To amend sections 4905.02, 4905.10, and 5321.04 and to enact sections 4933.51, 4933.52, 4933.53, 4933.54, 4933.55, 4933.552, 4933.553, 4933.554, 4933.555, 4933.56, 4933.57, 4933.58, 4933.59, 4933.60, 4933.62, 4933.65, and 4933.66 of the Revised Code regarding submetered utility services.
HB173 would create a new statutory framework for “behind-the-meter utility service” in Ohio. The bill defines that term to include services or benefits provided after a public utility’s metered point of delivery, such as advanced energy resources, electric service, billing services, electric vehicle charging, and certain landlord resale arrangements for electricity, natural gas, and water. It also expressly exempts these providers from regulation as public utilities under the Revised Code, while authorizing the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to register some or all of these providers through a biennial registration process.
The bill also limits how public utilities may place or relocate meters if the meter location would block behind-the-meter services, except for safety or reliability reasons. For tenant electricity resale, it caps the charge at no more than the standard service offer plus riders that the local electric utility would charge residential customers. If PUCO adopts registration rules, providers may be required to disclose basic business and service information, pay a fee of up to $200 every two years, provide tenant disclosures and pricing information, and explain disconnection procedures. The bill creates a complaint process, a 60-day cure period, and forfeitures of up to $100 per violation for noncompliance.
In terms of state law, HB173 would amend the definition of “public utility” in section 4905.02 and add a new chapter-like set of provisions in sections 4933.51 through 4933.63 governing behind-the-meter utility service providers. It would also constrain PUCO’s rulemaking authority by requiring any registration rules to be reasonable and not favor electric utilities or competitive retail electric service providers. The bill is aimed at clarifying the legal status of submetering, tenant billing, electric vehicle charging, and other distributed energy or utility-adjacent services that occur behind a utility meter.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears generally favorable, with the bill advancing out of House Energy Committee 15-5 and later passing the House 74-23. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate text to identify specific arguments, but the vote margins suggest substantial support alongside a meaningful minority of opposition. The bill’s structure indicates an effort to balance market access for behind-the-meter providers with consumer protections and regulatory oversight.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope of deregulation, the extent of PUCO’s authority, and the treatment of tenants and landlords in resale arrangements. Opponents may be concerned about consumer protections, billing transparency, and whether utility-like services should be exempt from full public utility regulation. Supporters are likely to emphasize competition, innovation, electric vehicle charging, and the ability of property owners and service providers to offer energy services without being blocked by meter placement or public utility classification.
HB173 would narrow the reach of Ohio’s public utility regulation by excluding certain behind-the-meter service providers from the definition of public utility and by creating a separate registration-based oversight model for those providers. It would affect electric, gas, and water-related services delivered after the utility’s metered point of delivery, especially submetering, tenant billing, and EV charging. The bill would also impose new compliance duties, complaint procedures, and potential forfeitures for providers that are registered or required to register under PUCO rules.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received positively overall, with clear majority support in both committee and the full House. The absence of transcript excerpts limits insight into detailed floor or committee arguments, but the vote totals indicate that most members viewed the bill as a useful modernization of utility regulation, while a substantial minority remained unconvinced or had reservations about consumer protections and regulatory limits.
The likely areas of disagreement are whether behind-the-meter services should be exempt from public utility regulation, how much authority PUCO should have to register and oversee providers, and whether the bill adequately protects tenants and consumers from overbilling or opaque practices. Meter placement restrictions could also be contentious because they limit utility discretion except for safety or reliability reasons. Landlord resale of electricity, natural gas, and water, and the cap tied to the utility’s standard service offer, are additional points where consumer advocates, utilities, and property owners may have differing views.