Ohio Renters Face High Utility Bills from Submetering Companies

Tenants see electric bills climb to nearly $500 for small apartments as submetering firms operate in regulatory gray area

Published on Feb. 9, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Ohio renters are confronting sharply higher utility bills from submetering companies that purchase electricity and water from public providers and resell it to tenants. Tenants like Andrea Feagin have seen monthly electric charges climb to nearly $500 for a 900-square-foot apartment. Submetering firms operate in a regulatory gray area, leaving renters with fewer protections than customers of public utilities.

Why it matters

The lack of oversight from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) allows submetering firms to add equipment, line, and administrative costs to tenants' bills, often resulting in charges that exceed what a comparable customer would pay directly to a public utility. This has created 'second-class utility customers' and often benefits apartment owners who hold stakes in submetering firms.

The details

Feagin saved diligently before moving into a one-bedroom unit in Columbus's Brewery District, only to receive a $493.35 electric bill for the period Jan. 15-Feb. 15 2025. The bill listed 2,206.77 kilowatt-hours of usage—more than double the 899 kWh average monthly consumption for U.S. Households. Her monthly statements had risen gradually from about $100 to $400 before peaking near $500, forcing her to dip into savings each month. After a flyer urged residents to complain, Feagin joined 12 other tenants filing complaints with the Ohio Attorney General in 2025 against Nationwide Energy Partners, a submetering firm that buys power from providers such as AEP Ohio.

  • Feagin received a $493.35 electric bill for the period Jan. 15-Feb. 15 2025.
  • Feagin's monthly statements had risen gradually from about $100 to $400 before peaking near $500 in 2025.
  • Feagin and 12 other tenants filed complaints with the Ohio Attorney General in 2025 against Nationwide Energy Partners.

The players

Andrea Feagin

A tenant in Columbus's Brewery District who has seen her monthly electric charges climb to nearly $500 for a 900-square-foot apartment.

Nationwide Energy Partners

A submetering firm that buys power from providers such as AEP Ohio and resells it to tenants.

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO)

The state regulatory agency that does not consider submetering companies public utilities, meaning it lacks authority to regulate their rates, enforce consumer-choice options, or require income-based payment plans.

Fred Rice

The owner of Spectrum Submetering and board chair of the Utility Management and Conservation Association, who warned that some submetering firms 'mark up the utilities' and charge high administrative fees.

Angela O'Brien

The Deputy Consumers' Counsel who noted that the submetering practice has created 'second-class utility customers' and often benefits apartment owners who hold stakes in submetering firms.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“I barely got by.”

— Andrea Feagin

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

What’s next

Legislative proposals aim to close the gap. House Bill 265, sponsored by Rep. Tex Fischer (R) and Rep. Sean Brennan (D), would classify submetering firms as public utilities, granting PUCO full regulatory power and ensuring billing transparency. House Bill 173, led by Rep. David Thomas (R), would require registration with PUCO, create a formal complaint process, and prohibit charges above standard utility rates while stopping a full utility-type classification.

The takeaway

This case highlights the need for greater regulatory oversight of submetering companies in Ohio, as the lack of PUCO authority has left renters vulnerable to unchecked mark-ups and higher utility bills. The pending legislation could either bring needed consumer safeguards or, if watered down, preserve the status quo, while city-level caps provide immediate relief but may shift costs onto firms, potentially raising baseline fees for all customers.