Bulk metering and submetering are two fundamentally different approaches to electricity billing in multi-residential buildings. Each has trade-offs, and the right choice depends on the building's goals, resident demographics, and operational priorities.
In a bulk-metered building, one master meter measures the entire building's electricity. The cost is typically recovered through common expenses (condos) or included in rent (rentals). Residents do not receive individual electricity bills and have limited visibility into their own consumption.
In a submetered building, each suite has its own meter. Residents receive individual bills based on actual usage plus applicable charges. The building still pays for common area electricity, but in-suite consumption is billed directly to residents.
The main advantage of bulk metering is simplicity. There is one bill, one meter, and no individual billing infrastructure to manage. For buildings with relatively uniform unit sizes and usage patterns, the equal-split model may feel adequate.
The main advantage of submetering is fairness. Residents who conserve pay less. Residents who use more pay for what they use. This creates an incentive for conservation that bulk metering does not provide. Ontario research has found that submetered buildings may see meaningful reductions in suite electricity consumption.
A common concern is that submetering adds costs through USMP service charges. This is true. The submetering provider charges a service fee for metering, billing, and customer support. However, this fee is separate from and in addition to the electricity and delivery charges that exist regardless of the billing method.
Neither approach is universally better. The decision depends on the building's priorities: fairness and conservation (submetering), or simplicity and predictability (bulk metering). Many boards find that the fairness and conservation benefits of submetering outweigh the additional complexity.