For information regarding legal proceedings, see our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 19, 2026 and Note 10 in “Item 1. Financial Statements” in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026. Additionally, we have received notices of violations and potential fines under various federal, state and local provisions relating to the discharge of materials into the environment or protection of the environment. While we believe that even if any one or more of the following environmental proceedings were decided against us, it would not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, we are required to report environmental governmental proceedings if we reasonably believe that such proceedings reasonably could result in monetary sanctions in excess of $1 million (previously $0.3 million). In late 2016, FERC Enforcement Staff began a non-public investigation related to Rover’s purchase and removal of a potentially historic home (known as the Stoneman House) while Rover’s application for permission to construct the new 711-mile interstate natural gas pipeline and related facilities was pending. On March 18, 2021, FERC issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty (Docket No. IN19-4-000), ordering Rover to explain why it should not pay a $20 million civil penalty for alleged violations of FERC regulations requiring certificate holders to be forthright in their submissions of information to the FERC. Rover filed its answer and denial to the order on June 21, 2021 and a surreply on September 15, 2021. FERC issued an order on January 20, 2022 setting the matter for hearing before an administrative law judge. On January 25, 2022, the chief judge assigned an administrative law judge and set a timeline for a prehearing conference. On February 1, 2022, Energy Transfer and Rover filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“USDC”) seeking an order declaring that FERC must bring its enforcement action in federal district court (instead of before an administrative law judge). Also on February 1, 2022, Energy Transfer and Rover filed an expedited request to stay the proceedings before the FERC administrative law judge pending the outcome of the USDC case. On May 24, 2022, the USDC ordered a stay of the FERC’s enforcement case and the USDC case pending the resolution of two cases pending before the United States Supreme Court. Arguments were heard in those cases on November 7, 2022. On April 14, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held against the government in both cases, finding that the USDC had jurisdiction to hear those suits and to resolve the parties’ constitutional challenges. The cases were remanded to the USDC for further proceedings. On September 13, 2023 the USDC ordered that the USDC case would be stayed pending the resolution of another case pending before the United States Supreme Court and that the FERC enforcement case would remain stayed. On November 13, 2023, the FERC appealed the USDC order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”). On December 11, 2023, FERC filed a motion to withdraw that appeal, which the Fifth Circuit granted on December 12, 2023. The FERC and USDC proceedings were previously stayed pending resolution of the case pending before the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a decision in that case on June 27, 2024. The FERC and USDC proceedings remain stayed at this time. The USDC set a scheduling conference for December 16, 2025. The parties have filed several motions to continue the status conference. On July 22, 2026, the USDC held this matter in abeyance, pending the outcome of settlement discussions between the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Energy Transfer and Rover intend to vigorously defend this claim. Sunoco LP and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in lawsuits alleging liability for climate change impacts from greenhouse gas emissions in Hawaii, Maine and Vermont. Plaintiffs in these cases allege deceptive marketing and concealment of information about these effects, violations of state consumer protection and unfair trade practices laws, and seek certain equitable relief, statutory and civil penalties, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits and attorney’s fees. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. Sunoco LP intends to vigorously defend the subject claims.