Subject: Re: Lincoln - EIS issue
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:39:00 -0800 (PST)

Response - There is not enough info. in item four for me to fully answer. I 
also need to know what the content of document 2.02.12.G.   However, I'll 
give it my best shot:

 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 under its blanket 
authorization.  I do not know what they mean by "the rest of the Lincoln 
facility".  As for the question relating to the "outcome of the EIS process 
for the pipeline", do they mean the lateral or the interconnect facility?

Fred Mitro
10/31/2000 08:16 AM
To: Chris Meyer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Kellermeyer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Lincoln - EIS issue

Chris/Dave:

Please take a look at question 4 in the attached file.  It deals with the 
issue of whether the 2000 Peaker Facilities or associated gas laterals are 
FERC jurisdictional facilities and/or require an EIS statement.  My initial 
recollection is that such an EIS was not required for either the Lincoln 
plant or the attached gas pipeline.

Let me know your thoughts with a cc to Ben Rogers.

Thanks,
Fred

---------------------- Forwarded by Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT on 10/31/2000 08:15 AM 
---------------------------

Benjamin Rogers
10/30/2000 06:49 PM
To: Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: 

Fred:
Could you take a stab at question 4 for us.  We have no idea on this one.  
Thanks
Ben