1. December 2013Introductory Meeting: Connecticut Expansion Project Page 1
SGA Environmental Roundtable
Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Connecticut Expansion Project
Brian Benito Jr.
Senior Environmental Specialist
Kinder Morgan Major Projects
June 14, 2016

2. 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?

3. • 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 Pipeline
Background

4. Project Overview

5. 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 Project
Detailed 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)

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Thank You
Questions?