By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel has a neutral to bearish sentiment on Energy Transfer (ET) and Enterprise Products Partners (EPD), citing potential risks such as FERC tariff reviews, heavy capex commitments, and sensitivity to volume fluctuations. The key risk is the potential impact of FERC's proposed 2025 tariff reviews on revenue growth and dividend sustainability.
Risk: FERC tariff reviews potentially capping interstate revenue growth and eroding dividend coverage
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
The energy sector, sensitive to crude oil and natural gas prices, has done well for investors this year due to increased commodity prices.
In particular, with oil prices skyrocketing following the launch of the Iran war earlier this year, the S&P 500 Energy sector gained 40% this year, through June 8. Energy stocks' stock appreciation easily outpaced the S&P 500 ex-Energy's 22.9% increase.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
The rapid price gains make it challenging to find stocks in the sector trading at reasonable valuations. However, I've found two pipeline and transportation companies fit the bill.
Better still, they have high dividend yields and a history of raising payouts. That makes them attractive stock investments for their total return potential over an extended period.
Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET) transports oil and gas, including via pipelines, and stores energy, among other activities. That's a steadier business than exploration and production energy companies, whose results depend on commodity prices. Rather, Energy Transfer, while not immune to energy prices, relies more on transport volumes of natural gas and crude oil.
The company saw higher volume across businesses in the first quarter, and revenue grew 31.1% year over year to $27.8 billion. Its quarterly adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), a key metric used by management, increased 20.5% to $4.9 billion. That's also a proxy for cash flow.
Energy Transfer uses this cash flow to reward shareholders with ever-higher dividends. After slashing the payout in half in 2020, at the start of the pandemic, the board of directors has raised dividends quarterly for the last several years. That includes the first-quarter increase from $0.335 a share to $0.3375 a share.
At the new rate, Energy Transfer's shares have an attractive 7.2% dividend yield. That dwarfs the S&P 500 index's 1.1%.
Energy Transfer's shares have gained 13.8% this year, through June 11. That sounds good, but it trailed the overall energy sector. Still, investors can rely on a steadier business versus the highly volatile energy and production companies.
Although the stock's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio has increased from 14 to 16 during this time, it's lower than the S&P 500 Energy's P/E multiple of 21.
Enterprise Products Partners (NYSE: EPD) is also a midstream energy company. Its operations include transporting energy through its pipelines, as well as processing and storing the commodities.
Revenue fell 6.7% year over year to $14.4 billion, primarily due to lower marketing revenue. Its top line suffered from lower prices and volumes, which are cyclical rather than an indication of fundamental weakness in Enterprise Products Partners' underlying business. Importantly, the company's adjusted EBITDA grew 10% despite the revenue decline.
Management has also been investing in projects like adding processing capacity in the Permian Basin and pipeline expansion, which should increase revenue and profitability over time.
While making these investments, investors can also feel confident about dividends. Over the last year, the company paid out 57% of its adjusted cash flow from operations as dividends and share repurchases.
The company has raised dividends annually for a number of years. Most recently, the board increased the quarterly payout earlier this year, from $0.545 per share to $0.55 per share.
At the $2.20 annual rate, the stock has an appealing 5.9% dividend yield, more than quintuple the S&P 500's yield.
Energy Product Partners' stock price has gained 15.7% this year. That also lagged the S&P 500 Energy sector, although many companies in that index have results with greater sensitivity to oil prices.
The shares' P/E ratio increased modestly from 12 to 14 during this time. However, that compares favorably to the S&P 500 Energy's P/E multiple.
Before you buy stock in Energy Transfer, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Energy Transfer wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $433,268! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,259,391!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 935% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 206% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 14, 2026. *
Lawrence Rothman, CFA has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Enterprise Products Partners. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"High yields and below-sector P/Es in ET and EPD likely embed unmentioned risks from capex intensity, MLP taxation, and volume cyclicality that the article downplays."
The article pitches ET and EPD as undervalued midstream plays with 7.2% and 5.9% yields after sector gains of 40% YTD. Yet both trade at P/Es of 14-16 versus the sector's 21, and their volume-driven EBITDA growth masks heavy capex commitments and MLP tax drag that often compress multiples. High yields also reflect leverage and potential distribution volatility if natural gas or crude transport volumes soften. Investors chasing total return may overlook how rising interest rates erode the appeal of these payouts relative to Treasuries.
The P/E discount and MLP structure could simply reflect lower growth ceilings and tax complexity rather than mispricing, so the 'cheap' label may not deliver re-rating even if volumes hold.
"Even with current yields, rising capex needs, volume risk, and higher financing costs could erode payout coverage and compress valuations, making the 'cheap and growing payouts' pitch less reliable."
Two midstream names are framed as bargains on cheap valuations and rising payouts, but the thesis hinges on steady transport volumes and favorable financing. ET and EPD yield roughly 7.2% and 5.9% with P/Es in the mid-teens, suggesting resilience, yet much of their cash flow remains cyclically sensitive to volumes routed on pipelines and processing capacity additions. The real test is capex discipline: growth projects in the Permian and new pipelines require funding, and any delays or cost overruns could strain distribution coverage. Higher interest rates raise debt costs and could compress multiples even if cash flow grows. Regulatory, energy-transition headwinds, and potential MLP tax changes add further downside risk.
The strongest counterpoint is that the thesis rests on volumetric stability and successful capex. Any slowdown or cost overruns could undermine payout coverage and trigger multiple contraction.
"Midstream energy stocks are currently priced as defensive income vehicles, but their reliance on debt-funded growth makes them vulnerable to interest rate volatility and regulatory friction."
The article frames Energy Transfer (ET) and Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) as defensive value plays, but it ignores the structural headwinds facing midstream operators. While these firms offer attractive yields, they are essentially toll-road businesses sensitive to volume growth and regulatory hurdles. The article cites a 2020 dividend cut for ET as a 'past' issue, but it glosses over the massive debt load required to fund their capital-intensive expansion projects. With the S&P 500 Energy sector trading at a 21x P/E, these midstream stocks look cheap only if you ignore that they lack the direct commodity price beta that drove the sector's 40% rally. Investors are trading upside potential for yield, which may underperform in a high-interest-rate environment.
Midstream companies offer essential infrastructure that is increasingly difficult to replicate, providing a wide economic moat that protects cash flow regardless of short-term commodity volatility.
"Both stocks trade at reasonable but not exceptional valuations, and their dividend safety depends entirely on energy demand holding up through an economic slowdown the article never addresses."
The article presents ET and EPD as cheap energy plays with safe dividends, but the valuation case is weaker than advertised. ET's 16x P/E isn't materially cheaper than the sector's 21x—it's just less expensive than the most cyclical names. More concerning: the article cherry-picks Q1 data for ET (31% revenue growth) without addressing whether that's sustainable or driven by one-time factors. EPD's 10% EBITDA growth despite 6.7% revenue decline is presented as strength, but that margin expansion may reflect accounting adjustments or cost-cutting, not operational leverage. Both companies' dividend safety hinges on sustained midstream volumes—vulnerable if recession crushes energy demand or if the oil/gas cycle turns.
If crude stays elevated and recession fears fade, these 5-9% yields with 10-15% annual dividend growth could deliver 15-24% total returns—far outpacing the S&P 500. The article's caution may be overblown.
"FERC tariff reviews pose an unmentioned risk that could compress coverage ratios for both ET and EPD regardless of volume stability."
Gemini overstates the downside of lacking direct commodity beta; fee-based midstream revenues actually buffer ET and EPD better during price swings than upstream names that fueled the sector's 40% YTD run. Yet both overlook how FERC's proposed 2025 tariff reviews could directly cap revenue growth on interstate pipelines, eroding the 1.5x+ coverage ratios that currently support those 5.9-7.2% yields even if volumes hold.
"FERC tariff reviews could cap revenue growth, threatening yields and coverage unless regulator timing and rate-base indexing support expansion."
Grok, your tariff risk is the most consequential missing link. If FERC 2025+ tariff reviews cap interstate revenue growth, steady volumes won't guarantee 5.9–7.2% yields; coverage could compress amid ongoing capex. The bear case hinges on regulator timing, inflation indexing, and throughput mix, not just volume optimism. So the critical test is whether rate-base based returns survive higher rates and potential capex drag; otherwise midstream seems more vulnerable than implied.
"Midstream consolidation creates scale-based synergies that mitigate tariff risks but introduces significant antitrust and divestiture exposure."
Grok and ChatGPT are fixated on FERC tariff risk, but you are all ignoring the massive consolidation premium. ET and EPD are not just toll roads; they are the primary consolidators in a fragmented market. By acquiring smaller, distressed gathering and processing assets, they capture synergies that bypass FERC-regulated interstate pipeline constraints. The real risk isn't just tariff caps—it's the 'winner-takes-all' integration strategy that could trigger antitrust scrutiny, potentially forcing divestitures that destroy the very scale-based efficiencies you're debating.
"Antitrust risk matters less than FERC's retroactive vs. prospective tariff application—a distinction that hasn't been tested."
Gemini's antitrust angle is real but premature—ET and EPD's consolidation has already occurred; assets are integrated. The actual risk is whether FERC tariff reviews (Grok/ChatGPT's point) apply retroactively to *existing* fee structures or only new projects. If retroactive, synergies evaporate. If grandfathered, the moat holds. Nobody's clarified FERC's enforcement scope here, which determines whether 7% yields survive 2025.
The panel has a neutral to bearish sentiment on Energy Transfer (ET) and Enterprise Products Partners (EPD), citing potential risks such as FERC tariff reviews, heavy capex commitments, and sensitivity to volume fluctuations. The key risk is the potential impact of FERC's proposed 2025 tariff reviews on revenue growth and dividend sustainability.
FERC tariff reviews potentially capping interstate revenue growth and eroding dividend coverage