Committee hears industry‑backed Sub. H.B. 173 to codify PUCO oversight of submetering; no committee vote

The House Energy Committee held a fourth hearing on Sub. H.B. 173, a bill that would codify Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) authority over submetering and establish registration, compliance plans and consumer protections for residents of master‑metered multifamily properties.

Teresa Ringenbach, senior vice president of corporate affairs for Nationwide Energy Partners (NEP), testified the bill would require submetering providers to register with the PUCO and pay a $200 fee to cover administrative costs. She said the registration would include “financial, managerial and technical requirements” so a provider cannot simply “show up and say I’m going to submeter.” Ringenbach told the committee the bill requires each property that submetered units file a compliance plan with PUCO, and that a glide‑path would let existing properties come into compliance; properties that fail to cure can face a $10,000 penalty.

Ringenbach described additional protections the bill would add for tenants: codifying lease disclosure requirements into landlord‑tenant law, preserving a total‑bill cap and third‑party verification (a submetering bill calculator hosted by utilities), and creating an accessible PUCO complaint resolution process with time limits. She said a prior fine language ($100 per instance) is now clarified to be $100 per instance per day, and the bill provides a 60‑day cure period in many cases. “Sub House Bill 173 is a solution to a more than 10 year debate. It is a smart balanced approach,” Ringenbach said.

Kim Boiko, a partner with Carpenter Lips testifying on behalf of Champion Companies, said the substitute bill seeks to codify a recent PUCO decision authorizing landlords to establish a commercial utility account, separately meter dwelling units, and resell electricity so long as tenant protections are in place. Boiko summarized the key features she said the sub bill would add: biennial registration, approved compliance plans, interim plans during transitions, pricing limits, lease disclosures, disconnection standards and PUCO authority to assess penalties and revoke registrations. “House Bill 173 seeks to codify this commission decision that the resale of electricity and other utilities by landlords including the landlords agents to tenants is authorized,” she said.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several points. Several representatives asked how existing consumer assistance programs would apply to submetered tenants; witnesses said HEAP (Home Energy Assistance Program) can be used by submetered tenants but Payment In Place (PIP) eligibility would require separate legislation. Members also pressed on whether master‑metering and resale would deny individual tenants the ability to shop for competitive suppliers; witnesses said tenants cannot individually shop for generation when a master commercial account is used, but the bill’s total‑bill cap and disclosure rules are intended to protect residents. Law and litigation risk arose in questioning: Ringenbach told the committee that PUCO protections are on appeal at the state Supreme Court and that utility challenges could remove current protections if the court rules in their favor.

Witnesses also argued the behind‑the‑meter model can improve resiliency because property owners or contracted providers can respond more quickly to equipment failures than a distribution utility; NEP cited instances where provider staff advocated directly with the utility and brought temporary generation to restore power.

No committee vote on Sub. H.B. 173 was recorded at the hearing; the chair closed the fourth hearing after additional questions and written testimony was noted.