If you will recall, PATH made a Sec. 205 filing with FERC to change the definition of "interested party" in their Formula Rate Protocols.
This filing was made for the express purpose of excluding Keryn & Ali (and by extension, all of the 54 million ratepayers in the PJM region) from participation in the examination of PATH's semi-annual Formula Rate filings for the purposes of cost recovery of their project expenses from electric ratepayers in 13 states and the District of Columbia.
Keryn and Ali petitioned to intervene in this proceeding at FERC and filed protests. PATH objected to our participation as parties in the case, insisting we did not have standing because our interests as consumers were "indirect."
FERC accepted Keryn & Ali as parties in the Order because, "Protesters are retail consumers in an area whose rates may be affected by the rates charged under the PJM OATT. As such they have a sufficient direct interest in the proceeding under Rule 214 and their interventions are granted."
FERC's Order accepts PATH's tariff revision, however it does them no good for their intended purpose: to prohibit the participation of consumers in the procedures set out in the Protocols for examination of PATH's Formula Rate filings that set transmission rates charged through PJM's tariff.
So, PATH loses by winning. Congrats to the room full of expensive lawyers who dreamed this up and thanks for making that Sec. 205 filing and forcing the issue with FERC. ;-)
By finding that:
"...our regulations recognize that consumers that are not direct wholesale customers may have a sufficient direct interest in proceedings that affects their retail rates, but a determination of the standing of those seeking to challenge such formula rate filings will need to be made on a case-by-case basis."
FERC recognizes that consumers (that's you!) do have a direct interest in proceedings at FERC that affect the amount they pay for transmission in their electric bills.