Tonnage Reporting Project

AgGateway Mid-Year Meeting (MYM)

June 18, 2013

Reminder of Anti-trust

You signed at registration

2

What we’ll discuss… • 1st Hour: • Introductions • High level overview of Tonnage Reporting Project • Update from pilot participants

• States: MI, PA & SC • Companies: CPS, Mosaic , Southern States

• Q&A with participants • • 2nd Hour • Demo of Transformation Tool • How to get started • Discussion on business issues • Q&A session • Wrap up

3

Introductions

•Name

•Company

•Role within your company

•Does your company send or receive tonnage reporting?

•What are you hoping to get out of this session?

4

5

TONNAGE REPORTING PROJECT (TRP)

Paperless Tonnage Reporting

Ever feel this way during Tonnage Reporting periods?

Why Paperless Tonnage Reporting?

•Electronic reporting makes sense – technology provides quick more efficient method

•Both Industry and States would benefit from simplification

• Implementing a standard (one way) will improve the process especially for the industry

•Cost savings will be realized by all • This is a labor intensive process

7

How?

• The industry segments are collaboratively working on an initiative to resolve the issues created by a paper-based tonnage reporting system.

•AgGateway has created an electronic reporting XML data standard with the help of several state control officials.

•AgGateway has created a transformation tool to help transform the XML to Excel document for the states

8

Project Goals

1. Standardize and define the type of data reported

2. Send data to the states electronically – more efficient for both industry and states

3. Pilot with 2-3 states and at least 3 industry companies in 2013

4. Implement standards with as many States as possible starting in late 2013 – early 2014.

5. Complete Paperless Tonnage Reporting by 2016 for all states • Organizations slated to formally support goal:

• AgGateway - AAPFCO - TFI – ARA – AFIA - AAFCO

Current Participants • Ameropa NA • CF Industries • CHS • Cultura Technologies • International Raw Materials (IRM)

• Land O’Lakes • Loveland Products/Crop Production

Services • Mosaic • Simplot • Software Solutions Integrated • Southern State Cooperative • Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc • Wilbur-Ellis Company • Vita-Plus

• Associations • AgGateway • The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) • Ag Retailers Association (ARA) • American Feed Industry

Association (AFIA)

• States:

• Michigan • Missouri • South Carolina • Pennsylvania

10

Project Progress:

• Identified the data that each state requires in their reporting and established data definitions

• Documented Fertilizer reporting business process

• Developed the schema and reviewed the Michigan data format for both feed and fertilizer

• Tested transformation tool with Michigan

• Developed some business rules about implementation

• Ran test files in Michigan with transformation tool

Project Progress:

• Hosted 3 webinars – 105 people attended including 65 from state official’s offices, representing 41 states

• Ran test files through Kelly Registration for South Carolina

• Ran test files with Pennsylvania with their software provider Computer Aid

• Michigan will run another couple test files and feel they will be ready to accept filings for CPS & Mosaic for their July filings as “live” – using transformation tool for the AgGateway standard

12

Project Progress:

• South Carolina needs a couple more files to feel ready to go “live” in July with Southern States & CPS – using AgGateway’s XML files

• Pennsylvania continuing to test files – using the AgGateway XML files

• Schema has been tweaked to meet the requirements of some the states – has been approved by S&G

13

What will this look like?

INDUSTRY STANDARD FORMAT REPORT (XML)

SMTP (email)

or other

Transformation Tool

14

State Format

Initially

Or this…

Tonnage Transformer 15

State Format

Internet /Cloud

INDUSTRY STANDARD FORMAT REPORT (XML)

Small companies not capable of XML

Ideally This

INDUSTRY STANDARD FORMAT REPORT (XML)

16

Internet

INDUSTRY STANDARD FORMAT REPORT (XML)

SMTP (email)

or other

Pilot Project Status

• Crop Nutrition • Michigan, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina have committed to

participate and testing files

• CPS, Mosaic and Southern States have committed to participate and are sending test files

• Feed • Michigan has committed to participate and receiving test files

• Southern States & Mosaic has committed to pilot

• Recruitment in progress • Iowa, Georgia, North Dakota, New Mexico, Vermont, West Virginia,

Washington, Florida, Delaware, Maryland, and others…

• Completed a MOU for the States

Next Steps:

• A few more test files for all 3 pilot states

• Next on the list of states to work with • Iowa, Delaware, and Maryland

• Follow up with other states, Kentucky, Kansas,

• Kelly Registrations and Computer Aid to work with other states North Dakota, Georgia, Vermont, New Mexico, West Virginia and Washington

• Create commitment letter for industry companies

• Promote in the CN & Feed Councils to recruit more industry companies to utilize XML standard

• Share pilot results at the August AAFCO & AAPFCO meetings

• Get States and Industry Connected!

18

QUESTIONS?

19

Participants

20

Participants to address:

• What have been the successes of the project?

• Have you realized any benefits? • What are they?

• Has the project met your expectations? • If so, how?

• If not, what didn’t?

• What were some of the hurdles or challenge you experienced?

• What could be done to improve?

• What are your next steps for this project?

• What are you looking forward to with this project?

21

CPS Responses

• What have been the successes of the project? • The primary target, generating a schema ”message” that most can

agree on. And, getting acceptance that e-submission of data can be hugely beneficial to all sides in time, money and quality data.

• Keeping things on track, despite some slow periods.

• Getting the right people in both States and Industry working together towards a common goal. With all due respect to AAPFCO, sometimes the right people are not at the semi-annual table since there is no way budgets can allow for it. This project has gotten the technical folks involved and working together.

22

CPS Responses

• Have you realized any benefits?

• What are they? • Early days yet, but working on the three states so far, we are pretty

close to a similar process for all three.

• Has the project met your expectations?

• If so, how? • In some ways exceeded them. When the idea of Universal Uniform

tonnage reporting was mooted nearly 4 years ago, the aims were pretty broad, including a target of a valid national database. This project was more limited in scope, concentrating on the interface between industry and States. That aim is close to realization, I think, but the idea of quality data is inherent in this project and has been in the room from the start.

23

CPS Responses

• Has the project met your expectations? • If not, what didn’t? • At times it seemed that things could have been moved along a

bit quicker, but, having been involved in another Industry/state project which took way longer, I understand the problems of herding cats.

• What were some of the hurdles or challenge you experienced?

• Since I was involved more on the technical side for us (CPS/Loveland), learning my way around our own database to generate the reports. Then developing a standard querying process.

• In this intermediate phase, adapting to a frequently revised schema.

24

CPS

•What could be done to improve? • See expectations above.

•What are your next steps for this project? • Preparing “live reports” for the next reporting periods for

MI, (PA and SC?).

• Moving towards automation.

25

CPS

•What are you looking forward to with this project?

• Finishing it?

• Seriously though, reducing tonnage reporting to the routine task it should be, instead as the month long ordeal it is now.

• Ultimately, beyond state specific submissions, getting a file format that can be fed directly into UFTRS (a national database) by the States, the same way for all states, so we have a much more uniform approach to a valid national database. So a project motivated primarily by time and personnel savings, inevitably generates a quality database, almost incidentally!

26

Michigan

What do you feel have been the successes of the project?

• Getting multiple states and the industry involved with electronic filing and standardization.

Have you realized any benefits? Yes • What are they? Getting more electronic fertilizer data,

beginning to get feed tonnage standardized moving to electronic filing.

27

Michigan

What benefits do you see you will realize? • Michigan has been offering an electronic spreadsheet for the

industry to use for a couple of years due to the complex groundwater fee equations. Despite our best efforts to lock the spreadsheet, some of the spreadsheets that are submitted have minor changes/different fields that Michigan has to closely audit and make adjustments. The standardized electronic data received in the Tonnage Reporting Project will lock in data and help reduce auditing and adjustments on the back end. This benefit will especially be realized with larger manufacturers/distributor reports that have large amounts of data.

• Michigan also expects to see increased compliance with tonnage reporting.

28

Michigan

Has the project met your expectations?

• Going slower than expected, but otherwise yes.

• If so, how? The translation tool

What were some of the hurdles or challenge you experienced?

• We’re used to talking in the schema language, but getting the hang of it.

• The project is taking quite a bit of time, with more meetings than expected. We understand that it’s a pilot program, so the time involved is hard to predict.

29

Michigan

What lessons have been learned?

• The translation tool is very helpful to the states.

• There are more hurdles on the industry side than expected. Improving, but it still seems to be difficult for industry to put the data into the schema.

• The webinars were helpful, but putting together an instruction manual on how to use the translation tool will help get states involved and for long range planning. Since states are at all different “tech savvy” level, we’d like to make sure the states know how to efficiently use the translation tool.

30

Michigan

What are your next steps for this project? • Continue to receive industry data. Michigan need more test data from

the industry.

• Long range planning still needs to be addressed in regards to getting and keeping states involved. As more industry partners and other states come online with the project and personnel changes over the years, who will assist them? Will there be a “tech support” or instruction manual for the translation tool or FAQs available?

What are you looking forward to with this project? • Getting as many industry participants as possible and receiving uniform

electronic data! J

• Fertilizer is moving along, and now we’re interested in seeing how it will apply with feed. Feed tonnage reports across the country are in need of more standardization, this project will help drive and improve this issue.

31

South Carolina

32

Mosaic

33

Southern States

34

5 minute Bio Break

35

Transformation Tool Demo

36

Thank You!

37