While performing maintenance, I noticed a resident runs an antiquated space heater as a source of heat. The PG&E meter is included with monthly rent. May I therefore restrict the hours she can operate the heater or, alternatively, ask her to contribute towards utilities once the bill reaches a certain amount?
You may neither restrict usage nor request additional rent to offset the PG&E cost. And this question touches upon two important topics. One is the local heat ordinance. Amended in January 2020, the current heat law set forth in the SF Housing Code requires a permanent heating source in all residential apartments capable of maintaining a minimum room temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit three feet above the floor in all habitable rooms excluding bathrooms and hallways 24 hours a day. Space heaters are not permanent heating sources, and perhaps a space heater is needed here because there is no adequate permanent heating mechanism.
Failure to provide a compliant heat source entitles the tenant to file a petition with the Rent Board for a rent reduction resulting from a substantial decrease in housing services. The rent offset will be significant, as heat is a vital component of the warranty of habitability. The warranty of habitability is a legal requirement that all housing providers maintain their rental properties in a safe and livable condition. To that end, an aggrieved resident may also file a lawsuit in the superior court seeking monetary damages for breach of the warranty of habitability. Therefore, this owner is urged to review the heating system inside the apartment to ascertain why an antiquated space heater is constantly in use.
As for seeking excess utility charges, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the imposition of utility expenses onto tenants, even where the original lease agreement permits this practice. The housing industry penned the acronym RUBS, which stands for “Ratio Utility Billing Systems,” to describe this practice. RUBS agreements are typically used when one meter or account handles the entire building. In the City, most apartment buildings have a single meter or account for the water/sewage and trash/recycling/composting services, and in rare circumstances there may be one PG&E meter for the entire building. Some owners use RUBS addendums to allocate the charges billed by these service providers to all the building occupants.
While San Francisco has yet to enact a prohibition of this practice despite other California cities doing so, please note the following: (i) The RUBS agreement must be implemented on day one of the tenancy. You may not impose it on existing tenancies. (ii) The RUBS addendum must clearly specify how the charges are calculated and allocated each month. (iii) This author believes that despite no outright prohibition at the present time, RUBS is likely illegal as this practice violates the intention and purpose of the rent control law since RUBS fees fluctuate and generally inflate over time, thereby increasing the tenants’ monthly rent obligation above what is permitted by law.
Indeed, a superior court judge said as much in a class action lawsuit entitled Jonathan Spiro and Simone Kaplan v. Trinity Management Services, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-17-562293. There, the tenants argued that RUBS violated the rent control law by imposing “additional monies” onto residents beyond the allowable limits, and the judge concurred, finding that the imposition of RUBS was tantamount to an illegal rent increase. Here, because the initial lease agreement states that the owner pays PG&E, there is no way to alter this obligation even with a RUBS addendum, so the best path towards resolution, as explained above, is to install a compliant heating system to hopefully eliminate any need for space heaters.