Energy Transfer LP

Acquisitions

Parkland Acquisition by Sunoco LP

On October 31, 2025, Sunoco LP completed the previously announced acquisition of Parkland whereby Sunoco LP acquired all the outstanding shares of Parkland, in exchange for SunocoCorp LLC (“SunocoCorp”) units that were contributed by SunocoCorp to Sunoco LP at the close of the acquisition. Under the terms of the agreement, Parkland shareholders received 0.295 SunocoCorp units and C$19.80 for each Parkland share. Parkland shareholders could elect, in the alternative, to receive C$44.00 per Parkland share in cash or 0.536 SunocoCorp units for each Parkland share, subject to proration to ensure that the aggregate consideration payable in connection with the transaction would not exceed C$19.80 in cash per Parkland share outstanding as of immediately before close and 0.295 SunocoCorp units per Parkland share outstanding as of immediately before close.

TanQuid Acquisition by Sunoco LP

In March 2025, Sunoco LP entered into an agreement to acquire TanQuid GmbH & Co. KG (“TanQuid”) for approximately €500 million (approximately $587 million as of September 30, 2025), including approximately €300 million of assumed debt. TanQuid owns and operates 15 fuel terminals in Germany and one fuel terminal in Poland. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2025, subject to customary closing conditions, and Sunoco LP will fund it using cash on hand and amounts available under its revolving credit facility.

Other Acquisitions

In the first quarter of 2025, Sunoco LP acquired fuel equipment, motor fuel inventory and supply agreements in two separate transactions for total consideration of approximately $17 million. Aggregate consideration included $12 million in cash and 91,776 newly issued Sunoco LP common units, which had an aggregate acquisition-date fair value of approximately $5 million.

In the second quarter of 2025, Sunoco LP acquired a total of 151 fuel distribution consignment sites in three separate transactions for total consideration of approximately $105 million plus working capital. Aggregate consideration included $92 million in cash and 251,646 newly issued Sunoco LP common units which had an aggregate acquisition-date fair value of approximately $13 million.

In the third quarter of 2025, Sunoco LP acquired approximately 70 fuel distribution consignment sites and 100 supply agreements in five separate transactions for total cash consideration of approximately $85 million, plus working capital.

In the third quarter of 2025, Energy Transfer completed the acquisition of two terminal facilities for total cash consideration of approximately $176 million.

Quarterly Cash Distribution

In October 2025, Energy Transfer announced a quarterly distribution of $0.3325 per unit ($1.33 annualized) on Energy Transfer common units for the quarter ended September 30, 2025.

Regulatory Update

One Big Beautiful Bill Act

On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”) was signed into law. The OBBBA permanently reinstates 100% bonus depreciation on qualified property and modifies the calculation of the business interest expense limitation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We anticipate the OBBBA will defer the payment of a significant portion of the Partnership’s corporate subsidiaries’ U.S. federal income taxes in future periods. All effects of changes in tax law are recognized in the consolidated financial statements during the period of enactment. As such, the effects of the OBBBA are reflected in our provision for income taxes as of and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025. Because the income tax provisions of the Partnership’s corporate subsidiaries include both current and deferred income taxes, income tax expense for the period was not significantly impacted, and we currently do not anticipate a significant impact to the Partnership’s overall income tax expense in future periods.

Interstate Natural Gas Transportation Regulation

Rate Regulation

Effective January 2018, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) changed several provisions of the federal tax code, including a reduction in the maximum corporate tax rate. On March 15, 2018, in a set of related proposals, the FERC addressed treatment of federal income tax allowances in regulated entity rates. The FERC issued a Revised Policy Statement on Treatment of Income Taxes (“Revised Policy Statement”) stating that it will no longer permit master limited partnerships to recover an income tax allowance in their cost-of-service rates. The FERC issued the Revised Policy Statement in response to a remand from the D.C. Circuit in United Airlines v. FERC, in which the court determined that the FERC had not justified its conclusion that a pipeline organized as a master limited partnership would not “double recover” its taxes under the current policy by both including an income tax allowance in its cost of service and earning a return on equity calculated using the discounted cash flow methodology. On July 18, 2018, the FERC clarified that a pipeline organized as a master limited partnership will not be precluded in a future proceeding from arguing and providing evidentiary support that it is entitled to an income tax allowance and demonstrating that its recovery of an income tax allowance does not result in a double-recovery of investors’ income tax costs. On July 31, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion upholding the FERC’s decision denying a separate master limited partnership recovery of an income tax allowance and its decision not to require the master limited partnership to refund accumulated deferred income tax balances. In light of the rehearing order’s clarification regarding an individual entity’s ability to argue in support of recovery of an income tax allowance and the court’s subsequent opinion upholding denial of an income tax allowance to a master limited partnership, the impact of the FERC’s policy on the treatment of income taxes on the rates we can charge for FERC-regulated transportation services is unknown at this time.

Even without application of the FERC’s rate making-related policy statements and rulemakings, the FERC or our shippers may challenge the cost-of-service rates we charge. The FERC’s establishment of a just and reasonable rate is based on many components, including return on equity and tax-related components, but also other pipeline costs that will continue to affect FERC’s determination of just and reasonable cost-of-service rates. Moreover, we receive revenues from our pipelines based on a variety of rate structures, including cost-of-service rates, negotiated rates, discounted rates and market-based rates. Many of our interstate pipelines, such as Tiger Pipeline, Midcontinent Express Pipeline and Fayetteville Express Pipeline, have negotiated market rates that were agreed to by customers in connection with long-term contracts entered into to support the construction of the pipelines. Other systems, such as Florida Gas Transmission Pipeline, Transwestern and Panhandle, have a mix of tariff rate, discount rate and negotiated rate agreements. The revenues we receive from natural gas transportation services we provide pursuant to cost-of-service based rates may decrease in the future as a result of changes to FERC policies, combined with the reduced corporate federal income tax rate established in the Tax Act. The extent of any revenue reduction related to our cost-of-service rates, if any, will depend on a detailed review of all of our cost-of-service components and the outcomes of any challenges to our rates by the FERC or our shippers.

On July 18, 2018, the FERC issued a final rule establishing procedures to evaluate rates charged by the FERC-jurisdictional gas pipelines in light of the Tax Act and the FERC’s Revised Policy Statement. By an order issued on January 16, 2019, the FERC initiated a review of Panhandle’s then existing rates pursuant to Section 5 of the NGA to determine whether the rates charged by Panhandle were just and reasonable and set the matter for hearing. On August 30, 2019, Panhandle filed a general rate proceeding under Section 4 of the NGA. The NGA Section 5 and Section 4 proceedings were consolidated by order of the Chief Judge on October 1, 2019. The initial decision by the administrative law judge was issued on March 26, 2021, and on December 16, 2022, the FERC issued its order on the initial decision. On January 17, 2023, Panhandle and the Michigan Public Service Commission each filed a request for rehearing of FERC’s order on the initial decision, which were denied by operation of law as of February 17, 2023. On March 23, 2023, Panhandle appealed these orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and the Michigan Public Service Commission also subsequently appealed these orders. On April 25, 2023, the D.C.

Circuit consolidated Panhandle’s and Michigan Public Service Commission’s appeals and stayed the consolidated appeal proceeding while the FERC further considered the requests for rehearing of its December 16, 2022 order. On September 25, 2023, the FERC issued its order addressing arguments raised on rehearing and compliance, which denied our requests for rehearing. Panhandle filed its Petition for Review with the D.C. Circuit regarding the September 25, 2023 order. On October 25, 2023, Panhandle filed a limited request for rehearing of the September 25, 2023 order addressing arguments raised on rehearing and compliance, which was subsequently denied by operation of law on November 27, 2023. On November 17, 2023, Panhandle provided refunds to shippers and on November 30, 2023, Panhandle submitted a refund report regarding the consolidated rate proceedings, which was protested by several parties. On January 5, 2024, the FERC issued a second order addressing arguments raised on rehearing in which it modified certain discussion from its September 25, 2023 order and sustained its prior conclusions. Panhandle has timely filed its Petition for Review with the D.C. Circuit regarding the January 5, 2024 order. On May 28, 2024, the FERC issued an order rejecting Panhandle’s refund report. On June 27, 2024, Panhandle filed a revised refund report in compliance with the FERC’s May 28, 2024 order rejecting Panhandle’s refund report and a request for rehearing of the FERC’s May 28, 2024 order rejecting Panhandle’s refund report, and provided revised refunds to shippers, or in the case of shippers whose revised refunds are less than the original amounts refunded, notices of upcoming debits. One party protested Panhandle’s revised refund report, and Panhandle submitted a response to the protest on July 24, 2024. By notice issued July 29, 2024, Panhandle’s rehearing request was deemed denied. In an order issued September 9, 2024, FERC addressed arguments raised on rehearing, modified the discussion in the May 28, 2024 order and continued to reach the same result. On September 18, 2024, Panhandle petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the September 9, 2024, July 29, 2024, and May 28, 2024 orders. On December 5, 2024, the FERC issued an order rejecting Panhandle’s June 27, 2024, refund report, ordering a corrected refund report and directing the issuance of additional refunds. On January 3, 2025, Panhandle submitted an adjusted refund report as well as a request for rehearing of the FERC’s December 5, 2024 order. The FERC approved the adjusted refund report by order dated January 23, 2025. On February 3, 2025, the FERC issued a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing for Further Consideration. On March 24, 2025, Panhandle petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the December 5, 2024 and February 3, 2025 orders. On April 4, 2025, the FERC issued an Order on Rehearing and Clarification. On May 16, 2025, Panhandle petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the April 4, 2025 order. On May 19, 2025, the D.C. Circuit consolidated all cases before it and the consolidated cases remain in abeyance pending further order of the D.C. Circuit. On August 12, 2025, the D.C. Circuit issued an order returning all cases to the court’s active docket and issued a briefing schedule with Panhandle’s initial brief being due on November 10, 2025.

Pipeline Certification

The FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) on April 19, 2018, thereby initiating a review of its policies on certification of natural gas pipelines, including an examination of its long-standing Policy Statement on Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, issued in 1999, that is used to determine whether to grant certificates for new pipeline projects. On February 18, 2021, the FERC issued another NOI (“2021 NOI”), reopening its review of the 1999 Policy Statement. Comments on the 2021 NOI were due on May 26, 2021; we filed comments in the FERC proceeding. In September 2021, FERC issued a Notice of Technical Conference on Greenhouse Gas Mitigation related to natural gas infrastructure projects authorized under Sections 3 and 7 of the NGA. A technical conference was held on November 19, 2021, and post-technical conference comments were submitted to the FERC on January 7, 2022.

On February 18, 2022, the FERC issued two new policy statements: (1) an Updated Policy Statement on the Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities (“2022 Certificate Policy Statement”) and (2) a Policy Statement on the Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas Infrastructure Project Reviews (“GHG Policy Statement”), to be effective that same day. On March 24, 2022, the FERC issued an order designating the 2022 Certificate Policy Statement and the GHG Policy Statement as draft policy statements, and requested further comments. The FERC stated that it will not apply the now draft policy statements to pending applications or applications to be filed at FERC until it issues any final guidance on these topics. Comments on the 2022 Certificate Policy Statement and GHG Policy Statement were due on April 25, 2022, and reply comments were due on May 25, 2022. On January 24, 2025, the FERC issued an order withdrawing the draft GHG Policy Statement and terminating the proceeding. On September 12, 2025, the FERC issued an order withdrawing the draft 2022 Certificate Policy Statement and terminating the proceeding.

Interstate Common Carrier Regulation

Liquids pipelines transporting in interstate commerce are regulated by FERC as common carriers under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”). Under the ICA, the FERC utilizes an indexing rate methodology which, as currently in effect, allows common carriers to change their rates within prescribed ceiling levels that are tied to changes in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, or PPI-FG. Many existing pipelines utilize the FERC liquids index to change transportation rates annually. The indexing methodology is applicable to existing rates, with the exclusion of market-based rates. The FERC’s indexing methodology is subject to review every five years.

On December 17, 2020, FERC issued an order establishing a new index of PPI-FG plus 0.78%. The FERC received requests for rehearing of its December 17, 2020 order and on January 20, 2022, granted rehearing and modified the oil index. Specifically, for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2026, FERC-regulated liquids pipelines charging indexed rates are permitted to adjust their indexed ceilings annually by PPI-FG minus 0.21%. FERC directed liquids pipelines to recompute their ceiling levels for July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, as well as the ceiling levels for the period July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, based on the new index level. Where an oil pipeline’s filed rates exceed its ceiling levels, FERC ordered such oil pipelines to reduce the rate to bring it into compliance with the recomputed ceiling level to be effective March 1, 2022. Some parties sought rehearing of the January 20 order with FERC, which was denied by FERC on May 6, 2022. Certain parties appealed the January 20 and May 6 orders. On July 26, 2024, the D.C. Circuit ruled in LEPA v. FERC that FERC violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the January 20 order modified the index without following notice and comment. As a result, the D.C. Circuit vacated the January 20 order and on September 17, 2024, the Commission reinstated the index level established by its original December 17 order, directed pipelines to file an informational filing to show their recomputed ceiling levels reflecting the reinstated index level and stated that pipelines may file to prospectively increase their indexed rates to their recomputed levels. On October 17, 2024, FERC issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Supplemental NOPR”) that proposes a reduction to the currently effective index by one percent. The Supplemental NOPR, which remains pending before FERC, could result in the reimplementation through a notice-and-comment rulemaking of the same rulings that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit in LEPA v. FERC.

On October 20, 2022, the FERC issued a policy statement on the Standard Applied to Complaints Against Oil Pipeline Index Rate Changes to establish guidelines regarding how the FERC will evaluate shipper complaints against oil pipeline index rate increases. Specifically, the policy statement adopted the proposal in the FERC’s earlier Notice of Inquiry issued on March 25, 2020 to eliminate the “Substantially Exacerbate Test” as the preliminary screen applied to complaints against index rate increases and instead adopt the proposal to apply the “Percentage Comparison Test” as the preliminary screen for both protests and complaints against index rate increases. At this time, we cannot determine the effect of a change in the FERC’s preliminary screen for complaints against index rate changes, however, a revised screen would result in a threshold aligned with the existing threshold for protests against index rate increases. Any complaint or protest raised by a shipper could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Air Quality Standards

In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) finalized its Good Neighbor Plan (the “Plan”) which seeks to reduce nitrogen oxide pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities from 23 upwind states which the EPA determined is contributing to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. As part of the Plan, the EPA announced that it would be issuing prescriptive emission standards for several sectors, including certain new and existing internal combustion engines of a certain size used in pipeline transportation of natural gas. The EPA’s final rule was to become effective on August 4, 2023, and the prescribed emission standards were scheduled to be effective in 2026. However, on March 12, 2025, the EPA announced plans to end the Plan.

Operators and industry groups have challenged the Plan in the D.C. Circuit, as well as the legal predicates to the individual upwind states’ inclusion in the Plan in the regional circuits. The effectiveness of the rule is currently stayed in the nine states within the Partnership’s footprint, by nature of judicial stays of the legal predicate to the Plan, by judicial stay of the Plan itself by the U.S. Supreme Court, or by the administrative stay issued by the EPA in October 2024. On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the regional circuits are the appropriate venue for the proceedings. On July 30, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit placed the case in abeyance pending the EPA’s reconsideration of its disapproval of upwind states’ state implementation plans addressing their Plan obligations. Proceedings challenging the Plan in the D.C. Circuit were also placed in abeyance on May 2, 2025 pending the EPA’s reconsideration of the Plan. The EPA is preparing a proposed rulemaking as part of the reconsideration process and we cannot predict with any certainty the substance of any such proposed rule or the potential impacts on the Partnership.

The Partnership currently estimates that the existing final rule would require retrofitting or replacement of approximately 192 engines in its interstate and intrastate natural gas transportation and storage operations. The Partnership is involved in challenging application of the Plan in the nine states impacted within its footprint. Compliance with the Plan (if implementation is not stayed or otherwise delayed) will still require substantial capital expenditures which could adversely affect our business in future periods. However, at this time, we are still assessing the potential costs of this rule and, given uncertainties resulting from the multiple legal challenges filed against the Plan in various states, in the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, we cannot predict with any certainty what the final costs of compliance for the Plan for the Partnership ultimately may be.