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.