Ohio lawmakers took a swing this week at a corner of the rental market that many tenants only learn about when their bills suddenly jump. On Wednesday, the Ohio House Energy Committee advanced a substitute for House Bill 173, a proposal that would put the first statewide guardrails on third-party submetering companies, which bill apartment renters for electricity and water. The measure would cap certain charges and crack open limited access to state bill-assistance programs for submetered customers. Tenant advocates say the move is overdue, while industry supporters are calling it a compromise they can live with.
As reported by Signal Ohio, the committee approved the substitute version on Wednesday. The bill is sponsored by Rep. David Thomas, who described the legislation as a negotiated middle ground that guarantees tenants will not pay a higher per-kilowatt-hour price than the local utility. “This is an industry that has been a problem since I was in high school,” he said in an interview before the vote.
What the Bill Would Do
According to the bill text, House Bill 173 would prohibit submetering companies from charging customers a price higher than the standard service offer from the host utility. It would also require bills to clearly spell out per-kilowatt-hour rates and list any common-area fees, so renters can see exactly what they are paying for instead of trying to decode a mystery line item at the bottom of the page.
The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, which has endorsed the amended substitute, told lawmakers the legislation would also make submetered tenants eligible to use the Home Energy Assistance Program. At the same time, it would stop short of forcing submeterers to administer the income-based Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP). The Consumers' Counsel said the changes would improve transparency and give renters immediate, concrete protections in a market where they currently have limited recourse.
Critics Say Gaps Remain
Democratic members of the committee argued that the so-called compromise still leaves openings for extra, less visible fees and leaves room for the submetering business model to spread. Those concerns surfaced repeatedly during testimony from opponents who worry that the bill draws the line with a fairly light hand.
As reported by Cincinnati CityBeat, Rep. Sean Brennan warned the bill could allow new forms of hidden charges, even as it reins in the core energy rate. He also flagged what he described as heavy lobbying from the submetering industry as a red flag. On the other side, American Electric Power has lobbied against the bill at the Statehouse and is actively pursuing litigation over how submetering should be regulated, a broader fight that quietly shapes much of the current debate.
How Big Is the Industry?
Public reporting and company statements suggest the Ohio market is far from niche. Nationwide Energy Partners, a major player, has told reporters it bills around 34,000 units for electricity and 33,000 units for water in complexes across the state. NEP and other submeterers argue their services reduce administrative headaches for property owners and promise that they do not charge more than the local utility’s rates, a point they have emphasized in press materials and public statements.
Yet tenant complaints, regulator filings and local news coverage describe dozens of disputed bills and specific examples that lawmakers say helped fuel the push for clearer rules. Those cases, playing out in kitchen-table spreadsheets and complaint forms, have become Exhibit A for supporters who argue that without formal limits, the system leaves renters guessing what they really owe.
Legal Stakes Ahead
The legislative push arrives against the backdrop of a longstanding legal fight over whether third-party submeterers should be treated as utilities. That question reached the Ohio Supreme Court in Wingo v. Nationwide Energy Partners, a case that prompted oral arguments earlier in the year and produced a 2020 decision that reshaped the legal test. The Court rejected the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s administrative approach and ordered a statutory analysis instead. Since then, additional filings and arguments have continued to define whether courts or regulators will set the industry’s outer limits.
If judges eventually broaden PUCO’s authority over submeterers, a court ruling could override the narrower framework being drawn up in HB 173. That possibility hangs over the bill as it leaves committee and heads toward a vote by the full House, with any Senate review to follow. The sponsors are pitching it as a targeted and enforceable fix, while critics keep pressing for stricter oversight or even an outright ban on commercial submetering.
For now, renters who see unexplained spikes in their bills are being urged to save their statements and file complaints with the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, which has taken an active role in hearings on the issue. Lawmakers will soon decide whether the current compromise is tough enough or whether it will take more legislation, and perhaps another round in court, to redefine how submetering works across Ohio.
