ARCHIVED—Natural Gas Trade Sector Review — Decisions - Senior Management Committee Decisions on Natural Gas Trade Sector Review Recommendations

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Report
1.2 Decision Making Criteria
1.3 Impact of Recommendations on Other Trade Sector Reviews
1.4 Stakeholder Reach

2.0 Acronyms

3.0 Recommendations (Summary)

4.0 Recommendations (Detailed)

1. Implementation
2. Performance Based Specifications
3. Impact analysis
4. Monitoring of the performance of measurement devices
5. Role of Measurement Canada should be publicized
6. Measurement Canada accelerate discontinuing its inspection services
7. Measurement Canada use a Standards Council of Canada accredited Standards Development Organization
8. Physical Measurement Standards
9. Approval of type for measuring devices
10.Varying degrees of intervention

Appendix A
The varying degrees of intervention graphic

Appendix B
Natural Gas Trade Sector Review List of Participants

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Report

This report contains Measurement Canada’s decisions regarding the recommendations for establishing an appropriate level of intervention in the natural gas trade sector. These recommendations were the result of extensive consultation with sector stakeholders.
The goal of this report is to communicate the decisions of Measurement Canada senior management with the considerations behind each decision.

1.2 Decision Making Criteria

All of the recommendations had to be :

In Line With Measurement Canada Mission and Strategic Direction - all decisions reached during the consultation had to agree with the mission and strategic direction set out by Measurement Canada.

Sustainable - It was an important consideration that the recommendations can be implemented and be sustainable into the future.

International Competitiveness - The recommendations of the sector had to be both practical and acceptable and not deviate from international metrology standards or practises so as to portray Canada in a negative light in international markets.

1.3 Impact of Recommendations on Other Trade Sector Reviews

It is understood that some recommendations contained within this report may impact on other trade sector reviews. The Natural Gas Trade Sector Review recommendations may be reviewed and possibly considered by other trade sector reviews for adoption, however, the Natural Gas Trade Sector Review recommendations remain applicable within its scope.

1.4 Stakeholder Reach

Measurement Canada has ensured that the stakeholders who participated in the consultation were representative of the sector. It was deemed essential to have the input of the vulnerable parties¹ to the trade transaction and all informed comments were taken into consideration.

Representation from the sector included the major production companies; mid-stream companies; all of the transmission companies; local distribution companies (utilities); consumers both residential and industrial; and other provincial and federal regulatory bodies.

The team made a special effort to involve vulnerable parties. The residential consumer was represented on the Natural Gas Trade Sector Review team by Patrick Vanasse, (Option Consumateurs was represented at all of the sessions by Mr. Vanasse) at the session in Halifax by Mr. Walter Nolan of the Halifax Regional Homeowners Association and in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver by Mr. Peter Dyne of the Consumers Association of Canada. Industrial gas consumers were represented by the IGUA ( Industrial Gas User Association) and several of their members at the sessions in Montreal and Toronto. Industrial users in the Atlantic, Prairie and Northern and the Pacific regions were contacted and they chose not to attend or indicated during other discussions that they agreed with the position of their Local Distribution Company or gas supplier. Other mid level consumers or consumer associations were approached to participate. Several of these groups chose not to participate and some of these consumers indicated that they agreed with the position of their service provider or gas supplier.

2.0 Acronyms

A list of acronyms used in this document is provided below for the reader’s reference.

ASDM : Alternate Service Delivery Mechanism
ELS : Engineering and Laboratory Services
ISD : Innovative Services Directorate
LDC : Local Distribution Company (Utilities)
MC : Measurement Canada
NGTSR :Natural Gas Trade Sector Review
NRC : National Research Council (Canada)
NSS : National Standards System
PDD : Program Development Directorate
SMC : Measurement Canada Senior Management Committee
SDO : Standards Development Organization
SCC : Standards Council of Canada
TSR : Trade Sector Review
WTO : World Trade Organization

3.0 Recommendations (Summary)

1. Measurement Canada work closely with all stakeholders in moving quickly in implementing all of these TSR recommendations.
2. Measurement Canada continue to move to a more performance based approach to requirements and eliminate prescriptive based requirements where appropriate.
3. Measurement Canada develop impact and cost benefit analysis for changes to its intervention programs. Measurement Canada, through a consultative approach, determine the criteria that will define the triggers for implementing this analysis.
4. Measurement Canada, in consultation with stakeholders, should develop effective mechanisms to allow for the ongoing monitoring of the performance of measurement devices within the natural gas trade sector.
5. It is recommended that the role of Measurement Canada should be publicized and that this publicity should be directed towards consumers who believe that they have a problem with their gas meter that can not be resolved with their Local Distribution Company.
6. Measurement Canada should accelerate its efforts in discontinuing its inspection services of metering devices in order to promote viable alternate service delivery by accredited organizations.
7. Measurement Canada use a Standards Council of Canada accredited Standards Development Organization to develop written standards for measurement and performance specifications. This includes the criteria for approval of type and other technical specifications, ensuring that Measurement Canada is represented on the “Technical Committees” responsible for each specification.
8. Measurement Canada, while retaining its legal and statutory accountability, develop an alternate service delivery mechanism for the certification of physical measuring standards, including recognizing international certifying bodies, where the criteria for the certification of the measuring standards are deemed to be, as a minimum, equivalent to the requirements in Canada.
9. Measurement Canada, while retaining its legal and statutory accountability, develop mechanisms for the timely, responsive and efficient “approval of type” of measuring devices. This may include alternate service delivery mechanisms, as well as recognizing the test results of international certifying bodies, where the criteria for the approval of type are deemed to be, as a minimum, equivalent to the requirements in Canada.
10. Measurement Canada’s inspection services in the initial and periodic inspections of devices and installations for various trade transactions in the natural gas sector should be subject to varying degrees of intervention justified by the degree of sophistication of the parties involved. Criteria must be developed to define the different transaction types and the parties involved in each transaction.

¹ Party who is generally the purchaser of a product and who does not own or control the measurement equipment used in the transaction. The degree of vulnerability may vary from nil to high depending upon the capacity and ability of the vulnerable party to detect measurement errors, re-measure the product and have corrective measures taken where appropriate.

4.0 Recommendations (Detailed)

The priority identified after each recommendation is defined as follows:

High : The recommendation has to be accepted to allow other recommendations to be effectively implemented: the stakeholders have expressed a need for this recommendation to be implemented as soon as possible.

Measurement Canada agrees and, unless otherwise stated, will commence work on implementation of the recommendation in early 2003.

Medium : Stakeholders indicated that work on this recommendation, if accepted can be started immediately or implementation can be delayed until such time as adequate resources are available. The implementation of other recommendations is not dependant on the implementation of this recommendation.

Measurement Canada agrees and unless otherwise stated, will commence work on the implementation of the recommendation no later than April 2004.

Low : This recommendation, while important to stakeholders, does not require immediate implementation. Other recommendations are not dependant on this recommendation. Measurement Canada may already be addressing this recommendation through another sector review or ongoing program.
Measurement Canada considered all recommendations as a high or medium priority. No recommendations were identified as being a low priority.

1 Implementation

Recommendation: Stakeholders recommend that:

1. Measurement Canada work closely with all stakeholders in moving quickly in implementing all of these TSR recommendations.

Rationale: The stakeholders want the results of this review to move forward in a timely manner with MC's commitment to the implementation of these recommendations once approved.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: Agree to establish an Implementation Team comprised of representatives of industry stakeholders and MC to coordinate the implementation of the recommendations. The role of the team will be to facilitate the efficient, effective implementation of the NGTSR recommendations. The role of the industry member(s) should be to help communicate the implementation plan to industry and to assist in ensuring that the resources required from industry for implementation are available. The role of the MC member(s) will be to communicate the plan to MC personnel and all other stakeholders (primarily consumers), ensure that the resources required from MC for implementation are available, and to represent the concerns of the vulnerable parties during any discussions. The direction given to MC Officers working on implementation of the NGTSR recommendations has to come from MC management.

Expectations for “quickly implementing” need to be managed. Some expectations of “quickly” may not be realistic.

Priority : High

Responsibility Centre: PDD

2 Performance Based Specifications

Definition: Performance criteria is less prescriptive and is based on the ability of the device or the organizations to meet performance related requirements. A performance based standard would describe the end result of a process and not how the end result should be achieved. Performance based specifications should specify, where possible, technical regulatory requirements in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics; give positive consideration to accepting as equivalent other forms of technical regulatory requirements, if satisfied that they adequately fulfill the objectives of the existing regulations; with respect to technical barriers to trade, ensure technical regulations treat products from one jurisdiction no less favourably than like products from another.

Recommendations: Stakeholders recommend that:

2. Measurement Canada continue to move to a more performance based approach to requirements and eliminate prescriptive based requirements where appropriate.

Rationale: MC should develop and implement a policy requiring that all specifications, procedures, and requirements be developed in a manner that ensures the requirements are performance based, where applicable.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: MC is currently heading in this direction in regards to specification development. This recommendation is not retroactive and by accepting it does not imply that MC will review all current specifications, policies, rules and requirements. However it does apply if the current specifications are reviewed.

Priority: High

Responsibility Centre: PDD

3 Impact analysis

Definition: An impact analysis is essentially a form of evidence-based policy - where proposals for specifications or requirements are based on an objective assessment of available evidence. While there are different models for impact analysis they generally share four common aspects:

• An attempt to quantify the likely impacts or outcomes arising from specification proposals;
• A built in consultation requirement whereby affected parties and wider society can offer views before specifications are enacted;
• An indication of the alternatives which were considered before deciding on a specification (new or change) as the means of achieving the goals in question and ;
• An indication of how the specification or requirement will be enforced and what problems may be anticipated with achieving compliance.

Recommendations: Stakeholders recommend that:

3. Measurement Canada develop impact and cost benefit analysis for changes to its intervention programs. Measurement Canada, through a consultative approach, determine the criteria that will define the triggers for implementing this analysis.

Rationale: The stakeholders indicated a high level of frustration when it came to reacting to new requirements that were developed by MC in isolation. With no formal policy requiring an impact analysis of the proposed specifications or requirements, and no formal policy requiring upfront consultation the frustration level of the stakeholders remains high.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: Approval of this recommendation does not mean that MC cannot develop any requirements before the impact analysis model is created. MC agrees to follow the intent of this recommendation until the impact model is developed. The intent of the recommendation is not to have an impact analysis completed every time MC decides to do anything. However the impact (as simple as an order of magnitude) of the action should be thought out prior to implementing or proposing the action. Industry’s input will often be needed to quantify the impact of proposed policies/requirements. MC’s process will have to include seeking this input when needed, but will also have to allow MC to proceed if input is not provided. Otherwise, this would allow industry to stop any initiative that they do not support and would basically give it a veto over the regulator’s activities. It is understood as well that further cost/impact analysis will be performed when developing policies/requirements.

Priority: High

Responsibility Centre: PDD

4 Monitoring of the performance of measurement devices

Definition: Monitoring of measurement devices is a program established to gather objective evidence of the compliance of measuring devices within the natural gas trade sector. This monitoring program can be achieved through the gathering of data supplied by the industry stakeholders with MC verification of the veracity of the data, and to MC conducting inspections of devices through product audits, surveillance activity or any other method deemed appropriate by MC.

Recommendations: Stakeholders recommend that:

4. Measurement Canada, in consultation with stakeholders, should develop effective mechanisms to allow for the ongoing
monitoring of the performance of measurement devices within the natural gas trade sector.

Rationale: It is a part of MC’s strategic direction to monitor all sectors in an ongoing manner. MC has to ensure that there is a process in place that will allow MC to definitively state the level of compliance of measuring devices in use in Canada. This performance monitoring would be in addition to any monitoring that MC establishes for the purposes of “Marketplace Monitoring”.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: The implementation of this recommendation would result in a monitoring program which is a subset of MC's marketplace monitoring strategy. The implementation of this recommendation should be aligned to the extent possible with the implementation of the recommendation from the electricity trade sector review. Areas or levels of trade transactions from Recommendation Number 10 identified as “No intervention” areas will not involve active monitoring such as inspections. Active monitoring should be proportional to the level of intervention.

Priority: Medium

Responsibility Centre: PDD in consultation with ISD

5 Role of Measurement Canada should be publicized

Definition: The role of MC in the dispute process for natural gas customers is not widely known. The general public does not have a comprehensive understanding of their rights to a dispute.

Recommendation: Stakeholders recommend that:

5. It is recommended that the role of Measurement Canada should be publicized and that this publicity should be directed towards consumers who believe that they have a problem with their gas meter that can not be resolved with their Local Distribution Company

Rationale: The consumer stakeholders indicated through their research that the role of MC was not well known. It was also indicated that consumers were not aware of their right to have a dispute investigation of their natural gas meter. The recommendation is specific as to the target of the communication plan outlining MC’s role. This recommendation is intended to be directed at the consumer who already believes that they have a problem with their natural gas meter, it is not intended to be a general campaign.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: The intent of this proposal is to reinforce the importance of informing the consumer of their right to a MC conducted investigation or dispute. LDCs have to take a pro-active role in informing their customers who complain about their meter accuracy that MC has role at the end of the complaint handling process. LDCs must do their best to address their customer’s complaints and are not to refer them to MC without trying to first resolve their complaint. The implementation of this recommendation should be aligned as much as possible with the recommendation from the electricity trade sector review.

A medium term priority was also given to a similar recommendation made by the electricity and downstream petroleum sector stakeholders. MC will address all sectors’ recommendations simultaneously.

Priority: Medium

Responsibility Centre: Marketing and Business Operations

6 Measurement Canada accelerate discontinuing its inspection services

Recommendations: Stakeholders recommend that:

6. Measurement Canada should accelerate its efforts in discontinuing its inspection services of metering devices in order to promote viable alternate service delivery by accredited organizations.

Rationale: MC’s current strategic direction regarding removing our direct intervention in the delivery of inspection activities corresponds with this recommendation. Accelerating the withdrawal of MC’s inspection services will promote the accreditation program and provide for a viable alternate service delivery mechanism.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: MC must consider the capacity of accredited meter verifiers to provide the required inspections. MC will obtain data on the capacity of accredited organizations to provide services during surveillance audit activities. The demand for services still provided by MC be obtained from MC district offices.

MC will not develop ASDM for devices prominent in areas defined as “no intervention and low intervention” as decided in Recommendation Number 10.

For implementation in the short term ( May 2003) review the data gathered during surveillance activities in 2002. Determine if the current data is sufficient to make a decision regarding the removal of further inspection services. In the medium term ( September 2003 ) determine priorities for inspection services MC will no longer provide. Identify barriers to withdrawing inspection services and develop incentives to support the removal of these services.

Priority: Medium

Responsibility Centre: ISD and PDD for regulatory changes if any are required.

7 Measurement Canada use a Standards Council of Canada accredited Standards Development Organization

Definition: The NSS is the system for developing, promoting and implementing standards in Canada. Its is a complex rule-setting and rule-enforcing system with explicit formal processes to govern the relationships among its many member organizations, and is coordinated by the SCC.

Recommendations: Stakeholders recommend that:

7. Measurement Canada use a Standards Council of Canada (SCC) accredited Standards Development Organization (SDO) to develop written standards for measurement and performance specifications. This includes the criteria for approval of type and other technical specifications, ensuring that Measurement Canada is represented on the “Technical Committees” responsible for each specification.

Rationale: This recommendation was brought forward in the position papers prepared by the Canadian Gas Association (CGA) and Option Consommateurs. A NSS process of developing specifications ensures balanced representation on the Technical Committees developing specifications. A formal process for developing specifications would ensure that stakeholders are involved early in the process. This recommendation is inline with the Government of Canada’s guidelines for the development of regulations.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation not accepted; decision deferred. The SMC agrees with the principle of adopting a more transparent, inclusive, and formal process when developing requirements but wishes to conduct a pilot before deciding if it will use an SDO to develop specifications.

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: MC needs to investigate the associated costs and impact further. MC is willing to go with a pilot process utilizing an SCC accredited SDO to better assess the process and to establish costs provided that industry shares costs of implementing the pilot. After the pilot, a more informed decision can be made.

The pilot process is intended as a learning process. Even if the pilot is successful, MC will still consider all options before proceeding. The decision regarding the recommendation is deferred until the pilot is completed. For all on-going work MC is committed to enhancing consultation with and involvement of stakeholders up front and throughout the process of developing specifications and policies.

For implementation in the short term MC to research the benefits of the NSS within other federal regulatory agencies, establish firm costs of contracting an SDO and of becoming an SDO, review the current state of MC’s natural gas related specifications, and investigate the progress made in the electricity trade sector review implementation pilot regarding this recommendation with the possibility of harmonizing resources and activities. In the medium term, consult with stakeholders on prioritizing a list of specifications that require development or enhancement that could be developed using a NSS based process.

Priority: High

Responsibility Centre: PDD

8 Physical Measurement Standards

Definition: Physical measurement standards include pressure gauges, temperature gauges, linear measures , bell provers, transfer provers etc. Physical measurement standards also include any instrument used in calibrating or determining accuracy of trade devices.

A trade device includes any ancillary measuring equipment that is used in the determination of the final quantity.

Recommendations: Stakeholders recommend that:

8. Measurement Canada, while retaining its legal and statutory accountability, develop an alternate service delivery (ASD) mechanism for the certification of physical measuring standards, including recognizing international certifying bodies, where the criteria for the certification of the measuring standards are deemed to be, as a minimum, equivalent to the requirements in Canada.

Rationale: It is recognized that measurement standard traceability is the foundation for the metrology practices in the natural gas industry in Canada. The use of improper or inaccurate standards may have severe consequences in terms of financial losses for trading partners. Stakeholders want to have the assurance that when standards are used to calibrate trade devices, the measurement standards and equipment used are appropriate, traceable and certified. Stakeholders consider that MC has a prime role to play in this area.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: The stakeholders indicated that it is important that MC continue to ensure that standards are maintained and calibrated and that they are traceable to national standards.

Before extending ASDM beyond temperature, linear*, and pressure standards, MC will perform an impact/benefits analysis, including ensuring work required from PDD and Engineering to develop specifications is aligned with MC’s priorities. Recognition of international certifying bodies will hinge on the existence of Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) between NRC and similar bodies in other countries.

* linear relates to gauge blocks.

Priority: Medium

Responsibility Centre: ISD in consultation with ELS

9 Approval of type for measuring devices.

Definition: Prototype measuring instruments intended for trade use are evaluated for compliance with legislated requirements to ensure they are capable of measuring accurately under normal conditions of use and throughout their service lifetime and are approved for retail and/or commercial use.

Recommendations: Stakeholders recommend that:

9. Measurement Canada , while retaining its legal and statutory accountability, develop mechanisms for the timely, responsive and efficient “approval of type” of measuring devices. This may include alternate service delivery mechanisms, as well as recognizing the test results of international certifying bodies, where the criteria for the approval of type are deemed to be, as a minimum, equivalent to the requirements in Canada.

Rationale: All stakeholders agreed that MC should be ultimately responsible for the approval of type process in Canada. The stakeholders agreed that there is value added to MC maintaining this responsibility and accountability for this process.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: The stakeholders indicated that the intent of the recommendation was to make the approval process more responsive to the needs of the industry by improving the efficiency of the process. There are two scenarios that will have to be addressed. The first, when approval is sought for a device that has applicable specifications, and the second, when new technology requires the development of specifications.

Priority : Medium

Responsibility Centre: ELS in consultation with ISD for the first scenario and ELS in consultation with PDD for the second.

10 Varying degrees of intervention

Definition: Varying degrees of intervention means that all devices, all transactions, and all of the stakeholders within the natural gas trade sector do not require the same level of service or protection from MC. All devices or technologies should not be treated the same by MC, with respect to frequency of verification or re-verification. Different stakeholders have different needs in regards to their levels of vulnerability, protection and intervention required from MC.

Recommendations: Stakeholders recommend that:

10. Measurement Canada’s inspection services in the initial and periodic inspections of devices and installations for various trade transactions in the Natural Gas Sector should be subject to varying degrees of intervention justified by the degree of sophistication of the parties involved. Criteria must be developed to define the different transaction types and the parties involved in each transaction.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions, and/or limitations from the SMC: The program and requirements developed must be sustainable for both MC and industry. (Re: easy to administer) and must take into account MC’s legal obligations and potential liability.

10 a) No Intervention (point A):
Measuring devices used in trade transactions at points upstream of the transmission / receipt level of the market are to be exempt from Measurement Canada intervention.

Rationale: MC has little or no intervention in this sub sector now. The parties to the transactions have the resources to ensure that their interests are protected and that the metering is accurate. There are no truly vulnerable parties within these transactions.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: The exemption will apply to this whole sub-sector.

10b) Low Intervention (points B and D):
Low level of intervention applies to the devices used in the following trade transactions: Transmission-Receipt, Transmission - Distribution utilities , Transmission /Distribution utility transactions with large industrial end use customers²

All devices used in trade will have Measurement Canada approval of type. The standards used for calibrating all measuring devices will be certified and traceable to national standards. The devices would be exempt from any requirement for initial or periodic verification.

Rationale: The transactional parties generally have the expertise to protect themselves in the transaction or they have the resources to obtain the expertise. Most of the metering installations have sophisticated metering with both parties to the transaction having duplicate or redundant measurement. Physical measurement standards are traceable to recognized international standards. Measurement devices are approved by MC. Installation design follows recognized standards (such as American Gas Association). Criteria for inspection are determined by the transactional parties. Contractual arrangements that are typically based upon daily loads are in place that include a dispute resolution process. Both parties recognise a sophisticated measurement system is installed. The level and frequency of industry checks is such that MC intervention adds little value.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: It was clarified that MC will not require installations to comply with industry standards.

10c) High Intervention (points C,E,F, and G) :
Applies to distribution sector transactions with small industrial and commercial customers, and distribution sector transactions with residential customers.

Rationale: This level of intervention includes all of the current intervention activities that MC employs. Devices in this level of intervention would be subject to approval of type, initial verification and subsequent re-verification. Standards used to calibrate these devices would be certified by MC or an ASDM.

Devices in this level of intervention, particularly devices employing new technology should be evaluated and assessed against specifications developed using the NSS.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted with minor modification

Considerations, conditions and / or limitations: (Medium and High intervention) The NSS is not to be used until the pilot is completed (reference Recommendation Number 7) and MC decides on its approach for development of standards. The medium level of intervention has been dropped as MC could not distinguish a difference between medium and high intervention.

Priority: High

Responsibility Centre: PDD

² Each jurisdiction has its own definition for large industrial end use customers, but in general, they are customers such as users of raw stock, power plants, steel mills, smelters, fertilizer plants, pulp and paper operations, glass plants, and cement plants, whose transactions are covered by a contract and tariff agreement.

Appendix A

10. Varying degrees of intervention

Definition: Varying degrees of intervention means that all devices, all transactions, and all of the stakeholders within the natural gas trade sector do not require the same level of service or protection from Measurement Canada. All devices or technologies should not be treated the same by Measurement Canada. Not all devices should be treated the same in regards to frequency of verification or reverification. All parties involved in transactions of natural gas do not need the same level of intervention from Measurement Canada. Different stakeholders have different needs in regards to their level of vulnerability and level of protection required by Measurement Canada.

Recommendations: Stakeholders recommend that:

10. Measurement Canada’s inspection services in the initial and periodic inspections of devices and installations for various trade transactions in the Natural Gas Sector should be subject to varying degrees of intervention justified by the degree of sophistication of the parties involved. Criteria must be developed to define the different transaction types and the parties involved in each transaction.

Decision of MC SMC: Recommendation accepted

No intervention: A
Low intervention: B, D
High intervention: C,E,F,G

 

Appendix B

Natural Gas Trade Sector Review List of Participants

• Mr. J. (Jamie) Morrison, Actaris Metering Systems
• Mr. Bill Cheung, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
• Mr. Clay Wickstrom, Alberta Energy & Utilities Board
• Edgar Ma, Alliance Pipeline
• Mr. Robert Denholm, AltaGas Utilities Inc
• Clint Hoffman, AOT Services Partnership
• Troy Sheridan, AOT Services Partnership
• Mr. Daniel Cloutier, AQGN (Association Québécoise du Gaz Naturel)
• Mr. Ray St. Denis, ATCO Gas
• Mr. Larry Bruce, ATCO Gas (North)
• Mr. Brent Myck , ATCO Pipelines Inc.
• Mike Tarr, BC Gas
• Kevin Harms, BC Gas
• Mr. David Zerr, BC Gas Utility Ltd.
• Mike Hill, BC Hydro
• Allen Stanbury, Canadian Electricity Association
• Mr. John P. Krill, Canadian Gas Association
• Shahrzad Rahbar, Canadian Gas Association
• John O'Neill, Canadian Standards Association
• Glenn Tubrett, Canadian Standards Association
• Josée Gauthier, Canadian Standards Association
• Tony Joseph, Canadian Standards Association
• Bill Burr, Canadian Standards Association
• Mr. Bert Gano, Chevron Canada Resources
• Mr. William Follett, City of Edmonton
• Mr. Berni Brunsch, Conoco Canada Resources Limited
• Peter Dyne, Consumers Association of Canada
• Rick Bell, Daniel Canada
• Murray Fraser, Daniel Canada
• Mr. Darren McRae, Daniel Industries Canada-Division of Emerson Process Management
• Mr. J. A. ( Tony) Waring, DI Canada, Inc (Dresser Canada)
• Malcolm Beattie, Duke Energy
• Gordon Holte, Duke Energy Gas Transmission
• John Woods, Electricity Consumers Alliance Nova Scotia
• Mr. Barry Goulah, Enbridge Consumers Gas
• Mr. John Monroe, Enbridge Consumers Gas
• Ms. Janet Holder, Enbridge Consumers Gas Enbridge, New Brunswick
• Ed Keef, Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops
• Frank Sparks, Foothills Industrial Products
• M. Serge Gagnon, Gaz Métropolitain
• Raymond Gauvreau, Gaz Métropolitain
• Gaston Leclerc, Gazoduc TQM
• Walter Nolan, Halifax Regional Homeowners Association
• Tony Galati, Hydro One
• John Butler, INCO
• Andy Lemay, INCO Limited
• Mr Peter Fournier, Industrial Gas Users Association
• Phil Barg, Kenonic Controls
• Mr. Brad Perin, Keyspan Energy Canada Inc.
• Jacques-Yves Bourque, Kronos Canada,Inc
• Jim Moats, M&RS Controls Corp.
• Keith Cuthbertson, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline
• Terry Court, Metering Services, Hamilton Hydro
• Franci Jeglic, National Energy Board
• M. Patrick Vanasse, Option Consommateurs
• Mr. Peter Walker, Romet Ltd, Mississauga
• Mr. Bob Kane, SaskEnergy/TransGas Ltd.
• Mr. Peter MacLachlan, SaskEnergy/TransGas Ltd.
• Kevin Ouderkick, Ste Anne National Gas Co-op
• Gord Sweitzer, Ste Anne National Gas Co-op
• Rick Rans, TransCanada
• Ken Leier, TransCanada
• Alan Ranseth, TransCanada Calibrations
• Damian Flegel, TransCanada Calibrations Ltd.
• Mr. Jim Krause, TransCanada Pipelines
• Mr. Martin Schlebach, Ultrasonic and Gas Coriolis
• Mr. John Kiviste, Union Gas Ltd.
• Rick Aikens, Measurement Canada
• Benoit Montpetit, Measurement Canada
• George Smith, Measurement Canada
• Harold Larsen,Measurement Canada
• Ron Willms, Measurement Canada
• Don MacDougall, Measurement Canada
• Steve Nelson, Measurement Canada
• Garry Larouche, Measurement Canada
• Jean-Gilles Poirier, Measurement Canada
• Jim Kavanagh, Measurement Canada
• Marjolaine Beaudry, Measurement Canada
• Augustin Chan, Measurement Canada
• Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada
• Luc Tessier,Measurement Canada
• Dan Williams, Measurement Canada
• Bill Palidwor, Measurement Canada
• Terry Reid, Measurement Canada
• Sonia Roussy, Measurement Canada
• Steve Tester, Measurement Canada
• Alan Johnston, Measurement Canada
• Randy Latta, Measurement Canada
• Bruce Lyng, Measurement Canada
• James Welsh, Measurement Canada
• Bill Cochrane, Measurement Canada
• Larry Wood, Measurement Canada
• Gordon Mark, Measurement Canada
• Michael Korpesho, Measurement Canada