Moore v. RealPage Utility Management
264 A.3d 700
Md.2021Background
- PSC regulates utilities; statute (PU § 7-304) requires PSC approval for any "energy allocation equipment and procedures" that determine unit gas/electric use by means other than actual measurement.
- Buildings constructed after July 1, 1978 must use individual meters or submeters; pre-1978 master-metered buildings historically used square-footage allocations, pro rata assessments, or added rental components.
- Mid-1980s novel allocation systems (e.g., Compugas) used indirect measurements (furnace runtime, pipe temperature) to approximate unit usage and were initially unregulated, prompting tenant complaints.
- Legislative response: 1988 statute (predecessor to PU § 7-304) gave PSC authority to approve energy allocation systems that approximate consumption; COMAR regulations implement that approval process.
- Procedural posture: U.S. District Court certified the question whether PU § 7-304 bars use of unapproved allocation systems in pre-1978 buildings; Court of Appeals answered the question.
- Holding in brief: PU § 7-304 applies to all energy allocation systems regardless of building construction date, but allocations computed solely by square footage/pro rata or added rental components remain outside PSC jurisdiction; the court could not determine on the record whether RealPage’s specific system falls within PSC-regulated "energy allocation system."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PU § 7-304 prohibits use of unapproved energy allocation equipment/procedures in pre-1978 buildings | §7-304 is unambiguous and contains no date-of-construction limit; legislative history shows intent to cover such systems | §7-304 should be read with §7-301 and earlier law limiting meter requirements to post-1978 construction; pre-1978 master-metered allocation methods fall outside PSC authority | Yes. §7-304 applies to all energy allocation systems regardless of construction date, so unapproved systems may not be used to bill tenants |
| Whether square-footage/pro rata allocations and added rental components are subject to PSC approval | These methods are types of energy allocation and thus subject to approval | Such methods are landlord-tenant contract terms historically outside PSC jurisdiction | No. Square-footage/pro rata allocations and added rental components are not within PSC purview and are governed by lease/Real Property law |
| Whether COMAR/regulations impose a construction-date limit | COMAR and PU §7-304 contain no date limit | Implied limit via statutory scheme and cross-references to §7-301 | Court: Regulations and PU §7-304 contain no date limit; cross-references do not alter §7-304’s reach |
| Whether RealPage’s system is an energy allocation system subject to PSC approval | (Plaintiff) RealPage uses unapproved allocation methods to bill tenants | (RealPage) System falls within traditional pre-1978 allocation methods or otherwise not subject to PSC approval | Court: Not decided — record lacked sufficient detail about RealPage’s equipment/method to classify it |
Key Cases Cited
- Fangman v. Genuine Title, LLC, 447 Md. 681 (Md. 2016) (certified-question and statutory-interpretation principles)
- Berry v. Queen, 469 Md. 674 (Md. 2020) (statutory-construction methodology)
- United Bank v. Buckingham, 472 Md. 407 (Md. 2021) (use of Revisor’s Notes and code revision context)
- Legg v. Castruccio, 100 Md. App. 748 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1994) (interpretation of predecessor meter statute re: pre-1978 buildings)
- In re: S.K., 466 Md. 31 (Md. 2019) (consideration of legislative history beyond plain meaning)
- DeBusk v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 342 Md. 432 (Md. 1996) (principle that code revision is presumptively non-substantive)