Loren H. Locher Regional Director of Government Affairs

1. Loren H. LocherRegional Director of Government Affairs Ruby Update IRWA Spring Conference April 15, 2010 El Paso Western Pipeline

2. This presentation includes certain forward-looking statements and projections. The company has made every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and assumptions on which these statements and projections are based are current, reasonable, and complete. However, a variety of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the projections, anticipated results or other expectations expressed in this presentation, including, without limitation, our ability to close the project financing for Ruby, including our ability to satisfy various conditions precedent such as the execution of definitive loan agreements, receipt of regulatory approvals for the project, execution of transportation agreements and associated credit support arrangements with our customers and completion of due diligence by the lenders; our ability to obtain necessary governmental approvals and our ability to successfully construct and operate Ruby on time and within budget; changes in commodity prices and basis differentials for oil, natural gas, and power; general economic and weather conditions in geographic regions or markets served by the company and its affiliates, or where operations of the company and its affiliates are located; the uncertainties associated with governmental regulation; competition; and other factors described in the company's (and its affiliates') Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. While the company makes these statements and projections in good faith, neither the company nor its management can guarantee that anticipated future results will be achieved. Reference must be made to those filings for additional important factors that may affect actual results. The company assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements made herein or any other forward-looking statements made by the company, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Cautionary Statement RegardingForward-looking Statements 2

3. Overview of El Paso Corporation ColoradoInterstate Gas TennesseeGas Pipeline WyomingInterstate CheyennePlains Pipeline RubyPipeline MojavePipeline SouthernNatural Gas Elba IslandLNG El PasoNatural Gas Florida GasTransmission (50%) Premier Pipeline Franchise1 Top 10 independent E&P • 19% of total U.S. interstate pipeline mileage • 26 Bcf/d capacity (12% of total U.S.) • 18 Bcf/d throughput (28% of gas deliveredto U.S. consumers) • 2.75 Tcfe proved reserves2 • Top 10 independent domestic gas producer • Successful transition to unconventional resources 1Source: El Paso Corporation 2009 data 2As of 12/31/09; includes proportionate share of Four Star equity volumes Note: Includes El Paso Corporation and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. 3

4. Ruby Pipeline Map Big Horn Basin Powder River Basin O R E G O N I D A H O GTN W Y O M I N G Wind River Basin Green River Basin PG&E CIG Opal Hub Tuscarora Denver Juelsburg WIC C A L I F . Paiute Cheyenne Plains U T A H Uinta Basin N E V A D A Piceance Basin Kern River C O L O R A D O Raton Basin NWPL Ruby Cheyenne • 675 miles of 42-inch Opal to Malin • 1,440 psig MAOP • Measurement—8 locations • Four delivery points • Receipts from the major Rocky Mountain producing basins • Estimated Cost $3 Billion 5

5. Ruby: The First Carbon Neutral Pipeline Collaborative effort between Project Developer and Shippers Compressors to be powered by both gas and electricity Purchase renewable power (e-tags) to run e-motors Internal coating of the pipeline Apply Best (methane) Management Practices (BMPs) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Reforestation along Ruby route and other locations Purchase Voluntary Emissions Reduction (VER) credits On-going GHG mitigation costs recovered as part of tariff fuel charge

6. Ruby Pipeline Milestones FERC Certificate Docket No. CP09-54 Website: www.rubypipeline.com 13

7. Ruby Stats 1.098 Bcf/d of firm transportation service agreements with customers Estimated cost $2.96 Billion Begin service in March 2011 90% of ROW acquired

8. Ruby Pipeline Project Example • 65% + Public Land • 4 States • Letters of support from California (Gov), Colorado (Gov), Nevada (Gov), Utah (Gov), Oregon (State Legislators) • 9 Counties • Aggressive public and NGO outreach continues

9. Permits Required

10. Permit (s) Federal Agency State County/Municipal Politics/Perceptions Acquisition Construction Projects and Politics • Regulated • FERC (Lead) • Agencies • Politics • Non-regulated • State • County/Municipal • Politics

11. Politics, Projects, and Perception • Perception is reality “Reality is merely an illusion.” -Albert Einstein • Right or wrong? Doesn’t matter! • How does this affect/impact projects? • Regulated / Non-regulated • Federal • State • County/Municipal

12. Politics Are Local “Only local politics count; all politics are local”-Speaker, Tip O’Neil • City officials often move to county positions • County officials often move to state positions • State officials often move to federal positions • Build relationships at the earliest level All Politics are local!

13. Working Example of Cooperative Issue Management • Washoe County • Multiple SUP’s required • Multiple permit oversight • Board of County Commissioners • Planning Commission • Board of Adjustment • Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency • Citizens Advisory Board • Permit Team (Internal) • Government Affairs

14. Issue Resolution • Political briefings with elected/appointed officials (with help of a local consultant) • Relationship creation/maintenance • Project overview • Tax revenues • Job creation • Short term socioeconomic benefits • Long term macro benefits • Ongoing discussions/negotiations with permitting agencies • Consensus building • Attendance and presentation at approval meetings

15. Outcome • Ultimate approval of all SUP’s • Cooperative effort by project team • Long term relationships with Washoe County • Monetary cost v. project delay • The right thing to do • Example of simultaneous energy infrastructure project perception (RMP v. Ruby) • Perception v. reality

16. Q & A • Open discussion

17. April 4, 2010 Employees' loose bar chatter undercuts the utility's credibility in its effort to build a transmission project. JOHN DAY, Ore. -When the threat came to the valley - a proposed transmission line of 190-foot-high towers that would run through their ranches and obscure their scenic views on its way to the Columbia River - folks here knew that words mattered. That was a lesson Idaho Power executives had to learn the hard way. After a March 2 public meeting to talk about the power line, a company lead project professional, a coordinator, a specialist and contractors went to John Day's Outpost Pizza, Pub & Grill for drinks and dinner. They loudly made fun of how local people talked, expressed disdain for the locals' complaints and said that in the end they would simply take their land through the utility's power of eminent domain. Word quickly got around about how the company officials viewed the community and the process, and residents complained to the company that the hearings were a "ruse." "People were shocked and angry," said Tracey Watson, manager of the Outpost bar. The company has made several return trips to Grant County to listen and apologize. In doing so, Idaho Power has learned that, away from its home turf, it has to fight in Oregon for its credibility as well as permission to build its transmission lines. At the latest public meeting on Wednesday, Vern Porter, Idaho Power vice president of operations and engineering, told a crowd of more than 110 people at the Mount Vernon Community Center that he had harshly reprimanded the Idaho Power employees and moved them and the contractors off the transmission line project. "That type of behavior is not condoned by Idaho Power," Porter said. "It doesn't represent the view of the company."

18. April 9, 2010 Rep. Camille "Bud" George: Attack of the gas industry! HARRISBURG, PA April 9 -- State Rep. Camille "Bud" George, majority chair of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, today said money and misinformation are the hallmarks of a gas industry attack titled, "Rep. George's fact-free fact-finding mission." "The gas industry can neither buy the truth nor claim to present 'real genuine facts' about Marcellus Shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania," said Rep. George, D-74 of Clearfield County. "To insinuate that citizens concerned about gas drilling are crackpots because their personal experiences with drilling do not square with the industry's version of the facts is reprehensible."

19. Contact Information Mr. Loren H. Locher Regional Director, Govt. Affairs El Paso Corporation Loren.Locher@elpaso.com 602-438-4208 Office

20. Loren H. LocherRegional Director of Government Affairs Ruby Update IRWA Spring Conference April 15, 2010 El Paso Western Pipeline