ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF32022040NOPV_PCO_02172022_(20-179276).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF32022040NOPV_PCO_02172022_(20-179276)_text.pdf#

32022040NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_09012022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDate: September 1, 2022 From: Larry White To: File Re: Continuance of Hearing, Tallgrass Energy, LP CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV By electronic mail dated August 12, 2022, Catherine Little, Counsel for Tallgrass Energy, LP and Joseph Hainline, Counsel for OPS Central Region, submitted a joint request for a continuance of the hearing previously scheduled for August 31, 2022. The request explained that the parties were moving forward with negotiation of a consent agreement to resolve the case which would make a hearing unnecessary and the additional time was needed to conclude the negotiations. I granted the request for a continuance until September 14, 2022 which will be the new hearing date if resolution by consent agreement is not completed by that time.#

32022040NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06172022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFJune 17, 2022 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: catherine.little@troutman.com and gregory.ochs@dot.gov Ms. Catherine D. Little, Esq. Counsel for Tallgrass Energy, LP Troutman Pepper, LLP 600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30308 Mr. Gregory Ochs Director, Central Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 901 Locust Street, Suite 480 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 Re: Notice of Hearing, Tallgrass Energy, LP CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV Dear Ms. Little and Mr. Ochs: In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the above-referenced case. The hearing will take place on August 31, 2022, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Central Time. The hearing will be held via videoconference. I will provide the videoconference information prior to the hearing. At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by August 22, 2022), both parties must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and the name and email address of each attendee. This information should be provided electronically. Materials not submitted by this date may be excluded. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Larry White Presiding Official#

32022040NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06172022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 2cc: CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV Page 2 Mr. William Moler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC, bill.moler@tallgrassenergylp.com Ms. Jennifer Eckels, Manager – Compliance, Tallgrass Energy, LP, jennifer.eckels@tallgrassenergylp.com Mr. Joseph Hainline, Counsel, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, joseph.hainline@dot.gov#

32022040NOPV_Closure Letter_12152023_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: crystal.heter@tallgrassenergylp.com; kale.stanton@tallgrass.com; December 15, 2023 Crystal Heter Chief Operating Officer Tallgrass Energy, LP 370 Van Gordon Street Lakewood, CO 80228 RE: CPF 3-2022-040-NOPV Dear Ms. Heter: On September 12, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between PHMSA and Tallgrass Energy, LP (Tallgrass) in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order requirement for Tallgrass to take certain corrective actions on its pipeline. Per the terms of the Consent Agreement, the Consent Agreement would terminate if Tallgrass’ Special Permit application, requested March 11, 2022, was approved. On October 3, 2023, PHMSA approved and issued the Special Permit, PHMSA Docket Number 2022-0044. Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is terminated, and this case is now closed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Gregory A. Ochs Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cc: Kale Stanton (kale.stanton@tallgrass.com#

32022040NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of RfH_09132022_(20-179276).pdf, page 1Official PDFBefore the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Pipeline Safety Washington, D.C. In the Matter of ) ) CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV Tallgrass Energy, L.P. ) Notice of Probable Violation Respondent. ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING This notice is to advise that Tallgrass Energy, LP (Tallgrass) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Central Region have reached an agreement that resolves the above-referenced Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV). As a result, and as set forth in the Consent Order and Agreement issued by PHMSA on September 12, 2022, Tallgrass is, without admission, withdrawing its request for hearing. PHMSA issued the NOPV to Tallgrass on February 17, 2022, alleging a single violation relating to class location changes under 49 C.F.R. § 192.611 from Class 1 to Class 2. The NOPV included a Proposed Compliance Order (PCO) requirement that sought to require Tallgrass to prepare a work plan to lower the pressure of the Rockies Express Pipeline (REX) to ensure that the corresponding hoop stress did not exceed 72% of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) in Class 2 locations. Tallgrass contested the alleged violation and requested a hearing, which was scheduled for September 14, 2022. The NOPV relates to a special permit issued in 2006 that authorized portions of REX to operate at 80% specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). Pipeline Safety: Grant of Waiver; Rockies Express Pipeline, 71 Fed. Reg. 39141 (Jul. 11, 2006). As provided in its initial Response and Request for Hearing, Tallgrass maintains that it properly operated the REX pipeline, including Class 1 locations which became Class 2 locations due to population changes over the past fourteen years, at 80% SMYS pursuant to the terms of the 2006 special permit, and the “one-class bump” provision under the federal pipeline safety regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 192.611. Throughout the operation of REX, both Tallgrass and the prior operator of REX expressly and consistently notified PHMSA that portions of the pipeline located in Class 2 locations operated up to 80% SMYS. Tallgrass believes that PHMSA had acknowledged and approved Tallgrass’s operational practices and that these communications and the course of dealings, taken together, evidenced PHMSA’s approval of the Company’s operation of Class 2 locations pursuant to the “one-class bump” provision. In addition to its communications and course of dealings with Tallgrass, PHMSA has indicated that it “was likely an oversight” that the 2006 REX special permit did not address instances where Class 1 locations changed to Class 2 locations and that “[s]ubsequent special permits (to other#

32022040NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of RfH_09132022_(20-179276).pdf, page 2entities) now address this issue.” Letter to Tallgrass Energy, LP, from PHMSA (Sept. 24, 2021). When promulgating Alternative Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) regulations in 2008, PHMSA initially failed to address the use of Alternative MAOP in the context of class location changes and commenters “noted that without addressing operation at alternative MAOP in [§ 192.611], the regulations would effectively rescind the authorization provided by this rule to operate at higher pressure whenever there was a change in class location.” Final Rule, Pipeline Safety: Standards for Increasing the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines, 73 Fed. Reg. 62148, 62169 (Oct. 17, 2008). In the Final Rule, PHMSA responded by expressly reaffirming the use of the “one-class bump” allowance at 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.611 and 192.620(c)(8). Tallgrass believes that it has operated Class 2 locations on the REX pipeline consistent with its 2006 special permit and the “one-class bump” provision as recognized by PHMSA and the federal pipeline safety regulations. In the spirit of cooperation and consistent with its commitment to pipeline safety, Tallgrass nevertheless sought to resolve this action through informal settlement in coordination with the PHMSA Central Region. Pursuant to those discussions, Tallgrass, without admission and for purposes of settlement only, entered into a Consent Agreement with PHMSA to resolve this matter. As a result, and as required by the terms of the Consent Order and Agreement issued by PHMSA, the Company is hereby withdrawing its request for hearing. Respectfully submitted, Bracewell, LLP Catherine Little, Esq. Annie Cook, Esq. 2001 M Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036-3310 (202) 828-5800 Catherine.Little@Bracewell.com Annie.Cook@Bracewell.com Tallgrass Energy, LP Nicole Longwell, Esq. Associate General Counsel (303) 763-3401 Nicole.Longwell@Tallgrass.com Date: September 13, 2022 2#

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf, page 1Official PDFBefore the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Pipeline Safety Washington, D.C. In the Matter of ) ) CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV Tallgrass Energy, LP ) Notice of Probable Violation ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) Request for Hearing, Statement of Issues, and Response to NOPV I. Introduction The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA or the Agency) issued a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) and proposed compliance order (PCO) to Tallgrass Energy, LP (Tallgrass or the Company) on February 17, 2022. The NOPV alleged a single violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611 related to class location changes and included a PCO, which would require Tallgrass to prepare a work plan and schedule to lower the pressure of its Rockies Express Pipeline (REX) to ensure that the corresponding hoop stress does not exceed 72 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) in Class 2 locations. As provided by 49 C.F.R. § 190.208, Tallgrass has 30 days to respond to the allegations in the NOPV and, therefore, this response is timely. The NOPV was issued as a result of an inspection initiated in March 2020 by the PHMSA Central Region. The allegations relate to a history of authorizations, exchanges, and coordination with PHMSA going back 16 years in connection with the operation of the REX pipeline and a special permit issued to REX by PHMSA in July 2006. Tallgrass is committed to maintaining the safe operation of its pipeline assets in compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations, including 49 C.F.R. § 192.611, and pursuant to the terms of the special permit issued in July 2006, as affirmed by PHMSA and in reliance upon those clarifications. For this reason, Tallgrass is contesting the allegations in the NOPV and the PCO. At the same time, and in coordination with PHMSA and without admission, Tallgrass has a supplemental special permit application pending with PHMSA which would address the issue raised in the NOPV and more explicitly provide for the operation of the REX pipeline in Class 2 locations. Tallgrass took this step after lengthy discussions with PHMSA personnel over the past year in an effort to resolve the class location change issue to PHMSA’s satisfaction. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, Tallgrass is filing this response to request an in-person hearing to address the factual and legal issues in the NOPV under 49 C.F.R. § 192.611 and the PCO. At a#

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf, page 2hearing, Tallgrass will be represented by in-house counsel as well as outside counsel with Troutman Pepper. II. Background REX is one of the largest natural gas pipelines in the U.S., stretching 1,700 miles between northwestern Colorado, Wyoming, and eastern Ohio. REX transports critical east-west bi- directional supply between the Rocky Mountain and Appalachian regions to serve energy markets across the United States. As such, REX provides access to abundant natural gas sources in both basins, increasing the reliability, security, and supply to many high demand centers and large end- users with direct connections to power plants, local distribution companies, and industrial facilities. Derating the REX pipeline, as proposed in the PCO, would have a direct negative impact on critical natural gas supplies, reliability and energy security for major demand centers across the country. Tallgrass is committed to the safe operation of the REX pipeline in compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations and the conditions in the special permit issued by PHMSA in July 2006.1 The special permit was issued prior to construction of the REX pipeline and authorizes its operation at hoop stresses up to 80% SMYS in Class 1 locations and at a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 1,480 psig. The special permit imposes a variety of integrity measures that exceed the federal pipeline safety standards, including increased construction and design measures, hydrostatic pressure testing, and increased integrity management requirements. The special permit was the first issued by PHMSA of a series of special permits authorizing certain pipelines to operate at 80% SMYS. These special permits were the basis for a rule change in 2008, allowing pipelines that comply with certain design, construction and operational requirements to operate at an alternate MAOP up to 80% SMYS. Since issuance of the special permit, approximately 3.52 miles of the REX pipeline (across various short segments) have changed from Class 1 to Class 2 locations. Although the special permit does not address class change locations specifically, the prior operator of the REX pipeline implemented the “one class bump” provision as provided by 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.611(a) and 192.620(c)(8) to continue operating the Class 2 locations pursuant to the terms of the special permit and with affirmation from PHMSA in 2009. Both Tallgrass and the prior operator of the REX pipeline also provided notice of this practice to PHMSA yearly through two separate annual reporting obligations (specified by the special permit and by the 49 C.F.R. Part 191 regulations) and in correspondence in 2014. Further, PHMSA has consistently recognized the use of the “one class bump” provision in its regulatory approach with respect to other existing special permits and its promulgation of the alternate MAOP regulations in 2008. It was not until over a decade after PHMSA affirmed the practice in writing, that representatives of the Central Region assumed oversight of REX in January 2020 and inquired about Tallgrass’s reliance on the “one class bump” provision. Since that time, Tallgrass has been actively working with PHMSA to provide more information about the operation of its pipeline under the special permit. To address the Agency’s concern and in coordination with PHMSA, Tallgrass has been, 1 Pipeline Safety: Grant of Waiver; Rockies Express Pipeline, 71 Fed. Reg. 39,141 (Jul. 11, 2006). -2-#

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf, page 3without admission, working since March 2021 to prepare a supplemental special permit to more expressly authorize the continued operation of applicable Class 2 locations on the REX pipeline at 80% SMYS and an MAOP of 1,480 psig. The supplemental special permit application is pending as of the time of this filing. III. Response to NOPV Item 1 (49 C.F.R. § 192.611) and PCO A. PHMSA NOPV Allegation § 192.611 Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable operating pressure. (a) If the hoop stress corresponding to the established maximum allowable operating pressure of a segment of pipeline is not commensurate with the present class location, and the segment is in satisfactory physical condition, the maximum allowable operating pressure of that segment of pipeline must be confirmed or revised according to one of the following requirements: (1) If the segment involved has been previously tested in place for a period of not less than 8 hours: (i) The maximum allowable operating pressure is 0.8 times the test pressure in Class 2 locations, 0.667 times the test pressure in Class 3 locations, or 0.555 times the test pressure in Class 4 locations. The corresponding hoop stress may not exceed 72 percent of the SMYS of the pipeline in Class 2 locations, 60 percent of SMYS in Class 3 locations, or 50 percent of SMYS in Class 4 locations. The REX Pipeline has operated at a pressure that exceeds the maximum pressure allowed in a Class 2 location. The REX Pipeline is a 42-inch diameter pipeline that was permitted to operate up to 80 percent of SMYS in Class 1 locations only pursuant to a Special Permit. The maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the REX Pipeline in Class 1 locations is 1480 psig, which produces a potential impact radius (PIR) of at least 1115 feet. REX failed to confirm or revise the MAOP for segments of the REX Pipeline in Class 2 locations to ensure that they were commensurate with the present class location. Specifically, REX failed to ensure the corresponding hoop stress did not exceed 72 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the REX Pipeline in Class 2 locations. PHMSA reviewed the REX 2017-2019 Change Studies per §§ 192.609 and 192.611, and SCADA alarm records. The records confirmed that the REX pipeline had been operating at above 72 percent SMYS in Class 2 locations. All of the pipeline segments located in Class 2 locations that were operating at above 72 percent of SMYS were previously tested in place for a period of not less than 8 hours. REX was not operating with an alternative MAOP under § 192.620 such that § 192.611(a)(ii) could apply. As such, REX was required to limit its MAOP so that the corresponding hoop stress would not exceed 72 percent of SMYS of the pipe in Class 2 locations. The -3-#

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf, page 4following 46 Class 2 locations were operated above 72 percent SMYS, in violation of the regulations, as identified in 2021: [. . .] Additional segments may currently be operating in non-compliance, which must be addressed by Tallgrass or they could be the subject of a future enforcement action. B. Tallgrass Response Tallgrass requests that NOPV Item 1 be withdrawn as a matter of fact and law. Tallgrass has and continues to operate the REX pipeline consistent with the terms of its special permit and the federal pipeline safety regulations, as affirmed by PHMSA. Given that the special permit is silent regarding class location changes, and pursuant to prior direction and affirmation from PHMSA, both the prior operator and Tallgrass provided notice to PHMSA of their reliance on the “one class bump” provision as provided in 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.611 and 192.620 to continue operating portions of the REX pipeline that changed to Class 2 locations pursuant to the terms of its special permit. In addition, the prior operator and Tallgrass regularly notified the Agency of the operation of the REX line in Class 2 locations in accordance with the special permit through its special permit and 49 C.F.R. Part 191 annual reporting obligations and expressly referred to this practice in a 2014 letter to the Agency. In response and for over a decade, PHMSA acknowledged and authorized Tallgrass’s operational practices in previous communications. Tallgrass has in good faith relied on PHMSA’s prior representations and has operated the REX pipeline in accordance with those representations. Moreover, Tallgrass’s application of the “one class bump” provision is consistent with PHMSA’s representations and filings related to other similar special permits and PHMSA’s promulgation of the alternate MAOP regulations at 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.611 and 192.620. As proposed, the PCO would require Tallgrass to lower the pressure of the REX pipeline in Class 2 locations, without providing any other options for compliance, and would directly and negatively impact commerce by reducing the availability, reliability, and security of supply to critical demand centers across the country. For these reasons, Tallgrass requests that the PCO be withdrawn because PHMSA cannot establish that the Company committed a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611. IV. Preliminary Statement of Issues A. Whether PHMSA is precluded from seeking this enforcement based on the applicable statute of limitations. B. Whether PHMSA should be equitably estopped from seeking enforcement against Tallgrass, where the Agency previously approved of Tallgrass’s operation of segments in Class 2 locations in compliance with its special permit and in accordance with the “one class bump” provision and Tallgrass’s operation of the Class 2 segments was consistent with PHMSA’s established regulatory practice. -4-#

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf, page 5C. D. E. F. G. H. Whether PHMSA is precluded from seeking this enforcement based on the equitable doctrines of laches or waiver, where the Agency previously approved of Tallgrass’s operation of segments in Class 2 locations in compliance with the special permit and in accordance with the “one class bump” provision and Tallgrass’s operation of the Class 2 segments was consistent with PHMSA’s established regulatory practice. Whether PHMSA has met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Tallgrass did not comply with requirements 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.611, 192.620(c)(8) or the conditions of its existing special permit, as clarified by PHMSA’s representations. Whether PHMSA’s allegation of noncompliance is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), constitutes disparate treatment of similarly situated parties without reasoned explanation and substantial evidence in the record, and/or violates requirements of due process and fair notice. Whether the PCO associated with NOPV Item 1 should be withdrawn because there is no violation and/or in light of the pending supplemental special permit application; or, in the alternative, whether the PCO should be modified to provide for alternative means of compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations. Whether PHMSA PCO would unduly burden interstate commerce or unreasonably impact Tallgrass’s ability to comply with its contractual obligations related to provision of gas. Whether the NOPV and PCO are consistent with PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety Enforcement Procedures policy manual with respect to fair, consistent, and timely enforcement. Tallgrass reserves the right to supplement this statement of issues in response to any additional evidence and argument provided by PHMSA. V. Summary and Request for Relief For all of the reasons identified above, and in consideration of other matters as justice may require, Tallgrass respectfully requests that NOPV Item 1 and the PCO be withdrawn. In advance of the requested hearing, and pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.209, Tallgrass requests a copy of the complete case file in this matter, beyond the Pipeline Safety Violation Report and its exhibits which have already been provided. Respectfully submitted, Troutman Pepper, LLP Catherine D. Little, Esq. -5-#

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf, page 6Annie M. Cook, Esq. 600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30308 (404) 885-3000 Catherine.Little@troutman.com Annie.Cook@troutman.com Tallgrass Energy, LP Assistant General Counsel Nicole Longwell, Esq. (303) 763 3401 Nicole.longwell@tallgrassenergylp.com Date: March 18, 2022 -6-#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFSeptember 12, 2022 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: bill.moler@tallgrassenergylp.com William Moler President and Chief Executive Officer Tallgrass Energy, LP 2400 W. 115th Street, Suite 350 Leawood, KS 66211 CPF 3-2022-040-NOPV Dear Mr. Moler: Enclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC, a subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP, which was executed on September 8, 2022. Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Sincerely, Alan K Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosures: Consent Agreement and Consent Order Cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Ms. Catherine Little, outside counsel for Tallgrass, catherine.little@troutman.com Ms. Jennifer Eckels, Compliance Manager, Tallgrass, jennifer.eckels@tallgrass.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV a subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) CONSENT ORDER By letter dated February 17, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA), issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC, a subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP (Respondent). In response to the Notice, Respondent contested the allegation of violation and associated proposed compliance order for Item 1 and requested a hearing (Response). Respondent also asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the issues it raised in its Response. Respondent and PHMSA (the Parties) subsequently met on several occasions. As a result of those discussions the Respondent agreed to a finding of violation, without admission to the underlying facts, and to take certain corrective actions as detailed in the accompanying Consent Agreement. Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this Order. Tallgrass is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement, effective immediately. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.223. The terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. September 12, 2022 _________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 3U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC ) a subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP ) CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) CONSENT AGREEMENT From March 2 through March 6, 2020, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected the records of Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC (REX or Respondent), a subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP, in Lakewood, Colorado. PHMSA also reviewed additional information provided by Respondent after March 6, 2020, as part of this inspection. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent by letter dated February 17, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged that Respondent committed a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation. In response to the Notice, Respondent contested the allegation of violation, requested a hearing, and asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the alleged violation (Response). The allegation relates to operation of certain pipeline segments on REX covered by a special permit issued by PHMSA in 2006 and the course of dealing and exchange of information between PHMSA and REX (the Parties) under that special permit. The Parties subsequently met to discuss the allegation of violation. As a result of those discussions and as explained in more detail below, PHMSA has agreed to certain factual clarifications associated with the allegation of violation and Respondent, without admission, has agreed to withdraw its hearing request and accept the finding of violation as alleged in the Notice, subject to the clarifications as set forth below, and to undertake certain corrective measures. Having agreed that settlement of this enforcement action will avoid further administrative proceedings or litigation and will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 4the environment, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. part 190, and upon consent and agreement of Respondent and PHMSA, the Parties hereby agree as follows: I. General Provisions 1. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to the Notice, Respondent and its referenced gas pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. 2. After Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s representative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending that the Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative order (Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement constitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the Associate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement. 3. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to contest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except as set forth herein. 4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its officers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any incorporated work plans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement. 5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the terms of this Agreement may be construed by reference to the Notice. 6. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters PHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA’s authority to bring enforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law. 7. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s pipeline system referenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 5transferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice of the transfer to the PHMSA Central Regional Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs. 8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations. Respondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits. 9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third party not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Respondent agrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of Respondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement. 10. Respondent neither admits nor denies any allegation or conclusion in the Notice or this Agreement but agrees for purposes of this Agreement to comply with the terms of this Agreement. 11. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, the Parties agree to the following terms. II. Finding of Violation 12. Item 1: 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(a)(1)(i): The Notice alleged Respondent failed to confirm or revise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for segments of REX in certain Class 2 locations to ensure that they were commensurate with the present class location. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to ensure the corresponding hoop stress did not exceed 72 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of REX in certain Class 2 locations. In its Response, Respondent contested the allegation of violation in its entirety. Respondent holds an existing special permit that was issued by PHMSA in 2006 which, in relevant part, authorizes REX to operate up to 80% SMYS in Class 1 locations. The special permit does not address changes in class location. Since placing the pipeline into service, the prior operator of REX and Respondent provided periodic updates to PHMSA with updates regarding class location changes and operating pressure. Respondent maintains that communications and course of dealings between Respondent and PHMSA about operation of certain segments of REX at 80% SMYS in Class 2 locations, which are subject to the special permit conditions, evidenced approval of such operating conditions. PHMSA maintains that it never approved operation of the special permit segments above 72% SMYS in areas other than Class 1 locations as set forth in the special permit conditions. Upon further discussions between the Parties, Respondent, without admission and for purposes of settlement, has agreed to accept a finding of violation and withdraw its hearing request upon execution of this Agreement. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(a)(1)(i).#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 613. Item 1 will be considered by PHMSA as a prior offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent for the 5-year period following the Effective Date of this Agreement. III. Special Permit Application and Limitations 14. The Notice proposed certain compliance order actions to address the non- compliance alleged in Item 1. As a result of the Parties’ informal discussions, the Parties have agreed to the following: A. Respondent has, without admission, applied for a supplemental class location special permit (Special Permit application) under 49 C.F.R. § 190.341 for certain pipeline segments in Class 2 locations to allow for continued operation above 72% SMYS, including the very same segments in the Notice. The public comment period for this Special Permit application ended on June 27, 2022. See 87 Fed. Reg. 32233 (May 27, 2022); PHMSA Docket No. 2022-0044. B. If approved, the proposed Special Permit conditions shall apply, and this Agreement will terminate. C. Unless or until the Special Permit application is approved by PHMSA, Respondent will proceed to comply with the obligations set forth below in Paragraph 15, except for Paragraph 15.B. If the Special Permit application is denied by PHMSA or withdrawn by Respondent, Respondent shall also proceed with the obligations specified in Paragraph 15.B. D. Respondent reserves the right to seek additional special permits or pursue conversion to alternative MAOP per 49 C.F.R. § 192.620. IV. Compliance Plan 15. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice, Respondent shall perform the following actions, subject to the limitations set forth in Paragraph 14, applicable to the areas identified in the Notice operating above 72% SMYS in Class 2 locations: A. Intermediate Actions Until the Grant or Denial of the Special Permit. i. Work Plan. Within 45 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Respondent will prepare and submit for Director approval a Work Plan and Schedule to implement the following remedial measures. ii. Procedural Development. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Respondent will modify existing procedures or create new procedures, where necessary, though its Management of Change process to address how pressure will be temporarily reduced in the segments identified in the Notice that are operating above 72% SMYS in Class 2 locations, as addressed in 15.A.iii. below.#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 7iii. Temporary Pressure Reduction. Within 180 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Respondent will reduce operating pressure to 76% SMYS (1406 psig) in the segments identified in the Notice that are operating above 72% SMYS in Class 2 locations. iv. Segment Risk Criteria. Pipeline segments identified in the Notice that meet any of the following criteria will have additional measures performed according to Paragraph 15.A.v.a.-d. of this Agreement: a. Greater than 10 structures intended for human occupancy contained within the potential impact radius of the pipe segment (as defined in 49 C.F.R. § 192.903); b. Anomalies: 1. A dent with a depth greater than 6% of the pipeline diameter; 2. A dent with a depth greater than 2% of the pipeline diameter that affects pipe curvature at a girth weld or longitudinal or helical (spiral) seam weld; 3. Metal loss anomalies in excess of 40% depth; 4. Any anomalies with an effective area burst pressure of less than 1.25 times MAOP; and/or 5. Any bending strain anomalies above 0.5% strain. v. Additional Measures. a. Weekly right-of-way patrols; b. Monthly leak surveys with leak survey equipment; c. Close interval survey to be completed within 180 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement; and d. On-the-ground inspection by a geologist for any potential geohazards to be completed within 180 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. B. Additional Actions Upon Special Permit Denial or Withdrawal. i. Work Plan. Within 45 days of the denial or withdrawal of the Special Permit application, Respondent will amend and submit for Director approval a revised Work Plan and Schedule previously submitted pursuant to Paragraph 15.A.i. of this Agreement to implement additional remedial measures as set forth in 15.B.ii-iv. ii. Risk Prioritization. Respondent shall complete the actions contained in the approved revised Work Plan and Schedule required by Paragraph 15.B.i. of this Agreement based on risk prioritization, taking into account the pipeline segments that meet the Segment Risk Criteria set forth in Paragraph 15.A.iv.#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 8iii. Implementation of Work Plan. For segments identified in the Notice that are operating above 72% SMYS in Class 2 locations, Respondent shall complete the actions required by the revised Work Plan and Schedule pursuant to Paragraph 15.B.i. within 24 months from the Effective Date of this Agreement. iv. Remedial Measures. The measures implemented under this Section, such as pressure reduction or pipe replacement, must be consistent with 49 C.F.R. § 192.611 for all segments identified in the Notice that are operating above 72% SMYS in Class 2 locations, except as noted herein. Any necessary procedural revisions shall be addressed accordingly. C. The Work Plan and Schedule required by the Compliance Plan, under either Paragraph 15.A.i. or 15.B.i. of this Agreement, may not be implemented until it has been approved, in writing, by the Director. D. Respondent shall provide status updates to the Director on a quarterly basis describing the progress of all actions being undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. E. The Director may grant an extension of time for compliance with any of the terms of the Agreement upon a written request timely submitted demonstrating good cause for an extension. The Director shall respond in writing to any such request. V. Enforcement 16. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. part 190, including administrative civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $239,142 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral of the case to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent is not complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with determinations made by the Director, or if appealed, in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator. The maximum civil penalty amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223. VI. Force Majeure 17. Respondent agrees to perform all the terms of this Agreement within the timeframes established within this Agreement, including pursuant to extensions under Paragraph 15.E or modifications under Section IX, unless performance is delayed by a force majeure. For purposes of this Agreement, a force majeure is defined by an event arising from causes beyond the control of the Respondent, or any entity controlled by Respondent or Respondent’s contractors, which delays or prevents performance of any obligation under this Agreement despite Respondent’s commercially reasonable efforts to fulfill the obligation. 18. If a force majeure event occurs or has occurred that may delay the performance of any term of this Agreement beyond the approved timeframe, Respondent shall notify the#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 9Director, in writing, within 5 business days of when Respondent knew that the event might cause a delay. Such notice shall identify the cause of the delay or anticipated delay and the anticipated duration of the delay, state the measures taken or to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay, and estimate the timetable for implementation of those measures. Failure to comply with the notice provision of this Paragraph and to undertake reasonable efforts to avoid and minimize the delay shall waive any claim of force majeure by Respondent. 19. If the Director determines, upon notification by Respondent, that a delay or anticipated delay in performance is or was attributable to a force majeure, then the Director will extend the time period for the performance of that term for a reasonable period. The Director will notify Respondent, in writing, of the length of any extension of performance of such terms affected by the force majeure. Any such extensions shall not alter Respondent’s obligation to perform or complete other terms of this Agreement which are not affected by the force majeure. VII. Dispute Resolution 20. The Director and Respondent will informally attempt to resolve any disputes arising under this Agreement, including but not limited to any decision of the Director. If Respondent and the Director are unable to informally resolve the dispute within 15 calendar days after the dispute is first raised, in writing, to the Director, Respondent may submit a written request for a determination resolving the dispute from the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Such request must be made in writing and provided to the Director, counsel for the Central Region, and to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, no later than 10 calendar days from the 15-day deadline for informal resolution referenced in this Paragraph. Along with its request, Respondent must provide the Associate Administrator with all information Respondent believes is relevant to the dispute. Decisions of the Associate Administrator under this Paragraph will constitute final agency action. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this Agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process, except as agreed by the Director or the Associate Administrator in writing, or ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. VIII. Effective Date 21. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which the Consent Order is issued by the Associate Administrator, PHMSA, incorporating the terms of this Agreement. IX. Modification 22. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such modifications must be in writing and signed by both parties. X. Ratification 23. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party to this document.#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 1024. The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Agreement. [Signature Lines on Following Page]#

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf, page 11For Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC: Date: For PHMSA: _________________________________________ Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Date:#

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 1)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf, page 1Official PDFVia Electronic Mail to Gregory.Ochs@DOT.gov March 18, 2022 Mr. Gregory Ochs Director, Central Region U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 901 Locust Street, Suite 462 Kansas City, MO 64106 Re: Tallgrass Energy, LP Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order, CPF 3-2022-040-NOPV Request for Settlement Conference and Hearing Dear Mr. Ochs: Tallgrass Energy, LP (Tallgrass or the Company) shares the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) commitment to public safety and pipeline integrity and appreciates the continued opportunities to engage with PHMSA on these issues in a transparent manner. To that end, Tallgrass is in receipt of the above referenced Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) and Proposed Compliance Order (PCO) associated with its Rockies Express Pipeline (REX). The NOPV alleges a single violation relating to class location changes under 49 C.F.R. § 192.611 and includes a PCO that would require Tallgrass to prepare a work plan to lower the pressure of REX to ensure that the corresponding hoop stress does not exceed 72 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) in Class 2 locations. In keeping with Tallgrass’s collaborative approach, the Company respectfully requests the opportunity to convene an informal settlement meeting with PHMSA to discuss the NOPV and PCO pursuant to the Pipeline Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 60117(b)(1)(B). REX is one of the largest natural gas pipelines in the U.S. REX transports supply from the Rocky Mountain and Appalachian regions to serve energy markets across the United States, ensuring the nation’s ongoing energy reliability and security. Those markets include many high demand centers and large end-users with direct connections to power plants, local distribution companies, and industrial facilities. As you know, the Company operates the REX pipeline pursuant to a special permit issued by PHMSA in July 2006. The special permit expressly allows Tallgrass to operate the REX pipeline at a hoop stress up to 80% SMYS in Class 1 locations and at a maximum allowable operating permit (MAOP) of 1,480 psig. Due to increases in population surrounding the pipeline over time, certain segments of REX that were originally Class 1 locations later became Class 2 locations. While the special permit does not expressly address class location changes, based on correspondence with PHMSA going back to 2009, Tallgrass believes that operation of REX in 1#

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 1)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf, page 2newly identified Class 2 locations under the special permit was permissible. In light of more recent discussions with the Central Region which assumed oversight of REX on January 1, 2020, and in cooperation with the Agency to expressly clarify the operation of the REX pipeline in these Class 2 locations, the Company has – without admission – been working with PHMSA to apply for an additional special permit that would explicitly allow Tallgrass to continue to operate the identified segments located in Class 2 locations at existing MAOP levels. That special permit application is now pending. For all of these reasons, and in an effort to resolve the NOPV and the associated PCO, Tallgrass respectfully requests the opportunity to convene an informal settlement meeting with PHMSA. In the event that the parties are unable to resolve the issues, however, and in order to preserve Tallgrass’s rights, the Company is, without admission, timely filing the attached request for a hearing and statement of issues pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §§ 190.208 and 190.211. Tallgrass respectfully requests that PHMSA refrain from scheduling a hearing in order to provide the parties with sufficient time to attempt to resolve these issues. Additionally, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.209 and to facilitate settlement discussions, Tallgrass respectfully requests that PHMSA provide a copy of the entirety of the case file related to this action, beyond the Pipeline Safety Violation Report (PSVR) and exhibits already provided. Thank you for your consideration of this request for a settlement meeting and request for hearing, and for your continued efforts to discuss these issues with the Company. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jennifer Eckels Manager - Compliance Tallgrass Energy, LP 370 Van Gordon Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: (303) 763-3486 Enclosure cc: Crystal Heter, Tallgrass Chief Operating Officer Jay Meyer, Tallgrass VP Engineering & Technical Services Nicole Longwell, Esq., Tallgrass Assistant General Counsel Catherine Little, Esq., Troutman Pepper Annie Cook, Esq., Troutman Pepper#