Litigation and Environmental (Notes)	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Environmental	9. Litigation and Environmental We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory, and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company. Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account accrued liabilities and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact to our financial position, cash flows, or operating results, unless otherwise indicated below. We believe we have numerous and substantial defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company. When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range. We disclose the following contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material or, in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed. Gulf LNG Facility Disputes Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (GLNG) filed a lawsuit in 2018 against Eni S.p.A. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York to enforce a Guarantee Agreement (Guarantee) entered into by Eni S.p.A. in 2007 in connection with a contemporaneous terminal use agreement entered into by its affiliate, Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC (Eni USA). GLNG filed suit to enforce the Guarantee after an arbitration tribunal delivered an award which called for the termination of the terminal use agreement and payment of compensation by Eni USA to GLNG. In response, Eni S.p.A. filed counterclaims seeking unspecified damages based on the same substantive allegations that were dismissed with prejudice in previous separate arbitrations. In 2022, the trial court granted Eni S.p.A.’s motion for summary judgment on GLNG’s claims to enforce the Guarantee. The Appellate Division denied GLNG’s appeal. GLNG elected not to pursue further recourse on appeal, thereby concluding GLNG’s efforts to enforce the Guarantee. With respect to the counterclaims asserted by Eni S.p.A., the trial court granted GLNG’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Eni S.p.A.’s claims with prejudice on September 15, 2023. The Appellate Division affirmed the entry of summary judgment in GLNG’s favor. On September 16, 2025, the Court of Appeals denied Eni S.p.A.’s motion for leave to appeal, thereby terminating Eni S.p.A.’s recourse in state court against GLNG. On February 23, 2026, the United States Supreme Court denied Eni S.p.A.’s petition for writ of certiorari, thereby concluding this case. Freeport LNG Winter Storm Litigation On September 13, 2021, Freeport LNG Marketing, LLC (Freeport) filed a lawsuit against Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC and Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline LLC in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2021-58787) alleging that defendants breached the parties’ base contract for sale and purchase of natural gas by failing to repurchase natural gas nominated by Freeport between February 10-22, 2021 during Winter Storm Uri. We deny that we were obligated to repurchase natural gas from Freeport given our declaration of force majeure during the storm and our compliance with emergency orders issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas providing heightened priority for the delivery of gas to human needs customers. Freeport alleges that it is owed approximately $104 million, plus attorney fees and interest. On October 24, 2022, the trial court granted our motion for summary judgment on all of Freeport’s claims. On April 15, 2025, the 14th Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to resolve disputed issues of material fact. We believe we have numerous and substantial defenses and intend to continue to vigorously defend this case. Pension Plan Litigation On February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation (Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso) and our company by virtue of our acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and our assumption of certain of El Paso’s pension plan obligations. The complaint, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590) and amended to include the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan B, alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs’ retirement benefits that are now contested on a class-wide basis. The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III challenge plan provisions that are alleged to constitute impermissible “backloading” or “cutback” of benefits and seek the same plan modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal plan. Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. On February 8, 2024, the Court certified a class defined as any and all persons who participated in the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A or B who are current or former employees of ANR or Coastal, and participated in the El Paso pension plan after El Paso acquired Coastal in 2001, and are members of at least one of three subclasses of individuals who are allegedly due benefits. On July 25, 2024, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment with respect to Claims I and II based on the Court’s determination that the formula used to calculate projected service was neither backloaded nor a violation of ERISA’s anti-cutback rule. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Claim III because the Court found that the summary plan description did not include any clarifying examples or illustrations of accrued benefits using the applicable formula. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim IV based on its finding that an amendment to the plan in 2007 violated ERISA’s anti-cutback protection by terminating the accrual of early retirement benefits in connection with the sale of ANR. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim V based on its finding that the plan administrator used an inconsistent interpretation to calculate benefits for some retirees. The Court dismissed Claim VI without prejudice based on its finding that the claim is moot given the Court’s rulings on Claims IV and V. The Court’s decision on partial summary judgment did not address the extent of potential plan liabilities for past or future benefits or other potential damages or equitable relief. On March 11, 2025, the case was mediated without resolution, after which the parties filed summary judgment motions to address potential remedies for the remaining claims. Plaintiffs seek equitable and other relief including early retirement benefits, monetary damages, or other equitable relief estimated to be in excess of $100 million. We vigorously oppose the form and scope of relief sought by the plaintiffs and believe we have numerous and substantial defenses to support our vigorous defense at the trial or appellate levels if necessary. On April 22, 2025, the case was referred to a Magistrate Judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings including recommended rulings on plaintiffs’ motion for equitable remedies. On February 10, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation that plaintiffs’ motion for equitable relief should be granted in part and denied in part. The Memorandum and Recommendation rejected or significantly narrowed a number of plaintiffs’ theories of recovery. The presiding U.S. District Court Judge may adopt, modify, or reject the Memorandum and Recommendation. To the extent an adverse judgment or settlement results in an increase in plan liabilities, we may elect as the sponsor of the plans to address them in accordance with applicable ERISA provisions, including provisions that allow for contributions to the plans over multiple years. Pipeline Integrity and Releases From time to time, despite our best efforts, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, and damage to the environment, damage to property, and/or personal injury or death. In connection with these incidents, we may be sued for damages caused by an alleged failure to properly mark the locations of our pipelines and/or to properly maintain our pipelines. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular incident, state and federal regulatory authorities may seek civil and/or criminal fines and penalties. Environmental Matters We and our subsidiaries are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, CERCLA generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to local, state, and federal laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal, CO2 field and oil field, and our other operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us, such as increasingly stringent state environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies under the terms of authority of those laws, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from our operations. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcomes, we believe that the resolution of the environmental matters set forth in this note, and other matters to which we and our subsidiaries are a party, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows, or operating results. We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of local, state, and federal environmental and safety regulations. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. These alleged violations may result in fines and penalties, but except as disclosed herein we do not believe any such fines and penalties will be material to our financial position, cash flows, or operating results, individually or in the aggregate. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under state or federal administrative orders or related remediation programs. We have accrued for costs associated with the remediation efforts as described below. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in several federal and state Superfund sites. Environmental liabilities have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. Because costs associated with remedial plans are generally expected to be spread over at least several years, we do not anticipate that our share of the cost of remediation will have a material adverse impact to our financial position, cash flows, or operating results. In addition, we are from time to time involved in civil proceedings relating to damages alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental leaks or spills of refined petroleum products, crude oil, NGL, natural gas, or CO2, including natural resource damage (NRD) claims. Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that established a final remedy and cleanup plan for an industrialized area on the lower reach of the Willamette River commonly referred to as the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (PHSS). The cost for the final remedy is estimated to be more than $2.8 billion and active cleanup is expected to take more than 10 years to complete. KMLT, KMBT, and some 90 other PRPs identified by the EPA are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs related to the final remedy set forth by the ROD. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities) and KMBT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities). Effective January 31, 2020, KMLT entered into separate Administrative Settlement Agreements and Orders on Consent (ASAOC) to complete remedial design for two distinct areas within the PHSS associated with KMLT’s facilities. The ASAOC obligates KMLT to pay a share of the remedial design costs for cleanup activities related to these two areas as required by the ROD. Our share of responsibility for the PHSS costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded or a lawsuit is filed that results in a judicial decision allocating responsibility. At this time, we anticipate the non-judicial allocation process will be complete by December 31, 2026. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the PHSS. In August 2024, we reached an agreement to settle claims first made in January 2021 asserted by state and federal trustees following their natural resource assessment of the PHSS. Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, New Jersey EPEC Polymers, Inc. and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (collectively EPEC) are identified as PRPs in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River in New Jersey. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a ROD for the lower eight miles of the Site. At that time the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $1.7 billion. The cleanup is expected to take at least six years to complete once it begins. In addition, the EPA and numerous PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in an allocation process for the implementation of the remedy for the lower eight miles of the Site. That process was completed December 28, 2020 and certain PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in discussions with the EPA as a result thereof. On October 4, 2021, the EPA issued a ROD for the upper nine miles of the Site. At that time, the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $440 million. No timeline for the cleanup has been established. On December 16, 2022, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the EPA announced a settlement and proposed consent decree with 85 PRPs, including EPEC, to resolve their collective liability at the Site. The total amount of the settlement is $150 million. Also on December 16, 2022, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA filed a Complaint against the 85 PRPs, including EPEC, a Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree, and a Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in a case captioned USA v. Alden Leeds, et al. On January 17, 2024, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA voluntarily dismissed its Complaint against 3 PRPs, filed an Amended Complaint against 82 PRPs, including EPEC, and a modified Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court. On January 31, 2024, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA filed a Motion to Enter Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court. On January 16, 2025, the U.S. District Court entered the Consent Decree, after which time, the Consent Decree was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by two PRPs including Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), alleging, inter alia, that the Consent Decree is not procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and consistent with the purpose of CERCLA. On February 6, 2026, certain corporate parties who are PRPs and parties to the Consent Decree filed BASF Catalysts LLC, et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that OCC’s recent attempt to contractually transfer environmental liabilities through a corporate reorganization process violated CERCLA. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that (1) any purported transfer or allocation of CERCLA liability through the reorganization is precluded by CERCLA, and (2) that the Occidental entity that holds the assets of the former OCC is jointly and severally liable for the former OCC’s CERCLA liabilities. While we are not a party to the most recent lawsuit, the results could potentially impact the amount we and other PRPs ultimately are required to contribute to this CERCLA site. Louisiana Governmental Coastal Zone Erosion Litigation On November 8, 2013, the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana and others filed petitions in the state district court for Plaquemines Parish against TGP and 17 other energy companies, alleging that the defendants’ operations in Plaquemines Parish violated the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended and Louisiana law and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and restoration costs. In 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and then stayed. We expect the case will proceed in federal court given the resolution of federal officer jurisdictional issues in separate consolidated cases to which TGP is not a party. At this time, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We intend to vigorously defend this case. General As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, we had liabilities of $175 million and $176 million, respectively, recorded for environmental matters. In addition, as of both March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, we had receivables of $9 million and $10 million, respectively, recorded for expected cost recoveries that have been deemed probable. Challenge to Federal “Good Neighbor Plan” On July 14, 2023, we filed a Petition for Review against the EPA and others in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the DC Circuit) seeking review of the EPA’s final action promulgating a federal implementation plan to address certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), known as the “Good Neighbor Plan” (the Plan) (Kinder Morgan, Inc., et al. v. EPA, et al. consolidated into Utah, et al. v. EPA, et al.). On October 13, 2023, in combination with other parties, we filed an Emergency Application for Stay of Final Agency Action in the United States Supreme Court (Kinder Morgan, Inc., et al. v. EPA, et al. consolidated into Ohio, et al. v. EPA, et al.), which the court granted on June 27, 2024, ruling that enforcement of the Plan shall be stayed pending the disposition of the case on the merits by the DC Circuit and any subsequent timely appeals. Subsequently, the EPA filed a Motion for Remand asking the DC Circuit to remand without vacatur the Plan to the EPA for voluntary reconsideration, explaining that the “EPA has identified specific issues with the Rule that make reconsideration appropriate, including issues raised by Petitioners in this litigation.” On April 14, 2025, the DC Circuit held the case in abeyance pending further order of the court and ordered the parties to file periodic status reports until the EPA completes its review of the Plan. On January 27, 2026, the EPA proposed approving eight state implementation plans to address ozone emissions which were originally disapproved by the EPA. If finalized, those states would be removed from the EPA’s federal Good Neighbor Plan and its requirements would not apply to our facilities.

Litigation and Environmental (Notes)

9. Litigation and Environmental

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

Gulf LNG Facility Disputes

Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (GLNG) filed a lawsuit in 2018 against Eni S.p.A. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York to enforce a Guarantee Agreement (Guarantee) entered into by Eni S.p.A. in 2007 in connection with a contemporaneous terminal use agreement entered into by its affiliate, Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC (Eni USA). GLNG filed suit to enforce the Guarantee after an arbitration tribunal delivered an award which called for the termination of the terminal use agreement and payment of compensation by Eni USA to GLNG. In response, Eni S.p.A. filed counterclaims seeking unspecified damages based on the same substantive allegations that were dismissed with prejudice in previous separate arbitrations. In 2022, the trial court granted Eni S.p.A.’s motion for summary judgment on GLNG’s claims to enforce the Guarantee. The Appellate Division denied GLNG’s appeal. GLNG elected not to pursue further recourse on appeal, thereby concluding GLNG’s efforts to enforce the Guarantee. With respect to the counterclaims asserted by Eni S.p.A., the trial court granted GLNG’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Eni S.p.A.’s claims with prejudice on September 15, 2023. The Appellate Division affirmed the entry of summary judgment in GLNG’s favor. On September 16, 2025, the Court of Appeals denied Eni S.p.A.’s motion for leave to appeal, thereby terminating Eni S.p.A.’s recourse in state court against GLNG. On February 23, 2026, the United States Supreme Court denied Eni S.p.A.’s petition for writ of certiorari, thereby concluding this case.

Freeport LNG Winter Storm Litigation

On September 13, 2021, Freeport LNG Marketing, LLC (Freeport) filed a lawsuit against Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC and Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline LLC in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2021-58787) alleging that defendants breached the parties’ base contract for sale and purchase of natural gas by failing to repurchase natural

gas nominated by Freeport between February 10-22, 2021 during Winter Storm Uri. We deny that we were obligated to repurchase natural gas from Freeport given our declaration of force majeure during the storm and our compliance with emergency orders issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas providing heightened priority for the delivery of gas to human needs customers. Freeport alleges that it is owed approximately $104 million, plus attorney fees and interest. On October 24, 2022, the trial court granted our motion for summary judgment on all of Freeport’s claims. On April 15, 2025, the 14th Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to resolve disputed issues of material fact. We believe we have numerous and substantial defenses and intend to continue to vigorously defend this case.

Pension Plan Litigation

On February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation (Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso) and our company by virtue of our acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and our assumption of certain of El Paso’s pension plan obligations. The complaint, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590) and amended to include the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan B, alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs’ retirement benefits that are now contested on a class-wide basis. The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III challenge plan provisions that are alleged to constitute impermissible “backloading” or “cutback” of benefits and seek the same plan modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal plan. Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. On February 8, 2024, the Court certified a class defined as any and all persons who participated in the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A or B who are current or former employees of ANR or Coastal, and participated in the El Paso pension plan after El Paso acquired Coastal in 2001, and are members of at least one of three subclasses of individuals who are allegedly due benefits. On July 25, 2024, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment with respect to Claims I and II based on the Court’s determination that the formula used to calculate projected service was neither backloaded nor a violation of ERISA’s anti-cutback rule. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Claim III because the Court found that the summary plan description did not include any clarifying examples or illustrations of accrued benefits using the applicable formula. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim IV based on its finding that an amendment to the plan in 2007 violated ERISA’s anti-cutback protection by terminating the accrual of early retirement benefits in connection with the sale of ANR. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim V based on its finding that the plan administrator used an inconsistent interpretation to calculate benefits for some retirees. The Court dismissed Claim VI without prejudice based on its finding that the claim is moot given the Court’s rulings on Claims IV and V. The Court’s decision on partial summary judgment did not address the extent of potential plan liabilities for past or future benefits or other potential damages or equitable relief. On March 11, 2025, the case was mediated without resolution, after which the parties filed summary judgment motions to address potential remedies for the remaining claims. Plaintiffs seek equitable and other relief including early retirement benefits, monetary damages, or other equitable relief estimated to be in excess of $100 million. We vigorously oppose the form and scope of relief sought by the plaintiffs and believe we have numerous and substantial defenses to support our vigorous defense at the trial or appellate levels if necessary. On April 22, 2025, the case was referred to a Magistrate Judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings including recommended rulings on plaintiffs’ motion for equitable remedies. On February 10, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation that plaintiffs’ motion for equitable relief should be granted in part and denied in part. The Memorandum and Recommendation rejected or significantly narrowed a number of plaintiffs’ theories of recovery. The presiding U.S. District Court Judge may adopt, modify, or reject the Memorandum and Recommendation. To the extent an adverse judgment or settlement results in an increase in plan liabilities, we may elect as the sponsor of the plans to address them in accordance with applicable ERISA provisions, including provisions that allow for contributions to the plans over multiple years.

Pipeline Integrity and Releases

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

Environmental Matters

We and our subsidiaries are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, CERCLA generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to local, state, and federal laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal, CO2 field and oil field, and our other operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us, such as increasingly stringent state environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies under the terms of authority of those laws, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from our operations. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcomes, we believe that the resolution of the environmental matters set forth in this note, and other matters to which we and our subsidiaries are a party, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows, or operating results.

We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of local, state, and federal environmental and safety regulations. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. These alleged violations may result in fines and penalties, but except as disclosed herein we do not believe any such fines and penalties will be material to our financial position, cash flows, or operating results, individually or in the aggregate. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under state or federal administrative orders or related remediation programs. We have accrued for costs associated with the remediation efforts as described below.

In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in several federal and state Superfund sites. Environmental liabilities have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. Because costs associated with remedial plans are generally expected to be spread over at least several years, we do not anticipate that our share of the cost of remediation will have a material adverse impact to our financial position, cash flows, or operating results. In addition, we are from time to time involved in civil proceedings relating to damages alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental leaks or spills of refined petroleum products, crude oil, NGL, natural gas, or CO2, including natural resource damage (NRD) claims.

Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon

On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that established a final remedy and cleanup plan for an industrialized area on the lower reach of the Willamette River commonly referred to as the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (PHSS). The cost for the final remedy is estimated to be more than $2.8 billion and active cleanup is expected to take more than 10 years to complete. KMLT, KMBT, and some 90 other PRPs identified by the EPA are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs related to the final remedy set forth by the ROD. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities) and KMBT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities). Effective January 31, 2020, KMLT entered into separate Administrative Settlement Agreements and Orders on Consent (ASAOC) to complete remedial design for two distinct areas within the PHSS associated with KMLT’s facilities. The ASAOC obligates KMLT to pay a share of the remedial design costs for cleanup activities related to these two areas as required by the ROD. Our share of responsibility for the PHSS costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded or a lawsuit is filed that results in a judicial decision allocating responsibility. At this time, we anticipate the non-judicial allocation process will be complete by December 31, 2026. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the PHSS. In August 2024, we reached an agreement to settle claims first made in January 2021 asserted by state and federal trustees following their natural resource assessment of the PHSS.

Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, New Jersey

EPEC Polymers, Inc. and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (collectively EPEC) are identified as PRPs in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River in New Jersey. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a ROD for the lower eight miles of the Site. At that time the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $1.7 billion. The cleanup is expected to take at least six years to complete once it begins. In addition, the EPA and numerous PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in an allocation process for the implementation of the remedy for the lower eight miles of the Site. That process was completed December 28, 2020 and certain PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in discussions with the EPA as a result thereof. On October 4, 2021, the EPA issued a ROD for

the upper nine miles of the Site. At that time, the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $440 million. No timeline for the cleanup has been established. On December 16, 2022, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the EPA announced a settlement and proposed consent decree with 85 PRPs, including EPEC, to resolve their collective liability at the Site. The total amount of the settlement is $150 million. Also on December 16, 2022, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA filed a Complaint against the 85 PRPs, including EPEC, a Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree, and a Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in a case captioned USA v. Alden Leeds, et al. On January 17, 2024, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA voluntarily dismissed its Complaint against 3 PRPs, filed an Amended Complaint against 82 PRPs, including EPEC, and a modified Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court. On January 31, 2024, the DOJ on behalf of the EPA filed a Motion to Enter Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court. On January 16, 2025, the U.S. District Court entered the Consent Decree, after which time, the Consent Decree was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by two PRPs including Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), alleging, inter alia, that the Consent Decree is not procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and consistent with the purpose of CERCLA. On February 6, 2026, certain corporate parties who are PRPs and parties to the Consent Decree filed BASF Catalysts LLC, et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that OCC’s recent attempt to contractually transfer environmental liabilities through a corporate reorganization process violated CERCLA. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that (1) any purported transfer or allocation of CERCLA liability through the reorganization is precluded by CERCLA, and (2) that the Occidental entity that holds the assets of the former OCC is jointly and severally liable for the former OCC’s CERCLA liabilities. While we are not a party to the most recent lawsuit, the results could potentially impact the amount we and other PRPs ultimately are required to contribute to this CERCLA site.

Louisiana Governmental Coastal Zone Erosion Litigation

On November 8, 2013, the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana and others filed petitions in the state district court for Plaquemines Parish against TGP and 17 other energy companies, alleging that the defendants’ operations in Plaquemines Parish violated the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended and Louisiana law and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and restoration costs. In 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and then stayed. We expect the case will proceed in federal court given the resolution of federal officer jurisdictional issues in separate consolidated cases to which TGP is not a party. At this time, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We intend to vigorously defend this case.

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, we had liabilities of $175 million and $176 million, respectively, recorded for environmental matters. In addition, as of both March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, we had receivables of $9 million and $10 million, respectively, recorded for expected cost recoveries that have been deemed probable.

Challenge to Federal “Good Neighbor Plan”

On July 14, 2023, we filed a Petition for Review against the EPA and others in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the DC Circuit) seeking review of the EPA’s final action promulgating a federal implementation plan to address certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), known as the “Good Neighbor Plan” (the Plan) (Kinder Morgan, Inc., et al. v. EPA, et al. consolidated into Utah, et al. v. EPA, et al.). On October 13, 2023, in combination with other parties, we filed an Emergency Application for Stay of Final Agency Action in the United States Supreme Court (Kinder Morgan, Inc., et al. v. EPA, et al. consolidated into Ohio, et al. v. EPA, et al.), which the court granted on June 27, 2024, ruling that enforcement of the Plan shall be stayed pending the disposition of the case on the merits by the DC Circuit and any subsequent timely appeals.

Subsequently, the EPA filed a Motion for Remand asking the DC Circuit to remand without vacatur the Plan to the EPA for voluntary reconsideration, explaining that the “EPA has identified specific issues with the Rule that make reconsideration appropriate, including issues raised by Petitioners in this litigation.” On April 14, 2025, the DC Circuit held the case in abeyance pending further order of the court and ordered the parties to file periodic status reports until the EPA completes its review of the Plan. On January 27, 2026, the EPA proposed approving eight state implementation plans to address ozone emissions which were originally disapproved by the EPA. If finalized, those states would be removed from the EPA’s federal Good Neighbor Plan and its requirements would not apply to our facilities.