Place the second phase of the Evangeline Pass project in service
Delivered by the deadline
AI-assessed · human review in progress Found and assessed by AI from the cited sources. Shown with its evidence; it is not counted in any Kept Score until confirmed.
- Announced
- 17 Jul 2024
- Due
- 1 Jul 2025
- Delivered
- 1 Jul 2025
- Deadline
- Met
- Late
- Not met
- Today
What the company said
“Construction continues on the second phase of the project, which has an expected in-service date of July 1, 2025.”
What we found
Evidence strength A What the grades mean
The company confirmed that the second phase of the Evangeline Pass project was placed in service in early July 2025, meeting the July 1, 2025 deadline.
-
A Kinder Morgan 8-K filed 2025-07-16
“The second phase of the approximately $700 million Evangeline Pass project was placed in service earlier this month.” ✓ confirmed on the page
Market reaction: the shares moved -1.1% against the S&P 500 over the three sessions around the disclosure (15 Jul 2025 to 18 Jul 2025). What this measures
Checked 17 Oct 2026.
Commitment lineage
Every time the company restated this commitment. The original is never changed, and the outcome is always measured against version 1.
- 1 versions
-
Version 1 · original · stated 17 Jul 2024
Deadline 1 Jul 2025 (“July 1, 2025”) · wording expected
-
Version 2 · stated 16 Apr 2025
Deadline 31 Dec 2029 (“fourth quarter of 2029”)
“and the second phase in the fourth quarter of 2029.”
Commitment DNA
The structured record of this commitment. Fields the company did not state are left blank rather than guessed.
- Event type
- In service
- Indicative materiality
- High rules
- Action
- Place
- Deliverable
- Evangeline Pass project phase 2
- Where
- Mississippi and Louisiana
- Language
- Expected (“expects”, “plans”)
- In the company’s control
- High
- Specificity
- High
How this entry was checked
- Commitment recordedThe company's words were matched word for word against the filing.
- First checkAn AI model, Gemini (Google), read the company's later filings and recorded the outcome with a quoted passage.
- Second check: disagreesClaude (Anthropic) re-read the evidence blind and read it as “no_evidence”.
- Tie-breakA stronger model read the evidence and both earlier answers, without knowing which was recorded, and agrees with the second check.
Not yet confirmed. Shown on the record, but it will not count in any score until it is confirmed. How verification works
Are you Kinder Morgan? You can publish an official statement next to this entry, free. Add a statement.
Is something here wrong or out of date? Companies and readers can ask us to check it. Please bring a link to a public source.
Report an error in this entry Reference: KI-C-2024-KMI-009540 · Corrections policy