A subsidiary of a natural gas pipeline operator and electric provider will seek at least $2 million in tax breaks to route a 270-mile natural gas pipeline through a portion of southwestern Warren County.

Representatives of Duke Energy Gas Transmission, the Houston-based gas pipeline developing arm of Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy, delivered written plans for the request Thursday, said District 4 Supervisor Carl Flanders, board president.

Flanders discussed those plans both at the Port City Kiwanis and at supervisors’ informal meeting Thursday.

According to a company release, the company is proposing a 36-inch interstate pipeline, partnering with Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission.

The pipeline would extend from a CenterPoint-owned hub in northeastern Louisiana to a hub in Mobile, Ala., partially owned by Duke Energy.

Called the Southeast Supply Header, the line would connect natural gas supply in eastern Texas and north Louisiana to markets in the southeast and northeast United States.

In return for providing enough construction work on the project to create up to 3,000 jobs and up to 15 full-time jobs upon completion, the company will ask for a break on one-third of ad valorem taxes for 10 years. Through language in the request that terms it a &#8220fee-in-lieu” of taxes, the company would still kick in $125,000 to Warren County and the school district in the first 10 years, then $375,000 in the 11th year.

Flanders said company maps, which were not made available Thursday, show the pipeline running mainly through his district, including the Yokena and Cedars communities.

Although no contact has been made with landowners along the proposed route and the entire project depends on federal regulatory approval and from various state agencies, the issue is expected to be on the county’s agenda April 17.

Flanders told other supervisors present at the meeting that he &#8220has no position on the project” but has communicated through e-mail to company officials that he isn’t against the pipeline in principle but will not support a tax break because of constituent objections about too many tax breaks for large companies.

Supervisors David McDonald and Charles Selmon left the meeting and were not present for the discussion on the pipeline, and the two remaining supervisors gave no indication whether they would support the request.

However, one did point out the difference between what Duke Energy is asking for and previous tax incentives the county has done, such as TIFs.

&#8220The in-lieu of taxes is a better deal than those because we would actually get some money,” District 5 Supervisor Richard George said, adding that TIFs entail getting involved in the construction process while the pipeline project would not.

Figures on both the tax break and the projected payments are based on the company’s estimates and not actual property assessments, supervisors said.

In other business at the meeting, the board: