ITEM 1A. Risk Factors

As described in Part I (“Disclosure Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”), this report contains forward-looking statements regarding us, our business and our industry. The risk factors described below, among others, could cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements. If any of the following risks were to materialize, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In that case, we might not be able to continue to pay our current quarterly distribution on our common units or increase the level of such distributions in the future, and the trading price of our common units could decline.

Risks Related to Our Business

We may not have sufficient cash from operations following the establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including cost reimbursements to the General Partner, to enable us to make cash distributions on our common units at the current level.

In order to make cash distributions at our current distribution rate of $0.525 per common unit per quarter, or $2.10 per common unit per year, we will require available cash of $47.2 million per quarter, or $189.0 million per year, based on the number of common units outstanding as of February 14, 2019.  In addition, each Class B Unit will automatically convert to one common unit of the Partnership following the record date attributable to the quarter ending June 30, 2019. Distributions on the newly converted Class B Units will require additional available cash of $3.4 million per quarter, or $13.4 million per year at our current distribution rate.

Furthermore, the Partnership Agreement prohibits us from paying distributions on our common units unless we have first paid the quarterly distribution on the Preferred Units, including any previously accrued but unpaid distributions on the Preferred Units. The Preferred Unit distributions require $12.2 million quarterly, or $48.8 million annually, based on the number of Preferred Units outstanding and the distribution rate of $24.375 per Preferred Unit per quarter, or $97.50 per Preferred Unit per year.

Under our cash distribution policy, the amount of cash we can distribute to our unitholders principally depends upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which will fluctuate from quarter to quarter based on, among other things:

In addition, the actual amount of cash we will have available for distribution will depend on other factors, including:

A long-term reduction in the demand for, or production of, natural gas or crude oil could adversely affect the demand for our services or the prices we charge for our services, which could result in a decrease in our revenues and cash available for distribution to unitholders.

The demand for our compression services depends upon the continued demand for, and production of, natural gas and crude oil. Demand may be affected by, among other factors, natural gas prices, crude oil prices, weather, availability of alternative energy sources, governmental regulation and the overall demand for energy. Any prolonged, substantial reduction in the demand for natural gas or crude oil would likely depress the level of production activity and result in a decline in the demand for our compression services, which could result in a reduction in our revenues and our cash available for distribution.

In particular, lower natural gas or crude oil prices over the long term could result in a decline in the production of natural gas or crude oil, respectively, resulting in reduced demand for our compression services. For example, the North American rig count, as measured by Baker Hughes, hit a 2014 peak of 1,931 rigs on September 12, 2014, and at that time, Henry Hub natural gas spot prices were $3.82 per MMBtu and West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) crude oil spot prices were $92.18 per barrel. By contrast, the North American rig count hit a modern low of 404 rigs on May 20, 2016, and at that time, Henry Hub natural gas spot prices were $1.81 per MMBtu and WTI crude oil spot prices were $47.67 per barrel. This slowdown in new drilling activity caused some pressure on service rates for new and existing services and contributed to a decline in our utilization during 2015 and into 2016. By the end of December 2018, the North American rig count was 1,083 rigs, the price of WTI crude oil was  $45.15 per barrel and Henry Hub natural gas spot prices were $3.25 per MMBtu. Although commodity prices and our utilization generally increased during 2016, 2017 and 2018, the increased activity resulting from such increased commodity prices may not continue. In addition, a small portion of our fleet is used in gas lift applications in connection with crude oil production using horizontal drilling techniques. During the period of low crude oil prices, we experienced pressure on service rates from our customers in gas lift applications; if commodity prices decline from current levels, we may again experience pressure on service rates.  

Additionally, an increasing percentage of natural gas and crude oil production comes from unconventional sources, such as shales, tight sands and coalbeds. Such sources can be less economically feasible to produce in low commodity price environments, in part due to costs related to compression requirements, and a reduction in demand for natural gas or gas lift for crude oil may cause such sources of natural gas or crude oil to become uneconomic to drill and produce, which could in turn negatively impact the demand for our services. Further, if demand for our services decreases, we may be asked to renegotiate our service contracts at lower rates. In addition, governmental regulation and tax policy may impact the demand for natural gas or crude oil or impact the economic feasibility of the development of new fields or production of existing fields, which are important components of our ability to expand.

We have several key customers. The loss of any of these customers would result in a decrease in our revenues and cash available for distribution.

We provide compression services under contracts with several key customers. The loss of one of these key customers may have a greater effect on our financial results than for a company with a more diverse customer base. Our

ten largest customers accounted for approximately 33% and 43% of our revenue for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The loss of all or even a portion of the compression services we provide to our key customers, as a result of competition or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash available for distribution. 

The deterioration of the financial condition of our customers could adversely affect our business.

During times when the natural gas or crude oil markets weaken, our customers are more likely to experience financial difficulties, including being unable to access debt or equity financing, which could result in a reduction in our customers’ spending for our services. For example, our customers could seek to preserve capital by using lower cost providers, not renewing month-to-month contracts or determining not to enter into any new compression service contracts. A significant decline in commodity prices may cause certain of our customers to reconsider their near-term capital budgets, which may impact large-scale natural gas infrastructure and crude oil production activities. Reduced demand for our services could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

We are exposed to counterparty credit risk. Nonpayment and nonperformance by our customers, suppliers or vendors could reduce our revenues, increase our expenses and otherwise have a negative impact on our ability to conduct our business, operating results, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Weak economic conditions and widespread financial distress could reduce the liquidity of our customers, suppliers or vendors, making it more difficult for them to meet their obligations to us. We are therefore subject to risks of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers. Severe financial problems encountered by our customers could limit our ability to collect amounts owed to us, or to enforce the performance of obligations owed to us under contractual arrangements. In the event that any of our customers was to enter into bankruptcy, we could lose all or a portion of the amounts owed to us by such customer, and we may be forced to cancel all or a portion of our service contracts with such customer at significant expense to us.

In addition, nonperformance by suppliers or vendors who have committed to provide us with critical products or services could raise our costs or interfere with our ability to successfully conduct our business.

We face significant competition that may cause us to lose market share and reduce our cash available for distribution.

The natural gas compression business is highly competitive. Some of our competitors have a broader geographic scope and greater financial and other resources than we do. Our ability to renew or replace existing contracts with our customers at rates sufficient to maintain current revenue and cash flows could be adversely affected by the activities of our competitors and our customers. If our competitors substantially increase the resources they devote to the development and marketing of competitive services or substantially decrease the prices at which they offer their services, we may be unable to compete effectively. Some of these competitors may expand or construct newer, more powerful or more flexible compression fleets, which would create additional competition for us. All of these competitive pressures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash available for distribution.

Our customers may choose to vertically integrate their operations by purchasing and operating their own compression fleet, increasing the number of compression units they currently own or using alternative technologies for enhancing crude oil production.

Our customers that are significant producers, processors, gatherers and transporters of natural gas and crude oil may choose to vertically integrate their operations by purchasing and operating their own compression fleets in lieu of using our compression services. The historical availability of attractive financing terms from financial institutions and equipment manufacturers facilitates this possibility by making the purchase of individual compression units increasingly affordable to our customers. In addition, there are many technologies available for the artificial enhancement of crude oil production, and our customers may elect to use these alternative technologies instead of the gas lift compression services we provide. Such vertical integration, increases in vertical integration or use of alternative technologies could result in

decreased demand for our compression services, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and reduce our cash available for distribution.

A significant portion of our services are provided to customers on a month-to-month basis, and we cannot be sure that such customers will continue to utilize our services.

Our contracts typically have an initial term of between six months and five years, depending on the application and location of the compression unit. After the expiration of the initial term, the contract continues on a month-to-month or longer basis until terminated by us or our customers upon notice as provided for in the applicable contract. As of December 31, 2018, approximately 47% of our compression services on a revenue basis were provided on a month-to-month basis to customers who continue to utilize our services following expiration of the primary term of their contracts. These customers can generally terminate their month-to-month compression services contracts on 30 days’ written notice. If a significant number of these customers were to terminate their month-to-month services, or attempt to renegotiate their month-to-month contracts at substantially lower rates, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash available for distribution. 

We may be unable to grow our cash flows if we are unable to expand our business, which could limit our ability to maintain or increase the level of distributions to our common unitholders.

A principal focus of our strategy is to increase our per common unit distribution by expanding our business over time. Our future growth will depend upon a number of factors, some of which we cannot control. These factors include our ability to:

If we do not achieve our expected growth, we may not be able to maintain or increase the level of distributions on our common units, in which event the market price of our common units will likely decline.

We may be unable to grow successfully through acquisitions, which may negatively impact our operations and limit our ability to maintain or increase the level of distributions on our common units.

From time to time, we may choose to make business acquisitions, such as the CDM Acquisition, to pursue market opportunities, increase our existing capabilities and expand into new geographic areas of operations. While we have reviewed acquisition opportunities in the past and will continue to do so in the future, we may not be able to identify attractive acquisition opportunities or successfully acquire identified targets.

Any acquisitions we do complete may require us to issue a substantial amount of equity or incur a substantial amount of indebtedness. If we consummate any future material acquisitions, our capitalization may change significantly,

and unitholders will not have the opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and other relevant information that we will consider in connection with any future acquisition. Furthermore, competition for acquisition opportunities may escalate, increasing our costs of pursuing acquisitions or causing us to refrain from making acquisitions.

Also, our reviews of proposed business or asset acquisitions are inherently imperfect because it is generally not feasible to perform an in-depth review of each such proposal given time constraints imposed by sellers. Even if performed, a detailed review of assets and businesses may not reveal existing or potential problems, and may not provide sufficient familiarity with such business or assets to fully assess their deficiencies and potential. Inspections may not be performed on every asset, and environmental problems, such as groundwater contamination, may not be observable even when an inspection is undertaken.

Integration of assets acquired in past acquisitions or future acquisitions with our existing business can be a complex, time-consuming and costly process, particularly in the case of material acquisitions such as the CDM Acquisition, which significantly increased our size and expanded the geographic areas in which we operate. A failure to successfully integrate the acquired assets with our existing business in a timely manner may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

The difficulties of integrating past and future acquisitions with our business include, among other things:

If any of these risks or other unanticipated liabilities or costs were to materialize, we may not realize the desired benefits from past and future acquisitions, resulting in a negative impact on our results of operations. For example, subsequent to the CDM Acquisition the attrition rate of specialized field technicians exceeded our projections and, as a result, we incurred unanticipated costs to utilize third-party contractors to service our compression units at a greater cost than we would have incurred to compensate employees to perform the same work.

We may not be successful in integrating acquisitions, including the CDM Acquisition, into our existing operations within our anticipated timeframe, which may result in unforeseen operational difficulties or diminished financial performance or require a disproportionate amount of our management’s attention. In addition, acquired assets may perform at levels below the forecasts used to evaluate their acquisition, due to factors beyond our control. If the acquired assets perform at levels below the forecasts, then our future results of operations could be negatively impacted.

Our ability to fund purchases of additional compression units and complete acquisitions in the future is dependent on our ability to access external expansion capital.

The Partnership Agreement requires us to distribute all of our available cash to our unitholders (excluding prudent operating reserves). We expect that we will rely primarily upon cash generated by operating activities and, where necessary, borrowings under the Credit Agreement and the issuance of debt and equity securities, to fund expansion capital expenditures. However, we may not be able to obtain equity or debt financing on terms favorable to us or at all. To the extent we are unable to efficiently finance growth through external sources, our ability to maintain or increase the level of distributions on our common units could be significantly impaired. In addition, because we distribute all of our available cash, excluding prudent operating reserves, we may not grow as quickly as businesses that are able to reinvest their available cash to expand ongoing operations.

There are no limitations in the Partnership Agreement on our ability to issue additional equity securities, including securities ranking senior to the common units, subject to certain restrictions in the Partnership Agreement limiting our ability to issue units senior to or pari passu with the Preferred Units. To the extent we issue additional equity securities, including common units and preferred units, the payment of distributions on those additional securities may increase the risk that we will be unable to maintain or increase our per common unit distribution level. Similarly, our incurrence of borrowings or other debt to finance our growth strategy would increase our interest expense, which in turn would decrease our cash available for distribution.

Our debt level may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional financing, pursuing other business opportunities and paying distributions.

The Credit Agreement is a $1.6 billion revolving credit facility that matures in April 2023. In addition, we have the option to increase the amount of total commitments under the Credit Agreement by up to $400.0 million, subject to receipt of lender commitments and satisfaction of other conditions. As of December 31, 2018, we had outstanding borrowings under the Credit Agreement of $1.1 billion and a leverage ratio of 4.33x, borrowing base availability (based on our borrowing base) of $550.5 million and, subject to compliance with the applicable financial covenants, available borrowing capacity under the Credit Agreement of $550.5 million. Financial covenants in the Credit Agreement permit a maximum leverage ratio of (A) 5.75 to 1.0 through the end of the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2019, (B) 5.50 to 1.0 through the end of the fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2019 and (C) 5.00 to 1.0 thereafter . As of February 14, 2019, we had outstanding borrowings under the Credit Agreement of $1.1 billion. 

Our ability to incur additional debt is also subject to limitations in the Credit Agreement, including certain financial covenants. Our level of debt could have important consequences to us, including the following:

Additionally, in March 2018, the Issuers co-issued $725.0 million of Senior Notes. The Senior Notes mature in 2026 and accrue interest at the rate of 6.875% per year. Interest on the Senior Notes is payable semiannually in arrears on April 1 and October 1.

Our ability to service our debt will depend upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. In addition, our ability to service our debt under the Credit Agreement could be impacted by market interest rates, as all of our outstanding borrowings under the Credit Agreement are subject to variable interest rates that fluctuate with changes in market interest rates. A substantial increase in the interest rates

applicable to our outstanding borrowings could have a material negative impact on our cash available for distribution. If our operating results are not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we could be forced to take actions such as reducing the level of distributions on our common units, curtailing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions, investments or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our debt or seeking additional equity capital. We may be unable to effect any of these actions on terms satisfactory to us or at all.

The terms of the Credit Agreement and the Indenture restrict our current and future operations, particularly our ability to respond to changes or to take certain actions, may limit our ability to pay distributions and may limit our ability to capitalize on acquisitions and other business opportunities.

The Credit Agreement and the Indenture governing the Senior Notes contain a number of restrictive covenants that impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us and may limit our ability to engage in acts that may be in our long-term best interest, including restrictions on our ability to:

In addition, the Credit Agreement contains certain operating and financial covenants and requires us to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy other financial condition tests. Our ability to comply with those covenants and meet those financial ratios and tests can be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other conditions deteriorate, our ability to comply with these covenants may be impaired.

A breach of the covenants or restrictions under the Credit Agreement or the Indenture could result in an event of default, in which case a significant portion of our indebtedness may become immediately due and payable and any other debt to which a cross-acceleration or cross-default provision applies may also be accelerated, our lenders’ commitment to make further loans to us may terminate, and we may be prohibited from making distributions to our unitholders. We might not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to make these accelerated payments. If we were unable to repay amounts due and payable under the Credit Agreement, those lenders could proceed against the collateral securing that indebtedness. We may not be able to replace the Credit Agreement, or if we are, any subsequent replacement of the Credit Agreement or any new indebtedness could be equally or more restrictive.

These restrictions may negatively affect our ability to grow in accordance with our strategy. In addition, our financial results, substantial indebtedness and credit ratings could adversely affect the availability and terms of our

financing. Please read Part II, Item 7 (“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Revolving Credit Facility and— Senior Notes”).

The Preferred Units have rights, preferences and privileges that are not held by, and are preferential to the rights of, holders of our common units.

The Preferred Units rank senior to all of our other classes or series of equity securities with respect to distribution rights and rights upon liquidation. These preferences could adversely affect the market price for our common units, or could make it more difficult for us to sell our common units in the future.

In addition, distributions on the Preferred Units accrue and are cumulative, at the rate of 9.75% per annum on the original issue price, which amounts to a quarterly distribution of $24.375 per Preferred Unit. If we do not pay the required distributions on the Preferred Units, we will be unable to pay distributions on our common units. Additionally, because distributions on the Preferred Units are cumulative, we will have to pay all unpaid accumulated distributions on the Preferred Units before we can pay any distributions on our common units. Also, because distributions on our common units are not cumulative, if we do not pay distributions on our common units with respect to any quarter, our common unitholders will not be entitled to receive distributions covering any prior periods if we later recommence paying distributions on our common units.

The Preferred Units are convertible into common units by the holders of the Preferred Units or by us in certain circumstances. Our obligation to pay distributions on the Preferred Units, or on the common units issued following the conversion of the Preferred Units, could impact our liquidity and reduce the amount of cash flow available for working capital, capital expenditures, growth opportunities, acquisitions, and other general Partnership purposes. Our obligations to the holders of the Preferred Units could also limit our ability to obtain additional financing or increase our borrowing costs, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. See Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements.

Restrictions in the Partnership Agreement related to the Preferred Units may limit our ability to make distributions to our common unitholders and our ability to capitalize on acquisition and other business opportunities.

The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in the Partnership Agreement related to the Preferred Units could restrict our ability to finance future operations or capital needs or to expand or pursue our business activities. The Partnership Agreement restricts or limits our ability (subject to certain exceptions) to:

A prolonged downturn in the economic environment could cause an impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets and reduce our earnings.

We have recorded $619.4 million of goodwill and $392.6 million of other intangible assets as of December 31, 2018. Goodwill is recorded when the purchase price of a business exceeds the fair market value of the tangible and separately measurable intangible net assets. Generally accepted accounting principles of the United States (“GAAP”) requires us to test goodwill for impairment on an annual basis or when events or circumstances occur indicating that goodwill might be impaired. Any event that causes a reduction in demand for our services could result in a reduction of

our estimates of future cash flows and growth rates in our business. These events could cause us to record impairments of goodwill or other intangible assets.

If we determine that any of our goodwill or other intangible assets are impaired, we will be required to take an immediate charge to earnings with a corresponding reduction of partners’ capital resulting in an increase in balance sheet leverage as measured by debt to total capitalization. For example, for the year ended December 31, 2017, the USA Compression Predecessor recognized a $223.0 million impairment of goodwill (see Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements).

Impairment in the carrying value of long-lived assets could reduce our earnings.

We have a significant number of long-lived assets on our consolidated balance sheet. Under GAAP, we are required to review our long-lived assets for impairment when events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value of such assets may not be recoverable or such assets will no longer be utilized in the operating fleet. The carrying value of a long-lived asset is not recoverable if it exceeds the sum of the undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset. If business conditions or other factors cause the expected undiscounted cash flows to decline, we may be required to record non-cash impairment charges. Events and conditions that could result in impairment in the value of our long-lived assets include changes in the industry in which we operate, competition, advances in technology, adverse changes in the regulatory environment, or other factors leading to a reduction in our expected long-term profitability. For example, during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, we evaluated the future deployment of our idle fleet under then-current market conditions and determined to retire and re-utilize key components of 103 compressor units, or approximately 33,000 horsepower, that were previously used to provide services in our business. As a result, we recognized impairments of $8.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2018.  The USA Compression Predecessor did not recognize any impairment of long-lived assets during the years ended December 31, 2017 or 2016.

Our ability to manage and grow our business effectively may be adversely affected if we lose key management or operational personnel.

We depend on the continuing efforts of our executive officers and the departure of any of our executive officers could have a significant negative effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and on our ability to compete effectively in the marketplace.

Additionally, our ability to hire, train and retain qualified personnel will continue to be important and could become more challenging as we grow and to the extent energy industry market conditions are competitive. When general industry conditions are favorable, the competition for experienced operational and field technicians increases as other energy and manufacturing companies’ needs for the same personnel increases. Our ability to grow or even to continue our current level of service to our current customers could be adversely impacted if we are unable to successfully hire, train and retain these important personnel.

We depend on a limited number of suppliers and are vulnerable to product shortages and price increases, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations.

The substantial majority of the components for our natural gas compression equipment are supplied by Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Inc. and Arrow Engine Company for engines, Air-X-Changers and Alfa Laval (US) for coolers, and Ariel Corporation, GE Oil & Gas Gemini products and Arrow Engine Company for compressor frames and cylinders.  Our reliance on these suppliers involves several risks, including price increases and a potential inability to obtain an adequate supply of required components in a timely manner. We also rely primarily on four vendors, A G Equipment Company, Alegacy Equipment, LLC, Standard Equipment Corp. and Genis Holdings LLC, to package and assemble our compression units. We do not have long-term contracts with these suppliers or packagers, and a partial or complete loss of any of these sources could have a negative impact on our results of operations and could damage our customer relationships. Some of these suppliers manufacture the components we purchase in a single facility, and any damage to that facility could lead to significant delays in delivery of completed compression units to us. 

We are subject to substantial environmental regulation, and changes in these regulations could increase our costs or liabilities.

We are subject to stringent and complex federal, state and local laws and regulations, including laws and regulations regarding the discharge of materials into the environment, emissions controls and other environmental protection and occupational health and safety concerns, as discussed in detail in Item 1 (“Business—Our Operations—Environmental and Safety Regulations”). Environmental laws and regulations may, in certain circumstances, impose strict liability for environmental contamination, which may render us liable for remediation costs, natural resource damages and other damages as a result of our conduct that was lawful at the time it occurred or the conduct of, or conditions caused by, prior owners or operators or other third parties. In addition, where contamination may be present, it is not uncommon for neighboring land owners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury, property damage and recovery of response costs. Remediation costs and other damages arising as a result of environmental laws and regulations, and costs associated with new information, changes in existing environmental laws and regulations or the adoption of new environmental laws and regulations could be substantial and could negatively impact our financial condition or results of operations. Moreover, failure to comply with these environmental laws and regulations may result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal penalties and the issuance of injunctions delaying or prohibiting operations.

We conduct operations in a wide variety of locations across the continental U.S. These operations require U.S. federal, state or local environmental permits or other authorizations. Our operations may require new or amended facility permits or licenses from time to time with respect to storm water discharges, waste handling or air emissions relating to equipment operations, which subject us to new or revised permitting conditions that may be onerous or costly to comply with. Additionally, the operation of compression units may require individual air permits or general authorizations to operate under various air regulatory programs established by rule or regulation. These permits and authorizations frequently contain numerous compliance requirements, including monitoring and reporting obligations and operational restrictions, such as emissions limits. Given the wide variety of locations in which we operate, and the numerous environmental permits and other authorizations that are applicable to our operations, we may occasionally identify or be notified of technical violations of certain requirements existing under various permits or other authorizations. We could be subject to penalties for any noncompliance in the future.

In our business, we routinely deal with natural gas, oil and other petroleum products at our worksites. Hydrocarbons or other hazardous substances or wastes may have been disposed or released on, under or from properties used by us to provide compression services or inactive compression unit storage or on or under other locations where such substances or wastes have been taken for disposal. These properties may be subject to investigatory, remediation and monitoring requirements under federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations.

The modification or interpretation of existing environmental laws or regulations, the more vigorous enforcement of existing environmental laws or regulations, or the adoption of new environmental laws or regulations may also negatively impact oil and natural gas exploration and production, gathering and pipeline companies, including our customers, which in turn could have a negative impact on us.

New regulations, proposed regulations and proposed modifications to existing regulations under the Clean Air Act, if implemented, could result in increased compliance costs.

New regulations or proposed modifications to existing regulations under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), as discussed in detail in Item 1 (“Business—Our Operations—Environmental and Safety Regulations”), may lead to adverse impacts on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash available for distribution. For example, in 2015, the EPA finalized a rule strengthening the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for ground level ozone, both of which are 8-hour concentration standards of 70 parts per billion. After the EPA revises a NAAQS standard, the states are expected to establish revised attainment/non-attainment regions. State implementation of the revised NAAQS could result in stricter permitting requirements, delay or prohibit our customers’ ability to obtain such permits, and result in increased expenditures for pollution control equipment, which could negatively impact our customers’ operations, increase the cost of additions to property, plant, and equipment, and negatively impact our business.

In 2012, the EPA finalized rules that establish new air emissions controls for oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing operations. Specifically, the EPA’s rule package included New Source Performance Standards to address emissions of sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) and a separate set of emissions standards to address hazardous air pollutants frequently associated with oil and natural gas production and processing activities. The rules established specific new requirements regarding emissions from compressors and controllers at natural gas processing plants, dehydrators, storage tanks and other production equipment as well as the first federal air standards for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured. In June 2016, the EPA took steps to expand on these regulations when it published New Source Performance Standards, known as Subpart OOOOa, that require certain new, modified or reconstructed facilities in the oil and natural gas sector to reduce methane gas and VOC emissions. These Subpart OOOOa standards would expand the 2012 New Source Performance Standards by using certain equipment-specific emissions control practices, requiring additional controls for pneumatic controllers and pumps as well as compressors, and imposing leak detection and repair requirements for natural gas compressor and booster stations. However, the EPA announced in April 2017 that it intended to reconsider certain aspects of the 2016 New Source Performance Standards, and in May 2017, the EPA issued an administrative stay of key provisions of the rule, but was promptly ordered by the D.C. Circuit to implement the rule. The EPA also proposed 60-day and two-year stays of certain provisions in June 2017 and published a Notice of Data Availability in November 2017 seeking comment and providing clarification regarding the agency’s legal authority to stay the rule. In March 2018, the EPA finalized narrow amendments to the rule, and in October 2018, the EPA proposed further reconsideration amendments to the rule. Among other things, these amendments would alter fugitive emissions requirements, monitoring frequencies and well site pneumatic pump standards.

Depending on whether the EPA finalizes these further amendments, Subpart OOOOa and any additional regulation of air emissions from the oil and gas sector could result in increased expenditures for pollution control equipment, which could impact our customers’ operations and negatively impact our business.

Climate change legislation and regulatory initiatives could result in increased compliance costs.

Climate change continues to attract considerable public and scientific attention. Methane, a primary component of natural gas, and carbon dioxide, a byproduct of the burning of natural gas, are examples of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”). In recent years, the U.S. Congress has considered legislation to reduce GHG emissions. It presently appears unlikely that comprehensive climate legislation will be passed in the near future, although energy legislation and other initiatives are expected to be proposed that may be relevant to GHG emissions issues. For example, such initiatives could include a carbon tax or cap and trade program. Further, although Congress has not passed such legislation, almost half of the states have begun to address GHG emissions, primarily through the planned development of emissions inventories or regional GHG cap and trade programs. Depending on the particular program, we could be required to control GHG emissions or to purchase and surrender allowances for GHG emissions resulting from our operations.

Independent of Congress, and as discussed in detail in Item 1 (“Business—Our Operations—Environmental and Safety Regulations”), the EPA undertook to adopt regulations controlling GHG emissions under its existing CAA authority. For example, in 2015, the EPA published standards of performance for GHG emissions from new power plants. The final rule establishes a performance standard for integrated gasification combined cycled units and utility boilers based on the use of the best system of emissions reduction that the EPA has determined has been adequately demonstrated for each type of unit. The rule also sets limits for stationary natural gas combustion turbines based on the use of natural gas combined cycle technology. The EPA also promulgated the Clean Power Plan rule (“CPP”), which is intended to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the implementation of the CPP, which will remain in effect throughout the pendency of the appeals process, including at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court through any certiorari petition that may be granted. The stay suspends the rule, including the requirement that states must start submitting implementation plans. It is not yet clear how the courts will ultimately rule on the legality of the CPP. Additionally, in October 2017, the EPA proposed to repeal the CPP, and in August 2018, the EPA proposed the Affordable Clean Energy rule (“ACE”) to replace the CPP. If the effort to replace the CPP with the ACE is unsuccessful and rules similar to the CPP are upheld to control GHG emissions from electric utility generating units, demand for the oil and natural gas our customers produce may decrease.

Although it is not currently possible to predict with specificity how any proposed or future GHG legislation, regulation, agreements or initiatives will impact our business, any legislation or regulation of GHG emissions that may be imposed in areas in which we conduct business or on the assets we operate could result in increased compliance or operating costs or additional operating restrictions or reduced demand for our services, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Finally, it should be noted that some scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHG in Earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant weather-related effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, floods and other climatic events. If any of those effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our assets and operations. Also, recent activism directed at shifting funding away from companies with energy-related assets could result in a reduction of funding for the energy sector overall, which could have an adverse effect on our ability to obtain external financing.

Increased regulation of hydraulic fracturing could result in reductions of, or delays in, natural gas production by our customers, which could adversely impact our revenue.

A significant portion of our customers’ natural gas production is developed from unconventional sources that require hydraulic fracturing as part of the completion process. Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of water, sand and chemicals under pressure into the rock formation to stimulate gas production. Legislation to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing from the definition of “underground injection” and require federal permitting and regulatory control of hydraulic fracturing, as well as legislative proposals to require disclosure of the chemical constituents of the fluids used in the fracturing process, have been proposed and the U.S. Congress continues to consider legislation to amend the SDWA. Scrutiny of hydraulic fracturing activities continues in other ways, with the EPA having commenced a multi-year study of the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. In December 2016, the EPA released its final report on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The final report concluded that “water cycle” activities associated with hydraulic fracturing may impact drinking water resources “under some circumstances,” noting that the following hydraulic fracturing water cycle activities and local- or regional-scale factors are more likely than others to result in more frequent or more severe impacts: water withdrawals for fracturing in times or areas of low water availability; surface spills during the management of fracturing fluids, chemicals or produced water; injection of fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity; injection of fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; discharge of inadequately treated fracturing wastewater to surface waters; and disposal or storage of fracturing wastewater in unlined pits.

In addition to the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) has also promulgated rules to regulate hydraulic fracturing. In 2015, the BLM promulgated new requirements relating to well construction, water management, and chemical disclosure for companies drilling on federal and tribal land, but subsequently finalized a rule in December 2017 rescinding the 2015 rule. This rescission has been challenged, and that litigation is ongoing.   If this rescission is not upheld, it could increase the costs of operation for our customers who operate on BLM land, and negatively impact our business. Additionally, on November 15, 2016, the BLM also finalized a rule to reduce the flaring, venting and leaking of methane from oil and gas operations on federal and Indian lands. The Venting Rule requires operators to use certain technologies and equipment to reduce flaring and to periodically inspect their operations for leaks. The Venting Rule also specifies when operators owe the government royalties for flared gas. In December 2017, BLM finalized a decision to delay implementation of key requirements in the Venting Rule for one year. The agency subsequently finalized a rule in September 2018 to revise the 2016 Venting rule by rescinding certain requirements, such as the requirement to use certain technologies and equipment, as well as the leak detection and repair requirement. The Revised Venting Rule also specifies that the BLM will defer to the appropriate State or tribal authorities in determining whether royalties are owed for flared gas. Challenges to the Venting Rule and the Revised Venting Rule are pending in court. If the Revised Venting Rule is not upheld, and the Venting Rule is fully implemented, it could increase the costs of operations for our customers who operate on BLM land, and in turn negatively impact our business.

State and federal regulatory agencies have also recently focused on a possible connection between the operation of injection wells used for oil and gas waste disposal and seismic activity. Similar concerns have been raised that hydraulic fracturing may also contribute to seismic activity. When caused by human activity, such events are called induced seismicity. Developing research suggests that the link between seismic activity and wastewater disposal may vary by

region, and that only a very small fraction of the tens of thousands of injection wells have been suspected to be, or have been, the likely cause of induced seismicity. In March 2016, the United States Geological Survey identified six states with the most significant hazards from induced seismicity, including Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arkansas. In light of these concerns, some state regulatory agencies have modified their regulations or issued orders to address induced seismicity. Increased regulation and attention given to induced seismicity could lead to greater opposition to, and litigation concerning, oil and gas activities utilizing hydraulic fracturing or injection wells for waste disposal, which could indirectly impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, these concerns may give rise to private tort suits against our customers from individuals who claim they are adversely impacted by seismic activity they allege was induced. Such claims or actions could result in liability to our customers for property damage, exposure to waste and other hazardous materials, nuisance or personal injuries, and require our customers to expend additional resources or incur substantial costs or losses. This could in turn adversely affect the demand for our services.

We cannot predict the future of any such legislation or tort liability. If additional levels of regulation, restrictions and permits were required through the adoption of new laws and regulations at the federal or state level or the development of new interpretations of those requirements by the agencies that issue the required permits, that could lead to operational delays, increased operating costs and process prohibitions that could reduce demand for our compression services, which would materially adversely affect our revenue and results of operations.

The CDM Acquisition could expose us to additional unknown and contingent liabilities.

The CDM Acquisition could expose us to additional unknown and contingent liabilities. We performed due diligence in connection with the CDM Acquisition and attempted to verify the representations made by ETP in connection therewith, but there may be unknown and contingent liabilities of which we are currently unaware. ETP has agreed to indemnify us for losses or claims relating to the operation of the business or otherwise only to a limited extent and for a limited period of time. There is a risk that we could ultimately be liable for obligations relating to the CDM Acquisition for which indemnification is not available, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and cash flow.

We do not insure against all potential losses and could be seriously harmed by unexpected liabilities.

Our operations are subject to inherent risks such as equipment defects, malfunctions and failures, and natural disasters that can result in uncontrollable flows of gas or well fluids, fires and explosions. These risks could expose us to substantial liability for personal injury, death, property damage, pollution and other environmental damages. Our insurance may be inadequate to cover our liabilities. Further, insurance covering the risks we face or in the amounts we desire may not be available in the future or, if available, the premiums may not be commercially justifiable. If we were to incur substantial liability and such damages were not covered by insurance or were in excess of policy limits, or if we were to incur liability at a time when we are not able to obtain liability insurance, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Cybersecurity breaches and other disruptions of our information systems could compromise our information and operations and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation to suffer.

We rely on our information technology infrastructure to process, transmit and store electronic information critical to our business activities. In recent years, there has been a rise in the number of cyberattacks on other companies’ network and information systems by both state-sponsored and criminal organizations, and as a result, the risks associated with such an event continue to increase. A significant failure, compromise, breach or interruption of our information systems could result in a disruption of our operations, customer dissatisfaction, damage to our reputation, a loss of customers or revenues and potential regulatory fines. If any such failure, interruption or similar event results in improper disclosure of information maintained in our information systems and networks or those of our customers, suppliers or vendors, including personnel, customer, pricing and other sensitive information, we could also be subject to liability under relevant contractual obligations and laws and regulations protecting personal data and privacy. Our financial results could also be adversely affected if our information systems are breached or an employee causes our information systems to fail, either as a result of inadvertent error or by deliberately tampering with or manipulating such systems.

Terrorist attacks, the threat of terrorist attacks or other sustained military campaigns may adversely impact our results of operations.

The long-term impact of terrorist attacks and the magnitude of the threat of future terrorist attacks on the energy industry in general and on us in particular are not known at this time. Uncertainty surrounding sustained military campaigns may affect our operations in unpredictable ways, including disruptions of crude oil and natural gas supplies and markets for crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids and the possibility that infrastructure facilities could be direct targets of, or indirect casualties of, an act of terror. Changes in the insurance markets attributable to terrorist attacks may make insurance against such attacks more difficult for us to obtain, if we choose to do so. Moreover, the insurance that may be available to us may be significantly more expensive than our existing insurance coverage. Instability in the financial markets resulting from terrorism or war could also negatively affect our ability to raise capital.

If we fail to develop or maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to report our financial results accurately or prevent fraud, which would likely have a negative impact on the market price of our common units.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports, prevent fraud and to operate successfully as a publicly traded partnership. Although we continuously evaluate the effectiveness of and improve upon our internal controls, our efforts to develop and maintain our internal controls may not be successful, and we may be unable to maintain effective controls over our financial processes and reporting in the future or to comply with our obligations under Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 404”). For example, Section 404 requires us to, among other things, review and report annually on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, our independent registered public accountants are now required to assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting since we ceased to be an emerging growth company under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”) on December 31, 2018, which means that we will no longer benefit from the reduced reporting requirements afforded to emerging growth companies under the JOBS Act.

Any failure to develop, implement or maintain effective internal controls or to improve our internal controls could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. Given the difficulties inherent in the design and operation of internal controls over financial reporting, we can provide no assurance as to our independent registered public accounting firm’s conclusions about the effectiveness of our internal controls, and we may incur significant costs in our efforts to comply with Section 404. Ineffective internal controls will subject us to regulatory scrutiny and may result in a loss of confidence in our reported financial information, which could have an adverse effect on our business and would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of our common units.

Risks Inherent in an Investment in Us

Holders of our common units have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect the General Partner or its directors.

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, our common unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and, therefore, limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. Common unitholders have no right to elect the General Partner or the board of directors of the General Partner (the “Board”). ETO is the sole member of the General Partner and has the right to appoint the majority of the members of the Board, including all but one of its independent directors. Also, pursuant to that certain Board Representation Agreement entered into by us, the General Partner, ETE and EIG Veteran Equity Aggregator, L.P. (along with its affiliated funds, “EIG”) in connection with our private placement of Preferred Units and Warrants to EIG, EIG Management Company, LLC has the right to designate one of the members of the Board for so long as the holders of the Preferred Units hold more than 5% of the Partnership’s outstanding common units in the aggregate (taking into account the common units that would be issuable upon conversion of the Preferred Units and exercise of the Warrants).

If our common unitholders are dissatisfied with the General Partner’s performance, they have little ability to remove the General Partner. As a result of these limitations, the price of our common units may decline because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price. Furthermore, the Partnership Agreement contains provisions

limiting the ability of common unitholders to call meetings or to obtain information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting our common unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction of management.

ETO owns and controls the General Partner, and the General Partner has sole responsibility for conducting our business and managing our operations. The General Partner and its affiliates, including ETO, have conflicts of interest with us and limited fiduciary duties, and they may favor their own interests to the detriment of us and our unitholders.

ETO owns and controls the General Partner and appointed all of the officers and a majority of the directors of the General Partner, some of whom are also officers and directors of ETO. Although the General Partner has a fiduciary duty to manage us in a manner that is beneficial to us and our unitholders, the directors and officers of the General Partner also have a fiduciary duty to manage the General Partner in a manner that is beneficial to its owner. Conflicts of interest will arise between the General Partner and its owner, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. In resolving these conflicts of interest, the General Partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its owner over our interests and the interests of our unitholders. These conflicts include the following situations, among others:

The General Partner’s liability for our obligations is limited.

The General Partner has included, and will continue to include, provisions in its and our contractual arrangements that limit its liability under such contractual arrangements so that the counterparties to such arrangements have recourse only against our assets, and not against the General Partner or its assets. The General Partner may therefore cause us to incur indebtedness or other obligations that are nonrecourse to it. The Partnership Agreement provides that any action taken by the General Partner to limit its liability is not a breach of the General Partner’s fiduciary duties, even if we could have obtained more favorable terms without such limitation on liability. In addition, we are obligated to reimburse or indemnify the General Partner to the extent that it incurs obligations on our behalf. Any such reimbursement or indemnification payments would reduce our amount of cash otherwise available for distribution.

The Partnership Agreement limits the General Partner’s fiduciary duties to our unitholders.

The Partnership Agreement contains provisions that modify and reduce the fiduciary standards to which the General Partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, the Partnership Agreement permits the General Partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to its capacity as the General Partner, or otherwise free of fiduciary duties to us and our unitholders. This entitles the 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. Examples of decisions that the General Partner may make in its individual capacity include:

By purchasing a unit, a unitholder agrees to become bound by the provisions of the Partnership Agreement, including the provisions discussed above.

Even if holders of our common units are dissatisfied, they currently cannot remove the General Partner without ETO’s consent.

Common unitholders are currently unable to remove the General Partner because the General Partner and its affiliates own sufficient number of our common units to prevent its removal. The vote of the holders of at least 66 2 / 3 % of all outstanding common units is required to remove the General Partner, and ETO currently owns over 33 1 / 3 % of our outstanding common units.

The Partnership Agreement restricts the remedies available to holders of our common units for actions taken by the General Partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Partnership Agreement contains provisions that restrict the remedies available to common unitholders for actions taken by the General Partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty under state fiduciary duty law. For example, the Partnership Agreement:

In a situation involving a transaction with an affiliate or a conflict of interest, any determination by the General Partner must be made in good faith. If an affiliate transaction or the resolution of a conflict of interest is not approved by our common unitholders or the conflicts committee and the Board determines that the resolution or course of action taken with respect to the affiliate transaction or conflict of interest satisfies either of the standards set forth in subclauses (c) or (d) above, then it will conclusively be deemed that, in making its decision, the Board acted in good faith.

The Partnership Agreement restricts the voting rights of unitholders owning 20% or more of our common units.

Common unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by a provision of the Partnership Agreement providing that any units held by a person or group that owns 20% or more of such class of units then outstanding, other than, with respect to our common units, the General Partner, its affiliates, their direct transferees and their indirect transferees approved by the General Partner (which approval may be granted in its sole discretion) and persons who acquired such common units with the prior approval of the General Partner, cannot vote on any matter.

The general partner interest or the control of the General Partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.

The General Partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of the common unitholders. Furthermore, the Partnership Agreement does not restrict the ability of ETO to transfer all or a portion of its ownership interest in the General Partner to a third party. The new owner of the General Partner would then be in a position to replace the majority of the Board, and all of the officers, of the General Partner with its own designees and thereby exert significant control over the decisions made by the Board and the officers of the General Partner.

An increase in interest rates may cause the market price of our common units to decline.

The market price of master limited partnership units, like other yield-oriented securities, may be affected by, among other factors, implied distribution yield. The distribution yield is often used by investors to compare and rank yield-oriented securities for investment decision-making purposes. Therefore, increases or decreases in interest rates may affect whether or not certain investors decide to invest in master limited partnership units, including ours, and a rising interest rate environment could have an adverse impact on our common unit price and impair our ability to issue additional equity or incur debt to fund growth or for other purposes, including distributions.

We may issue additional limited partner interests without the approval of the common unitholders, which would dilute the common unitholders’ existing ownership interests and may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase our per common unit distribution level.

The Partnership Agreement does not limit the number or timing of additional limited partner interests that we may issue, including limited partner interests that are convertible into our common units, without the approval of our common unitholders. Also, for the first four full calendar quarters following the Transactions Date, we are permitted to pay a portion of the quarterly distribution on the Preferred Units with additional Preferred Units, and the Preferred Units are convertible into common units in the future at the option of the holders of the Preferred Units, or under certain circumstances, at our option.

If a substantial portion of the Preferred Units are converted into common units, common unitholders could experience significant dilution. Furthermore, if holders of such converted Preferred Units were to dispose of a substantial portion of these common units in the public market, whether in a single transaction or series of transactions, it could adversely affect the market price of our common units. In addition, these sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, could make it more difficult for us to sell our common units in the future.

Our issuance of additional common units, including pursuant to our Distribution Reinvestment Plan (“DRIP”), or other equity securities of equal or senior rank, such as additional preferred units, will have the following effects:

ETO and the holders of the Preferred Units may sell our common units in the public or private markets, and such sales could have an adverse impact on the trading price of our common units.

As of December 31, 2018, ETO holds an aggregate of 46,056,228 common units in us (after giving effect to the conversion of 6,397,965 Class B Units to common units). We have granted certain registration rights to ETO and its affiliates with respect to any common units they own, and have filed a registration statement with the SEC for the benefit of the holders of the Preferred Units with respect to any common units they may own upon conversion of the Preferred Units or exercise of the Warrants. The sale of these common units in the public or private markets could have an adverse impact on the price of our common units or on any trading market that may develop. 

The General Partner has a call right that may require you to sell your common units at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time the General Partner and its affiliates own more than 80% of our outstanding common units, the 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 our common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price that is not less than their then-current market price, as calculated pursuant to the terms of the Partnership Agreement. As a result, you may be required to sell your common units at an undesirable time or price. You may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of your common units. ETO currently owns an aggregate of approximately 44% of our outstanding common units (before giving effect to the conversion of the Class B Units into common units).

Your liability may not be limited if a court finds that unitholder action constitutes control of our business.

A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for those contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to the general partner. The Partnership is organized under Delaware law and conducts business in a number of other states, and in some of those states, the limitations on the liability of holders of limited partner interests for the obligations of a limited partnership have not been clearly established. You could be liable for any and all of our obligations as if you were a general partner if a court or governmental agency were to determine that:



Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions that were wrongfully distributed to them.

Under certain circumstances, unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the “Delaware Act”), we may not make a distribution if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. The Delaware Act provides that for a period of three years from the date of an impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. Liabilities to partners on account of their interest in the Partnership and liabilities that are nonrecourse to the Partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permissible.

The NYSE does not require a publicly traded partnership like us to comply with certain of its corporate governance requirements.

Our common units are listed on the NYSE. Because we are a publicly traded partnership, the NYSE does not require us to have a majority of independent directors on the Board or to establish a compensation committee or a nominating and corporate governance committee. Accordingly, unitholders do not have the same protections afforded to investors in certain corporations that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements. Please read Part III, Item 10 (“Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance”).

Tax Risks to Common Unitholders

Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. If the IRS were to treat us as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, then our cash available for distribution would be substantially reduced.

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

Despite the fact that 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. Although we do not believe based upon our current operations that we are or will be so treated, 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, and would likely pay state and local income tax at varying rates. Distributions would generally be taxed again 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 you. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution would be substantially reduced. Therefore, if we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, 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.

The 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 level of distributions on our common units may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law or interpretation on us.

If we were subjected to a material amount of additional entity level taxation by individual states, it would reduce our cash available for distribution.

Changes in current state law may subject us to additional entity level taxation by individual states. Because of widespread state budget deficits and other reasons, several states are evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. For example, we are required to pay the Texas Franchise Tax each year at a maximum effective rate of 0.75% of our “margin”, as defined in the law, apportioned to Texas in the prior year. Imposition of any similar taxes by any other state may substantially reduce the cash available for distribution and, therefore, negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.

The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our common units could be subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative changes or differing interpretations, possibly applied on a retroactive basis.

The present federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units, may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations at any time. From time to time, members of the U.S. Congress have proposed and considered substantive changes to the existing federal income tax laws that would affect publicly traded partnerships, including a prior legislative proposal that would have eliminated the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations upon which we rely for our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In addition, the Treasury Department has issued, and in the future may issue, regulations interpreting those laws that affect publicly traded partnerships.  Although there are no such current legislative or administrative proposals, there can be no assurance that there will not be further changes to U.S. federal income tax laws or the Treasury Department’s interpretation of the qualifying income rules in a manner that could impact our ability to qualify as a publicly traded partnership in the future.

Any modification to the federal income tax laws may be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for us to meet the exception for certain publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for federal

income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any future legislative changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units. You are urged to consult with your own tax advisor with respect to the status of regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on your investment in our common units.

Our unitholders’ share of our income will be taxable to them for federal income tax purposes even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us.

Because a unitholder will be treated as a partner to whom we will allocate taxable income that could be different in amount than the cash we distribute, a unitholder’s allocable share of our taxable income will be taxable to it, which may require the payment of federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes, on its share of our taxable income even if it receives no cash distributions from us. Our unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax liability that results from that income.

We may engage in transactions to de-lever the Partnership and manage our liquidity that may result in income and gain to our unitholders. For example, if we sell assets and use the proceeds to repay existing debt or fund capital expenditures, you may be allocated taxable income and gain resulting from the sale. Further, taking advantage of opportunities to reduce our existing debt, such as debt exchanges, debt repurchases, or modifications of our existing debt could result in “cancellation of indebtedness income” (also referred to as “COD income”) being allocated to our unitholders as taxable income. Unitholders may be allocated COD income, and income tax liabilities arising therefrom may exceed cash distributions. The ultimate effect of any such allocations will depend on the unitholder’s individual tax position with respect to its units. Unitholders are encouraged to consult their tax advisors with respect to the consequences of potential COD income or other transactions that may result in income and gain to unitholders.

If the IRS contests the federal income tax positions we take, the market for our common units may be adversely impacted and the cost of any IRS contest will reduce our cash available for distribution.

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. 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 the General Partner because the costs will reduce our cash available for distribution.

If the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustments directly from us, in which case our cash available for distribution to our unitholders   might be substantially reduced.

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, if the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustments directly from us. To the extent possible under the new rules, the General Partner may elect to either pay the taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly to the IRS or, if we are eligible, issue a revised information statement to each unitholder and former unitholder with respect to an audited and adjusted return. Although the General Partner may elect to have our unitholders and former unitholders take such audit adjustment into account and pay any resulting taxes (including applicable penalties or interest) in accordance with their interests in us during the tax year under audit, there can be no assurance that such election will be practical, permissible or effective in all circumstances. As a result, our current unitholders may bear some or all of the tax liability resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such unitholders did not own units in us during the tax year under audit. If, as a result of any such audit adjustment, we are required to make payments of taxes,

penalties and interest, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be reduced. These rules are not applicable for tax years beginning on or prior to December 31, 2017.

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

If our unitholders sell common units, they will recognize a gain or loss for federal income tax purposes equal to the difference between the amount realized and their tax basis in those common units. Because distributions in excess of their allocable share of our net taxable income decrease their tax basis in their common units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the common units a unitholder sells will, in effect, become taxable income to the unitholder if it sells such common units at a price greater than its tax basis in those common units, even if the price received is less than its original cost. In addition, because the amount realized includes a unitholder’s share of our nonrecourse liabilities, a unitholder that sells common units may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash received from the sale.

A substantial portion of the amount realized from a unitholder’s sale of our units, whether or not representing gain, may be taxed as ordinary income to such unitholder due to potential recapture items, including depreciation recapture. Thus, a unitholder may recognize both ordinary income and capital loss from the sale of units if the amount realized on a sale of such units is less than such unitholder’s adjusted basis in the units. Net capital loss may only offset capital gains and, in the case of individuals, up to $3,000 of ordinary income per year. In the taxable period in which a unitholder sells its units, such unitholder may recognize ordinary income from our allocations of income and gain to such unitholder prior to the sale and from recapture items that generally cannot be offset by any capital loss recognized upon the sale of units.

Unitholders may be subject to limitation on their ability to deduct interest expense incurred by us.

In general, we are entitled to a deduction for interest paid or accrued on indebtedness properly allocable to our trade or business during our taxable year. However, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, our deduction for “business interest” is limited to the sum of our business interest income and 30% of our “adjusted taxable income.” For the purposes of this limitation, our adjusted taxable income is computed without regard to any business interest expense or business interest income, and in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022, any deduction allowable for depreciation, amortization, or depletion.

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

Investment in our common units by tax-exempt entities, such as employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs) raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to organizations that are exempt from U.S. federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable income and will be taxable to them. With respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 , subject to the proposed aggregation rules for certain similarly situated businesses or activities issued by the Treasury Department, a tax-exempt entity with more than one unrelated trade or business (including by attribution from investment in a partnership such as ours) is required to compute the unrelated business taxable income of such tax-exempt entity separately with respect to each such trade or business (including for purposes of determining any net operating loss deduction). As a result, for years beginning after December 31, 2017, it may not be possible for tax-exempt entities to utilize losses from an investment in our partnership to offset unrelated business taxable income from another unrelated trade or business and vice versa. Tax-exempt entities should consult a tax advisor before investing in our common units.

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

Non-U.S. unitholders are generally taxed and subject to income tax filing requirements by the United States on income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business (“effectively connected income”). Income allocated to our unitholders and any gain from the sale of our units will generally be considered to be “effectively connected” with a U.S.

trade or business. As a result, distributions to a non-U.S. unitholder will be subject to withholding at the highest applicable effective tax rate and a non-U.S. unitholder who sells or otherwise disposes of a unit will also be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the gain realized from the sale or disposition of that unit.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposes a withholding obligation of 10% of the amount realized upon a non-U.S. unitholder’s sale or exchange of an interest in a partnership that is engaged in a U.S. trade or business. However, due to challenges of administering a withholding obligation applicable to open market trading and other complications, the IRS has temporarily suspended the application of this withholding rule to open market transfers of interests in publicly traded partnerships pending promulgation of regulations or other guidance that resolves the challenges. It is not clear if or when such regulations or other guidance will be issued. Non-U.S. unitholders should consult a tax advisor before investing in our common units.

We treat each purchaser of our common units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the actual common units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of our common units.

Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common units, we have adopted certain methods for allocating depreciation and amortization deductions that may not conform to all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations. A successful IRS challenge to the use of these methods could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to you. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from your sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of our common units or result in audit adjustments to your tax returns.

We generally 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 day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

We generally 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 day of each month (the “Allocation Date”), instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. Similarly, we generally allocate (i) certain deductions for depreciation of capital additions, (ii) gain or loss realized on a sale or other disposition of our assets, and (iii) in the discretion of the general partner, any other extraordinary item of income, gain, loss or deduction based upon ownership on the Allocation Date. Treasury Regulations allow a similar monthly simplifying convention, but such regulations do not specifically authorize all aspects of our proration method. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

A unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g., a loan to a “short seller” to cover a short sale of common units) may be considered as having disposed of those common units. If so, he would no longer be treated for federal income tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from the disposition.

Because there are no specific rules governing the federal income tax consequences of loaning a partnership interest, a unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan may be considered to have disposed of the loaned common units. In that case, the unitholder may no longer be treated for federal income tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan to the short seller and the unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those common units may not be reportable by the unitholder and any cash distributions received by the unitholder as to those common units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a securities loan are urged to consult a tax advisor to determine whether it is advisable to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing their common units.

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

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

A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the timing or amount of taxable income or loss being allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain recognized from our unitholders’ sale of common units, 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.

As a result of investing in our common units, you will likely become subject to state and local taxes and income tax return filing requirements in jurisdictions where we operate or own or acquire properties.

In addition to federal income taxes, our unitholders will likely be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we conduct business or control property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. Our unitholders will likely be required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these various jurisdictions. Further, our unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with state and local filing requirements.

We currently conduct business and control assets in several states, many of which currently impose a personal income tax on individuals. Many of these states also impose an income tax on corporations and other entities. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may control assets or conduct business in additional states or foreign jurisdictions that impose a personal income tax. It is your responsibility to file all foreign, federal, state and local tax returns and pay any taxes due in these jurisdictions. Unitholders should consult with their own tax advisors regarding the filing of such tax returns, the payment of such taxes, and the deductibility of any taxes paid.