BPS/ESS/ITS Agenda July 8-9, 2008 s1
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 from December 8-9, 2016 WGQ BPS Face-to-Face Meeting
DATE: January 5, 2017
WHOLESALE GAS QUADRANT
Business Practices Subcommittee
Face-to-Face Meeting with Webcasting
Hosted by NAESB in Houston, Texas
Thursday, December 8, 2016 from 10:30 AM to 5:30 PM Central
Friday, December 9, 2016 from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM Central
DRAFT MINUTES
1. Administrative
Ms. Van Pelt opened the meeting. The participants introduced themselves in person and over the phone. Ms. Mallett delivered the Antitrust and Other Meeting Policies reminder and called the roll. Ms. Munson moved, seconded by Ms. Hogge, to adopt the draft agenda as final. The motion passed without opposition.
The participants reviewed the November 30, 2016 – December 1, 2016 WGQ BPS draft meeting minutes as redlined by Ms. Hogge. Mr. Lander moved to adopt the draft minutes as final. Ms. Hogge seconded the motion. The motion passed without opposition.
The November 30, 2016 – December 1, 2016 final minutes may be accessed at the following link: https://www.naesb.org//pdf4/wgq_bps113016fm.doc.
2. Discussion on 2016 WGQ Annual Plan Item 3.c.iii (R16007[1]) and 2016 WGQ Annual Plan Item 3.c.i (R16003b[2])
The WGQ BPS previously discussed this issue during the following meetings and conference calls: July12, 2016, July 28, 2016, August 11, 2016, August 25, 2016, September 12-13, 2016, October 4, 2016, November 16, 2016, and November 30-December 1, 2016.
Mr. Lander, seconded by Ms. Hogge, moved to withdraw the motion made during the November 30-December 1, 2016 meeting. The motion proposed to table a vote on the proposed language presented during that meeting. There was no objection to the withdrawal.
Ms. Crockett stated that, in the proposed language, the redlined phrase in NAESB WGQ Proposed Standard 1.3.z1, “…nor does this standard prescribe any affect for services that do not expressly provide for Shaped Nominations,” may preclude or make pipelines hesitant to offer certain services. She stated that, as an end user, she is hesitant to support the language and would prefer to get feedback from pipelines that the proposal would not hamper the services offered.
Mr. Rudd stated that, in uniform hourly takes, a shipper who has 24,000 would take 1,000 per hour. He asked whether a Shaped Nomination allows the ability to take 4,000 for 6 of those hours or 6,000 over 24 hours. Ms. Munson stated that the Shaped Nomination as described in the request is the ability for the shipper to have a daily number and, for example, take 500 the first 6 hours, and next take 750, 1700, and then 1000 for the remaining hours. She stated that the request provides the ability to show the shape of the flow over the 24 hours. Mr. Lander stated that the proposed language does not describe a service, but how to communicate the service if it is offered. He stated that the fact that the communication occurs would not create the service, but the language provides, to the extent that the service exists, how to convey the information.
Ms. Crockett stated that Tennessee Valley Authority currently provides a faxed hourly shape of the flow to the pipelines, as defined by an existing FERC-approved process. She stated that the process defines the receipt and delivery point, meter size at plants, the maximum amount that can flow, and other considerations to accommodate the specific contract. She stated that she is concerned about the prohibition of additional services that she may need. Mr. Salese agreed that the language applies in the case that a Shaped Nomination exists, and added that the proposal is also a communication for the services that are subsequently put into place. He stated that the shippers must address the issue when a pipeline files the new service and the new tariffs would need to be addressed at the FERC level. Mr. Salese added that the proposed language is acceptable because it refers to situations when there is an entity expressly providing for the Shaped Nomination.
The participants discussed the LDC Work Paper - Proposed Supplemental Shaped Nomination Standards and R16007/R16003b - LDC Segment Work Paper proposed modifications to proposed standards regarding shaped nominations Draft 11/11/2016 (LDC Segment Work Paper). Regarding NAESB WGQ Proposed Standard 1.3.z1 on the LDC Segment Work Paper, Mr. Lander stated that the current NAESB WGQ Business Practice Standards do not reference flowing priority or character of service. Mr. Young stated that he preferred the modified language.
[Vote 1]: Mr. Lander, seconded by Ms. Munson moved to adopt NAESB WGQ Proposed Standard Nos. 1.2.z1 and 1.3.z1 as they appear in the posted work paper. Mr. Lander stated that he does not see the language as limiting the offer of services, as it applies to the entities that already offer the service. Ms. Van Pelt read the motion aloud and opened the floor for discussion.
Mr. Connor noted that a vote in favor at the subcommittee does not tie him to a certain vote as an Executive Committee member. He stated that he hopes that the WGQ BPS will also adopt the principles presented by several LDCs in the work paper, LDC Work Paper - Proposed Supplemental Shaped Nomination Standards, in an effort to help the language pass the consideration and vote of the WGQ Executive Committee. Ms. McCain offered a friendly amendment, changing the word “affect” to “effect.” The friendly amendment was accepted by the motioners. Mr. Field stated that the principles presented by the LDCs do not add or harm Motion #1. He asked whether the motion should be amended to add the principles in order to gain more votes from the LDC segment. Mr. Lander stated that the principals should be further discussed; however, NAESB WGQ Proposed Standards 1.2.z1 and 1.3.z1 were presented several weeks ago. Ms. Munson requested a balanced vote.
The motion passed a balanced vote with 7.71 in favor and .28 opposed. The results of the balanced vote are shown below:
Segment / Votes Cast / Balanced VoteYES / NO / TOTAL / YES / NO / TOTAL
End Users / 1 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 1
LDCs / 6 / 1 / 7 / 1.714286 / 0.285714 / 2
Pipeline / 12 / 0 / 12 / 2 / 0 / 2
Producer / 1 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 1
Services / 5 / 0 / 5 / 2 / 0 / 2
Total / 24 / 1 / 25 / 7.714286 / 0.285714 / 8
Ms. Nicolay, Mr. Gwilliam, Mr. Fields, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Kott abstained.
3. Discussion on 2016 WGQ Annual Plan Item 3.b.v (GEH Forum Issue 36[3])
The WGQ BPS previously discussed this issue during the following meetings and conference calls: August 11, 2016, September 12-13, 2016, September 29, 2016, October 4, 2016, October 18, 2016, October 27-28, 2016, November 2, 2016, November 9-10, 2016, November 30- December 1, 2016. Two work papers were posted for the meeting addressing this annual plan item: GEH Issue 36 - Proposed Additional Standard Submitted by NJNG and PSEG and GEH Issue 36: Proposed Additional Standard - From FIS.
Regarding the work paper, GEH Issue 36 - Proposed Additional Standard Submitted by NJNG and PSEG, Ms. Ferreira stated that “LDC” does not seem to be a defined term in the NAESB WGQ Business Practice Standards, so she used the term “downstream entity.” Mr. Young asked how one would determine that a downstream entity is a final downstream entity. He stated that the language in NAESB WGQ Proposed Standard No. 1.3.z4 seems to make “Package ID” a required field and that may not be appropriate, as it has been classified under the business condition of Mutually Agreeable for years. He asked whether the subcommittee could accommodate a new data element rather than modify the “Package ID” data element. Mr. Lander stated that he agreed that the final downstream entity may prove difficult to ascertain. He asked Ms. Ferreira to describe the business purpose of the Package ID. Ms. Ferreira stated that, as an LDC, she is fine with the creation of a new field. She stated that the LDCs never knew that the field was Mutually Agreeable. She explained that the LDCs use the field for markets coming to the gate and electric generators.
Mr. Spangler asked why the LDCs do not instead utilize the Downstream Entity and Downstream Contract fields. Ms. Ferreira stated that her company has multiple meters and uses the Downstream Contract field to show the lateral that is pulled across. She stated that the LDC segment uses the field for a multitude of reasons. She stated that if a cut is made based on Package ID, the LDCs may use the field as a way to cut back up through the transaction. Mr. Carrero stated that if he is sending gas from A to B using the same numbers in the Downstream Contract and Downstream Entity fields, the Package ID field is used to determine a different downstream. He explained that, as a shipper, the Package ID, the Downstream Entity, and the Downstream Contract fields are required in his nomination activities. Ms. Munson stated that there is a need for the Package ID field and it serves a distinct purpose in the LDC sector that goes beyond the Downstream Entity and Downstream Contract fields. Mr. Young stated that the usage of Package ID in the path nonthreaded model can be based on what the service requester wants. Mr. Gracey stated that there cannot be a data element that would thread a cut from the delivery side into a transport of the path nonthreaded model. He stated that there is no relationship between the transport and the confirmation piece other than the service requester.
Mr. Nowak asked why the two fields, Downstream Entity and Downstream Contract are not enough to move forward with the needed information. He stated that having all of the extra work accounted for on the upstream TSP is a burden for extra data to be communicated and noted that the LDCs systems could capture the information. Ms. Stabley suggested that the extra information could be added to the Downstream Contract field, as adding a new field would cost time and money. Ms. Van Pelt stated that the Downstream Contract field should match the Service Requester field on the downstream party. Mr. Lander stated that the Downstream Contract on the pipeline is sent to the confirming party. He noted that what is in the field does not matter to the pipelines. Ms. Ferreira stated that the Downstream Contract field is used to match up with a lateral contract on the same pipeline. Mr. Lander noted that there are two sides of the lateral contract, the receipt and the delivery. Ms. Ferreira explained that when the gas is picked up from an entity, that entity’s contract is used. She stated that the entity the gas is sold to may not be her marketer. Mr. Lander stated that the title tracking could take place on her side. Mr. Pederson stated that the situation is not an across the board issue for LDCs. Mr. Hensley suggested that the subcommittee undertake the effort under Standards Request R16004, a standards request submitted by FIS to update the NAESB WGQ Standard No. 1.4.1 Nomination dataset to remove all non-necessary data elements and to evaluate the use of all Mutually Agreeable and Business Conditional data elements for their continued relevance. Ms. Ferreira added that the effort would greatly increase the nomination time for LDCs in the Northeast.
After some discussion Ms. Van Pelt clarified that during the October 27-28, 2016 WGQ BPS face-to-face meeting in Richmond, VA, the point was made that the Package ID field is not Mandatory in the confirmation process. She stated that no one stated that anything would change, but it was noted that the field belonged to the service requester. Mr. Bartosek stated that the Package ID field was put in place to confirm bulk supplies. For example, there is no way to allocate the gas successfully if there is one contract with twenty brokers and Package ID is not used. He stated that there is no way to guarantee that the supply will be confirmed at the citygate without the Package ID. Mr. Spangler stated that Package ID is not being used in the way it was intended- a place for the shipper to park the information needed for the nomination. Mr. Gwilliam agreed and stated that 1.3.z4 is not necessary. Mr. Nowak asked that the subcommittee review NAESB WGQ Standard No. 1.3.64.
Mr. Lander reviewed the work paper, R16003b-Skipping Stone with Boardwalk redlines accepted. For background information on this standards request please see R16003 and Attachment 1. He stated that the standards look at peak or intermediate electric generators that are varying their input. As the gas generator in the middle is responding to the ramping up and down, the pipelines are experiencing volatility in the delivery to the generator. Mr. Lander stated that pipelines currently seek to serve the load through talking to eachother, but the proposers see this circumstance increasing in frequency. The proposal seeks to establish a set of Mutually Agreeable practices that allow a way to give the generators a means of requesting variable flow to the extent that it is confirmed and scheduled. He stated that the Proposed Principle 1.1.xx1 is a companion to the Title Tracking Transfer principle and does not require pipelines to perform any actions that they do not perform today.