News Stories

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that Nationwide Energy Partners (NEP),a submetering company that arranged with landlords to sell electricity to apartment tenants is a “public utility” subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).

This Supreme Court in a Slip Opinion No. 2026- Ohio-1406. decision reverses PUCO’s previous order that concluded that Nationwide Energy Partners (NEP) was not a public utility.

Under Ohio law, a provider of electricity is a public utility “when engaged in the business of supplying electricity for light, heat, or power purposes to consumers within this state.” Applying this definition, the PUCO rejected a request to regulate NEP as a public utility, finding that landlords, not tenants, are consumers of electricity, and that landlords supply electricity, while NEP is simply the landlord’s agent.

Writing for the Court majority Justice R. Patrick DeWine explained that PUCO’s conclusion that NEP is not supplying electricity to consumers conflicts with the plain language of state law: “Tenants who purchase electricity are consumers of electricity and NEP is in the business of supplying electricity; therefore, NEP is a public utility.”

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice DeWine’s opinion. Eighth District Court of Appeals Judge Mary J. Boyle, sitting for Justice Joseph T. Deters, also joined the opinion. Justice Jennifer Brunner concurred in judgment only.

The Ohio Supreme Court found that Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C. (NEP), which provides electric submetering services, is a “public utility” under the definition in statute, and that the PUC of Ohio erred in finding that Nationwide Energy Partners was not a public utility

The Court remanded a case concerning regulation of submetering companies and services back to PUCO in light of the Court’s finding.

Under this broad definition, retail suppliers are considered electric light companies under Ohio statute (but most relevant statutory provisions distinguish retail suppliers into a narrower category of “electric services company”, and distinguish monopoly utilities into the narrower category of “electric distribution utility”)

In brief, the court found that NEP provides service to “consumers” (the submetered customers), as the Court rejected an argument that submetered customers are not consumers due to the landlord being the consumer

The Court further found that NEP is, “engaged in the business of supplying electricity.”

The Court contrasted NEP’s business model with that of landlords, where the landlord’s resale of electricity is incidental to renting a domicile

The Court said, “Reselling electricity is by no means ‘ancillary’ to NEP’s business.”

The Court rejected arguments that NEP was serving as the landlord’s agent, and thus the landlord, not NEP, was reselling the electricity

The Court said, “in most important respects, the landlords do not have the right to control NEP’s actions. NEP has the sole discretion, for example, to choose the supplier from which it purchases electricity. It also has discretion over the price it charges when reselling electricity to tenants, subject only to the limitation that it does not charge more than AEP Ohio’s residential default rate. Nor is NEP compensated for its services by the landlords in the way one would expect an agent to be.”

However, submetering, and any potential regulations governing submetered service or protections for submetered customers, may potentially impact the retail market, including which consumer(s) has the right shop for competitive supply (the landlord for all tenants, or each submetered tenant individually).

As background, in 2020, NEP contracted with the landlords of five large apartment complexes in the Columbus area for the exclusive right to supply electrical service to their tenants. Tenants were purchasing electricity from Ohio Power Company (AEP Ohio). NEP asked AEP to alter the meters to enable NEP to supply electricity.

AEP denied the requests and then filed a complaint with PUCO in docket  21-990-EL-CSS claiming that NEP was unlawfully operating as a public utility in violation of state law.

As reported previously, on September 6, 2023 the Ohio PUC issued an opinion and order finding that “Ohio Power Company failed to carry its burden of proving that Nationwide Energy Partners, LLC is (i) engaged in the business of supplying electricity, is an “electric light company” under R.C. 4905.03(C), or a “public utility” under R.C. 4905.02(A); (ii) operating as an “electric supplier” within Ohio Power Company’s certified territory in violation of R.C. 4933.83(A); and (iii) violating R.C. 4928.08(B) by supplying or arranging for the supply of a competitive retail electric service without the required certification. With respect to counterclaims filed by the respondent, the Commission finds that Nationwide Energy Partners, LLC failed to carry its burden of proving that Ohio Power Company’s actions discussed herein (i) violated R.C. 4905.26, except to the second alleged violation of Count I of its counterclaims where we find in favor of NEP on a limited basis, and (ii) violated R.C. 4905.35(A). Additionally, as discussed herein, the Commission directs AEP Ohio to file an application to modify its electric service resale tariff to include certain provisions related to landlords engaging in the resale of electricity to tenants.”

Under R.C. 4905.03(C), the PUCO’s jurisdiction extends to “an electric light company, when engaged in the business of supplying electricity … to consumers within the state.” The PUCO concluded it had no right to oversee NEP’s activities for two reasons: tenants were not “consumers” of electricity, and NEP was not “engaged in the business of supplying electricity.” AEP appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.  Decided April 22, 2026.) APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.