Targa Resources (TRGP) Risk Analysis

Our gathering systems are connected to crude oil and natural gas wells from which production will naturally decline over time, which means that the cash flows associated with these sources of natural gas and crude oil will likely also decline over time. Our logistics assets are similarly impacted by declines in NGL supplies in the regions in which we operate as well as other regions from which we source NGLs. To maintain or increase throughput levels on our gathering systems and the utilization rate at our processing plants and our treating and fractionation facilities, we must continually obtain new natural gas, NGL and crude oil supplies. A material decrease in natural gas or crude oil production from producing areas on which we rely, as a result of depressed commodity prices or otherwise, could result in a decline in the volume of natural gas or crude oil that we gather and process, NGLs that we transport or NGL products delivered to our fractionation facilities. Our ability to obtain additional sources of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil depends, in part, on the level of successful drilling and production activity near our gathering systems and, in part, on the level of successful drilling and production in other areas from which we source NGL and crude oil supplies. We have no control over the level of such activity in the areas of our operations, the amount of reserves associated with the wells or the rate at which production from a well will decline. In addition, we have no control over producers or their drilling, completion or production decisions, which are affected by, among other things, prevailing and projected energy prices, demand for hydrocarbons, the level of reserves, geological considerations, governmental regulations, the availability of drilling rigs, other production and development costs and the availability and cost of capital. Fluctuations in energy prices can greatly affect production rates and investments by third parties in the development of new oil and natural gas reserves. Even if new natural gas or crude oil reserves are discovered in areas served by our assets, producers may choose not to develop those reserves. In response to depressed commodity prices, operators may engage in curtailment or shut-ins or substantially reduce their estimated capital expenditures, rig count and completion crews. Reductions in exploration and production activity, competitor actions or shut-ins by producers in the areas in which we operate may prevent us from obtaining supplies of natural gas or crude oil to replace the natural decline in volumes from existing wells, which could result in reduced volumes through our facilities and reduced utilization of our gathering, treating, processing, transportation and fractionation assets.

We operate in areas in which industry activity has increased rapidly. As a result, demand for qualified personnel in these areas, particularly those related to our Permian and Badlands assets, and the cost to attract and retain such personnel, has increased over the past few years due to competition, and may increase substantially in the future. Moreover, our competitors may be able to offer better compensation packages to attract and retain qualified personnel than we are able to offer. Any delay or inability to secure the personnel necessary for us to continue or complete our current and planned development projects, or any significant increases in costs with respect to the hiring, training or retention of qualified personnel, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We do not own most of the land on which our pipelines, terminals and compression facilities are located, and we are therefore subject to the possibility of more onerous terms and/or increased costs to retain necessary land use if we do not have valid rights of way or leases or if such rights of way or leases lapse or terminate. We sometimes obtain the rights to land owned by third parties and governmental agencies for a specific period of time. Additionally, the federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that tribal ownership of even a very small fractional interest in an allotted land, that is, tribal land owned or at one time owned by an individual Indian landowner, bars condemnation of any interest in the allotment. Consequently, the inability to condemn such allotted lands under circumstances where an existing pipeline rights of way may soon lapse or terminate serves as an additional impediment for pipeline operators. We cannot guarantee that we will always be able to renew existing rights of way or obtain new rights of way without experiencing significant costs. Any loss of rights with respect to our real property, through our inability to renew rights of way contracts or leases, or otherwise, could cause us to cease operations on the affected land, increase costs related to continuing operations elsewhere and reduce our revenue.

While we do not conduct hydraulic fracturing, many of our oil and gas exploration and production customers do perform such activities. Hydraulic fracturing is typically regulated by state oil and gas commissions and many states have adopted legal requirements that have imposed new or more stringent permitting, public disclosure or well construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing activities, including in states where we or our customers conduct operations. States could further elect to suspend or prohibit hydraulic fracturing activities in the future. While governments may also seek to adopt ordinances within their jurisdictions regulating the time, place and manner of drilling activities in general or hydraulic fracturing activities in particular, non-governmental organizations may also seek to restrict hydraulic fracturing through ballot initiatives, such as those that have been pursued in Colorado. New or more stringent laws, regulations or regulatory or ballot initiatives relating to the hydraulic fracturing process could lead to our customers reducing crude oil and natural gas drilling activities using hydraulic fracturing techniques, while increased public opposition to activities using such techniques may result in operational delays, restrictions, cessations, or increased litigation. Any one or more of such developments could reduce demand for our gathering, processing and fractionation services and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

U.S. federal and state legislation is periodically proposed that would, if enacted into law, make significant changes to tax laws and could materially increase our tax obligations, adversely affecting our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. For example, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the IRA which includes, among other things, the CAMT. Under the CAMT, a 15% minimum tax will be imposed on certain financial statement income of "applicable corporations." The IRA treats a corporation as an applicable corporation in any taxable year in which the "average annual adjusted financial statement income" of such corporation for the three taxable year period ending prior to such taxable year exceeds $1 billion. Based on our current interpretation of the IRA, the CAMT and related guidance, and several operational, economic, accounting and regulatory assumptions, we are currently not an "applicable corporation", but we are likely to become one in a subsequent year, potentially as early as 2026. If we become an applicable corporation and our CAMT liability is greater than our regular U.S. federal income tax liability for any particular tax year, the CAMT liability would effectively accelerate our future U.S. federal income tax obligations, reducing our cash available for distribution in that year, but provide an offsetting credit against our regular U.S. federal income tax liability for a future year. As a result, our current expectation is that the impact of the CAMT is limited to timing differences in future tax years. The foregoing analysis is based upon our current interpretation of the provisions contained in the IRA, the CAMT and related guidance. In the future, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS are expected to release regulations and additional interpretive guidance relating to such legislation, and any significant variance from our current interpretation could result in a change in our analysis of the application of the CAMT to us.

The jurisdictions in which we operate (including the United States) have laws governing how we must respond to a cyber incident that results in the unauthorized access, disclosure, or loss of personal information. Additionally, laws and regulations governing data privacy and unauthorized disclosure of personal information and imposing certain cybersecurity-related requirements pose increasingly complex compliance challenges. For example, Texas has enacted data privacy legislation. Some or all of such legislation will elevate our compliance costs over time. Our business involves collection, use, and other processing of personal information and personally identifiable information of our employees, investors, contractors, suppliers, and customer contacts. As legislation continues to develop and cyber incidents continue to evolve, we will likely be required to expend significant resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures to comply with such legislation and to detect, investigate and remediate vulnerabilities to cyber incidents. Any failure by us, or a company we acquire, to comply with such laws and regulations could result in reputational harm, loss of goodwill, penalties, liabilities, remediation costs, or mandated changes in our business practices. Each has the potential to materially impact our financial condition.

Numerous proposals have been made and could continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit emissions of GHGs. As a result, our operations as well as the operations of our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers, are subject to a series of regulatory, political, litigation, and financial risks associated with the production and processing of fossil fuels and emission of GHGs. In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level, though laws such as the IRA advance numerous climate-related objectives. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the CAA, the EPA has adopted rules that, among other things, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources, implement New Source Performance Standards directing the reduction of methane from certain new, modified, or reconstructed facilities in the oil and natural gas sector, and together with the DOT, implement GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the United States. Additionally, in August 2022, the IRA was signed into law, which appropriates significant federal funding for renewable energy initiatives and amends the CAA to impose a first-time fee on the emission of methane from sources required to report their GHG emissions to the EPA, including those sources in the onshore petroleum and natural gas production and gathering and boosting source categories. The methane emissions fee began in calendar year 2024 at $900 per ton of methane, increasing to $1,200 in 2025, and $1,500 for 2026 and each year after. Calculation of the fee is based on certain thresholds established in the IRA. In order to support implementation of the methane emissions fee, including exemptions from the same, the EPA finalized revisions to its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in May 2024. The revisions amend requirements applicable to the petroleum and natural gas systems source category to ensure reporting is based on empirical data and accurately reflects total methane and waste emissions. The methane emissions fee and renewable and low carbon energy funding provisions of the law could increase our and our customers' operating costs and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, which could in turn reduce demand for our products and services and adversely affect our business and results of operations. However, at this time, it remains uncertain whether the new Presidential administration will take any action to revise or repeal the methane emissions fee or if Congress may take action to repeal or revise the IRA, including with respect to the methane emissions fee. In recent years, there has been considerable focus on the regulation of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. In response to President Biden's executive order calling on the EPA to revisit federal regulations regarding methane, the EPA finalized more stringent methane rules for new, modified, and reconstructed facilities, known as OOOOb, as well as standards for existing sources known as OOOOc, in December 2023. Fines and penalties for violations of these rules can be substantial. The rules have been subject to legal challenge, and may also be repealed or modified by the Presidential administration or Congress, though we cannot predict the substance or timing of such changes, if any. Moreover, compliance with the new rules may affect the amount we owe under the IRA's methane fee described above because compliance with EPA's methane rules would exempt an otherwise covered facility from the requirement to pay the methane fee. To the extent not repealed or modified by the Presidential administration or Congress, the requirements of the EPA's final methane rules have the potential to increase our operating costs and thus may adversely affect our financial results and cash flows. Moreover, failure to comply with these CAA requirements can result in the imposition of substantial fines and penalties as well as costly injunctive relief. Various states and groups of states have also adopted or are considering adopting legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives that are focused on areas of coverage similar to what the federal government has or may consider, including GHG cap and trade programs, carbon taxes, reporting and tracking programs, and restriction of emissions. At the international level, there exists the United Nations-sponsored "Paris Agreement," which is an agreement for nations to submit non-binding targets to limit their GHG emissions through individually-determined reduction goals every five years after 2020. President Biden announced in April 2021 a new, more rigorous nationally determined emissions reduction level of 50-52% reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net GHG emissions by 2030. However, in January 2025, an executive order withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement and from any commitments made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Additionally, the executive order revokes any purported financial commitment made by the United States pursuant to the same. It is unclear what participation, if any, the United States will have in future United Nations climate-related efforts, and the full impact of these developments is uncertain at this time. Governmental, scientific, and public concern from sources in the United States and across the world over the threat of climate change arising from GHG emissions has resulted in political risks that may limit hydraulic fracturing of oil and natural gas wells, restrict flaring and venting during natural gas production on government-owned properties, and ban or restrict new or existing leases for production of minerals on government-owned properties. For instance, in the United States, the prior Presidential administration issued several executive orders focused on addressing climate change, including items that may impact costs to produce, or demand for, oil and gas. The use of executive orders in the United States to advance political objectives of Presidential administrations increases regulatory uncertainty for us. Other administrations may issue executive orders that are more favorable to the development and consumption of hydrocarbons. Regulations may be focused on addressing climate change and may impact the costs to produce, or demand for, oil and gas. Additionally, in April 2024, the BLM finalized a rule that would limit flaring from well sites on federal lands, as well as require an operator to submit a waste minimization plan or a self-certification statement committing the operator to capturing 100% of the gas produced from a well and pay royalties on lost gas as part of the permit application process. This rule is currently subject to litigation and its implementation has been halted in North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Montana and Wyoming. The U.S. Department of the Interior's comprehensive review of the federal leasing program resulted in a reduction in the volume of onshore land held for lease and an increased royalty rate. Any regulatory changes that restrict or require modifications to our or our suppliers' existing operations or future expansions plans could reduce the demand for the products and services we provide, increase our operating costs and may have a negative impact on our financial condition. Litigation risks exist from certain cities, local governments, and other plaintiffs who may bring suit against large oil and natural gas companies in state or federal court, alleging, among other things, that such companies created public nuisances by producing fuels that contributed to global warming effects, such as rising sea levels, and therefore are responsible for roadway and infrastructure damages as a result, or alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but defrauded their investors or consumers by failing to adequately disclose those impacts. Should we be targeted by such litigation, involvement in such a case could have adverse financial and reputational impacts and an unfavorable ruling could significantly impact our operations and adversely impact our financial condition. Additionally, from time to time, certain stockholders and bondholders currently invested in fossil fuel energy companies but concerned about the potential effects of climate change may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into non-fossil fuel energy related sectors. Institutional investors who provide financing to fossil fuel energy companies have been attentive to sustainability lending, requesting additional action relating to the management of GHG emissions, and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies. Any material reduction in the capital available to the fossil fuel industry could make it more difficult to secure funding for exploration, development, production, transportation, and processing activities, which could impact our and our suppliers' and customers' businesses and operations. In addition, in March 2024, the SEC finalized a rule that would establish a framework for the reporting of climate risks, targets, and metrics. However, implementation of the rule has been stayed pending the outcome of legal challenges, and the future of the rule is uncertain at this time following the change in Presidential administrations. Separately, the State of California adopted several laws that require similar, or in some situations more extensive, disclosure. While implementing rules on certain of these laws are outstanding, both the California laws and the SEC rule, to the extent implemented, may result in increased legal, accounting and financial compliance costs for us and our suppliers and customers to comply, including the implementation of significant additional internal controls processes and procedures regarding matters that have not been subject to such controls in the past, and impose increased oversight obligations on our management and board of directors. We may also face increased litigation risks related to disclosures made pursuant to these requirements. The potential adoption and implementation of international, federal or state legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives in the future that impose more stringent standards for GHG emissions from the oil and natural gas sector or otherwise restrict the areas in which this sector may produce oil and natural gas or generate GHG emissions could result in increased costs of compliance or costs of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for, oil and natural gas, which could reduce demand for our services and products. Additionally, potential political, litigation, and financial risks may result in our oil and natural gas customers restricting or cancelling production activities, incurring potential liability for infrastructure damages as a result of climatic changes, or impairing their ability to continue to operate in an economic manner, which also could reduce demand for our services and products. One or more of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

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

We may not be successful in balancing our purchases and sales of the commodities we handle. In addition, a producer could fail to deliver promised volumes to us or deliver in excess of contracted volumes, or a purchaser could purchase less than contracted volumes. Any of these actions could cause an imbalance between our purchases and sales. If our purchases and sales are not balanced, we will face increased exposure to commodity price risks and could have increased volatility in our operating income.