Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.

Failure to obtain and maintain approvals and permits from governmental and regulatory agencies with respect to the design, construction and operation of our facilities, the development and operation of our pipeline and the export of LNG could impede operations and construction and could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

The design, construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines, Trains, including those at the Liquefaction Project, the SPL Expansion Project and other facilities, as well as the export of LNG and the purchase and transportation of natural gas, are highly regulated activities. Approvals of the FERC and DOE under Section 3 and Section 7 of the NGA, as well as several other material governmental and regulatory approvals and permits, including several under the CAA and the CWA, are required in order to construct and operate an LNG facility and an interstate natural gas pipeline and export LNG.

To date, the FERC has issued orders under Section 3 of the NGA authorizing the siting, construction and operation of all of our Trains and related facilities of the Liquefaction Project, as well as orders under Section 7 of the NGA authorizing the construction and operation of the Creole Trail Pipeline. In February 2024, certain of our subsidiaries submitted an application to the FERC under the NGA for authorization to site, construct and operate the SPL Expansion Project and in June 2025, certain of our subsidiaries submitted an updated application to the FERC reflecting a two-phased approach to the SPL Expansion Project. To date, the DOE has also issued orders under Section 3 of the NGA authorizing SPL to export domestically produced LNG, as further detailed in DOE Export Licensesin Our Business. We currently have the SPL Expansion Project pending non-FTA export approval with the DOE, although approval is first subject to the receipt of regulatory permit approval from the FERC, responsive to our formal application. Additionally, we hold certificates under Section 7(c) of the NGA that grant us land use rights relating to the situation of our pipeline on land owned by third parties. If we were to lose these rights or be required to relocate our pipeline, our business could be materially and adversely affected.

Authorizations obtained from the FERC, DOE and other federal and state regulatory agencies contain ongoing conditions that we must comply with. Failure to comply with or our inability to obtain and maintain existing or newly imposed approvals, permits and filings that may arise due to factors outside of our control such as a U.S. government disruption or shutdown, political opposition or local community resistance to our operations could impede the operation and construction of our infrastructure. In addition, certain of these governmental permits, approvals and authorizations are or may be subject to rehearing requests, appeals and other challenges. There is no assurance that we will obtain and maintain these governmental permits, approvals and authorizations, or that we will be able to obtain them on a timely basis. Any impediment could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Our Creole Trail Pipeline and its FERC gas tariff are subject to FERC regulation. If we fail to comply with such regulation, we could be subject to substantial penalties and fines.

Our Creole Trail Pipeline is subject to regulation by the FERC under the NGA and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (the“NGPA”). The FERC regulates the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, including the construction and operation of pipelines, the rates, terms and conditions of service and abandonment of facilities. Under the NGA, the rates charged by our Creole Trail Pipeline must be just and reasonable, and we are prohibited from unduly preferring or unreasonably discriminating against any potential shipper with respect to pipeline rates or terms and conditions of service. If we fail to comply with all applicable statutes, rules, regulations and orders, our Creole Trail Pipeline could be subject to substantial penalties and fines.

In addition, as a natural gas market participant, should we fail to comply with all applicable FERC-administered statutes, rules, regulations and orders, we could be subject to substantial penalties and fines. The FERC’s jurisdiction under the NGA allows the imposition of civil and criminal penalties for any violations of the NGA and any rules, regulations or orders of the FERC thereunder, up to $1.6 million per day for each violation.

Although the FERC has not imposed fines or penalties on us to date, we are exposed to substantial penalties and fines if we fail to comply with such regulations.

Existing and future safety, environmental and similar laws and governmental regulations could result in increased compliance costs or additional operating costs or construction costs and restrictions.

Our business is and will be subject to extensive federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations applicable to our construction and operation activities relating to, among other things, air quality, water quality, waste management, natural resources and health and safety. Many of these laws and regulations, such as the CAA, the Oil Pollution Act, the CWA and the RCRA, and analogous state laws and regulations, restrict or prohibit the types, quantities and concentration of substances that can be released into the environment in connection with the construction and operation of our facilities, and require us to maintain permits and provide governmental authorities with access to our facilities for inspection and reports related to our compliance. In addition, certain laws and regulations authorize regulators having jurisdiction over the construction and operation of our LNG terminal, marine berths and pipeline, including FERC, PHMSA, EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard, to issue regulatory enforcement actions, which may restrict or limit operations or increase compliance or operating costs. Violation of these laws and regulations could lead to substantial liabilities, compliance orders, fines and penalties, difficulty obtaining and maintaining permits from regulatory agencies or increased capital expenditures that could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects. Federal and state laws impose liability, without regard to fault or the lawfulness of the original conduct, for the release of certain types or quantities of hazardous substances into the environment. As the owner and operator of our facilities, we could be liable for the costs of cleaning up hazardous substances released into the environment at or from our facilities and for resulting damage to natural resources.

The EPA has finalized or proposed multiple GHG regulations that impact our assets and supply chain. On December 2, 2023, the EPA issued final rules to reduce methane and VOC emissions from new, existing and modified emission sources in the oil and gas sector. These regulations require monitoring of methane and VOC emissions at our compressor stations. Further, the IRA includes a charge on methane emissions above certain emissions thresholds employing empirical emissions data that would have applied to our facilities beginning in calendar year 2024. The OBBBA, signed by President Trump on July 4, 2025, delays the imposition of the methane emissions charge until calendar year 2034. In addition, other international, federal and state initiatives may be considered in the future to address GHG emissions through treaty commitments, direct regulation, market-based regulations such as a GHG emissions tax or cap-and-trade programs or clean energy or performance-based standards. Such initiatives could affect the demand for or cost of natural gas, which we consume at the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal, or could increase compliance costs for our operations.

Revised, reinterpreted or additional guidance, laws and regulations at local, state, federal or international levels that result in increased compliance costs or additional operating or construction costs and restrictions could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects. It is not possible at this time to predict how future regulations or legislation may address GHG emissions and impact our business.

In 2022, the EPA removed a stay of formaldehyde standards in the NESHAP Subpart YYYY for stationary combustion turbines located at major sources of HAP emissions. Owners and operators of lean remix gas-fired turbines and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines at major sources of HAP that were installed after January 14, 2003 were required to comply with NESHAP Subpart YYYY beginning in 2022.

Other future legislation and regulations, such as those relating to the transportation and security of LNG imported to or exported from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal or climate policies of destination countries in relation to their obligations under the Paris Agreement or other national or International Climate Change-Related Policies, could cause additional expenditures, restrictions and delays in our business and to our proposed construction activities, the extent of which cannot be predicted and which may require us to limit substantially, delay or cease operations in some circumstances.

Total expenditures related to environmental and similar laws and governmental regulations, including capital expenditures, were immaterial to our Consolidated Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023. Revised, reinterpreted or additional laws and regulations that result in increased compliance, operating or construction costs or restrictions could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Pipeline safety and compliance programs and repairs may impose significant costs and liabilities on us.

The PHMSA requires pipeline operators to develop management programs to safely operate and maintain their pipelines and to comprehensively evaluate certain areas along their pipelines and take additional measures where necessary to protect pipeline segments located in “high or moderate consequence areas” where a leak or rupture could potentially do the most harm. As an operator, we are required to:

•perform ongoing assessments of pipeline safety and compliance;

•identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline segments that could impact a high consequence area;

•improve data collection, integration and analysis;

•repair and remediate the pipeline as necessary; and

•implement preventative and mitigating actions.

We are required to utilize pipeline integrity management programs that are intended to maintain pipeline integrity. Any repair, remediation, preventative or mitigating actions may require significant capital and operating expenditures. Should we fail to comply with applicable statutes and the Office of Pipeline Safety’s rules and related regulations and orders, we could be subject to significant penalties and fines, which for certain violations can aggregate up to as high as $2.7 million.

Risks Relating to Our Relationship with Our General Partner

We are entirely dependent on Cheniere, who owns our general partner, for key personnel, and the unavailability of skilled workers or Cheniere’s failure to attract and retain qualified personnel could adversely affect us. In addition, changes in our general partner’s executive officers could affect our business results.

As of December 31, 2025, Cheniere had 1,717 full-time employees, including 508 employees who directly supported our operations. We have contracted with subsidiaries of Cheniere to provide the personnel necessary for the construction, operation, maintenance and management of the Liquefaction Project and the Creole Trail Pipeline, and administrative services. We depend on Cheniere’s hiring and retaining personnel to provide sufficient support for the aforementioned services. Cheniere competes with other liquefaction projects in the U.S. and globally, other energy companies and other employers to attract and retain qualified personnel with the technical skills and experience required to support us and to provide our customers with the highest quality service. We also compete with any other project Cheniere is operating or developing, including, as further described in Market Factors and Competition in Items 1. and 2. Business Properties, the operation and construction of its liquefaction projects near Corpus Christi, Texas, for the time and expertise of Cheniere’s personnel. Further, we and Cheniere face competition for these highly skilled employees in the vicinity of our operations and more generally from the Gulf Coast hydrocarbon processing and construction industries.

The executive officers of our general partner are officers and employees of Cheniere. We do not maintain key person life insurance policies on any personnel, and our general partner does not have any employment contracts or other agreements with key personnel binding them to provide services to us for any particular term. The loss of the services of any of these individuals could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, our future success will depend in part on our general partner’s ability to engage, and Cheniere’s ability to attract and retain, additional qualified personnel.

A shortage in the labor pool of skilled workers, remoteness of our site locations, general inflationary pressures, changes in applicable laws and regulations or labor disputes could make it more difficult for Cheniere to attract and retain qualified personnel and could require an increase in the wage and benefits packages that Cheniere offers. In addition, Cheniere is also subject to increased competition for skilled workers from new entrants to the LNG market. Currently, our payments to Cheniere for labor consist of reimbursement of cost plus a fixed monthly fee (indexed for inflation) per Train, therefore any increases in Cheniere’s costs will increase our operating costs, which could materially and adversely affect our business results.

Our general partner and its affiliates have conflicts of interest and limited fiduciary duties, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of us and our unitholders.

Cheniere owns and controls our general partner, which has sole responsibility for conducting our business and managing our operations. Some of our general partner’s directors are also directors of Cheniere, and certain of our general partner’s officers are officers of Cheniere. Therefore, conflicts of interest may arise between Cheniere and its affiliates, including our general partner, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. In resolving these conflicts, our general partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the interests of us and our unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following situations:

•neither our partnership agreement nor any other agreement requires Cheniere to pursue a business strategy that favors us. Cheniere’s directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to make these decisions in favor of the owners of Cheniere, which may be contrary to our interests:

•our general partner controls the interpretation and enforcement of contractual obligations between us, on the one hand, and Cheniere, on the other hand, including provisions governing administrative services and acquisitions;

•our general partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us, such as Cheniere and its affiliates, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of limiting its fiduciary duty to us and our unitholders;

•our general partner has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties under the partnership agreement, while also restricting the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that, without these limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty;

•Cheniere is not limited in its ability to compete with us. Cheniere is not restricted from competing with us and is free to develop, operate and dispose of, and is currently developing, LNG facilities, pipelines and other assets without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to develop or acquire those assets;

•our general partner determines the amount and timing of asset purchases and sales, capital expenditures, borrowings, issuances of additional partnership securities, and the establishment, increase or decrease in the amounts of reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is distributed to our unitholders in accordance with our partnership agreement;

•our general partner determines the amount and timing of any capital expenditures and whether a capital expenditure is a maintenance capital expenditure, which reduces operating surplus, or an expansion capital expenditure, which does not reduce operating surplus. This determination can affect the amount of cash that is distributed to our unitholders in accordance with our partnership agreement;

•our partnership agreement does not restrict our general partner from causing us to pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered on terms that are fair and reasonable to us or entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf;

•our general partner intends to limit its liability regarding our contractual and other obligations and, in some circumstances, is entitled to be indemnified by us;

•our general partner may exercise its limited right to call and purchase common units if it and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units; and

•our general partner decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for us.

We also have agreements to compensate and to reimburse expenses of Cheniere’s affiliates. All of these agreements involve conflicts of interest between us, on the one hand, and Cheniere and its other affiliates, on the other hand. In addition, Cheniere, through CCL, is currently operating, and further constructing and developing expansion projects at, a natural gas liquefaction facility near Corpus Christi, Texas and CCL has entered into SPAs with third-parties for the sale of LNG from this natural gas liquefaction facility, and may continue to enter in commercial arrangements with respect to this liquefaction facility that might otherwise have been entered into with respect to any of our future Trains.

We have or will have numerous contracts and commercial arrangements with Cheniere and its affiliates, including future SPAs, transportation, interconnection, marketing and gas balancing arrangements, as well as servicing and other agreements and arrangements that cannot now be anticipated. In those circumstances where additional contracts with Cheniere and its affiliates may be necessary or desirable, additional conflicts of interest may be involved.

In the event Cheniere favors its interests over our interests, we may have less available cash to make distributions on our units than we otherwise would have if Cheniere had favored our interests.

Our partnership agreement limits our general partner’s fiduciary duties to our unitholders and restricts the remedies available to our unitholders for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the standards to which our general partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement:

•permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our general partner. This entitles our general partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or any limited partner. Examples include the exercise of its limited call right, the exercise of its rights to transfer or vote the units it owns, the exercise of its registration rights and its determination whether or not to consent to any merger or consolidation of the partnership or amendment to the partnership agreement;

•provides that our general partner will not have any liability to us or our unitholders for decisions made in its capacity as general partner, as long as it acted in good faith, meaning that it believed the decision was in the best interests of our partnership, including in resolution of conflicts of interest;

•generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner and not involving a vote of unitholders must be on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or be “fair and reasonable” to us and that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is “fair and reasonable,” our general partner may consider the totality of the relationships between the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly favorable or advantageous to us;

•provides that our general partner, its affiliates and their officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages to us or our limited partners for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that our general partner or those other persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud, willful misconduct or, in the case of a criminal matter, acted with knowledge that such conduct was criminal; and

•provides that in resolving conflicts of interest, it will be presumed that in making its decision the conflicts committee or the general partner acted in good faith, and in any proceedings brought by or on behalf of any limited partner or us, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption.

By purchasing a common unit, a unitholder will become bound by the provisions of our partnership agreement, including the provisions described above.

Any change of our general partner or the replacement of the board of directors or officers of our partnership, which can occur without the consent of our unitholders, can impact our future operations and have an adverse impact on the trading price of our common units.

Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of our unitholders. Furthermore, our partnership agreement does not restrict the ability of the owners of our general partner from transferring all or a portion of their respective ownership interest in our general partner to a third party. The new owners of our general partner would then be in a position to replace the board of directors and officers of our general partner with its own choices and thereby influence the decisions taken by the board of directors and officers. Any change in our general partner or the replacement of the board of directors or officers of our partnership can impact our future operations and have an adverse impact on the trading price of our common units.

Risks Relating to an Investment in Us and Our Common Units

Holders of our common units have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our general partner or its directors, which could reduce the price at which our common units trade.

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, our unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and, therefore, limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. Our unitholders have no right to elect our general partner or its board of directors on an annual or other continuing basis. The board of directors of our general partner is chosen entirely by affiliates of Cheniere. As a result, the price at which the common units trade could be diminished because of the absence or reduction of a control premium in the trading price.

The vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of all outstanding common units (including any units owned by our general partner and its affiliates), voting together as a single class is required to remove our general partner. Cheniere owns 48.6% of our outstanding common units, but it is contractually prohibited from voting our units that it holds in favor of the removal of our general partner.

Additionally, our partnership agreement restricts unitholders’ voting rights by providing that any units held by a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our general partner and its affiliates, their transferees and persons who acquired such units with the prior approval of the board of directors of our general partner, cannot vote on any matter. Our partnership agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting the unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction of management.

Our partnership agreement prohibits a unitholder (other than our general partner and its affiliates) who acquires 15% or more of our limited partner units without the approval of our general partner from engaging in a business combination with us for three years unless certain approvals are obtained. This provision could discourage a change of control that our unitholders may favor, which could negatively affect the price of our common units.

Our partnership agreement effectively adopts Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (“DGCL”). Section 203 of the DGCL as it applies to us prevents an interested unitholder defined as a person (other than our general partner and its affiliates) who owns 15% or more of our outstanding limited partner units from engaging in business combinations with us for three years following the time such person becomes an interested unitholder unless certain approvals are obtained. Section 203 broadly defines “business combination” to encompass a wide variety of transactions with or caused by an interested unitholder, including mergers, asset sales and other transactions in which the interested unitholder receives a benefit on other than a pro rata basis with other unitholders. This provision of our partnership agreement could have an anti-takeover effect with respect to transactions not approved in advance by our general partner, including discouraging takeover attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for our common units.

Our unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that unitholder action constitutes control of our business.

A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to the general partner. We are organized under Delaware law, and we conduct business in other states. As a limited partner in a partnership organized under Delaware law, holders of our common units could be held liable for our obligations to the same extent as a general partner if a court determined that the right or the exercise of the right by our unitholders as a group to remove or replace our general partner, to approve some amendments to our partnership agreement or to take other action under our partnership agreement constituted participation in the “control” of our business. In addition, limitations on the liability of holders of limited partner interests for the obligations of a limited partnership have not been clearly established in many jurisdictions.

Our unitholders may have liability to repay distributions wrongfully made.

Under certain circumstances, our unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully distributed to them. Under Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, we may not make a distribution to our unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Delaware law provides that, for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, partners who received such a distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the partnership for the distribution amount. Liabilities to partners on account of their partner interests and liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted.

Affiliates of our general partner or affiliates of Blackstone Inc. (“Blackstone”) or Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (“Brookfield”) may sell limited partner units, which sales could have an adverse impact on the trading price of our common units.

Sales by us or any of our affiliated unitholders or affiliates of Blackstone or Brookfield of a substantial number of our common units, or the perception that such sales might occur, could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common units or could impair our ability to obtain capital through an offering of equity securities. As of December 31, 2025, Cheniere owned approximately 239.9 million of our common units. We also filed a registration statement for the resale of 202,450,687 common units owned by Blackstone and its affiliates in 2017. Any sales of these units could have an adverse impact on the price of our common units.

Risks Relating to Tax Matters

Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, and our not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or if we were to become subject to material additional amounts of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our common units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. Despite the fact that we are a limited partnership under Delaware law, we will be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a “qualifying income” requirement. Based upon our current operations, we believe we satisfy the qualifying income requirement. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity.

If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate and would likely pay state and local income taxes at varying rates. Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate dividends, and no income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to our unitholders. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, the cash available for distributions to our unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to our unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.

At the state level, several states have been evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. Imposition of such taxes on us in jurisdictions in which we operate, or to which we may expand our operations, may substantially reduce the cash available for distribution to our unitholders and, therefore, negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.

Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects us to entity-level taxation for federal, state or local income tax purposes, then the initial quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular common unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first business day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. Although final Treasury Regulations allow publicly traded partnerships to use a similar monthly simplifying convention to allocate tax items among transferor and transferee unitholders, such tax items must be prorated on a daily basis and these regulations do not specifically authorize all aspects of the proration method we have adopted. If the IRS were to successfully challenge this method or new Treasury Regulations were issued, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

A successful IRS contest of the federal income tax positions that we take may adversely impact the market for our common units and the costs of any contest will be borne by our unitholders and our general partner.

The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions that we take, even positions taken with advice of counsel. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of the positions that we take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions that we take. Any contest with the IRS may adversely impact the taxable income or loss reported to our unitholders and the income taxes they are required to pay. As a result, any such contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units and the price at which our common units trade. In addition, the costs of any contest with the IRS, principally legal, accounting and related fees, will result in a reduction in cash available for distribution to our unitholders and our general partner and thus will be borne indirectly by our unitholders and our general partner.

If the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us, in which case our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced.

If the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us. To the extent possible under applicable rules, we may pay such amounts directly to the IRS or, if we are eligible, elect to issue a revised Schedule K-1 to each unitholder with respect to an audited and adjusted return. No assurances can be made that such election will be practical, permissible, or effective in all circumstances. As a result, our current unitholders may bear some or all of the economic burden resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such unitholders did not own units in us during the tax year under audit. If, as a result of any such audit adjustment, we are required to make payments of taxes, penalties and interest, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced.

Our unitholders may be required to pay taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us.

Our unitholders are required to pay any U.S. federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes, on their share of our taxable income irrespective of whether they receive cash distributions from us. Unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax liability attributable to their share of our taxable income.

Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be different than expected.

If our unitholders sell any of their common units, they will recognize gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and their tax basis in those common units. Because distributions in excess of the unitholders’ allocable share of our net taxable income decrease the unitholders’ tax basis in their common units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the units sold will, in effect, become taxable income to the unitholder if they sell such units at a price greater than their tax basis in those units, even if the price received is less than their original cost. A substantial portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be ordinary income due to the potential recapture items, including depreciation recapture. In addition, because the amount realized may include a unitholder’s share of our nonrecourse liabilities, a unitholder that sells common units may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash received from the sale.

Tax-exempt entities face unique tax issues from owning common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

Investments in common units by tax-exempt entities, such as individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs), raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to unitholders who are organizations exempt from federal income tax, including individual retirement accounts and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable income and will be taxable to them. Tax-exempt entities should consult a tax advisor before investing in our common units.

Non-U.S. unitholders will be subject to U.S. taxes and withholding with respect to their income and gain from owning our common units.

Non-U.S. unitholders are generally taxed and subject to income tax filing requirements by the U.S. on income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business (“effectively connected income”). A unitholder’s share of our income, gain, loss and deduction, and any gain from the sale or disposition of our common units will generally be considered to be “effectively connected” with a U.S. trade or business and subject to U.S. federal income tax. As a result, distributions to a non-U.S. unitholder will be subject to withholding at the highest applicable effective tax rate and a non-U.S. unitholder who sells or otherwise disposes of a common unit will also be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the gain realized from the sale or disposition of that common unit.

Moreover, upon the sale, exchange or other disposition of a common unit by a non-U.S. unitholder, withholding at a rate of 10% may be required on the amount realized unless the disposing unitholder certifies that it is not a foreign person. Treasury regulations provide that the “amount realized” on a transfer of an interest in a publicly traded partnership, such as our common units, will generally be the amount of gross proceeds paid to the broker effecting the applicable transfer on behalf of the unitholder. Quarterly distributions made to our non-U.S. unitholders will also be subject to withholding under these rules to the extent a portion of a distribution is attributable to an amount in excess of our cumulative net income that has not previously been distributed. We intend to treat all of our distributions as being in excess of our cumulative net income for such purposes and subject to the additional 10% withholding tax. For transfers of, or distributions on, interests in a publicly traded partnership, if effected through a broker, the obligation to withhold is imposed on the transferor’s broker. Non-U.S. unitholders should consult their tax advisors regarding the impact of these rules on an investment in our common units.

Our unitholders will likely be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements as a result of an investment in our common units.

In addition to federal income taxes, our unitholders will likely be subject to other taxes, including state and local income taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we do business or own property, even if the unitholder does not live in any of those jurisdictions. Our unitholders may be required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these various jurisdictions. Furthermore, our unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may own property or conduct business in additional states or foreign countries that impose a personal tax or an entity level tax. Unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. It is the responsibility of our unitholders to file all U.S. federal, state and local tax returns.

We have adopted certain valuation methodologies in determining a unitholder’s allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction. The IRS may challenge these methodologies or the resulting allocations, and such a challenge could adversely affect the value of our common units.

In determining the items of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to our unitholders, we must routinely determine the fair market value of our assets. Although we may from time to time consult with professional appraisers regarding valuation matters, we make many fair market value estimates ourselves using a methodology based on the market value of our common units as a means to determine the fair market value of our assets. The IRS may challenge these valuation methods and the resulting allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction.

A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the timing or amount of taxable income or loss being allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain from our unitholders’ sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of the common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns without the benefit of additional deductions.

Additions or changes in tax laws and regulations or variables impacting our tax obligations could potentially affect our financial results or liquidity.

Tax laws and regulations are complex and rapidly evolving. We are subject to various taxes in the jurisdictions where we operate, primarily consisting of ad valorem property taxes on assets at the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal. Changes to local, state or domestic tax laws, their interpretation, enforcement practices, and rates, including changes related to tariffs and duties, are beyond our control and could affect our tax obligations, compliance costs, financial results and cash flows. We continuously monitor and assess proposed tax legislation that could negatively impact our business.

Additionally, we have ad valorem legacy property tax incentives secured for the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal that begin to expire starting in 2027, with continuing incentive roll-off thereafter over the longer term. The magnitude of property tax changes once our incentives expire is uncertain, but will be influenced, both in the near and longer term, by various factors including future local tax rates, local tax rate compression dynamics, and variation in our assessed property values over time. During the year ended December 31, 2025, our ad valorem property tax incurred, inclusive of both the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal and the Creole Trail Pipeline, was approximately $29 million.

Further, SPLNG, SPL and CTPL each have a state tax sharing agreement with Cheniere under which Cheniere has agreed to prepare and file all state and local tax returns which each of the entities and Cheniere are required to file on a combined basis and to timely pay the combined state and local tax liability. The agreements for SPLNG, SPL and CTPL are effective for tax returns due on or after January 2008, August 2012 and May 2013, respectively. If Cheniere, in its sole discretion, demands payment, each of the respective entities will pay to Cheniere an amount equal to the state and local tax that each of the entities would be required to pay if its state and local tax liability were calculated on a separate company basis. While to date there have been no state or local tax payments demanded by Cheniere under the tax sharing agreements, any payment demanded by Cheniere could adversely affect our financial results and cash flows.