You asked whether the law precludes (1) landlords from using master water meters in their buildings and billing their tenants based on their estimated consumption (2) tenants from subscribing to the local cable TV system if the building is wired for satellite master antenna television.

SUMMARY

For the most part, the law is silent on the use of master metering and the issue is governed by leases or other agreements between landlords and tenants. However, the law requires Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) approval to use master metering in certain types of multi-family housing served by water utilities DPUC regulates. The issue of master metering has been the subject of several bills over the past 13 years. DPUC has also approved procedures for sub-metering multi-family housing, in which meters are installed in individual units and the tenant's bill is based on his actual consumption.

State law requires landlords to provide their tenants who ask with access to the local cable TV system, if the cable TV company pays for the wiring and compensates the landlord for any damages. In addition, federal law generally prevents landlords from restricting their tenants' ability to install direct broadcast satellite antennas on property that is under their control.

WATER SERVICE

Master Metering

The law is silent on the issue of master metering in buildings served by wells or by municipal water utilities (including regional utilities such as the Metropolitan District Commission and the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority), which are not regulated by the DPUC. As a result, the issue of billing for such buildings is left to the lease or other agreement between the landlord and the tenant. In practice, some landlords include water service in the rent, while others require tenants to pay a specified part of the water bill received by the landlord, based on the number of units in the building or some other basis.

With regard to utilities regulated by DPUC (which serve approximately 30% of the state's population), Conn. Agencies Regs. § 16-11-55 requires that separate premises be separately metered and billed for water service, unless the DPUC authorizes another arrangement in advance. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 16-11-50 defines "premises" to include a building that includes apartments using a common hall and one or more entrances. On the other hand, the definition of "premises" also include each unit of a "multiple house" or building separated by walls and occupied by one family or business. It appears that the regulations thus permit master metering in most apartment buildings but require DPUC approval to master meter garden apartments and town homes where there is no common hall.

In practice, DPUC has encouraged but not required separate metering in existing multi-family housing, according to Arthur Gamache, head of DPUC's water unit. He notes that while it is relatively inexpensive to install separate meters in new buildings, it can be very expensive to retrofit older buildings with separate meters. This is particularly true in buildings where several lines serve an individual unit, for example where bathrooms on different floors are located one above another and are served by a single water line.

Legislative Proposals

The issue of master metering has been the topic of several bills. In 1989, SB 741 would have established a study of water metering practices, including the feasibility of requiring separate meters for each unit of a multi-unit building. In 1990, SB 314 would have required DPUC-regulated utilities to install separate meters in each residential unit in multifamily housing. That same year SB 311 called for a study of water company metering policies, including the feasibility of requiring separate water meters for each unit in a multifamily building. In 1992, SB 26 would have required DPUC-regulated water utilities with 5,000 or more customers to retrofit buildings with four or more units to provide for individual metering, at the landlord's request and expense. Although all of these bills received hearings by the Energy and Technology Committee, none of them were adopted.

In 2001, the Senate passed sSB 1343, as amended by Senate "A". The bill would have specified how and when landlords served by private or municipal water utilities can submeter their residential tenants. It would have prohibited landlords from charging tenants for their water use through the use of submetering equipment unless the landlord complied with the bill and requirements established by the DPUC. The bill specified the circumstances under which a landlord could have engaged in submetering. It addressed billing disputes, water lost due to leaks , and the obligations and rights of landlords and utilities. The House took no action on this bill.

DPUC Submetering Decisions

Under Conn. Agencies Regs. § 16-11-55(4), DPUC approval is required before a landlord can submeter his property. Under submetering, the landlord remains the water utility customer and is ultimately responsible for the water bill. A contractor chosen by the landlord installs meters in individual apartments and reads them periodically. The contractor determines the billing of each tenant based on his measured water consumption. This consumption is billed at a rate calculated from the actual water bill received by the landlord. To this charge is added a monthly service charge to pay for the reading, billing, and collection of charges. The contractor company collects these payments and transfers them to the landlord.

In 1999, a submetering contractor (Aquameter Water Management Company) sought a declaratory ruling from DPUC on several issues. Among other things, it asked whether a landlord could install separate water meters in each apartment and charge tenants for their actual water usage and whether doing so would make the landlord or the submetering contractor a water utility subject to regulation by the DPUC or the Department of Public Health. DPUC declined to issue a ruling (docket 99-12-20), stating that (1) Aquameter had not presented specific facts upon which it could base its ruling and (2) each question Aquameter raised had aspects that fell outside of DPUC's jurisdiction.

In 2001, DPUC issued a generic decision on submetering. In docket 00-05-26, it found that submetering in apartment buildings can conserve water and reduce waste. It established a policy permitting submetering upon two conditions. First, landlords and their submetering contractors cannot charge tenants more than the tenants' portion of the total water bill, excluding common areas and vacant apartments. Anyone who elects to submeter must maintain records of its own consumption and billing from the water company and its own bills to tenants so that DPUC can enforce this requirement. Second, the applicant must demonstrate that it can comply with the customer protections that apply to DPUC-regulated water utilities. These include provisions on customer complaints, billing procedures, and meter tests.

At the time of the proceeding, one of the parties, Avalon Bay Communities, had already installed submetering in its Avalon Corners complex in Stamford. It sought retroactive approval for this complex and prospective approval for its Avalon Haven complex in North Haven. In its decision, DPUC held that Avalon Bay had violated the regulation by not obtaining DPUC approval with regard to the Stamford complex. However, it held that an entity that had engaged in submetering in ignorance of the regulation could apply to DPUC and receive permission to engage in submetering upon showing that it complied with the decision's requirements. With regard to Avalon Haven, DPUC noted that it has very limited jurisdiction over municipal utilities, including the South Central Regional Water Authority that serves North Haven. DPUC recommended that Avalon Bay notify municipalities that it submeters its tenants so that they will be aware of the practice, have the opportunity to apply any local ordinances, and be prepared to advise submetered tenants who contact them with inquiries. Since issuing its generic decision, DPUC has approved two applications for submetering, one for Avalon Corners and a second for the Avalon Grove complex, also in Stamford (dockets 01-08-02 and 01-07-10, respectively). The DPUC dockets are available on its Website, http: //www. dpuc. state. ct. us/.

CABLE TV

The law requires the owner of a multifamily residential building to permit wiring to provide a connection to the local cable TV service if (1) a tenant in the building requests this, (2) the cable TV company pays the entire cost of the wiring and indemnifies the building owner for any damages caused by the wiring, and (3) the company complies with all DPUC regulations regarding the wiring. The law also requires DPUC to adopt regulations authorizing cable TV companies, at the request of the building owner and with DPUC approval, to compensate the owner for any taking of property associated with the wiring. According to Mike Coyle, head of DPUC's cable unit, the compensation provision has never been invoked. Both the law and the regulations apply to condominium complexes, mobile home parks as well as other types of multiunit residential properties (CGS § 16-333a and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 16-333a-46 et seq. )

In addition, a Federal Communications Commission regulation (47 CFR § 1. 4000) generally preempts public and private restrictions, including lease provisions, that limit the installation and use of antennas to receive direct broadcast satellite service, e. g. , DirecTV. The preemption applies to the installation of antennas on property under the control of the affected resident. Thus, if an apartment includes a balcony, the tenant is entitled to install an antenna on it, but is not entitled to install an antenna on the roof of the building, because this area is not under his control. OLR memo 99-R-0915 describes this provision in greater detail.

KEM: eh