|
|
Enron Mail |
Ben:
See my comments in red below. Chris Meyer has commented in blue. Fred ---------------------- Forwarded by Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT on 10/31/2000 02:25 PM --------------------------- From: Chris Meyer 10/31/2000 12:50 PM To: Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Dave Kellermeyer/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: Lincoln - EIS issue REVISED ANSWER 4. Are the facilities FERC jurisdictional for environmental impact statement purposes pursuant to 18 C.F.R. Part 380? Assuming the "facilities" are the lateral and interconnect, the answer is no. We noticed that the only facility with information about this issue was the pipeline at Lincoln, although the information seemed to suggest that only the pipeline was subject to the EIS process. See 2.02.12.G. Was the rest of the Lincoln facility subject to the EIS process? Fred - someone other than me will have to answer this question as I assume the "Lincoln facility" refers to the plant. I also need to see document 2.02.12G in order to see why they believe the pipeline was subject to the EIS process. I am not aware of an EIS being prepared for the Lincoln Energy Center project. I talked with Dave Kellermeyer and he was not aware of an EIS being prepared for Lincoln. I have sent an email to Dave Lazzaro at Peoples Energy to determine if an EIS was completed for the pipeline. I will forward you his response. What was the outcome of the EIS process for the pipeline? The interconnect facilities upstream of the intersection of the lateral and N. Border's Manhattan Station are subject to FERC jurisdiction. N. Border completed the hot tap and interconnect facilities ( the permanent will be finished by December 1) under its blanket authorization and in compliance with any notice and/or permitting requirements. As for the lateral, this was handled by Peoples. Fred or Dave may be in a better position to ascertain any EIS process completed by Peoples. My request to Peoples is in progress (see comment above).
|