North American Energy Standards Board
801 Travis, Suite 1675, Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail:
Home Page: www.naesb.org
via posting
TO: Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) Business Practices Subcommittee (BPS) and Interested Industry Parties
FROM: Elizabeth Mallett, NAESB Deputy Director
RE: Draft Minutes – July 12, 2016 WGQ BPS Conference Call
DATE: July 18, 2016
WHOLESALE GAS QUADRANT
Business Practices Subcommittee
Conference Call with Webcasting
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
2:00 PM to 4:00 PM Central
DRAFT MINUTES
1. Administrative
Ms. Van Pelt opened the conference call and welcomed the participants. Ms. Mallett delivered the Antitrust and Other Meeting Policies reminder and called the roll. Ms. Van Pelt reviewed the draft agenda and proposed deleting the non GEH-related agenda items, specifically the discussion on R15008, R16001, R16005, and R16006. She noted that these agenda items will be addressed during the July 19, 2016 conference call. Mr. Lander moved, seconded by Ms. Munson, to adopt the revised draft agenda as final. The motion passed without opposition.
The participants reviewed the January 21, 2016 draft meeting minutes as redlined by Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis moved, seconded by Mr. Lander, moved to adopt the modified redlined draft minutes as final. The motion passed without opposition.
The final January 21, 2016 meeting minutes may be accessed at the following link: https://www.naesb.org//pdf4/wgq_bps012116fm.doc.
2. Review and Possibly Vote on Standard Request Nos. R16003, R16004, and R16007
Standards Request R16003
Mr. Lander delivered an overview of Standards Request R16003 and its attachment. He stated that the request focuses on two areas: nominations and capacity release. The request establishes definitions – “Standards Scheduled Flow Period(s),” “Shaped Flow Transactions,” “Intra Cycle Transportation Transactions,” “Special Efforts Scheduling Process,” and “Special Efforts Scheduling Request’s Elapsed Scheduled Quantity.” Additionally, R16003 proposes modifications to NAESB WGQ Standard Nos. 1.2.4 and 1.2.12, 1.3.4, 1.3.9, 5.3.2, 5.3.29, and 5.3.44, while suggesting eleven new nomination and three new capacity release standards be added to the WGQ Business Practice Standards.
Mr. Lander stated that the intent of the request is to accommodate those entities who make special efforts, such as variable flow, non-ratable day, flow for parts of a day, etc. He stated that the transaction would be scheduled between the TSPs who are willing and able to execute them and the (What is a TSR?) TSRs. He noted that the effect that the capacity release market had on price formation helped send price signals to TSPs, shippers, and developers as to the value of capacity during strained periods. Mr. Lander explained that the success of the capacity release standards spurred the last twenty years of building and market function. He stated that the industry needs a similar availability around shorter term services. He stated that the special efforts scheduling does not create capacity, but may create a price signal for what people desire.
Ms. Munson stated that the request should be approached in three parts and in the following order: 1.) shaped nominations, where shippers can submit up to 24 hours of hourly flow in a singlefor a nomination, 2.) special efforts nominations, and 3.) capacity release. Mr. Lander stated that he originally supported the idea of splitting the request, but, while considering the difference between shaped and special transactions, he no longer supports the approach, as it may lead to a TSP having a shaped nomination on an agreement that does not provide for one. Ms. Munson noted that Standards Request R16007 has nothing to do with special efforts nominations. Mr. Lander stated that those parties who want shaped transactions on non-shaped contracts will need to seek mutual agreement. Mr. Gracey suggested an additional standard be added to communicate that idea.
Ms. Nicolay asked whether a pipeline and a shipper will have to follow the requirements in the proposed standards if a special effort agreement is made. Mr. Lander stated that the purpose of the standard is to have some national process, so that a party who has plants on ten pipelines will not have to deal with ten separate processes. He stated that the proposed standards language in Standards Request R16003 was kept as generic as possible in an effort to provide a general framework or background rules. Mr. Lander noted that the standard can always be exceeded, but seeks to provide a minimum level of predictability.
Mr. Schoene asked whether the proposed language requires an immediate nomination. Mr. Lander stated that it would require an immediate nomination in order to get into the billing system. Mr. Connor asked whether the request is a best practices for pipelines that currently offer the capability or a brand new process. Mr. Lander stated that the request does contain best practices from the pipelines today that do schedule all of the time. Mr. Young stated that this request seems to hold the belief of “if we draft the standard, they will come.” He stated that these may not be best practices, as the entities who schedule all of the time may not necessarily be “special efforts.” Mr. Lander stated that ACES and Calpine have stated that the pipelines that they work with accommodate varying flows. He noted that the need for variable flow is increasing and, along with that, there is a growing importance as the nation moves toward integrating intermittent renewables, such as wind and solar. Mr. Young stated that he questions whether the issue is ripe for standardization. Mr. Lander stated that a capacity release market did not exist when the standard was written and many believed that the standards would not be utilized; however, in line with the requirement from FERC, the standards were drafted. He stated that he sees the proposal in the request as an enabler that will set in motion and lead to thousands of transactions and hundreds of ways to respond to the price signals, such as looping, demand response, etc.
Ms. Munson stated that this request came from the Gas-Electric Harmonization (GEH) Forum issues and the concerns that were raised by those who need to nominate outside the standard cycle and also provide the shaped nominations. Mr. Gracey requested a visual representation of the definitions, such as a timeline including examples. Mr. Lander stated that a timeline can be provided. Mr. Connor suggested that Mr. Landers invite the pipelines that nominate around the clock or that need R16003 to join the next conference call addressing the request in order to express their interests.
Mr. B. Fields clarified that Calpine Energy Services was not one of the electric parties that requested special needs beyond what is already provided. He stated that the company has been doing well within the existing paradigm.
Standards Request R16004
Ms. Munson reviewed Standards Request R16004 with the subcommittee. She stated that the request seeks to update the NAESB WGQ Standard Nos. 1.4.1 Nomination dataset to remove all non-necessary data elements and to evaluate the use of all Mutually Agreed and Business Conditional data elements for their continued relevance. She stated that many of the elements are to provide for confirmation and should be cleaned up.
Mr. Young expressed concern that the intent may inadvertently change implementation that has already been developed. He stated that this may become an issue if NAESB deletes data elements that are currently being utilized by those companies who do not participate in the NAESB process. Ms. Van Pelt stated that some of the data elements may have tariff implications. Ms. Munson agreed and stated that the subcommittee should proceed with caution in the necessary endeavor. Mr. Connor asked whether there is a way to measure how much faster the confirmation process will go if the nomination data set is cleaned up, as it may take a substantial amount of time and effort. Ms. Davis stated that she looked at every data element that is not Mandatory in the nomination data set and half of them were used in confirmations, but, more than not, the data element has to deal with communicating information to the TSP so that they can connecting the dots with back offices. She offered the “Bid-up Indicator” as one example. Ms. Davis noted that there is more to the request than clean-up. Ms. Munson stated that NAESB could look to a similar ANSI effort. Ms. Van Pelt stated that she participated in the ANSI X12 Subcommittee and NAESB for years and stated that she is reluctant about the request, as it seems to be busy work and not closely related to the GEH efforts. She explained that she is not convinced that the project will benefit the industry in the long run and noted that X12 goes through a major effort for deletion. Further, in X12, if a code value is deleted, it is never assigned again, in order to acknowledge that there may be a company that still uses the code value even though it is not in the standards.
Ms. Hill explained that two elements in the request, “Export Declaration Indicator” and “Minimum Receipt and Minimum Delivery Quantity,” are utilized everyday by TransCanada Pipelines.
Standards Request R16007
Ms. Munson reviewed Standards Request R16007 with the participants. She stated that the request is to update the nomination datasets to support the ability to submit a single nomination with hourly quantities when such a service is supported by the TSP. She stated that R16007, which requests an indicator to accompany the quantities to indicate whether they are an hourly flow rate or a daily flow quantity, is not associated with the special efforts nominations, but it is using the same set of tools and techniques to convey the information that Mr. Lander discussed in the shaped nomination.
Ms. Van Pelt asked whether the two requests, R16003 and R16007, were related and came from one discussion. Ms. Munson explained that they were not developed together, but stated that they may be addressed at the same time. Mr. Lander noted that the proposal in the request would have ripple effects in confirmations. Mr. Connor asked whether this is the only thing different from current industry practice. Ms. Munson replied that it is not. Mr. Gracey asked whether the request is applicable if he chooses to do special efforts nominations. Ms. Munson replied that her request would not be applicable. Mr. Gracey asked whether the pipeline services allow specifically for the nominations described in the request. Ms. Munson stated that the services are specifically designed for these types of nominations. She noted that, for pipelines that have services that allow for a shaped nomination, the indicator and dataset can accommodate the nomination. Mr. Connor asked whether the pipelines that only provide ratable flow have a special service. Ms. Munson replied that request would have implications on the confirmation process as well as scheduled quantity.
3. Next Meeting(s) and Agenda
The next WGQ BPS conference call has been scheduled for July 19, 2016 from 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM Central. The meeting is open to all interested parties.
4. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned on a motion by Mr. Lander, seconded by Mr. Connor, at 4:03 PM Central.
Name – First / Name – Last / Organization / Segment /Wayne / Benoit / Boardwalk Pipeline / Pipeline /
Kelly / Brooks / WBI Energy / Pipeline /
Rich / Brown / PJM Interconnection / End User /
Pete / Connor / American Gas Association / LDC /
Michelle / Coon / OATI / Services /
Valerie / Crockett / Tennessee Valley Authority / Pipeline /
Dale / Davis / Williams / Pipeline /
Jeremy / Durocher / MCP Operating / Pipeline /
Douglas / Field / Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline / Pipeline /
Brian / Fields / Calpine Energy Services / End User /
Brian / Fitzpatrick / PJM Interconnection / End User /
Tina / Gary / Portland General Electric / End User /
Mark / Gracey / Kinder Morgan / Pipeline /
Tom / Gwilliam / Iroquois Gas Transmission System / Pipeline /
Ronnie / Hensley / Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline / Pipeline /
Sherry / Hill / TransCanada Pipelines / Pipeline /
Rachel / Hogge / Dominion Transmission / Pipeline /
Brenda / Horton / Kern River Gas Transmission / Pipeline /
Richard / Ishikawa / Southern California Gas Company / LDC /
Greg / Lander / Skipping Stone / Services /
Nancy / Leatherland / Enbridge / Pipeline /
Shelly / Lyser / Consolidated Edison Co of NY / LDC /
Elizabeth / Mallett / North American Energy Standards Board / N/A /
Marcy / McCain / Spectra Energy Corp / Pipeline /
Willis / McCluskey / Salt River Project / End User /
Steven / McCord / Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation / Pipeline /
Robin / Moates / Tennessee Valley Authority / End User /
Sylvia / Munson / SunGard / Services /
Christi / Nicolay / Macquarie Energy / Services /
Gene / Nowak / Kinder Morgan / Pipeline /
Phil / Precht / Baltimore Gas and Electric / LDC /
Sara / Rogers / Oneok Partners / Pipeline /
Ben / Schoene / ConocoPhillips Company / Producer /
Kim / Van Pelt / Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP / Pipeline /
Deborah / Waugh / Williams / Pipeline /
Randy / Young / Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP / Pipeline /
5. Attendees
WGQ Business Practices Subcommittee Conference Call July 12, 2016 – Draft Minutes
Page 4 of 4