Clarification Requests

Wholesale Gas

Wholesale Electric | Retail Electric | Retail Gas

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
C12005	Oncor D. McKeever	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 Withdrawn by Submitter - March 14, 2013
C12004 Attachment	NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. B. Jones	4 April 2012	NAESB Standard Number 2.3.14	WGQ Version 2.0, NAESB WGQ Standard No. 2.3.14 (Measurement Data Corrections). Recommendation 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 Marc Spitzenberger	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 Marc Spitzenberger	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 Jim Buccigross	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.” Recommendation Request for Comments due January 11, 2012 Recommendation as approved by the WGQ Executive Committee on February 23, 2012 (Members Accessible)
C11003	Quorum Business Solutions Seth Peters	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. Recommendation Request for Comments due August 26, 2011
C11002	Quorum Business Solutions Seth Peters	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. Recommendation Request for Comments due August 26, 2011
C11001 transferred to MC11013	Williston Basin Kelly Brooks	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 Valerie Crockett	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. Recommendation Request for Comments due January 13, 2011
C09003	Boardwalk Pipeline Mitch Whitehead	17 June 2009	NAESB WGQ Standard No. 5.4.10	Clarification concerning EBB confirmation or description response indicating non-conformation
C09002	The Structure Group Terry Altenbaumer	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?”
C09001	8760 Inc. Jim Buccigross	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 Dion Hayes	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 Joseph Kardas	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 Eugent Fava	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
C05002	EC Power Jesse Cline	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 Janice Rogers	24 January 2005		Withdrawn by Submitter - March 8, 2005
C03006	National Fuel Gas Distribution Mike Novak	5 September 2003		Revised Recommendation Request for Comments due June 13, 2005
C03005	MIGC, Inc. Christine Odell	4 April 2003
C03004	Caminus Martin Griese	7 March 2003
C03003	Dynegy, Inc. Pete Whatley	26 February 2003	EDM Implementation Guide
C03002	Group 8760 Kate Fiedler / Jim Buccigross	21 February 2003	EDM Implementation Manual
C03001	Group 8760 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 David Reitz	7 June 2002	1.3.66	Withdrawn by Submitter
C02002	National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation David Reitz	7 June 2002	1.3.65	Withdrawn by Submitter
C02001	National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation David Reitz	7 June 2002	1.3.64	Withdrawn by Submitter
C00004	Altra Energy Technologies Inc. Karen Donovan	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 Tina Patton	24 April 2000	1.3.15	Recommendation
C00001	Hatch Ziad Arabo	5 January 2000	1.3.15, 1.3.16	Recommendation
C99003	NGPL Paul Love	30 July 99	5.3.2, 5.3.24	Recommendation 1 Recommendation 2
C99002	Enron Capital and Trade Resources Corp. Gary Payne	13 May 99	1.4.2.	Recommendation
C99001	CNG Transmission Twyla Strogen	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
C98009	TransCapacity Michael Pierce	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? Recommendation
C98008	TransCapacity Michael Pierce	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
C98007	TransCapacity Jim Buccigross	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? Recommendation
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? Recommendation
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? Revised Recommendation
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. Recommendation
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 transaction? Recommendation 1 Recommendation 2 Recommendation 3
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. Recommendation
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 applicable standard? Recommendation
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? Recommendation
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? Recommendation
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 Recommendation
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). Recommendation
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 later)? Recommendation
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 Remittance? Recommendation
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? Recommendation
C96030	Columbia Gulf Transmission - M.Hansen	4 Dec 96	1.4.4	Is the Ending Date/Time relevant in the Nominations - Scheduled Quantities? Recommendation
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.

If you should encounter any problems or need further information, please call (713) 356-0060.
Privacy Policy | About NAESB | Contact NAESB | Email: naesb@naesb.org | Home Page