Rep. David Thomas

Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed a bill, sponsored by state Rep. David Thomas, addressing submetering — a practice that results in multi-unit tenants sometimes paying high utility rates.

The bill would have created new consumer protections for those who pay electric bills to third-party companies instead of directly to a utility company.

Under the bill, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio was required to adopt standards governing metering, outages, billing practices, complaint resolution, records retention and service quality, ensuring consistent oversight and consumer protections, said Thomas, R-Jefferson, whose district includes portions of Trumbull County.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in April that a company engaged in submetering should be regarded as an electric light public utility and subject to the jurisdiction of the PUCO.

In his veto message, issued late Wednesday, DeWine, also a Republican, wrote: “The submetering model, itself, is fundamentally flawed,” and “while this bill does contain some consumer protections, they are not as robust as those afforded to customers of Ohio’s electric utilities.”

Thomas said Thursday: “It’s frustrating that the governor chose to veto the bill. We’ve been working with the administration and the PUCO and there were no red flags until the veto. Now, there are no protections for submetering customers.”

A business — such as an apartment complex, office building, shopping center or industrial park — has the option to contract with a submetering company to track utility consumption for their tenants. In some cases, it has resulted in high bills for tenants.

Thomas said his bill would have ensured transparency and fairness for tenants while retaining the rights of property owners.

The bill would have capped the amount landlords may charge residential tenants for electricity, guaranteeing tenants pay at least 3% less than they would have paid their electric utility directly.

It also required compliance with utility disconnection procedures, required submetering providers to offer payment plans to customers, required acceptance of assistance through the Home Energy Assistance Program, and established transparent billing requirements.

Thomas said: “With this veto, these folks are in the same situation they’ve been in for the past two decades. It’s a gray area with no protections. The utilities were the big winners with this.”

In his veto message, DeWine wrote the bill would not permit submetering customers to choose their own retail electric providers, they wouldn’t be able to participate in a state program that offers “critical financial support for the neediest Ohioans to maintain their electric service,” and would permit submetering companies to charge tenants for electric service provided to common areas.

DeWine wrote: “If this bill became law, Ohio, for the first time, would be legitimizing and legalizing this flawed submetering model. Therefore, this veto is in the public interest.”

On June 10, the House passed the bill 56-35 with all but six Republicans voting in favor of it. The Senate passed the bill the same day 24-9 with all but one Republican supporting it.

For a veto override, 60 votes are needed in the House and 20 in the Senate.

Thomas said he doubts a veto override would be done when the Legislature returns after the Nov. 3 election.

Thomas said: “We’ll have a new governor next year, and I see the logic to pass the bill next year.”

The Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund and Democrats in the state Legislature had urged DeWine to veto the bill.

Nolan Rutschilling, OEC’s managing director of energy policy, said if the bill were enacted, state law would “advantage utility reselling companies over hard-working Ohioans who are struggling to pay their utility bills.”

Senate Minority Leader Nickie J. Antonio, D-Lakewood, said Thomas’ bill, if enacted, “would roll back consumer protections and undermine the recent ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court that said submetering companies are, in fact, public utilities.”

On July 1, 2025, DeWine vetoed five property tax reform items in the state budget that Thomas had sponsored. The Legislature overrode one veto and after making some minor changes, the Legislature approved the four others with DeWine signing them into law Dec. 19.