by sylviamunson

The Aging Workforce in Energy

Cycles in business

I’ve noticed an interesting trend among my peers lately. They are retiring! I’m not ready to retire, I’m still having a lot of fun. But, as companies change ownership and leadership, others get packages and encouraged to retire.

This could have a huge impact on our businesses!  So many companies that I work with send people just like me to the key decision-making meetings.  Where are the younger staff that are being groomed to take our positions? I was fortunate, 20-plus years ago, to be brought into the heart of some of the big changes that our industry was going through. At that time, the groups were made up of a mix of young business people like myself, who had good experience, though not deep, plus senior executives with deep knowledge. We learned so much from those senior executives, so that when they retired, we were equipped to step up and fill those shoes. But I don’t see most companies, today, sending those more junior staff into the decision-making processes along with their senior staff. They are still sending the senior staff but only sending one person and not growing someone to take that person’s place.

Yes, there is a cost involved to send two or more people instead of one. But there is a longer-term cost in only sending one person – the company isn’t growing a future generation to take the place of these senior staff. This isn’t true of all companies. I have worked with a few who bring the young people into the discussions with the senior staff, but there are still more seniors in the room than there are juniors.

And yes, I agree, that the younger staff of today are not the same breed that we were 20+ years ago. I think some of those people still exist, but they might be a little harder to find and a lot harder to retain. In recent years, I sent one of my employees to NAESB meetings, technical meetings for which he was well prepared. When he came back from the meeting he told me that if he had to go to those meetings again, he would quit!  What? I agree that it is difficult to work in a group such as NAESB because there are such long established procedures in place and so many long term relationships have been established. But don’t give up on the first try! Stick with it and make it work for you. Another associate, through NAESB, picked a successor to be trained up as a replacement upon her retirement. The person kept being a no-show at scheduled meetings and then claimed to not understand the process.

When I got started in NAESB, I already had 10+ years of industry experience and it was a tough organization to be a part of. Any organization that tries to build consensus on business processes among over 100 different companies is going to have some tough discussions! But the process works! During that time of getting started in NAESB, was also at the beginning of NAESB. To get all of the work done, many of us worked multiple 16+ hour days. Some of us even worked some 24-hour days. We did whatever it took to make the process successful. We need a new wave of this type of workforce in the gas industry. People who will work hard and are passionate about doing a good job and creating a better industry. We need to find those people, retain them, grow them, and prepare them for the future of our companies.

The question then becomes – what are these young people looking for in a company and how do we keep them? Is it benefits? Is it “work-life balance”? Benefits in companies are not the same as they were 20 years ago – and when I began in this industry I knew that these companies would grow ME as a person while growing me as an employee. Is this what recruits are looking for today? Or is it something different? We need to know what the current generation requires. We need to plan for succession.

by sylviamunson

NAESB? Nahhhzbe? Nazzz-bee? Nayz-bee?

If a telemarketer calls me and they call me Ms. Mooon-son or Ms. Mun-ster, then I know they definitely don’t know me!!

The same thing happens with NAESB!

The ways that people pronounce “NAESB” are hilarious! NAESB, in case you don’t know, stands for the North American Energy Standards Board. Anyone that actively participates in the organization pronounces the term as Nayz-bee – with a long A. If you want to sound like an insider, say it the way the insiders do.  Try it out. . . . Nayz-bee – with the long A sound. Now you can sound like an insider, too.

If you want to be a real insider, check out the web page at NAESB.org and consider joining the organization. There is a lot to be learned from then.

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

Choose to be Creative – 6 Ideas for Consolidating the Confirmations Process in Natural Gas

FERC Order 809 occupies a large share of the time I allot to “what’s next” thinking.  There are so many opportunities inside what the FERC has assigned the industry in Order 809.

Let’s put our thinking caps on and get creative!

Confirmations

In Order 809 the FERC asked us to “. . . 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.”  The discussion here is the reference to submittal of electronic confirmations.  There are some pipelines in the gas industry today that have made great progress in implementation of electronic confirmations through EDI. But there are others who have not done any electronic confirmations and, generally, electronic confirmations are executed between interstate pipelines.

So what can we do?

1 – Is there an opportunity for XML to become the standard for confirmations so that it is less expensive to implement and more web-enabled?

2 – Do we need confirmation-clearing companies such as those used in trading?

3 – Do these streamlined confirmations need to cover the entire natural gas supply chain or do they only need to apply to deliveries to electric generation and their suppliers? Do electric generation suppliers only need to confirm upstream to the nearest point of on-demand supply, such as storage, park-and-loan, etc.?

4 – Is there a new on-demand service offering that would provide a service to supplant streamlined confirmations?

5 – Are there new confirmation services that can be offered to expedite the process while still providing reliable delivery?

6 – Should electric generators be allowed to submit hourly nominations and, consequently, incur hourly imbalances to minimize the number of intraday confirmations?

On September 17th the FERC issued an Order on Rehearing (Docket No. RM14-2-001) where they stated “…the Commission requests that the natural gas and electric industries, through NAESB, begin considering the development of standards related to faster, computerized scheduling and file such standards or a report on the development of such standards with the Commission by October 17, 2016.” This gives us a deadline to work toward.  Deadlines are good.  It also give us a lot of time to get the job done.  So let’s start thinking about this assignment.

by sylviamunson

Where do you Network? Is your net working for you?

It is important to network in natural gas.  Is your net working?

Why is it important? Three reasons immediately come to mind.

1 – To learn more about the job that you do. If you are a scheduler, accountant, contract analyst – it doesn’t matter.  Other people in your same position in other companies have something you can learn from.  They are dealing with the same counterparties. They are dealing with the same challenges.  Share the knowledge, share the problems and come up with smarter solutions!

2 – To learn more about the business you’re in.  There is much more to the business than your job.  Your job is a vertical position in the company – a slice of the business process.  Networking gives you the opportunity to learn what other positions do and how the holistic business process operates.  The more you know about the entire business process, the more effective you can be in your job.

3 – To become a part of the solution.  Things are always changing in the energy industry because of technology, market shifts, government regulations and IT solutions.  If you network, you can see changes that are coming and prepare for them rather than react to them.  This is when you become a part of the solution.

In Natural Gas, the FERC has asked NAESB to look at the options for scheduling gas on a more continuous basis.  NAESB will pick up that subject in early 2016 to explore the solutions.  By networking, we can get ahead of the curve, find out what each other is thinking in regard to possibilities in the business process and possibilities with technology.  We can know what the possible solutions are before we enter into those negotiations and we can know what the pain points are that we need to avoid.

Where do you network?  This week, I’ve been at LDC Forums – MidContinent in Chicago with OpenLink.  OpenLink brought me to the Forums to promote my new book – Contents Under Pressure. These folks are great at networking!  They set aside time specifically for networking and create networking venues. They hold multiple LDC Forums throughout the year in different locations in North America.  Where are the places that you network?  Share them so that they can grow and become more effective.  I’d love to get your input.

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

The Deep, Deep Details – Transaction Types

Do I need to apologize first for this post?  This post gets deep in the weeds of data interaction on the nomination transaction.  But somewhere, somehow, someone has to get down in the weeds to explain why people keep tripping over transaction types.  It has to be said! So here it comes.

Transaction Types are data values on nominations that indicate the shipper’s usage for the quantity that is being requested.  That’s Sylvia’s definition and it assumes you know what a nomination is and who is a shipper.

The standard default transaction type in nominations is ’01 – Current Business’, meaning that this transaction uses the general terms of the contract.  There are over 100 transaction types available in the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Nomination dataset, but a single pipeline will usually support only 5-10 of those types.

Okay – that’s easy – what’s the big deal?  There are, actually, two big deals.  The first is that the transaction type can occur on each nomination in each model type and this opens the door for confusion and varied interpretations.  The second is that there are three different transaction types – Transaction Type, Upstream Transaction Type and Downstream Transaction Type – and people tend to make assumptions regarding their meaning.

The first issue:

A pathed nomination uses one nomination line item to transact business and, therefore, one transaction type.  Easy.

A non-pathed nomination uses two nomination line items to transact business and, therefore, two transaction types.  So we need to have rules in place on what transaction types are used in which situation and how they are balanced.

Then we get to the pathed non-threaded nomination and see that it uses three nomination line items to transact business and three transaction types.  Now things are starting to look complicated.

Let’s look at a few of the most commonly referenced transaction types.  These would be the ’03 – Imbalance Payback from TSP’ and ’04 – Imbalance Payback to TSP’.  Note that TSP in this case stands for Transportation Service Provider.

If you are submitting a pathed nomination and want to use ‘03’ to receive 500 DTH of gas back from the TSP then you’ll submit a nomination with zero as the receipt quantity and 500 as the delivery quantity.  Clear and easy.

If you are submitting a non-pathed nomination then you won’t need to enter an upstream nomination but you’ll enter a downstream nomination with ‘03’ transaction type and 500 DTH as the quantity.  In this case the payback is coming from the pipeline’s linepack volume and there is no need for a receipt type nomination to balance the transaction.  Still clear and easy.

So what happens if you are submitting a pathed non-threaded nomination?  My first choice would be for you to enter a downstream non-pathed nomination with ‘03’ as the transaction type and the quantity of 500 DTH on the downstream non-pathed nomination.  The corresponding pathed nomination and the upstream non-pathed nomination would be with ’01 – Current business’ as the transaction type and would contain either zero or the quantity that needs to be transported.  This seems pretty clean because the shipper is only telling the pipeline where the payback gas needs to be taken off the pipeline, without association to any transportation or supply of gas.  The second choice that I have seen in implementations is to create, essentially, a whole path of gas for this ‘03’ transaction type.  In this implementation, the shipper would create an upstream non-pathed nomination with a quantity of zero, a pathed nomination with a receipt quantity of zero and a delivery quantity of 500, and a third nomination as the downstream non-pathed with a quantity of 500.  All three of these nominations would have the transaction type of ‘03’.  This second choice is technically correct and do-able, but it puts a lot of extra work on the shipper and unnecessarily ties the payback transaction to a path of gas that is not needed.

There are other transaction types which cause these same scenarios, but NAESB and most pipelines do not give clear instructions on how they are used.  This leaves room for interpretation – a dangerous game.  Interpretation results in different pipelines solving the same problem in different ways and  different shippers trying solutions that the pipeline doesn’t expect.  This makes it hard for everyone involved to get the results they expect.

The second issue:

There are three (3!) different transaction types available on the model types.  For a long, long time there was only one transaction type and it was called Transaction Type.  As NAESB standards progressed, pipelines asked for an Upstream Transaction Type and Downstream Transaction Type to be added for the confirmations process.  The Upstream and Downstream Transaction Types, if you look up the NAESB definition, do NOT refer to the business being conducted on the current pipeline. The Upstream Transaction Type refers to the transaction type on the pipeline Upstream of the current pipeline. The Downstream Transaction Type refers to the transaction type on the pipeline Downstream of the current pipeline.  Interestingly, people look at the name and think that the Upstream Transaction Type must go on the Upstream Nomination in the Non-Pathed and Pathed Non-Threaded Model types but this just isn’t so.  The Upstream Transaction Type can go on the Pathed or Non-Pathed Model but NAESB clearly states that it is referring to the transaction type of the nomination on the upstream pipeline.  All of the same logic/rules apply to the Downstream Transaction Type, of course.  And, the Upstream and Downstream Transaction Types do not exist on the Pathed Non-Threaded Model Type at all!

Clearly looking at the definition of data elements is essential before assuming their meaning or intent because the name is not always the only indicator of the purpose.  Nominations are complex transactions.

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.