UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 82 FERC 61,046 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker, Chairman; Vicky A. Bailey, William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Curt Hebert, Jr. Promoting Wholesale Competition ) Docket No. RM95-8-005 Through Open Access ) Non-Discriminatory Transmission ) Services by Public Utilities ) ) Recovery of Stranded Costs by ) Docket No. RM94-7-006 Public Utilities and Transmitting ) Utilities ) ORDER NO. 888-C ORDER ON REHEARING (Issued January 20, 1998) In this order, we deny Otter Tail Power Company's (Otter Tail) rehearing request of Order No. 888-B concerning the services a pool may offer and provide clarification. 1/ Background In Order No. 888-B, we rejected Otter Tail's request that the Commission clarify that where the same service is involved, pools cannot discriminate against certain transactions based solely on the transaction's duration, that is, pool-wide tariffs cannot exclude longer term transactions but include short- term transactions. [2/] In rejecting this request, we explained that the primary goal of Order No. 888's requirements for pooling arrangements "is to ensure comparability regarding transmission services that are offered on a pool-wide basis." 3/ We stated that if a pool excludes longer term transactions, "then transmission for those transactions need not be pursuant to the pool-wide tariff, and 1/ 81 FERC  61,248 (1997). No other entities sought rehearing of Order No. 888-B. 2/ Id. at 62,099. 3/ Id. (emphasis added). Docket Nos. RM95-8-005 and RM94-7-006 - 2 - instead would be provided pursuant to the individual companies' pro forma tariffs." 4/ We further explained that this is consistent with our finding in Order No. 888-A that "we will not require pool members to offer transmission services to third parties that the pool members do not provide to themselves on a poolwide basis." 5/ Otter Tail Rehearing Request On rehearing, Otter Tail argues that the Commission should not permit pools to discriminate between otherwise identical services solely on the basis of the length of the transactions. According to Otter Tail, the Commission's pronouncement in Order No. 888-B would permit pools to tailor their definitions of pool service to exclude many transactions that would be more efficiently provided through the pool-wide tariff. Otter Tail is particularly concerned with the tariff filed by the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) and pending before the Commission (the MAPP proceeding). It asserts that the Commission's approach in Order No. 888-B will result in pancaked rates for transmission service that is identical in all respects to transactions that are permitted to use the MAPP pool-wide tariff, except for the length of service. 6/ Otter Tail also argues that the Commission's statement in Order No. 888-B is inconsistent with its approach to pool tariffs as reflected in Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, et al. (PJM) 7/ In particular, it asserts that [a]lthough the Commission embraced efficiency in a single pool rate for all transmission transactions in PJM, it simultaneously and inexplicably also embraced the concept a pool can exclude transmission across the pool simply by defining longer-term transactions as non-pool transactions. The two decisions are in direct contradiction to one another. [8/] 4/ Id. 5/ Id. 6/ Otter Tail at 2. 7/ 81 FERC  61,257 (1997), reh'g pending. 8/ Otter Tail at 7. Docket Nos. RM95-8-005 and RM94-7-006 - 3 - Otter Tail closes by asserting that [a]t the very least, the Commission should indicate that its general statement in Order No. 888-B will not prejudice a complete review and evaluation of MAPP's restrictive tariff in pending Docket Nos. OA97-163, ER97- 1162, and ER96-1447, where the issues can be evaluated on the basis of specific tariff provisions and operations. [9/] Discussion We disagree with Otter Tail that the Commission should not permit entities to propose pool arrangements that differentiate between pool and non-pool transactions on the basis of the length of the service. However, entities may always challenge a pool's choice to include certain transactions as pool transactions and to exclude other transactions as non-pool transactions on grounds that the choice was unduly discriminatory or anti-competitive based on the particular facts surrounding the pool and its members. That was not addressed in this rulemaking, but is more appropriately considered in case-specific proceedings, such as the MAPP proceeding, where the facts of each case can be properly considered. 10/ Accordingly, we clarify that Otter Tail may pursue its fact-specific arguments regarding the appropriate duration of pool transactions in the ongoing MAPP proceeding. The Commission orders: Otter Tail's request for rehearing of Order No. 888-B is hereby denied, and clarification is granted, as discussed in the body of the order. By the Commission. ( S E A L ) David P. Boergers, Acting Secretary. 9/ Id. at 8. We view this statement to be, in effect, a request for clarification. 10/ See PJM (the Commission determined the appropriate pool transactions on a case-specific basis).