Message-ID: <14635431.1075846694772.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 1979 16:00:00 -0800 (PST)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: frazier.king@enron.com, dari.dornan@enron.com
Subject: index of customers
Cc: lindy.donoho@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: lindy.donoho@enron.com
X-From: Susan Scott
X-To: Frazier King, Dari Dornan
X-cc: Lindy Donoho
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: SCOTT-S
X-FileName: sscott3.nsf

Frazier and Dari:  Elizabeth Brown and Rita Bianchi have asked whether we 
need to include our so-called "pool" contracts on TW's index of customers.  
These are FTS-1 agreements which have a reservation charge of $0 for transfer 
from a pool to a point within the pool (involving no actual movement of 
gas).  Historically TW has categorized such agreements as "administrative" 
and has not included them on the index of customers.  Apparently we need the 
contracts to exist as FTS-1 agreements for internal purposes.  

I suppose the question has come up again in Elizabeth's and Rita's review of 
our postings for Order 637 purposes:  whether the two "pool" contracts (Amoco 
and Burlington) need to be included on the Index of Customers.  I suppose 
that technically they should be since they are called FTS-1 agreements.  
However, I have very little heartburn with continuing to leave them off the 
list since no transportation is ever involved.  

My main concern is that we be consistent among the pipelines, in order to 
simplify the maintenance of our websites.  Please let me know what you think,