The following table presents certain information regarding our equity investment pipeline assets as of December 31, 2018.2019.

Many of our assets are physically connected to, and integral to the operations of, Phillips 66’s wholly owned Alliance, Bayway, Billings, Ferndale, Lake Charles, Ponca City and Sweeny refineries and its jointly owned Borger and Wood River refineries. We have entered into multiple commercial agreements with Phillips 66, which include minimum volume commitments and inflation escalators. These agreements are the source of a significant portion of our revenue. Under these long-term, fee-based agreements, we provide transportation, terminaling, processing, storage, stevedoring fractionation and processingfractionation services to Phillips 66, and Phillips 66 commits to provide us with minimum quarterly volumes of crude oil, refined petroleum products and NGL or minimum monthly capacity or service fees.

See Note 21—16—Related Party Transactions, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, for summaries of the terms of commercial and other agreements with Phillips 66.

Many of our assets are subject to contractual relationships with Phillips 66 under our commercial agreements and are directly connected to Phillips 66’s owned or operated refineries. As a result, we believe that we will not face significant competition from other pipelines, terminals, storage facilities, rail racks, fractionators and processing units for Phillips 66’s transportation and terminaling requirements to and from the refineries we support. If Phillips 66’s customers were to reduce their purchases of refined petroleum products, Phillips 66 might only ship the minimum volumes through our pipelines (or paymake the shortfall payment if it does not ship the minimum volumes), which would cause a decrease in our revenue. Phillips 66 competes with integrated petroleum companies, which have their own crude oil supplies and distribution and marketing systems, as well as with independent refiners, many of which also have their own distribution and marketing systems. Phillips 66 also competes with other suppliers that purchase refined petroleum products for resale. Many of the entities in which we hold equity investments compete with other interstate and intrastate pipelines, rail and truck fleet operations, including those affiliated with major integrated petroleum and petrochemical companies, in terms of transportation fees, reliability and quality of customer service. Competition in any particular geographic area is significantly affected by the volume of products produced by refineries in that area, the volume of crude oil and natural gas liquidsNGL gathered and transported, and the availability of products and the cost of transportation to that area from distant locations.

Our common carrier pipeline systems are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local agencies. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates interstate transportation on our common carrier pipeline systems under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992) and the rules and regulations promulgated under those laws. FERC regulations require that rates for interstate service pipelines that transport crude oil and refined petroleum products (collectively referred to as “petroleum pipelines”) and certain other liquids be just and reasonable and must not be unduly discriminatory or confer any undue preference upon any shipper. FERC regulations also require interstate common carrier petroleum pipelines to file with FERC and publicly post tariffs stating their interstate transportation rates and terms and conditions of service. Under the ICA, FERC or interested persons may challenge existing or changed rates or services. FERC is authorized to investigate such changes and may suspend the effectiveness of a new rate for up to seven months. A successful rate challenge could result in a common carrier paying refunds together with interest for the period the rate was in effect. FERC may also order a pipeline to change its rates and may require a common carrier to pay shippers reparations for damages sustained for a period up to two years prior to the filing of a complaint. EPAct 1992 deemed certain interstate petroleum pipeline rates then in effect to be just and reasonable under the ICA. These rates are commonly referred to as “grandfathered rates.” Our rates in effect at the time of the passage of EPAct 1992 for interstate transportation service were deemed just and reasonable and therefore are grandfathered rates. New rates have been established subsequent to EPAct 1992 for certain of our pipeline systems. FERC may change grandfathered rates upon complaint only after it is shown that:

EPAct 1992 required FERC to establish a simplified methodology to adjust non-market-based tariff rates for inflation for interstate petroleum pipelines. As a result, FERC adopted an indexing rate methodology which, as currently in effect, allows common carriers to change their rates within prescribed ceiling levels that are tied to changes in the Producer Price Index (PPI) for finished goods. FERC’s indexing methodology is subject to review every five years. The indexing methodology is applicable to existing rates, including grandfathered rates, with the exclusion of market-based rates. In December 2015, FERC issued a Final Order concluding its five-year review of the indexing methodology.  FERC established an index level permitting annual adjustment of an indexed ceiling by PPI for finished goods plus 1.23 percent1.23% for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2021. A pipeline is not required to increase its rates up to the indexed ceiling but is permitted to do so. Rate increases made under the index are presumed to be just and reasonable unless a protesting party can demonstrate that the portion of the rate increase resulting from application of the index is substantially in excess of the pipeline’s increase in costs. Under the indexing rate methodology, in any year in which the index is negative, pipelines must file to lower their rates if those rates would otherwise be above the rate ceiling. On October 20, 2016, FERC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. FERC is seeking comment on a number of proposals, including: (1) whether FERC should deny any increase in a rate ceiling or an annual index-based rate increase if a pipeline’s revenues exceed total costs by 15 percent15% for the prior 2 years; (2) a new percentage comparison test that would deny a proposed increase to a pipeline’s rate or ceiling level greater than 5 percent5% above the barrel-mile cost changes; and (3) a requirement that all pipelines file indexed ceiling levels annually, with the ceiling levels subject to challenge and restricting the pipeline’s ability to carry forward the full indexed increase to a future period. FERC has not taken any further action on this matter.

While common carriers often use the indexing methodology to change their rates, they may elect to support proposed rates by using other methodologies such as cost-of-service rate making, market-based rates and settlement rates. A pipeline can follow a cost-of-service approach when seeking to increase its rates above the rate ceiling (or when seeking to avoid lowering rates to the reduced rate ceiling). A common carrier can charge market-based rates if it establishes that it lacks significant market power in the affected markets. In addition, a common carrier can establish rates under settlement if agreed upon by all current shippers. We primarily use indexed rates and settlement rates for our different pipeline systems.

Intrastate services provided by certain of our pipeline systems are subject to regulation by state regulatory authorities. These state regulatory authorities use a complaint-based system of regulation, both as to matters involving rates and priority of access. State regulatory authorities could limit our ability to increase our rates or to set rates based on our costs or order us to reduce our rates and require the payment of refunds to shippers. FERC and state regulatory authorities generally have not investigated rates, unless the rates are the subject of a protest or a complaint. Phillips 66 has agreed not to contest our tariff rates applicable for our transportation services agreements for the term of those agreements. However, FERC or a state regulatory authority could investigate our rates on its own initiative or at the urging of a third party, and this could lead to a refund of previously collected revenue.

Our assets are subject to increasingly strict safety laws and regulations. The transportation and storage of crude oil, natural gas liquids and refined petroleum products involves a risk that hazardous liquids may be released into the environment, potentially causing harm to the public or the environment. In turn, any such incidents may result in substantial expenditures for response actions, significant government penalties, liability to government agencies for natural resources damages, and significant business interruption. The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has adopted safety regulations with respect to the design, construction, operation, maintenance, inspection and management of pipeline assets. These regulations contain requirements for the development and implementation of pipeline integrity management programs, which include the inspection and testing of pipelines and necessary maintenance or repairs. These regulations also require that pipeline operation and maintenance personnel meet certain qualifications and that pipeline operators develop comprehensive spill response plans. We are subject to regulation by the DOT under the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (the HLPSA). The HLPSA delegated to DOT the authority to develop, prescribe, and enforce minimum federal safety standards for the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline. Congress also enacted the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (the PSA), which added the environment to the list of statutory factors that must be considered in establishing safety standards for hazardous liquid pipelines, required regulations be issued to define the term “gathering line” and establish safety standards for certain “regulated gathering lines,” and mandated that regulations be issued to establish criteria for operators to use in identifying and inspecting pipelines located in High Consequence Areas (HCAs), defined as those areas that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage, that cross a navigable waterway, or that have a high population density. In 1996, Congress enacted the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act (the APSPA), which limited the operator identification requirement mandate to pipelines that cross a waterway where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists, required that certain areas where a pipeline rupture would likely cause permanent or long-term environmental damage be considered in determining whether an area is unusually sensitive to environmental damage, and mandated that regulations be issued for the qualification and testing of certain pipeline personnel. In the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006, Congress required mandatory inspections for certain U.S. crude oil and natural gas transmission pipelines in HCAs and mandated that regulations be issued for low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines and pipeline control room management. We are also subject to the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011, which increased penalties for safety violations, established additional safety requirements for newly constructed pipelines, and required studies of certain safety issues that could result in the adoption of new regulatory requirements for existing pipelines.

DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) administers compliance with these statutes and has promulgated comprehensive safety standards and regulations for the transportation of hazardous liquid by pipeline, including regulations for (i) the design and construction of new pipeline systems or those that have been relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed; (ii) pressure testing of new pipelines; (iii) operation and maintenance of pipeline systems, establishing programs for public awareness and damage prevention, and managing the operation of pipeline control rooms; (iv) protection of steel pipelines from the adverse effects of internal and external corrosion; and (v) integrity management requirements for pipelines in HCAs.

We monitor the structural integrity of our pipelines through a program of periodic internal assessments using high resolution internal inspection tools, as well as hydrostatic testing and direct assessment that conforms to regulatory standards. We accompany these assessments with a review of the data and repair anomalies, as required, to ensure the integrity of the pipeline. We then utilize sophisticated risk algorithms and a comprehensive data integration effort to ensure that the highest risk-assessed pipelines receive priority for subsequent integrity assessments. We use external coatings and impressed-current cathodic protection systems to protect against external corrosion. We conduct all cathodic protection work in accordance with National Association of Corrosion Engineers standards. We continually monitor, test and record the effectiveness of these corrosion inhibiting systems.

Refined petroleum products that we transport are generally sold by our customers for use by the public. Various federal, state and local agencies have the authority to prescribe product quality specifications for products. Changes in product quality specifications or blending requirements could reduce our throughput volumes, require us to incur additional handling costs or require capital expenditures. For example, different product specifications for different markets affect the fungibility of the products in our system and could require the construction of additional storage. If we are unable to recover these costs through increased revenue, our cash flows and ability to pay cash distributions could be adversely affected. In addition, changes in the product quality of the products we receive on our product pipeline systems could reduce or eliminate our ability to blend products.

Our operations are subject to regulations promulgated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOT and comparable state and local regulations. We have identified which assets are subject to the jurisdiction of OSHA or DOT. Certain of our facilities are under the dual jurisdiction of OSHA and DOT, whereby certain portions of the facility are subject to OSHA regulation and other assets at the facility are subject to DOT regulation due to the type of asset and the configuration of the facility. Our facilities are operated in a manner consistent with industry safety practices and standards. The tanks designed for crude oil and refined petroleum product storage at our facilities are equipped with appropriate emission controls to promote safety. Our facilities have response plans, spill prevention and control plans, and other programs to respond to emergencies.

Our rail operations involve crude oil loading, receiving and unloading activities. Generally, rail operations are subject to regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, PHMSA and comparable state and local regulations. We believe our rail operations are in material compliance with all applicable regulations and meet or exceed current industry standards and practices.

We are also subject to Department of Homeland Security Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, which are designed to regulate the security of high-risk chemical facilities, the Transportation Security Administration’s Pipeline Security Guidelines, and other comparable state and local regulations. We have an internal program of inspection designed to monitor and provide for compliance with all of these requirements. We believe that we are in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the security of our facilities. However, these laws and regulations are subject to changes, or to changes in their interpretation, by the regulatory authorities, and continued and future compliance with such laws and regulations may require us to incur significant expenditures.  In addition, any incidents may result in substantial expenditures for response actions, government penalties and business interruption.

While we are not currently subject to governmental standards for the protection of computer-based systems and technology from cyber threats and attacks, proposals to establish such standards are being considered in the U.S. Congress and by U.S. Executive Branch departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, and we may become subject to such standards in the future. We currently are implementing our own cyber security programs and protocols; however, we cannot guarantee their effectiveness. A significant cyber attack could have a material effect on our operations and those of our customers.

Our operations are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances relating to the protection of the environment. Among other things, these laws and regulations govern the emission or discharge of pollutants into or onto the land, air and water, the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes and the remediation of contamination. As with the industry generally, our compliance with existing and anticipated environmental laws and regulations increases our overall cost of business, including our capital costs to construct, maintain, operate and upgrade equipment and facilities. While these laws and regulations affect our maintenance capital expenditures and net income, we believe they do not affect our competitive position, as the operations of our competitors are largely affected in a similar manner. We believe our facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. However, these laws and regulations are subject to changes, or to changes in their

interpretation, by regulatory authorities, and continued and future compliance with such laws and regulations may require us to incur significant expenditures. Additionally, violation of environmental laws, regulations, and permits can result in the imposition of significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, injunctions limiting our operations, investigatory or remedial liabilities or construction bans or delays in the construction of additional facilities or equipment. Further, a release of hydrocarbons or hazardous substances into the environment could, to the extent the event is not insured, subject us to substantial expenses, including costs to comply with applicable laws and regulations and to resolve claims by third parties for personal injury or property damage, or by the U.S. federal government or state governments for natural resources damages. These impacts could directly and indirectly affect our business and have an adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity. We cannot currently determine the amounts of such future impacts.

We are subject to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its regulations and comparable state and local statutes and regulations in connection with air emissions from our operations. Under these laws, permits may be required before construction can commence on a new source of potentially significant air emissions, and operating permits may be required for sources that are already constructed. These permits may require controls on our air emission sources, and we may become subject to more stringent regulations requiring the installation of additional emission control technologies.

Future expenditures may be required to comply with the FCAA and other federal, state and local requirements for our various sites, including our pipeline and storage facilities. The impact of future legislative and regulatory developments, if enacted or adopted, could result in increased compliance costs and additional operating restrictions on our business, all of which could have an adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

Air emissions requirements also affect Phillips 66’s domestic refineries from which we directly or indirectly receive the majority of our revenue. Phillips 66 has been required in the past, and will likely be required in the future, to incur significant capital expenditures to comply with new legislative and regulatory requirements relating to its operations. To the extent these capital expenditures have a material effect on Phillips 66, they could have a material effect on our business and results of operations.

In December 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that created a second Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2). This standard requires the total volume of renewable transportation fuels (including ethanol and advanced biofuels) sold or introduced annually in the United States to rise to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The requirements could reduce future demand for petroleum products and thereby have an indirect effect on certain aspects of our business. For compliance years 2015 through 2019,2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reduced the statutory volumes of advanced and total renewable fuels using authority granted to it under the EISA. The EPA’s actions pertaining to these compliance years have been or, with respect to 2019,2020, may soon be, legally challenged.

Currently, various legislative and regulatory measures to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (including carbon dioxide, methane and other gases) are in various phases of discussion or implementation. These include existing requirements to report emissions of GHGs to the EPA, and proposed federal legislation and regulation as well as state actions to develop statewide or regional programs, each of which require or could require reductions in our GHG emissions or those of Phillips 66. In addition, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, commonly known as the Paris Agreement, entered into force on November 4, 2016. The Paris Agreement could lead to further GHG emission reduction requirements. Requiring reductions in GHG emissions could result in increased costs to (1) operate and maintain our facilities, (2) install new emission controls at our facilities and (3) administer and manage any GHG emissions programs, including acquiring emission credits or allotments. These requirements may also impact Phillips 66’s domestic refinery operations and may have an indirect effect on our business, financial condition and results of

operations. In 2017, however, the President of the United States announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. On November 4, 2019, the United States submitted formal notification of its withdrawal to the United Nations, triggering a one-year waiting period to final withdrawal.

Congress continues to consider legislation on GHG emissions, which may include a delay in the implementation of GHG regulations by the EPA or a limitation on the EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs, although the ultimate adoption and form of any federal legislation cannot presently be predicted. The impact of future regulatory and legislative developments, if adopted or enacted, including any cap-and-trade program, is likely to result in increased compliance costs, increased utility costs, additional operating restrictions on our business, and an increase in the cost of products generally. Although such costs may impact our business directly or indirectly by impacting Phillips 66’s facilities or operations, the extent and magnitude of that impact cannot be reliably or accurately estimated due to the present uncertainty regarding the additional measures and how they will be implemented.

To some extent, the environmental laws and regulations affecting our operations relate to the release of hazardous substances or solid wastes into soils, groundwater, and surface water, and include measures to control pollution of the environment. These laws generally regulate the generation, storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of solid and liquid hazardous waste. They also require corrective action, including investigation and remediation, at a facility where such waste may have been released or disposed.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which is also known as Superfund, and comparable state laws impose liability, without regard to fault or to the legality of the original conduct, on certain classes of persons that contributed to the release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the former and present owner or operator of the site where the release occurred and the transporters and generators of the hazardous substances found at the site. Under CERCLA, these persons may be subject to joint and several liabilities for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances released into the environment, for damages to natural resources, and for the costs of certain health studies. CERCLA also authorizes the EPA and, in some instances, third parties to act in response to threats to the public health or the environment and to seek to recover from the responsible classes of persons the costs they incur. It is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous substances or other pollutants released into the environment. In the course of our ordinary operations, we generate waste that falls within CERCLA’s definition of a “hazardous substance,” and, as a result, we may be jointly and severally liable under CERCLA for all or part of the costs required to clean up certain sites where we are alleged to have liability.

We also generate solid wastes, including hazardous wastes, that are subject to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and comparable state statutes. From time to time, the EPA considers the adoption of stricter disposal standards for non-hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes are subject to more rigorous and costly disposal requirements than are non-hazardous wastes. Any changes in the regulations could increase our maintenance capital expenditures and operating expenses. We continue to seek methods to minimize the generation of hazardous wastes in our operations.

We currently own and lease, and Phillips 66 has in the past owned and leased, properties where hydrocarbons are being handled or for many years have been handled. Although we utilized operating and disposal practices that were standard in the industry at the time, hydrocarbons or other waste may have been disposed of or released on or under the properties owned or leased by us or on or under other locations where these wastes have been transported for disposal. In addition,

many of these properties were operated by third parties whose treatment and disposal or release of hydrocarbons or other wastes were not under our control. These properties and wastes disposed thereon may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and analogous state laws. Under these laws, we could be required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes

Our operations can result in the discharge of pollutants, including crude oil and petroleum products. Regulations under the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act), Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) and comparable state laws impose regulatory burdens on our operations. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements of federal laws and some state laws require containment to prevent or mitigate contamination of navigable waters in the event of an oil overflow, rupture, or leak. For example, the Clean Water Act requires us to maintain SPCC plans at many of our facilities. We maintain numerous discharge permits as required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program of the Clean Water Act and have implemented systems to oversee our compliance efforts.

In addition, the transportation and storage of crude oil and petroleum products over and adjacent to water involves risk and subjects us to the provisions of OPA 90 and related state requirements. Among other requirements, OPA 90 requires the owner or operator of a vessel or a facility to maintain an emergency plan to respond to releases of oil or hazardous substances. Also, in case of any such release, OPA 90 requires the responsible entity to pay resulting removal costs and damages. OPA 90 also provides for civil penalties and imposes criminal sanctions for violations of its provisions. We operate facilities at which releases of oil and hazardous substances could occur. We have implemented emergency spill response plans for all of our components and facilities covered by OPA 90, and we have established SPCC plans for facilities subject to Clean Water Act SPCC requirements. Construction or maintenance of our pipelines, terminals and storage facilities may impact wetlands, which are also regulated under the Clean Water Act by the EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Regulatory requirements governing wetlands (including associated mitigation projects) may result in the delay of our projects while we obtain necessary permits and may increase the cost of new projects and maintenance activities.

We are subject to requirements promulgated by OSHA and comparable state statutes that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe our operations are in substantial compliance with OSHA requirements, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances.

The Endangered Species Act and its state law equivalents restrict activities that may affect endangered species or their habitats. While some of our facilities are in areas that may be designated as habitats for endangered species, we believe we are in substantial compliance with the Endangered Species Act. However, the discovery of previously unidentified endangered species could cause us to incur additional costs or become subject to operating restrictions or bans in the affected area.

The DOT regulations affecting pipeline safety require pipeline operators to implement measures designed to reduce the environmental impact of crude oil and petroleum products discharge from onshore crude oil and petroleum product pipelines. These regulations require operators to maintain comprehensive spill response plans, including extensive spill response training for pipeline personnel. In addition, the DOT regulations contain detailed specifications for pipeline operation and maintenance. We believe our operations are in substantial compliance with these regulations. The DOT also has a pipeline integrity management rule, with which we are in substantial compliance.

Under our amended omnibus agreement and pursuant to the terms of various agreements under which we acquired assets from Phillips 66, Phillips 66 will indemnify us, or assume responsibility, for certain environmental liabilities, tax liabilities, litigation and any other liabilities attributable to the ownership or operation of the assets contributed to us and that arose prior to the effective date of each acquisition. These indemnifications and exclusions from liability have, in

some cases, time limits and deductibles. When Phillips 66 performs under any of these indemnifications or exclusions from liability, we recognize non-cash expenses and associated non-cash capital contributions from our General Partner, as these are considered liabilities paid for by a principal unitholder.

Phillips 66 accounted for 96 percent, 95 percent,97%, 96%, and 95 percent95% of our total operating revenues in the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 2017 and 2016,2017, respectively. Through our wholly owned and joint venture operations, we provide crude oil, refined petroleum products and NGL pipeline transportation, terminaling and storage, and crude oil gathering, NGL fractionation, crude oil processing, and rail-unloading services to Phillips 66.

The volumes of crude oil, refined petroleum products and NGL transported in our wholly owned and joint venture pipelines, stored in our terminals, rail racks and storage facilities and processed through our fractionator and processing units are directly affected by the level of supply and demand for crude oil, refined petroleum products and NGL in the markets served directly or indirectly by our assets. The effects of seasonality on our cash flows should be substantially mitigated through the use of fee-based commercial agreements that include minimum volume commitments.

Our wholly owned pipeline systems are operated from a central control room owned and operated by Phillips 66. The control center operates with a supervisory control and data acquisition system equipped with computer systems designed to continuously monitor operational data. Monitored data includes pressures, temperatures, gravities, flow rates and alarm conditions. The control center operates remote pumps, motors and valves associated with the receipt and delivery of crude oil and refined petroleum products, and provides for the remote-controlled shutdown of pump stations on the pipeline systems. A fully functional back-up operations center is also maintained and routinely operated throughout the year to ensure safe and reliable operations.

We are managed and operated by the executive officers of our General Partner with oversight provided by its Board of Directors. Neither we nor our subsidiaries have any employees. Our General Partner has the sole responsibility for providing the employees and other personnel necessary to conduct our operations. As of December 31, 2018,2019, Phillips 66 employed approximately 600 people who provided direct support for our operations.

We derive a substantial portion of our revenue from multiple commercial agreements with Phillips 66. Any event that materially and adversely affects Phillips 66’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows may adversely affect our ability to sustain or increase cash distributions to our unitholders. Accordingly, we are indirectly subject to the operational and business risks of Phillips 66, the most significant of which include the following:

Phillips 66 is not obligated to use our services with respect to volumes of crude oil, NGL or products in excess of the minimum volume commitments under its commercial agreements with us.

Our commercial agreements and operational services agreement with Phillips 66 include provisions that permit Phillips 66 to suspend, reduce or terminate its obligations if certain events occur,occur. Examples of such asevents include Phillips 66’s determination to suspend refining operations at one of its refineries with which any of our assets are associated, either permanently or indefinitely for a period that will continue for at least twelve months. Under our commercial agreements, Phillips 66’s minimum volume commitments cover less than 100 percent100% of the operating capacity of our assets. Any reduction, suspension or termination of Phillips 66’s obligations could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our operations are subject to all of the risks and operational hazards inherent in processing, fractionating, transporting, terminaling and storing crude oil, NGL and refined petroleum products, including:

These risks could result in substantial losses due to personal injury and/or loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and equipment and pollution or other environmental damage, as well as business interruptions or shutdowns of our facilities. Any such event or unplanned shutdown could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, Phillips 66’s refining operations, on which our operations are substantially dependent, are subject to similar operational hazards and risks inherent in refining crude oil. A serious accident at our facilities or at Phillips 66’s facilities could result in serious injury or death to employees or contractors working at those facilities, and could expose us to significant liability for personal injury claims and reputational risk. We have no control over the operations at Phillips 66’s refineries and their associated facilities.

We do not maintain insurance coverage against all potential losses and could suffer losses for uninsurable or uninsured risks or in amounts in excess of existing insurance coverage. We carry separate policies for certain property damage, business interruption and third-party liabilities, which includes pollution liabilities, and are also insured under certain of Phillips 66’s liability policies and are subject to Phillips 66’s policy limits under these policies. The occurrence of an event that is not fully covered by insurance or failure by one or more insurers to honor its coverage commitments for an insured event could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In order to optimize our existing asset base, we intend to evaluate and capitalize on organic opportunities for expansion projects in order to increase revenue on our pipeline, terminal, fractionation, processing and storage systems. The expansion of an existing pipeline, terminal, fractionation, processing or storage facility, such as by adding horsepower, pump stations or loading/unloading racks, or the construction of a new pipeline, terminal, fractionator, processing or storage asset, involves numerous regulatory, environmental, political and legal uncertainties, most of which are beyond our control. If we undertake these projects, they may not be completed on schedule, at the budgeted cost, or at all.

Moreover, we may not receive sufficient long-term contractual commitments from customers to provide the revenue needed to support such projects, and we may be unable to negotiate acceptable interconnection agreements with third-party pipelines to provide destinations for increased throughput. Even if we receive such commitments or make such interconnections, we may not realize an increase in revenue for an extended period of time. As a result, new facilities may not be able to attract enough throughput to achieve our expected investment return, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and our ability in the future to make distributions to our unitholders.

A portion of our strategy to grow our business and increase distributions to our unitholders is dependent on our ability to make acquisitions that result in an increase in distributable cash flow per unit. The acquisition component of our growth strategy is based, in large part, on our expectation of ongoing divestitures of transportation and storage assets by industry participants, including Phillips 66.

Any acquisition of assets or businesses involves potential risks, including:

The expected benefits from an acquisition may not be realized if our estimates of the potential net cash flows associated with the acquisition are materially inaccurate or if we fail to identify operating problems or liabilities associated with the acquisition. The accuracy of our estimates of the potential net cash flows attributable to an acquisition is inherently uncertain. If problems are identified after closing of an acquisition, we may have limited recourse against the seller.

If any of these risks or unanticipated liabilities or costs were to materialize, any desired benefits from an acquisition may not be fully realized, if at all, and our future financial performance, results of operations and cash available for distribution could be negatively impacted.

Our facilities operate under a number of federal and state permits, licenses and approvals with terms and conditions containing a significant number of prescriptive limits and performance standards in order to operate. All of these permits, licenses, approval limits and standards require a significant amount of monitoring, record keeping and reporting in order to demonstrate compliance with the underlying permit, license, approval limit or standard. Noncompliance or incomplete documentation of our compliance status may result in the imposition of fines, penalties and injunctive relief. A decision by a government agency to deny or delay issuing a new or renewed material permit or approval, or to revoke or substantially modify an existing permit or approval, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue operations and on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We conduct some of our operations through joint ventures in which we share control with other entities in accordance with the relevant joint venture agreements.  Those agreements provide that the joint ventures, including our representatives along with representatives of the other owners, determine the amount and timing of distributions. Our joint ventures may establish separate financing arrangements that contain restrictive covenants that may limit or restrict the joint venture’s ability to make cash distributions to us under certain circumstances. Any inability to generate cash or restrictions on cash distributions we receive from our joint venture participants.  ventures could impair our results of operations, cash flows and our ability to pay cash distributions to our unitholders.

Our joint venture participants may have economic, business or legal interests or goals that are inconsistent with ours, or those of the joint venture. Without the cooperation of the other owners of the joint ventures, we may not be able to cause our joint ventures to take or not take certain actions, even though those actions or inactions may be in the best interest of us or the particular joint venture. With respect to those joint ventures where we are the operator, we can be exposed to additional risk and liability in connection with our responsibilities in that capacity.

Additionally, our joint venture participants may be unable to meet their economic or other obligations, and we may be required to fulfill those obligations alone.  If we fail to make a required capital contribution, we could be deemed to be in default under the applicable joint venture agreement. Our joint venture co-owners may be permitted to pursue a variety of remedies, including funding any deficiency resulting from our failure to make such capital contribution, which would result in a dilution of our ownership interest, or, in some cases, our joint venture co-owners may have the option to purchase all of our existing interest in the subject joint venture.

Failure by us, or an entity in which we have a joint venture interest, to adequately manage the risks associated with any acquisitions or joint ventures could have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or results of operations of our joint ventures and, in turn, our business and operations.  In addition, should any of these risks materialize, it could have a material adverse effect on the ability of the venture to make future distributions to us.

We do not own all of the land on which our operations are located, and therefore, we are subject to the possibility of more onerous terms and increased costs to retain necessary land use if we do not have valid leases or rights-of-way or if such rights-of-way lapse or terminate. We obtain the rights to construct and operate our pipelines on land owned by third parties and governmental agencies, and some of our agreements may grant us those rights for only a specific period of time. Our loss of these rights, through our inability to renew right-of-way contracts or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders.

We have exposure to direct commodity price risk through the loss allowance provisions of our regulated tariffs and senior note indenturesthe commodity imbalance provisions of our commercial agreements. Any future losses due to our commodity price risk exposure could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and our ability in the future to make distributions to our unitholders. See Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk, for more information.

Our assets and operations involve the transportation of crude oil, NGL and refined petroleum products, which are subject to increasingly stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations related to protection of the environment. These laws and regulations have raised operating costs for the crude oil, NGL and refined petroleum products industry, and compliance with such laws and regulations may cause us to incur potentially material capital expenditures.

Transportation of crude oil, NGL and refined petroleum products involves inherent risks of spills and releases from our facilities, and can subject us to various federal and state laws governing spills and releases, including reporting and remediation obligations. The costs associated with such obligations can be substantial, as can costs associated with related enforcement matters, including possible fines and penalties. Transportation of such products over water or proximate to navigable water bodies involves inherent risks and could subject us to the provisions of the OPA 90 and similar state environmental laws should a spill occur from our pipelines. We have contracted with various spill response service companies in the areas in which we transport or store crude oil and refined petroleum products; however, these companies may not be able to adequately contain a “worst case discharge” in all instances, and we cannot ensure that all of their services would be available at any given time. In these and other cases, we may be subject to liability in connection with the discharge of crude oil or petroleum products into navigable waters. We could incur potentially significant additional expenses should we determine that any of our assets are not in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Our failure to comply with these or any other environmental, safety or pipeline-related regulations could result in the assessment of administrative, civil, or criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory and remedial liabilities, and the issuance of injunctions that may subject us to additional operational constraints. Any such penalties or liability could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. Even if we are insured or indemnified against such risks, we may be responsible for costs or penalties to the extent our insurers or indemnitors do not fulfill their obligations to us. See Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties—Environmental

Potential additional laws and regulations regarding climate change could affect our operations. Currently, various U.S. legislative and regulatory agencies and bodies are considering various measures in regard to GHG emissions. These measures include EPA programs to control GHG emissions and state actions to develop statewide or regional programs, each of which could impose reductions in GHG emissions. These actions could result in increased (1) costs to operate and maintain our facilities, (2) capital expenditures to install new emission controls on our facilities and (3) costs to administer and manage any potential GHG emissions regulations or carbon trading or tax programs. These actions could also have an indirect adverse effect on our business if Phillips 66’s refinery operations are adversely affected due to increased regulation of Phillips 66’s facilities or reduced demand for crude oil, refined petroleum products and NGL, andNGL. There also could be a direct adverse effect on our business from increased regulation of our facilities. See Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties—Environmental Regulations—Air Emissions and Climate Change, for additional information.

The potential physical effects of climate change on our operations are highly uncertain and depend upon the unique geographic and environmental factors present. Examples of such effects include rising sea levels at our coastal facilities, changing storm patterns and intensities, and changing temperature levels. As many of our facilities are located near coastal areas or serve refineries in coastal areas, rising sea levels or extreme weather events may disrupt our ability to transport crude oil and refined petroleum products. Extended periods of such disruption could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. Similar potential physical effects, impacts and disruptions could affect facilities and operations of Phillips 66, with which our facilities and operations are connected.

Hydraulic fracturing is a common practice used to stimulate production of crude oil and/or natural gas from dense subsurface rock formations, and presently, is primarily regulated by state agencies. However, Congress has previously considered, and may in the future consider, legislation to empower federal agencies to regulate hydraulic fracturing.

Many states have already adopted laws and/or regulations that require disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and are considering legal requirements that could impose more stringent permitting, disclosure and well construction requirements on oil and/or natural gas drilling activities. The EPA also has adopted regulations requiring “green completions” of hydraulically fractured wells and is moving forward with, among other things, various regulations relating to certain emission requirements for some midstream equipment. We do not believe these new regulations will have a direct effect on our operations. If new or more stringent federal, state or local legal restrictions relating to such drilling activities or to the hydraulic fracturing process are adopted in areas where producers of product we ship operate, those producers could incur potentially significant added costs to comply with such requirements and experience delays or curtailment in the pursuit of production or development activities.  The producers’ added costs or delays could reduce demand for our transportation and midstream services.

Increases in fuel mileage standards and the increased use of renewable fuels could decrease demand for refined petroleum products, which could have an indirect, but material, adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, in 2007, Congress passed the EISA, which, among other things, sets a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks in the United States by model year 2020, and contains RFS2. In August 2012, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration enacted regulations establishing an average industry fleet fuel economy standard of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.2025, although these requirements were relaxed somewhat via rulemaking in 2019. RFS2 presents production and logistics challenges for both the renewable fuels and petroleum refining industries. RFS2 has required, and may in the future continue to require, additional capital expenditures or expenses by Phillips 66 to accommodate increased renewable fuels use. Phillips 66 may experience a decrease in demand for refined petroleum products due to an increase in combined fleet mileage or due to the replacement of refined petroleum products with renewable fuels.

Our pipelines, terminals, fractionator, processing and storage assets are generally long-lived assets, and many of them have been in service for many years. The age and condition of our assets could result in increased maintenance or repair expenditures in the future. Any significant increase in these expenditures could adversely affect our results of operations, financial position or cash flows, as well as our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders.

Terrorist attacks and threats, cyber attacks, or escalation of military activity in response to these attacks may have significant effects on general economic conditions, fluctuations in consumer confidence and spending and market liquidity, each of which could materially and adversely affect our business. Strategic targets, such as energy-related assets and transportation assets, may be at greater risk of future terrorist or cyber attacks than other targets in the United States.

Additionally, we rely on the information technology infrastructure of Phillips 66 to conduct our operations. The systems and networks we rely on, as well as those of our vendors and counterparties, may become the target of cyber attacks or information security breaches, which in turn could result in the unauthorized release and misuse of confidential or proprietary information as well as disruptdisruption of our operations or damage to our facilities. Additionally, as cyber incidents continue to evolve and escalate, we may be required to reimburse Phillips 66 for additional costs incurred associated with the modification or enhancement of systems or networks that directly serve our operations in order to

prevent or remediate such attacks. We do not maintain specialized insurance for possible liability or loss resulting from a cyber attack on our assets that may shut down all or part of our business. It is possible that any of these occurrences, or a combination of them, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The DOT, through its PHMSA, has adopted regulations requiring, among other things, pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs for transmission pipelines located where a leak or rupture could harm HCAs. The regulations require operators, including us, to, among other matters, perform ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity; repair and remediate pipelines as necessary; and implement preventative and mitigating actions. PHMSA is considering whether to revise the integrity management requirements or to include additional pipelines in HCAs, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and costs of transportation services.

Although some of our facilities fall within a class that is currently not subject to these requirements, we may incur significant costs and liabilities associated with repair, remediation, preventative or mitigation measures associated with our non-exempt pipelines. We have not estimated the costs for any repair, remediation, preventative or mitigating actions that may be determined to be necessary as a result of these safety regulations, which could be substantial, or any lost cash flows resulting from shutting down our pipelines during the pendency of such repairs. Additionally, should we fail to comply with the DOT or comparable state regulations, we could be subject to penalties and fines.

Certain of our pipelines provide interstate service that is subject to regulation by FERC. FERC uses prescribed rate methodologies to develop regulated tariff rates for interstate oil and product pipelines. Our tariff rates approved by FERC may not recover all of our costs of providing services. In addition, these methodologies and changes to FERC’s approved rate methodologies, or challenges to our application of an approved methodology, could also adversely affect our rates.

Shippers may protest (and FERC may investigate) the lawfulness of new or changed tariff rates. FERC can suspend those tariff rates for up to seven months and can also require refunds of amounts collected pursuant to rates that are ultimately found to be unlawful and prescribe new rates prospectively. FERC and interested parties can also challenge tariff rates that have become final and effective. Under our existing commercial agreements, Phillips 66 has agreed not to challenge, or to cause others to challenge or assist others in challenging, our tariff rates in effect during the term of the agreements, except to the extent changes to the base tariff rate are inconsistent with FERC’s indexing methodology or other rate changing methodologies. This agreement does not prevent other shippers or interested persons from challenging our tariffs, including our tariff rates and proration rules. Due to the complexity of rate making, the lawfulness of any rate is never assured. A successful challenge of our rates could adversely affect our revenues and our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our pipelines are common carriers and, as a consequence, we may be required to provide service to customers with credit and other performance characteristics with whom we would otherwise choose not to do business.

Certain of our pipelines provide intrastate service that is subject to regulation by various state agencies. These state agencies could limit our ability to increase our rates or to set rates based on our costs or could order us to reduce our rates and could require the payment of refunds to shippers. Such regulation or a successful challenge to our intrastate pipeline rates could adversely affect our financial position, cash flows or results of operations. See Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties—Rates and Safety Regulations, for additional information.

Our partnership agreement requires that we distribute all of our available cash to our unitholders. As a result, we expect to primarily rely upon external financing sources, including related-party financing from Phillips 66, borrowings under our revolving credit facility and future issuances of equity and debt securities, to fund our acquisitions and expansion capital expenditures. Therefore, to the extent we are unable to finance our growth externally, our cash distribution policy may significantly impair our ability to grow. In addition, because we will distribute all of our available cash, our growth may not be as fast as that of businesses that reinvest their available cash to expand ongoing operations. To the extent we issue additional units in connection with any acquisitions or expansion capital expenditures, the payment of distributions on those additional units may increase the risk that we will be unable to maintain or increase our per unit distribution level. There are no limitations in our partnership agreement on our ability to issue additional units, including units ranking senior to our common units as to distributions or in liquidation or that have special voting rights and other rights, and our unitholders will have no preemptive or other rights (solely as a result of their status as unitholders) to purchase any such additional units. Additional commercial borrowings or other debt to finance our growth strategy would result in increased interest expense, which, in turn, may reduce the amount of cash that we have available to distribute to our unitholders.

TheOur partnership agreement permits the general partnerour General Partner to reduce available cash by establishing cash reserves for the proper conduct of our business, to comply with applicable law or agreements to which we are a party, or to provide funds for future distributions to partners. These cash reserves will affect the amount of cash we have available to distribute to our unitholders.

Neither our partnership agreement nor our amended omnibus agreement prohibits Phillips 66 or any other affiliates of our General Partner, including DCP Midstream and CPChem, from owning assets or engaging in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. Under the terms of our partnership agreement, the doctrine of corporate opportunity, or any analogous doctrine, does not apply to our General Partner or any of its affiliates, including Phillips 66, DCP Midstream and CPChem. Any such entity that becomes aware of a potential transaction, agreement, arrangement or other matter that may be an opportunity for us does not have any duty to communicate or offer such opportunity to us. Consequently, Phillips 66 and other affiliates of our General Partner, including DCP Midstream and CPChem, may acquire, construct or dispose of additional midstream assets in the future without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to purchase any of those assets. As a result, competition from Phillips 66 and other affiliates of our General Partner, including DCP Midstream and CPChem, could materially and adversely impact our results of operations and distributable cash flow.

Delaware law provides that Delaware limited partnerships may, in their partnership agreements, expand, restrict or eliminate the fiduciary duties otherwise owed by the general partner to limited partners and the partnership, provided that partnership agreements may not eliminate the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This implied covenant is a judicial doctrine utilized by Delaware courts in connection with interpreting ambiguities in partnership agreements and other contracts, and does not form the basis of any separate or independent fiduciary duty in addition to the express contractual duties set forth in our partnership agreement. Under the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a court will enforce the reasonable expectations of the partners where the language in the partnership agreement does not provide for a clear course of action.

As permitted by Delaware law, our partnership agreement contains provisions that eliminate the fiduciary standards to which our General Partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law and replaces those duties with several different contractual standards. 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, free of any duties to us and our unitholders other than the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This provision entitles our General Partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires and relieves it of any duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or our limited partners. By purchasing a common unit, a unitholder is treated as having consented to the provisions in our partnership agreement, including the provisions discussed above.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that restrict the remedies available to unitholders for actions taken by our General Partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty under state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement:

In connection with a situation involving a transaction with an affiliate or a conflict of interest, our partnership agreement provides that any determination by our General Partner must be made in good faith, and that our Conflicts Committee and the Board of Directors of our General Partner are entitled to a presumption that they acted in good faith. In any proceeding brought by or on behalf of any limited partner or the partnership, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption.

Under our partnership agreement, we are required to reimburse our General Partner and its affiliates for all costs and expenses that they incur on our behalf for managing and controlling our business and operations. Except to the extent specified under our amended omnibus agreement, amended and restated operational services agreement and tax sharing agreement, our General Partner determines the amount of these expenses. Under the terms of the amended omnibus agreement we will be required to reimburse Phillips 66 for the provision of certain operational and administrative support services to us. Under our amended and restated operational services agreement, we will be required to reimburse Phillips 66 for the provision of certain maintenance, operating, administrative and construction services in support of our operations. Under our tax sharing agreement, we will reimburse Phillips 66 for our share of state and local income and other taxes that are incurred by Phillips 66 due to our results of operations being included in a combined or consolidated tax return filed by Phillips 66. Our General Partner and its affiliates also may provide us other services for which we will be charged fees as determined by our General Partner. The costs and expenses for which we are required to reimburse our General Partner and its affiliates are not subject to any caps or other limits. Payments to our General Partner and its affiliates will be substantial and will reduce the amount of cash we have available to distribute to unitholders.

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and, therefore, limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. For example, unlike

ability to remove our General Partner. As a result of these limitations, the price at which our common units trade could be diminished because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

Unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by the partnership agreement provision providing that any units held by a person that owns 20 percent20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our General Partner, 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 General Partner may transfer its general partner units to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of the unitholders. Furthermore, thereThere is no restriction in our partnership agreement on the ability of Phillips 66 to transfer its membership interest in our General Partner to a third party. The new owner 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.

At any time, we may issue an unlimited number of general partner interests or limited partner interests of any type without the approval of our unitholders and our unitholders will have no preemptive or other rights (solely as a result of their status as unitholders) to purchase any such general partner interests or limited partner interests. Further, there are no limitations in our partnership agreement on our ability to issue equity securities that rank equal or senior to our common units as to distributions or in liquidation or that have special voting rights and other rights. The issuance by us of additional common units or other equity securities of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:

The issuance by us of additional general partner interests may have the following effects, among others, if such general partner interests are issued to a person who is not an affiliate of Phillips 66:

At December 31, 2018,2019, Phillips 66, through Phillips 66 PDI, held 68,760,137169,760,137 common units. We have agreed to provide Phillips 66 with certain registration rights under applicable securities laws. The sale of these units in the public or private markets could have an adverse impact on the price of the common units or on any trading market that may develop.

If at any time our General Partner and its affiliates own more than 80 percent80% of our then-outstanding common units, our General Partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than their then-current market price. As a result, unitholders may be required to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their units. Our General Partner and its affiliates owned approximately 55 percent74% of our total outstanding common units, and approximately 70% of our total outstanding common units and Series A preferred units (on an as-converted basis) in the aggregate, as of December 31, 2018. Including Series A preferred units on an as-converted basis, our General Partner would own 50 percent of our common units in aggregate at December 31, 2018.2019.

In order to avoid (1) any material adverse effect on the maximum applicable rates that can be charged to customers by our subsidiaries on assets that are subject to rate regulation by FERC or any analogous regulatory body, and (2) any substantial risk of cancellation or forfeiture of any property, including any governmental permit, endorsement or other authorization, in which we have an interest, we have adopted certain requirements regarding those investors who may own our common units. Citizenship eligible holders are individuals or entities whose nationality, citizenship or other related status does not create a substantial risk of cancellation or forfeiture of any property, including any governmental permit, endorsement or authorization, in which we have an interest, and will generally include individuals and entities who are U.S. citizens. Rate eligible holders are individuals or entities subject to U.S. federal income taxation on the income generated by us or entities not subject to U.S. federal income taxation on the income generated by us, so long as all of the entity’s owners are subject to such taxation. If a unitholder does not meet the requirements to be a citizenship eligible holder and a rate eligible holder runs the risk of having its units redeemed by us at the market price as of the date three days before the date the notice of redemption is mailed. The redemption price will be paid in cash or by delivery of a promissory note, as determined by our General Partner. In addition, a unitholder who does not meet the requirements to be a citizenship eligible holder will not be entitled to voting rights.

Similar to other yield-oriented securities, our common unit price is impacted by our level of distributions and the implied distribution yield of our common units. The distribution yield is often utilized by investors to compare and rank yield-oriented securities for investment decision-making purposes. Therefore, changes in interest rates, either positivelypositive or negatively,negative, may affect the yield requirements of investors who invest in our units, and a rising interest rate environment could have an adverse impact on the price of our common units, our ability to issue equity, or our ability to make distributions at our intended levels.

We currently list our common units on the NYSE under the symbol PSXP. Because we are a publicly traded limited partnership, the NYSE does not require us to have a majority of independent directors on our General Partner’s Board of Directors or to establish a compensation committee or a nominating and corporate governance committee. Additionally, any future issuance of additional common units or other securities, including to affiliates, will not be subject to the NYSE’s shareholder approval rules that apply to a corporation. Accordingly, unitholders do not have the same

protections afforded to certain corporations that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements. See Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance, for additional information.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in the common units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not requested a ruling from the IRS on this or any other tax matter affecting us.

Despite the fact thatAlthough we are a limited partnership under Delaware law, it is possible in certain circumstances for a partnership such as ours to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. A change in our business 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, which is currently a maximum of 21 percent,21%, and would likely pay state and local income tax at varying rates. Distributions would generally be taxable to the unitholder as corporate dividends (to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits), and no income, gains, losses, deductions, or credits would flow through to unitholders. BecauseIf a tax would beis imposed upon us as a corporation, our distributable cash flow would be substantially reduced. In addition, changes in current state law may subject us to additional entity-level taxation by individual states. Several states are evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. Imposition of any such taxes may substantially reduce the cash available for distribution to unitholders. Therefore, if we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subjected to a material amount of entity-level taxation, there would be 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.

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, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution levels may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us.

The present federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial interpretation at any time. For example, from time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships. Any modification to the federal income tax laws and interpretations thereof may or may not be retroactively applied and could make it more difficult or impossible to meet the exception for us to be treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any such changes will ultimately be enacted. However, it is possible that a change in law could affect us, and any such changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.

We have not requested a ruling from the IRS with respect to our treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes or any other matter affecting us. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions we take, and the IRS’s positions may ultimately be sustained. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of the positions we take and such positions may not ultimately be sustained. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we take. Any contest with the IRS, and the outcome of any IRS contest, may have a materially adverse impact on the market for our common units and the price at which they trade. In addition, our costs of

any contest with the IRS will be borne indirectly by our unitholders and our General Partner because the costs will reduce our distributable cash flow.

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, if the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns for tax years beginning after 2017, it may collect any resulting taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly from us. We will generally have the ability to shift any such tax liability to our General Partner and our unitholders in accordance with their interests in us during the year under audit, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so under all circumstances. If we are required to make payments of taxes, penalties and interest resulting from audit adjustments, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced.

Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common units and because of other reasons, we adopt depreciation and amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations. A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to unitholders. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of our common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction for federal income tax purposes between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first business day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge aspects of our proration method, and, if successful, we would be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

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.

A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the amount, character and timing 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.

Upon the sale, exchange or other disposition of a unit by a foreign unitholder, the transferee is generally required to withhold 10 percent10% of the amount realized on such sale, exchange or other disposition if any portion of the gain on such sale,

exchange or other disposition would be treated as effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. If the transferee fails to satisfy this withholding requirement, we will be required to deduct and withhold such amount (plus interest) from future distributions to the transferee. Because the “amount realized” would include a unitholder’s share of our nonrecourse liabilities, 10 percent10% of the amount realized could exceed the total cash purchase price for such disposed units. Due to this fact, our inability to match transferors and transferees of units, and other uncertainty surrounding the application of these withholding rules, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS have currently suspended these rules for transfers of certain publicly traded partnership interests, including transfers of our units, until regulations or other guidance hashave been issued. It is unclear when such regulations or other guidance will be issued.

Although we may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business, we are not a party to any reportable litigation or governmental or other proceeding, including those involving governmental authorities under federal, state and local laws regulating the discharge of materials into the environment, that we believe will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position.  In addition, as discussed in Note 14—13—Contingencies, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, under our amended omnibus agreement, and pursuant to the terms of various agreements under which we acquired assets from Phillips 66, Phillips 66 indemnifies us or assumes responsibility for certain liabilities relating to litigation and environmental matters attributable to the ownership or operation of our assets prior to their contribution to us from Phillips 66.

Our common units trade on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol PSXP. At January 31, 2019,2020, there were 12 unitholders of record of our common units. In determining the number of unitholders, we consider clearing agencies and security position listings as one unitholder for each agency or listing.

Our partnership agreement requires that, within 45 days after the end of each quarter, we distribute all of our “available cash” to unitholders of record on the applicable record date.

 

The following table presents selected financial data as of and for each of the five years in the period ended December 31, 2018.2019. To ensure full understanding, the selected financial data presented below should be read in conjunction with Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Acquisitions from Phillips 66 are considered common control transactions. When businesses are acquired from Phillips 66 and consolidated by us, the financial information contained in the table below for periods prior to the acquisition date is retrospectively adjusted to include the historical financial results of the businesses acquired. When an asset or an investment accounted for by the equity method is acquired from Phillips 66, the financial information in the table below includes the results of those investments or assets prospectively from the date of acquisition.

See Note 4—Acquisitions and Note 5—6—Equity Investments and Loans, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, for information on our acquisitions, including those that were common control transactions, that affect the comparability of the information below.