ETE-3.31.2013-Q1
Table of Contents

 

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
ý
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended March 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)
(214) 981-0700
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
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 Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) 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 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
£  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
  
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
At May 6, 2013, the registrant had units outstanding as follows:
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. 280,711,650 Common Units


Table of Contents

FORM 10-Q
ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


i

Table of Contents

Forward-Looking Statements
Certain matters discussed in this report, excluding historical information, as well as some statements by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (“Energy Transfer Equity,” the “Partnership” or “ETE”) in periodic press releases and some oral statements of Energy Transfer Equity 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,” “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 or expressed, forecasted, projected 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 “Part I — Item 1A. Risk Factors” in the Partnership’s Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2013.
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)
 
 
 
Bbls
  
barrels
 
 
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
 
 
 
Citrus Merger
 
ETP’s acquisition of Citrus Corp. on March 26, 2012
 
 
 
CrossCountry
 
CrossCountry Energy LLC
 
 
 
CRSA
 
Contingent Residual Support Agreement
 
 
 
ETC FEP
 
ETC Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC
 
 
 
ETP
 
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
 
 
 
ETP Credit Facility
 
ETP’s revolving credit facility
 
 
 
ETP GP
 
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., the general partner of ETP
 
 
 
ETP LLC
 
Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., the general partner of ETP GP
 
 
 
Exchange Act
 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 
 
 
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
 
 
 
HPC
 
RIGS Haynesville Partnership Co.
 
 
 

ii

Table of Contents

Holdco
 
ETP Holdco Corporation
 
 
 
Holdco Transaction
 
October 5, 2012 transaction including contributions from ETP and ETE to Holdco
 
 
 
HOLP
 
Heritage Operating, L.P.
 
 
 
IDRs
 
incentive distribution rights
 
 
 
LIBOR
 
London Interbank Offered Rate
 
 
 
LNG Holdings
 
Trunkline LNG Holdings, LLC
 
 
 
Lone Star
 
Lone Star NGL LLC
 
 
 
MEP
 
Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC
 
 
 
MMBtu
  
million British thermal units
 
 
 
MTBE
 
methyl tertiary butyl ether
 
 
 
NGL
  
natural gas liquid, such as propane, butane and natural gasoline
 
 
NYMEX
  
New York Mercantile Exchange
 
 
OTC
 
over-the-counter
 
 
Panhandle
 
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP and its subsidiaries
 
 
 
PEPL
 
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP
 
 
RIGS
 
Regency Intrastate Gas System
 
 
 
Preferred Units
 
ETE’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units
 
 
 
Propane Business
 
Heritage Operating, L.P. and Titan Energy Partners, L.P.
 
 
 
Propane Contribution
 
ETP’s contribution of its Propane Business to AmeriGas
 
 
 
Regency
 
Regency Energy Partners LP
 
 
 
Regency GP
 
Regency Energy Partners GP LP, the general partner of Regency
 
 
 
Regency LLC
 
Regency Energy Partners GP LLC, the general partner of Regency GP
 
 
 
Regency Preferred Units
 
Regency’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units, the Preferred Units of a Subsidiary
 
 
 
SEC
 
Securities and Exchange Commission
 
 
 
Southern Union
 
Southern Union Company
 
 
 
Southern Union Credit Facility
 
Southern Union’s revolving credit facility
 
 
 
Southern Union Merger
 
ETE’s acquisition of Southern Union on March 26, 2012
 
 
 
SUGS
 
Southern Union Gas Services
 
 
 
Sunoco
 
Sunoco, Inc.
 
 
 
Sunoco Logistics
 
Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.
 
 
 
Sunoco Merger
 
ETP’s acquisition of Sunoco on October 5, 2012
 
 
 
Transwestern
 
Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC
 
 
 
Trunkline
 
Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
 
 
 
Trunkline LNG
 
Trunkline LNG Company, LLC
 
 
 
WTI
  
West Texas Intermediate Crude

iii

Table of Contents


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 of ETP’s Propane Business 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.



iv

Table of Contents

PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in millions)
(unaudited)
 
 
March 31,
2013
 
December 31, 2012
ASSETS
 
 
 
CURRENT ASSETS:
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents
$
614

 
$
372

Accounts receivable, net
3,677

 
3,057

Accounts receivable from related companies
115

 
71

Inventories
1,659

 
1,522

Exchanges receivable
45

 
55

Price risk management assets
29

 
25

Current assets held for sale
136

 
184

Other current assets
352

 
311

Total current assets
6,627

 
5,597

 
 
 
 
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
31,026

 
30,388

ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
(2,386
)
 
(2,104
)
 
28,640

 
28,284

 
 
 
 
NON-CURRENT ASSETS HELD FOR SALE
992


985

ADVANCES TO AND INVESTMENTS IN UNCONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES
4,708

 
4,737

NON-CURRENT PRICE RISK MANAGEMENT ASSETS
36

 
43

GOODWILL
6,414

 
6,434

INTANGIBLE ASSETS, net
2,266

 
2,291

OTHER NON-CURRENT ASSETS, net
457

 
533

Total assets
$
50,140

 
$
48,904

















The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

1

Table of Contents


ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in million)
(unaudited)

 
March 31,
2013
 
December 31, 2012
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
 
 
 
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
 
 
 
Accounts payable
$
3,573

 
$
3,107

Accounts payable to related companies
18

 
15

Exchanges payable
170

 
156

Price risk management liabilities
106

 
115

Accrued and other current liabilities
1,569

 
1,754

Current maturities of long-term debt
611

 
613

Current liabilities held for sale
80

 
85

Total current liabilities
6,127

 
5,845

 
 
 
 
NON-CURRENT LIABILTIES HELD FOR SALE
142


142

LONG-TERM DEBT, less current maturities
22,343

 
21,440

PREFERRED UNITS
340

 
331

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES
3,625

 
3,566

NON-CURRENT PRICE RISK MANAGEMENT LIABILITIES
170

 
162

OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES
938

 
995

 
 
 
 
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 14)

 

 
 
 
 
PREFERRED UNITS OF SUBSIDIARY
73

 
73

 
 
 
 
EQUITY:
 
 
 
General Partner
(1
)
 

Limited Partners:
 
 
 
Common Unitholders
2,047

 
2,125

Accumulated other comprehensive loss
(11
)
 
(12
)
Total partners’ capital
2,035

 
2,113

Noncontrolling interest
14,347

 
14,237

Total equity
16,382

 
16,350

Total liabilities and equity
$
50,140

 
$
48,904










The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

2

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars in millions, except per unit data)
(unaudited)
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2013
 
2012
REVENUES:
 
 
 
Natural gas sales
$
973

 
$
503

NGL sales
713

 
528

Crude sales
3,201

 

Gathering, transportation and other fees
740

 
489

Refined product sales
4,662

 

Other
890

 
150

Total revenues
11,179

 
1,670

COSTS AND EXPENSES:
 
 
 
Cost of products sold
9,807

 
1,015

Operating expenses
349

 
170

Depreciation and amortization
312


154

Selling, general and administrative
180

 
147

Total costs and expenses
10,648

 
1,486

OPERATING INCOME
531

 
184

OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE):
 
 
 
Interest expense, net of interest capitalized
(310
)

(213
)
Bridge loan related fees


(62
)
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
90

 
75

Gain on deconsolidation of Propane Business


1,056

Loss on extinguishment of debt

 
(115
)
Gains on interest rate derivatives
6


27

Other, net
(19
)
 
12

INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS BEFORE INCOME TAX EXPENSE
298

 
964

Income tax expense (benefit) from continuing operations
(2
)

2

INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS
300

 
962

Income (loss) from discontinued operations
22


(1
)
NET INCOME
322

 
961

LESS: NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST
232

 
795

NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARTNERS
90

 
166

GENERAL PARTNER’S INTEREST IN NET INCOME

 
1

LIMITED PARTNERS’ INTEREST IN NET INCOME
$
90

 
$
165

INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS PER LIMITED PARTNER UNIT:
 
 
 
Basic
$
0.27

 
$
0.73

Diluted
$
0.27

 
$
0.73

NET INCOME PER LIMITED PARTNER UNIT:
 
 
 
Basic
$
0.32

 
$
0.73

Diluted
$
0.32

 
$
0.73


The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Dollars in millions)
(unaudited)
 
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2013
 
2012
Net income
$
322

 
$
961

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:
 
 
 
Reclassification to earnings of gains and losses on derivative instruments accounted for as cash flow hedges
(1
)
 

Change in value of derivative instruments accounted for as cash flow hedges
2

 
22

Change in value of available-for-sale securities
1

 

Actuarial loss relating to pension and other postretirement benefits
(1
)
 

Foreign currency translation adjustment
(1
)
 

Change in other comprehensive income from equity investments
7

 

 
7

 
22

Comprehensive income
329

 
983

Less: Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interest
238

 
811

Comprehensive income attributable to partners
$
91

 
$
172
































The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EQUITY
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2013
(Dollars in millions)
(unaudited)
 
 
General
Partner    
 
Common
Unitholders    
 
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss
 
Noncontrolling
Interest
 
Total    
Balance, December 31, 2012
$

 
$
2,125

 
$
(12
)
 
$
14,237

 
$
16,350

Distributions to partners
(1
)
 
(178
)
 

 

 
(179
)
Distributions to noncontrolling interest

 

 

 
(333
)
 
(333
)
Subsidiary units issued for cash

 
10

 

 
182

 
192

Non-cash compensation expense, net of units tendered by employees for tax withholdings

 

 

 
14

 
14

Capital contributions from noncontrolling interest

 

 

 
11

 
11

Other, net

 

 

 
(2
)
 
(2
)
Other comprehensive income, net of tax

 

 
1

 
6

 
7

Net income

 
90

 

 
232

 
322

Balance, March 31, 2013
$
(1
)
 
$
2,047

 
$
(11
)
 
$
14,347

 
$
16,382


























The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in millions)
(unaudited)
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2013
 
2012
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
 
 
 
Net income
$
322

 
$
961

Reconciliation of net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
 
 
 
Depreciation and amortization
312

 
154

Deferred income taxes
3

 
(2
)
Gain on curtailment of other postretirement benefit plans

 
(15
)
Amortization of finance costs charged to interest
(16
)
 
5

Bridge loan related fees

 
62

Non-cash compensation expense
16

 
12

Gain on deconsolidation of Propane Business

 
(1,056
)
Loss on extinguishment of debt

 
115

LIFO valuation adjustment
(38
)
 

Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
(90
)
 
(75
)
Distributions from unconsolidated affiliates
100

 
57

Other non-cash
17

 
11

Changes in operating assets and liabilities, net of effects of acquisitions and deconsolidation
(296
)
 
(150
)
Net cash provided by operating activities
330

 
79

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
 
 
 
Cash paid for Southern Union Merger, net of cash received (Note 3)

 
(2,972
)
Cash paid for all other acquisitions, net of cash received

 
(10
)
Capital expenditures (excluding allowance for equity funds used during construction)
(761
)
 
(595
)
Contributions in aid of construction costs
8

 
6

Contributions to unconsolidated affiliates
(1
)
 
(15
)
Distributions from unconsolidated affiliates in excess of cumulative earnings
30

 
19

Proceeds from the sale of assets
21

 
26

Cash proceeds from contribution of propane operations

 
1,384

Other
3

 

Net cash used in investing activities
(700
)
 
(2,157
)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
 
 
 
Proceeds from borrowings
2,899

 
4,787

Repayments of long-term debt
(1,961
)
 
(2,474
)
Subsidiary equity offerings, net of issue costs
192

 
385

Distributions to partners
(179
)
 
(140
)
Debt issuance costs
(16
)
 
(97
)
Distributions to noncontrolling interest
(333
)
 
(220
)
Capital contributions received from noncontrolling interest
11

 
5

Other, net
(1
)
 
(1
)
Net cash provided by financing activities
612

 
2,245

INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
242

 
167

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, beginning of period
372

 
126

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, end of period
$
614

 
$
293


The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

6

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Tabular dollar amounts, except per unit data, are in millions)
(unaudited)
1.
OPERATIONS AND ORGANIZATION:
Business Operations
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, Southern Union, Sunoco, Sunoco Logistics and Holdco. References to the “Parent Company” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. on a stand-alone basis.
The consolidated financial statements of ETE presented herein include the results of operations of:
the Parent Company;
our controlled subsidiaries, ETP and Regency (see description of their respective operations below under “Business Operations”);
Holdco which includes the operations of Southern Union and Sunoco; and
ETP’s and Regency’s consolidated subsidiaries and our wholly-owned subsidiaries that own the general partner and IDR interests in ETP and Regency.
As a result of the Southern Union Merger in March 2012 and the Holdco Transaction in October 2012, the periods presented herein do not include activities from Southern Union or Sunoco prior to the consummation of the respective mergers and/or transactions.
Business Operations
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. The Parent Company’s primary cash requirements are for general and administrative expenses, debt service requirements and distributions to its partners. Parent Company-only assets are not available to satisfy the debts and other obligations of ETE’s subsidiaries. In order to understand the financial condition of the Parent Company on a stand-alone basis, see Note 19 for stand-alone financial information apart from that of the consolidated partnership information included herein.
Our activities are primarily conducted through our operating subsidiaries as follows:
ETP’s operations are conducted through the following subsidiaries:
ETC OLP, a Texas limited partnership engaged in midstream and intrastate transportation and storage natural gas operations. ETC OLP owns and operates, through its wholly and majority-owned subsidiaries, natural gas gathering systems, intrastate natural gas pipeline systems and gas processing plants and is engaged in the business of purchasing, gathering, transporting, processing, and marketing natural gas and NGLs in the states of Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico and West Virginia. Our intrastate transportation and storage operations primarily focus on transporting natural gas in Texas through our Oasis pipeline, ET Fuel System, East Texas pipeline and HPL System. Our midstream operations focus on the gathering, compression, treating, conditioning and processing of natural gas, primarily on or through our Southeast Texas System, Eagle Ford System, North Texas System and Northern Louisiana assets. ETC OLP also owns a 70% interest in Lone Star.
ET Interstate, a Delaware limited liability company with revenues consisting primarily of fees earned from natural gas transportation services and operational gas sales. ET Interstate is the parent company of:
Transwestern, a Delaware limited liability company engaged in interstate transportation of natural gas. Transwestern’s revenues consist primarily of fees earned from natural gas transportation services and operational gas sales.
ETC FEP, a Delaware limited liability company that directly owns a 50% interest in FEP, which owns 100% of the Fayetteville Express interstate natural gas pipeline.
ETC Tiger, a Delaware limited liability company engaged in interstate transportation of natural gas.

7

Table of Contents

CrossCountry, a Delaware limited liability company that indirectly owns a 50% interest in Citrus, which owns 100% of the FGT interstate natural gas pipeline.
ETC Compression, a Delaware limited liability company engaged in natural gas compression services and related equipment sales.
Sunoco Logistics, a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership that owns and operates a logistics business, consisting of refined products and crude oil pipelines, terminalling and storage assets, and refined products and crude oil acquisition and marketing assets.
Holdco, a Delaware limited liability company that directly owns Southern Union and Sunoco. As discussed in Note 3, ETP acquired ETE’s 60% interest in Holdco on April 30, 2013. Sunoco and Southern Union operations are described as follows:
Southern Union owns and operates assets in the regulated and unregulated natural gas industry and is primarily engaged in the gathering, processing, transportation, storage and distribution of natural gas in the United States. As discussed in Note 3, 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.
Sunoco owns and operates retail marketing assets, which sell gasoline and middle distillates at retail and operates convenience stores primarily on the east coast and in the midwest region of the United States.
Regency is a publicly traded partnership engaged in the gathering and processing, contract compression, treating and transportation of natural gas and the transportation, fractionation and storage of NGLs. Regency focuses on providing midstream services in some of the most prolific natural gas producing regions in the United States, including the Haynesville, Eagle Ford, Barnett, Fayetteville, Bone Spring, Avalon and Marcellus shales, as well as the Permian Delaware basin and the mid-continent region. Its assets are located in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia and the mid-continent region of the United States, which includes Kansas, Colorado and Oklahoma. Regency also holds a 30% interest in Lone Star.
Our reportable segments reflect the following reportable business segments:
intrastate natural gas transportation and storage;
interstate natural gas transportation and storage;
midstream;
NGL transportation and services;
retail marketing;
investment in Sunoco Logistics;
investment in Regency; and
corporate and other.
Preparation of Interim Financial Statements
The accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2012, which has been derived from audited financial statements, and the unaudited interim consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of the Partnership as of March 31, 2013 and for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, have been prepared in accordance with GAAP for interim consolidated financial information and pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete consolidated financial statements. However, management believes that the disclosures made are adequate to make the information not misleading. The results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for a full year due to the seasonal nature of the Partnership’s operations, maintenance activities of the Partnership’s subsidiaries and the impact of forward natural gas prices and differentials on certain derivative financial instruments that are accounted for using mark-to-market accounting. Management has evaluated subsequent events through the date the financial statements were issued.
In the opinion of management, all adjustments (all of which are normal and recurring) have been made that are necessary to fairly state the consolidated financial position of the Partnership as of March 31, 2013, and the Partnership’s results of operations and cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012. The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements

8

Table of Contents

should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto presented in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the SEC on March 1, 2013.
Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2013 presentation. These reclassifications had no impact on net income or total equity.

2.
ESTIMATES:
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the accrual for and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.
The natural gas industry conducts its business by processing actual transactions at the end of the month following the month of delivery. Consequently, the most current month’s financial results for natural gas and NGL related operations are estimated using volume estimates and market prices. Any differences between estimated results and actual results are recognized in the following month’s financial statements. Management believes that the estimated operating results represent the actual results in all material respects.
Some of the other significant estimates made by management include, but are not limited to, the timing of certain forecasted transactions that are hedged, the fair value of derivative instruments, useful lives for depreciation and amortization, purchase accounting allocations and subsequent realizability of intangible assets, fair value measurements used in goodwill impairment tests, market value of inventory, assets and liabilities resulting from the regulated ratemaking process, contingency reserves and environmental reserves. Actual values and results could differ from those estimates.

3.
ACQUISITIONS, DIVESTITURES AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS:
Sale of Distribution Operations
In December 2012, Southern Union entered into definitive purchase and sale agreements dated December 14, 2012 (collectively, the “Purchase and Sale Agreements”) with each of Plaza Missouri Acquisition, Inc. (“Laclede Missouri”) and Plaza Massachusetts Acquisition, Inc. (“Laclede Massachusetts”), both of which are subsidiaries of The Laclede Group, Inc. (together, the “Laclede Entities”), pursuant to which Laclede Missouri has agreed to acquire the assets of Southern Union’s Missouri Gas Energy division, and Laclede Massachusetts has agreed to acquire the assets of Southern Union’s New England Gas Company division. Total consideration for the acquisitions will be $1.04 billion, subject to customary closing adjustments, less the assumption of $19 million of debt. On February 11, 2013, the Laclede Entities announced that it had entered into an agreement with Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp (“APUC”) that will allow a subsidiary of APUC to assume the right of the Laclede Entities to purchase the assets of Southern Union’s New England Gas Company division, subject to certain approvals. It is expected that the transactions contemplated by the Purchase and Sale Agreements are expected to close in the third quarter of 2013.
For the three months ended March 31, 2013 and the period from March 26, 2012 to March 31, 2012, the distribution operations have been classified as discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations. The assets and liabilities of the disposal group have been classified as assets and liabilities held for sale as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012.
SUGS Contribution
On April 30, 2013, Southern Union completed its contribution to Regency 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 $570 million in cash to Southern Union, and (iv) the payment of $30 million in cash to a subsidiary of ETP. The total cash consideration was reduced by $107 million of estimated closing adjustments. In addition, PEPL Holdings provided a guarantee of collection with respect to the payment of the principal amounts of Regency’s debt related to the Contribution Agreement. The Regency Class F units have the same rights, terms and conditions as the Regency common units, except that Southern Union will not receive distributions on the Regency Class F units for the first eight consecutive quarters following the closing, and the Regency Class F units will thereafter automatically convert into Regency common units on a one-for-one basis. Upon the closing of the transaction, ETE agreed to forego all distributions with respect to its IDRs on the Regency common units issued in the transaction for the first eight consecutive quarters following the closing.

9

Table of Contents

ETP’s Acquisition of ETE’s Holdco Interest
On April 30, 2013, ETP acquired from ETE its interest in Holdco for approximately 49.5 million of newly issued ETP Common Units and $1.40 billion in cash, less $68 million of estimated closing adjustments. ETE, which owns the general partner and IDRs of ETP, has agreed to forego all of the IDR payments 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 occurs, and 50% of the IDR payments on the newly issued ETP units for the following eight consecutive quarters. As a result, ETP now owns 100% of Holdco. As this transaction occurred subsequent to March 31, 2013, the Partnership’s consolidated historical results of operations, cash flows and financial position as of and for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 were not affected by this transaction.
Sunoco Merger
On October 5, 2012, Sam Acquisition Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of ETP, completed its merger with Sunoco. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Sunoco shareholders received a total of approximately 55 million ETP Common Units and $2.6 billion in cash.
Management is continuing to validate certain assumptions made in connection with the purchase price allocation of Sunoco; therefore, certain assets and/or liabilities may be adjusted in future periods.
4.
INVESTMENTS IN UNCONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES:
The following investments in unconsolidated affiliates are reflected in our consolidated financial statements using the equity method:
AmeriGas. ETP owns approximately 30 million AmeriGas common units.
Citrus. ETP owns a 50% interest in Citrus, which owns 100% of FGT, an approximate 5,400 mile natural gas pipeline system that originates in Texas and delivers natural gas to the Florida peninsula. The other 50% interest in Citrus is owned by a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc.
FEP. ETP owns a 50% interest in the FEP, which owns an approximately 185-mile natural gas pipeline that originates in Conway County, Arkansas, continues eastward through White County, Arkansas and terminates at an interconnect with Trunkline in Panola County, Mississippi.
HPC. Regency owns a 49.99% interest in HPC, which, through its ownership of the RIGS, delivers natural gas from Northwest Louisiana to downstream pipelines and markets through a 450-mile intrastate pipeline system.
MEP. Regency owns a 50% interest in MEP, which owns approximately 500 miles of natural gas pipelines that extend from Southeast Oklahoma, across Northeast Texas, Northern Louisiana and Central Mississippi to an interconnect with the Transcontinental natural gas pipeline system in Butler, Alabama.
PES. Sunoco owns an approximate 30% non-operating interest in PES, a joint venture with The Carlyle Group, L.P., which owns a refinery in Philadelphia. Sunoco has a ten-year supply contract for gasoline and diesel produced at the refinery for its retail marketing business.
The following table presents aggregated selected income statement data for our unconsolidated affiliates listed above (on a 100% basis for all periods presented).
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2013
 
2012
Revenue
$
4,146

 
$
1,366

Operating income
349

 
314

Net income
230

 
215

In addition to the equity method investments described above, ETP and Regency have other equity method investments, which are not significant to our consolidated financial statements.


10

Table of Contents

5.
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS:
Cash and cash equivalents include all cash on hand, demand deposits, and investments with original maturities of three months or less. We consider cash equivalents to include short-term, highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash and that are subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value.
Non-cash investing and financing activities are as follows:
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2013
 
2012
NON-CASH INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
 
 
 
Accrued capital expenditures
$
434

 
$
245

Gain (loss) from subsidiary common unit transactions
$
10

 
$
(15
)
AmeriGas limited partner interest received in Propane Contribution
$

 
$
1,123

NON-CASH FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
 
 
 
Issuance of common units in connection with Southern Union Merger
$

 
$
2,354

Subsidiary issuances of common units in connection with certain acquisitions
$

 
$
105


6.
INVENTORIES:
Inventories consisted of the following:
 
March 31,
2013
 
December 31,
2012
Natural gas and NGLs
$
227

 
$
338

Crude oil
644

 
418

Refined products
588

 
572

Appliances, parts and fittings and other
200

 
194

Total inventories
$
1,659

 
$
1,522


ETP utilizes commodity derivatives to manage price volatility associated with its natural gas inventory and designates certain of these derivatives as fair value hedges for accounting purposes. Changes in fair value of the designated hedged inventory have been recorded in inventory on our consolidated balance sheets and in cost of products sold in our consolidated statements of operations.

11

Table of Contents

7.
FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS:
The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable approximate their fair value. Price risk management assets and liabilities are recorded at fair value.
We have marketable securities, commodity derivatives, interest rate derivatives, the Preferred Units and embedded derivatives in the Regency Preferred Units that are accounted for as assets and liabilities at fair value in our consolidated balance sheets. We determine the fair value of our assets and liabilities subject to fair value measurement by using the highest possible “level” of inputs. Level 1 inputs are observable quotes in an active market for identical assets and liabilities. We consider the valuation of marketable securities and commodity derivatives transacted through a clearing broker with a published price from the appropriate exchange as a Level 1 valuation. Level 2 inputs are inputs observable for similar assets and liabilities. We consider OTC commodity derivatives entered into directly with third parties as a Level 2 valuation since the values of these derivatives are quoted on an exchange for similar transactions. Additionally, we consider our options transacted through our clearing broker as having Level 2 inputs due to the level of activity of these contracts on the exchange in which they trade. We consider the valuation of our interest rate derivatives as Level 2 as the primary input, the LIBOR curve, is based on quotes from an active exchange of Eurodollar futures for the same period as the future interest swap settlements, and we discount the future cash flows accordingly, including the effects of credit risk. Level 3 inputs are unobservable. Derivatives related to the Regency Preferred Units are valued using a binomial lattice model. The market inputs utilized in the model include credit spread, probabilities of the occurrence of certain events, common unit price, dividend yield, and expected value, and are considered Level 3. At December 31, 2012, the fair value of the Preferred Units was based predominantly on an income approach model and considered Level 3. At March 31, 2013 the fair value of the Preferred Units was based on the actual redemption value at April 1, 2013.
Based on the estimated borrowing rates currently available to us and our subsidiaries for long-term loans with similar terms and average maturities, the aggregate fair value of our consolidated debt obligations as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 was $24.86 billion and $24.15 billion, respectively. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the aggregate carrying amount of our consolidated debt obligations was $22.95 billion and $22.05 billion, respectively. The fair value of our consolidated debt obligations is a Level 2 valuation based on the observable inputs used for similar liabilities.

12

Table of Contents

The following tables summarize the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities measured and recorded at fair value on a recurring basis as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 based on inputs used to derive their fair values:
 
Fair Value Measurements  at
March 31, 2013
 
Fair Value
Total
 
Level 1
 
Level 2
 
Level 3
Assets:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest rate derivatives
$
51

 
$

 
$
51

 
$

Commodity derivatives:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Condensate — Forward Swaps
2

 

 
2

 

Natural Gas:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX
7

 
7

 

 

Swing Swaps IFERC
1

 

 
1

 

Fixed Swaps/Futures
108

 
99

 
9

 

Forward Physical Contracts
1

 

 
1

 

NGLs — Forwards/Swaps
8

 
7

 
1

 

Power:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards
3

 

 
3

 

Options — Calls
4

 

 
4

 

Refined Products — Futures
2

 
2

 

 

Total commodity derivatives
136

 
115

 
21

 

Total Assets
$
187

 
$
115

 
$
72

 
$

Liabilities:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest rate derivatives
$
(224
)
 
$

 
$
(224
)
 
$

Preferred Units
(340
)
 

 

 
(340
)
Embedded derivatives in the Regency Preferred Units
(39
)
 

 

 
(39
)
Commodity derivatives:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural Gas:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX
(12
)
 
(12
)
 

 

Swing Swaps IFERC
(1
)
 

 
(1
)
 

Fixed Swaps/Futures
(116
)
 
(111
)
 
(5
)
 

Options — Calls
(1
)
 

 
(1
)
 

NGLs — Forwards/Swaps
(1
)
 
(1
)
 

 

Power:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards
(1
)
 

 
(1
)
 

Futures
(1
)
 
(1
)
 

 

Options — Calls
(1
)
 

 
(1
)
 

Refined Products — Futures
(1
)
 
(1
)
 

 

Crude
(4
)
 
(4
)
 

 

Total commodity derivatives
(139
)
 
(130
)
 
(9
)
 

Total Liabilities
$
(742
)
 
$
(130
)
 
$
(233
)
 
$
(379
)



13

Table of Contents

 
Fair Value Measurements  at
December 31, 2012
 
Fair Value
Total
 
Level 1
 
Level 2
 
Level 3
Assets:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest rate derivatives
$
55

 
$

 
$
55

 
$

Commodity derivatives:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Condensate — Forward Swaps
2

 

 
2

 

Natural Gas:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX
11

 
11

 

 

Swing Swaps IFERC
3

 

 
3

 

Fixed Swaps/Futures
98

 
94

 
4

 

Options — Calls
3

 

 
3

 

Options — Puts
1

 

 
1

 

Forward Physical Contracts
1

 

 
1

 

NGLs — Swaps
2

 
1

 
1

 

Power:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards
27

 

 
27

 

Futures
1

 
1

 

 

Options — Calls
2

 

 
2

 

Refined Products
5

 
1

 
4

 

Total commodity derivatives
156

 
108

 
48

 

Total Assets
$
211

 
$
108

 
$
103

 
$

Liabilities:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest rate derivatives
$
(235
)
 
$

 
$
(235
)
 
$

Preferred Units
(331
)
 

 

 
(331
)
Embedded derivatives in the Regency Preferred Units
(25
)
 

 

 
(25
)
Commodity derivatives:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural Gas:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX
(18
)
 
(18
)
 

 

Swing Swaps IFERC
(2
)
 

 
(2
)
 

Fixed Swaps/Futures
(103
)
 
(94
)
 
(9
)
 

Options — Calls
(3
)
 

 
(3
)
 

Options — Puts
(1
)
 

 
(1
)
 

NGLs — Swaps
(4
)
 
(3
)
 
(1
)
 

Power:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards
(27
)
 

 
(27
)
 

Futures
(2
)
 
(2
)
 

 

Refined Products
(8
)
 
(1
)
 
(7
)
 

Total commodity derivatives
(168
)
 
(118
)
 
(50
)
 

Total Liabilities
$
(759
)
 
$
(118
)
 
$
(285
)
 
$
(356
)
The following table presents a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances for our Level 3 financial instruments measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs for the three months ended March 31, 2013. There were no transfers between the fair value hierarchy levels during the three months ended March 31, 2013 or 2012.
Balance, December 31, 2012
$
(356
)
Net unrealized gain included in other income (expense)
(23
)
Balance, March 31, 2013
$
(379
)

  

14

Table of Contents

8.
NET INCOME PER LIMITED PARTNER UNIT:
A reconciliation of net income from continuing operations and weighted average units used in computing basic and diluted income from continuing operations per unit is as follows:
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2013
 
2012
Income from continuing operations
$
300

 
$
962

Less: Income from continuing operations attributable to noncontrolling interest
224

 
796

Income from continuing operations, net of noncontrolling interest
76

 
166

Less: General Partner’s interest in income from continuing operations

 
1

Income from continuing operations available to Limited Partners
$
76

 
$
165

Basic Income from Continuing Operations per Limited Partner Unit:
 
 
 
Weighted average limited partner units
279,959,091

 
226,730,477

Basic income from continuing operations per Limited Partner unit
$
0.27

 
$
0.73

Basic income from discontinued operations per Limited Partner unit
$
0.05

 
$
0.00

Diluted Income from Continuing Operations per Limited Partner Unit:
 
 
 
Income from continuing operations available to Limited Partners
$
76

 
$
165

Dilutive effect of equity-based compensation of subsidiaries

 
(1
)
Diluted income from continuing operations available to Limited Partners
$
76

 
$
164

Weighted average limited partner units
279,959,091

 
226,730,477

Diluted income from continuing operations per Limited Partner unit
$
0.27

 
$
0.73

Diluted income from discontinued operations per Limited Partner unit
$
0.05

 
$
0.00

The calculation above for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 for diluted net income per limited partner unit excludes the impact of any ETE Common Units that would be issued upon conversion of the Preferred Units, because inclusion would have been antidilutive.
9.
DEBT OBLIGATIONS:
Senior Notes
In January 2013, ETP issued $800 million of 3.6% Senior Notes due February 2023 and $450 million of 5.15% Senior Notes due February 2043. ETP used the net proceeds of $1.24 billion from the offering to repay borrowings outstanding under the ETP Credit Facility and for general partnership purposes.
In January 2013, Sunoco Logistics issued $350 million of 3.45% Senior Notes and $350 million of 4.95% Senior Notes (the “2023 and 2043 Senior Notes”), due January 2023 and January 2043, respectively. The terms and conditions of the 2023 and 2043 Senior Notes are comparable to those under Sunoco Logistics’ existing senior notes. The net proceeds of $691 million from the offering were used to pay outstanding borrowings under the Sunoco Logistics’ Credit Facilities and for general partnership purposes.
In April 2013, in conjunction with Southern Union’s contribution of SUGS to Regency, Regency issued $600 million senior notes in a private placement that mature on November 1, 2023 and bear interest at 4.5% payable semi-annually. In April 3013, Regency also delivered notice of redemption to the holders of its 2016 Senior Notes. Regency will redeem all of its $162 million outstanding 2016 Senior Notes for cash equal to 104.688% of the principal amount, together with accrued and unpaid interest up to, but not including the redemption date.
ETE Term Loan
On March 23, 2012, ETE entered into a Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement (the “Term Credit Agreement”) with Credit Suisse AG, as Administrative Agent, and the other lenders from time to time party thereto (the “Term Lenders”), which became effective on March 26, 2012. The Term Credit Agreement has a scheduled maturity date of March 26, 2017, with an option for ETE to extend the term subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein. Pursuant to the Term Credit Agreement, the Term Lenders have provided senior secured financing in an aggregate principal amount of $2 billion. Interest accrues on advances at a LIBOR rate or a base rate plus an applicable margin based on the election of ETE for each interest period. The

15

Table of Contents

applicable margin for LIBOR rate loans is 3.00% and the applicable margin for base rate loans is 2.00%.  Proceeds of the borrowings under the Term Credit Agreement were used to partially fund the Southern Union Merger, to repay amounts outstanding under the Parent Company Credit Facility, and to pay transaction fees and expenses related to the Southern Union Merger, the new Term Credit Agreement and other transactions incidental thereto.
Revolving Credit Facilities
Parent Company Credit Facility
As of March 31, 2013, the Parent Company Credit Facility had a balance of $90 million outstanding and the amount available for future borrowings was $110 million. The weighted average interest rate on the total amount outstanding as of March 31, 2013 was 3.95%.
ETP Credit Facility
ETP has a $2.5 billion revolving credit facility (the “ETP Credit Facility”) that expires in October 2016. Indebtedness under the ETP Credit Facility is unsecured and not guaranteed by any of the Partnership’s subsidiaries and has equal rights to holders of our current and future unsecured debt.
As of March 31, 2013, the ETP Credit Facility had a balance of $250 million outstanding and the amount available for future borrowings was $2.17 billion after taking into account letters of credit of $76 million. The weighted average interest rate on the total amount outstanding as of March 31, 2013 was 1.70%.
Regency Credit Facility
As of March 31, 2013, the Regency Credit Facility had a balance outstanding of $371 million in revolving credit loans and approximately $12 million in letters of credit. The total amount available under the Regency Credit Facility, as of March 31, 2013, which was reduced by any letters of credit, was approximately $767 million, and the weighted average interest rate on the total amount outstanding as of March 31, 2013 was 3.02%.
Sunoco Logistics Credit Facilities
Sunoco Logistics maintains two credit facilities to fund its working capital requirements, finance acquisitions and capital projects and for general partnership purposes. The credit facilities consist of a $350 million unsecured credit facility which expires in August 2016 and a $200 million unsecured credit facility which expires in August 2013. There were no outstanding borrowings under these credit facilities as of March 31, 2013.
West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company, a subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics, has a $35 million revolving credit facility. Outstanding borrowings under this credit facility were $33 million as of March 31, 2013.
Southern Union Credit Facilities
The Southern Union Credit Facility provides for borrowings of up to $700 million and expires in May 2016. Borrowings under the Southern Union Credit Facility are available for working capital, other general company purposes and letter of credit requirements. Outstanding borrowings under the Southern Union Credit Facility were $240 million as of March 31, 2013. The weighted average interest rate on the total amount outstanding as of March 31, 2013 was 1.83%.
In connection with the SUGS Contribution, borrowings under the Southern Union Credit Facility were repaid and the facility was terminated. 
Compliance with Our Covenants
We were in compliance with all requirements, tests, limitations, and covenants related to our respective credit agreements as of March 31, 2013.
10.
REDEEMABLE PREFERRED UNITS:
ETE Preferred Units
On April 1, 2013, ETE completed the redemption (the “Redemption”) of all 3,000,000 of its outstanding Preferred Units from Regency GP Acquirer L.P. (“GE Regency”) pursuant to a Preferred Unit Redemption Agreement, dated as of March 28, 2013, between ETE and GE Regency. ETE paid $306 million in cash to GE Regency as consideration for the redeemed units, which represented principal and accrued and unpaid distributions payable thereon. Prior to the Redemption, on March 28, 2013, ETE paid GE Regency $40 million in cash in exchange for GE Regency relinquishing its right to receive any premium in

16

Table of Contents

connection with a future redemption or conversion of the Preferred Units. At March 31, 2013 the fair value of the Preferred Units was based on the actual redemption value at April 1, 2013.
11.
EQUITY:
ETE Common Units Issued
The change in ETE Common Units during the three months ended March 31, 2013 was as follows:
 
Number of
Units
Outstanding at December 31, 2012
279,955,608

Issuance of restricted units under equity incentive plans
6,042

Outstanding at March 31, 2013
279,961,650

Sales of Common Units by Subsidiaries
The Parent Company accounts for the difference between the carrying amount of its investments in ETP and Regency and the underlying book value arising from the issuance or redemption of units by ETP or Regency (excluding transactions with the Parent Company) as capital transactions.
As a result of ETP’s and Regency’s issuances of common units during the three months ended March 31, 2013, we recognized increases in partners’ capital of $10 million.
Sales of Common Units by ETP
During the three months ended March 31, 2013, ETP received proceeds of $169 million, net of commissions of $2 million, from units issued pursuant to an Equity Distribution Agreement with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, which were used for general partnership purposes. ETP also received $29 million, net of commissions, in April 2013 from the settlement of transactions initiated in March 2013. No ETP Common Units remain available to be issued under this agreement.
For the three months ended March 31, 2013, distributions of $23 million were reinvested under ETP’s Distribution Reinvestment Plan resulting in the issuance of 0.5 million ETP Common Units. As of March 31, 2013, a total of 3.8 million ETP Common Units remain available to be issued under the existing registration statement.
On April 10, 2013, ETP issued 13.8 million ETP Common Units representing limited partner interests at $48.05 per ETP Common Unit in a public unit offering. Proceeds, net of commissions, of $657 million from the offering were used to repay amounts outstanding under the ETP Credit Facility and for general partnership purposes.
Parent Company Quarterly Distributions of Available Cash
Following are distributions declared and/or paid by us subsequent to December 31, 2012:
Quarter Ended
 
Record Date
 
Payment Date
 
Rate
December 31, 2012
 
February 7, 2013
 
February 19, 2013
 
$
0.635

March 31, 2013
 
May 6, 2013
 
May 17, 2013
 
0.645

ETP Quarterly Distributions of Available Cash
Following are distributions declared and/or paid by ETP subsequent to December 31, 2012:
Quarter Ended
 
Record Date
 
Payment Date
 
Rate
December 31, 2012
 
February 7, 2013
 
February 14, 2013
 
$
0.89375

March 31, 2013
 
May 6, 2013
 
May 15, 2013
 
0.89375

In conjunction with the Citrus Merger, ETE agreed to relinquish its rights to $220 million of the incentive distributions from ETP that ETE would otherwise be entitled to receive over 16 consecutive quarters beginning with the distribution paid on May 15, 2012. In conjunction with the Holdco transaction in October 2012, ETE agreed to relinquish its right to $210 million of incentive distributions from ETP that ETE would otherwise be entitled to receive over 12 consecutive quarters beginning with the distribution paid on November 14, 2012. As discussed in Note 3, in connection with ETP’s acquisition of ETE’s

17

Table of Contents

60% interest in Holdco on April 30, 2013, ETE also agreed to relinquish incentive distributions for the first eight consecutive quarters beginning with the quarter in which the closing of the transaction occurred, and 50% of the incentive distributions for the following eight consecutive quarters on the newly issued ETP Common Units.

Regency Quarterly Distributions of Available Cash
Following are distributions declared and/or paid by Regency subsequent to December 31, 2012:
Quarter Ended
 
Record Date
 
Payment Date
 
Rate
December 31, 2012
 
February 7, 2013
 
February 14, 2013
 
$
0.46

March 31, 2013
 
May 6, 2013
 
May 13, 2013
 
0.46

In conjunction with Southern Union’s contribution of SUGS to Regency, ETE agreed to forego all distributions with respect to its IDRs on the Regency common units issued in the transaction for the first eight consecutive quarters following the closing.
Sunoco Logistics Quarterly Distributions of Available Cash
Following are distributions declared and/or paid by Sunoco Logistics subsequent to December 31, 2012:
Quarter Ended
 
Record Date
 
Payment Date
 
Rate
December 31, 2012
 
February 8, 2013
 
February 14, 2013
 
$
0.54500

March 31, 2013
 
May 9, 2013
 
May 15, 2013
 
0.57250


Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
The following table presents the components of accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax:
 
March 31,
2013
 
December 31, 2012
Net losses on commodity related hedges
$
(2
)
 
$
(3
)
Unrealized gains on available-for-sale securities
1

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment
(1
)
 

Actuarial loss related to pensions and other postretirement benefits
(11
)
 
(10
)
Equity investments, net
(2
)
 
(9
)
Subtotal
(15
)
 
(22
)
Amounts attributable to noncontrolling interest
4

 
10

Total accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax
$
(11
)
 
$
(12
)
 
 
12.
UNIT-BASED COMPENSATION PLANS:
We and certain of our subsidiaries have equity incentive plans for employees, officers and directors, which provide for various types of awards, including options to purchase common units, restricted units, phantom units, DERs, common unit appreciation rights, and other unit-based awards.
ETE Long-Term Incentive Plan
During the three months ended March 31, 2013, no awards were granted to ETE employees. As of March 31, 2013 a total of 54,190 unit awards remain unvested, including the new awards granted to ETE directors during the period. We expect to recognize a total of $1 million in compensation expense over a weighted average period of 1.6 years related to unvested awards.
ETP Unit-Based Compensation Plans
During the three months ended March 31, 2013, ETP employees were granted a total of 1,064,413 unvested awards with five-year service vesting requirements, and directors were granted a total of 9,060 unvested awards with three-year and five-year service vesting requirements. The weighted average grant-date fair value of these awards was $45.33 per unit. As of March 31, 2013 a total of 2,885,465 unit awards remain unvested, including the new awards granted during the period. ETP expects to

18

Table of Contents

recognize a total of $88 million in compensation expense over a weighted average period of 1.9 years related to unvested awards.
Regency Unit-Based Compensation Plans
During the three months ended March 31, 2013, Regency employees and directors were granted 23,824 Regency phantom units with 5-year service vesting requirements. As of March 31, 2013, a total of 1,178,860 Regency Phantom Units remain unvested, with a weighted average grant date fair value of $23.39 per unit. Regency expects to recognize a total of $23 million in compensation expense over a weighted average period of 5 years related to Regency’s unvested phantom units.
Sunoco Logistics Unit-Based Compensation Plan
As of March 31, 2013, a total of 964,465 Sunoco Logistics restricted units were outstanding for which Sunoco Logistics expects to recognize $23 million of expense over a weighted-average period of 2.6 years.
13.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS:
The following table sets forth the components of net period benefit cost of the Partnership’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans for the periods presented below:
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2013
 
2012 (1)
 
Pension Benefits
 
Other Postretirement Benefits
 
Pension Benefits
 
Other Postretirement Benefits
Net Periodic Benefit Cost:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service cost
$
2

 
$

 
$

 
$

Interest cost
9

 
2

 

 

Expected return on plan assets
(15
)
 
(3
)
 

 

Actuarial loss amortization
1

 

 

 

Settlement credits
(2
)
 

 

 

Curtailment recognition(2)

 

 

 
(15
)
 
(5
)
 
(1
)
 

 
(15
)
Regulatory adjustment(3)
2

 
3

 

 

Net periodic benefit cost
$
(3
)
 
$
2

 
$

 
$
(15
)
(1) 
The three months ended March 31, 2012 includes components of net periodic benefit cost of Southern Union subsequent to the Southern Union Merger on March 26, 2012.
(2) 
Subsequent to the Southern Union Merger, Southern Union amended certain of its other postretirement employee benefit plans, which prospectively restrict participation in the plans for the impacted active employees.  The plan amendments resulted in the plans becoming currently over-funded and, accordingly, Southern Union recorded a pre-tax curtailment gain of $75 million.  Such gain was offset by establishment of a non-current refund liability in the amount of $60 million.  As such, the net curtailment gain recognition was $15 million.
(3) 
In its distribution operations, Southern Union recovers certain qualified pension benefit plan and other postretirement benefit plan costs through rates charged to utility customers.  Certain utility commissions require that the recovery of these costs be based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, or other utility commission specific guidelines.  The difference between these regulatory-based amounts and the periodic benefit cost calculated pursuant to GAAP is deferred as a regulatory asset or liability and amortized to expense over periods in which this difference will be recovered in rates, as promulgated by the applicable utility commission.

19

Table of Contents

14.
REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES:
Regulatory Matters
Southern Union and its Subsidiaries
The FERC is currently conducting an audit of PEPL, a subsidiary of Southern Union, to evaluate its compliance with the Uniform System of Accounts as prescribed by the FERC, annual and quarterly financial reporting to the FERC, reservation charge crediting policy and record retention. The audit is related to the period from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011 and is pending the issuance of a draft audit report.
Contingent Residual Support Agreement — AmeriGas
In January 2012, AmeriGas Finance LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AmeriGas, issued $550 million in aggregate principal amount of 6.75% senior notes due 2020 and $1.0 billion in aggregate principal amount of 7.00% senior notes due 2022. AmeriGas borrowed $1.5 billion of the proceeds of the Senior Notes issuance from AmeriGas Finance LLC through an intercompany borrowing having maturity dates and repayment terms that mirror those of the Senior Notes.
In connection with ETP’s contribution of its Propane Business, ETP entered into a CRSA with AmeriGas, AmeriGas Finance LLC, AmeriGas Finance Corp. and UGI Corp., pursuant to which ETP will provide contingent, residual support of the Supported Debt, as defined in the CRSA.
PEPL Holdings Guarantee of Collection
In accordance with the Contribution Agreement pursuant to which Southern Union contributed SUGS to Regency, Regency issued $600 million of 4.50% Senior Notes due 2023 (the “Regency Debt”), the proceeds of which were used by Regency to fund the cash portion of the consideration, as adjusted, under the Contribution Agreement and pay certain other expenses or disbursements directly related to the closing of the SUGS contribution. In connection with the closing of the SUGS contribution, on April 30, 2013, Regency entered into the guarantee of collection with PEPL Holdings, a subsidiary of Southern Union, pursuant to which PEPL Holdings provided a guarantee of collection (on a nonrecourse basis to Southern Union) to Regency and Regency Energy Finance Corp. with respect to the payment of the principal amount of the Regency Debt.
NGL Pipeline Regulation
We have interests in NGL pipelines located in Texas. We believe that these pipelines do not provide interstate service and that they are thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Under the ICA, tariffs must be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or confer any undue preference. We cannot guarantee that the jurisdictional status of our NGL facilities will remain unchanged; however, should they be found jurisdictional, the FERC’s rate-making methodologies may limit our ability to set rates based on our actual costs, may delay or limit the use of rates that reflect increased costs and may subject us to potentially burdensome and expensive operational, reporting and other requirements. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, revenues and cash flow.
Commitments
In the normal course of our business, we purchase, process and sell natural gas pursuant to long-term contracts and we enter into long-term transportation and storage agreements. Such contracts contain terms that are customary in the industry. We believe that the terms of these agreements are commercially reasonable and will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
We have certain non-cancelable leases for property and equipment, which require fixed monthly rental payments and expire at various dates through 2056. Rental expense under these operating leases has been included in operating expenses in the accompanying statements of operations and totaled $33 million and $7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, which include contingent rentals totaling $4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2013. During the three months ended March 31, 2013, $5 million of rental expense was recovered through related sublease rental income.
Certain of our subsidiaries’ joint venture agreements require that they fund their proportionate shares of capital contributions to their unconsolidated affiliates. Such capital contributions will depend upon their unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital projects or repayment of long-term obligations.

20

Table of Contents

Litigation and Contingencies
We may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Natural gas and crude are flammable and combustible. Serious personal injury and significant property damage can arise in connection with their transportation, storage or use. In the ordinary course of business, we are sometimes threatened with or named as a defendant in various lawsuits seeking actual and punitive damages for product liability, personal injury and property damage. We maintain liability insurance with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles management believes are reasonable and prudent, and which are generally accepted in the industry. However, there can be no assurance that the levels of insurance protection currently in effect will continue to be available at reasonable prices or that such levels will remain adequate to protect us from material expenses related to product liability, personal injury or property damage in the future.
Sunoco Litigation
Following the announcement of the Sunoco Merger on April 30, 2012, eight putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in connection with the Sunoco Merger in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Each complaint names as defendants the members of Sunoco’s board of directors and alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and executing, through an unfair and conflicted process, a merger agreement that provides inadequate consideration and that contains impermissible terms designed to deter alternative bids. Each complaint also names as defendants Sunoco, ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, and Sam Acquisition Corporation, alleging that they aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Sunoco’s directors; some of the complaints also name ETE as a defendant on those aiding and abetting claims. In September 2012, all of these lawsuits were settled with no payment obligation on the part of any of the defendants following the filing of Current Reports on Form 8-K that included additional disclosures that were incorporated by reference into the proxy statement related to the Sunoco Merger. Subsequent to the settlement of these cases, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sought compensation from Sunoco for attorneys’ fees related to their efforts in obtaining these additional disclosures. In January 2013, Sunoco entered into agreements to compensate the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the state court actions in the aggregate amount of not more than $950,000 and to compensate the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the federal court action in the amount of not more than $250,000. The payment of $950,000 is pending approval by the state court. A final approval hearing is set for June 26, 2013.
Litigation Relating to the Southern Union Merger
In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas naming as defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE. The lawsuits were styled Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas and Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37134, in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The lawsuits were consolidated into an action styled In re: Southern Union Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union’s stockholders in connection with the Merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended petitions allege that the Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern Union’s directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete agreements, and that defendants have failed to disclose all material information related to the Merger to Southern Union stockholders. The amended petitions seek injunctive relief, including an injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys’ and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. On October 21, 2011, the court denied ETE’s October 13, 2011, motion to stay the Texas proceeding in favor of cases pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Also in June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE. Three of the lawsuits also named Merger Sub as a defendant. These lawsuits are styled: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al. v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6615-CS; KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6622-CS; LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-CS; and Memo v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS. These cases were consolidated with the following style: In re Southern Union Co. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The consolidated complaint asserts similar claims and allegations as the Texas state-court consolidated action. On July 25, 2012, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims without prejudice. In the notice, plaintiffs stated their claims were being dismissed to avoid duplicative litigation and indicated their intent to join the Texas case.
The Texas case remains pending, and discovery is ongoing.

21

Table of Contents

MTBE Litigation
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, 2012, Sunoco was a defendant in two lawsuits involving one state and Puerto Rico. These cases are venued in a multidistrict proceeding in a New York federal court. Both 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.
Discovery is proceeding in these cases. There has been insufficient information developed about the plaintiffs’ legal theories or the facts in the natural resource damage claims that would be relevant to an analysis of the ultimate 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 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 its consolidated financial position.
Other Litigation and Contingencies
In November 2011, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas naming as defendants ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, the boards of directors of ETP LLC (collectively with ETP GP and ETP LLC, the “ETP Defendants”), certain members of management for ETP and ETE, ETE, and Southern Union. The lawsuit is styled W. J. Garrett Trust v. Bill W. Byrne, et al., Cause No. 2011-71702, in the 157th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiffs assert claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of contractual duties, and acts of bad faith against each of the ETP Defendants and the individual defendants. Plaintiffs also assert claims for aiding and abetting and tortious interference with contract against Southern Union. On October 5, 2012, certain defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the primary allegations in this action. On December 13, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Defendants filed a reply on December 19, 2012. On December 20, 2012, the court conducted an oral hearing on the motion. Plaintiffs filed a post-hearing sur-reply on January 7, 2013. On January 16, 2013, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The deadline for the remaining defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond was late April 2013. Trial in this action is not currently set.
We or our subsidiaries are a party to various legal proceedings and/or regulatory proceedings incidental to our businesses. For each of these matters, we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter, possible legal or settlement strategies, the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and the availability of insurance coverage. If we determine that an unfavorable outcome of a particular matter is probable and can be estimated, we accrue the contingent obligation, as well as any expected insurance recoverable amounts related to the contingency. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, accruals of approximately $42 million were reflected on our balance sheets related to these contingent obligations. As new information becomes available, our estimates may change. The impact of these changes may have a significant effect on our results of operations in a single period.
The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and there can be no assurance that the outcome of a particular matter will not result in the payment of amounts that have not been accrued for the matter. Furthermore, we may revise accrual amounts prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome.
No amounts have been recorded in our March 31, 2013 or December 31, 2012 consolidated balance sheets for contingencies and current litigation, other than amounts disclosed herein.
Will Price.  Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of companies, including Panhandle, alleging mis-measurement of natural gas volumes and Btu content, resulting in lower royalties to mineral interest owners.  On September 19, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs’ request for class certification.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on March 31, 2010.  Panhandle believes that its measurement practices conformed to the terms of its FERC natural gas tariffs, which were filed with and approved by the FERC.  As a result, Southern Union believes that it has meritorious defenses to the Will Price lawsuit (including FERC-related affirmative defenses, such as the filed rate/tariff doctrine, the primary/exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC, and the defense that Panhandle complied with the terms of its tariffs).  In the event that Plaintiffs refuse Panhandle’s pending request

22

Table of Contents

for voluntary dismissal, Panhandle will continue to vigorously defend the case.  Southern Union believes it has no liability associated with this proceeding.
Simmons v. Southern Union Company. Cause No. 1316-CV-07265, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Kansas City: On March 22, 2013, the first lawsuit related to the February 19, 2013 natural gas incident at JJ's Restaurant was filed in Missouri state court on behalf of six injured restaurant employees. The defendants include Southern Union Company d/b/a MGE, USIC Locating Services, Inc. (the utility marking service), Heartland Midwest, LLC (the directional boring company and contractor of Time Warner Cable Media, Inc.), Time Warner Cable Media, Inc., Missouri One Call System, Inc., (Missouri's notification center for utility locates), and Mike Palier (MGE's first responder).  Plaintiffs' claims include negligence and strict liability for inherently dangerous activities. Plaintiffs have not specified an amount of damages, but seek punitive damages against MGE and certain other defendants in a jury trial. No trial date has been set.
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v New England Gas Company.  On July 7, 2011, the Massachusetts Attorney General (“AG”) filed a regulatory complaint with the MDPU against New England Gas Company with respect to certain environmental cost recoveries.  The AG is seeking a refund to New England Gas Company customers for alleged “excessive and imprudently incurred costs” related to legal fees associated with Southern Union’s environmental response activities.  In the complaint, the AG requests that the MDPU initiate an investigation into the New England Gas Company’s collection and reconciliation of recoverable environmental costs including:  (i) the prudence of any and all legal fees, totaling $19 million, that were charged by the Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman firm and passed through the recovery mechanism since 2005, the year when a partner in the firm, Southern Union’s former Vice Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer, joined Southern Union’s management team; (ii) the prudence of any and all legal fees that were charged by the Bishop, London & Dodds firm and passed through the recovery mechanism since 2005, the period during which a member of the firm served as Southern Union’s Chief Ethics Officer; and (iii) the propriety and allocation of certain legal fees charged that were passed through the recovery mechanism that the AG contends only qualify for a lesser, 50%, level of recovery.  Southern Union has filed its answer denying the allegations and moved to dismiss the complaint, in part on a theory of collateral estoppel.  The hearing officer has deferred consideration of Southern Union’s motion to dismiss.  The AG’s motion to be reimbursed expert and consultant costs by Southern Union of up to $150,000 was granted.  The hearing officer has stayed discovery until resolution of a separate matter concerning the applicability of attorney-client privilege to legal billing invoices.  Southern Union believes it has complied with all applicable requirements regarding its filings for cost recovery and has not recorded any accrued liability; however, Southern Union will continue to assess its potential exposure for such cost recoveries as the matter progresses.
Environmental Matters
Our operations are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental and safety laws and regulations that require expenditures to ensure compliance, including related to air emissions and wastewater discharges, at operating facilities and for remediation at current and former facilities as well as waste disposal sites. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in the business of transporting, storing, gathering, treating, compressing, blending and processing natural gas, natural gas liquids and other products. As a result, there can be no assurance that significant costs and liabilities will not be incurred. Costs of planning, designing, constructing and operating pipelines, plants and other facilities must incorporate compliance with environmental laws and regulations and safety standards. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial obligations, the issuance of injunctions and the filing of federally authorized citizen suits. Moreover, there can be no assurance that other developments, such as increasingly stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies thereunder, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from the operations, will not result in substantial costs and liabilities. We are unable to estimate any losses or range of losses that could result from such developments. Furthermore, we may revise accrual amounts prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome.
Environmental exposures and liabilities are difficult to assess and estimate due to unknown factors such as the magnitude of possible contamination, the timing and extent of remediation, the determination of our liability in proportion to other parties, improvements in cleanup technologies and the extent to which environmental laws and regulations may change in the future. Although environmental costs may have a significant impact on the results of operations for any single period, we believe that such costs will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position.
Based on information available at this time and reviews undertaken to identify potential exposure, we believe the amount reserved for environmental matters is adequate to cover the potential exposure for cleanup costs.

23

Table of Contents

Environmental Remediation
Our subsidiaries are responsible for environmental remediation at certain sites, including the following:
Certain of our interstate pipelines conduct soil and groundwater remediation related to contamination from past uses of PCBs. PCB assessments are ongoing and, in some cases, our subsidiaries could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties.
Certain gathering and processing systems are responsible for soil and groundwater remediation related to releases of hydrocarbons.
Southern Union’s distribution operations are responsible for soil and groundwater remediation at certain sites related to manufactured gas plants (“MGPs”) and may also be responsible for the removal of old MGP structures.
Currently operating Sunoco retail sites.
Legacy sites related to Sunoco, that are subject to environmental assessments include formerly owned terminals and other logistics assets, retail sites that Sunoco no longer operates, closed and/or sold refineries and other formerly owned sites.
Sunoco is potentially subject to joint and several liability for the costs of remediation at sites at which it has been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”). As of March 31, 2013, Sunoco had been named as a PRP at 39 identified or potentially identifiable as “Superfund” sites under federal and/or comparable state law. Sunoco is usually one of a number of companies identified as a PRP at a site. Sunoco has reviewed the nature and extent of its involvement at each site and other relevant circumstances and, based upon Sunoco’s purported nexus to the sites, believes that its potential liability associated with such sites will not be significant.
To the extent estimable, expected remediation costs are included in the amounts recorded for environmental matters in our consolidated balance sheets. In some circumstances, future costs cannot be reasonably estimated because remediation activities are undertaken as claims are made by customers and former customers. To the extent that an environmental remediation obligation is recorded by a subsidiary that applies regulatory accounting policies, amounts that are expected to be recoverable through tariffs or rates are recorded as regulatory assets on our consolidated balance sheets.
The table below reflects the amounts of accrued liabilities recorded in our consolidated balance sheets related to environmental matters that are considered to be probable and reasonably estimable. Except for matters discussed above, we do not have any material environmental matters assessed as reasonably possible that would require disclosure in our consolidated financial statements.
 
March 31,
2013
 
December 31, 2012
Current
$
41

 
$
46

Non-current
164

 
166

Total environmental liabilities
$
205

 
$
212

During the three months ended March 31, 2013, Sunoco recorded $7 million of expenditures related to environmental cleanup programs.
The EPA’s Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures program regulations were recently modified and impose additional requirements on many of our facilities. We expect to expend resources on tank integrity testing and any associated corrective actions as well as potential upgrades to containment structures to comply with the new rules. Costs associated with tank integrity testing and resulting corrective actions cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, but we believe such costs will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
On August 20, 2010, the EPA published new regulations under the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants from existing stationary reciprocal internal combustion engines. The rule will require us to undertake certain expenditures and activities, likely including purchasing and installing emissions control equipment. In response to an industry group legal challenge to portions of the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and a Petition for Administrative Reconsideration to the EPA, on March 9, 2011, the EPA issued a new proposed rule and direct final rule effective on May 9, 2011 to clarify compliance requirements related to operation and maintenance procedures for continuous parametric monitoring systems. If no further changes to the standard are made as a result of comments to the proposed rule, we would not expect that the cost to comply with the rule’s requirements will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Compliance with the final rule is required by October 2013.

24

Table of Contents

On June 29, 2011, the EPA finalized a rule under the CAA that revised the new source performance standards for manufacturers, owners and operators of new, modified and reconstructed stationary internal combustion engines. The rule became effective on August 29, 2011. The rule modifications may require us to undertake significant expenditures, including expenditures for purchasing, installing, monitoring and maintaining emissions control equipment, if we replace equipment or expand existing facilities in the future. At this point, we are not able to predict the cost to comply with the rule’s requirements, because the rule applies only to changes we might make in the future.
Our pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the DOT under the PHMSA, pursuant to which the PHMSA has established requirements relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of pipeline facilities. Moreover, the PHMSA, through the Office of Pipeline Safety, has promulgated a rule requiring pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs to comprehensively evaluate their pipelines, and take measures to protect pipeline segments located in what the rule refers to as “high consequence areas.” Activities under these integrity management programs involve the performance of internal pipeline inspections, pressure testing or other effective means to assess the integrity of these regulated pipeline segments, and the regulations require prompt action to address integrity issues raised by the assessment and analysis. Integrity testing and assessment of all of these assets will continue, and the potential exists that results of such testing and assessment could cause us to incur future capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of our pipelines; however, no estimate can be made at this time of the likely range of such expenditures.
Our operations are also subject to the requirements of the OSHA, and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of employees. In addition, OSHA’s hazardous communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in our 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, record keeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances.

 
15.
PRICE RISK MANAGEMENT ASSETS AND LIABILITIES:
Commodity Price Risk
We are exposed to market risks related to the volatility of commodity prices. To manage the impact of volatility from these prices, our subsidiaries utilize various exchange-traded and OTC commodity financial instrument contracts. These contracts consist primarily of futures, swaps and options and are recorded at fair value in our consolidated balance sheets. Following is a description of price risk management activities by operating entity.
ETP
ETP injects and hold natural gas in our Bammel storage facility to take advantage of contango markets (i.e., when the price of natural gas is higher in the future than the current spot price). We use financial derivatives to hedge the natural gas held in connection with these arbitrage opportunities. At the inception of the hedge, we lock in a margin by purchasing gas in the spot market or off peak season and entering into a financial contract to lock in the sale price. If we designate the related financial contract as a fair value hedge for accounting purposes, we value the hedged natural gas inventory at current spot market prices along with the financial derivative we use to hedge it. Changes in the spread between the forward natural gas prices designated as fair value hedges and the physical inventory spot price result in unrealized gains or losses until the underlying physical gas is withdrawn and the related designated derivatives are settled. Once the gas is withdrawn and the designated derivatives are settled, the previously unrealized gains or losses associated with these positions are realized. Unrealized margins represent the unrealized gains or losses from our derivative instruments using mark-to-market accounting, with changes in the fair value of our derivatives being recorded directly in earnings. These margins fluctuate based upon changes in the spreads between the physical spot price and forward natural gas prices. If the spread narrows between the physical and financial prices, we will record unrealized gains or lower unrealized losses. If the spread widens, we will record unrealized losses or lower unrealized gains. Typically, as we enter the winter months, the spread converges so that we recognize in earnings the original locked-in spread through either mark-to-market adjustments or the physical withdraw of natural gas.
We are also exposed to market risk on natural gas we retain for fees in our intrastate transportation and storage segment and operational gas sales on our interstate transportation and storage segment. We use financial derivatives to hedge the sales price of this gas, including futures, swaps and options. Certain contracts that qualify for hedge accounting are designated as cash flow hedges of the forecasted sale of natural gas. The change in value, to the extent the contracts are effective, remains in AOCI until the forecasted transaction occurs. When the forecasted transaction occurs, any gain or loss associated with the derivative is recorded in cost of products sold in the consolidated statement of operations.

25

Table of Contents

We are also exposed to commodity price risk on NGLs and residue gas we retain for fees in our midstream segment whereby our subsidiaries generally gather and process natural gas on behalf of producers, sell the resulting residue gas and NGL volumes at market prices and remit to producers an agreed upon percentage of the proceeds based on an index price for the residue gas and NGLs. We use NGL and crude derivative swap contracts to hedge forecasted sales of NGL and condensate equity volumes. Certain contracts that qualify for hedge accounting are accounted for as cash flow hedges. The change in value, to the extent the contracts are effective, remains in AOCI until the forecasted transaction occurs. When the forecasted transaction occurs, any gain or loss associated with the derivative is recorded in cost of products sold in the consolidated statement of operations.
Our trading activities include the use of financial commodity derivatives to take advantage of market opportunities. These trading activities are a complement to our transportation and storage segment’s operations and are netted in cost of products sold in our consolidated statements of operations. Additionally, we also have trading activities related to power in our “All Other” segment which are also netted in cost of products sold. As a result of our trading activities and the use of derivative financial instruments in our transportation and storage segment, the degree of earnings volatility that can occur may be significant, favorably or unfavorably, from period to period. We attempt to manage this volatility through the use of daily position and profit and loss reports provided to our risk oversight committee, which includes members of senior management, and the limits and authorizations set forth in our commodity risk management policy.
Derivatives are utilized in our midstream segment in order to mitigate price volatility and manage fixed price exposure incurred from contractual obligations. We attempt to maintain balanced positions in our marketing activities to protect against volatility in the energy commodities markets; however, net unbalanced positions can exist. Long-term physical contracts are tied to index prices.

26

Table of Contents

The following table details ETP’s outstanding commodity-related derivatives:
 
March 31, 2013
 
December 31, 2012
 
Notional
Volume
 
Maturity
 
Notional
Volume
 
Maturity
Mark-to-Market Derivatives
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Trading)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural Gas (MMBtu):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX (1)
3,057,500
 
2013-2014
 
(30,980,000
)
 
2013-2014
Power (Megawatt):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards
311,150
 
2013
 
19,650

 
2013
Futures
(452,400)
 
2013
 
(1,509,300
)
 
2013
Options — Calls
57,600
 
2013
 
1,656,400

 
2013
(Non-Trading)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural Gas (MMBtu):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX
(1,867,500)
 
2013-2014
 
150,000

 
2013
Swing Swaps IFERC
(11,755,000)
 
2013
 
(83,292,500
)
 
2013
Fixed Swaps/Futures
(6,065,000)
 
2013-2015
 
27,077,500

 
2013
Forward Physical Contracts
2,021,900
 
2013-2014
 
11,689,855

 
2013-2014
NGLs (Bbls):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards/Swaps
(205,000)
 
2013
 
(30,000
)
 
2013
Crude (Bbls) — Futures
(120,000)
 
2013
 

 
Refined Products (Bbls) — Futures
1,772
 
2013-2014
 
(666,000
)
 
2013
Fair Value Hedging Derivatives
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Non-Trading)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural Gas (MMBtu):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX
(6,960,000)
 
2013
 
(18,655,000
)
 
2013
Fixed Swaps/Futures
(7,260,000)
 
2013
 
(44,272,500
)
 
2013
Hedged Item — Inventory
7,260,000
 
2013
 
44,272,500

 
2013
Cash Flow Hedging Derivatives
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Non-Trading)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural Gas (MMBtu):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basis Swaps IFERC/NYMEX
(3,437,500)
 
2013
 

 
Fixed Swaps/Futures
(9,625,000)
 
2013
 
(8,212,500
)
 
2013
NGLs (Bbls):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards/Swaps
(695,000)
 
2013
 
(930,000
)
 
2013
Crude (Bbls) — Futures
(270,000)
 
2013
 

 
Refined Products (Bbls) — Futures
 
 
(98,000
)
 
2013

(1) Includes aggregate amounts for open positions related to Houston Ship Channel, Waha Hub, NGPL TexOk, West Louisiana Zone and Henry Hub locations.

We expect losses of $5 million related to ETP’s commodity derivatives to be reclassified into earnings over the next 12 months related to amounts currently reported in AOCI. The amount ultimately realized, however, will differ as commodity prices change and the underlying physical transaction occurs.
Regency
Regency is a net seller of NGLs, condensate and natural gas as a result of its gathering and processing operations. The prices of these commodities are impacted by changes in the supply and demand as well as market forces. Regency’s profitability and cash flow are effected by the inherent volatility of these commodities, which could adversely effect its ability to make

27

Table of Contents

distributions to its unitholders. Regency manages this commodity price exposure through an integrated strategy that includes management of its contract portfolio, matching sales prices of commodities with purchases, optimization of its portfolio by monitoring basis and other price differentials in operating areas, and the use of derivative contracts. In some cases, Regency may not be able to match pricing terms or to cover its risk to price exposure with financial hedges, and it may be exposed to commodity price risk. Speculative positions are prohibited under Regency’s policy.
The following table details Regency’s outstanding commodity-related derivatives:
 
March 31, 2013
 
December 31, 2012
 
Notional
Volume
 
Maturity
 
Notional
Volume
 
Maturity
Mark-to-Market Derivatives
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Non-Trading)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural Gas (MMBtu):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fixed Swaps/Futures
12,257,000

 
2013
 
8,395,000

 
2013-2014
Propane (Gallons):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards/Swaps
1,722,000

 
2013
 
3,318,000

 
2013
Natural Gas Liquids (Barrels):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards/Swaps
188,000

 
2013-2014
 
243,000

 
2013-2014
WTI Crude Oil (Barrels):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forwards/Swaps
422,000

 
2013-2014
 
356,000

 
2014
Interest Rate Risk
We are exposed to market risk for changes in interest rates. To maintain a cost effective capital structure, we borrow funds using a mix of fixed rate debt and floating rate debt. We also manage our interest rate exposures by utilizing interest rate swaps to achieve a desired mix of fixed and floating rate debt. We also utilize forward starting interest rate swaps to lock in the rate on a portion of anticipated debt issuances. Southern Union also uses treasury rate locks to manage interest rate risk associated with long term borrowings.
The following table summarizes our interest rate swaps outstanding none of which were designated as hedges for accounting purposes:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notional Amount
Outstanding
Entity
 
Term
 
Type(1)
 
March 31,
2013
 
December 31, 2012
ETE
 
March 2017
 
Pay a fixed rate of 1.25% and receive a floating rate
 
$
500

 
$
500

ETP
 
July 2013 (2)
 
Forward-starting to pay a fixed rate of 4.02% and receive a floating rate
 
400

 
400

ETP
 
July 2014 (2)
 
Forward-starting to pay a fixed rate of 4.25% and receive a floating rate
 
400

 
400

ETP
 
July 2018
 
Pay a floating rate plus a spread of 4.17% and receive a fixed rate of 6.70%
 
600

 
600

ETP
 
February 2023
 
Pay a floating rate plus a spread of 1.73% and receive a fixed rate of 3.60%
 
200

 

Southern Union
 
November 2016
 
Pay a fixed rate of 2.91% and receive a floating rate
 
75

 
75

Southern Union
 
November 2021
 
Pay a fixed rate of 3.75% and receive a floating rate
 
450

 
450

 
(1)Floating rates are based on 3-month LIBOR.
(2) 
Represents the effective date. These forward starting swaps have a term of 10 years with a mandatory termination date the same as the effective date.
Credit Risk
We maintain credit policies with regard to our counterparties that we believe minimize our overall credit risk. These policies include an evaluation of potential counterparties’ financial condition (including credit ratings), collateral requirements under

28

Table of Contents

certain circumstances and the use of standardized agreements, which allow for netting of positive and negative exposures associated with a single or multiple counterparties.
Our counterparties consist primarily of petrochemical companies and other industrial, small to major oil and gas producers, midstream and power generation companies. This concentration of counterparties may impact our overall exposure to credit risk, either positively or negatively in that the counterparties may be similarly affected by changes in economic, regulatory or other conditions. Currently, management does not anticipate a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations as a result of counterparty nonperformance.
ETP utilizes master-netting agreements and has maintenance margin deposits with certain counterparties in the OTC market and with clearing brokers. Payments on margin deposits are required when the value of a derivative exceeds its pre-established credit limit with the counterparty. Margin deposits are returned to ETP on the settlement date for non-exchange traded derivatives. ETP exchanges margin calls on a daily basis for exchange traded transactions. Since the margin calls are made daily with the exchange brokers, the fair value of the financial derivative instruments are deemed current and netted in deposits paid to vendors within other current assets in the consolidated balance sheets. ETP had net deposits with counterparties of $23 million and $41 million as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.
Regency is exposed to credit risk from its derivative counterparties. Regency does not require collateral from these counterparties as it deals primarily with financial institutions when entering into financial derivatives, and enters into master netting agreements that allow for netting of swap contract receivables and payables in the event of default by either party.
Certain of Southern Union’s derivative instruments contain provisions that require Southern Union’s debt to be maintained at an investment grade credit rating from each of the major credit rating agencies. If Southern Union’s debt were to fall below investment grade, Southern Union would be in violation of these provisions, and the counterparties to the derivative instruments could potentially require Southern Union to post collateral for certain of the derivative instruments.
For financial instruments, failure of a counterparty to perform on a contract could result in our inability to realize amounts that have been recorded on our consolidated balance sheets and recognized in net income or other comprehensive income.
Derivative Summary
The following table provides a summary of our derivative assets and liabilities:
 
Fair Value of Derivative Instruments
 
Asset Derivatives
 
Liability Derivatives
 
March 31, 2013
 
December 31, 2012
 
March 31, 2013
 
December 31, 2012
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commodity derivatives (margin deposits)
$
4

 
$
8

 
$
(14
)
 
$
(10
)
 
4

 
8

 
(14
)
 
(10
)
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commodity derivatives (margin deposits)
$
120

 
$
110

 
$
(125
)
 
$
(116
)
Commodity derivatives
62

 
40

 
(56
)
 
(44
)
Current assets held for sale
8

 
1

 

 

Non-current assets held for sale