Targa Resources (TRGP) Risk Analysis

We sell processed natural gas at plant tailgates or at pipeline pooling points. Sales made to natural gas marketers and end-users may be interrupted by disruptions to volumes anywhere along the system. We attempt to balance sales with volumes supplied from processing operations, but unexpected volume variations due to production variability or to gathering, plant or pipeline system disruptions may expose us to volume imbalances, which, in conjunction with movements in commodity prices, could materially impact our income from operations and cash flow.

Pursuant to the authority under the NGPSA and HLPSA, PHMSA has established rules requiring pipeline operators to develop and implement integrity management programs for certain natural gas and hazardous liquids pipelines located where a pipeline leak or rupture could affect higher and moderate consequence risk areas, known as HCAs and MCAs, which are areas where a release could have the most significant adverse consequences. Among other things, these regulations require operators of covered pipelines to: - perform ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity;- identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline segments that could impact an HCA, MCA or Class 3 or 4 area;- maintain processes for data collection, integration and analysis;- repair and remediate pipelines as necessary; and - implement preventive and mitigating actions. The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 ("2011 Pipeline Safety Act"), the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 ("2016 Pipeline Safety Act") and the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety ("PIPES") Act of 2020, require PHMSA to impose more stringent pipeline safety standards on pipeline operators. As a result of those legislative enactments, PHMSA has issued several significant rulemakings. In August 2022, PHMSA finalized the last of three rules known collectively as the "Gas Mega Rule," which collectively, among other items, imposed safety regulations on previously unregulated onshore gas gathering lines, required updated inspection and maintenance plans for the elimination of hazardous leaks and minimization of natural gas released from pipeline facilities and adjusted and strengthened repair, maintenance and integrity management assessment criteria for pipelines in HCAs and non-HCAs. The integrity-related requirements and other provisions of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act, the 2016 Pipeline Safety Act, and the PIPES Act of 2020, as well as any implementation of PHMSA rules thereunder, could require us to pursue additional capital projects or conduct integrity or maintenance programs on an accelerated basis and incur increased operating costs that could have a material adverse effect on our costs of transportation services as well as our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, certain states, including Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and North Dakota, where we conduct operations, have adopted regulations similar to existing PHMSA regulations for certain intrastate natural gas and hazardous liquids pipelines. We plan to continue our pipeline integrity inspection programs to assess and maintain the integrity of our pipelines. The results of these inspections may cause us to incur material and unanticipated capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of our pipelines. The imposition of new or enhanced safety requirements, or any issuance or reinterpretation of guidance by PHMSA or any other state or federal agencies with respect thereto, may require us to install new or modified safety controls, pursue additional capital projects or conduct maintenance programs on an accelerated basis, any or all of which could result in increased operating costs that could have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

Our operations are subject to many hazards inherent in gathering, compressing, treating, processing, transporting, purchasing and selling natural gas; transporting, storing, fractionating, treating and purchasing and selling NGLs and NGL products, including services to LPG exporters; and gathering, storing, terminaling and purchasing and selling crude oil, including: - damage to pipelines and plants, related equipment and surrounding properties caused by hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, fires, extreme temperatures, and other natural disasters, explosions, cyber attacks, and acts of terrorism;- inadvertent damage from third parties, including from motor vehicles and construction, farm or utility equipment;- damage that is the result of our negligence or any of our employees' negligence;- leaks of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and other hydrocarbons or losses of natural gas or NGLs as a result of the malfunction of equipment or facilities;- spills or other unauthorized releases of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil, other hydrocarbons or waste materials that contaminate the environment, including soils, surface water and groundwater, and otherwise adversely impact natural resources; and - other hazards that could also result in personal injury, loss of life, pollution and/or suspension of operations. These risks could result in substantial losses due to personal injury, loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and equipment, and pollution or other environmental or natural resource damage, and may result in delay, curtailment or suspension of our related operations. A natural disaster or other hazard affecting the areas in which we operate could have a material adverse effect on our operations. We are not fully insured against all risks inherent to our business. Additionally, while we are insured against pollution resulting from environmental accidents that occur on a sudden and accidental basis, we may not be insured against all environmental accidents that might occur, some of which may result in toxic tort claims. If a significant accident or event occurs that is not fully insured, if we fail to recover all anticipated insurance proceeds for significant accidents or events for which we are insured, or if we fail to rebuild facilities damaged by such accidents or events, our operations and financial condition could be adversely affected. In addition, we may not be able to maintain or obtain insurance of the type and amount we desire at reasonable rates. As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain of our insurance policies have increased substantially, and could escalate further. For example, following the occurrence of severe hurricanes along the U.S. Gulf Coast in recent years, insurance premiums, deductibles and co-insurance requirements increased substantially, and terms were generally less favorable than terms that could be obtained prior to such hurricanes, with some coverage unavailable at any cost. Further, due to the impacts of recent weather events, certain major insurance companies are either reducing, or no longer offering, certain coverages in Texas, among other states. If a significant accident or event occurs for which we are not fully insured or if we fail to acquire insurance for certain of our operations generally, our operations and financial results could be adversely affected.

With the exception of the Driver Residue Pipeline, TPL SouthTex Transmission Company LP, Targa Midland Gas Pipeline LLC, Midland-Permian Pipeline LLC, Delaware-Permian Pipeline LLC, and Targa SouthTex Mustang Transmission Ltd., which are each subject to FERC regulation under the NGPA or limited FERC regulation under the NGA, our natural gas pipeline operations are generally exempt from FERC regulation, but FERC regulation still affects our non-FERC jurisdictional businesses and the markets for products derived from these businesses, including certain FERC reporting and posting requirements in a given year. We believe that the natural gas pipelines in our gathering systems meet the traditional tests FERC has used to establish a pipeline's status as a gatherer not subject to regulation as a natural gas company. However, the distinction between FERC-regulated transmission services and federally unregulated gathering services is the subject of substantial, ongoing litigation, so the classification and regulation of our gathering facilities are subject to change based on future determinations by FERC, the courts or Congress. We also operate natural gas pipelines that extend from some of our processing plants to interconnections with both intrastate and interstate natural gas pipelines. Those facilities, known in the industry as "plant tailgate" pipelines, typically operate at transmission pressure levels and may transport "pipeline quality" natural gas. Because our plant tailgate pipelines are relatively short, we treat them as "stub" lines, which are exempt from FERC's jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. Targa NGL, Targa Gulf Coast, and Grand Prix Pipeline have pipelines that are considered common carrier pipelines subject to regulation by FERC under the ICA. The ICA requires that we maintain tariffs on file with FERC for each of the Targa NGL, Targa Gulf Coast and Grand Prix Pipeline common carrier pipelines that have not been granted a waiver. Those tariffs set forth the rates we charge for providing transportation services as well as the rules and regulations governing these services. The ICA requires, among other things, that rates on interstate common carrier pipelines be "just and reasonable" and non-discriminatory. With respect to pipelines that have been granted a waiver of the ICA and related regulations by FERC, should a particular pipeline's circumstances change, FERC could, either at the request of other entities or on its own initiative, assert that such pipeline no longer qualifies for a waiver. In the event that FERC were to determine that one or more of these pipelines no longer qualified for a waiver, we would likely be required to file a tariff with FERC for the applicable pipeline(s), provide a cost justification for the transportation charge, and provide regulated services to all potential shippers without undue discrimination. Such a change in the jurisdictional status of transportation on these pipelines could adversely affect our results of operations. The classification of some of our gathering facilities, transportation pipelines, and purchase and sale transactions as FERC-jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional may be subject to change based on future determinations by FERC, the courts or Congress, in which case, our operating costs could increase and we could be subject to enforcement actions under the EP Act of 2005. Various federal agencies within the U.S. Department of the Interior, particularly the BLM, Office of Natural Resources Revenue (formerly the Minerals Management Service) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, along with the Three Affiliated Tribes, promulgate and enforce regulations pertaining to operations on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, on which we operate a significant portion of our Badlands gathering and processing assets. The Three Affiliated Tribes is a sovereign nation having the right to enforce certain laws and regulations independent from federal, state and local statutes and regulations. These tribal laws and regulations include various taxes, fees and other conditions that apply to lessees, operators and contractors conducting operations on Native American tribal lands. Lessees and operators conducting operations on tribal lands can generally be subject to the Native American tribal court system. One or more of these factors may increase our costs of doing business on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and may have an adverse impact on our ability to effectively transport products within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation or to conduct our operations on such lands. Other FERC regulations may indirectly impact our businesses and the markets for products derived from these businesses. FERC's policies and practices across the range of its natural gas and liquids regulatory activities, including, for example, its policies on open access transportation, gas quality, ratemaking, capacity release and market center promotion, may indirectly affect the natural gas and liquids markets. In recent years, FERC has pursued pro-competitive policies in its regulation of interstate natural gas and liquids pipelines. However, we cannot assure you that FERC will continue this approach as it considers matters such as pipeline rates and rules and policies that may affect rights of access to transportation capacity. For more information regarding the regulation of our operations, see "Item 1. Business-Regulation of Operations."

While we do not conduct hydraulic fracturing, many of our oil and gas exploration and production customers do perform such activities. Hydraulic fracturing is typically regulated by state oil and gas commissions, but several federal agencies have asserted regulatory authority over, proposed or promulgated regulations governing, and conducted investigations relating to certain aspects of the process, including the EPA. In addition, Congress has from time to time considered the adoption of legislation to provide for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Moreover, President Biden issued an executive order in January 2021 suspending the issuance of new leases on federal lands and waters pending completion of a study of current oil and gas practices but, in August 2022, a U.S. District Court issued a permanent injunction that blocked President Biden's order suspending new leases. Litigation concerning this issue is ongoing. Notwithstanding these legal developments, further restrictions may be adopted by the Biden Administration that could restrict hydraulic fracturing activities on federal lands and waters. Many states have adopted legal requirements that have imposed new or more stringent permitting, public disclosure or well construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing activities, including in states where we or our customers conduct operations. States could further elect to suspend or prohibit hydraulic fracturing activities in the future. While governments may also seek to adopt ordinances within their jurisdictions regulating the time, place and manner of drilling activities in general or hydraulic fracturing activities in particular, non-governmental organizations may also seek to restrict hydraulic fracturing through ballot initiatives, such as those that have been pursued in Colorado. New or more stringent laws, regulations, executive orders or regulatory or ballot initiatives relating to the hydraulic fracturing process could lead to our customers reducing crude oil and natural gas drilling activities using hydraulic fracturing techniques, while increased public opposition to activities using such techniques may result in operational delays, restrictions, cessations, or increased litigation. Any one or more of such developments could reduce demand for our gathering, processing and fractionation services and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our operations are subject to numerous federal, tribal, state and local environmental laws and regulations governing occupational health and safety, the discharge of pollutants into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. These laws and regulations may impose numerous obligations that are applicable to our operations including acquisition of a permit or other approval before conducting regulated activities, restrictions on the types, quantities and concentration of materials that can be released into the environment; limitation or prohibition of construction and operating activities in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, urban areas, wilderness regions and other protected areas; requiring capital expenditures to comply with pollution control requirements, and imposition of substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from our operations. Numerous governmental authorities, such as the EPA and BLM, and analogous state agencies, have the power to enforce compliance with these laws and regulations and the permits and approvals issued under them, which can often require difficult and costly actions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations or any newly adopted laws or regulations may result in assessment of sanctions including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory, remedial and corrective action obligations or the incurrence of capital expenditures; the occurrence of restrictions, delays or cancellations in the permitting or performance of projects, and the issuance of orders enjoining or conditioning performance of some or all of our operations in a particular area. Certain environmental laws impose strict, joint and several liability for costs required to clean up and restore sites where hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or waste products have been released, even under circumstances where the substances, hydrocarbons or wastes have been released by a predecessor operator or the activities conducted and from which a release emanated complied with applicable law. 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. The risk of incurring environmental costs and liabilities in connection with our operations is significant due to our handling of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and other petroleum products, because of air emissions and product-related discharges arising out of our operations, and as a result of historical industry operations and waste disposal practices. For example, an accidental release from one of our facilities could subject us to substantial liabilities arising from environmental cleanup and restoration costs, claims made by neighboring landowners and other third parties for personal injury, natural resource and property damages and fines or penalties for related violations of environmental laws or regulations. Moreover, stricter laws, regulations or enforcement policies could significantly increase our operational or compliance costs and the cost of any remediation that may become necessary. For example, in October 2021 the EPA announced plans to reconsider the Trump Administration's December 2020 decision to retain the 2015 ground ozone standard, rather than making it more stringent, a decision on which has been delayed until 2024. Further, in March 2023, the EPA issued its Good Neighbor Plan rule, which imposes emissions-related requirements on fossil fuel-fired power plants and other industrial users in 22 states, including Texas and Louisiana, which could reduce demand for our products and accelerate the transition away from oil and gas to other sources of energy. The Good Neighbor Plan has been subject to extensive litigation and, in various states, is stayed pending additional action. There continues to be uncertainty on the federal government's applicable jurisdictional reach under the Clean Water Act over waters of the United States, including wetlands, as the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") under the Obama, Trump and Biden Administrations have pursued multiple rulemakings since 2015 in an attempt to determine the scope of such reach. In January 2023, the EPA and Corps released a final revised definition of "waters of the United States" founded upon the pre-2015 regulations and including updates to incorporate existing Supreme Court decisions and recognizing regional and geographic differences. However, the new rule was challenged by multiple states in 2023, resulting in the rule being enjoined in 27 states. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Sackett v. EPA, which involved issues relating to the legal tests used to determine whether wetlands are "waters of the United States." The Sackett decisions invalidated certain parts of the January 2023 rule, resulting in a revised rule being issued in September 2023. However, due to the injunction in certain states, the implementation of the September 2023 rule currently varies by state. In the 27 states where the rule has been enjoined, the agencies are interpreting the definition consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and the changes made by the Sackett decision. In the remaining 23 states, the agencies are implementing the September 2023 rule. The implementation of the final rule, results of the litigation and any further expansion of the scope of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction in areas where we or our customers conduct operations, could lead to delays, restrictions or cessation of the development of projects, result in longer permitting timelines, or increased compliance expenditures or mitigation costs for our and our oil and natural gas customers' operations, which may reduce the rate of production of natural gas or crude oil from operators with whom we have a business relationship and, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and cash flows. Separately, Nationwide Permit ("NWP") 12, which is available under the Clean Water Act for certain oil and gas activities, has been subject to legal challenges and regulatory revision in recent years. Following legal challenges to NWP 12 in the federal district court for the District of Montana, the Corps reissued NWP 12 for oil and natural gas pipeline activities, including certain revisions to the conditions for the use of NWP 12; however, an October 2021 decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California resulted in a vacatur of a 2020 rule revising the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification process. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed this vacatur and, in September 2023, the EPA finalized its Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule, effective on November 27, 2023. In March 2022, the Corps announced that it was seeking stakeholder input on a formal review of NWP 12. However, while this review is ongoing, the Corps has resumed permitting decisions. While the full extent and impact of these actions is unclear at this time, any disruption in our ability to obtain coverage under NWP 12 or other general permits may result in increased costs and project delays if we are forced to seek individual permits from the Corps. This in turn could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

The threat of climate change continues to attract considerable attention in the United States and in foreign countries. Numerous proposals have been made and could continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit emissions of GHGs. As a result, our operations as well as the operations of our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers, are subject to a series of regulatory, political, litigation, and financial risks associated with the production and processing of fossil fuels and emission of GHGs. In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level, though laws such as the IRA advance numerous climate-related objectives. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the CAA, the EPA has adopted rules that, among other things, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources, implement New Source Performance Standards directing the reduction of methane from certain new, modified, or reconstructed facilities in the oil and natural gas sector, and together with the DOT, implement GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the United States. Additionally, in August 2022, the IRA was signed into law, which appropriates significant federal funding for renewable energy initiatives and amends the federal Clean Air Act to impose a first-time fee on the emission of methane from sources required to report their GHG emissions to the EPA, including those sources in the onshore petroleum and natural gas production and gathering and boosting source categories. The methane emissions fee would start in calendar year 2024 at $900 per ton of methane, increase to $1,200 in 2025, and be set at $1,500 for 2026 and each year after. Calculation of the fee is based on certain thresholds established in the IRA. In order to support implementation of the methane emissions fee, including exemptions from the same, the EPA proposed revisions to its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in late July 2023, which, per the Unified Regulatory Agenda, is expected to be finalized in 2024. The revisions would amend requirements applicable to the petroleum and natural gas systems source category to ensure reporting is based on empirical data and accurately reflects total methane and waste emissions. The methane emissions fee and renewable and low carbon energy funding provisions of the law could increase our and our customers' operating costs and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, which could in turn reduce demand for our products and services and adversely affect our business and results of operations. In recent years, there has been considerable focus on the regulation of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. In response to President Biden's executive order calling on the EPA to revisit federal regulations regarding methane, the EPA finalized more stringent methane rules for new, modified, and reconstructed facilities, known as OOOOb, as well as standards for existing sources known as OOOOc, in December 2023. Under the final rules, states have two years to prepare and submit their plans to impose methane emission controls on existing sources. The presumptive standards established under the final rule are generally the same for both new and existing sources and include enhanced leak detection survey requirements using optical gas imaging and other advanced monitoring to encourage the deployment of innovative technologies to detect and reduce methane emissions, reduction of emissions by 95% through capture and control systems, zero-emission requirements for certain devices, and the establishment of a "super emitter" response program that would allow third parties to make reports to EPA of large methane emission events, triggering certain investigation and repair requirements. Fines and penalties for violations of these rules can be substantial. It is likely, however, that the final rule and its requirements will be subject to legal challenges. Moreover, compliance with the new rules may effect the amount we owe under the IRA's methane fee described above because compliance with EPA's methane rules would exempt an otherwise covered facility from the requirement to pay the methane fee. The requirements of the EPA's final methane rules have the potential to increase our operating costs and thus may adversely affect our financial results and cash flows. Moreover, failure to comply with these CAA requirements can result in the imposition of substantial fines and penalties as well as costly injunctive relief. Various states and groups of states have also adopted or are considering adopting legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives that are focused on areas of coverage similar to what the federal government has or may consider, including GHG cap and trade programs, carbon taxes, reporting and tracking programs, and restriction of emissions. At the international level, there exists the United Nations-sponsored "Paris Agreement," which is an agreement for nations to submit non-binding targets to limit their GHG emissions through individually-determined reduction goals every five years after 2020. President Biden announced in April 2021 a new, more rigorous nationally determined emissions reduction level of 50-52% reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net GHG emissions by 2030. In November 2021 at the 26th Conference of the Parties ("COP26"), the United States and the EU jointly announced the launch of a Global Methane Pledge, an initiative which over 100 countries joined, committing to a collective goal of reducing global methane emissions by at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030, including "all feasible reductions" in the energy sector. At COP27 in Sharm El-Sheik in November 2022, countries reiterated the agreements from COP26 and were called upon to accelerate efforts toward the phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The U.S. also announced, in conjunction with the EU and other partner countries, that it would develop standards for monitoring and reporting methane emissions to help create a market for low methane-intensity natural gas. At COP28 in December 2023, parties agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems and increase renewable energy capacity, although no timeline for doing so was set. The impacts of these actions, orders, pledges, and agreements, and any legislation or regulation promulgated to fulfill the United States' commitments under the Paris Agreement, COP26, COP27, COP28, or other international conventions cannot be predicted at this time, and it is unclear what additional initiatives may be adopted or implemented that may have adverse effects on our operations. Additionally, such agreements could result in increased pressure among financial institutions and various stakeholders to reduce or otherwise impose more stringent limitations on funding for, and increased potential opposition to, the production and use of fossil fuels. Governmental, scientific, and public concern over the threat of climate change arising from GHG emissions has resulted in increasing political risks in the United States, that may limit hydraulic fracturing of oil and natural gas wells, restrict flaring and venting during natural gas production on federal properties, and ban or restrict new or existing leases for production of minerals on federal properties. President Biden has issued several executive orders and strategies focused on addressing climate change, including items that may impact costs to produce, or demand for, oil and gas. Other actions relating to oil and natural gas production activities that could be pursued by the Biden Administration may include more restrictive requirements for the establishment of oil and natural gas pipeline infrastructure or the permitting of liquefied natural gas export facilities. For example, on January 26, 2024, President Biden announced a temporary pause on pending decisions on new exports of liquified natural gas to countries that the United States does not have free trade agreements with, pending Department of Energy review of the underlying analyses for authorizations. The pause is intended to provide time to integrate certain considerations, including potential energy cost increases for consumers and manufacturers and the latest assessment of the impact of GHG emissions, to ensure adequate guards against health risks are in place. With respect to oil and gas activities, in November 2022, the BLM proposed a rule that would limit flaring from well sites on federal lands, as well as allow the delay or denial of permits if BLM finds that an operator's methane waste minimization plan is insufficient. The rule is expected to be finalized in early 2024. The Biden Administration has also called for revisions and restrictions to the leasing and permitting programs for oil and gas development on federal lands and, for a time, suspended federal oil and gas leasing activities. The U.S. Department of the Interior's comprehensive review of the federal leasing program resulted in a reduction in the volume of onshore land held for lease and an increased royalty rate. Any regulatory changes that restrict or require modifications to our or our suppliers' existing operations or future expansions plans could reduce the demand for the products and services we provide, increase our operating costs and may have a negative impact on our financial condition. Litigation risks are also increasing, as a number of cities, local governments, and other plaintiffs have sought to bring suit against the largest oil and natural gas companies in state or federal court, alleging, among other things, that such companies created public nuisances by producing fuels that contributed to global warming effects, such as rising sea levels, and therefore are responsible for roadway and infrastructure damages as a result, or alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but defrauded their investors or consumers by failing to adequately disclose those impacts. Increasingly, companies in the energy and infrastructure industries are being, and may increasingly be, subject to allegations that they are responsible for climate change impacts and/or responsible for the physical impacts of climate change. Should we be targeted by any similar litigation, involvement in such a case could have adverse financial and reputational impacts and an unfavorable ruling could significantly impact our operations and adversely impact our financial condition. Additionally, our access to capital may be impacted by climate change policies. Stockholders and bondholders currently invested in fossil fuel energy companies but concerned about the potential effects of climate change may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into non-fossil fuel energy related sectors. Institutional investors who provide financing to fossil fuel energy companies have also become more attentive to sustainability lending practices that favor "clean" power sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic, making those sources more attractive, and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies. Many of the largest U.S. banks have made "net zero" carbon emission commitments and have announced that they will be assessing financed emissions across their portfolios and taking steps to quantify and reduce those emissions. These and other developments in the financial sector could lead to some lenders restricting access to capital for or divesting from certain industries or companies, including the oil and natural gas sector, or requiring that borrowers take additional steps to reduce their GHG emissions. Additionally, there is the possibility that financial institutions will be required to adopt policies that limit funding to the fossil fuel sector. Various financial regulators have adopted, or are considering adopting, guidance or requirements regarding the management of climate-related risk by financial institutions. While we cannot predict how financial institutions will respond to these various actions, a material reduction in the capital available to the fossil fuel industry could make it more difficult to secure funding for exploration, development, production, transportation, and processing activities, which could impact our and our suppliers' and customers' businesses and operations. In addition, in March 2022, the SEC released a proposed rule that would establish a framework for the reporting of climate risks, targets, and metrics. Recently, the State of California adopted several laws that require similar, or in some situations more extensive, disclosure. While implementing rules on certain of these laws are outstanding, both the California laws and the SEC rule, to the extent finalized, may result in increased legal, accounting and financial compliance costs for us and our suppliers and customers to comply, including the implementation of significant additional internal controls processes and procedures regarding matters that have not been subject to such controls in the past, and impose increased oversight obligations on our management and board of directors. We may also face increased litigation risks related to disclosures made pursuant to these requirements. In addition, enhanced climate disclosure requirements could accelerate the trend of certain stakeholders and lenders in restricting or seeking more stringent conditions with respect to their investments in our customers in the energy industry and companies like ours that support the energy industry. The adoption and implementation of any international, federal or state legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives that impose more stringent standards for GHG emissions from the oil and natural gas sector or otherwise restrict the areas in which this sector may produce oil and natural gas or generate GHG emissions could result in increased costs of compliance or costs of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for oil and natural gas, which could reduce demand for our services and products. Additionally, political, litigation, and financial risks may result in our oil and natural gas customers restricting or cancelling production activities, incurring liability for infrastructure damages as a result of climatic changes, or impairing their ability to continue to operate in an economic manner, which also could reduce demand for our services and products. One or more of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation. Increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, floods, rising sea levels and other extreme weather events, as well as chronic

Weather events in the areas in which we or our customers operate can cause disruptions and in some cases suspension of our operations and development activities. For example, unseasonably wet weather, extended periods of below freezing weather, or hurricanes, among other disruptive weather patterns, may cause a loss of throughput from temporary cessation of activities or lost, damaged or ineffective equipment. Our planning for normal climatic variation, insurance programs and emergency recovery plans may inadequately mitigate the effects of such weather conditions, and not all such effects can be predicted, eliminated or insured against. Potential climatic changes may have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, wildfires and wintry conditions and could have an adverse effect on our infrastructure or continued operations as well as the operations of our oil and gas exploration and production customers that deliver natural gas to us for processing and throughput, our third party vendors that supply us with goods, utilities necessary for our, our suppliers', or our customers' continued operations, and third party insurance providers that make insuring products available to defray our costs or offset any damages and losses we incur. Any unusual or prolonged severe weather events or increased frequency thereof, such as freezing weather or rain, earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, extreme temperatures, wildfires or floods in our oil and gas exploration and production customers' or our third party vendors' areas of operations or markets, whether due to climatic change or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Our operations along the Gulf Coast, in offshore waters and at major river crossings in particular could be adversely impacted by changing climatic conditions, as rising sea levels, subsidence and erosion are potential causes for serious damage to our pipelines and other facilities, which could affect our ability to provide services. These damages could result in leakage, migration, releases or spills from our operations to surface or subsurface soils, surface water, groundwater or to the Gulf of Mexico and could result in liability, remedial obligations or otherwise have a negative impact on continued operations. Additionally, rising sea levels, subsidence and erosion processes could impact our oil and gas exploration and production customers who operate along the Gulf Coast, and they may be unable to utilize our services. Adverse climatic impacts, whether inland or along the coast or offshore, could also affect our third-party suppliers, which could limit their ability to provide us with the necessary products and services enabling us to maintain operation of our pipelines and other facilities. As a result, we may incur significant costs to repair, preserve or make more efficient our pipeline infrastructure and other facilities. Such costs could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, we could incur significant costs to weatherize or upgrade weatherization of our facility equipment in anticipation of future weather events. For example, following Texas Governor Greg Abbott's direction to adopt rules related to weather resiliency, in August 2022, the Texas Railroad Commission adopted the Weather Emergency Preparedness Standards rule, which requires critical gas facilities on the state's Electricity Supply Chain Map (including gas pipelines that directly serve electricity generation) to (i) weatherize to help ensure sustained operations during a weather emergency, (ii) correct known issues that caused weather-related forced stoppages and (iii)contact the Texas Railroad Commission if a facility sustains a weather-related forced stoppage during a weather emergency. Inspectors from the Critical Infrastructure Division of the Texas Railroad Commission began inspections on December 1, 2022. If, upon inspection, we are required to further weatherize or update weatherization of certain facilities, we may incur significant costs to complete any additional weatherization. Additionally, issues beyond our control, such as grid reliability or the severity of any such weather event, might undermine any winterization or emergency weather preparedness efforts we make. Furthermore, our operations in western Texas and New Mexico may be sensitive to drought and restrictions on water use.

We face risks related to the outbreak of illnesses, pandemics and other public health crises that are outside of our control and could significantly disrupt our operations and adversely affect our financial condition. For example, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including travel bans, prohibitions on group events and gatherings, shutdowns of certain businesses, curfews, shelter-in-place orders and recommendations to practice social distancing in addition to other actions taken by both businesses and governments, resulted in a significant and swift reduction in international and U.S. economic activity.

We have experienced, and may encounter from time to time, opposition to the operation and expansion of our pipelines and facilities from governmental officials, non-governmental environmental organizations and groups, landowners, tribal groups, local groups and other advocates. In some instances, we encounter opposition which disfavors hydrocarbon-based energy supplies regardless of practical implementation or financial considerations. Opposition to our operation and expansion can take many forms, including the delay, denial or termination of required governmental permits or approvals, organized protests, attempts to block or sabotage our operations, intervention in regulatory or administrative proceedings involving our assets or lawsuits or other actions designed to prevent, disrupt, delay or terminate the operation or expansion of our assets and business. Similar actions pursued against our oil and gas customers could result in interruptions or limitations to their businesses, which could reduce demand for our services. Any such event that restricts, delays or prevents the expansion of our or our customers' businesses, interrupts the revenues generated by our or our customers' operations or causes us or our customers to make significant expenditures not covered by insurance could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition, as well as reduce the demand for our services. Increased regulatory attention to environmental justice matters at the federal and state level may also provide communities opposed to our operations with greater opportunities to challenge or delay the permitting approval process.

Our operations can be affected by the level of natural gas, NGL and crude oil prices and the relationship between these prices. The prices of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil have been historically volatile, and we expect this volatility to continue which impacts production activity levels. Our future cash flows may be materially adversely affected if we experience significant, prolonged price deterioration that also decreases production activity levels in our areas of operation. The markets and prices for natural gas, NGLs and crude oil depend upon factors beyond our control. These factors include supply and demand for these commodities, which fluctuates with changes in market and economic conditions, and other factors, including: - the impact of seasonality and weather, including severe weather conditions and other natural disasters, such as flooding, droughts and winter storms, the frequency, severity and impact of which could be increased by the effects of climate change;- general economic conditions and economic conditions impacting our primary markets, including the impact of continued inflation and rising interest rates and associated changes in monetary policy;- the economic conditions of our customers;- the level of domestic crude oil and natural gas production and consumption;- the availability of imported natural gas, liquefied natural gas, NGLs and crude oil;- actions taken by major foreign oil and gas producing nations;- the availability of local, intrastate and interstate transportation systems and storage for residue natural gas and NGLs;- the availability of domestic storage for crude oil;- the availability and marketing of competitive fuels and/or feedstocks;- the impact of energy conservation efforts and the related transition to a low carbon economy, as a result of the IRA or otherwise;- stockholder activism and activities by non-governmental organizations to limit certain sources of funding for the energy sector or restrict the exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas; and - the extent and nature of governmental regulation and taxation, including those related to the prorationing of oil and gas production. Our primary natural gas gathering and processing arrangements that expose us to commodity price risk are our percent-of-proceeds arrangements. Under these arrangements, we generally process natural gas from producers and remit to the producers an agreed percentage of the proceeds from the sale of residue gas and NGL products at market prices or a percentage of residue gas and NGL products at the tailgate of our processing facilities. In some percent-of-proceeds arrangements, we remit to the producer a percentage of an index-based price for residue gas and NGL products, less agreed adjustments, rather than remitting a portion of the actual sales proceeds. Under these types of arrangements, our revenues and cash flows increase or decrease, whichever is applicable, as the prices of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil fluctuate, to the extent our exposure to these prices is unhedged. See "Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk."