What's Hot? | Press Release | Home
WGQ Clarification Requests: Request Form for Clarification or Interpretation of a Standard - Word Format
|Request #||Requester||Date Received||Standard Affected||Description|
|30 October 2012||NAESB WGQ/REQ/RQG Internet Electronic Transport Examples, Version 2.||Confusion currently exists regarding the example from page 49 of the WGQ/REQ/RGQ Internet Electronic Transport version 2.0.
Withdrawn by Submitter - March 14, 2013
|NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.
|4 April 2012||NAESB Standard Number 2.3.14||WGQ Version 2.0, NAESB WGQ Standard No. 2.3.14 (Measurement Data Corrections).|
Request for Comments due August 14, 2012
|C12003||WGQ IR/Technical Subcommittee||27 April 2012||NAESB Standard Numbers 7.3.16 and 7.3.27||Modify NAESB WGQ Interpretation Nos. 7.3.16 and 7.3.27 as a companion to the recommendation 2011 WGQ Annual Plan Item 7 / 2012 WGQ Annual Plan Item 8 – Part A and its 6 attachments.|
|C12002||Quorum Business Solutions
|28 February 2012||NAESB Standard Number 4.3.102||Clarification on the proper handling of combined Business Names or Abbreviations for logically applicable data elements.|
|C12001||Quorum Business Solutions
|28 February 2012||NAESB Standard Number 4.3.58, 4.3.68, 4.3.73, 4.3.74, 4.1.33 and 4.3.101||Clarification on the proper labeling and placement of information fields that are not included in the standardized NAESB data elements.|
|C11005||Group 8760, LLC
|2 November 2011||NAESB Standard Number 5.3.2||Clarification or interpretation request: In WGQ Standard No. 5.3.2, clarify the meaning of the phrase, “open season ends no later than 1:00 pm on a Business Day.”
Request for Comments due January 11, 2012
Recommendation as approved by the WGQ Executive Committee on February 23, 2012
|C11003||Quorum Business Solutions
|14 June 2011||NAESB Standard Number: 5.4.24 - Offer||Clarification or interpretation request: Clarify the effects of Disclosure Indicator, Minimum Rate Disclosure Indicator, Releasing Shipper Lesser Quantity Indicator, and Shorter Term Indicator on the disclosure of minimum condition elements for EBB / EDI Download portion of NAESB Standard Number 5.4.24.
Request for Comments due August 26, 2011
|C11002||Quorum Business Solutions
|14 June 2011||NAESB Standard Number: 5.4.25 - Bid||Clarification or interpretation request: Clarify the effects of Bidder Lesser Quantity Indicator on the disclosure of minimum condition elements for EBB / EDI Download portion of NAESB Standard Number 5.4.25. Does the Offer’s Disclose Indicator or Releasing Shipper Lesser Quantity Indicator have any effect on the disclosure of the minimum condition elements for Bids.
Request for Comments due August 26, 2011
|C11001 transferred to MC11013||Williston Basin
|2 February 2011||Capacity Release Data Element||Clarification or interpretation request: Special Terms and Miscellaneous Notes - Offer Upload, Offer Download, Offer Notification, Bid Upload, Bid Download, Award Download and Transactional Reporting|
|C10001||Tennessee Valley Authority
|12 October 2010||NAESB Standard Number: 4.3.23||Clarification or interpretation request: of the word Tariff under Informational Posting. NAESB WGQ Standard No. 4.3.23 does not specify if the category Tariff under Informational Posting includes negotiated rates, non-conforming agreements, Volume 2s, and X-rate schedules within the definition.
Request for Comments due January 13, 2011
|17 June 2009||NAESB WGQ Standard No. 5.4.10||Clarification concerning EBB confirmation or description response indicating non-conformation|
|C09002||The Structure Group
|3 June 2009||NAESB WGQ Standard No. 1.4.5, 1.3.3 & 7.3.19||Clarification concerning what is meant in the Data Dictionary by “the instance in time when the transaction is to be initiated?”|
|20 March 2009||NAESB WGQ Standard No. 4.3.18||Clarification on the use of the Central Address Repository
Withdrawn by Submitter - May 6, 2009
|C07003 - Adobe PDF Version
C07003 - Word Version
Attachment - Supporting Reference Materials
|McGuireWoods on behalf of Smithfield and DuPont
|17 December 2007||NAESB WGQ standard 6.3.1||Clarification of NAESB WGQ Standard 6.3.1 as a forward contract or swap agreement.|
|C07002||National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
|9 October 2007||NAESB WGQ standard 4.2.2||Clarification of NAESB WGQ Standard 4.2.2 to determine how a TSP must provide information from its Informational Postings web site|
|C06001||Great Lakes Gas Transmission
|8 June 2006||NAESB WGQ business practice standard 5.3.44||Great Lakes Gas Transmission requests clarification on whether a recall must be for the remaining term of the release, or if a recall can be for a lesser term.
Withdrawn by Submitter - June 14, 2006
|13 July 2005|| ||Recommendation
Request for Comments due November 30, 2005
Comments Submitted by S. Coburn, Northern Plains Natural Gas Company, LLC's
|C05001||Sabine Pipe Line LLC & Chandeleur Pipe Line Company
|24 January 2005|| ||Withdrawn by Submitter - March 8, 2005|
|C03006||National Fuel Gas Distribution
|5 September 2003|| ||Revised Recommendation
Request for Comments due
June 13, 2005
|4 April 2003|| || |
|7 March 2003|| || |
|26 February 2003||EDM Implementation Guide|| |
Kate Fiedler / Jim Buccigross
|21 February 2003||EDM Implementation Manual|| |
Kate Fiedler / Jim Buccigross
|16 January 2003||EDM Implementation Manual||Group 8760 requests clarification as to whether individual implementations are free to use the http HEAD command, prior to using the POST command to deliver the NAESB payload. When implementing a NAESB EDM 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.|
|C02003||National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
|7 June 2002||1.3.66||Withdrawn by Submitter|
|C02002||National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
|7 June 2002||1.3.65||Withdrawn by Submitter|
|C02001||National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
|7 June 2002||1.3.64||Withdrawn by Submitter|
|C00004||Altra Energy Technologies Inc.
|25 September 2000||1.3.5|
|C00003||Business Practices Subcommittee (R98041)||1 June 2000||Recommendation
Recommendation 2 - amended and adopted by the EC on 8/24/00
Recommendation 2 - corrected, amended and adopted by the EC on 8/24/00
|C00002||The Boeing Company
|24 April 2000||1.3.15||Recommendation|
|5 January 2000||1.3.15, 1.3.16||Recommendation|
|30 July 99||5.3.2, 5.3.24||Recommendation 1
|C99002||Enron Capital and Trade Resources Corp.
|13 May 99||1.4.2.||Recommendation|
|4 Feb 99||5.4.1.||CNG Transmission requests clarification of the recall/reput
option of "Recallable, Not Reputtable." CNG Transmission's interpretation of "Recallable, Not
Reputtable" is that upon recall the releasing shipper cannot reput the release, nor can the
releasing shipper release the capacity to another shipper. The capacity is returned to the
releasing shipper for the full duration of the recall.
Revised Recommendation - as adopted by the EC 7/15/99
|28 Aug 98||1.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.4.X||Request clarification related to the use of only central
clock time values in the date/time data elements for all Capcity Release related datasets
(e.g. Offers, Bids, Awards, Upload to Pipeline or Prearranged Deal, UPPD Validation, Bidder
Confirmation, Final Disposition, Operational Available, Unsubscribed FT, and Critical Notices).
Should all time values be provided as central clock time?
|26 Aug 98||5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3||When a Transportation Service Provider has posted a
particular Offer, Bid, or 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
or Award, shouldn't the Transaction Set Purpose Code be the code associated with "change"
(Offer) or "resubmission" (Award)?
Revised Recommendation - as adopted by the EC on 11/19/98
|4 May 98||1.3.3||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?
|C98006||Enron Capital & Trade Resources - Donna Scott||30 April 98||1.3.9, 1.3.43||Current Standard No. 1.3.9 states in part, "Intra-day
nominations should include an effective date and time." Intraday Standard No. 1.3.e 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 1.3.9 Beginning Time is sender's
option, but 1.3.e [GISB Standard No. 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?
|Revised C98005||ANR Pipeline - Joe Bianchi||6 April 98||1.3.22i,ii||With regard to GISB Standard 1.3.22ii, Version 1.3, for start
of Day should the previously scheduled quantity be the previous Start of Day scheduled quantity
or the last previous scheduled Intra-Day quantity?
|C98004||TransCapacity - Jim Buccigross||31 March 98||1.3.20, 7.3.16, 7.3.18||Both interpretations 7.3.16 and 7.3.18 use language
addressing GISB Standard No. 1.3.20 Version 1.2, and Version 1.3 was adopted on March 12, 1998.
|C98003||Enron Capital & Trade - Donna Scott||26 March 98||3.4.1||Can an Invoice Statement "Beginning Transaction Date" and
"Ending Transaction Date" be defaulted in each transaction to the first day of the month
without accurately reflecting the correct dates associated with the beginning and ending of a
|C98002||The SABRE Group - Deborah Hughes||18 March 98||1.4.2||Clarify the intention of the "AE" Transaction Status Code
in the Header Level of the Nomination Quick Response.
|C98001||TransCapacity - Jim Buccigross||2 March 98||5.3.26||In the case that a shipper chooses to accept bids in either
Absolute Dollars and Cents or Percentage of Maximum Tariff Rate, and the TSP elects to support
this practice by calculating the best bid regardless of how received, how does this meet the
|C97017||Lone Star Pipeline - Dean Murray||15 October 97||2.3.9||Is this GISB standard of 14.73 Dry consistent with Texas
law, for use by Texas intrastate pipelines which are not under FERC jurisdiction?
|C97016||NGC Corporation - Mark Scheel||02 October 97||4.3.6||According to Standard 4.3.6 notices are now supposed to
be posted on the Transportation Service Provider's (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 issued outside of business hours and on weekends?
|C97015||TransCapacity - Jim Buccigross||14 July 97||1.2.1, 1.3.5, 1.3.7, 1.3.27||Clarifications on Standards 1.2.1, 1.3.5, 1.3.7, and 1.3.27
|C97014||TransCapacity - Jim Buccigross||14 July 97||1.1.18||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 DRN's for locations that belong to TSP2?|
|C97013||Order 587C||4 March 97||2.3.30||Clarification of terms for Imbalance Standard 2.3.30 -- Order 587-C, Section II.B.2, pp. 14-16. The term to which the FERC has requested clarification is "similar financial and operational implications" as used in GISB Standard 2.3.30.|
|C97012||Order 587C||4 March 97||2.3.29||Clarification of terms for OBA Standard 2.3.29 -- Order 587-C, Section II.B.2, pp. 14-16. The term to which the FERC has requested clarification is "economically and operationally feasible" as used in GISB Standard 2.3.29.|
|C97011||National Fuel Gas Dist - Cynthia Battista||12 June 97||3.3.15, 2.3.14, 2.3.26||Prior period adjustments are limited to six (6) months from the date of the initial transportation invoice. Can a pipeline which became GISB compliant on April 1, 1997 include in its September 1997 transportation invoice a prior period adjustment for May production.|
|C97010||Amoco - Tom Ehinger||13 May 97||2.3.14, 2.3.26, 3.3.15, 4.3.4||The above-mentioned standards reference a common topic surrounding a 6 month time limit for addressing accounting corrections or revisions to measurement data, allocations and any prior period adjustments as well as the retention period for such data. It must be made clear that audit rights were preserved (either in existing contracts or mutally agreed to in subsequent contracts) by these standards.|
|C97009||Exxon - Bob Wallenhorst||28 April 97||2.3.16||Standard 2.3.16 states "List of allocation
methodologies agreed upon: Ranked, Pro Rata, Percentage, and Swing". So that these
methodologies can be implemented on a consistent basis, GISB should clarify the
application of each of these methodologies (similar to what was done in Interpretation
C96020 for the Capacity Release Bid Evaluation Methodologies listed in Standard 5.3.3).
|C97008||Natural Gas Clearinghouse - M.Scheel||24 April 97||4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.9, 1.3.2||Is the 855 Nomination Quick Response always due at
noon even when the 850 nomination request is received earlier that 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
|C97007||Natural Gas Clearinghouse - M.Scheel||07 April 97.||1.3.2, 1.4.2||It should be clarified that the "Nomination Quick Response" document due at noon as required by GISB 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.|
|C97006||TransCapacity - J.Buccigross||04 April 97||1.4.3||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?.|
|C97005||TransCapacity - J.Buccigross||05 March 97||5.4.1||Is the definition of previously released indicator clear?|
|C97004||TransCapacity - J.Buccigross||05 March 97||1.4.1||Can an originator place any character string up to 11 characters long into this field? Is so should the field be named Nominator's Tracking Number?|
|C97003||TransCapacity - J.Buccigross||05 March 97||2.3.27, 2.3.15, 2.3.24, 1.3.14||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? 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?|
|C97002||TransCapacity - J.Buccigross||05 March 97||1.3.3||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 nominated and confirmed? Will an "End of Gas Day Scheduled Quantity" be sent when the only change is the date.|
|C97001||NorAm Trading - A.Brady||02 Feb 97||5.4.x||What should occuer in the data sets if a customer does not have a DUNs number -- especially in the case of government run agencies such as towns and bases?|
|C96037||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||30 Dec 96||1.4.3, 1.4.4||From whose perspective should elements be populated on the Nomination - Confirmation Response dataset? duplicate of C96026).|
|C96036||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||30 Dec 96||1.4.3||Does the Nomination - Confirmation process require that all transactions are confirmed daily or changes only?(duplicate of C96028).|
|C96035||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||30 Dec 96||1.3.20||What is the implementation model for negotiation of the confirmation request and response process?.|
|C96034||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||30 Dec 96||1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.3.7||What is the expected value in the Ending Date/Time element in the Request for Confirmation, Confirmation Response, and Scheduled Quantities data sets?(duplicate of C96030, C96027).|
|C96033||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||30 Dec 96||2.4.1||How does the PDA Quick Response distinguish specific errors when PDAs have been submitted for multpile locations?(duplicate of C96031).|
|C96032||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||30 Dec 96||3.4.2||How is the party being paid identified on the Payment
|C96031||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||4 Dec 96||1.4.4||How does the PDA Quick Response distinguish specific
errors when PDAs have been submitted for multiple locations?
|C96030||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||4 Dec 96||1.4.4||Is the Ending Date/Time relevant in the Nominations
- Scheduled Quantities?
|C96029||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||4 Dec 96||1.4.4||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?.|
|C96028||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||4 Dec 96||1.4.4||Does the Nomination - Confirmation process require that all transactions are confirmed daily or changes only?.|
|C96027||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||4 Dec 96||1.4.4||How is the Ending Date/Time relevant in the nomination - confirmation process?.|
|C96026||Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen||4 Dec 96||1.4.4||From whose perspective should elements be populated on the Nomination - Confirmation Response dataset?.|
|C96025||PanEnergy Corp - J.Phillips||3 Dec 96||2.4.5||Define energy quantity and measured volume in Standard 2.4.5.|
|C96024||Koch Gateway - L.Arthur||25 Nov 96||4.3.12||Which location code should be sent in a request to confirm and confirmation response? Sender's Code or Recipient's Code?.|
|C96023||Koch Gateway - L.Arthur||25 Nov 96||4.3.12||Can a trading partner specify one designated site for certain types of transactions and another designated site for other types of transactions?.|
|C96022||Exxon Company, USA - B.Wallenhorst||13 Nov 96||5.3.2||Clarify the timeline for capacity release posting and award - there are 3 known proposed implementations.|
|C96021||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||4 Nov 96||2.4.z||The Preparer ID definition describes this as a name and address, but the data element is identified as the value must be a common code - please clarify.|
|C96020||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||29 Oct 96||5.3.3||Please define each of the Bid Evaluation Methods that pipelines are required to accept.|
|C96019||Koch Gateway - L.Arthur||15 Oct 96||1.4.z||For pathed non-threaded - validate where transaction type is used.|
|C96018||Koch Gateway - L.Arthur||15 Oct 96||1.4.z||For pathed non-threaded - validate values of quantity type with usage.|
|C96017||Koch Gateway - L.Arthur||15 Oct 96||1.4.z||For pathed non-threaded - validate where capacity type is used.|
|C96016||Koch Gateway - L.Arthur||15 Oct 96||1.4.z||For pathed non-threaded - validate where receipt and delivery ranks are used.|
|C96015||Koch Gateway - L.Arthur||15 Oct 96||1.4.z||For pathed non-threaded - validate where upstream and downstream ranks are applicable.|
|C96014||Koch Gateway - L.Arthur||15 Oct 96||1.4.z||For pathed non-threaded - validate whether the package id's on one segment should match another.|
|C96013||Koch Gateway - L.Arthur||15 Oct 96||1.4.z||For pathed non-threaded - validate where package id should exist.|
|C96012||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||10 Oct 96||3.3.2||Does a proprietary EBB and all paper documents have to use the GISB data element names as defined in the standards?|
|C96011||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||9 Oct 96||5.y.z||Where is the ability to capture text for indemnification clauses?|
|C96010||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||9 Oct 96||5.4.21||The system wide notice needs additional codes.|
|C96009||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||9 Oct 96||3.4.1||Not all items on an invoice have a service code, can 'other' or ' not applicable' be added?|
|C96008||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||9 Oct 96||3.4.1||Explain usage of location indicator on invoice.|
|C96007||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||9 Oct 96||2.4.5||Is the Measured Volume on the Measurement Statement in Mcf or Dth?|
|C96006||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||9 Oct 96||2.3.15||Why is time a date element.|
|C96005||Columbia Gas Transmission - C.Stodola||9 Oct 96||1.3.9||Clarify the purpose of 'ending time'.|
|C96004||Market Initiation T.F. - D.Richardson||9 Oct 96||1.3.12, 1.3.10||Does intra day nomination reporting occur at end of day or in 4 hours.|
|C96003||Market Initiation T.F. - D.Richardson||12 Sept 96||1.3.1.||Business Day vs Work Day.|
|C96002||Market Initiation T.F. - D.Richardson||12 Sept 96||5.3.2||Clarify the meaning of '5 months'.|
|C96001||Market Initiation T.F. - D.Richardson||12 Sept 96||1.2.2||Clarify the meaning of 'process' in Sender's Option.|
Copyright © 2018 North American Energy Standards Board,
Inc. All rights Reserved.