One of PATH's obligations is to hold an "Open Meeting" among interested parties after the filing of each yearly Actual Transmission Revenue Requirement and Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement.
On June 1, PATH filed their ATRR for 2011. This filing compares the actual expenditures to PATH's estimate collected during 2011, and produces the actual rate consumers pay. As required by the Protocols, PATH posted an announcement of the meeting. As directed in the notice, several interested parties (as defined in the Protocols) submitted their RSVP for the meeting.
Compare the tone of PATH's Notice of Open Meeting to that of another company who is following the exact same rule in its own Formula Rate Protocols. While PATH's meeting is held only over the telephone, Dominion's meeting is held both at their facility and over the telephone, for those who don't want to travel to Richmond. Dominion asks for 4 days notice of participant's attendance, while PATH demands you RSVP 5 days in advance, or you will not be permitted to "attend" and will not be provided the call-in information that Dominion freely provides in its Notice. Paranoid much, PATH?
As if the Frau Farbissina tone of PATH's Notice isn't bad enough already, PATH sent the following email notice to certain interested parties, who had sent in their RSVPs weeks earlier, on June 24:
"The open meeting conference call that Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC ("PATH") will hold on July 18, 2012, to explain and clarify its Annual Update is to provide Interested Parties an opportunity to seek information and clarification concerning the Annual Update. Under Section I.H of the Protocols, an "Interested Party" means "An entity that is or may become a customer taking transmission service under [the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access Transmission Tariff], a state public utility commission or state consumer advocate agency in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey or the District of Columbia, or any entity having standing under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act."
It is not clear that you meet the definition of Interested Party under the Protocols. Please provide a response to this email by June 19, 2012 stating the basis for your status as an "Interested Party" under the Protocols."
PATH has yet to respond to any of the parties who tried (in vain, judging from PATH's impossible deadline) to provide the required information. PATH is erecting additional hurdles for certain interested parties by requiring them to plead their case to PATH. PATH has appointed itself adjudicator of consumers' rights to participate in the setting of rates that they are required to pay.
PATH's behavior is especially egregious in light of FERC's findings in PATH's request to change the definition of "interested party" in its Protocols last year. As certain parties contended in that case, PATH's proposal to change the definition was a not-so-cleverly disguised attempt to exclude certain parties who have participated in the review of PATH's Formula Rate and filed Challenges in the past. Because PATH has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar and has no logical defense, they simply seek to exclude parties who may take notice and challenge ongoing fraud.
Interested party Alison Haverty has apparently grown tired of PATH's heavy-handed attempts to disenfranchise consumers and filed a Complaint against PATH at FERC (Docket No. EL12-79). PATH has 8 days to answer Alison's complaint.
UPDATE: FERC has issued a Notice of Complaint setting a very short intervention, comment, protest and answer deadline. All filings are due by 5:00 p.m. July 5. If you want to participate, you'd best get crackin'. It looks like FERC wants to get this over with well before the July 18 meeting.