Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee - 6-10-2026

Good morning, everyone. Senate Public Utilities will now come to order. If you would, please stand and join us for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The clerk, please call the roll.

Vice Chair Reineke. Here.

Senator Gavaro. Here.

Here. Senator Wilson.

Thank you, Member DeMora.

Senator Blackshear? Here.

With quorum present, we will proceed as a full committee. Members of the committee, minutes are on your iPad. If there's any additions or corrections, please let us know. Hearing none, minutes will stand as presented. The plan today for this committee will be to hear testimony, and then we will recess. So those of you that somehow, someway are frantically scurrying over Dash 4, you are scurrying over the wrong bill. So with that, our first order of business today is to bring forward substitute House Bill 173 for its third hearing. First is John Sarek with the Ohio Manufacturers. Welcome to committee. You may begin when ready.

Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for the witness? Senator Romanchuk.

Yes, our attempt is to make sure that behind-the-meter generation is not considered a public utility. Okay, thank you.

You threw me a curveball there, so does it fix this problem? sir, that he just identified? Because you just said it doesn't, you know, designate it as a public utility. I don't think I want to hear that. I want to hear that it fixes this problem he just testified to.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh. Okay Welcome to the committee You may begin Perfect. Alrighty. I just want to preface my notes that you might have. I'm not an expert in this bill, legal jargon or anything. I simply am standing here before you as the residential side of who this might impact. So I will start with my written testimony. Chair, vice chair, ranking member, and members of the committee, my name is Corey Durthaler, and I live in Columbus, Ohio. Let me be honest with you about how I feel standing here. I took time off to be in this room today. I was not paid to be here. The people who want House Bill 173 are. Nationwide Energy Partners has nine registered lobbyists working this building, according to state filings. So while I'm spending a day I can't get back, they've got a full team working you. This should tell you something about who the bill is really for. Frankly, I should not have to be here at all. Neither should many of you. I hope to be a homeowner soon, so I'm not really speaking for myself here. I came anyway because the principle bothers me. Two months ago, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that companies like NEP are public utilities subject to the oversight of the Public Utilities Commission. The question was asked and answered, and yet here we are because House Bill 173 exists to quietly unanswer it and overturn a decision that already protects people on behalf of companies that lost. because that's what this bill does. The court's rulings means real protections, rate scrutiny, billing transparency, disconnection safeguards, bill payment assistance. House Bill 173 trades all of that for a narrower rule book the industry helped shape. The sponsor himself said he won't give up legislative authority over the industry. Translation softer rules than the court in PUCO would set. Don't let anyone tell you these companies are not utilities. The court looked at the facts. NEP buys electricity at a commercial rate, resells it to tenants at a higher one, and pockets the difference. It bills tenants directly. It shuts off power when people don't pay. As the justices wrote, from the tenant's perspective, NEP is for all practical purposes the supplier of their electricity. And what do tenants get? A higher bill they can't make sense of. Last year alone, Ohioans filed more than 555 sub-metering complaints to PUCO, most of them about cost and not being able to see how the cost was set. Columbus acted already. This past December, the city passed its own ordinance reining these companies in, capping fees, banning charges for the landlord's common areas, requiring payment plans. A single city did what the state still hadn't, and House Bill 173 would undercut that from above. Consider who's on both sides of these deals. The founder of Nationwide Energy Partners is also the founder of Lifestyle Communities, an apartment developer. This also isn't coincidence. Another instance that was actually presented to me in research the preceding days was Oakwood Management Company and Buckeye Utilities, being owned by and operated by a principal named John D. Weimer. So ask who creates the need for submetering in the first place. It's the developer. developer, the same one who decides how a building is wired and whether the utility can bill each tenant directly. In these examples, the same man runs the developer and the sub-metering company. The building gets set up so the utility can't bill tenants directly and then his other company steps in to bill them instead at a markup That not filling a gap That building one and charging rent on it Tenants never get a vote They just get the bill My ask is simple, and so is the choice in front of you. Vote no on the proposed bill. If a landlord builds or buys a property, the utility can't bill directly. That's the landlord's cost to carry, the same way a leaky roof is. It doesn't transfer to the tenant, and it doesn't justify a markup that never ends. A yes vote isn't neutral. It puts the corporations ahead of the Ohioans paying the bills. And it throws out a unanimous court ruling that these companies are public utilities under Ohio law. If you want to legislate, legislate towards the ruling, like a sister bill, House Bill 265 does. The only people who need this bill are the ones profiting from the gap that it protects. Thank you for your time. I'm open to questions.

Senator DeMora. Sir, thank you for coming in. Have you lived in one of these buildings before?

Follow up? Nope, thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chairman Wilkin, Vice Chair Reinke, Ranking Member DeMora, and members of the Senate Public Utilities Committee, thanks for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony to House Bill 173. My name is Jason Dorsey. I am the director of metering services for AES Ohio. AES Ohio, formerly the Dayton Power and Light Company, serves over 530,000 customers in west central Ohio. Over 29, or excuse me, over 2,900, employees and retirees have served as the backbone for affordable and reliable electricity across the 6,000 square mile service territory covering 24 counties over the last 100 years. AES Ohio is responsible for delivering electricity to customers safely and reliably through our distribution and transmission system. As a poles and wire company, we're the critical link between the competitive generation market and our customers. AES Ohio opposes House Bill 173 and believes that the Ohio consumers deserve equal and fair consumer protections no matter where they live within the EDU's service territory. AES Ohio does support efforts to ensure that all electric customers, regardless of whether they receive service directly from a regulated utility or through a third-party reseller, are afforded those same rights, protections, and transparency. However, as currently written, House Bill 173 does not go far enough to achieve that goal. The bill does not provide customers served by a third-party reseller the same statutory rights and regulatory protections that are guaranteed to those customers served through a regulated utility. Without such protections, customers could face inconsistent billing practices, limited recourse in the event of a dispute, and uncertainty regarding disconnection procedures. Under Ohio's electric restructuring framework, customers have the right to shop for their generation supply. House Bill 173 does not preserve this right for customers served through submetering arrangements effectively and limits customer choice really undermining the intent of the electric competition in the state of Ohio. AS Ohio and other electric distribution utilities operate under strict regulation with rates and returns carefully reviewed and approved by the Public Utility Commission to ensure fairness and cost transparency. In contrast, House Bill 173 would permit a third-party submetering entity to leverage that cost structure and returns of a regulated utility while reselling electricity at an unregulated rate. This could allow such entities to earn a profit well above market rates, all while serving a captive customer base. When we submitted testimony last fall in the Ohio House Energy Committee, unresolved court cases involving Ohio utilities such as AEP and Duke Energy and third-party resellers, including nationwide energy partners, were still pending. Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed a PUCO ruling that third-party submetering companies were not a public utility. The court remanded it back to the PUCO to develop rules to regulate their business practices. We urge, really, the General Assembly to exercise caution by amending the revised code before the PUCO has had the opportunity to act. The Commission has the authority, the technical ability, and the expertise to ensure proper consumer protections, whether those customers are served by the local utility or by a third-party sub-metering company. So AES Ohio does appreciate the General Assembly's attention to this important issue. We share your goal of ensuring that Ohioans receive safe, reliable, and appropriately priced electricity. Thanks for the opportunity to share comments here. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Wilkin, Vice Chair Reinecke, Ranking Member DeMora, members of the Senate Public Utility Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony today on Substitute House Bill 173-3. My name is Angela O'Brien, and I serve as the Deputy Director for the Ohio Consumers Council, the state agency charged with representing the interest of Ohio's residential utility consumers. OCC advocates for about 4.5 million households on matters affecting the affordability, reliability, and transparency of utility service This year marks OCC 50th year of service to Ohio consumers OCC appreciates the opportunity we have had to work with Representative Thomas and previously support House Bill 173 as it was passed by the House However, circumstances have materially changed. OCC now opposes substitute House Bill 173-3 because it would deny important rights and protections to sub-metered apartment and condominium residents At the very moment, the Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized those consumers are entitled to them. The reason for OCC's change position is straightforward. In the complaint of Ohio Power Company versus Nationwide Energy Partners, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that the resale of electricity is a public utility service subject to full regulation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. In plain terms, the court recognized that the service being provided by electric resellers like NEP is not meaningfully different from the service provided by regulated public utilities. And importantly, the court's ruling protects tenants and condominium residents who often have no meaningful ability to choose their electric provider or negotiate the terms of their service. These concerns aren't hypothetical. Ohio consumers have lived with the consequences of inadequate oversight for years. OCC no longer has a call center, but apartment complex residents still reach out to us regularly, seeking assistance regarding their sub-metered service, including service provided by NEP. OCC has been limited in its ability to advocate for these consumers. In fact, NEP opposed OCC's intervention to advocate for consumers in the AEP Ohio complaint case, and the PUCO denied OCC's intervention. Complaints OCC receives from sub-metered consumers include but are not limited to excessively high bills were routinely contacted from consumers about several hundreds of dollars monthly bills for square feet apartments that are less than 1,000 square feet. threats of disconnection and excessive disconnection fees, excessive and improper charges for common area service, poor service quality and reliability, and no customer service after business hours. The Columbus Dispatch documented instances where some of the sub-metered residents paid electricity charges significantly above utility rates. faced additional fees, and had limited recourse to challenge bills. Many consumers had no practical ability to choose another provider because submetering was embedded in their lease or housing arrangement. This matters because utility consumers should not lose protection simply because they live in an apartment or a condominium rather than a single-family home. The Supreme Court's decision recognizes that reality. The court's decision means that the PUCO already has both the legal authority and the responsibility to regulate electric resellers under the existing Ohio law in Title 49 of the revised code. Contrary to proponent testimony, additional legislation is not necessary to establish consumer protections or a regulatory framework. The framework already exists, and the PUCO has decades of expertise regulating residential utility service. More importantly, the court's ruling means that there no longer should be second-class utility consumers in Ohio. Apartment and condominium residents served through submeters should receive the same rights same protections as consumers who receive electric utility service from a regulated utility These protections include PUCO oversight of rates and charges statutory complaint rights and investigations, disconnection protections, budget billing options, transparent billing practices, and the ability to shop for a competitive electric supplier. Sub-House Bill 173-3 takes Ohio in the opposite direction. Rather than ensuring equal treatment, the bill would create a separate and lesser regulatory framework for sub-metered residents, consumers who are often renters and have little bargaining power. Ohio has already seen what happens when utility middlemen operate without full utility oversight. The lesson from Ohio's experience is not apartment residents need a separate and lesser regulatory system. It is that they deserve the same protections of every other utility consumer. Proponents have argued that the bill contains meaningful consumer protections. OCC respectfully disagrees. Even with the recent revisions, sub-House Bill 173.3 falls significantly short of the rights consumers would receive under the Supreme Court ruling and, in several respects, is a step backward from the House-passed version of House Bill 173. First, the bill denies consumers meaningful electric choice. It always did. Proponents have compared this limitation to municipal aggregation programs, but that comparison misses an important distinction. Consumers and aggregation programs generally retain the ability to opt out and shop independently. Submetered residents don't have that choice. Second, the bill continues to deny vulnerable consumers access to percentage of income payment plan assistance. And it always did. Under the court's ruling, in existing law, eligible consumers can access important affordability protection such as PIP. Sub-House Bill 173 leaves these consumers without access to those programs, despite facing the same energy affordability challenges as other Ohio households. Third, proponents suggest the bill limits sub-metering, but the language still permits expansion. Sub-House Bill 173 includes language preventing certain conversions of buildings already receiving direct utility service. However, proponent testimony appears to narrow the practical significance of that restriction. At the same time, the bill continues to permit submetered utility service in new developments. Fourth, sub-House Bill 173.3 weakens consumer complaint rights compared to the House Pass Bill. The House Pass version included statutory complaint and PECO investigation provisions in proposed sections 4933.63, 4933.64. Those provisions have now been removed from the sub-bill. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, consumers would instead have access to longstanding complaint protections under existing Ohio law, including RC 4905-26. Fifth, the substitute bill removes funding for oversight. The House-passed version included an up to $1,000 registration fee for sub-metered service providers to help support the PUCO oversight and implementation. That section has been removed from the sub-bill. Finally, proponents claim the bill newly requires high-quality, safe, and reliable service. Providing safe and reliable service should not be viewed as a new consumer protection. It's a basic obligation. The Supreme Court's ruling in existing public utility law, electric resellers would already be required to provide these standards. At its core the bill asks whether Ohio will treat some utility consumers differently simply because of where they live A family living in an apartment or a condominium should not receive fewer rights fewer protections and fewer choices than a family living across the street in a single-family home. The Supreme Court of Ohio has already spoken and recognized that the resale of electricity is a public utility service and that these consumers deserve the protections of Ohio public utility law. The PUCO has the authority and the expertise to implement that ruling. Sub-House Bill 173-3 would move Ohio backward by replacing those protections with a lesser system that leaves sub-metered consumers with fewer rights than their neighbors. Ohio should not respond to a Supreme Court decision expanding consumer protections by legislatively taking those protections away. For these reasons, OCC respectfully opposes Sub-House Bill 173-3. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm a little confused because this bill is so much better than the bill that was passed by the House. But you guys were for the bill passed by the House, but you're not for this. and that's just a little confusing to me because, I mean, admittedly, I don't particularly think this bill goes far enough, but this bill is certainly better than, certainly more protections than what passed the House, so I don't understand how you guys switched from being proponents to opponents. I know the court case happened, but if you take away the court case, how did the Consumers' Council switch from being pro-bill to anti-bill when this bill is certainly better than the other bill?

Follow-up?

I have a question. So would you be in support of 173 as passed by the House after the Supreme Court decision?

And do you also agree that the Supreme Court said it's up to the legislature to act off this ruling?

Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you very much. Next witness is Rocco DiAcenzo. Close? Right on. Welcome to committee and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witness? Seeing none, thank you.

Chair, we now call Peggy Lee with Legal Aid of Southeast and Central Ohio. Welcome to committee. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witness? Seeing none, thank you. Chair would now call up Frank Strigari with AEP Ohio. Welcome to committee, and you may begin when you're ready.

Although the proponents suggest otherwise, submetering companies in Ohio do not provide any unique value or services that are not currently offered by public utilities in Ohio. Don't just take that directly from me. You can obviously, I'll cite you a 2017 capital review article that said the following. Submetering companies do not add anything to the actual utility product being provided. They simply act as middlemen between the public utility company and the end-use consumer without altering the product. So what exactly is submetering? I think we all know that, but it's basically become big business, as the Ohio Supreme Court just recently said. Here's how the process works. A submetering company pays a landlord for the ability to provide the landlord's tenants with electricity. As the court noted in its case, that can range anywhere from $25,000 to $75,000 in a one-time payment. From there, either the submetering company or the landlord pays the electricity bill for all the electricity consumed by tenants at the wholesale commercial rate. And then the submetering company slash landlord charges the tenants at a higher price and puts the money in their pocket for the same electricity. Before April, legislation was arguably needed in Ohio on submetering. For the past 13 years, reasonable minds could debate what a submetering company's authority was under current Ohio law. In April, any uncertainty was put to bed once and for all. In April, as you've heard previously, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the Nationwide Energy Partners is in the business of supplying electricity to tenants, and as such, they are a public utility subject to the PUCO's jurisdiction. As the representative from Duke explained earlier, there's still a pending motion for reconsideration at the court, and once the court resolves and finalizes the case, that's when they send it down to the PUCO, and then the PUCO will go forward with their process on how to implement that. Yet here we are, a mere six weeks after the court's decision, and you are being asked to overturn the court's decision with far-reaching, sweeping legislation. For various reasons, you should decline that invitation to do so. To begin with, despite what you have heard in previous testimony prior to today, House Bill 173 would not only reverse the court's decision, but it would cause the quote-unquote big business of submetering to flourish in Ohio at the expense of ratepayers. How so, you may ask? Well, House Bill 173 would do the following. It would strip submetered customers of their existing statutory rights. that the Supreme Court just confirmed they all have. It would create a second set of rules just for submetering companies, and it would, contrary to what you were told last week, shift transmission and distribution costs onto non-submetered customers. Our folks internally did an analysis of this, just in the NEP properties that we are aware of. They currently have 35,000 customers who have been converted to 342 non-residential accounts. That would lead to approximately $8 million a year, and cost shifting that we have to then effectively charge other non-submetered customers. Not surprisingly, submetering in Ohio has led to many complaints. As you heard previously, the dispatch published an extensive article that explained the problems inherent in this practice. They noted in 2025 alone, 13 complaints were filed with the Attorney General's Office against one submetering company, and 555 complaints were filed with the Public Utilities Commission. In 2024, the plain dealer noted in the article that there was 316 cases that had been filed at either the Attorney General's office or the Public Utilities Commission between 2020 and 2024. So not only was there cases from 2020 and 2024 that were obviously totaled 316, they're increasing in the number of complaints because in 2025 alone there was more than that over the four-year period. Let me cite you some additional facts Over 60 of AEP Ohio residential customers receive their electric supply from a competitive source i they shop Anywhere between 30,000 to 50,000 customers are currently sub-metered in AEP Ohio's territory. If House Bill 173 were to pass, that number would significantly proliferate across the state. And those 30,000, 30 to 50,000 plus sub-metered customers, at least in AEP Ohio's territory, would no longer be able to shop for their generation supplier, which, as you all know, is a hallmark of Ohio's energy market. Some additional facts. Approximately 8% of AEP Ohio's residential customers are on PIP. In 2024, we examined what the potential impact would be on 92 specific customers at a particular central Ohio apartment complex if they were no longer on PIP. The results were pretty striking. Specifically, they would have went from having an average bill of approximately $47 a month to approximately $101 a month, 115% increase. Of those 92 customers, 17 were paying a PIP amount of only $10 a month. Those 17 customers would have faced an increase of nearly 1,000% by being taken off of PIP if they were submetered. Yet what would happen to those PIP customers if House Bill 173 was passed and lived in a submeter complex? Ohio law would now prohibit them from accessing PIP and raise their monthly bills significantly. In sum, House Bill 173 will take away statutory rights from sub-metered customers and codify electric bills for tens of thousands of sub-metered customers. Notwithstanding that, the most troubling aspect of all that I would suggest in House Bill 173 is the so-called standard service offer rate cap, which is really nothing more than a guaranteed profit that would be codified in law for sub-metering companies at the expense of tenants. But I do have good news for you. If the General Assembly would like to do something in the best interest of sub-metered customers, you can do one simple thing, allow the PUCO to do its job. The PUCO has all the authority it needs under current law to implement the Ohio Supreme Court's decision. Any contention to the contrary is nothing but hyperbole. At a time when affordability and rising electricity rates are on everyone's minds, we believe it makes very little sense to pass legislation that creates a new middleman in Ohio who pays for electricity at one price and then forces its ratepayers to pay for the electricity at a higher price, the same electricity at the higher price. As General Assemblies have done over the past 13 years, we would urge this committee to reject House Bill 173. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone may have.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony, Frank. What percentage of AEP's customers currently participate in competitive generation shopping today?

So would AEP support if submetering customers chose competitive suppliers under legislation that would be drafted underneath this bill?

We'll give you a pass. We know it's your first time. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Follow up? Follow up. Can you point to me any specific sections of the code established in billing standards fee limitations consumer protections disconnect procedures and rate regulations for sub companies that exist Mr Chairman Senator Brenner I not an expert when it comes to landlord law

Thank you. Are there any other utility companies that were regulated based on a Supreme Court decision and not actual legislation?

Are there any other utility type of companies that were regulated based on a Supreme Court decision and not underlying legislation, giving authority to do that, such as submetering?

Follow-up. So then would it not be prudent for the General Assembly to follow the Supreme Court ruling and put in legislation to regulate the submetering companies in a way that puts in the consumer protections and everything else that is associated with a submetering company.

Senator Blackshear.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Blackshear, it hasn't changed anything yet because that's what I tried to highlight a little bit, and I think the individual from Duke did too, is that the court hasn't even disposed of the case yet. The court is currently in the process of hearing a motion for reconsideration that was filed by Nationwide Energy Partners. once they dispose or once they rule on that motion, they could reconsider it or they might not reconsider it. But once after they make their final ruling, they then send the order back to the PUCO who then has to then implement their order. So as of now, nothing has changed when it comes to the submetering industry because the court hasn't even technically disposed of the case. Follow-up.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Blackshear, number one, I would suggest that the customers themselves are not giving anything up. But what the law would be giving them up if 173 was passed is it would be taking away, affirmatively taking away their rights that the Supreme Court just recognized that they have to programs like PIP, which there's great examples that I could share with you about the folks that had their bills raised significantly because of that. But they would no longer have the access to the PIP if they qualified for it. And most importantly, as you've probably heard from a couple of folks and even myself earlier, they would lose the ability to shop which everyone else in this state has the authority to do More follow Seeing no other questions thank you for your testimony Thank you Chair would now call Christy Ortiz with the Advocates for Basic Legal Equalities Housing and Community Economic Development

Thank you. Yeah, it's quite a tiny one you say my title as well as the organization. It's a lot. So I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding House Bill 173-3. I'm Christy Ortiz. As we said, advocates for basic legal equality. I'm the managing attorney for our housing and community economic development. ABLE is a nonprofit law firm that offers civil legal services, including housing and tenant advocacy, to 32 counties of the 88 counties in western Ohio. So we urge the Senate to reject the bill at its current status, though we appreciate the bill's attempt to provide needs to provide, sorry, attempt to address the needs of Ohio's tenants who receive sub-metered electricity. It creates a second class of protections for all electricity consumers who receive sub-metered services because they don't receive the same protections as consumers who receive directly metered electric service. It also leaves wholly unprotected consumers of water and other utility services. Whether it's electricity, gas, or water, consumers of each service need uniform protection and transparent billing, which they're not receiving currently. The proposed bill would offer protections only to residents receiving sub-meter electricity who live at properties with 50 or more units. This excludes state protections from residents residing in smaller and rural communities where the number of units per property is less than 50. So another concern is the growing use of utility billing practices called ratio utility billing systems, or RUBS. So you can see this in National Consumer Law Center. It's an introduction to ratio utility billing system, and I cited that in my written testimony. So with RUBS, tenants who live in buildings or manufacture home parks with one meter, a master meter, are charged a proportionate rate based on the OPEG formula. RUBS uses factors like the number of rooms or units per building rather than the actual consumption. So consumers' bills using RUBS include added administrative fees that benefits the servicer using RUBS and landlords, while worsening the housing affordability crisis for tenants. The RUBS system also allows landlords to pass on the cost of leaks and common area usage without transparency. Tenants have no control over their individual bills and no agency is available to help. landlord should be prohibited from using rubs as a minimum as its use should be regulated. So I'm going to give a personal example. I'm representing a tenant union currently in Dayton. They are under the rubs system, and there is currently a facade issue. And so during the winter months, the facade or the entire front of the building, all the way down from the line, it was 11 floors, was exposed. And so because of that, it took more energy to heat the building. Also, there was extensive leaks throughout the entire building. And so because of that, everybody's utility bill under the RUB system doubled. So their usual bill was $40. The next month was $125. There was no explanation, and they were not provided the master bill. And so the entire building is carrying the cost of building-wide issues, which should be the responsibility of the landlord. So PUCO does not currently exercise its oversight authority over RUBS and the landlords who use this service. The Ohio Supreme Court recently created an opportunity to address this gap for all Ohio's utility consumers who rent their homes or lots. By not ensuring the same level of oversight in all sub-metered and master-metered utility services, the bill leaves open a loophole that will impact a growing number of tenants. So ABLE respectfully requests this committee to reject the bill or pass a version with significant changes. So the changes include extending PUCA protection to all residents, whether they are sub-metered or master-metered, extending protections to each type of utility consumed by Ohio tenants rather than just electricity. It should also include water and gas. And then adding an amendment to ensure PUCO's jurisdiction includes tenants and landlords whose utility bills are using rub systems or just prohibiting the use of rubs altogether. So these changes would ensure renters and residents of manufactured homes who rent their lot are afforded the same protections available to single-family homeowners. and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the importance of protections for tenants, including those whose access to utilities is controlled by a landlord who uses rubs. I am open for any questions.

I have a question, a hypothetical for you. When we're talking about the inability for tenants to shop, Do you believe that if I'm trying to buy 1,000 kilowatts a month versus a sub-meter that says I'm buying 100,000 kilowatts a month, that the 100,000 could get a lower rate than, say, the standard service offer from a utility? So you're saying because it's a larger property, in essence, we're paying less? Or even multiple properties that I pull all together and say, give me a bid on all of this electric. So you're saying whether – I'm sorry. So the question is, do you think they can get a better rate than typically the standard service offer? So generally if you buy in bulk, everybody knows if you shop in Sam's Club, you're probably going to get cheaper, right? So I would assume that if you're buying larger numbers that that's possible. Practically speaking, I don't know the number. I don't know for sure. Okay. Then my next question would be, if we took a look at something and said, all right, here's the standard service offer, but you have to be less than that, and then the spread is the spread. We couldn't get that rate because we're a small individual buyer. Is that something you think would be beneficial to the people you represent? Absolutely Anything that would make the utility more affordable of course is better for the tenant because affordability is an issue Okay thank you Any other questions Seeing none thank you for your testimony Chair now calls up Nolan Is it Rushling Sorry Welcome to committee You may begin when you ready. Thank you, Chair. It's a German name. It's a use to that my whole life. So appreciate it,

Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for the witness? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Looks like our next and final witness is Elaine Miracle with the St. Michael St. Vincent DePaul Society Conference. Is Elaine here? All right. Seeing it does not appear that Elaine is here, we will convert that to written testimony only. There is other written testimony on your iPads. If you take a peek, and at this point, having no further business before the committee, we will stand in recess at the call of the chair. The Senate Public Utility Committee will come back to order. The chair recognizes Vice Chair Reineke for a motion.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

What is the pleasure of the committee?

There's been a motion. Will the clerk take the roll? Chair Wilkin? Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Ranking Member DeMora? No.

Senator Smith? Yes.

We had the sub-bill. It was explained. Is the sub-bill a motion to reconsider? Is there any objections or a motion to reconsider by the vice chair?

Motion to reconsider? Is there any objections? Hearing none. What is the pleasure to adopting the sub bill? What is the pleasure to adopting the sub bill? Are there any objections? Hearing none, the sub bill will become the working document. What is the pleasure of the committee? I move to favorably report this to rules and reference.

Chair Wilkin? Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Still no.

No.

Yes. With a vote of nine yays and two nays, the sub-bill has received the appropriate constitutional votes and will be referred back to rules and reference. With no other business before the committee, we will stand adjourned.