In 2021, Capco published Natural Gas Scheduling – the Most Challenging Job in Energy, bringing attention to the intense pressures and complexity facing schedulers in the US natural gas market. That article struck a chord across the industry by articulating what many already knew: scheduling is a critical, high-stakes function that too often operates with outdated tools and little recognition.
This follow-up article builds on those foundations to take a fresh look at current industry constraints, the scheduler’s toolbox today, and how to take practical steps towards automation. We examine the barriers to automation, share practical strategies to reduce manual effort, and set out a phased approach to improving efficiency and scale.
The reality of today’s gas scheduler
Gas schedulers face a relentless pace of overlapping deadlines, increasing intraday activity, and escalating expectations from trading organizations. While traders can scale volume by hiring minimal additional staff, scheduling often does not scale in the same way.
Schedulers must manage complex contract terms, multiple nomination cycles and a variety of pipeline user interfaces — many of which are dated and inconsistent. All while optimizing transportation costs and avoiding penalties under tight timelines. Despite their pivotal role, schedulers are often overlooked and under-supported.
In fact, based on our experience, more than 80% of all natural gas nominations in the US are still entered manually into pipeline electronic bulletin boards (EBBs). This widespread reliance on outdated processes highlights just how far many organizations are from achieving scalable, resilient scheduling operations — more than four years from our first article.
Why has automation stalled?
The answer to this question lies in limitations around the use of electronic data interchange (EDI) standards, the fragmentation of interfaces, and trust issues. For decades, the industry has had an EDI standard (X12) for nominations. However, its implementation has been limited to the largest shippers and highest-volume pipelines. Cost, complexity, and a lack of transparency have prevented widespread adoption.
API-based solutions have been slowly emerging over the last few years, but they come with their own integration burdens. Shippers must still build unique connections per pipeline and maintain real-time support, especially across the five daily nomination cycles. Trust remains a key barrier — if a scheduler cannot confirm submissions in real-time, they are unlikely to rely on the interface.
Additionally, not all pipelines support electronic system integration — whether via EDI or modern APIs – forcing schedulers to manage a mix of automated and manual processes. This inconsistency increases operational complexity and limits the ability to scale automation effectively across the portfolio.
What makes scheduling so complicated?
There is a hidden complexity behind ‘just sending nominations’. Each nomination involves dozens of attributes — some mandatory, others conditional, business-specific, or even mutually agreeable.
These are defined under NAESB standards and may be labeled as Mandatory, Conditional, Sender’s Option, Business Conditional, or Mutually Agreeable. The way these attributes are used can vary by pipeline, contract type, or even the upstream and downstream components involved.
Pipelines also define nomination uniqueness differently. This matters immensely when sending updates: if a key attribute changes, some pipelines will create a new nomination instead of updating the existing one. As a result, schedulers must send two transactions: one to zero out the original nomination and another to create the new nomination with the updated data.
This practice, while cumbersome, is a widely accepted industry convention since most pipelines do not allow direct deletion of nominations once submitted.
Further complexity arises regarding Elapsed Pro-rata Scheduled Quantity (EPSQ) rules during intraday cycles, NAESB model types (Non-Pathed, Pathed Threaded, Pathed Non-Threaded), and the need to aggregate and disaggregate trade-level data. These factors make automation far more than a simple interface exercise.
The scheduler’s toolbox oday
Most schedulers operate across three platforms: spreadsheets for planning, pipeline EBBs for nominations, and ETRM systems for trade capture and risk reporting. Data often flows inconsistently, requiring three-way reconciliation across platforms.
Schedulers frequently update spreadsheets and pipeline screens in real-time, while the Energy Trading & Risk Management (ETRM) system may lag until end-of-day or even month-end. In some firms, the ETRM is only updated during the month-end cycle to support invoicing, limiting its effectiveness as a daily operational tool. As a result, many schedulers treat it more as a historical record than a live planning platform.
Additionally, if traders delay entering trades into the ETRM system until after nomination deadlines, schedulers are left without access to actionable deal data in time for pipeline submissions. This gap can further entrench spreadsheet dependence and manual entry into EBBs.
The scheduler’s Excel tools often become the default source of truth because they offer planning flexibility that neither ETRMs nor pipeline user interfaces provide. However, they also introduce reconciliation burdens and increase the risk of errors if not tightly managed.
Choosing the right source of truth
Ideally, the ETRM system would serve as the source of truth. However, that depends on its capabilities, its support for pipeline model types, and the company’s operational discipline.
If the ETRM falls short, spreadsheets may serve as the de facto source. In either case, trade aggregation logic and nomination attribute completeness are critical. Before automating, companies must critically analyze where nomination data should originate — that is, which system provides the most reliable, complete and actionable nomination data.
How to start automating: practical steps forward
A common misconception is that automation must be implemented all at once. In reality, the most effective approach is incremental. Begin by automating nominations on a high-volume pipeline or a single, straightforward transportation contract. From there, expand in phases, such as starting with base-load nominations during bid week and then gradually including day-ahead and intraday cycles.
Hybrid models are often the most practical starting point. These allow schedulers to electronically submit the bulk of nominations while preserving manual flexibility when needed. This approach provides measurable efficiency gains while enabling schedulers to retain control when dealing with exceptions and high-risk cycles.
A robust automation effort also requires real-time error-handling and reconciliation processes. Schedulers need immediate visibility into submission status, confirmation, and error messages. Clear interfaces, alerts and correction workflows are essential to building trust in the system.
The payoff, however, is clear. Even partial automation can reduce scheduling effort, minimize errors, and improve operational responsiveness. As more nominations shift from manual to automated workflows, organizations gain both efficiency and the confidence to scale without increasing risk.
Building confidence through testing and reconciliation
Schedulers must be able to see which nominations were received, which failed, and why. Real-time status tracking, error messaging, and re-submission capabilities are essential.
Testing should include scenarios such as updating quantities, zeroing out nominations, and simulating EPSQ rules. This variability must be understood and reflected in both system logic and scheduler training.
Once these workflows are validated in a test environment, companies should define ongoing support models — whether through dedicated in-house teams, external service providers or a hybrid approach — to monitor and maintain automation tools during daily cycles. Before going live, every transaction type must be validated across multiple nomination cycles.
More than just scheduler relief
As organizations look to modernize gas scheduling, it's important to recognize that the benefits of automation extend beyond schedulers themselves. Automation enables faster, more reliable data exchange, which in turn improves visibility, reduces risk, and supports better decisions across trading, risk, IT, and compliance teams.
Stakeholder Impact Across the Organization
While outcomes vary across organizations, successful automation often results in:
- Reduction in manual errors and missed deadlines
- Higher trader-to-scheduler ratios and improved scalability
- More timely and accurate P&L and risk reporting
- Faster updates across systems for better decision-making
The benefits of greater accuracy, transparency, and efficiency are consistently observed in successful implementations, ultimately leading to stronger performance and competitiveness in gas trading operations.
While this article focuses on practical, near-term automation within today’s systems, in an upcoming article we will explore how Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and data standardization could form a new digital backbone for the gas industry — reducing systemic risk, securing transactional data and materially impacting the cost of gas.
How Capco can help
At Capco, we understand that modernizing gas scheduling is not just a technological challenge. It requires a nuanced understanding of pipeline operations, trading practices, data integration, and change management.
We have worked with energy organizations across the gas value chain to untangle these complexities. Whether it is optimizing scheduling workflows, integrating ETRM systems, or building scalable interfaces with pipeline operators, we help our clients translate complex scheduling needs into executable, scalable solutions. Whether you are just beginning to assess your scheduling processes or looking to scale existing automation, we are here to support your next step forward.