It’s become almost a running joke with state Rep. David Thomas that every time he comes across Gov. Mike DeWine he is met with a veto.

DeWine, a Republican, vetoed five property tax reform items on July 1, 2025, that Thomas, R-Jefferson, had sponsored in separate bills that were put into the state budget. The state Legislature overrode one veto and after making some minor changes; the General Assembly approved the others with the governor signing them into law Dec. 19.

Then, DeWine vetoed a Thomas bill on June 24.

The bill would have created consumer protections for those who pay electric bills to third-party companies instead of directly to a utility company – a practice called submetering, which results in multi-unit tenants sometimes paying higher utility rates. The third-party companies buy electricity at a lower bulk rate and then resell it to apartment complexes and other multi-unit buildings at an inflated amount.

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, whose district includes portions of Trumbull County.

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.

DeWine, Democrats and consumer groups saw the bill differently.

They viewed the bill as weakening oversight of submetering companies, which could leave people with fewer protections and even higher costs.

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, DeWine wrote that while the PUCO would retain oversight over submetering companies, the bill doesn’t define them as public utilities.

DeWine said while the bill contains “some consumer protection, they are not as robust as those afforded to customers of Ohio’s electric utilities. I commend the Legislature on the work done on this bill. They included provisions to protect consumers. However, the submetering model, itself, is fatally flawed.”

DeWine wrote that under Thomas’ bill, “submetering companies would not be able to choose their own provider of retail electric generation service,” and “those Ohioans who are in submetering situations should have the right to choose their own electricity generation supplier.”

DeWine also wrote that under the bill he vetoed, customers served by submetering companies would not be permitted to participate in the Percentage of Income Payment Program, which provides financial assistance for needy Ohioans. It also would have allowed submetering companies to charge tenants for electric service to common areas, such as hallways, community rooms and outdoor lighting.

DeWine wrote that submetering companies that buy and resell electricity at a profit “would continue to be public utilities, subject to all Ohio laws governing electric utilities.” But, DeWine wrote, submetering companies that just calculate and bill tenants would still be permitted to do that.

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

Thomas strongly disagreed with DeWine’s veto, saying it was a win for utilities with renters losing.

Thomas said: “This veto does not give renters anything except for a legal gray area and no actual law to protect them. Governing by vague Supreme Court rulings, with guaranteed lawsuits coming, is no way to regulate an industry.”

Thomas criticized DeWine and his administration for not saying there were any issues before the veto.

“Had anyone in the administration raised a red flag during the year and a half we worked on this, perhaps this could have been avoided,” Thomas said.

The House passed the bill 56-35 with all but six Republicans voting in favor of it on June 10. 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 doesn’t see a veto override as a likely option.

“I look forward to working with Ohio’s next governor to protect these customers,” he said.

The passage of the bill came right after donors representing submetering companies gave more than $70,000 to Republican lawmakers and Vivek Ramaswamy, the GOP nominee for governor, according to Cleveland.com. Republican officials said the contributions did not play a factor in the decision to approve the legislation, according to Cleveland.com.

Nolan Rutschilling, Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund’s managing director of energy policy, said after DeWine’s veto: “For decades, submetering companies sold electricity to Ohio tenants while ducking the consumer protections every other utility must follow, leaving families with inflated bills and no access to PIPP, HEAP or disconnection safeguards. The Ohio Supreme Court ended that practice in April, and House Bill 173 would have brought it right back. Gov. DeWine’s veto keeps that decision intact and keeps those companies under PUCO oversight, where they belong. This is a win for Ohio consumers, and we thank Gov. DeWine for his leadership.”

David Skolnick covers local, state and national politics for the Tribune Chronicle and The Vindicator.