December 2013Introductory Meeting: Connecticut Expansion Project Page 1

SGA Environmental RoundtableTennessee Gas PipelineConnecticut Expansion Project

Brian Benito Jr.Senior Environmental SpecialistKinder Morgan Major Projects

June 14, 2016

Agenda

• Tennessee Gas Pipeline Overview• Project Overview • Project Timeline• FERC Limited Notice to Proceed Challenges• FERC Limited Notice to Proceed Docket Filings• Federal and State Permitting Status• Questions?

• Over 50 years of experience in pipeline system design, construction, and operation• Tennessee is prepared to meet the demands of a growing market with the integrity and

commitment to service that have made it one of the safest and most reliable pipelines in the United States

• Supply Regions: Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Appalachia, Mid-Continent & Apps Shale, Rockies, and Canada

• Markets: Northeast (including major metropolitan centers in NY/NJ and Boston), Mid-Atlantic, and the Southeast

• Pipeline Interconnects: >100 interconnects with most major interstate and intrastate pipeline systems in and around TGP’s markets

Growing Markets and Supply

Experience and Reliability

Size• Over 11,900 Miles of pipeline• Over 90 Bcf of Working Gas Storage• 1.4 million certificated horsepower • Spans from the Mexican border to southern New Hampshire

Tennessee Gas PipelineBackground

Project Overview

Facility Facility Type Length (approx miles) County State

251-1 36-inch pipeline loop 1.4 Albany NY

258-1 36-inch pipeline loop 3.8 Berkshire MA

261-1 24-inch pipeline loop 8.1 Hampden/Hartford MA/CT

13.3

Varying existing ROW widths

Connecticut Expansion ProjectDetailed Facilities

ROW Configuration– Existing NY ROW is 65, 70, and 100 feet wide with a

24-inch and 30-inch pipeline (9 properties)– Existing ROW in MA is nominal 80 and 90 feet wide with

a 24-inch and 30-inch pipeline (16 properties)– Existing ROW in CT is nominal 30 to 50 feet wide with 1

existing 16-inch pipeline (71 properties)

Connecticut Expansion Project Timeline

Milestone Date

Project Kickoff August 2013

Environmental Surveys and Data Gathering Oct/Nov 2013

MEPA FEIR April 2015

FERC EA Oct 2015

FERC Certificate March 11, 2016 (605 days after filing)

ACOE NY/NE Soon

CT/MA WQC Sooner

IP & (Limited) Notice to Proceed Filed March 22, 2016

Limited Notice to Proceed Challenges

• NLEB/Indiana Bats (N/A if outside of 150 foot of KNOWN roost trees)

• MBTA (TOY restrictions)

• ACOE Section 404 jurisdiction (N/A if non mechanized and vegetation left in place)

• CT/MA Section 401 jurisdiction (N/A in CT and N/A in MA if non mechanized and vegetation removed)

• CT NDDB Dwarf wedgemussels (N/A if 100’ buffer maintained)

• MA Article 97 (N/A-State forest parcel not included in NTP)

• Section 106 (Tribes unresponsive)

Limited Notice to Proceed Timeline

• Chronology of TGP’s request for NTP for tree felling:• 03/22/16: Filed tree felling NTP request and IP http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160322-5172

– Included with the NTP filing is the Williams Company Constitution Project NY ACOE concurrence that tree felling by hand (non mechanized) is not regulated under Section 404

• 03/25/16: FERC’s 1st request for additional information to support the request http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160325-3003– FERC inquired about MBTA TOY restrictions associated with felling tree during the breeding season– FERC requested “evidence” that NY&NE ACOE concur that 404 is not required– FERC requested “evidence” that CT&MA DEP concur that 401 is not required

• 03/30/16: TGP files response to FERC’s 1st request for additional information to support the request http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160330-5304– TGP acknowledges that tree felling will not be completed prior to states 3/31 TOY window but points FERC back to IP

statement showing TGP has requested and extension until 5/1 from USFWS– Emails from NY&NE ACOE that states 404 is not tripped provided “trees that have been felled in wetlands are not removed with

mechanized equipment (this includes pulling or pushing in such a manner that would result in a discharge of sediment) until the proper authorizations have been obtained”

– General TGP statement reminding FERC that absent a federal nexus, there is no means for a state water quality certification under Section 401 of CWA

• 03/30/16: FERC’s 2nd request for additional information to support the request http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160330-3061– FERC requests a copy of the USFWS TOY extension letter

• 04/11/16: TGP files 1st response to FERC’s 2nd request for additional information to support the request http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160411-5119– TGP files documentation showing TOY restriction extension request to USFWS

Notice to Proceed cont.

• 04/13/16: TGP files 2nd response to FERC’s 2nd request for additional information to support the request http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160413-5241– TGP files documentation that USFWS acknowledges that there is no TOY restriction associated with MTBA

• 05/04/16: FERC’s 3rd request for additional information to support the request http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160504-3010– In response to an email from USFWS, FERC requested TGP to provide a list of qualified wildlife rehabilitators in the Project

area that may be called upon, if necessary, during tree felling and other Project activities

• 05/06/16: TGP files response to FERC’s 3rd request for additional information to support the request http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160506-5079– TGP files list

Current Status

• NTP- has not been issued

• MA WQC- not issued (1 year review period ends July 17)

• CT WQC - not issued (DWM consultations ongoing)

• NY WQC- issued 2/9/2016

• NY ACOE- expected anyday

• NE ACOE- awaiting CT/MA 401, FWS DWM BO, Section 106 in MA

• Article 97- May 9th condemnation proceedings concluded; favorable ruling stayed until July 29th

Thank You

Questions?