by sylviamunson

7 ways to give a natural gas scheduler good customer service

Gas scheduling is an important part of natural gas transportation. A good friend, Norm Walker, often referred to scheduling as “the center of the universe” in the pipeline business. I have yet to find any information to prove him wrong.

The scheduler is the logistics coordinator for the entire business flow of gas. A scheduler takes all of the information about what has been bought, sold and what contractual obligations and rights are in place and creates a daily plan to get the gas from all of the receipts to all of the deliveries, at the best rate, with the best likelihood to flow. Next, the scheduler has to put all of this information, via nominations, into the multiple pipelines on which the gas will flow.

Imagine a coach trying to coordinate the plays in multiple simultaneous games. That is what the scheduler is doing working across multiple pipelines. Now, add in the factor that each pipeline has different service offerings, different scheduling rules, and different web technologies. Often you will see that schedulers will focus on and specialize in a region of interconnected pipelines because of the huge learning curve for each individual pipeline.

I have seen schedulers who nominate on eight different pipelines every day. They are amazing! They know the contracts, locations, rules and idiosyncrasies of each of the pipelines they work with. It is a stressful job.

So how can we make it better?

Standards in natural gas have eased some of the learning curve, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

1 – Make pipeline websites that work on all of the major browsers, Chrome, Internet Explorer, and Firefox.

Make the websites work on multiple older versions without any custom configuration in order to use the site. This is so important. A scheduler doesn’t have time to deal with the fact that Pipeline A only works on Internet Explorer Version 9 if patch x.y.z is installed. They don’t have time to have to have multiple versions of a browser on one desktop so that they can use version K for your pipeline and version J for someone else’s.

2 – Make the screens plain and simple.

Put the minimum amount of information on a screen, especially a data entry screen. Minimize the number of keystrokes in every way possible. It may be really cool and high tech that you can resize grids, rearrange data, etc. But if the scheduler has to do that every time, then that is time wasted for them. You may think that you are giving the scheduler really interesting extra information that they will find useful. But if they have to provide extra information or have to navigate (wade) through your “added value” data then it becomes burdensome fluff.

3 – Use the standard terms.

I don’t know how many times I’ve had this conversation. I don’t understand why people question it. You are doing your customer no favors if you choose to use interesting derived terms instead of industry standard terms for a screen or a data field. The scheduler should not have to use a nanosecond of brain translation to determine that when you say “business party” you mean “shipper”, or “agent” or something else.  In this case, the real, correct term is “service requester.”

4 – Minimize the number of fields that have to be provided.

There are a handful of fields that are always required for a nomination transaction. There are a lot of fields that are selected by the pipeline as either business required or optional. The pipeline should look for every way possible to avoid using extra fields. Every variable that is added creates a possibility for failure of the transaction. Minimize the moving parts and you minimize the failed transactions.

5 – Provide default values in as many fields as possible.

If the scheduler knows that their service requester id is defaulted from their login, that their transaction type is always defaulted to current business and that their start date is always defaulted to the next available timely cycle, then those are three things the scheduler doesn’t have to juggle. This minimizes the keystrokes required and the possibility of transaction failure and makes both parties more successful.

6 – Provide ample warning when screens change or systems change.

There are certain times in the business cycle when a scheduler’s time is pure chaos. With a timeline well ahead of the implementation date, schedulers can test the changes, receive training, and ask questions without having to do those tasks during bid week.

7 – Have awesome help files.

If a new service comes online, it would be great for a scheduler to be able to click on help and see the nomination requirements for that new service. If a new system is launched, provide thorough help files as well as web based tutorials that the scheduler can watch on their own schedule. Some pipelines have done a great job with help files in very imaginative and creative ways.

What are other ways that pipelines, as service providers, can provide good service to schedulers? These are a few ideas to get you thinking. I’m sure you can come up with more that should be considered.  I’d love your input to develop a “best practices” list.

by sylviamunson

Fun with FERC Order 809 continued – or – “Continuous and Contiguous Scheduling”

We have an interesting challenge ahead of us. One of the take-aways of FERC Order 809 is the requirement for the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) to look at and consider ways to make natural gas pipeline scheduling faster and closer to real time. Electric generators have made it clear that they need more flexibility with scheduling as they move more electric generation to a natural gas dependency.

This is not a new idea. It has been tossed about more than once before Order 809. One of the very first principles written by NAESB in GISB Version 1.0 in the mid-1990’s was Principle 1.1.2 which states “There should be a standard for the nominations and confirmations process. Agreement notwithstanding, it is recognized that this is an interim step to continuous and contiguous scheduling.”    (Copyright North American Energy Standards Board, NAESB Version 3.0 published 2014)

NAESB quickly, in Version 1.0, created the standardized Nominations and Confirmations processes including a few touches on the scheduling process in that mix.  A great step was made when NAESB added the Intraday Cycles and now, via NAESB 3.0 and Order 809, there is an additional Intraday Cycle giving shippers a total of 5 nomination opportunities in the day-ahead and day-of scheduling process.

And that’s not all.

Some pipelines have already implemented multiple scheduling cycles throughout the day that are in addition to the NAESB cycles.  A few pipelines have gone so far as to create hourly cycles. But without a consistent solution, the ‘contiguous’ side of scheduling becomes difficult.

Not all pipelines have gone beyond the standard cycles. So, what do we do?  Are we ready for that ‘Continuous and Contiguous’ process that we considered so long ago?

I believe we are. I believe that it will require some serious paradigm-shift-type thinking to make it happen.

The actual excerpt from Order 809 is below, from the Commission request, and as noted in paragraph 107:

However, the use of computerized scheduling would appear to provide an opportunity for faster and more frequent scheduling of intraday nominations for those shippers and their confirming parties willing to commit to scheduling electronically. We request that gas and electric industries, through NAESB, explore the potential for faster, computerized scheduling when shippers and confirming parties all submit electronic nominations and confirmations, including a streamlined confirmation process if necessary. Providing such an option would enable those entities that need greater scheduling flexibility to have their requests processed expeditiously.

What are the opportunities here?

  • If we converted the nomination and confirmation processes to XML based transactions and generated the confirmation request straight from the requested nomination then we could have more immediate communication and create that contiguous chain.
  • If we kept our traditional ‘Timely’ Scheduling cycle, possibly even the ‘Evening’ cycle and then, after that, opened the process to a first come, first serve processing with a quick turnaround, then we could eliminate the interim cycles and provide that continuous service.
  • We would still need a no-bump cutoff where IT shippers could count on their gas to flow. Possibly at the time of the current cutoff already agreed to in NAESB.

These ideas require major technology investments. These are just a few ideas. I have others, but I’d like to hear from other people first.

The NAESB Board has voted to make this aspect of Order 809 a primary topic in 2016.  As an industry, we need problem solvers to step up and create straw man solutions before those NAESB meetings begin.  Let’s get the discussion started.

by sylviamunson

Fun with FERC Order 809 or “How to Put Two Shippers on One Contract” . . .

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently issued Order 809 for interstate pipelines. One of the components of the order was for pipelines to support the ability for a Firm transportation contract to have multiple shippers.  The good news is that the pipeline only has to support this ability IF shippers request the service.  The bad news is that the pipeline only has 60 days to implement the service once it is asked for.  This means that the pipeline has to be prepared to offer the service because I don’t know of many pipelines who can implement such a change in just 60 days.

So why on earth would you need two shippers in a contract?  I can imagine several scenarios where this could be advantageous.  For instance, if a shipper needs reliable firm service on an as-needed basis and can find another shipper, such as a marketer, to utilize the un-used firm.  The would give the first shipper the reliability that they need and give them an out for when that service is not needed without having to enter the Capacity Release race on a regular basis.  Another example may be where a shipper needs seasonal firm capacity but the pipeline doesn’t offer a program that meets their specific needs. In this case, the shipper could match up with another shipper that can handle the off-peak quantities and share the transportation obligation. There may even be credit advantages, though I may be stretching my imagination too far on that one.

So what does the FERC have to say about this?  In Order 809, there were very few specifics.  There were references to a number of pipelines already offering this capability and, via that reference, the FERC decided that the service requirement only applies to Firm transportation and implied that there would be an agent involved to manage the contractual relationship and pipeline interaction.

A pipeline could implement such that each shipper had nomination rights.  The pipeline could implement such that the agent is mandatory and the agent manages the different shippers.  In the example pipelines that I researched, it appeared that there was always an agent relationship and the agent was responsible for managing the transactions for the shippers. These pipelines implemented this service prior to Order 809.

Again, the FERC was silent on nominations, billing, quantity rights, and location rights in Order 809.  It did say that the financial responsibility was with both parties.  So, like Capacity Release, if the one party fails to perform, the second party is financially responsible.

If the pipeline implements this in the easiest way, with an agent, then the transaction datasets would be unaffected.  The only impact will be to be able to add two shippers and their separate terms onto one contract and to be able to post those separate terms in the Transactional Reporting requirements.

We have 75 days from the FERC issuance of Order 809 and then 60 days after a shipper issues a request for such a service.  The worst case scenario is that a pipeline would have to implement this on June 14th, 2015 – 75 days after Order 809 was issued. The best case is any 60 day period after June 14th.

Is this something where shippers can find value? Does it help producer services, electric generators or agents?  It will be interesting to see the filings for this requirement, in response to Order 809, and to see how many shippers utilize this offering.

by sylviamunson

Terminology: What is an EBB?

I work with a lot of young people in the energy industry.  They are often in the technology end of the business, but they are just as likely to be from the business side of natural gas.  When the term ‘EBB’ comes up, I get the quizzical look and the imminent question…”What is an EBB”?  And it is a question that I don’t like answering because it is somewhat embarrassing.

EBB stands for Electronic Bulletin Board.  Back in the days before the Internet, there was EnerNet.  EnerNet was a company that formed out of the FERC Order 436 requirement that interstate pipelines make certain information publicly available for shippers and potential customers on their pipeline.  We didn’t have the Internet, but we had fancy 2400 baud dial up modems.  Some pipelines formed their own public boards for posting this information and some subscribed to services, such as EnerNet to make that information available.

The EBB is a term that has lived a good life and a long life, but to use the term today causes confusion.  Today, in natural gas we have websites.  An interstate pipeline usually has two distinct website offerings to meet regulatory requirements: the Customer Activities Website (CAW) and the Informational Postings Website (IPW).

CAW and IPW have meaning.  When you mention a CAW you know that this is the secured access site that customers use to transact business with a pipeline. When you mention and IPW you know that you are referring to the public information, unsecured posted information on a pipeline.

So does the EBB cover both the CAW and the IPW or is it something else? Good question!  In some of the NAESB standards they refer to the EBB/EDM as those electronic standards related to the website without specification of whether this is the IPW or CAW.  Elsewhere in NAESB WGQ definitions there is a definition of EBB/EDM that points directly to the CAW with no mention of the IPW. If you go deep enough to look at the EDM manuals, you will see that the EDM subcommittee has distinguished that EBB is the CAW and they refer to the IPW as IP/EDM.

Are you confused yet? You are not alone.  It is time to change the terminology and put the EBB term to rest and let the distinct IPW and CAW terms become the common language.

The answer to the question is that, even though Electronic Bulletin Board precedes the internet, it refers to the Customer Activities Website in Natural Gas.  For me, I try to avoid the term all together and just refer to them as CAW and IPW.

by sylviamunson

Why compliance matters to non-regulated entities

I often hear people comment that compliance issues don’t apply to them because they are not a FERC-regulated company.  If you are involved in transportation at any point in the natural gas business then compliance issues matter to you.

You can see the reason when you refer to the old adage that ‘it all rolls downhill’ but there is more to it than that.

Look at some of the basic FERC regulations.

The Gas Day.  NAESB, hence FERC, says that the Gas Day is from 9:00 am – 9:00 AM Central Time for interstate pipelines.  If you are transporting on an interstate pipeline, you must work within this timeline.  What about if you are delivering onto this pipeline as an upstream interstate pipeline or a midstream operator? Then you must work within this timeline.  What about if you are an LDC or Utility receiving from the interstate? Same story – you must use the timeline.  Now, if you have to use the timeline to put gas onto or take gas off of the interstate, guess what? It’s best if you run your own operations on that timeline! So as a midstream operator or an LDC, the easiest answer is for you to match the gas day of the interstate that you connect with.

This same logic applies to the nomination cycles.  Your business may not need to use all of the nomination cycles, but if you interconnect to an interstate or nominate on an interstate then you have to comply with those cycles in some manner to confirm your gas. You may be able to run your business such that you only have one official cycle, such as the Timely cycle, but you still have to be aware of and confirm on the other cycles.

As a midstream operator, you may not need all of the upstream party and contract information because you know where the gas is coming from in your gathering system, but you will need the downstream party and contract information to be collected with nominations so that it can be provided in the confirmation process.

As an LDC, you may not need the downstream party and contract information because you know where the gas is going in your distribution system, but you will need the upstream side of the information for support of confirmations on your upstream interconnects.

And then there is customer service.  Customers who nominate gas on your system are often the same customers transacting with interstate pipelines.  The more that you use the same terms, deadlines, and processes, the easier the communication will be with your customers.

I believe that there is an opportunity in the NAESB process for nomination model types to be defined that are specific to the needs of the midstream and LDC businesses.  The current model types are close to what these business lines need, but they require too much information compared to the true business model of the upstream.  If a model type existed that supported gathering from many wells without including upstream information but required the interconnect documentation on the downstream side, it would be a golden tool.  If a model type existed that supported the distribution side of the business without all of the unused downstream information but required the corresponding upstream interconnect documentation, it could ease the burden of some of the transactions.

But it takes someone to lead the charge.