances or consents must be obtained from the FTC, FERC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (the “Antitrust Division”) and other authorities in the United States and in Canada. These governmental entities may impose conditions on the completion of the merger or require changes to the terms of the merger. Such conditions or changes could have the effect of delaying completion of the merger or imposing additional costs on or limiting the revenues of ETC and ETE following the merger, any of which might have an adverse effect on ETC or ETE following the merger.

The merger agreement contains provisions that could discourage a potential competing acquirer of WMB or could result in any competing proposal being at a lower price than it might otherwise be.

The merger agreement contains provisions that, subject to certain exceptions, restrict WMB’s ability to solicit, encourage, facilitate or discuss competing third-party proposals to acquire all or a significant part of WMB. In addition, ETE generally has an opportunity to negotiate with WMB in response to any competing proposal that may be made before the WMB Board is permitted to withdraw or qualify its recommendation to WMB stockholders. In some circumstances, upon termination of the merger agreement, WMB may be required to pay to ETE a termination fee of $1.48 billion. See “The Merger Agreement—No Solicitation” beginning on page 206, “The Merger Agreement—Termination of the Merger Agreement” beginning on page 213 and “The Merger Agreement—Termination Fees and Expenses” beginning on page 214.

These provisions could discourage a potential competing acquirer that might have an interest in acquiring all or a significant part of WMB from considering or proposing that acquisition, even if it were prepared to pay consideration with a higher value than the consideration proposed to be received or realized in the merger, or might result in a potential competing acquirer proposing to pay a lower price than it might otherwise have proposed to pay because of the added expense of the termination fee that may become payable in certain circumstances.

ETC common shares received by WMB stockholders as consideration in the merger will have different rights from the shares of WMB common stock.

Upon completion of the merger, the rights of WMB stockholders receiving ETC common shares in the merger will be governed by ETC’s partnership agreement and the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (“DRULPA”). Certain of the rights associated with WMB common stock are different from the rights associated with ETC common shares in part due to the fact that WMB is a corporation and ETC is a partnership. See the section of this proxy statement/prospectus titled “Comparison of Rights of ETC Shareholders and WMB Stockholders” for a discussion of the different rights associated with ETC common shares.

The pendency of the merger could adversely affect the business and operations of WMB, WPZ and ETE.

In connection with the pending merger, some customers or vendors of each of WMB, WPZ and ETE may delay or defer decisions, which could negatively impact the revenues, earnings and cash flows of WMB, WPZ and ETE, regardless of whether the merger is completed. Similarly, current and prospective employees of WMB, WPZ and ETE may experience uncertainty about their future roles following the merger, which may materially adversely affect the ability of WMB, WPZ and ETE to attract and retain key personnel during the pendency of the merger. In addition, due to operating covenants in the merger agreement, each of WMB, WPZ and ETE may be unable, during the pendency of the merger, to pursue certain strategic transactions, undertake certain significant capital projects, undertake certain significant financing transactions and otherwise pursue other actions that are not in the ordinary course of business. Such risks relating to vendors, customers, employees and those risks arising from operating covenants in the merger agreement will also apply to varying degrees to subsidiaries and affiliates of WMB, WPZ and ETE and thereby have a corresponding impact on WMB, WPZ and ETE.

ETE entered into the merger agreement because it believed that the transaction would be beneficial to WMB and its stockholders, ETC and its shareholders and ETE and its unitholders for a number of reasons, including its identification of commercial synergies it expected would generate EBITDA in excess of $2 billion per year by 2020 and require over $5 billion of incremental capital investment to achieve. Since September 28, 2015, as part of ETE and WMB’s joint integration planning efforts, ETE and WMB have further analyzed commercial synergy opportunities, given industry conditions and the facts and circumstances described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus, and currently believe that the base case for EBITDA from commercial synergies that is reasonably probable to be achieved is $126 million per year by 2020. ETE and WMB also anticipate that the net capital savings to be incurred in connection with these commercial synergies would be approximately $220 million. The ongoing integration efforts to date suggest that a significant portion of the originally anticipated commercial synergies of the proposed combination are unlikely to be achieved, and the achievement of the anticipated benefits of the proposed combination with WMB will depend in part upon whether ETE can integrate the businesses of WMB in an effective and efficient manner. ETE may not be able to accomplish this integration process successfully. The integration of any business may be complex and time-consuming. The difficulties that could be encountered include the following:

In addition, there will be integration costs and non-recurring transaction costs associated with the proposed combination with WMB (such as fees paid to legal, financial, accounting and other advisors and other fees paid in connection with the merger), and such costs may be significant.

The likelihood that ETE will not realize the full extent of the benefits of the proposed combination with WMB originally anticipated by ETE, as well as any delays encountered in the integration process and the realization of such benefits, could have an adverse effect upon the revenues, level of expenses and operating results of ETE, which may adversely affect the value of ETE common units and, in turn, the value of ETC common shares after the completion of the merger.

The completion of the merger may result in ratings organizations and/or securities analysts taking actions that may adversely affect the business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of ETC, ETE and the ETE Entities, as well as the market price of ETC’s, ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ securities.

In connection with the completion of the merger, the sustained low commodity price environment and the other facts and circumstances described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus, ratings agencies may reevaluate ETE’s ratings. A downgrade may increase ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ cost of borrowing, may negatively impact ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ ability to raise additional debt capital, may negatively impact ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ ability to successfully compete, and may negatively impact the willingness of counterparties to deal with ETE and the ETE Entities, each of which could have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of ETC, ETE and the ETE Entities, as well as the market price of ETC’s, ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ securities.

In addition, the trading market for ETC securities will depend, as the trading market for ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ securities depends, in part on the research and reports that third-party securities analysts publish about ETC, ETE and the ETE Entities and the industry in which ETC participates. In connection with the completion of the merger, one or more of these analysts could downgrade ETC’s, ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ securities or issue other negative commentary about ETC, ETE and the ETE Entities and the industry in which ETC participates, which could cause the trading price of such securities to decline.

As of December 31, 2015, ETE had approximately $7 billion of debt on a stand-alone basis and approximately $36.97 billion of consolidated debt, excluding the debt of its joint ventures. In addition, in connection with the merger, ETE expects to incur an additional $6.05 billion of debt to fund the cash consideration for the transaction and to assume approximately $4.2 billion of debt outstanding under WMB’s senior notes. In light of the decline in energy commodity prices and ETE’s current leverage and credit profile, there is a risk that the incurrence of such additional debt could adversely affect ETE’s credit ratings. Any downgrade in ETE’s credit ratings following the transaction could adversely affect the investment grade credit ratings of ETP, SXL and WPZ, and the credit rating of Sunoco. ETP and WPZ currently maintain investment grade ratings by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. However, those current ratings may not remain in effect for any given period of time and a rating may be lowered or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstances in the future so warrant. If Moody’s, S&P or Fitch were to downgrade the long-term rating of any of the ETE Entities, particularly below investment grade, ETE’s consolidated borrowing costs could significantly increase, which would adversely affect ETE’s consolidated financial results, and the terms of ETE’s credit

agreements could become significantly more restrictive. The potential pool of investors and funding sources could also decrease. Further, due to the relationship between ETE and the ETE Entities, any downgrade of ETE’s credit ratings could also result in a downgrade in one or more of the ETE Entities’ credit ratings. ETE’s ability to refinance the $6.05 billion of debt expected to be incurred in connection with the merger or its $1.5 billion senior secured revolving credit facility, which matures in December 2018, on commercially reasonable terms or at all may also be materially impacted if ETE’s access to capital markets becomes limited due to a credit ratings downgrade or other disruptions.

In addition, WMB has commenced litigation seeking, among other things, to unwind the private offering of Convertible Units. While ETE believes WMB’s claims are without merit, ETE believes that if WMB is successful in unwinding the Convertible Units offering, it could have a negative impact on ETE’s efforts to maintain its ratings with Moody’s, S&P or Fitch.

Additionally, the merger, if followed by a decrease in the rating of WPZ’s outstanding 6.125% Senior Notes due 2022, 4.875% Senior Notes due 2023 and 4.875% Senior Notes due 2024 (collectively, the “Applicable WPZ Notes”) by either Moody’s or S&P within ninety days of the closing date, will result in a change of control as defined in the indentures governing the Applicable WPZ Notes (the “Applicable WPZ Notes Indentures”). ETC can provide no assurance that a downgrade will not occur. The occurrence of a change of control under the Applicable WPZ Notes Indentures will trigger an obligation for WPZ to offer to purchase all or any part of each series of Applicable WPZ Notes at a purchase price equal to 101% of the principal amount of each series of Applicable WPZ Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon to the date of repurchase. The aggregate principal amount of the Applicable WPZ Notes is $2.9 billion. If WPZ is required to repurchase some or all of the Applicable WPZ Notes, its ability to do so would be subject to the same risk factors associated with financing its business. Please see “Risks Related to the Businesses of ETE and the ETE Entities—The ETE Entities are exposed to the credit risk of their respective customers, and an increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by their respective customers could have a material adverse impact on the financial condition and results of operations of the ETE Entities and could reduce their respective ability to make distributions to their unitholders, including to ETE.”

ETE and WMB do not agree on whether ETE’s offering of the Convertible Units without WMB’s consent was a violation of the merger agreement, and WMB has filed lawsuits against ETE, LE GP and Kelcy L. Warren in relation thereto.

The merger agreement requires ETE and WMB to obtain the other party’s consent to take certain actions prior to the closing of the merger. ETE believes that the terms of the merger agreement permitted ETE to provide the opportunity to participate in the Plan to all of its common unitholders. In order to offer participation in the Plan to all of its common unitholders, ETE would have been required to file a registration statement with the SEC relating to the public offering of the Convertible Units. Such a filing would require the consent of WMB’s independent registered accounting firm to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of its report on WMB’s audited financial statements. However, after ETE advised WMB of ETE’s intention to pursue a public offering of the Convertible Units pursuant to the Plan, WMB declined to allow its independent registered accounting firm to provide the auditor consent required to be included in a registration statement for a public offering. WMB also advised ETE that WMB believed its consent was required under the merger agreement for the public offering and declined to consent. As a result, ETE determined to conduct a private offering to certain accredited investors that was not subject to the SEC rules requiring the consent of WMB’s independent registered accounting firm. ETE believes that both the proposed public offering and the completed private offering are permitted by the terms of the merger agreement and as a result did not request WMB’s consent to pursue the private offering.

WMB has reviewed the terms of the Plan and the Convertible Units and ETE’s description of the Plan and the Convertible Units and believes that the Convertible Units offering required WMB’s consent under the merger agreement and that by proceeding without WMB’s consent, ETE violated the merger agreement. WMB has filed

a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for breach of the merger agreement seeking, among other things, to unwind the private offering of Convertible Units. WMB has also filed a lawsuit against Mr. Warren, in his capacity as the largest ETE unitholder, in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, for tortious interference with the merger agreement in connection with the Convertible Units offering, seeking damages, among other things. WMB claims that Mr. Warren induced ETE to undertake the Convertible Units offering.

WMB believes that these lawsuits are an enforcement of its rights under the merger agreement and that these lawsuits are necessary to deliver to WMB stockholders the benefits of the merger agreement. ETE believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend its actions. At this preliminary stage, there is no way to predict the outcome of these lawsuits. In addition, the lawsuits could, among other things, adversely affect the business and results of operation, as well as the liquidity, of ETE and the ETE Entities and impact the trading price of ETE common units or shares of WMB common stock.

Litigation commenced by WMB against ETE, LE GP and Mr. Warren could cause ETE to incur substantial costs, may present material distractions and, if decided adverse to ETE, could negatively impact ETE’s financial position and credit ratings.

On April 6, 2016, WMB filed a complaint against ETE and LE GP in the Delaware Court of Chancery and a petition against Mr. Warren in the district court of Dallas, Texas, relating to the Convertible Units offering. Among other remedies, WMB seeks to unwind the Convertible Units offering. On May 3, 2016, ETE and LE GP filed an answer and counterclaim to WMB’s complaint. On May 13, 2016, WMB filed a lawsuit against ETE in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the 721 Opinion and Outside Date. Among other remedies, WMB seeks to prevent ETE from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under merger agreement due to any failure of Latham to deliver the 721 Opinion or any failure to close the transaction by the Outside Date. These lawsuits could result in substantial costs to ETE, including litigation costs and settlement costs. ETE believes that the time required by the management of ETE and its counsel to defend against the allegations made by WMB in the litigation against ETE and Mr. Warren is likely to be substantial and the time required by Mr. Warren and other officers and employees of LE GP, assuming WMB actively pursues such litigation, is also likely to be substantial. ETE believes that the time spent dealing with this litigation will reduce the time that could be spent dealing with the operational challenges facing ETE as well as the issues presented by the merger. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved may result in negative media attention, and may adversely affect ETE’s business, reputation, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and market price. In addition, since ETE states that it undertook the Convertible Units offering in an effort to maintain its current credit ratings with Moody’s, S&P and Fitch, if the Convertible Units offering is unwound, ETE’s financial position and credit ratings could be negatively impacted. Immediately after the closing of the merger, the actions against ETE, LE GP and Mr. Warren would be contributed from ETC to ETE as part of the WMB Contribution. Accordingly, after closing, ETE will have the right to determine whether to proceed with such actions based on the best interests of the ETE unitholders and the ETC shareholders at such time.

Directors and executive officers of WMB have financial interests in the merger that may be different from, or in addition to, the interests of the WMB stockholders.

For information concerning these interests, see the discussion in the section of this proxy statement/prospectus titled “The Merger—Interests of Directors and Executive Officers of WMB in the Merger.”

The unaudited pro forma financial statements included in this document are presented for illustrative purposes only and may not be an indication of ETC’s or ETE’s actual financial condition or results of operations following the merger.

The unaudited pro forma financial statements contained in this document are presented for illustrative purposes only, are based on various adjustments, assumptions and preliminary estimates, and may not be an indication of ETC’s or ETE’s actual financial condition or results of operations following the merger for several reasons. See “Selected Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Financial Information.” The actual financial condition and results of operations of ETC and ETE following the merger may not be consistent with, or evident from, these pro forma financial statements, and in this regard the pro forma financial statements should be read in conjunction with the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus, which includes a description of facts and circumstances occurring subsequent to the date the parties executed the merger agreement. In addition, the assumptions used in preparing the pro forma financial information may not prove to be accurate, and other factors may affect ETE’s or ETC’s actual financial condition or results of operations following the merger. Any potential decline in ETC’s financial condition or results of operations may cause significant variations in the price of ETC common shares after completion of the merger.

Your right, as an ETC shareholder, to receive any future payment on the CCRs will be dependent upon the volume-weighted average price of ETC common shares and ETE common units for the 23-month period following one month after the closing of the merger, as specified in the CCR agreement. In the event that the daily volume-weighted average trading price of ETC common shares for the 23-month period following one month after the closing of the merger is greater than the daily volume-weighted average trading price of ETE common units for such period, no payment will be made to ETC holders in respect of the CCRs and the CCRs will expire valueless. In addition, the CCRs will be automatically cancelled if: (i) the daily dollar volume-weighted average price for ETC common shares is greater than the daily dollar volume-weighted average price for ETE common units for twenty consecutive trading days and (ii) the average daily dollar volume-weighted average price for ETC common shares for such twenty trading day period is equal to or greater than the average daily dollar volume-weighted average price for ETE common units for such twenty trading day period. Accordingly, the value, if any, of the CCRs is speculative, and the CCRs may ultimately have no value. See “CCR Agreement.”

You will not be able to determine the payments to be received under the CCRs until at least two years following the closing of the merger and you will be unable to elect whether to receive such payment in additional ETC common shares or in cash.

If any payment is made on the CCRs, the amount of such payment will not be calculated until five trading days after the second anniversary of the closing of the merger and will not be paid until at least five business days following such determination. In addition, ETE will be entitled to make, at any time prior to the settlement of the CCRs, the determination to make any payment due under the CCR in either cash or ETC common shares.

The CCRs are stapled to the ETC common shares and cannot be transferred without a transfer of the ETC common shares to which they are attached.

The CCRs are stapled to the ETC common shares and are not separable and therefore a CCR cannot be transferred other than in connection with a transfer of the ETC common shares to which they are attached. As such, there will not be a traded market for the CCRs and the CCRs will not have a value separate and apart from the ETC common shares to which they are attached. Additionally, the potential for a payment of cash or additional ETC common shares upon the expiration of the CCRs at the end of the two-year period following the closing of the merger may artificially inflate the value of the ETC shares prior to the expiration of the CCRs, which may result in a reduced payment, or no payment, under the CCRs upon expiration since the determination of whether a payment will be made on the CCRs is dependent upon the trading price of the ETC common shares in relation to the trading price of the ETE common units during this two year period.

ETC’s ownership in ETE may be diminished if ETC common shares trade at a premium to ETE common units.

In the event that the daily volume-weighted average trading price of ETC common shares for the 23-month period following one month after the closing of the merger is greater than the daily volume-weighted average trading price of ETE common units for such period, ETE will cancel a number of ETE Class E units held by ETC based on the amount of such difference and as set forth in the CCR agreement. See “CCR Agreement.” Such a transfer will have the effect of reducing ETC’s ownership interest in ETE and, consequently, the amount of cash distributions received in respect of ETC’s ownership of ETE Class E units. This will limit the cash ETC will have available to make distributions on the ETC common shares and will reduce the indirect ownership interest of former WMB stockholders in ETE from the amount such holders held immediately following the merger.

ETC’s cash flow, and therefore its ability to make distributions to ETC shareholders, depends primarily upon ETE’s ability to make cash distributions to ETC, which in turn depends primarily on the cash distributions ETE receives from the ETE Entities, cash flows ETE receives from its LNG business, the consolidated debt level and debt agreements of ETE, ETC, the ETE Entities and their respective subsidiaries and the expenses ETE otherwise incurs. The ETE Entities’ ability to make distributions to ETE is in turn affected by the cash generated by the ETE Entities’ businesses.

At closing, the source of ETC’s earnings and cash flow will consist primarily of cash distributions ETE makes on the ETE Class E units. ETE will only make cash distributions on its units if it has sufficient cash flow.

ETE’s cash flow primarily consists of cash distributions from ETP, SXL and Sunoco and cash flows from its LNG business. The amount of cash that the ETE Entities will be able to distribute each quarter to their respective partners, including ETE, principally depends upon the amount of cash they generate from their respective businesses, which will fluctuate from quarter to quarter and will depend upon, among other things:

For a further description of certain factors that can cause fluctuations in the amount of cash that the ETE Entities generate from their respective businesses, please read “—Risks Related to the Businesses of ETE and the ETE Entities” and “Additional Information About ETC—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” A material increase in amounts paid or reserved by an ETE Entity with respect to any of the aforementioned factors could restrict its cash flow, causing such ETE Entity to have

insufficient available cash each quarter to continue paying distributions to ETE at their current or any higher levels or at all. If any of ETP, SXL or Sunoco reduces its per unit distribution, either because of reduced operating cash flow, higher expenses, capital requirements or otherwise, this will reduce ETE’s cash flow and its ability to pay distributions on the ETE Class E units. As a result, ETC will have less cash available for distributions to ETC shareholders and would likely reduce its per share distribution to ETC shareholders. Additionally, the amount of cash ETE and the ETE Entities have available for distribution depends primarily upon their respective cash flows and is not solely a function of profitability, which will be affected by non-cash items. As a result, ETE and the ETE Entities may make cash distributions during periods when they record losses and may not make cash distributions during periods when they record profits.

The ETE Entities’ ability to make distributions to ETE, and ETE’s resulting cash flow, will also depend on their respective levels of indebtedness, which affect their respective operations in several ways, including, among other things:

As set forth in “Summary—Recent Developments—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC,” ETE management expects that all of the cash distributions that it receives from ETP, WPZ, SXL and SUN following the closing of the merger through mid-2018, after taking into account the waivers of incentive distributions assumed to be agreed to by ETE as described therein, will be used to make cash distributions on the Convertible Units and to repay a portion of the indebtedness incurred by ETE in connection with the merger. As a result, ETE does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units and Class E Units prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018 and, consequently, ETC does not expect that it will be able to make any cash distributions with respect to its common shares until such time.

Starting in 2019, the distributions ETC shareholders receive on their ETC common shares may be lower than the distribution ETE common unitholders receive on their ETE common units.

Upon the completion of the dividend equalization period, ETE’s obligation to make additional cash distributions to ETC or to specifically allocate depreciation or other forms of cost recovery to ETC sufficient to maintain cash distributions on ETC common shares equal to cash distributions on ETE common units will end. Following the completion of the dividend equalization period, the ETE Class E units will receive the same quarterly cash distribution per unit as the quarterly cash distribution per ETE common unit, but the resulting quarterly distribution that ETC makes may be lower than the corresponding quarterly distribution on ETE common units due to federal and state income tax liabilities incurred by ETC resulting from its election to be taxed as a corporation. As discussed in “Summary—Recent Developments—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC,” following the closing of the merger, ETE does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units or ETE Class E Units prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018. If ETE does not make a cash distribution on its ETE Class E Units until such time, then ETC will not have any cash available for distribution on its common shares.

There is no requirement that the ratio of ETC common shares to ETE Class E units remain one-to-one, allowing for an increase in the number of ETC common shares and a dilution of the distributions received per ETC common share.

There is no requirement for ETC or ETE to preserve the one-to-one ratio of outstanding ETC common shares to ETE Class E units held by ETC that will exist at the effective time. Because the distributions on ETE Class E units will fund the distributions on ETC common shares, an increase in the number of ETC common shares will dilute the distributions received per ETC common share from these ETE Class E unit distributions if the number of ETE Class E units held by ETC is not proportionately increased.

The incentive distributions (including distributions with respect to the ETP Class H units) that ETE is entitled to receive may be limited or modified without the consent of the ETC shareholders.

Upon the completion of the merger transactions, ETC will own ETE Class E units, representing a 57% limited partner interest in ETE based on the number of ETE common units outstanding as of December 31, 2015 (and excluding any interest attributable to the Convertible Units issued by ETE in March 2016) and the number of ETE Class E units expected to be issued in the WMB Contribution. ETE indirectly owns all of the IDRs of ETP and Sunoco. Additionally, through its ownership of ETP Class H units and a 0.1% interest in SXL GP, ETE is entitled to receive 90.15% of the cash distributions related to the IDRs of SXL, while ETP is entitled to receive the remaining 9.85% of such cash distributions. The IDRs entitle the holder to receive increasing percentages (up to a maximum of 48%, with respect to ETP and SXL, and up to 50%, with respect to Sunoco, in each case to the extent not modified) of any cash distributed by (i) ETP in excess of $0.275 per ETP unit in any quarter, (ii) SXL in excess of $0.0833 per SXL unit and (iii) Sunoco in excess of $0.503125 per Sunoco unit. Please read “Additional Information About ETC—Cash Distribution Policy and Restrictions on Distributions.”

ETP, SXL and Sunoco, like other publicly traded partnerships, will generally only undertake an acquisition or expansion capital project if, after giving effect to related costs and expenses, the transaction would be expected to be accretive, meaning it would increase cash distributions per unit in future periods. Because ETE currently participates in the IDRs at the highest cash sharing level of 48% and 50% with respect to ETP and Sunoco, respectively, and ETE and ETP currently participate in the IDRs at the highest cash sharing level of 48% with respect to SXL, to the extent not modified, it may be more difficult for an acquisition or capital project to be accretive to the common unitholders of ETP, SXL and Sunoco, respectively, than if the IDRs received less incremental cash flow. ETC therefore expects that ETE may determine, in certain cases, to propose a reduction to the IDRs of ETP and Sunoco to facilitate a particular acquisition or expansion capital project of ETP or Sunoco, as the case may be, and that ETP may determine, in certain cases, to propose a reduction to the IDRs of SXL to facilitate a particular acquisition or expansion project of SXL. Any such reduction of IDRs will reduce the amount of cash that would have otherwise been distributed by ETE to its unitholders, including ETC, which will

in turn reduce the cash distributions ETC would otherwise be able to pay its shareholders. Similarly, in certain circumstances, ETE may determine, in certain cases, to propose a reduction in the IDRs of ETP or Sunoco, or ETP may propose a reduction in the IDRs of SXL, to permit ETP, Sunoco or SXL, as applicable, to pay a relatively higher proportion of its distributions to holders of ETP or Sunoco common units, as applicable, in order to conserve cash in a manner that minimizes the risk of a decrease in trading prices of those units that would result in an increased cost of capital to ETP or Sunoco, as applicable. Please read “Additional Information About ETC—Cash Distribution Policy and Restrictions on Distributions—General—The IDRs that ETE and ETP Own May Be Limited or Modified Without Your Consent” for a discussion of historical and ongoing IDR reductions. ETC shareholders will not be able to vote on, or otherwise prohibit ETE or ETP from taking, similar actions in the future, and ETE or ETP may elect to modify the ETP, SXL or Sunoco incentive distributions, as the case may be, without considering the interests of the ETC shareholders. In addition, there can be no guarantee that the expected benefits of any IDR modification will be realized.

A reduction in the ETE Entities’ distributions will disproportionately affect the amount of cash distributions to which ETE is entitled and, consequently, the amount of cash distributions to which ETC is entitled.

ETE indirectly owns all of the IDRs of ETP and Sunoco. Additionally, through its ownership of ETP Class H units and a 0.1% interest in SXL GP, ETE is entitled to receive 90.15% of the cash distributions related to the IDRs of SXL, while ETP is entitled to receive the remaining 9.85% of such cash distributions. These IDRs entitle the holder to receive increasing percentages of total cash distributions made by each ETE Entity as such ETE Entity reaches established target cash distribution levels as specified in its partnership agreement. ETE currently receives its pro rata share of cash distributions from ETP and Sunoco based on the highest sharing level of 48% and 50% in respect of the ETP IDRs and Sunoco IDRs, respectively. ETE and ETP currently receive their pro rata share of cash distributions from SXL based on the highest sharing level of 48% in respect of the SXL IDRs.

A decrease in the amount of distributions by ETP to ETE to less than $0.4125 per unit per quarter would reduce ETE’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions from ETP above $0.3175 per unit per quarter from 48% to 23%, and a decrease in the amount of distributions by Sunoco to ETE to less than $0.6563 per unit per quarter would reduce ETE’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions from Sunoco above $0.5469 per unit per quarter from 50% to 25%. Likewise, a decrease in the amount of distributions from SXL to less than $0.2638 per unit per quarter would reduce the percentage of the incremental cash distributions received by ETE and ETP from SXL above $0.0958 per unit per quarter from 48% to 35%. As a result, any such reduction in quarterly cash distributions from the ETE Entities would have the effect of disproportionately reducing the amount of all distributions that ETE and ETP receive, based on their ownership interest in the IDRs as compared to cash distributions they receive from their general partner interest and common units in such ETE Entity, which in turn, would impact the amount of distributions ETC receives from ETE.

If distributions on the ETC common shares are not paid with respect to any fiscal quarter, the ETC common shareholders will not be entitled to receive that quarter’s payments in the future.

Like ETE’s common units, ETC’s distributions to its shareholders will not be cumulative. Consequently, if distributions on the ETC common shares are not paid with respect to any fiscal quarter, ETC shareholders will not be entitled to receive any additional cash distributions in future quarters to compensate for any such cash distribution shortfall in any prior quarter. As discussed in “Summary—Recent Developments—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC,” following the closing of the merger, ETE does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units or ETE Class E Units prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018. If ETE does not make a cash distribution on its ETE Class E Units until such time, then ETC will not have any cash available for distribution on its common shares.

The amount of cash that ETC, ETE and the ETE Entities distribute each quarter may limit ETC’s ability to grow and is subject to change.

Because ETC’s cash flow will initially be generated primarily from distributions it receives from ETE, which are primarily derived from ETE’s direct and indirect equity interests in the ETE Entities, ETC’s growth will initially be completely dependent upon ETE and the ETE Entities. The amount of distributions received by ETE is based on the per unit distribution paid on each unit of the ETE Entities and the number of common units outstanding of the ETE Entities. Please read “Additional Information About ETE—Cash Distribution Policy of ETE and the ETE Entities” and “—Risks Related to the Businesses of ETE and the ETE Entities.”

If ETC issues additional common shares or if ETC were to incur debt or be required to pay taxes, the payment of distributions on those additional common shares or interest on that debt or payment of such taxes could decrease the per share distribution amount on the ETC common shares.

No trading market currently exists for ETC common shares, the price of ETC common shares may be volatile, and a trading market that will provide ETC shareholders with adequate liquidity may not develop.

Unless a “when issued” trading market develops, prior to completion of the merger, there will have been no market for ETC common shares. After the completion of the merger transactions, the ETC common shares are expected to be listed for trading on the NYSE. However, there can be no assurance that an active market for ETC common shares will develop after the closing of the merger transactions, or that if it develops, the market will be sustained. If an active trading market does not develop, the lack of liquidity may result in wide bid-ask spreads, contribute to significant fluctuations in the market price of ETC common shares and limit the number of investors who are able to buy ETC common shares.

Further, there can be no assurance of the price at which ETC common shares will trade. Although it is expected that trading prices of ETC common shares and ETE common units will be correlated since, following the completion of the merger transactions, ETC’s primary asset and source of cash flow will initially be the ETE Class E units it owns, due to a variety of factors (many of which are out of the control of ETE and ETC), ETC common shares could trade at a discount to ETE common units. You may not be able to resell your ETC common shares at or above the trading price at which your shares of WMB common stock traded immediately prior to the merger. The following factors, among others, could affect the ETC common share price:

The market price of ETC common shares after the merger may be affected by factors different from those currently affecting the shares of WMB common stock or the ETE common units.

The businesses of WMB and ETE differ and, accordingly, the results of operations of ETE after the acquisition of WMB and the market price of ETC common shares and ETE common units after the merger may be affected by factors that differ from those currently affecting the independent results of operations of WMB and ETE and the share/unit prices of WMB and ETE common stock/units. For a discussion of the businesses of WMB, ETC and ETE and of certain factors to consider in connection with those businesses, see “Additional Information About ETC” and “Additional Information About ETE” and the documents incorporated by reference in this document regarding WMB referred to under “Where You Can Find More Information.”

ETC shareholders will have limited voting rights on matters affecting ETC’s business and will not be entitled to elect or remove ETC’s general partner or the general partner’s directors. Further, ETC shareholders will not be entitled to direct the manner in which ETC votes the ETE Class E units held by ETC and, therefore, will not have any voting rights with respect to ETE’s business through their ownership of ETC.

ETC’s shareholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting ETC’s business, and therefore limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding its business. ETC’s shareholders did not elect ETC GP as the general partner and will have no right to elect ETC’s general partner or the general partner’s directors on an annual or other continuing basis. The members of the ETC GP Board, including the independent directors, are chosen by the Existing GP Owner, the indirect owner of ETC GP. Even if ETC shareholders are dissatisfied with the performance of ETC GP, they will not be able to remove ETC GP as the general partner of ETC. ETC GP may only be removed by the Existing GP Owner, and the election of any successor general partner will be made by the Existing GP Owner. ETC’s shareholders’ voting rights are further restricted by ETC’s partnership agreement provision providing that any shares held by a person that owns 10% or more of any class of shares then outstanding, other than ETC GP and its affiliates, cannot be voted on any matter. Please see “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Limited Voting Rights” for additional information regarding the limited voting rights held by the ETC common shares.

In addition, the ETC shareholders will not be entitled to direct the manner in which ETC votes the ETE Class E units. When ETE’s partnership agreement provides the ETE Class E units with a vote for the removal of ETE GP as the general partner of ETE, the Existing GP Owner will direct the voting of the ETE Class E units. In all other cases where the ETE Class E units have a voting right under ETE’s partnership agreement, the ETC conflicts committee will direct ETC’s voting of the ETE Class E units. Accordingly, ETC’s shareholders will not have any voting rights with respect to ETE’s business through their ownership of ETC. Please see “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Voting the ETE Class E Units” for information on who controls the voting of the ETE Class E units owned by ETC.

The ETC GP Board’s authority to manage and control ETC is restricted by approval rights retained by the Existing GP Owner over certain matters.

The Existing GP Owner retains approval rights with respect to certain ETC matters, including the filing of any bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization petitions by ETC. The Existing GP Owner also retains approval rights with respect to ETC declaring any material extraordinary distribution on the common shares, selling substantially all of its assets or engaging in mergers or combinations with other entities. These matters cannot therefore be approved solely by a majority vote of the ETC GP Board or the ETC shareholders. As a result, these approval rights may prevent ETC from engaging in certain matters that the ETC GP Board or the shareholders believe to be in the best interest of ETC and its shareholders. Please see “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—The Existing GP Owner’s Approval Rights” for additional information regarding the Existing GP Owner’s approval rights.

ETC GP may cause ETC to issue additional common shares or other equity securities, including equity securities that are senior to ETC common shares, in each case without ETC shareholder approval, which may adversely affect ETC shareholders.

ETC GP may cause ETC to issue an unlimited number of additional common shares or other equity securities of equal rank with the common shares. ETC GP may also approve the grant of unit awards under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan with respect to up 171.6 million ETC common shares to officers, directors and eligible service providers of ETC and its affiliates. Shortly following the consummation of the merger, ETC expects to grant awards to officers, directors and eligible service providers of ETC and its affiliates under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan covering approximately 10% of the outstanding ETC common shares at the consummation of the merger. ETC may also issue an unlimited number of shares that are senior to ETC common shares in right of distribution, liquidation and voting. Similarly, ETE GP may cause ETE to issue additional equity securities. Any such issuance of equity securities by ETC or ETE can be made without ETC shareholder approval and will have the following effects:

Please read “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Issuance of Additional Securities.”

ETC’s shareholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that shareholder actions constitute control of ETC’s business.

A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for those contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to the general partner. An ETC shareholder could be liable for any and all of ETC’s obligations as if such shareholder were a general partner if a court or government agency determined that ETC was conducting business in a state but had not complied with that particular state’s partnership statute or such shareholder’s right to act with other shareholders to approve some amendments to the ETC partnership agreement or to take other actions under the ETC partnership agreement constitute “control” of ETC’s business.

For a discussion of the implications of the limitations of liability on an ETC shareholder, please read “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Limited Liability.”

Under certain circumstances, ETC shareholders may have to repay ETC amounts wrongfully distributed to them. Under Delaware law, ETC may not make a distribution to ETC shareholders if the distribution causes ETC’s liabilities to exceed the fair value of its 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.

The control of ETC GP may be transferred to a third party without ETC shareholder consent.

ETC GP may transfer its general partner interest to a third party without the consent of the ETC shareholders. Furthermore, the Existing GP Owner may transfer all or part of his ownership interest in ETC GP to a third party without the consent of the ETC shareholders. Subject to certain appointment rights relating to members of the board serving on the conflicts committee of the ETC GP Board, any new owner or owners of ETC GP would be in a position to replace the directors and officers of ETC GP with its own choices and to control the decisions made and actions taken by the ETC GP Board and officers.

ETC common shares and ETE common units may not trade in relation or proportion to one another.

ETC common shares and ETE common units may not trade in relation or proportion to one another. The trading prices may diverge because, among other things:

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

As interest rates rise, the ability of investors to obtain higher risk adjusted rates of return by purchasing government-backed debt securities may cause a corresponding decline in demand for riskier investments generally, including yield-based equity investments such as publicly traded limited partner interests. Reduced demand for ETC common shares resulting from investors seeking other more favorable investment opportunities may cause the trading price of ETC common shares to decline.

Future sales of ETC common shares in the public market could reduce the price of ETC common shares.

ETC may issue an unlimited number of additional common shares or convertible securities in subsequent public or private offerings. The size of future issuances of ETC common shares or securities convertible into common shares or the effect, if any, that future issuances and sales of ETC common shares will have on the market price of ETC common shares is uncertain. Issuances of substantial amounts of ETC common shares (including shares issued in connection with an acquisition), or the perception that such issuances could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices of ETC common shares.

If ETC fails to develop or maintain an effective system of internal controls, ETC’s ability to accurately report its financial results or prevent fraud could be adversely affected. As a result, ETC’s shareholders and other market participants could lose confidence in ETC’s financial reporting, which would harm its business and the trading price of its common shares.

Effective internal controls are necessary for ETC to provide reliable financial reports, prevent fraud and operate successfully as a publicly traded partnership. ETC is not currently required to comply with the SEC’s rules implementing Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is therefore not required to make a formal assessment of the effectiveness of ETC’s internal control over financial reporting for that purpose. Upon becoming a publicly traded company, ETC will be required to comply with the SEC’s rules implementing Sections 302 and 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which will require ETC’s management to certify financial and other information in ETC’s quarterly and annual reports and provide an annual management report on the effectiveness of ETC’s internal control over financial reporting. Though ETC will be required to disclose material changes made to its internal controls and procedures on a quarterly basis, ETC will not be required to make its first annual assessment of its internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 until the

year following its first annual report required to be filed with the SEC. To comply with the requirements of being a publicly traded company, ETC will need to implement additional internal controls, reporting systems and procedures. If ETC cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, ETC’s reputation and operating results will be harmed. ETC cannot be certain that its efforts to develop and maintain its internal controls will be successful. Any failure to develop or maintain effective internal controls, or difficulties encountered in implementing or improving ETC’s internal controls, could harm its operating results or cause it to fail to meet its reporting obligations. Ineffective internal controls could also cause investors and other market participants who are potential investors to lose confidence in ETC’s reported financial information, which would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of its common shares.

The NYSE does not require a limited partnership like ETC to comply with certain of its corporate governance requirements.

Because ETC is a limited partnership, the NYSE does not require ETC GP to have a majority of independent directors on its board of directors or to establish a compensation committee or a nominating and corporate governance committee. Accordingly, ETC’s shareholders will not have the same protections afforded to certain corporations that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements. In addition, as a limited partnership, while ETC is required to obtain shareholder approval of equity compensation plans, ETC is not required to seek shareholder approval for issuances of common shares, including issuances in excess of 20% of ETC’s outstanding equity securities, or for issuances of equity to certain affiliates.

Under Delaware law, a general partner of a limited partnership is generally liable for the debts and liabilities of the partnership for which it serves as general partner, subject to the terms of any indemnification agreements contained in the partnership agreement and except to the extent the partnership’s contracts are non-recourse to the general partner. ETC controls ETE GP, which will be the general partner of ETE following the completion of the merger transactions. To the extent the indemnification provisions in ETE’s partnership agreement or non-recourse provisions in ETE’s contracts are not sufficient to protect ETE GP from such liability, ETC may in the future incur liabilities as a result of its ownership interest and control of ETE GP. Please read “Additional Information About ETC—Conflicts of Interest and Fiduciary Duties.”

ETC’s partnership agreement will designate the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by ETC’s shareholders, which would limit its shareholders’ ability to choose the judicial forum for disputes with ETC or its general partner’s directors, officers or other employees.

ETC’s partnership agreement will provide that, with certain limited exceptions, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for any claims, suits, actions or proceedings (1) arising out of or relating in any way to ETC’s partnership agreement (including any claims, suits or actions to interpret, apply or enforce the provisions of ETC’s partnership agreement or the duties, obligations or liabilities among shareholders or of shareholders to us, or the rights or powers of, or restrictions on, the shareholders or ETC), (2) brought in a derivative manner on ETC’s behalf, (3) asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of ETC or ETC’s general partner, or owed by ETC’s general partner to ETC or its shareholders, (4) asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DRULPA, or (5) asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. By receiving a common share as merger consideration, a shareholder is irrevocably consenting to these limitations and provisions regarding claims, suits, actions or proceedings and submitting to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or such other court) in connection with any such claims, suits, actions or proceedings. This provision may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against ETC and ETC’s general partner’s directors and officers. For additional information about the exclusive forum provision of ETC’s partnership agreement, please read “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Applicable Law; Forum, Venue and Jurisdiction.”

ETC’s existing organizational structure and the relationships among it, ETE, the ETE Entities, the respective general partners and affiliated entities present the potential for conflicts of interest. Moreover, additional conflicts of interest may arise in the future among ETC and the entities affiliated with any general partner or similar interests ETC acquires or among ETE, the ETE Entities and such entities. For a further discussion of conflicts of interest that may arise, please read “Additional Information About ETC—Conflicts of Interest and Fiduciary Duties.”

Conflicts of interest may arise as a result of ETC’s organizational structure and the relationships among ETC, ETE, the ETE Entities, the respective general partners and affiliated entities.

ETC’s partnership agreement defines the duties of ETC GP (and, by extension, its officers and directors). The ETC GP Board or its conflicts committee will have authority on ETC’s behalf to resolve any conflict involving ETC and they have broad latitude to consider the interests of all parties to the conflict.

Conflicts of interest may arise between ETC and its shareholders, on the one hand, and ETC GP and its owners and affiliated entities, on the other hand, or between ETC and its shareholders, on the one hand, and ETE, the ETE Entities and their respective unitholders, on the other hand. The ETC GP Board may approve such conflicted matters without seeking approval of such resolution or course of action from its conflicts committee or from the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares. If the ETC GP Board elects not to submit a conflicted transaction to the ETC conflicts committee for approval, it will be presumed to have acted in good faith in connection with approving such transaction and the ETC shareholders will bear the burden of overcoming such presumption. For a description of circumstances in which conflicts could arise and methods of resolving conflicts of interest under ETC’s partnership agreement, please read “Additional Information About ETC—Conflicts of Interest and Fiduciary Duties.”

ETC’s partnership agreement defines ETC GP’s duties to ETC and contains provisions that reduce the remedies available to ETC’s shareholders for actions that might otherwise be challenged as breaches of fiduciary or other duties under state law.

ETC’s partnership agreement contains provisions that substantially reduce the standards to which ETC GP would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, ETC’s partnership agreement:

Please read “Additional Information About ETC—Conflicts of Interest and Fiduciary Duties.”

ETC’s partnership agreement provides that ETC GP will be restricted from engaging in any business activities other than acting as ETC’s general partner, those activities incidental to its ownership of interests in ETC and certain additional activities enumerated in the ETC partnership agreement. The restrictions contained in ETC GP’s limited liability company agreement are subject to a number of exceptions. Affiliates of ETC GP, ETE and the ETE Entities will not be prohibited from engaging in other businesses or activities that might be in direct competition with ETC except to the extent they compete using ETC’s confidential information. For additional information regarding these agreements, please read “Additional Information About ETC—Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions.”

ETC GP has a call right that may require ETC shareholders to sell their common shares at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time more than 90% of ETC’s outstanding common shares are owned by ETC GP and its affiliates, ETC GP will have the right (which it may assign to any of its affiliates or ETC), but not the obligation, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the remaining ETC common shares held by public shareholders at a price equal to the greater of (x) the current market price of such shares as of the date three days before notice of exercise of the call right is first mailed and (y) the highest price paid by ETC GP or its affiliates for such shares during the 90-day period preceding the date such notice is first mailed. As a result, ETC shareholders may be required to sell their common shares at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return of or on their investment. ETC shareholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their common shares. For additional information about the call right, please read “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Call Right.”

Since ETC’s cash flows will consist exclusively of distributions from ETE and ETE’s cash flows consist primarily of distributions from the ETE Entities, risks to the businesses of ETE and the ETE Entities are also risks to ETC. Set forth below are the risks to the businesses of ETE and the ETE Entities, the occurrence of which could have a negative impact on their respective financial performance and decrease the amount of cash the ETE Entities are able to distribute to ETE, which, in turn, could decrease the amount of cash ETE is able to distribute to ETC.

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

Certain of the ETE Entities’ joint ventures have their own governing boards, and the ETE Entities may not control all of the decisions of those boards. Consequently, it may be difficult or impossible for the ETE Entities

to cause the joint venture entity to take actions that the ETE Entities believe would be in their or the joint venture’s best interests. Likewise, the ETE Entities may be unable to prevent actions of the joint venture.

If the unitholders of the ETE Entities remove such ETE Entity’s general partner, ETE or ETP may be required to sell or exchange its general partner interest and IDRs, as applicable, in such ETE Entity, and ETE would lose the ability to manage and control such ETE Entity.

ETE currently manages its investment in the ETE Entities through its ownership of ETP GP and Sunoco GP, as well as ETP’s ownership of SXL GP. The partnership agreements of the ETE Entities, however, give their respective unitholders the right to remove the general partners upon the affirmative vote of holders of 66²/₃% of such ETE Entity’s outstanding units. If ETP GP, SXL GP or Sunoco GP withdraws as the general partner of ETP, SXL or Sunoco, as applicable, in compliance with such entity’s partnership agreement or is removed as general partner where cause (as defined in each such partnership agreement) does not exist and a successor general partner is elected in accordance with such partnership agreement, ETE or ETP, as the case may be, could elect to receive cash in exchange for its general partner interest in ETP, SXL or Sunoco, as the case may be, and the ETP, SXL and Sunoco IDRs (if then owned by ETE or ETP, as the case may be). If ETP GP, SXL GP or Sunoco GP withdraws in circumstances other than those described in the preceding sentence and a successor general partner is elected in accordance with ETP’s, SXL’s or Sunoco’s partnership agreement, the successor general partner will have the option to purchase the general partner interest in such ETE Entity and the ETP, SXL and Sunoco IDRs (if then owned by ETE or ETP, as the case may be) for their fair market value. If ETP GP, SXL GP, Sunoco GP or the successor general partner do not exercise their options, the interests of ETP GP, SXL GP and Sunoco GP, as the case may be, would be converted into common units of the applicable entity based on an independent valuation. In each case, ETP GP, SXL GP and Sunoco GP would also lose their ability to manage ETP, SXL and Sunoco, as the case may be.

Cost reimbursements due to the ETE general partner may be substantial and may reduce ETE’s ability to pay distributions to its unitholders.

Prior to making any distributions to its unitholders, ETE will reimburse the ETE general partner for all expenses it has incurred on ETE’s behalf. In addition, the ETE general partner and its affiliates may provide ETE with services for which ETE will be charged reasonable fees as determined by the ETE general partner. The reimbursement of these expenses and the payment of these fees could adversely affect ETE’s ability to make distributions to its unitholders. The ETE general partner has sole discretion to determine the amount of these expenses and fees.

In addition, under Delaware law, the ETE general partner has unlimited liability for ETE’s obligations, such as ETE’s debts and environmental liabilities, except for ETE’s contractual obligations that are expressly made without recourse to the ETE general partner. To the extent the ETE general partner incurs obligations on ETE’s behalf, ETE is obligated to reimburse or indemnify it. If ETE is unable or unwilling to reimburse or indemnify the ETE general partner, the ETE general partner may take actions to cause ETE to make payments of these obligations and liabilities. Any such payments could reduce the amount of distributable cash flow to ETE unitholders and cause the value of ETE common units to decline.

ETE is 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 its business.

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

The ETE Entities are exposed to the credit risk of their respective customers, and an increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by their respective customers could have a material adverse impact on the financial condition and results of operations of the ETE Entities and could reduce their respective ability to make distributions to their unitholders, including to ETE.

The risks of nonpayment and nonperformance by the ETE Entities’ 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. The ETE Entities are subject to risks of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by their respective customers, especially during the current low commodity price environment impacting many oil and gas producers. As a result, the current commodity price volatility and the 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 the ETE Entities’ respective customers. The ETE Entities’ customers and counterparties include industrial customers, local distribution companies, natural gas producers and marketers whose creditworthiness may be suddenly and disparately impacted by, among other factors, commodity price volatility, deteriorating energy market conditions, and public and regulatory opposition to energy producing activities. The current low commodity price environment has, in particular, negatively impacted natural gas producers causing them significant economic stress including, in some cases, to file for bankruptcy protection or to renegotiate contracts. To the extent one or more of the ETE Entities’ key customers commences bankruptcy proceedings, the ETE Entities’ contracts with such customers may be subject to rejection under applicable provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code, or may be renegotiated. Further, during any such bankruptcy proceeding, prior to the assumption, rejection or renegotiation of such contracts, the bankruptcy court may temporarily authorize the payment of value for the ETE Entities’ services less than contractually required, which could have a material adverse effect on the ETE Entities’ business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. For example, Chesapeake Energy Corporation and its affiliates, which accounted for approximately 18% of WMB’s consolidated revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015, have experienced significant, negative financial results due to sustained low commodity prices. If ETE and the ETE Entities fail to adequately assess the creditworthiness of existing or future customers and counterparties or otherwise do not take or are unable to take sufficient mitigating actions, including obtaining sufficient collateral, deterioration in their creditworthiness and any resulting increase in nonpayment and/or nonperformance by them could cause ETE and the ETE Entities to write down or write off accounts receivable. Such write-downs or write-offs could negatively affect ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ operating results in the periods in which they occur, and, if significant, could have a material adverse effect on their business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. In addition, the ETE Entities’ risk management activities are subject to the risks that a counterparty may not perform its obligation under the applicable derivative instrument, the terms of the derivative instruments are imperfect, and the ETE Entities’ risk management policies and procedures are not properly followed. Any material nonpayment or nonperformance by the ETE Entities’ respective customers or their derivative counterparties could reduce their ability to make distributions to ETE unitholders. Any substantial increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by the ETE Entities’ customers could have a material adverse effect on the ETE Entities’ 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 ETP’s 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:

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

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

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

The volume of crude oil transported through SXL’s 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 SXL’s customers, could materially reduce demand for crude oil in these areas. In either case, the volumes of crude oil transported in SXL’s 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 SXL is unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, ETE’s and ETP’s results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

The ETE Entities are affected by competition from other midstream, transportation and storage and retail marketing companies.

The ETE Entities experience competition in all of their respective 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 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 ETP’s NGL pipelines, ETP competes with other pipeline companies and barge, rail and truck fleet operations. ETP also faces 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 SXL’s pipelines. Further, ETP’s 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 and Sunoco also face 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 ETP and Sunoco sell, which could have an adverse effect on ETP’s and Sunoco’s businesses or results of operations.

The ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities provide at rates sufficient to maintain or increase current revenues and cash flows depends on a number of factors beyond ETC’s control, including the price of and demand for oil, natural gas, and NGLs in the markets the ETE Entities serve and competition from other service providers.

A significant portion of ETP’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 ETP in the marketing of natural gas, ETP often competes in natural gas sales markets primarily on the basis of price.

ETP also receives 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 ETP’s 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, ETP’s competitors may attract its customers’ business. If demand declines or competition increases, ETP may not be able to sustain existing levels of unreserved service or renew or extend long-term contracts as they expire or it may reduce their rates to meet competitive pressures.

Revenue from ETP’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 receives substantially all of its transportation revenues through dedicated contracts under which the customer agrees to deliver the total output from particular processing plants that are connected only to its 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 ETP’s services. In addition, ETP’s refined products storage revenues are primarily derived from fixed capacity arrangements between ETP and its 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 ETP’s 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 ETP’s oil pipelines and terminal facilities could decline.

The loss of existing customers by the ETE Entities’ 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 its 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 without additional wells or incremental capital investments experience declining production over time. ETP’s gas transportation pipelines are also dependent upon natural gas production in areas served by its gathering systems or in areas served by other gathering systems or transportation pipelines that connect with its 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 its ability to connect new supplies of natural gas to its gathering systems include its 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 its 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 its 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 ETP is unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, its 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.

The profitability of certain activities in ETP’s natural gas gathering, processing, transportation and storage operations is 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 systems, ETP purchases natural gas from producers at the wellhead and then gathers and delivers the natural gas to pipelines where ETP typically resells the natural gas under various arrangements, including sales at index prices. Generally, the gross margins ETP realizes under these arrangements decrease in periods of low natural gas prices.

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

Under percent-of-proceeds arrangements, ETP generally sells the residue gas and NGLs at market prices and remits 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 delivers an agreed upon percentage of the residue gas and NGL volumes to the producer and sells the volumes it keeps 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 revenues and results of operations.

Under keep-whole arrangements, ETP generally sells the NGLs produced from its 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 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 processes the gas for a fee under processing fee agreements, it may guarantee recoveries to the producer. If recoveries are less than those guaranteed to the producer, ETP may suffer a loss by having to supply liquids or its cash equivalent to keep the producer whole.

ETP also receives fees and retains gas in kind from its natural gas transportation and storage customers. ETP’s fuel retention fees and the value of gas that ETP retains 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 ETP’s 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.

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

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

A significant increase in the ETE Entities’ indebtedness that is proportionately greater than the ETE Entities’ respective issuances of equity could negatively impact the ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities’ financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The credit and risk profile of ETE could adversely affect the credit ratings and profile of the ETE Entities.

The credit and business risk profile of ETE may be a factor in credit evaluations of the ETE Entities as publicly traded limited partnerships due to the significant influence of ETE over their respective business activities, including their cash distributions, acquisition strategy and business risk profile. Another factor that may be considered is the financial condition of ETE, including its degree of financial leverage and dependence on the ETE Entities to service its debt. Although ETE has taken certain steps in its organizational structure, financial reporting and contractual relationships to reflect the separateness of ETE from the ETE Entities, the credit ratings and business risk profile of ETE could adversely affect the ratings and risk profile of the ETE Entities, which could increase their borrowing costs or hinder their ability to raise capital.

A downgrade of ETE’s or the ETE Entities’ respective credit ratings could impact their liquidity, access to capital and costs of doing business, and maintaining credit ratings is under the control of independent third parties.

A downgrade of ETE’s or the ETE Entities’ credit rating might increase their respective cost of borrowing and could require them to post collateral with third parties, negatively impacting their available liquidity. ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ ability to access capital markets could also be limited by a downgrade of their credit rating and other disruptions. Such disruptions could include:

ratings of ETP, SXL and WPZ, and the credit rating of Sunoco. ETP and WPZ currently maintain investment grade ratings by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. However, those current ratings may not remain in effect for any given period of time and a rating may be lowered or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstances in the future so warrant. If Moody’s, S&P or Fitch were to downgrade the long-term rating of any of the ETE Entities, particularly below investment grade, ETE’s consolidated borrowing costs could significantly increase, which would adversely affect ETE’s consolidated financial results, and the terms of ETE’s credit agreements could become significantly more restrictive. The potential pool of investors and funding sources could also decrease. Further, due to the relationship between ETE and the ETE Entities, any downgrade of ETE’s credit ratings could also result in a downgrade in one or more of the ETE Entities’ credit ratings. Ratings from credit agencies are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold ETE’s securities, and each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.

Additionally, if, within 90 days of the closing date of the merger, either Moody’s or S&P downgrades the rating of the Applicable WPZ Notes, there will be a change of control under the Applicable WPZ Notes Indentures. As a result, WPZ will be obligated to offer to purchase all or any part of such series of Applicable WPZ Notes at a purchase price equal to 101% of the principal amount of thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon to the date of repurchase. The aggregate principal amount of the Applicable WPZ Notes is $2.9 billion. Please see “Risks Related to the Businesses of ETE and the ETE Entities—The ETE Entities are exposed to the credit risk of their respective customers, and an increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by their respective customers could have a material adverse impact on the financial condition and results of operations of the ETE Entities and could reduce their respective ability to make distributions to their unitholders, including to ETE.”

In connection with the merger, ETE has entered into an Amended and Restated Commitment Letter with a syndicate of 20 banks, pursuant to which the banks have committed to provide a 364-day secured term loan credit facility (which may, at ETE’s option, be extended for an additional year) in an aggregate principal amount of $6.05 billion (or such lesser amount that ETE may elect to borrow). The commitment is based on a term sheet that specifies general terms for the definitive loan documentation and is subject to customary conditions for commitments of this type, including the negotiation and execution of satisfactory definitive documentation. ETE currently has a significant amount of debt and the incurrence of additional debt in connection with the merger may adversely affect ETE and the ETE Entities’ future operations and business. Further, to the extent commodity prices remain low or decline further, or ETE has limited access to the capital markets due to a credit ratings downgrade or other disruptions, ETE’s ability to refinance this $6.05 billion facility or ETE’s $1.5 billion senior secured revolving credit facility, which matures in December 2018, on commercially reasonable terms or at all may be materially impacted.

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 there can be no assurance that ETE or the ETE Entities will maintain their current credit ratings.

In order for ETE to maintain its credit ratings at current ratings levels, it may need to sell assets, issue additional equity securities, reduce cash distributions to unitholders or a combination thereof. ETE states that in furtherance of maintaining its credit ratings, it completed the private offering of Convertible Units. WMB has commenced litigation seeking to unwind such offering. While ETE believes WMB’s claims are without merit, if WMB is successful in unwinding the Convertible Units offering, it could have a negative impact on ETE’s efforts to maintain its ratings with Moody’s, S&P or Fitch.

The use of derivative financial instruments could result in material financial losses by the ETE Entities.

From time to time, the ETE Entities have sought to reduce their 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 the ETE Entities hedge their commodity price and interest rate exposures, they forego the benefits they would otherwise experience if commodity prices or interest rates were to change favorably. In addition, even though monitored by management, the ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities engage in hedging transactions that are effective economically (whether to mitigate their exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices, or to balance the ETE Entities’ exposure to fixed and variable interest rates), these transactions may not be considered effective for accounting purposes. Accordingly, ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities to engage in a hedging transaction that completely mitigates their exposure to commodity prices. ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ consolidated financial statements may reflect a gain or loss arising from an exposure to commodity prices for which the ETE Entities are unable to enter into a completely effective hedge.

In addition, even though monitored by management, the ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities’ physical or financial positions or hedging policies and procedures are not followed.

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

ETP’s natural gas transportation, storage and NGL businesses depend, in part, on its customers’ ability to obtain access to pipelines to deliver gas to and receive gas from them. Many of these pipelines are owned by parties not affiliated with ETE or ETP. Any interruption of service on ETP’s 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 ability, and the ability of its customers, to transport natural gas to and from its 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 facilities affect the utilization and value of its 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 oil pipelines and terminals are also dependent upon its pipelines and connections to third-party pipelines to receive and deliver crude oil and refined 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 pipelines or through its terminals. Similarly, if additional shippers begin transporting volume over interconnecting oil pipelines, the allocations of pipeline capacity to ETP’s existing shippers on these interconnecting pipelines could be reduced, which also could reduce volumes transported in its pipelines or through its terminals. Allocation reductions of this nature are not infrequent and are beyond ETP’s 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’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

The inability of the ETE Entities to continue to access lands owned by third parties, including tribal lands, could adversely affect their ability to operate and adversely affect their financial results.

The ETE Entities’ ability to operate their 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 their 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 the ETE Entities’ ability to pursue expansion projects. ETE and the ETE Entities cannot provide any assurance that the ETE Entities 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. The ETE Entities’ financial position could be adversely affected if the costs of new or extended right-of-way grants cannot be recovered in rates.

Further, whether the ETE Entities have the power of eminent domain for their pipelines varies from state to state, depending upon the type of pipeline and the laws of the particular state. In either case, the ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities’ business if they were to lose the right to use or occupy the property on which their pipelines are located.

In addition, the ETE Entities do not own all of the land on which their oil terminal facilities and retail service stations are located. The ETE Entities have rental agreements for approximately 32.6% of the company or dealer-operated retail service stations where they currently control the real estate and have rental agreements for certain logistics facilities. As such, the ETE Entities are subject to the possibility of increased costs under rental agreements with landowners, primarily through rental increases and renewals of expired agreements. The ETE Entities are also subject to the risk that such agreements may not be renewed. Additionally, certain facilities and equipment (or parts thereof) used by the ETE Entities are leased from third parties for specific periods. The ETE Entities 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 ETE’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The ETE Entities may not be able to fully execute their growth strategies if they encounter increased competition for qualified assets.

The ETE Entities 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. The ETE Entities regularly consider and enter into discussions regarding the acquisition of additional assets and businesses, stand-alone development projects or other transactions that the ETE Entities believe will present opportunities to realize synergies and increase cash flow.

Consistent with their strategies, managements of the ETE Entities 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 management’s participation in processes that involve a number of potential buyers, commonly referred to as “auction” processes, as well as situations in which an ETE Entity believes it is the only party or one of a very limited number of potential buyers in negotiations with the potential seller. ETE and the ETE Entities cannot assure that the ETE Entities’ acquisition efforts will be successful or that any acquisition will be completed on favorable terms.

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

An impairment of goodwill and intangible assets could reduce ETE’s and the ETE Entities earnings.

As of December 31, 2015, ETE’s consolidated balance sheets reflected $7.47 billion of goodwill and $5.43 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 ETE 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 ETE determines that any of its goodwill or intangible assets were impaired, ETE 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 2015, ETE performed goodwill impairment tests on their reporting units and recognized goodwill impairments of: (i) $99 million in the Transwestern reporting unit due primarily to the market declines in current and expected future commodity prices in the fourth quarter of 2015 and (ii) $106 million in the Lone Star Refinery Services reporting unit due primarily to changes in assumptions related to potential future revenues decrease as well as the market declines in current and expected future commodity prices.

The ETE Entities’ 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.

The ETE Entities may be unable to make accretive acquisitions for any of the following reasons, among others:

Furthermore, even if the ETE Entities consummate acquisitions that they believe will be accretive, those acquisitions may in fact adversely affect their results of operations or result in a decrease in distributable cash flow per unit. Any acquisition involves potential risks, including the risk that the ETE Entities may:

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

If the ETE Entities do not continue to construct new pipelines, their future growth could be limited.

The ETE Entities’ 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. The ETE Entities may be unable to construct pipelines that are accretive to distributable cash flow for any of the following reasons, among others:

Furthermore, even if an ETE Entity 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 the ETE Entities’ business by constructing new pipelines and related facilities subjects the ETE Entities to risks.

One of the ways that the ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities’ control and requires the expenditure of significant amounts of capital to be financed through borrowings, the issuance of additional equity or from operating cash flow. If any of the ETE Entities undertakes these projects, they may not be completed on schedule or at all or at the budgeted cost. A variety of factors outside the ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities’ results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, revenues may not increase immediately following the completion of a particular project. For instance, if an ETE Entity builds a new pipeline, the construction will occur over an extended period of time, but the ETE Entity 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 the ETE Entities’ abilities to obtain commitments from producers in the area to utilize the newly constructed pipelines. In this regard, the ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities’ expected investment return, which could adversely affect their results of operations and financial condition.

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

ETP relies on a limited number of producers for a significant portion of its natural gas supplies. These contracts have terms that range from month-to-month to life of lease. As these contracts expire, ETP will have to negotiate extensions or renewals or replace the contracts with those of other suppliers. ETP 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 business, results of operations, and financial condition.

ETP depends on key customers to transport natural gas through its pipelines.

ETP relies on a limited number of major shippers to transport certain minimum volumes of natural gas on their respective pipelines. The failure of the major shippers on ETP’s or its 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 ETE, ETP or ETP’s joint ventures, as applicable, were unable to replace these customers under arrangements that provide similar economic benefits as these existing contracts.

Mergers among the ETE Entities’ customers and competitors could result in lower volumes being shipped on their respective pipelines or products stored in or distributed through their terminals, as applicable, or reduced margins or volumes.

Mergers between existing customers could provide strong economic incentives for the combined entities to utilize their existing systems instead of the systems of the ETE Entities in those markets where the systems compete. As a result, the ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities’ respective results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

A portion of SXL’s and Sunoco, Inc.’s 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 them to additional liability.

SXL and Sunoco, Inc. utilize 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 SXL, Sunoco, Inc. or their respective customers, including the potential loss or disclosure of such information or data as a result of fraud or other forms of deception, could expose SXL or Sunoco, Inc. to a risk of loss or misuse of this information, result in litigation and potential liability for SXL or Sunoco, Inc., lead to reputational damage, increase compliance costs, or otherwise harm its business.

The ETE Entities’ interstate pipelines are subject to laws, regulations and policies governing the rates they are allowed to charge for their services, which may prevent the ETE Entities from fully recovering their costs.

Laws, regulations and policies governing interstate natural gas pipeline rates could affect the ability of the ETE Entities’ 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.

The ETE Entities 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. The ETE Entities 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. The ETE Entities must also file with the FERC all negotiated rates that do not conform to their tariff rates and all changes to their tariff or negotiated rates. The FERC must approve or accept all rate filings for the ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities and find that their rates were not just and reasonable or unduly discriminatory, the maximum rates customers could elect to pay the ETE Entities may be reduced and the reduction could have an adverse effect on their revenues and results of operations.

The costs of the ETE Entities’ interstate pipeline operations may increase and the ETE Entities may not be able to recover all of those costs due to FERC regulation of their rates. If the ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities’ proposed changes if they are unable to persuade the FERC that changes would result in just and reasonable rates that are not unduly discriminatory. The ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities may be constrained by competitive factors from charging their tariff rates.

To the extent the ETE Entities’ 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. The ETE Entities 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 ETE and the ETE Entities, 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, ETE and the ETE Entities thus remain eligible to include an income tax allowance in the tariff rates they 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.

The ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities’ interstate pipelines, including:

Compliance with these requirements can be costly and burdensome. In addition, the ETE Entities cannot guarantee that the FERC will authorize tariff changes and other activities the ETE Entities might propose 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 the ETE Entities’ 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 ETP’s ability to set rates based on ETP’s 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 ETP’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, certain interstate pipeline rates were deemed just and reasonable or “grandfathered.” Revenues are derived from such grandfathered rates on most of ETP’s 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 ETP 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 ETP’s business and results of operations.

State regulatory measures could adversely affect the business and operations of the ETE Entities’ midstream and intrastate pipeline and storage assets.

The ETE Entities’ 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 services they provide in their intrastate gas pipelines and gas storage are subject to FERC regulations 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 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 the ETE Entities’ costs of service, their cash flow would be negatively affected.

The ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities’ right as an owner of gathering facilities to decide with whom they contract to purchase or transport natural gas. Should a complaint be filed in any of these states or should regulation become more active, the ETE Entities’ businesses may be adversely affected.

The ETE Entities’ 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.

The ETE Entities 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 of state laws, regulations, orders and permit conditions can result in the modification, cancellation or suspension of a permit, civil penalties and other relief.

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 ETP’s facilities. Consequently, the classification and regulation of ETP’s gathering facilities could change based on future determinations by the FERC, the courts or Congress. If ETP’s gas gathering operations become subject to FERC jurisdiction, the result may adversely affect the rates ETP is able to charge and the services ETP currently provides, and may include the potential for a termination of ETP’s gathering agreements with its 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 the ETE Entities to potentially burdensome and expensive operational, reporting and other requirements. In addition, the rates, terms and conditions for shipments of crude oil, petroleum products and NGLs on the ETE Entities’ pipelines are subject to regulation by FERC if the NGLs are transported in interstate or foreign commerce whether by the ETE Entities’ pipelines or other means of transportation. Since the ETE Entities do not control the entire transportation path of all crude oil, petroleum products and NGLs on their pipelines, FERC regulation could be triggered by the ETE Entities’ respective customers’ transportation decisions. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect revenues and cash flow related to these assets.

The ETE Entities 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.

In addition, states have adopted regulations similar to existing PHMSA regulations for intrastate gathering and transmission lines. At this time, the ETE Entities 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. The ETE Entities will continue their pipeline integrity testing programs to assess and maintain the integrity of their pipelines. The results of these tests could cause them to incur significant and unanticipated capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of their 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 the ETE Entities and similarly situated midstream operators. For instance, changes to regulations governing the safety of gas and hazardous liquid 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, the PHMSA has considered changes to its rural gathering exemption, including publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to hazardous liquid pipelines in October 2015, in which the agency is seeking public comment on, among other things, extending reporting requirements to all gravity and gathering lines, requiring periodic inline integrity assessments of pipelines that are located outside of high consequence areas, and requiring the use of leak detection systems on pipelines in all locations, including outside of high consequence areas.

The businesses of ETE and the ETE Entities 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 regulation.

The operations of ETE and the ETE Entities 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 ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ operations, result in capital expenditures to manage, limit, or prevent emissions, discharges or releases of various materials from ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ pipelines, plants and facilities, impose specific health and safety standards addressing worker protection, and impose substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ 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.

ETE and the ETE Entities may incur substantial environmental costs and liabilities because of the underlying risk inherent to their operations. Although ETE and the ETE Entities have established financial reserves for their 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 their costs for site remediation projects. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ 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 ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ operations or financial position. For example, in October 2015, the EPA published a final rule under the Clean Air Act, lowering the NAAQS for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion for the 8-hour primary and secondary ozone standards. Compliance with this final rule or any other new regulations could, among other things, require installation of new emission controls on some of ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ equipment, result in longer permitting timelines or new restrictions or prohibitions with respect to permits or projects, and significantly increase ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ capital expenditures and operating costs, which could adversely impact their respective businesses. Historically, ETP has 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 will not incur material costs in the future to meet any new, more stringent ozone standard.

Product liability claims and litigation could adversely affect the business and results of operations of ETE and the ETE Entities.

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 ETE and the ETE Entities would not have a material adverse effect on their business or results of operations.

Along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, Sunoco is a defendant in numerous lawsuits that allege 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 ETE’s and ETP’s 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 the ETE Entities 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 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 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“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 the ETE Entities’ operations. More recently, on October 22, 2015, the EPA published a final rule that expands 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 the ETE Entities’ equipment and operations could require them to incur significant added costs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or could adversely affect demand for the natural gas and NGLs they gather and process or fractionate. For example, in August 2015, the EPA announced proposed rules, expected to be finalized in 2016, that would establish new controls for methane emissions from certain new, modified or reconstructed equipment and processes in the oil and natural gas source category, including oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing and transmission facilities as part of an overall effort to reduce methane emissions by up to 45% from 2012 levels in 2025. On an international level, the United States is one of almost 200 nations that agreed in December 2015 to an international climate change agreement in Paris, France that calls for countries to set their own greenhouse gas emissions targets and be transparent about the measures each country will use to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions targets.

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

Congress has adopted 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 the ETE Entities, 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 ETE and the ETE Entities cannot yet predict the ultimate effect of the rules and regulations on their 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. The ETE Entities will be required to assess their activities in the derivatives markets, and to monitor such activities on an ongoing basis, to ascertain and to identify any potential change in their regulatory status.

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements also could significantly increase operating costs and expose the ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities’ 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 the ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities, in connection with covered derivative activities, to comply with such requirements or take steps to qualify for an exemption to such requirements. The ETE Entities must obtain approval from the board of directors of their respective general partners and make certain filings in order to rely on the end-user exception from the mandatory clearing requirements for swaps entered into to hedge 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 the ETE Entities 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 the ETE Entities use for hedging. If any of the ETE Entities’ swaps do not qualify for the commercial end-user exception, posting of collateral could impact their liquidity and reduce cash available to them for capital expenditures, reducing the their 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 the ETE Entities’ ability to conduct their 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 (including through restrictions on the types of collateral the ETE Entities are required to post), materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks the ETE Entities encounter, reduce the ETE Entities’ ability to monetize or restructure existing derivative contracts, and increase the ETE Entities’ exposure to less creditworthy counterparties. If the ETE Entities reduces their use of derivatives as a result of the legislation and regulations, ETE’s and the ETE Entities results of operations may become more volatile and their cash flows may be less predictable. Finally, if the ETE Entities fail to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations, they 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 the operations of ETE and the ETE Entities and otherwise materially adversely affect their cash flow.

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

If one or more facilities that are owned by ETE or the ETE Entities or that deliver natural gas or other products to ETE or the ETE Entities are damaged by severe weather or any other disaster, accident, catastrophe or event, their operations could be significantly interrupted. Similar interruptions could result from damage to production or other facilities that supply the facilities of ETE and the ETE Entities or other stoppages arising from factors beyond their 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 the operations of ETE and the ETE Entities, or which causes them to make significant expenditures not covered by insurance, could reduce their cash available for paying distributions to their respective unitholders.

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, ETE and the ETE Entities may not be able to renew existing insurance policies or procure other desirable insurance on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If ETE and the ETE Entities were to incur a significant liability for which they were not fully insured, it could have a material adverse effect on their respective financial positions and results of operations. 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 the facilities of ETE and the ETE Entities could adversely affect their 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 the facilities of ETE and the ETE Entities are subject to standards and procedures required by the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. ETE and the ETE Entities believe they are in compliance with all material requirements; however, such compliance may not prevent a terrorist attack from causing material damage or disruption to their facilities or pipelines. Any such terrorist attack on the facilities or pipelines of ETE and the ETE Entities, those of their customers, or in some cases, those of other pipelines could have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition and results of operations of ETE and the ETE Entities.

Cybersecurity breaches and other disruptions could compromise ETE’s information and expose ETE and the ETE Entities to liability, which would cause their business and reputation to suffer.

In the ordinary course of ETE’s and the ETE Entities respective business, they collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, proprietary business information and that of their customers, suppliers and business partners, and personal identification information of their employees, in their data centers and on their networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ operations and business strategy. Despite ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ security measures, their 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 ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ 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 their operations, damage to their reputation, and cause a loss of confidence in their products and services, which could adversely affect their business.

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

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 the ETE Entities’ 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. Compliance with these more stringent regulatory restrictions resulted in greater uncertainty and inconsistencies in the decisions and rulings made by governmental agencies, delays in the processing and

approval of drilling permits or exploration, development, oil spill-response and decommissioning plans, and possible additional regulatory initiatives could adversely affect or delay new drilling and ongoing development efforts. In addition, new regulatory initiatives may be adopted or enforced by the BOEM and/or the BSEE in the future that could result in additional delays, restrictions, or obligations with respect to oil and natural gas exploration and production operations conducted offshore by certain of the ETE Entities’ respective customers. For example, in September 2015, the BOEM issued draft guidance that would bolster supplemental bonding procedures for the decommissioning of offshore wells, platforms, pipelines, and other facilities. The BOEM is expected to issue the draft guidance in the form of a final Notice to Lessees and Operators by no later than mid-2016. These recent or any new rules, regulations, or legal initiatives could delay or disrupt the operations of the ETE Entities’ customers, increase the risk of expired leases due to the time required to develop new technology, result in increased supplemental bonding and costs, limit activities in certain areas, or cause the ETE Entities’ respective customers’ to incur penalties, or shut-in production or lease cancellation. Also, if material spill events similar to the Deepwater Horizon incident were to occur in the future, the United States or other countries could elect to again issue directives to temporarily cease drilling activities offshore and, in any event, may from time to time issue further safety and environmental laws and regulations regarding offshore oil and gas exploration and development. The overall costs imposed on the ETE Entities’ respective customers to implement and complete any such spill response activities or any decommissioning obligations could exceed estimated accruals, insurance limits, or supplemental bonding amounts, which could result in the incurrence of additional costs to complete. The ETE Entities cannot predict with any certainty the full impact of any new laws or regulations on their 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 the business of the ETE Entities as well as their financial position, results of operation and liquidity.

Increased regulation of hydraulic fracturing could result in reductions or delays in drilling and completing new oil and natural gas wells, which could adversely impact ETP’s revenues by decreasing the volumes of natural gas that ETP gathers, processes and transports.

The natural gas of certain of ETP’s customers is developed from formations requiring hydraulic fracturing as part of the completion process. Fracturing is a process where water, sand and chemicals are injected under pressure into subsurface formations to stimulate production. While the underground injection of fluids is regulated by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act, fracturing is excluded from regulation unless the injection fluid is diesel fuel. Congress has recently considered legislation that would repeal the exclusion, allowing the EPA to more generally regulate fracturing, and requiring disclosure of chemicals used in the fracturing process. If enacted, such legislation could require fracturing to meet permitting and financial responsibility, siting and technical specifications relating to well construction, plugging and abandonment. The EPA is also considering various regulatory programs directed at hydraulic fracturing. For example, in 2015, the EPA proposed regulations under the federal Clean Water Act to further regulate wastewater discharged from hydraulic fracturing operations. In May 2014, the EPA released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under the Toxic Substances Control Act, seeking public comment on possible reporting obligations. The adoption of new federal laws or regulations imposing reporting obligations on, or otherwise limiting or regulating, the hydraulic fracturing process could make it more difficult to complete oil and natural gas wells in shale formations, and increase the costs of compliance for ETP’s customers. In addition, the EPA is currently studying the potential adverse impact that each stage of hydraulic fracturing may have on the environment. A draft of the report was released in June 2015 for peer review and public comment. Several states in which ETP’s customers operate have also adopted regulations requiring disclosure of fracturing fluid components or otherwise regulate their use more closely.

On April 17, 2012, the EPA approved final rules establishing new air emission standards for oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing operations, including volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) emissions limits on certain oil and natural gas production operations. In September 2015, the EPA proposed similar rules that would impose VOC emissions limits on certain oil and natural gas operations that were previously unregulated, including hydraulically fractured oil wells, as well as methane emissions limits for certain new or modified oil and natural gas emissions sources. These rules may require a number of modifications to the

operations of the ETE Entities and their customers, including the installation of new equipment to control emissions. In addition, the U.S. Department of the Interior released a final rule in March 2015 that updates existing regulation of hydraulic fracturing activities on federal lands, including requirements for chemical disclosure, well bore integrity and handling of flowback water. However, a federal district court judge issued a permanent injunction, which effectively blocks implementation of the rule pending the resolution of legal challenges. Compliance with these rules could result in additional costs, including increased capital expenditures and operating costs, the ETE Entities and their customers, which may adversely impact the ETE Entities’ business.

Additional federal or state legislation or regulation of hydraulic fracturing or related activities could result in operational delays, increased operating costs, and additional regulatory burdens on exploration and production operators. This could reduce production of natural gas and, in turn, adversely affect the revenues and results of operations of the ETE Entities by decreasing the volumes of natural gas and NGLs that they gather, process and transport.

ETP’s business is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations that govern the product quality specifications of the petroleum products that SXL stores and transports.

The petroleum products that SXL stores and transports through SXL’s operations are sold by its 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 SXL’s throughput volume, require SXL 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 SXL’s pipeline systems and terminal facilities and could require the construction of additional storage to segregate products with different specifications. SXL may be unable to recover these costs through increased revenues.

In addition, SXL’s butane blending services are reliant upon gasoline vapor pressure specifications. Significant changes in such specifications could reduce butane blending opportunities, which would affect SXL’s ability to market its butane blending services licenses.

ETP’s 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, 2015, approximately 6% of ETP’s workforce is covered by a number of collective bargaining agreements with various terms and dates of expirations. 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 ETP’s 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 ETP’s 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 ETP to incur additional capital expenditures or expenses particularly in ETP’s retail marketing business, which is conducted through Sunoco, Inc., Susser and Sunoco. ETP may have to enter into arrangements with other parties to meet its obligations to use advanced biofuels, with potentially uncertain supplies of these new fuels. If ETP is unable to obtain or maintain sufficient quantities of ethanol to support its blending needs, its 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. ETP 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 ETP supplies. 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 ETP markets and sells.

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

ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ operations could be disrupted if their information systems fail, causing increased expenses and loss of sales.

ETE’s and the ETE Entities business is highly dependent on financial, accounting and other data processing systems and other communications and information systems, including their enterprise resource planning tools. ETE and the ETE Entities process a large number of transactions on a daily basis and rely upon the proper functioning of computer systems. If a key system were to fail or experience unscheduled downtime for any reason, even if only for a short period, their operations and financial results could be affected adversely. ETE’s and the ETE Entities systems could be damaged or interrupted by a security breach, fire, flood, power loss, telecommunications failure or similar event. ETE and the ETE Entities 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. ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ business interruption insurance may not compensate them adequately for losses that may occur.

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 ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ 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 ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ subsidiaries provide pension plan and other postretirement health care 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 ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ future consolidated financial results. While certain of the costs incurred in providing such pension and other postretirement health care benefits are recovered through the rates charged by the ETE Entities’ regulated businesses, ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ 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.

Operation of the LNG import/regasification facility and the LNG liquefaction facility/export terminal involves significant risks.

The LNG import/regasification facility and the LNG liquefaction facility/export terminal face operational risks, including the following:

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 liquefaction project in conjunction with BG Group pursuant to a project development agreement entered into in September 2013. Pursuant to this agreement, each of LCL and BG Group 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, 2015, LCL had incurred approximately $89 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 their share of the remaining development costs, or if Royal Dutch Shell plc, which completed its acquisition of BG Group in February 2016, is unwilling or unable to provide funding for BG Group’s share of the remaining development costs, the liquefaction project could be delayed or cancelled.

The liquefaction project is subject to the right of each of LCL and BG Group 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 Group 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 to be entered into between LCL and BG Group in connection with both parties reaching an affirmative FID, and the terms and conditions of the financing for the construction of the liquefaction facility. The determination by Royal Dutch Shell plc, as the acquiror of BG Group, 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 Group 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 Royal Dutch Shell plc’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 and 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 Royal Dutch Shell plc 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 Group has received authorization from the Department of Energy (the “DOE”) to export LNG to non-Free Trade Agreements (“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. ETC does 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 LCL’s ability to obtain and maintain such permits or approvals.

ETE has a holding company structure in which its subsidiaries conduct its operations and own its operating assets.

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

As our cash flows will consist primarily of distributions from ETE and ETE’s cash flows will consist primarily of distributions from the ETE Entities, our tax risks are derivative of the tax risks associated with an investment in ETE and the ETE Entities.

The tax treatment of ETE depends on its continuing status as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as well as its not being subject to a material amount of additional entity-level taxation by individual states. If the IRS were to treat ETE or any of the ETE Entities as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or if ETE or any of the ETE Entities 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 value of our investment in ETE, as well as the anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our common shares, depends largely on ETE and each of the ETE Entities being treated as a partnership, and not as a corporation, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which requires that 90% or more of ETE’s and each ETE Entity’s gross income for every taxable year consist of “qualifying income,” as defined in Section 7704 of the Code.

Despite the fact that ETE and each of the ETE Entities are limited partnerships under Delaware law, each would be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes unless each satisfies the “qualifying income” requirement set forth in Section 7704 of the Code. Based upon current operations, we believe that ETE and each of the ETE Entities satisfies the qualifying income requirement. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause ETE or any of the ETE Entities to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject ETE or any of the ETE Entities to taxation as an entity.

If ETE or any of the ETE Entities were treated as a corporation, such entity would pay U.S. federal income tax on its taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%, and would likely pay additional state income taxes at varying rates. Distributions to the unitholders of such affected entity, including us, would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, which could thereby substantially reduce the amount of cash available for distribution, and no income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to the unitholders of such affected entity, including us. Therefore, treatment of ETE or any of the ETE Entities as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to us, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common shares.

ETE’s and each ETE Entity’s partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects such entity 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 such entity. 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 ETE or any ETE Entity in the jurisdictions in which such entity operates or in other jurisdictions to which such entity may expand could substantially reduce its cash available for distribution to its unitholders, including us, which would adversely affect our ability to pay distributions.

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

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including an investment in any of ETE’s or any ETE Entity’s 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 2017 recommends that certain publicly traded partnerships earning income from activities related to fossil fuels be taxed as corporations beginning in 2022. From time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing U.S. 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 ETE and the ETE Entities rely for treatment as partnerships 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 ETE or the ETE Entities 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 shares.

The sale or exchange of 50% or more of ETE’s capital and profits interests during any twelve month period will result in its termination as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

ETE will be considered to have technically terminated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of the total interests in its 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. ETE’s technical termination would, among other things, result in the closing of its taxable year for all unitholders, including us, which would require it to file two U.S. federal partnership tax returns (and its 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 its taxable income. A deferral of depreciation deductions could increase the amount of taxable income allocated to us from ETE, which could increase our tax liabilities and thereby reduce the amount of cash available for distribution. ETE’s termination currently would not affect its classification as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, but could cause it to be subject to penalties if it were unable to determine that a termination occurred.

If there is a technical termination of ETE as described above, ETE may enter into a closing agreement with the IRS whereby ETE would be permitted to issue a combined Schedule K-1 to each partner that owned an interest in ETE for all or any portion of the calendar year. ETE will nevertheless be required to file separate partnership tax returns for the period ending on the date of such technical termination and the period spanning the remainder of the calendar year.

The WMB Contribution will result in the termination of WPZ for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which could increase the amount of income allocated to ETE unitholders, including us.

WPZ will be considered to have terminated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a result of the WMB Contribution, which could result in a deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing its taxable income. Such deferral of depreciation deductions could increase the amount of taxable income allocated to us from ETE, which could increase our tax liabilities and thereby reduce the amount of cash available for distribution. Although the termination of WPZ would not affect its classification as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it could cause it to be subject to penalties if it were unable to determine that a termination had occurred. Additionally, as discussed above with respect to ETE’s technical termination, this could require WPZ to file two partnership tax returns in the year of the termination.

This proxy statement/prospectus and the documents incorporated herein by reference contain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are identified as any statement that does not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “plan,” “projection,” “forecast,” “strategy,” “position,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “may,” “potentially,” “likely,” or the negative of those terms or other variations of them or comparable terminology. In particular, statements, express or implied, concerning future actions, conditions or events, future operating results, the ability to generate sales, income or cash flow, to realize cost savings or other benefits associated with the merger, to service debt or to make distributions are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Future actions, conditions or events and future results of operations may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Many of the factors that will determine actual results are beyond the ability of ETC, ETE or WMB to control or predict. Specific factors which could cause actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements include:

Unless expressly stated otherwise, forward-looking statements are based on the expectations and beliefs of the respective managements of ETC, ETE and WMB, based on information currently available, concerning future events affecting ETC, ETE and WMB. Although ETC, ETE and WMB believe that these forward-looking

statements are based on reasonable assumptions, they are subject to uncertainties and factors related to such entity’s operations and business environments, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond their control. Any or all of the forward-looking statements in this proxy statement/prospectus may turn out to be wrong. They can be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known or unknown risks and uncertainties. The foregoing list of factors should not be construed to be exhaustive. Many factors mentioned in this proxy statement/prospectus, including the risks outlined under the caption “Risk Factors” contained in WMB’s Exchange Act reports incorporated herein by reference, will be important in determining future results, and actual future results may vary materially. There is no assurance that the actions, events or results of the forward-looking statements will occur, or, if any of them do occur, when they will occur or what effect they will have on ETC’s, ETE’s and WMB’s results of operations, financial condition, cash flows or distributions. In view of these uncertainties, ETC, ETE and WMB caution that investors should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Further, any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and, except as required by law, ETC, ETE and WMB undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which it is made or to reflect the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events or circumstances.

Energy Transfer Corp LP is a Delaware limited partnership that will be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Upon the completion of the merger transactions, ETC’s primary cash generating asset will consist of ETE Class E units, which will represent an approximate 57% limited partner interest in ETE, excluding any interest attributable to Convertible Units issued by ETE in March 2016, as further described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus following the completion of the merger transactions. In the future, ETC may own assets or equity interests in addition to its limited partner interests in ETE, and it may engage in any business activity approved by ETC GP.

ETE has agreed to provide all administrative services to ETC and to indemnify ETC for all non-tax liabilities incurred by ETC. Therefore, ETC expects to distribute 100% of the quarterly cash distributions it receives from ETE in respect of the ETE Class E units, after deducting for federal and state income taxes, if any, to the holders of the ETC common shares.

The ETE Class E units will be entitled to receive the same quarterly cash distribution per unit as the quarterly cash distribution paid per ETE common unit. In addition, during the dividend equalization period, ETE is obligated to make distributions on and/or special allocations of depreciation or other forms of cost recovery to the ETE Class E units to ensure that ETC has sufficient cash to pay distributions on each ETC common share in an amount equal to 100% of the distributions paid by ETE on each ETE common unit. As discussed in “Summary—Recent Developments—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC,” following the closing of the merger, ETE does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units or ETE Class E Units prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018. If ETE does not make a cash distribution on its ETE Class E Units until such time, then ETC will not have any cash available for distribution on its common shares.

ETC’s principal executive offices are located at 8111 Westchester Drive, Dallas, Texas 75225, and ETC’s phone number is (214) 981-0700.

See “Additional Information About ETC” for additional information about ETC.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (NYSE: ETE) is a publicly traded master limited partnership whose principal sources of cash flow are derived from its direct and indirect equity interests in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP), Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. (NYSE: SXL) and Sunoco LP (NYSE: SUN), all of which are publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related businesses. In addition to these equity interests, ETE owns all of the equity interests in Lake Charles LNG, an entity that owns a fully constructed LNG import terminal and regasification facility near Lake Charles, Louisiana, and a 60% equity interest in LCL, an entity whose subsidiary is developing an LNG liquefaction and export terminal facility that will be integrated with Lake Charles LNG’s import/regasification facility. ETP owns the remaining 40% equity interest in LCL. As of March 31, 2016, the market capitalization of ETE common units totaled approximately $7.45 billion.

ETE’s principal executive offices are located at 8111 Westchester Drive, Dallas, Texas 75225, and ETE’s phone number is (214) 981-0700.

See “Additional Information About ETE” for additional information about ETE.

The Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE: WMB) is a publicly traded Delaware corporation founded in 1908, originally incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987. WMB is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America’s hydrocarbon resource plays to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. WMB’s operations span from the deepwater Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian oil sands.

WMB is providing this proxy statement/prospectus to WMB stockholders for the solicitation of proxies to be voted at the special meeting that WMB has called for the purposes described below. This proxy statement/prospectus is first being mailed to WMB stockholders on or about May 25, 2016 and provides WMB stockholders with the information they need to know about the merger and the proposals to be able to vote or instruct their vote to be cast at the special meeting.

The special meeting will be held on June 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., local time, at The Williams Resource Center Theater, One Williams Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172.

At the special meeting, you will be asked to consider and vote on the following proposals, which we collectively refer to as the Proposals:

After careful consideration, the WMB Board has (i) approved the merger agreement, (ii) declared the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger, to be advisable and in the best interests of WMB and its stockholders, (iii) directed that the adoption of the merger agreement be submitted to a vote at a meeting of WMB’s stockholders and (iv) resolved to recommend that WMB’s stockholders approve the adoption of the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger and the Compensatory Proposal. A majority of the WMB Board recommend that WMB stockholders vote “FOR” the Merger Proposal and the Compensatory Proposal. The WMB Board unanimously recommends that WMB Stockholders vote “FOR” the Adjournment Proposal. See the section titled “The Merger—Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger” beginning on page 132 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

In considering the recommendation of the WMB Board with respect to the Proposals, you should be aware that some of WMB’s directors and executive officers may have interests that are different from, or in addition to, the interests of WMB stockholders more generally. See the section titled “The Merger—Interests of Directors and Executive Officers of WMB in the Merger” beginning on page 176 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Only WMB stockholders of record as of the close of business on May 19, 2016 (the “Record Date”), will be entitled to receive notice of, and to vote at, the special meeting or at any adjournment or postponement thereof. WMB common stock held by WMB as treasury shares will not be entitled to vote.

As of the close of business on the Record Date, there were 750,569,517 shares of WMB common stock issued and outstanding and entitled to vote at the special meeting. Each WMB stockholder is entitled to one vote for each share of WMB common stock owned as of the Record Date.

A complete list of WMB stockholders entitled to vote at the special meeting will be available for inspection at WMB’s principal place of business during regular business hours for a period of no less than ten days before the special meeting and, during the special meeting, at The Williams Resource Center Theater, One Williams Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172.

Corvex and Soroban, as of the close of business on February 26, 2016, held, directly or indirectly, and therefore controlled the power to vote or direct the voting of, 8.38% of the combined voting power of WMB common stock. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, dated as of February 25, 2014, by and among Corvex, Keith Meister, Soroban, Soroban Capital Partners LLC, Eric W. Mandelblatt and WMB, because Keith Meister and Eric W. Mandelblatt, in their capacity as WMB directors voted in favor of the Merger Proposal at a meeting of the WMB Board, Corvex and Soroban are required to cause their shares of WMB common stock to be voted in accordance with the WMB Board’s recommendation with respect to such matter. As a result, due to the WMB Board’s recommendation “for” the Merger Proposal, 8.38% of the combined voting power of WMB common stock will be voted in favor of the Merger Proposal.

A majority of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock as of the Record Date must be represented in person or by proxy at the special meeting in order to constitute a quorum. A quorum of WMB stockholders is required to approve the Merger Proposal and the Compensatory Proposal at the special meeting, but not to approve any Adjournment Proposal.

Abstentions are counted as present for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present, but broker non-votes are not. A broker non-vote occurs when a nominee holds shares for a beneficial owner but cannot vote on a proposal because the nominee does not have the discretionary power to vote such shares and has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner.

Approval of the Merger Proposal requires the affirmative vote of holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock. Therefore, if you do not vote your shares of WMB common stock or abstain from voting, it will have the same effect as a vote against the Merger Proposal.

The approval of the Adjournment Proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on such proposal at the special meeting, regardless of whether a quorum is present. Abstentions will not be treated as votes cast for purposes of the Adjournment Proposal. Therefore, if you abstain from voting on the Adjournment Proposal, your WMB common stock will be disregarded for purposes of determining the votes cast for the Adjournment Proposal, and the abstention will therefore have no effect on the adoption of the Adjournment Proposal.

As of the close of business on the Record Date, WMB’s directors and executive officers were entitled to vote, in the aggregate, approximately 8.54% of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock.

Voting and Submitting a Proxy for WMB Common Stock Held by Holders of Record

If you were a holder of record of WMB common stock at the close of business on the Record Date, you may vote in person by attending the special meeting or, to ensure that your shares are represented at the special meeting, you may authorize a proxy to vote by:

When you submit a proxy by telephone or the Internet, your proxy is recorded immediately. We encourage you to submit your proxy using these methods whenever possible. If you submit a proxy by telephone or the Internet, please do not return your proxy card by mail.

All shares of WMB common stock represented by each properly executed and valid proxy received before the special meeting will be voted in accordance with the instructions given on the proxy. If a WMB stockholder executes a proxy card without giving instructions, the WMB common stock represented by that proxy card will be voted “FOR” each of the Proposals.

Your vote is important. Accordingly, please submit your proxy by telephone, the Internet or mail, whether or not you plan to attend the meeting in person. Proxies must be received by 11:59 p.m., Central Time, on June 26, 2016.

If your WMB common stock is held in an account at a bank, broker or other nominee, you must instruct the bank, broker or other nominee on how to vote them by following the instructions that the bank, broker or other nominee provides to you with these proxy materials. Most banks, brokers, and other nominees offer the ability for stockholders to submit voting instructions by mail by completing a voting instruction card, by telephone, and by the Internet.

If you hold your WMB common stock in a brokerage account and you do not provide voting instructions to your broker, your shares will not be voted on any proposal because under the current rules of the NYSE brokers do not have discretionary authority to vote on the Proposals. Since there are no items on the agenda that your broker has discretionary authority to vote upon, broker non-votes will not be counted as present at the meeting if you fail to instruct your broker on how to vote on the Proposals. Therefore, a broker non-vote will have the same effect as a vote against the Merger Proposal, but will have no effect on the Compensatory Proposal or the Adjournment Proposal.

If you hold shares through a bank, broker or other nominee and wish to vote your shares in person at the special meeting, you must obtain a legal proxy from your bank, broker, or other nominee and present it to the inspector of election with your ballot when you vote at the special meeting.

If you are a stockholder of record, you may revoke your proxy and/or change your vote by:

If you choose to revoke your proxy by written notice or submit a later-dated proxy, you must do so by 11:59 p.m., Central Time, on June 26, 2016.

If you hold your WMB common stock in street name through a bank, broker or other nominee, you must follow the directions you receive from such bank, broker or other nominee to revoke or change your vote.

WMB will bear all costs and expenses in connection with the solicitation of proxies from its stockholders. WMB has engaged MacKenzie Partners, Inc. (“MacKenzie”) to assist in the solicitation of proxies for the special meeting and WMB estimates that it will pay MacKenzie a retainer fee of $75,000 and, from January 1, 2016, a quarterly retainer amount of $15,000 for its services for the merger, to be credited against the final fee, which will be in an amount to be mutually agreed upon between WMB and MacKenzie. WMB has also agreed to reimburse MacKenzie for reasonable and documented out-of-pocket expenses and disbursements incurred in connection with the proxy solicitation, such as phone calls with WMB stockholders. These expenses and disbursements could be substantial. WMB will indemnify MacKenzie against certain losses, costs and expenses. In addition, WMB will reimburse brokerage firms and other persons representing beneficial owners of WMB common stock for their reasonable expenses in forwarding solicitation materials to such beneficial owners. Proxies also may be solicited by certain of WMB’s directors, officers and employees by telephone, electronic mail, letter, facsimile or in person, but no additional compensation will be paid to them.

No business shall be conducted at the special meeting other than the matters described herein.

Adjournments may be made for the purpose of, among other things, soliciting additional proxies. If there are insufficient votes at the special meeting to approve the Merger Proposal and it is necessary or appropriate to solicit additional proxies, the special meeting may be adjourned. Whether or not a quorum is present, an adjournment may be made from time to time by the chairman of the meeting or by the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on such adjournment. WMB is not required to notify WMB stockholders of any adjournment of 30 days or less if the time and place of the adjourned meeting are announced at the meeting at which such adjournment is taken, unless after the adjournment a new record date is fixed for the adjourned meeting. At any adjourned meeting, WMB may transact any business that it might have transacted at the original meeting, provided that a quorum is present at such adjourned meeting. Proxies submitted by WMB stockholders for use at the special meeting will be used at any adjournment or postponement of the special meeting. References to the special meeting in this proxy statement/prospectus are to such special meeting as adjourned or postponed.

All WMB stockholders as of the close of business on the Record Date, or their duly appointed proxies, may attend the special meeting, subject to available seating. Admission to the special meeting will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration will begin on the date of the special meeting at 8:00 a.m., local time, and seating will begin at 8:30 a.m., local time. Cameras, recording devices and other electronic devices will not be permitted at the special meeting.

WMB stockholders and proxies will be asked to present valid picture identification, such as a driver’s license or passport. If you hold your shares in street name, you will also need to bring a copy of the voting instruction card you received from your bank, broker or other nominee for the special meeting or a brokerage statement reflecting your WMB common stock ownership as of the close of business on the Record Date and check in at the registration desk at the special meeting.

If you need assistance in completing your proxy card, have questions regarding the special meeting, or would like additional copies, without charge, of this proxy statement/prospectus, please contact MacKenzie at (800) 322-2885.

The WMB Board, together with senior management and with the assistance of WMB’s advisors, has periodically reviewed and considered various strategic opportunities and alternatives available to WMB in light of competitive and industry developments from time to time. These reviews have focused on WMB’s business strategy in light of the business, regulatory and economic environment of the energy industry, including the midstream sector, as well as discussions as to whether a strategic transaction offered the best avenue to enhance WMB stockholder value.

In February of 2014, Mr. Kelcy L. Warren, the Chairman of the board of directors of LE GP, contacted Mr. Alan Armstrong, the Chief Executive Officer and a director of WMB, and expressed interest in exploring a combination of ETE and WMB. Mr. Armstrong stated he did not believe WMB was interested in a combination but that, if Mr. Warren made an offer, he would take it to the WMB Board.

In November of 2014, Barclays, one of WMB’s financial advisors, received an informal indication of interest from Mr. Jamie Welch, the Group Chief Financial Officer and Head of Business Development of LE GP, regarding a potential transaction between WMB and ETE. A representative of Barclays reported this conversation to WMB management.

On November 19, 2014, a regular meeting of the WMB Board was convened in Mobile, Alabama. Members of WMB management were also in attendance. During this meeting, a director requested a separate session for the WMB Board to discuss ETE’s indication of interest. The WMB Board held such separate session telephonically on November 24, 2014 and concluded it would seek further guidance from Barclays and Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (“Cravath”), one of WMB’s outside legal counsel, to further consider the indication of interest. Shortly thereafter, representatives of Barclays informed representatives of ETE that the WMB Board had been made aware of Mr. Welch’s inquiry and that it was being considered.

On December 5, 2014, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays and Cravath were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed the informal indication of interest from ETE. Representatives of Cravath reviewed with the WMB Board its fiduciary duties in considering the ETE inquiry. The WMB Board discussed various considerations in exploring a transaction with ETE at that time, including the potential impact on the pending merger between ACMP and WPZ (the “ACMP-WPZ merger”). After further discussion, the WMB Board determined that in light of the pending ACMP-WPZ merger, it was not in the best interest of WMB stockholders to engage with ETE at that time. The WMB Board requested that Barclays communicate to ETE that WMB was not interested in discussing a potential combination at that time, in light of the pending ACMP-WPZ merger. The WMB Board also requested that members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays prepare an overview of ETE and its affiliates for the December 18, 2014 WMB Board meeting and that they prepare a review of other strategic opportunities available to WMB for the January 2015 WMB Board meeting. Shortly after the meeting, representatives of Barclays informed representatives of ETE of the determination of the WMB Board.

On December 18, 2014, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays and Cravath were also in attendance. During this meeting, representatives of Barclays provided an overview of ETE and its affiliates, including, among other things, an overview of ETE’s then existing five publicly traded companies, the nature of ETE’s operations and sources of revenue, ETE’s acquisition history, organic growth prospects, recent developments and equity price performance. Representatives of Barclays advised the WMB Board that the overview would be further updated over the coming weeks, and the WMB Board requested that Barclays prepare certain additional materials for the January 2015 WMB Board meeting.

On January 20, 2015, a regular meeting of the WMB Board was convened in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays and Cravath were also in attendance. During this meeting, representatives of Barclays made a presentation regarding strategic alternatives available to WMB, including growth opportunities and potential strategic transactions. The WMB Board discussed with Barclays and members of WMB management the various strategic alternatives. Following this discussion, the WMB Board determined to contact ETE after the completion of the ACMP-WPZ merger to obtain additional details about the nature and terms of ETE’s interest in a potential combination with WMB. The WMB Board then discussed Barclays’ qualifications, expertise, reputation and experience (including in the midstream sector). Following this discussion, the WMB Board instructed members of WMB management to formally retain Barclays to review and advise on strategic alternatives, including in relation to any potential sale of WMB. On February 3, 2015, WMB formally engaged Barclays to act as its financial advisor in connection with WMB’s review of its strategic alternatives.

On February 13, 2015, after the completion of the ACMP-WPZ merger, Mr. Armstrong contacted Mr. Warren to obtain additional details about the nature and terms of ETE’s interest in a potential business combination of ETE and WMB. Mr. Warren stated that he was only interested in exploring a combination if WMB was supportive of such a combination. Mr. Armstrong stated that WMB was not seeking a combination but WMB always considers strategic proposals and that he would convey any offer to the WMB Board.

On February 20, 2015, following the closing of the ACMP-WPZ merger, Mr. Welch called a representative of Barclays to further discuss a potential transaction between WMB and ETE. The representative of Barclays suggested to Mr. Welch that the best channel of communication to continue such discussion would be directly between Mr. Warren and Mr. Armstrong.

On February 26, 2015, Mr. Warren attempted to call Mr. Armstrong but was unable to reach him.

On March 2, 2015, Mr. Armstrong returned the call to Mr. Warren, and Mr. Warren invited Mr. Armstrong to meet to pursue a discussion of a potential business combination of ETE and WMB if WMB was supportive of a combination. Mr. Armstrong agreed to discuss the invitation with the WMB Board but reiterated that WMB was not seeking a combination but that WMB always considers strategic proposals and that he would convey any offer to the WMB Board.

On March 4, 2015, a regular meeting of the WMB Board was convened in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Armstrong reported his conversation with Mr. Warren. The WMB Board determined it would be beneficial for Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Warren to get to know each other better as leaders of energy companies to discuss general industry issues and that WMB would consider any strategic proposal, but recognized that there was no proposal pending for a potential transaction at that time and thus no basis for further engagement on that subject.

On March 5, 2015, a regular meeting of the WMB Board was convened in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays were also in attendance. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays discussed with the WMB Board additional strategic alternatives available to WMB, including a potential transaction in which WMB would acquire all of the public outstanding common units of WPZ (the “WPZ merger”) and a potential combination with ETE. Representatives of Barclays made a presentation regarding the WPZ merger. The WMB Board discussed the rationale for the WPZ merger, further analysis that would be required, potential consequences and the next steps, timing and processes involving the conflicts committee (the “WPZ conflicts committee”) of the board of directors of WPZ GP LLC (the “WPZ Board”), that would be necessary to complete the WPZ merger. Representatives of Barclays also discussed other potential candidates for a strategic transaction, including ETE and other possible strategic counterparties.

On March 13, 2015, Mr. Armstrong responded to Mr. Warren’s pending invitation, agreeing that their assistants would work to find a mutually convenient time for them to meet socially to get to know each other

better and discuss general industry issues and any opportunities between their companies. Such scheduling efforts over the ensuing weeks culminated in Mr. Warren’s invitation to Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Don Chappel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WMB, to a dinner on May 6, 2015 with Mr. Warren and Mr. Welch at Mr. Warren’s home in Dallas, Texas.

On April 2, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays were also in attendance. Members of WMB management discussed the potential WPZ merger with the WMB Board, including expected market receptivity for the potential WPZ merger, the potential premium to be paid to WPZ unitholders and the timing of any such transaction. The WMB Board determined that members of WMB management should continue to investigate a potential WPZ merger and further determined that WMB management, with the assistance of Barclays, should present the terms of the potential WPZ merger to the WPZ Board, and ask the WPZ conflicts committee to engage advisors to evaluate and negotiate the potential WPZ merger.

Later in the day on April 2, 2015, the WPZ Board held a telephonic meeting to introduce the proposed WPZ merger to the independent directors of the WPZ Board. During this meeting, after discussion, the WPZ Board, without adopting specific resolutions, delegated authority to evaluate the potential WPZ merger to the WPZ conflicts committee. The formal resolutions delegating authority to the WPZ conflicts committee were adopted by the WPZ Board, by unanimous written consent, on May 11, 2015 and authorized the WPZ conflicts committee to review, evaluate and negotiate the potential WPZ merger on behalf of WPZ for the purpose of providing, if appropriate, “Special Approval” pursuant to Section 7.9(a) of the WPZ partnership agreement and to evaluate the terms and conditions, and determine the advisability, of the potential WPZ merger.

On April 6, 2015, the WPZ conflicts committee participated in a conference call to discuss the selection of legal and financial advisors for the potential WPZ merger. The WPZ conflicts committee subsequently engaged Baker Botts LLP (“Baker Botts”) as its outside legal counsel and Evercore Partners L.L.C. (“Evercore”) as its financial advisor. An engagement letter detailing the terms of Baker Botts’ engagement was entered into on April 13, 2015. An engagement letter detailing the terms of Evercore’s engagement was executed on May 12, 2015.

Between April 2, 2015 and May 12, 2015, members of WMB management provided the WMB Board with regular updates regarding the status of the potential WPZ merger. During such period, representatives of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (“Gibson Dunn”), one of WMB’s outside legal counsel, and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (“Potter Anderson”), WMB’s Delaware counsel, participated in multiple conference calls, and negotiated and finalized the terms of the merger agreement between WMB, WPZ and various other entities (the “WPZ merger agreement”) and related transaction documents, with Baker Botts.

On May 6, 2015, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Chappel attended a dinner with Mr. Warren and Mr. Welch at Mr. Warren’s home in Dallas, Texas. At the dinner, the attendees discussed ETE’s strategy to serve customers’ needs with a diversified portfolio of energy assets, commercial opportunities between ETE and WMB and the possible industrial logic for a potential combination of WMB and ETE to support ETE’s diversified strategy. Mr. Armstrong pointed out the strength of WMB’s focus on a natural gas infrastructure strategy, rather than a diversified services strategy, but affirmed that he would discuss any ETE offer made with the WMB Board. Mr. Warren stated to Mr. Armstrong he would not make an offer unless Mr. Armstrong was supportive thereof. No offer was made to Mr. Armstrong or Mr. Chappel by Mr. Warren or Mr. Welch, nor was an offer requested by Mr. Armstrong or Mr. Chappel.

On May 11, 2015, WMB formally engaged Barclays to act as its financial advisor in connection with WMB’s review of the potential WPZ merger.

On May 12, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Gibson Dunn and Potter Anderson were also in attendance. During

this meeting, the WMB Board discussed the proposed WPZ merger in which WMB would acquire all of the public outstanding common units of WPZ in an all stock-for-unit transaction at a ratio of 1.115 shares of WMB common stock per common unit of WPZ. Representatives of Gibson Dunn reviewed with the WMB Board its fiduciary duties in considering the WPZ merger and reviewed the principal legal terms of the WPZ merger agreement. In particular, the WMB Board discussed its right to change its recommendation under the WPZ merger agreement three days after providing notice of its intent to do so to the WPZ conflicts committee. Notwithstanding a change of recommendation, WMB would nevertheless remain obligated under the terms of the WPZ merger agreement to submit the WPZ merger to a vote of the WMB stockholders. The WMB Board also discussed the termination fee of $410 million payable by WMB to WPZ in certain circumstances, including any termination of the WPZ merger agreement following a failure to obtain the requisite approval of the WMB stockholders, through a waiver of a portion of WPZ GP LLC’s incentive distributions. Representatives of Barclays then presented its financial analyses regarding the consideration payable in the WPZ merger and delivered its oral opinion to the WMB Board, which was confirmed by delivery of a written opinion dated May 12, 2015, that, as of such date and based upon and subject to the limitations and assumptions set forth therein, the merger consideration to be paid by WMB pursuant to the WPZ merger agreement was fair, from a financial point of view, to WMB. Following discussion, the WMB Board unanimously determined that the transactions contemplated by the WPZ merger agreement were advisable, fair to and in the best interests of WMB and its stockholders, unanimously approved the WPZ merger agreement and unanimously recommended that WMB stockholders vote in favor of approving the WMB common stock issuance contemplated by the WPZ merger agreement and adopting a related amendment to WMB’s certificate of incorporation.

Later in the day on May 12, 2015, a special meeting of the WPZ Board was telephonically convened. During this meeting, after discussion, upon receipt of the unanimous recommendation of the WPZ conflicts committee, the WPZ Board unanimously approved the WPZ merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the WPZ merger. Later that day, WMB and WPZ executed the WPZ merger agreement.

On May 13, 2015, WMB and WPZ issued a joint press release announcing the execution of the WPZ merger agreement and discussed the WPZ merger at the previously scheduled WMB Analyst Day.

On May 19, 2015, Mr. Armstrong received a letter from Mr. Warren, in which ETE proposed to acquire WMB in an all-equity transaction at an implied price of $64.00 per share of WMB common stock, which represented a 20% premium relative to the closing price of the shares of WMB common stock on May 19, 2015. The implied price of $64.00 would have resulted in an exchange ratio of 1.8673 ETE common units per share of WMB common stock, after giving effect to a two-for-one split of ETE’s units on July 27, 2015 and assuming that the equity to be received by WMB stockholders would be ETE common units or equity equivalent thereto. The letter indicated that the equity to be received by WMB stockholders in the proposed transaction would consist of shares of a new corporation that would only own ETE common units and that would be publicly traded on the NYSE and would effectively mirror the economic attributes of ETE common units. The letter also conditioned the offer on the termination of the WPZ merger agreement, and indicated that ETE would agree to a “hell or high water” regulatory standard in the definitive merger agreement.

On May 20, 2015, a regular meeting of the WMB Board was convened in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Members of WMB management were also in attendance. During this meeting, Mr. Armstrong reported that he had received the May 19 letter from Mr. Warren. The WMB Board discussed the letter and the process for reviewing it and decided to further discuss the letter the following day with the benefit of WMB’s advisors.

On May 21, 2015, the WMB Board convened in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed the May 19 letter from Mr. Warren. Representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn reviewed with the WMB Board its fiduciary duties in considering ETE’s proposal. Representatives of Barclays then outlined a process to perform a financial analysis of ETE’s proposal and discussed with the WMB Board various other

matters related to ETE’s proposal, including the equity consideration proposed by ETE, ETE’s condition that WMB terminate the WPZ merger agreement, expected WMB stockholder reaction to ETE’s proposal and other potential strategic alternatives available to WMB. The WMB Board and its advisors then discussed ETE’s governance structure and the process to evaluate ETE’s proposal, including WMB’s obligations under the WPZ merger agreement. During this discussion, a representative of Barclays noted that Barclays had a separate team that advised and provided services for ETE from time to time on certain matters, but that this team was not involved in advising ETE with respect to its current proposal to WMB, as set forth in the May 19 letter. After representatives of Barclays had left the meeting, the WMB Board and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn considered whether to engage Barclays for this matter and whether to engage a second financial advisor. After substantial discussion, the WMB Board determined that, given Barclays’ prior history with WMB and Barclays’ extensive knowledge of WMB’s business and the industry, Barclays should continue to advise WMB. WMB had received assurances from Barclays that the Barclays team that advised and provided services for ETE from time to time on certain matters and the Barclays team advising WMB did not share any information in connection with ETE’s current proposal to WMB, as set forth in the May 19 letter. The WMB Board also authorized Cravath, Gibson Dunn and members of WMB management to identify and recommend potential additional financial advisors for the WMB Board’s consideration to assist the WMB Board in its review of ETE’s proposal, as set forth in the May 19 letter and other potential strategic alternatives. The WMB Board also authorized Cravath and Gibson Dunn to survey the members of the WMB Board to identify each director’s holdings in ETE. Representatives of Barclays then returned to the meeting, and after further discussion, the WMB Board determined that Mr. Armstrong should inform Mr. Warren that ETE’s proposal had been received and that the WMB Board would carefully consider it. Later that day, Mr. Armstrong communicated such message to Mr. Warren.

After the May 21 WMB Board meeting, members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn conferred and, after evaluating the qualifications, expertise, reputation and experience (including in the midstream sector and with transactions of a size and complexity comparable to ETE’s proposal) of several potential financial advisors, identified two potential candidates for the WMB Board’s consideration: Lazard and another financial advisor (“Financial Advisor A”).

On May 23, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, representatives of Cravath identified Lazard and Financial Advisor A as two potential candidates that WMB could engage to assist the WMB Board in its evaluation of ETE’s proposal. After a discussion of Lazard’s and Financial Advisor A’s qualifications, expertise, reputation and experience (including in the midstream sector and with transactions of a size and complexity comparable to ETE’s proposal), the WMB Board authorized representatives of Cravath to contact representatives of Lazard and Financial Advisor A to review their transaction history with WMB and ETE. The WMB Board also discussed the process for members of the WMB Board to interview representatives of a potential second financial advisor. In addition, the WMB Board discussed how Barclays and the potential second financial advisor might coordinate their financial analyses and the potential fee structures that could be implemented to compensate Barclays and such second financial advisor for their services.

Over the weekend of May 23 and 24, 2015, representatives of Cravath contacted representatives of Lazard and Financial Advisor A to determine if they had previously been engaged by WMB or ETE and whether, as a result (or for any other reasons), either Lazard or Financial Advisor A would have a conflict in advising the WMB Board. Representatives of Lazard informed representatives of Cravath that Lazard had previously been engaged by an affiliate of ETE, but that in that role Lazard had been adverse to ETE, and that Lazard had not been engaged by WMB previously. Representatives of Financial Advisor A informed representatives of Cravath that Financial Advisor A had previously been engaged by ETE and that Financial Advisor A had not been engaged by WMB previously. Representatives of Cravath discussed these findings with Mr. Frank MacInnis, Chairman of the WMB Board. As previously requested by the WMB Board, representatives of Cravath arranged for a meeting between certain members of the WMB Board and representatives of Lazard.

On May 26, 2015, certain members of the WMB Board interviewed representatives of Lazard. During this interview, the members of the WMB Board and representatives of Lazard discussed Lazard’s qualifications, expertise, reputation and experience (including in the midstream sector and with transactions of a size and complexity comparable to ETE’s proposal). Following the interview, Mr. MacInnis instructed members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn to negotiate proposed terms for the retention of Barclays and Lazard, including a fee structure consistent with the WMB Board’s previous guidance, for consideration by the WMB Board.

On May 28, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed with representatives of Barclays and Lazard the proposed scope and timeline for the financial analyses to be performed with respect to ETE’s proposal. After representatives of Barclays and Lazard left the meeting, the WMB Board reviewed with representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn the proposed terms, including the fee structure, on which Barclays and Lazard would be retained by WMB to perform financial advisory services. The WMB Board then authorized WMB management to negotiate a letter agreement to supplement the existing strategic alternatives engagement letter, dated February 3, 2015, between WMB and Barclays without deviating from the WMB Board’s instructions on fee structure. The WMB Board also authorized WMB management to negotiate an engagement letter with Lazard without deviating from the WMB Board’s instructions on fee structure. The WMB Board determined not to authorize fees for a formal opinion from Barclays or Lazard on ETE’s proposal at that time and to provide the WMB Board with an opportunity to review both engagement letters prior to their execution.

During late May and early June, members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath negotiated the draft engagement letters between WMB and each of Barclays and Lazard consistent with the WMB Board’s instructions, and WMB formally engaged Barclays and Lazard to act as its financial advisors on June 15, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, a couple of WMB directors raised concerns regarding whether all material information had been provided to the WMB Board in connection with its approval of the WPZ merger agreement.

On May 30, 2015, Mr. MacInnis, Mr. Armstrong and representatives of Cravath participated in a conference call during which they discussed the concerns raised by certain directors regarding whether all material information had been provided to the WMB Board in connection with its approval of the WPZ merger agreement.

On June 1, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed that certain directors had made certain inquiries regarding whether all material information had been provided to the WMB Board in connection with its approval of the WPZ merger agreement. The WMB Board then discussed potential actions with respect to the inquiries and concluded that a panel of independent directors (the “director inquiry panel”), led by Dr. Kathleen Cooper, a director of WMB, should gather more information relating to the inquiries and promptly report its findings back to the WMB Board. The director inquiry panel was tasked with ascertaining whether the WMB Board had been provided with all material information necessary in connection with the approval of the WPZ merger and to determine whether it had all material information necessary to assess ETE’s proposal. The WMB Board authorized the director inquiry panel to retain outside legal counsel in connection with the inquiries. The WMB Board also discussed whether to inform ETE that the WMB Board would likely require additional time to review ETE’s proposal in light of these inquiries, as the WMB Board recognized that the review of these inquiries could impact the timing of its response to ETE. The WMB Board determined to instruct Barclays and Lazard to continue their ongoing review of ETE’s proposal and WMB’s other strategic alternatives during the review of these inquiries. ETE’s proposal was further discussed and it was determined that representatives of Lazard would reiterate to representatives of ETE that the WMB Board was carefully considering ETE’s proposal. Later that day, representatives of Lazard communicated such message to representatives of ETE.

On June 2, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath were also in attendance. During this meeting, Dr. Cooper informed the WMB Board that Mr. Ralph Izzo and Mr. Steven Nance would also serve on the director inquiry panel and that the director inquiry panel had retained an investigative Cravath team to assist it in its inquiries and was gathering information and scheduling interviews with certain individuals. Members of WMB management also reviewed with the WMB Board the progress that had been made by representatives of Barclays and Lazard in its financial analyses of ETE’s proposal.

On June 10, 2015, Mr. MacInnis received a letter from Mr. Warren, reiterating ETE’s proposal to acquire WMB in an all-equity transaction at an implied price of $64.00 per share of WMB common stock, which represented a 34% premium relative to the closing price of the shares of WMB common stock on June 10, 2015. The implied price of $64.00 would have resulted in an exchange ratio of 1.8692 ETE common units per share of WMB common stock, after giving effect to a two-for-one split of ETE’s units on July 27, 2015 and assuming that the equity to be received by WMB stockholders would be ETE common units or equity equivalent thereto. The letter also indicated that ETE desired to begin negotiations immediately, was prepared to conduct mutual due diligence (and had prepared a mutual non-disclosure agreement to this end) and negotiate transaction documentation in a short period of time. The letter stated that representatives of ETE expected to hear from representatives of WMB by the end of the week.

Also on June 10, 2015, LE GP held a telephonic special meeting of its board of directors to provide an update on ETE’s proposed transaction with WMB. The board of directors of LE GP discussed the premium price offered to WMB, the proposed transaction structure, including formation of ETC and the view that the transaction would not present any material regulatory concerns.

On June 11, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed ETE’s June 10 letter and potential responses to it. The WMB Board also discussed with representatives of Barclays and Lazard the expected timing of the completion of their respective financial analyses of ETE’s proposal. In addition, the WMB Board discussed the expected timing of completion of the inquiries by the director inquiry panel. After further discussion, the WMB Board determined that the director inquiry panel should complete its work prior to WMB providing a substantive response to ETE’s proposal. The WMB Board then authorized Mr. MacInnis to send Mr. Warren a letter to inform him that the WMB Board was working with financial advisors and outside legal counsel to expeditiously complete its review of ETE’s proposal consistent with its fiduciary duties and that representatives of WMB would not be able to respond to ETE’s proposal by the end of the week, but that they would contact representatives of ETE once they had greater clarity as to the timing of WMB’s response. Later in the day on June 11, 2015, Mr. MacInnis sent Mr. Warren such a letter.

On June 15, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the director inquiry panel reported that, based on the information gathered, the director inquiry panel concluded that the WMB Board had all material information prior to approving the WPZ merger agreement and had all material information necessary to assess ETE’s proposal. In addition, the WMB Board reviewed the terms and conditions of Barclays’ and Lazard’s engagement with the assistance of representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn and directed members of WMB management to execute such engagement letters.

On June 18, 2015, the WMB Board received a letter from ETE, in which ETE again reiterated its proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock in an all-equity transaction at an implied price of $64.00 per share, which represented a 32% premium relative to the closing price of the shares of WMB common stock on June 17, 2015. The implied price of $64.00 would have resulted in an exchange ratio of 1.8325 ETE common units per share of WMB common stock, after giving effect to a two-for-one split of ETE’s units on July 27, 2015 and assuming that the equity to be received by WMB stockholders would be ETE common units or

equity equivalent thereto. The letter confirmed the terms of ETE’s prior proposal, including that (1) the equity to be received by WMB stockholders in the proposed transaction would consist of a fixed number of shares of a new limited partnership entity that would elect to be treated as a corporation for tax purposes, would own no assets other than ETE common units and would be publicly traded on the NYSE, (2) the offer was contingent on the termination of the WPZ merger agreement and (3) ETE would agree to a “hell or high water” regulatory standard in the definitive merger agreement. The letter indicated that it would be ETE’s last attempt to engage in a non-public discussion regarding a mutually negotiated transaction, requested that WMB deliver a complete and substantive response by 9:00 a.m. ET on June 22, 2015 and noted that if WMB failed to do so, then ETE would publicize its proposal to WMB stockholders and would plan to take its proposal directly to WMB stockholders. The letter also attached a mutual non-disclosure agreement executed by ETE.

On June 20, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was convened in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn reviewed with the WMB Board its fiduciary duties and WMB’s obligations pursuant to the WPZ merger agreement in light of ETE’s proposal. Members of WMB management made a presentation to the WMB Board regarding management’s outlook for WMB. Representatives of Barclays then discussed Barclays’ analysis of ETE’s proposal, including various financial analyses of WMB, transaction structure and tax considerations, potential alternative forms of consideration and potential strategic alternatives. Additionally, Barclays provided the WMB Board information with respect to Barclays’ relationships since 2012 with ETE, together with WMB, WPZ and their respective affiliates, through which Barclays had provided certain advice or services from time to time, together with the approximate compensation Barclays received for such advice or services. Representatives of Lazard then discussed Lazard’s analysis of ETE’s proposal, including various financial analyses of WMB, other forms of consideration and other strategic alternatives. During the respective presentations by Barclays and Lazard, the WMB Board engaged in extensive discussion with its advisors regarding each financial advisor’s respective financial analyses, including the assumptions and methodologies underlying such analyses. The WMB Board then discussed whether ETE’s proposal provided an adequate basis on which to begin discussions with ETE and the possibility of exploring a range of other potential strategic alternatives. After further discussion, the WMB Board authorized management to publicly announce that it was commencing a process to explore a range of strategic alternatives (the “strategic alternatives review process”) and to communicate to ETE that its proposal did not provide an adequate basis on which to begin discussions regarding a potential transaction and that it significantly undervalued WMB. The WMB Board also resolved to form a strategic review administrative committee (the “strategic review committee”), comprised of Mr. Nance, Ms. Janice Stoney and Ms. Laura Sugg, to oversee, on behalf of the WMB Board, the administration of the strategic alternatives review process.

Later in the day on June 20, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was convened in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A member of WMB management and a representative of Cravath were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee appointed Ms. Sugg as the chairperson of the strategic review committee and reviewed the letter that Mr. Armstrong would send to Mr. Warren. During another meeting of the strategic review committee on June 21, 2015, the strategic review committee again reviewed the letter that Mr. Armstrong would send to Mr. Warren and also reviewed the press release that the WMB Board had authorized WMB to issue announcing the strategic alternatives review process.

On June 21, 2015, Mr. Armstrong sent Mr. Warren a letter which stated that the WMB Board had determined that ETE’s proposal significantly undervalued WMB, did not provide an adequate basis on which to begin discussions regarding a potential transaction and would not deliver value commensurate with what WMB expected to achieve on a standalone basis and through other growth initiatives, including through the previously proposed acquisition of all of the public outstanding common units of WPZ. The letter also indicated that WMB was commencing the strategic alternatives review process and invited ETE to participate in it. The letter indicated that all participants would be subject to a confidential disclosure agreement and enclosed a form of the agreement for ETE’s review.

Later in the day on June 21, 2015, WMB issued a press release announcing that the WMB Board had authorized a process to explore a range of strategic alternatives following receipt of an unsolicited proposal to acquire WMB in an all-equity transaction at an implied price of $64.00 per share of WMB common stock. The press release also announced that, with the assistance of its financial advisors and outside legal counsel, the WMB Board carefully considered the unsolicited proposal and determined that it significantly undervalued WMB and would not deliver value commensurate with what WMB expected to achieve on a standalone basis and through other growth initiatives, including through the previously proposed acquisition of all the public outstanding common units of WPZ.

Later in the day on June 21, 2015, Mr. Armstrong called the chair of the WPZ conflicts committee, and a representative of Gibson Dunn called a representative of Baker Botts, in each case to inform them that the WMB Board was undertaking the strategic alternatives review process and that WMB intended to continue to implement the transactions contemplated by the WPZ merger agreement in accordance with its terms.

On June 22, 2015, ETE issued a press release confirming that it was the party that had made the proposal to acquire WMB and stated that ETE was willing to acquire all of the outstanding equity of WMB at a fixed exchange ratio of 0.9358 ETC common shares per share of WMB common stock, which would have resulted in an exchange ratio of 1.8716 ETC common shares per share of WMB common stock after giving effect to a two-for-one split of ETE’s units on July 27, 2015, contingent on termination of the WPZ merger agreement.

Later in the day, on June 22, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed with its advisors the process, timing and other considerations for the strategic alternatives review process. After discussion, the strategic review committee authorized representatives of WMB, Barclays and Lazard to contact 18 potential counterparties, including ETE and five other strategic parties which we refer to as Party A, Party B, Party C, Party D and Party E, to solicit their interest in participating in the strategic alternatives review process. The strategic review committee also discussed other potential strategic alternatives available to WMB, including the WPZ merger and other standalone alternatives, and requested that Barclays and Lazard assist members of WMB management in the analysis of these alternatives.

Over the course of several days beginning on June 22, 2015, representatives of WMB, Barclays and Lazard communicated with the potential counterparties to solicit their interest in participating in the strategic alternatives review process. In cases where the potential counterparties, other than ETE, indicated a preliminary level of interest and a willingness to enter into a confidential disclosure agreement, representatives of WMB, Barclays or Lazard distributed to those potential counterparties a bid instruction letter relating to submission of a first round, non-binding indication of interest to acquire 100% of the capital stock of WMB. The bid instruction letter specified a bid deadline of July 27, 2015. The bid instruction letter also indicated that all potential counterparties would be subject to a confidential disclosure agreement and enclosed a form of the agreement for the potential counterparty’s review. As part of these discussions, representatives of Party D requested an introductory meeting with members of WMB management.

On June 25, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed, among other things, various communications that had occurred between representatives of WMB, Barclays, Lazard and Cravath, on the one hand, and representatives of potential counterparties, on the other hand, including the negotiation of confidential disclosure agreements with several of the potential counterparties.

Also on June 25, 2015, as previously approved by the strategic review committee, members of WMB management and members of Party D management held an introductory in-person meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Also on June 25, 2015, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (“Wachtell”), counsel to ETE, delivered to Cravath a mark-up of the draft confidentiality agreement sent by Mr. Armstrong to Mr. Warren. Between June 25 and July 16, 2015, Wachtell and Cravath negotiated the confidentiality agreement on behalf of their respective clients, with the primary points of discussion relating to the standstill provisions requested by WMB.

On each of June 29 and July 1, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During these meetings, the strategic review committee discussed, among other things, various communications that had occurred between representatives of WMB, Barclays, Lazard and Cravath, on the one hand, and representatives of potential counterparties, on the other hand. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard noted the level of interest expressed by certain counterparties and the status of the negotiation of confidential disclosure agreements and also informed the strategic review committee of certain potential counterparties that had declined to participate in the strategic alternatives review process. The strategic review committee also discussed with its advisors potential standalone strategic alternatives that should be considered by the WMB Board, including continuing to pursue the WPZ merger, divesting certain assets or businesses and acquiring certain assets or businesses (such alternatives, the “potential standalone strategic alternatives”).

During the end of June and the beginning of July 2015, WMB’s management proposed the retention of a separate banking advisor to assist management in the effort to develop standalone alternatives that would not present themselves in the auction process. The strategic review committee, counsel, the financial advisors and management then discussed the proposal and it was determined Barclays and Lazard could provide the necessary additional support for this effort.

On July 2, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the status of certain confidential disclosure agreements that were being negotiated with certain potential counterparties, including ETE, as well as the update on the strategic alternatives review process that would be presented by the strategic review committee to the WMB Board on the following day.

On July 3, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. At this meeting, the strategic alternatives review process was discussed. The members of the strategic review committee provided the other members of the WMB Board with an update on the strategic alternatives review process, including that (a) potential standalone strategic alternatives were being evaluated and the forecasts for such standalone strategic alternatives were being prepared, (b) 18 potential counterparties had been contacted, (c) there had been a constructive dialogue with ETE regarding the negotiation of a confidential disclosure agreement, but that the parties were still discussing whether the agreement would include a “standstill” provision, (d) Party B, Party C, Party D and Party E had executed confidential disclosure agreements and other potential counterparties were actively negotiating confidential disclosure agreements and (e) management presentations were expected to begin during the following week.

On July 5, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the status of the confidential disclosure agreement that was being negotiated with ETE.

On July 8, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the status of the confidential disclosure agreement

that was being negotiated with ETE. Representatives of Cravath informed the strategic review committee that representatives of ETE, in light of ETE’s existing public offer to acquire WMB, had resisted including a “standstill” provision in the agreement. The strategic review committee discussed the benefits of a “standstill” provision, but that the execution by ETE of a confidential disclosure agreement (with or without a “standstill” provision) would facilitate constructive discussions regarding a potential transaction. After a discussion, the strategic review committee authorized Cravath to send representatives of ETE proposed drafts of a confidential disclosure agreement that did not contain a “standstill” provision.

On July 9, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed, among other things, the status of the strategic alternatives review process.

Later in the day on July 9, 2015, representatives of Barclays and Lazard each made a separate presentation to members of WMB management and certain directors regarding potential standalone strategic alternatives.

Also, on July 9, 2015, Mr. Thomas Mason, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of ETP, sent a letter to WMB on behalf of ETE regarding WMB’s operations and the potential effects on a combination between WMB and ETE in light of the existing conditions in the market for natural gas liquids.

On July 13, 2015, representatives of Party D sent a letter to members of WMB management to inform them that Party D would no longer be participating in the strategic alternatives review process.

Later in the day on July 13, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. At this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed that Party D had withdrawn from the strategic alternatives review process. Representatives of Cravath also discussed with the strategic review committee the status of the confidential disclosure agreement that was being negotiated with ETE and noted that a form of the agreement that included bilateral confidentiality obligations with no “standstill” provision was close to being finalized. The strategic review committee also discussed with its advisors the status of other potential counterparties and potential standalone strategic alternatives (including the financial projections for the standalone strategic alternatives), as well as the potential timeline for the strategic alternatives review process.

Between June 23 and July 14, 2015, twelve potential counterparties informed representatives of WMB, Barclays or Lazard that they would not participate in the strategic alternatives review process.

On July 14, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. At this meeting, the members of the strategic review committee informed the other members of the WMB Board that Party D had withdrawn from the strategic alternatives review process. The strategic review committee and representatives of Barclays and Lazard also discussed with the WMB Board the status of other potential counterparties, certain potential standalone strategic alternatives and the potential timeline for the strategic alternatives review process. Representatives of Cravath also discussed the status of the confidential disclosure agreement that was being negotiated with ETE.

Also on July 14, 2015, representatives of Barclays and Lazard participated in a conference call with members of WMB management to discuss potential standalone strategic alternatives and the status of the financial analyses with respect to these alternatives.

On July 16, 2015, representatives of Barclays, Lazard and Cravath discussed with a couple of WMB directors the content of the presentation regarding potential standalone strategic alternatives previously discussed with WMB management and certain other directors on July 9, 2015.

Also on July 16, 2015, WMB and ETE executed a mutual confidential disclosure agreement without a “standstill” provision.

Also on July 16, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, representatives of Cravath reported that ETE had executed a mutual confidential disclosure agreement and summarized the terms thereof. The strategic review committee and its advisors also discussed the process for responding to a diligence request list that representatives of ETE had sent to WMB. The strategic review committee also discussed with the advisors the status of other potential counterparties and potential standalone strategic alternatives. In addition, representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn discussed with the strategic review committee WMB’s obligations pursuant to the WPZ merger agreement and potential options to explore in connection with the strategic alternatives review process, including amending the WPZ merger agreement if necessary.

On July 17, 2015, a representative of Barclays provided to a representative of WMB a relationship disclosure summary for the WMB Board’s reference, including information with respect to Barclays’ relationships since 2012 with certain potential bidders for WMB through which Barclays had provided certain advice or services from time to time, together with the approximate compensation Barclays received for such advice or services.

During July, August and September of 2015, representatives of WMB, Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn engaged in various in-person and telephonic diligence sessions with the potential counterparties and their respective advisors. In addition, WMB made available to certain of the potential counterparties and their respective advisors an electronic data room, which was periodically updated with additional diligence materials. Certain of the potential counterparties also made available to WMB and its advisors electronic data rooms, which were periodically updated with additional diligence materials.

Also during July, August and September of 2015, representatives of WMB presented and received various management presentations with respect to several potential counterparties. In addition, WMB made available to the WMB Board the management presentations that were prepared by such potential counterparties, as well as certain other materials.

On July 20, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. The strategic review committee and representatives of Cravath discussed with the WMB Board the status of discussions with ETE, Party A and Party B, including the confidential disclosure agreement that had been executed by ETE and the fact that members of WMB management were expected to meet with members of ETE management on July 23 and 24, 2015. The WMB Board and its advisors also discussed potential standalone strategic alternatives that should be considered in the strategic alternatives review process, as well as the potential timeline for the strategic alternatives review process.

Also on July 20, 2015, representatives of Barclays and Lazard participated in a conference call with members of WMB management to discuss potential standalone strategic alternatives and the status of each financial advisor’s financial analysis with respect to these alternatives.

On July 21, 2015, ETE received a letter from a representative of Lazard setting forth a description of the process for the next phase of WMB’s review of strategic alternatives, which letter specified a request for submission of an indicative proposal regarding an acquisition of WMB by 12:00 pm EDT on July 27, 2015.

On July 22, 23, and 24, 2015, Mr. MacInnis, Ms. Sugg, representatives from MacKenzie and from WMB, participated in various meetings with representatives of 20 WMB stockholders and two other institutional investors to discuss the WMB stockholders’ perspectives on the strategic alternatives review process.

On July 22 and July 23, representatives of ETE and WMB met in Houston to receive presentations by the management teams on their respective businesses.

On July 23, 2015, representatives of Party C informed representatives of Lazard that Party C would not be submitting a bid to acquire 100% of the capital stock of WMB.

On July 24, 2015, the chief executive officer of Party E called Mr. Armstrong to inform him that Party E would no longer be participating in the strategic alternatives review process.

On July 27, 2015, WMB received written initial non-binding indications of interest from ETE, Party A and Party B. In these letters, (1) ETE proposed to acquire all of the shares of WMB common stock in exchange for 1.8716 ETC common shares per share of WMB common stock, contingent on termination of the WPZ merger agreement, (2) Party A proposed to acquire all of the shares of WMB common stock in exchange for a specified number of Party A shares and (3) Party B proposed to acquire all of the shares of WMB common stock by way of a “double dummy” merger structure in which a new corporation would own both WMB and Party B and the WMB stockholders and Party B would own 35% and 65%, respectively, of the new corporation. Each of Party A and Party B indicated in its letter that it would not require that the WPZ merger agreement be terminated in connection with a potential transaction.

Also on July 27, 2015, representatives of Barclays and Lazard participated in a conference call with members of WMB management to discuss potential standalone strategic alternatives and the status of each financial advisor’s respective financial analysis with respect to these alternatives.

On July 31, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. At this meeting, representatives of Barclays and Lazard reviewed each of the initial non-binding indications of interest that had been received on July 27, 2015. The strategic review committee discussed with members of WMB management and the advisors the terms proposed in each of the indications of interest received. The strategic review committee concluded that each of ETE’s proposal and Party A’s proposal could be the basis for an attractive potential transaction, but that Party B’s proposal would not offer any premium to WMB stockholders. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard recommended that ETE and Party A should be invited to participate in the second round of the strategic alternatives review process and that Party B should not be invited to continue based on its current proposal. After discussion, the strategic review committee agreed with the recommendation. The strategic review committee and WMB’s advisors also discussed the potential timeline for the strategic alternatives review process, potential standalone strategic alternatives and potential outcomes of the regulatory process in connection with a transaction with ETE or Party A. During the next few days, (a) representatives of Lazard discussed with representatives of ETE various matters relating to ETE’s proposal, including concerns with ETE’s proposed transaction structure and the value of its offer, (b) representatives of Lazard discussed with representatives of Party A various matters relating to Party A’s proposal, including regulatory concerns raised by Party A’s proposal, and (c) representatives of Barclays informed representatives of Party B that its offer was not competitive and, therefore, Party B was unlikely to be invited to continue to the second round of the strategic alternatives review process unless it enhanced its offer.

During August of 2015, representatives of WMB management prepared additional WMB forecasts with the help of Barclays and Lazard to consider the potential effects of changing market conditions, including lower commodity prices.

On August 1, 2015, representatives of WMB, ETE, Cravath, Wachtell, Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”), another of ETE’s outside legal counsel, Barclays, Lazard and Intrepid Financial Partners (“Intrepid”), one of ETE’s financial advisors, participated in a conference call to discuss certain transaction structure and tax matters relating to ETE’s July 27 proposal. After discussion, WMB’s advisors concluded that ETE’s current proposal raised concerns regarding the value of ETC common shares as compared to the value of ETE common units,

including in terms of likely future distributions (we refer to this concept as “economic equivalence”). WMB’s advisors discussed the implications on the valuation of ETE’s proposal in light of the concerns regarding economic equivalence, as well as potential solutions that could be implemented to address these concerns.

Also on August 1, 2015, representatives of Party A and its outside legal counsel participated in a meeting with members of WMB management and representatives of Gibson Dunn to discuss the regulatory concerns raised by Party A’s proposal.

On August 3, 2015, representatives of Barclays and Lazard invited ETE and Party A to participate in the second round of the strategic alternatives review process and requested that each party submit a final bid to acquire 100% of the capital stock of WMB by August 24, 2015.

Also on August 3, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, representatives of Barclays and Lazard reported on the discussions that they had with representatives of ETE, Party A and Party B during the preceding days. A discussion also ensued regarding possible solutions to the regulatory concerns raised by Party A’s proposal.

On August 4, 2015, representatives of Party B sent a letter to representatives of Barclays and Lazard to inform them that Party B would not be improving the terms of its July 27 proposal.

Also on August 4, 2015, representatives of WMB, ETE, Cravath, Wachtell and Latham participated in a conference call to discuss further certain transaction structure and tax matters relating to the ETE’s July 27 proposal. During this call, the parties discussed the concerns raised by WMB’s advisors regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units.

On August 5, 2015, members of WMB management and representatives of Gibson Dunn participated in a meeting to discuss the regulatory concerns raised by Party A’s proposal.

Also on August 5, 2015, representatives of Wachtell sent to Cravath a draft merger agreement in an effort to expedite a negotiation of a mutually acceptable merger agreement between ETE and WMB.

On August 8, 2015, representatives of Cravath sent a draft merger agreement to representatives of Wachtell and a draft merger agreement to representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel. The draft merger agreement sent to representatives of Wachtell indicated that the transaction structure would need to be discussed and set forth proposals for addressing the concerns previously raised regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units. The draft merger agreement sent to representatives of Wachtell also proposed, in light of the requirement that the WPZ merger be submitted to a vote of the WMB stockholders even if the WMB Board changed its recommendation of the WPZ merger, that: (i) ETE execute the merger agreement together with a side letter agreeing not to withdraw, revoke or rescind their execution of the merger agreement at any time before the WPZ merger agreement had been submitted to a vote of the WMB stockholders; and (ii) WMB countersign the merger agreement after termination of the WPZ merger agreement.

On August 9, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the status of the diligence process for each of ETE and Party A.

On August 10, 2015, representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel sent representatives of Cravath a term sheet that set forth a proposal for amending the terms of the pending acquisition by WMB of all of the public outstanding common units of WPZ.

Also on August 10, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed the strategic alternatives review process generally, including the status of the diligence process for each of ETE and Party A. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard also discussed certain aspects of ETE’s proposal, including concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units. In addition, the regulatory concerns raised by Party A’s proposal were discussed. A representative of Gibson Dunn then provided an update on discussions with Baker Botts regarding the WPZ merger.

Also on August 10, 2015, a telephonic joint special meeting of the boards of directors of LE GP and ETP was held to provide an update on the proposed transaction between ETE and WMB. The boards of directors of LE GP and ETP were updated by ETE management on the status of the negotiations with WMB and that ETE would meet with the WMB Board of directors on August 18, 2015. The boards of directors of LE GP and ETP discussed the proposed transaction structure, its effects on current ETE unitholders and on ETP, the positive reactions received by ETE management from the credit rating agencies and certain governance matters. ETE management relayed WMB’s desire to receive a markup of the August 8 draft merger agreement by August 24, 2015 and the boards of directors of LE GP and ETP were supportive of that timing.

On August 11, 2015, representatives of Barclays and Lazard sent representatives of ETE’s advisors a letter in which they reiterated their concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units and proposed potential solutions to address these concerns.

On August 12, 2015, a representative of Gibson Dunn called a representative of Baker Botts to provide an update on the strategic alternatives review process, including the receipt of Party A’s proposal. Later in the day on August 12, 2015, representatives of Baker Botts and Evercore requested, and subsequently received, access to diligence materials related to Party A.

Also on August 12, 2015, representatives of Wachtell sent a revised draft merger agreement to representatives of Cravath. Among other things, the revised draft merger agreement identified WMB’s proposal that ETE execute the merger agreement first and that WMB countersign the merger agreement only after termination of the WPZ merger agreement as an open matter needing further discussion. In subsequent discussions between legal advisors for WMB and ETE, legal advisors for ETE advised legal advisors for WMB that ETE would execute the merger agreement only after the WPZ merger agreement had been terminated.

On August 13, 2015, Mr. MacInnis, Ms. Sugg and representatives of Mackenzie participated in various calls with representatives of seven WMB stockholders to discuss the WMB stockholders’ perspectives on the strategic alternatives review process.

On August 18, 2015, members of ETE management gave a management presentation to the WMB Board and management in Houston, Texas. At this meeting, ETE presented information concerning the ETE business and potential synergies that might result from a combination of WMB and ETE.

Later in the day on August 18, 2015, representatives of Cravath and representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel participated in a conference call to discuss Cravath’s August 8 draft merger agreement.

Later in the day on August 18, 2015, representatives of Gibson Dunn sent representatives of Baker Botts a draft amendment to the WPZ merger agreement, which included revisions to the WPZ merger agreement to address a potential transaction with Party A.

On August 19, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was convened in Houston, Texas. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn and Wright & Talisman P.C. (“Wright & Talisman”), one of WMB’s outside legal counsel, were also in attendance. During this meeting,

representatives of Gibson Dunn, Wright & Talisman and Cravath discussed with the WMB Board the regulatory concerns raised by Party A’s proposal and several potential alternatives that could be explored to address these concerns. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard then made several presentations to the WMB Board, including (a) a review of the process and potential contingencies between the signing of a definitive agreement and the closing of a transaction, (b) a review of precedent transactions similar to the structure proposed by each of ETE and Party A and (c) valuation approaches for evaluating a potential transaction with ETE or Party A. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard also discussed with the WMB Board concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units under ETE’s currently proposed structure. Representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn also participated in the discussion of these topics and then discussed with the WMB Board key open issues in the ETE and Party A draft merger agreements. A representative of Gibson Dunn then provided an update on discussions with Baker Botts, including a possible amendment to the WPZ merger agreement in connection with a potential transaction with ETE or Party A.

On August 20, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was convened in Houston, Texas. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the strategic alternatives review process generally, including the expected timeline and the status of the diligence process for each of ETE and Party A. The strategic review committee also discussed the process for interviewing each member of WMB’s senior management team to gather input regarding a potential transaction with ETE or Party A or a potential standalone alternative.

Later in the day on August 20, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was convened in Houston, Texas. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard and Cravath were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee provided the WMB Board with an update on the matters discussed at the strategic review committee meeting earlier that day.

Also on August 20, 2015, management of Party A gave a management presentation to the WMB Board and management in Houston, Texas.

On August 21, 2015, representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel sent a revised draft merger agreement to representatives of Cravath.

Also on August 21, 2015, a representative of Cravath called a representative of Wachtell to provide feedback on how ETE could revise the terms of its August 12 merger agreement in order to be more competitive in the strategic alternatives review process.

On August 22, 2015, representatives of WMB, Gibson Dunn, Party A and Party A’s outside legal counsel participated in a conference call to discuss certain regulatory matters relating to a potential transaction between WMB and Party A. The parties discussed certain potential solutions to the regulatory concerns raised by Party A’s proposal.

Later in the day on August 22, 2015, representatives of Cravath and representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel participated in a conference call to discuss Party A’s August 21 draft merger agreement.

Also on August 22, 2015, representatives of Gibson Dunn sent representatives of Baker Botts Party A’s August 21 draft merger agreement. In addition, representatives of Gibson Dunn called representatives of Baker Botts to discuss the terms of the proposed amendment to the WPZ merger agreement.

On August 23, 2015, representatives of Cravath and representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel participated in a conference call to discuss certain terms of a proposed transaction between WMB and Party A, including the regulatory risks involved in a transaction with Party A and the treatment of the WPZ merger agreement. Representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel indicated to representatives of Cravath that it

would be difficult for Party A to submit its final bid without further guidance from WMB on these matters, but that once Party A received this guidance, it would likely submit a final bid that would require WMB to respond within as little as 24 hours or the bid would be withdrawn. Representatives of Cravath stated to the representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel that it would be very difficult for WMB to respond in such a short timeframe.

Also on August 23, 2015, representatives of Baker Botts sent representatives of Gibson Dunn a revised draft of the proposed amendment to the WPZ merger agreement.

On August 24, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn and Wright & Talisman were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the August 22 meeting that had occurred between representatives of WMB and Party A regarding regulatory matters. The strategic review committee discussed the regulatory risks associated with Party A’s proposal. The strategic review committee also discussed the call that had occurred on the prior day between representatives of Cravath and Party A’s outside legal counsel. After discussion, the strategic review committee (a) determined that it would permit Party A to delay the submission of its final bid beyond the August 24 deadline and (b) authorized representatives of WMB, Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn to request that representatives of Party A and its financial advisors and outside legal counsel provide WMB with certain other information in order to enable WMB to provide the requested guidance to Party A so it could prepare its final bid. Later in the day on August 24, 2015, representatives of WMB, Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn communicated such messages to various representatives of Party A and its financial advisors and outside legal counsel. The strategic review committee also discussed the status of ETE’s proposal, and the advisors noted that they expected to receive ETE’s final bid letter later that day.

Later in the day on August 24, 2015, another meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn and Wright & Talisman were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the status of the diligence process for each of ETE and Party A. The strategic review committee also discussed the status of the respective financial analyses that were being performed by each of Barclays and Lazard with respect to each of ETE’s and Party A’s proposals and potential standalone strategic alternatives.

Later in the day on August 24, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn and Wright & Talisman were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed the August 22 meeting that had occurred between representatives of WMB and Party A regarding regulatory matters. The WMB Board discussed the regulatory risks associated with Party A’s proposal. The WMB Board also discussed the call that had occurred on the prior day between representatives of Cravath and Party A’s outside legal counsel and the response that had been authorized by the strategic review committee and implemented by representatives of WMB, Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn. The WMB Board also discussed the status of ETE’s proposal, and the advisors noted that they expected to receive ETE’s final bid letter later that day. Representatives of Lazard discussed the status of the diligence process for each of ETE and Party A. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard also reviewed potential risks and opportunities with respect to the businesses of ETE and Party A. The WMB Board and its advisors discussed valuation considerations as well with respect to each of ETE’s and Party A’s proposals and potential standalone strategic alternatives. A representative of Cravath then discussed key open issues regarding the draft merger agreement with respect to a potential Party A transaction. In addition, representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn discussed the potential treatment of the WPZ merger agreement in connection with a potential Party A transaction, including a possible amendment to that agreement.

Later in the day on August 24, 2015, representatives of Cravath and representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel participated in a conference call to discuss the status of Party A’s proposal and the treatment of the

WPZ merger agreement. During this call, representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel indicated that Party A might be revising its offer due to, among other things, recent market conditions.

Later in the day on August 24, 2015, WMB received a letter from ETE setting forth a revised proposal for a proposed transaction between WMB and ETE. The letter reiterated ETE’s proposed exchange ratio of 1.8716 ETC common shares for each share of WMB common stock, but indicated that ETE was prepared to include a cash component of approximately $6.05 billion in the aggregate as part of the proposed consideration available to WMB stockholders. The letter also reiterated that ETE’s offer was contingent on the termination of the WPZ merger agreement. Finally, the letter stated that ETE continued to believe that ETC would trade at a premium to ETE and that ETE’s depreciation and amortization methodology should alleviate any concerns WMB had regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units and therefore WMB’s proposals were not necessary; ETE did, however, agree to indemnify WMB for negative tax consequences relating to dispositions of certain WMB assets. Drafts of key transaction documents, including a revised draft of the merger agreement, were also included in the distribution of the letter.

Also on August 24, 2015, a representative of Gibson Dunn called a representative of Baker Botts to provide an update regarding Party A’s proposal.

On August 25, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the potential Party A transaction, including the conference call that had occurred on the prior day between representatives of Cravath and representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel. The strategic review committee also discussed the potential ETE transaction, including the August 24 letter submitted by ETE. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard discussed that ETE’s basic economic proposal had not changed, although a portion of the consideration would be paid in cash at the WMB stockholders’ election rather than in ETC common shares. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard also advised that ETE had not addressed concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units. The strategic review committee then discussed with the advisors how this issue and certain other issues could be effectively communicated to ETE and after further discussion, the strategic review committee determined that, subject to WMB Board approval, Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister, who had expressed his willingness to help communicate the WMB Board’s points to ETE, would call Mr. Warren and communicate the following three concerns that the WMB Board needed ETE to address in order for the WMB Board to consider ETE’s bid as a viable strategic alternative: (1) ETE would need to address WMB’s concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units, (2) ETE would need to improve the overall economics of its proposal and (3) in order to increase transaction certainty, ETE would need to agree to negotiate exceptions to the definition of “material adverse effect” under the merger agreement.

Later in the day on August 25, 2015, representatives of Cravath and representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel participated in a conference call to discuss the status of Party A’s proposal. During this call, the representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel reiterated that Party A would likely be changing its offer due to, among other things, recent market conditions. Representatives of Cravath noted to the representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel that Party A was part of a competitive process and that reducing its offer would be detrimental to Party A’s success in the strategic alternatives review process.

On August 26, 2015, WMB received a term sheet from representatives of Party A that set forth revised terms upon which Party A would be willing to proceed with the transactions contemplated by the WPZ merger agreement, including a reduction in the proposed per share consideration to WPZ unitholders.

Later in the day on August 26, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee and the advisors discussed the term sheet that Party A had sent earlier that day and concluded that the revised terms set forth therein significantly

reduced the value that WPZ unitholders would receive as compared to Party A’s prior proposal on August 10, 2015. The strategic review committee also discussed the conference call that had occurred on the prior day between representatives of Cravath and representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel. The strategic review committee then discussed with the advisors that the WPZ conflicts committee would likely need to conduct additional diligence on Party A, including a management presentation, in order to evaluate Party A’s revised proposal. A representative of Cravath then stated that he would inform representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel of this fact and that the required diligence could delay the WPZ conflict committee’s response to Party A’s revised proposal. The advisors then compared Party A’s revised proposal to its initial proposal, including in terms of value and premium to market prices, and the strategic review committee and each of the advisors discussed likely scenarios and timing for any proposed transaction with Party A, including that there was a risk that the WPZ conflicts committee would reject Party A’s revised proposal. The strategic review committee decided that WMB should continue to work diligently on Party A’s proposal. The strategic review committee also discussed the potential ETE transaction, including the proposed response to ETE’s August 24 letter to be delivered by Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister, subject to WMB Board approval at WMB Board meeting later that day. In addition, the strategic review committee discussed potential standalone strategic alternatives.

Later in the day on August 26, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed the potential Party A transaction and the communications that had occurred over the preceding several days, including Party A’s revised proposal with respect to the WPZ merger agreement. The WMB Board also discussed the potential ETE transaction, including the August 24 letter submitted by ETE. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard advised the WMB Board that ETE had not revised its proposal to address concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units. The members of the strategic review committee and the advisors then discussed that, in response, they recommended that Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister would call Mr. Warren and communicate the three fundamental concerns discussed at the strategic review committee meeting on the preceding day. The WMB Board authorized Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister to proceed on that basis.

Later in the day on August 26, 2015, a representative of Gibson Dunn called a representative of Baker Botts to provide an update on the strategic alternatives review process, including the receipt of Party A’s term sheet, and to discuss the status of the WPZ conflicts committee’s and its advisors’ diligence on Party A. Representatives of Gibson Dunn then sent representatives of Baker Botts Party A’s term sheet for its review.

On August 27, 2015, representatives of Cravath sent a revised draft merger agreement to representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel.

Also on August 27, 2015, Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister called Mr. Warren to inform him of the three concerns that the WMB Board had with ETE’s August 24 proposal and that these concerns would need to be addressed in order for ETE’s proposal to be viewed as a viable alternative by the WMB Board. First, Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister stated that ETE would need to address WMB’s concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units and noted that WMB’s advisors had previously proposed two potential solutions to address these concerns. Second, Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister stated that ETE would need to improve the overall economics of its proposal. Third, Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister stated that transaction certainty was important to the WMB Board and that, therefore, ETE would need to agree to negotiate exceptions to the definition of “material adverse effect” under the merger agreement. Mr. Warren stated to Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister that he would respond to these three concerns in due course.

Later in the day on August 27, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this call, Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister provided the strategic review committee with an update following their call with Mr. Warren.

Later in the day on August 27, 2015, the chief executive officer of Party A and Mr. Armstrong had a telephonic conversation during which Mr. Armstrong informed Party A’s chief executive officer that the WPZ conflicts committee would likely need to conduct additional diligence on Party A, including a management presentation, in order to evaluate Party A’s proposal and encouraged Party A to delay the submission of its final bid until the WPZ conflicts committee had adequate time to evaluate Party A’s offer. A representative of Party A’s outside legal counsel had similar phone conversations with a representative of Barclays and representatives of Cravath.

Later in the day on August 27, 2015, another meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the calls that had occurred earlier that day between Mr. Armstrong and Party A’s chief executive officer and representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel and a representative of Barclays and representatives of Cravath. After extensive discussion, the strategic review committee authorized Mr. Armstrong and Ms. Sugg to call Party A’s chief executive officer to reiterate that it would not be advisable for Party A to submit its final bid at that time if it would require WMB to respond in a short period of time.

Shortly thereafter on August 27, 2015, Mr. Armstrong, Ms. Sugg and representatives of Cravath called Party A’s chief executive officer and representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel to discuss Party A’s August 26 proposal and indicated to representatives of Party A that, in light of Party A’s proposal, the WPZ conflicts committee would likely need to conduct diligence on Party A in order to evaluate the proposal. Mr. Armstrong also encouraged Party A to delay the submission of its final bid until the WPZ conflicts committee had adequate time to evaluate Party A’s offer and the parties had further discussed the regulatory issues raised by the potential transaction or, alternatively, to refrain from submitting an offer that was contingent on WMB responding to Party A in a very short period of time.

Later in the day on August 27, 2015, another meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the call that had just occurred between Mr. Armstrong and Ms. Sugg and Party A’s chief executive officer. The strategic review committee also discussed the potential ETE transaction, including that representatives of Intrepid had informed representatives of Barclays that ETE would submit a written response to WMB on the following day regarding the three issues Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister had raised with Mr. Warren earlier that day. The strategic review committee then discussed various aspects of the current proposals from ETE and Party A and potential standalone strategic alternatives.

Later in the day on August 27, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, members of the strategic review committee and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn provided the WMB Board with an update on the recent communications that had occurred with ETE and Party A.

Later in the day on August 27, 2015, Party A sent WMB a letter setting forth revised terms for its proposal to combine with WMB. The letter reduced the exchange ratio that would be payable to WMB stockholders compared to the exchange ratio proposed by Party A in its July 27 letter. In addition, the letter increased the exchange ratio that would be payable to WPZ unitholders compared to the exchange ratio proposed by Party A in its August 26 term sheet. The letter also stipulated that the offer would be withdrawn if WMB and Party A had not executed a merger agreement by 5:00 p.m. CT on August 29, 2015. Later that day, the strategic review committee and members of WMB management reviewed the letter with WMB’s financial advisors and outside legal counsel and determined to communicate to Party A that they would be willing to further engage in the process of exploring a potential transaction, but that WMB would not be able to execute a merger agreement by the specified deadline. Such message was subsequently communicated to representatives of Party A. The WMB

Board was promptly made aware of Party A’s letter and WMB’s response. In connection with its August 27 bid letter, in the early morning on August 28, 2015, representatives of Party A’s outside legal counsel sent a revised draft merger agreement to representatives of Cravath.

On August 28, 2015, members of Party A’s management participated in a conference call with the WPZ conflicts committee and representatives of Baker Botts and Evercore to discuss diligence materials related to Party A.

Also on August 28, 2015, WMB received a letter from Mr. Warren setting forth ETE’s position with respect to the three concerns that Ms. Sugg and Mr. Meister has raised on the prior day. In the letter, ETE proposed that for each ETC common share received by a WMB stockholder in the transaction, such WMB stockholder would also receive one CCR to address the economic equivalence issue. The letter also set forth certain proposed terms for the CCRs, including that the amount payable under each CCR would be capped at $2.00. In addition, the letter reiterated ETE’s proposed exchange ratio of 1.8716 ETC common shares for each share of WMB common stock and the availability of $6.05 billion in cash for WMB stockholders making cash elections. Finally, ETE stated that it was confident that the parties’ legal counsel could resolve the definition of “material adverse effect” in the merger agreement in a mutually satisfactory manner.

Later in the day on August 28, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the letter that WMB had received earlier that day from ETE. On the issue of economic equivalence between ETC common shares and ETE common units, representatives of each of Barclays and Lazard noted that, if properly structured, the CCRs could help address the concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard noted certain key concerns with ETE’s proposed structure of the CCRs.

Later in the day on August 28, 2015, another meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed WMB management’s efforts to refine the business cases, and related sensitivities, for WMB on a standalone basis as well as in the context of a potential combination with ETE or Party A.

On August 30, 2015, a representative of Cravath contacted a representative of Party A’s outside legal counsel regarding Party A’s proposal. The representative of Party A’s outside legal counsel confirmed to the representative of Cravath that, given that the August 29 deadline had passed, Party A had withdrawn its offer.

On August 31, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed Party A’s withdrawal of its proposal and ETE’s most recent proposal. WMB’s advisors noted that even though Party A had formally withdrawn from the strategic alternatives review process, Party A would likely re-engage if representatives of WMB contacted Party A. After discussion, the WMB Board determined that ETE’s proposal required further analysis prior to direct engagement and negotiation with ETE. The WMB Board also sought further analysis of WMB’s other strategic alternatives, including potential standalone strategic alternatives.

During August and September of 2015, WMB management ran business case models, with the input of Barclays and Lazard, to reflect current commodities prices, the concentration of customer credit risk and perception of access to capital markets, to aid in its analysis of the offers made in the strategic review process.

On September 2, 2015, a telephonic joint special meeting of the boards of directors of LE GP and ETP was held to discuss the current status of negotiations with WMB. Representatives from ETE’s financial and legal

advisors were in attendance at the meeting. The boards of directors of LE GP and ETP discussed the CCR proposal made to WMB, certain tax considerations relating to the transactions and discussed next steps and timing and their desire to reach an agreement with WMB as soon as possible.

On September 3, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was convened at the offices of Cravath in New York City. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn and MacKenzie were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed WMB’s standalone alternatives, the potential ETE transaction and the potential Party A transaction. Representatives of each of Barclays and Lazard presented the WMB Board with their respective analysis of each alternative. Representatives of Cravath also discussed key open terms on the draft documentation with respect to a potential ETE transaction and a potential Party A transaction. A representative of Gibson Dunn also discussed potential alternatives with respect to the WPZ merger agreement if WMB decided to pursue the ETE transaction or the Party A transaction. The WMB Board also discussed the issue of economic equivalence between ETC common shares and ETE common units, noting that the CCRs, as currently proposed, did not, in WMB’s view, sufficiently address concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units. The WMB Board also discussed with the advisors the likely investor reaction if the WMB Board rejected ETE’s current offer, the likelihood of obtaining WMB stockholder approval for the WPZ merger in light of ETE’s current offer and possible actions ETE or WMB stockholders could take if the WMB Board rejected ETE’s current offer. The advisors advised the WMB Board that they believed that ETE’s offer would receive strong support from WMB stockholders and that WMB stockholders would likely not approve the WPZ merger if ETE’s offer was outstanding. The advisors discussed with the WMB Board various considerations regarding a potential consent solicitation, including process and timing. The WMB Board also discussed the regulatory and other execution risks posed by the potential Party A transaction and, after discussion, concluded not to proceed with exploring a transaction with Party A. After additional discussion, the WMB Board also determined that it was in the best interests of WMB stockholders to engage in more detailed negotiations with ETE in order to encourage ETE to set forth its best and final terms for a potential ETE transaction for the WMB Board’s consideration. At the conclusion of the meeting, the WMB Board authorized Mr. MacInnis, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Meister and Mr. Chappel to invite Mr. Warren to travel to New York City to discuss certain key terms of ETE’s proposal on the following day. Such message was communicated to Mr. Warren shortly thereafter, and Mr. Warren accepted the invitation. The WMB Board’s focus for the meeting with Mr. Warren was to discuss three key items in ETE’s offer: the equivalence of ETC common shares with ETE common units, the price offered by ETE’s exchange ratio of 1.8716 ETC common shares per share of WMB common stock, and the exceptions to the definition of “material adverse effect” under the merger agreement.

On September 4, 2015, representatives of WMB, ETE, Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn, Wachtell, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“Goldman”), one of ETE’s financial advisors, and Intrepid held in-person meetings at the offices of Cravath in New York City to discuss the terms of a potential transaction. During this meeting, the parties discussed several transaction terms, including the terms of the CCRs. At the conclusion of the meeting, representatives of ETE indicated that Mr. Warren would call Mr. MacInnis on the following day to discuss next steps.

On September 5, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board and its advisors discussed the negotiations that had occurred on the preceding day, potential next steps and the potential timeline for further engagement with ETE. The WMB Board also discussed potential standalone strategic alternatives.

Later in the day on September 5, 2015, Mr. MacInnis and Mr. Warren had a call during which Mr. Warren informed Mr. MacInnis that Mr. Warren would be convening a meeting of the board of directors of LE GP on September 8, 2015 to develop a revised offer for WMB in light of the parties’ discussions on September 4, 2015. During this call, Mr. MacInnis asked that Mr. Warren consider increasing the exchange ratio of ETE’s proposal to 2.0 ETC common shares per share of WMB common stock.

On September 8, 2015, a telephonic special meeting of the board of directors of LE GP was held to provide an update on the proposed transaction with WMB. Representatives from Wachtell were present at the meeting. ETE management updated the board of directors of LE GP on the meetings that had been held in New York and the issues that had been discussed, including the request for an increase in the exchange ratio. The board of directors of LE GP determined that in light of prevailing market conditions, it would maintain its proposed exchange ratio of 1.8716 ETC common shares per share of WMB common stock, but would permit WMB to declare a dividend immediately prior to the closing of the transaction of $0.10 per share of WMB common stock, contingent on the closing. The board of directors of LE GP also discussed the proposal to agree to dividend equalization through December 31, 2018 and to offer WMB a CCR that would be “stapled” to the ETC common share but would be uncapped in the amount of consideration it could pay out if ETC traded at a discount to ETE. Mr. Warren indicated that ETE planned to provide WMB with a letter setting forth the terms on which ETE was prepared to proceed shortly after the meeting.

Also on September 8, 2015, Mr. Warren sent Mr. MacInnis a letter setting forth ETE’s proposal on certain terms that had been discussed by the parties during the in-person meeting on September 4, 2015 in New York City. In the letter, ETE stated that ETC shareholders would be entitled to receive a quarterly distribution on each ETC common share equal to 100% of the cash distribution payable on each ETE common unit from the closing of the transaction through December 31, 2018. The letter also stated that there would be no cap on the amount payable pursuant to the CCRs, but that the CCRs would be “stapled” to the ETC common shares and therefore not separately tradable. The letter further stated that WMB would be entitled to declare a one-time special cash dividend of $0.10 per WMB share immediately prior to the closing of the transaction. ETE reiterated its proposal regarding the merger consideration of 1.8716 ETC common shares per share of WMB common stock and revised its offer with respect to the approximate $6.05 billion cash component such that ETE would require that the consideration be prorated to allocate the entire cash component even if the cash consideration was undersubscribed by WMB stockholders.

Later in the day on September 8, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board and its advisors discussed the letter that WMB had received from ETE earlier in the day and potential next steps. Representatives of each of Barclays and Lazard also discussed adjustments that would need to be made to their respective financial analyses in light of ETE’s most recent proposal.

On September 9, 2015, representatives of Barclays, Lazard and Goldman and Mr. Welch met in New York City to discuss the proposed terms of the CCRs, including the impact of “stapling” the CCRs to the ETC common shares so that the CCRs were not separately tradable. Mr. Meister subsequently joined the discussion.

Between September 9 and September 12, 2015, representatives of Barclays and Lazard revised their respective financial analyses to reflect ETE’s most recent proposal, including the most recently proposed terms of the CCRs. In addition, representatives of WMB’s advisors and ETE’s advisors continued to discuss the impact of “stapling” the CCRs to the ETC common shares so that the CCRs were not separately tradable.

On September 10, 2015, a special telephonic meeting of the board of directors of LE GP was held to provide an update on the negotiations with WMB. The board of directors of LE GP discussed the open issues with ETE management, potential strategies for making progress with WMB and reflected on current ETE unit prices and the market in general.

On September 11, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn and Mackenzie were also in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed the status of ETE’s proposal. The WMB Board also declared a regular dividend of $0.64 on each share of WMB common stock, payable September 30, 2015, to holders of record at the close of business September 24, 2015.

On September 14, 2015, Mr. MacInnis and Mr. Warren had a call during which they agreed that the parties should continue to conduct confirmatory mutual business diligence sessions and to negotiate the merger agreement and other transaction documents in the event that the parties were able to mutually agree to a transaction.

On September 15, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. A member of WMB management was also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the upcoming diligence sessions between representatives of WMB and ETE.

Also on September 15, 2015, representatives of Cravath sent a revised draft merger agreement and other transaction documents to representatives of Wachtell.

On September 16, 2015, representatives of Cravath and Wachtell participated in a conference call to discuss Cravath’s September 15 draft merger agreement.

On September 16, 17 and 18, 2015, representatives of WMB, the members of the strategic review committee and representatives of Barclays, Lazard and ETE met in Dallas, Texas to conduct confirmatory joint business diligence sessions.

On September 17, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. A member of WMB management and a representative of Cravath were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the recent diligence sessions between representatives of WMB and ETE and potential revisions to the financial analyses as a result of the information made available during such sessions.

Also on September 17, representatives of Cravath, Gibson, Wachtell, Latham, ETE and WMB participated in a conference call to discuss the post-merger governing documents of ETE, ETC and their respective general partners.

On September 18, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the strategic alternatives review process generally. The strategic review committee also discussed the key issues raised by ETE’s latest proposal and potential strategies for negotiating improved terms. After further discussion, the strategic review committee authorized the advisors to engage with their respective ETE counterparts in an effort to improve the terms of ETE’s proposal.

On September 19, 2015, Mr. MacInnis called Mr. Warren to inform him that a meeting of the WMB Board would be convened on September 24, 2015 and that at that meeting the WMB Board would determine how it would conclude the strategic alternatives review process. Mr. MacInnis told Mr. Warren that it would be in both parties’ best interests for ETE to set forth its best and final offer for the WMB Board’s consideration.

On September 20, 2015, representatives of Wachtell sent a revised draft merger agreement to representatives of Cravath.

Also on September 20, 2015, Mr. Warren called Mr. MacInnis to inform him that a meeting of the board of directors of LE GP would be convened on September 22, 2015 to discuss certain key open issues in order to present the WMB Board with ETE’s best and final position on such issues.

Later in the day on September 20, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, the strategic review committee discussed the call that had occurred

earlier that day between Mr. MacInnis and Mr. Warren. The strategic review committee also discussed certain key open issues in the draft merger agreement that was sent by representatives of Wachtell to representatives of Cravath earlier that day, including that ETE had not agreed to the exceptions requested by WMB to the definition of “material adverse effect” under the merger agreement and certain open terms concerning the post-merger governance of ETC and ETE.

On September 21, 2015, Ms. Sugg called Mr. Welch to discuss certain key open issues in advance of the meeting of the board of directors of LE GP scheduled for the following day. Ms. Sugg communicated the following three points to Mr. Welch: (1) to further address concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units, the taxable gain from the sale of any WMB assets following the closing of the transaction should be allocated pro rata between ETC and ETE, (2) ETE should improve the overall economics of its proposal and (3) ETE should agree to the exceptions requested by WMB to the definition of “material adverse effect” under the merger agreement.

Also on September 21, 2015, a representative of Party C called Mr. Armstrong to discuss a preliminary indication of interest to purchase the publicly held outstanding common units of WPZ at a premium with a right for Party C to exchange those common units of WPZ for shares of WMB common stock at a fixed exchange ratio and receive the tax basis step-up from such purchase and certain unspecified governance rights.

On September 22, 2015, representatives of WMB, ETE, Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn, Wachtell and Latham participated in a conference call to discuss certain post-closing governance and tax matters relating to the potential transaction.

Later in the day on September 22, 2015, Mr. Armstrong informed Mr. MacInnis of Party C’s preliminary indication of interest.

Also on September 22, 2015, a telephonic joint special meeting of the boards of directors of LE GP and ETP was held to provide an update on the status of the proposed transaction with WMB. Mr. Warren explained to the boards of directors of LE GP and ETP that it was ETE’s expectation that the WMB Board would make a decision at its special meeting on September 24, 2015 on whether to proceed with a transaction with ETE. Mr. Warren discussed with the boards of directors of LE GP and ETP the potential risks associated with acquiring WMB, including changes in the creditworthiness of WMB’s customers. The boards of directors of LE GP and ETP also discussed that they would insist on a significant termination fee if WMB terminated the merger agreement to accept a superior proposal.

On September 23, 2015, Mr. MacInnis then informed WMB’s advisors of, and Mr. MacInnis, Mr. Armstrong and WMB’s advisors further discussed, Party C’s preliminary indication of interest and requested that representatives of Lazard contact Party C for additional details regarding its preliminary indication of interest. Representatives of Lazard promptly did so.

Also on September 23, 2015, Mr. Warren sent Mr. MacInnis and Ms. Sugg a letter setting forth ETE’s final position on certain terms for the proposed transaction. The letter stated that ETE would agree to the exceptions requested by WMB to the definition of “material adverse effect” under the merger agreement. The letter also stated that in order to further address WMB’s concerns regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units, ETC conflicts committee approval would be required if the sale of any WMB assets following the closing of the transaction would be expected to create a pre-tax gain being allocated to ETC that would exceed by more than $400 million the pre-tax gain that would have been allocated to ETC if allocated based on actual economic ownership percentages between ETE and ETC. In addition, the letter confirmed that the most recent terms in the draft documentation that had been distributed by ETE’s advisors were otherwise ETE’s best and final terms.

On September 24, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was convened in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn and Mackenzie were also

in attendance. During this meeting, the WMB Board discussed the recent preliminary indication of interest from Party C. The WMB Board discussed with its advisors that Party C’s indication of interest was preliminary, the other shortcomings of the preliminary indication of interest as explained to the WMB Board, and that therefore the WMB Board did not have an offer to consider. WMB’s advisors noted that, given Party C’s organizational structure and resources, Party C could quickly provide the WMB Board with a firm offer if Party C was serious about its preliminary indication of interest. After discussion, the WMB Board authorized representatives of Barclays and Lazard to contact representatives of Party C to obtain more specific information regarding its preliminary indication of interest. Shortly thereafter, representatives of Barclays and Lazard did so and reported to the WMB Board the additional information about the preliminary indication of interest from Party C. After discussion, the WMB Board concluded that the preliminary indication of interest from Party C was not a viable alternative worthy of further deliberation because it was not a sufficiently attractive proposal to WMB stockholders as compared to the potential ETE transaction, particularly in light of the fact that Party C’s indication of interest was preliminary. The WMB Board then proceeded to discuss WMB’s standalone alternatives and the proposed ETE transaction. Representatives of Barclays and Lazard presented the WMB Board with their respective analysis of each alternative. Representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn also reviewed with the WMB Board its fiduciary duties in considering a potential ETE transaction and discussed with the WMB Board key open terms on the draft documentation with respect to an ETE transaction. The WMB Board also discussed with the advisors the likely investor reaction if the WMB Board rejected ETE’s current offer, the likelihood of obtaining WMB stockholder approval for the WPZ merger in light of ETE’s current offer and possible actions ETE or WMB stockholders could take if the WMB Board rejected ETE’s current offer. The advisors advised the WMB Board that they believed that ETE’s offer would receive strong support from WMB stockholders and that WMB stockholders would likely not approve the WPZ merger if ETE’s offer was outstanding. The advisors discussed with the WMB Board various considerations regarding a potential consent solicitation, including process and timing. The WMB Board also discussed with the advisors the potential risks of a public negotiation with ETE, including the potential impact on the value of WMB common stock and WMB’s ability to negotiate favorable terms with ETE. A representative of Gibson Dunn also discussed potential alternatives with respect to the WPZ merger agreement if WMB decided to pursue the ETE transaction. After a lengthy discussion during which the WMB Board considered all of the information it had been provided and the advice of its advisors, six members of the WMB Board (comprised of Mr. MacInnis, Mr. Izzo, Mr. Mandelblatt, Mr. Meister, Mr. Nance and Ms. Sugg) were in favor of proceeding with the potential ETE transaction based on the terms set forth in ETE’s most recent proposal and seven members of the WMB Board (comprised of Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Joseph Cleveland, Dr. Cooper, Mr. John Hagg, Ms. Juanita Hinshaw, Mr. Murray Smith and Ms. Stoney) were not in favor of that course of action. Given that the WMB Board had not reached a consensus on how to conclude the strategic alternatives review process, the WMB Board determined to recess the meeting to give the members of the WMB Board an opportunity to reflect further upon the strategic alternatives review process and the potential alternatives. Following the WMB Board meeting, the WMB Board members separated into two groups for dinner meetings. During the dinner meetings, the participants continued to discuss the strategic alternatives review process, including the pros and cons of proceeding with potential standalone strategic alternatives versus proceeding with the potential ETE transaction.

On September 25, 2015, a telephonic joint special meeting of the boards of directors of LE GP and ETP was held to update the directors on the latest negotiations with WMB. Mr. Warren informed the boards of directors of LE GP and ETP that the WMB Board continued to meet but that he expected to receive a call from Mr. MacInnis within the next few hours regarding the WMB Board’s determination to proceed. Mr. Warren again discussed with the boards of directors of LE GP and ETP the risks and benefits associated with an acquisition of WMB. The boards of directors of LE GP and ETP also discussed potential market reaction to an announcement of an agreed transaction and discussed the required logistics to achieve a closing during the first half of 2016.

Also on September 25, 2015, the special meeting of the WMB Board was reconvened in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath, Gibson Dunn and Mackenzie were also in attendance. After a discussion, by an eight-to-five vote, the WMB Board authorized and instructed members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn to seek to

finalize the terms of transaction documents for the potential ETE transaction substantially consistent with the terms set forth in ETE’s most recent proposal and authorized Mr. MacInnis to communicate the foregoing to Mr. Warren. Mr. MacInnis, Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Izzo, Mr. Mandelblatt, Mr. Meister, Mr. Nance, Ms. Stoney and Ms. Sugg supported this decision, while Mr. Armstrong, Dr. Cooper, Mr. Hagg, Ms. Hinshaw and Mr. Smith opposed this decision. Shortly thereafter, Mr. MacInnis called Mr. Warren to communicate such message.

Later in the day on September 25, 2015, a representative of Gibson Dunn called a representative of Baker Botts to provide notification that the WMB Board was likely to change its recommendation from in favor to against the WPZ merger agreement because of its determination that the potential ETE transaction was likely more favorable to WMB’s shareholders than the WPZ merger agreement. The Gibson Dunn representative communicated that representatives of WMB and its outside advisors were available to negotiate in good faith with the WPZ conflicts committee and its advisors to the extent the WPZ conflicts committee desired to propose adjustments in the terms and conditions of the WPZ merger agreement such that the WMB Board could continue to recommend the WPZ merger instead of the potential ETE transaction. As required by the WPZ merger agreement, WMB then provided written notice to the WPZ conflicts committee that the WMB Board intended to change its recommendation of the WPZ merger agreement, described the key terms of the potential ETE transaction, and confirmed that representatives of WMB and its outside advisors would be available during the three-day notice period to negotiate with the WPZ conflicts committee and its advisors to the extent the WPZ conflicts committee desired to propose adjustments in the terms and conditions of the WPZ merger agreement such that the WMB Board could continue to recommend the WPZ merger instead of the potential ETE transaction.

Later in the day on September 25, 2015, representatives of Cravath sent a revised draft merger agreement to representatives of Wachtell.

On September 26, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn discussed with the directors key open terms on the draft documentation with respect to a potential ETE transaction, including open terms concerning the governance of ETC. Representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn also discussed alternatives with respect to the WPZ merger agreement, including attempting to terminate the WPZ merger agreement by the mutual agreement of the parties thereto, rather than submitting the WPZ merger to a vote of the WMB stockholders after a change in the WMB Board recommendation. The strategic review committee authorized a representative of Gibson Dunn to further discuss these alternatives with representatives of Baker Botts.

Also on September 26, 2015, representatives of Gibson Dunn sent representatives of Baker Botts a draft termination agreement and release for the termination of the WPZ merger agreement and a draft amendment to WPZ’s partnership agreement, pursuant to which, consistent with the terms of the WPZ merger agreement, WPZ GP LLC, WPZ’s general partner, would waive $410 million of its incentive distributions in an amount not to exceed $102.5 million in any one fiscal quarter.

Also on September 26, 2015, representatives of Barclays and representatives of Evercore held a phone call to explain the terms of the ETE transaction.

On September 27, 2015, a meeting of the strategic review committee was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. During this meeting, representatives of Cravath and Gibson Dunn discussed key open terms on the draft documentation with respect to a potential ETE transaction, including open terms concerning the governance of ETC.

During September 25, 26 and 27, 2015, representatives of WMB, ETE, Cravath, Gibson Dunn, Wachtell and Latham participated in various conference calls regarding the draft merger agreement and other draft transaction

documents, and the parties exchanged multiple drafts of such documents. Representatives of WMB, Barclays and Gibson Dunn also participated in various conference calls with members of the WPZ conflicts committee and representatives of Evercore and Baker Botts, which resulted in the WPZ conflicts committee agreeing to terminate the WPZ merger agreement, as a result of which ETE and WMB would be in a position to execute the ETE merger agreement immediately, in exchange for an increase in the termination fee payable thereunder from $410 million to $428 million through a waiver of WPZ GP LLC’s incentive distributions in an amount not to exceed $209 million in any one fiscal quarter. As a result of WMB’s ownership of units in WPZ, the $18 million increase in the termination fee effectively had a net cost to WMB of approximately $7 million.

Later in the day on September 27, 2015, a special meeting of the WPZ Board was telephonically convened. Members of WMB management and representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. Representatives of Gibson Dunn provided an overview of the final terms of the termination agreement and release and the proposed increase in the termination fee payable through a waiver of incentive distributions. The chair of the WPZ conflicts committee then reported the WPZ conflicts committee’s determination after consultation with its legal and financial advisors that the termination of the WPZ merger agreement, the termination and release agreement and the waiver of incentive distributions were in the best interest of WPZ, its approval of the same, and its recommendation that the WPZ Board approve the termination of the WPZ merger agreement, the termination agreement and release and the waiver of incentive distribution rights. The WPZ Board was advised that Barclays and Evercore had independently analyzed potential adjustments to the financial terms of the WPZ merger and that each firm, in their independent assessments, was unable to identify adjustments to the WPZ merger that were likely to provide more value to the WMB shareholders than ETE’s offer. After discussion, upon the recommendation of the WPZ conflicts committee, the WPZ Board unanimously approved the termination of the WPZ merger agreement, the termination agreement and release and the waiver of incentive distributions.

Also on September 27, 2015, a telephonic special meeting of the board of directors of LE GP was held to consider entry into a definitive transaction agreement with WMB. Representatives from Wachtell, Latham, Goldman Sachs & Co. and Credit Suisse, one of ETE’s financial advisors, were present at the meeting. Mr. Warren informed the board of directors of LE GP that a majority of WMB’s directors had determined to proceed with a transaction with ETE and that the parties desired to announce a transaction prior to the opening of the financial markets on September 28, 2015, if possible. Wachtell reviewed with the board of directors of LE GP the terms of the proposed merger agreement and CCR agreement, and ETE management reviewed the proposed terms of the term loan credit facility that would be used to finance the cash portion of the merger consideration. After discussion, the board of directors of LE GP unanimously determined that the transactions contemplated by the transaction documents are fair to and in the best interest of LE GP and ETE and their respective members and unitholders and approved and declared advisable entry into the transaction documents and the transactions contemplated thereby.

On September 28, 2015, a special meeting of the WMB Board was telephonically convened. Representatives of Barclays, Lazard, Cravath and Gibson Dunn were also in attendance. Representatives of Cravath provided an overview of the final terms of the merger agreement with respect to a potential ETE transaction. Representatives of Gibson Dunn and Cravath provided an overview of the final terms of certain of the other transaction documents, including the terms of documents that would govern ETC following the closing of the transaction and documentation relating to the termination of the WPZ merger agreement. Representatives of Barclays reviewed with the WMB Board Barclays’ financial analysis of the merger consideration provided for in the merger agreement and rendered to the WMB Board an oral opinion, subsequently confirmed by delivery of a written opinion dated September 28, 2015, to the effect that, based upon and subject to the factors and assumptions set forth in its written opinion, Barclays was of the opinion as of that date that, from a financial point of view, the merger consideration to be offered to WMB stockholders in the ETE transaction was fair to such WMB stockholders. In addition, representatives of Lazard reviewed with the WMB Board Lazard’s financial analysis of the merger consideration provided for in the merger agreement and rendered to the WMB Board an oral opinion, subsequently confirmed by delivery of a written opinion dated September 28, 2015, to the

effect that, based upon and subject to the assumptions, procedures, factors, qualifications and limitations described to the WMB Board and set forth in its written opinion, Lazard was of the opinion that, as of that date, the merger consideration to be paid to WMB stockholders (other than certain WMB stockholders excluded from the scope of Lazard’s opinion, as described to the WMB Board and set forth in Lazard’s written opinion) in the ETE transaction was fair, from a financial point of view, to such WMB stockholders. In addition, the WMB Board was informed of the negotiations with the WPZ conflicts committee, which had led WPZ to agree to terminate the WPZ merger agreement in exchange for an increase in the termination fee.

A majority of the members of the WMB Board (comprised of Mr. MacInnis, Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Izzo, Mr. Mandelblatt, Mr. Meister, Mr. Nance, Ms. Stoney and Ms. Sugg) then (a) determined that the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement were advisable and in the best interests of WMB and its stockholders, approved the merger agreement and recommended that WMB stockholders vote in favor of adopting the merger agreement and (b) determined to terminate the WPZ merger agreement by the mutual written agreement of the parties thereto. Mr. Armstrong, Dr. Cooper, Mr. Hagg, Ms. Hinshaw and Mr. Smith opposed these resolutions. Having so determined that the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement provide WMB stockholders with higher and more certain value than any other strategic alternatives available to WMB, including the potential standalone strategic alternatives, the WMB Board did not pursue the potential standalone strategic alternatives. The reasons that supported the WMB Board’s decision to enter into the merger agreement and consummate the merger, and a variety of risks and other countervailing factors that the WMB Board considered, are summarized in the section titled “The Merger—Recommendation of the WMB Board and its Reasons for the Merger”.

Later in the morning on September 28, 2015, the parties to the WPZ merger agreement terminated the WPZ merger agreement, and WMB and the ETE parties executed the merger agreement and issued a joint press release announcing the proposed transaction.

At the special meeting of the WMB Board on September 28, 2015, after careful consideration, including detailed discussions with WMB’s management and its financial advisors and outside legal counsel, a majority of the directors of the WMB Board:

A majority of the WMB Board determined to approve the merger agreement and recommend the adoption of the merger agreement by WMB stockholders based on its belief that the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger, provide WMB stockholders with higher and more certain value than any other strategic alternatives available to WMB, including the previously proposed acquisition of all of the public outstanding common units of WPZ and other potential standalone strategic alternatives. In evaluating the merger, the WMB Board consulted with and received the advice of WMB’s financial advisors and outside legal counsel, held discussions with WMB senior management and considered a number of factors that it believed supported its decision to enter into the merger agreement and consummate the merger, including the following material factors:

In the course of its deliberations, the WMB Board also considered a variety of risks and other countervailing factors related to entering into the merger agreement, the merger and all other transactions contemplated thereby, including but not limited to:

In addition, the WMB Board was aware of and considered the interests of its directors and executive officers that are different from, or in addition to, the interests of WMB stockholders generally, including the treatment of WMB stock options and other equity awards held by such directors and executive officers in the merger described in the section titled “The Merger—Interests of Directors and Executive Officers of WMB in the Merger” and ETC’s agreement to indemnify WMB directors and officers against certain claims and liabilities.

Furthermore, the WMB Board has carefully reviewed the developments in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus in connection with the continuing recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board to WMB stockholders to adopt the merger agreement. In particular:

The WMB Board believes it is appropriate to continue to rely on the fairness opinions dated September 28, 2015 for purposes of its original decision to enter into the merger agreement. However, the WMB Board acknowledges that those fairness opinions only address fairness of the consideration to be received by WMB stockholders as of September 28, 2015 and the WMB Board no longer believes that the projections underlying those fairness opinions are valid. Accordingly, the WMB Board is not relying on those fairness opinions in evaluating its recommendation to Williams’ stockholders to adopt the merger agreement in light of the developments described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus. After conferring with its legal advisors, the WMB Board does not believe that it is necessary to request updated fairness opinions from its financial advisors and does not believe that updated fairness opinions would materially assist the WMB Board in evaluating its recommendation to WMB stockholders to adopt the merger agreement. The WMB Board believes it has, with the assistance of WMB management and the WMB Board’s financial advisors, the necessary expertise to evaluate the impact of changed economic conditions on the merits of the merger transaction.

After carefully reviewing the developments described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus, including those noted above, the WMB

Board has not changed its recommendation from its vote on September 28, 2015 that WMB stockholders adopt the merger agreement. Except as described below, the reasons for the WMB Board’s recommendation continue to be those described in this section. These reasons include the value certainty provided by the substantial portion of the merger consideration that is payable in cash, the industrial logic of a combination of WMB’s and ETE’s businesses, that the WMB stockholders will have an opportunity to participate in the value created by the combination, the WMB Board’s assessment of WMB’s challenges as a standalone company, the strategic review process conducted by the WMB Board and the protective measures that were negotiated by the WMB Board regarding the economic equivalence of ETC common shares and ETE common units. As discussed above, the WMB Board continues to rely on the fairness opinions of WMB’s financial advisors dated September 28, 2015 for purposes of its original decision to enter into the merger agreement, but is not relying on such fairness opinions as a basis for its continuing recommendation. The following reasons for the WMB Board’s recommendation described in this section no longer serve as a basis for the continuing recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board that WMB stockholders adopt the merger agreement:

Certain members of the WMB Board voted on September 28, 2015 against entering into the merger agreement and continue to disagree with the recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board that WMB stockholders adopt the merger agreement. See section titled “—Background of the Merger” beginning on page 104 of this proxy statement/prospectus. Notwithstanding their continuing disagreement with the recommendation of the majority of the WMB Board, these directors fully support the WMB Board’s commitment to consummate the transactions as required by the terms of the merger agreement. The WMB Board is unanimously committed to enforcing WMB’s rights under the merger agreement and delivering the benefits of the merger agreement to WMB stockholders.

The foregoing discussion of the information and factors that the WMB Board considered is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather is meant to include the material factors that the WMB Board considered. A majority of the WMB Board collectively reached the conclusion to approve the merger agreement, the merger and all of the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement in light of the various factors described above and other factors that the members of the WMB Board believed were appropriate. In view of the complexity and wide variety of factors, both positive and negative, that the WMB Board considered in connection with its evaluation of the merger, the WMB Board did not find it practical, and did not attempt, to quantify, rank or otherwise assign relative weights or values to any of the factors it considered in reaching its decision and did not undertake to make any specific determination as to whether any particular factor, or any aspect of any particular factor, was favorable or unfavorable to the ultimate determination of the WMB Board. Rather, in considering the various factors, individual members of the WMB Board considered all of these factors as a whole and a majority of such members concluded, based on the totality of information presented to them and the investigation conducted by them, that, on balance, the positive factors outweighed the negative factors and that they supported a determination to approve the merger agreement, declare its advisability and recommend that the WMB stockholders vote to adopt the merger agreement. In considering the factors discussed above, individual directors may have given different weights to different factors.

This explanation of the WMB Board’s reasons for recommending the adoption of the merger agreement and other information presented in this section is forward-looking in nature and, therefore, should be read in light of the factors described in the section titled “Forward-Looking Statements”.

A majority of the WMB Board recommend a vote “FOR” the adoption of the merger agreement.

At a meeting of the WMB Board held on September 28, 2015, each of Barclays and Lazard delivered the fairness opinions further described below. The WMB Board acknowledges that the fairness opinions of Barclays and Lazard only address fairness of the consideration to be received by WMB stockholders as of September 28, 2015 and the WMB Board no longer believes that the projections underlying the fairness opinions are valid. Accordingly, the WMB Board is not relying on the fairness opinions of Barclays and Lazard in evaluating its recommendation to WMB stockholders to adopt the merger agreement in light of the developments described in “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

WMB engaged Barclays to act as its financial advisor with respect to a potential sale of WMB pursuant to an engagement letter dated June 15, 2015. On September 28, 2015, Barclays delivered an oral opinion to the WMB Board, which was subsequently confirmed in writing, to the effect that, as of such date and based upon and subject to the qualifications, limitations and assumptions stated therein, the merger consideration to be paid in the aggregate to the WMB stockholders is fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders.

The full text of Barclays’ written opinion, dated as of September 28, 2015, is attached as Annex F to this proxy statement/prospectus. Barclays’ written opinion sets forth, among other things, the assumptions made, procedures followed, factors considered and limitations upon the review undertaken by Barclays in rendering its opinion. You are encouraged to read the opinion carefully in its entirety. The following is a summary of Barclays’ opinion and the methodology that Barclays used to render its opinion. This summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the opinion.

The terms of the merger were determined through arm’s-length negotiations between WMB, on the one hand, and ETE, on the other hand, and were approved on September 28, 2015 by a majority vote of the WMB Board. Barclays did not recommend any specific form or amount of consideration to WMB or that any specific form or amount of consideration constituted the only appropriate consideration for the merger. Barclays was not requested to address, and its opinion does not in any manner address, WMB’s underlying business decision to proceed with or effect the merger or the likelihood of consummation of the merger or the relative merits of the merger as compared to any strategic alternatives that may be available to WMB. In addition, Barclays expressed no opinion on, and its opinion does not in any manner address, the fairness of the amount or the nature of any compensation to any officers, directors or employees of any parties to the merger, or any class of such persons, relative to the merger consideration to be paid in the aggregate by ETC in the merger or otherwise. No limitations were imposed by the WMB Board upon Barclays with respect to the investigations made or procedures followed by it in rendering its opinion.

In arriving at its opinion, Barclays, among other things, reviewed and analyzed:

In addition, Barclays had discussions with the management of WMB and ETE concerning their respective and combined businesses, operations, assets, financial condition and prospects and undertook such other studies, analyses and investigations as Barclays deemed appropriate.

In arriving at its opinion, Barclays assumed as a result of proration that all WMB stockholders will receive the mixed consideration and the pre-merger special dividend. Barclays also assumed that (a) the merger will be treated as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code, (b) the Contribution (as defined in the merger agreement) and the issuance of the ETE Class E units should be treated as an exchange as described in Section 721(a) of the Code, and (c) that there will be no subsequent sale or other transfer by ETE of the equity or assets contributed to ETE pursuant to the contribution agreement that would adversely affect ETC or any holders of ETC common shares. Barclays also assumed and relied upon the accuracy and completeness of the financial and other information used by Barclays without any independent verification of such information

(and had not assumed responsibility or liability for any independent verification of such information). Barclays also relied upon the assurances of management of WMB that they were not aware of any facts or circumstances that would make such information inaccurate or misleading. With respect to the financial projections of WMB, upon advice of WMB, Barclays assumed that such projections were reasonably prepared on a basis reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments of the management of WMB as to the future financial performance of WMB and that WMB will perform substantially in accordance with such projections. With respect to the financial projections of ETE, upon the advice of WMB, Barclays assumed that such projections were reasonably prepared on a basis reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments of the management of ETE as to the future financial performance of ETE and that the adjustments by management of WMB to such projections were reasonably prepared on a basis reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments of management of WMB as to the future financial performance of ETE, and that ETE will perform substantially in accordance with such projections. Furthermore, upon the advice of and guidance from WMB, Barclays assumed that the amounts and timing of the Expected Benefits are reasonable and that the Expected Benefits will be realized in accordance with such estimates referred to in this paragraph or the assumptions on which they are based. Barclays assumed no responsibility for and expressed no view as to any of the projections or estimates or the assumptions on which they are based. In arriving at its opinion, Barclays did not conduct a physical inspection of the properties and facilities of WMB or ETE and did not make or obtain any evaluations or appraisals of the assets or liabilities of WMB or ETE. Barclays’ opinion was necessarily based upon market, economic and other conditions as they existed on, and could be evaluated as of, September 28, 2015. Barclays assumed no responsibility for updating or revising its opinion based on events or circumstances that may have occurred after September 28, 2015. Barclays expressed no opinion as to the prices at which shares of WMB common stock or ETE common units would trade following the announcement of the merger or at which price the ETC common shares or ETE common units would trade at any time following the consummation of the merger. Barclays expressed no opinion as to the credit rating of WMB and ETE at any time following the announcement or the consummation of the merger. Barclays expressed no opinion as to the distribution policy of ETE or ETC at any time following the consummation of the merger. Furthermore, Barclays expressed no opinion as to the form or structure of the merger, including any tax attributes expected to apply to the combined company following the consummation of the merger transactions. Barclays’ opinion does not provide any assurance that the aggregate value of the merger consideration, including the ETC common shares and the CCRs, to be held by the stockholders of WMB after the consummation of the merger will be in excess of the market value of WMB common stock owned by such stockholders at any time prior to the announcement or consummation of the merger.

Barclays assumed that the executed CCR agreement and the contribution agreement will conform in all material respects to the last draft reviewed by Barclays. Additionally, Barclays assumed the accuracy of the representations and warranties contained in the merger agreement and all the agreements related thereto. Barclays did not express any opinion as to any tax or other consequences that might result from the merger, nor did Barclays’ opinion address any legal, tax, regulatory or accounting matters, as to which Barclays understood WMB had obtained such advice as it deemed necessary from qualified professionals.

In connection with rendering its opinion, Barclays performed certain financial, comparative and other analyses as summarized below. In arriving at its opinion, Barclays did not ascribe a specific range of values to the shares of WMB common stock but rather made its determination as to fairness, from a financial point of view, to WMB stockholders of the merger consideration to be paid to such stockholders in the merger on the basis of various financial and comparative analyses. The preparation of a fairness opinion is a complex process and involves various determinations as to the most appropriate and relevant methods of financial and comparative analyses and the application of those methods to the particular circumstances. Therefore, a fairness opinion is not readily susceptible to summary description.

In arriving at its opinion, Barclays did not attribute any particular weight to any single analysis or factor considered by it but rather made qualitative judgments as to the significance and relevance of each analysis and factor relative to all other analyses and factors performed and considered by it and in the context of the circumstances of the particular transaction. Accordingly, Barclays believes that its analyses must be considered as a whole, as considering any portion of such analyses and factors, without considering all analyses and factors as a whole, could create a misleading or incomplete view of the process underlying its opinion.

The following is a summary of the material financial analyses used by Barclays in preparing its opinion to the WMB Board. Certain financial analyses summarized below include information presented in tabular format. In order to fully understand the financial analyses used by Barclays, the tables must be read together with the text of each summary, as the tables alone do not constitute a complete description of the financial analyses. In performing its analyses, Barclays made numerous assumptions with respect to industry performance, general business and economic conditions and other matters, many of which are beyond the control of WMB or any other parties to the merger. None of WMB, ETE, ETC, Barclays or any other person assumed responsibility if future results are materially different from those discussed. Any estimates contained in these analyses are not necessarily indicative of actual values or predictive of future results or values, which may be significantly more or less favorable than as set forth below. In addition, analyses relating to the value of the businesses do not purport to be appraisals or reflect the prices at which the businesses may actually be sold.

Barclays reviewed, for informational purposes, the closing prices of WMB common stock and ETE common units for the two year period from September 25, 2013 to September 25, 2015 and the approximately four month period after the announcement of the WPZ merger from May 13, 2015 to September 25, 2015. Barclays derived the historical exchange ratios between WMB common stock and ETE common units over those periods and compared those exchange ratios to the 1.8716x exchange ratio payable by ETE pursuant to the merger agreement. The 1.8716x exchange ratio offer, which is also the exchange ratio used for the share consideration, implied, based on the September 25, 2015 closing prices of ETE common units, the nominal offer price of $43.50 payable per share of WMB common stock offered as the cash consideration, and the 1.5274x exchange ratio plus $8.00 in cash per share of WMB common stock offered as the mixed consideration. The table below presents closing prices for WMB common stock and ETE common units (as adjusted for stock/unit splits) for selected historical periods to and including September 25, 2015, the corresponding exchange ratio for these periods and the implied premium that the merger consideration’s 1.8716x exchange ratio represents relative to these historical exchange ratios.

Based on the September 25, 2015 closing price of ETE common units of $23.24, the merger consideration represented an implied nominal offer price of $43.50 per share of WMB common stock. Barclays noted that based on the September 25, 2015 closing price of WMB common stock of $41.60, the merger consideration yields a premium of 4.6%. Barclays also compared certain projected financial information, including WMB’s cash available for dividends yield relative to the implied nominal offer price of $43.50 per share of WMB common stock, ETE’s cash available for distributions yield relative to the September 25, 2015 closing price of $23.34 per ETE common unit, WMB’s dividend yield relative to the implied nominal offer price of $43.50 per share of WMB common stock and ETE’s distribution yield relative to the September 25, 2015 closing price of $23.24 per ETE common unit.

In order to estimate the present value of WMB common stock as compared to the present value of ETC common shares after giving effect to the merger, Barclays performed a dividend discount model analysis based on dividends per share. A dividend discount model analysis is a traditional valuation methodology used to derive the equity value of a company by calculating the “present value” of estimated future dividends/distributions of a company to its stockholders/unitholders. “Present value” refers to the current value of dividends/distributions and is obtained by discounting those dividends/distributions by a discount rate that takes into account macroeconomic assumptions and estimates of risk, the opportunity cost of capital, expected returns and other appropriate factors.

Barclays performed twelve pro forma scenarios for WMB (collectively, the “WMB Scenarios”) based on three sets of WMB’s management financial projections for the years 2015 through 2019 (each also defined in the section titled “Financial Forecasts” beginning on page 169 of this proxy statement/prospectus): (1) mid-case projections, which are based on the mid commodity price assumption disclosed in the company’s May 2015 Analyst Day guidance for 2016 and 2017 and WMB management estimates thereafter (the “WMB Mid Case”), (2) projections adjusted for market commodity prices as of August 21, 2015 (the “WMB Market Case”), and (3) projections adjusted for market commodity prices as of August 21, 2015 and further adjusted downward to account for estimated reduced drilling and business activities from WMB’s customers due to lower commodity prices (the “WMB Adjusted Market Case”). Each of these three sets of projections was analyzed before taking into account the impact of the WPZ merger (“Pre-WPZ”) and after taking into account the impact of the WPZ merger (“Post-WPZ”). Lastly, each of these six scenarios was analyzed assuming either that WMB will make additional capital expenditures on projects that have been identified by WMB management but not yet incorporated in its financial projections (the “WMB Prospective Projects”) or that WMB will not pursue the WMB Prospective Projects. For more information on the financial projections for WMB please see the section titled “Financial Forecasts” beginning on page 169 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

To calculate the estimated implied per share value of WMB common stock using the dividend discount model analysis for each of the WMB Scenarios, Barclays added: (i) the forecasted dividends per share from the third quarter of 2015 to 2019, based on cash available for dividends and dividends per share projections of WMB furnished to Barclays by WMB’s management to (ii) the “terminal value” of the forecasted normalized dividend per share at the end of calendar year 2019, based on financial projections from WMB’s management, and discounted the sum of such amounts to June 30, 2015 using a range of equity cost of capital rates (as further described below).

In determining the terminal value for the WMB Scenarios, Barclays applied certain assumed yields to WMB’s forecasted calendar year 2019 dividend per share, and made two adjustments to normalize the terminal year dividend: (i) applied an adjusted cash tax rate of 15% affecting the cash available for dividends in 2019 and (ii) applied a reduced coverage ratio of 1.0x to 2019 dividends for the terminal year estimate. The assumed valuation yields for both the yearly equity issuance and the terminal value calculation were selected based on Barclays’ professional judgment and experience, taking into account historical trading levels of WMB common stock. Barclays then discounted the cash flows for each WMB Post-WPZ scenario using equity cost of capital rates ranging from 10.1% to 12.1% and for each WMB Pre-WPZ scenario using equity cost of capital rates ranging from 10.6% to 12.6%, which were selected based on Barclays’ professional judgment and experience, taking into account projected equity cost of capital rates for WMB and its respective peer groups, which were different in the Pre-WPZ and Post-WPZ scenarios. The assumed terminal dividend yield and implied reference range of per share values of WMB common stock for each WMB scenario is set forth in the tables below:

Barclays performed eight pro forma scenarios for ETE (collectively, the “ETE Scenarios”) based on two projections prepared by management of ETE and reviewed and adjusted downward by management of WMB of ETE distributions for the years 2015 through 2018: (1) mid-case projections, based on the WMB Mid Case commodity prices and subject to certain adjustments made by WMB management (the “ETE Mid Case”) and (2) market case projections, based on the WMB Market Case commodity prices and subject to certain adjustments made by WMB management (the “ETE Market Case”). Each of these two sets of projections was analyzed based on the assumption that ETE’s natural gas liquefaction project at Lake Charles (the “Lake Charles Project”) would either be pursued or not pursued by ETE and its controlled affiliates. Lastly, each of these four scenarios was analyzed assuming either that ETE will make certain capital expenditures on projects that have been identified by ETE’s management but not yet incorporated in its financial projections (the “ETE Prospective Projects” and together with the WMB Prospective Projects, the “Prospective Projects”) or that ETE will not pursue the ETE Prospective Projects. For more information please see the section titled “Financial Forecasts” beginning on page 169 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

To calculate the estimated implied per unit value of ETE common units using the dividend discount model for the ETE Scenarios, Barclays added: (i) the forecasted distributions per unit from the third quarter of 2015 to 2018, based on cash available for distributions and distributions per unit projections of ETE to (ii) the “terminal value” of the forecasted normalized distributions per share at the end of calendar year 2018, in each case based on guidance from ETE’s management, and discounted the sum of such amounts to June 30, 2015 using a range of equity cost of capital rates (as further described below).

In determining the terminal value for the ETE Scenarios, Barclays applied certain assumed yields to the forecasted calendar year 2018 distributions per unit, which were normalized for certain items including coverage. These assumed yields were selected based on Barclays’ professional judgment and experience, taking into account historical trading levels of ETE common units. Barclays then discounted the cash flows for each ETE Scenario using equity cost of capital rates ranging from 9.8% to 11.8%, which were selected based on Barclays’ professional judgment and experience, taking into account projected equity cost of capital rates for ETE and its peers. The assumed terminal dividend yield and implied reference range of per unit values of ETE common units for each ETE Scenario is set forth in the table below:

Barclays analyzed the value of the ETC common shares based on the implied unit values of ETE common units derived from the dividend discount model valuation analysis described above and adjusted such valuations to reflect differences in the tax positions of ETE and ETC resulting from their respective corporate structures. In order to account for the pass through nature of ETE distributions, Barclays added the per share value of tax liabilities in each of the three WMB Pre-WPZ scenarios without the WMB Prospective Projects, as adjusted to reflect the impact of such tax liabilities on the ETC common shares. Barclays then added to the implied unit values in each of these 12 scenarios tax liabilities of ETE as proposed by ETE management and WMB management. Barclays then reduced the value of ETC common shares by the tax liabilities projected to be assessed for ETC.

Barclays examined two tax scenarios. The managed tax liability scenario assumed that ETE management will take certain actions that will result in distributions from ETE to ETC being taxed at a rate of 10% in 2019 and 2020, and 15% thereafter. The full tax liability scenario assumed that ETE management will not take such actions and thus ETC will be subject to a higher tax rate liability on distributions it receives from ETE. In both the managed tax liability scenario and the full tax liability scenario, Barclays assumed, as directed by WMB and ETE management, that ETC will not be liable for taxes on distributions from ETE through 2018.

Lastly, Barclays added the value of the CCRs to the implied share values in each of these 24 scenarios, and the range of the implied share values resulting from these three adjustments resulted in the implied share value of the ETC common shares. For purposes of valuing the CCRs, Barclays assumed that differences between the trading price of the ETC common shares and ETE common units would be attributable to differences in the future cash taxes between ETC and ETE based on their respective structures. Because the CCR provides its holder with a one-time payment at the end of a two-year period in the event that ETC common shares trade at a

discount relative to ETE common units, Barclays assumed this payment would provide partial value equalization between ETC and ETE. The value that Barclays attributed to the CCRs in its analysis varied according to the tax liabilities projected by ETE and WMB management in various scenarios used to estimate future tax liabilities.

Barclays calculated certain implied exchange ratio value ranges. Specifically, Barclays computed the bottom end of each the implied exchange ratio value range by dividing the bottom end of the WMB common stock implied per share equity value by the top end of ETC common shares implied per share equity value, and calculated the top end of each implied exchange ratio value range by dividing the top of the WMB common stock implied per share equity value by the bottom end of ETC common shares implied per share equity value. The implied per share equity values of WMB common stock were derived from the dividend discount model valuation analysis described above. The implied per share equity values of the ETC common shares used for this

comparison were derived by adjusting the implied per unit equity values of the ETE common units resulting from the dividend discount model valuation analysis described above to reflect certain WMB and ETE tax liabilities, including the value of the CCRs, which together represent the estimated value of the ETC common shares (as described above), the exchange ratio of 1.5274x included in the mixed consideration, and the $8.00 per share cash component of the merger consideration.

Barclays calculated implied exchange ratio value ranges for each of the (1) WMB Scenario based on the WMB Mid Case compared to each ETE Scenario based on the ETE Mid Case, (2) WMB Scenario based on the WMB Market Case to each ETE Scenario based on the ETE Market Case and (3) WMB Scenario based on the WMB Adjusted Market Case to each ETE Scenario based on the ETE Market Case.

The implied exchange ratio value ranges in each of these 48 scenarios is presented in the tables below, and is lower than the 1.8716x exchange ratio offered by ETE pursuant to the merger agreement.

Barclays also reviewed and compared the value of WMB common stock on a stand-alone basis prior to the completion of the transaction assuming either Post-WPZ or Pre-WPZ scenarios, with the value of what each WMB stockholder will be receiving as merger consideration.

For this analysis, Barclays used as a reference a WMB common stock price per share of $37.50 and $41.50, which is the midpoint of the implied reference range of per share values for the WMB Market Case Pre-WPZ scenario and the WMB Market Case Post-WPZ scenario, respectively. For purposes of calculating the value of the merger consideration in this analysis, Barclays used the implied price per share of WMB common stock in the WMB Market Case Pre-WPZ scenario. Barclays then calculated the implied equity value of WMB using this implied price per share. In order to assess the value of the combined entity, Barclays added the equity value of ETE (corresponding to the ETE Market Case) and made pro forma adjustments related to taxes, the value of pro

forma synergies as projected by WMB’s management, the $0.10 pre-merger special dividend to WMB stockholders, the sale of certain assets, the termination fee payable upon the termination of the WPZ merger, and transaction expenses incurred in connection with the merger. Barclays then multiplied the value of the combined entity by WMB’s ownership percentage to determine the value attributable to WMB stockholders. Barclays further adjusted this equity value to reflect certain ETC tax liabilities that would be attributed to WMB stockholders after the merger and the value of the CCR. Lastly, Barclays added the value of the cash consideration that is payable to the WMB stockholders as part of the merger consideration. Barclays conducted this analysis for the managed tax liability scenario and the full tax liability scenario. It also considered each of these tax scenarios with and without Lake Charles. All of the scenarios that Barclays considered for this analysis assumed that the Prospective Projects were not pursued.

Barclays also performed a similar analysis using the midpoint share price of WMB common stock in the WMB Mid Case Pre-WPZ and Post-WPZ scenarios, which is $52.00 and $57.50, respectively, and the midpoint share price of WMB common stock in the WMB Adjusted Market Case Pre-WPZ and Post-WPZ scenarios, which is $33.00 and $36.50, respectively. This analysis was performed for the managed tax liability scenario and the full tax liability scenario, and Barclays considered each of these tax scenarios with and without Lake Charles.

Barclays also reviewed certain publicly available information related to select precedent transactions to calculate the amount of the premiums paid by the acquirers to the acquired company’s stockholders or unitholders, as applicable. Barclays analyzed corporate transactions announced for the period from January 1, 2012 to September 25, 2015 with total transaction values in excess of $5 billion, excluding related party transactions. Because WMB engaged in a competitive strategic alternatives process and WMB’s management considered multiple bids by several potential acquirers, Barclays did not rely on this comparative information for its fairness analysis.

Barclays is an internationally recognized investment banking firm and, as part of its investment banking activities, is regularly engaged in the valuation of businesses and their securities in connection with mergers and acquisitions, investments for passive and control purposes, negotiated underwritings, competitive bids, secondary distributions of listed and unlisted securities, private placements and valuations for estate, corporate and other purposes. The WMB Board selected Barclays because of its familiarity with WMB and ETE and its qualifications, reputation and experience in the valuation of businesses and securities in connection with mergers and acquisitions generally, as well as substantial experience in transactions in the industries in which WMB and ETE operate.

Barclays is acting as financial advisor to WMB in connection with the merger. As compensation for its services in connection with the merger, $2.0 million became payable by WMB to Barclays as a retainer fee upon the execution by WMB and Barclays of an engagement letter. An additional fee of $2.5 million became payable by WMB to Barclays upon the delivery of Barclays’ opinion, which is referred to as the “Opinion Fee.” The Opinion Fee was not contingent upon the conclusion of Barclays’ opinion nor upon the consummation of the merger. Upon the closing of the merger, an additional fee will become payable by WMB to Barclays in an amount equal to approximately $43.3 million. The merger will also accelerate the payment of a fee of $5.0 million which would have otherwise been payable by WPZ to Barclays in August 2016 in connection with financing and capital markets advisory services that Barclays performed for WPZ in August 2015. In addition, WMB has agreed to reimburse certain of Barclays’ expenses in connection with the merger and indemnify Barclays for certain liabilities that may arise out of Barclays’ engagement by WMB and the rendering of Barclays’ opinion. Barclays has performed various investment banking and financial services for WMB and WPZ in the past, and Barclays expects to perform such services in the future, and has received, and expects to receive, customary fees for such services.

Specifically, since 2012, Barclays has performed investment banking and financial services for WMB and its affiliates in connection with the following transactions: (1) Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC’s $1.0 billion notes offering in January 2016; (2) the WPZ merger; (3) WMB’s strategic alternatives review process; (4) WMB’s acquisition of 50% of the general partner interest and 55.1 million limited partner units in ACMP for $5.995 billion and the associated interim-liquidity facility in June 2014; (5) WMB’s October 2014 merger with ACMP; (6) WMB’s $1.9 billion notes offering in June 2014; (7) WMB’s $3.5 billion equity offering in June 2014; (8) WMB’s sale to WPZ of certain Canadian assets for $1.2 billion in February 2014; (9) WMB’s $1.4 billion equity offering in December 2012; (10) WMB’s $850 million senior notes offering in December 2012; (11) WMB’s $850 million bridge loan in December 2012; (12) WPZ’s $1.0 billion liquidity facility entered into in August 2015; (13) WPZ’s $3.0 billion notes offering in March 2015; (14) WPZ’s March 2015 common unit equity program of up to $1.0 billion; (15) WPZ’s $1.5 billion liquidity facility entered into in February 2015; (16) WPZ’s $1.2 billion equity offering in August 2013; (17) ACMP’s $372 million public offering on August 2013; (18) ACMP’s $359 million equity offering in March 2013; (19) ACMP’s $514 million equity offering in December 2012; and (20) certain other investment banking and financial services matters. In connection with the foregoing services, Barclays has received aggregate compensation equal to approximately $113,700,000.

Further, since 2012, Barclays has performed investment banking and financial services for ETE and its affiliates in connection with the following transactions: (1) ETE’s $700 million tack-on term loan entered into in May 2014; (2) ETE’s $900 million term loan entered into in November 2013; (3) ETE’s $450 million high yield senior debt offering in January 2013; (4) ETP’s acquisition of Regency in April 2015; (5) ETP’s December 2014 acquisition of an interest in the Bakken pipeline project from ETE in an asset swap; (6) ETP’s November 2014 “At-the-Market” equity offering program of up to $1.5 billion; (7) the approximately $800 million drop down of businesses from ETP to Susser Holdings Corporation in September 2014; (8) ETP’s acquisition of Susser Holdings Corporation in August 2014; (9) ETP’s $577 million equity offering in April 2013; (10) ETP’s $600 million block equity offering in June 2012; (11) ETP’s $590 million follow-on equity offering in November 2011; (12) Regency’s $700 million offering of senior unsecured notes in October 2014; (13) Regency’s acquisition of assets relating to the Midstream business from Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. in July 2014 and

December 2013; (14) Regency’s exchange offer in July 2014 for Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P.’s 8.375% notes due 2019; (15) Regency’s $400 million equity offering program in June 2014; (16) Regency’s offering of $600 million 4.5% senior notes due 2023 in April 2013; (17) Regency’s $700 million senior notes offering in September 2012; (18) Regency’s $269 million and $209 million share follow-on offerings in March 2012 and October 2011 respectively; (19) SXL’s August 2015 $1 billion equity offering program; (20) SXL’s amended $2.5 billion credit facility entered into in March 2015; (21) SXL’s $564 million equity offering in March 2015 and $373 million follow-on offering in September 2014; (22) SXL’s $1.0 billion senior notes offering in March 2014; (23) SXL’s $200 million extension of its revolving credit facility in August 2013; (24) Sunoco’s $370 million equity offering in October 2014; (25) Sunoco’s acquisition of Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. in December 2014; (26) Sunoco’s IPO in September 2012; (27) SXL’s $600 million loan facility in July 2011; and (28) certain other investment banking and financial services matters. In connection with the foregoing services, Barclays has received aggregate compensation equal to approximately $43,300,000.

Barclays and its affiliates engage in a wide range of businesses from investment and commercial banking, lending, asset management and other financial and non-financial services. In the ordinary course of its business, Barclays and affiliates may actively trade and effective transactions in the equity, debt and/or other securities (and any derivatives thereof) and financial instruments (including loans and other obligations) of WMB, WPZ and their respective affiliates for its own account and for the accounts of its customers and, accordingly, may at any time hold long or short positions and investments in such securities and financial instruments.

Barclays’ opinion, the issuance of which has been approved by Barclays’ Fairness Opinion Committee, is addressed to the WMB Board and addresses only the fairness, from a financial point of view, of the merger consideration to be paid in the aggregate to the WMB stockholders. Barclays’ opinion is not intended to be and does not constitute a recommendation to any stockholder of WMB as to how such stockholder should vote with respect to the merger or any related matter.

On September 28, 2015, Lazard rendered its oral opinion, subsequently confirmed in writing, to the WMB Board, that, as of such date, and based upon and subject to the assumptions, procedures, factors, qualifications and limitations set forth therein, the merger consideration to be paid to holders of WMB common stock (other than Excluded Holders, which are defined in the Lazard opinion as holders of Subsidiary-Owned WMB Shares (as defined in the Lazard opinion), WMB, as holder of treasury stock, ETC, and holders of WMB common stock who are entitled to demand and properly demand appraisal of such shares pursuant to, and who complies in all respects with, the provisions of Section 262 of the DGCL) in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to holders of WMB common stock (other than Excluded Holders). For purposes of Lazard’s analysis, with WMB’s consent, Lazard assumed that the merger consideration payable in respect of each share of WMB common stock (other than shares held by Excluded Holders) will consist of 1.5274 ETC common shares, with each such share having one CCR attached thereto, and $8.00 in cash, as a result of the proration procedures set forth in the merger agreement, as to which Lazard expressed no opinion.

The full text of Lazard’s written opinion, dated September 28, 2015; which sets forth the assumptions made, procedures followed, factors considered and qualifications and limitations on the review undertaken by Lazard in connection with its opinion, is attached to this proxy statement/prospectus as Annex G and is incorporated into this proxy statement/prospectus by reference. The description of Lazard’s opinion set forth in this proxy statement/prospectus is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of Lazard’s written opinion attached as Annex G. You are encouraged to read Lazard’s opinion and this section carefully and in their entirety.

Lazard’s opinion was directed to the WMB Board (in its capacity as such) in connection with the WMB Board’s evaluation of the merger and only addressed the fairness, from a financial point of view, to

holders of WMB common stock (other than Excluded Holders) of the merger consideration to be paid to such holders in the merger. Lazard’s opinion was not intended to and does not constitute a recommendation to any stockholder or other person as to how such person should vote or act with respect to the merger or any matter relating thereto. Lazard’s opinion was necessarily based on economic, monetary, market and other conditions as in effect on, and the information made available to Lazard as of, the date of its opinion. Lazard assumed no responsibility for updating or revising its opinion based on circumstances or events occurring after the date thereof. Lazard did not express any opinion as to the prices at which shares of WMB common stock, the ETC common shares, the ETE common units, the ETE Class E units or the CCRs may trade at any time subsequent to the announcement of the merger. In addition, Lazard’s opinion did not address the relative merits of the merger as compared to any other transaction or business strategy in which WMB might engage or the merits of the underlying decision by WMB to engage in the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.

Lazard assumed and relied upon the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing information, without independent verification of such information. Lazard did not conduct any independent valuation or appraisal of

any of the assets or liabilities (contingent or otherwise) of WMB, ETC, ETE or any subsidiaries or other entities in which ETE, directly or indirectly, owns any interest (together with ETC, ETC GP, ETE, LE GP and ETE GP, the “ETE Group”) or concerning the solvency or fair value of WMB or the ETE Group, and Lazard was not furnished with any such valuation or appraisal. With respect to the financial forecasts utilized in Lazard’s analyses, including those related to costs and synergies and other benefits anticipated by the managements of WMB and the ETE general partner to be realized from the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, Lazard assumed, with the consent of WMB, that they have been reasonably prepared on bases reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments as to the future financial performance of WMB and ETE, respectively and such synergies and other benefits. With respect to the forecasts of ETE, at the instruction of WMB, Lazard relied for purposes of its opinion and analysis on the forecasts provided by the ETE general partner, as adjusted downward by management of WMB. Lazard assumed no responsibility for and expressed no view as to any such forecasts (including the adjustments made by WMB management to the ETE general partner’s forecasts for ETE) or the assumptions on which they are based, and Lazard assumed with the consent of WMB that such synergies and benefits will be realized in the amounts and in the timeframe contemplated by such forecasts. In connection with its analysis, Lazard considered both a surviving entity managed tax forecast case, in which the tax attributes of the ETE group are managed to limit the corporate tax liability of ETC, as the surviving entity (the “Managed Tax Forecast”), and a full tax case in which tax attributes of the ETE group are not managed to limit ETC’s, as the surviving entity, tax liabilities (the “Full Tax Forecast”). However, with WMB’s consent, for purposes of its opinion, Lazard placed greater reliance upon the Managed Tax Forecast.

In rendering its opinion, Lazard assumed, with the consent of WMB, that the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement will be consummated on the terms described in the merger agreement, without any waiver or modification of any material terms or conditions. For purposes of its analysis, Lazard assumed that the pre-merger special dividend will be declared by WMB and paid as contemplated by the merger agreement. Representatives of WMB advised Lazard, and Lazard assumed, that the merger agreement, when executed, will conform to the draft reviewed by Lazard in all material respects. Lazard further assumed for purposes of its opinion and analysis, with WMB’s consent, that subsequent to the consummation of the merger, there will be no sale or other transfer by ETE of the equity or assets contributed by WMB to ETE in consideration of the issuance of the ETE Class E units that would adversely affect ETC, as the surviving entity, or holders of the ETC common shares. Lazard also assumed, with the consent of WMB, that obtaining the necessary governmental, regulatory or third-party approvals and consents for the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement will not have an adverse effect on WMB, the ETE Group or the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. Lazard did not express any opinion as to any tax or other consequences that might result from the merger or related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, nor did its opinion address any legal, tax, regulatory or accounting matters, as to which Lazard understood that WMB obtained such advice as it deemed necessary from qualified professionals. Lazard expressed no view or opinion as to any terms or other aspects (other than the merger consideration to the extent expressly specified in Lazard’s written opinion) of the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, including, without limitation, the form or structure of the merger or any agreements or arrangements entered into in connection with, or contemplated by, the merger or the related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. In addition, Lazard expressed no view or opinion as to the fairness of the amount or nature of, or any other aspects relating to, the compensation to any officers, directors or employees of any parties to the merger or related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, or class of such persons, relative to the merger consideration or otherwise.

The following is a brief summary of the material financial analyses and reviews that Lazard deemed appropriate in connection with rendering its opinion. The brief summary of Lazard’s analyses and reviews provided below is not a complete description of the analyses and reviews underlying Lazard’s opinion. The preparation of a fairness opinion is a complex process involving various determinations as to the most appropriate and relevant methods of analysis and review and the application of those methods to particular circumstances, and, therefore, is not readily susceptible to summary description. Considering selected portions of

the analyses and reviews or the summary set forth below, without considering the analyses and reviews as a whole, could create an incomplete or misleading view of the analyses and reviews underlying Lazard’s opinion.

In arriving at its opinion, Lazard considered the results of all of its analyses and reviews and did not attribute any particular weight to any factor, analysis or review considered by it; rather, Lazard made its determination as to fairness on the basis of its experience and professional judgment after considering the results of all of its analyses and reviews. For purposes of its analyses and reviews, Lazard considered industry performance, general business, economic, market and financial conditions and other matters, many of which are beyond the control of WMB, ETE and the ETE general partner. No company, business or transaction used in Lazard’s analyses and reviews as a comparison is identical to WMB, ETE, or the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and an evaluation of the results of those analyses and reviews is not entirely mathematical. Rather, the analyses and reviews involve complex considerations and judgments concerning financial and operating characteristics and other factors that could affect the acquisition, public trading or other values of the companies, businesses or transactions used in Lazard’s analyses and reviews. The estimates contained in Lazard’s analyses and reviews and the ranges of valuations resulting from any particular analysis or review are not necessarily indicative of actual values or predictive of future results or values, which may be significantly more or less favorable than those suggested by Lazard’s analyses and reviews. In addition, analyses and reviews relating to the value of companies, businesses or securities do not purport to be appraisals or to reflect the prices at which companies, businesses or securities actually may be sold. Accordingly, the estimates used in, and the results derived from, Lazard’s analyses and reviews are inherently subject to substantial uncertainty.

The summary of the analyses and reviews provided below includes information presented in tabular format. In order to fully understand Lazard’s analyses and reviews, the tables must be read together with the full text of each summary. The tables alone do not constitute a complete description of Lazard’s analyses and reviews. Considering the data in the tables below without considering the full description of the analyses and reviews, including the methodologies and assumptions underlying the analyses and reviews, could create a misleading or incomplete view of Lazard’s analyses and reviews.

Except as otherwise noted, the following quantitative information, to the extent that it is based on market data, is based on market data as it existed on or before September 25, 2015 and is not necessarily indicative of current market conditions.

In conducting stand-alone valuation analyses for WMB, Lazard considered analyses in which: (1) WMB operated as a stand-alone company without the acquisition of the publicly traded limited partner interests of WPZ not currently owned by WMB in exchange for shares of WMB common stock, referred to herein as “Pre-Snowcap,” and (2) WMB operated as a stand-alone company following the consummation of the acquisition of the publicly traded limited partner interests WPZ not owned by WMB in exchange for shares of WMB common stock in accordance with the terms of WMB’s previously announced merger agreement with WPZ, referred to herein as “Post-Snowcap.”

In conducting its financial analyses of WMB Pre-Snowcap, Lazard relied on three financial forecasts: (1) a forecast based on management projections and management operating assumptions provided on August 21, 2015, referred to herein as the “Pre-Snowcap Mid Case”; (2) a forecast based on market commodity prices as of August 21, 2015, referred to herein as the “Pre-Snowcap Market Case”; and (3) a forecast based on market commodity prices as of August 21, 2015, as adjusted by WMB management to account for changes in volume, operating expenses and capital expenditures that may result from a lower commodity price environment, referred to herein as the “Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case.”

In conducting its financial analyses of WMB Post-Snowcap, Lazard relied on three financial forecasts: (1) a forecast based on management projections and management operating assumptions provided on August 21, 2015,

referred to herein as the “Post-Snowcap Mid Case”; (2) a forecast based on market commodity prices as of August 21, 2015, referred to herein as the “Post-Snowcap Market Case”; and (3) a forecast based on market commodity prices as of August 21, 2015, as adjusted by WMB management to account for changes in volume, operating expenses and capital expenditures that may result from a lower commodity price environment, referred to herein as the “Post-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case.”

Lazard reviewed and analyzed certain financial information, valuation multiples and market trading data related to selected comparable publicly traded midstream companies whose operations Lazard believed, based on its experience with companies in the midstream industry and its professional judgment, to be generally relevant for the purposes of this analysis.

The selected group of companies used in this analysis with respect to WMB Pre-Snowcap, referred to herein as the “Pre-Snowcap comparable companies,” was as follows:

The selected group of companies used in this analysis with respect to WMB Post-Snowcap, referred to herein as the “Post-Snowcap comparable companies,” was as follows:

Lazard selected the companies reviewed in this analysis because, among other things, the Pre-Snowcap comparable companies and the Post-Snowcap comparable companies operate businesses similar to the businesses of WMB Pre-Snowcap and WMB Post-Snowcap, respectively. However, no selected company is identical to WMB Pre-Snowcap or WMB Post-Snowcap. Accordingly, Lazard believes that purely quantitative analyses are not, in isolation, determinative in the context of the merger and that qualitative judgments concerning differences between the business, financial and operating characteristics and prospects of WMB Pre-Snowcap and WMB Post-Snowcap and the Pre-Snowcap comparable companies and the Post-Snowcap comparable companies, respectively, that could affect the public trading values of WMB Pre-Snowcap and WMB Post-Snowcap are also relevant.

For purposes of reviewing ETE, as a Pre-Snowcap comparable company, Lazard utilized publicly available information for ETE instead of the internal projections provided by the ETE general partner, and such projections as adjusted downward by WMB.

Lazard calculated and compared various financial multiples and ratios of each of the Pre-Snowcap comparable companies and the Post-Snowcap comparable companies, including, among other things, the ratio of each company’s closing unit price or share price as of September 25, 2015 to its estimated distributable cash flow per unit (the “DCF”) (which price to DCF ratio is referred to as the “Price/DCF Multiple”).

Based on Lazard’s analysis of the relevant metrics for each of the Pre-Snowcap comparable companies and the Post-Snowcap comparable companies, as well as its professional judgment and experience, Lazard derived ranges of 2016E Price/DCF Multiples from the Post-Snowcap comparable companies of:

This analysis resulted in an implied price per share range for shares of WMB Pre-Snowcap common stock and shares of WMB Post-Snowcap common stock as set forth below:

Lazard performed a dividend discount analysis of shares of the WMB common stock, which calculates an implied equity value per share by discounting to the present the value of the future dividends per share of WMB common stock expected to be paid by WMB in the period from the second half of 2015 through 2019.

Lazard based its dividend discount analysis for WMB Pre-Snowcap on an assumed equity discount rate ranging from 10.00% to 12.00% based on the average of WMB and the Pre-Snowcap comparable companies’ cost of equity. Lazard also calculated estimated terminal values for WMB for the Pre-Snowcap Mid Case, the Pre-Snowcap Market Case, and the Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case by applying the Mid Case Price/DCF Multiple, the Market Case Price/DCF Multiple, and the Adjusted Market Case Price/DCF Multiple, respectively, to WMB Pre-Snowcap’s 2020 estimated DCF, which was projected using growth rates provided by WMB management.

Lazard based its dividend discount analysis for WMB Post-Snowcap on an assumed equity discount rate ranging from 10.50% to 12.50% based on the average of WMB and the Post-Snowcap comparable companies’

cost of equity. Lazard also calculated estimated terminal values for WMB for the Post-Snowcap Mid Case, the Post-Snowcap Market Case, and the Post-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case by applying the Mid Case Price/DCF Multiple, the Market Case Price/DCF Multiple, and the Adjusted Market Case Price/DCF Multiple, respectively, to WMB Post-Snowcap’s 2020 estimated DCF, which was projected using growth rates provided by WMB management.

The analyses and data relating to WMB described below were presented to the WMB Board merely for informational purposes.

Lazard performed premiums paid analyses based on the premiums paid, where applicable, in selected energy industry transactions with a transaction value greater than $5 billion announced from 2009 through the date of Lazard’s opinion and an “adjusted set” of such selected transactions that excluded related-party transactions. The analyses were based on the one-day, 5-days and 30-days implied premiums paid in such precedent transactions, respectively.

Based on the foregoing and Lazard’s professional judgment, Lazard applied a reference range of premia of 25% - 40% to $36.00, being the midpoint of the $33.00 to $39.00 adjusted price of a share of WMB common stock determined by Lazard based on factors including the trading performance of WMB’s peers, other midstream companies and WPZ, between June 19, 2015, the last trading day prior to June 22, 2015, the date on which ETE publicly confirmed of its proposal to acquire WMB (the “Public Proposal Date”), and September 25, 2015, the last trading day before the announcement of the merger. This analysis indicated a per share equity value reference range of approximately $45.00 to $50.50 for WMB.

Lazard reviewed the range of trading prices of shares of WMB common stock for the 52 weeks ending on September 25, 2015, the last trading day before the announcement of the merger. Lazard observed that, during such period, the daily closing share prices of WMB common stock ranged from $41.00 to $60.75 per share.

In conducting its financial analyses of ETE, Lazard relied on two financial forecasts: (1) a forecast based on the ETE general partner management projections and operating assumptions, as adjusted downward by management of WMB, referred to herein as the “ETE Mid Case”; and (2) a forecast based on market commodity prices as of August 21, 2015, referred to herein as the “ETE Market Case.”

The selected group of companies used in this analysis with respect to ETE, referred to herein as the “ETE comparable companies,” was as follows:

Lazard selected the companies reviewed in this analysis because, among other things, the ETE comparable companies operate businesses similar to the businesses of ETE. However, no selected company is identical to ETE. Accordingly, Lazard believes that purely quantitative analyses are not, in isolation, determinative in the context of the merger and that qualitative judgments concerning differences between the business, financial and operating characteristics and prospects of ETE and the ETE comparable companies, that could affect the public trading values of ETE are also relevant.

Lazard calculated and compared various financial multiples and ratios of each of the comparable companies, including, among other things, the Price/DCF Multiple.

Based on Lazard’s analysis of the relevant metrics for each of the ETE comparable companies, as well as its professional judgment and experience, Lazard derived ranges of 2016E Price/DCF Multiples of:

This analysis resulted in an implied price per share range for the ETE common units as set forth below:

Lazard performed a dividend discount analysis of the ETE common units, which calculates an implied equity value per share by discounting to the present the value of the future dividends per ETE common unit expected to be paid by ETE in the period from the second half of 2015 through 2018.

Lazard based its dividend discount analysis for ETE on an assumed equity discount rate ranging from 10.50% to 12.50% based on the average of the ETE and the ETE comparable companies’ cost of equity to the

extent Lazard deemed relevant in its professional judgment. Lazard also calculated estimated terminal values for ETE for the ETE Mid Case and the ETE Market Case by applying the ETE Mid Case Price/DCF Multiple and the ETE Market Case Price/DCF Multiple, respectively, to ETE’s 2019 estimated DCF, which was projected using growth rates provided by WMB management.

ETE is pursuing the development of the Lake Charles LNG Export Project (“LNG Export Project”). Equity analysts consider LNG Export Project as providing potential upside to ETE’s valuation, but generally do not attribute any value to the project in their ETE price targets given the uncertainty around future cash flows in connection with LNG Export Project. For illustrative purposes only, Lazard performed a discounted cash flow analysis with respect to the net cash flows to ETE over the 25 year contract life of LNG Export Project commencing in 2021, using ETE’s cost of equity of 11.5%. This analysis resulted in a unrisked value per ETE common unit of $4.04 per share.

Lazard’s dividend discount analysis, with and without the unrisked value of LNG Export Project, resulted in the following ranges of equity values for WMB of:

The analyses and data relating to WMB described below were presented to the WMB Board merely for informational purposes.

Lazard reviewed the range of trading prices of the ETE common units for the 52 weeks ending on September 25, 2015. Lazard observed that, during such period, the daily closing prices of the ETE common units ranged from $23.25 to $35.25 per unit.

Lazard reviewed recently available equity analyst price targets based on published, publicly available Wall Street equity research reports prepared by equity analysts covering ETE, which indicated 12 month target prices for the ETE common units that ranged from $33.00 to $57.50.

Lazard reviewed the historical trading price of WMB common stock and the ETE common units for the five year period ending on the Public Proposal Date. Lazard noted that, during the five year period ending on the Public Proposal Date, the ratio of ETE common units for each share of WMB common stock ranged from 1.349x to 3.659x ETE common units per share of WMB common stock, with a five-year average of 2.401x, compared to the merger ratio of 1.872x ETE common units per share of WMB common stock (assuming the merger consideration payable in respect of each share of WMB common stock will consist of 1.872 ETC common shares). The historical stock trading analysis provided general reference points with respect to the exchange ratio of the ETE common units compared to the shares of WMB common stock, which enabled Lazard to compare the historical exchange ratio with the ratio to be received by the holders of WMB common stock pursuant to the merger.

Lazard calculated illustrative pro forma relative contributions of WMB and ETE to ETC, as the surviving entity, with respect to the estimated DCF based on the Pre-Snowcap Mid Case, the Pre-Snowcap Market Case, and the Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case, with respect to WMB and the ETE Mid Case and the ETE Market Case with respect to ETE. Lazard derived implied pro forma equity contributions of WMB and ETE from such illustrative pro forma DCF and noted that the offer price exchange ratio of 1.872x ETE common units per share of WMB common stock (assuming the merger consideration payable in respect of each share of WMB common stock will consist of 1.872 ETC common shares) implied an equity contribution of 57.2% from WMB and 42.8% from ETE.

Based upon the implied equity values per share for WMB and ETE calculated in the Dividend Discount Analysis sections for WMB Pre-Snowcap and Post-Snowcap and ETE, with and without LNG Export Project, described above, Lazard calculated a range of implied exchange ratios of ETE common units to shares of WMB common stock, for both the Managed Tax Forecast and the Full Tax Forecast (the “implied exchange ratios”). For purposes of this analysis, Lazard looked at the average per share merger consideration on a fully prorated basis, consisting of 1.5274 ETC common shares, with each such share having one CCR attached thereto, and $8.00 in cash.

Lazard noted that the tax attributes inherent in ETC, as the surviving entity, could cause ETC to have a lower intrinsic value and thus cause the ETC common shares to trade at a lower price compared to the ETE common units. As described below, Lazard adjusted its analysis to account for the present value of such tax

attributes (the “Tax Drag”). As described below, Lazard also adjusted its analysis to account for the value of the CCR to the holders of ETC common shares (the “CCR Value”), which Lazard assumed to partially offset the Tax Drag. Lazard determined the CCR Value primarily by determining the effect of “stapling” the CCR to the ETC common shares, and the portion of the cost of the CCR borne by ETC, as the surviving entity, through its proportionate ownership interest in the ETE common units.

As shown in the tables below, Lazard calculated implied exchange ratios, as adjusted, for (1) the Pre-Snowcap Mid Case and the ETE Mid Case (the “Pre-Snowcap Mid Case Implied Exchange Ratios”), (2) the Post-Snowcap Mid Case and the ETE Mid Case (the “Post-Snowcap Mid Case Implied Exchange Ratios”), (3) the Pre-Snowcap Market Case and the ETE Market Case (the “Pre-Snowcap Market Case Implied Exchange Ratios”), (4) the Post-Snowcap Market Case and the ETE Market Case (the “Post-Snowcap Market Case Implied Exchange Ratios”), (5) the Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case and the ETE Market Case (the “Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case Implied Exchange Ratios”), and (6) the Post-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case and the ETE Market Case (the “Post-Snowcap Market Case Implied Exchange Ratios”).

Lazard analyzed the potential pro forma financial effects of the merger and related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement on the intrinsic total equity value of ETC, as the surviving entity, taking into consideration the present value of the taxes of WMB, potential synergies resulting from the merger, breakage costs, the Tax Drag, and the CCR Value, using (1) the Pre-Snowcap Mid Case and the ETE Mid Case (the “Mid Case Pro Forma Values”), (2) the Pre-Snowcap Market Case and the ETE Market Case (the “Market Case Pro Forma Values”) and (3) the Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case and the ETE Market Case (the “Adjusted Market Case Pro Forma Values”), for both the Managed Tax Forecast and the Full Tax Forecast. Lazard then compared (a) the Mid Case Pro Forma Values to the standalone intrinsic value of WMB for the Pre-Snowcap Mid Case and the Post-Snowcap Mid Case (the “Mid Case Intrinsic Value Comparisons”), (b) the Market Case Pro Forma Values to the standalone intrinsic value of WMB for the Pre-Snowcap Market Case and the Post-Snowcap Market Case (the “Market Case Intrinsic Value Comparisons”) and (c) the Adjusted Market Case Pro Forma Values to the standalone intrinsic value of WMB in the Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case and the Post-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case (the “Adjusted Market Case Intrinsic Value Comparisons”), to determine the percentage and dollar change in intrinsic value in each case.

As shown in the tables below, this analysis indicated that the merger and other related transactions contemplated by the merger agreement are expected to be accretive to the holders of WMB common stock relative to the intrinsic total equity value of WMB Pre-Snowcap and WMB Post-Snowcap.

As shown in the tables below, Lazard analyzed the potential pro forma financial effects of the merger for the Mid Case Pro Forma Values, the Market Case Pro Forma Values and the Adjusted Market Case Pro Forma Values, with and without LNG Export Project, based on synergy assumptions provided by the ETE general partner as adjusted by WMB (the “Adjusted Synergy Assumptions”), synergy assumptions provided by the ETE general partner (the “ETE GP Synergy Assumptions”) and an average of the Adjusted Synergy Assumptions and the ETE GP Synergy Assumptions (the “Midpoint Synergy Assumptions”), for both the Managed Tax Forecast and the Full Tax Forecast, to determine the percentage and dollar change in intrinsic value in each case.

Lazard is an internationally recognized investment banking firm providing a full range of financial advisory and other services. Lazard was selected to act as financial advisor to WMB because of its qualifications, expertise and its reputation in investment banking and mergers and acquisitions, as well as its familiarity with the business of WMB. For acting as financial advisor to WMB in connection with the merger, Lazard will receive a fee for such services in the amount of $35 million. $10 million of Lazard’s fees is not contingent upon the closing of the merger. A portion of Lazard’s fee has been payable since June 2015 as a monthly fee in the amount of $500,000 per month, and a further $2.5 million of Lazard’s fee became payable upon the rendering of Lazard’s opinion. As of March 1, 2016, aggregate compensation equal to approximately $6,500,000 had become payable to Lazard, and to the extent paid is creditable against the non-contingent amount payable to Lazard. The remainder of Lazard’s fee above the

non-contingent amount is contingent upon the closing of the merger. In addition, in the ordinary course, Lazard and its affiliates and employees may trade securities of WMB, the ETE Group and certain of their respective affiliates for their own accounts and for the accounts of their customers, may at any time hold a long or short position in such securities, and may also trade and hold securities on behalf of WMB, the ETE Group and certain of their respective affiliates. The issuance of Lazard’s opinion was approved by the Opinion Committee of Lazard.

Lazard’s opinion and financial analyses were not the only factors considered by the WMB Board in its evaluation of the merger and should not be viewed as determinative of the views of the WMB Board or WMB’s management.

In connection with the proposed merger, management of WMB provided projections for WMB and management of ETE provided projections for ETE, which were reviewed and adjusted downward by WMB management based on their experience and judgment. The downward revisions principally relate to the following differences in operational and financial assumptions: (i) lower volumes, basis spreads and commodity price differential realizations on certain assets within ETE’s base business, (ii) delayed timing, higher costs and lower contracted and uncontracted volumes on certain of ETE’s major growth projects, (iii) delayed timing of certain general and administrative cost synergy realizations and (iv) lower revenue and operational synergy realizations for the combined entity. All projections included assumptions as to the future financial and operating performance of WMB and ETE. Based on its adjusted projections for ETE, management of WMB prepared additional projections for ETC based on the assumed contribution of substantially all of the assets and liabilities of WMB to ETE pursuant to the contemplated merger and the issuance by ETE to ETC of a number of ETE Class E units equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares to be issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in consideration for the Parent Cash Deposit and based on the assumption that the cash dividends per ETC common share to be paid by ETC would be the same as the cash distribution per ETE common unit as a result of the dividend equalization agreement to be entered into between ETC and ETE in connection with the merger (the “ETC projections”). In addition, the WMB projections and the ETC projections were adjusted by WMB management based on their experience and judgment to include the Prospective Projects identified by either WMB or ETE management. A summary of the WMB projections and the ETC projections is included below to give holders of WMB common stock access to certain non-public unaudited prospective financial information that was made available to Barclays, Lazard and the WMB Board in connection with their analysis related to the proposed merger.

You should be aware that uncertainties are inherent in prospective financial information of any kind. None of WMB or ETE or any of their respective affiliates, advisors, officers, directors, or representatives has made or makes any representation or can give any assurance to any WMB stockholder or any other person regarding the ultimate performance of WMB, ETE or ETC compared to the summarized information set forth below or that any such results will be achieved.

The summary projections set forth below summarize the WMB and ETC projections made available to the legal and financial advisors to WMB and the WMB Board prior to the execution of the merger agreement. The inclusion of the following summary projections in this proxy statement/prospectus should not be regarded as an indication that WMB or ETE or their respective representatives considered or consider the projections to be a reliable or accurate prediction of future performance or events, and the summary projections set forth below should not be relied upon as such. ETE did not review the projections for ETC provided by WMB and makes no representations or warranties in respect thereof and such adjusted projections do not reflect the views of ETE management.

The WMB projections and the ETC projections summarized below were only prepared for internal planning purposes or to evaluate the proposed merger. These projections were not prepared with a view toward public disclosure or toward compliance with GAAP, the published guidelines of the SEC, or the guidelines established

by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. None of Ernst & Young LLP (“Ernst & Young”), PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), Deloitte & Touche LLP (“DT”), Grant Thornton LLP (“Grant Thornton”) or any other independent registered public accounting firm has compiled, examined or performed any procedures with respect to the prospective financial information contained in the projections, and accordingly, none of Ernst & Young, PwC, Grant Thornton or DT expresses an opinion or any other form of assurance with respect thereto. The Ernst & Young reports incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus with respect to WMB relate to historical financial information of WMB, the PwC reports incorporated by reference into this joint proxy statement/prospectus with respect to ACMP relate to historical financial information of ACMP, and the DT reports incorporated by reference into this joint proxy statement/prospectus with respect to Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C. (“Gulfstream”) relate to historical financial information of Gulfstream. Such reports do not extend to the projections included below and should not be read to do so. None of WMB, the WMB Board or ETE prepared, and do not give any assurance regarding, the summarized information.

The financial projections of WMB and ETE were, in general, prepared primarily for internal use. The ETC projections were prepared on the basis described above in connection with the analysis of the merger by the WMB Board. Such financial projections are inherently subjective in nature, susceptible to interpretation and, accordingly, the prospective financial information included in such projections may not be achieved. The financial projections also reflect numerous assumptions made by WMB management, including material assumptions that may not be realized and are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the control of the WMB, ETE or ETC. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the assumptions made in preparing the financial projections upon which the projected financial information was based will prove accurate. There will be differences between actual and projected results, and the differences may be material. The risk that these uncertainties and contingencies could cause the assumptions to fail to be reflective of actual results is further increased due to the length of time in the future over which these assumptions apply. Any inaccuracy of assumptions and projections in early periods could have a compounding effect on the projections shown for the later periods. Thus, any failure of a projection to be reflective of actual results in an early period could have a greater effect on the projected results failing to be reflective of actual events in later periods. In addition, the financial projections were prepared several months ago, and since such time the industry in which WMB and ETE operates has been under pressure as a result of low commodity prices and higher costs of capital. This pressure may also cause the differences between actual and projected results to be material. See the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus. In addition, the projections are forward-looking statements and are subject to risks and uncertainties. See the section titled “Forward-Looking Statements” beginning on page 94 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

In developing the internal WMB projections and the internal ETE projections, management of WMB and ETE, respectively, made numerous material assumptions with respect to WMB and ETE for the periods covered by the projections, and management of WMB made numerous material assumptions with respect to the ETC projections, including:

All of these assumptions involve variables making them difficult to predict, and most are beyond the control of either WMB, ETE or ETC. Although management of WMB and ETE, as applicable, believe that there was a reasonable basis for their respective internal projections and the underlying assumptions related thereto, any assumptions for near-term and long-term projected cases remain uncertain, and the risk of inaccuracy increases with the length of the forecasted period. ETE states no view as to the reasonableness of the ETC projections.

The summarized projected financial information set forth below was based on: (A) WMB’s projected results before taking into account the potential impact of the WPZ merger (“Pre-WPZ”) and (B) WMB’s projected results after taking into account the potential impact of the WPZ merger (“Post-WPZ”). Barclays and Lazard were asked to consider both projected results in their presentations and further information on such analyses can be found in the section titled “Opinions of the Financial Advisors to the WMB Board” beginning on page 143 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The summarized projected financial information below includes the financial impact of Prospective Projects for 2016 through 2019. WMB management also provided to Barclays and Lazard financial forecasts that excluded the impact of Prospective Projects, which are not summarized below, but additional sensitivities can be found in the section titled “Opinions of the Financial Advisors to the WMB Board” beginning on page 143 of this proxy statement/prospectus. The financial forecasts presented below are based on three sets of WMB management’s financial projections for the years 2016 through 2019: (1) mid-case projections, which are based on the mid commodity price assumption disclosed in the company’s May 2015 Analyst Day guidance for 2016 and 2017 and WMB management estimates thereafter (the “WMB Mid Case”), (2) projections adjusted for market commodity prices as of August 21, 2015 (the “WMB Market Case”), and (3) projections adjusted for market commodity prices as of August 21, 2015 and further adjusted downward to account for estimated reduced drilling and business activities from WMB’s customers due to lower commodity prices (the “WMB Adjusted Market Case”).

The summarized projected financial information set forth below is based on the ETC projections that were prepared by WMB management on the basis described above (which included the projected impact of the Prospective Projects). WMB management also prepared financial forecasts that excluded the impact of Prospective Projects, which are not summarized below, but additional sensitivities relating to ETE’s Prospective Projects can be found in the section titled “Opinions of the Financial Advisors to the WMB Board” beginning on page 143 of this proxy statement/prospectus. The projected financial information related to ETC was based on two sets of internal financial projections prepared by ETE’s management and subsequently reviewed and adjusted downward by WMB’s management: (1) mid-case projections, based on the WMB Mid Case commodity prices (the “ETC Mid Case”) and (2) market case projections, based on the WMB Market Case commodity prices (the “ETC Market Case”). The ETC projections also include two sets of synergy projections prepared by ETE’s management and subsequently reviewed and adjusted by WMB’s management and certain members of the WMB Board: (1) mid-case synergy projections, based on the WMB Mid Case commodity prices (the “Synergy Mid Case”) and (2) market case synergy projections, based on the WMB Market Case commodity prices (the “Synergy Market Case”). The ETC projections were generated from the following combinations of financial forecasts: (1) WMB Mid Case, ETE Mid Case and Synergy Mid Case (the “Pro Forma ETC Mid Case”), (2) WMB Market Case, ETE Market Case and Synergy Market Case (the “Pro Forma ETC Market Case”) and (3) WMB Adjusted Market Case, ETE Market Case and Synergy Market Case (the “Pro Forma ETC Adjusted Market Case”). The Pro Forma ETC Mid Case and the Pro Forma ETC Market Case are summarized below. The Pro Forma ETC Adjusted Market Case is not summarized below because it does not materially differ from the Pro Forma ETC Market Case.

WMB DOES NOT INTEND TO UPDATE OR OTHERWISE REVISE THE ABOVE PROSPECTIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO REFLECT CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING AFTER THE DATE SUCH PROSPECTIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION WAS PREPARED BY WMB OR TO REFLECT THE OCCURRENCE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS; HOWEVER, WMB BELIEVES THAT THE ABOVE PROSPECTIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION IS NO LONGER VALID BECAUSE IT WAS PREPARED SEVERAL MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS, AND SINCE SUCH TIME THE INDUSTRY IN WHICH WMB AND ETE OPERATE HAS BEEN UNDER PRESSURE AS A RESULT OF LOWER COMMODITY PRICES AND HIGHER COSTS OF CAPITAL. SEE THE SECTION

TITLED “SUMMARY—RECENT DEVELOPMENTS” BEGINNING ON PAGE 20 OF THIS PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS, WHICH INCLUDES CERTAIN PROSPECTIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION PREPARED BY ETE BASED ON MORE RECENT INFORMATION THAN THE PROSPECTIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION SET FORTH ABOVE IN THIS SECTION.

At a meeting held on September 27, 2015, after due consideration and consultation with ETE’s management and its legal and financial advisors, the board of directors of ETE’s general partner, LE GP, unanimously approved the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger, the GP merger and the WMB Contribution. In reaching its determination to approve the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, the board of directors of LE GP considered a number of factors pertaining to the strategic and financial rationale for the transaction based on facts and circumstances that existed as of September 27, 2015, including:

The board of directors of LE GP also considered the potential risks of the merger and certain other factors, including the following:

The board of directors of LE GP believed that, overall, the potential benefits of the proposed merger transactions to ETE and its unitholders outweighed the risks and other factors considered by the board of directors of LE GP. Therefore, the board of directors of LE GP unanimously approved the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger, the GP merger and the WMB Contribution. This discussion of the factors considered by the board of directors of LE GP does not list every factor considered by the board but includes all material factors considered by the board. In view of the wide variety of factors considered in connection with the merger, the board of directors of LE GP did not consider it practical, nor did it attempt, to quantify or otherwise assign relative weight to different factors considered in reaching its decision. In addition, individual members of the board of directors of LE GP, in approving the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement may have given different weight to different factors. The LE GP board of directors considered this information as a whole, and overall considered it to be favorable to, and in support of, its determinations. ETE’s reasons for the transaction are forward-looking in nature and, therefore, should be read in light of the factors discussed in the sections of this proxy statement/prospectus titled “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements” and also should be read in conjunction with the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus, which section includes a description of certain facts and circumstances arising after September 27, 2015 and the subsequent effect that those facts and circumstances have had on certain factors considered by the board of directors of LE GP at the time of approving the merger, as well as certain prospective financial information for ETC that takes into account the facts and circumstances set forth in such section. The reasons of the board of directors of LE GP as of September 27, 2015 for approving the merger do not take into account the facts and circumstances described in the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments”, including the prospective financial information set forth therein, should not be relied upon as reflective of the current views of the board of directors of LE GP and do not constitute a recommendation by the board of directors of LE GP as to how WMB stockholders should vote with respect to the Merger Proposal. The adverse impact of the decline in crude oil and natural gas prices together with the refinancing risks related to the $6.05 billion in new indebtedness expected to be incurred by ETE in connection with the merger, significantly reduces the value of ETC as compared to the value envisioned by the board of directors of LE GP at the time the merger agreement was entered into.

In considering the recommendation of a majority of the WMB Board to approve the merger, WMB stockholders should be aware that certain WMB directors and executive officers may be deemed to have interests in the merger that are in addition to, or different from, the interests of other WMB stockholders. The WMB Board was aware of these interests and considered them, among other matters, in approving the merger and the merger agreement and in making the recommendations that the WMB stockholders approve the merger agreement, the merger and the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. For purposes of the WMB agreements and plans described below, to the extent applicable, the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement will constitute a change in control, change of control or term of similar meaning with respect to WMB. These interests are described in further detail below, and certain of them are quantified in the narrative and tables below. Although Craig L. Rainey, WMB’s former Senior Vice President and General Counsel, is considered an executive officer for purposes of the SEC’s disclosure rules, Mr. Rainey retired from WMB effective May 1, 2015.

Except as otherwise specifically noted, for purposes of quantifying the potential payments and benefits described in this section, the following assumptions were used:

Each WMB stock option, including any WMB stock option held by a WMB director or executive officer, will be equitably adjusted immediately prior to the effective time by reducing the exercise price thereof by an amount equal to the pre-merger special dividend, contingent on the consummation of the merger.

At the effective time, each unexercised WMB stock option will be assumed by ETC and converted into a cash-settled stock appreciation right (“SAR”), on otherwise the same terms and conditions as were applicable under the corresponding WMB stock option, adjusted in a manner intended to preserve the aggregate intrinsic value of the original WMB stock option. In order to preserve the intrinsic value, the ETC cash-settled SAR will correspond to a number of ETC common shares (determined by multiplying the number of shares of WMB common stock subject to the WMB stock option by an exchange ratio (as defined below) and rounding down to the nearest whole share), at a base price per share (rounded up to the nearest whole cent) determined by dividing the per-share exercise price of the WMB stock option by that same exchange ratio. For purposes of adjusting the

WMB stock options, the exchange ratio is equal to the ratio of the average of the volume-weighted average prices of WMB common stock over the 10 trading days preceding the closing date to the average of the volume-weighted average prices of ETC common shares over the 10 trading days following the closing date.

At the effective time, each WMB restricted stock unit (“RSU”) (including WMB performance stock units, or “PSUs”), and each WMB deferred stock unit (“DSU”), including any WMB RSU or WMB DSU held by a WMB director or executive officer, will be assumed by ETC and converted into a cash-settled RSU or DSU, as applicable, on otherwise the same terms and conditions as were applicable under the corresponding WMB RSU or WMB DSU, as applicable, with the number of ETC common shares covered by the award adjusted based on the share consideration ratio, rounded down to the nearest whole share. In addition, with respect to each WMB PSU, performance conditions will generally be deemed to be satisfied at target (in the case of WMB PSUs other than WMB leveraged PSUs) or the greater of target and actual performance (in the case of WMB leveraged PSUs) and, following the effective time, the vesting of the award will be time-based and subject to continued employment through the end of the applicable performance period or any other date required by the terms of the applicable award.

Holders of converted WMB RSUs and WMB DSUs, including WMB directors and executive officers, will also be entitled to receive upon settlement of the unit (1) the pre-merger special dividend and payment of any other accrued dividend equivalents, (2) a cash payment in respect of any fractional ETC common shares that would have resulted from such conversion without regard to rounding and (3) if such unit settles after the end of the CCR measurement period, an amount in cash equal to the shortfall amount (if any). The value of any payments in respect of fractional ETC common shares will be based on the same value of ETC common shares used for purposes of converting WMB stock options.

The vesting and settlement of the converted ETC SARs and RSUs, including any such awards held by any WMB executive officer, will accelerate upon a qualifying termination during the two-year period following completion of the merger. Converted ETC RSUs held by any WMB non-employee director will accelerate upon a separation from service for any reason.

The tables below set forth the number of WMB DSUs, WMB stock options and WMB RSUs (including WMB PSUs) held by each WMB director and executive officer as of May 3, 2016, and the value that each WMB director and executive officer can expect to receive for such equity as of promptly following the effective time, assuming continued employment or service through the assumed closing date of June 28, 2016 (taking into account any equity awards that are expected to vest and/or settle in accordance with their terms between May 3, 2016 and June 28, 2016) and a qualifying termination of employment or service immediately following the effective time. Only WMB non-employee directors hold WMB DSUs.

Since the value of the per share consideration is not fixed, the value of the WMB equity awards is based on the average closing price of shares of WMB common stock over the first five business days following the first public announcement of the merger, or $38.67. Accordingly, the actual value received by WMB’s directors and executive officers may be greater or less than those provided for below. Depending on when the merger is completed, certain of the WMB equity awards shown in the table below may become vested and/or settled in accordance with their terms without regard to the merger. The table below does not include any grants of WMB equity awards to WMB directors and executive officers following the filing of this joint proxy statement/prospectus, which is not permitted under the terms of the merger agreement.

Value to WMB Directors and Executive Officers in Respect of WMB Stock Options

Each WMB executive officer is party to a change in control agreement (a “change in control agreement”), that provides for severance payments and benefits in the event of a qualifying termination, which for purposes of the change in control agreements means a termination of the WMB executive officer’s employment without “cause” by WMB or by the executive officer with “good reason” (each as defined below) within the two-year period following a change in control of WMB. For purposes of the change in control agreements, consummation of the merger will constitute a change in control of WMB.

Upon experiencing a qualifying termination, a WMB executive officer will become eligible to receive a lump-sum cash payment on the first business day that is six months after the date of the qualifying termination in an amount equal to the sum of: (1) three times (two times in the case of Mr. Timmermans) (the “Applicable Multiplier”) the sum of (a) the executive officer’s current base salary, (b) his or her current annual target bonus amount, and (c) WMB’s total allocations on behalf of the executive officer in the preceding calendar year under the Williams Companies Amended and Restated Retirement Restoration Plan; (2) a prorated bonus based on the executive officer’s annual target bonus amount (reduced by the amount of any annual bonus actually paid); and (3) the unvested portion of the executive officer’s accounts or benefits under WMB’s 401(k) plan that would have otherwise been forfeited. Upon a qualifying termination, WMB’s executive officers will also be eligible to receive continued medical benefits for up to 18 months following such qualifying termination, in the same manner and at the same cost as similarly situated active employees, outplacement benefits for six months of up to $25,000 ($10,000 in the case of Mr. Timmermans), continued directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for six years (or any longer applicable statute of limitations period) and indemnification in accordance with WMB’s by-laws. In the case of Mr. Scheel, in accordance with his letter agreement with WMB, his outplacement benefits also include relocation benefits.

In order to receive the severance payments and benefits described above, the WMB executive officer must execute and deliver to WMB a standard release of claims in favor of WMB and its affiliates within 60 days following his or her qualifying termination. In addition, receipt of the severance payments and benefits described above is conditioned on the WMB executive officer’s compliance with applicable restrictive covenants.

Pursuant to the terms of the change in control agreements, if any amount payable to a WMB executive officer (under the applicable change in control agreement or otherwise) is subject to Section 280G of the Code, such amount will be reduced in the event that the reduced amount would be more favorable to such WMB executive officer on a net after-tax basis.

For purposes of the change in control agreements, “cause” means a WMB executive officer’s: (1) conviction of or plea of nolo contendere to a felony or other crime involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude; (2) willful or reckless material misconduct in the performance of his or her duties that has an adverse effect on WMB or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates; (3) willful or reckless violation or disregard of the code of business conduct or material willful or reckless violation or disregard of the policies of WMB or its subsidiaries; or (4) habitual or gross neglect of his or her duties. Cause generally does not include: (i) bad judgment or negligence (other than habitual neglect or gross negligence); (ii) acts or omissions made in good faith after reasonable investigation and with a reasonable belief, after reasonable investigation, that the executive officer’s act or failure to act was in the best interest of WMB; (iii) acts or omissions with respect to which the WMB Board could determine that the WMB executive officer had satisfied the standards of conduct for indemnification or reimbursement under WMB’s by-laws, indemnification agreement or applicable law; (iv) or failure (despite good faith efforts) to meet performance goals, objectives or measures for the period beginning upon a change in control of WMB and

continuing for two years or until the termination of the change in control agreement, whichever happens first. A WMB executive officer’s act or failure to act (except as relates to a conviction or plea of nolo contendere described above), when done in good faith and with a reasonable belief after reasonable investigation that such action or non-action was in the best interest of WMB or its affiliate or required by law or regulation will not be “cause” if the executive officer cures the action or non-action within ten days of notice to the extent curable. In addition, no act or failure to act will constitute cause if the executive officer acted under the advice of WMB’s counsel or as required by legal process. Prior to determining that cause exists, the WMB Board must first provide the applicable WMB executive with notice and an opportunity to respond.

For purposes of the change in control agreements, “good reason” means, with respect to the applicable WMB executive officer: (1) a material adverse reduction in the nature or scope of his or her office, position, duties, functions, responsibilities or authority (including reporting responsibilities or authority) from the most significant of those held, exercised and assigned at any time during the 90-day period immediately before the change in control; (2) a reduction in his or her base salary below the highest annual rate in effect at any time during the 12-month period prior to the change in control, annual bonus or aggregate compensation or benefits (except for a reduction in aggregate compensation and benefits applicable to his or her WMB and ETE peers); (3) required relocation of more than 50 miles of his or her workplace, provided that the new location is farther from his or her residence; (4) a successor company’s failure to honor his or her change in control agreement; or (5) the failure of the WMB Board to terminate the executive officer for cause in compliance with the requirements of the change in control agreement within 90 days of delivering a notice that cause exists.

The table below summarizes the aggregate potential cash severance that each executive officer would be entitled to receive from WMB assuming the merger is completed on June 28, 2016 and each executive officer incurs a qualifying termination on the closing date. As described above, all amounts reflected below are “double-trigger” payments and are payable to the applicable WMB executive officer on the first business day that is six months following his or her qualifying termination. All amounts are based on compensation and benefit levels in effect as of May 3, 2016.

WMB maintains the Williams Companies Amended and Restated Retirement Restoration Plan (the “Retirement Plan”) in order to provide for retirement benefits above the amounts available under WMB’s tax-qualified pension plan, which are limited under the Code. As was customary in order to protect deferred amounts already earned by employees at the time WMB adopted the Retirement Plan, the Retirement Plan provides that the benefits will be paid out in connection with a “change in control” of WMB. The consummation of the merger will constitute a “change in control” of WMB for purposes of the Retirement Plan, such that, upon the effective time, each participant in the Retirement Plan, including each participating WMB executive officer, will receive a lump-sum payout of the balance of such participant’s earned and accrued account balance under the Retirement Plan. Each of the WMB executive officers is a participant in the Retirement Plan.

The merger agreement provides that for a period commencing on the closing and ending on the first anniversary of the closing, ETC will provide, or will cause to be provided, to each individual who is employed by WMB and continues to be employed immediately following the closing (each, a “WMB Employee”), including the WMB executive officers, with (1) annual base compensation that is no less favorable than the annual base compensation provided to such WMB Employee immediately prior to the closing, (2) severance benefits that are no less favorable than those provided to such WMB Employee immediately prior to the closing under certain specified WMB severance plans and (3) other compensation and employee benefits that are substantially comparable in the aggregate to the other compensation and employee benefits provided to similarly situated employees of ETE and its subsidiaries. In addition, during the period beginning on the closing and ending 18 months after the closing, ETC will (or will cause one of its subsidiaries to) assume, honor and continue without amendment or modification certain specified WMB severance plans, agreements and programs for the benefit of WMB Employees, in each case as in effect at the closing.

ETC will generally recognize each WMB Employee’s years of service with WMB for purposes of determining eligibility to participate, level of benefits and vesting to the extent recognized under the comparable WMB plan prior to the closing (other than the accrual of benefits under a defined benefit pension plan or where recognition would result in a duplication of benefits).

ETC will generally waive any pre-existing condition limitations, exclusions, actively at work requirements and waiting periods under any employee welfare benefit plan in which WMB Employees will be eligible to participate to the extent such conditions were satisfied under the corresponding WMB plan prior to the closing and recognize co-payments, deductibles and similar expenses incurred by each WMB Employee during the year in which the closing occurs to the extent credited under the corresponding employee welfare benefit plan maintained by WMB prior to the closing.

The foregoing summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the merger agreement, a composite copy of which, incorporating the amendment into the text of the initial agreement, is attached as Annex A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference.

ETC and its subsidiaries may enter into employment arrangements with certain members of WMB’s senior management with respect to continuing roles with ETC and its subsidiaries for periods following the effective time, including compensation arrangements for such roles, however, no such employment or compensation arrangements have been discussed as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The merger agreement provides that persons who are or have been WMB directors and executive officers (among other persons) prior to execution of the merger agreement will be entitled to ongoing indemnification and exculpation from liabilities for acts or omission occurring at or prior to the effective time and rights of advancement of expenses relating thereto existing in favor of such persons at the time of the merger agreement, as provided in the WMB certificate of incorporation, the WMB by-laws, the organizational documents of any subsidiary of WMB or any indemnification agreement, between a director or executive officer of WMB or any of its subsidiaries and WMB or any of its subsidiaries. Under the merger agreement, such rights to indemnification and exculpation shall not be amended, repealed or otherwise modified in any manner that would adversely affect any right thereunder of any such director or executive officer.

The merger agreement also provides that ETC shall indemnify and hold harmless, as and to the fullest extent permitted by law, each WMB directors and executive officers (among other persons) against any losses, claims, damages, liabilities, costs, expenses, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement of or in connection with any such threatened or actual claim, action, suit, proceeding or investigation arising in whole or in part out of, or pertaining to (i) the fact that such person is or was a director or executive officer of WMB, any of its subsidiaries or (ii) the merger agreement or any of transaction contemplated by the merger agreement, whether in any case asserted or arising before or after the effective time.

To the extent that any WMB director or executive officer becomes a director of the ETC general partner or a director or executive officer of the ETE general partner, such person shall be entitled to the indemnification provided to directors and executive officers (among other persons) under the ETC partnership agreement or the ETE partnership agreement, as applicable.

The merger agreement also provides that WMB must use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain, prior to the effective time of, prepaid directors’ and executive officers’ liability insurance policies in respect of acts or omissions occurring at or prior to the effective time for six years after the effective time, covering each director and executive officer of WMB (among other persons) on terms with respect to such coverage and amounts no less favorable than those of such policies in effect on the date of the merger agreement, subject to a consent right by ETC if WMB wishes to expend in excess of 300% of the amount expended by WMB for such coverage in the 12 months leading to the merger agreement. If WMB fails to provide such insurance policies, ETC shall maintain WMB’s current directors’ and executive officers’ liability insurance policies in respect of acts or omissions occurring at or prior to the effective time, covering each director and executive officer of WMB (among other persons) on terms with respect to such coverage and amounts no less favorable than those of such policies in effect on the date of the merger agreement, subject to certain rights of ETC.

Quantification of Change in Control and Termination Payments and Benefits to WMB Named Executive Officers

The table below sets forth the information required by Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K regarding the compensation for each of WMB’s “named executive officers” (as identified in accordance with SEC regulations) based on the merger, assuming that the merger is completed on June 28, 2016 and each of the WMB named executive officers experiences a qualifying termination on the same day. The amounts set forth in the table below are subject to a non-binding advisory vote of WMB stockholders, as described under “The Special Meeting—Purpose; Proposals” above, beginning on page 99.

The tabular disclosure set forth above assumes that each of the named executive officers (1) experiences a qualifying termination in connection with the merger under circumstances that entitle such individual to severance payments and benefits under the merger agreement and change in control agreements, as applicable, as of June 28, 2016, the assumed date of the closing of the merger, (2) becomes entitled to accelerated vesting and/or payment in respect of all WMB stock options and WMB RSUs held by such executive officer on such date (based on the average per share closing price of a share of WMB common stock over the first five business days following September 28, 2015 (the date of the first public announcement of the merger), determined pursuant to Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K) and with performance-based incentive awards (including WMB PSUs) being paid out at target level of performance, and (3) is not subject to any reduction that may be applicable in connection with the “golden parachute” excise tax that may be imposed under Section 4999 of the Code.

The executive officer’s receipt of the benefits in the columns with the headings “Cash Severance” and “Perquisites/Benefits” above are subject to his or her material compliance with, for one year following his or her qualifying termination, non-compete and non-solicit covenants.

In accordance with Section 14A of the Exchange Act, WMB is providing its stockholders with the opportunity to cast a non-binding advisory vote on the compensation that may be payable to its named executive officers in connection with the merger. As required by those rules, WMB is asking its stockholders to vote on the adoption of the following resolution:

“RESOLVED, that the stockholders of The Williams Companies, Inc. approve, solely on a non-binding advisory basis, the compensation that may be paid or become payable to WMB’s named executive officers in connection with the merger, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K in the table titled “Potential Change in Control Payments to WMB Named Executive Officers” on page 186, including the associated narrative discussion, and the agreements or understandings pursuant to which such compensation may be paid or become payable.”

THE WMB BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “FOR” THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSAL.

The vote on executive compensation payable in connection with the merger is a vote separate and apart from the vote to approve the merger. Accordingly, you may vote to approve the merger and vote not to approve the compensation proposal and vice versa. Because the vote is advisory in nature only, it will not be binding on WMB, the WMB Board or any of its committees. Accordingly, because WMB is contractually obligated to pay the compensation, such compensation will be paid or become payable, subject only to the conditions applicable thereto, if the merger is completed and regardless of the outcome of the advisory vote.

The affirmative vote of the majority of the votes cast at WMB’s special meeting will be required to approve the advisory resolution on executive compensation payable in connection with the merger. Voting against the compensation proposal will increase the number of votes required to approve it, but abstentions and broker non-votes will not.

The following table sets forth information with respect to the beneficial ownership as of May 3, 2016 of (1) any person known by WMB to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock, (2) WMB’s directors and Named Executive Officers and the directors and executive officers of

WMB as a group and (3) the directors and executive officers of WPZ’s general partner as a group. The amounts and percentage of units or shares beneficially owned are reported on the basis of regulations of the SEC governing the determination of beneficial ownership of securities. Under the rules of the SEC, a person is deemed to be a “beneficial owner” of a security if that person has or shares “voting power,” which includes the power to vote or to direct the voting of such security, or “investment power,” which includes the power to dispose of or to direct the disposition of such security. A person is also deemed to be a beneficial owner of any securities of which that person has a right to acquire beneficial ownership within 60 days. Under these rules, more than one person may be deemed a beneficial owner of the same securities and a person may be deemed a beneficial owner of securities as to which he or she has no economic interest. Except as indicated by footnote, the persons named in the tables below have sole voting and investment power with respect to all units or shares shown as beneficially owned by them, subject to community property laws where applicable.

Shares of WMB common stock outstanding immediately prior to the effective time that are held by any WMB stockholder who has not voted in favor of the merger and who is entitled to demand and properly demands appraisal of such shares pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL (and who does not fail to perfect or otherwise effectively withdraw their demand or waive or lose the right to appraisal) (which shares we refer to as “appraisal shares”) will not be converted into or represent the right to receive the merger consideration. Instead, holders of appraisal shares who have properly perfected their appraisal rights will be entitled to receive payment in cash of the fair value of the shares of WMB common stock held by them in accordance with Section 262 of the DGCL and as determined by the Delaware Court of Chancery, exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger. The fair value as determined by such court could be more than, the same as, or less than the value of the merger consideration. If a holder who wishes to exercise appraisal rights fails to perfect, or waives, effectively withdraws, or loses, such holder’s right to appraisal under the DGCL, whether before or after the effective time, then each share of WMB common stock held by such holder shall not be treated as an appraisal share and shall be converted into and become exchangeable only for the right to receive the merger consideration, without interest, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the merger agreement as if such share had never been an appraisal share. For the avoidance of doubt, if declared, the pre-merger special dividend will be payable to all record holders of issued and outstanding shares of WMB common stock immediately prior to the effective time (contingent on the consummation of the merger) regardless of whether such holders demand appraisal of their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL.

A detailed description of the appraisal rights available to holders of WMB common stock and the procedures required to exercise statutory appraisal rights is included in the section titled “Appraisal Rights,” and the text of Section 262 of the DGCL as in effect with respect to the merger, which is included in Annex E to this proxy statement/prospectus. You are encouraged to read the provisions carefully and in their entirety. Moreover, due to the complexity of the procedures for exercising the right to seek appraisal, WMB stockholders who are considering exercising such rights are encouraged to seek the advice of legal counsel.

ETE and WMB will make various filings and submissions for the above-mentioned authorizations and approvals and will each use their reasonable best efforts to obtain these authorizations and approvals, as set forth in the merger agreement.

The merger is subject to the requirements of the HSR Act, which prevents ETE and WMB from completing the merger until required information and materials are furnished to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (which we refer to as the “DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (which we refer to as the “FTC”) and specified waiting period requirements have been satisfied. On October 20, 2015, each of ETE and WMB filed a Premerger Notification and Report Form pursuant to the HSR Act with the DOJ and FTC. On November 19, 2015, the FTC requested additional information and documentary materials from the parties. These requests were limited to two areas in which both ETE and WMB have operations, consisting of the offshore Gulf of Mexico and Florida. In the case of the Gulf of Mexico, ETP owns and operates the Sea Robin Pipeline, which consists of two natural gas transportation systems located offshore the coast of Louisiana, and WPZ owns and operates various natural gas transportation systems located offshore the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. In the case of Florida, ETP owns a 50% equity interest in the Florida Gas Transmission Pipeline, an interstate natural gas pipeline transmission system that transports natural gas from Texas and Louisiana to Florida, and WPZ owns a 50% equity interest in the Gulfstream Pipeline, an interstate natural gas pipeline that transports natural gas from the Mobile, Alabama area to Florida. Under the HSR Act, the requests extend the waiting period until 11:59 p.m. on the 30th day after certification of substantial compliance by the parties with such requests (or longer if the parties so agree), unless otherwise terminated by the FTC. On December 11, 2015, ETE and WMB entered into an agreement with the FTC staff (which we refer to as the “timing agreement”) under which ETE and WMB agreed (1) not to consummate the merger prior to 60 days after certification of substantial compliance with the requests, and (2) not to consummate the merger before March 18, 2016. As of March 18, 2016, ETE and WMB have certified substantial compliance with their respective requests. ETE and WMB also agreed that they would not consummate the merger before June 10, 2016.

The DOJ, the FTC, state attorneys general, and others may challenge the merger on antitrust grounds either before or after the expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period. Accordingly, at any time before or after the completion of the merger, any of the DOJ, the FTC or others could take action under the antitrust laws, including without limitation seeking to enjoin the completion of the merger or permitting completion subject to regulatory concessions or conditions. Neither ETE nor WMB believes that the merger violates federal antitrust laws, but there can be no assurance that a challenge to the merger on antitrust grounds will not be made or, if such a challenge is made, that it would not be successful.

Both ETE and WMB have public utility subsidiaries subject to the jurisdiction of FERC under Part II of the Federal Power Act. Section 203 of the FPA provides that no holding company in a holding company system that includes a transmitting utility or an electric utility may purchase, acquire, merge or consolidate with a transmitting utility, an electric utility company or a holding company in a holding company system that includes a transmitting utility or electric utility company without prior FERC authorization. Consequently, the FERC’s approval of the merger under Section 203 of the FPA is required.

The FERC must authorize the merger if it finds that the merger is consistent with the public interest. The FERC has stated that, in analyzing a merger or transaction under Section 203 of the FPA, it will evaluate the impact of the merger on:

In addition, in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, FERC must also find that the merger will not result in the cross-subsidization by utilities of their non-utility affiliates or the improper encumbrance or pledge of utility assets. If such cross-subsidization or encumbrances were to occur as a result of the merger, the FERC then must find that such cross-subsidization or encumbrances are consistent with the public interest.

The FERC reviews these factors to determine whether a merger is consistent with the public interest. If the FERC finds that the merger or related transaction would adversely affect competition in wholesale electric power markets, rates for transmission or the wholesale sale of electric energy, or regulation, or that the merger or related transaction would result in cross-subsidies or improper encumbrances that are not consistent with the public interest, FERC may, pursuant to the FPA, impose upon the proposed merger remedial conditions intended to mitigate such effects or it may decline to authorize the merger or related transaction. The FERC is required to rule on a completed merger application not later than 180 days from the date on which the completed application is filed.

On November 25, 2015, ETE and WMB filed a joint application seeking authorization of the merger from FERC pursuant to Section 203 of the FPA. The FERC concluded that the merger is consistent with the public interest and issued an order authorizing the merger on January 7, 2016. The order constitutes final agency action, and requests for rehearing by the FERC may be filed within 30 days of the date of the order authorizing the merger.

Under the Competition Act, the merger cannot be consummated until one of the following have occurred: (a) the issuance of an advance ruling certificate (“ARC”) as defined in Section 102 of the Competition Act; (b) ETE, ETC and WMB have given the notice required under Section 114 of the Competition Act with respect to the merger, and the applicable waiting period under Section 123 of the Competition Act has expired or has been terminated; or (c) the obligation to give the requisite notice being waived pursuant to paragraph 113(c) of the Competition Act.

ETE and WMB filed an application for an ARC, or in the alternative, an application for a “no action” letter pursuant to paragraph 113(c) of the Competition Act, on October 23, 2015. On November 5, 2015, ETE and WMB were advised in writing that the Commissioner had waived the obligation to give the requisite notice pursuant to paragraph 113(c) of the Competition Act and the Commissioner does not, at this time, intend to make an application under Section 92 of the Competition Act in respect of the Merger and the other Transactions. The Canada Competition Act condition was thus satisfied on November 5, 2015.

In addition, WMB and ETE are required to obtain certain state or local approvals, including approval of the New York State Public Utility Commission. Certain subsidiaries of WPZ own approximately 10 miles of pipeline and a compressor station located in New York and these assets are subject to certain provisions of the New York Public Service Law that relate to the transfer of ownership of assets without obtaining the approval of the New York Public Service Commission, although the New York Public Service Commission may determine to decline review under the New York Public Service Law in connection with transactions involving parent entities when there is no potential for harm to the interests of captive ratepayers. ETC and WMB petitioned the New York Public Service Commission for a declaratory ruling that the proposed transaction need not be reviewed under the New York Public Service Law because there is no potential for harm to ratepayers. On March 22, 2016, the New York Public Service Commission ruled no further review would be conducted of the proposed transaction.

On October 21, 2015, ETE entered into an Amended and Restated Commitment Letter (the “Commitment Letter”) with a syndicate of 20 banks (collectively, the “Commitment Parties”). Pursuant to the Commitment Letter, the Commitment Parties have committed to provide a 364-day secured term loan credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of $6.05 billion (or such lesser amount that ETE may elect to borrow). The commitment is subject to customary conditions for commitments of this type, including the execution of satisfactory definitive documentation. The total interest rate on such facility is capped at 5.50%, and the facility can be extended for an additional one year at the election of ETE.

We intend to apply for listing of the ETC common shares and the attached CCRs on the NYSE under the symbol “ETC.”

If the merger is completed, WMB common stock currently listed on the NYSE will be delisted from the NYSE and deregistered under the Exchange Act.

The merger agreement provides that ETE GP, immediately following the completion of the GP merger, will amend the ETE partnership agreement to provide for, among other things, the creation and issuance of the ETE Class E units. Pursuant to the ETE partnership agreement amendment, ETE will be required to distribute the same quarterly cash distribution per ETE Class E unit as the quarterly cash distribution ETE distributes per ETE common unit. In addition, for the period from the effective time until December 31, 2018 (the “dividend equalization period”), ETE will be required under the partnership agreement amendment to ensure that ETC has sufficient available cash to pay quarterly cash distributions on each ETC common share in an amount that equals the quarterly cash distribution amount paid by ETE on each ETE common unit.

The ETE partnership agreement amendment will provide that the ETE Class E units vote together with the ETE common units when the ETE common units are entitled to vote; however, the ETE Class E units will also have certain additional voting rights. For example, under the partnership agreement amendment, the removal of ETE GP as the general partner of ETE will require the affirmative vote of 80% of the ETE Class E units. In addition, approval of 66²/₃% of the ETE Class E units will be required prior to ETE (1) issuing additional ETE Class E units to any person other than ETC, (2) modifying the terms of the ETE Class E units in any manner that would have a material adverse effect on the holders of ETE Class E units or (3) engaging in certain sales of the WPZ common units or assets during the period beginning on January 1, 2019 and ending on December 31, 2025.

See “Additional Information About ETE—Material Provisions of the Partnership Agreement of ETE” for additional information regarding the ETE partnership agreement, as amended by the partnership agreement amendment. See “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Voting the ETE Class E Units” for additional information on who controls the voting of the ETE Class E units.

State-Boston Retirement System et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11844-VCG. The complaints assert various claims against the individual members of the WMB Board; ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP and ETE GP (the “ETE Defendants”); WMB; Barclays; and Lazard. The Ozaki and Blystone complaints allege that the individual members of the WMB Board have breached their fiduciary duties to WMB stockholders by agreeing to sell WMB through an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price, and that the ETE Defendants have aided and abetted this purported breach of fiduciary duties. The Greenwald and Glener complaints make similar allegations, but also claim that WMB has aided and abetted the individual members of the WMB Board’s purported breach of fiduciary duties. The Amaitis and State-Boston Retirement System complaints allege that the individual members of the WMB Board who voted for the merger have breached their fiduciary duties to WMB stockholders by agreeing to sell WMB through an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price, and that all the individual members of the WMB Board have violated their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose material information about the merger. The Amaitis complaint additionally alleges that the ETE Defendants, Barclays and Lazard have aided and abetted the individual members of the WMB Board’s supposed breach of fiduciary duties. All the complaints seek, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On January 13, 2016, the Court consolidated, pursuant to a stipulation among the plaintiffs, these six actions into a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844-VCG (the “Merger Litigation”). In its stipulated order, the Court designated the complaint from the State-Boston action as operative, and it dismissed without prejudice the ETE Defendants, Barclays and Lazard from the consolidated action. On January 19, 2016, the defendants in the Merger Litigation moved to dismiss the operative complaint. On March 22, 2016, the Court stayed briefing and discovery in the Merger Litigation until the merger between ETE and WMB is consummated and plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation have filed an amended complaint.

On January 19, 2016, a purported WMB stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against WMB, the individual members of the WMB Board and the ETE Defendants, captioned City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. Armstrong et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00017-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the individual members of the WMB Board have violated their duty of disclosure by issuing a supposedly misleading proxy statement in support of the transaction, that a majority of the individual members of the WMB Board violated their fiduciary duties by voting in favor of the merger and that the ETE Defendants aided and abetted this supposed breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges that the individual members of the WMB Board and WMB have violated Section 14 of the Exchange Act by issuing a supposedly misleading proxy statement and that all defendants have violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act by supposedly causing a misleading proxy statement to be issued. As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, damages and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On February 10, 2016, WMB and the individual members of the WMB Board moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 18, 2016, the ETE Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 7, 2016, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint.

The defendants believe the allegations in the various complaints noted above are without merit.

The following section summarizes material provisions of the merger agreement. This summary does not purport to be complete and may not contain all of the information about the merger agreement that is important to you. This summary is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by reference to, the merger agreement, a composite copy of which, incorporating the amendment into the text of the initial agreement, is attached as Annex A to this proxy statement/prospectus and is incorporated by reference herein. The rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the express terms and conditions of the merger agreement and not by this summary or any other information contained in this proxy statement/prospectus. You are urged to read the merger agreement carefully and in its entirety before making any decisions regarding the merger.

The merger agreement has been annexed to this proxy statement/prospectus to provide investors and security holders with information regarding its terms. It is not intended to provide any other factual information about ETC, ETE, WMB or any of their respective subsidiaries or affiliates. The representations, warranties and covenants contained in the merger agreement (a) were made by the parties thereto only for purposes of that agreement and as of specific dates; (b) were made solely for the benefit of the parties to the merger agreement; (c) may be subject to limitations agreed upon by the contracting parties, including being qualified by confidential disclosures exchanged between the parties in connection with the execution of the merger agreement (such disclosures include information that has been included in public disclosures, as well as additional non-public information); (d) may have been made for the purposes of allocating contractual risk between the parties to the merger agreement instead of establishing these matters as facts; and (e) may be subject to standards of materiality applicable to the contracting parties that differ from those applicable to investors. Accordingly, the merger agreement is included with this filing only to provide investors with information regarding the terms of the merger agreement. Additionally, the representations, warranties, covenants, conditions and other terms of the merger agreement may be subject to subsequent waiver or modification. Moreover, information concerning the subject matter of the representations, warranties and covenants may change after the date of the merger agreement, which subsequent information may or may not be fully reflected in ETE’s or WMB’s public disclosures. The merger agreement should not be read alone, but should instead be read in conjunction with the other information regarding the companies that is or will be contained in, or incorporated by reference into, this proxy statement/prospectus and the documents that are filed with the SEC.

The merger agreement by and among ETC, ETC GP, ETE, LE GP, ETE GP and WMB, provides that WMB will be merged with and into ETC, with ETC surviving the merger. Immediately following the merger, LE GP will be merged with and into ETE GP, with ETE GP surviving the GP merger and becoming the general partner of ETE. The merger agreement further provides that ETE will establish a class of ETE Class E units.

At the effective time, all the property, rights, privileges, powers and franchises of WMB shall vest in ETC as the surviving entity, and all debts, liabilities and duties of WMB shall become the debts, liabilities and duties of ETC as the surviving entity, all as provided under applicable law.

Immediately following the completion of the mergers, ETC will contribute substantially all of the assets and liabilities it assumed from WMB through the merger to ETE in exchange for the issuance by ETE to ETC of a number of ETE Class E units equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in consideration for the Parent Cash Deposit.

Immediately following the effective time of the mergers, ETC will contribute an amount of cash to ETE GP, which ETE GP will contribute to ETE in exchange for newly issued ETE common units and general partner units in ETE. As a result of the GP Contribution, the percentage interest in ETE that will be owned by ETE GP after completion of the merger transactions will equal the percentage interest in ETE owned by LE GP immediately prior to merger transactions.

The closing of the merger will occur at 10:00 a.m., New York Time, on a date to be agreed upon by the parties in writing which shall be no later than the third business day after all the closing conditions contained in the merger agreement have been satisfied or waived (other than those conditions that by their nature are to be satisfied at closing, but subject to satisfaction or waiver of such conditions), unless another time or date is agreed in writing by WMB and ETE; provided, however, that upon satisfaction or waiver of such conditions, ETE may, by giving written notice to WMB, elect to postpone the closing for a period of time not exceeding 15 consecutive business days in order to facilitate the debt financing of the merger consideration. The day on which the closing occurs is referred to in this document as the “closing date.” For a description of the conditions to the closing of the merger, see “—Conditions to Completion of the Merger” beginning on page 210 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

On the closing date, the parties will cause the merger to be consummated by filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware a certificate of merger, duly executed and completed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the DGCL and the DRULPA. The merger will become effective at such time as the certificate of merger is duly filed, or at such later time as is agreed between the parties and specified in the certificate of merger. The time at which the merger becomes effective is referred to in this document as the “effective time.”

At the effective time, each outstanding share of WMB common stock (other than shares of WMB common stock held by WMB, subsidiaries of WMB, ETC and its affiliates and appraisal shares) will be converted into the right to receive, at the election of each WMB stockholder and subject to the election and proration procedures described below, either:

In addition, each ETC common share issued in the merger will have attached to it one CCR. Each CCR entitles such holder to ETC common shares or cash payments, at ETE’s election, should the ETE common units VWAP be greater than the ETC common shares VWAP for the measurement period. See the section titled “CCR Agreement” beginning on page 217 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Under the merger agreement, WMB stockholders are required to make an election to receive the mixed consideration (a “mixed election”), the share consideration (a “share election”) or the cash consideration (a “cash election”) by 5:00 p.m. local time (in the city in which the principal office of the exchange agent is located) on

the earlier of (i) the 20th business day after the Mailing Date and (ii) 3 business days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger. An election form will be mailed to each WMB stockholder of record for the special meeting together with this proxy statement/prospectus. Each election form will permit the WMB stockholder to specify (i) the number shares of WMB common stock owned by such holder with respect to which such holder desires to make a share election, (ii) the number of shares of WMB common stock owned by such holder with respect to which such holder desires to make a mixed election, (iii) the number of shares of WMB common stock owned by such holder with respect to which such holder desires to make a cash election, and (iv) the particular shares for which the holder desires to make either such election, and the order in which either such election is to apply to any such shares if the election is subject to proration as described below. Any WMB stockholder who wishes to make an election will be required to waive all appraisal rights in connection with making such election.

ETC and WMB will issue a joint press release reasonably satisfactory to each of them announcing the anticipated Election Deadline not more than 15 business days before, and at least five business days prior to, the anticipated date of the Election Deadline. Any shares of WMB common stock with respect to which the exchange agent does not receive a properly completed election form prior to the Election Deadline will be deemed not to have made an election and will receive cash consideration or stock consideration depending on the over- or undersubscription of the cash election. Subject to the merger agreement, the exchange agent will have reasonable discretion to determine if any election is not properly made with respect to any shares of WMB common stock and neither the parties nor the exchange agent will be under any duty to notify any stockholder of any such defect. In the event the exchange agent makes such a determination, such election will be deemed to be not in effect, and the shares of WMB common stock covered by such election will be deemed to be non-electing shares, unless a proper election is thereafter timely made with respect to such shares. Any WMB stockholder may, at any time prior to the Election Deadline, change or revoke such stockholder’s election by written notice received by the exchange agent prior to the Election Deadline accompanied by a properly completed and signed revised form of election or by withdrawal of such stockholder’s documents in respect of shares of WMB common stock previously deposited with the exchange agent. After an election is validly made with respect to any shares of WMB common stock, any subsequent transfer of such shares will automatically revoke such election. Any shares of WMB common stock that are covered by an election that is subsequently revoked will be treated as non-election shares unless proper election is thereafter timely made with respect to such shares. As a revocation of a stockholder’s election prior to the Election Deadline is required in connection with any transfer of shares of WMB common stock, from the Election Deadline (as it may be extended) and until the consummation of the proposed merger, WMB stockholders will not be able to transfer (including by sale) their shares of WMB common stock for which a properly completed election form has been submitted. The merger agreement provides that the Election Deadline will occur on the earlier of (i) the 20th business day after the Mailing Date and (ii) three business days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger. As a result, WMB stockholders may be unable to transfer their shares for which a properly completed election form has been submitted for the period between the earlier of (i) the 20th business day after the Mailing Date and (ii) three business days prior to the anticipated closing date of the merger, and the completion of the merger. WMB stockholders who wish to retain the ability to transfer their shares of WMB common stock between the Election Deadline and the completion of the merger should not return the election form. However, by not returning an election form a WMB stockholder is giving up the choice to elect his preferred form of consideration and will instead receive either the share consideration, the cash consideration or the mixed consideration, subject to the proration and adjustment procedures, as provided for in the merger agreement. Furthermore, even if WMB stockholders do not return their election forms, they may still be unable to transfer all or a portion of their shares, because as a result of all shares of WMB common stock for which an election having been validly made no longer being transferable, there may not be a trading market that will provide WMB stockholders with adequate liquidity for such transfer.

Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, the aggregate amount of cash to be paid to WMB stockholders is fixed at an amount equal to the aggregate number of shares of WMB common stock issued and outstanding as of the closing date (excluding certain cancelled shares, shares for which appraisal has properly been sought and shares owned by WMB subsidiaries), multiplied by $8.00 (which is referred to in the aggregate

as the “cash component”) and the entire cash component will be paid out as merger consideration, regardless of whether cash is undersubscribed, as described further below. Therefore, depending on the aggregate elections made by WMB stockholders for each election category, stockholders who make a cash election or share election are subject to proration to preserve these limitations on the amount of cash to be paid and the number of ETC common shares to be issued in the merger. As a result, you may receive a mix of cash and shares even if you make a cash election or share election. The cash component, assuming the number of shares of WMB common stock issued and outstanding is the same on the closing date as it was on the date the merger agreement was signed (in each case, excluding certain cancelled shares, shares for which appraisal has properly been sought and shares owned by WMB subsidiaries), will be approximately $6.05 billion.

ETC common shares may be issued to WMB stockholders who make cash elections if the cash election is oversubscribed. The total number of shares of WMB common stock for which valid cash elections are made is referred to as the “cash election number.” The cash election will be oversubscribed if the cash election number exceeds the “cash conversion number,” which is equal to the quotient obtained by dividing (1) the cash component minus the product of (x) the number of shares who elect mixed consideration multiplied by (y) $8.00 by (2) $43.50.

Cash may be paid to WMB stockholders who made share elections if the cash election is undersubscribed. The cash election will be undersubscribed if the cash election number is less than the cash conversion number, in which case cash consideration may be issued to WMB stockholders who make share elections. The amount by which the cash election number is less than the cash conversion number is referred to as the “shortfall number.” If the cash election is undersubscribed, then all WMB stockholders making a cash election will receive the cash consideration for all shares of WMB common stock as to which they made a cash election, and WMB stockholders making a mixed election will receive the mixed consideration for all shares of WMB common stock as to which they made a mixed election. WMB stockholders making a share election and holders of non-election shares will receive the cash consideration and/or share consideration, as described below:

Scenario 1: Undersubscription of Cash Election and Shortfall Number is Less than or Equal to the Number of Non-Election Shares

If the shortfall number is less than or equal to the number of non-election shares, then:

Scenario 2: Undersubscription of Cash Election and Shortfall Number Exceeds the Total Number of Non-Election Shares

Below is a flow chart illustrating the adjustments to a WMB stockholder’s merger consideration in the event of an oversubscription or undersubscription of the cash or share elections:

Note: The above flowchart is simplified, including not reflecting treatment of non-electing stockholders and also assumes a cash component of $6.05 billion, which amount would change if shares of WMB common stock are issued or retired prior to the closing date.

At the effective time, each unexercised WMB stock option will be assumed by ETC and converted into a cash-settled stock appreciation right, on otherwise the same terms and conditions as were applicable under the corresponding WMB stock option, adjusted in a manner intended to preserve the aggregate intrinsic value of the original WMB stock option. In order to preserve the intrinsic value, the ETC cash-settled stock appreciation right will correspond to a number of ETC common shares (determined by multiplying the number of shares of WMB common stock subject to the WMB stock option by an exchange ratio (as defined below) and rounded down to the nearest whole share), at a base price per share (rounded up to the nearest whole cent) determined by dividing the per-share exercise price of the WMB stock option by that same exchange ratio. For purposes of adjusting the WMB stock options, the exchange ratio is equal to the ratio of the average of the volume-weighted average prices of WMB common stock over the 10 trading days preceding the closing date to the average of the volume-weighted average prices of ETC common shares over the 10 trading days following the closing date.

Holders of converted WMB restricted stock units and WMB deferred stock units will also be entitled to receive upon settlement of the unit (1) the pre-merger special dividend and payment of any other accrued dividend equivalents, (2) a cash payment in respect of any fractional ETC common shares that would have resulted from such conversion without regard to rounding and (3) if such unit settles after the end of the CCR measurement period, an amount in cash equal to the shortfall amount (if any). The value of any payments in respect of fractional ETC common shares will be based on the same value of ETC common shares used for purposes of converting WMB stock options.

Subject to the completion of the merger, the current purchase period under the WMB ESPP, which commenced on July 1, 2015, will be the final purchase period under the WMB ESPP. No participant may elect to participate in the WMB ESPP or increase his or her payroll deduction election for the current purchase period, in

either case, following September 28, 2015. The current purchase period will end, and accumulated payroll deductions will be used to purchase shares of WMB common stock, at the earlier of (1) the scheduled purchase date for the current purchase period and (2) the date that is seven business days prior to the effective time. Upon the effective time, all shares of WMB common stock so purchased will be subject to the same terms and conditions under the merger agreement as shares of WMB common stock held by all other WMB stockholders, and the WMB ESPP will terminate immediately prior to the effective time.

Prior to the closing, subject to applicable laws, WMB will declare a special, one-time cash dividend of $0.10 per share of WMB common stock to record holders of issued and outstanding shares of WMB common stock immediately prior to the effective time, such payment being contingent on the consummation of the merger. If declared, the pre-merger special dividend will be payable to all such holders (contingent on the consummation of the merger) regardless of whether such holders seek appraisal of their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL.

As promptly as practicable after the effective time (but in any event within three business days thereafter), in consideration for ETE delivering to the exchange agent the cash component, ETC will cause the exchange agent to deliver to ETE a number of ETC common shares and attached CCRs equal to (i) the share consideration multiplied by the cash component, divided by (ii) the cash consideration. To the extent that ETE provides any cash amounts to ETC that are necessary to make payments in respect of the shares for which WMB stockholders have exercised their appraisal rights, ETC will issue to ETE additional ETC common shares and attached CCRs equal to (x) the number of appraisal shares, multiplied by (y) the share consideration.

No fractional ETC common shares will be issued in connection with the merger. Instead, each holder of WMB common stock converted under the terms of the merger who would have otherwise been entitled to receive a fraction of ETC common share (after aggregating all shares held by such holder) will instead receive cash, without interest, in an amount determined by multiplying the amount of aggregate net proceeds obtained from the sale of excess shares by a fraction, the numerator of which is the amount of the fractional share interest to which such stockholder is entitled (after aggregating all shares held by such holder) and the denominator of which is the aggregate number of fractional share interests to which all WMB stockholders are entitled.

As used herein, “excess shares” means the excess of (i) the number of ETC common shares delivered to the exchange agent by ETC for issuance to WMB stockholders over (ii) the aggregate number of full ETC common shares to be distributed to WMB stockholders.

ETC has appointed American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC to act as the exchange agent for the payment of the per share merger consideration. At or prior to the effective time, ETC will deposit, or cause to be deposited, with the exchange agent: (1) whole uncertificated or certificated ETC common shares and CCRs representing the number of ETC common shares sufficient to pay the aggregate stock portion of the consideration, and (2) cash sufficient to pay the aggregate cash portion of the consideration. In addition, ETC will deposit with the exchange agent, as necessary from time to time on or after the effective time, an amount in cash sufficient to pay any dividends or other distributions payable on the ETC common shares. We refer to such cash and shares, along with any distributions that become due to holders of converted WMB common stock, as the exchange fund.

Each holder of record of shares of WMB common stock whose shares were converted into the right to receive the merger consideration will automatically and upon the effective time be entitled to receive, and ETC will cause the exchange agent, after the effective time, to pay and deliver out of the exchange fund, the merger consideration, any cash amount into which the fractional ETC common shares have been converted and the amount of any distributions with a record date after the effective time but prior to the time of delivery by the exchange agent.

Within three business days after the effective time, ETC will cause the exchange agent to mail a letter of transmittal and instructions to each holder of record of WMB common stock, both of which will tell WMB stockholders how to surrender their certificates formerly representing shares of WMB common stock in exchange for the merger consideration, any cash amount into which the fractional ETC common shares have been converted and the amount of any distributions with a record date after the effective time but prior to the time of delivery by the exchange agent.

You should not return your share certificates with the enclosed proxy card, and you should not forward your share certificates to the exchange agent without a letter of transmittal.

Registered stockholders will not receive the merger consideration, any cash amount into which the fractional ETC common shares have been converted or the amount of any distributions with a record date after the effective time but prior to the time of delivery by the exchange agent until they surrender their share certificates to the exchange agent, together with a properly completed and signed letter of transmittal and any other documents as may be required by the letter of transmittal or accompanying instructions.

The merger agreement contains representations and warranties made by WMB to ETC and ETE, and by ETC and ETE to WMB. Certain of the representations and warranties in the merger agreement are subject to materiality or material adverse effect qualifications (that is, they will not be deemed to be untrue or incorrect unless their failure to be true or correct is material or would result in a material adverse effect). In addition, certain of the representations and warranties in the merger agreement are subject to knowledge qualifications, which means that those representations and warranties would not be deemed untrue or incorrect as a result of matters of which certain officers of the party making the representation did not have actual knowledge, after reasonable investigation.

WMB also makes additional representations and warranties to ETC and ETE in the merger agreement relating to, among other things:

ETC and ETE also make additional representations and warranties to WMB in the merger agreement relating to, among other things:

Each of WMB and ETE has agreed that during the period from the date of the merger agreement until the effective time, unless with the prior consent of the other party or as otherwise expressly contemplated or permitted by the merger agreement or the attached disclosure letters, that WMB and ETE will, and will cause its respective subsidiaries to: (a) carry on its business in the ordinary course and (b) use commercially reasonable efforts to preserve intact its business organizations and business relationships with significant customers and suppliers.

WMB and ETE have agreed that, during the period from the date of the merger agreement until the effective time, unless either party gives its prior written consent, or as otherwise expressly contemplated by the merger agreement, the disclosure letters of the respective parties or applicable law, WMB and ETE each will not and will not permit any of its subsidiaries to:

Additionally, WMB has agreed that it will not and will not permit any of its subsidiaries to:

Additionally, ETE has agreed that it will not and will not permit any of its subsidiaries to:

The merger agreement contains provisions prohibiting WMB from seeking or discussing any alternative acquisition proposal to the merger. In particular, WMB has agreed that it will not, and will cause its subsidiaries and representatives not to, directly or indirectly, (a) solicit, initiate, knowingly encourage, or knowingly facilitate inquiries or proposals with respect to, (b) engage or participate in any negotiations with any person concerning, (c) provide any confidential or nonpublic information or data to, or have or participate in any discussions with, any person relating to, any takeover proposal (as defined below), (d) approve, endorse or recommend any takeover proposal or (e) enter into or agree to enter into any letter of intent, memorandum of understanding, agreement in principle, merger agreement, acquisition agreement or other similar agreement related to a takeover proposal.

Notwithstanding the restrictions described above, the merger agreement provides that in the event WMB receives an unsolicited bona fide written takeover proposal prior to the receipt of the requisite WMB stockholder approval, WMB may furnish information and engage in discussions or negotiations if the WMB Board concludes in good faith (after receiving the advice of its outside legal counsel and financial advisors) that such takeover proposal constitutes or could reasonably be expected to result in a superior proposal and (after receiving the advice of its outside legal counsel) that failure to take such actions would reasonably be likely to constitute a breach of its fiduciary duties under applicable law. However, prior to providing any such nonpublic information, WMB must promptly notify ETE and enter into a confidentiality agreement with such third party on terms no less favorable to it than the confidentiality agreement between WMB and ETE.

WMB must promptly (and in any event, within 24 hours) notify ETE following the receipt of any takeover proposal, request for non-public information, or any discussions or negotiations with respect to a takeover proposal sought to be initiated with it or its subsidiaries; and the substance thereof (including the terms and conditions of and the identity of the person making such inquiry or takeover proposal). WMB must thereafter keep ETE reasonably informed of the status, terms and any amendments of any such takeover proposal, as well as the status of any discussions or negotiations, including changes in WMB’s intentions as previously notified.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, at any time before the requisite approval of the merger by WMB stockholders is obtained, the WMB Board may:

As used in this document, the term “intervening event” means a material event, fact, circumstance, development or occurrence (other than any matter that relates to a takeover proposal) that is unknown to or by the WMB Board as of the date of the agreement (or if known, the magnitude or material consequences of which were not known or understood by the WMB Board as of the date of the merger agreement), which event, fact, circumstance, development, occurrence, magnitude or material consequence becomes known to or by the WMB Board prior to obtaining the approval of the merger by the WMB stockholders.

As used herein, “takeover proposal” means any inquiry, proposal or offer from any person or “group” (as defined in the Exchange Act) of persons relating to (a) any direct or indirect acquisition or purchase in any manner (including a sale, issuance or repurchase of securities, tender offer, joint venture, exchange offer or similar transaction), in each case whether in a single transaction or series of transactions, of (1) 20% or more (based on the fair market value thereof, as determined in good faith by the WMB Board) of the consolidated total assets (including capital stock of WMB’s subsidiaries) of WMB and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole, or (2) 20% or more of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock or any other class of capital stock or equity securities of WMB or any of its significant subsidiaries, (b) any tender offer or exchange offer, in each case whether in a single transaction or a series of transactions, that, if consummated would result in any person or group of persons owning, directly or indirectly, 20% or more of the outstanding shares of WMB common stock or any other class of capital stock or equity securities of WMB or any of its significant subsidiaries, (c) any merger, consolidation, business combination, recapitalization, reorganization, liquidation, dissolution, share exchange or similar transaction involving the WMB or any of its subsidiaries pursuant to which any person or group (or the stockholders of any person) would own, directly or indirectly, (x) 20% or more of any class of equity securities of WMB or of the surviving entity in a merger or the resulting direct or indirect parent of WMB or such surviving entity or (y) businesses or assets (including capital stock of the subsidiaries of WMB) that constitute 20% or more of the consolidated revenues, net income or consolidated total assets of WMB and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole, (d) the payment of any extraordinary dividend by WMB or any of its subsidiaries or (e) any combination of the foregoing, other than, in each case, the merger transactions and any transaction being negotiated to facilitate one or more divestiture actions.

As used herein, “superior proposal” means any unsolicited, bona fide takeover proposal (within the percentages set forth in the definition thereof changed from 20% to 50%) made in writing after the date of the merger agreement that the WMB Board determines in good faith, after consultation with its outside legal counsel and financial advisors, (a) is reasonably capable of being consummated on the terms proposed and (b) is on terms which the WMB Board determines in good faith, if consummated, would result in a transaction more favorable to WMB stockholders than the merger, taking into account all financial, legal, regulatory, financing, certainty and timing of consummation and other aspects of such proposal and of the merger agreement (including any changes to the financial or other terms of the merger agreement proposed by ETE or WMB).

WMB has agreed that it will, as promptly as reasonably practicable, (i) establish a record date for, duly call and give notice of the special meeting; and (ii) convene the special meeting and submit the merger agreement to its stockholders for adoption. Notwithstanding the above, if at any time before the special meeting is scheduled, WMB reasonably believes that (A) it is necessary to postpone the special meeting to ensure any required supplement or amendment to the proxy statement is provided to WMB stockholders, (B) it will not receive sufficient proxies to approve the merger agreement or (C) it will not have sufficient shares of WMB common stock represented to constitute a quorum, WMB may postpone or adjourn the special meeting; provided, however, that, in the case of any postponement or adjournment under clauses (B) or (C) of this sentence, the special meeting is not postponed more than 25 calendar days after the date for which it was originally scheduled. Once WMB has established a record date for the special meeting, it cannot change the record date without ETE’s prior written consent, unless required to do so by applicable law or WMB’s by-laws.

WMB has also agreed that the WMB Board will not withdraw its recommendation, recommend an alternative takeover proposal or enter into a an alternative acquisition agreement, unless: (i) the WMB Board makes an adverse recommendation change in accordance with the merger agreement or (ii) the WMB Board terminates the merger agreement in connection with a superior proposal. See “—No Solicitation” beginning on page 206 of this proxy statement/prospectus.

Without ETE’s prior written consent, the adoption of the merger agreement will be the only matter (other than related procedural matters) that WMB will propose to be acted on by its stockholders at the meeting, and WMB will not submit to the vote of its stockholders with respect to any other takeover proposal.

ETE and WMB have agreed to cooperate with each other and use reasonable best efforts to (a) take all actions necessary to satisfy the closing conditions, or to comply with governmental orders, decrees and requests in connection with the merger, (b) obtain all necessary governmental actions or nonactions, waivers, consents, authorizations, orders and approvals, (c) make all necessary registrations, declarations and filings applicable to the merger and the related transactions, (d) defend through litigation any claim by any governmental entity acting pursuant to applicable antitrust laws that would prevent the closing of the merger, (e) execute and deliver any additional instruments necessary to consummate the merger, and (f) respond to any request for additional information or documentary material received from any governmental entity in connection with the merger and the related transactions.

ETE has also agreed to use its reasonable best efforts to resolve any antitrust objections asserted by a governmental entity with respect to the merger, including:

To assist ETE in complying with these obligations, WMB has agreed to use reasonable best efforts to cause its subsidiaries and affiliates to enter into agreements as necessary to restrict certain actions; provided, however, that: (i) any agreement with respect to any business, assets or operations of WPZ or its subsidiaries shall be subject to any required approval from a conflicts or similar committee of the board of directors of the general partner of WPZ and (ii) the consummation of the transactions provided for in any such agreement shall be conditioned upon the closing or satisfaction of all conditions to closing, in a case where the closing will occur immediately following such agreement.

The merger agreement contains additional covenants and agreements among WMB, ETC and ETE relating to the following matters, among other things:

For a period of one year following the completion of the merger, ETC will (or will cause a subsidiary to) provide each individual who is employed by WMB and continues to be employed immediately following the closing date (each, a “WMB Employee”) with

In addition, during the period beginning on the closing date and ending 18 months after the closing date, ETC will (or will cause one of its subsidiaries to) assume, honor and continue without amendment or modification certain specified WMB severance plans and programs for the benefit of WMB Employees, in each case as in effect at the closing date. The 2015 annual bonus was paid to WMB Employees on March 4, 2016.

ETC will generally recognize each WMB Employee’s years of service with WMB for purposes of determining eligibility to participate, level of benefits and vesting to the extent recognized under the comparable WMB plan prior to the closing date (other than the accrual of benefits under a defined benefit pension plan or where recognition would result in a duplication of benefits).

ETC will generally (1) waive any pre-existing condition limitations, exclusions, actively at work requirements and waiting periods under any employee welfare benefit plan in which WMB Employees will be eligible to participate to the extent such conditions were satisfied under the corresponding WMB plan prior to the closing date and (2) recognize co-payments, deductibles and similar expenses incurred by each WMB Employee during the year in which the closing date occurs to the extent credited under the corresponding employee welfare benefit plan maintained by WMB prior to the closing date.

Each party’s obligation to effect the merger is subject to the satisfaction or waiver, to the extent permitted, of the following conditions at or prior to the effective time:

The obligations of ETC and ETE to effect the merger are also subject to the satisfaction, or waiver by ETC and ETE, to the extent permitted, of the following conditions at or prior to the effective time:

The obligation of WMB to effect the merger is also subject to the satisfaction, or waiver by WMB, to the extent permitted, of the following conditions at or prior to the effective time:

Some of the representations and warranties contained in the merger agreement are qualified by a “materiality” standard or by a “material adverse effect” standard. For purposes of the merger agreement, “material adverse effect,” with respect to WMB, is defined to mean any change, effect, occurrence, circumstance, development or state of facts that, with all other changes, effects, occurrences, circumstances, developments or states of facts, is or would reasonably be expected to be materially adverse to the business, financial condition or results of operation of WMB and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole, other than any change, effect, event, occurrence, circumstance, development or state of facts to the extent relating to:

For the purposes of the merger agreement, “material adverse effect,” with respect to ETE, is defined to mean any change, effect, occurrence, circumstance, development or state of facts that, with all other changes, effects, occurrences, circumstances, developments or states of fact, is or would reasonably be expected to be materially adverse to the business, financial condition or results of operation of ETE and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole, other than any change, effect, event, occurrence, circumstance, development or state of facts to the extent relating to:

The merger agreement may be terminated in accordance with its terms at any time prior to the effective time, whether before or after the requisite approval of WMB’s stockholders is obtained:

If the merger agreement is validly terminated there will be no liability or obligation on the part of ETC, ETE or WMB to the other parties except as related to the confidentiality of information, termination fees and certain other provisions of the merger agreement, and provided that (a) no party will be relieved from liability for any willful and material breach of any provision of the merger agreement and (b) the confidential disclosure agreement dated as of July 16, 2015, between ETE and WMB, shall survive such termination in accordance with its terms.

In the event such a termination fee is paid as described above, payment of such fee is ETC and ETE’s sole and exclusive remedy against WMB and its affiliates, except in the case of a willful and material breach by WMB of certain provisions in the merger agreement.

ETE will reimburse WMB $410 million in respect of a portion of the termination fee payable by WMB to WPZ to terminate the WPZ merger agreement and to reimburse WMB’s expenses in an amount up to $100 million if certain conditions to WMB’s obligation to consummate the merger have not been satisfied and the merger agreement is terminated by ETE or WMB: (i) due to a permanent injunction or final, non-appealable governmental order or action being in effect, (ii) ETE or ETC’s breach of any of its representations, warranties, covenants, or agreements set forth in the merger agreement, or (iii) the failure to consummate the merger within the outside date in certain circumstances.

The merger agreement may be amended by the parties at any time before the approval of the merger agreement by WMB stockholders, in writing signed on behalf of each of the parties, provided that: (a) after any approval of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement by WMB stockholders, there may not be, without further approval of such stockholders, any amendment of the merger agreement that requires further approval by the WMB stockholders; and (b) certain provisions may not be amended, supplemented, waived or otherwise modified in any manner that impacts or is otherwise adverse to the sources of financings for the transactions, without prior written consent of such sources.

At any time prior to the effective time, the parties may, to the extent legally allowed (a) extend the time for the performance of any of the obligations or other acts of the other parties, (b) waive any inaccuracies in the representations and warranties contained in the merger agreement or other documents delivered in connection therewith or (c) waive compliance with any of the agreements or conditions contained in the merger agreement, provided that after any approval of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement by WMB stockholders, there may not be, without further approval of such stockholders, any extension or waiver of the merger agreement or any portion thereof that requires further approval by the WMB stockholders.

The merger agreement is governed by and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to any applicable conflicts of law. The parties agree that any action or proceeding in respect to any claim arising out of or related to the merger agreement or the transactions contemplated thereby will be brought exclusively in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or if such court declines to accept jurisdiction over a particular matter, any state or Federal court within the state of Delaware).

The parties have agreed in the merger agreement that irreparable damage would occur and that monetary damages, even if available, would not be an adequate remedy in the event that any of the provisions of the merger agreement are not performed in accordance with their specific terms or are otherwise breached. The parties have agreed that they will be entitled to specific performance of the terms of the merger agreement, including an injunction or injunctions to prevent breaches of the merger agreement and to enforce specifically the performance of its terms and provisions without proof of actual damages. The parties have further agreed not to assert that (a) a remedy of specific enforcement is unenforceable, invalid, contrary to law or inequitable for any reason, (b) that a remedy of monetary damages or other remedies at law would provide an adequate remedy for any breach, or (c) that either party is required to obtain, furnish or post any bond or security as a condition to obtaining specific performance.

accordance with the terms and conditions of the merger agreement as if such share had never been an appraisal share. For the avoidance of doubt, if declared, the pre-merger special dividend will be payable to all record holders of issued and outstanding shares of WMB common stock immediately prior to the effective time (contingent on the consummation of the merger) regardless of whether such holders demand appraisal of their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL.

A detailed description of the appraisal rights available to holders of WMB common stock and the procedures required to exercise statutory appraisal rights is included in the section titled “Appraisal Rights,” on page 251 of this proxy statement/prospectus and the text of Section 262 of the DGCL as in effect with respect to the merger, which is included in Annex E to this proxy statement/prospectus. You are encouraged to read the provisions carefully and in their entirety. Moreover, due to the complexity of the procedures for exercising the right to seek appraisal, WMB stockholders who are considering exercising such rights are encouraged to seek the advice of legal counsel.

Concurrently with the effective time of the GP merger, ETC, ETE and ETE GP will execute the contribution agreement to effect the WMB Contribution and GP Contribution, including the issuance by ETE of a number of ETE Class E units equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in consideration for the Parent Cash Deposit.

The contribution agreement will also provide that ETE will indemnify ETC against all losses suffered or incurred by ETC after the effective date resulting from the consummation of the merger or the other transactions contemplated by the contribution agreement, as well as all losses (other than income taxes) suffered or incurred by ETC before or after the date of the contribution agreement. In addition, ETE will be required under the contribution agreement to indemnify ETC for any taxes incurred by ETC for each taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2018.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, each ETC common share issued in the merger, including the ETC common shares issued to ETE in respect of the Parent Cash Deposit, will have attached to it one CCR. See the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Merger Consideration” beginning on page 197 of this proxy statement/prospectus. The CCR agreement entitles such holder to ETC common shares or cash payments, at ETE’s election, should the ETE common units VWAP be greater than the ETC common shares VWAP for the measurement period.

The rights of holders of ETC common shares with respect to the CCRs will be governed by and subject to the terms and conditions of the CCR agreement to be entered into between ETE, ETC and a rights agent appointed by ETE and ETC at the closing of the merger. The following summary describes the material provisions of the CCR agreement. This summary may not contain all of the information about CCRs that is important to you. The form of CCR agreement is attached as Annex B to this proxy statement/prospectus and is incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus, and you are encouraged to read it carefully for a more complete understanding of the CCRs.

The CCRs are not equity or voting securities of ETC, do not represent ownership interests in ETC, and CCR holders are not entitled to any rights of any voting or equity security or other ownership interest of ETC, ETE or any entity affiliated with ETC or ETE, either at law or in equity. No interest or dividends shall accrue on any amounts payable in respect of the CCRs. The rights of CCR holders are limited to those expressly provided for in the CCR agreement.

If the ETC common shares VWAP is equal to or greater than the ETE common units VWAP for the measurement period (such difference being referred to herein as the “excess amount”), then each outstanding CCR will be immediately and automatically cancelled and no consideration of any kind delivered in respect thereof.

Furthermore, ETC will transfer to ETE, as an adjustment to the number of ETE Class E units issued in the contribution, a number of ETE Class E units equal to (a) (i) the number of outstanding CCRs multiplied by (ii) a fraction, the numerator of which is the excess amount and the denominator of which is the settlement calculation VWAP, multiplied by (b) the ratio of ETE Class E units held by ETC and its subsidiaries over the number of ETC common shares outstanding (such ratio being referred to herein as the “CCR exchange ratio”).

If the ETC common shares VWAP is less than the ETE common units VWAP for the measurement period (such difference being referred to herein as the “shortfall amount”), then each outstanding CCR will be immediately and automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive a shortfall payment. The shortfall payment will be, at ETE’s election, either:

If ETE elects the share payment option, ETE will issue to ETC a number of ETE Class E units equal to the product of (a) the CCR exchange ratio, multiplied by (b) the aggregate number of ETC common shares to be issued to CCR holders pursuant to the shortfall amount.

No fractional ETC common shares will be issued upon conversion of the CCRs, and such CCR holders will receive cash in lieu of a fractional share. The paying agent will first determine the excess of (i) the number of full ETC common shares equal to the number of outstanding CCRs, multiplied by the shortfall amount and divided by the settlement calculation VWAP, over (ii) the aggregate number of full ETC common shares to be distributed to the CCR holders; and sell such excess at then prevailing prices on the NYSE. The net proceeds of such sales will be distributed to such CCR holders, less any reasonable and customary commissions, transfer taxes and reasonable out-of-pocket transaction costs and expenses incurred in connection with the sales. There are no agreements in place regarding the registration of the ETC common shares that ETE may elect to issue in settlement of the CCRs; nonetheless, ETC currently intends to register the resale of such shares following their issuance.

Notwithstanding the above, the aggregate cash payment cannot exceed an amount of cash equal to (a) the product of the value of the merger consideration as of the closing date and 55%, minus (b) the sum of (i) the pre-merger special dividend, (ii) the cash component (as defined in the merger agreement, see the section titled “The Merger Agreement—Proration” beginning on page 198 of this proxy statement/prospectus), (iii) the aggregate amount of cash paid to former holders of WMB common stock in lieu of issuing fractional ETC common shares and (iv) the aggregate amount of cash paid in respect of appraisal shares (such sum being referred to herein as the “maximum CCR cash”). See the section titled “Appraisal Rights” beginning on page 251 of this proxy statement/prospectus. If the aggregate cash payment exceeds the maximum CCR cash, then any difference will be paid in ETC common shares valued at the settlement calculation VWAP. ETE will issue to ETC, as an adjustment to the consideration issued to ETC in respect of the WMB Contribution, a number of ETE Class E units equal to the product of (i) the CCR exchange ratio multiplied by (ii) the aggregate number of ETC common shares issued as payment to CCR holders should the maximum CCR cash threshold be exceeded.

As used herein, “settlement calculation VWAP” means (a) the sum of the daily dollar volume-weighted average price for the ETC common shares on the NYSE for the five trading days starting with the first trading day after the second anniversary of the closing date, divided by (b) five.

The CCRs will be automatically cancelled and extinguished, without consideration of any kind being delivered, and ETE, ETC and the rights agent will have no further obligations with respect to the CCRs, in the event that both of the following exist at any time during the period between the start date and the end date:

Set forth below are several examples illustrating the impact of varying ETC common shares VWAP and ETE common units VWAP values on the consideration delivered to CCR holders and/or resulting in the cancellation of the CCRs. The examples are purely hypothetical and only are intended to provide investors an illustrative example of: (i) how the consideration paid to CCR holders (if any) will be determined or (ii) when the CCRs will be cancelled. The ETE common units VWAP used in the examples is based on the average ETE common units VWAP of $9.00 for the 30 trading days immediately prior to and including May 3, 2016 (rounded down from $9.13 to $9.00) and do not represent a likely actual ETE common units VWAP. Furthermore, since the ETC common shares are not yet publicly traded, the ETC common shares VWAP values used in these examples are purely hypothetical and are not intended to provide any assurance as to the value at which the ETC common shares will publicly trade. Some numbers stated in these examples have been rounded to the nearest 2 decimal places for purposes of presentation, but exact values were used in the calculations listed below.

Example 1: ETC Common Shares VWAP Equal to or Greater Than ETE Common Units VWAP

then each outstanding CCR will be immediately and automatically cancelled and no consideration delivered to CCR holders, and ETC will transfer to ETE, as an adjustment to the number of ETE Class E units issued in the WMB Contribution, 30,810,810.81 ETE Class E units (1,140,000,000 multiplied by a fraction equal to $0.25 divided by $9.25, multiplied by 1.00).

Example 2: ETC Common Shares VWAP Less Than ETE Common Units VWAP, and ETE Elects Share Payment

then (i) each outstanding CCR will be immediately and automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive 0.029 ETC common shares ($0.25 divided by $8.75); and (ii) ETE will issue to ETC 32,571,428.57 ETE Class E units (1.00 multiplied by 32,571,428.57).

Further assuming that the fractional ETC common shares that would have been issued to CCR holders upon conversion of the CCRs would have totalled 1,429 ETC common shares in the aggregate based on the calculations above;

then no fractional ETC common shares will be issued upon conversion of the CCRs, and such CCR holders will receive an aggregate amount of approximately $12,500 in cash in lieu of the fractional ETC common shares (1,429 multiplied by $8.75), less any reasonable and customary commissions, transfer taxes and reasonable out-of-pocket transaction costs and expenses incurred in connection with the sales.

Example 3: ETC Common Shares VWAP Less Than ETE Common Units VWAP, and ETE Elects Cash Payment

then (i) each outstanding CCR will be immediately and automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive $0.25 (the shortfall amount); (ii) ETE will purchase from ETC, and ETC will issue to ETE, 32,571,428.57 ETC common shares ($0.25 multiplied by 1,140,000,000, divided by $8.75); and (iii) ETE will issue to ETC, as an adjustment to the consideration issued to ETC in respect of the WMB Contribution, 32,571,428.57 ETE Class E units (1.00 multiplied by 32,571,428.57).

then the CCRs will be automatically cancelled and extinguished, with no consideration delivered to CCR holders.

The CCRs are stapled to the ETC common shares and are not separable. Until the earlier of the cancellation date and the end date, the surrender for transfer of any certificate evidencing ETC common shares shall also constitute the transfer of the CCRs associated with such shares, and the registration of transfer of ownership of any uncertificated ETC common shares in respect of which CCRs have been issued shall also constitute transfer of the CCRs associated with such shares.

The payment date of the CCRs is five business days following the settlement date, which itself is the fifth trading day after the end date.

Prior to the payment date, ETC will appoint a bank or trust company to act as the paying agent responsible for paying CCR holders any payments owed pursuant to the terms of the CCRs. Prior to the payment date, ETC will deposit with the paying agent either (a) the number of ETC common shares sufficient to pay the aggregate number of ETE common shares issuable (including excess shares) or (b) the aggregate cash payment. The paying agent will then deliver cash or ETC common shares to CCR holders sufficient to pay all consideration then due to them.

If ETE, ETC or any of their respective subsidiaries or affiliates shall at any time act as the paying agent, it will segregate and hold in trust for the benefit of the CCR holders all sums or securities held for the payment of the CCRs until the payment date, and will promptly notify the rights agent of any default by ETC in making payment on the CCRs.

ETC will cause the paying agent to execute and deliver to the rights agent an instrument in which the paying agent will agree to (i) hold all sums or securities held by it for payment of any amount payable on the CCRs in trust for the benefit of the CCR holders until such sums or securities are paid to such holders or otherwise disposed of as provided in the CCR agreement, and will notify the rights agent of the sums or securities so held and (ii) will notify the rights agent of any failure by ETC to make payment, or cause payment to be made, on the CCRs when they become due and payable. Payment shall be made in either: (i) U.S. currency or (ii) ETC common shares.

Any cash or securities held by the rights agent, paying agent, ETE, ETC or any of their respective affiliates, in trust for the payment on any CCR and remaining unclaimed for one year after the payment date will be paid or returned to ETC. The holder of such CCR, as an unsecured general creditor, can only look to ETE for payment under the CCR, and all liabilities of the rights agent with regard to such trust money or securities will cease.

The rights agent and paying agent will be entitled to deduct and withhold from ETC common shares or cash amounts otherwise payable to CCR holders such amounts required to be deducted or withheld under the Code, or any applicable tax law, and such withheld amounts will be treated for the purposes of the CCR agreement as having been paid to CCR holders. The parties to the CCR agreement have agreed to cooperate in good faith to reduce or eliminate any deduction or withholding with respect to payments made pursuant to the CCR agreement.

Without the consent of any CCR holders, ETE, ETC and the rights agent may amend the CCR agreement for any of the following purposes:

With the consent of the conflicts committee of the ETC GP Board, ETE and the rights agent may amend the CCR agreement or the CCRs for the purpose of adding any provisions to or changing in any manner or eliminating any of the provisions of the CCR agreement or the CCRs or modifying in any manner the rights of the CCR holders under the CCR agreement or to the CCRs; provided, however, that no such amendment shall, without the consent of each affected CCR holder:

The CCR agreement will be governed by Delaware law without regard to conflicts of laws principles.

The CCR agreement will terminate, and the parties to the CCR agreement will have no liabilities under it, upon the earliest of (i) the cancelation date, (ii) the automatic termination of the CCRs where the ETC common shares VWAP is less than ETE common units VWAP or (iii) ETC having paid or deposited with the rights agent all cash amounts or ETC common shares payable to the CCR holders and such cash amounts or shares have in fact been delivered to CCR holders; provided, however, that in the case of any termination of the CCR agreement, the provisions on unclaimed cash or securities, tax withholdings and the provisions relating to the rights agent, as well as certain other general provisions, will survive.

The unaudited pro forma condensed combined statements of continuing operations for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and for the three months ended March 31, 2016 have been prepared to illustrate the estimated effects of the merger transactions as if the merger transactions were completed on January 1, 2015.

The unaudited pro forma condensed combined balance sheet as of March 31, 2016 has been prepared to illustrate the estimated effects of the merger transactions as if the merger transactions were completed on March 31, 2016. The unaudited pro forma condensed combined balance sheet also reflects “ETC Pro Forma Adjustments,” which portray the consolidation of ETE into ETC.

The unaudited pro forma adjustments, which ETC believes are reasonable under the circumstances, are preliminary and are based upon available information and certain assumptions described in the accompanying notes to the unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial information. Actual results and valuations may differ materially from the assumptions within the accompanying unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial information.

The pro forma financial statements have been prepared using the purchase method of accounting under existing U.S. GAAP standards. ETC has been treated as the acquirer in the combination for accounting purposes. The acquisition accounting is dependent upon certain valuations and other studies that have yet to progress to a stage where there is sufficient information for a definitive measurement. ETC intends to complete the valuations and other studies upon completion of the combination as soon as practicable within the measurement period in accordance with ASC 805, but in no event later than one year following the closing date. The assets and liabilities of WMB have been measured based on various preliminary estimates using assumptions that ETC believes are reasonable based on information that is currently available. Accordingly, the pro forma adjustments are preliminary and have been made solely for the purpose of providing pro forma financial statements prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC. Differences between these preliminary estimates and the final accounting will occur and these differences could have a material impact on the accompanying pro forma financial statements and the combined company’s future results of operation and financial position.

In addition, the unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial statements do not reflect any cost savings, operating synergies or revenue enhancements that the combined company may achieve as a result of the completion of the merger transactions, the costs to integrate the operations of ETE, the ETE Entities and WMB or the costs necessary to achieve these cost savings, operating synergies and revenue enhancements.

The unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial statements, including the notes thereto, should be read in conjunction with the historical consolidated financial statements and related notes of ETE that are included in this proxy statement/prospectus and the historical consolidated financial statements and related notes of WMB that are incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus, as well as the section titled “Summary—Recent Developments” beginning on page 20 of this proxy statement/prospectus, which includes a description of facts and circumstances occurring subsequent to the date the parties executed the merger agreement.

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

In addition, goodwill may also be impacted by changes in WMB’s number of outstanding shares and changes in the trading price of ETE’s common units, as such changes would impact the fair value of the total consideration to be paid. An increase or decrease of $1 in the trading price of ETE’s common units would result in a corresponding increase or decrease in goodwill of approximately $1.14 billion.

The following table summarizes the assumed allocation of the purchase price among the assets acquired and liabilities assumed:

Deferred income taxes related to purchase accounting adjustments are based on an assumed rate of 37%.

The pro forma adjustment to noncontrolling interest is based on the trading price of WPZ’s common units multiplied by the number of WPZ’s outstanding common units, excluding the WPZ common units owned by WMB.

The following is a preliminary estimate of the equity consideration to be paid by ETC:

The following is a general discussion of the material U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger to U.S. holders (as defined below) of WMB common stock that exchange their shares of WMB common stock for any combination of cash and ETC common shares, including the CCR that will be attached to each ETC common share received, in the merger. It is the opinion of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (“Cravath”), special counsel to WMB, and Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”), special counsel to ETC, that the merger will qualify as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code. Each of these opinions is based on facts, representations, assumptions and exclusions, including those contained in the merger agreement, this proxy statement/prospectus and the respective tax officer’s certificates provided by WMB and ETC. The accuracy of such facts, representations, assumptions and exclusions could affect the validity of such opinions. The remainder of this discussion, which discussion, unless otherwise noted, also constitutes the opinion of Cravath and Latham insofar as it sets forth U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger, is based on the foregoing opinions.

The following discussion is based upon the Code, the U.S. Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder and judicial and administrative authorities, rulings and decisions, all as in effect as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus. These authorities may change, possibly with retroactive effect, and any such change could affect the accuracy of the statements and conclusions set forth in this discussion. This discussion assumes that the merger will be completed in accordance with the merger agreement and as further described in this proxy statement/prospectus. This discussion is not a complete description of all of the tax consequences of the merger and, in particular, does not address any tax consequences arising under the unearned income Medicare contribution tax pursuant to the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, nor does it address any tax consequences arising under the laws of any state, local or foreign jurisdiction, or under any U.S. federal laws other than those pertaining to income tax.

The following discussion applies only to U.S. holders (as defined below) of shares of WMB common stock who hold such shares as a capital asset within the meaning of Section 1221 of the Code (generally, property held for investment). Further, this discussion does not purport to consider all aspects of U.S. federal income taxation that might be relevant to U.S. holders in light of their particular circumstances and does not apply to U.S. holders subject to special treatment under the U.S. federal income tax laws, such as, for example, dealers or brokers in securities, commodities or foreign currencies, traders in securities that elect to apply a mark-to-market method of accounting, banks and certain other financial institutions, insurance companies, mutual funds, tax-exempt organizations, holders subject to the alternative minimum tax provisions of the Code, partnerships, S corporations or other pass-through entities or investors in such entities, regulated investment companies, real estate investment trusts, U.S. expatriates, holders whose functional currency is not the U.S. dollar, holders who hold shares of WMB common stock as part of a hedge, straddle, constructive sale or conversion transaction or other integrated investment, holders who acquired WMB common stock pursuant to the exercise of employee stock options, through a tax qualified retirement plan or otherwise as compensation, holders who exercise appraisal rights, or holders who actually or constructively own more than 5% of WMB common stock.

For purposes of this discussion, the term “U.S. holder” means a beneficial owner of WMB common stock that is for U.S. federal income tax purposes (1) an individual citizen or resident of the United States, (2) a corporation, or an entity treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, organized in or under the laws of the United States or any state thereof or the District of Columbia, (3) a trust if (a) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust and one or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust or (b) such trust has made a valid election to be treated as a U.S. person for U.S. federal income tax purposes or (4) an estate, the income of which is includible in gross income for U.S. federal income tax purposes, regardless of its source.

If an entity or arrangement treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes holds WMB common stock, the tax treatment of a partner in such partnership generally will depend on the status of the

partner and the activities of the partnership. Any entity treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes that holds WMB common stock, and any partners in such partnership, should consult their own independent tax advisors regarding the tax consequences of the merger to them in light of their specific circumstances.

Determining the actual tax consequences of the merger to you may be complex and will depend on your specific situation and on factors that are not within our control. You should consult your own independent tax advisor as to the specific tax consequences of the merger to you in light of your particular circumstances, including the applicability and effect of the alternative minimum tax and any state, local, foreign and other tax laws and of changes in those laws. Holders that are not U.S. persons for U.S. federal income tax purposes should consult their own independent tax advisors regarding the possibility that any cash consideration payable to them pursuant to the merger may be subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30%.

The obligation of WMB to complete the merger is conditioned, among other things, upon the receipt by WMB of a written opinion from Cravath to the effect that the merger will qualify as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code. The obligation of ETC to complete the merger is conditioned, among other things, upon the receipt by ETC of a written opinion from Latham to the effect that the merger will qualify as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code. In the event that WMB or ETC were to waive its respective opinion condition and the change in tax consequences were material, the parties would recirculate this document to resolicit stockholder approval. Each of these opinions will be based on facts, representations, assumptions and exclusions set forth or referred to in such opinion. None of these opinions are binding on the IRS or the courts, and neither WMB nor ETC intends to request a ruling from the IRS regarding the U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger. Consequently, no assurance can be given that the IRS will not assert, or that a court would not sustain, a position contrary to any of those set forth below. In addition, if any of the facts, representations, assumptions or exclusions upon which such opinions are based are inconsistent with the actual facts, the conclusions set forth in such opinions may be invalid. Unless otherwise noted, the remainder of this discussion assumes that the merger will qualify as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code.

The parties intend to treat the merger as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Code. Accordingly, the United States federal income tax consequences of the merger to a U.S. holder generally will depend on whether such holder exchanges its WMB common stock in any part for cash.

Exchange Solely for ETC Common Shares. If, pursuant to the merger, a U.S. holder exchanges its WMB common stock solely for ETC common shares, including the CCR that will be attached to each ETC common share received, such holder will not recognize any gain or loss on such exchange except in respect of cash received in lieu of a fractional ETC common share (as discussed below). The aggregate adjusted tax basis of the ETC common shares received in the merger (including fractional shares deemed received and redeemed as described below) will be equal to the aggregate adjusted tax basis of the shares of WMB common stock surrendered for the ETC common shares, and the holding period of the ETC common shares (including fractional shares deemed received and redeemed as described below) will include the period during which the WMB common stock was held.

Exchange for Cash or Exchange for ETC Common Shares and Cash. If, pursuant to the merger, a U.S. holder exchanges all or any portion of its WMB common stock for cash, then such cash will be treated as consideration received immediately prior to the merger in redemption of the WMB common stock surrendered for such cash consideration. In the redemption, a U.S. holder will recognize capital gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount of cash received and such holder’s adjusted tax basis in the shares of WMB common stock surrendered for such cash consideration (as designated by such holder). Such capital gain or loss

generally will be long-term capital gain or loss if such holder’s holding period with respect to the WMB common stock surrendered for such cash consideration is more than one year at the effective time of the merger. Long-term capital gains of certain non-corporate taxpayers, including individuals, are currently subject to reduced rates of taxation. The deductibility of capital losses is subject to limitations. If, however, the cash received has the effect of the distribution of a dividend, the gain will be treated as a dividend to the extent of the holder’s ratable share of WMB’s current or accumulated earnings and profits as calculated for U.S. federal income tax purposes. See “—Possible Treatment of Cash as a Dividend” below.

If, pursuant to the merger, a U.S. holder exchanges all or any portion of its WMB common stock for a combination of cash and ETC common shares, including the CCR that will be attached to each ETC common share received, the aggregate adjusted basis of the ETC common shares received in the merger (including fractional shares deemed received and redeemed as described below) will be equal to the aggregate adjusted tax basis of the shares of WMB common stock surrendered in exchange for the ETC common shares (as designated by such holder), and the holding period of the ETC common shares (including fractional shares deemed received and redeemed as described below) will include the period during which the WMB common stock was held.

Possible Treatment of Cash as a Dividend. Gain recognized by a U.S. holder may be treated as a dividend for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent of such holder’s ratable share of WMB’s current and accumulated earnings and profits. In general, the determination of whether the gain recognized in the exchange will be treated as capital gain or as a dividend depends upon whether and to what extent the exchange reduces such holder’s deemed percentage share ownership of WMB prior to the merger. The gain recognized in the deemed redemption will be treated as capital gain if the deemed redemption is (1) “substantially disproportionate” with respect to such holder or (2) “not essentially equivalent to a dividend.”

The deemed redemption will generally be “substantially disproportionate” with respect to a U.S. holder if the percentage described in (2) below is less than 80% of the percentage described in (1) below. Whether the deemed redemption is “not essentially equivalent to a dividend” with respect to a U.S. holder will depend upon such holder’s particular circumstances. At a minimum, however, in order for the deemed redemption to be “not essentially equivalent to a dividend,” the deemed redemption must result in a “meaningful reduction” in such holder’s deemed percentage share ownership of WMB. In general, that determination requires a comparison of (1) the percentage of the outstanding shares of WMB that such holder is deemed actually and constructively to have owned immediately before the deemed redemption and (2) the percentage of the outstanding shares of WMB that is actually and constructively owned by such holder immediately after the redemption. This comparison will take into account the dilution of a holder’s deemed percentage share ownership of ETC resulting from the acquisition of ETC common shares by ETE pursuant to the merger agreement (as though ETE had instead acquired WMB common stock in connection with the redemption). In applying the above tests, a U.S. holder may, under the constructive ownership rules, be deemed to own stock that is owned by other persons or stock underlying a holder’s option to purchase in addition to the stock actually owned by such holder.

The IRS has ruled that a stockholder in a publicly held corporation whose relative stock interest is minimal (e.g., less than 1%) and who exercises no control with respect to corporate affairs is generally considered to have a “meaningful reduction” if that stockholder has a relatively minor (e.g., approximately 3%) reduction in its percentage stock ownership under the above analysis; accordingly, in such case, the gain recognized in the exchange by such a stockholder would be treated as capital gain.

These rules are complex and dependent upon the specific factual circumstances particular to each U.S. holder. Consequently, each U.S. holder should consult its own tax advisor as to the potential application of these rules to the particular facts relevant to such holder.

Contingent Consideration Rights. The CCRs will be issued pursuant to the terms of the CCR Agreement to be entered into among ETE, ETC and the rights agent. Pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the CCR Agreement, the CCRs represent the holder’s right to receive, subsequent to the merger, a certain

number of additional ETC common shares or cash, at the option of ETE, in the event that the ETC common shares trade at a discount to the ETE common units on a daily volume-weighted average basis over the 23-month period following the 20th trading day after the closing of the merger. Each CCR will (1) be attached to and inseparable from the ETC common share to which such CCR relates and (2) only be transferable in connection with the transfer of the ETC common share to which such CCR relates. Further, it is not certain that the CCRs will result in the issuance of additional ETC common shares or cash. Cravath and Latham are unable to opine as to the tax consequences to a former U.S. holder of WMB common stock that receives additional ETC common shares or cash pursuant to such holder’s CCRs, as there is no direct or indirect controlling authority addressing such consequences.

In the event that a former U.S. holder of WMB common stock receives additional ETC common shares pursuant to such holder’s CCRs, it is expected that no gain or loss would be recognized by such U.S. holder and the consequences described in this paragraph would result (except to the extent that any portion of each ETC common share received pursuant to the CCRs is treated as imputed interest (as described below)). It is not entirely clear how the tax basis in each ETC common share received pursuant to the CCRs should be determined, but a possible approach is that such tax basis should be determined by dividing the aggregate tax basis in the ETC common shares received pursuant to the merger (determined as set forth above under the heading “—Exchange Solely for ETC Common Shares” or “—Exchange for Cash or Exchange for ETC Common Shares and Cash,” as applicable) and still owned by the holder by the sum of the number of ETC common shares received pursuant to the merger and still owned by the holder and the number of ETC common shares received in settlement of the CCRs. In this case, the tax basis in the ETC common shares received pursuant to the merger and still owned by the holder will be decreased by the amount of tax basis reallocated to the ETC common shares received pursuant to the CCRs. U.S. holders that receive additional ETC common shares pursuant to the CCRs and that previously sold a portion of their ETC common shares received pursuant to the merger should consult their own tax advisors regarding the tax consequences to them of the receipt of such additional ETC common shares. The holding period of each ETC common share received pursuant to the CCR is expected to include the holding period of the WMB common stock surrendered in the merger.

In the event that a former U.S. holder of WMB common stock receives cash pursuant to such holder’s CCRs, it is expected that the receipt of cash pursuant to the settlement of a CCR will be treated as a distribution to the U.S. holder with respect to such holder’s ETC common shares. Any such distribution generally will constitute a dividend for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent paid out of the current or accumulated earnings and profits of ETC, as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles. If a distribution exceeds the current and accumulated earnings and profits of ETC, the excess will be treated first as a tax-free return of the U.S. holder’s adjusted tax basis in the ETC common shares, and thereafter as capital gain.

Under current law, the deferred receipt of additional consideration in a “reorganization,” generally requires that a portion of such additional consideration be treated as interest income. However, because the parties intend to treat the merger as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Code, it is possible that no portion of the additional ETC common shares received pursuant to the settlement of a CCR by a former U.S. holder of WMB common stock will be treated as imputed interest. Nevertheless, even if the merger so qualifies, where there is no express provision in the plan of reorganization for interest on the deferred consideration, as is the case here, under current Treasury regulations interest may be imputed. Thus, if pursuant to the CCRs, additional ETC common shares become payable after the effective date of the merger, a portion of such consideration may constitute ordinary interest income. The amount of any such interest income will be calculated by taking the fair market value of the additional consideration received and discounting such amount from the date of issuance back to the time of the merger using the “applicable federal rate” as of the time of the merger.

If any portion of ETC common shares received pursuant to the settlement of a CCR were treated as imputed interest, then a U.S. holder’s basis in each ETC common share so received would be increased by the value of the portion of such share that is treated as imputed interest. Additionally, a new holding period would begin with respect to such portion of each ETC common share treated as imputed interest.

U.S. Holders receiving additional ETC common shares pursuant to the CCR should consult their own tax advisors regarding the application of the imputed interest rules.

Cash Received in Lieu of a Fractional Share. If a U.S. holder receives cash in lieu of a fractional ETC common share, such holder will be treated as having received such fractional ETC common share pursuant to the merger and then as having sold such fractional ETC common share for cash. As a result, such holder generally will recognize capital gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount of cash received for such fractional share and its basis in the fractional ETC common share determined as described above. Such capital gain or loss generally will be long-term capital gain or loss if such holder’s holding period with respect to the WMB common stock surrendered is more than one year at the effective time of the merger. Long-term capital gains of certain non-corporate taxpayers, including individuals, are subject to reduced rates of taxation. The deductibility of capital losses is subject to limitations.

Information Reporting and Backup Withholding. U.S. holders may be subject to information reporting and backup withholding on any cash payments they receive in the merger. A U.S. holder generally will not be subject to backup withholding, however, if such holder (1) timely furnishes its correct taxpayer identification number, certifies that such holder is not subject to backup withholding on IRS Form W-9 or successor form included in the letter of transmittal and otherwise complies with all applicable requirements of the backup withholding rules; or (2) provides proof that such holder is otherwise exempt from backup withholding. Any amounts withheld under the backup withholding rules are not additional tax and will generally be allowed as a refund or credit against a U.S. holder’s U.S. federal income tax liability, provided such holder timely furnishes the required information to the IRS.

Possible Treatment of Merger as a Reorganization Pursuant to Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code—Exchange for ETC Common Shares and Cash. If, contrary to the position taken by the parties, the IRS treats the merger as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code (instead of Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Code), the U.S. federal income tax consequences to a U.S. holder that exchanges its WMB common stock for a combination of cash and ETC common shares would differ from the treatment described above in “—Exchange for Cash or Exchange for ETC Common Shares and Cash.”

In such a case, if a U.S. holder exchanges its WMB common stock for a combination of cash and ETC common shares, including the CCR that will be attached to each ETC common share received, then subject to the discussion below regarding the tax consequences of additional consideration received pursuant to the settlement of a CCR, such holder will generally recognize gain (but not loss) in an amount equal to the lesser of (1) the amount of gain realized (i.e., the excess of the sum of the amount of cash and the fair market value of the ETC common shares received pursuant to the merger over such holder’s adjusted tax basis in its shares of WMB common stock surrendered) and (2) the amount of cash received pursuant to the merger (excluding any cash received in connection with the settlement of a CCR or in lieu of a fractional ETC common share). For this purpose, gain or loss must be calculated separately for each identifiable block of shares surrendered in the exchange, and a loss realized on one block of shares may not be used to offset a gain realized on another block of shares. U.S. holders should consult their own tax advisors regarding the manner in which cash and ETC common shares should be allocated among different blocks of WMB common stock. Any recognized gain will generally be long-term capital gain if the holder’s holding period with respect to the WMB common stock surrendered is more than one year at the effective time of the merger. This treatment differs from the treatment described above in “—Exchange for Cash or Exchange for ETC Common Shares and Cash” with respect to U.S. holders who receive both cash and ETC common shares in exchange for their shares of WMB common stock because under this treatment (1) a U.S. holder may recognize only gain (as opposed to gain or loss) and (2) the amount of such gain realized is calculated as the excess (if any) of (a) the sum of the cash and the fair market value of the ETC common shares received in exchange for WMB common stock (as opposed to only the cash received) over (b) the U.S. holder’s adjusted tax basis in all of such holder’s shares of WMB common stock (as opposed to such holder’s basis only in the shares of WMB common stock deemed surrendered for cash).

The aggregate tax basis of ETC common shares received (including fractional shares deemed received and redeemed as described above) by a U.S. holder that exchanges its shares of WMB common stock for a combination of cash and ETC common shares, including the CCR that will be attached to each ETC common share received, pursuant to the merger will be equal to the aggregate adjusted tax basis of the shares of WMB common stock surrendered for such consideration, reduced by the amount of cash received by such holder pursuant to the merger (excluding any cash received in connection with the settlement of a CCR or in lieu of a fractional ETC common share) and increased by the amount of gain (including any portion of the gain that is treated as a dividend as described below but excluding any gain or loss resulting from the deemed receipt and redemption of fractional shares described below), if any, recognized by such holder on the exchange. The holding period of the ETC common shares received (including fractional shares deemed received and redeemed as described above) will include the holding period of the shares of WMB common stock surrendered.

As described above in “—Possible Treatment of Cash as a Dividend,” if the cash received has the effect of the distribution of a dividend, the gain recognized will be treated as a dividend to the extent of the holder’s ratable share of WMB’s current and accumulated earnings and profits as calculated for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In general, the determination of whether the gain recognized in the exchange will be treated as capital gain or has the effect of a distribution of a dividend depends upon whether and to what extent the exchange reduces such holder’s deemed percentage share ownership of ETC (determined by assuming that such holder received solely ETC common shares in the merger and that a portion of such ETC common shares was redeemed for the cash received, and taking into account the dilution of such holder’s percentage share ownership of ETC resulting from the acquisition of ETC common shares by ETE pursuant to the merger agreement as set forth above in “—Possible Treatment of Cash as a Dividend”). The rules governing this determination are complex and dependent upon the specific factual circumstances particular to each U.S. holder. Consequently, each U.S. holder should consult its own tax advisor as to the potential application of these rules to the particular facts relevant to such holder.

Possible Treatment of Merger as a Reorganization Pursuant to Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code—Contingent Consideration Rights. If, contrary to the position taken by the parties, the IRS treats the merger as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code (instead of Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Code), the receipt of cash or ETC common shares in connection with the settlement of a U.S. holder’s CCR will be subject to a different treatment than that described above. Cravath and Latham are unable to opine as to the tax consequences to a former U.S. holder of WMB common stock that receives additional ETC common shares or cash pursuant to such holder’s CCRs, as there is no direct or indirect controlling authority addressing such consequences.

As discussed above, under current law, the deferred receipt of additional consideration in a “reorganization” (such as the ETC common shares or cash, if any, to be received pursuant to the CCRs) generally requires that a portion of such consideration be treated as interest income. If the IRS treats the merger as a “reorganization” within the meaning of Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code, a portion of any ETC common shares received pursuant to the CCRs will generally be treated as interest income under the principles described above.

If a former U.S. holder of WMB common stock receives cash pursuant to such holder’s CCRs, it is expected that such holder will generally recognize gain (but not loss) in the year such cash is received in an amount equal to the excess, if any, of (i) the amount of gain, if any, determined, as set forth above under the heading “—Possible Treatment of Merger as a Reorganization Pursuant to Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code—Exchange for ETC Common Shares and Cash” (but including any cash received in connection with the settlement of a CCR and excluding any cash received in lieu of a fractional ETC common share), over (ii) the amount of gain, if any, originally recognized with respect to the merger pursuant to Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code (before taking into account the CCR settlement), except that any portion of such cash amount received pursuant to such holder’s CCRs that is treated as imputed interest (as described above) will be taxed as ordinary interest income.

This discussion of certain material U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, tax advice. Holders of WMB common stock are urged to consult their own independent tax advisors with respect to the application of U.S. federal income tax laws to their particular situations as well as any tax consequences arising under the U.S. federal estate or gift tax rules, or under the laws of any state, local, foreign or other taxing jurisdiction or under any applicable tax treaty.

Immediately following the completion of the merger, pursuant to the contribution agreement, ETC will contribute substantially all of the assets and liabilities it assumed from WMB through the merger to ETE in exchange for the issuance by ETE to ETC of a number of Class E units, a new class of units representing limited partner interests in ETE (the “ETE Class E units”), equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in exchange for the amount of cash needed by ETC to fund the cash portion of the merger consideration. Completion of the merger is subject to satisfaction or waiver of a number of conditions, including the receipt by ETC and WMB of a tax opinion from Latham to the effect that the WMB Contribution should qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Code applies (the “721 Opinion”). Latham has advised ETE that, considering the potential claims that the IRS may successfully assert and the level of uncertainty regarding the ultimate outcome of these claims, Latham would not be able to deliver the 721 Opinion were the opinion requested as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus.

This discussion of certain U.S. federal income tax considerations is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, tax advice. Holders of WMB common stock are urged to consult their own independent tax advisors with respect to the application of U.S. federal income tax laws to their particular situations as well as any tax consequences arising under the U.S. federal estate or gift tax rules, or under the laws of any state, local, foreign or other taxing jurisdiction or under any applicable tax treaty.

The following description of the material terms of the ETC common shares is not complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to ETC’s partnership agreement that will be in effect at the effective time.

ETC common shares entitle the holders to participate in partnership distributions and to exercise the rights and privileges available to limited partners under ETC’s partnership agreement. For a description of the rights and preferences of holders of ETC common shares in and to ETC’s distributions, please read “Comparison of Rights of ETC Shareholders and WMB Stockholders” and “Additional Information About ETC—Cash Distribution Policy and Restrictions on Distributions.” For a description of the rights and privileges of shareholders under ETC’s partnership agreement, including voting rights, please read “Comparison of Rights of ETC Shareholders and WMB Stockholders” and “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement.” ETC intends to apply to list its common shares on the NYSE under the symbol “ETC” prior to the effective time.

By transfer of ETC common shares in accordance with ETC’s partnership agreement, each transferee of ETC common shares will be admitted as an ETC shareholder when such transfer and admission is reflected in ETC’s books and records. Additionally, each transferee of ETC common shares:

A transferee will become a substituted limited partner for the transferred ETC common shares automatically upon the recording of the transfer on ETC’s books and records. ETC GP will cause any transfers to be recorded on ETC’s books and records no less frequently than quarterly.

ETC may, at its discretion, treat the nominee holder of an ETC common share as the absolute owner. In that case, the beneficial holder’s rights are limited solely to those that it has against the nominee holder as a result of any agreement between the beneficial owner and the nominee holder.

ETC common shares are securities and are transferable according to the laws governing transfers of securities. In addition to other rights acquired upon transfer, the transferor gives the transferee the right to become a substituted limited partner in ETC’s partnership for the transferred shares.

Until an ETC common share has been transferred on ETC’s books, ETC and the transfer agent, notwithstanding any notice to the contrary, may treat the record holder of the share as the absolute owner for all purposes, except as otherwise required by law or stock exchange regulations.

American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC will serve as registrar and transfer agent for ETC common shares. ETC will pay all fees charged by the transfer agent for transfers of ETC common shares except the following fees that will be paid by ETC shareholders:

There will be no charge to holders of common shares for disbursements of ETC cash distributions. ETC will indemnify the transfer agent, its agents and each of ETC shareholders, directors, officers and employees against all claims and losses that may arise out of acts performed or omitted for its activities in that capacity, except for any liability due to any gross negligence or intentional misconduct of the indemnified person or entity.

The transfer agent may at any time resign, by notice to ETC, or be removed by ETC. The resignation or removal of the transfer agent will become effective upon ETC’s appointment of a successor transfer agent and registrar and its acceptance of the appointment. If no successor has been appointed and accepted the appointment within 30 days after notice of the resignation or removal, ETC is authorized to act as the transfer agent and registrar until a successor is appointed.

ETC is a limited partnership and WMB is a corporation. Ownership interests in a limited partnership are fundamentally different from ownership interests in a corporation. The rights of ETC shareholders are governed by the ETC partnership agreement and the DRULPA. The rights of WMB stockholders are governed by WMB’s certificate of incorporation and by-laws and the DGCL. If the merger is completed, the rights of WMB stockholders as holders of ETC common shares will be governed by ETC’s partnership agreement and the DRULPA.

There are many differences between the rights of WMB stockholders and the rights of ETC shareholders. The following description summarizes the material differences that may affect the rights of ETC shareholders and WMB stockholders but does not purport to be a complete statement of all those differences, or a complete description of the specific provisions referred to in this summary. The identification of specific differences is not intended to indicate that other equally significant or more significant differences do not exist. WMB stockholders should read carefully the relevant provisions of ETC’s partnership agreement, a form of which is attached to this proxy statement/prospectus as Annex C. WMB stockholders should also read carefully the relevant provisions and WMB’s certificate of incorporation and by-laws, copies of which may be obtained as described in the section titled “Where You Can Find More Information.”

General. Under Section 262 of the DGCL, holders of shares of WMB common stock who do not vote in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement (or otherwise waive appraisal rights) and who properly comply with the procedures specified in Section 262 of the DGCL will be entitled to appraisal rights under Delaware law to have the Delaware Court of Chancery determine the “fair value” of such stockholder’s WMB shares as of the effective time (exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger) and thereafter to receive payment of such “fair value” in cash, together with interest, if any, at the rate specified in Section 262 of the DGCL in lieu of receiving the per share merger consideration. For the avoidance of doubt, if declared, the pre-merger special dividend will be payable to all record holders of issued and outstanding shares of WMB common stock immediately prior to the effective time (contingent on the consummation of the merger) regardless of whether such holders demand appraisal of their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL.

The following discussion is not a full summary of the law pertaining to appraisal rights under the DGCL and is qualified in its entirety by the full text of Section 262 of the DGCL that is attached to this proxy statement/prospectus as Annex E. All references in Section 262 of the DGCL and in this summary to a “stockholder” are to the record holder of the shares of WMB common stock. The following discussion does not constitute any legal or other advice, nor does it constitute a recommendation that you exercise your rights to seek appraisal under Section 262 of the DGCL.

Under Section 262 of the DGCL, when a merger is submitted for approval at a meeting of stockholders as in the case of the adoption of the merger agreement, WMB, not less than 20 days prior to the meeting, must notify each stockholder who was a WMB stockholder on the record date for notice of such meeting with respect to shares for which appraisal rights are available, that appraisal rights are available and include in the notice a copy of Section 262 of the DGCL. This proxy statement/prospectus constitutes the required notice, and a copy of Section 262 of the DGCL is attached to this proxy statement/prospectus as Annex E. A holder of WMB common stock who wishes to exercise appraisal rights or who wishes to preserve the right to do so should review the following discussion and Annex E carefully. Failure to strictly comply with the procedures of Section 262 of the DGCL in a timely and proper manner will result in the loss of appraisal rights. A stockholder who loses his, her or its appraisal rights will be entitled to receive the per share merger consideration and will be treated as not having made an election with respect to the form of merger consideration such stockholder wishes to receive.

How to Exercise and Perfect Your Appraisal Rights. WMB stockholders wishing to exercise the rights to seek an appraisal of their shares must do ALL of the following:

Voting, in person or by proxy, against, abstaining from voting on or failing to vote on the adoption of the merger agreement will not constitute a written demand for appraisal as required by Section 262 of the DGCL. The written demand for appraisal must be in addition to and separate from any proxy or vote.

Who May Exercise Appraisal Rights. Only a holder of record of shares of WMB common stock is entitled to demand an appraisal of the shares registered in that holder’s name. A demand for appraisal must be executed by

or on behalf of the stockholder of record. The demand should set forth, fully and correctly, the stockholder’s name as it appears on the stock certificates (or in the stock ledger). The demand must reasonably inform WMB of the identity of the stockholder and that the stockholder intends to demand appraisal of his, her or its common stock. Beneficial owners who do not also hold their shares of common stock of record may not directly make appraisal demands to WMB. The beneficial holder must, in such cases, have the owner of record, such as a bank, brokerage firm or other nominee, submit the required demand in respect of those shares of common stock of record. A record owner, such as a bank, brokerage firm or other nominee, who holds shares of WMB common stock as a nominee for others, may exercise his, her or its right of appraisal with respect to the shares of WMB common stock held for one or more beneficial owners, while not exercising this right for other beneficial owners. In that case, the written demand should state the number of shares of WMB common stock as to which appraisal is sought. Where no number of shares of WMB common stock is expressly mentioned, the demand will be presumed to cover all shares of WMB common stock held in the name of the record owner.

IF YOU HOLD YOUR SHARES IN BANK OR BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS OR OTHER NOMINEE FORMS, AND YOU WISH TO EXERCISE APPRAISAL RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH YOUR BANK, BROKERAGE FIRM OR OTHER NOMINEE, AS APPLICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FOR THE BANK, BROKERAGE FIRM OR OTHER NOMINEE TO MAKE A DEMAND FOR APPRAISAL OF THOSE SHARES. IF YOU HAVE A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN SHARES HELD OF RECORD IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER PERSON, SUCH AS A BANK, BROKERAGE FIRM OR OTHER NOMINEE, YOU MUST ACT PROMPTLY TO CAUSE THE RECORD HOLDER TO FOLLOW PROPERLY AND IN A TIMELY MANNER THE STEPS NECESSARY TO PERFECT YOUR APPRAISAL RIGHTS.

If you own shares of WMB common stock jointly with one or more other persons, as in a joint tenancy or tenancy in common, demand for appraisal must be executed by or for you and all other joint owners. An authorized agent, including an agent for two or more joint owners, may execute the demand for appraisal for a stockholder of record; however, the agent must identify the record owner and expressly disclose the fact that, in making the demand, such person is acting as agent for the record owner. If you hold shares of WMB common stock through a broker who in turn holds the shares through a central securities depository nominee such as Cede & Co., a demand for appraisal of such shares must be made by or on behalf of the depository nominee and must identify the depository nominee as record holder.

If you elect to exercise appraisal rights under Section 262 of the DGCL, you should mail or deliver a written demand to:

The Surviving Company’s Actions After Completion of the Merger. If the merger is consummated, the surviving company will give written notice that the merger has become effective within 10 days after the effective time to each stockholder that did not vote in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and delivered a written demand for appraisal in accordance with Section 262 of the DGCL. Any stockholder that has not commenced an appraisal proceeding or joined such a proceeding as a named party may withdraw a demand for appraisal and accept the per share merger consideration, without interest, by delivering a written withdrawal of the demand for appraisal to the surviving company, except that any attempt to withdraw made more than 60 days after the effective time will require written approval of the surviving company. Within 120 days after the effective time, but not later, any stockholder that has complied with the requirements of Section 262 of the DGCL and who is otherwise entitled to appraisal rights or the surviving company may commence an appraisal proceeding by filing a petition in the Delaware Court of Chancery, with a copy served on the surviving company

in the case of a petition filed by a stockholder, demanding a determination of the value of the shares of WMB common stock held by all such stockholders. The surviving company is under no obligation to file an appraisal petition and has no intention of doing so. If you desire to have your shares appraised, you should initiate any petitions necessary for the perfection of your appraisal rights within the time periods and in the manner prescribed in Section 262 of the DGCL.

Within 120 days after the effective time, any stockholder that has complied with the provisions of Section 262 of the DGCL will be entitled to receive from the surviving company, upon written request, a statement setting forth the aggregate number of shares not voted in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and with respect to which WMB has received demands for appraisal, and the aggregate number of holders of those shares. Upon receiving such a written request, the surviving company must mail the statement within the later of 10 days of receipt by the surviving company of the request or 10 days after expiration of the period for delivery of demands for appraisal. If you are the beneficial owner of shares of stock held in a voting trust or by a nominee on your behalf you may, in your own name, file an appraisal petition or request from the surviving company the statement described in this paragraph.

If a petition for appraisal is duly filed by any holder of WMB common stock who has properly perfected his, her or its appraisal rights in accordance with the provisions of Section 262 of the DGCL, and a copy of the petition is delivered to the surviving company, the surviving company will then be obligated, within 20 days after receiving service of a copy of the petition, to provide the Delaware Register in Chancery with a duly verified list containing the names and addresses of all holders who have demanded an appraisal of their shares. The Delaware Court of Chancery will then determine which stockholders have complied with the provisions of Section 262 of the DGCL and have become entitled to appraisal rights and may require the stockholders demanding appraisal who hold certificated shares to submit their stock certificates to the Register in Chancery for notation thereon of the pendency of the appraisal proceedings and the Delaware Court of Chancery may dismiss the proceedings as to any stockholder who fails to comply with this direction. Where proceedings are not dismissed or the demand for appraisal is not successfully withdrawn, the appraisal proceeding will be conducted as to the shares of WMB common stock owned by such stockholders in accordance with the rules of the Delaware Court of Chancery, including any rules specifically governing appraisal proceedings. The Delaware Court of Chancery will thereafter determine the fair value of the shares of WMB common stock at the effective time held by all stockholders who have properly perfected appraisal rights, exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger. When the fair value is determined, the Delaware Court of Chancery will direct the payment of such fair value, with interest thereon, if any, to the stockholders entitled to receive the same, upon surrender by such stockholders of their stock certificates or, in the case of book-entry shares, forthwith. Unless the Delaware Court of Chancery in its discretion determines otherwise for good cause shown, interest from the effective time through the date of payment of the judgment will be compounded quarterly and will accrue at 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate (including any surcharge) as established from time to time during the period between the effective time and the date of payment of the judgment.

In determining the fair value, and, if applicable, interest, the Delaware Court of Chancery is required to take into account all relevant factors. In Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court discussed the factors that could be considered in determining fair value in an appraisal proceeding, stating that “proof of value by any techniques or methods which are generally considered acceptable in the financial community and otherwise admissible in court” should be considered and that “[f]air price obviously requires consideration of all relevant factors involving the value of a company.” The Delaware Supreme Court has stated that, in making this determination of fair value, the court must consider market value, asset value, dividends, earnings prospects, the nature of the enterprise and any other factors which could be ascertained as of the date of the merger which throw any light on future prospects of the merged corporation. Section 262 of the DGCL provides that fair value is to be “exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger.” In Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court stated that such exclusion is a “narrow exclusion [that] does not encompass known elements of value,” but which rather applies only to the speculative elements of value arising from such accomplishment or expectation. In Weinberger, the Delaware Supreme Court construed

Section 262 of the DGCL to mean that “elements of future value, including the nature of the enterprise, which are known or susceptible of proof as of the date of the merger and not the product of speculation, may be considered.” An opinion of an investment banking firm as to the fairness from a financial point of view of the consideration payable in a merger is not an opinion as to, and does not in any manner address, fair value under Section 262 of the DGCL. The fair value of your shares as determined under Section 262 of the DGCL could be greater than, the same as, or less than the value of the per share merger consideration. We do not anticipate offering more than the per share merger consideration to any stockholder exercising appraisal rights and reserve the right to assert, in any appraisal proceeding, that, for purposes of Section 262, the “fair value” of a share of WMB common stock is less than the value of the per share merger consideration.

If no party files a petition for appraisal within 120 days after the effective time, then all stockholders will lose the right to an appraisal, and will instead receive the per share merger consideration, without interest thereon, less any withholding taxes.

The Delaware Court of Chancery may determine the costs of the appraisal proceeding and may tax those costs against the parties as the Delaware Court of Chancery deems to be equitable under the circumstances. However, costs do not include attorneys and expert witness fees. Each stockholder is responsible for its own attorneys and expert witnesses expenses, although, upon application of a stockholder, the Delaware Court of Chancery may order all or a portion of the expenses incurred by any stockholder in connection with the appraisal proceeding, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and the fees and expenses of experts, to be charged pro rata against the value of all shares entitled to appraisal.

Any stockholder that has duly demanded an appraisal in compliance with Section 262 of the DGCL will not, after the effective time, be entitled to vote the shares of WMB common stock subject to that demand for any purpose or receive any dividends or other distributions on those shares, except dividends or other distributions payable to holders of record of shares of WMB common stock as of a record date prior to the effective time.

Any stockholder that has not commenced an appraisal proceeding or joined such a proceeding as a named party may withdraw a demand for appraisal and accept the per share merger consideration by delivering a written withdrawal of the demand for appraisal to the surviving company, except that any attempt to withdraw made more than 60 days after the effective time will require written approval of the surviving company. No appraisal proceeding in the Delaware Court of Chancery will be dismissed as to any stockholder without the approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery and such approval may be conditioned on the terms the Delaware Court of Chancery deems just, provided, however, that this provision will not affect the right of any stockholder who has not commenced an appraisal proceeding or joined such proceeding as a named party to withdraw such stockholder’s demand for appraisal and to accept the terms offered in the merger within 60 days. If you fail to perfect, successfully withdraw or lose the appraisal right, your shares will be converted into the right to receive the per share merger consideration, without interest thereon, less any withholding taxes.

Failure to follow the steps required by Section 262 of the DGCL for perfecting appraisal rights may result in the loss of appraisal rights. In that event, you will be entitled to receive the per share merger consideration for your shares in accordance with the merger agreement. In view of the complexity of the provisions of Section 262 of the DGCL, if you are a WMB stockholder and are considering exercising your appraisal rights under the DGCL, you should consult your own legal advisor.

THE PROCESS OF DEMANDING AND EXERCISING APPRAISAL RIGHTS REQUIRES STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH TECHNICAL PREREQUISITES. IF YOU WISH TO EXERCISE YOUR APPRAISAL RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH YOUR OWN LEGAL COUNSEL. TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE FOREGOING SUMMARY AND SECTION 262 OF THE DGCL, THE DGCL WILL GOVERN.

Unless the context requires otherwise, in this section (a) references to “ETC,” “we,” “us” and “our,” when used in the present or future tense, mean Energy Transfer Corp LP and its consolidated subsidiaries and (b) references to “we,” “us” and “our,” when used in a historical context, means Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. our accounting predecessor and its consolidated subsidiaries. References to “ETE” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries, which include ETP, Regency (for periods prior to the closing of the Regency merger on April 30, 2015), ETP GP, ETP LLC, Panhandle (or Southern Union prior to its merger into Panhandle in January 2014), Sunoco, SXL and ETP Holdco.

We are a recently formed Delaware limited partnership that will be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Upon the completion of the merger transactions, our primary cash generating asset will consist of ETE Class E units, which will represent an approximate 57% limited partner interest in ETE following the completion of the merger transactions. In the future, we may own assets or equity interests in addition to our limited partner interests in ETE and may engage in any business activity approved by our general partner.

The ETE Class E units will be entitled to receive the same quarterly cash distribution per unit as the quarterly cash distribution per ETE common unit. ETE has agreed to provide all administrative services to ETC and to indemnify ETC for all non-tax liabilities incurred by ETC. Therefore, ETC expects to distribute 100% of the quarterly cash distributions it receives from ETE in respect of the ETE Class E units, after deduction for federal and state income taxes, if any, to the holders of the ETC common shares. In addition, during the dividend equalization period, the ETC shareholders will receive a quarterly cash distribution per ETC common share that is identical in amount to the quarterly cash distribution paid by ETE on each ETE common unit. As discussed in “Summary—Recent Developments—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC,” following the closing of the merger, ETE does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units or ETE Class E Units prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018. If ETE does not make a cash distribution on its ETE Class E Units until such time, then ETC will not have any cash available for distribution on its common shares.

In general, distributions on our common shares will be treated as distributions on corporate stock for federal income tax purposes. No Schedule K-1s will be issued with respect to the common shares, but instead holders of common shares will receive a Form 1099 from us with respect to distributions received on the ETC common shares.

ETE (NYSE: ETE) is a publicly traded master limited partnership whose principal sources of cash flow are derived from its direct and indirect equity interests in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP), Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. (NYSE: SXL) and Sunoco LP (NYSE: SUN), all of which are publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related businesses. As of March 31, 2016, the market capitalization of ETE common units totaled approximately $7.45 billion.

As of March 31, 2016, after giving effect to the Sunoco Retail Acquisition and the Sunoco Equity Offering, ETE’s direct and indirect equity interests in ETP, SXL and Sunoco consisted of the following:

In addition to the equity interests described above, ETE owns all of the equity interests in Lake Charles LNG, an entity that owns a fully constructed LNG import terminal and regasification facility near Lake Charles, Louisiana, and a 60% equity interest in LCL, an entity whose subsidiary is developing an LNG liquefaction/ export facility that will be integrated with Lake Charles LNG’s import/regasification facility. ETP owns the remaining 40% equity interest in LCL. Please see “—Overview of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.—Investments in Lake Charles LNG and LCL” below for more information on the LNG liquefaction project.

As a result of ETE’s ownership of 100% of the IDRs in ETP and Sunoco, as well as ETE’s rights to receive cash distributions equivalent to 90.15% of the incentive distributions of SXL, ETE is positioned to grow its quarterly cash distribution disproportionately relative to the growth rate for the cash distributions on the common units of ETP, SXL and Sunoco. As our primary cash-generating asset following the completion of the merger transactions will consist of ETE Class E units, we are similarly positioned to benefit disproportionately from the growth in the cash distributions of ETP, SXL and Sunoco. Accordingly, we can only achieve additional cash flow, and increase distributions to our common shareholders, through the execution by ETE, ETP, SXL and Sunoco of their respective business strategies.

amount per ETP common unit that has resulted in ETE receiving a portion of the distributions with respect to its ownership of ETP IDRs based on the highest sharing level of 48%. For each quarter since the quarter ended September 30, 2012, SXL has made cash distributions in an amount per SXL common unit that has resulted in ETE and ETP receiving a portion of the distributions with respect to their ownership of SXL IDRs based on the highest sharing level of 48%. Additionally, for each quarter since the quarter ended June 30, 2015, Sunoco has made cash distributions in an amount per Sunoco common unit that has resulted in ETE receiving a portion of the distributions with respect to its ownership of Sunoco IDRs based on the highest sharing level of 50%. Through its ownership of ETP Class H Units and 0.1% of the membership interests in Sunoco Partners LLC, the general partner of SXL, ETE is entitled to 90.15% of the cash distributions from SXL’s IDRs and general partner interest. Please see “—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources” beginning on page 284 of this proxy statement/prospectus for more information on the distributions received by ETE and the distributions paid by ETP, SXL and Sunoco.

The cash distributions we will receive from ETE will be tied to (i) the quarterly distribution amount per ETE Class E unit, which will be the same distribution amount as ETE distributes with respect to each ETE common unit and (ii) the number of ETE Class E units that we will own. An increase or decrease in either factor (assuming the other factor remains constant or increases) will result in an increase or decrease, as applicable, in the amount of cash distributions we will receive from ETE. The cash distributions ETE receives from ETP and Sunoco and the cash distributions ETE and ETP receive from SXL in respect of their respective IDRs are tied to (i) the per unit distribution level of such ETE Entity, (ii) the roll off of existing IDR subsidies or ETE-paid management fees at any ETE Entity and (iii) the number of units outstanding of such ETE Entity. In addition, ETE receives take or pay payments from the BG Group under the regasification services agreement relating to services at Lake Charles LNG’s regasification facility. Without taking into consideration the roll off of the existing IDR subsidies or ETE-paid management fees, an increase in the per unit distribution level or the number of units outstanding (assuming the other factor remains constant or increases) will result in an increase in the amount of cash distributions ETE receives from ETP and Sunoco and the cash distributions ETE and ETP receive from SXL in respect of their respective IDRs.

The growth of each ETE Entity’s business has resulted in significant increases in ETE’s per unit distribution level and outstanding equity capitalization. Since January 1, 2012, on a split-adjusted basis, ETE has increased its quarterly cash distribution by approximately 80% from $0.1563 per common unit, or $0.63 on an annualized basis, to $0.2850 per common unit, or $1.14 on an annualized basis, for the quarter ended March 31, 2016. In addition, ETP and SXL have increased their respective quarterly cash distributions and outstanding common units during the time period from January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2016, and Sunoco has increased its quarterly cash distributions and outstanding units during the time period from January 1, 2013 (the first quarter following its initial public offering) through March 31, 2016, as follows:

With respect to the first purpose, many institutional investors have regulatory restrictions, internal investment restrictions or tax issues that deter them from making direct investments in publicly traded limited partnerships; however, due to our election to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, these institutional investors may be permitted to make direct investments in our equity securities. As with other entities that are general partners of publicly traded limited partnerships that are structured as corporations or as limited partnerships that elect to be treated as corporations for federal income tax purposes, ETE believes that our structure will attract equity capital from these types of institutional investors.

With respect to the second primary purpose, our structure is expected to facilitate strategic acquisitions due to our ability to issue equity securities that have the tax attributes of a corporation. ETE received a private letter ruling from the IRS that will allow us to issue our equity securities as the consideration to acquire another company and then contribute the equity interests of the acquired company to ETE in exchange for additional ETE Class E units without causing ETE to be treated as an investment company for federal income tax purposes.

ETE (NYSE: ETE) is a publicly traded master limited partnership whose principal sources of cash flow are derived from its direct and indirect equity interests in ETP, SXL and Sunoco, all of which are publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related businesses. In addition to direct and indirect equity interests in ETP, SXL and Sunoco, ETE owns all of the equity interests in Lake Charles LNG, an entity that owns a fully constructed LNG import terminal and regasification facility near Lake Charles, Louisiana, and a 60% equity interest in LCL, an entity whose subsidiary is developing an LNG liquefaction facility and export terminal that will be in integrated with Lake Charles LNG’s import/regasification facility. ETE believes that these investments are well positioned to continue to generate attractive distribution growth over the next several years as discussed below.

ETP is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships in the United States in terms of equity market capitalization (approximately $16.78 billion as of March 31, 2016). ETP is managed by its general partner, ETP GP, which is indirectly owned by ETE. The primary activities in which ETP is engaged, all of which are in the United States, and the operating subsidiaries through which ETP conducts those activities, are as follows:

ETP remains focused on the full integration and optimization of its diversified asset portfolio to enhance unitholder value. ETP has taken advantage of numerous asset optimization opportunities through strategic transactions among ETP and its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, and ETP expects to continue to evaluate and execute on such opportunities. ETP will also continue to look for opportunities to simplify its organization, which may include additional sales or transfers of non-core assets or businesses. As ETP has in the past, it will evaluate growth projects and acquisitions as such opportunities may be identified in the future and ETP intends to continue to maintain sufficient liquidity to allow it to fund such potential growth projects and acquisitions. ETP intends to continue its goal of maintaining a distribution coverage ratio of 1.05x, thereby promoting a prudent balance between distribution rate increases and enhanced financial flexibility and strength while maintaining its investment grade ratings.

While ETP anticipates significant earnings growth in 2017 from the completion of its fully-contracted project backlog, ETP is currently experiencing the impacts of recent declines in commodity prices, as well as challenging conditions in the capital markets.

The current constraints in the capital markets affect ETP’s ability to obtain funding through new borrowings or the issuance of common units. In addition, ETP expects that, to the extent it arranges new financing, ETP will incur increased costs. In light of the current market conditions, ETP has taken steps to preserve its liquidity position, including, but not limited to, reducing discretionary capital expenditures, maintaining its cash distribution rate and continuing to manage operating and administrative costs to improve profitability. With the closing of the previously announced Sunoco Retail Acquisition in March 2016, the outstanding balance of ETP’s $3.75 billion revolver was close to zero. As a result, ETP does not expect the need to access the fixed income market in 2016. In addition, with its reduction in discretionary capital expenditures and with other related asset sales, ETP does not anticipate the need for common equity issuances in 2016.

Current market conditions also indicate that many of ETP’s customers may encounter increased credit risk in the near term. In particular, ETP’s transportation and midstream revenues are derived significantly from companies that engage in exploration and production activities. Many of ETP’s customers have been negatively impacted by the recent declines in commodity prices, as well as current conditions in the capital markets. ETP continues to evaluate the financial condition of existing counterparties, monitor agency credit ratings, and implement credit practices that limit exposure according to the risk profiles of its counterparties.

With respect to commodity prices, crude oil and NGL prices have declined sharply and are at decade-long lows, and ETP expects prices to remain challenged for the foreseeable future due to general oversupply. However, ETP believes that it is well-positioned to benefit from changes in natural gas and NGL supply and demand fundamentals. While ETP continues to increase its presence in domestic producing basins, ETP has also

recently focused on projects that will position ETP as a leader in the export of hydrocarbons. These projects include the construction and operation of two pipelines on behalf of a consortium, which pipelines are expected to be in service in the first quarter of 2017 and will transport natural gas for CFE, Mexico’s state power company. The Trans-Pecos pipeline will be an approximately 143-mile, 42-inch pipeline expected to deliver at least 1.356 Bcf/d of natural gas from the Waha Hub to the U.S./Mexico border near Presidio, Texas, while the Comanche Trail Pipeline will be an approximately 195-mile, 42-inch pipeline expected to deliver at least 1.135 Bcf/d of natural gas from the Waha Hub to the U.S./Mexico border near San Elizario, Texas. In addition, ETP has announced a number of other significant growth projects that are expected to drive growth over the next several years, including:

ETP’s Investment in Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. In connection with its acquisition of Sunoco, Inc. in October 2012, ETP acquired all of the IDRs and general partner interest in SXL, as well as approximately 67.0 million common units of SXL, on a split-adjusted basis. Through its ownership of ETP Class H Units, ETE is entitled to 90.05% of the cash distributions that ETP receives from SXL in respect of SXL’s IDRs and general partner interest. Please see “Additional Information About ETE—Cash Distribution Policy of ETE and the ETE Entities—ETP’s Cash Distribution Policy” for more information on the ETP Class H Units.

SXL owns and operates a logistics business, consisting of a geographically diverse portfolio of complementary pipeline, terminalling and acquisition and marketing assets that are used to facilitate the purchase and sale of crude oil, NGLs and refined products primarily in the northeast, midwest and southwest regions of the United States. In addition, SXL owns interests in several product pipeline joint ventures. SXL’s portfolio of geographically diverse assets earns revenues in more than 35 states located throughout the United States, and its business is comprised of the following three segments:

SXL’s primary business strategies focus on generating stable cash flow by increasing pipeline and terminal throughput, utilizing its acquisition and marketing assets to maximize value, pursuing economically accretive organic growth opportunities, and continuing to improve operational efficiencies and reduce costs. SXL also utilizes its pipeline systems to take advantage of market dislocations. In 2015, SXL invested $2.8 billion in organic growth capital projects and acquisitions to improve operational efficiencies, reduce costs, expand existing facilities and construct new assets to increase throughput volume, storage, or the scope of services SXL is able to provide. These included projects to: invest in the previously announced Mariner projects and Allegheny Access pipeline project; invest in SXL’s crude oil infrastructure by increasing pipeline capabilities through previously announced expansion capital and joint projects; expand the service capabilities of SXL’s acquisition and marketing activities; and upgrade the service capabilities at SXL’s bulk marine terminals.

Expansion capital expenditures in 2016 will include continued progress on the following previously announced growth projects:

Mariner East 1 and Mariner East 2. The Mariner East project transports NGLs from the Marcellus and Utica Shale areas in Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Eastern Ohio to destinations in Pennsylvania, including SXL’s Marcus Hook Industrial Complex on the Delaware River, where they are processed, stored and distributed to local, domestic and waterborne markets. The first phase of the project, referred to as Mariner East 1, consisted of interstate and intrastate propane and ethane service and commenced operations in the fourth quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2016, respectively. The second phase of the project, referred to as Mariner East 2, will expand the total takeaway capacity to 345,000 bbls/d for interstate and intrastate propane, ethane and butane service, and is expected to commence operations in the first half of 2017.

Permian Longview and Louisiana Extension. This project will enable SXL to provide takeaway capacity for approximately 100,000 additional Bbls/d from the basin at Midland, Texas to the Longview, Texas area as well as destinations in Louisiana utilizing a combination of SXL’s proprietary crude oil system and third-party pipelines. This project is expected to commence operations in mid-2016.

Delaware Basin Extension. The Delaware Basin Extension project will provide shippers with new takeaway capacity from the rapidly growing Delaware Basin area in New Mexico and West Texas to Midland, Texas. The project will consist of approximately 125 miles of new build pipeline and is anticipated to have initial capacity to transport approximately 100,000 Bbls/d. The pipeline is expected to be operational in mid-2016.

Bayou Bridge. This project consists of newly constructed pipeline that will deliver crude oil from Nederland, Texas to refinery markets in Louisiana. The Bayou Bridge pipeline is a joint project with ETP and Phillips 66 (“P66”), and SXL will be the operator of the pipeline. Commercial operations are expected to begin in the first quarter 2016.

Bakken. The Bakken project consists of existing and newly constructed pipelines that are expected to provide aggregate takeaway capacity of approximately 450,000 bbls/d of crude oil from the Bakken/Three Forks production area in North Dakota to key refinery and terminalling hubs in the midwest and Gulf Coast, including SXL’s Nederland terminal. The ultimate takeaway capacity target for the project is 570,000 bbls/d. The pipeline system is a joint project with ETP and P66, and we expect to reach agreement to become the operator of the pipeline system. Commercial operations are expected to commence in the fourth quarter 2016.

ETP’s Retail Marketing. ETP’s retail marketing business is conducted through its wholly owned subsidiary, Sunoco, Inc. ETP’s retail marketing operations include the sales of motor fuel (gasoline and diesel) and merchandise at company-operated retail locations and branded convenience stores conducted in 14 states, primarily on the east coast and south regions of the United States.

ETP also currently own a 68.42% membership interest in Sunoco, LLC, which distributes approximately 5.3 billion gallons per year of motor fuel to customers in the east, midwest and southwest regions of the United States. The remaining 31.58% membership interest in Sunoco, LLC is held by Sunoco. Sunoco also owns 50.1% of the voting interests in Sunoco, LLC.

ETP expects to contribute to Sunoco the remaining 68.42% interest in Sunoco, LLC and 100% interest in the legacy Sunoco, Inc. retail business for $2.23 billion. Sunoco will pay ETP $2.03 billion in cash, subject to certain working capital adjustments, and will issue to ETP 5.7 million Sunoco common units. The transaction will be effective January 1, 2016 and is expected to close in March 2016.

ETP’s retail marketing segment also currently owns 37.8 million Sunoco common units. Please see “—Overview of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.—ETP’s Retail Marketing” for a description of Sunoco’s business.

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 in which ETE owns 60% and ETP owns the remaining 40%, is in the process of developing the liquefaction project in conjunction with BG Group pursuant to a project development agreement entered into in September 2013. Pursuant to this agreement, each of LCL and BG Group is 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 Group 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 440 acres of land, of which 80 acres are owned by Lake Charles LNG and the remaining acres are to be leased by LCL under a long-term lease from the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District.

The construction of the liquefaction project is subject to each of LCL and Royal Dutch Shell plc, which completed its acquisition of BG Group in February 2016, 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 Group will enter into several agreements related to the project, including a liquefaction services agreement pursuant to which BG Group 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 Group, 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 Royal Dutch Shell plc will make an affirmative FID in 2016 and then commence construction of the liquefaction project in order to place the first and second LNG trains in service in 2021 and the train in service in early 2022.

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 Group and ETP and, following FID, will be 100% owned by BG Group. 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, LCL must also receive 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. ETE expects the receipt of the wetlands permit from the USACE in the first quarter of 2016.

On March 8, 2016, ETE completed the private offering of Convertible Units to certain ETE common unitholders who are “accredited investors” (as defined in Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act) (the “offerees”). The Convertible Units were issued to offerees who elected to participate in a plan (the “Plan”) to forgo a portion of their future potential cash distributions on ETE common units participating in the Plan for a period of up to nine fiscal quarters, commencing with distributions for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2016 (the “plan period”), and reinvest those distributions in the Convertible Units. Each offeree who elected to participate in the Plan (an “Electing Unitholder”) received one Convertible Unit for each ETE common unit that such Electing Unitholder validly elected to participate in the Plan (each such ETE common unit, a “Participating Common Unit”). The Convertible Units will automatically convert into ETE common units at the Conversion Price (defined below) at the end of the plan period as described below.

ETE issued 329,299,267 Convertible Units to the Electing Unitholders at the closing of the offering (the “Closing”), which represents the participation by ETE common unitholders with respect to approximately 31.5% of the total outstanding ETE common units. ETE’s Chairman, Kelcy L. Warren, participated in the Plan with respect to substantially all of his ETE common units, which represent approximately 18% of the total outstanding ETE common units, and was issued 187,313,942 Convertible Units. In addition, John McReynolds, a director of LE GP and President of LE GP; and Matthew S. Ramsey, a director of LE GP, ETP LLC and Sunoco GP LLC and President of ETP LLC, participated in the Plan with respect to substantially all of their common units, and Marshall S. McCrea, III, a director of LE GP, ETP LLC and SXL GP and the Group Chief Operating Officer and

Chief Commercial Officer of LE GP, participated in the Plan with respect to a substantial portion of his common units. The common units for which Messrs. McReynolds, Ramsey and McCrea elected to participate in the Plan collectively represent approximately 2.2% of ETE’s total outstanding common units. ETE issued 21,382,155 Convertible Units to Mr. McReynolds, 51,317 Convertible Units to Mr. Ramsey and 1,112,728 Convertible Units to Mr. McCrea. In accordance with the ETE partnership agreement, the board of directors of LE GP determines the amount of cash available for distribution by ETE each quarter and the amount of the quarterly cash distribution to unitholders. Therefore, as directors of LE GP, each of Messrs. Warren, McReynolds, Ramsey and McCrea, together with the other directors of LE GP, exercise control over ETE’s distributions. Mr. Warren, as the owner of 81.2% of the membership interest in LE GP, has the ability to appoint and remove the directors of LE GP. Mr. Ray Davis, who owns the remaining 18.8% membership interests in LE GP, participated in the Plan with respect to substantially all of his ETE common units, which represents approximately 6.9% of ETE’s total outstanding common units, and was issued 72,042,486 Convertible Units. Other than Mr. Davis, no other Electing Unitholder owns a material amount of equity securities of ETE or its affiliates and neither Mr. Davis nor such other Electing Unitholders has the ability to exercise control over ETE’s distributions.

Electing Unitholders received one Convertible Unit for each Participating Common Unit. With respect to each quarter for which the declaration date and record date occurs prior to the closing of the merger, or earlier termination of the merger agreement (the “WMB End Date”), each Participating Common Unit will receive the same cash distribution as all other ETE common units up to $0.11 per unit, which represents approximately 40% of the per unit distribution paid with respect to ETE common units for the quarter ended December 31, 2015 (the “Preferred Distribution Amount”), and the holder of such Participating Common Unit will forgo all cash distributions in excess of that amount (other than (i) any non-cash distribution or (ii) any cash distribution that is materially and substantially greater, on a per unit basis, than ETE’s most recent regular quarterly distribution, as determined by the ETE general partner (such distributions in clauses (i) and (ii), “Extraordinary Distributions”)).

With respect to each quarter for which the declaration date and record date occurs after the WMB End Date, each Participating Common Unit will forgo all distributions for each such quarter (other than Extraordinary Distributions), and each Convertible Unit will receive the Preferred Distribution Amount payable in cash prior to any distribution on ETE common units (other than Extraordinary Distributions).

The plan period will end on the first business day following the date that is the earliest of (a) May 18, 2018, (b) the date upon which the Convertible Units would be convertible into 136,612,021 ETE common units (the quotient of $1.0 billion and the closing price of the ETE common units on the NYSE on the closing date of the private offering), (c) the date of a change of control of ETE or (d) the date of the dissolution of ETE.

(the “Conversion Value Cap”), less the cash distribution actually paid with respect to each Convertible Unit for such quarter (or, if prior to the WMB End Date, each Participating Common Unit). Any cash distributions in excess of $0.285 per ETE common unit, and any Extraordinary Distributions, made with respect to any quarter during the plan period will be disregarded for purposes of calculating the Conversion Value.

The Convertible Units, as well as all Participating Common Units owned by the Electing Unitholders, are not transferable during the plan period without the prior written consent of the ETE general partner. Further, in connection with their participation in the Plan, Electing Unitholders have agreed not to enter into any hedging transaction (including the purchase of any puts, calls or other derivative instruments) with respect to any equity or equity-linked securities of ETE during the plan period.

Initially, ETE intended to provide the opportunity to participate in the Plan to all of its common unitholders on substantially the same terms as the private offering. The merger agreement requires ETE and WMB to obtain the other party’s consent to take certain actions prior to the closing of the merger. ETE believes that the terms of the merger agreement permitted ETE to provide the opportunity to participate in the Plan to all of its common unitholders. In order to offer participation in the Plan to all of its common unitholders, ETE would have been required to file a registration statement with the SEC relating to the public offering of the Convertible Units. Such a filing would require the consent of WMB’s independent registered accounting firm to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of its report on WMB’s audited financial statements. However, after ETE advised WMB of ETE’s intention to pursue a public offering of the Convertible Units pursuant to the Plan, WMB declined to allow its independent registered accounting firm to provide the auditor consent required to be included in a registration statement for a public offering. As a result, in light of what ETE viewed as an important step to address potential cash needs (including to finance part of the consideration payable to WMB stockholders in the merger), ETE determined to conduct a private offering to certain accredited investors that was not subject to the SEC rules requiring the consent of WMB’s independent registered accounting firm. In connection with the proposed public offering, WMB advised ETE that WMB believed its consent was required under the merger agreement for the public offering and declined to consent. ETE believes that both the proposed public offering and the completed private offering are permitted by the terms of the merger agreement and as a result did not request WMB’s consent to pursue the private offering.

How Our Partnership Agreement Terms Differ from those of Other Publicly Traded Partnerships

Although we are organized as a limited partnership, the terms of our partnership agreement differ from those of ETE and many other publicly traded partnerships. For example:

For a more complete description of the terms of our partnership agreement, please read the summaries in “Description of ETC Common Shares” and “—Description of Our Partnership Agreement,” as well as Annex C—First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Energy Transfer Corp LP.

We and ETE and some of our respective affiliated entities are subject to litigation relating to the merger. Please read “The Merger—Litigation Relating to the Merger” for a summary of the litigation relating to the merger.

The ETE Entities are also parties to various legal proceedings and/or regulatory proceedings incidental to their collective business. Any adverse result in these proceedings could result in a reduction in the cash that ETE distributes to ETC, which in turn, would reduce the cash ETC has available to distribute to the ETC common shareholders.

We and our general partner have no employees. All of the officers and other personnel necessary for our business to function (to the extent not outsourced) will be employed by the ETE general partner. ETE will reimburse the ETE general partner for expenses incurred (i) on our behalf; (ii) on behalf of our general partner; or (iii) for any other purpose related to our business and activities or those of our general partner. ETE will also reimburse our general partner for any additional expenses incurred on our behalf or to maintain our legal existence and good standing. These additional expenses will include recurring costs associated with being a separate publicly traded entity, including expenses associated with (i) compensation for new directors, (ii) incremental director and officer liability insurance, (iii) listing on the NYSE, (iv) investor relations, (v) legal matters and (vi) accounting.

You should read the following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with the historical consolidated financial statements of ETE and our unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial statements included elsewhere in this proxy statement/prospectus. Among other things, those historical and pro forma financial statements include more detailed information regarding the basis of presentation for the following discussion. In addition, you should read “Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” for information regarding certain risks inherent in our, ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ respective businesses.

References to the “Parent Company” in this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” subsection means Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. on a stand-alone basis.

ETE has agreed to provide all administrative services to ETC and to indemnify ETC for all non-tax liabilities incurred by ETC. Therefore, ETC expects to distribute 100% of the quarterly cash distributions it receives from ETE in respect of the ETE Class E units, after deducting for federal and state income taxes, if any, to the holders of the ETC common shares.

The ETE Class E units that we will own will be entitled to receive the same quarterly cash distribution per unit as the quarterly cash distribution paid per ETE common unit. In addition, during the dividend equalization period, ETE is obligated to make distributions on and/or special allocations of depreciation or other forms of cost recovery to the ETE Class E units to ensure that ETC has sufficient cash to pay distributions on each ETC common share in an amount equal to 100% of the distributions paid by ETE on each ETE common unit. As discussed in “Summary—Recent Developments—Updated Financial Forecasts of ETC,” following the closing of the merger, ETE does not expect to make any cash distributions with respect to its common units or ETE Class E Units prior to the distribution payable with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2018. If ETE does not make a cash distribution on its ETE Class E Units until such time, then ETC will not have any cash available for distribution on its common shares.

In general, distributions on ETC common shares will be treated as distributions on corporate stock for federal income tax purposes. No Schedule K-1s will be issued with respect to the ETC common shares, but instead holders of ETC common shares will receive a Form 1099 from ETC with respect to the distributions they receive on the ETC common shares.

In addition to the equity interests described above, ETE owns all of the equity interests in Lake Charles LNG, an entity that owns a fully constructed LNG import terminal and regasification facility near Lake Charles, Louisiana, and a 60% equity interest in LCL, an entity whose subsidiary is developing an LNG liquefaction/ export facility that will be integrated with Lake Charles LNG’s import/regasification facility. ETP owns the remaining 40% equity interest in LCL. Please see “—Overview of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. —Investments in Lake Charles LNG and LCL” above for more information on the LNG liquefaction project.

Currently, ETE primarily receives its cash flows from its direct and indirect equity interests in ETP, SXL and Sunoco. For each quarter since the quarter ended November 30, 2004, ETP has made cash distributions in an amount per ETP common unit that has resulted in ETE receiving a portion of the distributions with respect to its

ownership of ETP IDRs based on the highest sharing level of 48%. For each quarter since the quarter ended September 30, 2012, SXL has made cash distributions in an amount per SXL common unit that has resulted in ETE and ETP receiving a portion of the distributions with respect to their ownership of SXL IDRs based on the highest sharing level of 48%. Additionally, for each quarter since the quarter ended June 30, 2015, Sunoco has made cash distributions in an amount per Sunoco common unit that has resulted in ETE receiving a portion of the distributions with respect to its ownership of Sunoco IDRs based on the highest sharing level of 50%. Through its ownership of ETP Class H Units and 0.1% of the membership interests in Sunoco Partners LLC, the general partner of SXL, ETE is entitled to 90.15% of the cash distributions from SXL’s IDRs and general partner interest. Please see “—Liquidity and Capital Resources” for more information on the distributions received by ETE and the distributions paid by ETP, SXL and Sunoco.

We are the managing member of and control ETE GP, which will be the successor entity to LE GP and the general partner of ETE following the GP merger. Therefore, under generally accepted accounting principles, we reflect our ownership in ETE GP and its subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis. Accordingly, our financial results are combined with those of ETE as well as with its subsidiaries and our results of operations do not differ materially from the results of operations of ETE. The most noteworthy reconciling items between our consolidated financial statements and those of ETE primarily relate to the presentation of partnership and noncontrolling interests in ETE. In addition to the noncontrolling interests reflected on ETE’s consolidated financial statements, the interests in ETE that are not owned by us will be reflected as noncontrolling interests in our consolidated financial statements.

ETE will bear the cost for our general and administrative expenses, and direct annual expenses for recurring costs associated with being a separate publicly traded entity, including expenses associated with (i) compensation for new directors, (ii) incremental director and officer liability insurance, (iii) listing on the NYSE, (iv) investor relations, (v) legal matters and (vi) accounting.

Each of the respective general partners of ETP, SXL and Sunoco have separate operating management and boards of directors. ETE controls ETP and, following the Sunoco exchange transaction described below, Sunoco through its ownership of their respective general partners. ETP controls SXL through its ownership of its general partner.

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 ETE’s consolidated group.

In December 2015, ETP announced that the Lake Charles LNG project has received approval from the FERC to site, construct and operate a natural gas liquefaction and export facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana. On February 15, 2016, Royal Dutch Shell plc completed its acquisition of BG Group plc. Final investment decisions from Royal Dutch Shell plc and LCL are expected to be made in 2016, with construction to start immediately following an affirmative investment decision and first LNG export anticipated about four years later.

The conditions to terminate the subordination period under Sunoco’s partnership agreement were satisfied by Sunoco upon the payment to its unitholders of its quarterly cash distribution on November 27, 2015. As a result, effective November 30, 2015, all 10,939,436 Sunoco subordinated units were converted on a one-for-one basis into Sunoco common units (the “Sunoco Subordinated Units Conversion”). As a result of the Sunoco Subordinated Units Conversion, Sunoco no longer has any subordinated units outstanding, and the Sunoco common units are no longer entitled to arrearages in cash distributions.

In March 2015, ETP contributed to Sunoco the remaining 68.42% interest in Sunoco, LLC and the legacy Sunoco retail business, in exchange for approximately $2.2 billion in cash (including working capital) and the issuance to ETP of approximately 5.7 million Sunoco common units. The transaction was effective January 1, 2016.

On November 15, 2015, Sunoco entered into common unit purchase agreements with certain institutional investors and ETE, pursuant to which, Sunoco agreed to sell 26,315,789 Sunoco common units to such institutional investors and ETE pursuant to private placements at a purchase price of $31.00 per Sunoco common unit, as adjusted by a $2.50 per Sunoco common unit purchase price adjustment. Sunoco expects to receive gross proceeds of approximately $750 million from the Sunoco Equity Offering, which Sunoco intends to use to repay outstanding borrowings under its $1.5 billion revolving credit facility and for general partnership purposes. The sale of Sunoco common units to the institutional investors closed on December 3, 2015, and the sale of the Sunoco common units to ETE closed contemporaneously with the closing of the Sunoco Retail Acquisition in March 2016.

On August 21, 2015, ETE completed its acquisition of 100% of the membership interests of Sunoco GP, the general partner of Sunoco, and all of the IDRs of Sunoco from ETP, in exchange for the repurchase by ETP of 21,000,000 ETP common units owned by ETE.

On July 31, 2015, ETP completed a previously announced transaction, pursuant to which Sunoco acquired all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Susser from ETP, in exchange for approximately $970 million in cash, subject to certain working capital adjustments, and the issuance to Heritage Holdings and ETP Holdco of 21,978,980 Sunoco Class B Units. The Sunoco Class B Units are identical to the Sunoco common units in all respects, except that such Class B Units were not entitled to distributions payable with respect to the second quarter of 2015. The Sunoco Class B Units converted, on a one-for-one basis, into Sunoco common units on August 19, 2015.

On July 27, 2015, ETE effected a two-for-one split of its outstanding common units. The ETE unit split was effected by a distribution of one ETE common unit for each ETE common unit outstanding and held by unitholders of record at the close of business on July 15, 2015.

In May 2015, ETP announced that its subsidiary, Lone Star, would construct a fourth NGL fractionation facility at Mont Belvieu, Texas. Fractionator IV, estimated to cost approximately $450 million, is scheduled to be operational by December 2016. The 120,000 Bbls/d fractionator is fully subscribed by multiple long-term contracts and will provide off-take for the new 533-mile, 24- and 30-inch Lone Star Express pipeline.

In May 2015, ETP announced that it has reached agreement with SXL for SXL to participate in the Bakken pipeline project described below, which is jointly owned by ETP and Phillips 66. The project consists of existing and newly constructed pipelines that are expected to provide aggregate takeaway capacity of approximately 470,000 Bbls/d of crude oil from the Bakken/Three Forks production area in North Dakota to key refinery and

terminalling hubs in the Midwest and Gulf Coast, including SXL’s Nederland terminal. The ultimate takeaway capacity for the project is 570,000 Bbls/d. The pipeline system is supported by long-term fee based contracts and is expected to begin commercial operations in the fourth quarter of 2016. SXL will fund its proportionate share of the construction costs in proportion to its 30% interest in the project. ETP also anticipates reaching agreement with SXL for SXL to become the operator of the pipeline system. The parties closed this transaction in October 2015.

On April 30, 2015, ETP consummated the Regency merger, with Regency continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of ETP. At the effective time of the Regency merger, each Regency common unit and Class F unit was converted into the right to receive 0.4124 ETP common units. ETP issued 172.2 million ETP common units to Regency unitholders, including 15.5 million units issued to ETP subsidiaries. The 1.9 million outstanding Regency Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Units were converted into corresponding new Series A Cumulative Preferred Unit representing a limited partner interest in ETP on a one-for-one basis. In connection with the Regency merger, ETE agreed to reduce the incentive distributions it receives from ETP by a total of $320 million over a five-year period. The IDR subsidy was $80 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 and will total $60 million per year for the following four years.

In March 2015, ETE transferred 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 approximately $879 million in cash to ETP 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 SXL. 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.

In October 2015, SXL completed the previously announced acquisition of a 40% membership interest (the “Bakken Membership Interest”) in Bakken Holdings Company LLC (“Bakken Holdco”). Bakken Holdco, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, owns a 75% membership interest in each of Dakota Access, LLC and Energy Transfer Crude Oil Company, LLC, which together intend to develop the Bakken Pipeline system to deliver crude oil from the Bakken/Three Forks production area in North Dakota to the Gulf Coast. ETP transferred the Bakken Membership Interest to SXL in exchange for approximately 9.4 million Class B Units representing limited partner interests in SXL and the payment by SXL to ETP of $382 million of cash, which represented reimbursement for its proportionate share of the total cash contributions made in the Bakken Pipeline project as of the date of closing of the exchange transaction.

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 project, estimated to cost between $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion is expected to be operational by the second quarter of 2016.

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. The first plant was placed in service in July 2015 and the second plant is expected to be in service in January 2016.

In November 2014, ETP announced that Lone Star would construct a third natural gas liquids fractionator at its facility in Mont Belvieu, Texas, which would bring Lone Star’s total fractionation capacity at Mont Belvieu to 300,000 Bbls/d. This third fractionator was successfully placed into operation during December 2015.

In October 2014, ETE, ETP and Phillips 66 formed two joint ventures to develop the Bakken pipeline project. 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% interest and funds its proportionate share of the construction costs. These projects are expected to begin commercial operations in the fourth quarter of 2016.

In 2015, ETE repurchased approximately $1.06 billion of ETE common units under its current authorized $2.00 billion common unit buyback program.

ETE defines Segment Adjusted EBITDA as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization and other non-cash items, such as non-cash compensation expense, gains and losses on disposals of assets, the allowance for equity funds used during construction, unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities, non-cash impairment charges, losses on extinguishments of debt, 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). Segment Adjusted EBITDA reflects amounts for unconsolidated affiliates based on ETE’s proportionate ownership and amounts for less than wholly owned subsidiaries based on 100% of the subsidiaries’ results of operations.

Based on the following changes in ETE’s reportable segments, ETE adjusted the presentation of its segment results for the prior years to be consistent with the current year presentation. ETE previously presented reportable segments for its investments in ETP and Regency. ETP completed its acquisition of Regency in April 2015; therefore, the Investment in ETP segment amounts have been retrospectively adjusted to reflect Regency for the periods presented. Investment in Regency is no longer presented as a separate reportable segment.

The Investment in Sunoco LP segment reflects the results of Sunoco beginning August 29, 2014, the date that ETP originally obtained control of Sunoco. ETE’s consolidated results reflect the elimination of MACS, Sunoco, LLC and Susser for the periods during which those entities were included in the consolidated results of both ETP and Sunoco. In addition, subsequent to July 2015, ETP holds an equity method investment in Sunoco, LLC, and a continuing investment in Sunoco, the equity in earnings from which is also eliminated in ETE’s consolidated financial statements.

Three Months Ended March 31, 2016 Compared to the Three Months Ended March 31, 2015

See the detailed discussion of Segment Adjusted EBITDA in “Segment Operating Results” below.

Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization. Depreciation, depletion and amortization for the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to the same period last year increased primarily due to additional depreciation and amortization from assets recently placed in service.

Interest Expense, Net. Interest expense for the three months ended March 31, 2016 increased primarily due to the following:

Losses on Interest Rate Derivatives. Losses on interest rate derivatives during the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 is primarily attributable to the impact on our forward starting swaps locks from the downward shift in the forward LIBOR curve.

Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Commodity Risk Management Activities. See additional discussion of the unrealized gains (losses) on commodity risk management activities included in the discussion of segment results below.

Inventory Valuation Adjustments. Inventory valuation reserve adjustments were recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, for the inventory associated with Sunoco, SXL and ETP’s retail marketing operations as a result of commodity price changes between periods.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Unconsolidated Affiliates and Equity in Earnings of Unconsolidated Affiliates. Amounts reflected primarily include our proportionate share of such amounts related to AmeriGas, FEP, HPC, MEP and Citrus.

Other, net. Includes amortization of regulatory assets, certain acquisition related costs and other income and expense amounts.

Income Tax Expense (Benefit). For the three months ended March 31, 2016, ETE’s effective income tax rate decreased from the prior year primarily due to lower earnings among ETE’s consolidated corporate subsidiaries. The three months ended March 31, 2016 also reflected a benefit of $9 million of net state tax benefit attributable to statutory state rate changes resulting from the contribution by ETP to Sunoco of its remaining 68.42% interest in Sunoco, LLC and 100% interest in the legacy Sunoco, Inc. retail business.

Segment Adjusted EBITDA. For the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to the same period last year, Segment Adjusted EBITDA related to the Investment in ETP increased due to the net impact of the following:

Unrealized Losses on Commodity Risk Management Activities. Unrealized losses on commodity risk management activities primarily reflected the net impact from unrealized gains and losses on natural gas storage and non-storage derivatives, as well as fair value adjustments to inventory. For the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to the same period in the prior year, the changes included $11 million and $3 million of increases from unrealized losses related to derivatives from ETP’s midstream operations and intrastate transportation and storage services operations, respectively, partially offset by a decrease of $2 million related to ETP’s Investment in SXL operations.

Operating Expenses, Excluding Non-Cash Compensation Expense. For the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to the same period last year, ETP’s operating expenses decreased $271 million as a result of ETP’s deconsolidation of Sunoco and the remainder of its retail marketing operations.

Selling, General and Administrative, Excluding Non-Cash Compensation Expense. For the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to the same period last year, ETP’s selling, general and administrative expenses decreased $49 million as a result of ETP’s deconsolidation of Sunoco and the remainder of its retail marketing operations in addition to a $22 million decrease in other operations as a result of a reduction in allocations and lower employee related expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2016.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Unconsolidated Affiliates. Adjusted EBITDA related to unconsolidated affiliates for the three months ending March 31, 2016 increased compared to the same period last year primarily due to $57 million of adjusted EBITDA related to Sunoco, which is an equity method investment subsequent to July 1, 2015 as a result of ETP’s deconsolidation.

The Investment in Sunoco segment reflects the results of Sunoco for all periods presented. Sunoco obtained control of Sunoco, LLC in April 2015, Susser in July 2015 and the legacy Sunoco, Inc. retail business in March 2016. Because these entities were under common control, Sunoco recast its financial statements to retrospectively consolidate each of the entities beginning August 29, 2014. The segment results above are presented on the same basis as Sunoco LP’s standalone financial statements; therefore, the segment results above also include Sunoco, LLC, Susser and the legacy Sunoco, Inc. retail business beginning August 29, 2014. Sunoco, LLC and Susser were also consolidated by ETP until April 2015 and July 2015, respectively; therefore, the results from those entities are reflected in both the Investment in ETP and the Investment in Sunoco segments for the three months ended March 31, 2015. ETE’s consolidated results reflect the elimination of Sunoco, LLC, Susser and the legacy Sunoco, Inc. retail business for the periods during which those entities were included in the consolidated results of both ETP and Sunoco. In addition, subsequent to July 2015, ETP holds an equity method investment in Sunoco, LLC, the equity in earnings from which is also eliminated in ETE’s consolidated financial statements.

Segment Adjusted EBITDA. The increase in Segment Adjusted EBITDA for the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to the same period in the prior year is primarily due to an increase in gross margin on wholesale motor fuels related to the Sunoco, LLC business and increases in the gross margin on retail motor fuel sales and merchandise sales, both primarily related to the Stripes business.

Lake Charles LNG derives all of its revenue from a long-term contract with BG Group plc.

See the detailed discussion of Segment Adjusted EBITDA in the Segment Operating Results section below.

Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization. Depreciation, depletion and amortization increased primarily as a result of acquisitions and growth projects, including an increase of $260 million primarily due to assets recently placed in service and recent acquisitions from ETP, and an increase of $141 million primarily due to a full year of Sunoco depreciation expense in 2015 as well as recent acquisitions.

Interest Expense, Net of Interest Capitalized. Interest expense increased primarily due to the following:

Gain on Sale of AmeriGas Common Units. During the year ended December 31, 2014, ETP sold 18.9 million of the AmeriGas common units that were originally received in connection with the contribution of its propane business to AmeriGas in January 2012. ETP recorded a gain based on the sale proceeds in excess of the carrying amount of the units sold. As of December 31, 2015, ETP’s remaining interest in AmeriGas common units consisted of 3.1 million units held by a wholly-owned captive insurance company.

Impairment Losses. In 2015, ETP recorded goodwill impairments of (i) $99 million related to Transwestern due primarily to the market declines in current and expected future commodity prices in the fourth quarter of 2015, (ii) $106 million related to Lone Star Refinery Services due primarily to changes in assumptions related to potential future revenues as well as the market declines in current and expected future natural gas prices, (iii) $110 million of fixed asset impairments related to Lone Star NGL Refinery Services primarily due to the economic obsolescence identified as a result of low utilization and expected decrease in future cash flows, and (iv) $24 million of intangible asset impairments related to Lone Star NGL Refinery Services primarily due to the economic obsolescence identified as a result of expected decrease in future cash flows. In 2014, a $370 million goodwill impairment was recorded at ETP related to the Permian Basin gathering and processing operations. The decline in estimated fair value of that reporting unit was primarily driven by a significant decline in commodity prices in the fourth quarter of 2014, and the resulting impact to future commodity prices as well as increases in future estimated operations and maintenance expenses.

Losses on Interest Rate Derivatives. Our interest rate derivatives are not designated as hedges for accounting purposes; therefore, changes in fair value are recorded in earnings each period. Losses on interest rate derivatives during the year ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 resulted from decreases in forward interest rates, which caused our forward-starting swaps to decrease in value.

Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Commodity Risk Management Activities. See discussion of the unrealized gains (losses) on commodity risk management activities included in the discussion of segment results below.

Inventory Valuation Adjustments. Inventory valuation reserve adjustments were recorded for the inventory associated with Sunoco, SXL and ETP’s retail marketing operations as a result of commodity price changes between periods.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Discontinued Operations. In 2014, amounts were related to a marketing business that was sold effective April 1, 2014.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Unconsolidated Affiliates and Equity in Earnings of Unconsolidated Affiliates. See additional information in “Supplemental Information on Unconsolidated Affiliates” and “Segment Operation Results” below.

Other, net. Other, net in 2015 and 2014 primarily includes amortization of regulatory assets and other income and expense amounts.

Income Tax (Expense) Benefit from Continuing Operations. Income tax expense is based on the earnings of our taxable subsidiaries. For the year ended December 31, 2015, ETE’s income tax expense decreased from the prior year primarily due to lower earnings among ETE’s consolidated corporate subsidiaries. The year ended December 31, 2015 also reflected a benefit of $24 million of net state tax benefit attributable to statutory state rate changes resulting from the Regency merger and sale of Susser to Sunoco, as well as a favorable impact of $11 million due to a reduction in the statutory Texas franchise tax rate which was enacted by the Texas legislature during the second quarter of 2015. For the year ended December 31, 2014, ETE’s income tax expense from continuing operations included unfavorable income tax adjustments of $87 million related to the Lake Charles LNG Transaction, which was treated as a sale for tax purposes.

Segment Adjusted EBITDA. For the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to the prior year, Segment Adjusted EBITDA related to the Investment in ETP increased primarily as a result of the following:

Unrealized Gains and Losses on Commodity Risk Management Activities. Unrealized gains on commodity risk management activities primarily reflected the net impact from unrealized gains and losses on natural gas storage and non-storage derivatives, as well as fair value adjustments to inventory. The change in unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities for 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily attributable to natural gas storage inventory and related derivatives.

Operating Expenses, Excluding Non-Cash Compensation Expense. Operating expenses related to ETP’s retail marketing operations increased $69 million, primarily due to recent acquisitions. Operating expenses related to ETP’s midstream operations increased $135 million primarily due to a primarily due to assets recently placed in service, including Rebel system in west Texas and King Ranch system in South Texas as well as the acquisition of Eagle Rock midstream assets in July 2014. Operating expenses also increased $24 million for ETP’s liquids transportation and services operations, primarily due to higher employee expenses, ad valorem taxes, utilities expense, project costs and materials and supplies expense.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, Excluding Non-Cash Compensation Expense. Selling, general and administrative expenses related to ETP’s investment in SXL operations decreased $15 million, expenses related to ETP’s interstate transportation and storage operations decreased by $10 million, and expenses related to ETP’s midstream operations decreased $10 million.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Discontinued Operations. In 2014, amounts were related to a marketing business that was sold effective April 1, 2014.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Unconsolidated Affiliates. ETP’s Adjusted EBITDA related to unconsolidated affiliates for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 consisted of the following:

These amounts represent ETP’s proportionate share of the Adjusted EBITDA of its unconsolidated affiliates and are based on ETP’s equity in earnings or losses of its unconsolidated affiliates adjusted for its proportionate share of the unconsolidated affiliates’ interest, depreciation, amortization, non-cash items and taxes.

The Investment in Sunoco segment reflects the results of Sunoco beginning August 29, 2014, the date that ETP originally obtained control of Sunoco. Sunoco obtained control of MACS in October 2014, Sunoco, LLC in April 2015, and Susser in July 2015. Because these entities were under common control, Sunoco recast its financial statements to retrospectively consolidate each of the entities beginning August 29, 2014. The segment results above are presented on the same basis as Sunoco’s standalone financial statements; therefore, the segment results above also include MACS, Sunoco, LLC and Susser beginning August 29, 2014. MACS, Sunoco, LLC and Susser were also consolidated by ETP until October 2014, April 2015 and July 2015, respectively; therefore, the results from those entities are reflected in both the Investment in ETP and the Investment in Sunoco segments for the respective periods in 2014 and 2015. ETE’s consolidated results reflect the elimination of MACS, Sunoco, LLC and Susser for the periods during which those entities were included in the consolidated results of both ETP and Sunoco. In addition, subsequent to July 2015, ETP holds an equity method investment in Sunoco, LLC, the equity in earnings from which is also eliminated in ETE’s consolidated financial statements.

Segment Adjusted EBITDA. The increase in Segment Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2015 is primarily due to the presentation of only a partial period of results for Sunoco in 2014, as discussed above.

Lake Charles LNG derives all of its revenue from a contract with a non-affiliated gas marketer.

Based on the change in ETE’s reportable segments, ETE adjusted the presentation of its segment results for the prior years to be consistent with the current year presentation.

See the detailed discussion of Segment Adjusted EBITDA in “—Segment Operating Results” below.

Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization. Depreciation, depletion and amortization increased primarily as a result of acquisitions and growth projects, including an increase of $254 million at Regency primarily due to depreciation, depletion and amortization related to the PVR, Eagle Rock and Hoover acquisitions, as well as additional depreciation, depletion and amortization recorded from assets placed in service in 2014 and 2013.

Interest Expense, Net of Interest Capitalized. Interest expense increased primarily due to the following:

Gain on Sale of AmeriGas Common Units. During the year ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, ETP sold 18.9 million and 7.5 million, respectively, of the AmeriGas common units that were originally received in connection with the contribution of its propane business to AmeriGas in January 2012. ETP recorded a gain based on the sale proceeds in excess of the carrying amount of the units sold. As of December 31, 2014, ETP’s remaining interest in AmeriGas common units consisted of 3.1 million units held by a wholly owned captive insurance company.

Goodwill Impairment. In 2013, Lake Charles LNG recorded a $689 million goodwill impairment. The decline in the estimated fair value was primarily due to changes related to (i) the structure and capitalization of the planned LNG liquefaction project at Lake Charles LNG’s Lake Charles import/regasification facility, (ii) an analysis of current macroeconomic factors, including global natural gas prices and relative spreads, as of the date of ETE’s assessment (iii) judgments regarding the prospect of obtaining regulatory approval for a proposed LNG export project and the uncertainty associated with the timing of such approvals and (iv) changes in assumptions related to potential future revenues from the import facility and the proposed export facility. An assessment of these factors in the fourth quarter of 2013 led to a conclusion that the estimated fair value of the Lake Charles LNG reporting unit was less than its carrying amount.

During the fourth quarter of 2014, a $370 million goodwill impairment was recorded related to Regency’s Permian Basin gathering and processing operations. The decline in estimated fair value of that reporting unit was primarily driven by the significant decline in commodity prices in the fourth quarter of 2014, and the resulting impact to future commodity prices as well as increases in future estimated operations and maintenance expenses. An assessment of these factors in the fourth quarter of 2014 led to a conclusion that the estimated fair value of Regency’s Permian reporting unit was less than its carrying amount.

Gains (Losses) on Interest Rate Derivatives. ETE’s interest rate derivatives are not designated as hedges for accounting purposes; therefore, changes in fair value are recorded in earnings each period. Losses on interest rate derivatives during the year ended December 31, 2014 resulted from decreases in forward interest rates, which caused ETE’s forward-starting swaps to decrease in value. Conversely, increases in forward interest rates resulted in gains on interest rate derivatives during the year ended December 31, 2013.

Unrealized Gains on Commodity Risk Management Activities. See discussion of the unrealized gains on commodity risk management activities included in the discussion of segment results below.

Inventory Valuation Adjustments. Inventory valuation reserve adjustments were recorded for the inventory associated with SXL’s crude oil and products inventories and ETP’s retail marketing operations as a result of commodity price changes between periods.

Losses on Extinguishments of Debt. For the year ended December 31, 2013, losses on extinguishment of debt were primarily related to ETE’s refinancing transactions completed in December 2013. In addition, the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 also reflected losses of $25 million and $7 million, respectively, related to Regency’s repurchase of its senior notes during the respective periods.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Discontinued Operations. In 2014, amounts were related to a marketing business that was sold effective April 1, 2014. In 2013, amounts primarily related to Southern Union’s local distribution operations.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Unconsolidated Affiliates and Equity in Earnings of Unconsolidated Affiliates. Amounts reflected primarily include ETE’s proportionate share of such amounts related to ETE’s equity method investees. See additional discussion of results in “—Segment Operating Results” below.

Non-Operating Environmental Remediation. Non-operating environmental remediation was primarily due to Sunoco, Inc.’s recognition of environmental obligations related to closed sites.

Other, net. Includes amortization of regulatory assets, certain acquisition related costs and other income and expense amounts.

Income Tax Expense from Continuing Operations. Income tax expense is based on the earnings of ETE’s taxable subsidiaries. In addition, the year ended December 31, 2014 included the impact of the Lake Charles LNG Transaction, which was treated as a sale for tax purposes, resulting in $76 million of incremental income tax expense.

Gross Margin. For the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to the prior year, ETP’s gross margin increased primarily as a result of the following:

Unrealized Gains on Commodity Risk Management Activities. Unrealized gains on commodity risk management activities primarily reflected the net impact from unrealized gains and losses on natural gas storage and non-storage derivatives, as well as fair value adjustments to inventory. The decrease in unrealized gains on commodity risk management activities for 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily attributable to natural gas storage inventory and related derivatives.

Operating Expenses, Excluding Non-Cash Compensation Expense. Operating expenses related to ETP’s retail marketing operations increased $254 million, primarily due to recent acquisitions. In addition, SXL’s operating expenses increased $44 million, primarily due to lower pipeline operating gains, increased pipeline maintenance costs and higher employee costs. Operating expenses related to ETP’s midstream operations increased $123 million primarily due to a $76 million increase in pipeline and plant maintenance and materials due to organic growth on Regency’s assets in South and West Texas, as well as Regency’s acquisitions of PVR, Eagle Rock midstream assets and Hoover in 2014. Operating expenses also increased $18 million for ETP’s liquids transportation and services operations, primarily due to the start-up of Lone Star’s second fractionator in Mont Belvieu, Texas in October 2013. These increases were partially offset by decreases in ETP’s operating expenses due to its deconsolidation of certain operations during the periods, including Lake Charles LNG effective January 1, 2014 and SUGS in April 2013.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, Excluding Non-Cash Compensation Expense. Selling, general and administrative expenses related to ETP’s retail marketing operations increased $29 million, primarily due to recent acquisitions. In addition, SXL’s selling, general and administrative expenses increased $28 million. Selling, general and administrative expenses also increased for ETP’s liquids transportation and services operations due to higher employee-related costs. These increases were partially offset by decreases in ETP’s expenses due to its deconsolidation of Lake Charles LNG effective January 1, 2014.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Discontinued Operations. In 2014, amounts were related to a marketing business that was sold effective April 1, 2014. In 2013, amounts primarily related to Southern Union’s distribution operations.

Adjusted EBITDA Related to Unconsolidated Affiliates. ETP’s Adjusted EBITDA related to unconsolidated affiliates for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 consisted of the following:

Other, net. In 2014 primarily includes amortization of regulatory assets and other income and expense amounts. In 2013 was primarily related to biodiesel tax credits recorded by Sunoco, Inc., amortization of regulatory assets and other income and expense amounts.

Amounts reflected above include comparative amounts for the year ended December 31, 2013, which preceded ETE’s direct investment in Lake Charles LNG effective January 1, 2014.

Lake Charles LNG derives all of its revenue from a contract with a non-affiliated gas marketer.

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 Sunoco and cash flows from the operations of Lake Charles LNG. The amount of cash that ETP and Sunoco distribute to their respective partners, including the Parent Company, each quarter is based on earnings from its business activities and the amount of available cash, as discussed below. In connection with previous transactions, ETE has relinquished a portion of its incentive distributions to be received from ETP and Sunoco, see additional discussion under “Cash Distributions.”

The Parent Company’s primary cash requirements are for general and administrative expenses, debt service requirements and distributions to its partners. The Parent Company currently expects to fund its short-term needs for such items with cash flows from its direct and indirect investments in ETP, Sunoco and Lake Charles LNG. The Parent Company distributes its available cash remaining after satisfaction of the aforementioned cash requirements to its unitholders on a quarterly basis.

In connection with the merger, the Parent Company has entered into the Commitment Letter with the Commitment Parties. For additional information regarding the Commitment Letter, see “The Merger—Financing Commitment.”

As of March 31, 2016, the Parent Company had approximately $7.0 billion of debt outstanding under its senior notes and credit facilities. After giving effect to the debt that will be incurred or assumed by the Parent Company in the merger, the Parent Company will have approximately $17.25 billion of debt outstanding. The Parent Company’s significant level of debt may adversely affect its financial and operating flexibility and ability to make distributions to its unitholders. In addition, if the Parent Company is not able to reduce its leverage ratio, then there is a risk that its credit ratings could be downgraded. Any such downgrade or other changes to the Parent Company’s financial metrics could also have a material impact on the Parent Company’s subsidiaries, including ETP, SXL, Sunoco and, assuming completion of the merger, WPZ. Prior to and following the merger, the Parent Company may seek to retire or purchase its outstanding debt through cash purchases and/or exchanges, in open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions, tender offers or otherwise. Any repurchases or exchanges will depend on prevailing market conditions, contractual restrictions in the Parent Company’s debt and other agreements and other factors, and the amounts involved may be material. The Parent Company may also make additional adjustments to its business plans to reduce its outstanding debt, including the sale of assets, the sale of equity securities, the reduction of cash distribution payments to its unitholders at the

current distribution rate or the suspension of such cash distributions for a certain period of time. The Parent Company will continue to monitor the capital markets and its capital structure and make changes to its capital structure from time to time, with the goal of reducing outstanding debt and maintaining financial flexibility, preserving or improving liquidity and/or achieving cost efficiency. ETE states that in order to maintain its credit ratings at current levels, it completed the private offering of Convertible Units. WMB has commenced litigation seeking, among other things, to unwind such offering. While ETE believes WMB’s claims are without merit, if WMB is successful in unwinding the Convertible Units offering, it could have a negative impact on ETE’s efforts to maintain its ratings with Moody’s, S&P or Fitch.

The Parent Company expects ETP, Sunoco and Lake Charles LNG and their respective subsidiaries to utilize their resources, along with cash from their operations, to fund their announced growth capital expenditures and working capital needs; however, the Parent Company may issue debt or equity securities from time to time, as the Parent Company deems prudent to provide liquidity for new capital projects of its subsidiaries or for other partnership purposes.

ETP’s ability to satisfy its obligations and pay distributions to its unitholders will depend on its future performance, which will be subject to prevailing economic, financial, business and weather conditions, and other factors, many of which are beyond the control of ETP’s management.

ETP currently expects capital expenditures (net of contributions in aid of construction costs) for the full year 2016 to be within the following ranges:

The assets used in ETP’s natural gas and liquids operations, including pipelines, gathering systems and related facilities, are generally long-lived assets and do not require significant maintenance capital expenditures. Accordingly, ETP does not have any significant financial commitments for maintenance capital expenditures in its businesses. From time to time ETP experiences increases in pipe costs due to a number of reasons, including but not limited to, delays from mills, limited selection of mills capable of producing large diameter pipe in a timely manner, higher steel prices and other factors beyond ETP’s control. However, ETP included these factors in its anticipated growth capital expenditures for each year.

ETP generally funds its maintenance capital expenditures and distributions with cash flows from operating activities. ETP generally funds growth capital expenditures with proceeds of borrowings under the ETP Credit Facility, long-term debt, the issuance of additional ETP common units, dropdown proceeds or the monetization of non-core assets or a combination thereof.

As of March 31, 2016, in addition to $715 million of cash on hand, ETP had available capacity under the ETP Credit Facility of approximately $3.75 billion. Based on ETP’s current estimates, it expects to utilize capacity under the ETP Credit Facility, along with cash from operations, to fund its announced growth capital expenditures and working capital needs through the end of 2016; however, ETP may issue debt or equity securities prior to that time as it deems prudent to provide liquidity for new capital projects, to maintain investment grade credit metrics or other partnership purposes.

SXL’s primary sources of liquidity consist of cash generated from operating activities and borrowings under its $2.50 billion credit facility. At March 31, 2016, SXL had available borrowing capacity of $1.56 billion under its revolving credit facility. In March 2015, SXL amended the credit facility to increase the size of the commitment from $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion. SXL’s capital position reflects crude oil and refined products inventories based on historical costs under the LIFO method of accounting. SXL periodically supplements its cash flows from operations with proceeds from debt and equity financing activities.

Sunoco’s primary sources of liquidity consist of cash generated from operating activities and occasional asset sales, issuance of additional partnership units and borrowings under its $1.50 billion credit facility. At March 31, 2016, Sunoco had available borrowing capacity of $825 million under its revolving credit facility. In 2016, Sunoco expects to invest between $390 million and $420 million in growth capital expenditures and between $100 million and $110 million in maintenance capital expenditures. Sunoco may revise the timing of these expenditures as necessary to adapt to economic conditions.

ETE’s cash flows may change in the future due to a number of factors, some of which ETE cannot control. These include regulatory changes, the price for ETE’s operating entities products and services, the demand for such products and services, margin requirements resulting from significant changes in commodity prices, operational risks, the successful integration of acquisitions and other factors.

Changes in cash flows from operating activities between periods primarily result from changes in earnings (as discussed in “Results of Operations” above), excluding the impacts of non-cash items and changes in operating assets and liabilities. Non-cash items include recurring non-cash expenses, such as depreciation, depletion and amortization expense and non-cash unit-based compensation expense. The increase in depreciation, depletion and amortization expense during the periods presented primarily resulted from the construction and acquisition of assets, while changes in non-cash compensation expense resulted from changes in the number of units granted and changes in the grant date fair value estimated for such grants. Cash flows from operating activities also differ from earnings as a result of non-cash charges that may not be recurring such as impairment charges and allowance for equity funds used during construction. The allowance for equity funds used during construction increases in periods when ETE has a significant amount of interstate pipeline construction in progress. Changes in operating assets and liabilities between periods result from factors such as the changes in the value of price risk management assets and liabilities, timing of accounts receivable collection, payments on accounts payable, the timing of purchases and sales of inventories, and the timing of advances and deposits received from customers.

Three Months Ended March 31, 2016 Compared to Three Months Ended March 31, 2015

Cash provided by operating activities during 2016 was $985 million as compared to $575 million for 2015. Net income was $336 million and $221 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively. The difference between net income and the net cash provided by operating activities for the three months ended March 31, 2016 primarily consisted of net changes in operating assets and liabilities of $90 million and non-cash items totaling $475 million.

The non-cash activity in 2016 and 2015 consisted primarily of depreciation, depletion and amortization of $562 million and $493 million, respectively, unit-based compensation expense of $1 million and $23 million, respectively, and equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates of $61 million and $57 million, respectively. Non-cash activity in 2016 and 2015 also included deferred income taxes of $46 million and $20 million, respectively.

Cash provided by operating activities in 2015 was $3.07 billion and net income was $1.09 billion. The difference between net income and cash provided by operating activities in 2015 primarily consisted of net non-cash items totaling $2.73 billion and changes in operating assets and liabilities of $1.16 billion. The non-cash activity in 2015 consisted primarily of depreciation, depletion and amortization of $2.08 billion, impairment losses of $339 million, deferred income tax expense of $242 million, inventory valuation adjustments of 249 million, losses on extinguishments of debt of $43 million and non-cash compensation expense of $91 million.

Cash provided by operating activities in 2014 was $3.18 billion and net income was $1.12 billion. The difference between net income and cash provided by operating activities in 2014 consisted of net non-cash items totaling $1.99 billion and changes in operating assets and liabilities of $231 million. The non-cash activity in 2014 consisted primarily of depreciation, depletion and amortization of $1.72 billion, goodwill impairment of $370 million, inventory valuation adjustments of $473 million, losses on extinguishments of debt of $25 million and non-cash compensation expense of $82 million, partially offset by the gain on the sale of AmeriGas common units of $177 million and a deferred income tax benefit of $50 million.

Cash provided by operating activities in 2013 was $2.42 billion and net income was $315 million. The difference between net income and cash provided by operating activities in 2013 consisted of net non-cash items totaling $1.94 billion and changes in operating assets and liabilities of $149 million. The non-cash activity consisted primarily of depreciation, depletion and amortization of $1.31 billion, goodwill impairment of $689 million, deferred income taxes of $43 million, losses on extinguishments of debt of $162 million and non-cash compensation expense of $61 million.

Cash flows from investing activities primarily consist of cash amounts paid for acquisitions, capital expenditures and cash contributions to ETE’s joint ventures. Changes in capital expenditures between periods primarily result from increases or decreases in growth capital expenditures to fund construction and expansion projects.

Three Months Ended March 31, 2016 Compared to Three Months Ended March 31, 2015

Cash used in investing activities during 2016 was $1.94 billion as compared to $2.59 billion for 2015. Total capital expenditures (excluding the allowance for equity funds used during construction and net of contributions in aid of construction costs) for 2016 were $1.94 billion. This compares to total capital expenditures (excluding the allowance for equity funds used during construction and net of contributions in aid of construction costs) for 2015 of $2.15 billion. During the three months ended March 31, 2015, ETE paid cash for acquisitions of $370 million, ETE paid $129 million for the purchase of noncontrolling interest and ETE received $64 million in proceeds from the sale of noncontrolling interest.

Cash used in investing activities in 2015 of $10.09 billion was comprised primarily of capital expenditures of $9.31 billion (excluding the allowance for equity funds used during construction and net of contributions in aid of construction costs). ETP invested $7.68 billion for growth capital expenditures and $485 million for maintenance capital expenditures during 2015. ETE paid net cash for acquisitions of $900 million, including the acquisition of a noncontrolling interest.

Cash used in investing activities in 2014 of $6.80 billion was comprised primarily of capital expenditures of $5.34 billion (excluding the allowance for equity funds used during construction and net of contributions in aid of construction costs). ETP invested $5.05 billion for growth capital expenditures and $444 million for maintenance capital expenditures during 2014. Regency invested $1.20 billion for growth capital expenditures and $98 million for maintenance capital expenditures during 2014. ETE paid cash for acquisitions of $2.37 billion and received $814 million in cash received from the sale of AmeriGas common units.

Cash used in investing activities in 2013 of $2.35 billion was comprised primarily of capital expenditures of $3.45 billion (excluding the allowance for equity funds used during construction and net of contributions in aid of construction costs). ETP invested $2.11 billion for growth capital expenditures and $343 million for maintenance capital expenditures during 2013. Regency invested $948 million for growth capital expenditures and $48 million for maintenance capital expenditures during 2013. These expenditures were partially offset by $1.01 billion and $346 million of cash received from the sale of the MGE and NEG assets and the sale of AmeriGas common units, respectively. In addition, ETP paid net cash of $405 million for acquisitions.

Changes in cash flows from financing activities between periods primarily result from changes in the levels of borrowings and equity issuances, which are primarily used to fund acquisitions and growth capital expenditures. Distribution increases between the periods were based on increases in distribution rates, increases in the number of common units outstanding at ETE’s subsidiaries and increases in the number of ETE’s common units outstanding.

Three Months Ended March 31, 2016 Compared to Three Months Ended March 31, 2015

Cash provided by financing activities during 2016 was $1.16 billion as compared to $3.03 billion for 2015. In 2016, ETP received $363 million in net proceeds from offerings of its common units as compared to $135

million in 2015. In 2016, SXL received $301 million in net proceeds from offerings of its common units as compared to $689 million in 2015. During 2016, we had a consolidated net increase in our debt level of $1.33 billion as compared to a net increase of $2.79 billion for 2015. We have paid distributions of $299 million and $244 million to our partners in 2016 and in 2015, respectively. Our subsidiaries have paid distributions to noncontrolling interest of $658 million and $565 million in 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Cash provided by financing activities was $6.76 billion in 2015. ETE had a consolidated increase in its debt level of $6.63 billion, primarily due to the issuance of Parent Company and subsidiary senior notes, as well as increases in ETE’s and its subsidiaries’ revolving credit facilities during 2015. ETE’s subsidiaries also received $3.89 billion in proceeds from common unit offerings, including $1.43 billion from the issuance of ETP common units and $2.46 billion from the issuance of other subsidiary common units. ETE paid distributions to partners of $1.09 billion, and its subsidiaries paid $2.34 billion on limited partner interests other than those held by the Parent Company. ETE also paid $1.06 billion to repurchase common units during the year ended December 31, 2015.

Cash provided by financing activities was $3.88 billion in 2014. ETE had a consolidated increase in its debt level of $4.49 billion, primarily due to Regency’s issuance of senior notes and assumption and debt, and SXL’s issuance of $2.00 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior notes in April 2014 and November 2014 (see Note 6 to ETE’s consolidated financial statements) and an increase of the Parent Company’s debt of $1.88 billion. ETE’s subsidiaries also received $3.06 billion in proceeds from common unit offerings, including $1.38 billion from the issuance of ETP common units, $428 million from the issuance of Regency common units and $1.25 billion from the issuance of other subsidiary common units. ETE paid distributions to partners of $821 million, and its subsidiaries paid $1.91 billion on limited partner interests other than those held by the Parent Company. ETE also paid $1.00 billion to repurchase common units during the year ended December 31, 2014.

Cash provided by financing activities was $146 million in 2013. ETE had a consolidated increase in its debt level of $983 million, primarily due to ETP’s issuance of $1.25 billion and $1.50 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior notes in January 2013 and September 2013, respectively, and SXL’s issuance of $700 million in aggregate principal amount of senior notes in January 2013 (see Note 6 to ETE’s consolidated financial statements). ETE’s subsidiaries also received $1.76 billion in proceeds from common unit offerings, which consisted of $1.61 billion from the issuance of ETP common units and $149 million from the issuance of Regency common units. ETE paid distributions to its partners of $733 million, and its subsidiaries paid $1.43 billion on limited partner interests other than those held by the Parent Company. ETE also paid $340 million to redeem its Series A Preferred Units.

ETE’s outstanding consolidated indebtedness at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 and 2014 was as follows:

The terms of ETE’s consolidated indebtedness and its subsidiaries are described in more detail below and in Note 6 to ETE’s consolidated financial statements.

The ETE senior notes are the Parent Company’s senior obligations, ranking equally in right of payment with its other existing and future unsubordinated debt and senior to any of its future subordinated debt. The Parent Company’s obligations under the ETE senior notes are secured on a first-priority basis with its obligations under

the ETE Credit Facility and the ETE Term Loan Facility, by a lien on substantially all of the Parent Company’s and certain of its subsidiaries’ tangible and intangible assets, subject to certain exceptions and permitted liens. The ETE senior notes are not guaranteed by any of the Parent Company’s subsidiaries.

The covenants related to the ETE senior notes include a limitation on liens, a limitation on transactions with affiliates, a restriction on sale-leaseback transactions and limitations on mergers and sales of all or substantially all of the Parent Company’s assets.

On December 2, 2013, the Parent Company entered into a Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement (the “ETE Term Credit Agreement”), which has a scheduled maturity date of December 2, 2019.

On April 16, 2014, the Parent Company amended the ETE Term Credit Agreement to increase the aggregate principal amount to $1.4 billion. On March 5, 2015, the Parent Company also entered into a five-year $850 million senior secured term loan C facility (the term loan facility under the ETE Term Credit Agreement and the senior secured term loan C facility, the “ETE Term Loan Facilities”).

The ETE Term Loan Facilities are secured on a first-priority, equal and ratable basis with its obligations under the revolving credit facility and the existing senior notes, by a lien on substantially all tangible and intangible assets of the Parent Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including (i) approximately 2.6 million ETP common units; (ii) approximately 81.0 million ETP Class H Units and 100 ETP Class I Units; (iii) ETE’s 100% equity interest in ETP LLC and ETP GP, through which ETE indirectly holds all of the outstanding general partnership interests in ETP and 100% of the outstanding IDRs in ETP and (iv) ETE’s 100% equity interest in Sunoco GP, through which ETE indirectly holds all of the outstanding general partner interests in Sunoco and 100% of the outstanding IDRs in Sunoco.

The ETE Term Loan Facilities contain customary covenants (in each case, subject to permitted exceptions) including, among others, the following:

The ETE Term Loan Facilities contain customary events of default, including its failure to comply with the financial ratios described above, which would permit the lenders to accelerate the debt if not cured within applicable grace periods.

In March 2016, Sunoco entered into a term loan agreement which provides secured financing in an aggregate principal amount of up to $2.035 billion due 2019. The full amount was borrowed by Sunoco as of March 31, 2016. Amounts borrowed under the term loan bear interest at either LIBOR or base rate plus an applicable margin based on Sunoco’s election for each interest period. The proceeds were used to fund a portion of the ETP dropdown and to pay fees and expenses incurred in connection with the ETP dropdown and the term loan.

The Parent Company is not required to make any amortization payments with respect to the term loans under the ETE Term Loan Facilities. Under certain circumstances, ETE is required to repay the term loan in connection with dispositions of (a) IDRs in ETP and (b) equity interests of any person which owns, directly or indirectly, IDRs in ETP yielding net proceeds in excess of $50 million.

Under the ETE Term Credit Agreement, the obligations of the Parent Company are secured by a lien on substantially all of the Parent Company’s and certain of its subsidiaries’ tangible and intangible assets, subject to certain exceptions and permitted liens. The ETE Term Loan Facilities initially are not guaranteed by any of the Parent Company’s subsidiaries.

Interest accrues on advances at a LIBOR rate or a base rate plus an applicable margin based on the election of the Parent Company for each interest period. The applicable margin for LIBOR rate loans is 2.50% and the applicable margin for base rate loans is 1.50%. Proceeds of the borrowings under the ETE Term Credit Agreement were used to partially fund a tender offer for ETE senior notes completed in December 2013, to repay amounts outstanding under the Parent Company’s existing term loan credit facility, and to pay transaction fees and expenses related to the tender offer, the ETE Term Loan Facilities and other transactions incidental thereto.

On October 21, 2015, ETE entered into the Commitment Letter with the Commitment Parties. Pursuant to the Commitment Letter, the Commitment Parties have committed to provide a 364-day secured term loan credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of $6.05 billion (or such lesser amount that ETE may elect to borrow). The total interest rate on such facility is capped at 5.50%, and the facility can be extended for an additional one year at the election of ETE. The commitment is subject to customary conditions for commitments of this type, including the execution of satisfactory definitive documentation.

On December 2, 2013, the Parent Company entered into a credit agreement (the “ETE Revolving Credit Agreement”), which has a scheduled maturity date of December 2, 2018. In February 2014, the Parent Company increased the capacity on the revolving credit facility under the ETE Revolving Credit Agreement to $800 million, in May 2014, the Parent Company increased the capacity on the revolving credit facility to $1.2 billion, and in February 2015, the Parent Company increased the capacity on the revolving credit facility to $1.5 billion. As of December 31, 2015, there were $860 million of outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility and the amount available for future borrowings was $640 million.

As part of the aggregate commitments under the facility, the ETE Revolving Credit Agreement provides for letters of credit to be issued at the request of the Parent Company in an aggregate amount not to exceed a $150 million sublimit.

Under the ETE Revolving Credit Agreement, the obligations of the Parent Company are secured by a lien on substantially all of the Parent Company’s and certain of its subsidiaries’ tangible and intangible assets. Borrowings under the ETE Revolving Credit Agreement are not guaranteed by any of the Parent Company’s subsidiaries.

Interest accrues on advances at a LIBOR rate or a base rate plus an applicable margin based on the election of the Parent Company for each interest period. The issuing fees for all letters of credit are also based on an applicable margin. The applicable margin used in connection with interest rates and fees is based on the then applicable leverage ratio of the Parent Company. The applicable margin for LIBOR rate loans and letter of credit fees ranges from 1.75% to 2.50% and the applicable margin for base rate loans ranges from 0.75% to 1.50%. The Parent Company will also pay a fee based on its leverage ratio on the actual daily unused amount of the aggregate commitments.

The ETP Credit Facility allows for borrowings of up to $3.75 billion and expires in November of 2019. The indebtedness under the ETP Credit Facility is unsecured and not guaranteed by any of ETP’s subsidiaries and has equal rights to holders of ETP’s current and future unsecured debt. The indebtedness under the ETP Credit Facility has the same priority of payment as its other current and future unsecured debt.

ETP uses the ETP Credit Facility to provide temporary financing for its growth projects, as well as for general partnership purposes. ETP typically repays amounts outstanding under the ETP Credit Facility with proceeds from common unit offerings or long-term notes offerings. The timing of borrowings depends on ETP’s activities and the cash available to fund those activities. The repayments of amounts outstanding under the ETP Credit Facility depend on multiple factors, including market conditions and expectations of future working capital needs, and ultimately are a financing decision made by management. Therefore, the balance outstanding under the ETP Credit Facility may vary significantly between periods. ETP does not believe that such fluctuations indicate a significant change in its liquidity position, because it expects to continue to be able to repay amounts outstanding under the ETP Credit Facility with proceeds from common unit offerings or long-term note offerings.

As of December 31, 2015, ETP had a balance of $1.36 billion outstanding under the ETP Credit Facility, and the amount available for future borrowing was $2.24 billion taking into account letters of credit of $145 million. The weighted average interest rate on the total amount outstanding as of December 31, 2015 was 1.86%.

On March 20, 2015, SXL amended and restated its existing $1.5 billion unsecured revolving credit agreement, which was entered into on November 19, 2013 (the “SXL Credit Facility”). The SXL Credit Facility provides for a total commitment of $2.5 billion and includes an “accordion” feature, under which the total aggregate commitment may be extended to $3.25 billion under certain conditions, including each increasing lender’s consent.

The SXL Credit Facility, which matures in March 2020, is available to fund SXL’s working capital requirements, to finance acquisitions and capital projects, to pay distributions and for general partnership purposes. The SXL Credit Facility bears interest at LIBOR or the Base Rate, each plus an applicable margin. The SXL Credit Facility may be prepaid at any time. Outstanding borrowings under the SXL Credit Facility were $562 million at December 31, 2015.

In September 2014, Sunoco entered into a $1.25 billion revolving credit agreement (the “Sunoco Credit Facility”), which expires in September 2019. In April 2015, the Sunoco Credit Facility was increased at Sunoco’s written request by an additional $250 million, resulting in total available borrowing capacity of $1.5 billion. As of December 31, 2015, the Sunoco Credit Facility had $450 million of outstanding borrowings.

The ETE Term Loan Facilities and ETE Revolving Credit Agreement contain customary representations, warranties, covenants, and events of default, including a change of control event of default and limitations on incurrence of liens, new lines of business, merger, transactions with affiliates and restrictive agreements.

The ETE Term Loan Facilities and ETE Revolving Credit Agreement contain financial covenants as follows:

The agreements relating to the ETP senior notes contain restrictive covenants customary for an issuer with an investment-grade rating from the rating agencies, which covenants include limitations on liens and a restriction on sale-leaseback transactions.

The credit agreement relating to the ETP Credit Facility contains covenants that limit (subject to certain exceptions) ETP’s and certain of ETP’s subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things:

The credit agreement relating to the ETP Credit Facility also contains a financial covenant that provides that the Leverage Ratio (as defined in the ETP Credit Facility) will not exceed 5.0 to 1 as of the end of each quarter, with a permitted increase to 5.5 to 1 during a Specified Acquisition Period (as defined in the ETP Credit Facility).

The agreements relating to the Transwestern senior notes contain certain restrictions that, among other things, limit the incurrence of additional debt, the sale of all or substantially all assets and the payment of dividends and specify a maximum debt to capitalization ratio.

Failure to comply with the various restrictive and affirmative covenants of ETE’s and its subsidiaries’ revolving credit facilities could require ETE or its subsidiaries to pay debt balances prior to scheduled maturity and could negatively impact the ability to incur additional debt and/or ability to pay distributions.

The indenture governing Panhandle’s senior notes contains various covenants that limit, subject to certain exceptions, Panhandle’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things, incur additional indebtedness, pay distributions on, or repurchase or redeem Panhandle’s equity interests, incur liens; enter into sale and leaseback transactions, enter into certain types of affiliates transactions and dispose of assets.

The SXL Credit Facility contains various covenants limiting its ability to incur indebtedness; grant certain liens; make certain loans, acquisitions and investments; make any material change to the nature of its business; or enter into a merger or sale of assets, including the sale or transfer of interests in its subsidiaries. The SXL Credit Facility also limits SXL, on a rolling four-quarter basis, to a maximum total consolidated debt to consolidated EBITDA ratio, as defined in the underlying credit agreement, of 5.0 to 1, which can generally be increased to 5.5 to 1 during an acquisition period. SXL’s ratio of total consolidated debt, excluding net unamortized fair value adjustments, to consolidated Adjusted EBITDA was 3.6 to 1 at December 31, 2015, as calculated in accordance with the credit agreement.

The Sunoco Credit Facility requires Sunoco to maintain a leverage ratio of not more than 5.50 to 1. The maximum leverage ratio is subject to upwards adjustments of (i) not more than 6.00 to 1 for a period not to exceed three fiscal quarters in the event Sunoco engages in an acquisition of assets, equity interests, operating lines or divisions by Sunoco, a subsidiary, an unrestricted subsidiary or a joint venture for a purchase price of not less than $50 million and (ii) not more than 6.25 to 1 for a period not to exceed four fiscal quarters following the closing of the Sunoco Retail Acquisition. Indebtedness under the Sunoco Credit Facility is secured by a security interest in, among other things, all of the Sunoco’s present and future personal property and all of the present and future personal property of its guarantors, the capital stock of its material subsidiaries (or 66% of the capital stock of material foreign subsidiaries), and any intercompany debt. Upon the first achievement by Sunoco of an investment grade credit rating, all security interests securing the Sunoco Credit Facility will be released.

ETE and its subsidiaries are required to assess compliance quarterly and were in compliance with all requirements, limitations, and covenants relating to their respective debt agreements as of March 31, 2016.

Each of the agreements referred to above are incorporated herein by reference to ETE’s, ETP’s, SXL’s and Sunoco’s reports previously filed with the SEC under the Exchange Act.

In order to finance the cash portion of the purchase price of the Propane Business, described in Note 3 to ETE’s consolidated financial statements, Finance Company issued $550 million in aggregate principal amount of 6.75% Senior Notes due 2020 and $1.0 billion in aggregate principal amount of 7.00% Senior Notes due 2022. AmeriGas borrowed $1.5 billion of the proceeds of the senior notes issuance from Finance Company through an intercompany borrowing having maturity dates and repayment terms that mirror those of the senior notes (the “Supported Debt”).

In connection with the closing of the contribution of the Propane Business, ETP entered into a Contingent Residual Support Agreement with AmeriGas, Finance Company, AmeriGas Finance Corp. and UGI Corp., pursuant to which ETP will provide contingent, residual support of the Supported Debt.

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

Corp. with respect to the payment of the principal amount of the Regency Debt through maturity in 2023. In connection with the completion of the Panhandle Merger, in which PEPL Holdings was merged with and into Panhandle, the guarantee of collection for the Regency Debt was assumed by Panhandle. Further, in connection with the Regency merger, ETP agreed to become a co-obligor with respect to Regency’s payment obligations under the Regency Debt and the guarantee of collection for the Regency Debt was terminated.

The following table summarizes ETE’s long-term debt and other contractual obligations as of December 31, 2015 (in millions):

Market risk includes the risk of loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and prices. We face market risk from commodity variations, risk and interest rate variations, and to a lesser extent, credit risks. From time to time, we may utilize derivative financial instruments as described below to manage our exposure to such risks.

For certain of ETP’s activities, it is exposed to market risks related to the volatility of commodity prices. To manage the impact of volatility from these prices, ETP utilizes various exchange-traded and over-the-counter commodity financial instrument contracts. These contracts consist primarily of futures and swaps and are recorded at fair value in the consolidated balance sheets. In general, ETP uses derivatives to reduce market exposure and price risk within its operations as follows:

The market prices used to value financial derivatives and related transactions have been determined using independent third party prices, readily available market information, broker quotes and appropriate valuation techniques.

If ETP designates a derivative financial instrument as a cash flow hedge and it qualifies for hedge accounting, the change in the fair value is deferred in AOCI until the underlying hedged transaction occurs. Any ineffective portion of a cash flow hedge’s change in fair value is recognized each period in earnings. Gains and losses deferred in AOCI related to cash flow hedges remain in AOCI until the underlying physical transaction occurs, unless it is probable that the forecasted transaction will not occur by the end of the originally specified time period or within an additional two-month period of time thereafter. For financial derivative instruments that do not qualify for hedge accounting, the change in fair value is recorded in cost of products sold in the consolidated statements of operations.

If ETP designates a hedging relationship as a fair value hedge, ETP records the changes in fair value of the hedged asset or liability in cost of products sold in its consolidated statement of operations. This amount is offset by the changes in fair value of the related hedging instrument. Any ineffective portion or amount excluded from the assessment of hedge ineffectiveness is also included in cost of products sold in its consolidated statements of operations.

ETP uses futures and basis swaps, designated as fair value hedges, to hedge its natural gas inventory stored in its Bammel storage facility. Changes in the spreads between the forward natural gas prices designated as fair

value hedges and the physical Bammel inventory spot price result in unrealized gains or losses until the underlying physical gas is withdrawn and the related designated derivatives are settled. Once the gas is withdrawn and the designated derivatives are settled, the previously unrealized gains or losses associated with these positions are realized.

ETP attempts to maintain balanced positions to protect itself from the volatility in the energy commodities markets; however, net unbalanced positions can exist. Long-term physical contracts are tied to index prices. System gas, which is also tied to index prices, is expected to provide most of the gas required by ETP’s long-term physical contracts. When third-party gas is required to supply long-term contracts, a hedge is put in place to protect the margin on the contract. To the extent open commodity positions exist, fluctuating commodity prices can impact ETP’s financial position and results of operations, either favorably or unfavorably.

SXL manages exposures to crude oil, refined products and NGL commodity prices by monitoring inventory levels and expectations of future commodity prices when making decisions with respect to risk management and inventory carried. SXL’s policy is to purchase only commodity products for which it has a market and to structure its sales contracts so that price fluctuations for those products do not materially affect the margin SXL receives. SXL also seeks to maintain a position that is substantially balanced within its various commodity purchase and sale activities. SXL may experience net unbalanced positions for short periods of time as a result of production, transportation and delivery variances, as well as logistical issues associated with inclement weather conditions. When unscheduled inventory builds or draws do occur, they are monitored and managed to a balanced position over a reasonable period of time.

The tables below summarize the commodity-related financial derivative instruments and fair values related to ETP’s legacy operations and Regency’s operations, including derivatives related to our consolidated subsidiaries, as well as the effect of an assumed hypothetical 10% change in the underlying price of the commodity. Notional volumes are presented in MMBtu for natural gas, thousand megawatt for power and barrels for natural gas liquids, crude and refined products. Dollar amounts are presented in millions.

The fair values of the commodity-related financial positions in the tables above have been determined using independent third party prices, readily available market information and appropriate valuation techniques. Non-trading positions offset physical exposures to the cash market; none of these offsetting physical exposures are included in the above tables. Price-risk sensitivities were calculated by assuming a theoretical 10% change (increase or decrease) in price regardless of term or historical relationships between the contractual price of the instruments and the underlying commodity price. Results are presented in absolute terms and represent a potential gain or loss in net income or in other comprehensive income. In the event of an actual 10% change in prompt month natural gas prices, the fair value of our total derivative portfolio may not change by 10% due to factors such as when the financial instrument settles and the location to which the financial instrument is tied (i.e., basis swaps) and the relationship between prompt month and forward months.

As of December 31, 2015, ETP had $3.59 billion of floating rate debt outstanding, Sunoco had $450 million of floating rate debt outstanding under its revolving credit facility and ETE had $3.05 billion of floating rate debt outstanding under its credit facilities. A hypothetical change of 100 basis points would result in a maximum potential change to interest expense of $49 million annually; however, ETE’s actual change in interest expense may be less in a given period due to interest rate floors included in its variable rate debt instruments. ETE manages a portion of its interest rate exposure by utilizing interest rate swaps, including forward-starting interest rate swaps to lock-in the rate on a portion of anticipated debt issuances.

The following table summarizes ETP’s interest rate swaps outstanding (dollars in millions), none of which are designated as hedges for accounting purposes:

A hypothetical change of 100 basis points in interest rates for these interest rate swaps would result in a net change in the fair value of interest rate derivatives and earnings (recognized in gains and losses on interest rate derivatives) of approximately $167 million as of December 31, 2015. For ETP’s $1.50 billion of interest rate swaps whereby it pays a floating rate and receives a fixed rate, a hypothetical change of 100 basis points in interest rates would result in a net change in annual cash flows of $53 million. For the forward-starting interest rate swaps, a hypothetical change of 100 basis points in interest rates would not affect cash flows until the swaps are settled.

Credit risk refers to the risk that a counterparty may default on its contractual obligations resulting in a loss to us. Credit policies have been approved and implemented to govern our subsidiaries’ 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 credit ratings, and by implementing credit practices that limit exposure according to the risk profiles of the counterparties. Furthermore, our subsidiaries may at times require collateral under certain circumstances to mitigate credit risk as necessary. Our subsidiaries 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, our subsidiaries utilize master netting agreements to offset credit exposure across multiple commercial agreements with a single counterparty or affiliated group of counterparties.

The ETE Entities’ 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, midstream companies and independent power generators. ETE’s overall exposure may be affected positively or negatively by macroeconomic or regulatory changes that impact the counterparties to one extent or another. Currently, ETE’s management does not anticipate a material adverse effect in its financial position or results of operations as a consequence of counterparty non-performance.

For financial instruments, failure of a counterparty to perform on a contract could result in our inability to realize amounts that have been recorded on our consolidated balance sheet and recognized in net income or other comprehensive income.

WMB operates in many of the same lines of the business as ETE’s subsidiaries and therefore has many of the same or similar counterparties. For the year ended December 31, 2015, WMB has reported that one customer, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, and its affiliates, accounted for 18% of WMB’s total revenue.

Under the Parent Company partnership agreement, the Parent Company will distribute all of its Available Cash, as defined in the Parent Company partnership agreement, within 50 days following the end of each fiscal quarter. Available Cash generally means, with respect to any 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 that is necessary or appropriate to provide for future cash requirements.

The total amounts of distributions declared during the periods presented (all from Available Cash from the Parent Company’s operating surplus and are shown in the period to which they relate) are as follows (in millions):

The Parent Company’s distributable cash flow is primarily generated from its direct and indirect interests in ETP, SXL and Sunoco. As of December 31, 2015, ETE’s interests in ETP and Sunoco consist of 100% of the respective general partner interests and IDRs, as well as 2.6 million ETP common units and 81.0 million ETP Class H Units held by ETE or its wholly-owned subsidiaries.

The Parent Company also owns 0.1% of the general partner interests and IDRs of SXL, while ETP owns the remaining general partner interests and IDRs. Additionally, the Parent Company owns 100 ETP Class I Units, the distributions from which offset a portion of IDR subsidies the Parent Company has previously provided to ETP.

As the holder of ETP’s and Sunoco’s IDRs, the Parent Company is entitled to an increasing share of ETP’s total distributions above certain target levels. The following table summarizes the target levels (as a percentage of total distributions on common units, IDRs and the general partner interest). The percentage reflected in the table includes only the percentage related to the IDRs and excludes distributions to which the Parent Company would also be entitled through its direct or indirect ownership of ETP’s general partner interest, Class H Units, Class I Units and a portion of the outstanding ETP common units.

The total amount of distributions to the Parent Company received from ETP’s limited partner interests, general partner interest and incentive distributions (shown in the period to which they relate) for the periods ended as noted below is as follows (in millions):

In connection with previous transactions, including the Regency merger and Sunoco general partner and IDR exchange, ETE has agreed to relinquish its right to the following amounts of incentive distributions in future periods, including distributions on ETP Class I Units.

ETP expects to use substantially all of its cash provided by operating and financing activities from its operating companies to provide distributions to its unitholders. Under ETP’s partnership agreement, ETP will distribute to its partners within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter, an amount equal to all of its Available Cash (as defined in ETP’s partnership agreement) for such quarter. Available Cash generally means, with respect to any quarter of ETP, all cash on hand at the end of such quarter less the amount of cash reserves established by ETP GP in its reasonable discretion that is necessary or appropriate to provide for future cash requirements. ETP’s commitment to its unitholders is to distribute the increase in its cash flow while maintaining prudent reserves for its operations.

The total amounts of distributions declared during the periods presented (all from Available Cash from ETP’s operating surplus and are shown in the period to which they relate) are as follows (in millions):

SXL is required by its partnership agreement to distribute all cash on hand at the end of each quarter, less appropriate reserves determined by its general partner.

The total amounts of SXL distributions declared during the periods presented (all from Available Cash from SXL’s operating surplus and shown in the period with respect to which they relate) are as follows (in millions):

Sunoco is required by its partnership agreement to distribute all cash on hand at the end of each quarter, less appropriate reserves determined by its general partner.

The total amounts of Sunoco distributions declared during the periods presented (all from Available Cash from Sunoco’s operating surplus and shown in the period with respect to which they relate) are as follows (in millions):

In February 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-02, Consolidation (Topic 810) (“ASU 2015-02”), which changed the requirements for consolidations analysis. Under ASU 2015-02, reporting entities are required to evaluate whether they should consolidate certain legal entities. ASU 2015-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, and early adoption is permitted. ETE expects to adopt this standard for the year ending December 31, 2016, and ETE does not anticipate a material impact to its financial position or results of operations as a result of the adoption of this standard.

In April 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-03, Interest—Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30) (“ASU 2015-03”), which simplifies the presentation of debt issuance costs by requiring debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability to be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the debt liability rather than as an asset. ASU 2015-03 is effective for annual reporting periods after December 15, 2015, including interim periods within that reporting period, with early adoption permitted for financial statements that have not been previously issued. Upon adoption, ASU 2015-03 must be applied retrospectively to all prior reporting period presented. ETE adopted and applied this standard to its consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013; there was not a material impact to ETE’s financial position or results of operations as a result of the adoption of this standard.

In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-16, Business Combinations (Topic 805) - Simplifying the Accounting for Measurement-Period Adjustments. This update requires that an acquirer recognize adjustments to provisional amounts that are identified during the measurement period in the reporting period in which the adjustment amounts are determined. Additionally, this update requires that the acquirer record, in the same period’s financial statements, the effect on earnings of changes in depreciation, amortization, or other income effects, if any, as a result of the change to the provisional amounts, calculated as if the accounting had been completed at the acquisition date. Finally, this update requires an entity to present separately on the face of the income statement or disclose in the notes the portion of the amount recorded in current-period earnings by line item that would have been recorded in previous reporting periods if the adjustment to the provisional amounts had been recognized as of the acquisition date. The amendments in this update are effective for financial statements issued with fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, including interim periods within that reporting period. ETE does not anticipate a material impact to ETE’s financial position or results of operations as a result of the adoption of this standard.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (“ASU 2015-17”), which is intended to improve how deferred taxes are classified on organizations’ balance sheets. The ASU eliminates the current requirement for organizations to present deferred tax liabilities and assets as current and noncurrent in a classified balance sheet. Instead, organizations are now required to classify all deferred tax assets and liabilities as noncurrent. ETE adopted the provisions of ASU 2015-17 upon issuance and prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP and rules and regulations of the SEC required ETE to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, as well as the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities, at the date of the financial statements. Such estimates and assumptions also affect the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Although ETE believes these estimates are reasonable, actual results could differ from these estimates. ETE’s critical accounting policies are discussed below. For further details on ETE’s accounting policies, see Note 2 to ETE’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Use of Estimates. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the accrual for and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. The natural gas industry conducts its business by processing actual transactions at the end of the month following the month of delivery. Consequently, the most current month’s financial results for the midstream, NGL and intrastate transportation and storage operations are estimated using volume estimates and market prices. Any differences between estimated results and actual results are recognized in the following month’s financial statements. Management believes that the operating results estimated for the year ended December 31, 2015 represent the actual results in all material respects.

Some of the other significant estimates made by management include, but are not limited to, the timing of certain forecasted transactions that are hedged, the fair value of derivative instruments, useful lives for depreciation, depletion and amortization, purchase accounting allocations and subsequent realizability of intangible assets, fair value measurements used in the goodwill impairment test, market value of inventory, assets and liabilities resulting from the regulated ratemaking process, contingency reserves and environmental reserves. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Revenue Recognition. Revenues for sales of natural gas and NGLs are recognized at the later of the time of delivery of the product to the customer or the time of sale. Revenues from service labor, transportation, treating, compression and gas processing, are recognized upon completion of the service. Transportation capacity payments are recognized when earned in the period the capacity is made available.

The results of ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage and interstate transportation operations are determined primarily by the amount of capacity ETP’s customers reserve as well as the actual volume of natural gas that flows through the transportation pipelines. Under transportation contracts, ETP customers are charged (i) a demand fee, which is a fixed fee for the reservation of an agreed amount of capacity on the transportation pipeline for a specified period of time and which obligates the customer to pay even if the customer does not transport natural gas on the respective pipeline, (ii) a transportation fee, which is based on the actual throughput of natural gas by the customer, (iii) fuel retention based on a percentage of gas transported on the pipeline or (iv) a combination of the three, generally payable monthly. Excess fuel retained after consumption is typically valued at market prices.

ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations also generate 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. Generally, ETP purchases natural gas from the market, including purchases from the midstream marketing operations, and from producers at the wellhead.

In addition, ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations generate revenues and margin from fees charged for storing customers’ working natural gas in its storage facilities. ETP also engages in natural gas storage transactions in which ETP seeks to find and profit from pricing differences that occur over time utilizing the Bammel storage reservoir. ETP purchases physical natural gas and then sells financial contracts at a price sufficient to cover ETP’s carrying costs and provide for a gross profit margin. ETP expects margins from natural gas storage transactions to be higher during the periods from November to March of each year and lower during the period from April through October of each year due to the increased demand for natural gas during colder weather. However, ETP cannot assure that management’s expectations will be fully realized in the future and in what time period, due to various factors including weather, availability of natural gas in regions in which ETE and the ETE Entities operate, competitive factors in the energy industry, and other issues.

Results from ETP’s midstream operations are determined primarily by the volumes of natural gas gathered, compressed, treated, processed, purchased and sold through ETP’s pipeline and gathering systems and the level of natural gas and NGL prices. ETP generates midstream revenues and gross margins principally under fee-based or other arrangements in which ETP receives a fee for natural gas gathering, compressing, treating or processing services. The revenue earned from these arrangements is directly related to the volume of natural gas that flows through ETP’s systems and is not directly dependent on commodity prices.

ETP also utilizes other types of arrangements in ETP’s midstream operations, including (i) discount-to-index price arrangements, which involve purchases of natural gas at either (1) a percentage discount to a specified index price, (2) a specified index price less a fixed amount or (3) a percentage discount to a specified index price less an additional fixed amount, (ii) percentage-of-proceeds arrangements under which ETE and the ETE Entities gather and process natural gas on behalf of producers, sell the resulting residue gas and NGL volumes at market prices and remit to producers an agreed upon percentage of the proceeds based on an index price and (iii) keep-whole arrangements where ETP gathers natural gas from the producer, processes the natural gas and sells the resulting NGLs to third parties at market prices. In many cases, ETP provides services under contracts that contain a combination of more than one of the arrangements described above. The terms of ETP’s contracts vary based on gas quality conditions, the competitive environment at the time the contracts are signed and customer requirements. ETP’s contract mix may change as a result of changes in producer preferences, expansion in regions where some types of contracts are more common and other market factors.

ETP conducts marketing activities in which ETP markets the natural gas that flows through ETP’s assets, referred to as on-system gas. ETP also attracts other customers by marketing volumes of natural gas that do not move through ETP’s 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 supply points 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.

ETP has a risk management policy that provides for oversight over ETP’s marketing activities. These activities are monitored independently by ETP’s risk management function and must take place within predefined limits and authorizations. As a result of ETP’s use of derivative financial instruments that may not qualify for hedge accounting, the degree of earnings volatility that can occur may be significant, favorably or unfavorably, from period to period. ETP attempts to manage this volatility through the use of daily position and profit and loss reports provided to senior management and predefined limits and authorizations set forth in ETP’s risk management policy.

ETP injects and holds natural gas in its Bammel storage facility to take advantage of contango markets, when the price of natural gas is higher in the future than the current spot price. ETP uses financial derivatives to hedge the natural gas held in connection with these arbitrage opportunities. At the inception of the hedge, ETP locks in a margin by purchasing gas in the spot market or off peak season and entering a financial contract to lock in the sale price. If ETP designates the related financial contract as a fair value hedge for accounting purposes, ETP values the hedged natural gas inventory at current spot market prices along with the financial

derivative ETP uses to hedge it. Changes in the spread between the forward natural gas prices designated as fair value hedges and the physical inventory spot prices result in unrealized gains or losses until the underlying physical gas is withdrawn and the related designated derivatives are settled. Once the gas is withdrawn and the designated derivatives are settled, the previously unrealized gains or losses associated with these positions are realized. Unrealized margins represent the unrealized gains or losses from ETP’s derivative instruments using mark-to-market accounting, with changes in the fair value of ETP’s derivatives being recorded directly in earnings. These margins fluctuate based upon changes in the spreads between the physical spot prices and forward natural gas prices. If the spread narrows between the physical and financial prices, ETP will record unrealized gains or lower unrealized losses. If the spread widens, ETP will record unrealized losses or lower unrealized gains. Typically, as ETP enters the winter months, the spread converges so that ETP recognizes in earnings the original locked in spread, either through mark-to-market or the physical withdrawal of natural gas.

ETP’s NGL storage and pipeline transportation revenues are recognized when services are performed or products are delivered, respectively. Fractionation and processing revenues are recognized when product is either loaded into a truck or injected into a third-party pipeline, which is when title and risk of loss pass to the customer.

In ETP’s natural gas compression business, revenue is recognized for compressor packages and technical service jobs using the completed contract method which recognizes revenue upon completion of the job. Costs incurred on a job are deducted at the time revenue is recognized.

Terminalling and storage revenues are recognized at the time the services are provided. Pipeline revenues are recognized upon delivery of the barrels to the location designated by the shipper. Crude oil acquisition and marketing revenues, as well as refined product marketing revenues, are recognized when title to the product is transferred to the customer. Revenues are not recognized for crude oil exchange transactions, which are entered into primarily to acquire crude oil of a desired quality or to reduce transportation costs by taking delivery closer to end markets. Any net differential for exchange transactions is recorded as an adjustment of inventory costs in the purchases component of cost of products sold and operating expenses in the statements of operations.

ETP’s retail marketing operations sell gasoline and diesel in addition to a broad mix of merchandise such as groceries, fast foods and beverages at its convenience stores. A portion of ETP’s gasoline and diesel sales are to wholesale customers on a consignment basis, in which it retains title to inventory, control access to and sale of fuel inventory, and recognize revenue at the time the fuel is sold to the ultimate customer. ETP typically owns the fuel dispensing equipment and underground storage tanks at consignment sites, and in some cases it owns the entire site and has entered into an operating lease with the wholesale customer operating the site. In addition, ETP’s retail outlets derive other income from lottery ticket sales, money orders, prepaid phone cards and wireless services, ATM transactions, car washes, movie rental and other ancillary product and service offerings. Some of Sunoco’s retail outlets provide a variety of car care services. Revenues related to the sale of products are recognized when title passes, while service revenues are recorded on a net commission basis and are recognized when services are provided. Title passage generally occurs when products are shipped or delivered in accordance with the terms of the respective sales agreements. In addition, revenues are not recognized until sales prices are fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured.

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities. Certain of ETE’s subsidiaries are subject to regulation by certain state and federal authorities and have accounting policies that conform to FASB ASC Topic 980, Regulated Operations, which is in accordance with the accounting requirements and ratemaking practices of the regulatory authorities. The application of these accounting policies allows certain of ETE’s regulated entities to defer expenses and revenues on the balance sheet as regulatory assets and liabilities when it is probable that those expenses and revenues will be allowed in the ratemaking process in a period different from the period in which they would have been reflected in the consolidated statement of operations by an unregulated company. These deferred assets and liabilities will be reported in results of operations in the period in which the same amounts are included in rates and recovered from or refunded to customers. Management’s assessment of the probability of

recovery or pass through of regulatory assets and liabilities will require judgment and interpretation of laws and regulatory commission orders. If, for any reason, ETE ceases to meet the criteria for application of regulatory accounting treatment for all or part of its operations, the regulatory assets and liabilities related to those portions ceasing to meet such criteria would be eliminated from the consolidated balance sheet for the period in which the discontinuance of regulatory accounting treatment occurs.

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. ETP utilizes various exchange-traded and over-the-counter commodity financial instrument contracts to limit its exposure to margin fluctuations in natural gas, NGL and refined products. These contracts consist primarily of commodity futures and swaps. In addition, prior to ETP’s contribution of its retail propane activities to AmeriGas, ETP used derivatives to limit its exposure to propane market prices.

If ETP designates a hedging relationship as a fair value hedge, ETP records the changes in fair value of the hedged asset or liability in cost of products sold in the consolidated statement of operations. This amount is offset by the changes in fair value of the related hedging instrument. Any ineffective portion or amount excluded from the assessment of hedge ineffectiveness is also included in the cost of products sold in the consolidated statement of operations.

ETP utilizes published settlement prices for exchange-traded contracts, quotes provided by brokers, and estimates of market prices based on daily contract activity to estimate the fair value of these contracts. Changes in the methods used to determine the fair value of these contracts could have a material effect on ETE’s results of operations. ETE does not anticipate future changes in the methods used to determine the fair value of these derivative contracts.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments. ETE has commodity derivatives, interest rate derivatives and embedded derivatives in ETP’s preferred units that are accounted for as assets and liabilities at fair value in ETE’s consolidated balance sheets. ETE determines the fair value of its assets and liabilities subject to fair value measurement by using the highest possible “level” of inputs. Level 1 inputs are observable quotes in an active market for identical assets and liabilities. ETE considers the valuation of marketable securities and commodity derivatives transacted through a clearing broker with a published price from the appropriate exchange as a Level 1 valuation. Level 2 inputs are inputs observable for similar assets and liabilities. ETE considers over-the-counter commodity derivatives entered into directly with third parties as a Level 2 valuation since the values of these derivatives are quoted on an exchange for similar transactions. Additionally, ETE considers its options transacted through its clearing broker as having Level 2 inputs due to the level of activity of these contracts on the exchange in which they trade. ETE considers the valuation of its interest rate derivatives as Level 2 as the primary input, the LIBOR curve, is based on quotes from an active exchange of Eurodollar futures for the same period as the future interest swap settlements. Level 3 inputs are unobservable. Derivatives related to the embedded derivatives in ETP’s preferred units are valued using a binomial lattice model. The market inputs utilized in the model include credit spread, probabilities of the occurrence of certain events, common unit price, dividend yield, and expected value, and are considered Level 3. See further information on ETE’s fair value assets and liabilities in Note 2 of ETE’s consolidated financial statements.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and Goodwill. Long-lived assets are required to be tested for recoverability whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be recoverable.

Goodwill and intangibles with indefinite lives must be tested for impairment annually or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the related asset might be impaired. An impairment loss should be recognized only if the carrying amount of the asset/goodwill is not recoverable and exceeds its fair value.

In order to test for recoverability when performing a quantitative impairment test, ETE must make estimates of projected cash flows related to the asset, which include, but are not limited to, assumptions about the use or disposition of the asset, estimated remaining life of the asset, and future expenditures necessary to maintain the asset’s existing service potential. In order to determine fair value, ETE makes certain estimates and assumptions, including, among other things, changes in general economic conditions in regions in which ETE’s markets are located, the availability and prices of natural gas, ETE’s ability to negotiate favorable sales agreements, the risks that natural gas exploration and production activities will not occur or be successful, ETE’s dependence on certain significant customers and producers of natural gas, and competition from other companies, including major energy producers. While ETE believes it has made reasonable assumptions to calculate the fair value, if future results are not consistent with ETE’s estimates, ETE could be exposed to future impairment losses that could be material to its results of operations.

Property, Plant and Equipment. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs that do not add capacity to or extend the useful life are expensed as incurred. Expenditures to refurbish assets that either extend the useful lives of the asset or prevent environmental contamination are capitalized and depreciated over the remaining useful life of the asset. Additionally, ETP capitalizes certain costs directly related to the construction of assets including internal labor costs, interest and engineering costs. Upon disposition or retirement of pipeline components or natural gas plant components, any gain or loss is recorded to accumulated depreciation. When entire pipeline systems, gas plants or other property and equipment are retired or sold, any gain or loss is included in the consolidated statement of operations. Depreciation of property, plant and equipment is provided using the straight-line method based on their estimated useful lives ranging from 1 to 99 years. Changes in the estimated useful lives of the assets could have a material effect on ETE’s results of operation. ETE does not anticipate future changes in the estimated useful lives of ETE’s property, plant and equipment.

Asset Retirement Obligations. ETE has determined that ETE is obligated by contractual or regulatory requirements to remove facilities or perform other remediation upon retirement of certain assets. The fair value of any ARO is determined based on estimates and assumptions related to retirement costs, which ETE bases on historical retirement costs, future inflation rates and credit-adjusted risk-free interest rates. These fair value assessments are considered to be level 3 measurements, as they are based on both observable and unobservable inputs. Changes in the liability are recorded for the passage of time (accretion) or for revisions to cash flows originally estimated to settle the ARO.

An ARO is required to be recorded when a legal obligation to retire an asset exists and such obligation can be reasonably estimated. ETE will record an asset retirement obligation in the periods in which management can reasonably estimate the settlement dates.

Except for certain amounts recorded by Panhandle, SXL and ETP’s retail marketing operations discussed below, management was not able to reasonably measure the fair value of asset retirement obligations as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, in most cases because the settlement dates were indeterminable. Although a number of other onshore assets in Panhandle’s system are subject to agreements or regulations that give rise to an ARO upon Panhandle’s discontinued use of these assets, AROs were not recorded because these assets have an indeterminate removal or abandonment date given the expected continued use of the assets with proper maintenance or replacement. Sunoco has legal asset retirement obligations for several other assets at its refineries, pipelines and terminals, for which it is not possible to estimate when the obligations will be settled. Consequently, the retirement obligations for these assets cannot be measured at this time. At the end of the useful life of these underlying assets, Sunoco is legally or contractually required to abandon in place or remove the asset. SXL believes it may have additional asset retirement obligations related to its pipeline assets and storage tanks, for which it is not possible to estimate whether or when the retirement obligations will be settled. Consequently, these retirement obligations cannot be measured at this time.

Individual component assets have been and will continue to be replaced, but the pipeline and the natural gas gathering and processing systems will continue in operation as long as supply and demand for natural gas exists. Based on the widespread use of natural gas in industrial and power generation activities, management expects supply and demand to exist for the foreseeable future. ETE has in place a rigorous repair and maintenance program that keeps the pipelines and the natural gas gathering and processing systems in good working order. Therefore, although some of the individual assets may be replaced, the pipelines and the natural gas gathering and processing systems themselves will remain intact indefinitely.

Long-lived assets related to AROs aggregated $18 million and were reflected as property, plant and equipment on ETE’s balance sheet as of December 31, 2015 and 2014. In addition, Panhandle has $6 million of restricted funds for settlement of AROs that was reflected as other non-current assets as of December 31, 2015.

Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefit Plans. ETE is required to measure plan assets and benefit obligations as of its fiscal year-end balance sheet date. ETE recognizes the changes in the funded status of ETE’s defined benefit postretirement plans through AOCI or are reflected as a regulatory asset or regulatory liability for regulated subsidiaries.

The calculation of the net periodic benefit cost and benefit obligation requires the use of a number of assumptions. Changes in these assumptions can have a significant effect on the amounts reported in the financial statements. ETE believes that the two most critical assumptions are the assumed discount rate and the expected rate of return on plan assets.

The discount rate is established by using a hypothetical portfolio of high-quality debt instruments that would provide the necessary cash flows to pay the benefits when due. Net periodic benefit cost and benefit obligation increases and equity correspondingly decreases as the discount rate is reduced.

The expected rate of return on plan assets is based on long-term expectations given current investment objectives and historical results. Net periodic benefit cost increases as the expected rate of return on plan assets is correspondingly reduced.

Legal Matters. ETE is subject to litigation and regulatory proceedings as a result of ETE’s business operations and transactions. ETE utilizes both internal and external counsel in evaluating its potential exposure to adverse outcomes from claims, orders, judgments or settlements. To the extent that actual outcomes differ from ETE’s estimates, or additional facts and circumstances cause ETE to revise its estimates, its earnings will be affected. ETE expenses legal costs as incurred, and all recorded legal liabilities are revised as required as better information becomes available to ETE. The factors ETE considers when recording an accrual for contingencies include, among others: (i) the opinions and views of ETE’s legal counsel; (ii) ETE’s previous experience; and (iii) the decision of ETE’s management as to how it intends to respond to the complaints.

For more information on ETE’s litigation and contingencies, see Note 11 to ETE’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 included elsewhere in this proxy statement/prospectus.

Environmental Remediation Activities. ETE’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.

Losses attributable to unasserted claims are generally reflected in the accruals on an undiscounted basis, to the extent they are probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. ETP has 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, ETP accrues losses attributable to unasserted claims based on the discounted estimates that are used to develop the premiums paid to the captive insurance company.

In general, each remediation site/issue is evaluated individually based upon information available for the site/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. ETP’s 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 requires 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, ETE 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, 2015, the aggregate of the estimated maximum additional reasonably possible losses, which relate to numerous individual sites, totaled approximately $5 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.

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 ETE’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 ETE’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 ETE’s consolidated financial position.

Deferred Income Taxes. ETE recognizes benefits in earnings and related deferred tax assets for net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) and tax credit carryforwards. If necessary, a charge to earnings and a related valuation allowance are recorded to reduce deferred tax assets to an amount that is more likely than not to be realized by ETE in the future. Deferred income tax assets attributable to state and federal NOLs and federal tax alternative minimum tax credit carryforwards totaling $217 million have been included in ETE’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2015. All of the deferred income tax assets attributable to state and federal NOL benefits expire before 2034 as more fully described below. The state NOL carryforward benefits of $123 million (net of federal benefit) begin to expire in 2016 with a substantial portion expiring between 2029 and 2033. The federal NOLs of $191 million ($67 million in benefits) will expire in 2033 and 2035. Federal tax alternative minimum tax credit carryforwards of $27 million remained at December 31, 2015. We have determined that a valuation allowance totaling $122 million (net of federal income tax effects) is required for the state NOLs at December 31, 2015 primarily due to significant restrictions on their use in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. In making the assessment of the future realization of the deferred tax assets, we rely on future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, tax planning strategies and forecasted taxable income based on historical and projected future operating results. The potential need for valuation allowances is regularly reviewed by management. If it is more likely than not that the recorded asset will not be realized, additional valuation allowances which increase income tax expense may be recognized in the period such determination is made. Likewise, if it is more likely than not that additional deferred tax assets will be realized, an adjustment to the deferred tax asset will increase income in the period such determination is made.

Interest rates on existing and future credit facilities and future debt offerings could be significantly higher than current levels, causing ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ financing costs to increase accordingly. Although increased financing costs could limit their ability to raise funds in the capital markets, they expect to remain competitive with respect to acquisitions and capital projects since their competitors would face similar circumstances.

Inflation in the United States has been relatively low in recent years and has not had a material effect on ETE’s results of operations. It may in the future, however, increase the cost to acquire or replace property, plant and equipment and may increase the costs of labor and supplies. ETE’s operating revenues and costs are influenced to a greater extent by commodity price changes. To the extent permitted by competition, regulation and existing agreements, ETE and the ETE Entities have and will continue to pass along a portion of increased costs to their customers in the form of higher fees.

Our partnership agreement requires us to distribute all of our available cash quarterly. Generally, our available cash is all cash on hand at the date of determination of available cash for the distribution in respect of such quarter (including expected distributions from ETE in respect of such quarter) after the payment of our expenses and the establishment of cash reserves for the proper conduct of our business, including the payment of income taxes, if any.

Our cash flow will be generated primarily from distributions we receive from ETE with respect to the ETE Class E units. ETE currently receives primarily all of its cash flows from distributions on its equity interests in the ETE Entities. ETE is therefore substantially dependent upon the ability of the ETE Entities to make cash distributions to their respective partners.

We currently have no independent operations, and we will enter into the Administrative Agreement with ETE, pursuant to which ETE will provide general and administrative services to us related to our governance, public reporting requirements and NYSE listing obligations and, to the extent we incur any expenses related to any of these matters, to reimburse us fully for such expenses. In addition, we will enter into a contribution agreement with ETE to effect the WMB Contribution, pursuant to which ETE will indefinitely indemnify us for all non-tax losses we may suffer and indemnify us for any taxes we may incur for any taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2018. Accordingly, we believe we will initially have low cash requirements. Therefore, we believe that our investors are best served by our distributing all of our available cash to our common shareholders as described below.

There is no guarantee that our common shareholders will receive quarterly distributions from us or that we will receive quarterly distributions from ETE. None of us, ETE or the ETE Entities have a legal obligation to pay distributions, except as provided in our and their respective partnership agreements.

The requirements in our, ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ respective partnership agreements to distribute all of our respective available cash quarterly are subject to certain restrictions. These restrictions include the following:

The ETE Entities’ Ability to Grow is Dependent on Their Ability to Access External Growth Capital

Consistent with the terms of their respective partnership agreements, the ETE Entities distribute their available cash each quarter to their respective partners. In determining the amount of distributable cash flow, each ETE Entity sets aside cash reserves, which it uses, among other things, to fund a portion of its acquisitions and growth capital expenditures. Additionally, each ETE Entity has relied upon external financing sources, including commercial borrowings and other debt and equity issuances, to fund its acquisition and growth capital expenditures. Accordingly, to the extent an ETE Entity does not have sufficient cash reserves or is unable to finance growth externally, its ability to grow will likely be impaired. If any ETE Entity issues additional units, the payment of distributions on those additional units may increase the risk that such ETE Entity will be unable to maintain or increase its per unit distribution level, which in turn may impact the available cash ETE receives from such ETE Entity and the distributable cash we have to distribute to our common shareholders.

There are no current limitations in any ETE Entity’s partnership agreement on its ability to incur indebtedness or to issue additional units, including units ranking senior to its common units. The incurrence of additional debt by each ETE Entity to finance its growth strategy would result in increased interest expense to such ETE Entity, which in turn may reduce its cash distributions to ETE, ETE’s distribution to us and the available cash that we have to distribute to our common shareholders. Further, to the extent any ETE Entity issues units ranking senior to its common units, the ability of such ETE Entity to increase distributions on its common units may be impacted, which in turn, may impact the amount of incentive distributions received by ETE and ETP, as the case may be.

The IDRs that ETE and ETP Own May Be Limited or Modified Without Your Consent

ETE indirectly owns all of the IDRs of ETP and Sunoco. Additionally, ETE is entitled to receive 90.15% of the cash distributions related to the IDRs of SXL, while ETP is entitled to receive the remaining 9.85% of such cash distributions. The IDRs entitle the holder to receive increasing percentages (up to a maximum of 48%, with respect to ETP and SXL, and up to 50%, with respect to Sunoco, in each case to the extent not modified) of any

cash distributed by (i) ETP in excess of $0.275 per ETP unit in any quarter; (ii) SXL in excess of $0.0833 per SXL unit in any quarter and (iii) Sunoco in excess of $0.503125 per Sunoco unit in any quarter.

Each ETE Entity, like other publicly traded partnerships, will generally only undertake an acquisition or expansion capital project if, after giving effect to related costs and expenses, the transaction would be expected to be accretive, meaning it would increase cash distributions per unit in future periods. Because ETE currently participates in the IDRs at the highest sharing level of 48% and 50% with respect to ETP and Sunoco, respectively, and ETE and ETP currently participate in the IDRs at the highest sharing level of 48% with respect to SXL, to the extent not modified, it is harder for an acquisition or capital project to show accretion for the common unitholders of ETP, SXL and Sunoco than if the applicable IDRs received less incremental cash flow. We therefore expect that ETE and ETP may determine, in certain cases, to propose a reduction to the IDRs to facilitate a particular acquisition or expansion capital project. Such a reduction may relate to all of the cash flow on the IDRs or only to the expected cash flow from the transaction and may be either temporary or permanent in nature. Any such reduction of the IDRs will reduce the amount of cash that would have otherwise been distributed by ETE to us, which will in turn reduce the cash distributions we would otherwise be able to pay to you as an ETC shareholder.

In addition, the incremental distributions that ETE is entitled to receive in respect of the ETP Class I Units are intended to offset a portion of the incentive distribution subsidies previously granted by ETE to ETP. Please read “—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Cash Distributions—Cash Distributions Received by the Parent Company.”

For the period from 2013 through the distribution date for the fourth quarter of 2015, the ETP IDR reductions described above have totaled $337.5 million and will continue through 2024. ETE may, in certain circumstances, similarly support ETP or Sunoco in the future by agreeing to waive, modify or otherwise adjust payments relating to the IDRs of ETP and Sunoco. Likewise, ETP may, in certain circumstances, agree to waive, modify or otherwise adjust payments relating to the IDRs of SXL.

ETE and ETP have the right to approve any waiver, reduction, limitation or modification to the IDRs that they own without the consent of our shareholders. In determining whether or not to approve any such modification, each of ETE and ETP may consider whatever information it subjectively believes is adequate in making such determination and must make such determination in “good faith” as such term is defined in its partnership agreement. Any determination with respect to such modification could include consideration of one or more financial cases based on a number of business, industry, economic, legal, regulatory and other assumptions applicable to the proposed transaction. The assumptions will generally involve current estimates of future conditions, which are difficult to predict and realization of many of the assumptions will be beyond our general partner’s control. Moreover, the uncertainty and risk of inaccuracy associated with any financial projection will increase with the length of the forecasted period. To the extent such assumptions are not realized, the expected benefits from increases in distributions from the ETE Entities to ETE may not materialize, and distributions to our common shareholders may be reduced.

Like us, ETE and the ETE Entities are required pursuant to their respective partnership agreements to distribute all of their available cash to their partners on a quarterly basis. Under the partnership agreement of ETE and each ETE Entity, available cash is defined to generally mean, for each fiscal quarter, cash generated from such entity’s business in excess of the amount the applicable general partner determines is necessary or appropriate to provide for the proper conduct of such entity’s business, to comply with applicable law or any agreement binding on such entity and its subsidiaries and to provide for future distributions to such entity’s unitholders for any one or more of the upcoming quarters.

The following tables set forth, for the periods indicated, the amount of quarterly cash distributions ETE, the ETE Entities and Regency paid for each of their respective partnership interests, including the general partner interest and IDRs, as applicable, with respect to the quarter indicated. The actual cash distributions paid by ETE to its partners occur within 50 days after the end of each quarter and the actual cash distributions paid by the ETE Entities to their partners occur within 45 days after the end of each quarter.

Since 2011, on a split adjusted basis, ETE has increased its quarterly cash distribution by approximately 110% from $0.135 per common unit, or $0.54 on an annualized basis, to $0.2850 per common unit, or $1.14 on an annualized basis, for the quarter ended March 31, 2016. Such increase equates to a compounded annual growth rate in ETE distributions of 16.1%. The table below sets forth ETE’s cash distribution history with respect to its common units and general partner interest for the periods presented.

Since January 1, 2011, ETP has increased its quarterly cash distribution by approximately 18% from $0.8938 per common unit, or $3.575 on an annualized basis, to $1.0550 per common unit, or $4.22 on an annualized basis, for the quarter ended March 31, 2016. Such increase equates to a compounded annual growth rate in ETP distributions of 3.4%. The table below sets forth ETP’s cash distribution history with respect to its common units, general partner interest, IDRs and other limited partner interests for the periods presented.

Since January 1, 2011, on a split-adjusted basis, SXL has increased its quarterly cash distribution by approximately 145% from $0.1992 per common unit, or $0.7968 on an annualized basis, to $0.489 per common unit, or $1.956 on an annualized basis, for the quarter ended March 31, 2016. Such increase equates to a compounded annual growth rate in SXL distributions of 18.7%. The table below sets forth SXL’s cash distribution history with respect to its common units, general partner interest and IDRs for the periods presented with the per unit information presented on a split-adjusted basis.

Since January 1, 2013, Sunoco has increased its quarterly cash distribution by approximately 87% from $0.4375 per common unit, or $1.75 on an annualized basis, to $0.8173 per common unit, or $3.27 on an annualized basis, for the quarter ended March 31, 2016. Such increase equates to a compounded annual growth rate in Sunoco distributions of 21.2%. The table below sets forth Sunoco’s cash distribution history with respect to its common units, subordinated units, Class A units and IDRs for the periods presented.

Set forth below is a summary of the significant provisions of our partnership agreement that relate to cash distributions.

Our partnership agreement requires that, within 55 days after the end of each quarter beginning with the first quarter following the completion of the merger transactions, we distribute all of our available cash to our shareholders of record on the applicable record date.

Available cash is defined in our partnership agreement and generally means, with respect to any calendar quarter, all cash on hand at the date of determination of available cash for the distribution in respect of such quarter (including expected distributions from ETE in respect of such quarter),

The purpose and effect of the last bullet point above is to allow our general partner, if it so decides, to use cash from working capital borrowings made after the end of the quarter but on or before the date of determination of available cash for that quarter to pay distributions to shareholders. Under our partnership agreement, working capital borrowings are generally borrowings that are made under a credit facility, commercial paper facility or similar financing arrangement, and in all cases are used solely for working capital purposes or to pay distributions to partners and with the intent of the borrower to repay such borrowings within twelve months with funds other than from additional working capital borrowings.

Our primary cash-generating asset will consist of our ETE Class E units, which will represent an approximate 57% limited partner interest in ETE following the completion of the merger transactions. Therefore, our cash flow and resulting ability to make distributions will be completely dependent upon the ability of ETE to make cash distributions to us in respect of those ETE Class E units. The actual amount of cash that ETE will have available for distribution will primarily depend on the amount of cash that ETE receives from the ETE Entities. For a description of factors that may impact our, ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ results, please read “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements.”

In addition, the actual amount of cash that ETE and the ETE Entities will have available for distribution will depend on other factors, some of which are beyond our, ETE’s and the ETE Entities’ control, including:

Upon the completion of the merger transactions, we will have approximately 1.4 billion common shares outstanding.

Our general partner owns a non-economic general partner interest in us, which does not entitle it to receive cash distributions.

If we dissolve in accordance with the partnership agreement, we will sell or otherwise dispose of our assets in a process called a liquidation. We will first apply the proceeds of liquidation to the payment of our creditors and, thereafter, holders of our common shares would be entitled to share ratably in the distribution of any remaining proceeds.

The following is a summary of the material provisions of our partnership agreement. The form of our partnership agreement is included in this proxy statement/prospectus as Annex C and will be adopted contemporaneously with the completion of the merger.

We summarize the following provisions of our partnership agreement elsewhere in this proxy statement/prospectus:

We were formed in April 2014 as a Delaware corporation and converted into a Delaware limited partnership in July 2015 and have a perpetual existence.

Under our partnership agreement, we are permitted to engage, directly or indirectly, in any business activity that is approved by our general partner and that lawfully may be conducted by a limited partnership organized under Delaware law. We are expressly permitted to make capital contributions or loans to our affiliates, including the ETE Entities, to accomplish our purpose.

Although our general partner has the ability to cause us, our affiliates and our subsidiaries to engage in activities other than the direct and indirect ownership of partnership interests (including IDRs) in ETE and the ETE Entities, our general partner has no current plans to do so and may decline to do so free of any fiduciary duty or obligation whatsoever to us or our shareholders, including any duty to act in good faith or in the best interest of us or our shareholders. Our general partner is authorized to perform all acts it determines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out our purposes and to conduct our business, including but not limited to the following:

For a further description of limits on our business, please read “—Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions.”

Our partnership interests consist of our non-economic general partner interest and our common shares to be issued in connection with the merger transactions.

Please read “—Cash Distribution Policy and Restrictions on Distributions” and “Description of ETC Common Shares” for more information regarding our common shares, including the rights and preferences of holders of our common shares in and to our distributions.

Our shareholders are not obligated to make additional capital contributions, except as described below under “—Limited Liability.”

Our partnership agreement is governed by Delaware law. Our partnership agreement requires that any claims, suits, actions or proceedings:

be exclusively brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if such court does not have subject matter jurisdiction thereof, any other court located in the State of Delaware with subject matter jurisdiction), regardless of whether such claims, suits, actions or proceedings sound in contract, tort, fraud or otherwise, are based on common law, statutory, equitable, legal or other grounds, or are derivative or direct claims. By purchasing a common share, a shareholder is irrevocably consenting to these limitations and provisions regarding claims, suits, actions or proceedings and submitting to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or such other Delaware courts) in connection with any such claims, suits, actions or proceedings.

Assuming that a shareholder does not participate in the control of our business within the meaning of the DRULPA and that he otherwise acts in conformity with the provisions of our partnership agreement, his liability under the DRULPA will be limited, subject to possible exceptions, to the amount of capital he is obligated to contribute to us for his shares plus his share of any undistributed profits and assets. If it were determined, however, that the right, or exercise of the right, by the shareholders as a group:

constituted “participation in the control” of our business for the purposes of the DRULPA, then our shareholders could be held personally liable for our obligations under the laws of the State of Delaware, to the same extent as our general partner. This liability would extend to persons who transact business with us who reasonably believe that the shareholder is a general partner. Neither our partnership agreement nor the DRULPA specifically provides for legal recourse against our general partner if a shareholder were to lose limited liability through any fault of our general partner. Although this does not mean that a shareholder could not seek legal recourse, we know of no precedent for this type of a claim in Delaware case law.

Under the DRULPA, a limited partnership may not make a distribution to a partner if, after the distribution, all liabilities of the limited partnership, other than liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and liabilities for which the recourse of creditors is limited to specific property of the partnership, would exceed the fair value of the assets of the limited partnership. For the purpose of determining the fair value of the assets of a limited partnership, the DRULPA provides that the fair value of property subject to liability for which recourse of creditors is limited will be included in the assets of the limited partnership only to the extent that the fair value of that property exceeds the nonrecourse liability. The DRULPA provides that a limited partner who receives a distribution and knew at the time of the distribution that the distribution was in violation of the DRULPA will be liable to the limited partnership for the amount of the distribution for three years. Under the DRULPA, a substituted limited partner of a limited partnership is liable for the obligations of his assignor to make contributions to the partnership, except that such person is not obligated for liabilities unknown to him at the time he became a limited partner and that could not be ascertained from the partnership agreement.

Limitations on the liability of limited partners for the obligations of a limited partner (or in our case, a shareholder) have not been clearly established in many jurisdictions. Although we currently have no operations distinct from ETE or the ETE Entities, if in the future, by our ownership in an operating company or otherwise, it were determined that we were conducting business in any state without compliance with the applicable limited partnership or limited liability company statute, or that the right or exercise of the right by the shareholders as a group to approve some amendments to our partnership agreement or to take other action under our partnership agreement constituted “participation in the control” of our business for purposes of the statutes of any relevant jurisdiction, then the shareholder could be held personally liable for our obligations under the law of that jurisdiction to the same extent as our general partner under the circumstances. We will operate in a manner that our general partner considers reasonable and necessary or appropriate to preserve the limited liability of the shareholders.

Our general partner will manage and operate us. Our shareholders will have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business. Our shareholders will not have the right to elect our general partner or its directors on an annual or other continuing basis, or remove our general partner. Please see “—Withdrawal or Removal of the General Partner” beginning on page 330 of this proxy statement/prospectus. Further, our shareholders will not be entitled to direct the manner in which we vote our limited partner interests in ETE and, therefore, will not have any voting rights with respect to ETE through their ownership in us.

The following is a summary of the shareholder vote required for the matters specified below. On all matters where our shareholders are entitled to vote, the common shares will be entitled to one vote per share. The holders of a majority of the outstanding shares, represented in person or by proxy, will constitute a quorum unless any action by the shareholders requires approval by holders of a greater percentage of the shares, in which case the quorum will be the greater percentage. In voting any ETC common shares owned by our general partner, our general partner will have no fiduciary duty or obligation whatsoever to us or our shareholders, including any duty to act in good faith or in the best interests of us or our shareholders.

Unless otherwise indicated, “outstanding shares” includes shares held by our general partner, the Existing GP Owner and its affiliates.

At any time, the Existing GP Owner may sell or transfer all or part of its ownership interest in our general partner without the approval of our shareholders.

Our partnership agreement authorizes us to issue an unlimited number of additional partnership interests and other equity securities (including derivative securities) for the consideration and on the terms and conditions established by our general partner in its sole discretion without the approval of our shareholders.

It is possible that we will fund acquisitions through the issuance of additional partnership interests or other equity securities. Holders of any additional partnership interests we issue will be entitled to share equally with the then-existing shareholders in our cash distributions. In addition, the issuance of additional partnership interests may dilute the value of the interests of the then-existing holders of common shares in our net assets.

In accordance with Delaware law and the provisions of our partnership agreement, we may also issue additional partnership interests that have special voting rights to which the common shares are not entitled, or any other designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties fixed by our general partner in its sole discretion.

Amendments to our partnership agreement may be proposed only by our general partner. However, our general partner will have no duty or obligation to propose any amendment and may decline to do so free of any fiduciary duty or obligation whatsoever to us or our shareholders, including any duty to act in good faith or in the best interests of us or our shareholders. To adopt a proposed amendment, other than the amendments discussed below, our general partner must seek written approval of the holders of the number of shares required to approve the amendment or call a meeting of our shareholders to consider and vote upon the proposed amendment. Except as described below, an amendment must be approved by a majority of our outstanding shares.

The provision of our partnership agreement preventing the amendments having the effects described in clauses (i) or (ii) above can be amended upon the approval of the holders of at least 90% of the outstanding shares.

Our general partner may generally make amendments to our partnership agreement without the approval of any shareholder or assignee to reflect:

Any amendment described as requiring shareholder approval will require an opinion of counsel to the effect that the amendment will not affect the limited liability under applicable law of any of our shareholders. Our general partner will not be required to obtain such an opinion of counsel for any of the amendments described above under “—No Shareholder Approval.” In the absence of such an opinion where required, the approval of 90% of the outstanding shares is required for an amendment to become effective.

In addition to the above restrictions, any amendment that would have a material adverse effect on the rights or preferences of any type or class of outstanding shares in relation to other classes of shares will require the approval of at least a majority of the type or class of shares so affected. Also, any amendment that reduces the voting percentage required to take any action must be approved by the affirmative vote of shareholders whose aggregate outstanding shares constitute not less than the voting requirement sought to be reduced.

Our partnership agreement generally prohibits our general partner, without the prior approval of a majority of our outstanding shares, from causing us to, among other things, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of the assets of the partnership group in a single transaction or a series of related transactions. Our general partner may, however, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or grant a security interest in all or substantially all of the partnership group’s assets or sell all or substantially all of the partnership group’s assets under a foreclosure or other realization upon those encumbrances without that approval.

A merger, consolidation or conversion of us requires the prior consent of our general partner. In addition, our partnership agreement provides that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, our general partner will have no duty or obligation to consent to any merger, consolidation or conversion of us and may decline to do so free of any fiduciary duty or obligation whatsoever to us, or any of our shareholders. Further, in declining to consent to a merger, consolidation or conversion, our general partner will not be required to act in good faith or pursuant to any other standard imposed by our partnership agreement, any other agreement, under the DRULPA or any other law, rule or regulation or at equity.

If conditions specified in our partnership agreement are satisfied, our general partner may merge us or any of our subsidiaries into, or convey some or all of our assets to, a newly formed entity if the sole purpose of that merger or conveyance is to effect a mere change in our legal form into another limited liability entity. Our shareholders are not entitled to dissenters’ rights or appraisal rights (and, therefore, will not be entitled to demand payment of a fair price for their shares) under our partnership agreement or applicable Delaware law in the event of a merger or consolidation, a sale of substantially all of our assets or any other transaction or event.

If conditions specified in our partnership agreement are satisfied, our general partner may merge or consolidate us with or into another entity if we are the surviving entity in such merger or consolidation and our shares remain unchanged by the merger or consolidation.

We will continue as a limited partnership until terminated under our partnership agreement. We will dissolve upon:

Upon a dissolution under clause (d) above, the Existing GP Owner may also elect, within specific time limitations, to continue our business on the same terms and conditions described in our partnership agreement by appointing a successor general partner, subject to our receipt of an opinion of counsel to the effect that the action would not result in the loss of limited liability of any shareholder.

Upon our dissolution, unless we are reconstituted and continued as a new limited partnership, the person authorized to wind up our affairs (the liquidator) will, acting with all of the powers of our general partner that the liquidator deems necessary or appropriate, liquidate our assets. The proceeds of the liquidation will be applied as follows:

If the liquidator determines that a sale would be impractical or would cause a loss to our partners, it may defer liquidation of our assets for a reasonable period of time or distribute assets to partners in kind if it determines that a sale would be impractical or would cause undue loss to the partners.

Our general partner may withdraw as general partner in compliance with our partnership agreement after giving 90 days’ written notice to our shareholders, and that withdrawal will not constitute a violation of our partnership agreement.

Upon the voluntary withdrawal of our general partner, the Existing GP Owner may elect a successor to that withdrawing general partner. If a successor is not elected, or is elected but an opinion of counsel regarding limited liability cannot be obtained, we will be dissolved, wound up and liquidated, unless within 180 days after that withdrawal, the Existing GP Owner agrees in writing to continue our business and to appoint a successor general partner. Please read “—Termination or Dissolution” above.

Our general partner may not be removed unless (i) the Existing GP Owner consents to the removal and (ii) the ETE general partner is concurrently removed as the general partner of ETE in accordance with ETE’s partnership agreement. Any removal of our general partner is also subject to the approval of a successor general partner by the Existing GP Owner.

In the event our general partner withdraws, the departing general partner will have the option to require the successor general partner to purchase the general partner interest of the departing general partner and any ETE common units owned by the departing general partner and its affiliates for fair market value and a gross-up amount for state and federal taxes owed as a result of the sale. The fair market value of any securities will be determined by agreement between the departing general partner and the successor general partner and will take into account an appropriate control premium. If no agreement is reached, an independent investment banking firm or other independent expert selected by the departing general partner and the successor general partner will determine the fair market value. Or, if the departing general partner and the successor general partner cannot agree upon an expert, then an expert chosen by agreement of the experts selected by each of them will determine the fair market value.

In addition, we will be required to reimburse the departing general partner for all amounts due the departing general partner, including, without limitation, all employee-related liabilities, including severance liabilities, incurred for the termination of any employees employed by the departing general partner or its affiliates for our benefit.

Our general partner may transfer all or any of its general partner interest in us without obtaining approval of the shareholders. As a condition of this transfer, the transferee must assume the rights and duties of the general partner to whose interest that transferee has succeeded, agree to be bound by the provisions of our partnership agreement and furnish an opinion of counsel regarding limited liability.

Our partnership agreement contains specific provisions that are intended to discourage a person or group from attempting to remove our general partner as general partner or otherwise change management. If any person or group other than our general partner, the Existing GP Owner and their permitted transferees or their affiliates acquires beneficial ownership of 10% or more of any class of our shares, then that person or group will lose voting rights on all of its shares. This loss of voting rights does not apply to (i) any person or group that acquires the shares directly from our general partner, the Existing GP Owner or their respective affiliates, (ii) any transferees that acquired the shares from a person or group described in clause (i) provided that, upon such acquisition, our general partner shall have notified them that such limitations do not apply, or (iii) any person or group that acquires 10% of any class of shares with the prior approval of the board of directors of our general partner.

If at any time more than 90% of our outstanding common shares are owned by our general partner, the Existing GP Owner (or its permitted transferees) or their respective affiliates, our general partner will have the right (which it may assign to us or any other designee), but not the obligation, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the remaining common shares held by public shareholders at a price equal to the greater of (x) the current market price of such shares as of the date three days before notice of exercise of the call right is first mailed and (y) the highest price paid by our general partner, the Existing GP Owner or their respective affiliates for such shares during the 90 day period preceding the date such notice is first mailed.

As a result of our general partner’s right to purchase outstanding common shares, a shareholder may have his common shares purchased at an undesirable time or price. The tax consequences to a shareholder of the exercise of this call right are the same as a sale by that shareholder of his shares in the market.

Except as described below regarding a person or group owning 20% or more of shares then outstanding, shareholders on the record date will be entitled to notice of, and to vote at, meetings of our shareholders and to act upon matters for which approvals may be solicited. The only matters for which approvals may be solicited will be those matters submitted by our general partner’s board of directors. Our shareholders will not be able to submit matters for consideration at any meeting of our shareholders. Common shares that are owned by non-citizen assignees will be voted by our general partner on behalf of non-citizen assignees and our general partner will distribute the votes on those shares in the same ratios as the votes of shareholders on other shares are cast.

Our general partner does not anticipate that any meeting of shareholders will be called in the foreseeable future. Meetings of the shareholders may be called by our general partner or by shareholders owning at least 20% of the outstanding shares. Shareholders may vote either in person or by proxy at meetings. The holders of a

majority of the outstanding shares, represented in person or by proxy, will constitute a quorum unless any action by the shareholders requires approval by holders of a greater percentage of the shares, in which case the quorum will be the greater percentage.

Each record holder of a share has a vote according to his percentage interest in us, although additional partnership interests having special voting rights could be issued. Please read “—Issuance of Additional Securities” above. However, if at any time any person or group, other than our general partner, the Existing GP Owner and their respective affiliates, or a direct or subsequently approved transferee of our general partner, the Existing GP Owner and their respective affiliates, acquires, in the aggregate, beneficial ownership of 10% or more of any class of shares then outstanding, that person or group will lose voting rights on all of its shares and the shares may not be voted on any matter and will not be considered to be outstanding when sending notices of a meeting of shareholders, calculating required votes, determining the presence of a quorum or for other similar purposes. For more information on persons and groups to which this loss of voting rights does not apply, please read “—Change of Management Provisions” above. Shares held in nominee or street name account will be voted by the broker or other nominee in accordance with the instruction of the beneficial owner unless the arrangement between the beneficial owner and his nominee provides otherwise.

Any notice, demand, request, report or proxy material required or permitted to be given or made to record holders of shares under our partnership agreement will be delivered to the record holder by us or by the transfer agent.

Following the completion of the merger transactions, as the initial holder of all of the issued and outstanding ETE Class E units, we will be entitled to vote the ETE Class E units whenever ETE’s partnership agreement provides the ETE Class E units with a vote on a matter. Under our partnership agreement, our conflicts committee will control how we vote the ETE Class E units on any of the following matters:

In contrast, the Existing GP Owner will exclusively control how we vote the ETE Class E units on any vote to remove ETE’s general partner.

The authority of our general partner’s board of directors to manage and control ETC is restricted by approval rights retained by the Existing GP Owner over certain matters. As a result of these approval rights, our general partner’s board of directors may not cause or permit ETC to do any of the following actions without the approval of the Existing GP Owner:

By transfer of shares in accordance with our partnership agreement, each transferee of shares shall be admitted as a limited partner with respect to the shares transferred when such transfer and admission is reflected in our books and records. Except as described under “—Limited Liability” above, the shares will be fully paid, and shareholders will not be required to make additional contributions.

If we are or become subject to federal, state or local laws or regulations that, in the reasonable determination of our general partner, create a substantial risk of cancellation or forfeiture of any property that we have an interest in because of the nationality, citizenship or other related status of any shareholder, we may redeem the shares held by the shareholder or assignee at their current market price. To avoid any cancellation or forfeiture, our general partner may require each shareholder or assignee to furnish information about his nationality, citizenship or related status. If a shareholder or assignee fails to furnish information about his nationality, citizenship or other related status within 30 days after a request for the information or our general partner determines after receipt of the information that the shareholder or assignee is not an eligible citizen, the shareholder or assignee may be treated as a non-citizen assignee. In addition to other limitations on the rights of an assignee that is not a substituted shareholder, a non-citizen assignee does not have the right to direct the voting of his shares and may not receive distributions in kind upon our liquidation.

Under our partnership agreement, in most circumstances, we will indemnify the following persons, to the fullest extent permitted by law and subject to limitations in our partnership agreement from and against all losses, claims, damages or similar events:

We must provide the above indemnification unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that these persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct. We must also provide the above indemnification for criminal proceedings unless our general partner or these other persons acted with knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. Thus, our general partner could be indemnified for its negligent acts if it met the requirements set forth above.

Any indemnification under these provisions will only be out of our assets. Our general partner will not be personally liable for, or have any obligation to contribute or loan funds or assets to us to enable it to effectuate, indemnification. We may purchase insurance against liabilities asserted against and expenses incurred by persons for our activities, regardless of whether we would have the power to indemnify the person against liabilities under our partnership agreement.

The Administrative Agreement requires ETE to reimburse our general partner for all direct and indirect expenses it incurs or payments it makes on our behalf and all other expenses allocable to us or otherwise incurred by our general partner in connection with operating our or its business, including payments or expenses incurred for general and administrative services provided by third parties or any affiliates of ETE, salaries and related benefits of any personnel employed by our general partner and equity compensation expenses related to equity awards granted by our general partner to the extent that ETE determines such equity compensation is allocable to ETE. These expenses include any amounts paid to persons who perform services for us or on our behalf and expenses allocated to our general partner by its affiliates. Our general partner is entitled to determine the expenses that are allocable to us. In any event, these expenses will include any costs to the general partner of maintaining its existence and good standing in whatever jurisdiction it deems advisable. There is no limit on the amount of fees and expenses ETE may be required to pay to affiliates of our general partner on our behalf pursuant to the Administrative Agreement.

Our general partner is required to keep appropriate books of our business at our principal offices. The books will be maintained for both tax and financial reporting purposes on an accrual basis. For fiscal reporting and tax reporting purposes, our year ends on December 31 each year.

We will furnish or make available to record holders of shares, within 115 days after the close of each fiscal year, an annual report containing audited financial statements and a report on those financial statements by our independent public accountants. Except for our fourth quarter, we will also furnish or make available summary financial information within 60 days after the close of each quarter.

Our partnership agreement provides that a shareholder can, for a purpose reasonably related to his interest as a shareholder, upon reasonable written demand and at his own expense, have furnished to him:

Under our partnership agreement, however, our shareholders and other persons who acquire interests in us do not have rights to receive information from us or any of the persons we indemnify as described under

“—Indemnification” for the purpose of determining whether to pursue litigation or assist in pending litigation against us or those indemnified persons relating to our affairs, except pursuant to the applicable rules of discovery relating to the litigation commenced by the person seeking information.

Our general partner may, and intends to, keep confidential from our shareholders trade secrets or other information the disclosure of which our general partner believes is not in our best interests or which we are required by law or by agreements with third parties to keep confidential. Our partnership agreement limits the rights to information that a limited partner would otherwise have under Delaware law.

Our general partner will manage our operations and activities. Common shareholders are limited partners and will not participate in the management of our operations. As a general partner, our general partner is liable for all of our debts (to the extent not paid from our assets), except for indebtedness or other obligations that are made specifically non-recourse to it. Our general partner has the sole discretion to incur indebtedness or other obligations on our behalf on a non-recourse basis to the general partner.

We and our general partner have no employees. All of our officers and other personnel necessary for our business to function (to the extent not outsourced) will be employed by ETE GP. We expect that all of the officers of our general partner will also be officers of the ETE general partner, and that some of the directors of our general partner will also be directors of the ETE general partner. We expect that our general partner’s executive officers will spend the substantial majority of their time managing the business of ETE, which benefits us as ETE’s performance will determine our success. The actual time devoted by these officers to managing our business as well as ETE’s will fluctuate as a result of the relative activity level between the two entities. The amount of incremental time spent by non-officer directors who serve on both boards of directors will depend to some extent on committee assignments. Upon completion of the merger, we will have three independent directors as defined by the rules of the NYSE.

ETE will reimburse the ETE general partner for expenses incurred (i) on our behalf; (ii) on behalf of our general partner; or (iii) for any other purpose related to our business and activities or those of our general partner. ETE will also reimburse our general partner for any additional expenses incurred on our behalf or to maintain our legal existence and good standing. These additional expenses will include recurring costs associated with being a separate publicly traded entity, including expenses associated with (i) compensation for new directors, (ii) incremental director and officer liability insurance, (iii) listing on the NYSE, (iv) investor relations, (v) legal matters and (vi) accounting.

The directors of our general partner will be designated and elected by the Existing GP Owner. At the closing date, our general partner’s board of directors will consist of between five and 11 directors, including three independent directors meeting the independence standards established by the NYSE and the Exchange Act. The appointment of these three independent directors will be subject to approval by the WMB Board, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. As a limited partnership, we are not required by the rules of the NYSE to seek shareholder approval for the election of any of our directors. We expect that the individuals who will be appointed as directors will have the requisite experience, skills and qualifications relevant to our business, such as experience in energy or related industries or with financial markets, expertise in natural gas operations or finance, and a history of service in senior leadership positions. We will not have a formal process for identifying director nominees, nor will we have a formal policy regarding consideration of diversity in identifying director nominees, but we expect that the Existing GP Owner will endeavor to assemble a group of individuals with the qualities and attributes required to provide effective oversight of us.

Directors and Executive Officers of Our General Partner and ETE General Partner

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the individuals who are expected to serve as executive officers and directors of our general partner upon the completion of the merger.

Set forth below is biographical information regarding the foregoing individuals:

Kelcy L. Warren. Mr. Warren has agreed to serve as Chief Executive Officer of our general partner and will become Chief Executive Officer in connection with the closing of the merger. Mr. Warren was appointed Co-Chairman of the board of directors of LE GP, effective upon the closing of ETE’s initial public offering. On August 15, 2007, Mr. Warren became the sole Chairman of the Board of LE GP and the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the general partner of ETP. Prior to that, Mr. Warren had served as Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-Chairman of the Board of ETP GP since the combination of the midstream and intrastate transportation storage operations of ETC OLP and the retail propane operations of Heritage in January 2004. Mr. Warren also served as Chief Executive Officer of the general partner of ETC OLP. Prior to the combination of the operations of ETP and Heritage Propane Partners, L.P., Mr. Warren served as President of the general partner of ET Company I, Ltd., the entity that operated ETP’s midstream assets before it acquired Aquila, Inc.’s midstream assets, having served in that capacity since 1996. From 1996 to 2000, he also served as a Director of Crosstex Energy, Inc. From 1993 to 1996, he served as President, Chief Operating Officer and a director of Cornerstone Natural Gas, Inc. Mr. Warren has more than 25 years of business experience in the energy industry.

John W. McReynolds. Mr. McReynolds has agreed to serve as President and Chairman of the Board of our general partner and will become President and Chairman of the Board in connection with the closing of the merger. Mr. McReynolds has served as LE GP’s President since March 2005 and as a director of LE GP’s board since August 2005. He served as ETE’s Chief Financial Officer from August 2005 to June 2013 and has previously served as a director of ETP from August 2001 through May 2010. Mr. McReynolds has been in the energy industry for his entire career. Prior to becoming President of ETE, Mr. McReynolds was in private law practice for over 20 years, specializing exclusively in energy-related finance, securities, corporations and partnerships, mergers and acquisitions, syndications, and a wide variety of energy-related litigation. His practice

dealt with all forms of fossil fuels, and the transportation and handling thereof, together with the financing and structuring of all forms of business entities related thereto. Mr. McReynolds has been selected to serve as Chairman of the Board of our general partner because of this extensive background and experience, as well as his many contacts and relationships in the industry.

Thomas E. Long. Mr. Long has agreed to serve as Chief Financial Officer and a member of the Board of our general partner and will become Chief Financial Officer and a director in connection with the closing of the merger. Mr. Long has served as the Group Chief Financial Officer of ETE since February 2016. Mr. Long previously served as Chief Financial Officer of ETP and as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Regency LLC from November 2010 to April 2015. From May 2008 to November 2010, Mr. Long served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Matrix Service Company. Prior to joining Matrix, he served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of DCP Midstream Partners, LP, a publicly traded natural gas and natural gas liquids midstream business company located in Denver, Colorado. In that position, he was responsible for all financial aspects of the company since its formation in December 2005. From 1998 to 2005, Mr. Long served in several executive positions with subsidiaries of Duke Energy Corp., one of the nation’s largest electric power companies. Mr. Long has been selected to serve as a director because of his extensive financial background and experience in the energy industry.

Brad Whitehurst. Mr. Whitehurst has agreed to serve as Executive Vice President and Head of Tax of our general partner and will become Executive Vice President and Head of Tax in connection with the closing of the merger. Mr. Whitehurst has served as the Executive Vice President and Head of Tax of LE GP since August 2014. Prior to joining ETE, Mr. Whitehurst was a partner in the Washington, DC office of Bingham McCutchen LLP from August 2009 to August 2014 and, prior to that, an attorney in the Washington, DC offices of both McKee Nelson LLP and Hogan & Hartson. Mr. Whitehurst has specialized in partnership taxation and has advised ETE and its subsidiaries in his role as outside counsel since 2006.

Marshall S. (Mackie) McCrea, III. Mr. McCrea has agreed to serve as Chief Operating Officer, Chief Commercial Officer and a member of the Board of our general partner and will become Chief Operating Officer, Chief Commercial Officer and a director in connection with the closing of the merger. Mr. McCrea was appointed as a director of LE GP in December 2009. He has also served as Group Chief Operating Officer and Chief Commercial Officer for the Energy Transfer family since November 2015. Prior to that, he served as President and Chief Operating Officer of ETP GP from June 2008 to November 2015 and President—Midstream from March 2007 to June 2008. Previously he served as the Senior Vice President—Commercial Development since the combination of the operations of ETC OLP and HOLP in January 2004. In March 2005, Mr. McCrea was named president of ETC OLP. Prior to the combination of the operations of ETC OLP and HOLP, Mr. McCrea served as the Senior Vice President—Business Development and Producer Services of the general partner of ETC OLP and ET Company I, Ltd., having served in that capacity since 1997. Mr. McCrea also currently serves on the board of directors of ETP GP, SXL GP and Sunoco GP. Mr. McCrea has been selected to serve as a director because of his extensive project development and operations experience.

Thomas P. Mason. Mr. Mason has agreed to serve as Executive Vice President, General Counsel and a member of the Board of our general partner and will become Executive Vice President, General Counsel and a director in connection with the closing of the merger. Mr. Mason has served as Executive Vice President and General Counsel of LE GP since December 2015. Mr. Mason previously served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of ETP from April 2012 to December 2015, as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of ETP from June 2008 and as General Counsel and Secretary of ETP from February 2007. Prior to joining ETP, he was a partner in the Houston office of Vinson & Elkins. Mr. Mason has specialized in securities offerings and mergers and acquisitions for more than 25 years. Mr. Mason also serves on the board of directors of SXL GP. Mr. Mason has been selected to serve as a director because of his extensive legal background and experience in the energy industry.

James W. Bryant. Mr. Bryant has agreed to serve as a member of the Board of our general partner and will become a director in connection with the closing of the merger. Mr. Bryant has served as a member of the board of directors of Sunoco GP since April 2015. Mr. Bryant is a chemical engineer and has more than 40 years of experience in all phases of the natural gas business, specifically in the engineering and management of midstream facilities. Mr. Bryant previously served as a director of Regency GP LLC, the general partner of Regency from July 2010 to April 2015 and was Chairman of the Regency board from April 2014 to April 2015. He also served as a partner and member of the board of directors for Cardinal Midstream, LLC from September 2008 until April 2013, and since then formed JWB Cardinal Investments. Prior to that, he was a co-founder of Cardinal Gas Solutions LP and Regency Gas Services, LLC. Mr. Bryant was selected to serve as a member of the board of our general partner based on his more than 40 years of experience in the energy industry as well as his experience as a director on the boards of other public companies.

Imad K. Anbouba. Mr. Anbouba has agreed to serve as a member of the Board of our general partner and will become a director in connection with the closing of the merger. He has been the President and Chief Executive Officer of MarJam Global Holdings, Inc. since 1999 and previously served Triton Energy Limited in senior managerial positions from June 1987 to July 1998. Mr. Anbouba is a petroleum engineer with more than 35 years of experience in the oil and gas midstream and petrochemical industries. Mr. Anbouba has previously served as a member of the board of directors and Chief Executive Officer of Central Energy GP LLC from May 2012 to November 2013. He has also previously served as a member of the board of the Dallas Wildcatters from August 2010 to May 2013 and member of the board and Vice President of the Dallas Petroleum Club from January 1997 to January 2000 and January 1998 to January 1999, respectively. Mr. Anbouba was selected to serve as a member of the board of our general partner based on his more than 35 years of experience in the energy industry as well as his experience as a director on the boards of other public companies.

M. Max Yzaguirre. Mr. Yzaguirre has agreed to serve as a member of the Board of our general partner and will become a director in connection with the closing of the merger. He has been the President and Chief Executive Officer of The Yzaguirre Group, L.L.C. since June 2006. Mr. Yzaguirre previously served as Chairman of Isolux Ingenieria USA, L.L.C. from August 2011 to May 2013 and also served as its Chief Executive Officer from March 2010 to August 2011. He served in various capacities at Hunt Consolidated from April 2002 to June 2006 including as President of Hunt-Mexico, Inc. and Hunt Resources Inc. Mr. Yzaguirre was appointed to and named Chairman of the Public Utility Commission of Texas and served in this capacity from June 2001 to January 2002. From November 1995 to February 1997, Mr. Yzaguirre worked at Enron in different capacities, including serving as President of its Mexico operations. Prior to serving in these roles, he was a partner in the McAllen office of Atlas & Hall, L.L.P. Mr. Yzaguirre currently serves on the board of directors of BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. and BBVA Compass Bank. He is also a current board member and former Chairman of the Texas Business Hall of Fame Foundation, a member of the board of directors of the Texas Wildlife Association and a special advisor to the Energy Council. Mr. Yzaguirre was selected to serve as a member of the board of our general partner based on his more than 30 years of experience in domestic and international business and expertise in oil and gas, as well as his experience as a director on the board of other public companies.

Our general partner’s board of directors will generally administer its risk oversight function through the board as a whole. Our president, who will report to our general partner’s board of directors, will have day-to-day risk management responsibilities. Our president will attend the meetings of our general partner’s board of directors, where the board of directors will routinely receive reports on our financial results, the status of our operations, and other aspects of implementation of our business strategy, with ample opportunity for specific inquiries of management. In addition, at each regular meeting of our general partner’s board of directors, management will provide a report of our financial and operational performance, which is expected to prompt questions or feedback from the board of directors. The audit committee will provide additional risk oversight through its quarterly meetings, where it will receive a report from our internal auditor, who will report directly to the audit committee, and will review our contingencies with management and our independent auditors.

Our general partner’s board of directors will adopt both a code of business conduct and ethics applicable to our directors, officers and employees, and corporate governance guidelines for directors and the board of directors. Copies of our code of business conduct and ethics, corporate governance guidelines and charters of the audit and compensation committees of our general partner’s board of directors will be available on our website at www.energytransfer.com and will be provided in print form to any shareholder requesting such information.

Please note that the preceding Internet address is for information purposes only and is not intended to be a hyperlink. Accordingly, no information found and/or provided at such Internet addresses or at our website in general is intended or deemed to be incorporated by reference herein.

Because we are a limited partnership, the listing standards of the NYSE do not require that we establish or maintain a nominating or compensation committee on our general partner’s board of directors. We are, however, required to have an audit committee consisting of at least three members, all of whom are required to be “independent” as defined by the NYSE.

To be considered independent under NYSE listing standards, our general partner’s board of directors must determine that a director has no material relationship with us other than as a director. The standards specify the criteria by which the independence of directors will be determined, including guidelines for directors and their immediate family members with respect to employment or affiliation with us or with our independent public accountants.

At least three independent members of our general partner’s board of directors will serve on a conflicts committee. The members of the conflicts committee may not be officers or employees of our general partner or directors, officers or employees of its affiliates, including ETE, ETP, SXL, Sunoco and, following completion of the merger, WPZ. The members of the conflicts committee must also meet the independence standards established by the NYSE and the Exchange Act to serve on an audit committee of a board of directors, along with other requirements in our partnership agreement.

Prior to the effective time, the Existing GP Owner will select the initial members of the conflicts committee with the approval of the WMB Board, which will not be unreasonably withheld. Thereafter, any vacancies in the conflicts committee will be filled by the majority vote of the remaining members of the conflicts committee and no member of the conflicts committee may be removed except upon the approval of the majority of the other members of the conflicts committee or such member’s resignation or death.

The conflicts committee will have the authority to review specific matters for which our general partner’s board of directors believes there may be a conflict of interest. As a policy matter, the conflicts committee will generally review any proposed related-party transaction that may be material to us to determine if the transaction presents a conflict of interest. Pursuant to the terms of our partnership agreement, any matters approved by the conflicts committee will be conclusively deemed to be approved by all of our shareholders and not a breach by the general partner or its board of directors of any duties they may owe us or our shareholders. These duties are limited by our partnership agreement. See “Risks Factors—Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest.”

In addition, other than in certain circumstances, the conflicts committee will have the authority to control the voting of the ETE Class E units owned by us. Please read “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Voting the ETE Class E Units” for information regarding the voting of the ETE Class E units by the conflicts committee.

We are required to have an audit committee of a least three members, and all its members are required to meet the independence and experience standards established by the NYSE and the Exchange Act. Our general partner’s audit committee will review our external financial reporting, engage our independent auditors and review the adequacy of our internal accounting controls.

Although not required by the listing standards of the NYSE, our general partner’s board of directors intends to establish a compensation committee. We and our general partner have no employees. All of our general partner’s officers and other personnel necessary for our business to function (to the extent not outsourced) will be employed by the ETE general partner. Please read “—Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Administrative Agreement.” Moreover, we anticipate that substantially all responsibility and authority for compensation-related decisions will have been delegated to the compensation committee of the ETE general partner. The responsibilities of our compensation committee will be limited to approving the compensation of our general partner’s directors.

Compensation of our independent directors will be set by our general partner’s board of directors upon recommendation from our general partner’s compensation committee. Any such director compensation will be borne by ETE. Each director will be indemnified for his actions associated with being a director to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and subject to limitations in our partnership agreement.

ETC and its general partner have no employees. All of its officers and other personnel necessary for its business to function (to the extent not outsourced) will be employed by the ETE general partner. See “—Certain Relationships and Related Transactions—Administrative Agreement.” Applicable disclosure rules require discussion of certain aspects of the compensation of any of ETC’s “named executive officers,” which are generally defined to include the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), and the three other most highly compensated executive officers who received compensation in excess of $100,000 during the previous fiscal year. References within this Compensation Discussion and Analysis to the named executive officers refer to ETE’s named executive officers, consisting of the individuals serving in those roles as of December 31, 2015, and the compensation information set forth in this section discloses the compensation discussion and analysis of ETE for the year ended December 31, 2015.

ETE owns 100% of ETP GP and its general partner, ETP LLC. We refer to ETP GP and ETP LLC together as the “ETP GP Entities.” ETP GP is the general partner of ETP. All of ETP’s employees received employee benefits from the operating companies of ETP.

ETE acquired 100% of Sunoco GP LLC, the general partner of Sunoco, from ETP in July 2015. All of Sunoco’s employees receive employee benefits from either Sunoco GP LLC or the operating companies of Sunoco.

ETE does not have officers or directors. Instead, ETE is managed by the board of directors of the ETE general partner, and the executive officers of the ETE general partner perform all of ETE’s management functions. As a result, the executive officers of the ETE general partner are essentially ETE’s executive officers, and their compensation is administered by the ETE general partner. This Compensation Discussion and Analysis is, therefore, focused on the total compensation of the executive officers of the ETE general partner for 2015 as set forth below. In addition, to provide comprehensive disclosure of ETE’s executive compensation, we are also providing information as to the executive compensation of certain officers of ETE’s subsidiaries for 2015, even though none of these persons is an executive officer of ETE. Accordingly, the persons we refer to in this discussion as ETE’s “named executive officers” are the following individuals who served in executive officer roles as of December 31, 2015:

In February 2016, Mr. Welch was removed from his position as Group Chief Financial Officer and Head of Business Development of the ETE general partner and his employment with an affiliate of ETE was terminated. As Mr. Welch served as Group Chief Financial Officer and Head of Business Development of the ETE general partner for the entirety of 2015, disclosure related to his 2015 compensation is included in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Any information contained in the applicable Compensation Discussion and Analysis or the associated Compensation Tables, except as required to include information as of a date later than December 31, 2015, is expressly limited to terms and conditions of Mr. Welch’s status as of December 31, 2015.

In November 2015, Mr. McCrea was promoted to Group Chief Operating Officer and Chief Commercial Officer of the ETE general partner from his position of President and Chief Operating Officer of ETP GP. In December 2015, Mr. Mason was promoted to Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the ETE general partner from his position of Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of ETP GP. As Messrs. McCrea’s and Mason’s business responsibilities during 2015 were undertaken for both ETP GP and the ETE general partner, the compensation committees of each of ETP GP and the ETE general partner shared components of Messrs. McCrea’s and Mason’s compensation. The approval of Messrs. McCrea’s and Mason’s 2015 base salary merit adjustments and 2015 long-term incentive and annual bonus pool targets was undertaken by the compensation committee of the ETP GP Entities (the “ETP Compensation Committee”), while the compensation committee of the ETE general partner (the “ETE Compensation Committee”) undertook approval of: (i) Mr. McCrea’s promotional adjustment and actual 2015 bonus; and (ii) Mr. Mason’s one-time special incentive retention bonus, including amounts attributable to his 2015 bonus. The long-term incentive awards of Messrs. McCrea and Mason were approved by the compensation committees of the general partners of ETP, SXL and Sunoco, as applicable, based on their respective award allocation.

Additionally, Mr. Owens’ primary business responsibilities during 2015 were undertaken for the general partner of Sunoco. The compensation committee of the general partner of Sunoco (the “SUN Compensation Committee”) set the components of Mr. Owens’ compensation, including base salary, long-term incentive awards and annual bonus utilizing the same philosophy and methodology as adopted by the ETE general partner.

ETE General Partner. In general, the ETE general partner’s philosophy for executive compensation is based on the premise that a significant portion of each executive’s compensation should be incentive-based or “at-risk” compensation and that executives’ total compensation levels should be very competitive in the marketplace for executive talent and abilities. The ETE general partner seeks a total compensation program for the named executive officers that provides for a slightly below the median market annual base compensation rate (i.e. approximately the 40th percentile of market) but incentive-based compensation composed of a combination of compensation vehicles to reward both short and long-term performance that are both targeted to pay-out at approximately the top-quartile of market. The ETE general partner believes the incentive-based balance is achieved by the payment of annual discretionary cash bonuses and grants of restricted unit awards. The ETE general partner believes the performance of ETE’s operating subsidiaries and the contribution of ETE’s management toward the achievement of the financial targets and other goals of those subsidiaries should be considered in determining annual discretionary cash bonuses.

ETP GP Entities. The ETP GP Entities also believe that a significant portion of each executives’ compensation should be incentive-based or “at-risk” compensation and that executives’ total compensation levels should be very competitive in the marketplace for executive talents and abilities. ETP GP seeks a total compensation program for the named executive officers that provides for a slightly below the median market annual base compensation rate (i.e. approximately the 40th percentile of market) but incentive-based compensation composed of a combination of compensation vehicles to reward both short and long-term performance that are both targeted to pay-out at approximately the top-quartile of market. ETP GP believes the incentive-based balance is achieved by (i) the payment of annual discretionary cash bonuses that consider the achievement of ETP’s financial performance objectives for a fiscal year set at the beginning of such fiscal year and the individual contributions of its named executive officers to the success of ETP and the achievement of the annual financial performance objectives and (ii) the annual grant of time-based restricted unit awards under ETP’s equity incentive plan(s) or the equity incentive programs of either SXL and/or Sunoco, as applicable based on the allocation of the named executive officers’ award, which awards are intended to provide a longer term incentive and retention value to its key employees to focus their efforts on increasing the market price of its publicly traded units and to increase the cash distribution ETP and/or the other affiliated partnerships pay to their respective unitholders.

Prior to December of 2012, long-term equity awards were primarily in the form of restricted unit awards that vest over a specified time period, with substantially all of these types of unit awards vesting over a five-year period at 20% per year generally based on continued employment through each specified vesting date. Beginning in December 2012, ETE began granting restricted unit awards that vest, based generally upon continued employment, at a rate of 60% after the third year of service and the remaining 40% after the fifth year of service. The ETP GP Entities believe that these equity-based incentive arrangements are important in attracting and retaining executive officers and key employees as well as motivating these individuals to achieve stated business objectives. The equity-based compensation reflects the importance ETP GP places on aligning the interests of its named executive officers with those of ETE’s unitholders.

While ETE, through the ETP GP entities, is responsible for the direct payment of the compensation of ETE’s named executive officers as employees of ETE, ETE does not participate or have any input in any decisions as to the compensation levels or policies of the ETE general partner or the ETP GP Entities. As discussed below, ETE’s compensation committee, the eligible members of the board of directors of the ETE general partner at times when ETE has not had a compensation committee or the ETP Compensation Committee and/or the compensation committee of the general partner of SXL and Sunoco, as applicable, all in consultation with the ETE general partner, are responsible for the compensation policies and compensation level of the individuals whose compensation is disclosed in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. In this discussion, we refer to either or both of the ETE Compensation Committee or such members of ETE’s board of directors collectively as the “ETE Compensation Committee.”

ETP also does not participate or have any input in any decisions as to the compensation policies of the ETP GP Entities or the compensation levels of the executive officers of the ETP GP Entities. The ETP Compensation Committee is responsible for the approval of the compensation policies and the compensation levels of the executive officers of the ETP GP Entities.

SXL also does not participate or have any input in any decisions as to the compensation policies of its general partner or the compensation levels of the executive officers of its general partner. The compensation committee of the board of directors of the general partner of SXL (the “SXL Compensation Committee”) is responsible for the approval of the compensation policies and the compensation levels of the executive officers of the general partner of SXL.

Sunoco also does not participate or have any input in any decisions as to the compensation policies of its general partner or the compensation levels of the executive officers of its general partner. The SUN Compensation Committee is responsible for the approval of the compensation policies and the compensation levels of the executive officers of the general partner of Sunoco.

For a more detailed description of the compensation to ETE’s and ETP GP’s named executive officers, please see “—Compensation Tables” below.

Each of ETE’s and ETP’s compensation programs are structured to provide the following benefits:

For the year ended December 31, 2015, the compensation paid to the named executive officers consisted of the following components:

The ETE Compensation Committee considers relevant data available to it to assess its competitive position with respect to base salary, annual short-term incentives and long-term incentive compensation for ETE’s executive officers, including the named executive officers. The ETE Compensation Committee also considers individual performance, levels of responsibility, skills and experience.

Periodically, the ETE or ETP Compensation Committee engages a third-party consultant to provide market information for compensation levels at peer companies in order to assist in the determination of compensation levels for ETE’s executive officers, including ETE’s named executive officers. In 2015, Longnecker & Associates (“Longnecker”) evaluated the market competitiveness of total compensation levels of a number of officers of ETE, ETP and SXL to provide market information with respect to compensation of certain executives. In particular, the review by Longnecker was designed to (i) evaluate the market competitiveness of total compensation levels for certain members of senior management, including ETE’s named executive officers; (ii) assist in the determination of appropriate compensation levels for ETE’s senior management, including ETE’s named executive officers; and (iii) confirm that ETE’s compensation programs were yielding compensation packages consistent with ETE’s overall compensation philosophy. This review by Longnecker was deemed necessary to update the most recent review by Mercer (US) Inc. during 2013, especially in light of the on-going growth of the family of partnerships as a result of the series of transforming transactions completed over the past few years, which have continued to significantly increase ETE’s size and scale from both a financial and asset perspective.

In conducting its review, Longnecker specifically considered the larger size of the combined ETE and ETP entities from an energy industry perspective, to form a public peer group, inclusive of energy and non-energy related peers, against which ETE and ETP can compare total compensation for its executives, including the named executive officers. ETE worked with Longnecker in the development of the final “peer group” of both leading companies in the energy industry that most closely reflect ETE’s profile in terms of revenues, assets and market value as well as compete with ETE for talent at the senior management level and similarly situated general industry companies with similar revenues, assets and market value. The identified companies were:

The compensation analysis provided by Longnecker covered all major components of total compensation, including annual base salary, annual short-term cash bonus and long-term incentive awards for the senior executives of these companies. In preparing the review materials, Longnecker utilized generally accepted compensation principles as determined by WorldatWork and gathered data from the public peer companies and published salary surveys.

The ETE Compensation Committee reviewed the information provided by Longnecker, including Longnecker’s specific conclusions and recommended considerations for total compensation going forward, but focused specifically on the industry related data to compare the levels of annual base salary, annual short-term cash bonus and long-term equity incentive awards at these other companies with those of ETE’s named executive officers to ensure that compensation of ETE’s named executive officers is both consistent with ETE’s compensation philosophy and competitive with the compensation for executive officers of these other companies. The ETE Compensation Committee considered and reviewed the results of the study performed by Longnecker to determine if the results indicated that ETE’s compensation programs were yielding a competitive total compensation model prioritizing incentive-based compensation and rewarding achievement of short and long-term performance objectives. The ETE Compensation Committee also specifically evaluated benchmarked results for the annual base salary, annual short-term cash bonus or long-term equity incentive awards of the named executive officers to the compensation levels at the identified “energy peer group” companies and considered Longnecker’s conclusions and recommendations. While Longnecker found that ETE is achieving its stated objectives with respect to the “at-risk” approach, they also found that certain adjustments should be implemented to allow ETE to achieve its targeted percentiles on base compensation and incentive compensation (short and long-term).

Longnecker did not provide any non-executive compensation services for ETE during 2015. In addition to the information received as a result of a periodic engagement of a third party consultant, the ETE Compensation Committee also utilizes information obtained from other sources, such as annual third party surveys, in its determination of compensation levels for ETE’s named executive officers.

For 2015, the ETP Compensation Committee undertook a substantially similar analysis with respect to executive compensation, including compensation of the named executive officers utilizing Longnecker.

During 2015, the SUN Compensation Committee engaged Towers Watson to (i) provide market information for compensation levels at peer companies in order to assist the SUN Compensation Committee in its determination of compensation levels for senior management, including ETE’s named executive officers; (ii) evaluate the market competitiveness of total compensation levels for certain members of senior management, including ETE’s named executive officers; (iii) assist in the determination of appropriate compensation levels for senior management, including ETE’s named executive officers; and (iv) confirm that ETE’s compensation programs were yielding compensation packages consistent with ETE’s overall compensation philosophy. ETE was reviewed by Towers Watson through various metrics in order to recognize Sunoco’s unique structure. The uniqueness of ETE’s structure include the facts that (i) the retail business segment of Sunoco, Inc. operates as a significant operational division of ETP; (ii) Sunoco receives certain shared-service support from ETE and ETP; and (iii) in other functions, Sunoco operates as an independent publicly-traded organization. As such, Towers Watson reviewed certain of the retail segment executives, including the Sunoco named executive officers, in their specific functions to determine the appropriate benchmarking technique. In all circumstances, Towers Watson considered the annual revenues and market capitalization levels of the retail business segment in its benchmarking. The compensation analysis provided by Towers Watson covered all major components of total compensation, including annual base salary, annual short-term cash bonus and long-term incentive awards for Sunoco’s named executive officers as compared to officers of companies similarly situated in terms of structure, annual revenues and market capitalization and made determinations with respect to such officers’ level (i.e. as a corporate officer, subsidiary officer or shared service function) given the unique characteristics of ETE’s structure.

The SUN Compensation Committee utilized the information provided by Towers Watson to compare the levels of annual base salary, annual short-term cash bonus and long-term equity incentive awards at these other companies with those of ETE’s named executive officers to ensure that compensation of ETE’s named executive officers is both consistent with ETE’s compensation philosophy and competitive with the compensation of similarly situated retail industry executives. The SUN Compensation Committee considered and reviewed the results of the study performed by Towers Watson to ensure the results indicated that ETE’s compensation programs were yielding a competitive total compensation model prioritizing incentive-based compensation and rewarding achievement of short and long-term performance objectives. The SUN Compensation Committee also specifically evaluated benchmarked results for the annual base salary, annual short-term cash bonus or long-term equity incentive awards of the named executive officers to the compensation levels within both retail industry and general industry survey data. In certain cases, premiums or discounts were applied when an executive position match was appropriate but the position scope or surveyed company revenues differed meaningfully. The survey data used was derived from the following sources: Towers Watson’s 2014 Compensation Data Bank (CDB - General Industry), Towers Watson Retail/Wholesale Services Executive Database, Mercer 2014 Retail Survey, Mercer 2014 Executive Survey; and a Proprietary 2014 Retail Report. The SUN Compensation Committee also reviewed peer group proxy data for certain named executive officer roles, however, due to limited sample size due the relatively small number of publicly traded convenience store competitors, the data was used as a reference point for the SUN Compensation Committee rather than a primary data source. Proxy data was reviewed for Casey’s General Stores, CST Brands, Couche-Tard, Murphy USA and The Pantry.

In addition to the information received as a result of a periodic engagement of a third-party consultant, the SUN Compensation Committee also utilizes information obtained from other sources, such as annual third-party surveys, for comparison purposes in its determination of compensation levels for Sunoco’s named executive officers. Towers Watson did not provide any non-executive compensation services for ETE during 2015.

Base Salary. Base salary is designed to provide for a competitive fixed level of pay that attracts and retains executive officers, and compensates them for their level of responsibility and sustained individual performance (including experience, scope of responsibility and results achieved). The salaries of the named executive officers

are reviewed on an annual basis. As discussed above, the base salaries of the named executive officers are targeted to yield an annual base salary slightly below the median level of market (i.e. approximately the 40th percentile of market) and are determined by the ETE Compensation Committee.

The base salaries of ETE’s named executive officers are determined by the ETE Compensation Committee, which takes into account the recommendations of Mr. Warren, as the Chairman of the board of directors of the ETE general partner. During the 2015 merit review process in July, the ETE Compensation Committee approved an increase to Mr. McReynolds of 4.0% to $572,000 from its prior level of $550,000; a 3.0% increase to Mr. Welch to $566,500 from its prior level of $550,000; and a 5.0% increase for Mr. Whitehurst to $498,750 from its prior level of $475,000.

The base salaries of ETP’s named executive officers are determined by the ETP Compensation Committee, which takes into account the recommendations of Mr. Warren, as the Chief Executive Officer of ETP GP. During the 2015 merit review process in July, the ETP Compensation Committee approved an increase to Mr. McCrea of 6.3% to $850,000 from its prior level of $800,000; and a 3.0% increase to Mr. Mason to $566,500 from its prior level of $550,000. The ETP Compensation Committee determined that the increases to Messrs. McCrea and Mason were warranted based on the results of the Longnecker study and the factors described below under “Annual Bonus.”

In addition, with respect to Mr. McCrea, the ETE Compensation Committee approved an additional base compensation increase from $850,000 to $1,000,000 in connection with his appointment as Group Chief Operating Officer and Group Chief Commercial Officer in November 2015.

Mr. Owens’ base salary is determined by the SUN Compensation Committee, which takes into account ETE’s recommendations as ETE controls its general partner. For 2015, the SUN Compensation Committee increased Mr. Owens’ base salary to $624,000 from his previous level of $600,000.

All of the foregoing base compensation increases were consistent with either a promotion in the case of Mr. McCrea or in accordance with the results of the Longnecker study.

Annual Bonus. In addition to base salary, the ETE Compensation Committee and the SUN Compensation Committee make determinations whether to award ETE’s named executive officers discretionary annual cash bonuses following the end of the year under the Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C. Annual Bonus Plan (the “Bonus Plan”).

These discretionary bonuses, if awarded, are intended to reward ETE’s named executive officers for the achievement of financial performance objectives during the year for which the bonuses are awarded in light of the contribution of each individual to ETE’s profitability and success during such year. The ETE Compensation Committee and the SUN Compensation Committee also consider the recommendation of ETE’s Chairman, and in the case of the SUN Compensation Committee ETE’s recommendations as ETE controls its general partner, in determining the specific annual cash bonus amounts for each of the named executive officers. The ETE Compensation Committee and the SUN Compensation Committee do not establish its or their own financial performance objectives in advance for purposes of determining whether to approve any annual bonuses, and they do not utilize any formulaic approach to determine annual bonuses.

The ETP Compensation Committee’s and the SUN Compensation Committee’s evaluation of performance and determination of an overall available bonus pool is based on the respective internal earnings target generally based on targeted EBITDA (the “Earnings Target”) budget and the performance of each department compared to the applicable departmental budget (with such performance measured based on the specific dollar amount of general and administrative expenses set for each department). The two performance criteria are weighted 75% on internal Earnings Target budget criteria and 25% on internal department financial budget criteria. Internal Earnings Target is the primary performance factor in determining annual bonuses, while internal department financial budget criteria is considered to ensure that ETE is effectively managing general and administrative costs in a prudent manner.

For 2015, the ETE Compensation Committee approved short-term annual cash bonus pool targets for Messrs. McReynolds, Welch and Whitehurst of 130%, 130% and 125%, respectively, of their annual base earnings, which targets represented an increase from 125%, 125% and 120%, respectively, in 2014.

The ETP Compensation Committee approved short-term annual cash bonus pool targets for Messrs. McCrea and Mason of 160% and 130%, respectively, of their annual base earnings, which targets represented an increase from 140% and 125%, respectively in 2014.

In February 2016, the ETE Compensation Committee approved a cash bonus relating to the 2015 calendar year to Messrs. McReynolds, McCrea and Whitehurst in the amounts of $700,892, $1,294,192, and $584,673, respectively.

With respect to Mr. Mason, in February 2016, the ETE Compensation Committee approved a one-time special incentive retention bonus in the amount of $6,300,000 (the “Special Bonus”) of which $697,716 related to his 2015 bonus award under the Bonus Plan. The Special Bonus was approved by the ETE Compensation Committee based on a recommendation of ETE senior management in recognition of, among other things, (i) Mr. Mason’s appointment as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the ETE general partner; (ii) his 2015 calendar year performance; and (iii) his contributions to ETE and its family of partnerships on several key initiatives, including (a) the drop-down transactions by and between ETP and Sunoco, (b) the proposed merger transactions between ETE and The Williams Companies, Inc., (c) the liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project of ETE, and (d) the simplification of the overall Energy Transfer family structure. The approval of the Special Bonus by the ETE Compensation Committee was conditioned upon entry by Mr. Mason into a Retention Agreement with ETE (the “Retention Agreement”) which provides (i) if, prior to the third (3rd) anniversary of the effective date of the Retention Agreement, Mr. Mason’s employment with ETE or one of its affiliates terminates (other than as a result of (x) a termination without cause by ETE or by Mr. Mason for good reason; (y) his death; or (z) his permanent disability as determined by ETE), he will be obligated to remit and repay to ETE one-hundred percent (100%) of the Special Bonus (less taxes previously withheld by ETE); (ii) if, after the third (3rd) anniversary but prior to the fourth (4th) anniversary of the effective date of the Retention Agreement, Mr. Mason’s employment with ETE or one of its affiliates terminates (other than as a result of (x) a termination without cause by ETE or by Mr. Mason for good reason; (y) his death; or (z) his permanent disability as determined by ETE), he will be obligated to remit and repay to ETE seventy-five percent (75%) of the Special Bonus (less taxes previously withheld by ETE); and (iii) if, after the fourth (4th) anniversary but prior to the fifth (5th) anniversary of the effective date of the Retention Agreement, Mr. Mason’s employment with ETE or one of its affiliates terminates (other than as a result of (x) a termination without cause by ETE or by Mr. Mason for good reason; (y) his death; or (z) his permanent disability as determined by ETE), he will be obligated to remit and repay to ETE fifty percent (50%) of the Special Bonus (less taxes previously withheld by ETE). Mr. Mason and ETE entered into the Retention Agreement on February 24, 2016.

Mr. Welch’s employment with an affiliate of ETE terminated prior to the determination of 2015 bonus awards under the Bonus Plan. The Bonus Plan requires that in order to receive an award an employee must be employed at the time the bonuses are awarded and paid. As Mr. Welch was not employed as of the date bonuses were considered, the ETE Compensation Committee did not consider or approve a bonus to Mr. Welch in respect to his 2015 performance.

Mr. Owens has a bonus pool target ranging from 125% to 150% percent of his annual base earnings with a target of 125% upon 100% funding of the bonus pool. Mr. Owens’ 2015 target of 125% represents an increase from a 120% bonus pool target at 100% funding in 2014 consistent with the results of the compensation study undertaken by Towers Watson. In order to reach the top of his bonus target range of 150%, the Earnings Target results for the retail business segment must exceed 120% of the target. Based on 2015 results for the retail business segment, Mr. Owens was awarded a bonus award of $763,846, which represented a payout at target of 125% of his annual base earnings.

In approving the 2015 bonuses of the named executive officers, the ETE Compensation Committee and the SUN Compensation Committee took into account (i) the study results of the Longnecker and Towers Watson

2015 executive compensation reviews, (ii) the achievement by the respective partnerships of all of the targeted performance objectives for 2015, specifically those set forth under the Bonus Plan (i.e. the internal Earnings Target budget criteria and the internal department financial budget criteria) and (iii) the individual performances of each of the named executive officers with respect to (a) promoting the financial, strategic and operating objectives of the respective partnerships, (b) the development of new projects at each of the respective partnerships that are expected to result in increased cash flows from operations in future years, (c) the completion of mergers, acquisitions or similar transactions that are expected to increase distributable cash flow and (d) the overall management of the business of the respective partnerships. In the cases of Messrs. McCrea, Mason and Whitehurst, the consideration of items (iii) (a-d) above, included considerations with respect to ETP, SXL and Sunoco in addition to ETE. Each of the awards to Messrs. McReynolds, McCrea and Whitehurst as well as the bonus award to Mr. Owens were approved by either the ETE Compensation Committee or the SUN Compensation Committee at target based on performance under the Bonus Plan. With respect to the award of the Special Bonus to Mr. Mason, the ETE Compensation Committee took into consideration the factors enumerated as well as the achievement by ETE of all of the targeted performance objectives for 2015, his individual performance and the Longnecker study. The portion of Mr. Mason’s Special Bonus specifically attributed to his 2015 bonus award under the Bonus Plan was also approved at target.

Equity Awards. The Energy Transfer Equity Long-Term Incentive Plan (“ETE Plan”) authorizes the ETE Compensation Committee, in its discretion, to grant awards of restricted units, unit options and other awards related to ETE common units at such times and upon such terms and conditions as it may determine in accordance with such plan. For 2015, no equity awards were issued under the ETE Plan. The named executive officers, other than Mr. McReynolds, who does not currently receive equity awards on an annual basis, each participated under long-term incentive plans of ETP, SXL and/or Sunoco, as applicable. Notwithstanding the fact that the ETE Compensation Committee did not approve long-term awards under the ETE Plan, the ETE Compensation Committee did (as discussed below) set 2015 long-term incentive award targets for Messrs. Welch and Whitehurst. Long-term incentive award targets for Messrs. McCrea and Mason for 2015 were set by the ETP Compensation Committee and the long-term incentive award target for Mr. Owens was set by the SUN Compensation Committee. For 2015, the long-term incentive awards made to ETE’s named executive officers (other than Mr. McReynolds) were made in various allocations under the Second Amended and Restated Energy Transfer Partners, L.P 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2008 Incentive Plan”) or the long-term incentive plans of ETE’s affiliates, including the Sunoco Partners LLC Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Sunoco Logistics Plan”) and Sunoco LP 2012 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2012 Incentive Plan”).

From time to time, the compensation committees of ETP, SXL and/or Sunoco may make grants under the respective long-term incentive plans to employees and/or directors containing such terms as the respective compensation committee shall determine. The applicable compensation committee determines the conditions upon which the restricted units or restricted phantom units granted may become vested or forfeited, and whether or not any such restricted units or restricted phantom units will have distribution equivalent rights (“DERs”) entitling the grantee to distributions to receive an amount in cash equal to cash distributions made by the respective partnership with respect to a like number of partnership common units during the restricted period.

In December of 2015, consistent with ETE’s compensation methodology, all of the restricted units and restricted phantom units granted under the long-term incentive plans of ETP, SXL and Sunoco, including to ETE’s named executive officers, provided for vesting of 60% at the end of the third year and vesting of the remaining 40% at the end of the fifth year, subject to continued employment of the named executive officers through each specified vesting date. The restricted units and restricted phantom unit awards entitle the grantee of the unit awards to receive, with respect to each partnership common unit subject to such restricted unit or restricted phantom unit award that has not either vested or been forfeited, a DER cash payment promptly following each such distribution to the partnership unitholders. In approving the grant of such unit awards, the applicable compensation committee took into account a number of performance factors as well as the long-term objective of retaining such individuals as key drivers of the partnership’s future success, the existing level of equity ownership of such individuals and the previous awards to such individuals of equity awards subject to

vesting. Vesting of the 2015 awards would accelerate in the event of the death or disability of the named executive officer or in the event of a change in control of the respective partnership as that term is defined under the applicable long-term incentive plan.

For 2015, in connection with the Longnecker study, the ETE Compensation Committee in July 2015 approved increased targets for Messrs. Welch and Whitehurst. Messrs. Welch’s and Whitehurst’s annual long-term incentive targets were increased to 500% and 400% of their annual base salary, respectively, from their previous levels of 400% and 300%, respectively.

For 2015, in connection with the Longnecker study, the ETP Compensation Committee in July 2015 approved increased targets for each Messrs. McCrea and Mason. Mr. McCrea’s annual long-term incentive target increased from 750% of his annual base salary to 900% of his base salary. In the case of Mr. Mason, his annual long-term incentive target increased to 500% of his annual base salary, from its previous level of 400%.

The SUN Compensation Committee, which takes into account ETE’s recommendations as ETE controls its general partner, increased Mr. Owens’ annual long-term incentive target from 300% of his annual base salary to 400% of his base salary in consideration of the Towers Watson study.

Messrs. Welch, Mason and Whitehurst are eligible on an annual basis to receive annual long-term incentive awards under the 2008 Incentive Plan, or the Sunoco Logistics Plan and the 2012 Incentive Plan.

In approving the 2015 equity award targets for each of the named executive officers, the ETE Compensation Committee, the ETP Compensation Committee and the SUN Compensation Committee, as noted above, specifically considered the Longnecker and Towers Watson 2015 executive compensation reviews. In addition, the 2015 equity award targets for each of the named executive officers are intended to (i) provide a longer term incentive and retention value to its key employees, including the named executive officers, and (ii) align the efforts and decisions of the named executive officers with the respective public unitholders to continue to drive the trading price and cash distributions. Additionally, in respect of the award targets for Messrs. McCrea, Welch, Mason and Whitehurst, the ETE Compensation Committee and the ETP Compensation Committee specifically considered their roles and impacts at each of the partnerships and determined to allocate their awards to reflect a combination of units (as described below) and not just awards at ETP. This allocation of awards is designed to ensure the named executive officers are considering the impact of their actions and decisions not just at one partnership but also at the other partnerships in the ETE family, which are also impacted by the determinations of the most senior executives through their combined roles at other partnerships. In respect of the named executive officers, it was intended that each would receive target awards in December of 2015 based on all of the considerations outlined above.

As described below in the section titled “Affiliate/Subsidiary Equity Awards”, for 2015, in discussions between the ETE general partner and the compensation committees of the general partners of ETP, SXL and Sunoco, it was determined that for 2015 the value of Messrs. Welch, Mason and Whitehurst’s awards would be comprised of restricted/phantom unit awards under the 2008 Incentive Plan, the Sunoco Logistics Plan and the 2012 Incentive Plan in consideration of their roles and responsibilities for all of the partnerships under ETE’s umbrella and, for Messrs. Welch and Mason, as members of the Boards of Directors of ETP GP and the general partner of SXL. For Messrs. Welch, Mason and Whitehurst, their total 2015 long-term incentive awards were allocated 1/2 to the 2008 Incentive Plan, 1/4 to the Sunoco Logistics Plan and 1/4 to the 2012 Incentive Plan. For Mr. McCrea, his total 2015 long-term incentive awards were allocated approximately 2/3 to the 2008 Incentive Plan and 1/3 to the Sunoco Logistics Plan. At SXL, Mr. McCrea serves as Chairman of the Board of SXL’s general partner. It is expected that future long-term incentive awards to the named executive officers of ETE will recognize a similar aggregation of restricted/phantom restricted units under long-term incentive plans of ETP, SXL and/or Sunoco, as applicable.

The ETP, SXL and SUN Compensation Committees have in the past and may in the future, but are not required to, accelerate the vesting of unvested restricted unit awards in the event of the termination or retirement

of an executive officer. None of the compensation committees accelerated the vesting of restricted unit awards to any ETE named executive officers in 2015.

As discussed below under “—Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change of Control,” certain equity awards automatically accelerate upon a change in control event, which means vesting automatically accelerates upon a change of control of the applicable partnership irrespective of whether the officer is terminated. In addition, the 2014 awards to Mr. McCrea and Mr. Whitehurst and the January 2015 award and the award in the 2012 offer letter to Mr. Owens included a provision in the applicable award agreement for acceleration of unvested restricted unit/restricted phantom unit awards upon a termination of employment by the general partner of the applicable partnership issuing the award without “cause”. For purposes of the awards the term “cause” shall mean: (i) a conviction (treating a nolo contendere plea as a conviction) of a felony (whether or not any right to appeal has been or may be exercised), (ii) willful refusal without proper cause to perform duties (other than any such refusal resulting from incapacity due to physical or mental impairment), (iii) misappropriation, embezzlement or reckless or willful destruction of property of the partnership or any of its affiliates, (iv) knowing breach of any statutory or common law duty of loyalty to the partnership or any of its or their affiliates, (v) improper conduct materially prejudicial to the business of the partnership or any of its or their affiliates, (vi) material breach of the provisions of any agreement regarding confidential information entered into with the partnership or any of its or their affiliates or (vii) the continuing failure or refusal to satisfactorily perform essential duties to the partnership or any of its or their affiliates.

ETE believes that permitting the accelerated vesting of equity awards upon a change in control creates an important retention tool by enabling employees to realize value from these awards in the event that a member of the ETE Group undergoes a change in control transaction. In addition, ETE believes permitting acceleration of vesting upon a change in control and the acceleration of vesting awards upon a termination without “cause” in the case of the 2014 awards to Mr. McCrea and Mr. Whitehurst and the January 2015 award and the award in the 2012 offer letter to Mr. Owens creates a sense of stability in the course of transactions that could create uncertainty regarding their future employment and encourage these officers to remain focused on their job responsibilities.

ETE Affiliate and Subsidiary Equity Awards. In addition to their roles as officers of the ETE general partner during 2015, Messrs. McCrea, Welch, Mason and Whitehurst in their roles have certain responsibilities for all of the partnerships under ETE’s umbrella, including with respect to Messrs. McCrea, Welch and Mason, as a members of the Boards of Directors of the general partners of ETP and SXL.

In connection with those roles at ETP (including Messrs. McCrea’s and Mason’s roles at ETP during 2015 prior to their promotions in November 2015 and December 2015, respectively), in December 2015, the ETP Compensation Committee approved grants of unit awards to Messrs. McCrea, Welch, Mason and Whitehurst of 123,507, 29,155, 29,155 and 20,535 units, respectively, under the 2008 Incentive Plan related to ETP common units. In connection with those roles at SXL, the SXL Compensation Committee in December 2015 approved grants of unit awards to Messrs. McCrea, Welch, Mason and Whitehurst of 93,390, 22,046, 22,046 and 15,528 units, respectively, under the Sunoco Logistics Plan related to SXL common units. In connection with those roles at Sunoco, the SUN Compensation Committee in December 2015 approved grants of units awards to Messrs. Welch, Mason and Whitehurst of 18,523, 18,523, and 13,046 units, respectively under the 2012 Incentive Plan related to Sunoco common units.

The terms and conditions of the restricted unit/phantom awards to Messrs. Welch, McCrea, Mason and Whitehurst under the 2008 Incentive Plan, the Sunoco Logistics Plan and the 2012 Incentive Plan, as applicable, were the same and provided for vesting over a five-year period, with 60% vesting at the end of the third year and the remaining 40% vesting at the end of the fifth year, subject generally to continued employment through each specified vesting date. All of the awards would be accelerated in the event of their death, disability or upon a change in control.

In December 2015, the SUN Compensation Committee, which takes into account ETE’s recommendations, as ETE controls its general partner, granted phantom units awards to Mr. Owens of 65,290. Previously, in

January 2015, the SUN Compensation Committee, in consultation with the ETP GP, granted restricted phantom unit awards to Mr. Owens of 39,160, which represented his 2014 long-term incentive awards to legacy Sunoco, Inc. personnel under the 2012 Incentive Plan. These restricted phantom unit awards provide for vesting in Sunoco common units of 60% at the end of the third year and vesting of the remaining 40% at the end of the fifth year, subject to continued employment through each specified vesting date. In approving the grant of such unit awards, the SUN Compensation Committee took into account the same factors as discussed above under the caption “Annual Cash Bonus,” the long-term objective of retaining such individuals as key drivers of the Sunoco future success, the existing level of equity ownership of such individuals and the previous awards to such individuals of equity awards subject to vesting.

As noted above, each of the equity awards made to the named executive officers whether by the ETP Compensation Committee, the SXL Compensation Committee or the SUN Compensation Committee were made at their targeted award levels for 2015.

Unit Ownership Guidelines. In December 2013, the Board of Directors of the ETE general partner adopted the Executive Unit Ownership Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which set forth minimum ownership guidelines applicable to certain executives of ETE and ETP with respect to ETE, ETP, SXL and Sunoco common units representing limited partnership interests, as applicable. The applicable Guidelines are denominated as a multiple of base salary, and the amount of common units required to be owned increases with the level of responsibility. Under these Guidelines, Mr. McReynolds as ETE’s President and Mr. McCrea as Group Chief Operations Officer and Chief Commercial Officer are expected to own common units having a minimum value of five times their base salaries and Messrs. Mason and Whitehurst are expected to own common units having a minimum value of four times their base salaries. In addition to the named executive officers, the Guidelines also apply to other executives, all of whom are expected to own either directly or indirectly in accordance with the terms of the Guidelines, common units having minimum values ranging from two to four times their respective base salaries.

The ETE Compensation Committee believes that the ownership of ETE, ETP, SXL and/or Sunoco common units, as reflected in these Guidelines, is an important means of tying the financial risks and rewards for its executives to ETE’s total unitholder return, aligning the interests of such executives with those of ETE’s unitholders, and promoting ETE’s interest in good corporate governance.

Covered executives are generally required to achieve their ownership level within five years of becoming subject to the Guidelines; however, certain covered executives, based on their tenure as an executive, are required to achieve compliance within two years of the December 2013 effective date of the Guidelines. Thus, compliance with the Guidelines was required for Messrs. McReynolds, McCrea and Mason beginning in December 2015, and they were compliant. Compliance for Mr. Whitehurst will be required in August 2019. Compliance would have been required for Mr. Welch in December 2018; although, as a result of his separation from employment, he no longer has a compliance requirement.

Covered executives may satisfy the Guidelines through direct ownership of ETE, ETP, SXL, and/or Sunoco common units or indirect ownership by certain immediate family members. Direct or indirect ownership of ETE, ETP, SXL and/or Sunoco common units shall count on a one-to-one ratio for purposes of satisfying minimum ownership requirements; however, unvested unit awards may not be used to satisfy the minimum ownership requirements.

Executive officers, including the named executive officers, who have not yet met their respective guideline must retain and hold all common units (less common units sold to cover the executive’s applicable taxes and withholding obligation) received in connection with long-term incentive awards. Once the required ownership level is achieved, ownership of the required common units must be maintained for as long as the covered executive is subject to the Guidelines. However, those individuals who have met or exceeded their applicable ownership level guideline may dispose of the common units in a manner consistent with applicable laws, rules and regulations, including regulations of the SEC and ETE’s internal policies, but only to the extent that such individual’s remaining ownership of common units would continue to exceed the applicable ownership level.

The Board of Directors of ETP GP and the general partner of SXL approved and adopted policies substantially identical to the Guidelines described above.

Qualified Retirement Plan Benefits. The Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. 401(k) Plan (the “ETP 401(k) Plan”) is a defined contribution 401(k) plan, which covers the named executive officers. Employees may elect to defer up to 100% of their eligible compensation after applicable taxes, as limited under the Code. A matching contribution is made that is not less than the aggregate amount of matching contributions that would be credited to a participant’s account based on a rate of match equal to 100% of each participant’s elective deferrals up to 5% of covered compensation. The amounts deferred by the participant are fully vested at all times, and the matching contribution becomes vested based on years of service. This benefit is provided as a means to incentivize employees and provide them with an opportunity to save for their retirement.

A 3% profit sharing contribution is provided to employee 401(k) accounts for all employees with a base compensation below a specified threshold. The contribution is in addition to the 401(k) matching contribution and employees become vested based on years of service.

Sunoco GP LLC 401(k) Plan. Effective January 1, 2015, the general partner of Sunoco adopted a new 401(k) benefit plan (“Sunoco GP LLC 401(k)”) for the benefit of corporate services on Sunoco’s behalf. Mr. Owens participates in the Sunoco GP LLC 401(k). Under the terms of the Sunoco GP LLC 401(k) plan, employees can contribute up to 100% of their wages, subject to IRS limitations which, for 2015 were generally a maximum contribution amount of $18,000 on maximum compensation of $265,000. Under the terms of the Sunoco GP LLC 401(k), ETE matches 50% of the first 10% of salary that the employee contributes as a “guaranteed” match. The amounts deferred by the participant are fully vested at all times, and the amounts contributed by ETE become vested based on years of service. This benefit is provided as a means to incentivize employees and provide them with an opportunity to save for their retirement.

The Sunoco, Inc. Retirement Plan. The Sunoco, Inc. Retirement Plan (the “SCIRP”) is a qualified defined benefit plan sponsored by Sunoco, Inc., under which benefits are subject to IRS limits for pay and amount. Under the SCIRP, the benefit for executives hired before January 1, 1987 is calculated based upon the greater of a “final average pay” formula or a “cash balance” formula, the former providing a benefit using a formula that includes final average earnings and eligible service and the latter providing a benefit based upon a percentage of earnings. Those executives hired on or after January 1, 1987 participate in the cash balance formula. Effective June 30, 2010, Sunoco, Inc. froze pension benefits (including accrued and vested benefits) payable under this plan for all salaried employees who participate in this plan, including Mr. Owens. On October 31, 2014, Sunoco terminated the SCRIP. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s (“PBGC”) period to comment on the SCRIP’s standard termination expired, without issue, on June 30, 2015. Following the SCRIP’s receipt in November 2015 of a favorable Determination Letter from the IRS for such standard termination, benefit distributions were made in December 2015 to those electing to commence receipt of benefits from the SCRIP.

Health and Welfare Benefits. All full-time employees, including the named executive officers, may participate in group health and welfare benefit programs including medical, dental, vision, flexible spending, life insurance and disability insurance.

Termination Benefits. ETE’s named executive officers do not have any employment agreements that call for payments of termination or severance benefits or that provide for any payments in the event of a change in control of the ETE general partner. The Amended and Restated Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. 2004 Unit Plan (as amended and restated as of June 27, 2007) (the “2004 Unit Plan”) provides for immediate vesting of all unvested restricted unit awards in the event of a change in control, as defined in the plan. In addition, the ETP 2008 Incentive Plan and the Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. Amended and Restated 2011 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2011 Incentive Plan”) provide the ETP Compensation Committee with the discretion, unless otherwise specified in the applicable award agreement, to provide for immediate vesting of all unvested restricted unit awards in the event of a (i) change of control, as defined in the applicable plan; (ii) death or (iii) disability, as

defined in the applicable plan. In the case of the December 2014 and 2015 long-term incentive awards to the named executive officers under ETP’s 2008 Incentive Plan, the Sunoco Logistics Plan or the 2012 Incentive Plan, the awards would immediately and fully vest all unvested restricted unit awards in the event of a change of control, as defined in the applicable plan. Please refer to “Compensation Tables—Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change of Control” for additional information.

Additionally, in connection with Mr. Welch joining ETE as Group Chief Financial Officer and Head of Business Development effective as of April 29, 2013, ETE agreed to award Mr. Welch rights to 3,000,000 ETE common units (after adjustment for the January 2014 and July 2015 two-for-one splits), subject to a period of restriction, under the ETE Plan pursuant to a unit award agreement and a time-vested restricted unit award agreement, each dated as of April 29, 2013 (the “Original Award Agreements”). On December 23, 2013, ETE and Mr. Welch entered into (i) a rescission agreement in order to rescind the original offer letter to the extent it relates to the award of rights to 3,000,000 ETE common units (after adjustment for the January 2014 and July 2015 two-for-one splits) to Welch, the Original Award Agreements, and the receipt of cash amounts by Mr. Welch with respect to such awarded units and (ii) a new Class D unit agreement between ETE and Mr. Welch (the “Class D Unit Agreement”) providing for the issuance to Mr. Welch of rights to an aggregate of 3,080,000 Class D units of ETE (after unit split adjustments), which number of Class D units includes an additional 80,000 Class D units that were issued to Mr. Welch in connection with other changes to his original offer letter.

Under the terms of the Class D Unit Agreement, as amended, 30% of the Class D units granted to Mr. Welch converted to ETE common units on a one-for-one basis on March 31, 2015, 35% were scheduled to convert to ETE common units on a one-for-one basis on March 31, 2018 and the remaining 35% were scheduled to convert to ETE common units on a one-for-one basis on March 31, 2020, subject to Mr. Welch being in “good standing” with ETE (as defined in the Class D Unit Agreement) and there being a sufficient amount of gain available to be allocated to the Class D units being converted so as to cause the capital account of each such unit to equal the capital account of an ETE common unit on the conversion date. Pursuant to the terms of the Class D Unit Award Agreement, upon a change of control (as defined in the Class D Unit Agreement), termination without “cause” or for “good reason” (as defined in the Class D Unit Agreement) or upon death or disability, all of the Class D units issued to Mr. Welch would be convertible to ETE common units subject again to the availability of a sufficient amount of allocable gain and the requirement of good standing will cease to apply. As of December 31, 2015, there had not been a change of control, termination without cause or for good reason under the Class D Unit Agreement.

Please refer to “—Compensation Tables—Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change of Control” for additional information. The merger and its associated transactions will not constitute a change of control for purposes of any of the named executive officers’ outstanding equity incentive awards.

In addition, ETP GP has also adopted the ETP GP Severance Plan and Summary Plan Description effective as of June 12, 2013, (the “Severance Plan”), which provides for payment of certain severance benefits in the event of a “qualified termination” (as that term is defined in the Severance Plan). In general, the Severance Plan provides payment of two weeks of annual base salary for each year or partial year of employment service up to a maximum of fifty-two weeks or one year of annual base salary (with a minimum of four weeks of annual base salary) and up to three months of continued group health insurance coverage. The Severance Plan also provides that the partnerships may determine to pay benefits in addition to those provided under the Severance Plan based on special circumstances, which additional benefits shall be unique and non-precedent setting. The Severance Plan is available to all salaried employees on a nondiscriminatory basis; therefore, amounts that would be payable to the named executive officers upon a qualified termination have been excluded from “Compensation Tables—Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change of Control” below.

ETP Deferred Compensation Plan for Former Sunoco Executives. ETP established a deferred compensation plan in connection with the merger with Sunoco, Inc. (the “Sunoco Executive DC Plan”). Pursuant to his offer letter from ETP, in connection with the Sunoco, Inc. merger, Mr. Owens waived any future rights or benefits to

which he otherwise would have been entitled under both the Sunoco, Inc. Executive Retirement Plan (“SERP”), a non-qualified plan that provided supplemental pension benefits over and above benefits under both the SCIRP and the Sunoco Inc. Pension Restoration Plan, in return for which, the present value $6,655,750 of such deferred compensation benefits was credited to Mr. Owens’ account under the Sunoco Executive DC Plan. Mr. Owens’ account is 100% vested and will be distributed in one lump sum payment upon his retirement or termination of employment or other designated distribution event, including a change of control as defined in the plan. Mr. Owens’ account is credited with deemed earnings or losses based on hypothetical investment fund choices made by him among available funds. Mr. Owens is ETE’s only named executive officer eligible to participate in the Sunoco Executive DC Plan.

ETP Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan. The ETP Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “ETP NQDC Plan”) is a deferred compensation plan, which permits eligible highly compensated employees to defer a portion of their salary, bonus, and/or quarterly non-vested phantom unit distribution equivalent income until retirement, termination of employment or other designated distribution event. Each year under the ETP NQDC Plan, eligible employees are permitted to make an irrevocable election to defer up to 50% of their annual base salary, 50% of their quarterly non-vested phantom unit distribution income, and/or 50% of their discretionary performance bonus compensation during the following year. Pursuant to the ETP NQDC Plan, ETP may make annual discretionary matching contributions to participants’ accounts; however, ETP has not made any discretionary contributions to participants’ accounts and currently has no plans to make any discretionary contributions to participants’ accounts. All amounts credited under the ETP NQDC Plan (other than discretionary credits) are immediately 100% vested. Participant accounts are credited with deemed earnings or losses based on hypothetical investment fund choices made by the participants among available funds.

Participants may elect to have their account balances distributed in one lump sum payment or in annual installments over a period of three or five years upon retirement, and in a lump sum upon other termination events. Participants may also elect to take lump sum in-service withdrawals five years or longer in the future, and such scheduled in-service withdrawals may be further deferred prior to the withdrawal date. Upon a change in control (as defined in the ETP NQDC Plan) of ETP, all ETP NQDC Plan accounts are immediately vested in full. However, distributions are not accelerated and, instead, are made in accordance with the ETP NQDC Plan’s normal distribution provisions unless a participant has elected to receive a change of control distribution pursuant to his deferral agreement. Mr. Owens is ETE’s only named executive officer to participate in this plan.

Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of the Plan-Based Awards Table

A description of material factors necessary to understand the information disclosed in the tables above with respect to salaries, bonuses, equity awards, nonqualified deferred compensation earnings and ETP 401(k) Plan contributions can be found in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis that precedes these tables.

SXL common unit awards outstanding to Messrs. McCrea, Mason and Whitehurst vest as follows:

The general partner of Sunoco was a participating employer in Sunoco, Inc.’s SCIRP prior to its freeze of pension benefits for all salaried and many non-union employees on June 30, 2010 and its standard termination on October 31, 2014. The table below shows the benefit paid to Mr. Owens in connection with the SCIRP’s standard termination based upon the final average pay formula. Mr. Owens elected to have his benefit paid in the form of a lump sum upon the SCIRP’s termination.

A description of the key provisions of the deferred compensation plan can be found in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis above.

Equity Awards. As discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis above, any unvested equity awards granted pursuant to the ETE Plan will automatically become vested upon a change of control, which is generally defined as the occurrence of one or more of the following events: (i) any person or group becomes the beneficial owner of 50% or more of the voting power or voting securities of ETE or its general partner; (ii) the ETE general partner or an affiliate of the ETE general partner ceases to be the general partner of ETE; or (iii) the sale or other disposition, including by liquidation or dissolution, of all or substantially all of the assets of ETE in one or more transactions to anyone other than an affiliate of ETE.

In addition, as explained in the “Equity Awards” section of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis above, the restricted unit awards under the equity incentive plans of ETE and its affiliated partnerships, generally require the continued employment of the recipient during the vesting period, provided however, the unvested awards will be accelerated in the event of the death or disability of the award recipient prior to the applicable vesting period being satisfied. In addition, in the event of a change in control of ETE, all unvested awards granted under the 2004 Unit Plan and the 2011 Incentive Plan, as well as awards granted in 2014 and 2015 under the 2008 Incentive Plan, the Sunoco Logistics Plan and the 2012 Incentive Plan would be accelerated. For awards granted under the 2008 Incentive Plan, the Sunoco Logistics Plan or the 2012 Incentive Plan prior to 2014, unvested awards may also become vested upon a change in control at the discretion of the applicable compensation committee. This discussion assumes a scenario in which the ETP Compensation Committee, the SXL Compensation Committee and the SUN Compensation Committee do not exercise their discretion to accelerate unvested awards granted prior to 2014 in connection with a change in control.

The 2014 awards to Messrs. McCrea and Whitehurst, whether awarded under the 2008 Incentive Plan, the 2011 Incentive Plan or the Sunoco Logistic Plan included a provision in the applicable award agreement for acceleration of unvested restricted unit/restricted phantom unit awards upon a termination of employment by the general partner of the applicable partnership issuing the award without “cause.” In the case of Mr. Owens, his January 2015 award under the 2012 Incentive Plan, as well as his October 2012 offer letter detailing an award under the 2008 Incentive Plan provide for vesting immediately upon involuntary without “cause” termination. For purposes of the awards the term “cause” shall mean: (i) a conviction (treating a nolo contendere plea as a conviction) of a felony (whether or not any right to appeal has been or may be exercised), (ii) willful refusal without proper cause to perform duties (other than any such refusal resulting from incapacity due to physical or mental impairment), (iii) misappropriation, embezzlement or reckless or willful destruction of property of the partnership or any of its affiliates, (iv) knowing breach of any statutory or common law duty of loyalty to the partnership or any of its or their affiliates, (v) improper conduct materially prejudicial to the business of the partnership or any of its or their affiliates, (vi) material breach of the provisions of any agreement regarding confidential information entered into with the partnership or any of its or their affiliates or (vii) the continuing failure or refusal to satisfactorily perform essential duties to the partnership or any of its or their affiliates.

Pursuant to the terms of the Class D Unit Agreement, upon a change of control (as defined in the Class D Unit Agreement), termination without “cause” or for “good reason” (as defined in the Class D Unit Agreement) or upon death or disability, all of the Class D Units issued to Mr. Welch would be convertible to ETE common units subject again to the availability of a sufficient amount of allocable gain and the requirement of good standing will cease to apply. As of December 31, 2015, there had not been a change of control, termination without cause or for good reason under the Class D Unit Agreement.

In addition, the ETP and SUN Compensation Committees have approved retirement provision and which provides that employees, including the named executive officers with at least ten years of service with the respective general partner, who leave the respective general partner voluntarily due to retirement (i) after age 65 but prior to age 68 are eligible for accelerated vesting of 40% of his or her award; or (ii) after 68 are eligible for accelerated vesting of 50% of his or her award. The SXL Compensation Committee beginning with awards made in December 2014 have included a provision in the award agreement which provides that employees, including the named executive officers with at least ten years of service with the general partner, who leave the general partner voluntarily due to retirement (i) after age 65 but prior to age 68 are eligible for accelerated vesting of 40% of his or her award; or (ii) after 68 are eligible for accelerated vesting of 50% his or her award.

ETP established the Sunoco Executive DC Plan. Pursuant to his offer letter from ETP, in connection with ETP’s merger with Sunoco, Mr. Owens waived any future rights or benefits to which he otherwise would have been entitled under both the SERP, a nonqualified plan that provided supplemental pension benefits over and above benefits under both the SCIRP and the Sunoco Inc. Pension Restoration Plan, in return for which, the present value $6,655,750 of such deferred compensation benefits was credited to Mr. Owens’ account under the Sunoco Executive DC Plan. Mr. Owens’ account is 100% vested and will be distributed in one lump sum

payment upon his retirement or termination of employment or other designated distribution event, including a change of control as defined in the Sunoco Executive DC Plan. Mr. Owens’ account is credited with deemed earnings or losses based on hypothetical investment fund choices made by him among available funds. Mr. Owens is the only named executive officer eligible to participate in the Sunoco Executive DC Plan.

The merger transactions will not constitute a change of control for purposes of any of the named executive officer’s outstanding incentive awards.

Deferred Compensation Plan. As discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis above, all amounts under the ETP NQDC Plan and the Sunoco Executive DC Plan (other than discretionary credits) are immediately 100% vested. Upon a change of control (as defined in the ETP NQDC Plan and the Sunoco Executive DC Plan), distributions from the respective plan would be made in accordance with the normal distribution provisions of the respective plan. A change of control is generally defined in the ETP NQDC Plan and the Sunoco Executive DC Plan as any change of control event within the meaning of Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-3(i)(5).

Directors of the ETE general partner, who are employees of ETP or any of their subsidiaries, are not eligible for director compensation. In 2015, the compensation arrangements for outside directors included a $50,000 annual retainer for services on the board. If a director served on the ETE Audit Committee, such director would receive an annual retainer ($10,000 or $15,000 in the case of the chairman) and meeting attendance fees ($1,200). If a director served on the ETE Compensation Committee, such director would receive an annual cash retainer ($5,000 or $7,500 in the case of the chairman) and meeting attendance fees ($1,200).

The outside directors of the ETE general partner are also entitled to an annual award under the ETE Plan equal to an aggregate of $100,000 divided by the closing price of ETE common units on the date of grant. These ETE common units will vest 60% after the third year and the remaining 40% after the fifth year after the grant date. The compensation expense recorded is based on the grant-date market value of the ETE common units and is recognized over the vesting period. Distributions are paid during the vesting period.

The ETP Compensation Committee periodically reviews and makes recommendations regarding the compensation of the directors of the ETP GP. In 2015, non-employee directors received an annual fee of $50,000 in cash. Additionally, the Chairman of ETP’s Audit Committee receives an annual fee of $15,000 and the members of ETP’s Audit Committee receive an annual fee of $10,000. The Chairman of the ETP Compensation Committee receives an annual fee of $7,500 and the members of the ETP Compensation Committee receive an annual fee of $5,000. For 2015, ETP’s employee directors, including Messrs. McCrea, Mason and Welch, did not receive any fees for service as directors. In addition, for 2015, the non-employee directors were eligible to participate in the 2008 Incentive Plan. Each director of ETP GP who is not also (i) a shareholder or a direct or indirect employee of any parent, or (ii) a direct or indirect employee of ETP LLC, ETP, or a subsidiary, who is elected or appointed to the board of ETP GP for the first time will automatically receive, on the date of his or her election or appointment, an award of 2,500 unvested ETP common units. In 2015, non-employee ETP directors received annual grants of restricted ETP common units equal to an aggregate of $100,000 divided by the closing price of ETP’s common units on the date of grant, which will vest 60% after the third year and the remaining 40% after the fifth year after the grant date.

The compensation paid to the non-employee directors of the ETE general partner in 2015 is reflected in the following table:

As of December 31, 2015, Mr. Turner and Mr. Ramsey each had 11,740 unvested ETE restricted units outstanding and Mr. Williams had 3,416 restricted units outstanding.

Existing GP Owner, as the sole member of ETC GP, has adopted and approved and the Organizational Limited Partner (as defined in our partnership agreement), as the sole limited partner of ETC, has approved the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2016 LTIP”) (effective as of March 3, 2016) under which ETC may grant cash and equity-based incentive awards to eligible service providers in order to attract, retain and motivate the persons who make important contributions to ETC, its subsidiaries and ETC GP. No awards will be made under the 2016 LTIP prior to the consummation of the merger and no action will be taken to approve any specific awards under the 2016 LTIP prior to the merger, however, ETC contemplates that awards covering approximately 10% of the outstanding ETC common shares at the consummation of the merger will be granted to officers and directors of ETC and its affiliates shortly following the consummation of the merger. These awards are expected to be in the form of restricted shares or restricted share units and may be granted with such vesting and other terms and conditions that have not yet been determined. These awards may include rights to distribution equivalent payments. In addition, to the extent such awards vest during the time when the CCRs are outstanding, the awards are expected to have attached to them one CCR for each share granted. All awards under the 2016 LTIP to be granted in the future will be made in the discretion of the ETC GP Board or its delegate as the plan administrator. The material terms of the 2016 LTIP are summarized below.

Employees, consultants and directors of ETC GP and of ETC and its subsidiaries (including employees, consultants and directors of ETE and its subsidiaries) will be eligible to receive awards under the 2016 LTIP. The 2016 LTIP will be administered by the ETC GP Board, which may delegate its duties and responsibilities to one or more committees of its directors and/or officers (referred to collectively as the plan administrator below), subject to the limitations imposed under the 2016 LTIP, Section 16 of the Exchange Act, stock exchange rules and other applicable laws. The plan administrator will have the authority to take all actions and make all determinations under the 2016 LTIP, to interpret the 2016 LTIP and award agreements and to adopt, amend and repeal rules for the administration of the 2016 LTIP as it deems advisable. The plan administrator will also have the authority to determine which eligible service providers receive awards, grant awards and set the terms and conditions of all awards under the 2016 LTIP, including any vesting and vesting acceleration provisions, subject to the conditions and limitations in the 2016 LTIP.

An aggregate of 171.6 million common shares of ETC will initially be available for issuance under the 2016 LTIP. If an award under the 2016 LTIP expires, lapses or is terminated, exchanged for cash, surrendered, repurchased, canceled without having been fully exercised or forfeited, any unused shares subject to the award will, as applicable, become or again be available for new grants under the 2016 LTIP. In addition, shares delivered to ETC or its affiliates to satisfy the applicable exercise or purchase price of an award under the 2016 LTIP and/or to satisfy any tax withholding obligation (including shares withheld from the award being exercised or purchased and/or creating the tax obligation) will, as applicable, become or again be available for award grants under the 2016 LTIP. Awards granted under the 2016 LTIP in substitution for any options or other share or share-based awards granted by an entity before the entity’s merger or consolidation with ETC or ETC’s acquisition of the entity’s property or stock will not reduce the shares available for grant under the 2016 LTIP (except that shares acquired by exercise of substitute Incentive Options (as defined below) will count against the maximum number of shares that may be issued pursuant to the exercise of Incentive Options under the 2016 LTIP). Distributions paid in cash will not be counted against the number of shares reserved under the 2016 LTIP. In addition, for so long as the CCRs are outstanding, each share subject to an award granted under the 2016 LTIP may have attached to it one CCR and such CCR (and any common shares of ETC issued or to be issued in respect of such CCR) will not be counted against the number of shares reserved under the 2016 LTIP.

The 2016 LTIP provides for the grant of share options, including options that are intended to qualify as “incentive stock options” for United States federal income tax purposes (“Incentive Options”) and nonqualified options, share appreciation rights (“SARs”), restricted shares, distribution equivalents, restricted share units (“RSUs”), and other share or cash based awards. Certain awards under the 2016 LTIP may constitute or provide for payment of “nonqualified deferred compensation” under Section 409A of the Code. All awards under the 2016 LTIP will be set forth in award agreements, which will detail the terms and conditions of awards, including any applicable vesting and payment terms and post-termination exercise limitations. A brief description of each award type follows.

The plan administrator may select performance criteria for an award to establish performance goals for a performance period. Performance criteria under the 2016 LTIP may include, but are not limited to, the following: net earnings or losses (either before or after one or more of interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, and non-cash equity-based compensation expense); gross or net sales or revenue or sales or revenue growth; net income (either before or after taxes) or adjusted net income; annual net income to common shares; operating income; profits (including but not limited to gross profits, net profits, profit growth, net operation profit or economic profit), profit return ratios or operating margin; budget or operating earnings (either before or after taxes or before or after allocation of corporate overhead and bonus); cash flow (including operating cash flow and free cash flow or cash flow return on capital); return on assets; return on capital or invested capital; cost of capital; return on shareholders’ equity; total shareholder return; return on sales; costs, reductions in costs and cost control measures; expenses; working capital; earnings or loss per share; adjusted earnings or loss per share; price per share or distributions per share (or appreciation in or maintenance of such price or distributions); regulatory achievements or compliance; implementation, completion or attainment of objectives relating to research, development, regulatory, commercial, business, operational or strategic milestones, developments or goals; market share; geographic business expansion goals; economic value or economic value added models; division, group or corporate financial goals; energy production availability performance measures; customer satisfaction/growth; customer service; service reliability; employee satisfaction; recruitment and maintenance of personnel; human resources management; supervision of litigation and other legal matters; safety record; strategic partnerships and transactions; financial ratios (including those measuring liquidity, activity, profitability or leverage); production volume levels; aggregate product price and other product price measures; debt levels or reductions; sales-related goals; financing and other capital raising transactions; cash on hand; acquisition or divestiture activity; investment sourcing activity; and marketing initiatives, any of which may be measured in absolute terms or as compared to any incremental increase or decrease. Such performance goals also may be based solely by reference to the company’s performance or the performance of a subsidiary, division, business segment or business unit of the company or a subsidiary, or based upon performance relative to performance of other companies or upon comparisons of any of the indicators of performance relative to performance of other companies. When determining performance goals, the plan administrator may provide for exclusion of the impact

of an event or occurrence which the plan administrator determines should appropriately be excluded, including, without limitation, non-recurring charges or events, acquisitions or divestitures, changes in the corporate or capital structure, events unrelated to the business or outside of the control of management, foreign exchange considerations, and legal, regulatory, tax or accounting changes.

In connection with certain corporate transactions and events affecting ETC’s common shares, including a change in control (as defined in the 2016 LTIP), or change in any applicable laws or accounting principles, the plan administrator has broad discretion to take action under the 2016 LTIP to prevent the dilution or enlargement of intended benefits, facilitate the transaction or event or give effect to the change in applicable laws or accounting principles. This includes canceling awards for cash or property or, in certain circumstances, no consideration, accelerating the vesting of awards, providing for the assumption or substitution of awards by a successor entity, adjusting the number and type of shares subject to outstanding awards and/or with respect to which awards may be granted under the 2016 LTIP and replacing or terminating awards under the 2016 LTIP. In addition, in the event of certain non-reciprocal transactions with our shareholders, the plan administrator will make equitable adjustments to the 2016 LTIP and outstanding awards as it deems appropriate to reflect the transaction.

The plan administrator may amend or terminate the 2016 LTIP at any time; however, no amendment, other than an amendment that increases the number of shares available under the 2016 LTIP, may materially and adversely affect an award outstanding under the 2016 LTIP without the consent of the affected participant and shareholder approval will be obtained for any amendment to the extent necessary to comply with applicable laws. Further, the plan administrator cannot, without the approval of ETC shareholders, amend any outstanding option or SAR to reduce its price per share or cancel any outstanding option or SAR when the exercise price per share exceeds the fair market value of a share in exchange for cash or another award under the 2016 LTIP or take any other action with respect to an outstanding option or SAR that ETC determines would be treated as a repricing under the rules and regulations of the principal U.S. national securities exchange on which the common shares are listed. The 2016 LTIP will remain in effect until the tenth anniversary of its effective date, unless earlier terminated by the ETC GP Board. No awards may be granted under the 2016 LTIP after its termination.

Common shares to be delivered with respect to awards may be newly-issued shares, common shares acquired in the open market, common shares already owned by our general partner or by us or ETE or any subsidiary, common shares acquired from us or from any other person or any combination of the foregoing. In the event that new or treasury shares are issued by us in connection with an award granted to a service provider of ETE or one of its subsidiaries, the plan administrator may, pursuant to the Administrative Agreement or otherwise, seek reimbursement in respect of such award from ETE or its applicable subsidiary on such terms and conditions as the plan administrator and ETE or its applicable subsidiary may determine, subject to the terms of ETE’s limited partnership agreement and applicable law.

All awards will be subject to any company claw-back policy as set forth in such claw-back policy or the applicable award agreement. Except as the plan administrator may determine or provide in an award agreement, awards under the 2016 LTIP are generally non-transferrable, except by will or the laws of descent and distribution, or, subject to the plan administrator’s consent, pursuant to a domestic relations order, and are generally exercisable only by the participant. With regard to tax withholding obligations arising in connection with awards under the 2016 LTIP, and exercise price obligations arising in connection with the exercise of options under the 2016 LTIP, the plan administrator may, in its discretion, accept cash, wire transfer or check, common shares of ETC that meet specified conditions, a promissory note, a “market sell order,” such other consideration as the plan administrator deems suitable or any combination of the foregoing.

In connection with the closing of the merger, we, ETE and our respective general partners will enter into an Administrative Agreement to address the provision by ETE of certain administrative services to our general partner and us.

We and our general partner have no employees. All of our officers and other personnel necessary for our business to function (to the extent not outsourced) will be employed by the ETE general partner. We expect that many of the officers and the non-independent directors of our general partner will also be officers or directors of the ETE general partner. We expect that our general partner’s executive officers will spend the substantial majority of their time managing the business of ETE, which benefits us as ETE’s performance will determine our success. The actual time devoted by these officers to managing our business as well as ETE’s will fluctuate as a result of the relative activity level between the two entities. The amount of incremental time spent by non-officer directors who serve on both boards of directors will depend to some extent on committee assignments. Upon completion of the merger, we will have three independent directors as defined by the rules of the NYSE.

ETE will reimburse the ETE general partner for expenses incurred (i) on our behalf; (ii) on behalf of our general partner; or (iii) for any other purpose related to our business and activities or those of our general partner, including payments or expenses incurred for general and administrative services provided by third parties or any affiliates of ETE, salaries and related benefits of any personnel employed by our general partner and equity compensation expenses related to equity awards granted by our general partner to the extent that ETE determines such equity compensation is allocable to ETE. ETE will also reimburse our general partner for any additional expenses incurred on our behalf or to maintain our legal existence and good standing. These additional expenses will include recurring costs associated with being a separate publicly traded entity, including expenses associated with (i) compensation for new directors, (ii) incremental director and officer liability insurance, (iii) listing on the NYSE, (iv) investor relations, (v) legal matters and (vi) accounting.

In consideration of the administrative services provided by ETE, we will pay ETE a cost-based fee on an annual basis.

Concurrently with the effective time of the GP merger, ETC, ETE and ETE GP will execute the contribution agreement to effect the WMB Contribution and GP Contribution, including the issuance by ETE to ETC of a number of ETE Class E units equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in consideration for the Parent Cash Deposit.

The contribution agreement will also provide that ETE will indemnify ETC against all losses suffered or incurred by ETC after the effective date resulting from the consummation of the merger or the other transactions contemplated by the contribution agreement, as well as all losses (other than income taxes) suffered or incurred by ETC before or after the date of the contribution agreement. In addition, ETE will be required under the contribution agreement to indemnify ETC for any taxes incurred by ETC for each taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2018.

Our existing organizational structure and the relationships among us, ETE, the ETE Entities, our respective general partners, the Existing GP Owner and affiliated entities present the potential for conflicts of interest. Affiliates of our general partner, ETE and the Existing GP Owner will not be prohibited from engaging in other businesses or activities that might be in direct competition with us except to the extent they compete using our confidential information. Future conflicts of interest may arise among us and any entities whose general partner or similar interests we or our affiliates acquire or among ETE, the ETE Entities and such entities. It is not possible to predict the nature or extent of these potential future conflicts of interest at this time, nor is it possible to determine how we will address and resolve any such future conflicts of interest.

Conflicts of interest could arise in the situations described below, among others.

Actions taken by our general partner may affect the amount of distributable cash flow to our common shareholders.

The amount of cash that is available for distribution to our common shareholders is affected by decisions of our general partner regarding such matters as:

In addition, borrowings by us and our affiliates will not constitute a breach of any duty owed by our general partner to our common shareholders.

The duties of our general partner’s officers and directors may conflict with those of the ETE general partner who act on behalf of ETE and our general partner’s officers and directors may face conflicts of interest in the allocation of administrative time between our business and ETE’s business.

We anticipate that many of the officers and directors of our general partner will also be officers or directors of the ETE general partner and, as a result, have separate contractual duties that govern their management of ETE’s business. Consequently, these officers and directors may encounter situations in which their obligations to us, on the one hand, and ETE, on the other hand, are in conflict. For a description of how these conflicts will be resolved, please read “—Conflicts Resolution.”

In addition, our general partner’s officers who also serve as officers of the ETE general partner may face conflicts in allocating their time spent on our behalf and on behalf of ETE. These time allocations may adversely affect our or ETE’s results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition. It is unlikely that these allocations will be the result of arm’s-length negotiations between our general partner and the ETE general partner.

ETE will reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for certain expenses.

ETE will reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for expenses incurred in managing and operating us and our general partner. These expenses include recurring costs associated with being a separate publicly traded entity, including expenses associated with (i) compensation for new directors, (ii) incremental director and officer liability insurance, (iii) listing on the NYSE, (iv) investor relations, (v) legal matters and (vi) accounting.

Our general partner intends to limit its liability regarding our obligations.

Our general partner intends to limit its liability under contractual arrangements so that the other party has recourse only to our assets, and not against our general partner or its assets. Our partnership agreement provides that any action taken by our general partner to limit its liability or our liability is not a breach of our general partner’s fiduciary duties, even if we could have obtained more favorable terms without the limitation on liability.

Common shareholders will have no right to enforce obligations of our general partner and its affiliates under agreements with us.

Any agreements between us on the one hand, and our general partner and its affiliates, on the other, will not grant to our shareholders, separate and apart from us, the right to enforce the obligations of our general partner and its affiliates in our favor.

Contracts between us, on the one hand, and our general partner and its affiliates, on the other, will not be the result of arm’s-length negotiations.

Our partnership agreement allows our general partner to determine, in good faith, any amounts to pay itself or its affiliates for any services rendered to us. Our general partner may also enter into additional contractual arrangements with any of its affiliates on our behalf. Neither our partnership agreement nor any of the other agreements, contracts and arrangements between us, on the one hand, and our general partner and its affiliates, on the other, are or will be the result of arm’s-length negotiations.

Our general partner will determine the terms of any transactions entered into after the completion of the merger.

Our general partner and its affiliates will have no obligation to permit us to use any facilities or assets of our general partner and its affiliates, except as may be provided in contracts entered into specifically dealing with that use. There will not be any obligation of our general partner and its affiliates to enter into any contracts of this kind.

Our general partner may exercise its right to call and purchase shares as provided in our partnership agreement or assign this right to one of its affiliates or to us. Our general partner may act in its sole discretion in exercising this right. As a result, a common shareholder may have its common shares repurchased at an undesirable time or price. Please read “—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Call Right.”

We may not choose to retain separate counsel for ourselves or for the holders of common shares.

Attorneys, independent accountants and others who will perform services for us are selected by our general partner or the board of directors (or relevant committee) of our general partner, and may perform services for our general partner and its affiliates. Although we may retain separate counsel for ourselves or the holders of our common shares in the event of a conflict of interest between our general partner and its affiliates, on the one hand, and us or the holders of our shares, on the other, we do not intend to do so in most cases.

Whenever a conflict arises (a) between our general partner and any of its affiliates, on the one hand, and us, ETE, any ETE Entity or any shareholder, on the other hand, or (b) between us or our affiliates, on the one hand, and ETE and its general partner, on the other hand, the resolution or course of action in respect of such conflict of interest shall be permitted and deemed approved by us and all our shareholders and shall not constitute a breach of our partnership agreement or any duty if the resolution or course of action in respect of such conflict is:

Our general partner may, but is not required to, seek the approval of such resolution or course of action from the conflicts committee of its board of directors or from the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares as described above. If our general partner does not seek approval from the conflicts committee or from holders of common shares as described above and the board of directors of our general partner approves the resolution or course of action taken with respect to the conflict of interest, then it will be presumed that, in making its decision, the board of directors of our general partner acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of us or any of our shareholders, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption and proving that such decision was not in good faith. An independent third party is not required to evaluate the resolution. Under our partnership agreement, a determination, other action or failure to act by our general partner, the board of directors of our general partner or any committee thereof (including the conflicts committee) will be deemed to be “in good faith” if our general partner, the board of directors of our general partner or any committee thereof (including the conflicts committee) subjectively believed such determination, other action or failure to act was in the best interests of the partnership. Please read “—Management—Our Board Committees—Conflicts Committee” for information about the conflicts committee of our general partner’s board of directors.

The duties owed to shareholders by our general partner are prescribed by law and our partnership agreement. The DRULPA provides that Delaware limited partnerships may, in their partnership agreements, expand, restrict or eliminate the fiduciary duties otherwise owed by a general partner to limited partners and the partnership.

Our partnership agreement contains various provisions that eliminate and/or replace the fiduciary duties that might otherwise be owed by our general partner. We have adopted these provisions to allow our general partner or its affiliates to engage in transactions with us that might otherwise be prohibited by state law fiduciary standards, and to take into account the interests of other parties in addition to our interests when resolving conflicts of interest. We believe this is appropriate and necessary because our general partner’s board of directors has duties to manage our general partner in a manner beneficial to its owners, as well as to the ETC shareholders. Without these modifications, our general partner’s ability to make decisions involving conflicts of interest would be restricted. Modifying the fiduciary duty standards enables our general partner to take into consideration all parties involved in the proposed action. These modifications may be considered beneficial to the shareholders in that they enable our general partner to attract and retain experienced and capable directors. They may be detrimental to the shareholders, however, because they restrict the remedies available to shareholders for actions that, without those limitations, might be challenged as breaches of fiduciary duties, as described below. The modifications also permit our general partner to take into account the interests of third parties in addition to our interests when resolving conflicts of interest. The following is a summary of:

By purchasing or otherwise acquiring our shares (including receipt of shares in connection with the merger transactions), each shareholder automatically agrees to be bound by the provisions in our partnership agreement, including the provisions discussed above. This reflects the policy of the DRULPA, which favors the principle of freedom of contract and the enforceability of partnership agreements. The failure of a limited partner or assignee to sign a partnership agreement does not render the partnership agreement unenforceable against that person.

We must indemnify our general partner and its officers, directors, managers and certain other specified persons (including the Existing GP Owner), to the fullest extent permitted by law and subject to limitations in our partnership agreement, against liabilities, costs and expenses incurred by our general partner or these other persons. We must provide this indemnification unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that these persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct. We must also provide this indemnification for criminal proceedings unless our general partner or these other persons acted with knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. Thus, our general partner could be indemnified for its negligent acts if it met the requirements set forth above. To the extent these provisions purport to include indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act, in the opinion of the SEC, such indemnification is contrary to public policy and, therefore, unenforceable. Please read “—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Indemnification.”

We do not believe we or our shareholders are subject to material risk of liability as a result of our ownership or control of ETE’s general partner. ETE’s limited partnership agreements provide for broad indemnification to its general partner and its affiliates. This indemnity extends to us as well as to our general partner. As a result of these indemnification arrangements, ETE is generally required economically to bear the risk of the general partner liability that might otherwise attach pursuant to the DRULPA.

In addition to this contractual indemnity, ETE’s organizational structure in combination with the terms of its commercial contracts further protects us and our shareholders from liability associated with ownership or control of its general partner. First, ETE is primarily a holding company and substantially all of ETE’s commercial contracts are entered into by subsidiaries who benefit from a corporate or limited liability company structure that protects the owners of these corporate entities, including ETE and us, from direct liability. Second, in the limited circumstances where ETE is a contractual counter-party (e.g., material debt agreements), the obligations under such contracts have been made expressly non-recourse to the ETE general partner. For these reasons and the protections afforded by ETE’s limited partnership agreement with respect to indemnification and exculpation of the ETE general partner and affiliated entities, we believe the likelihood that we or any other entity affiliated with the ETE general partner could be held individually liable for material obligations is remote.

As discussed above, our partnership agreement provides for broad indemnification to our general partner and its affiliates. Moreover, we, like ETE, expect to operate as a holding company and generally to provide that our obligations are expressly non-recourse to our general partner. Accordingly, we do not believe we will be subject to increased liability exposure, in addition to our own liability for partnership obligations, as a result of our ownership of and interest in our general partner.

ETE was formed in September 2002 and completed its initial public offering in February 2006. ETE is a master limited partnership with common units publicly traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “ETE.”

Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this “Additional Information About ETE” section to “ETE” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries, which include ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, Panhandle (or Southern Union prior to its merger into Panhandle in January 2014), Sunoco, SXL, ETP Holdco and, for periods prior to the Regency merger that occurred on April 30, 2015, Regency, Regency GP and Regency LLC. References to the “Parent Company” in this section mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. on a stand-alone basis.

In January 2014 and July 2015, ETE completed two-for-one splits of its outstanding common units. All references to units and per unit amounts in this section have been adjusted to reflect the effect of the unit splits for all periods presented.

The Parent Company’s principal sources of cash flow are derived from its direct and indirect equity interests in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP), Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. (NYSE: SXL) and Sunoco LP (NYSE: SUN), all of which are publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related businesses. As of March 31, 2016, the market capitalization of ETE common units totaled approximately $7.45 billion.

The Parent Company’s primary cash requirements are for general and administrative expenses, debt service requirements and distributions to its partners. The Parent Company’s assets are not available to satisfy the debts and other obligations of its subsidiaries. The Parent Company distributes its available cash remaining after satisfaction of the aforementioned cash requirements to its unitholders on a quarterly basis. ETE expects its subsidiaries to utilize their resources, along with cash from their operations, to fund their announced growth capital expenditures and working capital needs; however, the Parent Company may issue debt or equity securities from time to time, as ETE deems prudent to provide liquidity for new capital projects of its subsidiaries or for other partnership purposes.

The following chart summarizes ETE’s organizational structure as of March 31, 2016, after giving effect to the Sunoco Retail Acquisition and the Sunoco Equity Offering. For simplicity, certain immaterial entities and ownership interests have not been depicted.

ETE’s significant strategic transactions in 2015 and beyond included the following, as discussed in more detail herein:

ETE’s primary business objective is to increase cash available for distributions to unitholders by actively assisting its subsidiaries in executing their business strategies by assisting in identifying, evaluating and pursuing strategic acquisitions and growth opportunities. In general, ETE expects that it will allow its subsidiaries the first opportunity to pursue any acquisition or internal growth project that may be presented to it which may be within the scope of its operations or business strategies. In the future, ETE may also support the growth of its subsidiaries through the use of its capital resources which could involve loans, capital contributions or other forms of credit support to its subsidiaries. This funding could be used for the acquisition by one of ETE’s subsidiaries of a business or asset or for an internal growth project. In addition, the availability of this capital could assist its subsidiaries in arranging financing for a project, reducing its financing costs or otherwise supporting a merger or acquisition transaction.

Through ETC OLP, ETP owns the largest intrastate pipeline system in the United States with interconnects to Texas markets and to major consumption areas throughout the United States. ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations focus on the transportation of natural gas to major markets from various prolific natural gas producing areas through connections with other pipeline systems as well as through ETP’s Oasis pipeline, ETP’s East Texas pipeline, ETP’s natural gas pipeline and storage assets (the “ET Fuel System”), and ETP’s HPL System, which are described below.

ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations’ results are determined primarily by the amount of capacity its customers reserve as well as the actual volume of natural gas that flows through the transportation pipelines. Under transportation contracts, customers are charged (i) a demand fee, which is a fixed fee for the reservation of an agreed amount of capacity on the transportation pipeline for a specified period of time and which obligates the customer to pay even if the customer does not transport natural gas on the respective pipeline, (ii) a transportation fee, which is based on the actual throughput of natural gas by the customer, (iii) fuel retention based on a percentage of gas transported on the pipeline, or (iv) a combination of the three, generally payable monthly.

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 marketing companies on the HPL System. Generally, ETP purchases natural gas from either the market (including purchases from its marketing operations) or from producers at the wellhead. To the extent the natural gas comes from producers, it is primarily purchased at a discount to a specified market price and typically resold to customers based on an index price. 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 managing natural gas for its own account.

ETP’s natural gas transportation pipelines receive natural gas from other mainline transportation pipelines, storage facilities and gathering systems and deliver the natural gas to industrial end-users, storage facilities, utilities and other pipelines. Through its interstate transportation and storage operations, ETP directly owns and operates approximately 12,300 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline with approximately 11.2 Bcf/d of transportation capacity and has 50% interests in the joint ventures that own the 185-mile Fayetteville Express pipeline and the 500-mile Midcontinent Express Pipeline. ETP also owns a 50% interest in Citrus which owns 100% of FGT, an approximately 5,325 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 Panhandle, Lake Charles LNG 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 Lake Charles LNG operates one.

ETP also owns a 50% interest in the MEP pipeline system, which is operated by KMI (as defined below), and has the capability to transport up to 1.8 Bcf/d of natural gas.

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.

ETP is currently in the process of converting a portion of the Lake Charles LNG 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.

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, storage and transportation, and is generally characterized by regional competition based on the proximity of gathering systems and processing plants to natural gas producing wells and the proximity to production areas and end-use markets.

The natural gas gathering process begins with the drilling of wells into gas-bearing rock formations. Once a well has been completed, the well is connected to a gathering system. Gathering systems generally consist of a network of small diameter pipelines and, if necessary, compression systems, that collects natural gas from points near producing wells and transports it to larger pipelines for further transportation.

Gathering systems are operated at design pressures that will maximize the total throughput from all connected wells. Specifically, lower pressure gathering systems allow wells, which produce at progressively lower field pressures as they age, to remain connected to gathering systems and to continue to produce for longer periods of time. As the pressure of a well declines, it becomes increasingly difficult to deliver the remaining production in the ground against a higher pressure that exists in the connecting gathering system. Field compression is typically used to lower the pressure of a gathering system. If field compression is not installed, then the remaining production in the ground will not be produced because it cannot overcome the higher gathering system pressure. In contrast, if field compression is installed, then a well can continue delivering production that otherwise might not be produced.

Natural gas has a varied composition depending on the field, the formation and the reservoir from which it is produced. Natural gas from certain formations is higher in carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide or certain other contaminants. Treating plants remove carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from natural gas to ensure that it meets pipeline quality specifications.

Some natural gas produced by a well does not meet the pipeline quality specifications established by downstream pipelines or is not suitable for commercial use and must be processed to remove the mixed NGL stream. In addition, some natural gas produced by a well, while not required to be processed, can be processed to take advantage of favorable margins for NGLs extracted from the gas stream. Natural gas processing involves the separation of natural gas into pipeline quality natural gas, or residue gas, and a mixed NGL stream.

Through ETP’s midstream operations, ETP owns and operates approximately 35,000 miles of in service natural gas gathering pipeline, 31 natural gas processing plants, 21 natural gas treating facilities and 4 natural gas conditioning facilities with an aggregate processing, treating and conditioning capacity of approximately 10.1 Bcf/d. ETP’s midstream operations focus on the gathering, compression, treating, blending, and processing of natural gas, and ETP’s 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.

ETP’s midstream operations also include a 60% interest in Edwards Lime Gathering LLC, which operates natural gas gathering, oil pipeline, and oil stabilization facilities in south Texas, a 33.33% membership interest in Ranch Westex JV LLC, which processes natural gas delivered from the NGLs-rich shale formations in west Texas, a 75% membership interest in Ohio River Systems LLC, which operates a natural gas gathering system in the Utica shale in Ohio, and a 50% interest in Mi Vida JV LLC, which operates a cryogenic processing plant and related facilities in West Texas, a 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, and a 50% interest in Sweeny Gathering LP, which operates a natural gas gathering facility in South Texas.

The results from ETP’s midstream operations are primarily derived from margins ETP earns for natural gas volumes that are gathered, transported, purchased and sold through ETP’s pipeline systems and the natural gas and NGL volumes processed at its processing and treating facilities.

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 owns 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 51 million Bbls. Four 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 82-mile Rio Bravo crude oil pipeline.

Liquids transportation revenue is principally generated from fees charged to customers under dedicated contracts or take-or-pay contracts. Under a dedicated contract, the customer agrees to deliver the total output from particular processing plants that are connected to the NGL pipeline. Take-or-pay contracts have minimum throughput commitments requiring the customer to pay regardless of whether a fixed volume is transported. Transportation fees are market-based, negotiated with customers and competitive with regional regulated pipelines.

NGL fractionation revenue is principally generated from fees charged to customers under take-or-pay contracts. Take-or-pay contracts have minimum payment obligations for throughput commitments requiring the customer to pay regardless of whether a fixed volume is fractionated from raw make into purity NGL products. Fractionation fees are market-based, negotiated with customers and competitive with other fractionators along the Gulf Coast.

NGL storage revenues are derived from base storage fees and throughput fees. Base storage fees are firm take or pay contracts based on the volume of capacity reserved, regardless of the capacity actually used. Throughput fees are charged for providing ancillary services, including receipt and delivery and custody transfer fees.

These operations also include revenues earned from the marketing of NGLs and processing and fractionating refinery off-gas. Marketing of NGLs primarily generates margin from selling ratable NGLs to end users and from optimizing storage assets. Processing and fractionation of refinery off-gas margin is generated from a percentage-of-proceeds of Olefins-grade (“O-grade”) product sales and income sharing contracts, which are subject to market pricing of olefins and NGLs.

ETP’s interests in SXL consist of 67.1 million SXL common units and 9.4 million SXL Class B units, collectively representing 27.5% of the limited partner interests in SXL as of December 31, 2015. ETP also owns a 99.9% interest in Sunoco Partners LLC, the entity that owns the general partner interest and IDRs in SXL. Because ETP controls SXL through its ownership of the general partner, the operations of SXL are consolidated into ETP.

SXL owns and operates a logistics business, consisting of a geographically diverse portfolio of complementary pipeline, terminalling, and acquisition and marketing assets that are used to facilitate the purchase and sale of crude oil, NGLs and refined products primarily in the Northeast, Midwest and Southwest regions of the United States. In addition, SXL owns interests in several product pipeline joint ventures.

SXL’s crude oil segment provides transportation, terminalling and acquisition and marketing services to crude oil markets throughout the Southwest, Midwest and Northeastern United States. Included within the segment is approximately 5,900 miles of crude oil trunk and gathering pipelines in the Southwest and Midwest United States and equity ownership interests in three crude oil pipelines. SXL’s crude oil terminalling services operate with an aggregate storage capacity of approximately 28 million barrels, including approximately 24 million barrels at its Gulf Coast terminal in Nederland, Texas and approximately 3 million barrels at its Fort Mifflin terminal complex in Pennsylvania. SXL’s crude oil acquisition and marketing activities utilize its pipeline and terminal assets, its proprietary fleet crude oil tractor trailers and truck unloading facilities, as well as third-party assets, to service crude oil markets principally in the mid-continent United States.

SXL’s NGLs segment transports, stores, and executes acquisition and marketing activities utilizing a complementary network of pipelines, storage and blending facilities, and strategic off-take locations that provide access to multiple NGLs markets. The segment contains approximately 900 miles of NGLs pipelines, primarily related to its Mariner systems located in the Northeast and Southwest United States. Terminalling services are facilitated by approximately 5 million barrels of NGLs storage capacity, including approximately 1 million barrels of storage at its Nederland, Texas terminal facility and 3 million barrels at its Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania terminal facility (the “Marcus Hook Industrial Complex”). This segment also carries out SXL’s NGLs blending activities, including utilizing its patented butane blending technology.

SXL’s refined products segment provides transportation and terminalling services, through the use of approximately 1,800 miles of refined products pipelines and approximately 40 active refined products marketing terminals. SXL’s marketing terminals are located primarily in the Northeast, Midwest and Southeast United States, with approximately 8 million barrels of refined products storage capacity. SXL’s refined products segment includes its Eagle Point facility in New Jersey, which has approximately 6 million barrels of refined products storage capacity. The segment also includes SXL’s equity ownership interests in four refined products pipeline companies. The segment also performs terminalling activities at SXL’s Marcus Hook Industrial Complex. SXL’s refined products segment utilizes its integrated pipeline and terminalling assets, as well as acquisition and marketing activities, to service refined products markets in several regions in the United States.

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

ETP’s retail marketing business operations is conducted through ETP’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Sunoco, Inc. ETP’s retail marketing operations include the sales of motor fuel (gasoline and diesel) and merchandise at company-operated retail locations and branded convenience stores conducted in 14 states, primarily on the East coast and South regions of the United States.

ETP also currently owns a 68.42% membership interest in Sunoco, LLC, which distributes approximately 5.3 billion gallons per year of motor fuel to customers in the East, Midwest and Southwest regions of the United States. The remaining 31.58% membership interest in Sunoco, LLC is held by Sunoco. Sunoco also owns 50.1% of the voting interests in Sunoco, LLC; therefore, ETP does not have a controlling interest in Sunoco, LLC and accounts for its investment under the equity method.

As discussed above, ETP expects to contribute to Sunoco the remaining 68.42% interest in Sunoco, LLC and 100% interest in the legacy Sunoco, Inc. retail business for $2.23 billion. Sunoco will pay ETP $2.03 billion in cash, subject to certain working capital adjustments, and will issue to ETP 5.7 million Sunoco common units. The transaction was effective January 1, 2016 and is expected to close in March 2016.

ETP’s retail marketing operations also currently own 37.8 million Sunoco common units, which are accounted for under the equity method. Sunoco is a master limited partnership that operates more than 850 convenience stores and retail fuel sites and distributes motor fuel to convenience stores, independent dealers, commercial customers and distributors located in 30 states at approximately 6,800 sites, both directly as well as through its 31.58% interest in Sunoco, LLC. Sunoco’s general partner is owned by ETE.

Sunoco is engaged in retail sale of motor fuels and merchandise through its company-operated convenience stores and retail fuel sites, as well as the wholesale distribution of motor fuels to convenience stores, independent dealers, commercial customers and distributors. Additionally, through its ownership interest in Sunoco, LLC it is the exclusive wholesale supplier of the iconic Sunoco branded motor fuel, supplying an extensive distribution network of more than 5,000 Sunoco-branded third-party and affiliate operated locations.

Sunoco’s wholesale operations consist of wholesale distribution of motor fuels and other petroleum products to the retail operations, Sunoco, Inc., third-party dealers, and independent operators of consignment locations. Sunoco purchases motor fuel primarily from independent refiners and major oil companies and distributes it across more than 30 states throughout the East Coast and Southeast regions of the United States from Maine to Florida and from Florida to New Mexico, as well as Hawaii to:

Through its ownership interest in Sunoco, LLC, Sunoco is the exclusive wholesale supplier of the iconic Sunoco branded motor fuel, supplying an extensive distribution network of approximately 5,000 Sunoco-branded company, third-party and affiliate operated locations throughout the Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the United States as well as 191 company operated Sunoco branded locations in Texas. ETE believes Sunoco is one of the largest independent motor fuel distributors by gallons in Texas and, through its various entities, one of the largest distributors of Chevron, Exxon, and Valero branded motor fuel in the United States. In addition to distributing motor fuel, Sunoco distributes other petroleum products such as propane and lube oil, and receives rental income from real estate that it leases or subleases. Sales of fuel from its wholesale operations to its retail operations are delivered at a cost plus profit margin.

As of December 31, 2015, Sunoco’s retail operations consisted of approximately 900 convenience stores and retail fuel outlets offering merchandise, food service, motor fuel and other services.

The retail convenience stores operate under several brands, including the proprietary brands Stripes and Aloha Island Mart. Historically, sales and operating income are highest in the second and third quarters during the summer activity months and lowest during the winter months. This seasonality is mitigated by MACS and Aloha. The stores carry a broad selection of food, beverages, snacks, grocery and non-food merchandise, motor fuel and other services. The following table provides the number of sites operated as of December 31, 2015:

As of December 31, 2015, Sunoco operated 725 Stripes convenience stores in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma which stock 2,500 to 3,500 merchandise units, on average, with each store offering a customized merchandise mix based on local customer demand and preferences. To further differentiate its merchandise offering, Stripes has developed numerous proprietary offerings and private label items unique to Stripes stores, including Laredo Taco Company^® restaurants, Café de la Casa^® custom blended coffee, Slush Monkey^® frozen carbonated beverages, Quake^® energy drink, Smokin’ Barrel^® beef jerky and meat snacks, Monkey Loco^® candies, Monkey Juice^® and Royal^® brand cigarettes. Stripes has built approximately 236 large-format convenience stores from January 2000 through December 31, 2015 and expects to construct and open approximately 35 to 40 stores during 2016. Stripes has implemented its proprietary in-house Laredo Taco Company restaurants in over 440 Stripes convenience stores and intends to implement it in all newly constructed Stripes convenience stores. Stripes also owns and operates ATM and proprietary money order systems in most of its stores and also provides other services such as lottery, prepaid telephone cards and wireless services, movie rental and car washes.

Sunoco operated approximately 175 MACS and Aloha convenience stores and fuel outlets in Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, Georgia, and Hawaii offering merchandise, food service, motor fuel and other services. As of December 31, 2015, MACS had approximately 125 company-operated retail convenience stores and Aloha operates 50 Aloha, Shell, and Mahalo branded fuel stations.

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.

Lake Charles LNG is currently developing a natural gas liquefaction facility with BG Group for the export of LNG. Lake Charles LNG is currently developing a natural gas liquefaction facility with BG Group for the export of LNG. In December 2015, Lake Charles LNG received authorization from the FERC to site, construct, and operate facilities for the liquefaction and export of natural gas. On February 15, 2016, Royal Dutch Shell plc completed its acquisition of BG Group. Final investments decisions from Royal Dutch Shell plc and LCL are expected to be made in 2016, with construction to start immediately following a positive decision and first LNG exports anticipated about four years later.

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

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.

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.

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.

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, 2015, ETP had approximately 9.3 Bcf committed under fee-based arrangements with third parties and approximately 40 Bcf stored in the facility for ETP’s own account.

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.

RIGS is a 450-mile intrastate pipeline that delivers natural gas from Northwest Louisiana to downstream pipelines and markets.

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

The Florida Gas Transmission pipeline is an open-access interstate pipeline system with a mainline capacity of 3.1 Bcf/d and approximately 5,325 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 66% of the natural gas consumed in the state. In addition, Florida Gas Transmission’s pipeline system operates and maintains over 81 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.

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.

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.

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

During 2015, 45 miles of Lake Charles LNG 24 inch pipeline and 636 miles of Lake Charles LNG 30 inch pipeline were taken out of service in advance of being repurposed from natural gas service to crude oil service, coinciding with the transfer of the assets to a related company.

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.

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.

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.

MEP owns a 500-mile interstate pipeline stretching from Southeast Oklahoma through Northeast Texas, Northern Louisiana and Central Mississippi to an interconnect with the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline System in Butler, Alabama.

Gulf States owns a 10-mile interstate pipeline that extends from Harrison County, Texas to Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Arklatex assets gather, compress, treat and dehydrate natural gas in several Parishes of North and West Louisiana and several counties in East Texas. These 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, ETP offers producers wellhead-to-market services, including natural gas gathering, compression, processing, treating and transportation.

The South Texas assets gather, compress, treat and dehydrate natural gas in Bee, LaSalle, Webb, Karnes, Atascosa, McMullen, Frio and Dimmitt counties. The pipeline systems are connected to third-party processing plants and treating facilities that include acid gas reinjection wells located in McMullen County, Texas. ETP 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 the 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.

ETP 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. ETP operates a natural gas gathering oil pipeline and oil stabilization facilities for the joint venture while ETP’s joint venture partners operate a lean gas gathering system in the Edwards Lime natural gas trend that delivers to this system.

The 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 the system to the Waha Hub, the Waha gathering system has a variety of market outlets for the natural gas that ETP 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.

During 2015, Regency completed construction on a 200 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant on behalf of Mi Vida JV LLC, a joint venture in which ETE owns a 50% membership interest. ETP operates the plant and related facilities on behalf of Mi Vida JV LLC.

ETP 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.

The 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. ETP’s mid-continent gathering assets are extensive systems that gather, compress and dehydrate low-pressure gas. ETP has 15 natural gas producing facilities and approximately 13,500 miles of gathering pipeline.

ETP 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.

ETP 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.

The eastern region assets are located in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, and gather natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica basins. ETE’s eastern gathering assets include approximately 500 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.

ETP also owns 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.

ETP and Traverse ORS LLC, a subsidiary of Traverse Midstream Partners LLC, own a 75% and 25% membership interest, respectively, in the Ohio River System LLC (“ORS”) joint venture. On behalf of ORS, ETP constructed and is operating its Ohio Utica River System, (the “ORS System”) which was completed in 2015 and 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 also included the construction of a 12-mile, 30-inch lateral that connected to the tailgate of the Cadiz processing plant and Harrison County wellhead production.

ETP’s 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 Rebel processing plant with capacity of 180 MMcf/d. ETP also owns approximately 27 miles of gathering pipelines serving the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia with aggregate capacity of approximately 250 MMcf/d.

The following details ETP’s assets in the liquids transportation and services operations.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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 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, 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.

Sunoco’s crude oil consists of an integrate set of pipeline, terminalling and acquisition and marketing assets that service the movement of crude oil from producers to end-user markets.

Southwest United States Pipelines. The Southwest pipelines include crude oil trunk pipelines and crude oil gathering pipelines in Texas. This includes the Permian Express 2 pipeline project which provides takeaway capacity from the Permian Basin, with origins in multiple locations in Western Texas: Midland, Garden City and Colorado City. With an initial capacity of approximately 200,000 Bbls/d, Permian Express 2 began delivery to multiple refiners and markets in the third quarter 2015. In connection with this project, SXL entered into an agreement with Vitol, Inc. to form SunVit, with each party owning a 50% interest. SunVit originates in Midland, Texas and runs to Garden City, Texas, where it connects into the Permian Express 2 pipeline system. The SunVit pipeline also commenced operations in the third quarter 2015. The Southwest pipelines also include a crude oil pipeline and gathering systems in Oklahoma. SXL has the ability to deliver substantially all of the crude oil gathered on the Oklahoma system to Cushing and is one of the largest purchasers of crude oil from producers in the state.

Midwest United States Pipelines. The Midwest United States pipeline system includes SXL’s majority interest in the Mid-Valley Pipeline Company which 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.

SXL also owns a 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’ Petroleum Corporation’s Samaria, Michigan tank farm, which supplies its refinery in Detroit, Michigan.

Nederland. 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, of which 24 million barrels of storage are dedicated to crude oil.

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 SXL’s 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 475 million barrels. 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 SXL’s crude oil pipelines or a number of third party pipelines including the DOE. The Nederland terminal generates crude oil revenues primarily by providing term or spot storage services and throughput capabilities to a number of customers.

Fort Mifflin. 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 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 SXL’s pipelines. The tank farm then stores the crude oil and transports it to the PES refinery via SXL’s pipelines.

Eagle Point. 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 one million barrels and can receive crude oil via barge, pipeline and rail. The terminal generate revenue primarily by charging fees based on throughput, blending services and storage.

SXL’s 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 SXL’s assets, which include approximately 375 crude oil transport trucks and approximately 140 crude oil truck unloading facilities, as well as third-party truck, rail and marine assets. Specifically, the crude oil acquisition and marketing activities include:

SXL’s Natural Gas Liquids consists of an integrate set of pipeline, terminalling and acquisition and marketing assets that service the movement of NGLs from producers to end-user markets.

Marcus Hook Industrial Complex: In 2013, SXL acquired Sunoco, Inc.’s Marcus Hook Industrial Complex. The acquisition included terminalling and storage assets with a capacity of approximately 3 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 NGLs storage and terminalling services to both affiliates and third-party customers, the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex currently serves as an off-take outlet for the Mariner East 1 pipeline, and will provide similar off-take capabilities for the Mariner East 2 pipeline when it commences operations.

Inkster Terminal: The Inkster Terminal, located near Detroit, Michigan, consists of eight salt caverns with a total storage capacity of approximately one million barrels of NGLs. SXL uses the Inkster Terminal’s storage connection with the Toledo, North 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.

SXL’s NGLs acquisition and marketing activities include the acquisition, blending and marketing of such products at SXL’s various terminals and third-party facilities.

SXL’s refined products consists of an integrate set of pipeline, terminalling and acquisition and marketing assets that service the movement of refined products from producers to end-user markets.

SXL owns and operates approximately 1,800 miles of refined products pipelines in several regions of the United States. The pipelines primarily provide transportation in the Northeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States. These pipelines include SXL’s controlling financial interest in Inland Corporation (“Inland”).

The mix of products delivered varies seasonally, with gasoline demand peaking during the summer months, and demand for heating oil and other distillate fuels peaking in the winter. In addition, weather conditions in the areas served by the refined products pipelines affect both the demand for, and the mix of, the refined products delivered through the pipelines, although historically, any overall impact on the total volume shipped has been short-term. The products transported in these pipelines include multiple grades of gasoline, and middle distillates, such as heating oil, diesel and jet fuel.

In addition to the consolidated pipeline assets, SXL owns equity interests in four common carrier refined products pipelines including: Explorer Pipeline Company, Yellowstone Pipe Line Company, West Shore Pipe Line Company and Wolverine Pipe Line Company.

Refined Products. SXL has approximately 40 refined products terminals with an aggregate storage capacity of 8 million barrels that facilitate the movement of refined products to or from storage or transportation systems, such as a pipeline, to other transportation systems, such as trucks or other pipelines. Each facility typically consists of multiple storage tanks and is equipped with automated truck loading equipment that is operational 24 hours a day.

Eagle Point. In additional to crude oil service, the Eagle Point terminal can accommodate three marine vessels (ships or barges) to receive and deliver refined products to outbound ships and barges. The tank farm has a total active refined products storage capacity of approximately 6 million barrels, and provides customers with access to the facility via barge, pipeline and rail. The terminal can deliver via barge, truck or pipeline, providing customers with access to various markets. The terminal generates revenue primarily by charging fees based on throughput, blending services and storage.

Marcus Hook Industrial Complex. The Marcus Hook Industrial Complex can receive refined products via marine vessel, pipeline, truck and rail, and can deliver via marine vessel, pipeline and truck.

Marcus Hook Tank Farm. The Marcus Hook Tank Farm has a total refined products storage capacity of approximately 2 million barrels of refined products storage. The tank farm historically served Sunoco Inc.’s Marcus Hook refinery and generated revenue from the related throughput and storage. In 2012, the main processing units at the refinery were idled in connection with Sunoco Inc.’s exit from its refining business. The terminal continues to receive and deliver refined products via pipeline and now primarily provides terminalling services to support movements on SXL’s refined products pipelines.

SXL’s refined products acquisition and marketing activities include the acquisition, marketing and selling of bulk refined products such as gasoline products and distillates. These activities utilize SXL’s refined products pipeline and terminal assets, as well as third-party assets and facilities.

As discussed above, ETP expects to contribute all of its remaining retail operations to Sunoco in March 2016. Company-operated sites, which are operated by Sunoco R&M, are sites at which fuel products are delivered directly to the site by company-operated trucks or by contract carriers. Most of the company-operated sites include a convenience store under the Aplus^® brand. The highest concentration of retail outlets are located in Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, New Jersey, and South Carolina.

ETP manages a strong proprietary fuel and convenience store brand through its retail portfolio of outlets, including Sunoco^®, and Aplus^®.

Of the total retail outlets that are company-operated, 438 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, ETP’s subsidiaries operate as a significant distributor to multiple top-tier fuel brands, including Exxon^®, Mobil^®, Valero^®, Shell^® and Chevron^®.

ETP subsidiaries operate 384 convenience stores under the proprietary Aplus^® convenience store brand as of December 31, 2015. These stores complement sales of fuel products with a broad mix of merchandise, food service, and other services.

The following table sets forth information concerning the company-operated convenience stores during 2015:

ETP owns a 40% interest in LCL, with the remaining 60% owned by ETE. LCL is in the process of developing a liquefaction project in conjunction with BG Group. See further discussion under “—Investment in Lake Charles LNG.”

ETP 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. ETP’s contract treating services are primarily located in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas.

ETP’s Natural Resources operations primarily involve the management and leasing of coal properties and the subsequent collection of royalties. ETP also earns revenues from other land management activities, such as selling standing timber, leasing fee-based coal related 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, 2015, ETP 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 operations held a 50% interest in a coal services company with Alpha Natural Resources. In December 2014, ETP acquired the remaining 50% membership interest. The company, now known as Materials Handling Solutions, LLC, owns and operates facilities for industrial customers on a fee basis. During 2014, ETP’s coal reserves located in the San Juan basin were depleted and its associated coal royalties revenues ceased.

Sunoco purchases motor fuel primarily from independent refiners and major oil companies and distributes it across more than 30 states throughout the East Coast and Southeast regions of the United States from Maine to Florida and from Florida to New Mexico, as well as Hawaii to:

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/d.

LCL, an entity owned 60% by ETE and 40% by ETP, is in the process of developing the liquefaction project in conjunction with BG Group pursuant to a project development agreement entered into in September 2013. Pursuant to this agreement, each of LCL and BG Group 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 Group 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 440 acres of land, of which 80 acres are owned by Lake Charles LNG and the remaining acres are to be leased by LCL under a long-term lease from the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District.

The construction of the liquefaction project is subject to each of LCL and BG Group 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 Group will enter into several agreements related to the project, including a liquefaction services agreement pursuant to which BG Group 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 Group, 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, ETE anticipates that each of LCL and BG Group will make an affirmative FID in 2016 and then commence construction of the liquefaction project in order to place the first and second LNG trains in service in 2021 and the trains in service early 2022.

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 Group and ETP and following FID, will be 100% owned by BG Group. In July 2011, LCE obtained a DOE authorization to export LNG to countries with which the U.S. has or will have 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 ETE expects the DOE to issue the Non-FTA Authorization to LCL in due course.

Prior to being authorized to export LNG, ETE must also receive wetlands permits from the 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, ETE expects to receive the wetlands permit from the USACE in the third quarter of 2015.

In December 2015, ETP announced that the Lake Charles LNG project has received approval from the FERC to site, construct and operate a natural gas liquefaction and export facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana. On February 15, 2016, Royal Dutch Shell plc completed its acquisition of BG Group. Final investment decisions from Royal Dutch Shell plc and LCL are expected to be made in 2016, with construction to start immediately following an affirmative investment decision and first LNG export anticipated about four years later.

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 ETE’s transportation and storage operations are other pipelines. Pipelines typically compete with each other based on location, capacity, price and reliability.

ETE faces competition with respect to retaining and obtaining significant natural gas supplies under terms favorable to ETE for the gathering, treating and marketing portions of ETE’s business. ETE’s competitors include major integrated oil companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines and companies that gather, compress,

treat, process, transport and market natural gas. Many of ETE’s competitors, such as major oil and gas and pipeline companies, have capital resources and control supplies of natural gas substantially greater than ETE’s.

In marketing natural gas, ETE has 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 ETE’s marketing operations.

In markets served by ETE’s NGL pipelines, ETE faces 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, ETE’s NGL pipelines compete with these entities in terms of transportation fees, reliability and quality of customer service. ETE faces competition with other storage facilities based on fees charged and the ability to receive and distribute the customer’s products. ETE competes with a number of NGL fractionators in Texas and Louisiana. Competition for such services is primarily based on the fractionation fee charged.

In markets served by ETE’s refined products and crude oil pipelines, ETE faces competition with other pipelines. Generally, pipelines are the lowest cost method for long-haul, overland movement of products and crude oil. Therefore, the most significant competitors for large volume shipments in the areas served by ETE’s pipelines are other pipelines. In addition, pipeline operations face competition from trucks that deliver products in a number of areas that ETE’s 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 ETE’s pipelines.

ETE also faces 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.

ETE’s 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.

ETE faces strong competition in the market for the sale of retail gasoline and merchandise. ETE’s 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 ETE’s 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. ETE competes by pricing gasoline competitively, combining retail gasoline business with convenience stores that provide a wide variety of products, and using advertising and promotional campaigns. ETE believes that it is in a position to compete effectively as a marketer of refined products because of the location of its retail network, which is well integrated with the distribution system operated by SXL and Sunoco.

Credit risk refers to the risk that a counterparty may default on its contractual obligations resulting in a loss to ETE. Credit policies have been approved and implemented to govern ETE’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 credit ratings, and by implementing credit practices that limit exposure according to the risk profiles of the counterparties. Furthermore, ETE may at times require collateral under certain circumstances to mitigate credit risk as necessary. ETE also implements 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, ETE utilizes master netting agreements to offset credit exposure across multiple commercial agreements with a single counterparty or affiliated group of counterparties.

ETE’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 midstream companies and independent power generators. ETE’s overall exposure may be affected positively or negatively by macroeconomic or regulatory changes that could impact its counterparties to one extent or another. Currently, ETE’s management does not anticipate a material adverse effect in its 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 ETE’s exploration and production customers have been negatively impacted; however, ETE is monitoring these customers and mitigating credit risk as necessary.

During the year ended December 31, 2015, none of ETE’s customers individually accounted for more than 10% of ETE’s consolidated revenues.

The FERC has broad regulatory authority over the business and operations of interstate natural gas pipelines. Under the 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, Lake Charles LNG, Tiger, Fayetteville Express, Sea Robin Gulf States and Midcontinent Express 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. ETE also holds certain storage facilities that are subject to the FERC’s regulatory oversight.

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 required to be on file with the FERC. 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 or on FERC’s own motion, and if found unjust and unreasonable, may be altered on a prospective basis from no earlier than the date of the complaint or initiation of a proceeding by the FERC. The FERC must also approve all rate changes. ETE cannot guarantee that the FERC will allow ETE to charge rates that fully recover ETE’s costs or continue to pursue its approach of pro-competitive policies.

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 ETE was required to reduce over a three year period beginning in April 2012. On October 1, 2014, Transwestern filed a general NGA Section 4 rate case pursuant to a 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. Transwestern reached a settlement with its customers and filed a settlement on June 22, 2015. The settlement also resolved certain non-rate matters and approved Transwestern’s use of certain previously approved accounting methodologies. The FERC approved the settlement by order dated October 15, 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. FGT reached a settlement with its customers and filed a settlement on September 11, 2015. The FERC approved the settlement by order dated December 4, 2015.

On December 2, 2013, Sea Robin filed a general NGA Section 4 rate case at the FERC as required by a previous rate case settlement. In the filing, Sea Robin sought to increase its authorized rates to recover costs related to asset retirement obligations, depreciation, and return and taxes. Filed rates were put into effect June 1, 2014 and estimated settlement rates were put into effect September 1, 2014, subject to refund. A settlement was reached with the shippers and a stipulation and agreement was filed with the FERC on July 23, 2014. The settlement was certified to the FERC by the administrative law judge on October 7, 2014 and the settlement, as modified on January 16, 2015, was approved by the FERC on June 26, 2015. In September 2015, related to the final settlement, Sea Robin made refunds to customers totaling $11 million, including interest.

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 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 ETE’s physical purchases and sales of natural gas, NGLs or other energy commodities; ETE’s gathering or transportation of these energy commodities; and any related hedging activities that ETE undertakes, ETE is 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 or seek civil penalties of up to $1 million per day per violation, to order disgorgement of profits and to recommend criminal penalties. Should ETE violate the anti-market manipulation laws and regulations, ETE 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, the CEA and the other federal laws and regulations governing ETE’s operations and business activities can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.

Intrastate transportation of natural gas and NGLs is largely regulated by the state in which such transportation takes place. To the extent that ETE’s 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 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 ETE’s currently approved Section 311 rates, ETE’s 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.

ETE’s intrastate natural gas operations are also subject to regulation by various agencies in Texas, principally the TRRC. ETE’s 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 ETE charges for transportation services are deemed just and reasonable under Texas law unless challenged in a customer or TRRC complaint. ETE cannot predict whether such a complaint will be filed against it 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.

ETE’s 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. In addition, the rates, terms and conditions for shipments of NGLs on ETE’s pipelines are subject to regulation by FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the “EPAct of 1992) if

the NGLs are transported in interstate or foreign commerce whether by ETE’s pipelines or other means of transportation. Since ETE does not control the entire transportation path of all NGLs shipped on its pipelines, FERC regulation could be triggered by ETE’s customers’ transportation decisions.

The price at which ETE buys 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 ETE sells NGLs is not subject to federal or state regulation.

To the extent that ETE enters into transportation contracts with natural gas pipelines that are subject to FERC regulation, ETE is subject to FERC requirements related to use of such capacity. Any failure on ETE’s 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.

ETE’s 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. ETE cannot predict the ultimate impact of these regulatory changes to its natural gas marketing operations, and ETE notes that some of the FERC’s regulatory changes may adversely affect the availability and reliability of interruptible transportation service on interstate pipelines. ETE does not believe that it will be affected by any such FERC action in a manner that is materially different from other natural gas marketers with whom ETE competes.

Section 1(b) of the NGA exempts natural gas gathering facilities from the jurisdiction of the FERC under the NGA. ETE owns a number of natural gas pipelines in Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia that ETE believes 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 ETE’s 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, ETE’s gathering facilities are subject to regulation by the TRRC under the Texas Utilities Code in the same manner as described above for ETE’s 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, ETE’s Chalkley System is regulated as an intrastate transporter, and the Louisiana Office of Conservation has determined that ETE’s Whiskey Bay System is a gathering system.

ETE is subject to state ratable take and common purchaser statutes in all of the states in which ETE operates. 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. ETE’s 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. ETE’s 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. ETE cannot predict what effect, if any, such changes might have on its operations, but the industry could be required to incur additional capital expenditures and increased costs depending on future legislative and regulatory changes.

Interstate common carrier pipeline operations are subject to rate regulation by the FERC under the ICA, the EPACT 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 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 ETE charges, have not been the subject of a protest or a complaint by a shipper. However, the FERC could investigate ETE’s 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 ETE ultimately will be upheld if challenged, management believes that the tariffs now in effect for ETE’s pipelines are within the maximum rates allowed under current FERC policies and precedents.

For many locations served by ETE’s product and crude pipelines, ETE is able to establish negotiated rates. Otherwise, ETE is permitted to charge cost-based rates, or in many cases, grandfathered rates based on historical charges or settlements with ETE’s customers.

Some of ETE’s crude oil and products pipelines are subject to regulation by the TRRC, the PA PUC, and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. The operations of ETE’s 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 ETE’s intrastate rates ultimately would be upheld if challenged, ETE believes 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.

ETE’s pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the DOT, through the PHMSA, pursuant to the NGPSA, with respect to natural gas and the HLPSA, with respect to crude oil, NGLs and condensates. Both the NGPSA and the HLPSA were amended by the PSI Act and the 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 pipeline safety laws and regulations may result in the assesment at sanctions, including administrative, civil or criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory, remedies or corrective action obligations, or the issuance of injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of our operations in the affected area.

The NGPSA and HLPSA were must recently amended in 2012 when President Obama signed into law the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (“2011 Pipeline Safety Act”) which reauthorized the federal pipeline safety programs of PHMSA through 2015 and increared 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, but provided that these maximum penalty caps do not apply to certain civil enforcement actions; permitted the DOT Secretary to mandate automatic or remote controlled shut off valves on new or entirely replaced pipelines; required the DOT Secretary to evaluate whether integrity management system requirements should be expanded beyond HCAs; and provided 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. New pipeline safety legislation that would reauthorize the federal pipeline safety programs of PHMSA through 2019 has been introduced and is expected to be considered by Congress in 2016. One bill entitled “Securing America’s Future Energy: Protecting Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety” (or “SAFE PIPES”) has already been approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and is now subject to consideration by the U.S. Senate. Passage of any new legislation reauthorizing the PHMSA pipeline safety programs is expected to require, among other things, pursuit of some or all of those legal mandates included in the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act but not acted upon by the DOT Secretary or PHMSA.

In addition, states have adopted regulations, similar to existing PHMSA regulations, for intrastate gathering and transmission lines. The states in which ETE conducts 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 ETE and other companies in its industry. For example, federal construction, maintenance and inspection standards under the NGPSA that apply to pipelines in relatively populated areas may not apply to gathering lines running through rural regions. This “rural gathering exemption” under the NGPSA presently exempts substantial portions of ETE’s gathering facilities located outside of cities, towns or any area designated as residential or commercial from jurisdiction under the NGPSA, but does not apply to ETE’s intrastate natural gas pipelines. In recent years, the PHMSA has considered changes to this rural gathering exemption, including publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking relating to gas pipelines in 2011, in which the agency sought public comment on possible changes to the definition of “high consequence areas” and “gathering lines” and the strengthening of pipeline integrity management requirements. More recently, in October 2015, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to hazardous liquid pipelines

that, among other things, proposes to extend its integrity management requirements to previously exempt pipelines, and to impose additional obligations on pipeline operators that are already subject to the integrity management requirements. Specifically, PHMSA proposes to extend reporting requirements to all gravity and gathering lines, require periodic inline integrity assessments of pipelines that are located outside of HCAs, and require the use of leak detection systems on pipelines in all locations, including outside of HCAs. The changes proposed by PHMSA in each of these proposals continue to remain under consideration by the agency. Historically ETE’s pipeline safety costs have not had a material adverse effect on ETE’s business or results of operations but there is no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future, whether due to elimination of the rural gathering exemption or otherwise due to changes in pipeline safety laws and regulations.

In another example of how future legal requirements could result in increased compliance costs, 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.

ETE’s 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, tribal, 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 ETE to incur substantial costs, penalties, fines and criminal sanctions, third-party claims for personal injury or property damage, capital expenditures to retrofit or upgrade ETE’s facilities and programs, or curtailment or cancellation of operations. As with the industry generally, compliance with existing and anticipated environmental laws and regulations increases ETE’s overall cost of doing business, including ETE’s cost of planning, constructing and operating its plants, pipelines and other facilities. As a result of these laws and regulations, in ETE’s construction and operation costs include capital, operating and maintenance cost items necessary to maintain or upgrade its equipment and facilities.

ETE has implemented procedures to ensure that all governmental environmental approvals for both existing operations and those under construction are updated as circumstances require. Historically, ETE’s environmental compliance costs have not had a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition; however, there can be no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future. For example, ETE cannot be certain 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 ETE’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

To a large extent, the environmental laws and regulations affecting ETE’s 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 strict 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 ETE’s ordinary operations it generates wastes that may fall within that definition or that may be subject to other waste disposal laws and regulations. ETE 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.

ETE also generates 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. ETE is not currently required to comply with a substantial portion of the RCRA hazardous waste requirements at many of its facilities because the minimal quantities of hazardous wastes generated there make ETE subject to less stringent nonhazardous management standards. From time to time, the EPA has considered or third parties have petitioned the agency on 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. For example, in August 2015, several non-governmental organizations filed notice of intent to sue the EPA under RCRA for, among other things, the agency’s alleged failure to reconsider whether such RCRA exclusion for oilfield exploration, development and production wastes should continue to apply. It is possible that some wastes generated by ETE 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 ETE’s capital expenditures or plant operating and maintenance expense.

ETE currently owns or leases sites that have been used over the years by prior owners or lessees and by ETE for various activities related to gathering, processing, storage and transmission of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and products. 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 ETE. Notwithstanding the possibility that these releases may have occurred during the ownership or operation of these assets by others, these sites may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and comparable state laws. Under these laws, ETE 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, 2015 and 2014, accruals of $367 million and $401 million, respectively, were recorded in ETE’s 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 ETE’s acquisition of the HPL System, ETE’s 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.

ETE is subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, tribal 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 $344 million and $363 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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 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, ETE accrues losses attributable to unasserted claims based on the discounted estimates that are used to develop the premiums paid to the captive insurance company. As of December 31, 2015 the captive insurance company held $238 million of cash and investments.

ETE’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

Under various environmental laws, including the RCRA, ETE has initiated corrective remedial action at certain of its facilities and formerly owned facilities and at certain third-party sites. At ETE’s major manufacturing facilities, ETE has typically 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 designer to prevent or mitigate 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. Remedial activities include, for example closure of RCRA waste management units, recovery of hydrocarbons, handling of impacted soil, mitigation of surface water impacts and prevention or mitigation 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 comparatively higher cost remediation strategy in the future.

ETE 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 certain of releases at these sites and at formerly owned sites be assessed and remediated to meet the applicable standards. ETE’s obligation to remediate this type of contamination varies, depending on the extent of the release and the applicable laws and regulations. If ETE is eligible to participate, 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, a remediation site or issue is typically evaluated on an individual basis 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 (for example, 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 the minimum amount of the range to accrue. 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 (that is, it is less than probable but greater than remote) that additional environmental remediation losses will be incurred. At December 31, 2015, the aggregate of such additional estimated maximum reasonably possible losses, which relate to numerous individual sites, totaled approximately $5 million, which is in excess of the $367 million in environment accruals recorded in December 31, 2015. 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 ETE’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 but management can provide no assurance that it would be over many years. If changes in environmental laws or regulations occur or the assumptions used to estimate losses at multiple sites are adjusted, such changes could materially and adversely 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. And while management does not believe that any such charges would have a material adverse impact on ETE’s consolidated financial position, it can provide no assurance.

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. Such future costs are not expected to have a material impact on ETE’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, but management can provide no assurance.

ETE’s 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 ETE’s processing plants, and also impose various monitoring and reporting requirements. Such laws and regulations may require that ETE obtain pre-approval for the construction or modification of certain projects or facilities, such as ETE’s processing plants and compression facilities, expected to produce air emissions or to result in the increase of existing air emissions, that ETE obtains and strictly comply with air permits containing various emissions and operational limitations, or that ETE utilize specific emission control technologies to limit

emissions. ETE will 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, ETE’s 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 ETE’s facilities. Historically, ETE’s costs for compliance with existing Clean Air Act and comparable state law requirements have not had a material adverse effect on its results of operations; however, there can be no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future. The EPA and state agencies are often considering, proposing or finalizing new regulations that could impact ETE’s existing operations and the costs and timing of new infrastructure development. For example, in October 2015, the EPA published a final rule under the Clean Air Act, lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion for the 8-hour primary and secondary ozone standards. The EPA anticipates designating new non-attainment areas by October 1, 2017, and requiring states to revise implementation plans by October 1, 2020, with compliance dates anticipated between 2021 and 2037 determined by the degree of non-attainment. Compliance with this or other new regulations could, among other things, require installation of new emission controls on some of ETE’s equipment, result in longer permitting timelines, and significantly increase ETE’s capital expenditures and operating costs, which could adversely impact ETE’s business.

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. The Clean Water Act also prohibits the discharge of dredge and fill material in regulated waters, including wetlands, unless authorized by permit. In May 2015, the EPA issued a final rule that attempts to clarify the federal jurisdictional reach over waters of the United States but this rule has been stayed nationwide by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as that appellate court and numerous district courts ponder lawsuits opposing implementation of the rule. To the extent the rule expands the scope of the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction, ETE could face increased costs and delays with respect to obtaining permits for dredge and fill activities in wetland areas.

ETE’s operations can result in the discharge of regulated substances, including NGLs, crude oil or other products. The Clean Water Act, as 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 ETE’s oil spill emergency response plans that are to be used in the event of a spill incident.

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

The Endangered Species Act, as amended restricts activities that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat. Similar protections are offered to migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. ETE 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 ETE to incur additional costs, to develop habitat conservation plans, to become subject to expansion or operating restrictions, or bans in the affected areas. Moreover, such designation of previously unprotected species as threatened or endangered in areas where ETE’s oil and natural gas exploration and production customers operate could cause ETE’s customers to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures and could result in delays or limitations in ETE’s customers’ performance of operations, which could reduce demand for ETE’s services.

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 PSD and Title V permitting reviews for greenhouse gas emissions 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 ETE to incur costs to reduce or sequester emissions of greenhouse gases associated with its operations and also could adversely affect demand for the natural gas and other hydrocarbon products that ETE transports, processes, or otherwise handles in connection with its 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 October 22, 2015, the EPA published a final rule that expands 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. ETE is monitoring greenhouse gas emissions from certain of its facilities pursuant to applicable greenhouse emissions reporting requirements, and management does not believe that the costs of these monitoring and reporting requirements will have a material adverse effect on ETE”s results of operations.

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 ETE’s equipment and operations could require ETE to incur costs to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations, and it could also adversely affect demand for ETE’s transportation, storage and processing services by reducing demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs. For example, in August 2015, the EPA announced proposed rules, expected to be finalized in 2016, that would establish new controls for methane emissions from certain new, modified or reconstructed equipment and processes in the oil and natural gas source category, including oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing and transmission facilities as part of an overall effort to reduce methane emissions by up to 45 percent from 2012 levels in 2025. On an international level, the United States is one of almost 200 nations that agreed in December 2015 to an international climate change agreement in Paris, France that calls for countries to set their own greenhouse gas emissions targets and be transparent about the measures each country will use to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions targets. Although it is not possible at this

time to predict how new methane restrictions would impact ETE’s business or how or when the United States might impose restrictions on greenhouse gases as a result of the international agreement agreed to in Paris, any new legal requirements that impose more stringent requirements on the emission of greenhouse gases from ETE’s operations could result in increased compliance costs or additional operating restrictions, which could have an adverse effect on ETE’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, such new legislation or regulatory programs could also increase the cost to ETE’s oil and natural gas exploration and production customers and thereby reduce demand for oil and natural gas, which could reduce the demand for ETE’s services to its customers.

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, ETE’s operations could be adversely affected in various ways, including damages to its 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 ETE’s 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 ETE produces. 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 ETE’s 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 ETE’s business.

ETE is 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. ETE believes that its past costs for OSHA required activities, including general industry standards, recordkeeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances, have not had a material adverse effect on its results of operations but there is no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future.

As of January 29, 2016, ETE and its consolidated subsidiaries employed an aggregate of 30,078 employees, 1,762 of which are represented by labor unions. ETE and its subsidiaries believe that their relations with their employees are satisfactory.

In connection with the completion of the merger transactions, ETE will amend its partnership agreement (the “ETE partnership agreement amendment”) to, among other things, provide for the creation of the ETE Class E units. The following summary of ETE’s cash distribution policy reflects the provisions of ETE’s partnership agreement, as amended by the ETE partnership agreement amendment.

ETE will distribute to its unitholders, within 50 days after the end of each quarter, all of its available cash in the manner described below.

Available cash is defined in ETE’s partnership agreement and generally means, with respect to any calendar quarter, all cash on hand at the end of such quarter:

For each quarter as to which the declaration date and the record date for a quarterly distribution with respect to the ETE common units occurs prior to the WMB End Date (each, an “Initial Quarter”), ETE will make distributions of available cash to all holders of ETE common units and the ETE general partner, in accordance with their respective percentage interests. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to each Participating Common Unit:

For each Initial Quarter, the Conversion Value will be increased by the Conversion Value Cap, less the cash distribution actually paid with respect to each Participating Common Unit for such Initial Quarter. Any Extraordinary Distribution made with respect to an Initial Quarter will be disregarded for purposes of calculating the Conversion Value.

Extraordinary Distributions with respect to an Initial Quarter will be made to the ETE general partner and all ETE unitholders, including holders of Participating Common Units and Convertible Units, on an as converted basis, in accordance with their respective percentage interests.

For each quarter as to which the declaration date and the record date for a quarterly distribution with respect to the ETE common units occurs after the WMB End Date (each, a “Subsequent Quarter”), ETE will make distributions (in cash or other property) as follows:

Extraordinary Distributions made with respect to any Subsequent Quarter will be made to the ETE general partner and all ETE unitholders, including holders of Participating Common Units and Convertible Units, on an as-converted basis, in accordance with their respective percentage interests.

Holders of Participating Common Units will not be entitled to receive distributions, other than Extraordinary Distributions, with respect to any Subsequent Quarter.

For each Subsequent Quarter, the Conversion Value of each Convertible Unit will be increased by the Conversion Value Cap less the cash distribution actually paid with respect to each Convertible Unit. Any Extraordinary Distribution made with respect to a Subsequent Quarter will be disregarded for purposes of calculating the Conversion Value.

For each quarter following the date that is the earliest of (a) May 18, 2018, (b) the date upon which the Convertible Units would be convertible into 136,612,021 ETE common units (the quotient of $1.0 billion and the closing price of the ETE common units on the NYSE on the closing date of the private offering), (c) the date of a change of control of ETE or (d) the date of the dissolution of ETE (the “Mandatory Conversion Date”), ETE will make distributions of available cash to holders of ETE common units (including those issued upon the conversion of Convertible Units), ETE Class E units and the ETE general partner, in accordance with their respective percentage interests.

ETE will make adjustments to capital accounts upon the issuance of additional units. In doing so, ETE will allocate any unrealized and, for tax purposes, unrecognized gain or loss resulting from the adjustments to the unitholders and the ETE general partner in the same manner as ETE allocates gain or loss upon liquidation. In the event that ETE makes positive adjustments to the capital accounts upon the issuance of additional units, ETE will allocate any later negative adjustments to the capital accounts resulting from the issuance of additional units or upon ETE’s liquidation in a manner which results, to the extent possible, in the partners’ capital account balances equaling the amount which they would have been if no earlier positive adjustments to the capital accounts had been made. During the period beginning on January 1, 2019 and ending on December 31, 2025, ETE may not engage in a sale of WPZ common units or assets if such sale of WPZ common units or assets, respectively, is expected to result in an allocation of gain (which, with respect to any sale of WPZ common units will take into account any such gain from prior sales of WPZ common units) to the holders of the ETE Class E units that exceeds by $400 million the gain that would have been allocated to the holders of the ETE Class E units if the

gain were allocated in accordance with their percentage interest in ETE, unless ETC GP’s conflicts committee has first approved of such sale. Please see “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Voting the ETE Class E Units.”

Any net income for a taxable year will be allocated to all unitholders, excluding holders of ETE Class E units, in accordance with their respective percentage interests. Any net losses for a taxable year will be allocated to all unitholders, excluding holders of ETE Class E units, and the ETE general partner in accordance their respective percentage interests.

If ETE dissolves in accordance with its partnership agreement, ETE will sell or otherwise dispose of its assets in a process called a liquidation. Upon a liquidation, all Convertible Units will automatically convert into ETE common units based on their Conversion Value at the time. ETE will first apply the proceeds of liquidation to the payment of its creditors in the order of priority provided in the partnership agreement and by law, and, thereafter, ETE will distribute any remaining proceeds to the unitholders, including the holders of ETE common units (including those issued upon the conversion of the Convertible Units), ETE Class E units and the ETE general partner in accordance with their respective positive capital account balances, as adjusted to reflect any gain or loss upon the sale or other disposition of ETE’s assets in liquidation.

No unitholder will have any obligation to restore any negative balance in its capital account upon liquidation of ETE.

ETP will distribute all of its “available cash” to its unitholders and ETP GP within 45 days following the end of each fiscal quarter.

Available cash is defined in ETP’s partnership agreement and generally means, with respect to any calendar quarter, all cash on hand at the end of such quarter:

Working capital borrowings are generally borrowings that are made under ETP’s credit facilities and in all cases used solely for working capital purposes or to pay distributions to partners.

All cash distributed to ETP’s unitholders is characterized as either “operating surplus” or “capital surplus.” ETP distributes available cash from operating surplus differently than available cash from capital surplus.

ETP will treat all available cash distributed as coming from operating surplus until the sum of all available cash distributed since ETP began operations equals the operating surplus as of the most recent date of determination of available cash. ETP will treat any amount distributed in excess of operating surplus, regardless of its source, as capital surplus. As reflected above, operating surplus includes $10.0 million in addition to ETP’s cash balance on the closing date of ETP’s initial public offering, cash receipts from ETP’s operations and cash from working capital borrowings. This amount does not reflect actual cash on hand that is available for distribution to ETP’s unitholders. Rather, it is a provision that enables ETP, if ETP chooses, to distribute as operating surplus up to $10.0 million of cash ETP receives in the future from non-operating sources, such as asset sales, issuances of securities, and long-term borrowings, that would otherwise be distributed as capital surplus. ETP has not made, and ETP anticipates that it will not make, any distributions from capital surplus.

IDRs represent the contractual right to receive an increasing percentage of quarterly distributions of available cash from operating surplus after the minimum quarterly distribution has been paid. Please read “—Distributions of Available Cash from Operating Surplus” below. ETP GP owns all of the ETP IDRs.

The terms of ETP’s partnership agreement require that ETP make cash distributions with respect to each calendar quarter within 45 days following the end of each calendar quarter. ETP is required to make distributions of available cash from operating surplus for any quarter to the holders of preferred units of ETP (the “ETP Preferred Units”). The ETP Preferred Units will receive distributions at a rate of $0.445 per ETP Preferred Unit,

payable quarterly on the same date as the distribution payment date for the ETP common units. The record date for the determination of holders entitled to receive distributions of the ETP Preferred Units will be the same as the record date for determination of common unitholders entitled to receive quarterly distributions.

If ETP (x) fails to pay distributions on the ETP Preferred Units, (y) reduces the distributions on the common units to zero ($0.00) and (z) is prohibited by its material financing agreements from paying cash distributions, then until the distributions that were to be paid on the ETP Preferred Units on such distribution payment date are paid in cash, such distributions shall automatically accrue and accumulate. If ETP fails to pay cash distributions in full for two quarters (whether or not consecutive), then to the extent that ETP fails to pay cash distributions on the ETP Preferred Units thereafter, all future distributions on the ETP Preferred Units that are accrued rather than being paid in cash by ETP will consist of the following: (i) $0.35375 per ETP Preferred Unit per quarter, (ii) $0.09125 per ETP Preferred Unit per quarter (the “Common Unit Distribution Amount”), payable solely in common units, and (iii) $0.09125 per ETP Preferred Unit per quarter (the “PIK Distribution Additional Amount”), payable solely in common units. The total number of common units payable in connection with the Common Unit Distribution Amount or the PIK Distribution Additional Amount cannot exceed 659,840 in any period of twenty consecutive fiscal quarters. As of April 30, 2015, there were approximately $2.9 million in accrued but unpaid distributions in the aggregate on the ETP Preferred Units.

Additionally, the holders of the ETP Preferred Units are entitled to a “make-whole” distribution and allocation equal to 60% of the tax cost of the rate differential between ordinary income and long term capital gains with respect to any gross income allocation resulting from a forced conversion of the ETP Preferred Units, “grossed up” for the additional tax due with respect to such “make-whole” allocation.

After making the required distributions to the holders of ETP Preferred Units, ETP is required to make distributions of available cash from operating surplus for any quarter to Class H unitholders and Class I unitholders described above for any quarter as follows:

After making the required distributions to the Class H unitholders, ETP is required to make distributions of available cash from operating surplus for any quarter to Class I unitholders, pro rata in proportion to the number of ETP Class I Units of each holder, in the aggregate amount of $55 million in 2015 and $30 million in 2016, subject to adjustment, commencing with the quarter ended March 31, 2015 and ending with the quarter ending December 31, 2019.

ETP will distribute any available cash from operating surplus remaining after making the required distributions to the holders of ETP Preferred Units, Class H unitholders and Class I unitholders described above for any quarter as follows:

The allocation of distributions among the common, Class E unitholders, Class G unitholders and ETP GP is based on their respective interests as of the record date for such distributions.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the distributions on each Class E unit may not exceed $1.41 per year and distributions on each Class G Unit may not exceed $3.75 per year. In addition, the distributions to the holders of the IDRs will not exceed the amount the holders of the IDRs would otherwise receive if the available cash for distribution were reduced to the extent it constitutes amounts previously distributed with respect to the ETP Class G Units.

ETP will make distributions of available cash from capital surplus, if any, first to Class H unitholders, pro rata in proportion to the number of ETP Class H Units of each holder, as described above under “—Distributions of Available Cash from Operating Surplus” and then in the following manner:

ETP’s partnership agreement treats a distribution of capital surplus as the repayment of the initial unit price from the initial public offering, which is a return of capital. The initial public offering price per common unit less any distributions of capital surplus per unit is referred to as the “unrecovered capital”.

If ETP combines its units into fewer units or subdivide its units into a greater number of units, ETP will proportionately adjust its minimum quarterly distribution, its target cash distribution levels, and its unrecovered capital. For example, if a two-for-one split of ETP’s common units should occur, ETP’s unrecovered capital would be reduced to 50% of the initial level. ETP will not make any adjustment by reason of its issuance of additional units for cash or property.

In addition, if legislation is enacted or if existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that causes ETP to become taxable as a corporation or otherwise subject to additional taxation as an entity for federal, state or

local income tax purposes, under the terms of ETP’s partnership agreement, ETP can reduce its minimum quarterly distribution and the target cash distribution levels by multiplying the same by one minus the sum of the highest marginal federal corporate income tax rate that could apply and any increase in the effective overall state and local income tax rates.

If ETP dissolves in accordance with its partnership agreement, ETP will sell or otherwise dispose of its assets in a process called liquidation. ETP will first apply the proceeds of liquidation to the payment of its creditors. ETP will distribute any remaining proceeds to the unitholders and ETP GP, in accordance with their capital account balances, as adjusted to reflect any gain or loss upon the sale or other disposition of ETP’s assets in liquidation.

Any further net gain recognized upon liquidation will be allocated in a manner that takes into account the IDRs of ETP GP.

The manner of the adjustment for gain is set forth in ETP’s partnership agreement in the following manner:

The Class H unitholders are not entitled to receive any adjustments for loss described above; however, Class H unitholders are entitled to special allocations from ETP corresponding to 90.05% of any net losses recognized upon the liquidation of SXL allocated to ETP by SXL GP with respect to the SXL GP Interest and SXL IDRs.

Upon ETP’s liquidation, ETP will generally allocate any loss to ETP GP and the unitholders in the following manner:

ETP will make adjustments to capital accounts upon the issuance of additional units. In doing so, ETP will allocate any unrealized and, for tax purposes, unrecognized gain or loss resulting from the adjustments to the unitholders and ETP GP in the same manner as ETP allocates gain or loss upon liquidation. In the event that ETP makes positive adjustments to the capital accounts upon the issuance of additional units, ETP will allocate any later negative adjustments to the capital accounts resulting from the issuance of additional units or upon ETP’s liquidation in a manner which results, to the extent possible, in ETP GP’s capital account balances equaling the amount which they would have been if no earlier positive adjustments to the capital accounts had been made.

SXL’s partnership agreement provides that it will distribute all of its available cash to SXL common unitholders of record on the applicable record date within 45 days after the end of each quarter.

Available cash generally means, for each fiscal quarter all cash on hand at the end of the quarter:

Working capital borrowings are generally borrowings that are made under SXL’s credit facilities and in all cases are used solely for working capital purposes or to pay distributions to partners.

SXL intends to distribute to the holders of SXL common units on a quarterly basis at least the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.075 per unit, or $0.30 per year (the “SXL minimum quarterly distribution”), to the extent it has sufficient cash from its operations after establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including payments to SXL GP. However, there is no guarantee that SXL will pay the quarterly distribution in this amount, or the SXL minimum quarterly distribution on the SXL common units in any quarter, and SXL will be prohibited from making any distributions to SXL common unitholders if it would cause an event of default, or an event of default is existing, under its credit facilities or other debt securities.

All cash distributed to SXL common unitholders will be characterized as either “operating surplus” or “capital surplus.” SXL distributes available cash from operating surplus differently than available cash from capital surplus.

SXL will treat all available cash distributed as coming from operating surplus until the sum of all available cash distributed since it began operations equals the operating surplus as of the most recent date of determination of available cash. SXL will treat any amount distributed in excess of operating surplus, regardless of its source, as capital surplus. As reflected above, operating surplus includes $15.0 million in addition to SXL’s cash balance on the closing date of its initial public offering, cash receipts from its operations and cash from working capital borrowings. This amount does not reflect actual cash on hand that is available for distribution to SXL common unitholders. Rather, it is a provision that will enable SXL, if it chooses, to distribute as operating surplus up to $15.0 million of cash it receives in the future from non-operating sources, such as asset sales, issuances of securities and long-term borrowings, that would otherwise be distributed as capital surplus. SXL does not anticipate that it will make any distributions from capital surplus.

SXL will make distributions of available cash from operating surplus for any quarter in the following manner:

IDRs represent the right to receive an increasing percentage of quarterly distributions of available cash from operating surplus after the SXL minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels have been achieved. SXL GP currently holds all of the IDRs, but may transfer these rights separately from the general partner’s general partner interest, subject to restrictions in SXL’s partnership agreement.

If for any quarter SXL has distributed available cash from operating surplus to the SXL common unitholders in an amount equal to the SXL minimum quarterly distribution, then it will distribute any additional available cash from operating surplus for that quarter among the SXL common unitholders and SXL GP in the following manner:

SXL will make distributions of available cash from capital surplus, if any, in the following manner:

SXL’s partnership agreement treats a distribution of capital surplus as the repayment of the initial unit price from the initial public offering, which is a return of capital. The initial public offering price less any distributions of capital surplus per unit is referred to as the unrecovered initial unit price. Each time a distribution of capital surplus is made, the SXL minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels will be reduced in the same proportion as the corresponding reduction in the unrecovered initial unit price. Because distributions of capital surplus will reduce the SXL minimum quarterly distribution, after any of these distributions are made, it may be easier for SXL GP to receive incentive distributions. However, any distribution of capital surplus before the unrecovered initial unit price is reduced to zero cannot be applied to the payment of the SXL minimum quarterly distribution or any arrearages.

Once SXL distributes capital surplus on a unit in an amount equal to the initial unit price, it will reduce the SXL minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels to zero. SXL will then make all future distributions from operating surplus, with 48% to the holders of SXL’s IDRs and the remainder to all SXL common unitholders and SXL GP in accordance with their percentage interests, pro rata.

Adjustment to the Minimum Quarterly Distribution and Target Distribution Levels

In addition to adjusting the SXL minimum quarterly distribution and target distribution levels to reflect a distribution of capital surplus, if SXL combines its units into fewer units or subdivides its units into a greater number of units, it will proportionately adjust:

For example, if a two-for-one split of the SXL common units should occur, the SXL minimum quarterly distribution, the target distribution levels and the unrecovered initial unit price would each be reduced to 50% of its initial level. SXL will not make any adjustment by reason of the issuance of additional units for cash or property.

In addition, if legislation is enacted or if existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that causes SXL to become taxable as a corporation or otherwise subject to taxation as an entity for federal, state or local income tax purposes, it will reduce the SXL minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels by multiplying the same by one minus the sum of the highest marginal federal corporate income tax rate that could apply and any increase in the effective overall state and local income tax rates. For example, if SXL became subject to a maximum marginal federal and effective state and local income tax rate of 38%, then the SXL minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels would each be reduced to 62% of their previous levels.

If SXL dissolves in accordance with its partnership agreement, it will sell or otherwise dispose of its assets in a process called liquidation. SXL will first apply the proceeds of liquidation to the payment of its creditors. SXL will distribute any remaining proceeds to the unitholders and SXL GP, in accordance with their capital account balances, as adjusted to reflect any gain or loss upon the sale or other disposition of its assets in liquidation.

The manner of the adjustment for gain is set forth in SXL’s partnership agreement. SXL generally allocates any gain to the partners in the following manner:

Adjustments to Capital Accounts upon the Issuance of Partnership Interests

SXL will make adjustments to capital accounts upon the issuance of additional partnership interests. In doing so, SXL will allocate any unrealized and, for tax purposes, unrecognized gain or loss resulting from the adjustments to the unitholders and SXL GP in the same manner as it allocates gain or loss upon liquidation. In the event that SXL makes positive adjustments to the capital accounts upon the issuance of additional partnership interests, it will allocate any later negative adjustments to the capital accounts resulting from the issuance of additional partnership interests or upon its liquidation in a manner that results, to the extent possible, in SXL GP’s capital account balances equaling the amount that they would have been if no earlier positive adjustments to the capital accounts had been made.

Sunoco’s partnership agreement provides that it will distribute all of its available cash to unitholders of record on the applicable record date within 60 days after the end of each quarter.

Available cash generally means, for each fiscal quarter all cash on hand at the end of the quarter:

Working capital borrowings are generally borrowings that are made under Sunoco’s credit facility and in all cases are used solely for working capital purposes or to pay distributions to partners.

Sunoco intends to distribute to the holders of common units on a quarterly basis at least the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.4375 per unit, or $1.75 per year (the “Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution”), to the extent it has sufficient cash from its operations after establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including payments to Sunoco GP. However, there is no guarantee that Sunoco will pay the quarterly distribution in this amount, or the Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution on the common units in any quarter, and Sunoco will be prohibited from making any distributions to unitholders if it would cause an event of default, or an event of default is existing, under its credit facility or other debt securities.

All cash distributed to unitholders will be characterized as either “operating surplus” or “capital surplus.” Sunoco distributes available cash from operating surplus differently than available cash from capital surplus.

Capital surplus is defined as any distribution of available cash in excess of Sunoco’s operating surplus. Generally, capital surplus will be generated only by:

Sunoco will treat all available cash distributed as coming from operating surplus until the sum of all available cash distributed since it began operations equals the operating surplus as of the most recent date of determination of available cash. Sunoco will treat any amount distributed in excess of operating surplus, regardless of its source, as capital surplus. As reflected above, operating surplus includes $25.0 million in addition to Sunoco’s cash balance on the closing date of its initial public offering, cash receipts from its operations and cash from working capital borrowings. This amount does not reflect actual cash on hand that is available for distribution to Sunoco’s unitholders. Rather, it is a provision that will enable Sunoco, if it chooses, to distribute as operating surplus up to $25.0 million of cash it receives in the future from non-operating sources, such as asset sales, issuances of securities and long-term borrowings, that would otherwise be distributed as capital surplus. Sunoco does not anticipate that it will make any distributions from capital surplus.

On January 1, 2016, Sunoco issued an aggregate of 16,410,780 Sunoco Class C units consisting of (i) 5,242,113 Sunoco Class C units that were issued to Aloha Petroleum Ltd. (“Aloha”) as consideration for the contribution by Aloha to an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Sunoco of all of Aloha’s assets relating to the wholesale supply of fuel and lubricants; and (ii) 11,168,667 Sunoco Class C units that were issued to indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Sunoco in exchange for all of the outstanding Sunoco Class A units held by such subsidiaries. Sunoco’s partnership agreement provides that the Sunoco Class C units are entitled to receive quarterly distributions at a rate of $0.868176 per Sunoco Class C unit. The distributions on the Sunoco Class C units will be paid out of Sunoco’s available cash, except that the Class C units will not share in distributions of cash to the extent such cash is derived from or attributable to any distribution received by Sunoco from Susser Petroleum Property Company LLC (“PropCo”), the proceeds of any sale of the membership interests in PropCo, or any interest or principal payments received by Sunoco with respect to indebtedness of PropCo or its subsidiaries. The Class C units are entitled to receive distributions of Sunoco’s available cash (other than available cash attributable to PropCo) prior to distributions of such cash being made on the Sunoco common units. Any unpaid distributions on the Sunoco Class C units will accrue interest at a rate of 1.5% per annum until paid in full in cash. The Class C units are perpetual and do not have any rights of redemption or conversion.

Adjusted operating surplus is intended to reflect the cash generated from operations during a particular period and therefore excludes net changes in working capital borrowings and net changes in reserves of cash established in prior periods. Adjusted operating surplus consists of:

The Sunoco partnership agreement requires Sunoco to make distributions of available cash from operating surplus for any quarter in the following manner:

IDRs represent the right to receive an increasing percentage of quarterly distributions of available cash from operating surplus after the Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels have been achieved. ETE currently holds all of the IDRs, but may transfer these rights, subject to restrictions in Sunoco’s partnership agreement. For purposes of this section “—Incentive Distribution Rights,” the term unitholders does not include holders of Sunoco Class C units.

If for any quarter Sunoco has distributed available cash from operating surplus to the common units in an amount equal to the minimum quarterly distribution then Sunoco’s partnership agreement requires that it distribute any additional available cash from operating surplus for that quarter among the unitholders and ETE (in its capacity as the holder of Sunoco’s incentive distribution rights) in the following manner:

The Sunoco partnership agreement requires Sunoco to make distributions of available cash from capital surplus, if any, in the following manner:

Sunoco’s partnership agreement treats a distribution of capital surplus as the repayment of the initial unit price from the initial public offering, which is a return of capital. The initial public offering price less any distributions of capital surplus per unit is referred to as the unrecovered initial unit price. Each time a distribution of capital surplus is made, the Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels will be reduced in the same proportion that the distribution had to the fair market value of the Sunoco common units immediately prior to the announcement of the distribution (or the average of the closing prices for the 20 consecutive trading days immediately prior to the ex-dividend date). Because distributions of capital surplus will reduce the Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution, after any of these distributions are made, it may be easier for ETE (in its capacity as the holder of the IDRs) to receive incentive distributions.

Once Sunoco distributes capital surplus on a unit in an amount equal to the initial unit price, it will reduce the Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels to zero. Sunoco will then make all future distributions from operating surplus, with 50% being paid to the holders of Sunoco common units and 50% to ETE (in its capacity as the holder of the IDRs), assuming that ETE has not transferred the IDRs.

Adjustment to the Minimum Quarterly Distribution and Target Distribution Levels

In addition to adjusting the Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution and target distribution levels to reflect a distribution of capital surplus, if Sunoco combines its units into fewer units or subdivides its units into a greater number of units, it will proportionately adjust:

For example, if a two-for-one split of the common units should occur, the Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution, the target distribution levels and the unrecovered initial unit price would each be reduced to 50% of its initial level. Sunoco will not make any adjustment by reason of the issuance of additional units for cash or property.

In addition, if legislation is enacted or if existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that causes Sunoco to become taxable as a corporation or otherwise subject to taxation as an entity for federal, state or local income tax purposes, it will reduce the Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels by multiplying the same by one minus the sum of the highest marginal federal corporate income tax rate that could apply and any increase in the effective overall state and local income tax rates. For example, if Sunoco became subject to a maximum marginal federal and effective state and local income tax rate of 38%, then the Sunoco minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels would each be reduced to 62% of their previous levels.

If Sunoco dissolves in accordance with its partnership agreement, it will sell or otherwise dispose of its assets in a process called liquidation. Sunoco will first apply the proceeds of liquidation to the payment of its creditors. Sunoco will distribute any remaining proceeds to the unitholders and the holder of its IDRs, in accordance with their capital account balances, as adjusted to reflect any gain or loss upon the sale or other disposition of its assets in liquidation.

The manner of the adjustment for gain is set forth in Sunoco’s partnership agreement. Sunoco will generally allocate any gain to its partners in the following manner:

Sunoco will make adjustments to capital accounts upon the issuance of additional units. In doing so, Sunoco generally will allocate any unrealized and, for tax purposes, unrecognized gain resulting from the adjustments to the unitholders and the holders of its incentive distribution rights in the same manner as it allocates gain upon liquidation. By contrast to the allocations of gain, and except as provided above, Sunoco generally will allocate any unrealized and unrecognized loss resulting from the adjustments to capital accounts upon the issuance of additional units to the unitholders based on their percentage ownership of Sunoco. In the event Sunoco makes negative adjustments to the capital accounts as a result of such loss, future positive adjustments resulting from the issuance of additional units will be allocated in a manner designed to reverse the prior negative adjustments, and special allocations will be made upon liquidation in a manner that results, to the extent possible, in the unitholders’ capital account balances equaling the amounts they would have been if no earlier adjustments for loss had been made.

In connection with the completion of the merger transactions, ETE will adopt the ETE partnership agreement amendment to, among other things, provide for the creation of the ETE Class E units. A form of the ETE partnership agreement amendment is included as Exhibit 3.10 to the registration statement on Form S-4 of which this proxy statement/prospectus forms a part.

The following is a summary of the material provisions of ETE’s partnership agreement, as amended. A discussion of distributions of ETE’s available cash is described above under “—Cash Distribution Policy of ETE and the ETE Entities—ETE’s Cash Distribution Policy.”

Under ETE’s partnership agreement, ETE is permitted to engage, directly or indirectly, in any business activity that is approved by its general partner and that lawfully may be conducted by a limited partnership organized under Delaware law, provided that ETE’s general partner may not cause ETE to engage, directly or indirectly, in any business activity that its general partner determines would cause ETE to be treated as an association taxable as a corporation or otherwise taxable as an entity for federal income tax purposes.

Each unitholder, and each person who acquires a unit from a unitholder, by accepting the unit, automatically grants to ETE’s general partner and, if appointed, a liquidator, a power of attorney to, among other things, execute and file documents required for ETE’s qualification, continuance or dissolution. The power of attorney also grants the authority to amend, and to make consents and waivers under, ETE’s partnership agreement.

For each Initial Quarter, ETE will make distributions of available cash to all holders of ETE common units and the ETE general partner, in accordance with their respective percentage interests. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to each Participating Common Unit:

For each Subsequent Quarter, ETE will make distributions (in cash or other property) as follows:

For each quarter following the Mandatory Conversion Date, ETE will make distributions of available cash to holders of ETE common units (including those issued upon the conversion of Convertible Units) and ETE Class E units and the ETE general partner, in accordance with their respective percentage interests. Holders of Participating Common Units will not be entitled to receive distributions, other than Extraordinary Distributions as described below, with respect to any Subsequent Quarter.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Extraordinary Distributions made with respect to any Initial Quarter or Subsequent Quarter will be made to the ETE general partner and all unitholders, including holders of Participating Common Units and Convertible Units, on an as-converted basis, in accordance with their respective percentage interests. Prior to the WMB End Date, ETE will not be able to pay any Extraordinary Distributions to the ETE general partner and other unitholders without the prior written consent of WMB.

Following the completion of the merger transactions, ETE will generally be required pursuant to the partnership agreement amendment to distribute an equal amount per ETE Class E unit as ETE distributes per ETE common unit, commencing with the quarter ending June 30, 2016. In addition, during the dividend equalization period, which will end on December 31, 2018, ETE will be required to ensure that ETC has sufficient available cash to pay distributions on each ETC common share that equals the distribution amount paid by ETE on each ETE common unit, which may require ETE to make additional distributions on the ETE Class E units.

ETE’s partnership agreement requires ETE to reimburse ETE’s general partner for all direct and indirect expenses it incurs or payments it makes on ETE’s behalf and all other expenses allocable to ETE or otherwise incurred by ETE’s general partner in connection with operating ETE’s business. These expenses include salary, bonus, incentive compensation and other amounts paid to persons who perform services for ETE or on ETE’s behalf and expenses allocated to ETE’s general partner by its affiliates. The general partner is entitled to determine in good faith the expenses that are allocable to ETE.

ETE’s partnership agreement authorizes it to issue an unlimited number of additional limited partner interests and other equity securities that are senior to, equal in rank with or junior to its common units on terms and conditions established by ETE’s general partner in its sole discretion without the approval of its unitholders; provided, however, that ETE will not be able to issue additional ETE Class E units to any person other than ETC without the approval of 66²/₃% of the ETE Class E Units, voting separately as a class.

It is possible that ETE will fund acquisitions through the issuance of additional units or other equity securities. Holders of any additional units ETE issues will be entitled to share equally with the then-existing holders of units in ETE’s distributions of available cash. In addition, the issuance of additional partnership interests may dilute the value of the interests of the then-existing holders of units in ETE’s net assets.

In accordance with Delaware law and the provisions of ETE’s partnership agreement, ETE may also issue additional partnership securities that, in the sole discretion of its general partner, may have special voting rights to which units are not entitled.

Upon issuance of additional units or other partnership securities, ETE’s general partner will have the option but not the obligation to make additional capital contributions to the extent it desires to maintain its general partner interest in ETE. ETE’s general partner and its affiliates have the right, which they may from time to time assign in whole or in part to any of their affiliates, to purchase units or other equity securities whenever, and on the same terms that, ETE issues those securities to persons other than ETE’s general partner and its affiliates, to the extent necessary to maintain their percentage interests in ETE that existed immediately prior to the issuance. The holders of units do not have preemptive rights to acquire additional units or other partnership interests in ETE.

Amendments to ETE’s partnership agreement may be proposed only by or with the consent of ETE’s general partner. However, ETE’s general partner has no duty or obligation to propose any amendment and may

decline to do so free of any fiduciary duty or obligation whatsoever to ETE or the limited partners, including any duty to act in good faith or in the best interests of ETE or the limited partners. In order to adopt a proposed amendment, other than certain amendments specified in ETE’s partnership agreement, ETE’s general partner is required to seek written approval of the holders of the number of units required to approve the amendment or call a meeting of the limited partners to consider and vote upon the proposed amendment. Except as described in ETE’s partnership agreement, an amendment must be approved by a majority of ETE’s outstanding units.

ETE’s general partner may withdraw as general partner without first obtaining approval of any unitholder by giving 90 days’ written notice, and that withdrawal will not constitute a violation of ETE’s partnership agreement. In addition, ETE’s general partner may withdraw without unitholder approval upon 90 days’ notice to ETE’s limited partners if at least 50% of ETE’s outstanding units are held or controlled by one person and its affiliates other than ETE’s general partner and its affiliates.

Upon the voluntary withdrawal of ETE’s general partner, the holders of a majority of ETE’s outstanding units, excluding the units held by the withdrawing general partner and its affiliates, may elect a successor to the withdrawing general partner. If a successor is not elected, or is elected but an opinion of counsel regarding limited liability and tax matters cannot be obtained, ETE will be dissolved, wound up and liquidated, unless within 90 days after that withdrawal, the holders of a majority of ETE’s outstanding units, excluding the units held by the withdrawing general partner and its affiliates, agree to continue ETE’s business and to appoint a successor general partner.

ETE’s general partner may not be removed unless such removal is approved by the holders of at least 66²/₃% of ETE’s outstanding units (including units held by ETE’s general partner and its affiliates), and ETE receives an opinion of counsel regarding limited liability and tax matters. Following the completion of the merger transactions, pursuant to the partnership agreement amendment, the affirmative vote of 80% of the ETE Class E units, voting separately as a class, will also be required for any removal of ETE’s general partner. In addition, if ETE’s general partner is removed as ETE’s general partner under circumstances where cause does not exist and units held by ETE’s general partner and its affiliates are not voted in favor of such removal, ETE’s general partner will have the right to convert its general partner interest into units or to receive cash in exchange for such interests. Any removal of this kind is also subject to the approval of a successor general partner by a majority of ETE’s outstanding units, including those held by ETE’s general partner and its affiliates.

In the event ETE’s general partner withdraws, the departing general partner will have the option to require the successor general partner to purchase the general partner interest of the departing general partner for fair market value. In addition, the departing general partner will have the option to require the successor general partner to purchase any ETE common units owned by the departing general partner and its affiliates for fair market value. The fair market value of any securities will be determined by agreement between the departing general partner and the successor general partner. The fair market value of ETE’s general partner interest owned by the departing general partner will be determined by agreement between the departing general partner and the successor general partner. If no agreement is reached, an independent investment banking firm or other independent expert selected by the departing general partner and the successor general partner will determine the fair market value. Or, if the departing general partner and the successor general partner cannot agree upon an expert, then an expert chosen by agreement of the experts selected by each of them will determine the fair market value.

In addition, ETE will be required to reimburse the departing general partner for all amounts due the departing general partner, including, without limitation, all employee-related liabilities, including severance liabilities, incurred for the termination of any employees employed by the departing general partner or its affiliates for ETE’s benefit.

The partnership agreement amendment will provide that the ETE Class E units will vote together with the ETE common units when the ETE common units are entitled to vote. Additionally, the ETE Class E units will have additional voting rights, including:

Please see “Additional Information About ETC—Description of Our Partnership Agreement—Voting the ETE Class E Units” for information on who controls the voting of the ETE Class E units owned by ETC.

The authority of the ETE general partner’s board of directors to manage and control ETE is restricted by approval rights held by the Existing GP Owner over certain matters. As a result of these approval rights, neither ETC, as the managing member of the ETE general partner, or the ETE general partner’s board of directors may cause or permit ETE to do any of the following actions without the approval of the Existing GP Owner:

Upon ETE’s dissolution, unless ETE is reconstituted and continued as a new limited partnership, the person authorized to wind up ETE’s affairs (the liquidator) will, acting with all the powers of ETE’s general partner that the liquidator deems necessary or desirable in its good faith judgment, liquidate ETE’s assets. The proceeds of the liquidation will be applied as follows:

Under some circumstances and subject to some limitations, the liquidator may defer liquidation or distribution of ETE’s assets for a reasonable period of time. If the liquidator determines that a sale would be impractical or would cause a loss to ETE’s partners, ETE’s general partner may distribute assets in kind to ETE’s partners.

ETE’s partnership agreement contains specific provisions that are intended to discourage a person or group from attempting to remove ETE’s general partner as general partner or otherwise change management. If any person or group other than ETE’s general partner and its affiliates acquires beneficial ownership of 20% or more of any class of units, that person or group loses voting rights on all of its units. This loss of voting rights does not apply to any person or group that acquires the units from ETE’s general partner or its affiliates and any transferees of that person or group approved by ETE’s general partner.

If at any time ETE’s general partner and its affiliates hold more than 90% of the outstanding limited partner interests of any class, ETE’s general partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign in whole or in part to any of its affiliates or ETE, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the remaining limited partner interests of the class held by unaffiliated persons as of a record date to be selected by ETE’s general partner, on at least 10 but not more than 60 days’ notice. The purchase price in the event of this purchase is the greater of:

As a result of ETE’s general partner’s right to purchase outstanding limited partner interests, a holder of limited partner interests may have his limited partner interests purchased at an undesirable time or price. The tax consequences to a unitholder of the exercise of this call right are the same as a sale by that unitholder of his units in the market.

Under ETE’s partnership agreement, in most circumstances, ETE will indemnify the following persons, to the fullest extent permitted by law, from and against all losses, claims, damages or similar events:

Any indemnification under these provisions will only be out of ETE’s assets. Unless it otherwise agrees, ETE’s general partner will not be personally liable for, or have any obligation to contribute or loan funds or assets to ETE to enable ETE to effectuate, indemnification. ETE may purchase insurance against liabilities asserted against and expenses incurred by persons for ETE’s activities, regardless of whether ETE would have the power to indemnify the person against liabilities under the partnership agreement.

Under ETE’s partnership agreement, ETE has agreed to register for resale under the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws any units or other partnership securities proposed to be sold by ETE’s general partner or any of its affiliates or their assignees if an exemption from the registration requirements is not otherwise available. ETE is obligated to pay all expenses incidental to the registration, excluding underwriting discounts and commissions.

The validity of the ETC common shares to be issued in connection with the merger and being offered hereby and certain U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger will be passed upon for ETC by Latham & Watkins LLP, Houston, Texas. The validity under Delaware law of the contingent consideration rights to be issued in connection with the merger and being offered hereby will be passed upon for ETC by Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Certain U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger will be passed upon for WMB by Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

The balance sheet of Energy Transfer Corp LP as of December 31, 2015, included in this registration statement and proxy statement/prospectus has been so included in reliance upon the report of Grant Thornton LLP, independent registered public accountants, upon the authority of said firm as experts in accounting and auditing.

The consolidated financial statements of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015, included in this registration statement and proxy statement/prospectus have been so included in reliance upon the report of Grant Thornton LLP, independent registered public accountants, upon the authority of said firm as experts in accounting and auditing.

The reports of Ernst & Young LLP, independent registered public accounting firm, appearing in Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and included in this registration statement and proxy statement/prospectus with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Sunoco LP and Susser Holdings Corporation as of December 31, 2014 and for the period from September 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, have been included herein in reliance upon such reports given on the authority of such firm as experts in accounting and auditing.

The consolidated financial statements of The Williams Companies, Inc. appearing in The Williams Companies, Inc.’s Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2015 (including schedules appearing therein), and the effectiveness of The Williams Companies, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, have been audited by Ernst & Young LLP, independent registered public accounting firm, as set forth in their reports thereon, included therein, and incorporated herein by reference which, as to the consolidated financial statements for the years 2015 and 2013, is based in part on the report of Deloitte & Touche LLP and, as to the consolidated financial statements for the year 2013, is based in part on the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, each an independent registered public accounting firm. Such consolidated financial statements and The Williams Companies, Inc.’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015 are incorporated herein by reference in reliance upon such reports given on the authority of such firms as experts in accounting and auditing.

The audited consolidated financial statements of Williams Partners L.P. (formerly known as Access Midstream Partners L.P.) and subsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013, not separately presented in this Prospectus, have been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, whose report is incorporated by reference herein. The audited financial statements of The Williams Companies, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013, to the extent they relate to Williams Partners L.P. have been so incorporated in reliance on the report of such independent registered public accounting firm given on the authority of said firm as experts in auditing and accounting.

If the merger is completed prior to WMB’s 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, WMB will not hold an annual meeting of stockholders in 2016 and there will be no public participation in any future meetings of WMB’s stockholders because, following the merger, WMB’s common stock will be delisted from the NYSE and will be deregistered under the Exchange Act, and ETC will not be required to hold annual meetings of its shareholders. However, if the merger is not completed prior to WMB’s 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, the following deadlines apply to the submission of stockholder proposals to be considered at WMB’s 2016 annual meeting of stockholders.

To be included in the proxy statement for the 2016 annual meeting, WMB must have received proposals no later than December 13, 2015. Proposals for inclusion in the proxy statement must comply with the Exchange Act, including Rule 14a-8, as well as with WMB’s by-laws.

Pursuant to WMB’s by-laws, stockholders may present director nominations or other proposals that are proper subjects for consideration at an annual meeting. WMB’s by-laws require all stockholders who intend to make proposals at an annual stockholders meeting to submit their proposals to WMB no later than the close of business on the 90th day prior to nor earlier than the close of business on the 120th day prior to the first anniversary of the date of the previous year’s annual meeting. To be eligible for consideration at the currently planned 2016 annual meeting, such proposals that have not been submitted by the deadline for inclusion in the proxy statement must have been received by WMB between January 22, 2016 and February 21, 2016. If the date of the 2016 annual meeting is changed by more than 30 days from the date of the 2015 annual meeting, stockholder notice must be received by the tenth day following the day on which public announcement of the date of the 2016 annual meeting is first made. These provisions are intended to allow all stockholders to have an opportunity to consider business expected to be raised at the annual meeting.

In light of the expected timing of the merger, WMB does not currently expect to hold its 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

ETC has filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-4 under the Securities Act of which this proxy statement/prospectus forms a part, which registers the ETC common shares and attached CCRs to be issued in connection with the merger transactions. The registration statement, including the exhibits and schedules attached thereto, contains additional relevant information about ETC and its common shares. The rules and regulations of the SEC allows ETC and WMB to omit certain information that is included in the registration statement from this proxy statement/prospectus.

ETC’s annual, quarterly and current reports, will be available on its website at www.energytransfer.com, when required after the registration of the ETC common shares and attached CCRs to be issued in connection with the merger transactions. Neither ETC’s website, nor the information contained on its website, is part of this proxy statement/prospectus or the documents incorporated by reference.

WMB is subject to reporting requirements under the Securities Act and files annual, quarterly and special reports and other information with the SEC. The SEC allows WMB to “incorporate by reference” into this proxy statement/prospectus the information it files with the SEC, which means that it can disclose important information to you by referring you to those documents. This proxy statement/prospectus contains summaries of certain provisions contained in some of the documents described herein, but reference is made to the actual documents for complete information. All of the summaries are qualified in their entirety by reference to the actual documents. The information incorporated by reference is an important part of this proxy statement/prospectus, and information that WMB files later with the SEC will automatically update and supersede this information as well as the information included in this proxy statement/prospectus. WMB incorporates by reference the documents listed below and any future documents it files with the SEC under Sections 13(a), 13(c), 14 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act after the date of the initial registration statement (of which this proxy statement/prospectus forms a part) and prior to the effectiveness of the registration statement, as well as between the date of this proxy statement/prospectus and the date on which the special meeting of WMB’s shareholders is held provided that any documents or portions thereof or any exhibits thereto that WMB furnishes to, but do not file with, the SEC shall not be incorporated or deemed to be incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus:

These documents contain important business and financial information about WMB, including information concerning financial performance, and WMB urges you to read them.

WMB will provide a copy of any document incorporated by reference in this proxy statement/prospectus and any exhibit specifically incorporated by reference in the documents it incorporates by reference, without charge, by written or oral request directed to WMB at the following address and telephone number:

WMB also makes available free of charge on its internet websites at co.williams.com the reports and other information filed by WMB with the SEC, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed or furnished to the SEC. Neither WMB’s website, nor the information contained on its website, is part of this proxy statement/prospectus or the documents incorporated by reference.

The SEC maintains an Internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other material that are filed through the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval (EDGAR) System. This system can be accessed at www.sec.gov. You can find information that WMB files with the SEC by reference to its names or to its SEC file numbers. You also may read and copy any document WMB files with the SEC at the SEC’s public reference room located at 100 F Street, N.E., Room 1580, Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information about the public reference room and its copy charges. WMB’s SEC filings are also available to the public through the New York Stock Exchange at 20 Broad Street, New York, New York 10005. Unless specifically as a documented incorporated by reference above, the information contained on the SEC website is not intended to be incorporated by reference into this proxy statement/prospectus and you should not consider that information a part of this proxy statement/prospectus.

The information concerning ETC contained in this proxy statement/prospectus has been provided by ETC, and the information concerning WMB contained in this proxy statement/prospectus or incorporated by reference has been provided by WMB.

In order to receive timely delivery of requested documents in advance of the special meeting your request should be received no later than June 20, 2016. If you request any documents, ETC or WMB will mail them to you by first class mail, or another equally prompt means, within one business day after receipt of your request.

Neither ETC nor WMB has authorized anyone to give any information or make any representation about the merger, ETC or WMB that is different from, or in addition to, that contained in this proxy statement/prospectus or in any of the materials that have been incorporated by reference. Therefore, if any one distributes this type of information, you should not rely on it. If you are in a jurisdiction where offers to exchange or sell, or solicitations of offers to exchange or purchase, the securities offered by this proxy statement/prospectus or the solicitation of proxies is unlawful, or you are a person to whom it is unlawful to direct these types or activities, then the offer presented in this proxy statement/prospectus does not extend to you. The information contained in this proxy statement/prospectus speaks only as of its date, or in the case of information in a document incorporated by reference, as of the date of such document, unless the information specifically indicates that another date applies.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Energy Transfer Corp LP (the “Partnership”) as of December 31, 2015. This balance sheet is the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this balance sheet based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the balance sheet is free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the balance sheet, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall balance sheet presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the balance sheet referred to above presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Energy Transfer Corp LP as of December 31, 2015, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Energy Transfer Corp LP (“ETC” or the “Partnership”) was originally formed as a Delaware corporation on March 17, 2014. On July 7, 2015, the Partnership reorganized as a Delaware limited partnership that will elect to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Partnership intends to issue common shares representing limited partner interests and to hold partnership interests in Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (“ETE”), which, through its subsidiaries owns and operates a diverse portfolio of energy assets.

Energy Transfer Corp GP, LLC (“ETC GP”), the general partner of the Partnership, was formed as a Delaware limited liability company on July 2, 2015.

The balance sheet presented herein has been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

On September 28, 2015, The Williams Companies, Inc. (“WMB”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “merger agreement”) with ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP, LLC (“LE GP”) and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC (“ETE GP”). The merger agreement provides that WMB will be merged with and into ETC (the “merger”), with ETC surviving the merger. ETE formed ETC as a limited partnership that will be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Immediately following the effective time of the merger (the “effective time”), LE GP will merge with and into ETE GP (the “GP merger” and, together with the merger, the “mergers”), with ETE GP surviving the GP merger and becoming the general partner of ETE. ETC will serve as the managing member of ETE GP.

portion of the merger consideration (the “Parent Cash Deposit”), and, as a result, based on the number of shares of WMB common stock outstanding as of March 4, 2016, ETE will own approximately 19% of the outstanding ETC common shares immediately after the effective time.

Each ETC common share issued in connection with the merger transactions will have attached to it one contingent consideration right (a “CCR”). The CCR will provide each CCR holder with the right to receive ETC common shares or a cash payment, at ETE’s election, should the average of the daily volume-weighted average price for common units representing limited partner interests in ETE (the “ETE common units”) on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (“ETE common units VWAP”) be greater than the average of the daily volume-weighted average price for ETC common shares on the NYSE (“ETC common shares VWAP”) for a period of 23 months following the 20th trading day after the closing date of the merger (the “measurement period”). If the ETC common shares VWAP is less than the ETE common units VWAP for the measurement period (such difference, a “shortfall amount”), then each outstanding CCR will be automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive a shortfall payment, which will be settled in ETC common shares or cash, at ETE’s election, and ETE will issue a number of ETE Class E units to ETC equal to the number of ETC common shares so issued, if any. If, however, the ETC common shares VWAP is equal to or greater than the ETE common units VWAP for the measurement period, then each outstanding CCR will be immediately and automatically cancelled and no consideration of any kind will be delivered to CCR holders, and ETE will cancel a portion of the ETE Class E units held by ETC based on the amount of such difference, thereby reducing ETC’s ownership interest in ETE. The CCRs will be automatically cancelled and extinguished prior to the end of the measurement period, without any consideration of any kind being delivered to the CCR holders, if (1) the ETC common shares VWAP is greater than the ETE common units VWAP for 20 consecutive trading days and (2) the ETC common shares VWAP is equal to or greater than the ETE common units VWAP for a period beginning on the twenty-first trading day after the effective date of the merger and ending on the twentieth such trading day as mentioned above. The CCRs will trade with the ETC common shares and will not be separable or separately traded and will have no separate voting rights.

Immediately following the completion of the mergers, ETC will contribute substantially all of the assets and liabilities it assumed from WMB through the merger to ETE (the “WMB Contribution” and, together with the merger and the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, the “merger transactions”) in exchange for the issuance by ETE to ETC of a number of Class E units, a new class of units representing limited partner interests in ETE (the “ETE Class E units”), equal to (i) the number of ETC common shares issued to the WMB stockholders in the merger plus (ii) the number of ETC common shares issued to ETE in consideration for the Parent Cash Deposit.

Between October 5, 2015 and December 15, 2015, purported WMB stockholders filed five putative class action lawsuits against ETE and other defendants in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger. The suits were captioned Greenwald v. The Williams Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 11573, Ozaki v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 11574, Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 11601, Glener v. The Williams Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 11606, and Amaitis v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 11809. The complaints named as defendants the WMB Board, ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP, and ETE GP (collectively, with the exception of the WMB board, the “ETE Defendants”). The Greenwald, Blystone and Glener complaints named WMB as a defendant also, and the Amaitis complaint named Barclays Capital Inc. (“Barclays”), and Lazard Freres & Co. (“Lazard”) as defendants. The Greenwald, Ozaki, Blystone and Glener complaints alleged that the WMB Board breached its fiduciary duties to WMB stockholders by agreeing to sell WMB through an unfair process and for an unfair price, and that the other named defendants aided and abetted this supposed breach of fiduciary duties. The Amaitis complaint alleged that the WMB Board breached its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material information about the merger, and that the directors of the WMB Board who voted in favor of the proposed merger violated their fiduciary duties by selling WMB through an unfair process and for an unfair price. The Amaitis complaint also alleged that the other named defendants aided and abetted these supposed breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees.

On January 13, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated, pursuant to a stipulation among the plaintiffs, the Greenwald, Ozaki, Blystone, Glener, and Amaitis actions, along with another case not involving the ETE Defendants, into a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844. In its stipulated order, the Court dismissed without prejudice the ETE Defendants, Barclays and Lazard from the consolidated action. There currently are no lawsuits related to the WMB merger pending against the ETE Defendants in Delaware state court.

ETE is currently a defendant in two lawsuits in federal district court challenging the proposed merger with WMB. On January 14, 2016, a purported stockholder in WMB filed a lawsuit against WMB and ETE, captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff alleges that ETE and WMB have violated Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by making allegedly false representations concerning the merger. As relief, the complaint seeks an injunction against the proposed merger. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. On February 19, 2016, ETE and WMB moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

On January 19, 2016, a purported stockholder in WMB filed a lawsuit against WMB, the WMB Board, and the ETE Defendants, captioned City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. Armstrong, Case No. 1:16-cv-00017-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the WMB Board has violated its duty of disclosure by issuing a supposedly misleading proxy statement in support of the transaction, that a majority of the WMB Board violated its fiduciary duties by voting in favor of the transaction, and that the ETE Defendants aided and abetted this supposed breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges that the WMB Board and WMB have violated Section 14 of the Exchange Act by issuing a supposedly misleading proxy statement, and that WMB and ETE have violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act by supposedly causing a misleading proxy statement to be issued. On January 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited discovery, and all defendants filed an opposition to that motion on February 8, 2016. On February 19, plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of expedited discovery. On February 10, 2016, WMB and the WMB Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on February 18, 2016, the ETE Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Under the Energy Transfer Corp LP 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2016 LTIP”) (effective as of March 3, 2016), ETC may grant cash and equity-based incentive awards to eligible service providers in order to attract, retain and motivate the persons who make important contributions to ETC, its subsidiaries and ETC GP. No awards will be made under the 2016 LTIP prior to the consummation of the merger and no action will be taken to approve any specific awards under the 2016 LTIP prior to the merger, however, ETC contemplates that awards covering ETC common shares will be granted to officers and directors immediately following the closing of the merger. All awards under the 2016 LTIP to be granted in the future will be made in the discretion of the ETC GP Board or its delegate as the plan administrator.

Energy Transfer Corp LP (“ETC” or the “Partnership”) was originally formed as a Delaware corporation on March 17, 2014. On July 7, 2015 the Partnership reorganized as a Delaware limited partnership that will elect to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Partnership intends to issue common shares representing limited partner interests and to hold partnership interests in Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (“ETE”), which, through its subsidiaries owns and operates a diverse portfolio of energy assets.

Energy Transfer Corp GP, LLC (“ETCGP”), the general partner of the Partnership, was formed as a Delaware limited liability company on July 2, 2015.

The balance sheet presented herein has been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

In September 2015, ETE, ETC and The Williams Companies, Inc. (“WMB”) entered into a merger agreement. The merger agreement provides that WMB will be merged with and into ETC, with ETC surviving the merger. ETC is a recently formed limited partnership that will elect to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes and, upon closing of the merger, would own the managing member interest in ETE’s general partner and limited partner interests in ETE. At the time of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of WMB common stock will be exchanged for (i) $8.00 in cash and 1.5274 ETC common shares representing limited partner interests in ETC, (ii) 1.8716 ETC common shares, or (iii) $43.50 in cash.

The closing of the transaction is subject to customary conditions, including the receipt of approval of the merger from WMB’s stockholders and all required regulatory approvals, including approval pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. Subject to the satisfaction or waiver of these conditions, ETE and WMB anticipate that the transaction will be completed in the first half of 2016.

If the closing of the merger were to have occurred as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) would have been unable to deliver to ETC and WMB its tax opinion to the effect that the contribution of WMB’s assets and liabilities to ETE and ETE’s issuance of Class E units to ETC should qualify as an exchange to which Section 721(a) of the Internal Revenue Code applies (the “721 Opinion”). The receipt by ETC and WMB of the 721 Opinion is one of the conditions to the closing of the merger and ETE believes that there is a substantial risk that the condition will not be satisfied or waived by ETE and that the merger will not be consummated. If the closing condition relating to the 721 Opinion is not met or waived, and as a result the merger is not consummated, ETE expects to announce that in a press release and file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC regarding the same.

actions into a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844-VCG (the “Merger Litigation”). In its stipulated order, the Court dismissed without prejudice the ETE Defendants (among others) from the consolidated action.

On January 14, 2016, a purported WMB stockholder (“Bumgarner”) filed a putative class action lawsuit against WMB and ETE, captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Bumgarner alleges that ETE and WMB have violated Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by making allegedly false statements concerning the merger. As relief, the complaint seeks an injunction against the proposed merger. On February 1, 2016, Bumgarner filed an amended complaint, making substantially the same allegations. On February 19, 2016, ETE and WMB moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Bumgarner moved for expedited discovery on April 21, 2016. On April 28, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed Bumgarner’s claims in their entirety with leave to amend. The Court also granted expedited proceedings with respect to any further proceedings.

On January 19, 2016, The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System (“CBRRS”), a purported shareholder of WMB, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the members of WMB’s board of directors, WMB, ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP, and ETE GP challenging the merger and the disclosures made in connection with the merger. The lawsuit was styled City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. Alan S. Armstrong, et al., C.A. No. 16-17-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. CBRRS alleged violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act among other claims. CBRRS moved to expedite, and Defendants moved to dismiss the suit. The Court denied expedition. CBRRS voluntarily dismissed the suit on March 7, 2016.

On May 13, 2016, WMB filed a lawsuit against ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP, and ETE GP in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit is captioned The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity L.P., Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, LE GP, LLC and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC. WMB alleges that ETE has breached the merger agreement by failing to cooperate to obtain the 721 Opinion from Latham and failing otherwise to use its reasonable best efforts to take all actions necessary to close the merger. As relief, WMB seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment and injunction preventing ETE from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under the merger agreement based on either (i) any failure to obtain the 721 Opinion from Latham or (ii) any failure to close the transaction by the Outside Date of June 28, 2016.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (a Delaware limited partnership) and subsidiaries (the “Partnership”) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We did not audit the financial statements of Sunoco LP and Susser Holdings Corporation, both consolidated subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2014 and for the period from September 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, whose combined statements reflect total assets constituting 7 percent of consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2014, and total revenues of 5 percent of consolidated total revenues for the year then ended. Those statements were audited by other auditors, whose reports have been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for Sunoco LP and Susser Holdings Corporation as of December 31, 2014 and for the period from September 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, is based solely on the reports of the other auditors.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits and the reports of the other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audits and the reports of the other auditors, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria established in the 2013 Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated February 29, 2016 (not separately included herein) expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

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


Employee Matters			210
Conditions to Completion of the Merger			210
Definition of Material Adverse Effect			212
Termination of the Merger Agreement			213
Effect of Termination			214
Termination Fees and Expenses			214
Amendment and Modification			215
Governing Law; Jurisdiction			215
Specific Performance			215
Appraisal Rights			215
Contribution Agreement			216
CCR AGREEMENT			217
Terms			217
Early Cancellation of CCRs			218
Illustrative Examples of the CCR Terms			219
Transfer			220
Payment Date			220
Payment Procedures			221
Amendments			221
Governing Law			222
Termination of the CCR Agreement			222
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS			223
MATERIAL U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE MERGER			230
CERTAIN U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS OF THE WMB CONTRIBUTION			237
DESCRIPTION OF ETC COMMON SHARES			238
Transfer of Common Shares			238
Transfer Agent and Registrar			238
COMPARISON OF RIGHTS OF ETC SHAREHOLDERS AND WMB STOCKHOLDERS			240
APPRAISAL RIGHTS			254
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT ETC			258
Business			258
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			270
Cash Distribution Policy and Restrictions on Distributions			322
How We Make Cash Distributions			329
Description of Our Partnership Agreement			331
Management			344
Compensation Discussion and Analysis			350
Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions			377
Conflicts of Interest and Fiduciary Duties			378
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT ETE			384
Business			384
Cash Distribution Policy of ETE and the ETE Entities			425
Material Provisions of the Partnership Agreement of ETE			443
LEGAL MATTERS			449
EXPERTS			449
FUTURE STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS			450
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION			451
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS			FIN-1
ANNEX A: COMPOSITE AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER			A-1
ANNEX B: FORM OF CONTINGENT CONSIDERATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT			B-1
ANNEX C: FORM OF FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF ENERGY TRANSFER CORP LP			C-1


ANNEX D: GLOSSARY OF TERMS			D-1
ANNEX E: SECTION 262 OF THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE			E-1
ANNEX F: OPINION OF BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.			F-1
ANNEX G: OPINION OF LAZARD FRÈRES & CO.			G-1


	ETE Historical
	Year Ended December 31,															Three Months Ended March 31,
	2011			2012			2013			2014			2015			2015			2016
	(in millions)
Statement of Operations Data:
Revenues:
Investment in ETP(1)	$	8,233		$	17,702		$	48,335		$	55,475		$	34,292		$	10,326		$	4,481
Investment in Sunoco LP(2)		—			—			—			6,825			16,935			4,342			3,202
Investment in Lake Charles LNG		—			166			216			216			216			54			49
Other		(43	)		(904	)		(216	)		(6,825	)		(9,317	)		(4,342	)		(50	)

Total revenues		8,190			16,964			48,335			55,691			42,126			10,380			7,682
Gross margin		3,021			3,876			5,755			7,277			8,117			1,893			2,060
Depreciation and amortization		586			871			1,313			1,724			2,079			493			562
Operating income		1,237			1,360			1,551			2,470			2,399			617			701
Interest expense, net of interest capitalized		(740	)		(1,018	)		(1,221	)		(1,369	)		(1,643	)		(371	)		(427	)
Income from continuing operations before income tax expense		548			1,437			375			1,417			993			233			281
Income tax expense (benefit) from continuing operations		17			54			93			357			(100	)		12			(55	)
Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interest		218			970			119			491			(96	)		(63	)		24
Net income attributable to partners		310			304			196			633			1,189			284			312


	ETE Historical
	Year Ended December 31,															Three Months Ended March 31,
	2011			2012			2013			2014			2015			2015			2016
	(in millions)
Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
Current assets	$	1,455		$	5,597		$	6,536		$	6,139		$	5,410		$	6,789		$	5,584
Total assets		20,897			48,904			50,330			64,279			71,189			67,004			72,765
Current liabilities		1,841			5,845			6,500			6,683			4,910			5,327			5,691
Long-term debt, less current maturities		10,947			21,440			22,562			29,477			36,837			33,158			37,401
Total equity		7,389			16,350			16,279			22,314			23,598			22,791			23,039
Other Financial Data:
Cash flow provided by operating activities	$	1,378		$	1,078		$	2,419		$	3,175		$	3,068		$	575		$	985
Cash flow used in investing activities		(3,874	)		(4,196	)		(2,347	)		(6,795	)		(10,094	)		(2,585	)		(1,942	)
Cash flow provided by financing activities		2,536			3,364			146			3,877			6,785			3,026			1,158
Cash paid for acquisitions		(1,972	)		(2,982	)		(405	)		(2,367	)		(835	)		(370	)		(2	)


	WMB Historical
	Years Ended December 31,											Three Months Ended March 31,
	2011		2012		2013		2014		2015			2015		2016
	(in millions, except per common share data)
Statement of Income Data:
Revenues(1)	$	7,930	$	7,486	$	6,860	$	7,637	$	7,360		$	1,716	$	1,660
Income (loss) from continuing operations(2)		1,078		929		679		2,335		(1,314	)		13		(13	)
Amounts attributable to The Williams Companies, Inc.:
Income (loss) from continuing operations(2)		803		723		441		2,110		(571	)		70		(65	)
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share:
Income (loss) from continuing operations(2)		1.34		1.15		.64		2.91		(0.76	)		.09		(.09	)
Cash dividends declared per common share		.775		1.196		1.438		1.958		2.450			.58		.64

	WMB Historical
	As of December 31,											As of March 31,
	2011		2012		2013		2014		2015			2016
	(in millions)
Balance Sheet Data:
Total assets at end of period(3)(4)(6)	$	16,432	$	24,248	$	27,065	$	50,455	$	49,020		$	48,807
Commercial paper and long-term debt due within one year at end of period(5)		352		1		226		802		675			1,111
Long-term debt at end of period(3)(4)(6)		8,300		10,656		11,276		20,780		23,812			23,701
Stockholders’ equity at end of period(3)(4)		1,296		4,752		4,864		8,777		6,148			5,691


The Williams Companies, Inc. Investor Relations One Williams Center Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172 (800) 600-3782		MacKenzie Partners, Inc. 105 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Toll-free: (800) 322-2885 Collect: (212) 929-5500


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS			vi
SUMMARY			1
The Parties			1
The Merger			3
Merger Consideration			4
Appraisal Rights			4
Accounting Treatment of the Merger			5
Treatment of WMB Equity Awards			5
The Special Meeting; Required Vote			6
Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger			6
Opinions of the Financial Advisors to the WMB Board			7
Reasons of ETE General Partner’s Board for the Merger			8
No ETE Unitholder Approval			9
Financing Commitment			9
Board of Directors of the General Partner of ETC After the Merger			9
Interests of Directors and Executive Officers of WMB in the Merger			10
Risk Factors Relating to the Merger and Ownership of ETC Common Shares			10
Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger			12
Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations of the WMB Contribution			12
Listing of the ETC Common Shares; Delisting and Deregistration of Shares of WMB Common Stock			13
Conditions to Completion of the Merger			13
Regulatory Approvals			15
No Solicitation by WMB of Alternate Proposals			15
Change in WMB Board Recommendation			15
Termination of the Merger Agreement			16
Expenses			16
Termination Fee			16
Comparison of Rights of ETC Shareholders and WMB Stockholders			17
Amendment of ETE Partnership Agreement			17
Litigation Relating to the Merger			17
The CCR Agreement			19
The Contribution Agreement			20
Recent Developments			20
Organizational Structure of ETC Prior to the Merger Transactions			34
Organizational Structure of ETC Following the Merger Transactions			35
ETC SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION			36
WMB SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION			38
SELECTED UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED COMBINED FINANCIAL INFORMATION			40
COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL AND PRO FORMA PER UNIT AND PER SHARE INFORMATION			42
COMPARATIVE PER UNIT AND PER SHARE MARKET PRICE AND DISTRIBUTION AND DIVIDEND INFORMATION			44
RISK FACTORS			45
Risks Related to the Merger			45
Risks Related to the CCRs			54
Risks Related to ETC and the Ownership of the ETC Common Shares			55
Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest			64
Risks Related to the Businesses of ETE and the ETE Entities			65
Tax Risks			91
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS			94
THE PARTIES			97
Energy Transfer Corp LP			97
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.			97


The Williams Companies, Inc.			98
THE SPECIAL MEETING			99
Date, Time and Place			99
Purpose; Proposals			99
Board Recommendation			99
Record Date; Outstanding Shares; Shares Entitled to Vote			99
Quorum			100
Required Vote			100
Stock Ownership of and Voting of Directors and Executive Officers of WMB			101
Voting and Submitting a Proxy for WMB Common Stock Held by Holders of Record			101
Voting and Submitting a Proxy for WMB Common Stock Held in Street Name			101
Revocability of Proxies; Changing Your Vote			102
Solicitation of Proxies			102
No Other Business			102
Adjournments			102
Attending the Special Meeting			103
Assistance			103
THE MERGER			104
Background of the Merger			104
Recommendation of the WMB Board and Its Reasons for the Merger			132
Opinions of the Financial Advisors to the WMB Board			143
Financial Forecasts			169
Reasons of ETE General Partner’s Board for the Merger			174
Interests of Directors and Executive Officers of WMB in the Merger			176
Certain Beneficial Owners of WMB Common Stock			187
Appraisal Rights			190
No ETE Unitholder Approval			190
Accounting Treatment of the Merger			190
Regulatory Approvals and Clearances Required for the Merger			190
Financing Commitment			193
Listing of the ETC Common Shares			193
Delisting and Deregistration of WMB Common Stock			193
Amendment of ETE Partnership Agreement			193
Litigation Relating to the Merger			193
THE MERGER AGREEMENT			196
The Merger			196
Closing			197
Effective Time			197
Merger Consideration			197
Election Procedures			197
Proration			198
Treatment of WMB Equity Awards			201
Treatment of WMB Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“WMB ESPP”)			201
Pre-Merger Special Dividend			202
Subscription of ETC Common Shares by ETE			202
Fractional Shares			202
Exchange and Payment Procedures			202
Representations and Warranties			203
Conduct of Business Prior to the Effective Time			204
No Solicitation			206
Special Meeting			208
Regulatory Efforts			209
Other Covenants and Agreements			209


	ETE Historical		WMB Historical		Pro Forma Adjustments			ETC Pro Forma for Merger
	(in millions)
Total assets	$	72,765	$	48,807	$	4,141		$	125,713

Total current liabilities		5,691		2,789		(5	)		8,475
Total long-term debt, less current maturities		37,401		23,701		2,734			63,836
Total other non-current liabilities		6,634		6,693		2,002			15,329
Total equity		23,039		15,624		(590	)		38,073
Total liabilities and equity	$	72,765	$	48,807	$	4,141		$	125,713


	As of or for the Year Ended December 31, 2015			As of or for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2016
ETE—Historical
Historical per ETE common unit:
Income from continuing operations per common unit:
Basic	$	1.11		$	0.30
Diluted		1.11			0.30
Cash distributions declared per common unit(1)		1.08			0.285
Book value per common unit		(0.89	)		(1.61	)
WMB—Historical
Historical per share of WMB common stock:
Income (loss) from continuing operations per share:
Basic	$	(0.76	)	$	(0.09	)
Diluted		(0.76	)		(0.09	)
Cash dividends declared per share		2.45			0.64
Book value per share		8.21			7.59
ETC—Pro Forma Combined
Pro forma per ETC common share:
Income from continuing operations per share:
Basic	$	(0.20	)	$	0.04
Diluted		(0.20	)		0.04
Book value per share		13.74			7.13
Pro Forma WMB Equivalents(2)
Pro forma per share of WMB common share:
Income from continuing operations per share:
Basic	$	(0.37	)	$	0.07
Diluted		(0.37	)		0.07
Book value per share		25.71			13.34


	ETE Common Units(1)				Cash Distribution(1)		WMB Common Stock
	High		Low		Cash Distribution(1)		High		Low		Dividend
2016
Second Quarter (through May 20, 2016)	$	13.97	$	6.40		N/A(2)	$	22.26	$	14.60		N/A(2)
First Quarter	$	14.39	$	4.00	$	0.2850	$	26.68	$	10.22	$	0.6400
2015
Fourth Quarter	$	25.36	$	10.84	$	0.2850	$	44.51	$	20.95	$	0.64000
Third Quarter	$	33.06	$	18.62	$	0.2850	$	58.77	$	34.64	$	0.64000
Second Quarter	$	35.44	$	31.41	$	0.2650	$	61.38	$	46.28	$	0.59000
First Quarter	$	33.08	$	24.84	$	0.2450	$	51.15	$	40.07	$	0.58000
2014
Fourth Quarter	$	33.11	$	22.94	$	0.2250	$	57.00	$	41.21	$	0.57000
Third Quarter	$	31.77	$	26.59	$	0.2075	$	59.77	$	54.28	$	0.56000
Second Quarter	$	30.29	$	23.02	$	0.1900	$	59.68	$	39.31	$	0.42500
First Quarter	$	23.81	$	19.50	$	0.1794	$	42.94	$	37.77	$	0.40250


	ETE Closing Price		WMB Closing Price		Implied Per Share Value
September 25, 2015	$	23.24	$	41.60	$	43.50
May 23, 2016	$	12.66	$	21.95	$	27.34


Period	WMB ($/Share)		ETE ($/Unit)		Exchange Ratio		Implied Premium
Current (9/25/15)	$	41.60	$	23.24		1.7900x		4.6	%
Pre-WPZ merger Announcement (5/12/15)	$	50.10	$	34.30		1.4609x		28.1	%
90-Day Average	$	50.89	$	30.35		1.6766x		11.6	%
180-Day Average	$	49.60	$	30.70		1.6157x		15.8	%
1-Year Average	$	49.99	$	30.16		1.6576x		12.9	%
2-Year Average	$	47.41	$	26.76		1.7715x		5.7	%


	WMB					ETE
Implied Nominal Offer Price	$	43.50
Current Share (Unit) Price (9/25/15)	$	41.60				$	23.24

	Statistic		$ / Offer Price			Statistic		$ / Unit Price
Cash Available for Dividends/Distributions per Share/Unit(1)
2016E	$	2.38		5.48	%	$	1.37		5.91	%
2017E	$	2.91		6.70	%	$	1.79		7.71	%
2018E	$	3.42		7.87	%	$	2.14		9.19	%
2016E-2018E CAFD CAGR				19.9	%				24.7	%

Dividend/Distribution Yield(1)
Latest Quarter Annualized	$	2.56		5.89	%	$	1.06		4.56	%
2016E	$	2.18		5.02	%	$	1.31		5.63	%
2017E	$	2.47		5.69	%	$	1.68		7.22	%
2018E	$	2.85		6.55	%	$	2.14		9.19	%


	Terminal Dividend Yield			Implied Share Value
With WMB Prospective Projects
WMB Mid Case Post-WPZ Scenario		5.25	%	$	60.00 – $65.00
WMB Market Case Post-WPZ Scenario		6.75	%	$	42.00 – $45.00
WMB Adjusted Market Case Post-WPZ Scenario		7.50	%	$	36.00 – $39.00

WMB Mid Case Pre-WPZ Scenario		5.50	%	$	53.00 – $57.00
WMB Market Case Pre-WPZ Scenario		7.00	%	$	36.00 – $39.00
WMB Adjusted Market Case Pre-WPZ Scenario		7.75	%	$	32.00 – $34.00

Without WMB Prospective Projects
WMB Mid Case Post-WPZ Scenario		5.25	%	$	55.00 – $60.00
WMB Market Case Post-WPZ Scenario		6.75	%	$	40.00 – $43.00
WMB Adjusted Market Case Post-WPZ Scenario		7.50	%	$	35.00 – $38.00

WMB Mid Case Pre-WPZ Scenario		5.50	%	$	50.00 – $54.00
WMB Market Case Pre-WPZ Scenario		7.00	%	$	36.00 – $39.00
WMB Adjusted Market Case Pre-WPZ Scenario		7.75	%	$	32.00 – $34.00


	Terminal Dividend Yield			Implied Unit Value
With ETE Prospective Projects
ETE Mid Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles Project		3.50	%	$	51.00 – $54.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles Project		5.25	%	$	32.00 – $34.00
ETE Mid Case Scenario – With Lake Charles Project		3.50	%	$	55.00 – $60.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles Project		5.25	%	$	37.00 – $40.00

Without ETE Prospective Projects
ETE Mid Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles Project		3.50	%	$	50.00 – $53.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles Project		5.25	%	$	32.00 – $34.00
ETE Mid Case Scenario – With Lake Charles Project		3.50	%	$	54.00 – $59.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles Project		5.25	%	$	36.00 – $40.00


Managed Tax Liability Scenario

With ETE Prospective Projects	Implied Share Value
ETE Mid Case Scenario – WMB Mid Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	49.00 – $52.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	31.00 – $33.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Adjusted Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	31.00 – $33.00
ETE Mid Case Scenario – WMB Mid Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	54.00 – $58.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	36.00 – $39.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Adjusted Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	35.00 – $39.00

Without ETE Prospective Projects	Implied Share Value
ETE Mid Case Scenario – WMB Mid Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	48.00 – $51.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	31.00 – $33.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Adjusted Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	31.00 – $33.00
ETE Mid Case Scenario – WMB Mid Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	53.00 – $57.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	35.00 – $39.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Adjusted Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	35.00 – $39.00

Full Tax Liability Scenario

With ETE Prospective Projects	Implied Share Value
ETE Mid Case Scenario – WMB Mid Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	42.00 – $45.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	27.00 – $29.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Adjusted Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	26.00 – $28.00
ETE Mid Case Scenario – WMB Mid Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	47.00 – $52.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	31.00 – $35.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Adjusted Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	31.00 – $35.00

Without ETE Prospective Projects	Implied Share Value
ETE Mid Case Scenario – WMB Mid Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	41.00 – $45.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	27.00 – $29.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Adjusted Market Case Scenario – Without Lake Charles	$	26.00 – $28.00
ETE Mid Case Scenario – WMB Mid Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	46.00 – $51.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	31.00 – $35.00
ETE Market Case Scenario – WMB Adjusted Market Case Scenario – With Lake Charles	$	31.00 – $34.00


Managed Tax Liability Scenario—With Lake Charles

	ETE Mid Case Scenario— With Lake Charles	ETE Market Case Scenario— With Lake Charles
With WMB Prospective Projects
WMB Post-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.1538x – 1.3542x	—
WMB Post-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.1667x – 1.3636x
WMB Post-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.0000x – 1.1818x
WMB Pre-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.0192x – 1.1875x	—
WMB Pre-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.0000x – 1.1818x
WMB Pre-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	0.8889x – 1.0303x

Without WMB Prospective Projects
WMB Post-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.0784x – 1.2766x	—
WMB Post-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.1111x – 1.3030x
WMB Post-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	0.9722x – 1.1515x
WMB Pre-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	0.9804x – 1.1489x	—
WMB Pre-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.0000x – 1.1818x
WMB Pre-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	0.8889x – 1.0303x


Managed Tax Liability Scenario—Without Lake Charles

	ETE Mid Case Scenario—Without Lake Charles	ETE Market Case Scenario—Without Lake Charles
With WMB Prospective Projects
WMB Post-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.2766x – 1.4773x	—
WMB Post-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.3548x – 1.5517x
WMB Post-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.1613x – 1.3448x
WMB Pre-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.1277x – 1.2955x	—
WMB Pre-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.1613x – 1.3448x
WMB Pre-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.0323x – 1.1724x

Without WMB Prospective Projects
WMB Post-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.1957x – 1.3636x	—
WMB Post-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.2903x – 1.4828x
WMB Post-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.1290x – 1.3103x
WMB Pre-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.0870x – 1.2273x	—
WMB Pre-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.1613x – 1.3448x
WMB Pre-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.0323x – 1.1724x


Full Tax Liability Scenario—With Lake Charles

	ETE Mid Case Scenario—With Lake Charles	ETE Market Case Scenario—With Lake Charles
With Prospective Projects
WMB Post-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.3043x – 1.5116x	—
WMB Post-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.2727x – 1.5000x
WMB Post-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.1250x – 1.3000x
WMB Pre-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.1522x – 1.3256x	—
WMB Pre-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.0909x – 1.3000x
WMB Pre-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.0000x – 1.1333x

Without Prospective Projects
WMB Post-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.1957x – 1.4286x	—
WMB Post-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.2500x – 1.4333x
WMB Post-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.0938x – 1.2667x
WMB Pre-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.0870x – 1.2857x	—
WMB Pre-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.1250x – 1.3000x
WMB Pre-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.0000x – 1.1333x


Full Tax Liability Scenario—Without Lake Charles

	ETE Mid Case Scenario—Without Lake Charles	ETE Market Case Scenario—Without Lake Charles
With Prospective Projects
WMB Post-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.4634x – 1.6667x	—
WMB Post-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.5000x – 1.7308x
WMB Post-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.2857x – 1.5000x
WMB Pre-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.2927x – 1.4615x	—
WMB Pre-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.2857x – 1.5000x
WMB Pre-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.1429x – 1.3077x

Without Prospective Projects
WMB Post-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.3415x – 1.5789x	—
WMB Post-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.4286x – 1.6538x
WMB Post-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.2963x – 1.4615x
WMB Pre-WPZ Mid Case Scenario	1.2195x – 1.4211x	—
WMB Pre-WPZ Market Case Scenario	—	1.2857x – 1.5000x
WMB Pre-WPZ Adjusted Market Case Scenario	—	1.1852x – 1.3077x


	“Has”: Pre- WPZ WMB Share Price(1)		“Has”: Post- WPZ WMB Share Price(2)		Pre-Tax Adjustments(3)		Post-Tax Adjustment(4)		“Gets”: Consideration(5)
Managed Tax Liability w/o Lake Charles	$	37.50	$	41.50	$	43.69	$	39.12	$	47.22
Managed Tax Liability w/ Lake Charles	$	37.50	$	41.50	$	47.15	$	42.57	$	50.67
Full Tax Liability w/o Lake Charles	$	37.50	$	41.50	$	43.69	$	32.62	$	40.72
Full Tax Liability w/ Lake Charles	$	37.50	$	41.50	$	47.15	$	36.08	$	44.18


	“Has”: WMB Share Price(1)		“Has”: WMB Share Price(2)		“Gets”: WMB Consideration(3)		“Gets”: WMB Consideration(4)
Managed Tax WMB Mid Case Scenario	$	52.00	$	57.50	$	65.35	$	68.80
Managed Tax WMB Adjusted Market Scenario	$	33.00	$	36.50	$	44.80	$	48.26
Full Tax WMB Mid Case Scenario	$	52.00	$	57.50	$	55.19	$	58.64
Full Tax WMB Adjusted Market Scenario	$	33.00	$	36.50	$	38.51	$	41.97


Pre-Snowcap
Pre-Snowcap Mid Case	$	39.50 - $45.50
Pre-Snowcap Market Case	$	27.25 - $32.25
Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case	$	25.75 - $30.50

Post-Snowcap
Post-Snowcap Mid Case	$	45.25 - $52.00
Post-Snowcap Market Case	$	32.50 - $38.00
Post-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case	$	30.25 - $36.00


Pre-Snowcap
Pre-Snowcap Mid Case	$	47.25 - $56.50
Pre-Snowcap Market Case	$	34.00 - $41.25
Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case	$	31.25 - $37.75


Post-Snowcap
Post-Snowcap Mid Case	$	49.00 - $58.75
Post-Snowcap Market Case	$	36.25 - $43.75
Post-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case	$	32.75 - $39.75


	1-Day			5-Days			30-Days
Energy Industry Transactions
Mean		23.8	%		25.8	%		24.2	%
Median		18.1	%		22.0	%		24.4	%

Adjusted Set of Energy Industry Transactions
Mean		31.1	%		34.7	%		31.1	%
Median		31.6	%		35.8	%		30.6	%


	Without LNG Export Project		With LNG Export Project
ETE Mid Case	$	37.25 - $43.50	$	41.25 - $47.50
ETE Market Case	$	29.25 - $34.50	$	33.25 - $38.50


					Implied Pro Forma Ownership Percentage						Implied Exchange Ratio
DCF	Pre-Snowcap Mid Case		ETE Mid Case		WMB			ETE			Implied Exchange Ratio
2015E	$	1,868	$	1,282		59.3	%		40.7	%		2.039x
2016E	$	2,210	$	1,576		58.4	%		41.6	%		1.961x
2017E	$	2,697	$	2,076		56.5	%		43.5	%		1.817x
2018E	$	3,108	$	2,509		55.3	%		44.7	%		1.733x

DCF	Pre-Snowcap Market Case		ETE Market Case
2015E	$	1,808	$	1,235		59.4	%		40.6	%		2.047x
2016E	$	1,795	$	1,450		55.3	%		44.7	%		1.731x
2017E	$	2,211	$	1,895		53.9	%		46.1	%		1.632x
2018E	$	2,612	$	2,256		53.7	%		46.3	%		1.619x

DCF	Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case		ETE Market Case
2015E	$	1,763	$	1,235		58.8	%		41.2	%		1.996x
2016E	$	1,772	$	1,450		55.0	%		45.0	%		1.709x
2017E	$	2,196	$	1,895		53.7	%		46.3	%		1.621x
2018E	$	2,467	$	2,256		52.2	%		47.8	%		1.529x
High/Low Range						52.2% - 59.4	%		40.6% to 47.8	%		1.529x to 2.047x


Pre-Snowcap Mid Case Implied Exchange Ratios
		Range of Implied Exchange Ratios Based on Implied Present Value Per share
Managed Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.92x – 1.33x
Managed Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.84x – 1.20x
Full Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		1.04x – 1.54x
Full Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.94x – 1.37x

Post-Snowcap Mid Case Implied Exchange Ratios
		Range of Implied Exchange Ratios Based on Implied Present Value Per share
Managed Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.96x – 1.39x
Managed Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.88x – 1.25x
Full Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		1.09x – 1.61x
Full Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.98x – 1.43x

Pre-Snowcap Market Case Implied Exchange Ratios
		Range of Implied Exchange Ratios Based on Implied Present Value Per share
Managed Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.78x – 1.18x
Managed Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.69x – 1.03x
Full Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.89x – 1.39x
Full Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.78x – 1.19x


Post-Snowcap Market Case Implied Exchange Ratios
		Range of Implied Exchange Ratios Based on Implied Present Value Per share
Managed Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.84x – 1.27x
Managed Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.75x – 1.11x
Full Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.97x – 1.49x
Full Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.85x – 1.28x


Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case Implied Exchange Ratios
		Range of Implied Exchange Ratios Based on Implied Present Value Per share
Managed Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.69x – 1.05x
Managed Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.62x – 0.92x
Full Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.79x – 1.24x
Full Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.70x – 1.06x

Post-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case Implied Exchange Ratios
		Range of Implied Exchange Ratios Based on Implied Present Value Per share
Managed Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.74x – 1.12x
Managed Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.66x – 0.98x
Full Tax Forecast (without LNG Export Project)		0.85x – 1.32x
Full Tax Forecast (with LNG Export Project)		0.74x – 1.13x


Mid Case Intrinsic Value Comparisons
	Percentage Increase / Dollar Increase in Intrinsic Value Compared to Standalone Intrinsic Value of WMB for the Pre- Snowcap Mid Case	Percentage Increase in Intrinsic Value Compared to Standalone Intrinsic Value of WMB for the Post-Snowcap Mid Case
Mid Case Pro Forma Value—Managed Tax Forecast	20.6% / $10.64	16.1% / $8.66
Mid Case Pro Forma Value—Full Tax Forecast	5.5% / $2.83	1.6% / $0.85


Market Case Intrinsic Value Comparisons
	Percentage Increase in Intrinsic Value Compared to Standalone Intrinsic Value of WMB for the Pre-Snowcap Market Case	Percentage Increase in Intrinsic Value Compared to Standalone Intrinsic Value of WMB for the Post-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case
Market Case Pro Forma Value—Managed Tax Forecast	26.0% / $9.75	18.3% / $7.31
Market Case Pro Forma Value—Full Tax Forecast	8.4% / $3.15	1.8% / $0.71


Adjusted Market Case Intrinsic Value Comparisons
	Percentage Increase in Intrinsic Value Compared to Standalone Intrinsic Value of WMB for the Pre-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case	Percentage Increase in Intrinsic Value Compared to Standalone Intrinsic Value of WMB for the Post-Snowcap Adjusted Market Case
Adjusted Market Case Pro Forma Value—Managed Tax Forecast	32.4% / $11.13	26.0% / $9.40
Adjusted Market Case Pro Forma Value—Full Tax Forecast	13.8% / $4.74	8.3% / $3.01