Regards Entities Providing Behind-The-Meter Utility Services

Before
The Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee

Testimony on Substitute House Bill 173-3
Regards Entities Providing Behind-The-Meter Utility Services

Angela O'Brien, Deputy Agency Director
Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel

On Behalf of
Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel

June 10, 2026

Chairman Wilkin, Vice Chair Reineke, Ranking Member DeMora, and members of the Senate Public Utilities Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony today on Substitute House Bill 173-3.

My name is Angela O'Brien, and I serve as the Deputy Director of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC), the state agency charged by the General Assembly with representing the interests of Ohio's residential utility consumers. OCC advocates for about 4.5 million households on matters affecting the affordability, reliability, and transparency of utility service. This year marks OCC's 50^th year of service to Ohio consumers.

OCC appreciates the opportunity we have had to work with Representative Thomas and previously support HB 173 as it was passed by the House. However, circumstances have materially changed. OCC now opposes Substitute HB 173-3 because it would deny important rights and protections to submetered apartment and condominium residents at the very moment the Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized those consumers are entitled to them.

The reason for OCC's changed position is straightforward. In In re Complaint of Ohio Power Co. v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C., the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that the resale of electricity is a public utility service subject to full regulation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). In plain terms, the Court recognized that the service being provided by electric resellers like NEP is not meaningfully different from the service provided by regulated public utilities. And importantly, the Court's ruling protects tenants and condominium residents who often have no meaningful ability to choose their electric provider or negotiate the terms of service.

These concerns are not hypothetical. Ohio consumers have lived with the consequences of inadequate oversight for years. OCC no longer has a call center, but apartment complex residents still reach out to us regularly seeking assistance regarding their submetered service, including service provided by NEP. OCC has been limited in its ability to advocate for these consumers. In fact, NEP opposed OCC's intervention to advocate for consumers in the AEP Ohio complaint case, and the PUCO denied OCC's intervention. Complaints OCC receives from submetered consumers include, but are not limited to:

• Excessively high bills, some charging almost two times the kilowatt hour charged under the electric utility standard service offer. One consumer cited a $714 electric bill for an 850 square ft. apartment. Another consumer cited up to $360 for electric for a 974 square ft. apartment despite keeping the thermostat at 65 degrees. Another consumer claimed monthly bills of about $300 for an 800 square ft. apartment despite keeping the thermostat low.
• Threats of disconnection and excessive disconnection fees.
• Excessive and improper charges for common area service.
• Poor service quality and reliability, and no customer service response after business hours.

The Columbus Dispatch documented instances where some submetered residents paid electricity charges significantly above utility rates, faced additional fees, and had limited recourse to challenge bills. Many consumers had no practical ability to choose another provider because submetering was embedded in their lease or housing arrangement.

This matters because utility consumers should not lose protections simply because they live in an apartment or condominium rather than a single-family home. The Supreme Court's decision recognizes that reality.

The Court's decision means that the PUCO already has both the legal authority and responsibility to regulate electric resellers under the existing Ohio law in Title 49 of the Revised Code. Contrary to proponent testimony, additional legislation is not necessary to establish consumer protections or a regulatory framework. The framework already exists, and the PUCO has decades of expertise regulating residential utility service.

Most importantly, the Court's ruling means there no longer must be second-class utility consumers in Ohio. Apartment and condominium residents served through submeters should receive the same rights and protections as consumers who receive electric service directly from a regulated utility. Those protections include:

• PUCO oversight of rates and charges;
• Statutory complaint rights and investigations;
• Disconnection protections;
• Budget billing options;
• Transparent billing practices; and
• The ability to shop for a competitive electric supplier.

Substitute House Bill 173-3 takes Ohio in the opposite direction.

Rather than ensuring equal treatment, the bill would create a separate and lesser regulatory framework for submetered residents - consumers who are often renters and have little bargaining power. Ohio has already seen what happens when utility middlemen operate without full utility oversight. The lesson from Ohio's experience is not that apartment residents need a separate and lesser regulatory system-it is that they deserve the same protections as every other utility consumer.

Proponents have argued that the bill contains meaningful consumer protections. OCC respectfully disagrees. Even with recent revisions, Substitute House Bill 173-3 falls significantly short of the rights consumers would receive under the Supreme Court ruling and, in several respects, is a step backward from the House-passed version of HB 173.

First, the bill denies consumers meaningful electric choice.

Under the Supreme Court's ruling, submetered consumers would have the same right to shop for a competitive supplier that the General Assembly granted Ohioans in electric restructuring. Under Substitute HB 173-3, they would not. Proponents have compared this limitation to municipal aggregation programs. But that comparison misses an important distinction: consumers in aggregation programs generally retain the ability to opt out and shop independently. Submetered residents do not have that choice.

Second, the bill continues to deny vulnerable consumers access to Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP) assistance.

Under the Court's ruling and existing law, eligible consumers can access important affordability protections such as PIPP. Substitute HB 173-3 leaves these consumers without access to those programs, despite facing the same energy affordability challenges as other Ohio households.

Third, proponents suggest the bill limits submetering, but the language still permits expansion.

Substitute HB 173-3 includes language preventing certain conversions of buildings already receiving direct utility service. However, proponent testimony appears to narrow the practical significance of that restriction. At the same time, the bill continues to permit submetered utility service in new developments.

Under the Supreme Court's framework, the question is not whether a consumer lives in a single-family home, apartment, or condominium. Consumers would receive the same protections regardless of where they live.

Fourth, Substitute HB 173-3 weakens consumer complaint rights compared to the House-passed bill.

The House-passed version included statutory complaint and PUCO investigation provisions in proposed sections 4933.63 and 4933.64. Those provisions have now been removed.

Under the Supreme Court's ruling, consumers would instead have access to longstanding complaint protections under existing Ohio law, including R.C. 4905.26.

Fifth, the substitute bill removes funding for oversight.

The House-passed version included an up to $1,000 registration fee for submetered service providers to help support PUCO oversight and implementation. That provision in section 4933.59(E) has been removed from Substitute HB 173-3.

Finally, proponents claim the bill newly requires "high quality, safe, and reliable service."

But providing safe and reliable service should not be viewed as a new consumer protection. It is a basic obligation. Moreover, under the Supreme Court's ruling and existing public utility law, electric resellers would already be required to meet these standards.

At its core, this bill asks whether Ohio will treat some utility consumers differently simply because of where they live.

A family living in an apartment or condominium should not receive fewer rights, fewer protections, and fewer choices than a family living across the street in a single-family home receiving service from the same electric system.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has already spoken. It recognized that the resale of electricity is a public utility service and that these consumers deserve the protections of Ohio utility law. The PUCO already has the authority and expertise to implement that ruling.

Substitute House Bill 173-3 would move Ohio backward by replacing those protections with a lesser system that leaves submetered consumers with fewer rights than their neighbors. Ohio should not respond to a Supreme Court decision expanding consumer protections by legislatively taking those protections away.

For these reasons, OCC respectfully opposes Substitute House Bill 173-3.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions.