10-K 1 ete-12312013x10k.htm 10-K ETE-12.31.2013-10K
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
ý
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
OR
¨
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission file number 1-32740
ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware
  
30-0108820
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
  
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
3738 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (214) 981-0700

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
  
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Units
  
New York Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Yes  ý    No  ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
Yes  ¨    No  ý
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes  ý    No  ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes  ý    No  ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer  ý    Accelerated filer  ¨    Non-accelerated filer  ¨    Smaller reporting company  ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes  ¨    No  ý
The aggregate market value as of June 28, 2013, of the registrant’s Common Units held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the reported closing price of such Common Units on the New York Stock Exchange on such date, was $12.59 billion. Common Units held by each executive officer and director and by each person who owns 5% or more of the outstanding Common Units have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.
At February 21, 2014, the registrant had 558,235,474 Common Units outstanding
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
None



TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
 
PAGE
 
 
 
ITEM 1.
 
 
 
ITEM 1A.
 
 
 
ITEM 1B.
 
 
 
ITEM 2.
 
 
 
ITEM 3.
 
 
 
ITEM 4.
 
 
 
 
ITEM 5.
 
 
 
ITEM 6.
 
 
 
ITEM 7.
 
 
 
ITEM 7A.
 
 
 
ITEM 8.
 
 
 
ITEM 9.
 
 
 
ITEM 9A.
 
 
 
ITEM 9B.
 
 
 
 
ITEM 10.
 
 
 
ITEM 11.
 
 
 
ITEM 12.
 
 
 
ITEM 13.
 
 
 
ITEM 14.
 
 
 
 
ITEM 15.
 
 
 


ii


Forward-Looking Statements
Certain matters discussed in this report, excluding historical information, as well as some statements by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (the “Partnership” or “ETE”) in periodic press releases and some oral statements of the Partnership’s officials during presentations about the Partnership, include forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are identified as any statement that does not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Statements using words such as “anticipate,” “project,” “expect,” “plan,” “goal,” “forecast,” “estimate,” “intend,” “continue,” “could,” “believe,” “may,” “will” or similar expressions help identify forward-looking statements. Although the Partnership and its General Partner believe such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions and current expectations and projections about future events, no assurance can be given that such assumptions, expectations or projections will prove to be correct. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of risks, uncertainties and assumptions. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or if underlying assumptions prove incorrect, the Partnership’s actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, estimated, projected, forecasted, expressed or expected in forward-looking statements since many of the factors that determine these results are subject to uncertainties and risks that are difficult to predict and beyond management’s control. For additional discussion of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, see “Item 1.A Risk Factors” included in this annual report.
Definitions
The following is a list of certain acronyms and terms generally used in the energy industry and throughout this document: 
/d
  
per day
 
 
AmeriGas
 
AmeriGas Partners, L.P.
 
 
 
AOCI
 
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
 
 
 
AROs
 
asset retirement obligations
 
 
 
Bbls
  
barrels
 
 
Bcf
 
billion cubic feet
 
 
 
Btu
  
British thermal unit, an energy measurement used by gas companies to convert the volume of gas used to its heat equivalent, and thus calculate the actual energy content
 
 
 
Canyon
 
ETC Canyon Pipeline, LLC
 
 
 
Capacity
  
capacity of a pipeline, processing plant or storage facility refers to the maximum capacity under normal operating conditions and, with respect to pipeline transportation capacity, is subject to multiple factors (including natural gas injections and withdrawals at various delivery points along the pipeline and the utilization of compression) which may reduce the throughput capacity from specified capacity levels
 
 
 
Citrus
 
Citrus Corp., which owns 100% of FGT
 
 
 
CrossCountry
 
CrossCountry Energy, LLC
 
 
 
CFTC
 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission
 
 
 
DOT
 
U.S. Department of Transportation
 
 
 
Eagle Rock
 
Eagle Rock Energy Partners, LP
 
 
 
Enterprise
 
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., together with its subsidiaries
 
 
 
ETC Compression
 
ETC Compression, LLC
 
 
 
ETC FEP
 
ETC Fayetteville Express Pipeline, LLC
 
 
 
ETC OLP
 
La Grange Acquisition, L.P., which conducts business under the assumed name of Energy Transfer Company
 
 
 
ETC Tiger
 
ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC
 
 
 
ETG
 
Energy Transfer Group, L.L.C.
 
 
 
ET Interstate
 
Energy Transfer Interstate Holdings, LLC
 
 
 
ETP
 
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
 
 
 

iii


ETP Credit Facility
 
ETP’s revolving credit facility
 
 
 
ETP GP
 
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., the general partner of ETP
 
 
 
ETP LLC
 
Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., the general partner of ETP GP
 
 
 
EPA
 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
 
 
Exchange Act
 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 
 
 
FDOT/FTE
 
Florida Department of Transportation, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise
 
 
 
FEP
 
Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC
 
 
 
FERC
 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 
 
 
FGT
 
Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, which owns a natural gas pipeline system that originates in Texas and delivers natural gas to the Florida peninsula
 
 
 
GAAP
 
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America
 
 
 
General Partner
 
LE GP, LLC, the general partner of ETE
 
 
 
HPC
 
RIGS Haynesville Partnership Co.
 
 
 
Holdco
 
ETP Holdco Corporation
 
 
 
HOLP
 
Heritage Operating, L.P.
 
 
 
Hoover Energy
 
Hoover Energy Partners, LP
 
 
 
IDRs
 
incentive distribution rights
 
 
 
LDH
 
LDH Energy Asset Holdings LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Louis Dreyfus Highbridge Energy LLC (subsequently renamed Castleton Commodities International, LLC)
 
 
 
LIBOR
 
London Interbank Offered Rate
 
 
 
LNG
 
Liquefied natural gas
 
 
 
LNG Holdings
 
Trunkline LNG Holdings, LLC
 
 
 
LPG
 
liquefied petroleum gas
 
 
 
Lone Star
 
Lone Star NGL LLC
 
 
 
MACS
 
Mid-Atlantic Convenience Stores
 
 
 
MEP
 
Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC
 
 
 
MGE
 
Missouri Gas Energy
 
 
 
MGP
 
manufactured gas plant
 
 
 
MMBtu
  
million British thermal units
 
 
 
MMcf
 
million cubic feet
 
 
 
NGA
 
Natural Gas Act of 1938
 
 
 
NGPA
 
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
 
 
 
NEG
 
New England Gas Company
 
 
 
NGL
  
natural gas liquid, such as propane, butane and natural gasoline
 
 
NMED
 
New Mexico Environmental Department
 
 
 
NYMEX
  
New York Mercantile Exchange
 
 
NYSE
 
New York Stock Exchange
 
 
 
OSHA
 
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act

iv


 
 
Panhandle
 
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP and its subsidiaries
 
 
 
PCB
 
polychlorinated biphenyl
 
 
 
PEPL
 
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP
 
 
 
PEPL Holdings
 
PEPL Holdings, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Union, which owned the general partner and 100% of the limited partner interests in PEPL
 
 
 
PES
 
Philadelphia Energy Solutions
 
 
 
PHMSA
 
Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
 
 
 
PVR
 
PVR Partners, L.P.
 
 
RIGS
 
Regency Intrastate Gas System
 
 
 
RGS
 
Regency Gas Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regency
 
 
 
Preferred Units
 
ETE’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units
 
 
 
Ranch JV
 
Ranch Westex JV LLC
 
 
 
Regency
 
Regency Energy Partners LP
 
 
 
Regency GP
 
Regency GP LP, the general partner of Regency
 
 
 
Regency LLC
 
Regency GP LLC, the general partner of Regency GP
 
 
 
Regency Preferred Units
 
Regency’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units, the Preferred Units of a Subsidiary
 
 
Sea Robin
 
Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC
 
 
 
SEC
 
Securities and Exchange Commission
 
 
 
Southern Union
 
Southern Union Company
 
 
 
Southwest Gas
 
Pan Gas Storage, LLC
 
 
 
SUGS
 
Southern Union Gas Services
 
 
 
Sunoco
 
Sunoco, Inc.
 
 
 
Sunoco Logistics
 
Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.
 
 
 
Sunoco Partners
 
Sunoco Partners LLC, the general partner of Sunoco Logistics
 
 
 
TCEQ
 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
 
 
 
Titan
 
Titan Energy Partners, L.P.
 
 
 
Transwestern
 
Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC
 
 
 
TRRC
 
Texas Railroad Commission
 
 
 
Trunkline
 
Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
 
 
 
Trunkline LNG
 
Trunkline LNG Company, LLC
 
 
 
WTI
  
West Texas Intermediate Crude
Adjusted EBITDA is a term used throughout this document, which we define as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and other non-cash items, such as non-cash compensation expense, gains and losses on disposals of assets, the allowance for equity funds used during construction, unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities, non-cash impairment charges, loss on extinguishment of debt, gain on deconsolidation and other non-operating income or expense items. Unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities includes unrealized gains and losses on commodity derivatives and inventory fair value adjustments (excluding lower of cost or market adjustments). Adjusted EBITDA reflects amounts for less than wholly owned subsidiaries based on 100% of the subsidiaries’ results of operations and for unconsolidated affiliates based on the Partnership’s proportionate ownership.

v


PART I
ITEM 1.  BUSINESS
Overview
We were formed in September 2002 and completed our initial public offering in February 2006. We are a Delaware limited partnership with common units publicly traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “ETE.”
Unless the context requires otherwise, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Partnership” and “ETE” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries, which include ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, Regency, Regency GP, Regency LLC, Panhandle (or Southern Union prior to its merger into Panhandle in January 2014), Sunoco, Sunoco Logistics and Holdco. References to the “Parent Company” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. on a stand-alone basis.
In January 2014, the Partnership completed a two-for-one split of its outstanding common units. All references to units and per unit amounts in this document have been adjusted to reflect the effect of the unit split for all periods presented.
On March 26, 2012, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of Southern Union and contributed our ownership in Southern Union for a 60% interest in Holdco at the time of ETP’s acquisition of Sunoco on October 5, 2012. On April 30, 2013, ETP acquired ETE’s 60% interest in Holdco.
The Parent Company’s principal sources of cash flow are derived from its direct and indirect investments in the limited partner and general partner interests in ETP and Regency, both of which are publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related services.
At December 31, 2013, our interests in ETP and Regency consisted of 100% of the respective general partner interests and IDRs, as well as the following:
 
ETP
 
Regency
Units held by wholly-owned subsidiaries:
 
 
 
Common units
49,551,069

 
26,266,791

ETP Class H units
50,160,000

 

Units held by less than wholly-owned subsidiaries:
 
 
 
Common units

 
31,372,419

Regency Class F units

 
6,274,483

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



1


Organizational Structure
The following chart summarizes our organizational structure as of December 31, 2013. For simplicity, certain immaterial entities and ownership interests have not been depicted.
(1)
On January 10, 2014, as part of our effort to simplify our structure, Panhandle consummated a merger with Southern Union, the indirect parent of Panhandle, and PEPL Holdings, the sole limited partner of Panhandle, pursuant to which each of Southern Union and PEPL Holdings were merged with and into Panhandle, with Panhandle as the surviving entity.

2


Strategic Transactions
Our significant strategic transactions in 2013 and beyond included the following, as discussed in more detail herein:
On April 30, 2013, Southern Union completed its contribution to Regency of all of the issued and outstanding membership interest in Southern Union Gathering Company, LLC, and its subsidiaries, including SUGS. The consideration paid by Regency in connection with this transaction consisted of (i) the issuance of approximately 31.4 million Regency common units to Southern Union, (ii) the issuance of approximately 6.3 million Regency Class F units to Southern Union, (iii) the distribution of $463 million in cash to Southern Union, net of closing adjustments, and (iv) the payment of $30 million in cash to a subsidiary of ETP.
On April 30, 2013, ETP acquired ETE’s 60% interest in Holdco for approximately 49.5 million of newly issued ETP Common Units and $1.40 billion in cash, less $68 million of closing adjustments (the “Holdco Acquisition”). As a result, ETP now owns 100% of Holdco. ETE, agreed to forego incentive distributions on the newly issued ETP units for each of the first eight consecutive quarters beginning with the quarter in which the closing of the transaction occurred and 50% of incentive distributions on the newly issued ETP units for the following eight consecutive quarters. ETP controlled Holdco prior to this acquisition; therefore, the transaction did not constitute a change of control.
On June 24, 2013, ETP completed the exchange of approximately $1.09 billion aggregate principal amount of Southern Union’s outstanding senior notes, comprising 77% of the principal amount of the 7.6% Senior Notes due 2024, 89% of the principal amount of the 8.25% Senior Notes due 2029 and 91% of the principal amount of the Junior Subordinated Notes due 2066.  These notes were exchanged for new notes issued by ETP with the same coupon rates and maturity dates.
On July 12, 2013, ETP received $346 million in net proceeds from the sale of 7.5 million of its AmeriGas common units, which were received in connection with the Partnership’s contribution of its retail propane operations to AmeriGas in January 2012. In January 2014, ETP sold 9.2 million AmeriGas common units for net proceeds of $381 million.
In September 2013, Southern Union completed its sale of the assets of MGE for an aggregate purchase price of $975 million, net of customary post-closing adjustments. In December 2013, Southern Union completed its sale of the assets of NEG for cash proceeds of $40 million, net of customary post-closing adjustments, and the assumption of $20 million of debt.
In October 2013, La Grange Acquisition, L.P., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ETP, acquired convenience store operator MACS with a network of approximately 300 company-owned and dealer locations. These operations were reflected in ETP’s retail marketing operations, along with the retail marketing operations owned by Sunoco, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2013.
On October 31, 2013, ETP and ETE exchanged 50.2 million ETP Common Units, owned by ETE, for newly issued Class H Units by ETP that track 50% of the underlying economics of the general partner interest and the IDRs of Sunoco Logistics.
In December 2013, ETE completed a tender offer for a portion of its outstanding 7.50% Senior Notes due 2020. In conjunction with the tender offer, ETE completed a comprehensive refinancing of its existing debt, which included the public offering of $450 million aggregate principal amount of its 5.875% Senior Notes due 2024, a new $1 billion term loan facility, and a new $600 million revolving credit facility. In February 2014, ETE increased the capacity on the ETE Revolving Credit Facility to $800 million and expects to utilize the additional capacity to fund the purchase of $400 million of Regency common units in connection with Regency’s pending Eagle Rock acquisition.
On January 10, 2014, as part of our effort to simplify our structure, Panhandle consummated a merger with Southern Union, the indirect partner of Panhandle, and PEPL Holdings, the sole limited partner of Panhandle, pursuant to which each of Southern Union and PEPL Holdings were merged with and into Panhandle, with Panhandle as the surviving entity.
On February 19, 2014, ETE and ETP completed the transfer to ETE of Trunkline LNG, the entity that owns a LNG regasification facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana, from ETP in exchange for the redemption by ETP of 18.7 million ETP Common Units held by ETE. This transaction was effective as of January 1, 2014.
In October 2013, Regency entered into a merger agreement with PVR pursuant to which Regency intends to merge with PVR. This merger will be a unit-for-unit transaction plus a one-time $37 million cash payment to PVR unitholders which represents total consideration of $5.6 billion, including the assumption of net debt of $1.8 billion. The PVR Acquisition is expected to enhance our geographic diversity with a strategic presence in the Marcellus and Utica shales in the Appalachian Basin and the Granite Wash in the Mid-Continent region. The PVR Acquisition is expected to close in late March 2014, subject to receipt of the affirmative vote of a majority of the PVR common units outstanding at a meeting scheduled to be held on March 20, 2014 and subject to the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions.

3


In December, 2013, Regency entered into an agreement to purchase Eagle Rock’s midstream business for $1.3 billion. This acquisition is expected to complement Regency’s core gathering and processing business and further diversify Regency’s basin exposure in the Texas Panhandle, East Texas and South Texas. The Eagle Rock Midstream Acquisition is expected to close in the second quarter of 2014.
On February 3, 2014, Regency completed its acquisition of the subsidiaries (the “acquired Hoover entities”) of Hoover Energy that are engaged in crude oil gathering, transportation and terminalling, condensate handling, natural gas gathering, treating and processing, and water gathering and disposal services in the southern Delaware Basin in West Texas. The consideration paid by Regency in exchange for the acquired Hoover entities was valued at $282 million (subject to customary post-closing adjustments) and consisted of (i) 4.0 million Regency Common Units issued to Hoover Energy and (ii) $184 million in cash. A portion of the consideration is being held in escrow as security for certain indemnification claims. Regency financed the cash portion of the purchase price through borrowings under its revolving credit facility.
Business Strategy
Our primary business objective is to increase cash available for distributions to our unitholders by actively assisting our subsidiaries in executing their business strategies by assisting in identifying, evaluating and pursuing strategic acquisitions and growth opportunities. In general, we expect that we will allow our subsidiaries the first opportunity to pursue any acquisition or internal growth project that may be presented to us which may be within the scope our their operations or business strategies. In the future, we may also support the growth of our subsidiaries through the use of our capital resources which could involve loans, capital contributions or other forms of credit support to our subsidiaries. This funding could be used for the acquisition by one of our subsidiaries of a business or asset or for an internal growth project. In addition, the availability of this capital could assist our subsidiaries in arranging financing for a project, reducing its financing costs or otherwise supporting a merger or acquisition transaction.
Segment Overview
As a result of the Holdco Acquisition in April 2013, our reportable segments were re-evaluated and currently reflect the following reportable segments:
Investment in ETP, including the consolidated operations of ETP;
Investment in Regency, including the consolidated operations of Regency; and
Corporate and Other, including the following:
activities of the Parent Company; and
the goodwill and property, plant and equipment fair value adjustments recorded as a result of the 2004 reverse acquisition of Heritage Propane Partners, L.P.
The businesses within these segments are described below. See Note 15 to our consolidated financial statements for additional financial information about our reportable segments.
Investment in ETP
ETP’s operations include the following:
Intrastate Transportation and Storage Operations
ETP’s natural gas transportation pipelines receive natural gas from other mainline transportation pipelines and gathering systems and deliver the natural gas to industrial end-users, utilities and other pipelines. Through its intrastate transportation and storage Operations, ETP owns and operates approximately 7,800 miles of natural gas transportation pipelines with approximately 14.0 Bcf/d of transportation capacity and three natural gas storage facilities located in the state of Texas.
ETP also generates revenues and margin from the sale of natural gas to electric utilities, independent power plants, local distribution companies, industrial end-users and other marketing companies on the HPL System. In addition, ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations generate revenues from fees charged for storing customers’ working natural gas in ETP’s storage facilities and from margin from managing natural gas for its own account.
Interstate Transportation and Storage Operations
ETP’s natural gas transportation pipelines receive natural gas from other mainline transportation pipelines and gathering systems and deliver the natural gas to industrial end-users, utilities and other pipelines. Through its interstate transportation and storage operations, ETP directly owns and operates approximately 12,800 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline with approximately 11.3

4


Bcf/d of transportation capacity and has a 50% interest in the joint venture that owns the 185-mile Fayetteville Express pipeline. ETP also owns a 50% interest in Citrus which owns 100% of FGT, an approximately 5,400 mile pipeline system that extends from South Texas through the Gulf Coast to South Florida.
ETP’s interstate transportation and storage operations include Panhandle, which owns and operates a large natural gas open-access interstate pipeline network.  The pipeline network, consisting of the PEPL, Trunkline and Sea Robin transmission systems, serves customers in the Midwest, Gulf Coast and Midcontinent United States with a comprehensive array of transportation and storage services.  In connection with its natural gas pipeline transmission and storage systems, Panhandle has five natural gas storage fields located in Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan and Oklahoma.  Southwest Gas operates four of these fields and Trunkline operates one.
Midstream Operations
The midstream natural gas industry is the link between the exploration and production of natural gas and the delivery of its components to end-use markets. The midstream industry consists of natural gas gathering, compression, treating, processing and transportation, and is generally characterized by regional competition based on the proximity of gathering systems and processing plants to natural gas producing wells.
Through ETP’s midstream operations, ETP owns and operates approximately 6,700 miles of in service natural gas and NGL gathering pipelines with approximately 6.0 Bcf/d of gathering capacity, 5 natural gas processing plants, 15 natural gas treating facilities and 3 natural gas conditioning facilities. ETP’s midstream operations focus on the gathering, compression, treating, blending, and processing, and our 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.
NGL Transportation and Services Operations
NGL transportation pipelines transport mixed NGLs and other hydrocarbons from natural gas processing facilities to fractionation plants and storage facilities. NGL storage facilities are used for the storage of mixed NGLs, NGL products and petrochemical products owned by third-parties in storage tanks and underground wells, which allow for the injection and withdrawal of such products at various times of the year to meet demand cycles. NGL fractionators separate mixed NGL streams into purity products, such as ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane and natural gasoline.
Through ETP’s NGL transportation and services operations ETP has a 70% interest in Lone Star, which owns approximately 2,000 miles of NGL pipelines with an aggregate transportation capacity of approximately 388,000 Bbls/d, three NGL processing plants with an aggregate processing capacity of approximately 904 MMcf/d, three fractionation facilities with an aggregate capacity of 251,000 Bbls/d and NGL storage facilities with aggregate working storage capacity of approximately 47 million Bbls. Two fractionation facilities and the NGL storage facilities are located at Mont Belvieu, Texas, one 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 Liberty pipeline, an approximately 87-mile NGL pipeline.
ETP’s Investment in Sunoco Logistics
ETP’s interests in Sunoco Logistics consist of a 2% general partner interest, 100% of the IDRs and 33.5 million Sunoco Logistics common units representing 32% of the limited partner interests in Sunoco Logistics as of December 31, 2013. Because ETP controls Sunoco Logistics through its ownership of the general partner, the operations of Sunoco Logistics are consolidated into the Partnership.
Sunoco Logistics owns and operates a logistics business, consisting of a geographically diverse portfolio of complementary pipeline, terminalling, and acquisition and marketing assets which are used to facilitate the purchase and sale of crude oil and refined petroleum products pipelines primarily in the northeast, midwest and southwest regions of the United States. In 2013, Sunoco Logistics initiated the expansion of its operations into the pipeline transportation, acquisition, storage and marketing of NGLs. In addition, Sunoco Logistics has ownership interests in several refined product pipeline joint ventures.
Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines transport crude oil principally in Oklahoma and Texas. Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines consist of approximately 4,900 miles of crude oil trunk pipelines and approximately 500 miles of crude oil gathering lines that supply the trunk pipelines.

5


Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil acquisition and marketing business gathers, purchases, markets and sells crude oil principally in the mid-continent United States, utilizing its fleet of approximately 300 crude oil transport trucks, approximately 130 crude oil truck unloading facilities as well as third-party assets.
Sunoco Logistics’ refined products terminals receive refined products from pipelines, barges, railcars, and trucks and distribute them to third parties and certain affiliates, who in turn deliver them to end-users and retail outlets. Sunoco Logistics’ terminal facilities operate with an aggregate storage capacity of approximately 46 million barrels, including the 22 million barrel Nederland, Texas crude oil terminal; the 5 million barrel Eagle Point, New Jersey refined products and crude oil terminal; the 5 million barrel Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania refined products and NGL facility; approximately 39 active refined products marketing terminals located in the northeast, midwest and southwest United States; and several refinery terminals located in the northeast United States.
Sunoco Logistics’ refined product pipelines transport refined products including multiple grades of gasoline, middle distillates (such as heating oil, diesel and jet fuel) and LPGs (such as propane and butane) from refineries to markets. Sunoco Logistics’ refined products pipelines consist of approximately 2,500 miles of refined product pipelines and joint venture interests in four refined products pipelines in selected areas of the United States.
Retail Marketing Operations
ETP’s retail marketing and wholesale distribution business operations consists of the following:
Retail marketing operations consist of the sale of gasoline and middle distillates at retail locations and operation of convenience stores in 24 states, primarily on the east coast and in the midwest region of the United States. The highest concentrations of outlets are located in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Sunoco also engages in the distribution of gasoline (including gasoline blendstocks such as ethanol), distillates, and other petroleum products to wholesalers, retailers and other commercial customers.
ETP’s All Other Operations and Investments
ETP’s other operations and investments include the following:
ETP owns 100% of the membership interests of Energy Transfer Group, L.L.C. (“ETG”), which owns all of the partnership interests of Energy Transfer Technologies, Ltd. (“ETT”). ETT provides compression services to customers engaged in the transportation of natural gas, including ETP’s other operations.
ETP owns all of the outstanding equity interests of a natural gas compression equipment business with operations in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas.
ETP owns common units in AmeriGas, a publicly traded company engaged in retail propane marketing. ETP acquired this interest when it contributed its retail propane operations to AmeriGas in January 2012. As of December 31, 2013, ETP owned common units representing approximately 24% of AmeriGas’ outstanding common units and, following a sale of a portion of these units in a public offering in January 2014, ETP owns 12.9 million AmeriGas common units representing approximately 14% of AmeriGas’ outstanding common units.
Southern Union previously had operations providing local distribution of natural gas in Missouri and Massachusetts.  The operations were conducted through the Southern Union’s operating divisions:  MGE and NEG. Both of these operating divisions were disposed of in 2013.
Sunoco owns an approximate 33% non-operating interest in PES, a refining joint venture with The Carlyle Group, L.P. (“The Carlyle Group”), which owns a refinery in Philadelphia. Sunoco has a supply contract for gasoline and diesel produced at the refinery for its retail marketing business.
ETP owns an investment in Regency related to the Regency common and Class F units received by Southern Union in exchange of its interest in Southern Union Gathering Company, LLC to Regency on April 30, 2013.
ETP conducts marketing operations in which it markets the natural gas that flows through its gathering and intrastate transportation assets, referred to as on-system gas.

6


Investment in Regency
Regency’s operations include the following:
Gathering and Processing Operations
Regency provides “wellhead-to-market” services to producers of natural gas, which include transporting raw natural gas from the wellhead through gathering systems, processing raw natural gas to separate NGLs from the raw natural gas and selling or delivering the pipeline-quality natural gas and NGLs to various markets and pipeline systems, and the gathering of oil (crude and/or condensate, a lighter oil) received from producers. These operations also include Edwards Lime Gathering LLC and Regency’s 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. Regency completed its acquisition of SUGS on April 30, 2013 which was a transaction between entities under common control. Therefore, Regency’s Gathering and Processing operations amounts have been retrospectively adjusted to reflect the SUGS Acquisition beginning March 26, 2012, the date upon which common control began.
Natural Gas Transportation Operations
Regency owns a 49.99% general partner interest in HPC, which owns RIGS, a 450-mile intrastate pipeline that delivers natural gas from northwest Louisiana to downstream pipelines and markets, and a 50% membership interest in MEP, which owns a 500-mile interstate natural gas pipeline stretching from southeast Oklahoma through northeast Texas, northern Louisiana and central Mississippi to an interconnect with the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line system in Butler, Alabama. These operations also include Gulf States, which owns a 10-mile interstate pipeline that extends from Harrison County, Texas to Caddo Parish, Louisiana.
NGL Services Operations
Regency owns a 30% membership interest in Lone Star with ETP owning the remaining 70% membership interest.
Contract Services Operations
Regency owns and operates a fleet of compressors used to provide turn-key natural gas compression services for customer specific systems. Regency also owns and operates a fleet of equipment used to provide treating services, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide removal, natural gas cooling and dehydration.
Asset Overview
Investment in ETP
The following details the assets in ETP’s operations:
Intrastate Transportation and Storage
The following details pipelines and storage facilities in ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations:
ET Fuel System
Capacity of 5.2 Bcf/d
Approximately 2,870 miles of natural gas pipeline
Two storage facilities with 12.4 Bcf of total working gas capacity
Bi-directional capabilities
The ET Fuel System serves some of the most prolific production areas in the United States and is comprised of intrastate natural gas pipeline and related natural gas storage facilities. The ET Fuel System has many interconnections with pipelines providing direct access to power plants, other intrastate and interstate pipelines and is strategically located near high-growth production areas and provides access to the Waha Hub near Midland, Texas, the Katy Hub near Houston, Texas and the Carthage Hub in East Texas, the three major natural gas trading centers in Texas.
The ET Fuel System also includes ETP’s Bethel natural gas storage facility, with a working capacity of 6.4 Bcf, an average withdrawal capacity of 300 MMcf/d and an injection capacity of 75 MMcf/d, and ETP’s Bryson natural gas storage facility, with a working capacity of 6.0 Bcf, an average withdrawal capacity of 120 MMcf/d and an average injection capacity of 96 MMcf/d. All of ETP’s storage capacity on the ET Fuel System is contracted to third parties under fee-based arrangements that extend through 2015.

7


In addition, the ET Fuel System is integrated with ETP’s Godley processing plant which gives ETP the ability to bypass the plant when processing margins are unfavorable by blending the untreated natural gas from the North Texas System with natural gas on the ET Fuel System while continuing to meet pipeline quality specifications.
Oasis Pipeline
Capacity of 1.2 Bcf/d
Approximately 600 miles of natural gas pipeline
Connects Waha to Katy market hubs
Bi-directional capabilities
The Oasis pipeline is primarily a 36-inch natural gas pipeline. It has bi-directional capability with approximately 1.2 Bcf/d of throughput capacity moving west-to-east and greater than 750 MMcf/d of throughput capacity moving east-to-west. The Oasis pipeline has many interconnections with other pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, municipalities and producers.
The Oasis pipeline is integrated with ETP’s Southeast Texas System and is an important component to maximizing ETP’s Southeast Texas System’s profitability. The Oasis pipeline enhances the Southeast Texas System by (i) providing access for natural gas on the Southeast Texas System to other third party supply and market points and interconnecting pipelines and (ii) allowing ETP to bypass ETP’s processing plants and treating facilities on the Southeast Texas System when processing margins are unfavorable by blending untreated natural gas from the Southeast Texas System with gas on the Oasis pipeline while continuing to meet pipeline quality specifications.
HPL System
Capacity of 5.3 Bcf/d
Approximately 3,900 miles of natural gas pipeline
Bammel storage facility with 62 Bcf of total working gas capacity
The HPL System is an extensive network of intrastate natural gas pipelines, an underground Bammel storage reservoir and related transportation assets. The system has access to multiple sources of historically significant natural gas supply reserves from South Texas, the Gulf Coast of Texas, East Texas and the western Gulf of Mexico, and is directly connected to major gas distribution, electric and industrial load centers in Houston, Corpus Christi, Texas City and other cities located along the Gulf Coast of Texas. The HPL System is well situated to gather and transport gas in many of the major gas producing areas in Texas including the 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 62 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, 2013, ETP had approximately 7.2 Bcf committed under fee-based arrangements with third parties and approximately 45.8 Bcf stored in the facility for ETP’s own account.
ETP is currently converting approximately 84 miles of pipeline from the HPL System to crude service. This project is expected to be completed in 2014.
East Texas Pipeline
Capacity of 2.4 Bcf/d
Approximately 370 miles of natural gas pipeline
The East Texas pipeline connects three treating facilities, one of which ETP owns, with ETP’s Southeast Texas System. The East Texas pipeline was the first phase of a multi-phased project that increased service to producers in East and North Central Texas and provided access to the Katy Hub. The East Texas pipeline expansions include 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.

8


Interstate Transportation and Storage
The following details ETP’s pipelines in the interstate transportation and storage operations.
Florida Gas Transmission Pipeline
Capacity of 3.1 Bcf/d
Approximately 5,400 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline
FGT is owned by Citrus, a 50/50 joint venture with Kinder Morgan, Inc. (“KMI”)
The Florida Gas Transmission pipeline is an open-access interstate pipeline system with a mainline capacity of 3.1 Bcf/d and approximately 5,400 miles of pipelines extending from south Texas through the Gulf Coast region of the United States to south Florida. The Florida Gas Transmission pipeline system receives natural gas from various onshore and offshore natural gas producing basins. FGT is the principal transporter of natural gas to the Florida energy market, delivering over 63% of the natural gas consumed in the state. In addition, Florida Gas Transmission’s pipeline system operates and maintains over 75 interconnects with major interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines, which provide FGT’s customers access to diverse natural gas producing regions.
FGT’s customers include electric utilities, independent power producers, industrials and local distribution companies.
Transwestern Pipeline
Capacity of 2.1 Bcf/d
Approximately 2,600 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline
Bi-directional capabilities
The Transwestern pipeline is an open-access interstate natural gas pipeline extending from the gas producing regions of West Texas, eastern and northwestern New Mexico, and southern Colorado primarily to pipeline interconnects off the east end of its system and to pipeline interconnects at the California border. The Transwestern pipeline has access to three significant gas basins: the Permian Basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico; the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico and southern Colorado; and the Anadarko Basin in the Texas and Oklahoma panhandle. Natural gas sources from the San Juan Basin and surrounding producing areas can be delivered eastward to Texas intrastate and mid-continent connecting pipelines and natural gas market hubs as well as westward to markets in Arizona, Nevada and California. Transwestern’s Phoenix lateral pipeline, with a throughput capacity of 500 MMcf/d, connects the Phoenix area to the Transwestern mainline.
Transwestern’s customers include local distribution companies, producers, marketers, electric power generators and industrial end-users. Transwestern transports natural gas in interstate commerce.
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Capacity of 2.8 Bcf/d
Approximately 6,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline
Bi-directional capabilities
The Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line’s transmission system consists of four large diameter pipelines extending approximately 1,300 miles from producing areas in the Anadarko Basin of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas through Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and into Michigan. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line is owned by a subsidiary of Holdco.
Trunkline Gas Pipeline
Capacity of 1.7 Bcf/d
Approximately 3,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline
Bi-directional capabilities
The Trunkline Gas pipeline’s transmission system consists of two large diameter pipelines extending approximately 1,400 miles from the Gulf Coast areas of Texas and Louisiana through Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana and to Michigan. Trunkline Gas pipeline is owned by a subsidiary of Holdco.
ETP is currently developing plans to convert a portion of the Trunkline gas pipeline to crude oil transportation.

9


Tiger Pipeline
Capacity of 2.4 Bcf/d
Approximately 195 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline
Bi-directional capabilities
The Tiger pipeline is an approximately 195-mile interstate natural gas pipeline that connects to ETP’s dual 42-inch pipeline system near Carthage, Texas, extends through the heart of the Haynesville Shale and ends near Delhi, Louisiana, with interconnects to at least seven interstate pipelines at various points in Louisiana. The pipeline has a capacity of 2.4 Bcf/d, all of which is sold under long-term contracts ranging from 10 to 15 years.
Fayetteville Express Pipeline
Capacity of 2.0 Bcf/d
Approximately 185 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline
50/50 joint venture through ETC FEP with Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP
The Fayetteville Express pipeline is an approximately 185-mile interstate natural gas pipeline that originates near Conway County, Arkansas, continues eastward through White County, Arkansas and terminates at an interconnect with Trunkline Gas Company in Panola County, Mississippi. The pipeline has long-term contracts for 1.85 Bcf/d ranging from 10 to 12 years.
Sea Robin Pipeline
Capacity of 2.3 Bcf/d
Approximately 1,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline
The Sea Robin pipeline’s transmission system consists of two offshore Louisiana natural gas supply systems extending approximately 120 miles into the Gulf of Mexico.
Midstream
The following details ETP assets in its midstream operations:
Southeast Texas System
Approximately 5,900 miles of natural gas pipeline
One natural gas processing plant (La Grange) with aggregate capacity of 210 MMcf/d
11 natural gas treating facilities with aggregate capacity of 1.4 Bcf/d
One natural gas conditioning facility with aggregate capacity of 200 MMcf/d
The Southeast Texas System is an integrated system that gathers, compresses, treats, processes and transports natural gas from the Austin Chalk trend. The Southeast Texas System is a large natural gas gathering system covering thirteen counties between Austin and Houston. This system is connected to the Katy Hub through the East Texas pipeline and is connected to the Oasis pipeline, as well as two power plants. This allows ETP to bypass processing plants and treating facilities when processing margins are unfavorable by blending untreated natural gas from the Southeast Texas System with natural gas on the Oasis pipeline while continuing to meet pipeline quality specifications.
The La Grange processing plant is a natural gas processing plant that processes the rich natural gas that flows through ETP’s system to produce residue gas and NGLs. Residue gas is delivered into ETP’s intrastate pipelines and NGLs are delivered into ETP’s recently acquired or completed pipelines.
ETP’s treating facilities remove carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from natural gas gathered into ETP’s system before the natural gas is introduced to transportation pipelines to ensure that the gas meets pipeline quality specifications. In addition, ETP’s conditioning facilities remove heavy hydrocarbons from the gas gathered into ETP’s systems so the gas can be redelivered and meet downstream pipeline hydrocarbon dew point specifications.
North Texas System
Approximately 160 miles of natural gas pipeline
One natural gas processing plant (the Godley plant) with aggregate capacity of 700 MMcf/d
One natural gas conditioning facility with capacity of 100 MMcf/d

10


The North Texas System is an integrated system located in four counties in North Texas that gathers, compresses, treats, processes and transports natural gas from the Barnett and Woodford Shales. The system includes ETP’s Godley processing plant, which processes rich natural gas produced from the Barnett Shale and is integrated with the North Texas System and the ET Fuel System. The facility consists of a processing plant and a conditioning facility.
Northern Louisiana
Approximately 280 miles of natural gas pipeline
Three natural gas treating facilities with aggregate capacity of 385 MMcf/d
ETP’s Northern Louisiana assets comprise several gathering systems in the Haynesville Shale with access to multiple markets through interconnects with several pipelines, including ETP’s Tiger pipeline. The Northern Louisiana assets include the Bistineau, Creedence, and Tristate Systems.
Eagle Ford System
Approximately 245 miles of natural gas pipeline
Three processing plants (Chisholm, Kenedy and Jackson) with capacity of 920 MMcf/d
One natural gas treating facility with capacity of 300 MMcf/d
The Eagle Ford gathering system consists of 30-inch and 42-inch natural gas transportation pipelines delivering 1.4 Bcf/d of capacity originating in Dimmitt County, Texas and extending to ETP’s Chisholm pipeline for ultimate deliveries to ETP 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 NGL pipelines for delivery of NGLs.
Other Midstream Assets
The midstream operations also include ETP’s interests in various midstream assets located in Texas, New Mexico and Louisiana, with approximately 60 miles of gathering pipelines aggregating a combined capacity of approximately 115 MMcf/d, as well as one conditioning facility. ETP also owns approximately 35 miles of gathering pipelines serving the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia with aggregate capacity of approximately 250 MMcf/d.
NGL Transportation and Services
The following details ETP’s assets in the NGL transportation and services operations. Certain assets described below are owned by Lone Star, a joint venture with Regency.
West Texas System
Capacity of 137,000 Bbls/d
Approximately 1,070 miles of NGL transmission pipelines
The West Texas System, owned by Lone Star, is an intrastate NGL pipeline consisting of 3-inch to 16-inch long-haul, mixed NGLs transportation pipeline that delivers 137,000 Bbls/d of capacity from processing plants in the Permian Basin and Barnett Shale to the Mont Belvieu NGL storage facility.
West Texas Gateway Pipeline
Capacity of 209,000 Bbls/d
Approximately 570 miles of NGL transmission pipeline
The West Texas Gateway Pipeline, owned by Lone Star, began service in December 2012 and transports NGLs produced in the Permian and Delaware Basins and the Eagle Ford Shale to Mont Belvieu, Texas.
Other NGL Pipelines
Aggregate capacity of 490,000 Bbls/d
Approximately 274 miles of NGL transmission pipelines
Other NGL pipelines include the 127-mile Justice pipeline with capacity of 340,000 Bbls/d, the 87-mile Liberty pipeline with a capacity of 90,000 Bbls/d, the 45-mile Freedom pipeline with a capacity of 40,000 Bbls/d and the 15-mile Spirit pipeline with a capacity of 20,000 Bbls/d.

11


Mont Belvieu Facilities
Working storage capacity of approximately 43 million Bbls
Approximately 185 miles of NGL transmission pipelines
200,000 Bbls/d fractionation facilities
The Mont Belvieu storage facility, owned by Lone Star, is an integrated liquids storage facility with over 43 million Bbls of salt dome capacity and 23 million Bbls of brine pond 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 November 2013, respectively, handle NGLs delivered from several sources, including Lone Star’s West Texas Gateway pipeline and the Justice pipeline.
Hattiesburg Storage Facility
Working storage capacity of approximately 4 million Bbls
The Hattiesburg storage facility, owned by Lone Star, is an integrated liquids storage facility with approximately 4 million Bbls of salt dome capacity, providing 100% fee-based cash flows.
Sea Robin Processing Plant
One processing plant with 850 MMcf/d residue capacity and 26,000 Bbls/d NGL capacity
20% non-operating interest held by Lone Star
Sea Robin is a rich gas processing plant located on the Sea Robin Pipeline in southern Louisiana. The plant, which is connected to nine interstate and four intrastate residue pipelines as well as various deep-water production fields, has a residue capacity of 850 MMcf/d and an NGL capacity of 26,000 Bbls/d.
Refinery Services
Two processing plants (Chalmette and Sorrento) with capacity of 54 MMcf/d
One NGL fractionator with 25,000 Bbls/d capacity
Approximately 100 miles of NGL pipelines
Refinery Services, owned by Lone Star, consists of a refinery off-gas processing and O-grade NGL fractionation complex located along the Mississippi River refinery corridor in southern Louisiana that cryogenically processes refinery off-gas and fractionates the O-grade NGL stream into its higher value components. The O-grade fractionator located in Geismar, Louisiana is connected by approximately 100 miles of pipeline to the Chalmette processing plant.
Investment in Sunoco Logistics
The following details ETP’s assets in its investment in Sunoco Logistics:
Crude Oil Pipelines
Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines consist of approximately 4,900 miles of crude oil trunk pipelines and approximately 500 miles of crude oil gathering pipelines in the southwest and midwest United States. These lines primarily deliver crude oil and other feedstocks to refineries in those regions. Following is a description of Sunoco Logistics’ crude pipelines:
Southwest United States: The Southwest United States pipeline system includes approximately 2,950 miles of crude oil trunk pipelines and approximately 300 miles of crude oil gathering pipelines in Texas. The Texas system includes the West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company’s 600 miles of common carrier crude oil pipelines, which originate from the West Texas oil fields at Colorado City, Texas and is connected to the Mid-Valley pipeline, other third-party pipelines and the Nederland Terminal.
The Southwest United States pipeline system also includes the Oklahoma crude oil pipeline and gathering system that consists of approximately 850 miles of crude oil trunk pipelines and approximately 200 miles of crude oil gathering pipelines. Sunoco Logistics has the ability to deliver substantially all of the crude oil gathered on the Oklahoma system to Cushing, Oklahoma and is one of the largest purchasers of crude oil from producers in the state.
Midwest United States: The Midwest United States pipeline system includes Sunoco Logistics’ majority interest in the Mid-Valley Pipeline Company and consists of approximately 1,000 miles of a crude oil pipeline that originates in Longview, Texas

12


and passes through Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio, and terminates in Samaria, Michigan. This pipeline provides crude oil to a number of refineries, primarily in the midwest United States.
Sunoco Logistics also owns approximately 100 miles of crude oil pipeline that runs from Marysville, Michigan to Toledo, Ohio, and a truck injection point for local production at Marysville. This pipeline receives crude oil from the Enbridge pipeline system for delivery to refineries located in Toledo, Ohio and to Marathon’s Samaria, Michigan tank farm, which supplies its refinery in Detroit, Michigan.
Crude Oil Acquisition and Marketing
Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil acquisition and marketing activities include the gathering, purchasing, marketing and selling of crude oil primarily in the mid-continent United States. The operations are conducted using approximately 300 crude oil transport trucks, approximately 130 crude oil truck unloading facilities, as well as third-party assets. Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil truck drivers pick up crude oil at production lease sites and transport it to various truck unloading facilities on its pipelines and third-party pipelines. Third-party trucking firms are also retained to transport crude oil to certain facilities. Specifically, the crude oil acquisition and marketing activities include:
purchasing crude oil at the wellhead from producers, and in bulk from aggregators at major pipeline interconnections and trading locations;
storing inventory during contango market conditions (when the price of crude oil for future delivery is higher than current prices);
buying and selling crude oil of different grades, at different locations in order to maximize value for producers;
transporting crude oil on Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines and trucks or, when necessary or cost effective, pipelines or trucks owned and operated by third parties; and
marketing crude oil to major integrated oil companies, independent refiners and resellers through various types of sale and exchange transactions.
Terminal Facilities
Sunoco Logistics’ 39 active refined products terminals receive refined products from pipelines, barges, railcars, and trucks and distribute them to Sunoco and to third parties, who in turn deliver them to end-users and retail outlets. Terminals are facilities where products are transferred to or from storage or transportation systems, such as a pipeline, to other transportation systems, such as trucks or other pipelines. The operation of these facilities is called “terminalling.”
Terminals play a key role in moving product to the end-user markets by providing the following services: storage; distribution; blending to achieve specified grades of gasoline and middle distillates; and other ancillary services that include the injection of additives and the filtering of jet fuel. Typically, Sunoco Logistics’ refined products terminal facilities consist of multiple storage tanks and are equipped with automated truck loading equipment that is operational 24 hours a day. This automated system provides controls over allocations, credit, and carrier certification.
Nederland Terminal: The Nederland Terminal, which is 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. The terminal receives, stores, and distributes crude oil, 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 22 million barrels in approximately 130 above ground storage tanks with individual capacities of up to 660,000 barrels.
The Nederland Terminal can receive crude oil at each of its five ship docks and three barge berths. The five ship docks are capable of receiving over 2 million Bbls/d of crude oil. In addition to Sunoco Logistics’ Crude Oil Pipelines, the terminal can also receive crude oil through a number of other pipelines, including: the Cameron Highway pipeline, which is jointly owned by Enterprise Products and Genesis Energy; the ExxonMobil Pegasus pipeline; the Department of Energy (“DOE”) Big Hill pipeline; and the DOE West Hackberry pipeline. The DOE pipelines connect the terminal to the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve’s West Hackberry caverns at Hackberry, Louisiana and Big Hill near Winnie, Texas, which have an aggregate storage capacity of approximately 400 million barrels.
The Nederland Terminal can deliver crude oil and other petroleum products via pipeline, barge, ship, rail, or truck. In total, the terminal is capable of delivering over 2 million Bbls/d of crude oil to Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines or a number of third-party pipelines including: the ExxonMobil pipeline to its Beaumont, Texas refinery; the DOE pipelines to the Big

13


Hill and West Hackberry Strategic Petroleum Reserve caverns; the Valero pipeline to its Port Arthur, Texas refinery; and the Total pipelines to its Port Arthur, Texas refinery.
Fort Mifflin Terminal Complex: The Fort Mifflin Terminal Complex is located on the Delaware River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and includes the Fort Mifflin Terminal, the Hog Island Wharf, the Darby Creek tank farm and connecting pipelines. Revenues are generated from the Fort Mifflin Terminal Complex by charging fees based on throughput. The Fort Mifflin Terminal contains two ship docks with 40-foot freshwater drafts and a total storage capacity of approximately 570,000 barrels. Crude oil and some refined products enter the Fort Mifflin Terminal primarily from marine vessels on the Delaware River. One Fort Mifflin dock is designed to handle crude oil from very large crude carrier-class ("VLCC") tankers and smaller crude oil vessels. The other dock can accommodate only smaller crude oil vessels. In September 2012, Sunoco completed the formation of PES, a joint venture with The Carlyle Group. In connection with this transaction, Sunoco Logistics entered into a ten-year agreement to provide terminalling services to PES at the Fort Mifflin Terminal Complex.
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. This facility has a total storage capacity of approximately 3 million barrels. Darby Creek receives crude oil from the Fort Mifflin Terminal and Hog Island Wharf via Sunoco Logistics pipelines. The tank farm then stores the crude oil and transports it to the PES refinery via Sunoco Logistics pipelines.
Marcus Hook Facility: In 2013, Sunoco Logistics acquired Sunoco’s Marcus Hook facility and related assets. The acquisition included terminalling and storage assets located in Pennsylvania and Delaware, including approximately 5 million barrels of NGL storage capacity in underground caverns, and related commercial agreements. The facility can receive NGLs via marine vessel, pipeline, truck and rail, and can deliver via marine vessel, pipeline and truck. In addition to providing NGL storage and terminalling services to both affiliates and third-party customers, the Marcus Hook facility also provides customers with the use of industrial space and equipment at the facility, as well as logistical, utility and infrastructure services.
The Marcus Hook tank farm has a total storage capacity of approximately 2 million barrels. The terminal generates revenue from throughput and storage, and delivers and receives refined products via pipeline. Sunoco Logistics utilizes the tank farm assets to provide terminalling services and to support movements on its refined products pipelines.
Eagle Point Terminal: The Eagle Point Terminal is located in Westville, New Jersey and consists of docks, truck loading facilities and a tank farm. The docks are located on the Delaware River and can accommodate three 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 5 million barrels and can receive crude oil and refined products via barge, pipeline and rail. The terminal can deliver via barge, truck, rail or pipeline, providing customers with access to various markets. The terminal generates revenue primarily by charging fees based on throughput, blending services and storage for clean products and dark oils.
Inkster Terminal: The Inkster Terminal, located near Detroit, Michigan, consists of eight salt caverns with a total storage capacity of approximately 975,000 barrels. The Inkster Terminal’s storage is used in connection with the Toledo, Ohio to Sarnia, Canada pipeline system and for the storage of LPGs from Canada and a refinery in Toledo. The terminal can receive and ship LPGs in both directions at the same time and has a propane truck loading rack.

14


The following table outlines the number of Sunoco Logistics’ active terminals and storage capacity by state:
State
 
Number of Terminals
 
Storage Capacity (thousands of Bbls)
Indiana
 
1

 
206

Louisiana
 
1

 
161

Maryland
 
1

 
710

Massachusetts
 
1

 
1,144

Michigan
 
3

 
760

New Jersey
 
3

 
650

New York(1)
 
4

 
920

Ohio
 
7

 
957

Pennsylvania
 
13

 
1,743

Texas
 
4

 
548

Virginia
 
1

 
403

Total
 
39

 
8,202

(1)
Sunoco Logistics has a 45% ownership interest in a terminal at Inwood, New York and a 50% ownership interest in a terminal at Syracuse, New York. The storage capacities included in the table represent the proportionate share of capacity attributable to Sunoco Logistics’ ownership interests in these terminals.
Refined Products Pipelines
Sunoco Logistics owns and operates approximately 2,500 miles of refined products pipelines in several regions of the United States. The refined products pipelines primarily transport refined products from refineries in the northeast, midwest and southwest United States to markets in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Texas. These pipelines include the approximately 350 miles of pipelines owned by Sunoco Logistics’ consolidated joint venture, Inland.
The refined products transported in these pipelines include multiple grades of gasoline, middle distillates (such as heating oil, diesel and jet fuel), and LPGs (such as propane and butane). In addition, certain of these pipelines transport NGLs from processing and fractionation areas to marketing and distribution facilities. Rates for shipments on the refined products pipelines are regulated by the FERC and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PA PUC”), among other state regulatory agencies.
Inland Corporation: Inland Corporation (“Inland”) is Sunoco Logistics’ 83.8% owned joint venture consisting of approximately 350 miles of active refined products pipelines in Ohio. The pipeline connects three refineries in Ohio to terminals and major markets within the state. As Sunoco Logistics owns a controlling financial interest in Inland, the joint venture is reflected as a consolidated subsidiary in its consolidated financial statements.
Sunoco Logistics owns equity interests in several common carrier refined products pipelines, summarized in the following table:
Pipeline
 
Equity Ownership
 
Pipeline Mileage
Explorer Pipeline Company(1)
 
9.4
%
 
1,850

Yellowstone Pipe Line Company(2)
 
14.0
%
 
700

West Shore Pipe Line Company(3)
 
17.1
%
 
650

Wolverine Pipe Line Company(4)
 
31.5
%
 
700

(1)
The system, which is operated by Explorer employees, originates from the refining centers of Beaumont, Port Arthur and Houston, Texas, and extends to Chicago, Illinois, with delivery points in the Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Tulsa, St. Louis, and Chicago areas. Explorer charges market-based rates for all its tariffs.
(2)
The system, which is operated by Phillips 66, originates from the Billings, Montana refining center and extends to Moses Lake, Washington with delivery points along the way. Tariff rates are regulated by the FERC for interstate shipments and the Montana Public Service Commission for intrastate shipments in Montana.

15


(3)
The system, which is operated by Buckeye Partners, L.P., originates from the Chicago, Illinois refining center and extends to Madison and Green Bay, Wisconsin with delivery points along the way. West Shore charges market-based tariff rates in the Chicago area.
(4)
The system, which is operated by Wolverine employees, originates from Chicago, Illinois and extends to Detroit, Grand Haven, and Bay City, Michigan with delivery points along the way. Wolverine charges market-based rates for tariffs at the Detroit, Jackson, Niles, Hammond, and Lockport destinations.
Retail Marketing
ETP’s retail marketing operations consists of the retail sale of gasoline and middle distillates and the operation of Sunoco and MACS convenience stores in 24 states, primarily on the east coast and in the midwest region of the United States. The highest concentrations of outlets are located in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Retail marketing has a portfolio of outlets that differ in various ways including: product distribution to the outlets; site ownership and operation; and types of products and services provided.
Direct outlets may be operated by Sunoco (either directly or through a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETC OLP) or by an independent dealer, and are sites at which fuel products are delivered directly to the site by Sunoco trucks or by contract carriers. Sunoco or an independent dealer owns or leases the property. Some of these sites may be traditional locations that sell fuel products under the Sunoco®, Exxon®, Mobil® and Coastal® brands. The site may also include APlus® or Circle K® convenience store or Ultra Service Centers® that provide automotive diagnostics and repair. Included among the direct outlets at December 31, 2013 were 74 outlets on turnpikes and expressways in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ohio and Delaware. Of these outlets, 59 were Sunoco-operated sites providing gasoline, diesel fuel and convenience store merchandise.
Distributor outlets are sites in which the distributor takes delivery of fuel products at a terminal where branded products are available. Sunoco does not own, lease or operate these locations.
The following table sets forth ETP’s retail gasoline outlets at December 31, 2013 (including sites operated through Sunoco and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETC OLP):
Direct Outlets:
 
 
Company-Owned or Leased:
 
 
Company Operated:
 
 
Traditional
 
66

APlus® and Circle K® Convenience Stores
 
447

 
 
513

Dealer Operated:
 
 
Traditional
 
252

APlus® and Circle K® Convenience Stores
 
241

Ultra Service Centers®
 
83

 
 
576

Total Company-Owned or Leased(1)
 
1,089

Dealer Owned(2)
 
525

Total Direct Outlets
 
1,614

Distributor Outlets
 
3,498

 
 
5,112

(1)
Gasoline and diesel throughput per company-operated site averaged 200,087 gallons per month during 2013.
(2)
Primarily traditional outlets.
Sunoco’s branded fuels sales (including middle distillates) averaged 315,700 Bbls/d in 2013.
The Sunoco® brand is positioned as a premium brand. Brand improvements in recent years have focused on physical image, customer service and product offerings. In addition, Sunoco believes its brands and high performance gasoline business have benefited from its sponsorship agreements with NASCAR® and INDYCAR®. Under the sponsorship agreement with NASCAR®,

16


which continues until 2019, Sunoco® is the Official Fuel of NASCAR® and APlus® is the Official Convenience Store of NASCAR®. Sunoco has exclusive rights to use certain NASCAR® trademarks to advertise and promote Sunoco products and is the exclusive fuel supplier for the three major NASCAR® racing series. Sunoco has an agreement to be the Official Fuel of the INDYCAR® series through the 2014 season.
Sunoco’s APlus® convenience stores are located principally in Florida, New York and Pennsylvania. These stores supplement sales of fuel products with a broad mix of merchandise such as groceries, fast foods, beverages and tobacco products. The following table sets forth information concerning Sunoco’s company-operated APlus® convenience stores at December 31, 2013:
Number of stores
 
384

Merchandise sales (thousands of dollars/store/month)
 
$
108

Merchandise margin (% sales)
 
26.8
%
The retail marketing operations also include the distribution of gasoline, distillates and other petroleum products to wholesalers, unbranded retailers and other commercial customers.
Investment in Regency
The following details the assets in Regency’s natural gas operations:
Gathering and Processing Operations
North Louisiana Region
Approximately 1,201 miles of natural gas pipeline
Two cryogenic natural gas processing facilities, a refrigeration plant, a conditioning plant and two amine treating plants
Regency’s North Louisiana assets gather, compress, treat and dehydrate natural gas in five Parishes (Claiborne, Union, DeSoto, Lincoln and Ouachita) of north Louisiana and Shelby County, Texas. Its assets also include two cryogenic natural gas processing facilities, a refrigeration plant located in Bossier Parish, a conditioning plant located in Webster Parish, an amine treating plant in DeSoto Parish, an amine treating plant in Lincoln Parish, and an interstate NGL pipeline.
In the second quarter of 2013, Regency placed into service an expansion of the Dubach processing facility in North Louisiana that increased the processing capacity of the system to 210 MMcf/d and added high-pressure gathering lines to bring production to the facility.
In mid-2013, Regency began an expansion project to increase the gathering capacity of Regency’s Dubberly facility by 400 MMcf/d and a 200 MMcf/d processing upgrade, for $68 million, which is expected to be completed in early 2014.
Through the gathering and processing systems described above and their interconnections with RIGS in North Louisiana, Regency offers producers wellhead-to-market services, including natural gas gathering, compression, processing, treating and transportation.
South Texas Region
Approximately 1,310 miles of natural gas pipeline
Three treating plants
Regency’s South Texas assets gather, compress, treat and dehydrate natural gas in Bee, LaSalle, Webb, Karnes, Atascosa, McMullen, Frio and Dimmitt counties. Some of the natural gas produced in this region can have significant quantities of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide that require treating to remove these impurities. The pipeline systems that gather this gas are connected to third-party processing plants and Regency’s treating facilities that include an acid gas reinjection well located in McMullen County, Texas. Regency also gathers oil for producers in the region and delivers it to tanks for further transportation by truck or pipeline.
The natural gas supply for Regency’s South Texas gathering systems is derived from a combination of natural gas wells located in a mature basin that generally have long lives and predictable gas flow rates and the NGLs-rich and oil-rich Eagle Ford shale formation, which lies directly under Regency’s existing South Texas gathering system infrastructure.
Regency owns a 60% interest in Edwards Lime Gathering LLC, Talisman Energy USA Inc. and Statoil Texas Onshore Properties LP owns the remaining 40% interest. Regency operates a natural gas gathering oil pipeline and oil stabilization facilities for the joint venture while its joint venture partners operate a lean gas gathering system in the Edwards Lime natural gas trend that delivers

17


to this system. In October 2013, an expansion of Edwards Lime Gathering LLC was completed to increase the system’s capacity to 160 MMcf/d and provide for oil transportation and stabilization capacity of 17,000 Bbls/d.
Permian Region
Approximately 6,597 miles of natural gas pipeline
Seven processing and treating plants, a cryogenic natural gas processing plants, and a refrigeration plant
Regency’s Permian Basin gathering system assets offer wellhead-to-market services to producers in the Texas counties of Ward, Winkler, Reeves and Pecos counties which surround the Waha Hub, one of Texas' developing NGLs-rich natural gas market areas. As a result of the proximity of Regency’s system to the Waha Hub, the Waha gathering system has a variety of market outlets for the natural gas that we gather and process, including several major interstate and intrastate pipelines serving California, the mid-continent region of the United States and Texas natural gas markets. The NGL market outlets include Lone Star’s NGL pipeline. Regency expanded its Permian Basin region through the SUGS acquisition, which increased their presence in the Permian Basin of Texas into Crocket, Upton, Crane, Ector, Culberson, Reagan and Andrews counties, as well as into the Eddy and Lea counties of New Mexico.
Regency offers producers up to four different levels of natural gas compression on the Permian Basin gathering systems, as compared to the two levels typically offered in the industry. By offering multiple levels of compression, Regency’s gathering system is often more cost-effective for producers, since the producer is typically not required to pay for a level of compression that is higher than the level they require.
Regency’s Permian region assets consist of a network of natural gas and NGL pipelines, seven processing plants and seven natural gas treating plants. These assets offer a broad array of services to producers including field gathering and compression of natural gas; treating, dehydration, sulfur recovery and reinjection and other conditioning; and natural gas processing and marketing of natural gas and NGLs.
In August 2013, Regency placed into service the $330 million expansion of Regency’s Red Bluff processing plant, which increased capacity to 940 MMcf/d.
Regency also owns a 33.33% membership interest in Ranch JV which processes natural gas delivered from the NGLs-rich Bone Spring and Avalon shale formations in West Texas. The joint venture owns a 25 MMcf/d refrigeration plant and a 100 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant.
Mid-Continent Region
Approximately 3,493 miles of natural gas pipeline
One processing plant
Regency’s mid-continent systems are located in two large natural gas producing regions in the United States, the Hugoton Basin in southwest Kansas and the Anadarko Basin in western Oklahoma. These mature basins have continued to provide generally long-lived, predictable production volume. Regency’s mid-continent gathering assets are extensive systems that gather, compress and dehydrate low-pressure gas from 1,500 wells. These systems are geographically concentrated, with each central facility located within 90 miles of the others. Regency operates its mid-continent gathering systems at low pressures to maximize the total throughput volumes from the connected wells. Wellhead pressures are therefore adequate to allow for flow of natural gas into the gathering lines without the cost of wellhead compression.
Regency also owns the Hugoton gathering system that has 1,900 miles of pipeline extending over nine counties in Kansas and Oklahoma. This system is operated by a third party.
Natural Gas Transportation Operations

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

MEP pipeline system, operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, has the capability to transport up to 1.8 Bcf/d of natural gas, and the pipeline capacity is fully subscribed with long-term binding commitments from creditworthy shippers. Results of MEP’s operations are determined primarily by the volumes of natural gas transported and subscribed on its interstate pipeline system and the level of fees charged to customers. MEP generates revenues and margins principally under fee-based transportation

18


contracts. The margin MEP earns is primarily related to fixed capacity reservation charges that are not directly dependent on throughput volumes or commodity prices. If a sustained decline in commodity prices should result in a decline in volumes, MEP’s revenues would not be significantly impacted until expiration of the current contracts.

Gulf States is a small interstate pipeline that uses cost-based rates and terms and conditions of service for shippers wishing to secure capacity for interstate transportation service. Rates charged are largely governed by long-term negotiated rate agreements.
NGL Services Operations
Regency owns a 30% membership interest in Lone Star, which is a joint venture with ETP owning the remaining 70% membership interest. See “NGL Transportation and Services” under ETP’s asset overview discussion for additional details.
Contract Services Operations
Regency’s contract services operations can be divided into contract compression services and contract treating services. The natural gas contract compression services include designing, sourcing, owning, installing, operating, servicing, repairing and maintaining compressors and related equipment for which Regency guarantees their customers 98% mechanical availability for land installations and 96% mechanical availability for over-water installations. Regency focuses on meeting the complex requirements of field-wide compression applications, as opposed to targeting the compression needs of individual wells within a field. These field-wide applications include compression for natural gas gathering and natural gas processing. Regency believes that it improves the stability of its cash flow by focusing on field-wide compression applications because such applications generally involve long-term installations of multiple large horsepower compression units. Regency’s contract compression operations are located in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Colorado and California.
Regency owns and operates a fleet of equipment used to provide treating services, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide removal, natural gas cooling, dehydration and BTU management. Regency’s contract treating services are primarily located in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas.
Competition
Natural Gas
The business of providing natural gas gathering, compression, treating, transporting, storing and marketing services is highly competitive. Since pipelines are generally the only practical mode of transportation for natural gas over land, the most significant competitors of our transportation and storage operations are other pipelines. Pipelines typically compete with each other based on location, capacity, price and reliability.
We face competition with respect to retaining and obtaining significant natural gas supplies under terms favorable to us for the gathering, treating and marketing portions of our business. Our competitors include major integrated oil companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines and companies that gather, compress, treat, process, transport and market natural gas. Many of our competitors, such as major oil and gas and pipeline companies, have capital resources and control supplies of natural gas substantially greater than ours.
In marketing natural gas, we have numerous competitors, including marketing affiliates of interstate pipelines, major integrated oil companies, and local and national natural gas gatherers, brokers and marketers of widely varying sizes, financial resources and experience. Local utilities and distributors of natural gas are, in some cases, engaged directly, and through affiliates, in marketing activities that compete with our marketing operations.
NGL
In markets served by our NGL pipelines, we face competition with other pipeline companies and barge, rail and truck fleet operations. We face competition with other storage facilities based on fees charged and the ability to receive and distribute the customer’s products.
Crude and Refined Products
In markets served by our refined products and crude oil pipelines, we face competition with other pipelines. Generally, pipelines are the lowest cost method for long-haul, overland movement of refined products. Therefore, the most significant competitors for large volume shipments in the areas served by our pipelines are other pipelines. In addition, pipeline operations face competition from trucks that deliver product in a number of areas that our pipeline operations serve. While their costs may not be competitive for longer hauls or large volume shipments, trucks compete effectively for incremental and marginal volume in many areas served by our pipelines.

19


We also face competition among common carrier pipelines carrying crude oil. This competition is based primarily on transportation charges, access to crude oil supply and market demand. Similar to pipelines carrying refined products, the high capital costs deter competitors for the crude oil pipeline systems from building new pipelines. Crude oil purchasing and marketing activities’ competitive factors are price and contract flexibility, quantity and quality of services, and accessibility to end markets.
Our refined product terminals compete with other independent terminals with respect to price, versatility and services provided. The competition primarily comes from integrated petroleum companies, refining and marketing companies, independent terminal companies and distribution companies with marketing and trading operations.
Retail Marketing
We face strong competition in the market for the sale of retail gasoline and merchandise. Our competitors include service stations of large integrated oil companies, independent gasoline service stations, convenience stores, fast food stores, and other similar retail outlets, some of which are well-recognized national or regional retail systems. The number of competitors varies depending on the geographical area. It also varies with gasoline and convenience store offerings. The principal competitive factors affecting our retail marketing operations include gasoline and diesel acquisition costs, site location, product price, selection and quality, site appearance and cleanliness, hours of operation, store safety, customer loyalty and brand recognition. We compete by pricing gasoline competitively, combining retail gasoline business with convenience stores that provide a wide variety of products, and using advertising and promotional campaigns. We believe that we are in a position to compete effectively as a marketer of refined products because of the location of our retail network, which is well integrated with the distribution system operated by Sunoco Logistics.
Credit Risk and Customers
Credit risk refers to the risk that a counterparty may default on its contractual obligations resulting in a loss to the Partnership. Credit policies have been approved and implemented to govern the Partnership’s portfolio of counterparties with the objective of mitigating credit losses. These policies establish guidelines, controls and limits to manage credit risk within approved tolerances by mandating an appropriate evaluation of the financial condition of existing and potential counterparties, monitoring agency credit ratings, and by implementing credit practices that limit exposure according to the risk profiles of the counterparties. Furthermore, the Partnership may at times require collateral under certain circumstances to mitigate credit risk as necessary. We also implement the use of industry standard commercial agreements which allow for the netting of positive and negative exposures associated with transactions executed under a single commercial agreement. Additionally, we utilize master netting agreements to offset credit exposure across multiple commercial agreements with a single counterparty or affiliated group of counterparties.
The Partnership’s counterparties consist of a diverse portfolio of customers across the energy industry, including petrochemical companies, commercial and industrials, oil and gas producers, municipalities, utilities and midstream companies. Our overall exposure may be affected positively or negatively by macroeconomic or regulatory changes that could impact our counterparties to one extent or another. Currently, management does not anticipate a material adverse effect in our financial position or results of operations as a consequence of counterparty non-performance.
The natural gas transportation and midstream revenues are derived significantly from companies that engage in natural gas exploration and production activities. The discovery and development of new shale formations across the United States has created an abundance of natural gas resulting in a negative impact on prices in recent years. As a result, some of our exploration and production customers have been negatively impacted; however, we are monitoring these customers and mitigating credit risk as necessary.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, none of our individual customer accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated revenues.
Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.  The FERC has broad regulatory authority over the business and operations of interstate natural gas pipelines. Under the NGA, the FERC generally regulates the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce. For FERC regulatory purposes, “transportation” includes natural gas pipeline transmission (forwardhauls and backhauls), storage and other services. The Florida Gas Transmission, Transwestern, Panhandle Eastern, Trunkline Gas, Tiger, Fayetteville Express and Sea Robin pipelines transport natural gas in interstate commerce and thus each qualifies as a “natural-gas company” under the NGA subject to the FERC’s regulatory jurisdiction. We also hold certain storage facilities that are subject to the FERC’s regulatory oversight.
The FERC’s NGA authority includes the power to regulate:
the certification and construction of new facilities;
the review and approval of transportation rates;

20


the types of services that our regulated assets are permitted to perform;
the terms and conditions associated with these services;
the extension or abandonment of services and facilities;
the maintenance of accounts and records;
the acquisition and disposition of facilities; and
the initiation and discontinuation of services.
Under the NGA, interstate natural gas companies must charge rates that are just and reasonable. In addition, the NGA prohibits natural gas companies from unduly preferring or unreasonably discriminating against any person with respect to pipeline rates or terms and conditions of service.
The maximum rates to be charged by NGA-jurisdictional natural gas companies and their terms and conditions for service are generally required to be on file with the FERC in FERC-approved tariffs. Most natural gas companies are authorized to offer discounts from their FERC-approved maximum just and reasonable rates when competition warrants such discounts. Natural gas companies are also generally permitted to offer negotiated rates different from rates established in their tariff if, among other requirements, such companies’ tariffs offer a cost-based recourse rate available to a prospective shipper as an alternative to the negotiated rate. Natural gas companies must make offers of rate discounts and negotiated rates on a basis that is not unduly discriminatory. Existing tariff rates may be challenged by complaint, and if found unjust and unreasonable, may be altered on a prospective basis by the FERC. We cannot guarantee that the FERC will continue to pursue its approach of pro-competitive policies as it considers matters such as pipeline rates and rules and policies that may affect rights of access to natural gas transportation capacity, transportation and storage facilities.
In 2011, in lieu of filing a new NGA Section 4 general rate case, Transwestern filed a proposed settlement with the FERC, which was approved by the FERC on October 31, 2011. In general, the settlement provides for the continued use of Transwestern’s currently effective transportation and fuel tariff rates, with the exception of certain San Juan Lateral fuel rates, which we were required to reduce over a three year period beginning in April 2012. The settlement also resolves certain non-rate matters, and approves Transwestern’s use of certain previously approved accounting methodologies. Under the settlement, Transwestern is required to file a new NGA Section 4 rate case on October 1, 2014.
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.
In July 2010, in response to an intervention and protest filed by BG LNG Services (“BGLS”) regarding its rates with Trunkline LNG applicable to certain LNG expansions, the FERC determined that there was no reason at that time to expend the FERC’s resources on a rate proceeding with respect to Trunkline LNG even though cost and revenue studies provided to the FERC indicated Trunkline LNG’s revenues were in excess of its associated cost of service. The current fixed rates expire at the end of 2015 and revert to tariff rate for these LNG expansions as well as the base LNG facilities for which rates were set in 2002.
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: (1) to defraud using any device, scheme or artifice; (2) to make any untrue statement of material fact or omit a material fact; or (3) 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 operations of the physical and futures energy commodities market pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). With regard to our physical purchases and sales of natural gas, NGLs or other energy commodities; our gathering or transportation of these energy commodities; and any related hedging activities that we undertake, we are required to observe these anti-market manipulation laws and related regulations enforced by the FERC and/or the CFTC. These agencies hold substantial enforcement authority, including the ability to assess civil penalties of up to $1 million per day per violation, to order disgorgement of profits and to recommend criminal penalties. Should we violate the anti-market manipulation laws and regulations, we could also be subject to related third party damage claims by, among others, sellers, royalty owners and taxing authorities.
Failure to comply with the NGA, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the other federal laws and regulations governing our operations and business activities can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.
Regulation of Intrastate Natural Gas and NGL Pipelines.  Intrastate transportation of natural gas and NGLs is largely regulated by the state in which such transportation takes place. To the extent that our intrastate natural gas transportation systems transport

21


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 our currently approved Section 311 rates, our business may be adversely affected. Failure to observe the service limitations applicable to transportation and storage services under Section 311, failure to comply with the rates approved by the FERC for Section 311 service, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions of service established in the pipeline’s FERC-approved statement of operating conditions could result in an alteration of jurisdictional status, and/or the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.
Our intrastate natural gas operations are also subject to regulation by various agencies in Texas, principally the TRRC. Our intrastate pipeline and storage operations in Texas are also subject to the Texas Utilities Code, as implemented by the TRRC. Generally, the TRRC is vested with authority to ensure that rates, operations and services of gas utilities, including intrastate pipelines, are just and reasonable and not discriminatory. The rates we charge for transportation services are deemed just and reasonable under Texas law unless challenged in a customer or TRRC complaint. We cannot predict whether such a complaint will be filed against us or whether the TRRC will change its regulation of these rates. Failure to comply with the Texas Utilities Code can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.
Our NGL pipelines and operations may also be or become subject to state public utility or related jurisdiction which could impose additional safety and operational regulations relating to the design, siting, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of NGL gathering facilities.
Regulation of Sales of Natural Gas and NGLs.  The price at which we buy and sell natural gas currently is not subject to federal regulation and, for the most part, is not subject to state regulation. The price at which we sell NGLs is not subject to federal or state regulation.
To the extent that we enter into transportation contracts with natural gas pipelines that are subject to FERC regulation, we are subject to FERC requirements related to use of such capacity. Any failure on our part to comply with the FERC’s regulations and policies, or with an interstate pipeline’s tariff, could result in the imposition of civil and criminal penalties.
Our sales of natural gas are affected by the availability, terms and cost of pipeline transportation. As noted above, the price and terms of access to pipeline transportation are subject to extensive federal and state regulation. The FERC is continually proposing and implementing new rules and regulations affecting those operations of the natural gas industry. These initiatives also may affect the intrastate transportation of natural gas under certain circumstances. The stated purpose of many of these regulatory changes is to promote competition among the various sectors of the natural gas industry and these initiatives generally reflect more light-handed regulation. We cannot predict the ultimate impact of these regulatory changes to our natural gas marketing operations, and we note that some of the FERC’s regulatory changes may adversely affect the availability and reliability of interruptible transportation service on interstate pipelines. We do not believe that we will be affected by any such FERC action in a manner that is materially different from other natural gas marketers with whom we compete.
Regulation of Gathering Pipelines.  Section 1(b) of the NGA exempts natural gas gathering facilities from the jurisdiction of the FERC under the NGA. We own a number of natural gas pipelines in Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia that we believe meet the traditional tests the FERC uses to establish a pipeline’s status as a gatherer not subject to FERC jurisdiction. However, the distinction between FERC-regulated transmission services and federally unregulated gathering services has been the subject of substantial litigation and varying interpretations, so the classification and regulation of our gathering facilities could be subject to change based on future determinations by the FERC, the courts and Congress. State regulation of gathering facilities generally includes various safety, environmental and, in some circumstances, nondiscriminatory take requirements and complaint-based rate regulation.
In Texas, our gathering facilities are subject to regulation by the TRRC under the Texas Utilities Code in the same manner as described above for our intrastate pipeline facilities. Louisiana’s Pipeline Operations Section of the Department of Natural Resources’ Office of Conservation is generally responsible for regulating intrastate pipelines and gathering facilities in Louisiana and has authority to review and authorize natural gas transportation transactions and the construction, acquisition, abandonment and interconnection of physical facilities.
Historically, apart from pipeline safety, Louisiana has not acted to exercise this jurisdiction respecting gathering facilities. In Louisiana, our Chalkley System is regulated as an intrastate transporter, and the Louisiana Office of Conservation has determined that our Whiskey Bay System is a gathering system.

22


We are subject to state ratable take and common purchaser statutes in all of the states in which we operate. The ratable take statutes generally require gatherers to take, without undue discrimination, natural gas production that may be tendered to the gatherer for handling. Similarly, common purchaser statutes generally require gatherers to purchase without undue discrimination as to source of supply or producer. These statutes are designed to prohibit discrimination in favor of one producer over another producer or one source of supply over another source of supply. These statutes have the effect of restricting the right of an owner of gathering facilities to decide with whom it contracts to purchase or transport natural gas.
Natural gas gathering may receive greater regulatory scrutiny at both the state and federal levels. For example, the TRRC has approved changes to its regulations governing transportation and gathering services performed by intrastate pipelines and gatherers, which prohibit such entities from unduly discriminating in favor of their affiliates. Many of the producing states have adopted some form of complaint-based regulation that generally allows natural gas producers and shippers to file complaints with state regulators in an effort to resolve grievances relating to natural gas gathering access and rate discrimination allegations. Our gathering operations could be adversely affected should they be subject in the future to the application of additional or different state or federal regulation of rates and services. Our gathering operations also may be or become subject to safety and operational regulations relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of gathering facilities. Additional rules and legislation pertaining to these matters are considered or adopted from time to time. We cannot predict what effect, if any, such changes might have on our operations, but the industry could be required to incur additional capital expenditures and increased costs depending on future legislative and regulatory changes.
Regulation of Interstate Crude Oil and Refined Products Pipelines. Interstate common carrier pipeline operations are subject to rate regulation by the FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”), the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and related rules and orders. The ICA requires that tariff rates for petroleum pipelines be “just and reasonable” and not unduly discriminatory and that such rates and terms and conditions of service be filed with the FERC. This statute also permits interested persons to challenge proposed new or changed rates. The FERC is authorized to suspend the effectiveness of such rates for up to seven months, though rates are typically not suspended for the maximum allowable period. If the FERC finds that the new or changed rate is unlawful, it may require the carrier to pay refunds for the period that the rate was in effect. The FERC also may investigate, upon complaint or on its own motion, rates that are already in effect and may order a carrier to change its rates prospectively. Upon an appropriate showing, a shipper may obtain reparations for damages sustained for a period of up to two years prior to the filing of a complaint.
The FERC generally has not investigated interstate rates on its own initiative when those rates, like those we charge, have not been the subject of a protest or a complaint by a shipper. However, the FERC could investigate our rates at the urging of a third party if the third party is either a current shipper or has a substantial economic interest in the tariff rate level. Although no assurance can be given that the tariffs charged by us ultimately will be upheld if challenged, management believes that the tariffs now in effect for our pipelines are within the maximum rates allowed under current FERC guidelines.
We have been approved by the FERC to charge market-based rates in most of the refined products locations served by our pipeline systems. In those locations where market-based rates have been approved, we are able to establish rates that are based upon competitive market conditions.
Regulation of Intrastate Crude Oil and Refined Products Pipelines. Some of our crude oil and refined products pipelines are subject to regulation by the TRRC, the PA PUC, and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. The operations of our joint venture interests are also subject to regulation in the states in which they operate. The applicable state statutes require that pipeline rates be nondiscriminatory and provide no more than a fair return on the aggregate value of the pipeline property used to render services. State commissions generally have not initiated an investigation of rates or practices of petroleum pipelines in the absence of shipper complaints. Complaints to state agencies have been infrequent and are usually resolved informally. Although management cannot be certain that our intrastate rates ultimately would be upheld if challenged, we believe that, given this history, the tariffs now in effect are not likely to be challenged or, if challenged, are not likely to be ordered to be reduced.
Regulation of Pipeline Safety.  Our pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the DOT, under the PHMSA, pursuant to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended (“NGPSA”), with respect to natural gas and the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, as amended (“HLPSA”), with respect to crude oil, NGLs and condensates. Both the NGPSA and the HLPSA were amended by the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (“PSI Act”) and the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (“PIPES Act”). The NGPSA and HLPSA, as amended, govern the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of natural gas as well as crude oil, NGL and condensate pipeline facilities. Pursuant to these acts, PHMSA has promulgated regulations governing pipeline wall thickness, design pressures, maximum operating pressures, pipeline patrols and leak surveys, minimum depth requirements, and emergency procedures, as well as other matters intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent accidents and failures. Additionally, PHMSA has established a series of rules requiring pipeline operators to develop and implement integrity management programs for gas transmission 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

23


sources and unusually sensitive ecological areas. Failure to comply with the safety laws and regulations may result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies. The “rural gathering exemption” under the NGPSA presently exempts substantial portions of our gathering facilities from jurisdiction under the NGPSA, but does not apply to our intrastate natural gas pipelines. The portions of our facilities that are exempt include those portions located outside of cities, towns or any area designated as residential or commercial, such as a subdivision or shopping center. Changes to federal pipeline safety laws and regulations are being considered by Congress or PHMSA including changes to the “rural gathering exemption,” which may be restricted in the future. While we believe our pipeline operations are in substantial compliance with applicable pipeline safety laws, safety laws and regulations may be made more stringent and penalties could be increased. Such legislative and regulatory changes could have a material effect on our operations and costs of transportation service.
Most recently, these pipeline safety laws were amended on January 3, 2012 when President Obama signed into law the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (“2011 Pipeline Safety Act”) which increases pipeline safety regulation. Among other things, the legislation doubles the maximum administrative fines for safety violations from $100,000 to $200,000 for a single violation and from $1 million to $2 million for a related series of violations, and provides that these maximum penalty caps do not apply to civil enforcement actions; permits the DOT Secretary to mandate automatic or remote controlled shut off valves on new or entirely replaced pipelines; requires the DOT Secretary to evaluate whether integrity management system requirements should be expanded beyond HCAs, within 18 months of enactment; and provides for regulation of carbon dioxide transported by pipeline in a gaseous state and requires the DOT Secretary to prescribe minimum safety regulations for such transportation.
In addition, states have adopted regulations, similar to existing PHMSA regulations, for intrastate gathering and transmission lines. The states in which we conduct operations typically have developed regulatory programs that parallel the federal regulatory scheme and are applicable to intrastate pipelines transporting natural gas and NGLs. Under such state regulatory programs, states have the authority to conduct pipeline inspections, to investigate accidents and to oversee compliance and enforcement, safety programs and record maintenance and reporting. Congress, PHMSA and individual states may pass or implement additional safety requirements that could result in increased compliance costs for us and other companies in our industry. For instance, notwithstanding the applicability of the OSHA’s Process Safety Management (“PSM”) regulations and the EPA’s Risk Management Planning (“RMP”) requirements at regulated facilities, PHMSA and one or more state regulators, including the TRRC, have in the recent past, expanded the scope of their regulatory inspections to include certain in-plant equipment and pipelines found within NGL fractionation facilities and associated storage facilities, in order to assess compliance of such equipment and pipelines with hazardous liquid pipeline safety requirements. These recent actions by PHMSA are currently subject to judicial and administrative challenges by one or more midstream operators; however, to the extent that such legal challenges are unsuccessful, midstream operators of NGL fractionation facilities and associated storage facilities subject to such inspection may be required to make operational changes or modifications at their facilities to meet standards beyond current PSM and RMP requirements, which changes or modifications may result in additional capital costs, possible operational delays and increased costs of operation that, in some instances, may be significant.
Environmental Matters
General. Our operation of processing plants, pipelines and associated facilities, including compression, in connection with the gathering, processing, storage and transmission of natural gas and the storage and transportation of NGLs, crude oil and refined products is subject to stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations, including those governing, among other things, air emissions, wastewater discharges, the use, management and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous materials and wastes, and the cleanup of contamination. Noncompliance with such laws and regulations, or incidents resulting in environmental releases, could cause us to incur substantial costs, penalties, fines and criminal sanctions, third party claims for personal injury or property damage, investments to retrofit or upgrade our facilities and programs, or curtailment of operations. As with the industry generally, compliance with existing and anticipated environmental laws and regulations increases our overall cost of doing business, including our cost of planning, constructing and operating our plants, pipelines and other facilities. Included in our construction and operation costs are capital cost items necessary to maintain or upgrade our equipment and facilities to remain in compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
We have implemented procedures to ensure that all governmental environmental approvals for both existing operations and those under construction are updated as circumstances require. We believe that our operations and facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that the cost of compliance with such laws and regulations will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We cannot be certain, however, that identification of presently unidentified conditions, more rigorous enforcement by regulatory agencies, enactment of more stringent environmental laws and regulations or other unanticipated events will not arise in the future and give rise to environmental liabilities that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

24


Hazardous Substances and Waste Materials. To a large extent, the environmental laws and regulations affecting our operations relate to the release of hazardous substances and waste materials into soils, groundwater and surface water and include measures to prevent, minimize or remediate contamination of the environment. These laws and regulations generally regulate the generation, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances and waste materials and may require investigatory and remedial actions at sites where such material has been released or disposed. For example, CERCLA, also known as the “Superfund” law, and comparable state laws, impose liability without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct on certain classes of persons that contributed to a release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the owner and operator of the site where a release occurred and companies that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substance that has been released into the environment. Under CERCLA, these persons may be subject to joint and several liability, without regard to fault, for, among other things, the costs of investigating and remediating the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. CERCLA and comparable state law also authorize the federal EPA, its state counterparts, and, in some instances, third parties to take actions in response to threats to the public health or the environment and to seek to recover from the responsible classes of persons the costs they incur. It is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous substances or other pollutants released into the environment. Although “petroleum” as well as natural gas and NGLs are excluded from CERCLA’s definition of a “hazardous substance,” in the course of our ordinary operations we generate wastes that may fall within that definition or that may be subject to other waste disposal laws and regulations. We may be responsible under CERCLA or state laws for all or part of the costs required to clean up sites at which such substances or wastes have been disposed.
We also generate both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes that are subject to requirements of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and comparable state statutes. We are not currently required to comply with a substantial portion of the RCRA requirements at many of our facilities because the minimal quantities of hazardous wastes generated there make us subject to less stringent management standards. From time to time, the EPA has considered the adoption of stricter handling, storage and disposal standards for nonhazardous wastes, including crude oil and natural gas wastes. It is possible that some wastes generated by us that are currently classified as nonhazardous may in the future be designated as “hazardous wastes,” resulting in the wastes being subject to more rigorous and costly disposal requirements, or that the full complement of RCRA standards could be applied to facilities that generate lesser amounts of hazardous waste. Changes such as these examples in applicable regulations may result in a material increase in our capital expenditures or plant operating and maintenance expense.
We currently own or lease sites that have been used over the years by prior owners and by us for various activities related to gathering, processing, storage and transmission of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and refined products. Solid waste disposal practices within the oil and gas industry have improved over the years with the passage and implementation of various environmental laws and regulations. Nevertheless, some hydrocarbons and wastes have been disposed of or otherwise released on or under various sites during the operating history of those facilities that are now owned or leased by us. Notwithstanding the possibility that these releases may have occurred during the ownership of these assets by others, these sites may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and comparable state laws. Under these laws, we could be required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes (including wastes disposed of or released by prior owners or operators) or contamination (including soil and groundwater contamination) or to prevent the migration of contamination.
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, accruals of $403 million and $212 million, respectively, were recorded in our consolidated balance sheets as accrued and other current liabilities and other non-current liabilities to cover estimated material environmental liabilities including certain matters assumed in connection with our acquisition of the HPL System, the Transwestern acquisition, potential environmental liabilities for three sites that were formerly owned by Titan or its predecessors, the predecessor owner’s share of certain environmental liabilities of ETC OLP.
The Partnership is subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, 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/or remediation efforts at many of Sunoco’s facilities and at formerly owned or third-party sites. Accruals for these environmental remediation activities amounted to $377 million at December 31, 2013, 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, closed and/or sold refineries and other formerly owned sites. In December 2013, a wholly-owned captive insurance company was established for these legacy sites. As of December 31, 2013 the captive insurance company held $348 million of cash, which was reported as restricted funds.
The Partnership’s accrual for environmental remediation activities reflects anticipated work at identified sites where an assessment has indicated that cleanup costs are probable and reasonably estimable. The accrual for known claims is undiscounted and is based on currently available information, estimated timing of remedial actions and related inflation assumptions, existing technology and presently enacted laws and regulations. It is often extremely difficult to develop reasonable estimates of future site remediation

25


costs due to changing regulations, changing technologies and their associated costs, and changes in the economic environment. Engineering studies, historical experience and other factors are used to identify and evaluate remediation alternatives and their related costs in determining the estimated accruals for environmental remediation activities.
We have established a wholly-owned captive insurance company to bear certain risks associated with environmental obligations related to certain sites that are no longer operating. The premiums paid to the captive insurance company include estimates for environmental claims that have been incurred but not reported, based on an actuarially determined fully developed claims expense estimate. In such cases, we accrue losses attributable to unasserted claims based on the discounted estimates that are used to develop the premiums paid to the captive insurance company.
Under various environmental laws, including the RCRA (which relates to solid and hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal), the Partnership has initiated corrective remedial action at its facilities, formerly owned facilities and third-party sites. At the Partnership’s major manufacturing facilities, we have consistently assumed continued industrial use and a containment/remediation strategy focused on eliminating unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. The remediation accruals for these sites reflect that strategy. Accruals include amounts to prevent off-site migration and to contain the impact on the facility property, as well as to address known, discrete areas requiring remediation within the plants. Activities include closure of RCRA solid waste management units, recovery of hydrocarbons, handling of impacted soil, mitigation of surface water impacts and prevention of off-site migration. A change in this approach as a result of changing the intended use of a property or a sale to a third party could result in a higher cost remediation strategy in the future.
The Partnership currently owns or operates certain retail gasoline outlets where releases of petroleum products have occurred. Federal and state laws and regulations require that contamination caused by such releases at these sites and at formerly owned sites be assessed and remediated to meet the applicable standards. Our obligation to remediate this type of contamination varies, depending on the extent of the release and the applicable laws and regulations. A portion of the remediation costs may be recoverable from the reimbursement fund of the applicable state, after any deductible has been met.
In general, each remediation site/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. 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 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, 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, 2013, the aggregate of the estimated maximum additional reasonably possible losses, which relate to numerous individual sites, totaled approximately $6 million. This estimate of reasonably possible losses comprises estimates for remediation activities at current logistics and retail assets, and in many cases, reflects the upper end of the loss ranges which are described above. Such estimates include potentially higher contractor costs for expected remediation activities, the potential need to use more costly or comprehensive remediation methods and longer operating and monitoring periods, among other things.
In summary, total future costs for environmental remediation activities will depend upon, among other things, the identification of any additional sites, the determination of the extent of the contamination at each site, the timing and nature of required remedial actions, the nature of operations at each site, the technology available and needed to meet the various existing legal requirements, the nature and terms of cost-sharing arrangements with other potentially responsible parties, the availability of insurance coverage, the nature and extent of future environmental laws and regulations, inflation rates, terms of consent agreements or remediation permits with regulatory agencies and the determination of the Partnership’s liability at the sites, if any, in light of the number, participation level and financial viability of the other parties. The recognition of additional losses, if and when they were to occur, would likely extend over many years. Management believes that the Partnership’s exposure to adverse developments with respect to any individual site is not expected to be material. However, if changes in environmental laws or regulations occur or the assumptions used to estimate losses at multiple sites are adjusted, such changes could impact multiple facilities, formerly owned facilities and third-party sites at the same time. As a result, from time to time, significant charges against income for environmental remediation may occur; however, management does not believe that any such charges would have a material adverse impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position.
Transwestern conducts soil and groundwater remediation at a number of its facilities. Some of the cleanup activities include remediation of several compressor sites on the Transwestern system for contamination by PCBs, and the costs of this work are not eligible for recovery in rates. The total accrued future estimated cost of remediation activities expected to continue through 2025 is $7 million, which is included in the total environmental accruals mentioned above. Transwestern received FERC approval for rate recovery of projected soil and groundwater remediation costs not related to PCBs effective April 1, 2007. Transwestern,

26


as part of ongoing arrangements with customers, continues to incur costs associated with containing and removing potential PCB contamination. Future costs cannot be reasonably estimated because remediation activities are undertaken as potential claims are made by customers and former customers. However, such future costs are not expected to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Air Emissions. Our operations are subject to the federal Clean Air Act and comparable state laws and regulations. These laws and regulations regulate emissions of air pollutants from various industrial sources, including our processing plants, and also impose various monitoring and reporting requirements. Such laws and regulations may require that we obtain pre-approval for the construction or modification of certain projects or facilities, such as our processing plants and compression facilities, expected to produce air emissions or to result in the increase of existing air emissions, that we obtain and strictly comply with air permits containing various emissions and operational limitations, or that we utilize specific emission control technologies to limit emissions. We will be required to incur capital expenditures in the future for air pollution control equipment in connection with obtaining and maintaining operating permits and approvals for air emissions. In addition, our processing plants, pipelines and compression facilities are subject to increasingly stringent regulations, including regulations that require the installation of control technology or the implementation of work practices to control hazardous air pollutants. Moreover, the Clean Air Act requires an operating permit for major sources of emissions and this requirement applies to some of our facilities. We believe that our operations are in substantial compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and comparable state laws. The EPA and state agencies are continually considering, proposing or finalizing new rules and regulations that could impact our existing operations and the costs and timing of new infrastructure development. For example, EPA has recently finalized new source performance standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas source category. New Subpart OOOO expands the NSPS oil and gas source category to include all operations of the oil and gas industry. It imposes new controls for emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on well completions, pneumatic devices, compressors, storage vessels and equipment leaks. In addition, EPA has also recently finalized revisions to Subparts HH and HHH that will further reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants from storage tanks and tri-ethylene glycol dehydrators at major sources. These new regulations will increase our cost of compliance.
On October 19, 2010, the EPA adopted new national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for existing stationary spark ignition reciprocating internal combustion engines that are either located at area sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions or that have a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower and are located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. All engines subject to these “Quad Z” regulations were required to comply by October 19, 2013.  Many of our facilities, including our leased compressors have been impacted by these new rules.  We have incurred increased costs to bring engines into compliance with the new emission requirements, but such costs were not material. 
Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 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 waters of the United States. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and similar state laws, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or state permit, or both, must be obtained to discharge pollutants into federal and state waters. In addition, the Clean Water Act and comparable state laws require that individual permits or coverage under general permits be obtained by subject facilities for discharges of storm water runoff. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with Clean Water Act permitting requirements as well as the conditions imposed thereunder, and that our continued compliance with such existing permit conditions will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Spills. Our operations can result in the discharge of regulated substances, including NGLs, crude oil or refined products. The Clean Water Act, 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 Oil Pollution Act 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 Office of Pipeline Safety of the DOT, the EPA, or various state regulatory agencies, has approved our oil spill emergency response plans, and our management believes we are in substantial compliance with these laws.
In addition, some states maintain groundwater protection programs that require permits for discharges or operations that may impact groundwater conditions. Our management believes that compliance with existing permits and compliance with foreseeable new permit requirements will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or expected cash flows.
Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act restricts activities that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat. Similar protection is offered to migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We may operate in areas that are currently designated as a habitat for endangered or threatened species or where the discovery of previously unidentified endangered

27


species, or the designation of additional species as endangered or threatened may occur in which event such one or more developments could cause us to incur additional costs, to develop habitat conservation plans, to become subject to expansion or operating restrictions, or bans in the affected areas.
Climate Change. On December 15, 2009, the EPA published its findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases present an endangerment to public health and the environment because emissions of such gases are, according to the EPA, contributing to warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. Based on these findings, the EPA has adopted regulations under existing provisions of the federal Clean Air Act that, among other things, would restrict emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles as well as established Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) and Title V permitting reviews for certain large stationary sources that are potential sources of greenhouse gas 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 developed on a case-by-case basis. Any regulatory or permitting obligation that limits emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to incur costs to reduce or sequester emissions of greenhouse gases associated with our operations and also could adversely affect demand for the natural gas and other hydrocarbon products that we transport, process, or otherwise handle in connection with our services.
In addition, the EPA has published a final rule requiring the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from specified large greenhouse gas sources in the United States on an annual basis, including onshore oil and natural gas production, processing, transmission, storage and distribution facilities. We are monitoring greenhouse gas emissions from certain of our operations in accordance with the greenhouse gas emissions reporting rule and believe that our monitoring and reporting activities are in substantial compliance with applicable reporting obligations.
Various pieces of legislation to reduce emissions of, or to create cap and trade programs for, greenhouse gases have been proposed by the U.S. Congress over the past several years, but no proposal has yet passed. Numerous states have already taken legal measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily through the planned development of greenhouse gas emission inventories and/or regional greenhouse gas cap and trade programs. The passage of legislation that limits emissions of greenhouse gases from our equipment and operations could require us to incur costs to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from our own operations, and it could also adversely affect demand for our transportation, storage and processing services by reducing demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs.
Some have suggested that one consequence of climate change could be increased severity of extreme weather, such as increased hurricanes and floods. If such effects were to occur, our operations could be adversely affected in various ways, including damages to our facilities from powerful winds or rising waters, or increased costs for insurance. Another possible consequence of climate change is increased volatility in seasonal temperatures. The market for our NGLs and natural gas is generally improved by periods of colder weather and impaired by periods of warmer weather, so any changes in climate could affect the market for the fuels that we produce. Despite the use of the term “global warming” as a shorthand for climate change, some studies indicate that climate change could cause some areas to experience temperatures substantially colder than their historical averages. As a result, it is difficult to predict how the market for our products could be affected by increased temperature volatility, although if there is an overall trend of warmer temperatures, it would be expected to have an adverse effect on our business.
Employee Health and Safety. We are subject to the requirements of the federal OSHA and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe that our operations are in substantial compliance with the OSHA requirements including general industry standards, recordkeeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances.
Employees
As of January 31, 2014, ETE and its consolidated subsidiaries employed an aggregate of 13,573 employees, 1,466 of which are represented by labor unions. We and our subsidiaries believe that our relations with our employees are satisfactory.
SEC Reporting
We file or furnish annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any related amendments and supplements thereto with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). From time to time, we may also file registration and related statements pertaining to equity or debt offerings. You may read and copy any materials we file or furnish with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information regarding the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-732-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains an internet website at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

28


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

ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS
In addition to risks and uncertainties in the ordinary course of business that are common to all businesses, important factors that are specific to our structure as a limited partnership, our industry and our company could materially impact our future performance and results of operations. We have provided below a list of these risk factors that should be reviewed when considering an investment in our securities. ETP, Regency, Panhandle and Sunoco Logistics file Annual Reports on Form 10-K that include risk factors that can be reviewed for further information. The risk factors set forth below, and those included in ETP’s, Regency’s, Panhandle’s and Sunoco Logistics’ Annual Report, are not all the risks we face and other factors currently considered immaterial or unknown to us may impact our future operations.
Risks Inherent in an Investment in Us
Cash distributions are not guaranteed and may fluctuate with our performance or other external factors.
The source of our earnings and cash flow is cash distributions from ETP and Regency. Therefore, the amount of distributions we are currently able to make to our Unitholders may fluctuate based on the level of distributions ETP and Regency makes to their partners. ETP or Regency may not be able to continue to make quarterly distributions at their current level or increase their quarterly distributions in the future. In addition, while we would expect to increase or decrease distributions to our Unitholders if ETP or Regency increases or decreases distributions to us, the timing and amount of such increased or decreased distributions, if any, will not necessarily be comparable to the timing and amount of the increase or decrease in distributions made by ETP or Regency to us.
Our ability to distribute cash received from ETP and Regency to our Unitholders is limited by a number of factors, including:
interest expense and principal payments on our indebtedness;
restrictions on distributions contained in any current or future debt agreements;
our general and administrative expenses;
expenses of our subsidiaries other than ETP or Regency, including tax liabilities of our corporate subsidiaries, if any;
capital contributions we may make to maintain our General Partner interests in ETP or Regency upon the issuance of additional partnership securities by ETP or Regency, as applicable; and
reserves our General Partner believes prudent for us to maintain for the proper conduct of our business or to provide for future distributions.
We cannot guarantee that in the future we will be able to pay distributions or that any distributions we do make will be at or above our current quarterly distribution. The actual amount of cash that is available for distribution to our Unitholders will depend on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control or the control of our General Partner.
Our only significant assets are our partnership interests, including the incentive distribution rights, in ETP and Regency and, therefore, our cash flow is dependent upon the ability of ETP and Regency to make distributions in respect of those partnership interests.
We do not have any significant assets other than our partnership interests in ETP and Regency. As a result, our cash flow depends on the performance of ETP, Regency and their respective subsidiaries and ETP’s and Regency’s ability to make cash distributions to us, which is dependent on the results of operations, cash flows and financial condition of ETP and Regency.
The amount of cash that ETP and Regency can distribute to their partners, including us, each quarter depends upon the amount of cash they generate from their operations, which will fluctuate from quarter to quarter and will depend upon, among other things:
the amount of natural gas, crude oil and refined products transported through ETP’s and Regency’s transportation pipelines and gathering systems;
the level of throughput in processing and treating operations;
the fees charged and the margins realized by ETP and Regency for their services;
the price of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and refined products;

29


the relationship between natural gas, NGL and crude oil prices;
the amount of cash distributions ETP receives with respect to the Regency and AmeriGas common units that ETP or their subsidiaries own;
the weather in their respective operating areas;
the level of competition from other midstream, transportation and storage and retail marketing companies and other energy providers;
the level of their respective operating costs;
prevailing economic conditions; and
the level and results of their respective derivative activities.
In addition, the actual amount of cash that ETP and Regency will have available for distribution will also depend on other factors, such as:
the level of capital expenditures they make;
the level of costs related to litigation and regulatory compliance matters;
the cost of acquisitions, if any;
the levels of any margin calls that result from changes in commodity prices;
debt service requirements;
fluctuations in working capital needs;
their ability to borrow under their respective revolving credit facilities;
their ability to access capital markets;
restrictions on distributions contained in their respective debt agreements; and
the amount, if any, of cash reserves established by the board of directors and their respective general partners in their discretion for the proper conduct of their respective businesses.
ETE does not have any control over many of these factors, including the level of cash reserves established by the board of directors and ETP’s and Regency’s respective General Partners. Accordingly, we cannot guarantee that ETP or Regency will have sufficient available cash to pay a specific level of cash distributions to its partners.
Furthermore, Unitholders should be aware that the amount of cash that ETP and Regency have available for distribution depends primarily upon cash flow and is not solely a function of profitability, which is affected by non-cash items. As a result, ETP and Regency may declare and/or pay cash distributions during periods when they record net losses. Please read “Risks Related to the Businesses of Energy Transfer Partners and Regency Energy Partners” included in this Item 1A for a discussion of further risks affecting ETP’s and Regency’s ability to generate distributable cash flow.
We may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests without the consent of our Unitholders, which will dilute Unitholders’ ownership interest in us and may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase our per unit distribution level.
Our partnership agreement allows us to issue an unlimited number of additional limited partner interests, including securities senior to the Common Units, without the approval of our Unitholders. The issuance of additional Common Units or other equity securities by us will have the following effects:
our Unitholders’ current proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;
the amount of cash available for distribution on each Common Unit or partnership security may decrease;
the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding Common Unit may be diminished; and
the market price of our Common Units may decline.

30


In addition, ETP and Regency may sell an unlimited number of limited partner interests without the consent of the respective Unitholders, which will dilute existing interests of the respective Unitholders, including us. The issuance of additional Common Units or other equity securities by ETP will have essentially the same effects as detailed above.
ETP or Regency may issue additional Common Units, which may increase the risk that ETP or Regency will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase its per unit distribution level.
The partnership agreements of each ETP and Regency allow ETP and Regency, respectively, to issue an unlimited number of additional limited partner interests. The issuance of additional common units or other equity securities by ETP or Regency will have the following effects:
Unitholders’ current proportionate ownership interest in ETP or Regency, as applicable, will decrease;
the amount of cash available for distribution on each common unit or partnership security may decrease;
the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding common unit may be diminished; and
the market price of ETP’s or Regency’s Common Units, as applicable, may decline.
The payment of distributions on any additional units issued by ETP or Regency may increase the risk that ETP or Regency, as applicable, may not have sufficient cash available to maintain or increase its per unit distribution level, which in turn may impact the available cash that we have to meet our obligations.
Sunoco Logistics may issue additional common units, which may increase the risk that Sunoco Logistics will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase its per unit distribution level.
Sunoco Logistics’ partnership agreement allows it to issue an unlimited number of additional limited partner interests. The issuance of additional common units or other equity securities by Sunoco Logistics will have the following effects:
Unitholders’ current proportionate ownership interest in Sunoco Logistics, as applicable, will decrease;
the amount of cash available for distribution on each common unit or partnership security may decrease;
the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding common unit may be diminished; and
the market price of Sunoco Logistics common units may decline.
The payment of distributions on any additional units issued by Sunoco Logistics may increase the risk that Sunoco Logistics may not have sufficient cash available to maintain or increase its per unit distribution level, which in turn may impact the available cash that we have to meet our obligations.
Unitholders have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect the General Partner or its directors. In addition, even if Unitholders are dissatisfied, they cannot easily remove the General Partner.
Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, Unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business, and therefore limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. Unitholders did not elect our General Partner and will have no right to elect our General Partner or the officers or directors of our General Partner on an annual or other continuing basis.
Furthermore, if our Unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our General Partner, they may be unable to remove our General Partner. Our General Partner may not be removed except upon the vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of our outstanding units. As of February 21, 2014, our directors and executive officers directly or indirectly own approximately 19% of our outstanding Common Units. It will be particularly difficult for our General Partner to be removed without the consent of our directors and executive officers. As a result, the price at which our Common Units will trade may be lower because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.
Furthermore, Unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by the partnership agreement provision providing that any units held by a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than the General Partner and its affiliates, cannot be voted on any matter

31


The control of our General Partner may be transferred to a third party without Unitholder consent.
The General Partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party without the consent of the Unitholders. Furthermore, the members of our General Partner may transfer all or part of their ownership interest in our General Partner to a third party without the consent of the Unitholders. Any new owner or owners of our General Partner or the general partner of the General Partner would be in a position to replace the directors and officers of our General Partner with its own choices and to control the decisions made and actions taken by the board of directors and officers.
We are dependent on third parties, including key personnel of ETP under a shared services agreement, to provide the financial, accounting, administrative and legal services necessary to operate our business.
We rely on the services of key personnel of ETP, including the ongoing involvement and continued leadership of Kelcy L. Warren, one of the founders of ETP’s midstream business, as well as other key members of ETP’s management team such as Marshall S. (Mackie) McCrea, III, President and Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Warren and Mr. McCrea have been integral to the success of ETP’s midstream and intrastate transportation and storage businesses because of their ability to identify and develop strategic business opportunities. Losing the leadership of either Mr. Warren or Mr. McCrea could make it difficult for ETP to identify internal growth projects and accretive acquisitions, which could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s ability to increase the cash distributions paid on its partnership interests.
ETP’s executive officers that provide services to us pursuant to a shared services agreement allocate their time between us and ETP. To the extent that these officers face conflicts regarding the allocation of their time, we may not receive the level of attention from them that the management of our business requires. If ETP is unable to provide us with a sufficient number of personnel with the appropriate level of technical accounting and financial expertise, our internal accounting controls could be adversely impacted.
Cost reimbursements due to our General Partner may be substantial and may reduce our ability to pay the distributions to our Unitholders.
Prior to making any distributions to our Unitholders, we will reimburse our General Partner for all expenses it has incurred on our behalf. In addition, our General Partner and its affiliates may provide us with services for which we will be charged reasonable fees as determined by our General Partner. The reimbursement of these expenses and the payment of these fees could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our Unitholders. Our General Partner has sole discretion to determine the amount of these expenses and fees.
In addition, under Delaware partnership law, our General Partner has unlimited liability for our obligations, such as our debts and environmental liabilities, except for our contractual obligations that are expressly made without recourse to our General Partner. To the extent our General Partner incurs obligations on our behalf, we are obligated to reimburse or indemnify it. If we are unable or unwilling to reimburse or indemnify our General Partner, our General Partner may take actions to cause us to make payments of these obligations and liabilities. Any such payments could reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our Unitholders and cause the value of our Common Units to decline.
A reduction in ETP’s or Regency’s distributions will disproportionately affect the amount of cash distributions to which we are entitled.
Through our ownership of equity interests in ETP GP, the holder of the incentive distribution rights in ETP, we are entitled to receive our pro rata share of specified percentages of total cash distributions made by ETP as it reaches established target cash distribution levels as specified in the ETP partnership agreement. We currently receive our pro rata share of cash distributions from ETP based on the highest incremental percentage, 48%, to which ETP GP is entitled pursuant to its incentive distribution rights in ETP. A decrease in the amount of distributions by ETP to less than $0.4125 per Common Unit per quarter would reduce ETP GP’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions above $0.3175 per Common Unit per quarter from 48% to 23%. As a result, any such reduction in quarterly cash distributions from ETP would have the effect of disproportionately reducing the amount of all distributions that we receive from ETP based on our ownership interest in the incentive distribution rights in ETP as compared to cash distributions we receive from ETP on our General Partner interest in ETP and our ETP Common Units.
Similarly, we currently receive a pro rata share of incremental cash distributions from Regency at the 23% level pursuant to Regency GP’s incentive distribution rights in Regency as specified in the Regency partnership agreement. A decrease in the amount of distributions by Regency to less than $0.4375 per Common Unit per quarter would have reduced Regency GP’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions above $0.4025 per Common Unit per quarter from 23% to 13%. As a result, any such reduction in quarterly cash distributions from Regency would have the effect of disproportionately reducing the amount of all distributions that we receive from Regency based on our ownership interest in the incentive distribution rights of Regency as compared to cash distributions we receive from Regency on our General Partner interest in Regency and our Regency Common Units.

32


A reduction in Sunoco Logistics’ distributions will disproportionately affect the amount of cash distributions to which we are entitled.
Through our ownership of equity interests in Sunoco Partners, the holder of the incentive distribution rights in Sunoco Logistics, we are entitled to receive our pro rata share of specified percentages of total cash distributions made by Sunoco Logistics as it reaches established target cash distribution levels as specified in the Sunoco Logistics partnership agreement. We currently receive our pro rata share of cash distributions from Sunoco Logistics based on the highest incremental percentage, 48%, to which Sunoco Partners is entitled pursuant to its incentive distribution rights in Sunoco Logistics. A decrease in the amount of distributions by Sunoco Logistics to less than $0.5275 per common unit per quarter would reduce Sunoco Partners’ percentage of the incremental cash distributions above $0.1917 per common unit per quarter from 48% to 35%. As a result, any such reduction in quarterly cash distributions from Sunoco Logistics would have the effect of disproportionately reducing the amount of all distributions that we receive from Sunoco Logistics based on our ownership interest in the incentive distribution rights in Sunoco Logistics as compared to cash distributions we receive from Sunoco Logistics on our General Partner interest in Sunoco Logistics and our Sunoco Logistics common units.
The consolidated debt level and debt agreements of ETP and Regency and those of their subsidiaries may limit the distributions we receive from ETP and Regency, as well as our future financial and operating flexibility.
ETP’s and Regency’s levels of indebtedness affect their operations in several ways, including, among other things:
a significant portion of ETP’s, Regency’s and their subsidiaries’ cash flows from operations will be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on outstanding debt and will not be available for other purposes, including payment of distributions to us;
covenants contained in ETP’s, Regency’s and their subsidiaries’ existing debt agreements require ETP, Regency and their subsidiaries, as applicable, to meet financial tests that may adversely affect their flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes in their respective businesses;
ETP’s, Regency’s and their subsidiaries’ ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and general partnership, corporate or limited liability company purposes, as applicable, may be limited;
ETP and Regency may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to similar companies that have less debt;
ETP and Regency may be more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions as a result of their significant debt levels; and
failure by ETP, Regency or their subsidiaries to comply with the various restrictive covenants of the respective debt agreements could negatively impact ETP’s and Regency’s ability to incur additional debt, including their ability to utilize the available capacity under their revolving credit facilities, and to pay distributions.
We do not have the same flexibility as other types of organizations to accumulate cash, which may limit cash available to service our debt or to repay debt at maturity.
Unlike a corporation, our partnership agreement requires us to distribute, on a quarterly basis, 100% of our Available Cash (as defined in our partnership agreement) to our Unitholders of record and our General Partner. Available Cash is generally all of our cash on hand as of the end of a quarter, adjusted for cash distributions and net changes to reserves. Our General Partner will determine the amount and timing of such distributions and has broad discretion to establish and make additions to our reserves or the reserves of our operating subsidiaries in amounts it determines in its reasonable discretion to be necessary or appropriate:
to provide for the proper conduct of our business and the businesses of our operating subsidiaries (including reserves for future capital expenditures and for our anticipated future credit needs);
to provide funds for distributions to our Unitholders and our General Partner for any one or more of the next four calendar quarters; or
to comply with applicable law or any of our loan or other agreements.
A downgrade of our credit rating could impact our liquidity, access to capital and our costs of doing business, and maintaining credit ratings is under the control of independent third parties.
A downgrade of our credit rating might increase our cost of borrowing and could require us to post collateral with third parties, negatively impacting our available liquidity. Our ability to access capital markets could also be limited by a downgrade of our credit rating and other disruptions. Such disruptions could include:
economic downturns;

33


deteriorating capital market conditions;
declining market prices for natural gas, NGLs and other commodities;
terrorist attacks or threatened attacks on our facilities or those of other energy companies; and
the overall health of the energy industry, including the bankruptcy or insolvency of other companies.
Credit rating agencies perform independent analysis when assigning credit ratings. The analysis includes a number of criteria including, but not limited to, business composition, market and operational risks, as well as various financial tests. Credit rating agencies continue to review the criteria for industry sectors and various debt ratings and may make changes to those criteria from time to time. Credit ratings are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold investments in the rated entity. Ratings are subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the rating agencies, and we cannot assure you that we will maintain our current credit ratings.
ETP and Regency are not prohibited from competing with us.
Neither our partnership agreement nor the partnership agreements of ETP or Regency prohibit ETP or Regency from owning assets or engaging in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. In addition, ETP and/or Regency may acquire, construct or dispose of any assets in the future without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to purchase or construct any of those assets.
Sunoco Logistics is not prohibited from competing with us.
Neither our partnership agreement nor the partnership agreements of Sunoco Logistics prohibits Sunoco Logistics from owning assets or engaging in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. In addition, Sunoco Logistics may acquire, construct or dispose of any assets in the future without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to purchase or construct any of those assets.
Capital projects will require significant amounts of debt and equity financing which may not be available to ETP or Regency on acceptable terms, or at all.
ETP and Regency plan to fund their growth capital expenditures, including any new future pipeline construction projects and improvements or repairs to existing facilities that ETP or Regency may undertake, with proceeds from sales of ETP’s or Regency’s debt and equity securities and borrowings under their respective revolving credit facilities; however, ETP or Regency cannot be certain that they will be able to issue debt and equity securities on terms satisfactory to them, or at all. In addition, ETP or Regency may be unable to obtain adequate funding under their current revolving credit facility because ETP’s or Regency’s lending counterparties may be unwilling or unable to meet their funding obligations. If ETP or Regency are unable to finance their expansion projects as expected, ETP or Regency could be required to seek alternative financing, the terms of which may not be attractive to ETP or Regency, or to revise or cancel its expansion plans.
A significant increase in ETP’s or Regency’s indebtedness that is proportionately greater than ETP’s or Regency’s respective issuances of equity could negatively impact ETP’s or Regency’s respective credit ratings or their ability to remain in compliance with the financial covenants under their respective revolving credit agreements, which could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Increases in interest rates could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
In addition to our exposure to commodity prices, we have significant exposure to changes in interest rates. Approximately $2.63 billion of our consolidated debt as of December 31, 2013 bears interest at variable interest rates and the remainder bears interest at fixed rates. To the extent that we have debt with floating interest rates, our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could be materially adversely affected by increases in interest rates. We manage a portion of our interest rate exposures by utilizing interest rate swaps.
An increase in interest rates may also cause a corresponding decline in demand for equity investments, in general, and in particular for yield-based equity investments such as our Common Units. Any such reduction in demand for our Common Units resulting from other more attractive investment opportunities may cause the trading price of our Common Units to decline.
The credit and risk profile of our General Partner and its owners could adversely affect our credit ratings and profile.
The credit and business risk profiles of our General Partner or indirect owners of our General Partner may be factors in credit evaluations of us as a publicly traded limited partnership due to the significant influence of our General Partner and indirect owners over our business activities, including our cash distributions, acquisition strategy and business risk profile. Another factor that may be considered is the financial condition of our General Partner and its owners, including the degree of their financial leverage and their dependence on cash flow from us to service their indebtedness.

34


ETE has significant indebtedness outstanding and is dependent principally on the cash distributions from its general and limited partner equity interests in us and in Regency to service such indebtedness. Any distributions by us to ETE will be made only after satisfying our then current obligations to our creditors. Although we have taken certain steps in our organizational structure, financial reporting and contractual relationships to reflect the separateness of us, ETP GP and ETP LLC from the entities that control ETP GP (ETE and its general partner), our credit ratings and business risk profile could be adversely affected if the ratings and risk profiles of such entities were viewed as substantially lower or riskier than ours.
Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions.
Under certain circumstances, Unitholders may have to repay us amounts wrongfully distributed to them. Under Delaware law, we may not make a distribution to Unitholders if the distribution causes our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and non-recourse liabilities are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted. Delaware law provides that a limited partner who receives such a distribution and knew at the time of the distribution that the distribution violated Delaware law, will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount for three years from the distribution date. Under Delaware law, an assignee who becomes a substituted limited partner of a limited partnership is liable for the obligations of the assignor to make contributions to the partnership. However, such an assignee is not obligated for liabilities unknown to him at the time he or she became a limited partner if the liabilities could not be determined from the partnership agreement.
We have a holding company structure in which our subsidiaries conduct our operations and own our operating assets.
We are a holding company, and our subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. We do not have significant assets other than the partnership interests and the equity in our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to pay distributions to our Unitholders and to service our debt depends on the performance of our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. The ability of our subsidiaries to make distributions to us may be restricted by, among other things, credit facilities and applicable state partnership laws and other laws and regulations. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries we may not be able to pay distributions to our Unitholders or to pay interest or principal on our debt when due.
Unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that unitholder actions constitute control of our business.
Under Delaware law, a unitholder could be held liable for our obligations to the same extent as a general partner if a court determined that the right of unitholders to remove our general partner or to take other action under our partnership agreement constituted participation in the “control” of our business.
Our general partner generally has unlimited liability for our obligations, such as our debts and environmental liabilities, except for those contractual obligations that are expressly made without recourse to our general partner. Our partnership agreement allows the general partner to incur obligations on our behalf that are expressly non-recourse to the general partner. The general partner has entered into such limited recourse obligations in most instances involving payment liability and intends to do so in the future.
In addition, Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act provides that under some circumstances, a unitholder may be liable to us for the amount of a distribution for a period of three years from the date of the distribution.
Our debt level and debt agreements may limit our ability to make distributions to Unitholders and may limit our future financial and operating flexibility.
As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately $23.20 billion of consolidated debt, excluding the debt of our joint ventures. Our level of indebtedness affects our operations in several ways, including, among other things:
a significant portion of our and our subsidiaries’ cash flow from operations will be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on outstanding debt and will not be available for other purposes, including payment of distributions;
covenants contained in our and our subsidiaries’ existing debt agreements require us and them, as applicable, to meet financial tests that may adversely affect our flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes in our business;
our and our subsidiaries’ ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and general partnership, corporate or limited liability company purposes, as applicable, may be limited;
we may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to similar companies that have less debt;
we may be more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions as a result of our significant debt level; and
failure by us or our subsidiaries to comply with the various restrictive covenants of our respective debt agreements could negatively impact our ability to incur additional debt, including our ability to utilize the available capacity under our revolving credit facility, and our ability to pay our distributions.

35


Unitholders may be required to sell their units to our general partner at an undesirable time or price.
If at any time less than 10% of the outstanding units of any class are held by persons other than the general partner and its affiliates, the general partner will have the right to acquire all, but not less than all, of those units at a price no less than their then-current market price. As a consequence, a unitholder may be required to sell his Common Units at an undesirable time or price. The general partner may assign this purchase right to any of its affiliates or to us.
A downgrade of our credit rating could impact our liquidity, access to capital and our costs of doing business, and maintaining credit ratings is under the control of independent third parties.
A downgrade of our credit rating might increase our cost of borrowing and could require us to post collateral with third parties, negatively impacting our available liquidity. Our ability to access capital markets could also be limited by a downgrade of our credit rating and other disruptions. Such disruptions could include:
economic downturns;
deteriorating capital market conditions;
declining market prices for natural gas, NGLs and other commodities;
terrorist attacks or threatened attacks on our facilities or those of other energy companies; and
the overall health of the energy industry, including the bankruptcy or insolvency of other companies.
Credit rating agencies perform independent analysis when assigning credit ratings. The analysis includes a number of criteria including, but not limited to, business composition, market and operational risks, as well as various financial tests. Credit rating agencies continue to review the criteria for industry sectors and various debt ratings and may make changes to those criteria from time to time. Credit ratings are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold investments in the rated entity. Ratings are subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the rating agencies, and we cannot assure you that we will maintain our current credit ratings.
Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest
Although we control ETP and Regency through our ownership of their respective General Partners, ETP’s General Partner owes fiduciary duties to ETP and ETP’s Unitholders, and Regency’s General Partner owes fiduciary duties to Regency and Regency’s Unitholders, which may conflict with our interests.
Conflicts of interest exist and may arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and ETP, Regency and their respective limited partners, on the other hand. The directors and officers of ETP’s and Regency’s General Partners have fiduciary duties to manage ETP and Regency, respectively, in a manner beneficial to us. At the same time, the General Partners have fiduciary duties to manage ETP and Regency, respectively, in a manner beneficial to ETP, Regency and their respective limited partners. The board of directors of ETP’s General Partner or Regency’s general partner will resolve any such conflict and have broad latitude to consider the interests of all parties to the conflict. The resolution of these conflicts may not always be in our best interest.
For example, conflicts of interest with ETP or Regency may arise in the following situations:
the allocation of shared overhead expenses to ETP, Regency and us;
the interpretation and enforcement of contractual obligations between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and ETP or Regency, on the other hand;
the determination of the amount of cash to be distributed to ETP’s or Regency’s partners and the amount of cash to be reserved for the future conduct of ETP’s or Regency’s business;
the determination whether to make borrowings under ETP’s or Regency’s respective revolving credit facility to pay distributions to ETP’s or Regency’s partners, as applicable;
the determination of whether a business opportunity (such as a commercial development opportunity or an acquisition) that we may become aware of independently of ETP or Regency is made available for either ETP or Regency, or both, to pursue; and
any decision we make in the future to engage in business activities independent of ETP or Regency.

36


The fiduciary duties of our General Partner’s officers and directors may conflict with those of ETP’s or Regency’s respective General Partners.
Conflicts of interest may arise because of the relationships among ETP, Regency, their General Partners and us. Our General Partner’s directors and officers have fiduciary duties to manage our business in a manner beneficial to us and our Unitholders. Some of our General Partner’s directors are also directors and officers of ETP’s General Partner or Regency’s General Partner, and have fiduciary duties to manage the respective businesses of ETP and Regency in a manner beneficial to ETP, Regency and their respective Unitholders. The resolution of these conflicts may not always be in our best interest or that of our Unitholders.
Potential conflicts of interest may arise among our General Partner, its affiliates and us. Our General Partner and its affiliates have limited fiduciary duties to us, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of us.
Conflicts of interest may arise among our General Partner and its affiliates, on the one hand, and us, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our General Partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over our interests. These conflicts include, among others, the following:
Our General Partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us, including ETP, Regency and their respective affiliates and any General Partners and limited partnerships acquired in the future, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of limiting its fiduciary duties to us.
Our General Partner has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties under the terms of our partnership agreement, while also restricting the remedies available for actions that, without these limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing our units, Unitholders consent to various actions and conflicts of interest that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable state law.
Our General Partner determines the amount and timing of our investment transactions, borrowings, issuances of additional partnership securities and reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is available for distribution.
Our General Partner determines which costs it and its affiliates have incurred are reimbursable by us.
Our partnership agreement does not restrict our General Partner from causing us to pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered, or from entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf, so long as the terms of any such payments or additional contractual arrangements are fair and reasonable to us.
Our General Partner controls the enforcement of obligations owed to us by it and its affiliates.
Our General Partner decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for us.
Our partnership agreement limits our General Partner’s fiduciary duties to us and restricts the remedies available for actions taken by our General Partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.
Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the standards to which our General Partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement:
permits our General Partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our General Partner. This entitles our General Partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or any limited partner;
provides that our General Partner is entitled to make other decisions in “good faith” if it reasonably believes that the decisions are in our best interests;
generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not approved by the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the board of directors of our General Partner and not involving a vote of Unitholders must be on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or be “fair and reasonable” to us and that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is “fair and reasonable,” our General Partner may consider the totality of the relationships among the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly advantageous or beneficial to us; and
provides that our General Partner and its officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages to us, our limited partners or assignees for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that the General Partner or those other persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud, willful misconduct or gross negligence.

37


Our General Partner has a limited call right that may require Unitholders to sell their units at an undesirable time or price.
If at any time our General Partner and its affiliates own more than 90% of our outstanding units, our General Partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than their then-current market price. As a result, Unitholders may be required to sell their units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their units. As of December 31, 2013, the directors and executive officers of our General Partner owned approximately 19% of our Common Units.
The general partner’s absolute discretion in determining the level of cash reserves may adversely affect our ability to make cash distributions to our Unitholders.
Our partnership agreement requires the general partner to deduct from operating surplus cash reserves that in its reasonable discretion are necessary to fund our future operating expenditures. In addition, our partnership agreement permits the general partner to reduce available cash by establishing cash reserves for the proper conduct of our business, to comply with applicable law or agreements to which we are a party or to provide funds for future distributions to partners. These cash reserves will affect the amount of cash available for distribution to unitholders.
Risks Related to the Businesses of ETP and Regency
Since our cash flows consist exclusively of distributions from ETP and Regency, risks to the businesses of ETP and Regency are also risks to us. We have set forth below risks to the businesses of ETP and Regency, the occurrence of which could have a negative impact on their respective financial performance and decrease the amount of cash they are able to distribute to us.
ETP and Regency do not control, and therefore may not be able to cause or prevent certain actions by, certain of their joint ventures.
Certain of ETP’s and Regency’s joint ventures have their own governing boards, and ETP or Regency may not control all of the decisions of those boards. Consequently, it may be difficult or impossible for ETP or Regency to cause the joint venture entity to take actions that ETP or Regency believe would be in their or the joint venture’s best interests. Likewise, ETP or Regency may be unable to prevent actions of the joint venture.
ETP and Regency are exposed to the credit risk of their respective customers, and an increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by their respective customers could reduce their respective ability to make distributions to their Unitholders, including to us.
The risks of nonpayment and nonperformance by ETP’s and Regency’s respective customers are a major concern in their respective businesses. Participants in the energy industry have been subjected to heightened scrutiny from the financial markets in light of past collapses and failures of other energy companies. ETP and Regency are subject to risks of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by their respective customers. The current tightening of credit in the financial markets may make it more difficult for customers to obtain financing and, depending on the degree to which this occurs, there may be a material increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by ETP’s and Regency’s customers. Any substantial increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by ETP’s or Regency’s customers could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s respective results of operations and operating cash flows.
Income from ETP’s midstream, transportation, terminalling and storage operations is exposed to risks due to fluctuations in the demand for and price of natural gas, NGLs and oil that are beyond our control.
The prices for natural gas, NGLs and oil (including refined petroleum products) reflect market demand that fluctuates with changes in global and U.S. economic conditions and other factors, including:
the level of domestic natural gas, NGL, and oil production;
the level of natural gas, NGL, and oil imports and exports, including liquefied natural gas;
actions taken by natural gas and oil producing nations;
instability or other events affecting natural gas and oil producing nations;
the impact of weather and other events of nature on the demand for natural gas, NGLs and oil;
the availability of storage, terminal and transportation systems, and refining, processing and treating facilities;
the price, availability and marketing of competitive fuels;

38


the demand for electricity;
the cost of capital needed to maintain or increase production levels and to construct and expand facilities
the impact of energy conservation and fuel efficiency efforts; and
the extent of governmental regulation, taxation, fees and duties.
In the past, the prices of natural gas, NGLs and oil have been extremely volatile, and we expect this volatility to continue.
Any loss of business from existing customers or our inability to attract new customers due to a decline in demand for natural gas, NGLs, or oil could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations. In addition, significant price fluctuations for natural gas, NGL and oil commodities could materially affect our profitability
A material decrease in demand or distribution of crude oil available for transport through Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines or terminal facilities could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
The volume of crude oil transported through Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines and terminal facilities depends on the availability of attractively priced crude oil produced or received in the areas serviced by its assets. A period of sustained crude oil price declines could lead to a decline in drilling activity, production and import levels in these areas. Similarly, a period of sustained increases in the price of crude oil supplied from any of these areas, as compared to alternative sources of crude oil available to Sunoco Logistics’ customers, could materially reduce demand for crude oil in these areas. In either case, the volumes of crude oil transported in Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines and terminal facilities could decline, and it could likely be difficult to secure alternative sources of attractively priced crude oil supply in a timely fashion or at all. If Sunoco Logistics is unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
ETP and Regency are affected by competition from other midstream, transportation and storage and retail marketing companies.
We experience competition in all of our business segments. With respect to ETP’s midstream operations, ETP competes for both natural gas supplies and customers for its services. Competitors include major integrated oil companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines and companies that gather, compress, treat, process, transport, store and market natural gas.
ETP’s and Regency’s natural gas and NGL transportation pipelines and storage facilities compete with other interstate and intrastate pipeline companies and storage providers in the transportation and storage of natural gas. The principal elements of competition among pipelines are rates, terms of service, access to sources of supply and the flexibility and reliability of service. Natural gas and NGLs also competes with other forms of energy, including electricity, coal, fuel oils and renewable or alternative energy. Competition among fuels and energy supplies is primarily based on price; however, non-price factors, including governmental regulation, environmental impacts, efficiency, ease of use and handling, and the availability of subsidies and tax benefits also affects competitive outcomes.
In markets served by our NGL pipelines, we compete with other pipeline companies and barge, rail and truck fleet operations. We also face competition with other storage and fractionation facilities based on fees charged and the ability to receive, distribute and/or fractionate the customer’s products.
ETP’s crude oil and refined products pipeline operations face significant competition from other pipelines for large volume shipments. These operations also face competition from trucks for incremental and marginal volumes in areas served by Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines. Further, our refined product terminals compete with terminals owned by integrated petroleum companies, refining and marketing companies, independent terminal companies and distribution companies with marketing and trading operations.
ETP also faces strong competition in the market for the sale of retail gasoline and merchandise. ETP’s competitors include service stations operated by fully integrated major oil companies and other well-recognized national or regional retail outlets, often selling gasoline or merchandise at aggressively competitive prices. The actions of retail marketing competitors, including the impact of foreign imports, could lead to lower prices or reduced margins for the products we sell, which could have an adverse effect on our business or results of operations.

39


ETP and Regency may be unable to retain or replace existing midstream, transportation, terminalling and storage customers or volumes due to declining demand or increased competition in oil, natural gas and NGL markets, which would reduce revenues and limit future profitability.
The retention or replacement of existing customers and the volume of services that ETP and Regency provide at rates sufficient to maintain or increase current revenues and cash flows depends on a number of factors beyond our control, including the price of and demand for oil, natural gas, and NGLs in the markets we serve and competition from other service providers.
A significant portion of ETP and Regency’s sales of natural gas are to industrial customers and utilities. As a consequence of the volatility of natural gas prices and increased competition in the industry and other factors, industrial customers, utilities and other gas customers are increasingly reluctant to enter into long-term purchase contracts. Many customers purchase natural gas from more than one supplier and have the ability to change suppliers at any time. Some of these customers also have the ability to switch between gas and alternate fuels in response to relative price fluctuations in the market. Because there are many companies of greatly varying size and financial capacity that compete with us in the marketing of natural gas, we often compete in natural gas sales markets primarily on the basis of price.
ETP and Regency also receive a substantial portion of revenues by providing natural gas gathering, processing, treating, transportation and storage services. While a substantial portion of their services are sold under long-term contracts for reserved service, they also provide service on an unreserved or short-term basis. Demand for our services may be substantially reduced due to changing market prices. Declining prices may result in lower rates of natural gas production resulting in less use of services, while rising prices may diminish consumer demand and also limit the use of services. In addition, our competitors may attract our customers’ business. If demand declines or competition increases, we may not be able to sustain existing levels of unreserved service or renew or extend long-term contracts as they expire or we may reduce our rates to meet competitive pressures.
Revenue from ETP and Regency’s NGL transportation systems and refined products storage is also exposed to risks due to fluctuations in demand for transportation and storage service as a result of unfavorable commodity prices, competition from nearby pipelines, and other factors. ETP and Regency receive substantially all of their transportation revenues through dedicated contracts under which the customer agrees to deliver the total output from particular processing plants that are connected only to their transportation system. Reduction in demand for natural gas or NGLs due to unfavorable prices or other factors, however, may result lower rates of production under dedicated contracts and lower demand for our services. In addition, ETP’s refined products storage revenues are primarily derived from fixed capacity arrangements between us and our customers, a portion of its revenue is derived from fungible storage and throughput arrangements, under which ETP’s revenue is more dependent upon demand for storage from its customers.
The volume of crude oil and refined products transported through ETP’s oil pipelines and terminal facilities depends on the availability of attractively priced crude oil and refined products in the areas serviced by our assets. A period of sustained price reductions for crude oil or refined 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 refined products supplied from or delivered to any of these areas could materially reduce demand for crude oil or refined products in these areas. In either case, the volumes of crude oil or refined products transported in our oil pipelines and terminal facilities could decline.
The loss of existing customers by ETP and Regency’s midstream, transportation, terminalling and storage facilities or a reduction in the volume of the services customers purchase from them, or their inability to attract new customers and service volumes would negatively affect revenues, be detrimental to growth, and adversely affect results of operations.
ETP’s midstream facilities and transportation pipelines are attached to basins with naturally declining production, which it may not be able to replace with new sources of supply.
In order to maintain or increase throughput levels on ETP’s gathering systems and transportation pipeline systems and asset utilization rates at our treating and processing plants, ETP must continually contract for new natural gas supplies and natural gas transportation services.
A substantial portion of ETP’s assets, including its gathering systems and processing and treating plants, are connected to natural gas reserves and wells that experience declining production over time. ETP’s gas transportation pipelines are also dependent upon natural gas production in areas served by our gathering systems or in areas served by other gathering systems or transportation pipelines that connect with our transportation pipelines. ETP may not be able to obtain additional contracts for natural gas supplies for its natural gas gathering systems, and may be unable to maintain or increase the levels of natural gas throughput on its transportation pipelines. The primary factors affecting our ability to connect new supplies of natural gas to our gathering systems include our success in contracting for existing natural gas supplies that are not committed to other systems and the level of drilling activity and production of natural gas near our gathering systems or in areas that provide access to its transportation pipelines or markets to which ETP’s systems connect. ETP has no control over the level of drilling activity in its areas of operation, the amount

40


of reserves underlying the wells and the rate at which production from a well will decline. In addition, ETP has no control over producers or their production and contracting decisions.
While a substantial portion of ETP’s services are provided under long-term contracts for reserved service, it also provides service on an unreserved basis. The reserves available through the supply basins connected to our gathering, processing, treating, transportation and storage facilities may decline and may not be replaced by other sources of supply. A decrease in development or production activity could cause a decrease in the volume of unreserved services ETP provides and a decrease in the number and volume of its contracts for reserved transportation service over the long run, which in each case would adversely affect revenues and results of operations.
If we are unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, our results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
ETP is entirely dependent upon third parties for the supply of refined products such as gasoline and diesel for its retail marketing business.
ETP is required to purchase refined products from third party sources, including the joint venture that acquired Sunoco’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 and Regency’s natural gas gathering, processing, transportation and storage operations are largely dependent upon natural gas commodity prices, price spreads between two or more physical locations and market demand for natural gas and NGLs.
For a portion of the natural gas gathered on ETP’s and Regency’s systems, they purchase natural gas from producers at the wellhead and then gather and deliver the natural gas to pipelines where they typically resell the natural gas under various arrangements, including sales at index prices. Generally, the gross margins they realize under these arrangements decrease in periods of low natural gas prices.
ETP and Regency also enter into percent-of-proceeds arrangements, keep-whole arrangements, and processing fee agreements pursuant to which we agree to gather and process natural gas received from the producers.
Under percent-of-proceeds arrangements, ETP and Regency generally sell the residue gas and NGLs at market prices and remit to the producers an agreed upon percentage of the proceeds based on an index price. In other cases, instead of remitting cash payments to the producer, ETP and Regency deliver an agreed upon percentage of the residue gas and NGL volumes to the producer and sell the volumes ETP and Regency keep to third parties at market prices. Under these arrangements, revenues and gross margins decline when natural gas prices and NGL prices decrease. Accordingly, a decrease in the price of natural gas or NGLs could have an adverse effect on ETP’s and Regency’s revenues and results of operations.
Under keep-whole arrangements, ETP and Regency generally sell the NGLs produced from our gathering and processing operations at market prices. Because the extraction of the NGLs from the natural gas during processing reduces the Btu content of the natural gas, ETP and Regency must either purchase natural gas at market prices for return to producers or make a cash payment to producers equal to the value of this natural gas. Under these arrangements, gross margins generally decrease when the price of natural gas increases relative to the price of NGLs.
When ETP and Regency process the gas for a fee under processing fee agreements, they may guarantee recoveries to the producer. If recoveries are less than those guaranteed to the producer, ETP or Regency may suffer a loss by having to supply liquids or its cash equivalent to keep the producer whole.
ETP and Regency also receive fees and retain gas in kind from our natural gas transportation and storage customers. ETP and Regency’s fuel retention fees and the value of gas that they retain in kind are directly affected by changes in natural gas prices. Decreases in natural gas prices tend to decrease fuel retention fees and the value of retained gas.
In addition, ETP receives revenue from its off-gas processing and fractionating system in South Louisiana primarily through customer agreements that are a combination of keep-whole and percent-of-proceeds arrangements, as well as from transportation and fractionation fees. Consequently, a large portion of our off-gas processing and fractionation revenue is exposed to risks due to fluctuations in commodity prices. In addition, a decline in NGL prices could cause a decrease in demand for ETP’s off-gas processing and fractionation services and could have an adverse effect on ETP’s results of operations.

41


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

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

In addition, even though monitored by management, our derivatives activities can result in losses. Such losses could occur under various circumstances, including if a counterparty does not perform its obligations under the derivative arrangement, the hedge is imperfect, commodity prices move unfavorably related to our physical or financial positions or hedging policies and procedures are not followed.
ETP’s and Regency’s natural gas and NGL revenues depend on their customers’ ability to use ETP’s and Regency’s pipelines and third-party pipelines over which we have no control.
ETP’s and Regency’s natural gas transportation, storage and NGL businesses depend, in part, on their customers’ ability to obtain access to pipelines to deliver gas to and receive gas from ETP and Regency. Many of these pipelines are owned by parties not affiliated with us. Any interruption of service on our pipelines or third party pipelines due to testing, line repair, reduced operating pressures, or other causes or adverse change in terms and conditions of service could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s and Regency’s ability, and the ability of their customers, to transport natural gas to and from their pipelines and facilities and a corresponding material adverse effect on their transportation and storage revenues. In addition, the rates charged by interconnected pipelines for transportation to and from ETP’s and Regency’s facilities affect the utilization and value of their storage services. Significant changes in the rates charged by those pipelines or the rates charged by other pipelines with which the interconnected pipelines compete could also have a material adverse effect on storage revenues.
Shippers using ETP’s and Regency’s oil pipelines and terminals are also dependent upon their pipelines and connections to third-party pipelines to receive and deliver crude oil and 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 and Regency’s pipelines or through their terminals. Similarly, if additional shippers begin transporting volume over interconnecting oil pipelines, the allocations of pipeline capacity to ETP and Regency’s existing shippers on these interconnecting pipelines could be reduced, which also could reduce volumes transported in their pipelines or through their terminals. Allocation reductions of this nature are not infrequent and are beyond our control. Any such interruptions or allocation reductions that, individually or in the aggregate, are material or continue for a sustained period of time could have a material adverse effect on ETP and Regency’s results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
The inability to continue to access lands owned by third parties, including tribal lands, could adversely affect our ability to operate and adversely affect our financial results.
Our ability to operate our pipeline systems and terminal facilities on certain lands owned by third parties, including lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of a Native American tribe, will depend on our success in maintaining existing rights-of-way and obtaining new rights-of-way on those lands. Securing extensions of existing and any additional rights-of-way is also critical to our ability to pursue expansion projects. We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to acquire new rights-of-way or maintain access to existing rights-of-way upon the expiration of the current grants or that all of the rights-of-way will be obtainable in a timely fashion. Transwestern’s existing right-of-way agreements with the Navajo Nation, Southern Ute, Pueblo of Laguna and Fort Mojave tribes extend through November 2029, September 2020, December 2022 and April 2019, respectively. Our financial position could be adversely affected if the costs of new or extended right-of-way grants cannot be recovered in rates.

42


Further, whether we have the power of eminent domain for our pipelines varies from state to state, depending upon the type of pipeline and the laws of the particular state. In either case, we must compensate landowners for the use of their property and, in eminent domain actions, such compensation may be determined by a court. The inability to exercise the power of eminent domain could negatively affect our business if we were to lose the right to use or occupy the property on which our pipelines are located.
ETP and Regency may not be able to fully execute their growth strategies if they encounter increased competition for qualified assets.
ETP and Regency each have strategies that contemplate growth through the development and acquisition of a wide range of midstream and other energy infrastructure assets while maintaining strong balance sheets. These strategies include constructing and acquiring additional assets and businesses to enhance their ability to compete effectively and diversify their respective asset portfolios, thereby providing more stable cash flow. ETP and Regency regularly consider and enter into discussions regarding the acquisition of additional assets and businesses, stand-alone development projects or other transactions that ETP and Regency believe will present opportunities to realize synergies and increase cash flow.
Consistent with their strategies, managements of ETP and Regency may, from time to time, engage in discussions with potential sellers regarding the possible acquisition of additional assets or businesses. Such acquisition efforts may involve ETP or Regency management’s participation in processes that involve a number of potential buyers, commonly referred to as “auction” processes, as well as situations in which ETP or Regency believes it is the only party or one of a very limited number of potential buyers in negotiations with the potential seller. We cannot assure that ETP’s or Regency’s acquisition efforts will be successful or that any acquisition will be completed on favorable terms.
In addition, ETP and Regency each are experiencing increased competition for the assets they purchase or contemplate purchasing. Increased competition for a limited pool of assets could result in ETP or Regency losing to other bidders more often or acquiring assets at higher prices, both of which would limit ETP’s or Regency’s ability to fully execute their respective growth strategies. Inability to execute their respective growth strategies may materially adversely impact ETP’s or Regency’s results of operations.
An impairment of goodwill and intangible assets could reduce our earnings.
As of December 31, 2013, our consolidated balance sheets reflected $5.89 billion of goodwill and $2.26 billion of intangible assets. Goodwill is recorded when the purchase price of a business exceeds the fair value of the tangible and separately measurable intangible net assets. Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States require us to test goodwill for impairment on an annual basis or when events or circumstances occur, indicating that goodwill might be impaired. Long-lived assets such as intangible assets with finite useful lives are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. If we determine that any of our goodwill or intangible assets were impaired, we would be required to take an immediate charge to earnings with a correlative effect on partners’ capital and balance sheet leverage as measured by debt to total capitalization.
During the fourth quarter of 2013, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $689 million on our Trunkline LNG reporting unit. See Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements for additional information.
If ETP and Regency do not make acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, their future growth could be limited.
ETP’s and Regency’s results of operations and their ability to grow and to increase distributions to Unitholders will depend in part on their ability to make acquisitions that are accretive to their respective distributable cash flow.
ETP and Regency may be unable to make accretive acquisitions for any of the following reasons, among others:
inability to identify attractive acquisition candidates or negotiate acceptable purchase contracts with them;
inability to raise financing for such acquisitions on economically acceptable terms; or
inability to outbid by competitors, some of which are substantially larger than ETP or Regency and may have greater financial resources and lower costs of capital.
Furthermore, even if ETP or Regency consummates acquisitions that it believes will be accretive, those acquisitions may in fact adversely affect its results of operations or result in a decrease in distributable cash flow per unit. Any acquisition involves potential risks, including the risk that ETP or Regency may:
fail to realize anticipated benefits, such as new customer relationships, cost-savings or cash flow enhancements;
decrease its liquidity by using a significant portion of its available cash or borrowing capacity to finance acquisitions;
significantly increase its interest expense or financial leverage if the acquisition is financed with additional debt;

43


encounter difficulties operating in new geographic areas or new lines of business;
incur or assume unanticipated liabilities, losses or costs associated with the business or assets acquired for which there is no indemnity or the indemnity is inadequate;
be unable to hire, train or retrain qualified personnel to manage and operate its growing business and assets;
less effectively manage its historical assets, due to the diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns; or
incur other significant charges, such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets, asset devaluation or restructuring charges.
If ETP and Regency consummate future acquisitions, their respective capitalization and results of operations may change significantly. As ETP and Regency determine the application of their funds and other resources, Unitholders will not have an opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and other relevant information that ETP and Regency will consider.
If ETP and Regency do not continue to construct new pipelines, their future growth could be limited.
ETP’s and Regency’s results of operations and their ability to grow and to increase distributable cash flow per unit will depend, in part, on their ability to construct pipelines that are accretive to their respective distributable cash flow. ETP or Regency may be unable to construct pipelines that are accretive to distributable cash flow for any of the following reasons, among others:
inability to identify pipeline construction opportunities with favorable projected financial returns;
inability to raise financing for its identified pipeline construction opportunities; or
inability to secure sufficient transportation commitments from potential customers due to competition from other pipeline construction projects or for other reasons.
Furthermore, even if ETP or Regency constructs a pipeline that it believes will be accretive, the pipeline may in fact adversely affect its results of operations or fail to achieve results projected prior to commencement of construction.
Expanding ETP’s and Regency’s business by constructing new pipelines and related facilities subjects ETP and Regency to risks.
One of the ways that ETP and Regency have grown their respective businesses is through the construction of additions to existing gathering, compression, treating, processing and transportation systems. The construction of a new pipeline and related facilities (or the improvement and repair of existing facilities) involves numerous regulatory, environmental, political and legal uncertainties beyond ETP’s and Regency’s control and require the expenditure of significant amounts of capital to be financed through borrowings, the issuance of additional equity or from operating cash flow. If ETP or Regency undertakes these projects, they may not be completed on schedule or at all or at the budgeted cost. A variety of factors outside ETP’s or Regency’s control, such as weather, natural disasters and difficulties in obtaining permits and rights-of-way or other regulatory approvals, as well as the performance by third-party contractors may result in increased costs or delays in construction. Cost overruns or delays in completing a project could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, revenues may not increase immediately following the completion of a particular project. For instance, if ETP or Regency builds a new pipeline, the construction will occur over an extended period of time, but ETP or Regency, as applicable, may not materially increase its revenues until long after the project’s completion. In addition, the success of a pipeline construction project will likely depend upon the level of oil and natural gas exploration and development drilling activity and the demand for pipeline transportation in the areas proposed to be serviced by the project as well as ETP’s and Regency’s abilities to obtain commitments from producers in the area to utilize the newly constructed pipelines. In this regard, ETP and Regency may construct facilities to capture anticipated future growth in oil or natural gas production in a region in which such growth does not materialize. As a result, new facilities may be unable to attract enough throughput or contracted capacity reservation commitments to achieve ETP’s or Regency’s expected investment return, which could adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition.
ETP and Regency depend on certain key producers for a significant portion of their supplies of natural gas. The loss of, or reduction in, any of these key producers could adversely affect ETP’s or Regency’s respective business and operating results.
ETP and Regency rely on a limited number of producers for a significant portion of their natural gas supplies. These contracts have terms that range from month-to-month to life of lease. As these contracts expire, ETP and Regency will have to negotiate extensions or renewals or replace the contracts with those of other suppliers. ETP and Regency may be unable to obtain new or renewed contracts on favorable terms, if at all. The loss of all or even a portion of the volumes of natural gas supplied by these producers and other customers, as a result of competition or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s and Regency’s business, results of operations, and financial condition.

44


ETP and Regency depend on key customers to transport natural gas through their pipelines.
ETP and Regency rely on a limited number of major shippers to transport certain minimum volumes of natural gas on their respective pipelines, and Regency maintains contracts for compression services with a limited number of key customers. The failure of the major shippers on ETP’s, Regency’s or their joint ventures’ pipelines or of other key customers to fulfill their contractual obligations under these contracts could have a material adverse effect on the cash flow and results of operations of us, ETP, Regency or their joint ventures, as applicable, were unable to replace these customers under arrangements that provide similar economic benefits as these existing contracts.
Mergers among Sunoco Logistics’ customers and competitors could result in lower volumes being shipped on its pipelines or products stored in or distributed through its terminals, or reduced crude oil marketing margins or volumes.
Mergers between existing customers could provide strong economic incentives for the combined entities to utilize their existing systems instead of Sunoco Logistics’ systems in those markets where the systems compete. As a result, Sunoco Logistics could lose some or all of the volumes and associated revenues from these customers and could experience difficulty in replacing those lost volumes and revenues, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
A portion of Sunoco Logistics’ general and administrative services have been outsourced to third-party service providers. Fraudulent activity or misuse of proprietary data involving its outsourcing partners could expose us to additional liability.
Sunoco Logistics utilizes both affiliate entities and third parties in the processing of its information and data. Breaches of its security measures or the accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure or unapproved dissemination of proprietary information or sensitive or confidential data about Sunoco Logistics or its customers, including the potential loss or disclosure of such information or data as a result of fraud or other forms of deception, could expose Sunoco Logistics to a risk of loss or misuse of this information, result in litigation and potential liability for Sunoco Logistics, lead to reputational damage, increase compliance costs, or otherwise harm its business.
ETP and Regency’s interstate pipelines are subject to laws, regulations and policies governing the rates they are allowed to charge for their services, which may prevent us from fully recovering our costs.
Laws, regulations and policies governing interstate natural gas pipeline rates could affect the ability of ETP’s and Regency’s interstate pipelines to establish rates, to charge rates that would cover future increases in its costs, or to continue to collect rates that cover current costs.
ETP and Regency are required to file tariff rates (also known as recourse rates) with the FERC that shippers may elect to pay for interstate natural gas transportation services. We may also agree to discount these rates on a not unduly discriminatory basis or negotiate rates with shippers who elect not to pay the recourse rates. ETP and Regency must also file with the FERC all negotiated rates that do not conform to our tariff rates and all changes to our tariff or negotiated rates. The FERC must approve or accept all rate filings for us to be allowed to charge such rates.
The FERC may review existing tariffs rates on its own initiative or upon receipt of a complaint filed by a third party. The FERC may, on a prospective basis, order refunds of amounts collected if it finds the rates to have been shown not to be just and reasonable or to have been unduly discriminatory. The FERC has recently exercised this authority with respect to several other pipeline companies. If the FERC were to initiate a proceeding against ETP or Regency and find that their rates were not just and reasonable or unduly discriminatory, the maximum rates customers could elect to pay ETP and Regency may be reduced and the reduction could have an adverse effect on their revenues and results of operations.
The costs of ETP’s and Regency’s interstate pipeline operations may increase and ETP or Regency may not be able to recover all of those costs due to FERC regulation of their rates. If ETP or Regency propose to change their tariff rates, their proposed rates may be challenged by the FERC or third parties, and the FERC may deny, modify or limit ETP’s or Regency’s proposed changes if they are unable to persuade the FERC that changes would result in just and reasonable rates that are not unduly discriminatory. ETP and Regency also may be limited by the terms of rate case settlement agreements or negotiated rate agreements with individual customers from seeking future rate increases, or ETP and Regency may be constrained by competitive factors from charging their tariff rates.
To the extent ETP’s and Regency’s costs increase in an amount greater than their revenues increase, or there is a lag between their cost increases and their ability to file for, and obtain rate increases, their operating results would be negatively affected. Even if a rate increase is permitted by the FERC to become effective, the rate increase may not be adequate. ETP and Regency cannot guarantee that their interstate pipelines will be able to recover all of their costs through existing or future rates.

45


In July 2010, in response to an intervention and protest filed by BGLS regarding its rates with Trunkline LNG applicable to certain LNG expansions, the FERC determined that there was no reason at that time to expend the FERC’s resources on a rate proceeding with respect to Trunkline LNG even though cost and revenue studies provided to the FERC indicated Trunkline LNG’s revenues were in excess of its associated cost of service. The current fixed rates expire at the end of 2015 and revert to tariff rate for these LNG expansions as well as the base LNG facilities for which rates were set in 2002.
The ability of interstate pipelines held in tax-pass-through entities, like us, to include an allowance for income taxes as a cost-of-service element in their regulated rates has been subject to extensive litigation before the FERC and the courts for a number of years. It is currently the FERC’s policy to permit pipelines to include in cost-of-service a tax allowance to reflect actual or potential income tax liability on their public utility income attributable to all partnership or limited liability company interests, if the ultimate owner of the interest has an actual or potential income tax liability on such income. Whether a pipeline’s owners have such actual or potential income tax liability will be reviewed by the FERC on a case-by-case basis. Under the FERC’s policy, we thus remain eligible to include an income tax allowance in the tariff rates we charge for interstate natural gas transportation. The effectiveness of the FERC’s policy and the application of that policy remains subject to future challenges, refinement or change by the FERC or the courts.
The interstate pipelines are subject to laws, regulations and policies governing terms and conditions of service, which could adversely affect their business and operations.
In addition to rate oversight, the FERC’s regulatory authority extends to many other aspects of the business and operations of ETP’s and Regency’s interstate pipelines, including:
operating terms and conditions of service;
the types of services interstate pipelines may or must offer their customers;
construction of new facilities;
acquisition, extension or abandonment of services or facilities;
reporting and information posting requirements;
accounts and records; and
relationships with affiliated companies involved in all aspects of the natural gas and energy businesses.
Compliance with these requirements can be costly and burdensome. In addition, we cannot guarantee that the FERC will authorize tariff changes and other activities we might propose to do so in a timely manner and free from potentially burdensome conditions. Future changes to laws, regulations, policies and interpretations thereof in these areas may impair the ability of ETP’s and Regency’s interstate pipelines to compete for business, may impair their ability to recover costs or may increase the cost and burden of operation.
Rate regulation or market conditions may not allow ETP to recover the full amount of increases in the costs of its crude oil and refined products pipeline operations.
Transportation provided on ETP’s common carrier interstate crude oil and refined products pipelines is subject to rate regulation by the FERC, which requires that tariff rates for transportation on these oil pipelines be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. If ETP proposes new or changed rates, the FERC or interested persons may challenge those rates and the FERC is authorized to suspend the effectiveness of such rates for up to seven months and to investigate such rates. If, upon completion of an investigation, the FERC finds that the proposed rate is unjust or unreasonable, it is authorized to require the carrier to refund revenues in excess of the prior tariff during the term of the investigation. The FERC also may investigate, upon complaint or on its own motion, rates that are already in effect and may order a carrier to change its rates prospectively. Upon an appropriate showing, a shipper may obtain reparations for damages sustained for a period of up to two years prior to the filing of a complaint.
The primary ratemaking methodology used by the FERC to authorize increases in the tariff rates of petroleum pipelines is price indexing. The FERC’s ratemaking methodologies may limit our ability to set rates based on our costs or may delay the use of rates that reflect increased costs. In addition, if the FERC’s indexing methodology changes, the new methodology could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Under the Energy Policy Act adopted in 1992, certain interstate pipeline rates were deemed just and reasonable or “grandfathered.” Revenues are derived from such grandfathered rates on most of our FERC-regulated pipelines. A person challenging a grandfathered rate must, as a threshold matter, establish a substantial change since the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act, in either the economic circumstances or the nature of the service that formed the basis for the rate. If the FERC were to find a substantial change in circumstances, then the existing rates could be subject to detailed review and there is a risk that some rates could be

46


found to be in excess of levels justified by the pipeline’s costs. In such event, the FERC could order us to reduce pipeline rates prospectively and to pay refunds to shippers.
If the FERC’s petroleum pipeline ratemaking methodologies procedures changes, the new methodology or procedures could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
State regulatory measures could adversely affect the business and operations of ETP and Regency’s midstream and intrastate pipeline and storage assets.
ETP’s and Regency’s midstream and intrastate transportation and storage operations are generally exempt from FERC regulation under the NGA, but FERC regulation still significantly affects their business and the market for their products. The rates, terms and conditions of service for the interstate services they provide in their intrastate gas pipelines and gas storage are subject to FERC regulation under Section 311 of the NGPA. ETP’s HPL System, East Texas pipeline, Oasis pipeline and ET Fuel System provide such services. Under Section 311, rates charged for transportation and storage must be fair and equitable. Amounts collected in excess of fair and equitable rates are subject to refund with interest, and the terms and conditions of service, set forth in the pipeline’s statement of operating conditions, are subject to FERC review and approval. Should the FERC determine not to authorize rates equal to or greater than ETP’s or Regency’s costs of service, their cash flow would be negatively affected.
ETP and Regency’s midstream and intrastate gas and oil transportation pipelines and their intrastate gas storage operations are subject to state regulation. All of the states in which they operate midstream assets, intrastate pipelines or intrastate storage facilities have adopted some form of complaint-based regulation, which allow producers and shippers to file complaints with state regulators in an effort to resolve grievances relating to the fairness of rates and terms of access. The states in which ETP and Regency operate have ratable take statutes, which generally require gatherers to take, without undue discrimination, production that may be tendered to the gatherer for handling. Similarly, common purchaser statutes generally require gatherers to purchase without undue discrimination as to source of supply or producer. These statutes have the effect of restricting our right as an owner of gathering facilities to decide with whom we contract to purchase or transport natural gas. Should a complaint be filed in any of these states or should regulation become more active, ETP’s or Regency’s businesses may be adversely affected.
ETP’s and Regency’s intrastate transportation operations located in Texas are also subject to regulation as gas utilities by the TRRC. Texas gas utilities must publish the rates they charge for transportation and storage services in tariffs filed with the TRRC, although such rates are deemed just and reasonable under Texas law unless challenged in a complaint.
ETP and Regency are subject to other forms of state regulation, including requirements to obtain operating permits, reporting requirements, and safety rules (see description of federal and state pipeline safety regulation below). Violations state laws, regulations, orders and permit conditions can result in the modification, cancellation or suspension of a permit, civil penalties and other relief.
Certain of ETP’s and Regency’s assets may become subject to regulation.
The distinction between federally unregulated gathering facilities and FERC-regulated transmission pipelines under the NGA has been the subject of extensive litigation and may be determined by the FERC on a case-by-case basis, although the FERC has made no determinations as to the status of our facilities. Consequently, the classification and regulation of our gathering facilities could change based on future determinations by the FERC, the courts or Congress. If our gas gathering operations become subject to FERC jurisdiction, the result may adversely affect the rates we are able to charge and the services we currently provide, and may include the potential for a termination of our gathering agreements with our customers.
Intrastate transportation of NGLs is largely regulated by the state in which such transportation takes place. Lone Star’s NGL Pipeline transports NGLs within the state of Texas and is subject to regulation by the TRRC. This NGLs transportation system offers services pursuant to an intrastate transportation tariff on file with the TRRC. Lone Star’s NGL pipeline also commenced the interstate transportation of NGLs in 2013, which is subject to FERC’s jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Both intrastate and interstate NGL transportation services must be provided in a manner that is just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. The tariff rates established for interstate services were based on a negotiated agreement; however, if FERC’s rate making methodologies were imposed, they may, among other things, delay the use of rates that reflect increased costs and subject us to potentially burdensome and expensive operational, reporting and other requirements. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect revenues and cash flow related to these assets.
ETP and Regency may incur significant costs and liabilities resulting from performance of pipeline integrity programs and related repairs.
Pursuant to authority under the NGPSA and HLPSA, as amended by the PSI Act, the PIPES Act and the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act, PHMSA has established a series of rules requiring pipeline operators to develop and implement integrity management programs

47


for gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines that, in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture could affect “high consequence areas,” which are areas where a release could have the most significant adverse consequences, including high population areas, certain drinking water sources, and unusually sensitive ecological areas.
These regulations require operators of covered pipelines to:
perform ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity;
identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline operations that could impact a high consequence area;
improve data collection, integration and analysis;
repair and remediate the pipeline as necessary; and
implement preventive and mitigating actions.
In addition, states have adopted regulations similar to existing PHMSA regulations for intrastate gathering and transmission lines. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of compliance with applicable pipeline integrity management regulations, as the cost will vary significantly depending on the number and extent of any repairs found to be necessary as a result of the pipeline integrity testing. We will continue our pipeline integrity testing programs to assess and maintain the integrity of our pipelines. The results of these tests could cause us to incur significant and unanticipated capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of our pipelines. Any changes to pipeline safety laws by Congress and regulations by PHMSA that result in more stringent or costly safety standards could have a significant adverse effect on us and similarly situated midstream operators. For instance, changes to regulations governing the safety of gas transmission pipelines and gathering lines are being considered by PHMSA, including, for example, revising the definitions of “high consequence areas” and “gathering lines” and strengthening integrity management requirements as they apply to existing regulated operators and to currently exempt operators should certain exemptions be removed.
ETP’s and Regency’s businesses involve hazardous substances and may be adversely affected by environmental regulation.
ETP’s and Regency’s operations are subject to stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment, worker health and safety and protection of the environment. These laws and regulations may require the acquisition of permits for ETP’s and Regency’s operations, result in capital expenditures to manage, limit, or prevent emissions, discharges or releases of various materials from ETP’s and Regency’s pipelines, plants and facilities and impose substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from ETP’s and Regency’s operations. Several governmental authorities, such as the EPA have the power to enforce compliance with these laws and regulations and the permits issued under them and frequently mandate difficult and costly remediation measures and other actions. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations and permits may result in the assessment of significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial obligations and the issuance of injunctive relief. Certain environmental laws impose strict, joint and several liability for costs required to clean up and restore sites where hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or wastes have been disposed or released, even under circumstances where the substances, hydrocarbons or wastes have been released by a predecessor operator. Moreover, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by noise, odor or the release of hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or wastes into the environment.
ETP and Regency may incur substantial environmental costs and liabilities because of the underlying risk inherent to its operations. Although we have established financial reserves for our estimated environmental remediation liabilities, additional contamination or conditions may be discovered, resulting in increased remediation costs, liabilities for natural resource damages that could substantially increase our costs for site remediation projects. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that our current reserves are adequate to cover all future liabilities, even for currently known contamination.
Changes in environmental laws and regulations occur frequently, and changes that result in significantly more stringent and costly waste handling, emission standards, or storage, transport, disposal or remediation requirements could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s and Regency’s operations or financial position. For example, in EPA the 2008 lowered the federal ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm, requiring the environmental agencies in states with areas that do not currently meet this standard to adopt new rules to further reduce NOx and other ozone precursor emissions. ETP and Regency have previously been able to satisfy the more stringent NOx emission reduction requirements that affect its compressor units in ozone non-attainment areas at reasonable cost, but there is no assurance that ETP and Regency will not incur material costs in the future to meet the new ozone standard.
Product liability claims and litigation could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
Product liability is a significant commercial risk. Substantial damage awards have been made in certain jurisdictions against manufacturers and resellers based upon claims for injuries caused by the use of or exposure to various products. There can be no

48


assurance that product liability claims against us would not have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations.
Along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, Sunoco is a defendant in numerous lawsuits that allege methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”) contamination in groundwater. Plaintiffs, who include water purveyors and municipalities responsible for supplying drinking water and private well owners, are seeking compensatory damages (and in some cases injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees) for claims relating to the alleged manufacture and distribution of a defective product (MTBE-containing gasoline) that contaminates groundwater, and general allegations of product liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and deceptive business practices. There has been insufficient information developed about the plaintiffs’ legal theories or the facts that would be relevant to an analysis of the ultimate liability to Sunoco. These allegations or other product liability claims against Sunoco could have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations.
The adoption of climate change legislation or regulations restricting emissions of greenhouse gases could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for the services we provide.
In December 2009, the EPA published its findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases present an endangerment to public health and the environment because emissions of such gases are, according to the EPA, contributing to warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. Based on these findings, the EPA has adopted rules under the Clean Air Act that, among other things, establish PSD construction and Title V operating permit reviews for certain large stationary sources, 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 reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from specified onshore and offshore production facilities and onshore processing, transmission and storage facilities in the United States on an annual basis, which include certain of our operations. While Congress has from time to time considered adopting legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, there has not been significant activity in the form of adopted legislation. In the absence of such federal climate legislation, a number of state and regional efforts have emerged that are aimed at tracking and/or reducing greenhouse gas emissions by means of cap and trade programs. The adoption of any legislation or regulations that requires reporting of greenhouse gases or otherwise restricts emissions of greenhouse gases from our equipment and operations could require us to incur significant added costs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or could adversely affect demand for the natural gas and NGLs we gather and process or fractionate. Moreover, if Congress undertakes comprehensive tax reform in the coming year, it is possible that such reform may include a carbon tax, which could impose additional direct costs on operations and reduce demand for refined products, which could adversely affect the services we provide.
The adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act could have an adverse effect on our ability to use derivative instruments to reduce the effect of commodity price, interest rate and other risks associated with our business, resulting in our operations becoming more volatile and our cash flows less predictable.
Congress has adopted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"), a comprehensive financial reform legislation that establishes federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in that market. This legislation was signed into law by President Obama on July 21, 2010 and requires the CFTC, the SEC and other regulators to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the new legislation. While certain regulations have been promulgated and are already in effect, the rulemaking and implementation process is still ongoing, and we cannot yet predict the ultimate effect of the rules and regulations on our business.
The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the types of entities that are required to register with the CFTC and the SEC as a result of their activities in the derivatives markets or otherwise become specifically qualified to enter into derivatives contracts. We will be required to assess our activities in the derivatives markets, and to monitor such activities on an ongoing basis, to ascertain and to identify any potential change in our regulatory status.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements also could significantly increase operating costs and expose us to penalties for non-compliance. Certain CFTC recordkeeping requirements became effective on October 14, 2010, and additional recordkeeping requirements will be phased in through April 2013. Beginning on December 31, 2012, certain CFTC reporting rules became effective, and additional reporting requirements will be phased in through April 2013. These additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements may require additional compliance resources. Added public transparency as a result of the reporting rules may also have a negative effect on market liquidity which could also negatively impact commodity prices and our ability to hedge.
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. The CFTC’s position limits rules were to become effective on October 12, 2012, but a United States District Court vacated and remanded the position limits rules to the CFTC. The CFTC has appealed that ruling and it is uncertain at this time whether, when, and to what extent the CFTC’s position limits rules will become effective.

49


The new regulations may also require us to comply with certain margin requirements for our over-the counter derivative contracts with certain CFTC- or SEC-registered entities that could require us to enter into credit support documentation and/or post significant amounts of cash collateral, which could adversely affect our liquidity and ability to use derivatives to hedge our commercial price risk; however, the proposed margin rules are not yet final and therefore the application of those provisions to us is uncertain at this time. The financial reform legislation may also require the counterparties to our derivative instruments to spin off some of their derivatives activities to a separate entity, which may not be as creditworthy as the current counterparty.
The new legislation also requires that certain derivative instruments be centrally cleared and executed through an exchange or other approved trading platform. Mandatory exchange trading and clearing requirements could result in increased costs in the form of additional margin requirements imposed by clearing organizations. On December 13, 2012, the CFTC published final rules regarding mandatory clearing of certain interest rate swaps and certain index credit default swaps and setting compliance dates for different categories of market participants, the earliest of which was March 11, 2013. The CFTC has not yet proposed any rules requiring the clearing of any other classes of swaps, including physical commodity swaps. Although there may be an exception to the mandatory exchange trading and clearing requirement that applies to our trading activities, we must obtain approval from the board of directors of our General Partner and make certain filings in order to rely on this exception. In addition, mandatory clearing requirements applicable to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging.
Rules promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act further defined forwards as well as instances where forwards may become swaps. Because the CFTC rules, interpretations, no-action letters, and case law are still developing, it is possible that some arrangements that previously qualified as forwards or energy service contracts may fall in the regulatory category of swaps or options. In addition, the CFTC’s rules applicable to trade options may further impose burdens on our ability to conduct our traditional hedging operations and could become subject to CFTC investigations in the future.
The new legislation and any new regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts (including through restrictions on the types of collateral we are required to post), materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, reduce our ability to monetize or restructure existing derivative contracts, and increase our exposure to less creditworthy counterparties. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the legislation and regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable. Finally, if we fail to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations, we may be subject to fines, cease-and-desist orders, civil and criminal penalties or other sanctions.
A natural disaster, catastrophe or other event could result in severe personal injury, property damage and environmental damage, which could curtail ETP’s and Regency’s operations and otherwise materially adversely affect their cash flow.
Some of ETP’s and Regency’s operations involve risks of personal injury, property damage and environmental damage, which could curtail its operations and otherwise materially adversely affect its cash flow. For example, natural gas facilities operate at high pressures, sometimes in excess of 1,100 pounds per square inch. Virtually all of ETP’s and Regency’s operations are exposed to potential natural disasters, including hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, floods and/or earthquakes.
If one or more facilities that are owned by ETP or Regency or that deliver natural gas or other products to ETP or Regency are damaged by severe weather or any other disaster, accident, catastrophe or event, ETP’s or Regency’s operations could be significantly interrupted. Similar interruptions could result from damage to production or other facilities that supply ETP’s or Regency’s facilities or other stoppages arising from factors beyond its control. These interruptions might involve significant damage to people, property or the environment, and repairs might take from a week or less for a minor incident to six months or more for a major interruption. Any event that interrupts the revenues generated by ETP’s or Regency’s operations, or which causes it to make significant expenditures not covered by insurance, could reduce ETP’s or Regency’s cash available for paying distributions to its Unitholders, including us.
As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain insurance policies can increase substantially, and in some instances, certain insurance may become unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage. As a result, ETP and Regency may not be able to renew existing insurance policies or procure other desirable insurance on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If ETP or Regency were to incur a significant liability for which it was not fully insured, it could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s financial position and results of operations, as applicable. In addition, the proceeds of any such insurance may not be paid in a timely manner and may be insufficient if such an event were to occur.
Terrorist attacks aimed at our facilities could adversely affect its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
The United States government has issued warnings that energy assets, including the nation’s pipeline infrastructure, may be the future target of terrorist organizations. Some of our facilities are subject to standards and procedures required by the Chemical

50


Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. We believe we are in compliance with all material requirements; however, such compliance may not prevent a terrorist attack from causing material damage to our facilities or pipelines. Any such terrorist attack on ETP’s or Regency’s facilities or pipelines, those of their customers, or in some cases, those of other pipelines could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Regency’s business, financial condition and results of operations.
Cybersecurity breaches and other disruptions could compromise our information and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation to suffer.
In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information and that of our customers, suppliers and business partners, and personal identification information of our employees, in our data centers and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, regulatory penalties, disruption of our operations, damage to our reputation, and cause a loss of confidence in our products and services, which could adversely affect our business.
ETP has an equity investment in AmeriGas and the value of this investment, and the cash distributions ETP expects to receive from this investment, are subject to the risks encountered by AmeriGas with respect to its business.
As of December 31, 2013, ETP owned approximately 22.1 million AmeriGas common units and, as a result of a sale of approximately 9.2 million AmeriGas common units in January 2014, ETP owned 12.9 million AmeriGas common units as of January 31, 2014. The value of ETP’s investment in AmeriGas common units and the cash distributions it expects to receive on a quarterly basis with respect to these common units, are subject to the risks encountered by AmeriGas with respect to its business, including the following:
adverse weather condition resulting in reduced demand;
cost volatility and availability of propane, and the capacity to transport propane to its customers;
the availability of, and its ability to consummate, acquisition or combination opportunities;
successful integration and future performance of acquired assets or businesses;
changes in laws and regulations, including safety, tax, consumer protection and accounting matters;
competitive pressures from the same and alternative energy sources;
failure to acquire new customers and retain current customers thereby reducing or limiting any increase in revenues;
liability for environmental claims;
increased customer conservation measures due to high energy prices and improvements in energy efficiency and technology resulting in reduced demand;
adverse labor relations;
large customer, counter-party or supplier defaults;
liability in excess of insurance coverage for personal injury and property damage arising from explosions and other catastrophic events, including acts of terrorism, resulting from operating hazards and risks incidental to transporting, storing and distributing propane, butane and ammonia;
political, regulatory and economic conditions in the United States and foreign countries;
capital market conditions, including reduced access to capital markets and interest rate fluctuations;
changes in commodity market prices resulting in significantly higher cash collateral requirements;
the impact of pending and future legal proceedings;
the timing and success of its acquisitions and investments to grow its business; and
its ability to successfully integrate acquired businesses and achieve anticipated synergies.

51


More stringent regulatory initiatives in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the Macondo well oil spill may result in increased costs and delays in offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production operations, which costs and delays could significantly decrease the volume of our business and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity.
In response to an April 2010 fire and explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and resulting oil spill from the Macondo well operated by a third party in ultra-deep water in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, federal authorities have pursued a series of regulatory initiatives to address the direct impact of that incident and to prevent similar incidents in the future. Beginning in 2010 and continuing through 2013, the federal government, acting through the U.S. Department of the Interior, or DOI, and its implementing agencies that have since evolved into the present day Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement has issued various rules, Notices to Lessees and Operators and temporary drilling moratoria that impose or result in added environmental and safety measures upon exploration, development and production operators in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. These regulatory initiatives may serve to effectively slow down the pace of drilling and production operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico due to adjustments in operating procedures and certification practices, increased lead times to obtain exploration and production plan reviews, develop drilling applications, and apply for and receive new well permits and thus result in increased costs for affected operators, some of whom are our customers. The increased regulations and cost of drilling operations could result in decreased drilling activity in the areas serviced by us. Furthermore, business decisions by operators not to drill in the areas serviced by us in the future owing to the more rigorous regulatory environmental or increased costs of operating also could result in a reduction in the future development and production of natural gas reserves in the vicinity of our facilities, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition results of operations and cash flows. Also, if similar events were to occur in the future in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico in areas where we conduct operations, the United States could elect to again issue directives to temporarily cease drilling activities and, in any event, may from time to time issue further safety and environmental laws and regulations regarding offshore oil and gas exploration and development, which developments could have a material adverse effect on our volume of business as well as our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.
Our business is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations that govern the product quality specifications of the petroleum products that we store and transport.
The petroleum products that we store and transport through Sunoco Logistics’ operations are sold by our customers for consumption into the public market. Various federal, state and local agencies have the authority to prescribe specific product quality specifications to commodities sold into the public market. Changes in product quality specifications could reduce our throughput volume, require us to incur additional handling costs or require the expenditure of significant capital. In addition, different product specifications for different markets impact the fungibility of products transported and stored in our pipeline systems and terminal facilities and could require the construction of additional storage to segregate products with different specifications. We may be unable to recover these costs through increased revenues.
In addition, our butane blending services are reliant upon gasoline vapor pressure specifications. Significant changes in such specifications could reduce butane blending opportunities, which would affect our ability to market our butane blending services licenses.
Our business could be affected adversely by union disputes and strikes or work stoppages by Southern Union’s and Sunoco’s unionized employees.
As of December 31, 2013, approximately 12% of our workforce is covered by a number of collective bargaining agreements with various terms and dates of expirations. There can be no assurances that Southern Union or Sunoco will not experience a work stoppage in the future as a result of labor disagreements. Any work stoppage could, depending on the affected operations and the length of the work stoppage, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

52


Governmental regulations and policies, particularly in the areas of taxation, energy and the environment, have a significant impact on our retail marketing business.
Federally mandated standards for use of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel in the production of refined products, are transforming traditional gasoline and diesel markets in North America. These regulatory mandates present production and logistical challenges for both the petroleum refining and ethanol industries, and may require us to incur additional capital expenditures or expenses particularly in our retail marketing business. We may have to enter into arrangements with other parties to meet our obligations to use advanced biofuels, with potentially uncertain supplies of these new fuels. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient quantities of ethanol to support our blending needs, our sale of ethanol blended gasoline could be interrupted or suspended which could result in lower profits. There also will be compliance costs related to these regulations. We may experience a decrease in demand for refined petroleum products due to new federal requirements for increased fleet mileage per gallon or due to replacement of refined petroleum products by renewable fuels. In addition, tax incentives and other subsidies making renewable fuels more competitive with refined petroleum products may reduce refined petroleum product margins and the ability of refined petroleum products to compete with renewable fuels. A structural expansion of production capacity for such renewable biofuels could lead to significant increases in the overall production, and available supply, of gasoline and diesel in markets that we supply. In addition, a significant shift by consumers to more fuel-efficient vehicles or alternative fuel vehicles (such as ethanol or wider adoption of gas/electric hybrid vehicles), or an increase in vehicle fuel economy, whether as a result of technological advances by manufacturers, legislation mandating or encouraging higher fuel economy or the use of alternative fuel, or otherwise, also could lead to a decrease in demand, and reduced margins, for the refined petroleum products that we market and sell.
It is possible that any, or a combination, of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco’s business or results of operations.
We have outsourced various functions related to our retail marketing business to third-party service providers, which decreases our control over the performance of these functions. Disruptions or delays of our third-party outsourcing partners could result in increased costs, or may adversely affect service levels. Fraudulent activity or misuse of proprietary data involving our outsourcing partners could expose us to additional liability.
Sunoco has previously outsourced various functions related to our retail marketing business to third parties and expects to continue this practice with other functions in the future.
While outsourcing arrangements may lower our cost of operations, they also reduce our direct control over the services rendered. It is uncertain what effect such diminished control will have on the quality or quantity of products delivered or services rendered, on our ability to quickly respond to changing market conditions, or on our ability to ensure compliance with all applicable domestic and foreign laws and regulations. We believe that we conduct appropriate due diligence before entering into agreements with our outsourcing partners. We rely on our outsourcing partners to provide services on a timely and effective basis. Although we continuously monitor the performance of these third parties and maintain contingency plans in case they are unable to perform as agreed, we do not ultimately control the performance of our outsourcing partners. Much of our outsourcing takes place in developing countries and, as a result, may be subject to geopolitical uncertainty. The failure of one or more of our third-party outsourcing partners to provide the expected services on a timely basis at the prices we expect, or as required by contract, due to events such as regional economic, business, environmental or political events, information technology system failures, or military actions, could result in significant disruptions and costs to our operations, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and cash flow.
Our failure to generate significant cost savings from these outsourcing initiatives could adversely affect our profitability and weaken Sunoco’s competitive position. Additionally, if the implementation of our outsourcing initiatives is disruptive to our retail marketing business, we could experience transaction errors, processing inefficiencies, and the loss of sales and customers, which could cause our business and results of operations to suffer.
As a result of these outsourcing initiatives, more third parties are involved in processing our retail marketing information and data. Breaches of security measures or the accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure or unapproved dissemination of proprietary information or sensitive or confidential data about our retail marketing business or our clients, including the potential loss or disclosure of such information or data as a result of fraud or other forms of deception, could expose us to a risk of loss or misuse of this information, result in litigation and potential liability for us, lead to reputational damage to the Sunoco brand, increase our compliance costs, or otherwise harm our business.
Our operations could be disrupted if our information systems fail, causing increased expenses and loss of sales.
Our business is highly dependent on financial, accounting and other data processing systems and other communications and information systems, including our enterprise resource planning tools. We process a large number of transactions on a daily basis and rely upon the proper functioning of computer systems. If a key system was to fail or experience unscheduled downtime for

53


any reason, even if only for a short period, our operations and financial results could be affected adversely. Our systems could be damaged or interrupted by a security breach, fire, flood, power loss, telecommunications failure or similar event. We have a formal disaster recovery plan in place, but this plan may not entirely prevent delays or other complications that could arise from an information systems failure. Our business interruption insurance may not compensate us adequately for losses that may occur.
Security breaches and other disruptions could compromise our information and operations, and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation to suffer.
In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information and that of our customers, suppliers and business partners, and personally identifiable information of our employees, in our data centers and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, regulatory penalties for divulging shipper information, disruption of our operations, damage to our reputation, and loss of confidence in our products and services, which could adversely affect our business.
Our information technology infrastructure is critical to the efficient operation of our business and essential to our ability to perform day-today operations. Breaches in our information technology infrastructure or physical facilities, or other disruptions, could result in damage to our assets, safety incidents, damage to the environment, potential liability or the loss of contracts, and have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial position and results of operations.
The costs of providing pension and other postretirement health care benefits and related funding requirements are subject to changes in pension fund values, changing demographics and fluctuating actuarial assumptions and may have a material adverse effect on our financial results. In addition, the passage of the Health Care Reform Act in 2010 could significantly increase the cost of providing health care benefits for employees.
Certain of our subsidiaries provide pension plan and other postretirement healthcare benefits to certain of their employees. The costs of providing pension and other postretirement health care benefits and related funding requirements are subject to changes in pension and other postretirement fund values, changing demographics and fluctuating actuarial assumptions that may have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s future consolidated financial results. In addition, the passage of the Health Care Reform Act of 2010 could significantly increase the cost of health care benefits for our employees. While certain of the costs incurred in providing such pension and other postretirement healthcare benefits are recovered through the rates charged by the Partnership’s regulated businesses, the Partnership’s subsidiaries may not recover all of the costs and those rates are generally not immediately responsive to current market conditions or funding requirements. Additionally, if the current cost recovery mechanisms are changed or eliminated, the impact of these benefits on operating results could significantly increase.
Regency’s contract compression operations depend on particular suppliers and is vulnerable to parts and equipment shortages and price increases, which could have a negative impact on its results of operations.
The principal manufacturers of components for Regency’s natural gas compression equipment include Caterpillar, Inc. for engines, Air-X-Changers for coolers, and Ariel Corporation for compressors and frames. Regency’s reliance on these suppliers involves several risks, including price increases and a potential inability to obtain an adequate supply of required components in a timely manner. Regency also relies primarily on two vendors, Spitzer Industries Corp. and Standard Equipment Corp., to package and assemble its compression units. Regency does not have long-term contracts with these suppliers or packagers, and a partial or complete loss of certain of these sources could have a negative impact on Regency’s results of operations and could damage its customer relationships. In addition, since Regency expects any increase in component prices for compression equipment or packaging costs will be passed on to Regency, a significant increase in their pricing could have a negative impact on Regency’s results of operations.
Mergers among Sunoco Logistics’ customers and competitors could result in lower volumes being shipped on its pipelines or products stored in or distributed through its terminals, or reduced crude oil marketing margins or volumes.
Mergers between existing customers could provide strong economic incentives for the combined entities to utilize their existing systems instead of Sunoco Logistics’ systems in those markets where the systems compete. As a result, Sunoco Logistics could lose some or all of the volumes and associated revenues from these customers and could experience difficulty in replacing those lost volumes and revenues, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

54


A portion of Sunoco Logistics’ general and administrative services have been outsourced to third-party service providers. Fraudulent activity or misuse of proprietary data involving its outsourcing partners could expose us to additional liability.
Sunoco Logistics utilizes both affiliate entities and third parties in the processing of its information and data. Breaches of its security measures or the accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure or unapproved dissemination of proprietary information or sensitive or confidential data about Sunoco Logistics or its customers, including the potential loss or disclosure of such information or data as a result of fraud or other forms of deception, could expose Sunoco Logistics to a risk of loss or misuse of this information, result in litigation and potential liability for Sunoco Logistics, lead to reputational damage, increase compliance costs, or otherwise harm its business.
A material decrease in demand or distribution of crude oil available for transport through Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines or terminal facilities could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
The volume of crude oil transported through Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines and terminal facilities depends on the availability of attractively priced crude oil produced or received in the areas serviced by its assets. A period of sustained crude oil price declines could lead to a decline in drilling activity, production and import levels in these areas. Similarly, a period of sustained increases in the price of crude oil supplied from any of these areas, as compared to alternative sources of crude oil available to Sunoco Logistics’ customers, could materially reduce demand for crude oil in these areas. In either case, the volumes of crude oil transported in Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines and terminal facilities could decline, and it could likely be difficult to secure alternative sources of attractively priced crude oil supply in a timely fashion or at all. If Sunoco Logistics is unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
Tax Risks to Common Unitholders
Our tax treatment depends on our continuing status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as well as our not being subject to a material amount of additional entity-level taxation by individual states. If the IRS were to treat us, ETP or Regency as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or if we, ETP or Regency become subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then our cash available for distribution would be substantially reduced.
The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our Common Units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not requested, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on this matter. The value of our investments in ETP and Regency depends largely on ETP and Regency being treated as partnerships for federal income tax purposes.
Despite the fact that we, ETP and Regency are each a limited partnership under Delaware law, we would each be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a “qualifying income” requirement. Based upon our current operations, we believe we, ETP and Regency satisfy the qualifying income requirement. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause us, ETP or Regency to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us, ETP or R to taxation as an entity.
If we, ETP or Regency were treated as a corporation, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%, and we would likely pay additional state income taxes at varying rates. Distributions to Unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and none of our income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to Unitholders. Because a tax would then be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to Unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to the Unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our Common Units.
Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or to additional taxation as an entity for federal, state or local income tax purposes, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us. At the state level, several states have been evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise, or other forms of taxation. Imposition of a similar tax on us in the jurisdictions in which we operate or in other jurisdictions to which we may expand could substantially reduce our case available for distribution to our unitholders.
The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment in ETP or Regency’s common units could be subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.
The present federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in ETP or Regency’s common units may be modified by legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations at any time. For

55


example, from time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships. One such legislative proposal would have eliminated the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations, upon which we rely for our, ETP’s and Regency’s treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will be reintroduced or will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units. Any modification to the federal income tax laws and interpretations thereof may or may not be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible to meet the exception for certain publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for federal income tax purposes.
The tax treatment of Sunoco Logistics depends on its status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as well as its not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If the IRS were to treat Sunoco Logistics as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or if it were to become subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, it would substantially reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to its unitholders.
The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of our investment in the common units of Sunoco Logistics depends largely on Sunoco Logistics being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. Sunoco Logistics has not requested, and does not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on this matter. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the ones Sunoco Logistics has taken. A successful IRS contest of the federal income tax positions Sunoco Logistics takes may impact adversely the market for its common units, and the costs of any IRS contest will reduce Sunoco Logistics’ cash available for distribution to its unitholders. If Sunoco Logistics were to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, it would pay federal income tax at the corporate tax rate, and likely would pay state income tax at varying rates. Distributions to its unitholders generally would be subject to tax again as corporate distributions. Treatment of Sunoco Logistics as a corporation would result in a material reduction in its anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to its unitholders. Current law may change so as to cause Sunoco Logistics to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or to otherwise subject it to a material amount of entity-level taxation. States are evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. If any states were to impose a tax on Sunoco Logistics, the cash available for distribution to its unitholders would be reduced.
As discussed above, the present federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including Sunoco Logistics, or our investment in its common units, may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial interpretation at any time. Any modification to the federal income tax laws and interpretations thereof may or may not be applied retroactively. Moreover, any such modification could make it more difficult or impossible for Sunoco Logistics to meet the exception which allows publicly traded partnerships that generate qualifying income to be treated as partnerships (rather than corporations) for U.S. federal income tax purposes, affect or cause Sunoco Logistics to change its business activities, or affect the tax consequences of our investment in Sunoco Logistics’ common units. Any such changes could negatively impact the value of our investment in Sunoco Logistics’ common units.
If the IRS contests the federal income tax positions we or our subsidiaries take, the market for our Common Units, ETP Common Units or Regency Common Units may be adversely affected and the costs of any such contest will reduce cash available for distributions to our Unitholders.
Neither we nor our subsidiaries have requested a ruling from IRS with respect to our treatment as partnerships for federal income tax purposes. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions we or our subsidiaries take. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of the positions we or our subsidiaries take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we or our subsidiaries take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our Common Units, ETP’s Common Units or Regency’s Common Units and the prices at which they trade. In addition, the costs of any contest with the IRS will be borne by us or our subsidiaries, and therefore indirectly by us, as a Unitholder and as the owner of the general partner of interests in ETP and Regency, reducing the cash available for distribution to our Unitholders.
Unitholders may be required to pay taxes on their share of our income even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us.
Unitholders will be required to pay any federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they receive no cash distributions from us. Unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax liability that results from the taxation of their share of our taxable income.
Tax gain or loss on disposition of our Common Units could be more or less than expected.
If Unitholders sell their Common Units, they will recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and the tax basis in those Common Units. Because distributions in excess of the Unitholder’s allocable share of our net taxable

56


income result in a decrease in the Unitholder’s tax basis in their Common Units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the units sold will, in effect, become taxable income to the Unitholder if they sell such units at a price greater than their adjusted tax basis in those units, even if the price received is less than their original cost. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be taxed as ordinary income due to potential recapture of depreciation deductions and certain other items. In addition, because the amount realized includes a Unitholder’s share of our nonrecourse liabilities, if a Unitholder sells units, the Unitholders may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash received from the sale.
Tax-exempt entities and non-U.S. persons face unique tax issues from owning Common Units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.
Investment in Common Units by tax-exempt entities, including employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs) and non-U.S. persons raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to Unitholders who are organizations exempt from federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be “unrelated business taxable income” and will be taxable to them. Allocations and/or distributions to non-U.S. persons will be reduced by withholding taxes, imposed at the highest effective tax rate applicable to non-U.S. persons, and each non-U.S. person will be required to file United States federal and state income tax returns and pay tax on their share of our taxable income. If you are a tax exempt entity or non-U.S. person, you should consult your tax advisor before investing in our common units.
We have subsidiaries that will be treated as corporations for federal income tax purposes and subject to corporate-level income taxes.
Even though we (as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes) are not subject to U.S. federal income tax, some of our operations are currently, and our acquisition of Sunoco and the Holdco restructuring resulted in an increase in the proportion of our operations that are conducted through subsidiaries that are organized as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The taxable income, if any, of subsidiaries that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is subject to corporate-level U.S. federal income taxes, which may reduce the cash available for distribution to us and, in turn, to our unitholders. If the IRS or other state or local jurisdictions were to successfully assert that these corporations have more tax liability than we anticipate or legislation was enacted that increased the corporate tax rate, the cash available for distribution could be further reduced. The income tax return filings positions taken by these corporate subsidiaries require significant judgment, use of estimates, and the interpretation and application of complex tax laws. Significant judgment is also required in assessing the timing and amounts of deductible and taxable items. Despite our belief that the income tax return positions taken by these subsidiaries are fully supportable, certain positions may be successfully challenged by the IRS, state or local jurisdictions.
We treat each purchaser of Common Units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the actual Common Units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could result in a Unitholder owing more tax and may adversely affect the value of the Common Units.
Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of Common Units and because of other reasons, we will adopt depreciation and amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations. A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to our Unitholders. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale of Common Units and could have a negative impact on the value of our Common Units or result in audit adjustments to tax returns of our Unitholders. Moreover, because we have subsidiaries that are organized as C corporations for federal income tax purposes owns units in us, a successful IRS challenge could result in this subsidiary having a greater tax liability than we anticipate and, therefore, reduce the cash available for distribution to our partnership and, in turn, to our Unitholders.
We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our Unitholders.
We generally prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The use of this proration method may not be permitted under existing Treasury Regulations. Recently, however, the Department of the Treasury and the IRS issued proposed Treasury Regulations that provide a safe harbor pursuant to which a publicly traded partnership may use a similar monthly simplifying convention to allocate tax items among transferor and transferee unitholders. Nonetheless, the proposed regulations do not specifically authorize the use of the proration method we have adopted. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method or new Treasury Regulations were issued, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

57


A Unitholder whose units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g. a loan to a “short seller”) to cover a short sale of units may be considered as having disposed of those units. If so, the Unitholder would no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from the disposition.
Because there are no specific rules governing the federal income tax consequences of loaning a partnership interest, a Unitholder whose units are the subject of a securities loan may be considered as having disposed of the loaned units. In that case, the Unitholder may no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those units may not be reportable by the Unitholder and any cash distributions received by the Unitholder as to those units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a loan of their units are urged to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing their units.
ETP and Regency have adopted certain valuation methodologies that may result in a shift of income, gain, loss and deduction between us and the public Unitholders of ETP and Regency. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of ETP’s or Regency’s Common Units and our Common Units.
When we, ETP or Regency issue additional units or engage in certain other transactions, we, ETP or Regency determine the fair market value of the assets and allocate any unrealized gain or loss attributable to such assets to the capital accounts of ETP’s and Regency’s Unitholders and us. Although ETP and Regency may from time to time consult with professional appraisers regarding valuation matters, including the valuation of its assets, ETP and Regency make many of the fair market value estimates of their assets themselves using a methodology based on the market value of their Common Units as a means to measure the fair market value of their assets. ETP’s or Regency’s methodology may be viewed as understating the value of ETP’s or Regency’s assets. In that case, there may be a shift of income, gain, loss and deduction between certain ETP or Regency Unitholders and us, which may be unfavorable to such ETP or Regency Unitholders. Moreover, under our current valuation methods, subsequent purchasers of our Common Units may have a greater portion of their Internal Revenue Code Section 743(b) adjustment allocated to ETP’s or Regency’s tangible assets and a lesser portion allocated to ETP’s or Regency’s intangible assets. The IRS may challenge ETP’s or Regency’s valuation methods, or our, ETP’s or Regency’s allocation of Section 743(b) adjustment attributable to ETP’s or Regency’s tangible and intangible assets, and allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction between us and certain of ETP’s or Regency’s Unitholders.
A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the amount of taxable income or loss being allocated to our Unitholders, the ETP Unitholders or the Regency Unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain on the sale of Common Units by our Unitholders, ETP’s Unitholders or Regency’s Unitholders and could have a negative impact on the value of our Common Units or those of ETP or Regency or result in audit adjustments to the tax returns of our, ETP’s or Regency’s Unitholders without the benefit of additional deductions.
The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profits interests during any twelve month period will result in the termination of our partnership for federal income tax purposes.
We will be considered to have technically terminated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of the total interests in our capital and profits within a twelve-month period. For purposes of determining whether the 50% threshold has been met, multiple sales of the same unit during the applicable twelve-month period will be counted only once. Our technical termination would, among other things, result in the closing of our taxable year for all Unitholders which would require us to file two federal partnership tax returns (and our Unitholders could receive two Schedules K-1 if relief was not available, as described below) for one fiscal year, and could result in a deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing our taxable income. In the case of a Unitholder reporting on a taxable year other than a calendar year, the closing of our taxable year may also result in more than twelve months of our taxable income or loss being includable in such Unitholder’s taxable income for the year of termination. A technical termination currently would not affect our classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We would be treated as a new partnership for tax purposes on the technical termination date, and would be required to make new tax elections and could be subject to penalties if we were unable to determine in a timely manner that a termination occurred. The IRS has recently announced a relief procedure whereby a publicly traded partnership that has technically terminated may be permitted to provide only a single Schedule K-1 to unitholders for the two tax years within the fiscal year in which the termination occurs.

58


Unitholders will likely be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements in states where they do not live as a result of investing in our Common Units.
In addition to federal income taxes, the Unitholders may be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we, ETP or Regency conduct business or own property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. We currently own property or conduct business in many states, most of which impose an income tax on individuals, corporations and other entities. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may control assets or conduct business in additional states that impose a personal or corporate income tax. Unitholders may be required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of the jurisdictions. Further, Unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. It is the responsibility of each Unitholder to file all federal, state and local tax returns.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
A description of our properties is included in “Item 1. Business.” In addition, we and our subsidiaries own an executive office building in Dallas, Texas and office buildings in Houston and San Antonio, Texas. While we may require additional office space as our business expands, we believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our needs for the immediate future, and that additional facilities will be available on commercially reasonable terms as needed.
We believe that we have satisfactory title to or valid rights to use all of our material properties. Although some of our properties are subject to liabilities and leases, liens for taxes not yet due and payable, encumbrances securing payment obligations under non-competition agreements and immaterial encumbrances, easements and restrictions, we do not believe that any such burdens will materially interfere with our continued use of such properties in our business, taken as a whole. In addition, we believe that we have, or are in the process of obtaining, all required material approvals, authorizations, orders, licenses, permits, franchises and consents of, and have obtained or made all required material registrations, qualifications and filings with, the various state and local government and regulatory authorities which relate to ownership of our properties or the operations of our business.
Substantially all of our subsidiaries’ pipelines, which are described in “Item 1. Business” are constructed on rights-of-way granted by the apparent record owners of the property. Lands over which pipeline rights-of-way have been obtained may be subject to prior liens that have not been subordinated to the right-of-way grants. Our subsidiaries have obtained, where necessary, easement agreements from public authorities and railroad companies to cross over or under, or to lay facilities in or along, watercourses, county roads, municipal streets, railroad properties and state highways, as applicable. In some cases, properties on which our subsidiaries’ pipelines were built were purchased in fee. ETP also owns and operates multiple natural gas and NGL storage facilities and owns or leases other processing, treating and conditioning facilities in connection with its midstream operations.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Sunoco, along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, is a defendant in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs typically include water purveyors and municipalities responsible for supplying drinking water and governmental authorities. The plaintiffs are asserting primarily product liability claims and additional claims including nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and deceptive business practices. The plaintiffs in all of the cases are seeking to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
As of December 31, 2013, Sunoco is a defendant in seven cases, one of which was initiated by the State of New Jersey and two others by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the more recent Puerto Rico action being a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. Six of these cases are venued in a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding in a New York federal court. The most recently filed Puerto Rico action is expected to be transferred to the MDL. The New Jersey and Puerto Rico cases assert natural resource damage claims. In addition, Sunoco has received notice from another state that it intends to file an MTBE lawsuit in the near future asserting natural resource damage claims.
Fact discovery has concluded with respect to an initial set of fewer than 20 sites each that will be the subject of the first trial phase in the New Jersey case and the initial Puerto Rico case. Insufficient information has been developed about the plaintiffs’ legal theories or the facts with respect to statewide natural resource damage claims to provide an analysis of the ultimate potential liability of Sunoco in these matters; however, it is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized. Management believes that an adverse determination with respect to one or more of the MTBE cases could have a significant impact on results of operations during the period in which any said adverse determination occurs, but does not believe that any such adverse determination would have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position.

59


In January 2012, Sunoco Logistics experienced a release on its refined products pipeline in Wellington, Ohio. In connection with this release, the PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order under which Sunoco Logistics is obligated to follow specific requirements in the investigation of the release and the repaid and reactivation of the pipeline. Sunoco Logistics also entered into an Order on Consent with the EPA regarding the environmental remediation of the release site. All requirements of the Order of Consent with the EPA have been fulfilled and the Order has been satisfied and closed. Sunoco Logistics has also received a “No Further Action” approval from the Ohio EPA for all soil and groundwater remediation requirements. Sunoco Logistics has not received any proposed penalties associated with this release and continues to cooperate with both PHMSA and the EPA to complete the investigation of the incident and repair of the pipeline.
In 2012, the EPA issued a proposed consent agreement related to the releases that occurred at Sunoco Logistics’ pump station/tank farm in Barbers Hill, Texas and pump station/tank farm located in Cromwell, Oklahoma in 2010 and 2011, respectively. These matters were referred to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) by the EPA. In November 2012, Sunoco Logistics received an initial assessment of $1.4 million associated with these releases. Sunoco Logistics is in discussions with the EPA and the DOJ on this matter and hopes to resolve the issue during 2014.
In September 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) issued a Notice of Violation and proposed penalties in excess of $0.1 million based on alleged violations of various safety regulations relating to the November 2008 products release by Sunoco Pipeline L.P., a subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics, in Murrysville, Pennsylvania. Sunoco Logistics is currently in discussions with the PADEP. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time. However, we do not expect a material impact to the Partnership’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
Additionally, we have received notices of violations and potential fines under various federal, state and local provisions relating to the discharge of materials into the environment or protection of the environment. While we believe that even if any one or more of the environmental proceedings listed below were decided against us, it would not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, we are required to report environmental proceedings if we reasonably believe that such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions in excess of $0.1 million.
For a description of legal proceedings, see Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.


60


PART II

ITEM 5.  MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON UNITS, RELATED UNITHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Parent Company
Market Price of and Distributions on Common Units and Related Unitholder Matters
The Parent Company’s common units are listed on the NYSE under the symbol “ETE.” The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per ETE Common Unit, as reported on the NYSE Composite Tape, and the amount of cash distributions paid per ETE Common Unit for the periods indicated.
 
 
Price Range (1)
 
Cash
Distribution (2)
 
High
 
Low
 
Fiscal Year 2013:
 
 
 
 
 
Fourth Quarter
$
42.58

 
$
32.01

 
$
0.346

Third Quarter
34.20

 
29.47

 
0.336

Second Quarter
31.25

 
26.56

 
0.328

First Quarter
29.54

 
23.04

 
0.323

 
 
 
 
 
 
Fiscal Year 2012:
 
 
 
 
 
Fourth Quarter
$
24.10

 
$
20.86

 
$
0.318

Third Quarter
23.04

 
19.96

 
0.313

Second Quarter
21.56

 
17.00

 
0.313

First Quarter
22.24

 
19.43

 
0.313


(1) 
Prices and distributions have been adjusted to reflect the effect of the two-for-one split of ETE Common Units completed on January 27, 2014. See Note 8 to our consolidated financial statements.
(2) 
Distributions are shown in the quarter with respect to which they relate. For each of the indicated quarters for which distributions have been made, an identical per unit cash distribution was paid on any units subordinated to our Common Units outstanding at such time. Please see “Cash Distribution Policy” below for a discussion of our policy regarding the payment of distributions.
Description of Units
As of January 31, 2014, there were approximately 138,204 individual common unitholders, which includes common units held in street name. Common units represent limited partner interest in us that entitle the holders to the rights and privileges specified in the Parent Company’s Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended to date (the “Partnership Agreement”).
As of December 31, 2013, common units represent an aggregate 99.48% limited partner interest in us. Our General Partner owns an aggregate 0.25% General Partner interest in us. Our common units are registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and are listed for trading on the NYSE. Each holder of a common unit is entitled to one vote per unit on all matters presented to the limited partners for a vote. In addition, if at any time any person or group (other than our General Partner and its affiliates) owns beneficially 20% or more of all common units, any Common Units owned by that person or group may not be voted on any matter and are not considered to be outstanding when sending notices of a meeting of unitholders (unless otherwise required by law), calculating required votes, determining the presence of a quorum or for other similar purposes under our Partnership Agreement. The common units are entitled to distributions of Available Cash as described below under “Cash Distribution Policy.”
Cash Distribution Policy
General.  The Parent Company will distribute all of its “Available Cash” to its unitholders and its General Partner within 50 days following the end of each fiscal quarter.

61


Definition of Available Cash.  Available Cash is defined in the Parent Company’s Partnership Agreement and generally means, with respect to any calendar quarter, all cash on hand at the end of such quarter less the amount of cash reserves that are necessary or appropriate in the reasonable discretion of the General Partner to:
provide for the proper conduct of its business;
comply with applicable law and/or debt instrument or other agreement; and
provide funds for distributions to unitholders and its General Partner in respect of any one or more of the next four quarters.
The total amount of distributions declared is reflected in Note 8 to our consolidated financial statements.
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.

62


ITEM 6.  SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The selected historical financial data should be read in conjunction with “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the historical consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes thereto included elsewhere in this report. The amounts in the table below, except per unit data, are in millions.
In 2013, Southern Union disposed of the assets of MGE and NEG. The results of continuing operations of the distribution operations were reflected as income from discontinued operations. In 2012, ETP sold Canyon and the results of continuing operations of Canyon were reflected as discontinued operations.
 
Years Ended December 31,
Statement of Operations Data:
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
2010
 
2009
Total revenues
$
48,335

 
$
16,964

 
$
8,190

 
$
6,556

 
$
5,378

Operating income
1,551

 
1,360

 
1,237

 
1,044

 
1,047

Income from continuing operations
282

 
1,383

 
531

 
345

 
692

Basic income from continuing operations per limited partner unit
0.33

 
0.59

 
0.69

 
0.44

 
0.99

Diluted income from continuing operations per limited partner unit
0.33

 
0.59

 
0.69

 
0.44

 
0.99

Cash distribution per unit
1.33

 
1.26

 
1.22

 
1.08

 
1.07

Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total assets
50,330

 
48,904

 
20,897

 
17,379

 
12,161

Long-term debt, less current maturities
22,562

 
21,440

 
10,947

 
9,346

 
7,751

Total equity
16,279

 
16,350

 
7,388

 
6,248

 
3,220

 

63


ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
(Tabular dollar and unit amounts, except per unit data, are in millions)
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership whose common units are publicly traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “ETE.” ETE was formed in September 2002 and completed its initial public offering in February 2006.
The following is a discussion of our historical consolidated financial condition and results of operations, and should be read in conjunction with our historical consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes thereto included in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this report. This discussion includes forward-looking statements that are subject to risk and uncertainties. Actual results may differ substantially from the statements we make in this section due to a number of factors that are discussed in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” of this report.
Unless the context requires otherwise, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Partnership” and “ETE” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries, which include ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, Regency, Regency GP, Regency LLC, Panhandle (or Southern Union prior to its merger into Panhandle in January 2014), Sunoco, Sunoco Logistics and Holdco. References to the “Parent Company” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. on a stand-alone basis.
OVERVIEW
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. directly and indirectly owns equity interests in ETP and Regency, both publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related services.
At December 31, 2013, our interests in ETP and Regency consisted of 100% of the respective general partner interests and IDRs, as well as the following:
 
ETP
 
Regency
Units held by wholly-owned subsidiaries:
 
 
 
Common units
49.6
 
26.3
ETP Class H units
50.2
 
Units held by less than wholly-owned subsidiaries:
 
 
 
Common units
 
31.4
Regency Class F units
 
6.3
The Parent Company’s principal sources of cash flow are derived from its direct and indirect investments in the limited partner and general partner interests in ETP and Regency, both of which are publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related services. The Parent Company’s primary cash requirements are for distributions to its partners, general and administrative expenses, debt service requirements and at ETE’s election, capital contributions to ETP and Regency in respect of ETE’s general partner interests in ETP and Regency. The Parent Company-only assets and liabilities are not available to satisfy the debts and other obligations of subsidiaries.
In order to fully understand the financial condition and results of operations of the Parent Company on a stand-alone basis, we have included discussions of Parent Company matters apart from those of our consolidated group.
General
Our primary objective is to increase the level of our distributable cash flow to our unitholders over time by pursuing a business strategy that is currently focused on growing our subsidiaries’ natural gas and NGL businesses through, among other things, pursuing certain construction and expansion opportunities relating to our subsidiaries’ existing infrastructure and acquiring certain strategic operations and businesses or assets. The actual amounts of cash that we will have available for distribution will primarily depend on the amount of cash our subsidiaries generate from their operations.
As a result of the Holdco Acquisition in April 2013, our reportable segments were re-evaluated and currently reflect the following reportable segments:
Investment in ETP, including the consolidated operations of ETP;
Investment in Regency, including the consolidated operations of Regency; and
Corporate and Other, including the following:
activities of the Parent Company; and

64


the goodwill and property, plant and equipment fair value adjustments recorded as a result of the 2004 reverse acquisition of Heritage Propane Partners, L.P.
Each of the respective general partners of ETP and Regency have separate operating management and boards of directors. We control ETP and Regency through our ownership of their respective general partners.
Recent Developments
SUGS Contribution
On April 30, 2013, Southern Union completed its contribution to Regency of all of the issued and outstanding membership interest in Southern Union Gathering Company, LLC, and its subsidiaries, including SUGS (the “SUGS Contribution”). The consideration paid by Regency in connection with this transaction consisted of (i) the issuance of approximately 31.4 million Regency common units to Southern Union, (ii) the issuance of approximately 6.3 million Regency Class F units to Southern Union, (iii) the distribution of $463 million in cash to Southern Union, net of closing adjustments, and (iv) the payment of $30 million in cash to a subsidiary of ETP.
ETP Note Exchange
On June 24, 2013, ETP completed the exchange of approximately $1.09 billion aggregate principal amount of Southern Union’s outstanding senior notes, comprising 77% of the principal amount of the 7.6% Senior Notes due 2024, 89% of the principal amount of the 8.25% Senior Notes due 2029 and 91% of the principal amount of the Junior Subordinated Notes due 2066.  These notes were exchanged for new notes issued by ETP with the same coupon rates and maturity dates.  In conjunction with this transaction, Southern Union entered into intercompany notes payable to ETP, which provide for the reimbursement by Southern Union of ETP’s payments under the newly issued notes.
Sale of AmeriGas Common Units
On July 12, 2013, ETP sold 7.5 million AmeriGas common units for net proceeds of $346 million. Net proceeds from this sale were used to repay borrowings under the ETP Credit Facility. In January 2014, ETP sold 9.2 million AmeriGas common units for net proceeds of $381 million. Net proceeds from these sales were used to repay borrowings under the ETP Credit Facility and for general partnership purposes.
Class H Units
Pursuant to an Exchange and Redemption Agreement previously entered into between ETP, ETE and ETE Holdings, ETP redeemed and cancelled 50.2 million of its Common Units representing limited partner interests (the “Redeemed Units”) owned by ETE Holdings on October 31, 2013 in exchange for the issuance by ETP to ETE Holdings of a new class of limited partner interest in ETP (the “Class H Units”), which are generally entitled to (i) allocations of profits, losses and other items from ETP corresponding to 50.05% of the profits, losses, and other items allocated to ETP by Sunoco Partners with respect to the IDRs and general partner interest in Sunoco Logistics held by Sunoco Partners, (ii) distributions from available cash at ETP for each quarter equal to 50.05% of the cash distributed to ETP by Sunoco Partners with respect to the IDRs and general partner interest in Sunoco Logistics held by Sunoco Partners for such quarter and, to the extent not previously distributed to holders of the Class H Units, for any previous quarters and (iii) incremental additional cash distributions in the aggregate amount of $329 million, to be payable by ETP to ETE Holdings over 15 quarters, commencing with the quarter ended September 30, 2013 and ending with the quarter ending March 31, 2017. The incremental cash distributions referred to in clause (iii) of the previous sentence are intended to offset a portion of the IDR subsidies previously granted by ETE to ETP in connection with the Citrus Merger, the Holdco Transaction and the Holdco Acquisition. In connection with the issuance of the Class H Units, ETE and ETP also agreed to certain adjustments to the prior IDR subsidies in order to ensure that the IDR subsidies are fixed amounts for each quarter to which the IDR subsidies are in effect. For a summary of the net IDR subsidy amounts resulting from this transaction, see “Liquidity and Capital Resources — Cash Distributions — Cash Distributions Paid by ETP” below.
LNG Export Project
On August 7, 2013, Lake Charles Exports, LLC, an entity owned by BG LNG Services, LLC and Trunkline LNG Holdings, LLC, received an order from the Department of Energy conditionally granting authorization to export up to 15 million metric tonnes per annum of LNG to non-free trade agreement countries from the existing LNG import terminal owned by Trunkline LNG Company, LLC, which is located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  Lake Charles Exports, LLC previously received approval to export LNG from the Lake Charles facility to free trade agreement countries on July 22, 2011. In October 2013, Trunkline and BG Group announced their entry into a project development agreement to jointly develop the LNG export project at the existing Trunkline LNG import terminal.

65


Sale of Southern Union’s Distribution Operations
In September 2013, Southern Union completed its sale of the assets of MGE for an aggregate purchase price of $975 million, net of customary post-closing adjustments. In December 2013, Southern Union completed its sale of the assets of NEG for cash proceeds of $40 million, subject to customary post-closing adjustments, and the assumption of $20 million of debt.
Regency’s Pending Acquisition of PVR
In October 2013, Regency entered into a merger agreement with PVR pursuant to which Regency intends to merge with PVR. This merger will be a unit-for-unit transaction plus a one-time $37 million cash payment to PVR unitholders which represents total consideration of $5.6 billion, including the assumption of net debt of $1.8 billion. The PVR Acquisition is expected to enhance our geographic diversity with a strategic presence in the Marcellus and Utica shales in the Appalachian Basin and the Granite Wash in the Mid-Continent region. The PVR Acquisition is expected to close in late March 2014, subject to receipt of the affirmative vote of a majority of the PVR common units outstanding at a meeting scheduled to be held on March 20, 2014 and subject to the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions.
Regency’s Pending Acquisition of Eagle Rock’s Midstream Business
In December 2013, Regency entered into an agreement to purchase Eagle Rock’s midstream business for $1.3 billion. This acquisition is expected to complement Regency’s core gathering and processing business and further diversify Regency’s basin exposure in the Texas Panhandle, East Texas and South Texas. The Eagle Rock Midstream Acquisition is expected to close in the second quarter of 2014, subject to receipt of the affirmation vote of a majority of the outstanding Eagle Rock common units and subject to the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions, including anti-trust clearance under Hart-Scott Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act.
Regency’s Acquisition of Hoover Energy
On February 3, 2014, Regency completed its previously announced acquisition of the midstream assets of Hoover Energy. The consideration paid by Regency in exchange for the acquired Hoover entities was valued at $282 million (subject to customary post-closing adjustments) and consisted of (i) 4.0 million Regency Common Units issued to Hoover Energy and (ii) $184 million in cash. A portion of the consideration is being held in escrow as security for certain indemnification claims. Regency financed the cash portion of the purchase price through borrowings under its revolving credit facility.
ETP’s Retail Acquisition
In October 2013, La Grange Acquisition, L.P., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ETP, acquired convenience store operator MACS with a network of approximately 300 company-owned and dealer locations. These operations are reflected in ETP’s retail marketing operations, along with the retail marketing operations owned by Holdco, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2013.
Second Fractionator at Lone Star’s Mont Belvieu Facility
In November 2013, ETP announced that Lone Star has placed in service a second 100,000 barrel-per-day NGL fractionator at its facility in Mont Belvieu, Texas, bringing Lone Star’s total fractionation capacity at Mont Belvieu to 200,000 barrels per day.
ETE Refinancing Activities
In December 2013, ETE completed a tender offer for a portion of its outstanding 7.50% Senior Notes due 2020. In conjunction with the tender offer, ETE completed a comprehensive refinancing of its existing debt, which included the public offering of $450 million aggregate principal amount of its 5.875% Senior Notes due 2024, a new $1 billion term loan facility, and a new $600 million revolving credit facility. In February 2014, ETE increased the capacity on the ETE Revolving Credit Facility to $800 million and expects to utilize the additional capacity to fund the purchase of $400 million of Regency common units in connection with Regency’s pending Eagle Rock acquisition.
Panhandle Merger
On January 10, 2014, Panhandle consummated a merger with Southern Union, the indirect parent of Panhandle, and PEPL Holdings, the sole limited partner of Panhandle, pursuant to which each of Southern Union and PEPL Holdings were merged with and into Panhandle (the “Panhandle Merger”), with Panhandle surviving the Panhandle Merger. In connection with the Panhandle Merger, Panhandle assumed Southern Union’s obligations under its 7.6% Senior Notes due 2024, 8.25% Senior Notes due 2029 and the Junior Subordinated Notes due 2066. At the time of the Panhandle Merger, Southern Union did not have operations of its own, other than its ownership of Panhandle and noncontrolling interest in PEI Power II, LLC, Regency (31.4 million Regency Common Units and 6.3 million Regency Class F Units), and ETP (2.2 million ETP Common Units). In connection with the Panhandle Merger, Panhandle also assumed PEPL Holdings’ guarantee of $600 million of Regency senior notes.

66


Trunkline LNG Transaction
On February 19, 2014, ETE and ETP completed the transfer to ETE of Trunkline LNG, the entity that owns a LNG regasification facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana, from ETP in exchange for the redemption by ETP of 18.7 million ETP Common Units held by ETE. The transaction was effective as of January 1, 2014.
Results of Operations
Year Ended December 31, 2013 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2012
ETP’s contribution of SUGS to Regency on April 30, 2013 was recorded by Regency as a reorganization of entities under common control. Accordingly, Regency retrospectively adjusted its consolidated financial statements to reflect the consolidation of SUGS beginning March 26, 2012 (the date ETE acquired Southern Union, the previous parent of SUGS). Amounts reflected herein for Regency reflect its retrospective consolidation of SUGS.
ETP maintains continuing involvement with SUGS through its affiliation with Regency, including ETP’s investment in Regency common and Class F units received as partial consideration for the SUGS contribution. Accordingly, ETP did not record the results of SUGS as discontinued operations; therefore, the results of ETP included herein reflected consolidation of SUGS from March 26, 2012 through April 30, 2013.
As a result, the results of SUGS for March 26, 2012 through April 30, 2013 are included in segment results for both the investment in ETP and the investment in Regency segments in the “Segment Operating Results” section below and in Segment Adjusted EBITDA for both segments in the consolidated results table below. The results of SUGS during that period are separately eliminated in the consolidated results below in order to reconcile to ETE’s consolidated net income.
We define Segment Adjusted EBITDA as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and other non-cash items, such as non-cash compensation expense, gains and losses on disposals of assets, the allowance for equity funds used during construction, unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities, non-cash impairment charges, loss on extinguishment of debt, gain on deconsolidation and other non-operating income or expense items. Unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities includes unrealized gains and losses on commodity derivatives and inventory fair value adjustments (excluding lower of cost or market adjustments). Segment Adjusted EBITDA reflects amounts for unconsolidated affiliates based on the Partnership’s proportionate ownership and amounts for less than wholly owned subsidiaries based on 100% of the subsidiaries’ results of operations.

67


Consolidated Results
 
Years Ended December 31,
 
 
 
2013
 
2012
 
Change
Segment Adjusted EBITDA:
 
 
 
 
 
Investment in ETP
$
3,953

 
$
2,744

 
$
1,209

Investment in Regency
608

 
517

 
91

Corporate and Other
(43
)
 
(52
)
 
9

Adjustments and eliminations
(151
)
 
(104
)
 
(47
)
Total
4,367

 
3,105

 
1,262

Depreciation and amortization
(1,313
)
 
(871
)
 
(442
)
Interest expense, net of interest capitalized
(1,221
)
 
(1,018
)
 
(203
)
Bridge loan related fees

 
(62
)
 
62

Gain on deconsolidation of Propane Business

 
1,057

 
(1,057
)
Gain on sale of AmeriGas common units
87

 

 
87

Goodwill impairment
(689
)
 

 
(689
)
Gains (losses) on interest rate derivatives
53

 
(19
)
 
72

Non-cash unit-based compensation expense
(61
)
 
(47
)
 
(14
)
Unrealized gains on commodity risk management activities
48

 
10

 
38

LIFO valuation adjustments
3

 
(75
)
 
78

Losses on extinguishments of debt
(162
)
 
(123
)
 
(39
)
Adjusted EBITDA related to discontinued operations
(76
)
 
(99
)
 
23

Adjusted EBITDA related to unconsolidated affiliates
(727
)
 
(647
)
 
(80
)
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
236

 
212

 
24

Non-operating environmental remediation
(168
)
 

 
(168
)
Other, net
(2
)
 
14

 
(16
)
Income from continuing operations before income tax expense
375

 
1,437

 
(1,062
)
Income tax expense
93

 
54

 
39

Income from continuing operations
282

 
1,383

 
(1,101
)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
33

 
(109
)
 
142

Net income
$
315

 
$
1,274

 
$
(959
)
See the detailed discussion of Segment Adjusted EBITDA in the Segment Operating Results section below.
The year ended December 31, 2012 was impacted by multiple transactions. Additional information has been provided in “Supplemental Pro Forma Information” below, which provides pro forma information assuming the transactions had occurred at the beginning of the period.
Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased primarily as a result of acquisitions and growth projects including:
depreciation and amortization related to Sunoco Logistics of $265 million in 2013 compared to $63 million from October 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012;
depreciation and amortization related to Sunoco of $113 million in 2013 compared to $32 million from October 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012;
depreciation and amortization related to Southern Union of $189 million in 2013 compared to $179 million from March 26, 2012 through December 31, 2012; and
additional depreciation and amortization recorded from assets placed in service in 2013 and 2012.

68


Interest Expense, Net of Interest Capitalized. Interest expense increased primarily due to the following:
interest expense related to Sunoco Logistics of $76 million in 2013 compared to $14 million from October 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012;
interest expense related to Sunoco of $33 million in 2013 compared to $9 million from October 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012;
incremental interest expense due to ETP’s issuance of $1.25 billion of senior notes in January 2013 and $1.5 billion of senior notes in September 2013; and
an increase of $42 million related to Regency primarily due to its issuance of $700 million of senior notes in October 2012, $600 million of senior notes in April 2013 and $400 million of senior notes in September 2013; partially offset by
a reduction of $25 million for the Parent Company primarily related to a $1.1 billion principal paydown of the Parent Company’s $2 billion term loan in April 2013.
Bridge Loan Related Fees. The bridge loan commitment fee recognized during the year ended December 31, 2012 was incurred in connection with the Southern Union Merger. The Parent Company obtained permanent financing for the transaction through a $2 billion senior secured term loan which was funded upon closing of the Southern Union Merger on March 26, 2012.
Gain on Deconsolidation of Propane Business. ETP recognized a gain on deconsolidation related to the contribution of its Propane Business to AmeriGas in January 2012.
Gain on Sale of AmeriGas Common Units. In July 2013, ETP sold 7.5 million of the AmeriGas common units that ETP 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.
Goodwill Impairment. In 2013, Trunkline 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 export project at Trunkline LNG’s Lake Charles facility, (ii) an analysis of current macroeconomic factors, including global natural gas prices and relative spreads, as of the date of our 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 Trunkline LNG reporting unit was less than its carrying amount. 
Gains (Losses) on Interest Rate Derivatives. Gains on interest rate derivatives during the year ended December 31, 2013 resulted from increases in forward interest rates, which caused our forward-starting swaps to increase in value. These swaps are marked to fair value for accounting purposes with changes in value recorded in earnings each period. Conversely, decreases in forward interest rates resulted in losses on interest rate derivatives during the year ended December 31, 2012.
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.
LIFO Valuation Adjustments. LIFO valuation reserve adjustments were recorded for the inventory associated with Sunoco’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, the loss on extinguishment of debt was primarily related to ETE’s refinancing transactions completed in December 2013. For the year ended December 31, 2012, ETP recognized a loss on extinguishment of debt in connection with its repurchase of approximately $750 million in aggregate principal amount of senior notes in January 2012. In addition, Regency recognized a $7 million loss on extinguishment of debt in connection with its repurchase of senior notes in June 2013 and an $8 million loss in connection with its repurchases of senior notes in May 2012.
Adjusted EBITDA Related to Discontinued Operations. For the year ended December 31, 2013, amounts reflected Southern Union’s distribution operations through the date of sale. Southern Union completed the sales of the assets of MGE in September 2013 and the assets of NEG in December 2013. For the year ended December 31, 2012, amounts reflected the operations of Canyon, which was sold in October 2012, and, for the period from March 26, 2012 to December 31, 2012, Southern Union’s distribution operations. See additional discussion of results in “Segment Operating Results” below.
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 and MEP, as well as Citrus beginning March 26, 2012. See additional discussion of results in “Segment Operating Results” below.

69


Non-Operating Environmental Remediation. Non-operating environmental remediation was primarily related to Sunoco’s recognition of environmental obligations related to closed sites.
Other, net. Includes amortization of regulatory assets and other income and expense amounts.
Income Tax Expense. Income tax expense increased primarily due to the acquisitions of Southern Union and Sunoco in 2012, both of which are taxable corporations.

Supplemental Pro Forma Financial Information

The following unaudited pro forma consolidated financial information of ETP has been prepared in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation S-X and reflects the pro forma impacts of the Propane Transaction, Sunoco Merger and Holdco Transaction for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, giving effect that each occurred on January 1, 2011. This unaudited pro forma financial information is provided to supplement the discussion and analysis of the historical financial information and should be read in conjunction with such historical financial information. This unaudited pro forma information is for illustrative purposes only and is not necessarily indicative of the financial results that would have occurred if the Sunoco Merger and Holdco Transaction had been consummated on January 1, 2011.

The following table presents the pro forma financial information for the year ended December 31, 2012:
 
ETE Historical
 
Propane Transaction(a)
 
Sunoco Historical(b)
 
Southern Union Historical(c)
 
Holdco Pro Forma Adjustments(d)
 
Pro Forma
REVENUES
$
16,964

 
$
(93
)
 
$
35,258

 
$
443

 
$
(12,174
)
 
$
40,398

COSTS AND EXPENSES:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost of products sold and operating expenses
14,204

 
(80
)
 
33,142

 
302

 
(11,193
)
 
36,375

Depreciation and amortization
871

 
(4
)
 
168

 
49

 
76

 
1,160

Selling, general and administrative
529

 
(1
)
 
459

 
11

 
(119
)
 
879

Impairment charges

 
 
 
124

 
 
 
(22
)
 
102

Total costs and expenses
15,604

 
(85
)
 
33,893

 
362

 
(11,258
)
 
38,516

OPERATING INCOME
1,360

 
(8
)
 
1,365

 
81

 
(916
)
 
1,882

OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest expense, net of interest capitalized
(1,080
)
 
(24
)
 
(123
)
 
(50
)
 
2

 
(1,275
)
Equity in earnings of affiliates
212