Title Naming Convention Clarification
Next Group
Next Step
Status Approved on 09/15/2009
Effective Dates

or per the Nodal Protocol Transition Plan http://www.ercot.com/mktrules/protocols (10/01/09 Nodal Protocols Library)


Date Gov Body Action Taken Next steps
07/23/2009 PRS Recommended for Approval PRS Impact Analysis Review
09/15/2009 BOARD Approved
08/25/2009 PRS Recommended for Approval TAC Consideration
09/03/2009 TAC Recommended for Approval ERCOT Board Consideration

Voting Record

Date Gov Body Motion Result
07/23/2009 PRS To recommend approval of NPRR186 as submitted. Passed
09/15/2009 BOARD To approve NPRR186 as recommended by TAC in the 9/3/09 TAC Recommendation Report Passed
08/25/2009 PRS To endorse and forward the 7/23/09 PRS Recommendation Report and Impact Analysis for NPRR186 to TAC. Passed
09/03/2009 TAC To recommend approval of NPRR186 as recommended by PRS in the 8/25/09 PRS Recommendation Report and as revised by TAC Passed


Status: Approved
Date Posted: Jul 9, 2009
Sponsor: Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG)
Urgent: No
Description: This Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) clarifies the Nodal Protocols regarding the naming convention approved by TAC by removing the requirement for use of a prefix within the name of Transmission Elements. The naming convention does not and should not require inclusion of a prefix to identify Transmission Service Providers (TSPs).
Reason: Technically, the modeling software of ERCOT makes this a redundant requirement based on the modeling hierarchy of the system. As discussed and agreed upon at an April 2006 Transition Plan Task Force (TPTF) meeting, the maintenance aspect of modeling would prove to be extremely difficult and affect all Market Participants using the modeling data. It is much better to change one field than to change 10,000 data instances when a company changes name or a piece of equipment transfers between companies. Modeling information posted as required by Nodal Protocol Section 3.10, Network Operations Modeling and Telemetry, will identify equipment associated with a Market Participant. The TAC approved naming convention is possibly in conflict with the Protocol language and inclusion of a prefix would require custom system re-designs by ERCOT and Market Participants.

Key Documents

Related Content