Download:
pdf |
pdfNorth American Energy Standards Board
Wholesale Gas Quadrant
Business Practice Standards
Standards and Models Relating To
Additional Standards
Nominations
Flowing Gas
Invoicing
Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanisms
WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet Electronic Transport
Capacity Release
Contracts
Interpretations
Book 1 of 2
Containing Principles, Definitions, Standards and Models
Version 1.8
September 30, 2006
With Minor Corrections Applied December 13, 2006, January 29, 2008, May 29, 2008
Copyright © 1996 - 2006 North American Energy Standards Board, Inc.
All rights reserved.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
1
September 30, 2006
The North American Energy Standards Board (“NAESB”) disclaims and excludes, and
any user of the NAESB standard acknowledges and agrees to NAESB’s disclaimer of,
any and all warranties, conditions or representations, express or implied, oral or
written, with respect to the standard or any part thereof, including any and all implied
warranties or conditions of title, non-infringement, merchantability, or fitness or
suitability for any particular purpose (whether or not NAESB knows, has reason to
know, has been advised, or is otherwise in fact aware of any such purpose), whether
alleged to arise by law, by reason of custom or usage in the trade, or by course of
dealing. Each user of the standard also agrees that under no circumstances will
NAESB be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, exemplary, punitive or
consequential damages arising out of any use of, or errors or omissions in, the
standard.
The North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), Wholesale Gas Quadrant
(WGQ) Version 1.8 Standards Manuals Relating to Additional Standards,
Nominations, Flowing Gas, Invoicing, Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanisms,
Capacity Release, Contracts, Interpretations, and WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet
Electronic Transport, and any amendments or errata thereto, are protected by
NAESB’s federal copyright 1996-2006. NAESB hereby grants the authorized users
who are NAESB members in good standing permission to reproduce material therein
for internal reference and use and not for use by any unauthorized third parties.
Reproduction in any other form, or for any other purpose, is forbidden without express
permission of NAESB. Copies are available for purchase from NAESB. This nonexclusive limited license is non-transferable and may be revoked without notice upon
violation of the terms contained herein or any applicable law or regulation. Each user
grants NAESB the right to audit its use to assure compliance with these terms.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
2
September 30, 2006
The standards follow a numbering convention which is x.y.z:
x
y
z
0 – Additional Standards
1 -- Nominations Related Standards
2 -- Flowing Gas Related Standards
3 -- Invoicing Related Standards
4 – Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Standards
5 -- Capacity Release Related Standards
6 -- Contracts
7 – Interpretations
10 – WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet Electronic Transport
1 -- Principles
2 -- Definitions
3 -- Standards
4 -- Datasets - Data Dictionary
5 -- Models
Sequentially Assigned Number
Terms used:
NAESB
- North American Energy Standards Board
GISB
- Gas Industry Standards Board
WGQ
- Wholesale Gas Quadrant
Table of Contents:
Additional Standards
Nominations Related Standards
Flowing Gas Related Standards
Invoicing Related Standards
Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Standards
Capacity Release Related Standards
Contracts Related Standards
Interpretations of Standards
WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet Electronic Transport
Version Cross Reference
Interpretation Cross Reference
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
3
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
4
9
31
43
47
67
78
79
108
114
142
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Additional Standards
Additional Standards
General:
Principles:
0.1.1
An entity is a person or organization with sufficient legal standing to enter
into a contract or arrangement with another such person or organization (as
such legal standing may be determined by those parties) for the purpose of
conducting and/or coordinating natural gas transactions.
0.1.2
For NAESB WGQ purposes, there should be a unique entity common code
for each entity name and there should be a unique entity name for each
entity common code.
0.1.3
A Transportation Service Provider as used in the NAESB WGQ standards is
not necessarily the same as a Transmission Provider as defined in Title 18
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Standards:
0.3.1
0.3.2
Entity common codes should be “legal entities”, that is, Ultimate Location,
Headquarters Location, and/or Single Location (in Dun & Bradstreet
Corporation (“D&B”) terms). However, in the following situations, a Branch
Location (in D&B terms) can also be an entity common code:
1.
when the contracting party provides a D-U-N-S® Number at the Branch
Location level; or
2.
to accommodate accounting for an entity that is identified at the Branch
Location level.
Parties should mutually agree to use the Transportation Service Provider’s
proprietary entity code when the D-U-N-S® Number is not available.
Creditworthiness:
Standards:
0.3.3 If the Transportation Service Provider (TSP) requests additional information
to be used for credit evaluation after the initiation of service, the TSP,
contemporaneous with the request, should provide its reason(s) for
requesting the additional information to the Service Requester (SR) and
designate to whom the response should be sent. The TSP and the SR may
mutually agree to waive the requirements of this standard.
0.3.4
Upon receipt of either an initial or follow-up request from the Transportation
Service Provider (TSP) for information to be used for creditworthiness
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
4
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Additional Standards
evaluation, the Service Requester’s (SR) authorized representative(s)
should acknowledge receipt of the TSP’s request. The TSP and the SR
may mutually agree to waive the requirements of this standard.
0.3.5
The Service Requester’s (SR) authorized representative(s) should respond
to the Transportation Service Provider’s (TSP) request for credit information,
as allowed by the TSP’s tariff, on or before the due date specified in the
request. The SR should provide all the credit information requested by the
TSP or provide the reason(s) why any of the requested information was not
provided.
0.3.6
Upon receipt from the Service Requester (SR) of all credit information
provided pursuant to applicable NAESB WGQ standards, the Transportation
Service Provider (TSP) should notify the SR’s authorized representative(s)
that it has received such information. The TSP and the SR may mutually
agree to waive the requirements of this standard.
0.3.7
The Service Requester (SR) should designate up to two representatives
who are authorized to receive notices regarding the SR’s creditworthiness,
including requests for additional information, pursuant to the applicable
NAESB WGQ standards and should provide to the Transportation Service
Provider (TSP) the Internet e-mail addresses of such representatives prior to
the initiation of service. Written requests and responses should be provided
via Internet E-mail, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. The
obligation of the TSP to provide creditworthiness notifications is waived until
the above requirement has been met. The SR should manage internal
distribution of any creditworthiness notices that are received.
The TSP should designate, on its Internet website or in written notices to the
SR, the Internet e-mail addresses of up to two representatives who are
authorized to receive notices regarding the SRs’ creditworthiness. The SR’s
obligation to provide confirmation of receipt is met by sending such
confirmation to such representatives, and the TSP should manage internal
distribution of any such confirmations.
0.3.8
At any time after the Service Requester (SR) is determined to be noncreditworthy by the Transportation Service Provider (TSP), the SR may
initiate a creditworthiness re-evaluation by the TSP. As part of the SR’s reevaluation request, the SR should either update or confirm in writing the
prior information provided to the TSP related to the SR’s creditworthiness.
Such update should include any event(s) that the SR believes could lead to
a material change in the SR’s creditworthiness.
0.3.9
After a Transportation Service Provider’s (TSP) receipt of a Service
Requester’s (SR) request for re-evaluation, including all required information
pursuant to NAESB WGQ Standard 0.3.8 (“SR’s Request”), within five (5)
Business Days, the TSP should provide a written response to the SR’s
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
5
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Additional Standards
Request. Such written response should include either a determination of
creditworthiness status, clearly stating the reason(s) for the TSP’s decision,
or an explanation supporting a future date by which a re-evaluation
determination will be made. In no event should such re-evaluation
determination exceed twenty (20) Business Days from the date of the
receipt of the SR’s Request unless specified in the TSP’s tariff or if the
parties mutually agree to some later date.
0.3.10 In complying with the creditworthiness related notifications pursuant to the
applicable NAESB WGQ standards, the Service Requester(s) and the
Transportation Service Provider may mutually agree to other forms of
communication in lieu of Internet E-mail notification.
Gas/Electric Operational Communications:
Definitions:
0.2.1
Power Plant Operator (PPO) is the term used to describe the entity(ies) that
has responsibility for gas requirements for a natural gas-fired electric
generating facility(ies) and is responsible for coordinating natural gas
deliveries with the appropriate Transportation Service Provider(s) (TSP) to
meet those requirements. The PPO performs a number of coordinated
activities, including, but not limited to, power plant operations, unit dispatch,
natural gas procurement and/or gas transportation arrangements. Because
each PPO is structured differently, specific responsibilities within each PPO
should be determined by the PPO and the point of contact for the PPO
should be communicated to the TSP(s). This definition applies to NAESB
WEQ Standard Nos. WEQ-011-0.2, WEQ-011-1.1, WEQ-011-1.2, WEQ011-1.3, WEQ-011-1.4, WEQ-011-1.5, and WEQ-011-1.6 and NAESB WGQ
Standard Nos. 0.2.2, 0.3.11, 0.3.12, 0.3.13, 0.3.14, and 0.3.15.
0.2.2
A Power Plant Operator’s Facility is the term used to describe the natural
gas-fired electric generating unit(s) under the direct control of the Power
Plant Operator. This definition applies to NAESB WEQ Standard Nos.
WEQ-011-1.2 and WEQ-011-1.3 and NAESB WGQ Standard Nos. 0.3.12
and 0.3.13.
0.2.3
Balancing Authority (BA) is the term used by the Wholesale Electric
Quadrant to describe the entity responsible for integrating electric resource
plans ahead of time, for maintaining electric load-interchange-generation
balance within its metered boundaries, and for supporting electric
interconnection frequency in real time. In certain circumstances, a BA may
be a Regional Transmission Organization or Independent System Operator.
This definition applies to NAESB WEQ Standard Nos. WEQ-011-1.5 and
WEQ-011-1.6 and NAESB WGQ Standard No. 0.3.15.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
6
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Additional Standards
Standards:
0.3.11 The Transportation Service Provider (TSP) / Power Plant Operator (PPO)
communication standards set forth in NAESB WEQ Standard Nos. WEQ011-0.1, WEQ-011-0.2, WEQ-011-0.3, WEQ-011-1.1, WEQ-011-1.2, WEQ011-1.3, WEQ-011-1.4, WEQ-011-1.5, and WEQ-011-1.6 and NAESB WGQ
Standard Nos. 0.2.1, 0.2.2, 0.2.3, 0.3.11, 0.3.12, 0.3.13, 0.3.14, and 0.3.15
do not convey any rights or services beyond or in addition to those
contained in the TSP’s tariff and/or general terms and conditions and/or do
not impose any obligations that would otherwise be inconsistent with the
requirements of applicable regulatory authorities, including affiliate code of
conduct requirements. These communication standards should be used in
addition to the NAESB WGQ standard nomination timeline and scheduling
processes for the TSP’s contract / tariff services. In the event of a conflict
between any of these communication standards and the TSP’s tariff or
general terms and conditions, the latter will prevail.
0.3.12 The Power Plant Operator (PPO) and the Transportation Service Provider(s)
(TSP) that is directly connected to the PPO’s Facility(ies) should establish
procedures to communicate material changes in circumstances that may
impact hourly flow rates. The PPO should provide projected hourly flow
rates as established in the TSP’s and PPO’s communication procedures.
0.3.13 Subject to the conditions of NAESB WEQ Standard No. WEQ-011-1.1 and
NAESB WGQ Standard No. 0.3.11, this standard applies to a Power Plant
Operator (PPO) and the Transportation Service Provider (TSP) to whose
system the PPO facility(ies) is directly connected or with whom the PPO is a
Service Requester.
A PPO should not operate without an approved scheduled quantity pursuant
to the NAESB WGQ standard nomination timeline and scheduling
processes or as permitted by the TSP’s tariff and/or general terms and
conditions, and/or contract provisions. However, if the PPO reasonably
determines that it has circumstances requiring the need to request gas
scheduling changes outside of the above-referenced nomination and
scheduling processes and the affected TSP(s) supports the processing of
such changes, the PPO should provide its requested daily and hourly flow
rates to the TSP(s) (1) as established in the TSP’s and PPO’s
communication procedures pursuant to NAESB WEQ Standard No. WEQ011-1.2 and NAESB WGQ Standard No. 0.3.12 and/or (2) as specified in
the TSP’s(s’) tariff or general terms and conditions.
Based upon whether or not the PPO’s request can be accommodated in
accordance with the appropriate application of the affected TSP’s(s’) tariff
requirements, contract provisions, business practices, or other similar
provisions, and without adversely impacting other scheduled services,
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
7
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Additional Standards
anticipated flows, no-notice services, firm contract requirements and/or
general system operations, the PPO and all of the affected TSPs should
work together to resolve the PPO’s request.
Where the affected TSP determines that it is feasible to provide the PPO
with changes in flow rates without additional communications, no additional
communications are required.
These procedures will govern such
communications unless the applicable parties mutually agree to create
alternative communication procedures.
0.3.14 A Transportation Service Provider should provide Regional Transmission
Organizations (RTO), Independent System Operators (ISO), any other
appropriate independent transmission operators (ITO), and Power Plant
Operators (PPO) with notification of operational flow orders and other critical
notices through the RTO / ISO / ITO / PPO’s choice of Electronic Notice
Delivery mechanism(s) as set forth in NAESB WGQ Standard Nos. 5.2.1,
5.2.2, and 5.3.35 – 5.3.38.
0.3.15 Regional Transmission Organizations, Independent System Operators,
other independent transmission operators, independent Balancing
Authorities and/or Regional Reliability Coordinators should establish written
operational communication procedures with the appropriate gas
Transportation Service Provider(s) and/or Power Plant Operator(s). These
procedures should be implemented when an extreme condition could occur,
as defined in such procedures.
These procedures will govern unless the applicable parties in the gas and
electric industry mutually agree to create alternative written communication
procedures that are more appropriate and meet the parties’ collective
regional operational needs.
Training on and testing of such communication procedures should occur
periodically.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
8
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
Nominations Related Standards
Principles:
1.1.1
The nomination, confirmation and scheduling timeline for gas to flow on the
first day of the calendar month is governed by NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.2.
1.1.2
There should be a standard for the nominations and confirmation process.
Agreement notwithstanding, it is recognized that this is an interim step to
continuous and contiguous scheduling.
1.1.3
There is a need for an infrastructure that would support seamless
nominations across transportation service providers.
However,
transportation service providers would not be required to accept
super-nominations nor would a shipper be required to supply one. A
super-nomination is a nomination that contains all the nominations
describing the path from the wellhead to the burner-tip.
1.1.4
Pre-nominations are not a required step in the nominations process.
1.1.5
The fuel process should be simpler.
1.1.6
[Deleted]
1.1.7
Activity codes should be included in the nominations data elements, and
usage is at the shipper’s option if offered by the transportation service
provider.
1.1.8
[Deleted]
1.1.9
The NAESB WGQ Information Requirements Subcommittee is working on
the development of meaningful error messages. Business practices should
be sent to this subcommittee and as appropriate, meaningful error
messages should only be developed for those practices.
1.1.10 Title transfer tracking improves quantity certainty.
1.1.11 Users of title transfer tracking services should bear the cost of that service.
1.1.12 Transportation service providers should attempt to minimize the use of
operational flow orders and the declaration of critical periods and, when
possible, should direct an operational flow order to the specific party(s)
creating the operating condition.
1.1.13 A pool-to-pool transfer at the same location can be a type of title transfer.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
9
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.1.14 Where a nomination is required by the service provider to make an effective
physical change necessary to comply with an Operational Flow Order,
unless critical circumstances dictate otherwise, an Operational Flow Order
penalty should not be assessed unless the shipper is given the opportunity
to correct the circumstance giving rise to the Operational Flow Order and
fails to do so, or the action(s) taken fails to do so. The opportunity to correct
the critical circumstance should include the opportunity to:
(a)
make a nomination, which, once confirmed and scheduled would
cure the circumstance giving rise to the Operational Flow Order,
or
(b)
take other appropriate action which cures the circumstance
giving rise to the Operational Flow Order.
1.1.15 A shipper's response to an Operational Flow Order should not be
constrained by restrictions on the submittal and processing of intra-day
noms.
1.1.16 Compensability of particular products or services should be determined by
trading partners and/or regulatory agencies as applicable, but not by
NAESB WGQ.
1.1.17 During the confirmation process, the Confirmation Requester and the
Confirming Party compare information for the purpose of confirming
nominations at a location.
1.1.18 The stated intraday nomination opportunities represent times at which a
Service Requester should be supported by Transportation Service Providers
and all confirming parties for synchronization across the North American
pipeline network (GRID).
1.1.19 [Deleted]
1.1.20 All Title Transfer Tracking Service Providers should offer their Title Transfer
Tracking services without undue discrimination.
1.1.21 Title transfers into and/or out of a Title Transfer Tracking Service Provider
should be able to occur regardless of the service class of any related
transportation.
1.1.22 There should be at least one Confirming Party on each side of a physical
location.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
10
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
Definitions:
1.2.1
The level of information required to define a nomination for communications
purposes is a line item containing all defined components.
1.2.2
All trading partners should accept all NAESB WGQ standard data elements.
Usage should be characterized as either mandatory, conditional, sender’s
option, business conditional, and mutually agreeable.
Mandatory (M) means the data element (information) must be supplied
in the transaction.
Conditional (C) means that the presence of data in a field is determined
by the presence or lack of data in another field within the transmittal or
related data sets.
Sender’s option (SO) means that this element is optional for the sender
to send and, if sent, the receiver should receive and process.
Business conditional (BC) means the data element is based on current
variations in business practice. The business practice will be described
herein, with an example. Over time, NAESB WGQ expects that as
business practices are standardized, elements will move out of this
category.
Business Conditional elements which are not
supported/required by the receiver will be acknowledged in the
response document with a warning message code indicating that the
data elements was ignored by the receiver.1
Mutually agreeable (MA) means that the data element is mutually
agreed to between trading partners. It must be presented to NAESB
WGQ for technical implementation. It does not, by its definition, create
a NAESB WGQ standard business practice. Usage of this element in
no way can be mandated for inclusion by either trading partner in order
to achieve a level of service.
1.2.3
Pooling is: 1) the aggregation of gas from multiple physical and/or logical
points to a single physical or logical point, and/or 2) the dis-aggregation of
gas from a single physical or logical point to multiple physical and/or logical
points.
1.2.4
An intra-day nomination is a nomination submitted after the nomination
deadline whose effective time is no earlier than the beginning of the gas day
and runs through the end of that gas day.
1
In some instances, this category will be used for country-to-country issues. Annually, NAESB WGQ will consider whether any
data element will continue to be categorized with this usage code.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
11
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.2.5
A package ID is a way to differentiate between discrete business
transactions.
1.2.6
An operational flow order is an order issued to alleviate conditions, inter alia,
which threaten or could threaten the safe operations or system integrity, of
the transportation service provider's system or to maintain operations
required to provide efficient and reliable firm service.
Whenever a
Transportation Service Provider experiences these conditions, any pertinent
order should be referred to as an Operational Flow Order.
1.2.7
[Deleted]
1.2.8
A Confirmation Requester is a Service Provider (including a Point Operator)
which is seeking to confirm a quantity of gas via the information outlined in
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.3 with another Service Provider (the Confirming
Party) with respect to a nomination at a location.
1.2.9
A Confirming Party is a Service Provider (including a Point Operator) which
provides a confirmation for a quantity of gas via the information outlined in
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.4 to another Service Provider (the Confirmation
Requester) with respect to a nomination at a location.
1.2.10 The term Confirming Parties refers to the Confirmation Requester and the
Confirming Party.
1.2.11 Confirmation by Exception (“CBE”) means that the Confirming Parties agree
that one party deems that all requests at a location are confirmed by the
other party (the CBE party) without response communication from that party.
The CBE party can take exception to the request by so informing the other
party within a mutually agreed upon time frame.
1.2.12 Elapsed-prorated-scheduled quantity means that portion of the scheduled
quantity that would have theoretically flowed up to the effective time of the
intraday nomination being confirmed, based upon a cumulative uniform
hourly quantity for each nomination period affected.
1.2.13 "Title", if not otherwise addressed in the transporter's contract or tariff, is the
term used to identify the ownership of gas.
1.2.14 Title Transfer is the change of title to gas between parties at a location.
1.2.15 Title Transfer Tracking is the process of accounting for the progression of
title changes from party to party that does not effect a physical transfer of
the gas.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
12
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.2.16 A Title Transfer Tracking Service Provider is a party conducting the title
transfer tracking activity.
1.2.17 A Third Party Account Administrator is a Title Transfer Tracking Service
Provider other than the Transportation Service Provider.
1.2.18 An Account Holder is the party using the services of a Title Transfer
Tracking Service Provider (TTTSP) under a contract or other arrangement
with that TTTSP.
1.2.19 A title transfer Nomination is a nomination line item requesting the service of
Title Transfer Tracking and is sent by an Account Holder to a Title Transfer
Tracking Service Provider.
Standards:
1.3.1
Standard time for the gas day should be 9 a.m. to 9 a.m. (central clock
time).
1.3.2
All Transportation Service Providers should support the following standard
nomination cycles:
(i)
The Timely Nomination Cycle: 11:30 am for nominations leaving
control of the nominating party; 11:45 am for receipt of nominations by
the transporter (including from Title Transfer Tracking Service
Providers (TTTSPs)); noon to send Quick Response; 3:30 pm for
receipt of completed confirmations by transporter from upstream and
downstream connected parties; 4:30 pm for receipt of scheduled
quantities by shipper and point operator (central clock time on the day
prior to flow).
(ii)
The Evening Nomination Cycle: 6:00 pm for nominations leaving
control of the nominating party; 6:15 pm for receipt of nominations by
the transporter (including from TTTSPs); 6:30 pm to send Quick
Response;
9:00 pm for receipt of completed confirmations by
transporter from upstream and downstream connected parties; 10:00
pm for Transportation Service Provider to provide scheduled quantities
to affected shippers and point operators, and to provide scheduled
quantities to bumped parties (notice to bumped parties), (central clock
time on the day prior to flow).
Scheduled quantities resulting from an Evening Nomination that does
not cause another Service Requester on the subject Transportation
Service Provider to receive notice that it is being bumped should be
effective at 9:00 a.m. on gas day; and when an Evening Nomination
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
13
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
causes another Service Requester on the subject Transportation
Service Provider to receive notice that it is being bumped, the
scheduled quantities should be effective at 9:00 a.m. on gas day.
(iii) The Intraday 1 Nomination Cycle: 10:00 am for nominations leaving
control of the nominating party; 10:15 am for receipt of nominations by
the transporter (including from TTTSPs); 10:30 am to send Quick
Response;
1:00 pm for receipt of completed confirmations by
transporter from upstream and downstream connected parties; 2:00
pm for Transportation Service Provider to provide scheduled quantities
to affected shippers and point operators, and to provide scheduled
quantities to bumped parties (notice to bumped parties), (central clock
time on the gas day). Scheduled quantities resulting from Intraday 1
Nominations should be effective at 5:00 pm on gas day.
(iv) The Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle: 5:00 pm for nominations leaving
control of the nominating party; 5:15 pm for receipt of nominations by
the transporter (including from TTTSPs); 5:30 pm to send Quick
Response;
8:00 pm for receipt of completed confirmations by
transporter from upstream and downstream connected parties; 9:00
pm for Transportation Service Provider to provide scheduled quantities
to affected shippers and point operators (central clock time on the gas
day). Scheduled quantities resulting from Intraday 2 Nominations
should be effective at 9:00 pm. on gas day. Bumping is not allowed
during the Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle.
(v)
For purposes of 1.3.2 ii, iii, and iv, "provide" shall mean, for transmittals
pursuant to standards 1.4.x, receipt at the designated site, and for
purposes of other forms of transmittal, it shall mean send or post.
(vi) Model:
AS SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
14
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
Timely Nomination/Intraday Nomination Model
(All Tim es Central Clock Tim e)
Calendar Day 2
Calendar Day 1
Gas Day 1
12 A M
9 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
- In tra da y 1 n omin atio ns sent by 10 AM
an d to th e TSP by 10 :1 5 AM.
- Co nfirma ti on s n o later tha n 1 PM.
- Sche dul ed q uan ti ty an d bum p notice s to a ll
pa rti es no l ater th an 2 PM.
- Fl ow wi ll be e ffe cti ve at 5 PM.
G as Day 2
5
PM
6 PM
4:30 PM
10 P M
7
PM
- Ti mel y N omin ation s sent by 11:30 AM
an d to th e TSP by 11 :4 5 AM fo r
9 AM ne xt ga s d ay (Day 2)
- Sche dul ed a t 4:30 PM. bas ed on
GISB 1.3 .2 Pro cess.
12:00 AM
7 AM
11:30 AM
9 AM
11:45 AM
- Even ing N omin atio ns sen t by 6 PM and to the TSP by 6:15 PM
for sch edu lin g by 10 PM.
- Co nfirma ti on s n o later tha n 9 PM.
- Sche dul ed q uan ti ty an d bum p notice s to a ll pa rti es no l ater th an 1 0 PM.
- If all p artie s ca n be sch ed ule d, fl ow wil l be e ffec ti ve at 9 :0 0 a.m. (D ay 2).
- In the even t a pa rty wi ll be b ump ed, fl ow wi ll b e effe cti ve at 9:00a m (D ay 2).
- In tra da y 2 n omin atio ns sent by 5 PM
a nd to th e TSP b y 5 :1 5 PM.
- Co nfirmatio ns no l ater than 8 PM.
- Sche dul ed & flow ing a t 9 PM,
no b ump ing a llo we d.
- Th e
o utl in e d in tra d a y no m in a tio n o p po rtu n i ti e s re p re s en t tim e s a t wh i ch a se rv ic e r eq u e ste r s ho u ld b e su p p or ted b y TS P’ s a n d a l l c on fi rm in g pa r ti e s fo r sy n ch ro n iz ati o n
a cr os s th e No r th A me ri ca n p ip e li n e n e tw o rk (G R ID) .
- Th e “s ch e d ul e d q u a n tity a n d b u m p n o tic e s” m e a ns tha t th e r es p on s e fr om th e T SP is i n th e Sh i p pe r’ s d e si gn a te d s ite b y the ti me sta te d a b o ve .
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
15
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.3.3
At the end of each gas day, Transportation Service Providers should provide the
final scheduled quantities for the just completed gas day. With respect to the
implementation of this process via the 1.4.x scheduled quantity related standards,
Transportation Service Providers should send an end of gas day Scheduled
Quantity document. Receivers of the end of gas day Scheduled Quantity
document can waive the sender’s sending of the end of gas day Scheduled
Quantity document.
1.3.4
All parties should support a seven-days-a-week, twenty-four-hours-a-day
nominations process. It is recognized that the success of seven days a week,
twenty-four hours a day nominations process is dependent on the availability of
affected parties’ scheduling personnel on a similar basis. Party contacts need not
be at their ordinary work sites but should be available by telephone or beeper.
1.3.5
All nominations should include shipper defined begin dates and end dates. All
nominations excluding intra-day nominations should have roll-over options.
Specifically, shippers should have the ability to nominate for several days,
months, or years, provided the nomination begin and end dates are within the
term of shipper's contract.
1.3.6
Nominations received after nomination deadline should be scheduled after the
nominations received before the nomination deadline.
1.3.7
All nominations should be considered original nominations and should be
replaced to be changed.
When a nomination for a date range is received, each day within that range is
considered an original nomination. When a subsequent nomination is received for
one or more days within that range, the previous nomination is superseded by the
subsequent nomination only to the extent of the days specified. The days of the
previous nomination outside the range of the subsequent nomination are
unaffected. Nominations have a prospective effect only.
1.3.8
All transportation service providers should allow for intra-day nominations.
1.3.9
All nominations, including intra-day nominations, should be based on a daily
quantity; thus, an intra-day nominator need not submit an hourly nomination.
Intra-day nominations should include an effective date and time.
The
interconnected parties should agree on the hourly flows of the intra-day
nomination, if not otherwise addressed in transporter's contract or tariff.
1.3.10 [Deleted]
1.3.11 Intra-day nominations can be used to request increases or decreases in total
flow, changes to receipt points, or changes to delivery points of scheduled gas.
1.3.12 [Deleted]
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
16
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.3.13 Intra-day nominations do not rollover (i.e. intra-day nominations span one day
only). Intra-day nominations do not replace the remainder of a standing
nomination. There is no need to re-nominate if intra-day nomination modifies
existing nomination.
1.3.14 The standard quantity for nominations, confirmation and scheduling is
dekatherms per gas day in the United States, gigajoules per gas day in Canada
and gigacalories per gas day in Mexico. (For reference 1 dekatherm = 1,000,000
Btu's; 1 gigajoule = 1,000,000,000 joules; and 1 gigacalorie = 1,000,000,000
calories.) For commercial purposes, the standard conversion factor between
dekatherms and gigajoules is 1.055056 gigajoules per dekatherm and between
dekatherms and gigacalories is 0.251996 gigacalories per dekatherm. The
standard Btu is the International Btu, which is also called the Btu(IT); the standard
joule is the joule specified in the SI system of units.2
1.3.15 When the fuel reimbursement method is fuel in-kind, the results of the fuel
reimbursement calculations for the nomination process should be rounded to the
nearest dekatherm or Gigajoule (Canada).
1.3.16 Where fuel reimbursement is in kind, the standard fuel calculation mechanism, as
this is related to the nomination process, should be (1 - fuel %/100) multiplied by
receipt quantity = delivery quantity.
1.3.17 If requested by a shipper or supplier on a transportation service provider's
system, the transportation service provider should offer at least one pool.
1.3.18 Deliveries from receipt points should be able to be delivered directly into at least
one pool and delivery points should be able to receive quantities from at least one
pool, excluding non-contiguous facilities.
1.3.19 Overrun quantities should be requested on a separate transaction.
1.3.20 The receiver of a nomination initiates the confirmation process. The party that
would receive a Request For Confirmation or an unsolicited Confirmation
Response may waive the obligation of the sender to send.
1.3.21 The sending party should adhere to nomination, confirmation, and scheduling
deadlines. It is the party receiving the request who has the right to waive the
deadline.
2
The International Btu is specified for use in the gas measurement standards of the American Gas Association, the
American Petroleum Institute, the Gas Processors Association and the American Society for Testing Materials. For
non-commercial purposes, these associations note that the exact conversion factor is 1.05505585262 Gigajoules per
Dekatherm.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
17
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.3.22 (i)
With respect to the timely nomination/confirmation process at a receipt or
delivery point, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, the lesser of the
confirmation quantities should be the confirmed quantity. If there is no
response to a Request For Confirmation or an unsolicited Confirmation
Response, the lesser of the confirmation quantity or the previously
scheduled quantity should be the new confirmed quantity.
(ii)
With respect to the processing of requests for increases during the intraday
nomination/confirmation process, in the absence of agreement to the
contrary, the lesser of the confirmation quantities should be the new
confirmed quantity. If there is no response to a Request For Confirmation or
an unsolicited Confirmation Response, the previously scheduled quantity
should be the new confirmed quantity.
(iii) With respect to the processing of requests for decreases during the intraday
nomination/confirmation process, in the absence of agreement to the
contrary, the lesser of the confirmation quantities should be the new
confirmed quantity, but in any event no less than the
elapsed-prorated-scheduled quantity. If there is no response to a Request
For Confirmation or an unsolicited Confirmation Response, the greater of the
confirmation quantity or the elapsed-prorated-scheduled quantity should be
the new confirmed quantity.
(iv) With respect to 1.3.22 i, ii, and iii, if there is no response to a request for
confirmation or an unsolicited confirmation response, the Transportation
Service Provider should provide the Service Requester with the following
information to explain why the nomination failed, as applicable:
(1) the Service Requester's Transportation Service Provider did not
conduct the confirmation;
(2) the Service Requester is told by its Transportation Service Provider that
the upstream confirming party did not conduct the confirmation;
(3) the Service Requester is told by its Transportation Service Provider that
the upstream Service Requester did not have the gas or submit the
nomination;
(4) the Service Requester is told by its Transportation Service Provider that
the downstream confirming party did not conduct the confirmation;
(5) the Service Requester is told by its Transportation Service Provider that
the downstream Service Requester did not have the market or submit
the nomination.
This information should be imparted to the Service Requester on the
Scheduled Quantity document.
1.3.23 Ranking should be included in the list of data elements. Transportation service
providers should use service requester provided rankings when making
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
18
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
reductions during the scheduling process when this does not conflict with
tariff-based rules.
1.3.24 When used, Package ID should be:
a)
supported for nominating and scheduling;
b)
mutually agreed between the applicable parties for allocations and
imbalance reporting;
c)
supported for invoicing (sales and purchase); and
d)
mutually agreed for transport invoicing.
1.3.25 Use of the Package ID is at the discretion of the service requester, and if sent,
should be accepted and processed by the service provider.
1.3.26 The declaration to the affected parties of operational flow orders, critical periods,
and/or critical notices should describe the conditions and the specific responses
required from the affected parties.
1.3.27 The key should be composed of: service requester contract (Service Agreement),
transaction type, upstream party, upstream contract (when applicable), receipt
location (as applicable), downstream party (as applicable), downstream contract
(when applicable), delivery location (as applicable), package ID, upstream
package ID (where mutually agreed), downstream package ID (where mutually
agreed), capacity type indicator (where mutually agreed). Upon receipt by a
service provider from a service requester of a transaction whose key elements
match those previously received by the service provider from the service
requester, the service provider should then process the begin date/time and end
date/time consistent with the intentions of the NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.7 and
then process the rest of the transaction's data elements consistent with the
applicable standards to determine the business results. When data is not
supplied (e.g. is not applicable, is not supported or is not mutually agreed upon)
the pertinent portion of the key would be determined to be null.
1.3.28 For current in-kind fuel reimbursement procedures, fuel rates should be made
effective only at the beginning of the month.
1.3.29 For in-kind fuel reimbursement methods, Service Providers should not reject a
nomination for reasons of rounding differences due to fuel calculation of less than
5 Dth.
1.3.30 For in-kind fuel reimbursement methods, Service Providers should provide, if
applicable, a fuel matrix for receipt and delivery point combinations. The Service
Requesters should not be responsible for calculating and totaling fuel based on
each zone or facility traversed.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
19
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.3.31 The transportation priority for fuel should be the same as the level of service as
the transaction to which it applies.
1.3.32 For services that provide for intraday nominations and scheduling, there is no
limitation as to the number of intraday nominations (line items as per NAESB
WGQ Standard 1.2.1) which a service requester may submit at any one standard
nomination cycle or in total across all standard nomination cycles.
1.3.33 Intra-day nominations may be used to nominate new supply or market.
1.3.34 Notice procedures of operational flow order conditions should be clearly defined
in tariffs.
1.3.35 For request to confirm and confirmation response processes, all parties will seek
to confirm by means of communicating at the applicable detail / summary level all
transactions with respect to a location.
1.3.36 In the confirmation process, where a party requesting confirmation (a
Confirmation Requester) is not itself a Transportation Service Provider, the
location code to be used when sending a Request for Confirmation should be the
location code associated with the location where gas will be scheduled by the
Transportation Service Provider; and, where a Confirmation Requester is also a
Transportation Service Provider; then, as between these confirming parties (the
Confirmation Requester and the Confirming Parties), and absent their mutual
agreement to the contrary, the location code to be used when sending a Request
for Confirmation should be the location code used by the Transportation Service
Provider sending the Request for Confirmation.
1.3.37 With the exception of otherwise stated NAESB WGQ nominations deadlines,
when a Transportation Service Provider receives a Nomination document from a
Service Requester by the conclusion of a given quarter hour period, the
Transportation Service Provider will send to the Service Requester’s designated
site a corresponding Quick Response document by the conclusion of the
subsequent quarter hour period.
The quarter hour periods will be defined to begin on the hour and at 15, 30, and
45 minutes past the hour. A given quarter hour will contain all transactions
whose receipt time is less than the beginning of the subsequent quarter hour.
1.3.38 Transportation Service Provider’s nightly processing and routine maintenance
occurring outside of normal business hours are apt to interrupt the normal
schedule for nominations/quick response turnaround stated in NAESB WGQ
Standard 1.3.37. Such delays should be kept to a minimum. The normal
schedule should be resumed at the earliest opportunity and no later than the start
of normal working hours the following day, seven days per week.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
20
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.3.39 Bumping that affects transactions on multiple Transportation Service Providers
should occur at grid-wide synchronization times only.
1.3.40 The Explicit Confirmation process requires that the Confirming Party respond to a
Request for Confirmation or initiate an unsolicited Confirmation Response.
Absent mutual agreement to the contrary, Explicit Confirmation is the default
methodology.
1.3.41 The daily grid-wide synchronization times for scheduled flow are 9:00 a.m., 5:00
p.m., and 9:00 p.m.
1.3.42 It is understood that a Transportation Service Provider exceeding the standard
nomination timelines is not required to hold capacity for grid wide nominations
until a standard nomination cycle.
1.3.43 Transportation Service Providers should determine the applicable nomination
processing cycle based upon the receipt time and beginning effective day of the
nomination. Where Transportation Service Providers support the processing of
beginning effective time, the Transportation Service Provider should also use the
beginning effective date and time in determining the applicable nomination
processing cycle in lieu of using the nomination's receipt date and time to
determine the processing cycle.
1.3.44 When a previously confirmed and scheduled quantity is altered, notification of
such alteration should be provided to all of the parties below that are affected: 1)
Confirmation Requester in a Confirmation Response (or unsolicited Confirmation
Response as applicable) document by the Confirming Party; 2) Confirming Party
in a Request for Confirmation document by the Confirmation Requester; 3)
Service Requester(s) in a Scheduled Quantity document by the applicable
Confirming Party or Confirmation Requester on whose system the Service
Requester(s) nomination(s) were made.
Applicable notification(s) of such alterations should be provided to the affected
parties reasonably proximate in time to the time during which the event causing
the alteration was acted upon by the Confirmation Requester or Confirming Party,
respectively. With respect to the implementation of this process via the 1.4.X
standards, Confirming Parties should send the applicable document(s) to the
applicable party(ies) no later than the next time they are slated to communicate
confirmations or scheduled quantities (as applicable.)
1.3.45 When a Confirmation Requester receives a Confirmation Response document
from a Confirming Party by the conclusion of a given quarter hour period, the
Confirmation Requester will send to the Confirming Party’s designated site a
corresponding Confirmation Response Quick Response document by the
conclusion of the subsequent quarter hour period.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
21
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
The quarter hour periods will be defined to begin on the hour and at 15, 30, and
45 minutes past the hour. A given quarter hour will contain all transactions
whose receipt time is less than the beginning of the subsequent quarter hour.
1.3.46 Confirming Parties’ nightly processing and routine maintenance occurring outside
of normal business hours are apt to interrupt the normal schedule of
confirmations/quick response turnaround stated in NAESB WGQ Standard
1.3.45. Such delays should be kept to a minimum. The normal schedule should
be resumed at the earliest opportunity and no later than the start of normal
working hours the following day, seven days per week.
1.3.47 On the Nominations Web page, data should be organized in the Form in logical
groupings. The logical groupings of data are specified in the Nominations Data
Dictionary.
1.3.48 On Customer Activities Web sites, nominations data entry should be available on
the Form and the Transportation Service Provider may also provide for
nominations data entry on the Matrix.
1.3.49 On the nominations data entry screen, data should be organized in logical
groupings as defined in the Data Dictionary. The initial element should be:
DATA GROUP
Business Entity
Contracts
Dates
Receipt
Delivery
Transaction Specific
INITIAL ELEMENT
Transportation Service Provider
Service Requester Contract
Beginning Date
Receipt Location
Delivery Location
Service Provider’s Activity Code
If the initial element is not present, the next supported data element becomes the
initial element for that data group.
1.3.50 In the Form area of the nominations data entry screen, the data groups should
appear in the following order: Business Entity, Contract, Dates, Receipt, Delivery
and Transaction Specific.
1.3.51 Intraday bump notices should indicate whether daily penalties will apply for the
gas day for which quantities are reduced.
1.3.52 On the Scheduled Quantity Web page, a mechanism should exist to allow the
display of those line items that result in nomination reductions due to intraday
bumps before all other line items are displayed, or to allow the selection of only
those line items that have been reduced due to intraday bumps.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
22
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.3.53 The nominations data area of Customer Activities Web sites should include a
Form and a Matrix. The Form and the Matrix may be combined into one if no left
and right scrolling is required to enter a nomination.
1.3.54 On the nominations data entry screen, fields in the data groups on the Form
should appear in the following order:
Business Entity Data Group:
Transportation Service Provider
Service Requester
Contracts Data Group:
Service Requester Contract
Model Type
Dates Data Group:
Beginning Date
Beginning Time
Ending Date
Ending Time
Cycle Indicator
Receipt Data Group:
Receipt Location
Upstream Identifier Code
Upstream Contract Identifier
Receipt Quantity
Minimum Receipt Quantity
Receipt Rank (Priority)
Upstream Rank (Priority)
Upstream Package ID
Delivery Data Group:
Delivery Location
Downstream Identifier Code
Downstream Contract Identifier
Delivery Quantity
Minimum Delivery Quantity
Delivery Rank (Priority)
Downstream Rank (Priority)
Downstream Package ID
Transaction Specific Data Group:
Service Provider's Activity Code
Transaction Type
Package ID
Associated Contract
Maximum Rate Indicator
Bid Transportation Rate
Capacity Type Indicator
Deal Type
Nominator's Tracking ID
Bid Up Indicator
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
23
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
Export Declaration
Nomination Subsequent Cycle Indicator
Processing Rights Indicator
Nomination User Data 1
Nomination User Data 2
1.3.55 The Content Area of the nominations browser display should provide access to a
query or listing of receipt and delivery point location names/common codes from
which to pick, in order to populate this data during transaction entry or selection.
1.3.56 Validation Messages for nominations submitted should contain a comparable
level of detail for NAESB WGQ EBB/EDM and EDI/EDM.
1.3.57 On the confirmation data entry screen, the data groups should be organized in
logical groupings as defined in the Data Dictionary. The initial data element
should be:
DATA GROUP
Business Entity
Contracts
Dates
Location
Transaction Specific
INITIAL ELEMENT
Confirmation Requester
Confirmation Service Contract
Beginning Date
Location
Contractual Flow Indicator
1.3.58 On the confirmation data entry screen, one of the following confirmation views
should be supported:
Location View
Contract View
On the confirmation data entry screen for the location view, the data groups
should appear in the following order:
Business Entity
Dates
Location
Contracts
Transaction Specific
On the confirmation data entry screen for the contract view, the data groups
should appear in the following order:
Business Entity
Contracts
Dates
Location
Transaction Specific
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
24
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.3.59 On the Scheduled Quantity Web page, data should be organized in logical
groupings. The logical groupings of data are specified in the Scheduled Quantity
Data Dictionary.
1.3.60 On the confirmation data entry screen, fields in the data groups should appear in
the following order:
Business Entity Data Group:
Confirmation Requester
Confirming Party
Contracts Data Group:
Confirmation Service Contract
Confirmation Service Identifier Code
Dates Data Group:
Beginning Date
Beginning Time
Ending Date
Ending Time
Cycle Indicator
Location Data Group:
Location
Confirmation Role
Transaction Specific Data Group:
Contractual Flow Indicator
Upstream Identifier Code/Downstream Identifier Code
Upstream Contract Identifier/Downstream Contract Identifier
Service Requester
Service Requester Contract
Package ID
Quantity
Reduction Reason (Confirmation Response Only)
Receipt Rank (Priority)/ Delivery Rank (Priority)
Upstream Package ID/Downstream Package ID
Associated Contract
Confirmation Tracking Identifier
Solicited/Unsolicited Indicator (Confirmation Response Only)
Confirmation Subsequent Cycle Indicator
Confirmation User Data 1
Confirmation User Data 2
1.3.61 On the scheduled quantity Web page, fields in the data groups on the Form
should appear in the following order:
Business Entity Data Group:
Transportation Service Provider
Service Requester
Statement Date/Time
Contracts Data Group:
Service Requester Contract
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
25
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
Model Type
Dates Data Group:
Beginning Date
Beginning Time
Ending Date
Ending Time
Cycle Indicator
Receipt Data Group:
Receipt Location
Upstream Identifier
Upstream Contract Identifier
Receipt Point Quantity
Receipt Scheduling Status
Receipt Rank (Priority)
Distributed Confirmed Receipt Quantity
Upstream Package ID
Delivery Data Group:
Delivery Location
Downstream Identifier
Downstream Contract Identifier
Delivery Point Quantity
Delivery Scheduling Status
Delivery Rank (Priority)
Distributed Confirmed Delivery Quantity
Downstream Package ID
Transaction Specific Data Group:
Reduction Reason
Reduction Quantity – Delivery Point
Reduction Quantity – Receipt Point
Service Provider's Activity Code
Transaction Type
Package ID
Associated Contract
Bid Transportation Rate
Capacity Type Indicator
Deal Type
Nominator's Tracking ID
Export Declaration
Fuel Quantity
Nomination Subsequent Cycle Indicator
Processing Rights Indicator
Nomination User Data 1
Nomination User Data 2
1.3.62 The scheduled quantity Web page of Customer Activities Web sites should
include a Form and a Matrix. The Form and the Matrix may be combined into
one if no left and right scrolling is required.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
26
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
1.3.63 On the scheduled quantity for operator Web page, fields in the data groups
should appear in the following order:
Business Entity Group:
Preparer ID
Statement Recipient ID
Statement Date/Time
Contracts Data Group:
Confirmation Service Contract
Confirmation Service Identifier Code
Dates Data Group:
Beginning Date
Beginning Time
Ending Date
Ending Time
Cycle Indicator
Location Data Group:
Location
Estimated BTU
Confirmation Role
Transaction Specific Data Group:
Contractual Flow Indicator
Upstream Identifier Code/Downstream Identifier Code
Upstream Contract Identifier/Downstream Contract Identifier
Service Requester
Service Requester Contract
Package ID
Quantity
Scheduling Status
Reduction Reason
Reduction Quantity
Upstream Package ID/Downstream Package ID
Confirmation Tracking Identifier
Confirmation Subsequent Cycle Indicator
Confirmation User Data 1
Confirmation User Data 2
1.3.64 At a minimum, the Transportation Service Providers (TSP) should be responsible
for accommodating Title Transfer Tracking (TTT) services at all points identified
by the TSP as pooling points, where TTT services are requested. In absence of
existing pooling points or in addition to existing pooling points where access to
TTT activity is not reasonably accessible for supply receipt locations covered by
an OBA, TSPs should be responsible for accommodating TTT at no less than one
location.
1.3.65 The Title Transfer Tracking services should be supported by means of the
nominations, quick responses and scheduled quantities processes. At the
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
27
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
Transportation Service Provider's election, the confirmation process may also be
utilized with Title Transfer Tracking Service Providers within the TSP's system.
1.3.66 All Third Party Account Administrators (3PADS) wishing to provide title transfer
tracking services shall so notify the Transportation Service Provider (TSP). All
coordination between 3PADS and a TSP should be performed under a contract
between the parties. Where the TSP is a Title Transfer Tracking Service Provider
on its system, tariff provisions (terms, conditions and rates) or general terms and
conditions of the TSP, may take the place of a contract.
1.3.67 Upon reasonable request of the Third Party Account Administrator (3PAD),
Transportation Service Providers should provide the 3PAD with one of the
following for conducting title transfer tracking (TTT) activity:
1)
location code(s);
2)
contract identifier(s) used in the exchange of transactional data; or
3)
both one and two above.
In any event TTT activity is always performed at or with respect to a location
(physical or logical).
1.3.68 All Title Transfer Tracking services should be performed under a contract or other
arrangement between the Account Holder and their Title Transfer Tracking
Service Provider.
1.3.69 A Transportation Service Provider (TSP) should communicate with any Title
Transfer Tracking Service Provider (TTTSP) that performs according to the
applicable contract between the TTTSP and the TSP, and that operates in
accordance with those NAESB WGQ standards applicable to Title Transfer
Tracking.
1.3.70 Title Transfer Tracking should be conducted using existing applicable data sets.
1.3.71 A Transportation Service Provider (TSP) may operate in a manner such that
allocated quantities will equal scheduled quantities for gas quantities into and out
of a Title Transfer Tracking Service Provider (TTTSP) from or to a pool(s). If a
TSP operates in such a manner, then the TSP should not be required to accept
Pre-determined Allocations (PDAs) for those transactions nor separately provide,
or transmit, Allocations to parties to such transactions.
Where the allocated quantities with respect to a TTTSP are different than the
scheduled quantities provided by the TSP to the TTTSP, for the same period,
then the TSP should provide to the TTTSP Allocations (NAESB WGQ Standard
2.4.3) for the quantities into the TTTSP. In addition, the TSP should either
accept:
(a)
Allocations from the TTTSP, or,
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
28
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
(b)
PDAs from the TTTSP.
Such information should be delineated at the level of the nomination line items
provided by the TTTSP to the TSP for the purpose of allocating quantities out of
the TTTSP.
1.3.72 Absent ranking information provided by the Third Party Account Administrator
and absent a contrary mutual agreement to proceed otherwise, where
transactions related to Third Party Account Administrator (3PAD) activities are not
balanced at the end of any confirmation cycle, transactions entering the 3PAD
(receipt) or leaving the 3PAD (delivery), whichever is higher, should be reduced
pro rata to match the total of the transactions on the other side of the 3PAD.
1.3.73 Where a Transportation Service Provider (TSP) has decided to offer Title
Transfer Tracking (TTT) service by means of an arrangement (including an
agreement) with a party which will act as the TSP's designated party, and
regardless of communication methodology between Account Holders and such
designated party, the TSP should, upon request, identify the Title Transfer
Tracking Service Provider(s) (TTTSPs) at a location which have established
active TTT arrangements with the TSP. The relevant information to be provided
should include the name of each TTTSP, the ID code for each TTTSP used by
the TSP, the contract number for each TTTSP assigned by the TSP (where
applicable), the location code(s) for each TTTSP assigned by the TSP (where
applicable), and the location code(s) nominatable to the TSP for transportation
service to or from the location associated with each TTTSP. If, in the future, the
common code for locations central repository includes listing of TTTSPs by
location, the requirements of this standard may be met.
1.3.74 A party to a transaction should nominate, or otherwise communicate in a mutually
agreeable manner, the identity of their transaction counterparty along with the
applicable, associated nominations-related information to the appropriate
Confirming Party or Title Transfer Tracking Service Provider (TTTSP). Failure to
so act can result in the failure of the subject transaction to be communicated to
the Transportation Service Provider (TSP) and scheduled by the TSP. A
Confirming Party may communicate with its party and/or the immediate
counterparty as to the existence and nature of a failure to communicate a
transaction on the part of the applicable party. A TTTSP may communicate with
its Account Holder(s) (AHs) and/or its AH(s)' immediate counterparty(ies) as to
the existence and nature of a failure to communicate a transaction on the part of
the applicable party.
1.3.75 All references to the sending or receiving of transmittals by a party are intended
to include the sending or receiving of such transmittals by such party's authorized
agent.
1.3.76 With respect to Title Transfer Tracking activity, when a reduction on a party's
delivery side occurs at a location, and the Transportation Service Provider (TSP)
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
29
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Nominations Related Standards
does not keep the party whole, the TSP should pass the reduction to the
appropriately ranked receipt transaction. When a reduction on a party's receipt
side occurs at a location, and the TSP does not keep the party whole, the TSP
should pass the reduction to the appropriately ranked delivery transaction.
1.3.77 Where a Transportation Service Provider (TSP) determines to employ the
confirmation process in its interactions with a Title Transfer Tracking Service
Provider (TTTSP) including a TTTSP acting as the TSP's agent, if any, then the
TSP should also offer to employ with similarly situated TTTSPs, and may at its
discretion require that other TTTSPs employ, the confirmation process in addition
to the nomination on behalf of process for the purpose of coordinating activities at
the TSP's locations with respect to Title Transfer Tracking.
1.3.78 [Deleted]
1.3.79 On the Scheduled Quantity Web page, a mechanism should exist to allow the
display of those line items that result in nomination reductions before all other line
items are displayed, or to allow the selection of only those line items that have
been reduced.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
30
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
Flowing Gas Related Standards
Principles:
2.1.1
There is no presumption of minimum requirements for electronic measurement on
either receipt or delivery points. NAESB WGQ recognizes that measurement
timing and methodology may vary from point to point and reporting should follow
such methodology. Transportation service providers should continue to support
existing tariff provisions regarding providing allocated volumes on a specific
schedule.
2.1.2
Industry participants should strive to provide the most accurate and timely data
available. Participants recognize the problems caused by recurring prior period
adjustments to the same original transaction; therefore, to the extent possible,
prior period adjustments should be based on actual measurement data and
finalized allocations.
2.1.3
One of the purposes of an OBA is to protect shippers from flow variances outside
of their physical control.
2.1.4
Parties that exchange measured volume audit statements electronically should
use the NAESB WGQ standard format.
2.1.5
NAESB WGQ Standards 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.3.30, 2.3.40, 2.3.41, 2.3.42, 2.3.43,
2.3.44, 2.3.45, 2.3.46, 2.3.47, 2.3.48, 2.3.49, 2.3.50 were developed for trading of
monthly imbalances.
2.1.6
The Transportation Service Provider (TSP) should provide allocations to a
Service Requester (SR) at the nomination detail level either in the Allocation
(NAESB WGQ Standard 2.4.3) or the Shipper Imbalance (NAESB WGQ
Standard 2.4.4). The sending of the Allocation or the Shipper Imbalance to the
SR would be dependent upon the TSP’s business practices. In either case, the
level of detail would only be to the package ID level where mutually agreed
between the TSP and the SR.
Definitions:
2.2.1
An OBA is a contract between two parties which specifies the procedures to
manage operating variances at an interconnect.
2.2.2
Operational Impact Area is the term used to describe a Transportation Service
Provider’s designation of the largest possible area(s) on its system in which
imbalances have a similar operational effect.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
31
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
2.2.3
Netting is the term used to describe the process of resolving imbalances for a
Service Requester within an Operational Impact Area. There are two types of
Netting:
•
summing is the accumulation of all imbalances above any applicable
tolerances for a Service Requester or agent,
•
offsetting is the combination of positive and negative imbalances
above any applicable tolerances for a Service Requester or agent.
2.2.4
Monthly Allocation is the term used to describe the process where the Allocating
Party performs the allocation process at the end of the monthly flow period.
2.2.5
Daily Allocation is the term used to describe the process where the Allocating
Party performs the allocation process following each gas day.
Standards:
2.3.1
PDA data elements should be standardized.
2.3.2
Two welded parties should agree on who submits a pre-determined allocation
methodology and who allocates at the point before gas flows.
2.3.3
There is no need to submit pre-determined allocations if a transportation service
provider has an OBA in effect for a point.
2.3.4
Only one PDA allocation methodology should be applied per allocation period.
2.3.5
The upstream or downstream party providing the point confirmation should
submit the pre-determined allocation to the allocating party after or during
confirmation and before start of gas day.
2.3.6
The allocating party should send back "confirmation" of receipt of the predetermined allocation within 15 minutes.
2.3.7
The cutoff for the closing of measurement is 5 business days after business
month.
2.3.8
Measurement data available upstream of aggregated points should be sent to the
allocating party and used to allocate the aggregated volume back to the upstream
points.
2.3.9
Standardize the reporting basis for Btu as 14.73 psia and 60 degrees F (101.325
kPa and 15 degrees C, and dry). Standardize the reporting basis for gigacalorie
as 1.035646 Kg/cm2 and 15.6 degrees C and dry.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
32
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
Standardize the reporting basis for gas volumes as cubic foot at standard
conditions of 14.73 psia, 60 degrees, F and dry. For gas volumes reported in
cubic meters, the standard conditions are 101.325 kPa, 15 degrees C, and dry.
2.3.10 For reporting purposes, BTU conversion factors should be reported to not less
than 3 decimal places and Pressure Base conversion factors should be reported
to not less than 6 decimal places. For calculation purposes, not less than 6
decimal places should be used for both conversion factors.
2.3.11 For treatment of measurement prior period adjustments, treat the adjustment by
taking it back to the production month. A meter adjustment becomes a prior
period adjustment after the fifth business day following the business month.
2.3.12 For reporting measurement prior period adjustments, report it with the restated
line item with new total quantity for the day and the month.
2.3.13 Estimate missing or late measurement data and treat actual as a prior period
adjustment, with the measuring party to provide the estimate.
2.3.14 Measurement data corrections should be processed within 6 months of the
production month with a 3 month rebuttal period. This standard shall not apply in
the case of deliberate omission or misrepresentation or mutual mistake of fact.
Parties' other statutory or contractual rights shall not otherwise be diminished by
this standard.
2.3.15 There are two types of allocations: daily and monthly.
2.3.16 List of allocation methodology types agreed upon: Ranked, Pro Rata,
Percentage, Swing, and Operator Provided Value.
2.3.17 The same standard allocation methodologies should be available for use at all
points.
2.3.18 The types of allocation methodologies is a list from which two parties may agree.
If the two parties cannot agree upon an allocation methodology, pro rata based
upon confirmed nominations should be used as the default method. The party
responsible for custody transfer (the party performing the measurement function)
should provide the allocation.
2.3.19 The transportation service providers should accept NAESB WGQ-approved
allocation methodology types from the upstream or downstream custody transfer
party who is providing the point confirmation.
2.3.20 A new allocation detail may be needed when a nomination changes.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
33
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
2.3.21 The timing for reporting daily operational allocations after the gas has flowed is
within one business day after end of gas day. If the best available data for
reporting daily operational allocations is the scheduled quantity, that quantity
should be used for the daily operational allocation.
This standard applies to the daily provision of operational allocated quantities
whether they are provided pursuant to NAESB WGQ Standard 2.4.3 or NAESB
WGQ Standard 2.4.4.
Upon request to its Transportation Service Provider (TSP), a Service Requester
(SR) should be provided operational allocated quantities pursuant to NAESB
WGQ Standard 2.4.3 or 2.4.4 for the transaction(s) which have been scheduled
by such TSP for the SR.
A TSP can agree to send the operational allocated quantities on a daily basis to a
SR rather than accept the Request for Information (NAESB WGQ Standard 2.4.7)
for operational allocated quantities.
A TSP is not required to support requests for operational allocated quantities
other than on an “all locations for a SR basis.” Where a TSP has determined to
support this standard in a manner other than:
a) providing specific operational allocated quantities in response to a
request for same, or
b) providing operational allocated quantities on an “all locations for an SR
basis,” then the SR can rely on the absence of a line item(s) provided by
a TSP as indicative that the particular line item(s)’ scheduled quantities
are operational allocated quantities.
2.3.22 The responsibility for calculation and reporting of allocated quantities should rest
with the party responsible for accepting NAESB WGQ allocation types. The party
receiving nominations should provide allocation statements.
2.3.23 As a minimum, allocations should be provided by both contract and location.
2.3.24 [Deleted]
2.3.25 The data elements should accommodate multi-tier allocations. If a transportation
service provider chooses to support multi-tier allocations or already accepts multitier allocations, the data elements should accommodate it.
2.3.26 The time limitation for disputes of allocations should be 6 months from the date of
the initial month-end allocation with a 3-month rebuttal period. This standard
shall not apply in the case of deliberate omission or misrepresentation or mutual
mistake of fact. Parties' other statutory or contractual rights shall not otherwise
be diminished by this standard.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
34
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
2.3.27 Allocated quantities and imbalances should be expressed in the same units as
the nominated quantities.
2.3.28 Imbalance statements should be generated at the same time or prior to the
generation of the transportation invoice.
2.3.29 At a minimum, Transportation Service Providers should enter into Operational
Balancing Agreements at all pipeline-to-pipeline (interstate and intrastate)
interconnects.
2.3.30 All Transportation Service Providers should allow Service Requesters (SRs)
(including agents of SRs) to net imbalances within the same Operational Impact
Area on and across contracts with the SR and to trade imbalances within the
same Operational Impact Area.
2.3.31 No imbalance penalty should be imposed when a prior period adjustment applied
to the current period causes or increases a current month penalty.
2.3.32 On the Flowing Gas Web pages, data should be organized in logical groupings,
where specified in the related data dictionaries.
Note: NAESB WGQ Standard 2.4.6, ‘Measured Volume Audit Statement’, is very
data intensive and lends itself well to EDI. It may be too intensive for a
visual display and is not required to be supported on Customer Activity
Web sites.
2.3.33 On the Allocation Web page, fields in the data groups should appear in the
following order:
Business Entity Data Group:
Preparer ID
Contact Person
Statement Recipient ID
Statement Date/Time
Allocation Transaction Type Code
Dates Data Group:
Accounting Period
Beginning Flow Date
Beginning Flow Time
Ending Flow Date
Ending Flow Time
Location Data Group:
Location Code
Flowing Gas Data Group:
Ending Imbalance Quantity
Ending Imbalance Value
Transaction Specific Data Group:
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
35
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
Direction of Flow
Receipt Location
Upstream Identifier Code
Upstream Contract Identifier
Upstream Package ID
Service Requester ID
Service Requester Contract
Delivery Location
Downstream Identifier Code
Downstream Contract Identifier
Downstream Package ID
Statement Basis
Adjustment Type
Scheduled Quantity
Operational Quantity
Allocated Quantity
Penalty Variance Quantity
Service Provider’s Activity Code
Package ID
Associated Contract
Transaction Type
Bid Transportation Rate
2.3.34 On the Shipper Imbalance Web page, fields in the data groups should appear in
the following order:
Business Entity Data Group:
Preparer ID
Contact Person
Statement Recipient ID
Statement Date/Time
Imbalance Reporting Type
Contracts Data Group:
Service Requester ID
Service Requester Contract
Dates Data Group:
Accounting Period
Beginning Flow Date
Beginning Flow Time
Ending Flow Date
Ending Flow Time
Flowing Gas Data Group:
Ending Imbalance Quantity
Ending Imbalance Value
Settlement Type
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
36
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
Receipt Data Group:
Receipt Location
Receipt Zone
Upstream Identifier Code
Upstream Contract Identifier
Scheduled Receipt Quantity
Operational Receipt Quantity
Allocated Receipt Quantity
Scheduling Tolerance Receipt Quantity
Delivery Data Group:
Delivery Location
Delivery Zone
Downstream Identifier Code
Downstream Contract Identifier
Scheduled Delivery Quantity
Operational Delivery Quantity
Allocated Delivery Quantity
Scheduling Tolerance Delivery Quantity
Transaction Specific Data Group:
Service Provider’s Activity Code
Transaction Type
Package ID
Bid Transportation Rate
Capacity Type Indicator
Fuel Quantity
Statement Basis
Adjustment Type
Adjustment Quantity
Imbalance Value
Zone Identifier
Export Declaration
Supplemental Quantity
Supplemental Quantity Type
2.3.35 On the Pre-determined Allocation Web page, fields in the data groups should
appear in the following order:
Business Entity Data Group:
Preparer ID
Contact Person
Statement Recipient ID
Statement Date/Time
PDA Transaction Type Code
Dates Data Group:
Beginning Flow Date
Beginning Flow Time
Ending Flow Date
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
37
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
Ending Flow Time
Location Data Group:
Location Code
Flowing Gas Data Group:
Allocation Method
Allocation Rank Indicator
Allocation Rank Level
Limit Value
Limit Type
Swing Fuel Option Indicator
Transaction Specific Data Group:
Direction of Flow
Receipt Location
Upstream Identifier Code
Upstream Contract Identifier
Upstream Package ID
Service Requester ID
Service Requester Contract
Delivery Location
Downstream Identifier Code
Downstream Contract Identifier
Downstream Package ID
Bid Transportation Rate
Service Provider’s Activity Code
Package ID
Associated Contract
PDA Submitter’s Tracking ID
Transaction Type
2.3.36 [Deleted]
2.3.37 [Deleted]
2.3.38 [Deleted]
2.3.39 [Deleted]
2.3.40 Authorizations to Post Imbalances that are received by the Transportation
Service Provider by 11:45 a.m. should be effective by 8:00 a.m. the next business
day (central clock time). Imbalances previously authorized for posting should be
posted on or before the ninth business day of the month.
2.3.41 Transportation Service Providers should provide the ability to post and trade
imbalances until at least the close of the seventeenth business day of the month.
2.3.42 Transportation Service Providers should provide the ability to view and, upon
request, download posted imbalances.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
38
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
2.3.43 Imbalances to be posted for trading should be authorized by the Service
Requester.
2.3.44 Transportation Service Providers should not be required to post zero imbalances.
2.3.45 When trading imbalances, a quantity should be specified.
2.3.46 Transportation Service Providers should enable the imbalance trading process
by:
•
Receiving the Request for Imbalance Trade,
•
Receiving the Imbalance Trade Confirmation,
•
Sending the Imbalance Trade Notification, and
•
Reflecting the trade prior to or on the next monthly Shipper Imbalance
or cashout.
2.3.47 Imbalance trades can only be withdrawn by the initiating trader and only prior to
the confirming trader’s confirmation of the trade.
Imbalance trades are
considered final when confirmed by the confirming trader and effectuated by the
Transportation Service Provider.
2.3.48 To account for any imbalance remaining after imbalance trading and cashout,
where the Transportation Service Provider (TSP) associates such imbalance with
a contract, a Service Requester (SR) and the TSP should agree to designate one
of the SR’s valid contracts in the Operational Impact Area where the original
imbalance occurred, for such purpose.
2.3.49 After receipt of an Imbalance Trade Confirmation, the Transportation Service
Provider should send the Imbalance Trade Notification to the initiating trader and
the confirming trader no later than noon (central clock time) the next business
day.
2.3.50 Netting, posting and trading of imbalances should be accomplished based on the
Transportation Service Provider’s (TSP) current method for accounting for
imbalances and does not require TSPs to institute daily imbalance procedures, if
they are not already present on the TSP’s system.
2.3.51 NAESB WGQ Standards 2.3.52 and 2.3.53 apply to the following Statements:
NAESB WGQ Standard No. 0.4.1 Storage Information
NAESB WGQ Standard No. 1.4.5 Scheduled Quantity
NAESB WGQ Standard No. 2.4.3 Allocation
NAESB WGQ Standard No. 2.4.4 Shipper Imbalance
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
39
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
2.3.52 For the Statements listed in NAESB WGQ Standard 2.3.51, Transportation
Service Providers (TSPs) which:
a) provide parties with the ability to request Statement(s) via electronic
bulletin board or web page; and,
b) provide parties with the ability to view such requested Statement(s) via
electronic bulletin board or web page; and,
c) do not provide such parties with the ability to request a Statement via at
least a fax, phone, or e-mail;
should support the ability of such party (or their agent) to request a Statement via
the Request for Information and to receive the TSP’s response via the appropriate
Statement. Where the conditions in a) and b) above exist and the TSP does
provide such parties with the ability to request a Statement via at least a fax,
phone, or e-mail, then the TSP is not required to support the Request for
Information.
The period of time (how far back in time a request may specify) should be
comparable as between the electronic request/view method and the upload
request/receive response method, provided, however, the TSP would not be
required to respond with information generated prior to its implementation of the
Statement.
2.3.53 Transportation Service Providers which support the ability of a party (or its agent)
to:
a) request Statement(s) reflected in NAESB WGQ Standard 2.3.51 pursuant
to NAESB WGQ Standard No. 2.3.52 and
b) receive the Statement(s) in response to such request;
should provide the documents requested at the party's designated site by 9:00
a.m. CCT on a business day when the request is received prior to 3:00 p.m. CCT
on the prior business day.
2.3.54 At a location, the total quantity measured or estimated for the period should be
used to provide allocations to parties’ scheduled transactions (or otherwise
identified transactions consistent with NAESB WGQ Standard No. 2.3.61).
2.3.55 In the allocation process, estimated quantities should be adjusted to actuals
following the time that the actual quantities are known.
2.3.56 At a location which is not covered by an OBA, an Allocating Party should receive
Pre-determined Allocations and calculate the allocations for the location and
provide these allocations to the appropriate parties for their use.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
40
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
2.3.57 At a location which is not covered by an OBA, a party which is not the allocating
party at the location should receive and process the allocations from the
allocating party and employ such allocations when providing allocation
information to its parties (as applicable and appropriate).
2.3.58 At a location which is covered by an OBA, each party to the OBA should allocate
its side of the location.
2.3.59 At a location which is not covered by an OBA, Transportation Service Providers
(TSPs) which allocate to Service Requesters (SRs) at the SR’s contract level or
higher are not required to allocate to a lower level or accept accounting allocation
instructions from the SR (ie., neither Pre-determined Allocations (PDAs) nor SR
ranks supplied in the nomination).
Where the TSP allocates to a lower level (more detailed) than the SR contract
level and where:
o The Confirming Parties confirm at a higher level (less detailed) than the
nomination level; and,
o A SR has submitted more than one nomination line item to the TSP;
the TSP should employ the TSP’s tariff allocation methodology (including, where
applicable, employing the other Confirming Party(ies)’ PDAs) to allocate gas to
the confirmation detail level.
The TSP should then either:
a) accept and employ a PDA from such SRs or
b) employ the SR’s ranks supplied in the nomination.
Where a TSP accepts PDAs from a SR (as specified in a) above) and the SR
does not provide a PDA, the TSP should employ the tariff allocation methodology.
2.3.60 At a location which is not covered by an OBA, a Confirming Party should submit a
Pre-determined Allocation (PDA) to the allocating party at a level that is based on
the allocating party’s business practice, but, in no event, will such PDA be at a
lower level (more detailed) than that level of information exchanged between
such parties during their confirmation process.
2.3.61 A Pre-determined Allocation (PDA) may not be used to allocate gas to a
nominatable transaction that was not identified in the nomination or confirmation
process, as applicable, absent prior mutual agreement among the Confirming
Parties and the party being allocated to in such transaction. In the event of a
conflict between this standard and the Transportation Service Provider’s existing
tariff or general terms and conditions, the latter will prevail.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
41
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Flowing Gas Related Standards
2.3.62 Except in cases where the Percentage or Operator Provided Value method of
allocation is being employed, where there is:
(i)
sufficient gas to fulfill all scheduled quantities at a location, a Predetermined Allocation (PDA) should not result in a quantity being allocated
to a party, contract or transaction, as applicable, that is less than the
corresponding scheduled quantity(ies) for that party, contract or
transaction, as applicable,
(ii)
insufficient gas to fulfill all scheduled quantities at a location, a PDA should
not result in a quantity being allocated to a party, contract or transaction,
as applicable, that is greater than the corresponding scheduled
quantity(ies) for that party, contract or transaction, as applicable.
In the event of conflicts between this standard and the Transportation Service
Provider’s existing tariff or general terms and conditions, the latter will prevail.
2.3.63 Parties should communicate to their counter parties that their transaction(s) for
allocation purposes are lowest ranked or swing, when such counter parties’
transaction(s) are identified by the party as being lowest ranked or swing. This
standard does not apply to the relationship between Transportation Service
Providers and their Service Requesters.
2.3.64 Under normal operating conditions, at a location which is covered by an OBA, the
scheduled quantity should be the allocated quantity.
2.3.65 If parties mutually agree to exchange producer imbalance statements, they
should do so using the NAESB WGQ Standard No. 2.4.17.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
42
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Invoicing Related Standards
Invoicing Related Standards
Principles:
3.1.1
Use a standard glossary.
3.1.2
Elements should stay consistent from nomination through billing.
Definition:
3.2.1
Business Day is defined as Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Banking
Holidays for transactions in the U.S., and similar holidays for transactions
occurring in Canada and Mexico.
Standards:
3.3.1
Electronic invoicing functions should use common codes as identified by the
NAESB WGQ Common Codes Task Force.
3.3.2
Standard field name descriptors should be used on paper and electronic
documents. This consistency should cover all gas industry transactions.
3.3.3
Subject to regulatory and/or contractual consideration for standardizing billing
units on invoices, use dekatherms (gigajoules in Canada, with a standard
conversion calculation) only on invoices - to be consistent with standards
proposed for nominations.
3.3.4
Unless otherwise agreed, transportation invoices should state the net billing rate,
rather than the maximum discount tariff rate and the discount amount.
3.3.5
Differentiate between sales, transportation and storage transactions through
charge codes. Sales, transportation and storage invoices should use the same
electronic format.
3.3.6
Transactions at pooling points should not be consolidated for billing purposes.
3.3.7
Clearly identify transfer imbalances as separate charge types.
3.3.8
On accuracy of invoice information, calculations need to be mathematically
accurate.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
43
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Invoicing Related Standards
3.3.9
Invoices should be based on actuals (if available) or best available data.
Quantities at points where OBAs exist should be invoiced based on scheduled
quantities.
3.3.10 Required invoice backup data should accompany or precede the invoice.
3.3.11 Information provided with (sales and transportation) invoices should be consistent
with information previously provided by the billing party, as updated for changes
for settlement.
3.3.12 All statements should be standardized to the same level of detail. The specific
minimum level of detail on invoice, remittance and statement of account should
be guided by the development of the data elements.
3.3.13 Regarding
inadequate
detail
supporting
documentation,
supporting
documentation should be provided upon request, with timing of supporting
documentation to follow the timing of the flowing gas transactions.
3.3.14 The imbalance statement should be rendered prior to or with the invoice, and the
transportation invoice should be prepared on or before the 9th business day after
the end of the production month. Rendered is defined as postmarked,
time-stamped, and delivered to the designated site.
3.3.15 Prior period adjustment time limits should be 6 months from the date of the initial
transportation invoice and 7 months from date of initial sales invoice with a
3-month rebuttal period, excluding government-required rate changes. This
standard shall not apply in the case of deliberate omission or misrepresentation
or mutual mistake of fact. Parties’ other statutory or contractual rights shall not
otherwise be diminished by this standard.
3.3.16 Prior period adjustments are reported by production date, but they do not have to
be invoiced separately by production month - nor is each production month a
separate paper invoice page.
3.3.17 Party making payment should submit supporting documentation; party receiving
payment should apply payment per supporting documentation provided by the
paying party; and if payment differs from invoiced amount, remittance detail
should be provided with the payment except when payment is made by electronic
funds transfer (EFT), in which case, the remittance detail is due within two
Business Days of the payment due date.
3.3.18 Identify invoice number(s) on all payments.
3.3.19 If invoice is in dispute, pay portion not in dispute and provide documentation
identifying basis for the dispute.
3.3.20 The statement of account is separate from the invoice as a transaction type.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
44
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Invoicing Related Standards
3.3.21 The Statement of Account should report outstanding balances by invoice.
3.3.22 Where no specific contract otherwise applies, in case of shipper level interest
charges due from prior invoices, shipper level imbalance charges, and shipper
level GRI refunds, a data element(s) should exist to support these charges due
from the service requester. The invoice data sets (NAESB WGQ Standards
3.4.x) should support a method of communicating this information at the service
requester level.
3.3.23 On the Invoicing Web page of the Customer Activities Web site, a mechanism
should exist to allow for the Printing and Download of the Transportation Invoice
for the current billing month.
3.3.24 On the Invoicing Web page of the Customer Activities Web site, a mechanism
should exist to allow for the Printing and Download of the Sales Invoice for the
current billing month.
3.3.25 Unless otherwise specified in an applicable tariff, general terms and conditions, or
contract, the effective payment due date of an invoice when such due date does
not fall upon a Business Day (as defined in NAESB WGQ Standard 3.2.1) should
be the first Business Day following the due date.
3.3.26 Where a Transportation Service Provider (TSP) performs daily allocations, the
Beginning Transaction Date/Time and the Ending Transaction Date/Time in the
Invoice should be the date/time that a transaction (line item) began (or ended
respectively) where such transaction began (or ended respectively) within the
subject invoice period. Where the TSP allocates daily and a transaction began
prior to the subject invoicing period, the Beginning Transaction Date/Time in the
Invoice should be the beginning date of the invoicing period. Where the TSP
allocates daily and a transaction was continuing as of the end of the subject
invoicing period, the Ending Transaction Date/Time in the Invoice should be the
ending date of the invoicing period. Where a TSP performs only monthly
allocations, the Beginning Transaction Date/Time and the Ending Transaction
Date/Time are permitted to be the date/time that the subject invoicing period
began (or ended respectively). In the instance where the TSP allocates monthly,
invoices on allocated quantities, and defaults the Beginning Transaction
Date/Time and Ending Transaction Date/Time to the beginning and ending of the
subject invoicing period, the TSP should indicate on the invoice the document to
which the Service Requester may refer for documentation supporting the invoice
quantities. In the instance where the TSP allocates daily, rolls up to monthly for
invoicing, and defaults the Beginning Transaction Date/Time and Ending
Transaction Date/Time to the beginning and ending of the subject invoicing
period, the TSP should indicate on the invoice the document to which the Service
Requester may refer for documentation supporting the invoice quantities.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
45
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Invoicing Related Standards
* Note: Beginning and Ending Transaction Date/Time, as used in this standard,
represent four data elements: Beginning Transaction Date, Beginning
Transaction Time, Ending Transaction Date, and Ending Transaction Time.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
46
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
Principles:
4.1.1
[Deleted]
4.1.2
The WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism does not pick winners, rather
it should create an environment where the marketplace can dictate a winner or
winners.
4.1.3
The solutions should be cost effective, simple and economical.
4.1.4
The solutions should provide for a seamless marketplace for natural gas.
4.1.5
[Deleted]
4.1.6
Data providers (Transportation Service Providers) should interface with third party
vendors according to NAESB WGQ standards.
4.1.7
Electronic communications between parties should be done on a
nondiscriminatory basis, whether through an agent or directly with any party to
the transaction.
4.1.8
[Deleted]
4.1.9
[Deleted]
4.1.10 There should be at least one standard (computer-to-computer exchange of
transactional data) for data exchange format.
4.1.11 [Deleted]
4.1.12 Protocols and tools that parties elect to support should be “Internet-compatible”.
4.1.13 Regarding the request that EBBs need to provide the ability to create and print
specialized reports, the data should be made available so as to permit the users
of the information to download the data to be used in their applications.
4.1.14 [Deleted]
4.1.15 The North American Energy Standards Board Wholesale Gas Quadrant should
not set standards for site-level security.
Individual organization security
standards should be relied upon.
4.1.16 Informational Postings Web Sites should be easy to locate.
4.1.17 Information within an Informational Postings Web Site should be easy to locate.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
47
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.1.18 Information across Informational Postings Web Sites should be consistently
displayed.
4.1.19 Information across Informational Postings Web Sites should be easy to
download.
4.1.20 Display space for content on Web sites should be maximized.
4.1.21 On the Web sites, the use of scrolling, especially left to right, should be
minimized.
4.1.22 Web site standards should not preclude various levels of user response and
inter-activity. Minimum levels of user response or inter-activity should be
developed.
4.1.23 Web site standards should not dictate or limit back-end development technology
or systems. Industry Web sites should be accessible by a Standard Client
Configuration.
4.1.24 A standardized Web site navigational structure should be developed to provide
access to business functions. The hierarchical relationship, structure and order
for navigation on the Web site should be established in a standardized manner.
4.1.25 [Deleted]
4.1.26 Customer Activities Web sites should be designed for ease of user interaction.
4.1.27 There should generally be a one-to-one relationship between data elements used
for EDI and/or flat files and the data displayed on Customer Activities Web pages.
4.1.28 Standard field name descriptors or abbreviations, and navigation and functional
screen layouts should be used on all Customer Activities Web pages. There
should be no standards for font size, colors, etc. Functional screen layouts
should be developed as standards which would divide each transactional screen
into separate areas and define which data elements belong in each specific area.
4.1.29 Information that is constant for the displayed Content Area may be placed in the
page Header.
4.1.30 Data elements that have default values may be placed last to minimize scrolling.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
48
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.1.31 As a general guideline, the initial phase of each business function category (of a
multiple phase implementation) of “common look and feel” for Internet
transactions that are not currently standardized should begin subsequent to the
implementation of the currently standardized data sets to the Web. This does not
preclude the implementation of new standardized data sets as they become
available.
4.1.32 There is displayed information on Customer Activities Web sites which does not
have a comparable data element in EDI; however, the data (e.g. totals, reports,
calculations) is derived from other EDI data elements. Provision of such
information does not require the development of an EDI data set to accomplish a
one-to-one match. However, any Customer Activities Web function should be
derivable from information available in EDI data sets.
4.1.33 When standardized, all elements used in standard EBB/EDM, EDI/EDM and
FF/EDM should be defined in the related NAESB WGQ x.4.z standard.
4.1.34 For NAESB WGQ FF/EDM, the content and usage of flat files should reasonably
correspond to the NAESB WGQ data sets used for NAESB WGQ EDI/EDM.
4.1.35 If NAESB WGQ FF/EDM is implemented, flat files should be exchanged via the
NAESB WGQ EDI/EDM site or the Customer Activities Web site.
4.1.36 Trading partners should maintain redundant connections to the public Internet for
NAESB WGQ EDM Web sites, which include all NAESB WGQ standardized
Internet communication. These redundant connections should be topographically
diverse (duality of) paths to minimize the probability of a single port of failure.
4.1.37 Transportation Service Provider EDM implementations should minimize the
number of outbound ports required to be opened on the client-side firewall.
4.1.38 Until such time as NAESB WGQ standardizes field lengths for data elements,
data element field lengths for FF/EDM should not exceed the corresponding field
lengths defined for EDI/EDM as defined in the ANSI ASC X12 version in the
NAESB WGQ implementation guide in which the NAESB WGQ data element was
adopted.
4.1.39 Trading Partners should mutually select and utilize a version of the NAESB WGQ
EDM standards under which to operate, unless specified otherwise by
government agencies. Trading Partners should also mutually agree to adopt later
versions of the NAESB WGQ EDM standards, as needed, again unless specified
otherwise by government agencies.
4.1.40 For any location(s), the Transportation Service Provider (TSP) may, at its
discretion, elect to provide gas quality information in addition to that specified in
NAESB WGQ Standard No. 4.3.90. The TSP may choose how to provide the
information.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
49
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
Definitions
4.2.1
"Informational Postings" is the term that identifies common information as
specified in WGQ Standard 4.3.23.
4.2.2
"Download" is the term used to describe the retrieval of information from a Web
site in a format suitable for storage.
4.2.3
"Display" is the term used to describe the typical visual presentation derived by a
browser as a result of retrieval of information from a given URL.
4.2.4
"Printing" is the term used to describe the typical printed layout derived when a
document is printed from a display tool (browser, word processor, etc.).
4.2.5
"Site Map" is the term used to describe a Web page of URL links, which
resembles a table of contents or directory tree structure, of categories and
subcategories of information.
4.2.6
"Central Address Repository" (CAR) is the term used to describe: 1) the Web site
providing links to all Transportation Service Providers' Informational Postings,
and 2) the entity administering and maintaining the above Web site and
repository.
4.2.7
"Navigational Area" is the term used to describe the area on the left side of the
browser display providing links to the Content Area and other navigational links.
Navigational Area is not required to be displayed on Customer Activities Web
pages where data entry, reporting or inquiry are displayed.
4.2.8
"Content Area" is the term used to describe the area directly to the right of the
Navigational Area of the browser display. When the Navigational Area is not
displayed the entire browser display is content area.
4.2.9
“Standard Client Configuration” is the term used to describe the configuration that
allows simultaneous access to multiple industry Web sites.
4.2.10 “Customer Activities” is the term used to refer to the business function categories
relating to Nominations, Flowing Gas, Invoicing, Capacity Release, Contracts and
other business functions on industry Web sites.
4.2.11 “NAESB WGQ EDI/EDM” is the term used to describe ANSI ASC X12
computer-to-computer electronic data interchange of information in files as
mapped from the x.4.z NAESB WGQ standards in the NAESB WGQ
Implementation Guides and communicated between trading partners over the
Internet using the NAESB Internet Electronic Transport.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
50
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.2.12 “NAESB WGQ FF/EDM” is the term used to describe a standardized flat file
electronic data interchange of information in files as mapped from the x.4.z
NAESB WGQ standards. NAESB WGQ FF/EDM is communicated between
trading partners over the Internet using the NAESB Internet Electronic Transport.
4.2.13 “NAESB WGQ EBB/EDM” is the term used to describe the NAESB WGQ
standardized electronic interchange of information for Customer Activities Internet
Web site presentations..
4.2.14 “Header” is the term used to describe the area at the top of the Content Area of
the browser display.
4.2.15 “Detail” is the term used to describe the area directly below the Header in the
Content Area of the browser display.
4.2.16 “Form” is the term used to describe the portion of the Content Area of the browser
display on Customer Activities Web sites used for single transaction entry or
display as well as, optionally, data selection. The Form should be either in the
upper portion of the Content Area or, alternatively, a single page linked to the
Matrix.
4.2.17 “Matrix” is the term used to describe the portion of the Content Area of the
browser display on the Customer Activities Web sites used to display selected
data entered on the Form and, when appropriate, for data entry. The Matrix
should be either the lower portion of the Content Area (that area below the Form)
or, alternatively, a single page linked to the Form.
4.2.18 “Batch Flat File” is the term used within NAESB WGQ FF/EDM to describe the
automated computer-to-computer transfer of flat files.
4.2.19 “Interactive Flat File” is the term used within NAESB WGQ FF/EDM to describe
the transfer of flat files using an interactive browser.
4.2.20 Testing data sets between trading partners includes testing of:
1. intended business results,
2. Internet ET, and
3. related EDI/EDM and, where supported, FF/EDM implementation issues.
Testing should include enveloping, security, data validity, and standards
compliance (e.g. ANSI X12 and NAESB WGQ QEDM Related Standards).
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
51
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
Standards
4.3.1
All parties sending and receiving data should accept a TCP/IP connection. At a
minimum, sending and receiving parties should designate an Internet address for
the receipt and delivery of NAESB WGQ standardized data sets.
4.3.2
On time stamping, data leaves control of the originator by the same time
(deadline), regardless of mechanism (3rd party service provider time stamp is
acceptable) and 15 minutes of communication time should be available to allow
accumulation of all transactions to the pipeline.
4.3.3
Originating party is any system originating/creating the document reflecting the
transaction to be submitted (this could also include a third-party service provider
or a transportation service provider's EBB). Within the 15-minute window the
transaction should be received by the receiving party. Errors in transmission
shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the trading partner agreement
between the parties. The receiving party may also waive the 15-minute window
requirement at its own discretion.
4.3.4
Trading partners should retain transactional data for at least 24 months for audit
purposes.
This data retention requirement only applies to the ability to recover or regenerate
electronic records for a period of two years and does not otherwise modify
statutory, regulatory, or contractual record retention requirements.
4.3.5
Documents that are made available on the Transportation Service Provider's
Web site should be downloadable on demand in a NAESB WGQ specified
electronic structure.
4.3.6
[Deleted]
4.3.7
[Deleted and moved to Internet ET standard 10.3.3.]
4.3.8
[Deleted and moved to Internet ET standard 10.3.4.]
4.3.9
[Deleted and moved to Internet ET standard 10.3.5-7.]
4.3.10 [Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.8.]
4.3.11 [Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.9.]
4.3.12 [Deleted and moved to Internet ET standard 10.3.10.]
4.3.13 [Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.11.]
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
52
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.14 [Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.14.]
4.3.15 [Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.15.]
4.3.16 On the Informational Postings Web site, the Index of Customers document may
be displayed in RTF format or in other formats that comply with the Browser
Capabilities as specified in Appendix C of the NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic
Delivery Mechanism Related Standards. It should also be downloadable in a
defined, tab-delimited ASCII text file, with provisions for title information and
footnote capability, as set forth in Code of Federal Regulations Part 284, Section
223. (Reference Order Number 637, Docket No. RM98-10-000, issued February
9, 2000, "Appendix A, Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of the Index of
Customers" issued pursuant to the above referenced order.)
4.3.17 "Informational Postings" should be the label used for navigation to or within the
Web site.
4.3.18 Transportation Service Providers should provide and keep current to the Central
Address Repository the address (URL) for the Informational Postings Web site.
4.3.19 [Deleted]
4.3.20 A user ID or password should not be required to access the Central Address
Repository or the Transportation Service Provider's Informational Postings Web
Site.
4.3.21 [Deleted]
4.3.22 On the Informational Postings Web site, the following navigational links should
appear last in the Navigational Area and be labeled as follows:
Downloads
Search
Customer Activities
Site Map
A unit of work consists of one complete HTTP transaction as defined in the technical specification of the HTTP protocol
(Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 1945). The roles of sender and receiver are also defined in that document.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
53
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.23 Transportation Service Providers should establish an Informational Postings Web
site accessible via the Internet. The subcategories and labels for the categories
of Informational Postings should be as follows:
CATEGORIES
Capacity
Energy Affiliate Info
Gas Quality
Index of Customers
Non-discrimination Rqts
Notices
Organizational Charts
Posted Imbalances
Tariff
SUBCATEGORIES
Operationally Available
Unsubscribed
Capacity Allocation Log (when applicable)
Employee Transfers
Names and Addresses
Potential Mergers
Shared Facilities
Discounts
Emergency Deviations
Implementation Procedures
Information Disclosure
Tariff Discretionary Actions
Voluntary Consent
Critical
Non-Critical
Planned Service Outage
Title Page
Table of Contents
Preliminary Statement
Map
Currently Effective Rates
Rate Schedules
General Terms and Conditions
Form of Service Agreement
Entire Tariff
Sheet Index
Transactional Reporting
These categories and labels should appear in the order specified above and
before any others.
4.3.24 The Transportation Service Provider's Informational Postings Web Site should
include the name, nickname, or name abbreviation of the Transportation Service
Provider so that it will appear first in the browser title bar. Content Area
documents should have a similar name when printed.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
54
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.25 The Site Map should be provided in the Content Area and should include links to
all levels of categories described in NAESB WGQ Standard 4.3.23. Each level of
category and subcategory should be indented to show its relationship and should
be presented in text form to best utilize space.
4.3.26 Transportation Service Providers should provide search capability for a word or
phrase within the text, headers, and footers of the entire tariff and within any of
the following tariff subcategories: 1) Rate Schedules, 2) General Terms and
Conditions, and 3) Form of Service Agreement. The results of the search should
provide a list of links to the pages containing the word or phrase. "Search"
should appear as a link and be labeled as such, appearing immediately above
the Site Map link.
4.3.27 The "Notices" category (as shown in the Navigational Area) should expand to a
list of subcategories (in the Navigational Area) when clicked; there are no display
requirements for the Content Area. Each of these subcategories, when clicked,
should display a list of notices for that subcategory in the Content Area.
4.3.28 For the subcategories of Notices, the first column headings in the Content Area
should be Notice Type, Posted Date/Time, Notice Effective Date/Time (and
Notice End Date/Time, when applicable), Notice Identifier (optional*), Subject and
Response Date/Time, when applicable, with the list sorted in reverse
chronological order by Posted Date/Time.
* When used as a reference, the Notice Identifier should be displayed.
4.3.29 The words or labels that should appear in the "Notice Type" column in NAESB
WGQ Standard 4.3.28 should be:
Words
Capacity Constraint
Capacity Discount
Curtailment
Force Majeure
Intraday Bump
Maintenance
Operational Flow Order
Phone List
Press Release, Company News
Other
Labels
Cap. Constraint
Cap. Discount
Curtailment
Force Majeure
Bump
Maintenance
OFO
Phone List
News
Other
4.3.30 The links to categories of Informational Postings should be displayed vertically on
the left (Navigational Area) of the screen at all times.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
55
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.31 With regard to Informational Postings, when using abbreviations to display
column and field names, the following abbreviations should be used:
Available
Capacity
Date/Time
Description
Effective
Location
Quantity
Maximum Daily Quantity
Maximum Storage Quantity
Avail
Cap
D/T
Desc
Eff
Loc
Qty
MDQ
MSQ
4.3.32 Each line of the Table of Contents of the Tariff should provide a link to a
corresponding sheet by clicking on the sheet number shown. The subcategories
Currently Effective Rates, Rate Schedules, General Terms and Conditions, and
Form of Service Agreement should provide either a table of contents or a similar
breakdown, when applicable, and a link function to a corresponding sheet. For
example, if General Terms and Conditions has a separate table of contents, it
should provide corresponding links.
4.3.33 For Tariff documents, "previous" and "next" links should be displayed at the top of
each HTML document. If the "previous" and "next" links may scroll off the
display, they should also be provided at the bottom of the HTML document.
4.3.34 Columns and data fields that would contain data not supported by the
Transportation Service Provider should be eliminated on display and/or entry,
and left empty on download.
4.3.35 For the “Index of Customers”, the column headings for the web site display for the
“Index of Customers” should be displayed in the order provided for in reference
Order No. 637, Docket No. RM98-10-000, issued February 9, 2000, “Appendix A,
Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of the Index of Customers” issued June
29, 2000, pursuant to the above referenced order, for those fields identified as
“detail fields”. In addition, the other “Index of Customers” information not
included in the columnar display should be accessible from the columnar display.
4.3.36 Internet protocols should be used for accessing all industry business functions.
4.3.37
[Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.20.]
4.3.38 Industry Web sites should be accessible via the public Internet using common
browser software.
4.3.39 Each implementation of a current proprietary business function category on EBBs
should remain available until such time as that business function category is
tested and implemented via a Customer Activities Web site.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
56
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.40 Standard navigation should be used to access all business functions on industry
Web sites.
4.3.41 Navigation through the industry Web site menus should be consistent for location
and technique.
4.3.42 The categories and the labels for Customer Activities Web sites should appear, if
applicable, in the Navigational Area as follows:
Nominations
Flowing Gas
Invoicing
Capacity Release
Contracts
Informational Postings
Site Map
Links supporting Mutually Agreeable categories should precede Informational
Postings
4.3.43 The sub-categories and the labels for the category of Nominations should appear,
if applicable, in the Navigational Area as follows:
Nomination
Confirmation
Scheduled Quantity
Links supporting additional sub-categories will follow these links. This does not
preclude a further breakdown within each sub-category from being listed in the
Navigational Area.
4.3.44 A Customer Activities Web page may display information (data elements and
code values) from multiple functionally related NAESB WGQ EDI data sets (i.e.
nominated quantities and scheduled quantities may appear on the same Web
screen).
4.3.45 NAESB WGQ standard code value descriptions should be displayed for code
values where appropriate.
4.3.46 The Customer Activities Web Site should include the name, nickname, or name
abbreviation of the Transportation Service Provider in the browser title bar. The
name of the business function should be displayed in the Header.
4.3.47 Where they exist for the same business function, flat files and EDI should use the
same nomenclature for data set names, data element names, code values and/or
code value descriptions, abbreviations and message text. Corresponding Web
pages should use data set names, data element names, code value descriptions,
abbreviations and message text that correspond to those used in flat files and
EDI, where they exist.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
57
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.48 Totals, when appropriate, should be displayed within the Content Area of the
Web page in a manner which distinguishes them from the data.
4.3.49 Where navigation and/or processing functions exist for a Customer Activity, the
Content Area should contain navigation in the Header on the left and processing
functions in the Header on the right.
4.3.50 Navigation for input data lookups, if provided, should be placed near the field
being looked up. Navigation for informational lookups, if provided, should be
included in the Header.
4.3.51 NAESB WGQ Common Codes for entity and location should be available for data
validation or selection (viewing) on a Customer Activities Web site and in a
standardized downloadable format for use by customers and third party service
providers. Cross-references to proprietary codes may be provided on a mutually
agreeable basis.
4.3.52 A Transportation Service Provider (TSP) which determines to provide new
features utilizing existing transaction sets via NAESB WGQ EBB/EDM, for each
transaction upon inception of support for such service, should:
If NAESB WGQ EDI/EDM or FF/EDM standards exist for the transaction set,
provide the service via NAESB WGQ EDI/EDM, or FF/EDM or both, utilizing
modifications defined by the TSP to the existing file structures;
and,
Submit a request for modification or enhancement of the transaction set to
NAESB WGQ including details of the interim EBB/EDM, EDI/EDM and/or
FF/EDM implementation.
4.3.53 Where a Transportation Service Provider (TSP) utilizes a subset of available
NAESB WGQ code values for specific data elements for inbound documents to
the TSP, the TSP should make available a list of the supported code values in a
download utilizing a NAESB WGQ electronic format.
4.3.54 With regard to the navigational links on Customer Activities Web sites, when
using abbreviations, the following should be used:
Full Name
Abbreviation
Customer Activities
Customer Activities
Nominations
Nominations
Flowing Gas
Flowing Gas
Invoicing
Invoicing
Capacity Release
Capacity Release
Contracts
Contracts
Informational Postings
Info Postings
Site Maps
Site Maps
Nomination Area
Nominations
Nomination
Nom
Nomination Quick Response
Nom QR
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
58
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
Request for Confirmation
Req for Conf
Confirmation Response
Conf Resp
Confirmation Response Quick Response Conf Resp QR
Scheduled Quantity
Sched Qty
Scheduled Quantity for Operator
Sched Qty Oper
Flowing Gas Area
Flowing Gas
Pre-determined Allocation
PDA
Pre-determined Allocation Quick Response
PDA QR
Allocation
Allocation
Shipper Imbalance
Shipper Imbal
Measurement Information
Meas Info
Measured Volume Audit Statement
Meas Vol Audit
Authorization to Post Imbalances
Auth to Post Imbal
Posted Imbalances Download Post
Imbal Dwnld
Request for Imbalance Trade
Req for Imbal Trd
Request for Imbalance Trade Quick Response
Req for Imbal Trd QR
Withdrawal of Request for Imbalance Trade
W/D of Req for Imbal Trd
Request for Confirmation of Imbalance Trade
Req for Conf of Imbal Trd
Imbalance Trade Confirmation
Imbal Trd Conf
Imbalance Trade Notification
Imbal Trd Notify
Invoicing Area
Invoicing
Invoice
Invoice
Service Requester Level Charge/Allowance Invoice
Svc Req Invc
Payment Remittance
Pmt Remit
Statement of Account
Stmt of Acct
Capacity Release Area
Capacity Release
Offers
Offers
Bids
Bids
Awards
Awards
Contracts Area
Contracts
4.3.55 Where display information on a Customer Activities Web site is derivable from
data provided in a previous upload or download, the information should not be
included in the EDI/EDM standards [or FF/EDM standard, for later consideration]
that directly correspond to the EBB/EDM Web page being displayed.
4.3.56 The industry should use common codes for location points and legal entities
when communicating via EDI/EDM, EBB/EDM and/or FF/EDM. The
corresponding common code name should also be used in EBB/EDM.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
59
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.57 Customer Activities Web pages should support entry of the maximum length for
valid data, however, display can be done in a manner to minimize left to right
scrolling.
4.3.58 On Customer Activities Web pages, informational display fields can be displayed
with related data.
4.3.59 Providers of Customer Activities Web sites should ensure that the site operates
within the guidelines of the “Technical Characteristics of the Client Workstation”
described in the Appendix of the Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related
Standards Manual. This appendix, listing examples of hardware and software
configurations that providers should meet, should be reviewed and updated by
the Future Technology Task Force, at a minimum, by the spring of each year and
presented to the NAESB WGQ Executive Committee for adoption by the June
meeting of that committee.
4.3.60 Access to the Customer Activities Web Site should be protected by HTTP Basic
Authentication or similar logon/password mechanism(s). A Customer Activities
Web site should typically require a single logon/password pair for each user
session.
4.3.61 Data communications for Customer Activities Web sites should utilize 128-bit
Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption.
4.3.62 Custom downloadable modules presented by a Customer Activities Web site
should be signed by the author. The signatures on these modules should be
communicated in advance to Web site users.
4.3.63 [Deleted]
4.3.64 [Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.22.]
4.3.65 The Transportation Service Provider’s Customer Activities Web Site should
include the name, nickname, or name abbreviation of the parent company and/or
Transportation Service Provider so that it will appear first in the browser title bar.
4.3.66 When the Form and the Matrix for Customer Activities Web sites are separate
Web pages, a subset of the Form may be included by the Transportation Service
Provider in the upper Content Area of the Matrix page.
4.3.67 A Transportation Service Provider which determines to provide new services
which do not utilize existing transaction sets via NAESB WGQ EBB/EDM, should,
prior to implementation, submit a request for standardization to NAESB WGQ
including descriptions of the EBB/EDM, EDI/EDM and, as applicable, FF/EDM
implementation.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
60
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.68 On Customer Activities Web sites, information which is not part of the data
dictionary may be displayed.
4.3.69 On Customer Activities Web sites, the following standard nomenclature should be
used for processing functions, when the associated function is supported by the
Transportation Service Provider (TSP). TSPs may also support additional
processing functions.
Processing Function
Create a new line item for data entry in
the Matrix.
Copy existing data on a screen or
window.
Delete the current line item from the
Matrix, the screen or the
window prior to Submit.
Back out of a screen or window
without executing the process,
which will cause the loss of all
updates since the last Submit.
Print application data.
Send record/records from the Matrix to
the TSP for processing.
Sort displayed records based on
specified criteria.
Retrieve information from the TSP
based on specified criteria.
Post a line item from the Form to the
Matrix as a change to the
current line item in the Matrix
prior to Submit.
Clear fields on the Form.
Post a line item from the Form to the
Matrix as a new record.
Provide information regarding the
current page or function.
Filter displayed records based on
specified criteria.
Nomenclature
New
Copy
Delete
Cancel
Print
Submit
Sort
Retrieve
Change
Clear
Add
Help
Filter
4.3.70 [Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.23.]
4.3.71 [Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.24.]
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
61
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.72 Providers of Customer Activities Web sites, at their discretion, may provide
alternate views to data and transactions in addition to the NAESB WGQ basic
views (industry common views). The alternate views should not replace NAESB
WGQ basic views and should be offered as separate views, if available. If an
alternate view is offered, the NAESB WGQ basic view should be the default view
and clearly labeled as the NAESB WGQ basic view. Any alternate views must
offer the same business result as the basic view and be accessible to all
applicable users. The basic views must offer the same business result as the
alternate views and be accessible to all applicable users.
4.3.73 Data fields used to populate or control population of other fields can be placed
before the fields to be populated. If these data elements apply to the entire
Content Area they can appear in the Header. If the Transportation Service
Provider elects to place such data fields in an order outside of the standardized
order, the labels for these data fields should be distinguishable through visual
cues from the labels of data elements in the standardized order.
4.3.74 Each data element which has been submitted for standardization in the NAESB
WGQ process should follow the NAESB WGQ ordered data elements on the
Form within a data group selected by the Transportation Service Provider.
4.3.75 The sub-categories and the labels for the category of Flowing Gas should appear,
if applicable, in the Navigational Area as follows:
Pre-determined Allocation
Allocation
Imbalance
Measurement
Links supporting additional sub-categories will follow these links. This does not
preclude a further breakdown within each sub-category from being listed in the
Navigational Area.
4.3.76 On a Customer Activities Web page, where the Form and the Matrix are
combined, any data groupings and ordering for the corresponding Form should
apply.
4.3.77 [Deleted]
4.3.78 When a Form and a Matrix exist for a Customer Activities Web page, a
mechanism should exist to populate the Form with data from a selected item in
the Matrix.
4.3.79 The sub-categories and the labels for the category of Invoicing should appear, if
applicable, in the Navigational Area as follows:
Invoice
Payment Remittance
Statement of Account
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
62
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
Links supporting additional sub-categories will follow these links. This does not
preclude a further breakdown within each sub-category from being listed in the
Navigational Area.
4.3.80 NAESB WGQ FF/EDM flat files should be formatted as ASCII comma separated
value (CSV) files. This means:
Rows are separated by a carriage return/line feed (CRLF).
Fields are separated by commas.
When a field contains a comma, the field should be enclosed by double-quotes.
Double-quotes should not be used within any data field.
When numeric data is negative, the minus sign should precede the number.
When numeric data contains decimal precision, the decimal point should be
included within the field.
When numeric data contains one or more significant leading zeros, these zeros
should be preserved in the flat file.
Date fields should be formatted as YYYYMMDD.
Time fields should be specified in a 24 hour format, formatted as HH:MM or
HH:MM:SS, as applicable.
Date/Time fields should be formatted as YYYYMMDD HH:MM or YYYYMMDD
HH:MM:SS when date and time are expressed in one NAESB WGQ data
element. Note that there should be exactly one space between the day
(DD) and the hour (HH).
The maximum amount of data to be placed in a field should be limited to 256
characters.
When a field contains no data, the empty field should result in two delimiters next
to each other. Note that there should be no blank spaces between the
delimiters.
4.3.81 For a NAESB WGQ FF/EDM flat file, the first row of the file should be comprised
of the standard abbreviations for NAESB WGQ data elements, including any
additional data elements added per NAESB WGQ Standard No. 4.3.52, in the
order in which the corresponding data is to appear in all subsequent rows. The
data element order is at the option of the sender. If a data element abbreviation is
not recognized, the entire flat file should be rejected.
4.3.82 For NAESB WGQ FF/EDM flat files, each transaction (e.g. nomination) should be
contained in a single row.
4.3.83 For Interactive Flat File EDM, 128-bit Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption
should be used.
4.3.84 Access to Interactive Flat File EDM should be protected by HTTP Basic
Authentication.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
63
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
4.3.85 The sub-categories and the labels for the category of Capacity Release should
appear, if applicable, in the Navigational Area as follows:
Offers
Bids
Awards
Links supporting Mutually Agreeable sub-categories will follow these links. This
does not preclude a further breakdown of sub-sub-categories within each
sub-category from being listed in the Navigational Area.
4.3.86 To the extent that multiple electronic delivery mechanisms are used, the same
business result should occur.
4.3.87 When the receiver of:
1) a Nomination,
2) a Pre-determined Allocation, or,
3) a Request for Confirmation,
has determined to change the business rule(s) it will apply to the processing of
(and/or response to) one or more of these documents; or, when the sender of:
1) a Confirmation Response (solicited and unsolicited),
2) a Scheduled Quantity,
3) a Scheduled Quantity for Operator,
4) an Allocation,
5) a Shipper Imbalance, or,
6) an Invoice
has determined to change the business rule(s) it will apply to the generating of
(and/or content within) one or more of these documents, then it should notify its
trading partners of same at least two weeks in advance of the change(s). The
notification should include identification of the data element(s) that are changing
(or whose content is changing), the intended business result of such change(s) in
the business rule(s), and the effective date of such change(s).
For the purposes of this standard, a business rule change is any change in:
a) the presence and/or the acceptable content of a data element which is
received by the trading partner sending notice;
b) a new business response to an accepted data element which is
received by the trading partner sending notice;
c) a new business response to the acceptable content of a data element
which is received by the trading partner sending notice; or,
d) a new intended business result to be communicated to a receiver by the
trading partner sending notice;
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
64
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
Absent mutual agreement between the affected trading partners to the contrary,
trading partners notifying their sending or receiving trading partners of a
change(s) under this standard should provide the means to test such change(s)
during at least a two week time period prior to the effective date of the change(s).
Trading partners receiving notice of such change(s) from their trading partner
should be prepared not to implement such change(s) even after testing has been
completed, as the notifying trading partner is permitted to cancel or postpone
such change(s). Notifying trading partners canceling or postponing the effective
date of change(s) should provide affected trading partners with notice of
cancellation or postponement at least one business day prior to the applicable
effective date.
4.3.88 [Deleted, moved and modified as Internet ET standard 10.3.25.]
4.3.89 A Transportation Service Provider (TSP) should provide on its Informational
Postings Web Site a link to the natural gas quality tariff provisions (or where no
tariff exists in the general terms and conditions) or a simple reference guide to
such information.
4.3.90 The Transportation Service Provider (TSP) should provide on its Informational
Postings Web Site daily average gas quality information for prior gas day(s), to
the extent available, for location(s) that are representative of mainline gas flow.
The information available for the identified location(s) should be provided in a
downloadable format. Information should be reported in units as specified in the
tariff or general terms and conditions. In any event, compliance with gas quality
requirements is in accordance with the TSP’s tariff or general terms and
conditions.
The following are examples of gas quality attributes that could be included in the
posting for the applicable Gas Day(s) and location(s):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Heating Value
Hydrocarbon Components, % of C1 – Cnn, as used in determining Heating
Value
Specific Gravity
Water
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Oxygen
Hydrogen
Helium
Total Sulfur
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Mercaptans
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
65
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
•
•
Mercury and/or any other contaminants being measured
Other pertinent gas quality information that is specified in the TSP’s tariff or
the general terms and conditions.
4.3.91 Data provided pursuant to NAESB WGQ Standard No. 4.3.90 should be made
available on the Transportation Service Provider’s Web Site for the most recent
three-month period. Beyond the initial three-month period, the historical data
should be made available offline in accordance with regulatory requirements.
4.3.92 Data provided pursuant to NAESB WGQ Standard No. 4.3.90 should be provided
in a tabular downloadable file to be described by the Transportation Service
Provider. The first row of the file should contain the column headers.
4.3.93 For the locations posted pursuant to NAESB WGQ Standard No. 4.3.90, the
Transportation Service Provider (TSP) should provide on its Informational
Postings Web Site a list that identifies the industry standard (or other
methodology, as applicable) used by the TSP for the following:
• Procedures used for obtaining natural gas samples,
• Analytical test method(s),
• Calculation method(s), in conjunction with any physical constant(s) and
underlying assumption(s).
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
66
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
Capacity Release Related Standards
Principles:
5.1.1
Standard procedures should be developed for the electronic withdrawal of
Capacity Release offers and bids.
5.1.2
The Releasing Shipper should provide capacity recall notification to its affected
Replacement Shipper(s) at the same time it provides notification to the
Transportation Service Provider. The mode of notification should be mutually
agreed between the parties.
5.1.3
The service flexibility available to either the Releasing Shipper or the
Replacement Shipper(s) for the subject capacity should not be less as a result of
the recall.
5.1.4
Notice of the allocation of capacity between the Releasing Shipper, provided
through the Transportation Service Provider’s Customer Activities Web site, and
the Replacement Shipper(s), provided for in NAESB WGQ Standard Nos. 5.3.45
and 5.3.46, should be provided in a manner that will permit affected parties
sufficient time, as provided for in NAESB WGQ Standard No. 5.3.44 to place
nominations or take other corrective actions to avoid penalties.
Definitions:
5.2.1
Critical notices should be defined to pertain to information on transportation
service provider conditions that affect scheduling or adversely affect scheduled
gas flow.
5.2.2
“Electronic Notice Delivery” is the term used to describe the delivery of notices via
Internet E-mail and/or EDI/EDM.
5.2.3
Elapsed Prorata Capacity means that portion of the capacity that would have
theoretically been available for use prior to the effective time of the intraday recall
based upon a cumulative uniform hourly use of the capacity.
Standards:
5.3.1
The Capacity Release timeline is applicable to all parties involved in the Capacity
Release process; however, it is only applicable if 1) all information provided by
the parties to the transaction is valid and the acquiring shipper has been
determined to be credit worthy before the capacity release bid is tendered and 2)
there are no special terms or conditions of the release.
5.3.2
For biddable releases (less than 1 year):
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
67
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
offers should be tendered by 12:00 P.M. on a Business Day;
open season ends no later than 1:00 P.M. on a Business Day
(evaluation period begins at 1:00 P.M. during which contingency is
eliminated, determination of best bid is made, and ties are broken);
evaluation period ends and award posting if no match required at 2:00
P.M.;
match or award is communicated by 2:00 P.M.;
match response by 2:30 P.M.;
where match required, award posting by 3:00 P.M.;
contract issued within one hour of award posting (with a new contract
number, when applicable); nomination possible beginning at the next
available nomination cycle for the effective date of the contract. (Central
Clock Time)
For biddable releases (1 year or more):
offers should be tendered by 12:00 P.M. four Business Days before
award;
open season ends no later than 1:00 P.M. on the Business Day before
timely nominations are due (open season is three Business Days);
evaluation period begins at 1:00 P.M. during which contingency is
eliminated, determination of best bid is made, and ties are broken;
evaluation period ends and award posting if no match required at 2:00
P.M.;
match or award is communicated by 2:00 P.M.;
match response by 2:30 P.M.;
where match required, award posting by 3:00 P.M.;
contract issued within one hour of award posting (with a new contract
number, when applicable); nomination possible beginning at the next
available nomination cycle for the effective date of the contract. (Central
Clock Time)
For non-biddable releases:
Timely Cycle
posting of prearranged deals not subject to bid are due by 10:30 A.M.;
contract issued within one hour of award posting (with a new contract
number, when applicable); nomination possible beginning at the next
available nomination cycle for the effective date of the contract. (Central
Clock Time)
Evening Cycle
posting of prearranged deals not subject to bid are due by 5:00 P.M.;
contract issued within one hour of award posting (with a new contract
number, when applicable); nomination possible beginning at the next
available nomination cycle for the effective date of the contract. (Central
Clock Time)
Intraday 1 Cycle
posting of prearranged deals not subject to bid are due by 9:00 A.M.;
contract issued within one hour of award posting (with a new contract
number, when applicable); nomination possible beginning at the next
-
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
68
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
available nomination cycle for the effective date of the contract. (Central
Clock Time)
Intraday 2 Cycle
posting of prearranged deals not subject to bid are due by 4:00 P.M.;
contract issued within one hour of award posting (with a new contract
number, when applicable); nomination possible beginning at the next
available nomination cycle for the effective date of the contract. (Central
Clock Time)
5.3.3
For the capacity release business process timing model, only the following
methodologies are required to be supported by capacity release service providers
and provided to releasing shippers as choices from which they may select and,
once chosen, should be used in determining the awards from the bid(s)
submitted. They are: 1) highest rate, 2) net revenue and 3) present value. Other
choices of bid evaluation methodology (including other releasing shipper defined
evaluation methodologies) can be accorded similar timeline evaluation treatment
at the discretion of the capacity release service provider. However, the capacity
release service provider is not required to offer other choices or similar timeline
treatment for other choices, nor, is the capacity release service provider held to
the timeline should the releasing shipper elect another method of evaluation.
5.3.4
When the capacity release service provider makes awards of capacity for which
there have been multiple bids meeting minimum conditions, the capacity release
facilitator should award the bids, best bid first, until all offered capacity is
awarded.
5.3.5
Transportation service providers should support volumetric releases with
volumetric commitments by fully accounting for volumetric and reservation
components, consistent with the rules and regulations enunciated by the
Commission.
5.3.6
[Deleted]
5.3.7
Transportation service providers should support the function of reputting by
releasing shippers.
5.3.8
Reput method and rights should be specified at the time of the deal. Reput
method and rights are individually negotiated between the releasing shipper and
replacement shipper.
5.3.9
If the transportation service provider requires amendments for each release, the
transportation service provider should automate the process of amending
contracts and this may be the subject of a global agreement between the parties.
5.3.10 Capacity Release service providers should support the upload of prearranged
deals.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
69
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
5.3.11 Replacement shipper initiates confirmations of prearranged deals electronically.
5.3.12 Bids and Offers should be complete before being posted. Only posted offers and
bids should be available electronically.
5.3.13 Bids should be binding until written or electronic notice of withdrawal is received
by the capacity release service provider.
5.3.14 Offers should be binding until written or electronic notice of withdrawal is received
by the capacity release service provider.
5.3.15 Bids cannot be withdrawn after the bid period ends.
5.3.16 The releasing party has the right to withdraw its offer during the bid period, where
unanticipated circumstances justify and no minimum bid has been made.
5.3.17 Transportation service providers should provide on request operationally
available capacity separate from unsubscribed capacity.
5.3.18 System-wide notices should have a separate category for notices that are not
critical.
5.3.19 Transportation service providers should allow re-releases on the same terms and
basis as the primary release (except as prohibited by regulations).
5.3.20 Capacity Release historical data should be made available on a consistent basis
from the transportation service provider, which should provide for retrieval of
open and closed offers during the FERC archival period.
5.3.21 On the bidding formats, the number of decimal places for offers, bids, and awards
should be equal to the number of decimal places in the stated rates per pipeline
rate schedule.
5.3.22 Converting a daily rate to a monthly rate is accomplished by multiplying the daily
rate times the number of days in the rate period, dividing the result by the number
of months in the rate period, taking the remainder out to 5 decimal places, and
rounding up or down to the transporter's specified decimal place.
Converting a monthly rate to a daily rate is accomplished by multiplying the
monthly rate by the number of months in the rate period, dividing the result by the
number of days in the rate period, taking the remainder out to 5 decimal places,
and rounding up or down to the transporter's specified decimal place.
5.3.23 All tariff rates should be adjusted to reflect a standard calculation of daily and
monthly rates.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
70
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
5.3.24 Capacity release facilitator should post offers and bids, including prearranged
deals, upon receipt. A releasing shipper may request a later posting time for
posting of such offer, and the capacity release service facilitator should support
such request insofar as it comports with the standard Capacity Release timeline
specified in NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2.
5.3.25 A releasing shipper should not be able to specify an extension of the original bid
period or the pre-arranged deal match period, without posting a new release.
5.3.26 Releasing shipper has choice to specify dollars and cents or percents of
maximum tariff rate in the denomination of bids and all transportation service
providers should support this. Once the choice is made by the releasing shipper,
the bids should comport with the choice.
5.3.27 For purposes of bidding and awarding, maximum/minimum rates specified by the
releasing shipper should include the tariff reservation rate and all demand
surcharges, as a total number or as stated separately.
5.3.28 Release quantity should be expressed as a numeric quantity only.
5.3.29 Basis for released quantity should be per day for transportation, storage injection,
storage withdrawal, and a per-release quantity for storage capacity and total
release period quantity.
5.3.30 The offer upload bidder confirmation and quick response process should support
the association of a replacement capacity contract with another contract for
balancing or related purposes. The support for this process between parties
should be on a mutually agreeable basis.
5.3.31 Transportation Service Providers which support capacity release should accept
and process uploads of capacity release offers from releasing shipper(s) (or its
authorized third party service provider), provided the offer is received by the
Transportation Service Provider at their designated site no later than 15 minutes
prior to the respective deadline specified in NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2. Such
received offer, if determined to be valid, should be posted as an Offer and should
be available for bidding by the posted-by deadline and start of bidding time
specified (for the received Business Day) in NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2 or the
Releasing Shipper's specified Business Day (if later than the received Business
Day).
5.3.32 Transportation Service Providers which support capacity release should accept
and process uploads of capacity release bids from potential acquiring shipper(s)
(or its authorized third party service provider), provided the bid is time-stamped
as leaving control of the bidder no later than the respective deadline as specified
in NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2 and is received by the Transportation Service
Provider at their designated site no later than fifteen minutes after such deadline.
Such timely bid, if determined to be valid, should be evaluated by the
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
71
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
Transportation Service Provider for the purpose of identifying the winning bidder
associated with the Offer upon which the bid was made.
5.3.33 When a Transportation Service Provider (TSP) receives an upload of an offer or a
bid in association with a deadline, it should process such offer or bid (as
applicable) and post valid offers or bids (as applicable) for review within fifteen
minutes and, in the event such document is not valid, respond with the applicable
validation document to the applicable submitting party within fifteen minutes.
When a TSP receives an upload of an offer or a bid not in association with a
deadline, it should process and post for review valid offer(s) or bid(s) (as
applicable) which are received prior to one quarter hour period by the end of the
next succeeding quarter hour period and, in the event such document is not valid,
respond with the applicable validation document to the applicable submitting
party by the end of the next succeeding quarter hour period. The quarter hour
periods are on the hour, fifteen minutes after, thirty minutes after and forty-five
minutes after an hour.
The releasing shipper may request a later posting time for posting of such offer
insofar as such request comports with the standard Capacity Release timeline
specified in NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2.
TSP's nightly processing and routine maintenance occurring outside of normal
business hours are apt to interrupt the normal schedule of applicable validation
documents. Such delays should be kept to a minimum. The normal schedule
should be resumed at the earliest opportunity and no later than the start of the
next business day.
5.3.34 Transportation Service Providers should provide affected parties with notification
of intraday bumps, operational flow orders and other critical notices through the
affected party’s choice of Electronic Notice Delivery mechanism(s).
5.3.35 Unless the affected party and the Transportation Service Provider (TSP) have
agreed to exclusive notification via EDI/EDM, the affected party should provide
the TSP with at least one Internet E-mail address to be used for Electronic Notice
Delivery of intraday bumps, operational flow orders and other critical notices. The
obligation of the TSP to provide notification is waived until the above requirement
has been met.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
72
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
5.3.36 Transportation Service Providers should support the concurrent sending of
electronic notification of intraday bumps, operational flow orders and other critical
notices to two Internet E-mail addresses for each affected party.
5.3.37 Affected parties should manage internal distribution of notices received by
Electronic Notice Delivery.
5.3.38 When sending Internet E-mail notifications for intraday bumps, operational flow
orders and other critical notices, the subject line of the E-mail should include the
following information separated by commas in the following order: (1) “Critical”,
(2) Notice Type label (per NAESB WGQ Standard 4.3.29), (3) the Notice Effective
Date in YYYYMMDD format, (4) the name or abbreviation of the Transportation
Service Provider (TSP) (excluding commas), and (5) the TSP’s D-U-N-S®
Number.
5.3.39 Transportation Service Providers may offer notification mechanisms in addition to
those references in NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.34 (e.g., EBB/EDM, FF/EDM).
TSPs should include at least the same level of information for notification of an
intraday bump, operational flow order or other critical notice regardless of the
method of notification.
5.3.40 Intraday bump notices should contain at least the affected Service Requester
Contract, Receipt and/or Delivery Location, and Receipt and/or Delivery Point
Quantity from the Scheduled Quantity (NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.5).
5.3.41 The display of capacity release data for an Offer should be selected from a
summary list of Offers. The summary list should be comprised of the following:
Offer Number
Release Term Start Date
Release Term End Date
Location Information as applicable, and/or navigation to detail
Maximum Offer Quantity – Contract
Biddable Deal Indicator
Recall notification period(s) as indicated in the Offer
Business Day recall notification restriction
other data elements, if applicable
5.3.42 A mechanism should be provided to allow the Capacity Release offer summary
list to be filtered by:
Offer Number
Release Term Start Date
Release Term End Date
Biddable Deal Indicator
Recall notification period(s) as indicated in the Offer
Business Day recall notification restriction
The mechanism should also allow filtering based upon the status of the offers.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
73
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
5.3.43 There should be no communication of the identity of non-winning, nonprearranged bidders in the Offer Upload Final Disposition.
The identity of the winning bidder(s) should be sent to the releasing shipper in the
Offer Upload Final Disposition.
In the case of multiple bids upon one offer, the Transportation Service Provider
(TSP) should have the choice of either sending an Offer Upload Final Disposition
to the winning bidder(s) identifying all winning bidders, or sending an Offer
Upload Final Disposition to each winning bidder identifying only that party as a
winning bidder.
In the case of a non-winning pre-arranged bidder, the TSP should have the
choice of either sending an Offer Upload Final Disposition to the non-winning
prearranged bidder identifying all winning bidders and identifying the prearranged bidder as a non-winning bidder, or sending an Offer Upload Final
Disposition to the non-winning pre-arranged bidder identifying only the prearranged bidder as a non-winning bidder.
5.3.44 All Transportation Service Providers (TSPs) should support the following recall
notification periods for all released capacity subject to recall rights.
(i) Timely Recall Notification:
(a) A Releasing Shipper recalling capacity should provide notice of such
recall to the TSP and the first Replacement Shipper no later than 8:00 a.m.
on the day that Timely Nominations are due;
(b) The TSP should provide notification of such recall to all affected
Replacement Shippers no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day that Timely
Nominations are due (Central Clock Time);
(ii) Early Evening Recall Notification:
(a) A Releasing Shipper recalling capacity should provide notice of such
recall to the TSP and the first Replacement Shipper no later than 3:00 p.m.
on the day that Evening Nominations are due;
(b) The TSP should provide notification of such recall to all affected
Replacement Shippers no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day that Evening
Nominations are due (Central Clock Time);
(iii) Evening Recall Notification:
(a) A Releasing Shipper recalling capacity should provide notice of such
recall to the TSP and the first Replacement Shipper no later than 5:00 p.m.
on the day that Evening Nominations are due;
(b) The TSP should provide notification of such recall to all affected
Replacement Shippers no later than 6:00 p.m. on the day that Evening
Nominations are due (Central Clock Time);
(iv) Intraday 1 Recall Notification:
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
74
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
(a) A Releasing Shipper recalling capacity should provide notice of such
recall to the TSP and the first Replacement Shipper no later than 7:00 a.m.
on the day that Intraday 1 Nominations are due;
(b) The TSP should provide notification of such recall to all affected
Replacement Shippers no later than 8:00 a.m. on the day that Intraday 1
Nominations are due (Central Clock Time); and
(v) Intraday 2 Recall Notification:
(a) A Releasing Shipper recalling capacity should provide notice of such
recall to the TSP and the first Replacement Shipper no later than 2:30 p.m.
on the day that Intraday 2 Nominations are due;
(b) The TSP should provide notification of such recall to all affected
Replacement Shippers no later than 3:30 p.m. on the day that Intraday 2
Nominations are due (Central Clock Time).
5.3.45 For recall notification provided to the Transportation Service Provider (TSP) prior
to the recall notification deadline specified in NAESB WGQ Standard No. 5.3.44
and received between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., the TSP should provide
notification to all affected Replacement Shippers no later than one hour after
receipt of such recall notification.
For recall notification provided to the TSP after 5:00 p.m. and prior to 7:00 a.m.,
the TSP should provide notification to all affected Replacement Shippers no later
than 8:00 a.m. after receipt of such recall notification. (Central Clock Time)
5.3.46 When a Transportation Service Provider (TSP) sends Internet E-mail notification
for recalling of capacity to each affected Replacement Shipper, the subject line of
the E-mail should include the following information separated by commas in the
following order: (1) “Recall”, (2) the recall notification period, (3) the Effective
Date in YYYYMMDD format, (4) the name or abbreviation of the TSP (excluding
commas), and (5) the TSP’s D-U-N-S® Number.
The body of such E-mail notification should contain at least the affected
Replacement Shipper’s Contract Number, the quantity of capacity being recalled,
and the Offer Number or Award Number, if necessary to uniquely identify the
capacity being recalled.
Where supported by the TSP, for recalls that are effective at non-standard times,
the appropriate recall notification period should be included in the subject line and
the effective time of the recall should be in the body of the E-mail.
Where TSPs offer capacity recall notification mechanisms in addition to Internet
E-mail, the notification should include at least the same level of information.
5.3.47 The Replacement Shipper should provide the Transportation Service Provider
(TSP) with no more than two Internet E-mail addresses to be used for recall
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
75
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
notification. The obligation of the TSP to provide notification is waived until at
least one of the addresses has been provided.
5.3.48 The Releasing Shipper should provide capacity recall notification to the
Transportation Service Provider (TSP) through the TSP’s Customer Activities
Website. The recall notification should specify the recall notification period for the
specified effective gas day, as well as any other information needed to uniquely
identify the capacity being recalled.
5.3.49 Recalled capacity notices should indicate whether penalties will apply for the gas
day for which quantities are reduced due to a capacity recall.
5.3.50 A Transportation Service Provider should support the ability for the Releasing
Shipper to specify, as a condition of a capacity release offer, which recall
notification period(s), as provided in NAESB WGQ Standard No. 5.3.44, will be
available for use by the parties.
5.3.51 Transportation Service Provider should support the ability for the Releasing
Shipper to specify, as a condition of a release, whether the Releasing Shipper’s
recall notification must be provided exclusively on a Business Day.
5.3.52 Affected Replacement Shippers should manage internal distribution
notifications of recall received from a Transportation Service Provider.
of
5.3.53 When capacity is recalled, it may not be reput for the same gas day.
5.3.54 The deadline for notifying the Transportation Service Provider of a reput is 8:00
a.m. to allow for timely nominations to flow on the next gas day.
5.3.55 For the recall notification provided to the Transportation Service Provider (TSP),
the TSP's Tariff should specify whether the quantity should be expressed in terms
of
a) total released capacity entitlements or
b) adjusted total released capacity entitlements based upon the Elapsed
Prorata Capacity.
The capacity entitlements resulting from the use of either a) or b) should be the
same.
5.3.56 In the event of an intra-day capacity recall, the Transportation Service Provider
(TSP) should determine the allocation of capacity between the Releasing Shipper
and the Replacement Shipper(s) based upon the Elapsed Prorata Capacity
(EPC). Variations to the use of EPC may be necessary to reflect the nature of
the TSP’s tariff, services, and/or operational characteristics.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
76
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards
5.3.57 The Transportation Service Provider should not be obligated to deliver in excess
of the total daily contract quantity of the release as a result of NAESB WGQ
Standard No. 5.3.55.
5.3.58 “The amount of capacity allocated to the Replacement Shipper(s) should equal
the original released capacity less the recalled capacity that is adjusted based
upon the Elapsed Prorata Capacity (EPC) or other TSP tariff specific variations of
the EPC in accordance with NAESB WGQ Standard No. 5.3.56.”
5.3.59
The Transportation Service Provider (TSP) should not award capacity release
offers to the Service Requester (SR) until and unless the SR meets the TSP’s
creditworthiness requirements applicable to all services that it receives from the
TSP, including the service represented by the capacity release.
5.3.60
The Transportation Service Provider (TSP) should provide the original releasing
shipper with Internet E-mail notification reasonably proximate in time with any of
the following formal notices given by the TSP to the releasing shipper’s
replacement shipper(s), of the following:
(1)
Notice to the replacement shipper regarding the replacement shipper’s
past due, deficiency, or default status pursuant to the TSP’s tariff;
(2)
Notice to the replacement shipper regarding the replacement shipper’s
suspension of service notice;
(3)
Notice to the replacement shipper regarding the replacement shipper’s
contract termination notice due to default or credit-related issues; and
(4)
Notice to the replacement shipper that the replacement shipper(s) is no
longer creditworthy and has not provided credit alternative(s) pursuant to
the TSP’s tariff.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
77
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Contracts Related Standards
Contracts Related Standards
Standards:
6.3.1
Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas – Dated: September 5, 2006
6.3.1.CA Canadian Addendum – Dated: April 19, 2002
6.3.2
Day Trade Interruptible Contract – Dated: April 16, 1998
6.3.3
Electronic Data Interchange Trading Partner Agreement – Dated: May 13, 2005
6.3.4
Funds Transfer Agent Agreement – Dated: October 2002
Models:
6.5.1
[superseded by 6.3.4]
6.5.2
Model Operational Balancing Agreement – Dated: July 16, 1998
6.5.3
Model Credit Support Addendum to Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of
Natural Gas – Dated: October 9, 2003
6.5.4
Model International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.’s (ISDA) North
American Gas Annex – Dated: November 2004
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
78
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
Interpretations
7.3.1
Clarify the meaning of 'process' in Sender's Option, in NAESB WGQ Standard
1.2.2
Interpretation:
With respect to the Sender’s Option usage code, NAESB WGQ Standard 1.2.2,
states,
“...Sender’s option (SO) means that this element is optional for the sender to
send and, if sent, the receiver should receive and process.”
The word “process” means that the receiver of the data will store and use the
contents of the data element. Where the contents of the data element do not
determine the business results of a transaction as in the situation where the data
element contains information, such as a Remittance Address (NAESB WGQ
Standard data set 3.4.1 - Invoicing), there is no expectation that the receiver will
use the data to determine the business outcome. Rather, the expectation is that
the receiver will store the Remittance Address and use it for communication as it
is appropriate.
When a specified data element contains data that does affect the business
outcome of that or a related transaction, such as Minimum Acceptable Total
Volumetric Quantity (NAESB WGQ Standard data set 5.4.9 - Capacity Release),
the receiver will use the contents of the data element in determining the business
outcome of the applicable transaction. In this case, the use of the contents of the
data element is to determine whether a bidder met the minimum volumetric
quantity requirement which the sender may or may not (Sender’s option) have
specified.
To the extent a receiver may receive a Sender’s Option field in a document, then
the receiver should be prepared to alter their business practices to the extent
necessary to accept the element and process the contents in order to support the
ability of the sender to send data should the sender choose to do so to
accomplish a business result consistent with the standard giving rise to the data
element with a sender's option usage designation. In summary using the contents
of a data element that is designated as Sender’s Option is mandatory from the
receiver’s perspective.
7.3.2
Clarify the meaning of ”less than one year’, in NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2.
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2 states, “For biddable releases (less than one
year):...[and]...For biddable releases (one year or more):...”. . A year in this case
is not a calendar year. A year is a numbered day in one calendar month/year
through the previous numbered day in the following calendar month/year (gas
day to gas day). Therefore, a release from 15 January 2002 through 14 January
2003 would not qualify as a “less than one year” release because it is exactly one
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
79
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
year. For example, a release from 1 January 2002 through 1 January 2003 is
one year and one day -- not a ”less than one year” release. A release from 1
January 2002 through 31 December 2002 is exactly one year - also not a ”less
than one year” release. A release from 1 January 2002 through 30 December
2002 is one day less than one year -- a ”less than one year” release. So, in order
to qualify as a ”less than one year” release, a release beginning 15 January 2002
could end no later than 13 January 2003.
7.3.3
Clarify the differences between Business Day and Work Day, as it applies to
NAESB WGQ Standard 3.2.1.
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 3.2.1 defines the business day as “...Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal Banking Holidays for transactions in the U.S., and
similar holidays for transactions occurring in Canada and Mexico.” There is no
NAESB WGQ definition for the hours comprising a work day. The business day
definition described in NAESB WGQ Standard 3.2.1 applies to NAESB WGQ
Standard 5.3.2.
With regard to the short-term release open season, NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2
states:
“For short term-release (less than 5 months):
- Offers should be tendered by 1:00 p.m. on the day before nominations for
short-term releases (less than 5 months);
- open season ends no later than 2:00 p.m. on the day before nominations
are due...”
This means that the latest time that bidding on a short term Offer of release can
start is 1:00 PM on the business day before timely nominations would be due for
flow on the first date that a release starts.
With regard to the posting of offers four days in advance of award start and
providing for a 3 business day open season, the example of a five month release
commencing on a Tuesday after a Monday holiday would be as follows: The Offer
would be posted no later than 1:00 p.m. the prior Wednesday (four business days
prior to the Tuesday award start) as Saturday, Sunday, and the Monday holiday
do not qualify as business days.
Assume another example of a five month release with the award commencing on
a Saturday. The timeline would be as follows: The Offer would be posted no later
than 1:00 P.M. the prior Tuesday. This provides for both the required four
business days prior to the Saturday award start and the three business days prior
to the 2 P.M. Thursday ending of the open season, which is required in order to
provide a three business day open season in advance of the Friday A.M.
nominations deadline for Saturday flow under the award.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
80
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
7.3.4
[Deleted]
7.3.5
Clarify the purpose of 'ending time' for NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.9.
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.9 states, "Intra-day nominations should include an
effective date and time." Effective means effective. Begin date and time means
Begin date and time. End date and time means end date and time. In this
context, effective date and time means the date and time during which the
intra-day nomination is effective.
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.11 states, "Intra-day nominations can be used to
request increases or decreases in total flow, changes to receipt points, or
changes to delivery points of scheduled gas." In order to facilitate the clear
communication to a Service Provider of a Service Requester's intention, the
beginning and ending time, especially for initiation of flows for a Service
Requester (where none were previously scheduled) or, for cessation of flows for
a Service Requester at a location where gas is flowing are useful information to
the Service Provider. Even when the requested change may only result in a flow
rate change for the remainder of a gas day, the information as to timing is
information of value to the Service Providers.
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.9 also states that "The interconnected parties should
agree on the hourly flows of the intra-day nomination, if not otherwise addressed
in transporter's contract or tariff." This means that with respect to the hourly
flows, the interconnected parties determine the hourly flow. The Service
Requester does not "determine" the hourly flow unless they are also the
"interconnected party" and their "contract and/or tariff" requires that the Service
Provider provide the requested daily quantity within the effective period.
7.3.6
Why is time a data element in NAESB WGQ Standard 2.3.15?
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 2.3.15 states that “There are two types of allocations:
daily and monthly”. NAESB WGQ Standard 2.3.4 states “Only one PDA
allocation methodology should be applied per allocation period.” NAESB WGQ
Standard 1.3.9 states “All nominations, including intra-day nominations, should be
based upon a daily quantity;”
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.11 states “Intra-day nominations can be used to
request increases or decreases in total flow, changes to receipt points, or
changes to delivery points of scheduled gas.” NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.33
states, "Intra-day nominations may be used to nominate new supply or market."
NAESB WGQ Principle 3.1.2 states “Elements should stay consistent from
nomination through billing”.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
81
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
NAESB WGQ Standards 1.3.9, 1.3.11, and 1.3.33 mean that flow under one
contract could be ceased (decreased) at a specified time and flow under a
different contract could be increased (including initiated) at the same or another
specified time, which gives rise to the time element in the nomination dataset.
NAESB WGQ Standards 2.3.4 and 2.3.15 mean that there is only one allocation
method in effect during an allocation period, the smallest of which is one day.
NAESB WGQ Principle 3.1.2 provides consistent data elements throughout the
nomination, allocation and billing process.
Thus, even though a location may be nominated for less than a day by the same
Service Requester onto different contracts, by means of the "beginning flow
date-time" and "ending flow date-time" nomination data elements, the allocated
quantity at that location will only be provided on a daily basis (with respect to
each of the different contracts). The time element in the allocation dataset is not
related to hourly allocations (as the standard requires only daily and monthly
allocations) but rather is related to the requirement that the data elements remain
consistent from nomination through billing.
7.3.7
Does a proprietary EBB and all paper documents have to use the NAESB WGQ
data element names as defined in the standards?
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 3.3.2 states, "Standard field name descriptors should be
used on paper and electronic documents. This consistency should cover all gas
industry transactions." A read of the Executive Committee Meeting Transcripts
for March 8th 1996, during which the proposed standard was amended and then
adopted, it is clear that the word “electronic” was intended to encompass all forms
of electronic (i.e., EBBs, EDIs, et. al.). A further reading of the transcript also
makes clear that the phrase “Should cover all gas industry transactions.” was
intended to relate only to all gas industry “invoicing” transactions (i.e., gas
purchase and sales, capacity purchase and sale and transportation).
7.3.8
For pathed non-threaded - validate where package id should exist.
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.2.1 defines a nomination as a "line item" containing all
defined components. A non-pathed nomination is a line item. A pathed
nomination is a line item. An un-threaded nomination is a line item and a
threaded nomination is a line item. Package ID is a sender's optional field and
may be submitted on any nomination.
7.3.9
For pathed non-threaded - validate whether the package id's on one segment
should match another.
Interpretation:
The value associated with any given package ID is defined by the sender, not
NAESB WGQ and not the receiver. Given that a package ID may be sent by a
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
82
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
Service Requester for any nomination, and, given that un-threaded and threaded
nominations, albeit possibly related, are nonetheless separate line items
(separate nominations), it is appropriate that, should the sender desire to send
different package IDs for an un-threaded and a threaded nomination, they should
be allowed to do so and the receiver should accept and process them as part of
the nomination key.
7.3.10 For pathed non-threaded - validate where upstream and downstream ranks are
applicable.
Interpretation:
Upstream and Downstream Ranks have no practical impact with respect to the
threaded nomination of the Pathed Non-threaded Model. If supplied by the
Service Requester, they will have no practical significance to the Service Provider
and the Service Requester should not have an expectation of any impact upon
their transaction.
7.3.11 For pathed non-threaded - validate where receipt and delivery ranks are used.
Interpretation:
Receipt and Delivery Ranks have no practical impact with respect to the
un-threaded nomination of the Pathed Non-threaded Model. If supplied by the
Service Requester, they will have no practical significance to the Service Provider
and the Service Requester should not have an expectation of any impact upon
their transaction.
7.3.12 For pathed non-threaded - validate values of quantity type with usage.
Interpretation:
A line item corresponding to an un-threaded nomination may be either a receipt
location (where Service Requester wishes to receive gas onto their contract) or a
delivery location (where the Service Requester seeks to remove or deliver gas off
of their contract.) The quantity type indicator is used to inform the Service
Provider that the Service Requester wishes to keep the indicated receipt quantity;
“R”, or delivery quantity “D” “whole” with respect to in-kind retainage of gas for
“fuel and unaccounted-for quantity(ies)” purposes. The quantity type indicator is
a mandatory field in the Data Dictionary and is therefore mandatory for all
nominations. A consistent and unambiguous implementation of the values to be
present in the quantity type field for un-threaded nominations should be as
follows:
Where the Service Requester seeks to receive gas onto its contract at a
location, under an un-threaded nomination, the Service Requester would, in
the un-threaded line item associated with the receipt location, employ the
"R" value in the quantity type field.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
83
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
Where the Service Requester seeks to deliver gas off of its contract at a
location, under an un-threaded nomination, the Service Requester would, in
the un-threaded line item associated with the delivery location, employ the
"D" value in the quantity type field.
In either a threaded, pathed or non-pathed nomination, the Service Requester
may place either the “R” or “D” value in the quantity type field for any particular
line item (nomination) reflective of their business intentions.
An un-threaded nomination “line item” sent by a Service Requester which had a
location identified as a receipt location with a conflicting quantity type (i.e., “D”)
(thus making the un-threaded nomination ambiguous) should generate an error
response from the Service Provider. The appropriate error code for the above
example, which would be sent for the line item containing the ambiguity, would be
as follows:
ENMQR510 - Invalid Quantity Type Indicator.
An un-threaded nomination “line item” sent by a Service Requester which had a
location identified as a delivery location with a conflicting quantity type (i.e., “R”)
(thus making the un-threaded nomination ambiguous) should generate an error
response from the Service Provider. The appropriate error code for the above
example, which would be sent for the line item containing the ambiguity, would be
as follows:
ENMQR510 - Invalid Quantity Type Indicator.
7.3.13 For pathed non-threaded - validate where transaction type is used.
Interpretation:
The transaction type indicator is used to inform the Service Provider that the
Service Requester wishes to have the indicated quantity; given the treatment
associated with the code value sent in the transaction type field. As un-threaded
nominations do not move gas from point to point but rather move gas from entity
and/or contract to entity and/or contract, the transaction type(s) applicable to the
un-threaded activity should be those unrelated to the movement of gas from point
to point. In addition, as the transaction type field is a mandatory field in the Data
Dictionary and is therefore mandatory for all nominations.
7.3.14 Please define each of the Bid Evaluation Methods that pipelines are required to
accept.
Interpretation:
NAEBS WGQ Standard 5.3.3. provides that there be three standard methods of
determining best bid. They are Highest Rate, Net Revenue, and Present Value.
the description of each of these methods is as follows:
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
84
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
Highest Rate
The term "rate" refers to the measure of dollars per unit.
Example 1: Assuming the releaser permitted lesser term bids, and requested
the capacity go to the highest rate bid, then when evaluating a 91 day offer of
release of 10,000 Dth per day of capacity upon which two bids are received as
follows: one bid for $0.12 per Dth/day for 91 days worth of capacity and a second
of $0.14 per Dth/day for 30 days of capacity, the second bidder would be
awarded the capacity.
Example 2: Assuming the releaser permitted lesser term bids, and requested
the capacity go to the highest rate bid, then when evaluating a 91 day release of
10,000 Dth per day of capacity upon which two bids are received as follows: one
bid for $.12 per Dth/day for thirty days worth of capacity and a second of $2.128
per Dth/month for the full period, (2.128 divided by 30.4 days = $0.07 per
Dth/day), then the first bidder would be awarded the capacity ( $0.12 is a higher
rate than $0.07).
Net Revenue
The term "net revenue" refers to the measure of the sum of all payments to
be made by the acquiring shipper.
Example 1: Assuming the releaser permitted lesser quantity bids, and
requested the capacity go to the highest net revenue bid, then when evaluating a
91 day release of 10,000 Dth per day of capacity upon which two bids are
received as follows: A bidder submits $0.10 per Dth for all the capacity for the
first 30 days of capacity, $0.20 per Dth for all of the capacity for the second 31
days, and $0.15 per Dth for all of the capacity for the last 30 days. The net
revenue would be calculated as follows (Term x Quantity x Rate): (30 days x
10,000 Dth x $0.10) + (31 days x 10,000 Dth x $0.20) + (30 days x 10,000 Dth x
$0.15). ($30,000 + $62,000 + $45,000 = $137,000). Another bidder submits
$0.25 per Dth for 5,000 Dth/d for the first 30 days of capacity, $0.40 per Dth for
5,000 Dth/d for the second 31 days, and $0.305 per Dth for 5,000 Dth/d for the
last 30 days. The net revenue would be calculated as follows (Term x Quantity x
Rate): (30 days x 5,000 Dth x $0.25) + (31 days x 5,000 Dth x $0.40) + (30 days x
5,000 Dth x $0.305). ($37,500 + $62,000 + $45,750 = $145,250) As $145,250 is
greater than $137,000 the second bidder would take the award.
Example 2: Assuming the releaser permitted lesser quantity bids, and
requested the capacity go to the highest net revenue bid, then when evaluating a
91 day release of 10,000 Dth per day of capacity upon which two bids are
received as follows: A bidder submits $0.10 per Dth for all the capacity for the
first 30 days of capacity, $0.20 per Dth for all of the capacity for the second 31
days, and $0.15 per Dth for all of the capacity for the last 30 days. The net
revenue would be calculated as follows (Term x Quantity x Rate): (30 days x
10,000 Dth x $0.10) + (31 days x 10,000 Dth x $0.20) + (30 days x 10,000 Dth x
$0.15). ($30,000 + $62,000 + $45,000 = $137,000). Another bidder submits
$0.15 per Dth for 5,000 Dth/d for the first 30 days of capacity, $0.30 per Dth for
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
85
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
5,000 Dth/d for the second 31 days, and $0.20 per Dth for 5,000 Dth/d for the last
30 days. The net revenue would be calculated as follows (Term x Quantity x
Rate): (30 days x 5,000 Dth x $0.15) + (31 days x 5,000 Dth x $0.30) + (30 days x
5,000 Dth x $0.20). ($22,500 + $46,500 + $30,000 = $99,000) As $137,000 is
greater than $99,000 the first bidder would take the award.
Similarly, the highest net revenue of all bidders calculated in this manner
would be awarded the capacity when the net revenue per bid method is utilized to
award capacity.
Present Value
The term "present value" refers to the measure of the sum of all payments to be
made by the acquiring shipper, discounted to the present point in time, based on
an accepted discount percentage rate.
Two formulas are relevant, the first being for a stream of uniform payments and
the second for a stream of non-uniform payments.
The formula for the first is as follows:
Present Value = ((1 - (1+i)-n) / i) x R x Q [note: "-n" is an exponent]
Where: i = the interest rate per day to be used in discounting
n = the number of days
Q = the Quantity (e.g. number of Dth)
R = the dollar Rate per unit of capacity (e.g. $/Dth)
Assumptions for an application of the above formula are i = 10% per annum
(.0274% per day), n = 91 days, Q = 10,000 Dth per day and R = $0.12 per Dth.
The "present value" would be:
((1 - (1 + .000274)-91)/.000274) x $0.12 x 10,000 = $106,665
Note:
"-91" is an exponent
Note:
Conventions used - Rounding to 6 decimal places for the interest rate,
daily compounding, 365 days per year, and end result rounded to whole dollars.
The formula for the second is as follows:
Present Value = R x Q / ((1 + i)n)
[Note: "n" is an exponent]
Where: i = the interest rate per day to be used in discounting
n = the number of days
Q = the Quantity (e.g. number of Dth)
R = the dollar Rate per unit of capacity (e.g. $/Dth)
Assumptions for an application of the above formula are i = 10% per annum, n =
91, Q = 10,000 and R = $0.12 for the first 30 days, $0.10 for the
second 31 days and $0.08 for the last 30 days.
-30
Note: " ", "31" and "61" are exponents
The first 30 days: ((1 - (1 + .000274)-30)/.000274) x $0.12 x 10,000 =
$35,848
The next 31 days: ((1 - (1 + .000274)-31/.000274) x $0.10 x 10,000 =
$29,873; divide by (1 + 000274)30 to discount from day 30 to day 0
= $29,628
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
86
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
The last 30 days: ((1 - (1 + .000274)-30/.000274) x $.08 x 10,000 =
$23,898; divide by (1 + .000274)61 to discount from day 61 to day
0 = $23,509
Total Present Value: $35,848 + $29,628 + $23,509 = $88,985
The Interpretations Subcommittee recommends that a default discount rate be
identified and that it be the rate used for refunds as specified by 18 CFR Section
154.501(d) be used when there is no specified discount rate in the tariff of the
Capacity Release Service Provider.
7.3.15 Clarify the timeline for capacity release posting and award - there are 3 known
proposed implementations.
Interpretation:
With regard to the “less than 1 year” release open season, NAESB WGQ
Standard 5.3.2 states
“For biddable releases (less than 1 year):
- Offers should be tendered by 12:00 p.m. on a Business Day;
- open season ends no later than 1:00 p.m. on a Business Day...”
The biddable release (less than one year) must be posted no later than 12:00
p.m. (noon) the day nominations are due. This does not mean that an offer may
only be posted the day nominations are due. There is no maximum number of
days, in advance of nominations being due, by which an offer must be posted. At
a minimum, an offer must be posted prior to 12:00 p.m. (noon). The offer of
release may be posted for a greater period of time. If an offer is posted after
12:00 p.m. (noon) on a day, it must remain available for bid until no earlier than
1:00 p.m. the next day. In this way all bidders may review the offer postings
between a known hour and know that all of the biddable offers are available. On
what ever day an offer is posted, the open season must encompass at least the
next occurrence of the hour between 12:00 p.m. (noon) and 1:00 p.m. central
clock time. Thus, the intent of NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2 is as follows:
a)
The time that bidding on a particular offer of release ends is 1:00 p.m.
on a Business Day;
b)
the latest date that bidding on a particular offer of release can end is
the Business Day upon which nominations would be due for flow on
the first date that a release starts;
c)
the minimum open season on a “less than 1 year” offer of release
(open season being the time duration between bidding starting and
bidding ending) is one hour;
d)
the minimum open season on a “1 year or more” offer of release
(open season being the time duration between bidding starting and
bidding ending) is three Business Days and one hour;
e)
there is no maximum bidding period other than the bidding on a
particular offer of release can start no earlier than the time a particular
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
87
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
offer of release is received and posted by the capacity release service
provider;
f)
the latest time that bidding on a “less than 1 year” offer of release can
start is 12:00 p.m. (noon) on a Business Day for flow on the first date
that a release starts; and,
g)
the latest time that bidding on a “1 year or more” offer of release can
start is 12:00 p.m. (noon) on the third Business Day before timely
nominations would be due for flow on the first date that a release
starts (the fourth Business Day prior to award).
7.3.16 Which location code should be sent in a request to confirm and confirmation
response? Sender's Code or Recipient's Code?
Interpretation:
As between the interconnected parties, and in the absence of agreement to the
contrary:
(1) The common code is the data reference number (DRN) in the Petroleum
Information database. There is one DRN for every location nominatable on
the facilities of a service provider. An Interconnect is two points. One, the
point used by the contractually delivering party (operator or TSP) and the
other one, the point used by the contractually receiving party (operator or
TSP).
(2) NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.20 states 'The receiver of a nomination initiates
the confirmation process. The party that would receive a Request for
Confirmation or an unsolicited Confirmation Response may waive the
obligation of sender to send.’
(3) NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.3 - the dataset itself has the following definition
of the data element 'Location*': 'The location where the quantity will be
scheduled by the transportation service provider.'
As to which
Transportation Service Provider's (TSP) code is within the field 'Location'
that is within the 1.4.3 dataset, the contractual flow indicator indicates (as of
the January 9, 1997 vote of the EC) as follows: "Indicates the logical
direction of flow at a point from the confirmation request originator's
perspective". In order that the remainder of the document sent from the
Confirmation Requester be interpreted unambiguously, the contents of the
Location code data element in both the Request to Confirm and
Confirmation Response document should be the Location code of the party
sending the Request to Confirm.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
88
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
7.3.17 From whose perspective should elements be populated on the Nomination Confirmation Response dataset?
Interpretation:
Confirming parties which process the request to confirm with a confirmation
response should populate the following fields (when applicable) with the same
information (the contents of these fields in the Confirmation Response should be
of the same value) as that provided in the same fields in the Request to Confirm:
Contractual Flow Indicator,
Upstream Identifier Code,
Upstream Contract Identifier,
Downstream Identifier Code,
Downstream Contract Identifier, and
Service Requester Contract.
The effect of this is to require that this information would always be populated
from the perspective of the party creating the Request to Confirm. The party
creating the Confirmation Response could, pursuant to the standards, provide a
reduction reason code where a reduction is necessary. This means that the
receiver of the confirmation response would receive information as to the
transaction from their perspective. This would hold true even where the sender of
the confirmation response were to send an unsolicited confirmation response.
7.3.18 If interconnecting operators agree that one party will always create the request
and the other the response, what happens when the responding party needs to
request a cut?
Interpretation:
NAEBS WGQ Standard 1.3.20 states 'The receiver of a nomination initiates the
confirmation process. The party that would receive a Request For Confirmation or
an unsolicited Confirmation Response may waive the obligation of the sender to
send.'
Failure of the parties to agree on such a convention would not deprive either
party of the opportunity to effect a change as that party, having received a
nomination (see NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.27) could initiate the confirmation
process (send a request to confirm) and the receiving party would have the
obligation to respond with a confirmation response. This is the intent of NAESB
WGQ Standard 1.3.21 which states 'The sending party should adhere to
nomination, confirmation, and scheduling deadlines.'
7.3.19 Does this standard mean that a new scheduled quantity will be sent at the end of
every gas day? Will the information contained in “End of Gas Day Scheduled
Quantity” include only those transactions scheduled the previous day including
intra-day nominations and scheduling changes regardless of when they were
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
89
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
nominated and confirmed? Will an “End of Gas Day Scheduled Quantity” be sent
when the only change is the date?
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.3 states that "In addition to making scheduled
quantities information available by 4:30 p.m., at the end of each day
transportation service providers should also make available to shippers
information containing scheduled quantities, including scheduled intraday
nominations and any other scheduling changes".
This means that a new scheduled quantity document would be made available at
the end of each gas day, and would contain all of the transactions scheduled for
the just completed gas day. The information concerning the prior (i.e., just
completed) gas day would be made available to the service requesters
regardless of when the nomination or activity giving rise to the scheduled quantity
was initially submitted to or processed by the transportation service provider.
7.3.20 A - Do these standards taken together mean that all allocated quantities and
imbalance statements will at least provide daily quantity detail, even when the
quantities are estimates?
B - Do these standards taken together mean that all allocated quantities and
imbalance statements will also provide monthly quantity detail even if the
quantities are estimates?
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 2.3.27 states: "Allocated quantities and imbalances
should be expressed in the same units as the nominated quantities”. NAESB
WGQ Standard 2.3.15 states: “There are two types of allocations: daily and
monthly”. NAESB WGQ Standard 2.3.24 states “Delivery point allocations should
be provided at the lowest level of detail provided by nominations”. And in relevant
part, NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.14 states: “The standard quantity for
nominations, confirmations and scheduling is Dekatherms per gas day in the
United States....”
That NAESB WGQ Standard 2.3.15 refers to both daily and monthly allocations
does not mean that transportation service providers must perform both daily and
monthly allocations, but rather that there are both daily and monthly types of
allocations. In essence this means that any given allocation is either daily or
monthly. Just as there are three model types for transportation, but a
transportation service provider may choose to support just one, so too are there
two types (models) of allocations: daily and monthly and a transportation service
provider may also choose to support just one. This means that it is possible to
have an allocated quantity and an imbalance statement that does not provide
daily quantity detail.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
90
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
7.3.21 Is the definition of previously released indicator clear?
Interpretation:
This means that the Offer is comprised of capacity made up in whole or in part of
capacity which was acquired by the releasing shipper on a non-permanent basis.
A releasing shipper which acquires capacity through a permanent release is not
considered to have acquired that capacity via a non-permanent release; and, any
offers of that capacity (acquired via permanent release) by that shipper would not
be considered a release to which the subject indicator would be applicable. This
indicator does not communicate to parties employing the Capacity Release Offer
dataset that this capacity may have been released by this releasing shipper
before this time, but rather it is intended to communicate that the releasing
shipper acquired the now offered capacity via a previous non-permanent release.
7.3.22 In the "Request for Confirmation" document, should the sender indicate the
quantity that a shipper requested, or should the quantity indicate only the positive
or negative change requested?
Interpretation:
For nominating and confirming purposes, the way to express quantities is as a
zero or positive quantity. This applies to the request to confirm document and
also to the confirmation response document.
It is difficult to understand what the expected business result would be as to the
confirmed quantity the confirmation requester would receive in the confirmation
response if a 'change only' quantity were to be sent and responded to. It would
be ambiguous and misleading to receive back a confirmation for -20 units, rather
than the 80 units that is going to flow. The reverse is also true. By operation of
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.22, where a service requester 'changed' its
nomination from 100 units to 120 units, requesting a confirmation of 20, (the
change) would result in the confirming party's overwriting of the original 100 units
with a requested confirmation of 20 units. Changes should mean the resulting
total quantity per gas day for the nominated period and not the numeric value of
the change from a previously scheduled quantity. Furthermore, application of a
change only or negative quantity to the portion of NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.22,
relating to the 'lesser of' rule, is difficult at best if the confirmed quantity is the
numeric value of the 'change'.
7.3.23 It should be clarified that the "Nomination Quick Response" document due at
noon as required by NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.2 is used to validate the
nomination request in implementing the X.12 nomination related data sets and is
not required for the other forms of electronic delivery of Faxes and EBB on-line
systems.
Interpretation:
As the references to datasets within the nominations process timelines portion of
the NAESB WGQ standards (specifically NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.2) are
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
91
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
references to the datasets in the 1.4.x series and not to non-standard formats (as
would be the case with non-standard delivery mechanisms such as deliveries via
faxes or deliveries via EBBs), it is not intended that the 'quick response' (a
standard response to a standard request) be required as a response to a nonstandard request.
In relevant portion, NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.2 references a 'quick response by
noon'. This reference to the 'quick response' is specifically to the NAESB WGQ
EDI X12 Nomination Quick Response document. The Nomination Quick
Response is a defined document within the 1.4.x portion of the nomination related
standards and is used to validate the nomination (or provide relevant and
applicable errors and warnings) in implementing the nomination process via the
EDI X12 data sets (the NAESB WGQ Standards contained in the 1.4.x series and
the associated implementation guides).
7.3.24 Does the language of NAESB WGQ Standards 2.3.14, 2.3.26, 3.3.15 and 4.3.4
mean that contractual audit rights are excluded from the six-month time limitation
and that no statement adjustments can be made after the six-month period? In
addition, is NAESB WGQ recommending that audit rights be excluded from
contracts or otherwise limited in contracts to a six-month period?
Interpretation:
Audit rights, to the extent they exist in a contract are contractual rights within the
meaning of NAESB WGQ Standards 2.3.14, 2.3.26, 3.3.15, and 4.3.4. Further,
the NAESB WGQ standards make no finding or recommendation with respect to
the advisability of including or excluding audit rights, specifying audit timing or
specifying the timing of subsequent audit corrections in a contract.
7.3.25 From what date does the six-month period limitation on prior period adjustments
begin? Is it from the date of adoption of NAESB WGQ Standards or is it with the
Transportation invoice which is issued during the sixth month prior to adoption of
the NAESB standards? Can a pipeline which became GISB compliant on April 1,
1997, include in its September 1997 transportation invoice a prior period
adjustment for May 1996 production?
Interpretation:
GISB/NAESB WGQ Standard 3.3.16 refers to the prior period adjustments being
reported by production date. Prior to the date of adoption of the GISB/NAESB
WGQ standards by the subject party(ies), whatever convention they followed
previously would be and would continue to be in effect for the invoices related to
production and transportation related transactions occurring up through the day
prior to adoption of the GISB/NAESB WGQ standards.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
92
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
For example, a Transportation Service Provider adopting the GISB/NAESB WGQ
standards effective April 1, 1997, a March 31st, 1997 (or earlier) transaction
would not be governed by the GISB/NAESB WGQ Standards 3.3.15 or 3.3.16;
and a transaction occurring on or after April 1, 1997 would be governed by the
GISB/NAESB WGQ standards. Thus, a September 1997 invoice could have
prior period adjustments for any production month (pursuant to the previously
effective convention for those transactions occurring prior to or on March 31,
1997). Likewise, the latest date (six months from the initial transportation invoice)
that an April, 1997 production month (invoiced in May, 1997) would be subject to
a prior period adjustment, (consistent with the relevant GISB/NAESB WGQ
standards and interpretation 7.3.24) would be the last business day of November,
1997.
With respect to the three month rebuttal period, this rebuttal period attaches to
the reporting of the prior period adjustment. A rebuttal period is the time during
which the rebuttal should be submitted, and unless submitted within this period,
(consistent with the relevant GISB/NAESB WGQ standards and interpretation
7.3.24), the prior period adjustment would be deemed accepted. The rebuttal
period does not itself extend the reporting period of the prior period adjustment, it
may however extend the ultimate resolution. For example, if a prior period
adjustment for May 1997 production was posted in October 1997, the three
month rebuttal period (the period during which the rebuttal should be submitted
and after which (consistent with the relevant GISB/NAESB WGQ standards and
interpretation 7.3.24), the prior period adjustment would be deemed accepted)
would end on the last business day of January, 1998. For example, if a prior
period adjustment for May 1997 production month was posted in November
1997, its rebuttal period (again the period during which the rebuttal should be
submitted and after which (consistent with the relevant GISB/NAESB WGQ
standards and interpretation 7.3.24), the prior period adjustment would be
deemed accepted) would extend through the last business day of February,
1998.
With respect to the prior period adjustment time frame, the purpose for choosing
the last business day of the sixth month following the initial transportation invoice
is to account for differences in the actual date that an invoice may be rendered,
and making it clear that the timing of holidays, weekends, and delays to invoices
in one or another month would not engender disputes as to whether the six
month period was a period of exact days, (182 or 183 depending on the year) or
the coincidence of a weekend with the expiration of a particular date, or the
tardiness of the sixth-month's invoice relative to the original invoice, etc.
Likewise, with respect to the rebuttal period time frame, the purpose for choosing
the last business day of the third month following the submittal of the prior period
adjustment is to account for differences in the actual date that a prior period
adjustment may be submitted, and making it clear that the timing of holidays,
weekends, and delays to prior period adjustments (contained in invoices) in one
or another month would not engender disputes as to whether the three month
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
93
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
period was a period of exact days, (90, 91 or 92 days depending on the initial
month) or the coincidence of a weekend with the expiration of a particular date.
7.3.26 How is the Ending Date/Time relevant in the nomination - confirmation process?
Interpretation:
With respect to the value contained in an Ending Date/Time field of 1) a Request
for Confirmation document sent by a Confirmation Requester to a Confirming
Party; 2) a Confirmation Response document sent to a Confirmation Requester
by a Confirming Party in response to a Request for Confirmation document; or, 3)
an unsolicited Confirmation Response sent by one of the Confirming Parties to
another, the receiver of such a document should interpret such Ending Date/Time
in the following manner:
With respect to the Ending Date/Time in a Request for Confirmation, Confirmation
Response or unsolicited Confirmation Response document, the absence of a
requested or confirmed quantity (as applicable) for a date range beyond the date
range received in a document does not imply a requested or confirmed quantity
of zero for the future period.
7.3.27 Can a transportation service provider (TSP1) require that a service requester
provide to that TSP1 a DRN belonging to a different TSP (TSP2) in a nomination
to TSP1? In other words, in a nomination from a shipper to TSP1, can TSP1
require that shipper to provide DRNs for locations that belong to TSP2?
With respect to nominations by a Service Requester to a Transportation Service
Provider (TSP1) which nominations reflect a transaction with respect to a receipt
and/or delivery location(s) which location(s) are interconnections with other TSPs
(i.e., a TSP2 and/or a TSP3 respectively), can TSP1 require that a Service
Requester provide to that TSP1 a DRN associated with a different TSP (i.e.,
TSP2’s DRN at the receipt location interconnect and/or TSP3’s DRN at the
delivery location interconnect, respectively) in a nomination to TSP1? In other
words, in a nomination from a shipper to TSP1, can TSP1 require that shipper to
provide DRNs for the interconnect location(s) that are associated with TSP2’s
and/or TSP3’s side of the interconnect?
Interpretation:
A Transportation Service Provider (TSP1) can not require that a Service
Requester provide to that TSP1 a DRN belonging to a different Transportation
Service Provider (TSP2) in a nomination for service with respect to receipts
and/or deliveries on the system operated by TSP1. Nominations to TSP1 should
involve TSP1’s locations and thus DRNs associated with that TSP1 (as recorded
in the PI Database and made available to the industry as the standard source for
DRNs). There should be no case where a nomination to or from an interconnect
with another Transportation Service Provider (TSP - i.e., TSP2 and/or TSP3) is
rejected because that nomination did not contain a DRN for a TSP other than the
TSP to whom the request for service(s) was directed.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
94
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
With respect to the location Common Code assignment process, it is each TSP,
who sends the nominatable points on their system or nominatable under their
contracts (i.e., their proprietary points) into PI for a DRN to be assigned. This
response specifically does not address the issue of what DRN should be
employed in those cases where TSP1's service requesters contracts' with TSP1
obtain rights at locations on the system of another TSP (TSP2).
7.3.28 How does the PDA Quick Response distinguish specific errors when PDAs have
been submitted for multiple locations?
Interpretation:
Both the PDA dataset (GISB Standard 2.4.1, Version 1.3) and the PDA Quick
Response dataset (GISB Standard 2.4.2, Version 1.3) contain the data element
PDA Submitter's Tracking ID (mandatory in the PDA and conditional in the PDA
Quick Response). The purpose of this data element in the PDA process is to
provide a means of identifying each particular location within the PDA document
with a PDA submitter's tracking identifier. A PDA submitter should supply the
identifier in order that the PDA receiver may respond in the PDA Quick Response
document with errors or warnings (if needed) and when doing so, identify the
particular location at which the error or warning condition existed.
7.3.29 Do NAESB WGQ Standards 1.2.1, 1.3.5, 1.3.7, and 1.3.27 mean that a pipeline
can require a service requester to place into one NAESB WGQ standard EDI
document (ST to SE loop) (GISB Standard 1.4.1 Implementation Guide version
1.0, 1.1 and/or 1.2) nominations with only the identical beginning and ending
dates and impose a practice where if the shipper does not provide their
nominations in this fashion, reject such nominations?
Interpretation:
The listed standards do not require that nomination line items transmitted within a
single EDI document have identical beginning and ending dates. The listed
standards should not be interpreted as permitting a practice where the
Transportation Service Provider would reject nominations solely on the basis of
their not having identical beginning and ending dates, (i.e. subject to possible
balancing requirements with respect to the nomination instructions).
7.3.30 Can a pipeline require that a shipper using NAESB WGQ standard EDI
nominations datasets (NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.1) submit transactions other
than the changed (i.e., re-nominate non-changed individual nominations)
nomination(s)?
Interpretation:
A Transportation Service Provider (without regard to which nomination Model
Type is employed) can not require that a shipper using NAESB WGQ standard
EDI nominations datasets (NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.1) submit transactions
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
95
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
other than the changed (i.e., re-nominate non-changed individual nominations)
nomination(s).
7.3.31 Can a pipeline require a shipper to submit more than one line item in a NAESB
WGQ standard EDI nomination document (NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.1)?
Interpretation:
A pipeline can not require a shipper to submit more than one line item in a
NAESB WGQ standard EDI document when the single line item conveys a
complete instruction that can stand alone. There are situations among the model
types where multiple line items may be required to be in place before an
instruction is complete.
For instance, for balancing requirements, a business practice might require that a
line item nomination, for a non-pathed model, that reduces the receipt quantity
should be accompanied by one or more line items, for the same model, that
reduce the corresponding delivery quantity, to bring the contract into balance. In
another scenario, a service requester may want to change the scheduling priority
for a single line item. This change of priority would not require any other line
items to be submitted in order for the instruction to be complete.
7.3.32 When a service requester is seeking to submit a changed NAESB WGQ standard
EDI nomination, can a pipeline employing the non-pathed or pathed
non-threaded models require that a shipper submit transactions other than the
changed nomination (i.e., re-nominate non-changed individual nominations)?
Interpretation:
A Transportation Service Provider (without regard to which nomination Model
Type is employed) can not require that a shipper using NAESB WGQ standard
EDI nominations datasets (NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.1) submit transactions
other than the changed (i.e., re-nominate non-changed individual nominations)
nomination(s).
7.3.33 Is the Ending Date/Time relevant in the Nominations - Scheduled Quantities?
Interpretation:
With respect to the value contained in an Ending Date/Time field of a Scheduled
Quantities document sent to a service requester following a service requester's
submission of a nomination, the following applies:
With respect to the Ending Date/Time in a Scheduled Quantities document, the
absence of a scheduled quantity for a date range within the nominated date
range but beyond that specified in the Scheduled Quantities document does not
imply a scheduled quantity of zero for the future nominated period. Rather,
service requester's should await the future arrival of a Scheduled Quantity
document containing scheduled quantities information pertaining to the future
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
96
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
nominated period for a determination of the status of any quantities related to any
such future nominated period.
7.3.34 How is the party being paid identified on the Payment Remittance?
The Payment Remittance data set does not appear to have a data element to
identify the party being paid. (There are three data elements to communicate the
sender of the payment -- Billable Party, Remitting Party, Service Requester.)
How is the party being paid identified? Possible interpretations or clarifications, if
known: It may be necessary to add Service Provider to the data set to identify the
party being paid.
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 3.4.2 added the data element "payee" to the payment
remittance document as a mandatory data element. This data element indicates
the identity of the party being paid.
7.3.35 According to NAESB WGQ Standard 4.3.23, notices are now supposed to be
posted on the Transportation Service Providers' (TSP) Web pages. Does this
mean that a TSP is not required to provide any alternative form of communication
for notices such as telephone or fax, particularly for those notices issued outside
of business hours and on weekends?
According to NAESB WGQ Standard 4.3.23, notices are supposed to be posted
on the Transportation Service Providers’ (TSP) Web pages. Does this mean that
a TSP is not required to provide any alternative form of communication for these
specified notices?
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 4.3.23 does not specify any alternative means of
notification aside from the Web page nor does it specify that the only means of
notification is by means of the Web page. Alternative means of notification for
particular information may be required by regulation, tariff or other NAESB WGQ
standards. For example notices pertaining to system wide events of both a
critical and non-critical nature (NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.18) are implemented
via both downloads (NAESB WGQ Standard 5.4.16) and the Web pages (NAESB
WGQ Standard 4.3.23).
7.3.36 Is the 855 Nomination Quick Response always due at noon even when the 850
nomination request is received earlier than 11:45 am by the transportation service
provider or is it always due 15 minutes later no matter when the 850 nomination
request is received? In other words, If a timely nomination is sent in at 9:30 am
and received by the TSP by 9:45 am, will the 855 quick response still be sent
back at noon or does it need to be sent back earlier by 10:00 am (15 minutes
later)?
It needs to be clarified that the party sending back the 855 Nomination Quick
Response document as required under NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.2 need not
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
97
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
wait until noon to send it, but instead should send it back within 15 minutes of
receipt of the 850 nomination transaction no matter when it is received consistent
with NAESB WGQ Standards 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 and 4.3.9. The Quick Response
due at noon is only applicable in the case of the nomination being received at
11:45 am. This allows a party to send in a nomination early and still have time to
make corrections if errors are discovered after receiving the 855 Quick
Response.
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.37 sets forth the process and timing whereby
Nominations documents are responded to with Quick Response documents. This
standard clarifies the expected response time frame for those Service Requesters
submitting Nominations documents both associated with a nominations deadline
and at other times not associated with a nominations deadline.
7.3.37 Is this NAESB WGQ standard of 14.73 Dry consistent with Texas law, for use by
Texas intrastate pipelines which are not under FERC jurisdiction?
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ standards relate to the transportation and sale of natural gas. As
such it is the NAESB WGQ standard that the quantities of all such transactions
be conducted and coordinated on a uniform energy basis; which basis is in Dth
per gas day. NAESB WGQ takes no position as to the basis upon which these
transactions be reported to government or other bodies or persons, nor does
NAESB WGQ state that transactions may not take place between parties on a
volumetric basis. The standards do require however that when parties are
coordinating the conduct of their business with others (Point Operators,
interconnected Transportation Service Providers and other parties who perform
confirmation activities with respect to the transportation of natural gas), that the
quantities for these activities be communicated in Dth.
7.3.38 A releasing shipper can opt to have bids sent in as either Absolute Dollars and
Cents or as a Percentage of Maximum Tariff Rate. In the case that a shipper
chooses to accept bids in either format, and the transportation service provider
elects to support this practice by calculating the best bid regardless of how
received, does this meet the applicable standard?
Interpretation:
Yes, it is not only within the standard, it can be considered as exceeding the
standard. NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.26 states: Releasing shipper has choice to
specify dollars and cents or percents of maximum tariff rate in the denomination
of bids and all transportation service providers should support this. Once the
choice is made by the releasing shipper, the bids should comport with the choice.
Under this standard, and in the example, the Transportation Service Provider
(TSP) has clearly provided a choice. It has not required that the releasing
shipper accept both. Nor has it required that the releasing shipper accept bids
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
98
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
formatted according to only one of the two choices. Rather, the TSP has
exceeded the standard by allowing releasing shippers to choose an ‘either’
option. In addition, under the cited standard, the TSP is not required to accept
bids in ‘both’ formats but rather in ‘either’ format; thus, the requirement (cited in
the example) that bidders only submit one type of bid rate format per bid, is within
the standard. In this instance, the election of the TSP to exceed the standard has
not eliminated choices available under the standard, nor has it harmed those not
availing themselves of the practice in question. It is not necessary to permit
bidding shippers to make ‘both’ types of bids (absolute dollars and cents and
percentage of maximum tariff rate) in one bid because exceeding one portion of a
standard, as is the case here, where no disadvantage to others occurs, does not
mean that other portions of a standard are required to be exceeded in order to
achieve the intent of the standard. Finally, as the TSP is clearly supporting
NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.4 by calculating the ‘best bid’ regardless of how
submitted, there is no reason that this practice be considered as not meeting
NAESB WGQ standards.
7.3.39 Clarify the intention of the "AE" Transaction Status Code in the Header Level of
the Nomination Quick Response.
Nomination Quick Response Transaction Status Code in the Header Level has 3
codes. Two of the codes identify specifically whether or not the nomination has
been accepted (AT) or rejected with detail (RD).
However, the status code of AE - Acknowledge with exception detail only, does
not give the recipient a clear idea, if those line item nominations returned with
warnings and/or errors were accepted or rejected.
Interpretation:
‘AE’ is a code value which may be sent in a Transaction Status Code field within
a Quick Response. When sent, it is sent at the Header level which means that
the code refers to the whole document sent by the party to which this Quick
Response responds. Sending the 'AE' code means that some of the line items in
the document being responded to were accepted, and those line items which
were accepted were accepted either with or without warnings. The 'AE' code can
also mean that some of the line items may have been rejected. A party receiving
the Quick Response with an 'AE' code looks to the detail (i.e., the line item) level
to determine which line items were accepted, which were accepted with a
warning, and which were rejected (if any were rejected). The use of the ‘AE’
code value would have the same meaning in any quick response document
where its use is appropriate.
As a general matter, where a line item carries a warning, it has nonetheless been
accepted for processing purposes; and where a line item carries an error, it has
been rejected, has not been accepted for processing, and should be corrected or
otherwise adjusted and resubmitted in order to be processed.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
99
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
7.3.40 Part 1: With respect to GISB Standard 1.3.22.i, GISB Standards Version 1.3, for
start of day, should the “previously scheduled quantity” to be employed for the
purpose of determining scheduled quantities pursuant to the ‘lesser of rule’ be the
previous Start of Day scheduled quantity or the last previously scheduled intraday
quantity?
Part 2: With respect to GISB Standard 1.3.22.ii, GISB Standards Version 1.3, for
intraday processes, should the “previously scheduled quantity” to be employed
for the purpose of determining scheduled quantities pursuant to the ‘lesser of
rule’ be the previous Start of Day scheduled quantity or the last previously
scheduled intraday quantity?
Interpretation:
Part 1: For the purpose of GISB Standard No. 1.3.22.i the reference to
‘previously scheduled quantity’ is intended to be the scheduled quantity
previously scheduled for the prior gas day during that gas day’s timely nomination
period.
Part 2: GISB Standard 1.3.22.iii refers to the ‘elapsed-prorated-scheduled
quantity’.
The ‘elapsed-prorated-scheduled quantity’ is that day's
elapsed-prorated-scheduled quantity and therefore, within the intraday scheduling
process cited in GISB Standard 1.3.22.ii, the reference to ‘previously scheduled
quantity’ is intended to be to the scheduled quantity most recently previously
scheduled for the subject day during the most recently concluded scheduling
process for that day. Thus: a) for the Evening period, the ‘previously scheduled
quantity’ would be the scheduled quantity resulting from the Timely period's
process for the subject gas day, b) for the Intraday 1 period, the ‘previously
scheduled quantity’ would be the scheduled quantity resulting from the Evening
period's process for the subject gas day, and c) for the Intraday 2 period, the
‘previously scheduled quantity’ would be the scheduled quantity resulting from the
Intraday 1 period's process for the subject gas day. This is appropriate because,
at all scheduling periods, all transaction information is exchanged among
Confirming Parties with respect to their location(s), which means that the results
of each scheduling period would pertain to all transactions and the reference to
the most recent period would be a reference inclusive of all transactions
regardless of whether there was a change initiated for any particular transaction
during any particular period.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
100
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
7.3.41 Current GISB Standard 1.3.9 states in part, "Intraday nominations should include
an effective date and time." Intraday Standard 1.3.43 states in part, "Where
Transportation Service Providers support the processing of beginning effective
time ... ". Are these two standards in conflict in so much as in GISB Standard
1.3.9 Beginning Time is sender's option, but 1.3.43 [GISB Standard 1.3.43,
Version 1.3] says that the TSPs may or may not support Beginning Time? How
can a data element be Sender's Option and Business Conditional at the same
time?
Interpretation:
GISB Standard 1.4.1 (the nomination data dictionary), which implemented
(among other things) GISB Standard 1.3.9 in versions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, provided
a default value for Beginning Time in a nomination as a convenience to parties
submitting nominations. The wording of GISB Standard 1.3.9 states in relevant
part ‘Intra-day nominations should include an effective date and time.’ For the
purpose of this clarification ‘effective’ refers to the Beginning Time for the subject
nomination and the use of the word ‘should’ means a mandatory use of such
Beginning Time. As GISB Standard 1.3.43 was adopted subsequent to GISB
Standard 1.3.9 and established a Business Conditional usage for Beginning Time
for the purpose of determining the appropriate processing interval, there is no
conflict between these standards. GISB Standard 1.2.2 with respect to Business
Conditional means that the receiver of the document determines whether the
process or particular information is required to be sent by the sender, and, for the
convenience of the sender, GISB Standard 1.2.2 states in relevant part ‘Business
Conditional elements which are not supported/required by the receiver will be
acknowledged in the response document with a warning code indicating that the
data elements was [sic] ignored by the receiver.’ Thus, GISB Standard 1.3.9,
which makes provision of Beginning Time in an intraday nomination mandatory
(so that it may be used as the interconnected parties see fit in determining hourly
flows [see GISB Standard 7.3.5] ), is not changed by GISB Standard 1.3.43 but
rather, the convenience feature of the earlier versions of the data dictionary are
no longer applicable and have been adjusted as of GISB Standards Version 1.3
to reflect the Business Conditional formulation of the Beginning Time for the
purpose of determining the processing interval during which the nomination would
be processed. A nominating party which always sends a Beginning Time
(consistent with the mandatory nature of Beginning Time in GISB Standard 1.3.9)
in a nomination (including intraday nominations) will, when sending such to a
Transportation Service Provider which employs such information to determine the
processing cycle, receive the same business result as previously, and, when
such information is provided to Transportation Service Provider which does not
employ such information to determine the processing cycle, the nominating party
would receive a warning that such information was ignored for the purpose of
determining the processing cycle, (as such Transportation Service Provider
employs the receipt time of the transaction and the Beginning Date, to determine
the appropriate processing cycle), but otherwise the nominating party would
receive the same business result as previously. In either case, the other purpose
of providing a Beginning Time in an intraday nomination pursuant to GISB
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
101
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
Standard 1.3.9 (i.e., to provide useful information to the interconnected parties)
remains unchanged by the added usefulness to some Transportation Service
Providers of using Beginning Time to determine the appropriate processing cycle.
7.3.42 It would seem that the standards adopted in GISB Standards Version 1.3
concerning intraday nominations and scheduling (i.e., results of intraday
nominations are reported by means of the scheduled quantities provided in each
intraday period and the results of the timely nominations are reported by means
of the scheduled quantities provided in the timely period) might change the
purpose of GISB Standard 1.3.3? In light of this, has the purpose of GISB
Standard 1.3.3 changed?
Interpretation:
GISB Standard No. 1.3.3 states that "In addition to making scheduled quantities
information available by 4:30 P.M., at the end of each day transportation service
providers should also make available to shippers information containing
scheduled quantities, including scheduled intraday nominations and any other
scheduling changes." This means that specific information should be supplied at
the end of each day (read: gas day). It should contain all scheduling activity both
regular and intraday activity, initiated by the Service Requester and any other
"scheduling changes" carried out by the Service Provider. This is in order to
provide Service Requesters with a comprehensive transmittal of information
concerning all scheduling activities at the end of each gas day.
7.3.43 When a Transportation Service Provider has posted a particular Offer, Bid, Award
(as identified by its “number”) and then any one or more of the values, contained
within: a) the quantity(ies) data elements, b) rate data elements, c) any of the
date/time elements (i.e. effective begin/end dates, award dates, bidding period
dates, etc.), d) location data elements, or e) data elements containing codes for
the parties to that Offer, Bid, or Award, is different in a subsequent posting of
information on that Offer, Bid, Award, shouldn’t the value of the ANSI X12
Transaction Set Purpose Code data element be the code associated with the
“change” (Offer) or “re-submission” (Award)?
Interpretation:
It is misleading and unclear to communicate information that was previously
posted, and has been subsequently revised and re-posted, with a code
value that states that the information is "original". Once a capacity release
transaction has been posted, where there is a change to any value
contained in particular offer, bid, or award, and the revised transaction has
been posted, the value of the ANSI X12 Transaction Set Purpose Code
data element should denote that the data set contains a revision(s).
In the NAESB WGQ Capacity Release Related Implementation Guides, the
following values are available to populate the ANSI X12 data element
Transaction Set Purpose Code:
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
102
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
Data Set
Offer
Offer
Bid
Bid
Award
Award
(5.4.1)
(5.4.1)
(5.4.2)
(5.4.2)
(5.4.3)
(5.4.3)
Segment
Value
ANSI X12
Code
BQT
BQT
BQR
BQR
BQR
BQR
00
04
00
04
06
15
Description
Original
Change
Original
Change
Confirmation
Re-submission
7.3.44 Request clarification related to the use of only central clock time values in the
date/time data elements for all Capacity Release related datasets (e.g. Offer,
Bids, Awards, Upload to Pipeline of Prearranged Deal, UPPD Validation, Bidder
Confirmation, Final Disposition, Operational Available, Unsubscribed FT, and
Critical Notices). Should all time values be provided in central clock time?
Interpretation:
Yes, all values contained within date/time data elements should be central clock
time values. GISB Standards version 1.2 et. seq. removed the time zone qualifier
for all date/time data elements. GISB Standard No. 5.3.2 expresses that the time
deadlines in Capacity Release data sets should be in central clock time. GISB
business standards universally express that central clock time should be used.
There are no longer any time zone qualifiers within the datasets and therefore
only time values which are central clock time should be present. In addition, GISB
Standard No. 1.3.1 expresses that the standard time for gas day should be
expressed in central clock time (i.e., 9 a.m. – 9 a.m. Central Clock Time).
7.3.45 Clarify the meaning of the recall/reput option of “Recallable, Not Reputtable”.
Interpretation:
For the Recall/Reput Indicator data element, the code value “Capacity recallable
but not reputtable” means that if released capacity is recalled, it cannot be reput
to the acquiring shipper from whom it was recalled. GISB has not addressed the
re-release of recalled capacity.
7.3.46 NAESB WGQ Standard 5.3.2 states “offers should be tendered by 12:00 p.m. on
a business day for “less than one year” releases”. It further states that the “open
season ends no later than 1:00 p.m. on a business day…” NAESB WGQ
Standard 5.3.24 states, “Capacity Release facilitator should post offers and bids,
including prearranged deals, upon receipt, unless releasing shipper requests
otherwise”. These standards seem to imply that the open season could begin at
either the time of posting or the next subsequent 12:00 p.m. after posting and in
either case, remain open until the requested end of posting. Clarification is
requested for the situation where the offer is tendered after the 12:00 p.m.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
103
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
deadline on Business Day one, but before 12:00 p.m. on Business Day 2 and the
releasor requests that the offer be posted immediately.
Interpretation:
A Service Requester may have its offer posted for review either immediately or at
another specified time and if not specified then, at the Transportation Service
Provider's option, the offer can be posted for review either immediately or at the
next occurrence of 12:00 p.m. on a business day. NAESB WGQ has no
requirement that bidding upon such posting be available prior to the next
occurrence of 12:00 p.m. on a business day. Neither is there any prohibition on
bidding occurring upon a posting provided that bidding upon such posting
continue to be available through at least the next occurrence of 12:00 p.m. to
1:00 p.m. on a business day or the longer period where such offer is a long term
offer.
7.3.47 Please interpret the meaning and intent of what a ‘super-nomination’ is. Also,
please clarify whether a Transportation Service Provider permitting (and not
requiring) a shipper to nominate across pipelines in the same family is exceeding
the NAESB WGQ standard.
Interpretation:
The infrastructure exists within, and using, the NAESB WGQ standards for a
Service Requester to move gas from wellhead to burner-tip. In particular, the last
sentence of NAESB WGQ Standard 1.1.3 which states:
‘A super-nomination is a nomination that contains all the
nominations describing the path from the wellhead to the
burner-tip.’
should be interpreted to mean:
‘A super-nomination is a transmittal that contains all the
line items describing the path from the receipt point to
the delivery point.’
Given this interpretation of the last sentence of NAESB WGQ Standard 1.1.3, the
infrastructure does exist for a Service Requester to send multiple Transportation
Service Provider (TSP) nominations to a party receiving multiple TSP
nominations for retransmission to the applicable TSPs.
Lastly, a Transportation Service Provider (TSP) which permits (but does not
require) a Service Requester to submit a nomination or nominations (line item or
line items) which traverse multiple TSPs (including those TSPs in the same
corporate family) is exceeding the NAESB WGQ standard.
7.3.48 When the calculation of in-kind fuel reimbursement generates an amount less
than 0.500 Dth, does the TSP round down to zero or up to 1? The effect of
rounding up to 1 would be to create a one Dth minimum fuel-in-kind charge while
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
104
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
the effect of rounding down would be to have a zero Dth reimbursement and
possibly encourage gaming. Is zero a Dth?
Interpretation:
The mathematical effect of NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.15, the rounding
standard, can generate a zero Dth result for any particular line item.
7.3.49 Using the Pathed Non-Threaded model, should fuel be calculated on the total
delivery quantity to all delivery points, or based upon each transportation line
item? The problem arises when fuel quantities are rounded to the nearest Dth.
Interpretation:
The fuel percentage should be applied at the line item level. This applies
regardless of the Model Type that is used in the Nomination. NAESB WGQ
Standard 1.2.1 identifies that a nomination is at the line item level. NAESB WGQ
Standard 1.3.15 states in relevant part that “the results of the fuel reimbursement
calculations for the nominations process should be rounded to the nearest
dekatherm.” In addition, NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.29 states in relevant part
“Service Providers should not reject a nomination for reasons of rounding
differences due to fuel calculations of less than 5 Dth.” These three standards
taken together mean that fuel reimbursement calculations and the rounding of the
results thereof should occur at the line item level.
7.3.50 The question is whether individual implementations are free to use HTTP HEAD
command, prior to using the POST command to deliver the NAESB payload.
When implementing a NAESB Internet ET solution, the standard clearly relies on
the HTTP protocol spec for details of how to implement the protocol. It is also
clear that the HTTP POST command should be used, and not the GET
command.
Interpretation:
The use of the HTTP HEAD command in NAESB Internet ET is an option, and as
such its implementation between trading partners is solely on a ‘mutually agreed
to’ basis, i.e. the Requester is free to propose the use of the HEAD command to
its trading partners, but the Requester cannot insist upon its use. Moreover, the
Requester must still provide for transmission and receipt, via the standards, to
those trading partners that do not consent to the use of the HEAD command. If
the Requester seeks the use of the HEAD command as an explicit requirement of
NAESB Internet ET they are directed to submit a Request for Standard to
NAESB.
7.3.51 In the data dictionaries for the Request for Confirmation – NAESB WGQ
Standard 1.4.3 (document G873RQCF) and the Confirmation Response –
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.4 (document G873RRFC), it is required than an
upstream/downstream identifier code be sent depending on the contractual flow
indicator. At a pipeline interconnect the usual confirmation process is by
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
105
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
upstream/downstream contract identifier. Shouldn’t the upstream/downstream
identifier code between two pipelines be a business conditional process? Here is
one reason why. At an interconnect there could be several buy/sale transactions.
The transport contract may be communicated through the chain but the entity
may not due to confidentiality reasons. Please justify your position on this
required element.
Interpretation:
The Mandatory usage of upstream and downstream identifiers (entities) in the
confirmation process, specifically as used in the Request for Confirmation –
NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.3 (document R873RQCF) and the Confirmation
Response – NAESB WGQ Standard 1.4.4 (document G873RRFC), dates back to
GISB version 1.0. In requesting that NAESB “justify” it’s position in requiring
these data elements, the request states: “At a pipeline interconnect the usual
confirmation process is by upstream/downstream contract identifier.” The
discussions for crafting version 1.0 and subsequent versions have repeatedly
revealed that this assumption is incorrect. The industry as a whole has agreed
that the confirmation process requires, at a minimum, the use of upstream and
downstream identifiers.
These discussions and the resulting vote have
promulgated the industry’s wishes to specify through NAESB a single method of
confirmation for all facilities, whether a wellhead, interconnect, etc, as opposed to
creating separate processes based on facility type. Subsequent standards have
been adopted for other processes that rely on the mandatory usage of these
identifiers.
With respect to interconnected parties coming to agreement not to use the
upstream and downstream identifier elements in their joint confirmation process,
NAESB recognizes the right for such parties to so agree to the extent that other
standards, processes and agreements are not adversely affected, as is the case
in any question of usage. Should one of the parties not agree to exclude the
upstream and downstream identifier elements in the confirmation process, the
standards will govern specifying mandatory usage of these elements.
7.3.52 NAESB WGQ Standard 3.3.14 states that “the transportation invoice should be
prepared on or before the 9th business day”. What is the definition of “prepared”?
Is the intent of this standard that the transportation invoice should be mailed on or
before the 9th business day or that it should be “rendered” on or before the 9th
business day?
Interpretation:
Prepared means “made ready”. The intent of the standard is that the invoice be
rendered or “made available” to the Service Requester (SR) on or before the 9th
business day of the month. Some examples of rendering the invoice to the SR
include, but are not limited to: 1) mailing the invoice, or 2) making the invoice
available on the transportation service provider’s customer activities website, or
3) sending the invoice via EDI. It is implied that the invoice be prepared prior to it
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
106
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ Interpretations
being rendered. The invoice could be prepared the same day it is rendered but
preparation must take place prior to it being rendered.
The date the invoice is rendered is more significant than the date it is prepared.
For example, an invoice prepared on the 8th business day but not rendered until
after the 9th business day is late with respect to WGQ Standard 3.3.14. The fact
that the invoice was prepared in advance of the 9th would be of no consequence
to the SR.
7.3.53 Section 14.10 of Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas states
permits disclosure of information related to calculation of a published gas price
index. Does this information include the identity of the counterparty?
Interpretation:
Section 14.10 (iv) of the NAESB Base Contract allow disclosure of counterparty
name. If either party or both parties desire to specifically eliminate the ability of
either party to reveal counterparty’s name “to a third party for sole purpose of
calculating a published index” they should add a special provision to the NAESB
Base Contract to delete Section 14.10 (iv) from the Base Contract.
Please note that in the future if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
mandates disclosure of counterparty names for parties subject to FERC
jurisdiction (parties purchasing and selling gas under FERC blanket certificate
authority) parties will likely be required to furnish counterparty names under
Section 14.10 (i) [“in order to comply with any applicable law, order, regulation, or
exchange rule,”]
7.3.54 In the NAESB EDM manual, Standard 4.3.88 states, “For EDI/EDM, 128-bit
Secure socket Layer (SSL) encryption should be used.” My request is a
statement from NAESB that says, for EDM Version 1.6 the use of SSL is required
or a statement from NAESB that says, for EDM Version 1.6 the use of SSL is not
required.
Interpretation:
NAESB WGQ Standard 4.3.88 states “For EDI/EDM, 128-bit Secure Socket
Layer (SSL) encryption should be used.” Additionally, NAESB WGQ Standards
4.3.61 and 4.3.83 state that 128-bit Secure Socket layer (SSL) encryption should
be used for Customer Activities Websites and Interactive Flat File EDM
(Interactive FF/EDM). As demonstrated by these three specific references, the
intent of the standards is that 128-bit Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption
should be used as specified for EDI/EDM, Interactive FF/EDM and Customer
Activities Websites for NAESB Versions 1.6 and 1.7.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
107
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet Electronic Transport
WGQ / REQ / RGQ INTERNET ELECTRONIC TRANSPORT
Principles:
10.1.1 The Internet Electronic Transport (ET) does not pick winners, rather it should
create an environment where the marketplace can dictate a winner or winners
(4.1.2).
10.1.2 Internet ET solutions should be cost effective, simple and economical (4.1.3).
10.1.3 Internet ET solutions should provide for a seamless marketplace for energy
(4.1.4).
10.1.4 Parties should interface with third-party vendors according to NAESB Internet ET
standards (4.1.6).
10.1.5 Electronic communications between parties to the transaction should be done on
a non-discriminatory basis, whether through an agent or directly with any party to
the transaction (4.1.7).
10.1.6 Protocols and tools that parties elect to support should be ‘Internet-compatible’
(4.1.12).
10.1.7 The NAESB Internet ET should not set standards for site-level security.
Individual organization security standards should be relied upon (4.1.15).
10.1.8 Trading partners should maintain redundant connections to the public Internet for
NAESB Internet ET Web sites. These redundant connections should be
topographically diverse (duality of) paths to minimize the probability of a single
point of failure (4.1.36).
10.1.9 Trading Partners should mutually select and use a version of the NAESB Internet
ET standards under which to operate, unless specified otherwise by government
agencies. Trading Partners should also mutually agree to adopt later versions of
the NAESB Internet ET standards, as needed, unless specified otherwise by
government agencies (4.1.39).
Definitions:
10.2.1 ‘Internet ET Testing’. Testing electronic packages between trading partners
includes testing of: A) Connectivity; B) Encryption/Decryption; and C) Digital
signatures where appropriate (4.2.20).
10.2.2 ‘Fail-over’ defines a prescribed process executed when a NAESB Internet ET
Client fails to establish a connection to the target NAESB Internet ET Server.
10.2.3 ‘Trading Partner’ is a party that enters into an agreement with another party to
transact business electronically using the Internet ET standard .
10.2.4 ‘Originating party’ is any party originating/creating the package. This could also
include a third-party .
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
108
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet Electronic Transport
10.2.5 ‘Third-Party’ is any organization that a trading party uses to provide services to
comply with the required elements of the Internet ET.
10.2.6 ‘Receiving Party’ is any party that hosts (either in-house or outsourced) an
Internet ET compliant server capable of receiving Internet ET packages.
10.2.7 ‘Receiving Program’ is a program or set of programs that process HTTP
Requests from a Sender. The Receiving Program is responsible for generating
the ‘gisb-acknowledge-receipt’, which includes any party that hosts (either inhouse or outsourced) an Internet ET compliant server capable of receiving
Internet ET packages.
10.2.8 ‘Trading Partner Agreement’, or ‘TPA’ is a legal agreement between trading
parties.
The TPA often dictates service level agreements and problem
remediation processes. The TPA may include technical exchange information
such as URLs, et cetera.
10.2.9 ‘Batch Browser’. A Browser that can be run with little or no manual operation or
intervention. See ‘Browser’.
10.2.10 ‘Browser’. A software program capable of generating HTTP Requests, including
HTTP POST requests.
10.2.11 ‘Client’. The computer hardware and software used by the Sender to transmit an
Electronic Package to the Receiver’s Server. A Client can be fully-automated or
manual.
10.2.12 ‘COTS’. Commercial Off-The-Shelf; software that can be purchased and that
requires little or no customization.
10.2.13 ‘Electronic Package’. A data stream sent via HTTP POST that contains envelope
header information and Payload File(s). The Payload Files are encrypted using
defined Internet ET encryption techniques.
10.2.14 ‘Error Notification’. Error Notification is a package sent from the Receiver of the
original data to the Sender when errors are trapped after the Internet ET Receipt
is sent. This is normally used for decryption errors detected after the Internet ET
Receipt has been sent.
10.2.15 ‘HTTP Request’. The stream of data sent from the Client to the Server that
includes header information and payload data.
10.2.16 ‘HTTP Response’. The stream of data sent from the Server to the Client in
response to an HTTP Request, including the Receipt.
10.2.17 ‘HTTP Server’. The computer hardware and software used by the Receiver to
receive HTTP Requests from the Sender’s Client, and to send HTTP Responses
to the Sender’s Client. The Server is an HTTP/Web Server.
10.2.18 ‘IETF’. Internet Engineering Task Force; a body of technical experts that set
standards for the Internet known as Request for Comments (RFC’s).
10.2.19 ‘Interactive Browser’. A Browser that requires manual operation or intervention.
See ‘Browser’.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
109
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet Electronic Transport
10.2.20 ‘Internet EDM’. The GISB and NAESB WGQ standards up to and including
Version 1.7. The ‘Internet ET’ and ‘QEDM’ standards were derived from these
WGQ EDM standards.
10.2.21 ‘Internet ET’ or ‘Internet Electronic Transport’. The NAESB standards for the
secure transport of electronic information between trading partners, building upon
WGQ EDM Version 1.7.
10.2.22 ‘Payload Files’. The data contents inside of an electronic package. NAESB
Internet ET is content-independent.
10.2.23 ‘Protocol Failure’. A protocol failure occurs any time a sending party’s NAESB
Internet ET server cannot connect to the receiving party’s NAESB Internet ET
server. For example, if a server tries to connect to a server and fails, or tries to
post a file and fails, this is a protocol failure.
10.2.24 ‘Exchange Failure’. An exchange failure is when a sending party’s NAESB
Internet ET server has had three or more protocol failures over a period of time
no less than thirty minutes and no more than two hours.
10.2.25 ‘QEDM’. Quadrant-specific Electronic Delivery Mechanism; the set of standards
for each NAESB quadrant that define the EDM standards for EDI, flat-files,
electronic bulletin boards, and other technologies.
The QEDM excludes
electronic transport practices and standards. The QEDMs were derived from the
GISB and NAESB WGQ Internet EDM standards.
10.2.26 ‘Receipt’. The HTTP Response sent from the Receiver to the Sender that
includes the ‘gisb-acknowledge-receipt’ section with a timestamp and OK/error
status.
10.2.27 ‘Receiver’. The party that receives an Internet ET electronic package.
10.2.28 ‘Sender’. The party that sends an Electronic Package.
10.2.29 ‘QoS’. Quality of Service; term used to define what level of network bandwidth is
guaranteed or assured. The Internet does not offer guaranteed quality of service.
10.2.30 ‘Technical Exchange Worksheet’ or ‘TEW’. A document or worksheet used to
communicate important information related to the technical implementation of
Internet ET; includes information such as URLs, contacts and Public Key policies.
10.2.31 ‘TCP’. Transmission Control Protocol; IETF RFCs 793, 1122, 1323
See http://www.itprc.com/tcpipfaq/default.htm.
10.2.32 ‘RSA’.
A mathematical algorithm for encryption developed by
Rivest/Shamir/Adleman. See http://world.std.com/~franl/crypto/rsa-guts.html.
10.2.33 ‘SSL’. Secure Sockets Layer; a privacy technique that uses encryption to hide
information
from
electronic
observers
on
the
Internet.
See
http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/security/sslin/contents.htm.
10.2.34 ‘PGP’. Pretty Good Privacy; software used to create Public and Private Keys for
privacy and digital signature applications. See http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgpfaq/
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
110
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet Electronic Transport
10.2.35 ‘Private Key’. The sequence of digits known as a ‘key’ that is kept private by the
owner of a digital certificate, and is used by the certificate owner in encryption
and decryption algorithms.
10.2.36 ‘Public Key’. The sequence of digits known as a ‘key’ that an owner of a digital
certificate shares with trading partners. The trading partners use the public key in
encryption and decryption algorithms in electronic transactions with the certificate
owner.
10.2.37 ‘HTTP’. Hypertext transport protocol; Assumes version HTTP/1.1; IETF RFCs
2616, 2069. See http://www.w3.org/Protocols/Specs.html.
10.2.38 ‘MIME’. Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions; IETF RFCs 2045, 2046, 2047,
2048, 2049; See http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html.
Standards:
10.3.1 All parties sending and receiving data should accept a TCP/IP connection (4.3.1).
10.3.2 Trading partners should retain audit trail data for at least 24 months. This data
retention requirement does not otherwise modify statutory, regulatory, or
contractual record retention requirements (4.3.4).
10.3.3 The designated Internet ET Server/Receiver site should be accessible via the
public Internet. This does not preclude location of the designated site on a private
intranet, as long as the designated site is also accessible via the public Internet
(4.3.7).
10.3.4 The minimum acceptable protocol should be HTTP. All sending and receiving
parties should be capable of sending and receiving the HTTP versions supported
by NAESB Internet ET (4.3.8).
10.3.5 A timestamp designates the time a file is received at the Receiver’s designated
site. The timestamp consists of the ‘time-c’ data element, and in some cases the
‘time-c-qualifier’ data element. Refer to QEDM standards for use of the ‘time-cqualifier’ (4.3.9).
10.3.6 The Receiver generates a timestamp upon the successful receipt of a complete
file. The timestamp should be generated by the Receiving Program immediately,
prior to further processing by the Receiving Program.
10.3.7 After timestamp generation, the Receiver sends an immediate HTTP
Response to the Sender. The ‘gisb-acknowledgement-receipt’, which includes
the timestamp data element(s), is the primary part of the HTTP Response. (4.3.9)
10.3.8 The Server clock generating the timestamp should be synchronized with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) time in order to mitigate
discrepancies between the clocks of the Sender and Receiver. Computer clocks
should be synchronized as necessary to ensure at minimum +/- 5 second
synchronization with an atomic clock. Specific business processes may have
tighter synchronization requirements (4.3.10).
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
111
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet Electronic Transport
10.3.9 The HTTP Response should be sent to the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the
HTTP Request (4.3.11).
10.3.10 At a minimum, one designated site for receipt should be identified for each
trading partner. That site should be identified by a specific Uniform Resource
Locator (URL). This does not preclude multiple designated sites being mutually
agreed to between trading partners (4.3.12).
10.3.11 The Sender should make three attempts to complete a unit of work. A unit of
work consists of one complete HTTP POST transaction as defined in the
technical specification of the HTTP protocol (IETF RFC 1945) (4.3.13).
10.3.12 A failure to complete a unit of work is a protocol failure.
10.3.13 Three protocol failures within a 30-minute timeframe is an exchange failure.
10.3.14 The Internet ET roles for Sender and Receiver are defined in the following table.
The entire table defines a unit of work:
Receiving Program
Client (Sender)
Server (Receiver)
(Receiver)
Listen for Connect
Connect
Accept Connection
Write HTTP Request
Read HTTP Request
Start of Receipt
Write HTTP Request
Read HTTP Request
EOF (send)
Read HTTP Request
End of Receipt
Read HTTP Response Write HTTP Response
Received
EOF HTTP Response
(4.3.14)
10.3.15 Trading partners should implement all security features (privacy, secure
authentication, integrity, and non-repudiation) using a file-based approach via a
commercially-available implementation of:
3 An OpenPGP product as defined by IETF RFC 2440, or
4 On a mutually agreed basis, PGP version 2.6 or greater using the RSA
algorithm to generate keys
(4.3.15)
10.3.16 Trading partners should implement basic authentication.
10.3.17 Encryption keys should be self-certified. The exchange of Public keys should be
completed electronically such as via email. The exchange of Private keys, if
applicable, should be done in a secure manner such as via postal or courier mail.
Key policies, including key exchange policies should be communicated to trading
partners.
10.3.18 Encryption keys should have a limited lifetime whose duration is determined by
the key’s owner. A key’s end of life is expressed in the expiration date field
contained in each Public Key. A lifetime of one year or less is recommended.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
112
September 30, 2006
NAESB WGQ / REQ / RGQ Internet Electronic Transport
10.3.19 Internet protocols should be used for accessing all industry business functions
(4.3.36).
10.3.20 Batch and Interactive Browsers should use Internet-compatible common browser
software (4.3.37).
10.3.21 Trading partners should use common codes for legal entities for the Internet ET
‘to’ and ‘from’ data elements (4.3.56).
10.3.22 Private network connections to NAESB Internet ET servers, which include all
NAESB Internet ET standardized Internet communication, may be at any point on
a party’s firewall boundary at the party’s discretion on a non-discriminatory
access basis. The specific type and speed of these connections should be
mutually agreed. It is at the discretion of each party on how multiple private
network connections should be managed, so long as such management is done
on a non-discriminatory access basis (4.3.64).
10.3.23 Parties should be limited to the NAESB Internet ET approved list of available
TCP ports for Internet ET implementations (4.3.70).
10.3.24 Internet ET implementations should not require any inbound ports to be opened
on the Sender’s firewall. (4.3.71, 4.1.37)
10.3.25 Internet ET Servers should use 128-bit Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption
(4.3.88).
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
113
September 30, 2006
Version Cross Reference and Interpretation Cross Reference
Version
1.0
Denotes this standard was ratified between July 31, 1995 and May 13, 1996,
and published on July 31, 1996. These standards were incorporated in FERC
Order 587 on July 17, 1996.
1.1
Denotes this standard was adopted and ratified by membership in Version 1.1 of
GISB Standards on September 30, 1996 and published on January 31, 1997.
These standards (excluding 1.3.32, 2.3.29, 2.3.30, and 4.3.5) were incorporated in
FERC Order 587-C on March 4, 1997.
1.2
Denotes this standard was adopted and ratified by membership in Version 1.2 of
GISB Standards between January 31 and July 31, 1997 and published on July 31,
1997. These standards were incorporated in FERC Order 587-G on April 16, 1998.
1.3
Denotes this standard was adopted and ratified by membership in Version 1.3 of
GISB Standards between July 31, 1997 and July 31, 1998 and published on July 31,
1998. These standards were incorporated in FERC Order 587-K issued April 2,
1999.
1.4
Denotes this standard was adopted and ratified by membership in Version 1.4 of
GISB Standards between July 31, 1998 and August 31, 1999 and published on
August 31, 1999. These standards were incorporated in FERC Order 587-M issued
April 26, 2001.
1.5
Denotes this standard was adopted and ratified by membership in Version 1.5 of
GISB Standards between August 31, 1999 and June 18, 2001 and published on
August 13, 2001. GISB Version 1.5 Standards were adopted and ratified by
membership as NAESB Wholesale Gas Quadrant standards Version 1.5 Standards
on April 19, 2002.
1.6
Denotes this standard was adopted and ratified by membership in Version 1.6 of
NAESB WGQ Standards between June 18, 2001 and June 20, 2002 and published
on July 31, 2002. These standards were incorporated in FERC Order 587-O issued
May 1, 2002.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
114
September 30, 2006
1.7
Denotes this standard was adopted and ratified by membership in Version 1.7 of
NAESB WGQ Standards between June 29, 2002 and December 10, 2003 and
published on December 31, 2003.
1.8
Denotes this standard was adopted and ratified by membership in Version 1.8 of
NAESB WGQ Standards between January 1, 2004 and September 4, 2006 and
published on September 30, 2006.
Version Cross Reference:
Standard Number
Adopted
0.1.1
1.4
0.1.2
1.4
0.1.3
1.8
0.2.1
1.8
0.2.2
1.8
0.2.3
1.8
0.3.1
1.4
0.3.2
1.7
0.3.3
1.7
0.3.4
1.7
0.3.5
1.7
0.3.6
1.7
0.3.7
1.7
0.3.8
1.7
0.3.9
1.7
0.3.10
1.7
0.3.11
1.8
0.3.12
1.8
0.3.13
1.8
0.3.14
1.8
0.3.15
1.8
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
115
Interpreted
Version
Interpretation
Number
( ) – indicates reference
September 30, 2006
( ) – indicates reference
1.5
7.3.47
1.2
(7.3.16)
Standard Number
Adopted
0.4.1
1.8
1.1.1
1.0
1.1.2
1.0
1.1.3
1.0
1.1.4
1.0
1.1.5
1.0
1.1.6
1.0
1.7
[deleted]
1.1.7
1.0
1.5
1.1.8
1.0
1.7
[deleted]
1.1.9
1.0
1.8
1.1.10
1.0
1.1.11
1.0
1.1.12
1.1
1.1.13
1.1
1.1.14
1.1
1.1.15
1.1
1.1.16
1.1
1.1.17
1.3
1.1.18
1.3
1.1.19
1.3
1.1.20
1.5
1.1.21
1.5
1.1.22
1.7
1.2.1
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
(7.3.8)
7.3.29
7.3.49
1.2.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
7.3.1
(7.3.41)
1.2.3
1.0
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
1.7
[deleted]
116
September 30, 2006
( ) – indicates reference
1.4
(7.3.44)
Standard Number
Adopted
1.2.4
1.0
1.2.5
1.1
1.2.6
1.1
1.2.7
1.1
1.2.8
1.3
1.2.9
1.3
1.2.10
1.3
1.2.11
1.3
1.2.12
1.3
1.2.13
1.5
1.2.14
1.5
1.2.15
1.5
1.2.16
1.5
1.2.17
1.5
1.2.18
1.5
1.2.19
1.5
1.3.1
1.0
1.3.2
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
7.3.23
7.3.36
1.3.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
7.3.19
7.3.42
1.3.4
1.0
1.3.5
1.0
1.3
7.3.29
1.3.6
1.0
1.3.7
1.0
1.3
7.3.29
1.3.8
1.0
1.3.9
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
7.3.5
(7.3.6)
7.3.41
1.3.10
1.0
1.2
7.3.4
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
1.3
[deleted]
1.1
1.3
[deleted]
117
September 30, 2006
( ) – indicates reference
1.2
1.2
(7.3.5)
(7.3.6)
1.3
[deleted]
1.2
7.3.4
1.1
1.3
1.3
(7.3.20)
1.5
1.5
7.3.48
7.3.49
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
(7.3.16)
(7.3.18)
7.3.16
7.3.18
1.2
1.3
(7.3.18)
7.3.18
1.3
1.3
7.3.22
7.3.40
1.2
1.3
(7.3.18)
7.3.29
1.5
7.3.49
1.2
(7.3.6)
Standard Number
Adopted
1.3.11
1.0
1.3.12
1.0
1.3.13
1.0
1.3.14
1.0
1.3.15
1.0
1.3.16
1.0
1.3.17
1.0
1.3.18
1.0
1.3.19
1.0
1.3.20
1.0
1.3.21
1.0
1.3.22
1.0
1.3
1.3.23
1.0
1.1
1.3.24
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.3.25
1.1
1.3.26
1.1
1.3.27
1.1
1.3.28
1.1
1.3.29
1.1
1.3.30
1.1
1.3.31
1.1
1.3.32
1.1
1.3.33
1.1
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
Revised
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
118
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
1.3.34
1.1
1.3.35
1.3
1.3.36
1.3
1.3.37
1.3
1.3.38
1.3
1.3.39
1.3
1.3.40
1.3
1.3.41
1.3
1.3.42
1.3
1.3.43
1.3
1.3.44
1.3
1.3.45
1.3
1.3.46
1.3
1.3.47
1.4
1.3.48
1.4
1.3.49
1.4
1.3.50
1.4
1.3.51
1.4
1.3.52
1.4
1.3.53
1.4
1.3.54
1.4
1.3.55
1.4
1.3.56
1.4
1.3.57
1.4
1.3.58
1.4
1.3.59
1.4
1.3.60
1.4
1.8
1.3.61
1.4
1.5
1.8
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
1.3
(7.3.36)
1.3
7.3.41
1.5
1.8
119
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
1.3.62
1.4
1.3.63
1.4
1.3.64
1.5
1.3.65
1.5
1.3.66
1.5
1.3.67
1.5
1.3.68
1.5
1.3.69
1.5
1.3.70
1.5
1.3.71
1.5
1.3.72
1.5
1.3.73
1.5
1.3.74
1.5
1.3.75
1.5
1.3.76
1.5
1.3.77
1.5
1.3.78
1.5
1.3.79
1.4
1.4.1
1.0
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
7.3.8
7.3.9
7.3.10
7.3.11
7.3.12
7.3.13
7.3.26
7.3.27
7.3.29
7.3.30
7.3.31
7.3.32
7.3.41
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.7
[deleted]
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
120
September 30, 2006
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
1.4.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.3
7.3.39
1.4.3
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
7.3.16
7.3.18
7.3.16
7.3.22
7.3.26
7.3.51
1.4.4
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
7.3.16
7.3.17
7.3.18
7.3.16
7.3.22
7.3.26
7.3.51
1.4.5
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.3
7.3.33
1.4.6
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
7.3.33
1.4.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.3
7.3.39
2.1.1
1.0
2.1.2
1.1
2.1.3
1.1
2.1.4
1.1
2.1.5
1.5
2.1.6
1.7
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
121
September 30, 2006
( ) – indicates reference
1.2
(7.3.6)
1.3
7.3.37
Standard Number
Adopted
2.2.1
1.1
2.2.2
1.5
2.2.3
1.5
2.2.4
1.7
2.2.5
1.7
2.3.1
1.0
2.3.2
1.0
2.3.3
1.0
2.3.4
1.0
2.3.5
1.0
2.3.6
1.0
2.3.7
1.0
2.3.8
1.0
2.3.9
1.0
2.3.10
1.0
2.3.11
1.0
2.3.12
1.0
2.3.13
1.0
2.3.14
1.0
1.3
1.3
7.3.24
7.3.25
2.3.15
1.0
1.2
1.3
7.3.6
7.3.20
2.3.16
1.0
2.3.17
1.0
2.3.18
1.0
2.3.19
1.0
2.3.20
1.0
1.3
2.3.21
1.0
1.7
1.8
2.3.22
1.0
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
1.8
1.1
1.3
1.3
122
September 30, 2006
( ) – indicates reference
1.3
7.3.20
Standard Number
Adopted
2.3.23
1.0
2.3.24
1.0
2.3.25
1.0
2.3.26
1.0
1.3
1.3
7.3.24
7.3.25
2.3.27
1.0
1.3
7.3.20
2.3.28
1.0
2.3.29
1.1
1.3
2.3.30
1.1
1.5
2.3.31
1.1
2.3.32
1.4
2.3.33
1.4
2.3.34
1.4
1.5
2.3.35
1.4
1.8
2.3.36
1.5
1.7
[deleted]
2.3.37
1.5
1.7
[deleted]
2.3.38
1.5
1.7
[deleted]
2.3.39
1.5
1.7
[deleted]
2.3.40
1.5
2.3.41
1.5
2.3.42
1.5
2.3.43
1.5
2.3.44
1.5
2.3.45
1.5
2.3.46
1.5
2.3.47
1.5
2.3.48
1.5
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
1.7
[deleted]
1.5
123
September 30, 2006
( ) – indicates reference
Standard Number
Adopted
2.3.49
1.5
2.3.50
1.5
2.3.51
1.7
2.3.52
1.7
2.3.53
1.7
2.3.54
1.7
2.3.55
1.7
2.3.56
1.7
2.3.57
1.7
2.3.58
1.7
2.3.59
1.7
2.3.60
1.7
2.3.61
1.7
2.3.62
1.7
2.3.63
1.7
2.3.64
1.7
2.3.65
1.8
2.4.1
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.3
7.3.28
2.4.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.3
7.3.28
2.4.3
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
1.8
124
September 30, 2006
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
2.4.4
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.4.5
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
2.4.6
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
2.4.7
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.4.8
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.4.9
1.5
1.7
2.4.10
1.5
1.7
2.4.11
1.5
1.7
2.4.12
1.5
1.7
2.4.13
1.5
1.7
2.4.14
1.5
1.7
2.4.15
1.5
1.7
2.4.16
1.5
1.7
2.4.17
1.8
2.4.18
1.8
3.1.1
1.0
3.1.2
1.0
1.2
(7.3.6)
3.2.1
1.0
1.2
1.5
7.3.3
7.3.3(revised)
3.3.1
1.0
3.3.2
1.0
1.2
7.3.7
3.3.3
1.0
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
125
September 30, 2006
( ) – indicates reference
Standard Number
Adopted
3.3.4
1.0
3.3.5
1.0
3.3.6
1.0
3.3.7
1.0
3.3.8
1.0
3.3.9
1.0
3.3.10
1.0
3.3.11
1.0
3.3.12
1.0
3.3.13
1.0
3.3.14
1.0
1.7
7.3.52
3.3.15
1.0
1.3
1.3
7.3.24
7.3.25
3.3.16
1.0
1.3
7.3.25
3.3.17
1.0
3.3.18
1.0
3.3.19
1.0
3.3.20
1.0
3.3.21
1.0
3.3.22
1.3
3.3.23
1.4
3.3.24
1.4
3.3.25
1.4
3.3.26
1.5
3.4.1
1.0
1.2
(7.3.1)
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
126
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
3.4.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
3.4.3
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
3.4.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
4.1.1
1.0
1.6
[deleted]
4.1.2
1.0
1.8
4.1.3
1.0
4.1.4
1.0
4.1.5
1.0
1.5
[deleted]
4.1.6
1.0
1.8
4.1.7
1.0
1.8
4.1.8
1.0
1.5
[deleted]
4.1.9
1.0
1.8
[deleted]
4.1.10
1.0
4.1.11
1.0
4.1.12
1.0
4.1.13
1.0
4.1.14
1.0
4.1.15
1.1
4.1.16
1.3
4.1.17
1.3
4.1.18
1.3
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
1.3
7.3.34
1.6
[deleted]
1.7
[deleted]
127
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
4.1.19
1.3
4.1.20
1.3
4.1.21
1.3
4.1.22
1.4
4.1.23
1.4
4.1.24
1.4
4.1.25
1.4
4.1.26
1.4
4.1.27
1.4
4.1.28
1.4
4.1.29
1.4
4.1.30
1.4
4.1.31
1.4
4.1.32
1.4
4.1.33
1.4
4.1.34
1.4
4.1.35
1.4
4.1.36
1.4
4.1.37
1.4
4.1.38
1.4
4.1.39
1.6
4.1.40
1.8
4.2.1
1.3
4.2.2
1.3
4.2.3
1.3
4.2.4
1.3
4.2.5
1.3
4.2.6
1.3
4.2.7
1.3
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpreted
Version
Interpretation
Number
( ) – indicates reference
1.8
[deleted]
1.8
1.4
128
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
4.2.8
1.3
1.4
4.2.9
1.4
4.2.10
1.4
4.2.11
1.4
1.8
4.2.12
1.4
1.8
4.2.13
1.4
1.8
4.2.14
1.4
4.2.15
1.4
4.2.16
1.4
4.2.17
1.4
4.2.18
1.4
4.2.19
1.4
4.2.20
1.5
1.8
4.3.1
1.0
1.2
1.7
1.8
4.3.2
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.8
4.3.3
1.0
4.3.4
1.0
1.1
1.6
4.3.5
1.1
1.8
4.3.6
1.1
1.6
1.8
[deleted]
4.3.7
1.1
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.8
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
129
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
1.3
(7.3.36)
1.3
(7.3.36)
1.3
7.3.24
1.3
7.3.35
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
4.3.9
1.1
1.4
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.10
1.1
1.6
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.11
1.1
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.12
1.1
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.13
1.1
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.14
1.1
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.15
1.1
1.6
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.16
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.8
4.3.17
1.3
4.3.18
1.3
1.8
4.3.19
1.3
1.8
[deleted]
4.3.20
1.3
4.3.21
1.3
1.6
1.8
[deleted]
4.3.22
1.3
1.8
4.3.23
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.8
4.3.24
1.3
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
130
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
1.3
(7.3.36)
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
4.3.25
1.3
1.8
4.3.26
1.3
4.3.27
1.3
4.3.28
1.3
1.4
4.3.29
1.3
1.4
4.3.30
1.3
4.3.31
1.3
4.3.32
1.3
4.3.33
1.3
4.3.34
1.3
1.4
4.3.35
1.3
1.5
4.3.36
1.4
4.3.37
1.4
4.3.38
1.4
4.3.39
1.4
4.3.40
1.4
4.3.41
1.4
4.3.42
1.4
4.3.43
1.4
4.3.44
1.4
4.3.45
1.4
4.3.46
1.4
4.3.47
1.4
4.3.48
1.4
4.3.49
1.4
4.3.50
1.4
4.3.51
1.4
4.3.52
1.4
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Interpreted
Version
Interpretation
Number
( ) – indicates reference
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
131
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
4.3.53
1.4
4.3.54
1.4
4.3.55
1.4
4.3.56
1.4
4.3.57
1.4
4.3.58
1.4
4.3.59
1.4
4.3.60
1.4
4.3.61
1.4
4.3.62
1.4
4.3.63
1.4
1.8
[deleted]
4.3.64
1.4
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.65
1.4
4.3.66
1.4
4.3.67
1.4
4.3.68
1.4
4.3.69
1.4
4.3.70
1.4
1.6
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.71
1.4
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
4.3.72
1.4
4.3.73
1.4
4.3.74
1.4
4.3.75
1.4
4.3.76
1.4
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpreted
Version
Interpretation
Number
( ) – indicates reference
1.5
1.6
132
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
4.3.77
1.4
1.5
[deleted]
4.3.78
1.4
4.3.79
1.4
4.3.80
1.4
4.3.81
1.4
4.3.82
1.4
4.3.83
1.4
4.3.84
1.4
4.3.85
1.4
4.3.86
1.5
4.3.87
1.5
4.3.88
1.6
4.3.89
1.8
4.3.90
1.8
4.3.91
1.8
4.3.92
1.8
4.3.93
1.8
5.1.1
1.0
5.1.2
1.7
5.1.3
1.7
5.1.4
1.7
5.2.1
1.0
5.2.2
1.4
5.2.3
1.7
5.3.1
1.0
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
1.8
7.3.54
1.6
1.8
[moved to
Internet ET]
133
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
5.3.2
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.7
Interpreted
Version
1.2
1.4
1.5
Interpretation
Number
( ) – indicates reference
7.3.2
7.3.15
(7.3.3)
7.3.44
7.3.2(revised)
7.3.15(revised)
7.3.46
5.3.3
1.0
1.2
7.3.14
5.3.4
1.0
1.3
7.3.38
5.3.5
1.0
5.3.6
1.0
1.7
[deleted]
5.3.7
1.0
1.7
1.4
7.3.45
5.3.8
1.0
1.4
7.3.45
5.3.9
1.0
5.3.10
1.0
5.3.11
1.0
5.3.12
1.0
5.3.13
1.0
5.3.14
1.0
5.3.15
1.0
5.3.16
1.0
5.3.17
1.0
5.3.18
1.0
1.3
7.3.35
5.3.19
1.0
5.3.20
1.0
5.3.21
1.0
5.3.22
1.0
5.3.23
1.0
5.3.24
1.0
1.5
7.3.46
5.3.25
1.0
5.3.26
1.0
1.3
7.3.38
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
1.1
1.5
1.5
134
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
5.3.27
1.0
5.3.28
1.0
5.3.29
1.0
5.3.30
1.2
5.3.31
1.4
1.5
5.3.32
1.4
1.5
5.3.33
1.4
1.5
5.3.34
1.4
5.3.35
1.4
5.3.36
1.4
5.3.37
1.4
5.3.38
1.4
5.3.39
1.4
5.3.40
1.4
5.3.41
1.4
1.7
5.3.42
1.4
1.7
5.3.43
1.5
5.3.44
1.7
5.3.45
1.7
5.3.46
1.7
5.3.47
1.7
5.3.48
1.7
5.3.49
1.7
5.3.50
1.7
5.3.51
1.7
5.3.52
1.7
5.3.53
1.7
5.3.54
1.7
5.3.55
1.7
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
135
Interpreted
Version
Interpretation
Number
( ) – indicates reference
September 30, 2006
Interpretation
Number
Standard Number
Adopted
5.3.56
1.7
5.3.57
1.7
5.3.58
1.7
5.3.59
1.7
5.3.60
1.7
5.4.1
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.4
7.3.21
7.3.43
7.3.44
7.3.45
5.4.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.4
7.3.43
7.3.44
5.4.3
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.4
7.3.21
7.3.43
7.3.44
7.3.45
5.4.4
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.4
7.3.44
7.3.45
5.4.5
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.4
7.3.44
5.4.6
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.4
7.3.44
5.4.7
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.4
7.3.44
7.3.45
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
Interpreted
Version
136
( ) – indicates reference
September 30, 2006
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
5.4.8
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.4
7.3.44
5.4.9
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.2
1.4
(7.3.1)
7.3.44
7.3.45
5.4.10
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.4
7.3.44
5.4.11
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.8
1.4
7.3.44
5.4.12
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.4
7.3.44
5.4.13
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.4
7.3.44
5.4.14
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.4
7.3.44
5.4.15
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.4
7.3.44
5.4.16
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.4
7.3.35
7.3.44
5.4.17
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.4
7.3.44
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
137
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
5.4.18
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
5.4.19
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
5.4.20
1.6
1.8
5.4.21
1.6
1.8
5.4.22
1.6
1.8
5.4.23
1.8
6.3.1
1.0
1.6
1.8
6.3.1.CA
1.7
1.8
6.3.2
1.3
6.3.3
1.4
6.3.4
1.7
6.5.1
1.4
6.5.2
1.4
6.5.3
1.7
6.5.4
1.8
10.1.1
1.8
10.1.2
1.8
10.1.3
1.8
10.1.4
1.8
10.1.5
1.8
10.1.6
1.8
10.1.7
1.8
10.1.8
1.8
10.1.9
1.8
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Interpretation
Number
Interpreted
Version
( ) – indicates reference
1.8
7.3.53
1.6
1.8
1.7
[superseded]
138
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
10.2.1
1.8
10.2.2
1.8
10.2.3
1.8
10.2.4
1.8
10.2.5
1.8
10.2.6
1.8
10.2.7
1.8
10.2.8
1.8
10.2.9
1.8
10.2.10
1.8
10.2.11
1.8
10.2.12
1.8
10.2.13
1.8
10.2.14
1.8
10.2.15
1.8
10.2.16
1.8
10.2.17
1.8
10.2.18
1.8
10.2.19
1.8
10.2.20
1.8
10.2.21
1.8
10.2.22
1.8
10.2.23
1.8
10.2.24
1.8
10.2.25
1.8
10.2.26
1.8
10.2.27
1.8
10.2.28
1.8
10.2.29
1.8
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
139
Interpreted
Version
Interpretation
Number
( ) – indicates reference
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
10.2.30
1.8
10.2.31
1.8
10.2.32
1.8
10.2.33
1.8
10.2.34
1.8
10.2.35
1.8
10.2.36
1.8
10.2.37
1.8
10.2.38
1.8
10.3.1
1.8
10.3.2
1.8
10.3.3
1.8
10.3.4
1.8
10.3.5
1.8
10.3.6
1.8
10.3.7
1.8
10.3.8
1.8
10.3.9
1.8
10.3.10
1.8
10.3.11
1.8
10.3.12
1.8
10.3.13
1.8
10.3.14
1.8
10.3.15
1.8
10.3.16
1.8
10.3.17
1.8
10.3.18
1.8
10.3.19
1.8
10.3.20
1.8
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
140
Interpreted
Version
Interpretation
Number
( ) – indicates reference
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
10.3.21
1.8
10.3.22
1.8
10.3.23
1.8
10.3.24
1.8
10.3.25
1.8
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
141
Interpreted
Version
Interpretation
Number
( ) – indicates reference
September 30, 2006
Interpretation Cross Reference:
Standard Number
Adopted
Revised
Standard(s) Being Interpreted
7.3.1
1.2
7.3.2
1.2
1.5
5.3.2
7.3.3
1.2
1.5
3.2.1
7.3.4
1.2
1.3
n/a
1.2.2
[deleted]
7.3.5
1.2
1.3.9
7.3.6
1.2
2.3.15
7.3.7
1.2
3.3.2
7.3.8
1.2
1.4.1
7.3.9
1.2
1.4.1
7.3.10
1.2
1.4.1
7.3.11
1.2
1.4.1
7.3.12
1.2
1.4.1
7.3.13
1.2
1.4.1
7.3.14
1.2
5.3.3
7.3.15
1.2
1.4
1.5
5.3.2
7.3.16
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.3.20, 1.4.3, 1.4.4
7.3.17
1.2
7.3.18
1.2
7.3.19
1.3
1.3.3
7.3.20
1.3
2.3.15, 2.3.24, 2.3.27
7.3.21
1.3
5.4.1, 5.4.3
7.3.22
1.3
1.3.22, 1.4.3, 1.4.4
7.3.23
1.3
1.3.2
7.3.24
1.3
2.3.14, 2.3.26, 3.3.15, 4.3.4
7.3.25
1.3
2.3.14, 2.3.26, 3.3.15, 3.3.16
7.3.26
1.3
1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1,4.4
7.3.27
1.3
1.4.1
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
1.4.4
1.3
142
1.3.20, 1.3.21
September 30, 2006
Standard Number
Adopted
7.3.28
1.3
2.4.1, 2.4.2
7.3.29
1.3
1.2.1, 1.3.5, 1.3.7, 1.3.27, 1.4.1
7.3.30
1.3
1.4.1
7.3.31
1.3
1.4.1
7.3.32
1.3
1.4.1
7.3.33
1.3
1.4.5, 1.4.6
7.3.34
1.3
3.4.2
7.3.35
1.3
7.3.36
1.3
1.3.2
7.3.37
1.3
2.3.9
7.3.38
1.3
5.3.4, 5.3.26
7.3.39
1.3
1.4.2, 1.4.7
7.3.40
1.3
1.3.22.i, 1.3.22.ii, 1.3.22.iii
7.3.41
1.3
1.3.9, 1.3.43, 1.4.1
7.3.42
1.3
1.3.3
7.3.43
1.4
5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3
7.3.44
1.4
5.3.2, 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.4.4,
5.4.5, 5.4.6, 5.4.7, 5.4.8, 5.4.9,
5.4.10, 5.4.11, 5.4.12, 5.4.13,
5.4.14, 5.4.15, 5.4.16, 5.4.17
7.3.45
1.4
5.3.7, 5.3.8, 5.4.1, 5.4.3, 5.4.4,
5.4.7, 5.4.9
7.3.46
1.5
7.3.47
1.5
1.1.3
7.3.48
1.5
1.3.15
7.3.49
1.5
1.2.1, 1.3.15, 1.3.29
7.3.50
1.7
EDM
7.3.51
1.7
1.4.3,1.4.4
7.3.52
1.7
3.3.14
7.3.53
1.8
Section 14.10 of NAESB WGQ
Standard 6.3.1-Base Contract for
Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas
7.3.54
1.8
4.3.88
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
Revised
1.8
1.5
143
Standard(s) Being Interpreted
4.3.6, 5.3.18, 5.4.16
5.3.2, 5.3.24
September 30, 2006
___________________________________________________
For information on membership in the
North American Energy Standards Board
contact the NAESB office at:
1301 Fannin, Suite 2350
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 356-0060
(713) 356-0067 Fax
E-mail: [email protected]
www.naesb.org
____________________
Additional copies may be obtained from NAESB.
NAESB WGQ Version 1.8
144
September 30, 2006
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Microsoft Word - StandardsBooklet1of2_010807_mc121306 -Final Clean.doc |
| Author | NAESB |
| File Modified | 2008-09-19 |
| File Created | 2007-01-11 |