The gas industry’s long and winding road from pipelineelectronic bulletin boards (EBBs) to the Internet is heading backto the Gas Industry Standards Board Executive Committee for furtherdebate. However, progress has been made as GISB has so far narrowedthe number of proposals for Internet transition from seven down totwo.

The GISB Executive Committee is strongly in favor of one of themodels, known as Model 2 or CAMEL, the Consortium Advancing MutualElectronic Links. The Executive Committee (EC) previously voted outModel 2 and Model 1 to be sent to the board. Model 2 received 19votes from EC members, while Model 1 received only two votes. TheGISB board of directors decided rather than choose one or send bothproposals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) itwould send them back to the EC in the hope one or a combination ofthe two could be decided upon.

“They’re putting the responsibility for developing the standardsfor interactive Web sites back to the executive committee,” saidGISB Executive Director Rae McQuade. “We don’t have a set timelineyet. We certainly have a timeline established by [FERC] Order 587-G[of June 1, 1999].” [The EC] can do what they want. They could lookat the standards individually. They could follow a road map thatsupported one or the other model.” McQuade said she was pleasedwith the board’s decision to return the proposals to the EC. “It’sbetter than what I expected.”

FERC Order No. 587-G, issued in May, elicited howls of protestfrom every corner of the gas industry forest, mainly for itsmandate that pipelines abandon their electronic bulletin boards byJune 1, 1999. The order said pipelines may – but will not berequired to – provide interactive sites on the World Wide Web. FERCsaid pipelines would be allowed cost-of-service recovery insubsequent Section 4 rate cases for the costs of the interactivesites only if they, along with GISB, create standards governingaccess to, presentation and format of the sites. Totalimplementation of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) for pipelinetransactions, as specified by the FERC, is opposed because of EDI’sperceived implementation and usage cost, particularly to small andmid-size companies.

In presenting Model 2 to the GISB board last week, Internettransition planning task force member Mike Novak 2 explained theprinciple difference between FERC-specified ANSI X12 EDI andpipeline EBBs as the fact that EBBs are interactive and EDI is not.”Interactivity is important because we as human beings areinteractive by nature.” He said Model 2 features standardnavigation and consistent screen layout for Web sites and supportsX12 EDI “when and where it makes sense,” namely for largercompanies handling numerous transactions.

Model 1, explained Internet task force member Jim Buccigross,neither requires nor prohibits transactional Internet Web sites andgives greater support to use of X12 EDI. He said “there aremultiple services available, including low-cost ones,” for EDIimplementation.

During the meeting it was noted by board members that not asingle advocate inside GISB, including independentsoftware/services providers, has said pipeline EBBs should be shutdown. GISB EC Chairman Mike Bray noted he’s never seen suchunanimous opposition to a FERC order as 587-G has garnered. “In myopinion, the day of decision has arrived. Which road does thisindustry want to follow,” he said.

Greg Lander, president of service provider TransCapacity, wasvisibly pleased by the board’s decision. Another option could havehad GISB retaining both models and asking FERC to decide thecontentious issues of pricing, requirements and whether EBBs shouldbe eliminated. Lander said he was thankful the board didn’t getinvolved in picking particular approaches from the two models butstuck with its policy and sent the matter back to the EC.

“We feel that the issues of cost and requirement and the futureof presentation systems is a FERC issue and not a GISB issue, sowhat typically happens at GISB is we resolve and work through thosethings which we all agree on first, and then we have thecontentious ones parked waiting for further word from the FERC,”Lander said. This is what has happened in the past with issuesrelated to matters such as title transfers, operational balancingagreements, and intraday nominations.

“In essence, that’s what’s happened here. We will work on whatwe agree on. Both sides agree that pipelines should not becompelled to create Web sites. Both sides agreed that EDI was partof whatever plan we went forward with. And both sides laid out alot of the similarities.

“At this point, given the timing of GISB’s efforts, it’s hopefulthat FERC will drop the other shoe in the next couple to severalmonths and that will fit nicely into both of our timelines.”

Joe Fisher, Houston

©Copyright 1998 Intelligence Press, Inc. All rightsreserved. The preceding news report may not be republished orredistributed in whole or in part without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press, Inc.