The dispute centers on NEP’s business model of purchasing electricity from utilities like Ohio Power Company and reselling it to tenants in apartment complexes. NEP installs the metering equipment, sets the resale prices, and bills tenants directly, effectively acting as the electricity supplier for thousands of residents.
PUCO had previously concluded it lacked jurisdiction because it viewed the landlords, rather than the tenants, as the electricity consumers. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, holding that tenants who utilize electricity are consumers under the plain meaning of the statute.
The court also determined that NEP is engaged in the business of supplying electricity. It found that NEP’s primary business is reselling power for profit, distinguishing it from landlords who merely pass on costs as an ancillary part of leasing property.
The court further rejected NEP’s argument that it acted as an agent for the landlords. It noted that NEP controls the supply source and pricing, pays the landlords for the right to sell power, and bears the costs of equipment, indicating an independent business relationship rather than traditional agency.
The court vacated PUCO’s order requiring Ohio Power Company to file a tariff imposing conditions on NEP’s resale practices. It also vacated PUCO’s finding that Ohio Power Company acted unreasonably in denying meter conversion requests.
The case is remanded to PUCO to consider the merits of Ohio Power Company’s remaining claims that NEP was unlawfully operating as a public utility and supplying competitive retail-electric services without required certification.