OKE: 10-K Risk Factor Changes

Companies are subject to scrutiny from customers, investors, rating agencies, policymakers and other stakeholders regarding their management of ESG issues, including human capital and climate change. Changes in regulatory policies, public sentiment or widespread adoption of technologies that aim to address climate change through reducing GHG emissions may result in a reduction in the demand for hydrocarbon products, restrictions on their use or increased use of alternative energy sources. These changes could reduce the demand for our services, impacting our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows. Certain capital providers could restrict or impose additional scrutiny on lending and investment in the energy sector, which could adversely impact the availability or cost of capital. In addition, scrutiny regarding climate change and other ESG matters has resulted in an increased likelihood of governmental investigations, regulation, shareholder activism and private litigation by both advocates and opponents of such matters, which could increase our costs or otherwise adversely affect our business. For example, while some policymakers (including certain states and the SEC under the previous administration) have adopted, or are considering adopting, requirements for the disclosure of climate risks or other information, other policymakers have sought to constrain companies’ considerations of ESG matters. Any failure to successfully navigate stakeholder expectations, including regulatory developments, may result in reputational harm, increased costs or other adverse impacts. We engage in various efforts to respond to stakeholder expectations; however, such efforts may not have the desired effect. Many of these efforts rely on methodologies, assumptions and data (including third-party information) that are subject to varying interpretations or that continue to evolve, including in ways we cannot control. Our approach may also continue to evolve, and we cannot guarantee that our approach will align with the expectations or preferences of any particular stakeholder. For example, our emissions reduction targets depend on a range of factors, and to the extent these do not manifest or we otherwise are unable to make progress on such targets or other initiatives, we may face additional costs or be unable to meet our targets, which could negatively impact our business and reputation. Various of our business partners and other stakeholders are subject to similar expectations on ESG matters, which may exacerbate or result in additional risks.

There are expectations that companies across all industries address ESG issues, including climate change. Changes in regulatory policies, public sentiment or widespread adoption of technologies that aim to address climate change through reducing GHG emissions may result in a reduction in the demand for hydrocarbon products, restrictions on their use or increased use of alternative energy sources. These changes could reduce the demand for our services, impacting our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows. In addition, increasing attention to climate change has resulted in an increased likelihood of governmental investigations, regulation, shareholder activism and private litigation, which could increase our costs or otherwise affect adversely our business. For example, the SEC finalized new climate change disclosure requirements in March 2024 but stayed the rules in April 2024 pending judicial review of several lawsuits filed by states, industry and environmental groups challenging the rule. It is unclear when the rules will become effective, if at all. If these or any other climate disclosure requirements become effective, we may face increased costs associated with complying with such new climate disclosure rules. Certain investors are increasingly focused on ESG issues, including climate change. Further, organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have also increased their focus on ESG issues and have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on various ESG initiatives. Unfavorable ESG ratings may lead to increased negative investor sentiment toward us or midstream companies in general. Due to climate change concerns, some investors may choose not to invest, or to reduce investment, in companies that explore for, produce, process, transport or sell products derived from hydrocarbons. If this negative investor sentiment increases, we may see reduced demand for our securities, which could impact our liquidity or the value of our securities. Additionally, certain large institutional lenders have announced their own policies to meet publicly announced climate commitments, which often involve commitments to shift lending activities in the energy sector to meet GHG emissions goals. As a result, certain institutional lenders may impose additional requirements on us, or decide not to lend to us, based on ESG concerns, which could adversely affect our access to capital on reasonable terms or at all and, as a result, our financial condition. To the extent financial markets view climate change and emissions of GHGs as a financial risk, this could also negatively affect our ability to access capital or cause us to receive less favorable terms and conditions in future financings. In 2021, we announced a companywide absolute GHG emissions reduction target of 2.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents from our combined Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2030 for our legacy ONEOK assets. The target represents a 30% reduction in combined operational Scope 1 and location-based Scope 2 GHG emissions attributable to ONEOK assets as of Dec. 31, 2019. To the extent that the potential pathways we have identified to achieve this emissions reduction target are not available to us, or to the extent we otherwise are unable to make progress toward other ESG-related targets we may establish, we may face additional costs to meet these targets, or we may fail to meet them, which could negatively impact our business and reputation. 31 31 31 Table of Contents Table of Contents