To amend sections 4905.02 and 4905.03 of the Revised Code to regulate resellers of public utility services as public utilities.
HB265 would amend Ohio’s public utility definitions to expressly regulate certain resellers of utility services as public utilities. The bill adds a new category for “submetering company” in section 4905.03, covering entities that resell or redistribute electric, gas, sewer, sewage disposal, or water service to end users through submeters in a building or facility. It also revises section 4905.02 to clarify that landlords, condominium associations, and property owners who use submeters solely to allocate and bill utility costs to tenants or owners in residential properties are not treated as resellers or redistributors of utility service.
In practical terms, the bill would bring submetering companies under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio when they are reselling utility service provided by regulated utilities, customer-owned utilities, or municipal utilities. The measure also preserves existing exclusions for broadband, advanced services, internet protocol-enabled services, and certain newer telecommunications services, and it leaves existing motor carrier and natural gas provisions largely intact. The bill would repeal the current versions of sections 4905.02 and 4905.03 and replace them with the amended language.
The bill’s impact on state law is to broaden and clarify the scope of Ohio’s public utility regulatory framework, especially for utility billing intermediaries and third-party submetering arrangements. It would likely affect property owners, landlords, condominium associations, submetering vendors, and tenants or building occupants who receive utility bills through a submetering system, while also affecting the regulatory authority of the Public Utilities Commission over those entities.
Overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to supportive in concept, but the bill is still at the introduction stage and there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes to show formal debate or opposition. The title and drafting suggest the bill is aimed at closing a regulatory gap rather than making a broader policy shift, which may explain the limited available discussion.
The main point of potential contention is the treatment of submetering and utility resale: supporters may view regulation as necessary to protect consumers and ensure oversight, while affected property owners or third-party billing companies may be concerned about added compliance burdens or expanded commission jurisdiction. The bill attempts to draw a line between regulated resale activity and simple cost allocation by landlords and property owners, which could be a key issue if the measure advances.
HB265 would amend sections 4905.02 and 4905.03 of the Revised Code to classify submetering companies that resell or redistribute utility services as public utilities subject to Public Utilities Commission oversight. It would also create an explicit exclusion for landlords, condominium associations, and property owners who use submeters only to allocate and bill utility costs in residential properties, limiting the reach of the new regulation to true resale or redistribution arrangements. Existing statutory exclusions for certain telecommunications and broadband-related services would remain in place, and the bill would replace the current versions of the two sections by repealing them and enacting amended language.
The available record shows no committee testimony, floor debate, or votes, so there is no documented partisan or stakeholder split in the materials provided. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a targeted regulatory clarification with a generally neutral-to-supportive posture at introduction, rather than a controversial broad policy overhaul.
The likely area of contention is whether submetering companies should be treated as public utilities and therefore subject to PUCO regulation. Supporters would likely argue that oversight is needed to regulate utility resale and protect end users, while opponents may argue that expanded regulation could increase costs, administrative burdens, or limit private billing arrangements. A second possible issue is the bill’s carveout for landlords and property owners using submeters for cost allocation, which may require careful interpretation to distinguish exempt billing practices from regulated resale activity.