Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: January 04, 2018
Assessed Person(s): 2317089 Ontario Ltd.
Appellant(s): 2317089 Ontario Ltd.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 05
Respondent(s): Township of Stone Mills
Property Location(s): 825 Hunt Road, 4043 County Road 4, and 832 County Road 27
Municipality(ies): Township of Stone Mills
Roll Number(s): 1124-090-020-17200-0000, 1124-090-020-17220-0000 and 1124-130-010-18908-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3198658, 3198659, 3198600, 3200363, 3239232, 3198661, 3198662, 3207674, 3198663, 3207675, 3239231, 3198655, 3198656, 3198657,3200364 and 3239230
Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017
Hearing Event No.: 686591
Legislative Authority: Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: By written submission
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel^+^/Representative
2317089 Ontario Ltd.
Tom Halinski^+^
MPAC
Roxanne Poulain
Township of Stone Mills
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOSEPH JEBREEN AND SCOTT McANSH
OVERVIEW
12317089 Ontario Inc. (the “Company”) owns three properties in the Township of Stone Mills. Those properties have barns built on them. Since at least 2012, solar panels were installed on the roofs of the barns for the purpose of selling the electricity generated from these solar panels to the Ontario Power Authority. As a result of that activity, MPAC changed the classification of the properties from farm and vacant land in 2012, to the industrial property class and excess land industrial property class for the 2013 through 2017 taxation years.
2The Company argues that the change in class that took place in 2013 is prohibited through the operation of s. 42.3(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98 (“Regulation”) under the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c A.31, (“Act”). That section does not allow a change in classification of the properties if the machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from the sun is “an ancillary installation on the rooftop of a building or other structure.”
3The main issue before us is whether the solar panels and associated equipment are ancillary installations on the rooftops of the barns. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that s. 42.3(1) of the Regulation does not apply because the solar panels and associated equipment are not ancillary installations on the rooftops of the barns. We find that the proper classification of the properties is in the industrial property class and excess land industrial property class. We therefore confirm the assessments.
PROCEDURAL MATTER
4Before dealing with the substantive issues raised in this appeal, we find it important to comment on the form of evidence presented by MPAC for this written hearing.
5Rules 96 to 102 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Assessment Review Board (the “ARB Rules”) establish the procedures to follow in a written hearing. Specifically, Rule 102 requires that evidence in a written hearing be by affidavit, and transcripts of any cross-examination on those affidavits.
6MPAC submitted a Disclosure Report that is not in the form of a sworn affidavit and that attaches numerous documents as unsworn schedules, contrary to Rule 102.
7Rule 8 of the ARB Rules provides that the Board will determine the appropriate consequences of non-compliance with these Rules. In this instance, we will not impose any consequences. Written hearings are a relatively new procedure. Further, the Company has not taken issue with the form of evidence, no cross-examinations were conducted, and we have no reason to doubt the reliability of the factual evidence in the MPAC Disclosure Report. Nevertheless, in the future, parties to written hearings should follow the requirements of the ARB Rules by submitting properly sworn affidavit evidence.
BACKGROUND
8The properties before us are municipally known as 825 Hunt Road, 4043B County 4 Road and 832 County Road 27 (the “Properties”). The previous owners of the Properties, Effisolar Energy Corporation (“Effisolar”), entered into three Feed-In Tariff Contracts (“FIT Contracts”) in 2010 to sell electricity generated from solar panels on the site to the Ontario Power Authority. The FIT Contracts are for “Solar (PV) (Rooftop)” facilities located on the Properties and each FIT Contract has a contract capacity of 500 kW at a price of 63.5 cents/kWh.
9The Company purchased the Properties from Effisolar and the real estate portion of the transactions closed some time in 2012. The number of barns, if any, with previously installed solar panels as of the closing date of the transactions is not clear from the evidence.
10Also in 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to sell the Properties to Pine Point Farms Ltd. (“Pine Point”). Pine Point runs an equestrian business which includes the production, storage and sale of hay and the breeding, training, and purchasing and selling of horses. The Company designed and financed the construction of barns on the Properties to support Pine Point's equestrian business. However, to this day, Pine Point has neither finalized the purchase of the Properties nor has it ever occupied the Properties to run its equestrian business because of a downturn in the equestrian economy.
11In 2013, Effisolar sold the FIT Contracts and solar panels to a third party, PowerStream Inc. (“PowerStream”), whose business is to generate and sell electricity. That same year, the Company entered into three site lease agreements with PowerStream (the “PowerStream Leases”):
i. The June 19, 2013 site lease for 825 Hunt Road indicates at Schedule B that the leased premises are “the area of the roof of 2 agricultural barns”;
ii. The June 19, 2013 site lease for 4043B County 4 Road indicates at Schedule B that the leased premises are “the area of the roof of 2 agricultural barns”; and
iii. The December 3, 2013 site lease for 832 County Road 27 indicates at Schedule B that the leased premises are “the area of the roof of the agricultural barns located on the real property.”
The PowerStream Leases are still in effect today.
12Under the terms of the PowerStream Leases, PowerStream has the right to install rooftop solar panels and to generate, supply and distribute the electricity generated from these solar panels to the Ontario Power Authority. Although the PowerStream Leases state that PowerStream shall pay the Company rent calculated as a flat fee per kilowatt of the contract capacity of 500kW, no evidence on what that fee is was put before us.
13The Company entered into another lease agreement with farmers Pat and Rhonda Dowling (the “Dowlings”) on June 1, 2014 for a term of 5.5 years (the “Dowlings Lease”). The Dowlings have agreed to do grounds keeping on the Properties and to use the barns for agricultural use only. They use the barns to store equipment and hay. No evidence was submitted on the amount of rent collected from the Dowlings.
ISSUES
14Current value is not in dispute on this appeal and so the only issue is the classification of the Properties.
15We must first determine if either s. 42.3(1) or s. 42.2(1) of the Regulation applies to prohibit any classification change. If either of those sections applies, then the Properties must remain in the farm land and vacant land classes. If those sections do not apply, we need to determine the proper classification of the Properties for each taxation year.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Renewable Energy Installations Regulations and Legal Framework
16On January 4, 2012, the Government of Ontario provided new rules regarding the assessment of renewable energy installations (the “Renewable Energy Installations Regulations”). Those regulations are reproduced in full at Appendix 1 to these reasons. The amendments took effect retroactively as of January 1, 2011.
17At issue in this appeal is the interpretation of s. 42.3(1) and s. 42.2(1) of the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations. Neither party made thorough submission on the statutory interpretation exercise that is before us, but we must still interpret the Renewable Energy Installation Regulations.
18The Supreme Court of Canada provided guidance on the interpretation of taxation statutes in Québec (Communauté urbaine) v. Notre-Dame de BonSecours, 1994 CanLII 58 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3 at 20:
a) The interpretation of tax legislation should follow the ordinary rules of interpretation;
b) A legislative provision should be given a strict or liberal interpretation depending on the purpose underlying it, and that purpose must be identified in light of the context of the statute, its objective and the legislative intent: this is the teleological approach;
c) The teleological approach will favour the taxpayer or the tax department depending solely on the legislative provision in question, and not on the existence of predetermined presumptions;
d) Substance should be given precedence over form to the extent that this is consistent with the wording and objective of the statute;
e) Only a reasonable doubt, not resolved by the ordinary rules of interpretation, will be settled by recourse to the residual presumption in favour of the taxpayer.
19We must determine the purposes of s. 42.3(1) and s. 42.2(1) in light of the context of the Act and the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations, their objective, and the legislative intent.
20The purpose of the Act is to ensure that properties are correctly assessed, and that there is a fair and equitable distribution of the tax burden.
21The purpose of the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations can be gleaned from government announcements. The Ministry of Finance released a document on August 2, 2011 entitled “Proposed Regulation under the Assessment Act regarding the Property Tax Treatment of Renewable Energy Installations” (the “August 2011 Ontario Announcement”). Part of the stated purpose of the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations is to ensure that property tax does not act as a disincentive to energy generation, particularly small-scale generation by persons who are not ordinarily in the business of power generation.
22It is within that context that we must interpret the legislative wording of s. 42.3(1) and s. 42.2(1) of the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations.
Section 42.3(1)
23Section 42.3(1) of the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations states:
If machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from the sun or the wind or through anaerobic digestion of organic matter is an ancillary installation on the rooftop of a building or other structure, the classification of the land is not changed and the current value of the land is not increased as a result of the installation or use of the machinery or equipment.
24There is no dispute that the Company has machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from the sun, or that the machinery or equipment is an installation on the rooftop of the barns. The only question for us to determine is whether that machinery or equipment is an “ancillary installation on the rooftop” of the barns. We must interpret the term “ancillary” as it appears in s. 42.3(1).
25On January 4, 2012, the Government of Ontario released a Fact Sheet regarding the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations (the “January 2012 Ontario Fact Sheet”). We acknowledge that both the August 2011 Ontario Announcement and the January 2012 Ontario Fact Sheet state that the assessment and classification of a property will not change due to the addition of a renewable energy installation on the rooftop of a building. Indeed, the summary table on each of these documents indicates that there would be no new assessment or taxes for small, medium or large rooftop installations.
26The Company submits that the Government of Ontario’s intention is clear from the January 2012 Ontario Fact Sheet that neither the assessment nor the classification of property would change due to a rooftop installation. We agree that it appears from the August 2011 Ontario Announcement and the January 2012 Ontario Fact Sheet that the government’s intent was to capture all rooftop installations. However, we are not tasked with interpreting the August 2011 Ontario Announcement or the January 2012 Ontario Fact Sheet. Although the stated intent of the government is found in those documents, it is not determinative of the legislature’s intent.
27When it enacted the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations, the legislature included the word “ancillary” in s. 42.3(1). As the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly held, every word of a statute is presumed to have a role in achieving the objective of an Act, see R. v. Katigbak, 2011 SCC 48, [2011] 3 SCR. 326, at para. 59 and Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co., 2016 SCC 18, [2016] 1 SCR 273 (“Krayzel”) at para. 48.
28If we held that all rooftop installations were caught by s. 42.3(1), we would not just be ignoring the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “ancillary” but we would be effectively removing it from the legislative text.
29The purpose of s. 42.3(1) then is to provide taxpayers with a protective measure against a change in classification or an increase in current value if they generate electricity from certain renewable energy sources using machinery or equipment that is an ancillary installation on a rooftop of a building.
30In this context, we find that the term “ancillary” requires us to consider whether the physical dimensions of the machinery or equipment are such that the machinery or equipment is a secondary installation on the existing rooftop. If the machinery or equipment is the dominant feature on the rooftop, it cannot be an ancillary installation. This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Act and the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations.
31The pictures provided by MPAC show that the large barn roofs are covered with solar panels, except for a thin strip along the edges. These installations are the dominant physical feature on the rooftops. They are not ancillary.
32Further, there is a large energy transformer located on the ground that is coupled to the solar panels. The machinery or equipment used to produce electricity cannot be an ancillary installation on a rooftop when such a large component of the machine or equipment is located on the ground.
33In limiting the interpretation of “ancillary installation” to a consideration of the physical dimensions of the machinery or equipment, we are mindful of the principle that each provision of a statute is presumed to have been drafted with the others in mind, see Krayzel, supra at para. 48.
34The term ancillary also appears in s. 42.2(1) of the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations. That section applies to land “...if the production of electricity is ancillary to another use on the same site.” We therefore find that a consideration of whether the production of electricity is ancillary to another use of the building is not intended under s. 42.3(1). If the legislature intended for us to consider uses it could have easily duplicated the language of s. 42.2(1). Instead, the legislature chose to use the phrase “ancillary installment on a rooftop of a building.” An ancillary installment is therefore not a use. It is a physically secondary installation on the rooftop.
35We find that s. 42.3(1) does not apply to the Properties, and so did not prohibit the change in classification that took place in 2013.
Section 42.2(1)
36We must now consider whether s. 42.2(1) of the Renewable Energy Installations Regulations applies to the Properties. It states:
This section applies to land on which is installed machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from the sun or the wind or through anaerobic digestion of organic matter, if the production of electricity is ancillary to another use on the same site.
37Although the January 2012 Ontario Fact Sheet suggests that s. 42.2(1) may be limited to ground installations, we find that the wording of s. 42.2(1) is broad enough to encompass rooftop installations that do not satisfy the requirements of s. 42.3(1). The section applies to “land on which is installed machinery or equipment used to produce electricity” and this includes rooftop installations.
38There is no dispute that the Company satisfies the requirements that the land on which is installed machinery or equipment is used to produce electricity from the sun. The only question for us to decide is if, in 2013 when MPAC changed the classification of the Properties to the industrial property class, the production of electricity from the solar panel equipment was ancillary to another use of the Properties.
39We find that the production of electricity was not only the primary use of the Properties from at least 2012 to May 31, 2014, it was the only use. The Company’s evidence is that the only use of the Properties from when they purchased the Properties in 2012 until they entered into the Dowlings Lease, effective June 1, 2014, is the production of electricity by either Effisolar or PowerStream.
40We therefore find that, for that period, s. 42.2(1) cannot apply because the Properties were only used to produce electricity. The Properties are not protected from a change in classification.
Correct Classification of the Properties
41Section 19.3 of the Act states that the day as of which land shall be classified for a taxation year is June 30 of the previous year.
42The Company submits that, from 2012 onwards, the Properties were intended to be used by Pine Point to operate a portion of its equestrian business and that the barns were designed and constructed for this purpose. That is not a relevant consideration. The Renewable Energy Installations Regulations, and property classification more generally, is not concerned with the intended use of a property. Property is taxed based on how it is actually used.
43Section 6(2)1 of the Regulation states that “Land used to manufacture or transform electricity” is included in the industrial property class. For taxation years 2013 and 2014, as detailed above, the only use of the Properties from when they were purchased in 2012 until May 31, 2014 is the production of electricity.
44The only other use for the period starting June 1, 2014 to present is the Dowlings' use of the Properties for storage of equipment and hay.
45For the 2015 to 2017 taxation years, we find that the primary use of the Properties was the generation of electricity, not the storage of equipment and hay. We therefore find that the Properties are in the industrial property class.
46A helpful metric of use in this case would have been a comparison of the actual revenues generated from the Dowlings Lease compared to the revenues from the PowerStream Leases. The Company did not submit any evidence in that regard.
47On the evidence before us, we find it most likely that the revenues from the electricity generating PowerStream Leases would be far greater than the revenues obtained from the Dowlings Lease relating to the storage of equipment and hay. This is especially so given that the Dowlings Lease (i) has no term indicating the amount of rent to be paid by the Dowlings, and (ii) contemplates that the Dowlings will do some work in exchange for using the Properties including grounds keeping, installing, maintaining and repairing fences, bush hogging grass once per month and plowing snow from time to time. We do not accept that a lease without a rent provision could provide more revenue than three leases paying an unspecified rent on 500KW power generation.
48Further, there is a restrictive covenant dated August 6, 2010 which states that the owner of the Properties “shall have its use restricted for all uses except for the purposes of a solar panel electrical generation utility and any uses, buildings or structures associated therewith” (the “Restrictive Covenant”). It appears that the use by the Dowlings is illegal in that it is in contravention to the terms of the Restrictive Covenant.
49The Ontario Court of Appeal in Slough Estates Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 15), 2000 CanLII 5705 (ON CA), 48 O.R. (3d) 84, [2000] O.J. No 1076 considered an illegal use in determining whether a property was “farm land” and held that the fact that the actual use of a property is not a permitted use under zoning bylaws is not determinative.
50Although the illegality of the Dowlings’ use of the Properties is not determinative, we find it a persuasive factor in this case. The Company was aware of the Restrictive Covenant when it purchased the Properties in 2012. Indeed, in a letter dated April 19, 2012 to the Township of Stone Mills, the Company proposed an amendment to the Restrictive Covenant such that the use would be restricted for the purposes of a “solar panel electrical generation utility on the roof of agricultural storage buildings that are used for the primary use of agricultural storage but not livestock and any uses, buildings or structures associated therewith...”.
51In its response, the Township of Stone Mills denied the request to amend the Restrictive Covenant but invited the Company to submit a request for a zoning amendment to change the restricted uses of the Properties. For reasons unknown to us, it appears from the evidence that the Company did not pursue such a zoning amendment. Instead, the Company soon after entered into the Dowlings Lease, in breach of the Restrictive Covenant.
52We find that the Properties were primarily used for the production of electricity for the 2013 to 2017 taxation years. This is supported by the Restrictive Covenant limiting the use of the Properties to solar panel electrical generation and the FIT Contracts to sell electricity generated from solar panels on the Properties. The Restrictive Covenant and the FIT Contracts were effective as of 2010.
53Based on our finding that the primary use of the Properties has been the generation of electricity since at least 2012, we find that the Properties belong in the industrial property class for the 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.
54We therefore confirm the assessments as returned by MPAC. Specifically, we find that:
a. 825 Hunt Road:
i. For 2017 taxation, has a current value of $697,000, with $406,100 in the industrial property class and $290,900 in the industrial excess land property class;
ii. For 2016 taxation, has a current value of $679,000, with $395,524 in the industrial property class and $283,476 in the industrial excess land property class;
iii. For 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation, has a current value of $479,000, with $457,000 in industrial property class, and $22,000 in the residential property class;
b. 4043 County Road 4:
i. For 2017 taxation, has a current value of $729,000, with $539,400 in the industrial property class and $189,600 in the industrial excess land tax class;
ii. For 2016 taxation, has a current value of $642,000, with $474,989 in the industrial property class and $167,011 in the industrial excess land property class;
iii. For 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation, has a current value of $502,000, with $457,000 in the industrial property class, and $45,000 in the residential property class;
c. County Road 27:
i. For 2017 taxation, has a current value of $866,000, with $777,300 in the industrial property class and $88,700 in the industrial excess land property class;
ii. For 2016 taxation, has a current value of $1,081,000, with $970,238 in the industrial property class and $110,762 in the industrial excess land property class;
iii. For 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation, has a current value of $958,500 with $915,000 in the industrial property class and $43,500 in the residential property class.
CONCLUSION
55For the foregoing reasons, we find that neither s. 42.3(1) nor s. 42.2(1) of the Regulation applies to the Properties. There is, therefore, no barrier to a change in classification. Based on our determination that the Properties are used primarily to generate electricity, we find that the Properties are in the industrial property class and the excess land industrial property class, as set out above.
“Joseph Jebreen”
JOSEPH JEBREEN
MEMBER
“Scott McAnsh”
SCOTT McANSH
VICE-CHAIR
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
APPENDIX 1 –
General, O Reg 282/98
PART VIII.1 ASSESSMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INSTALLATIONS
Interpretation
42.1 In this Part,
“installed capacity” means, with respect to machinery and equipment used to produce electricity, the rated maximum output capacity as stated on the nameplate of the machinery or equipment;
“wind turbine tower” means the structure that supports an electrical generator and electrical and mechanical equipment used to convert wind energy into electricity, and includes the base and foundation to which the structure is attached, but does not include,
(a) any additional land, building and structures, or
(b) any transformer, transmission or distribution line or other equipment. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
Renewable Energy Sources: Sun, Wind, Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Matter
42.2 (1) This section applies to land on which is installed machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from the sun or the wind or through anaerobic digestion of organic matter, if the production of electricity is ancillary to another use on the same site. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
(2) However, this section does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
If the land is used to produce electricity by a person who generates, distributes, transmits or retails electricity or another form of energy as the person’s principal business.
If subsection 42.3 (1) applies to the land.
If section 42.4 applies to the land. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
(3) Despite paragraph 1 of subsection (2), this section applies to land used by a renewable energy co-operative within the meaning of the Co-operative Corporations Act, the membership of which is restricted to natural persons, to produce electricity. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
(4) Despite paragraph 1 of subsection (2), this section applies to land used by any of the following entities to produce electricity, if the primary purpose of the entity is the generation of electricity and if the land on which the generation occurs is valued under subsection 19 (5) of the Act:
A sole proprietorship comprised of a person who carries on a farming business within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada).
A co-operative corporation, all of whose members are persons who carry on such a farming business.
A partnership, all of whose partners carry on such a farming business.
A corporation, all of whose members or shareholders are persons who carry on such a farming business. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
(5) If the installed capacity of the machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from the sun or the wind or through anaerobic digestion of organic matter is 0.01 megawatts or less, the classification of the land (including a wind turbine tower that supports the machinery or equipment) is not changed and the current value of the land (including the wind turbine tower) is not increased as a result of the installation or use of the machinery or equipment. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
(6) If the installed capacity of the machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from the sun or the wind or through anaerobic digestion of organic matter is greater than 0.01 megawatts but not greater than 0.5 megawatts, the classification of the land is not changed as a result of the installation or use of the machinery or equipment. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
(7) If the installed capacity of the machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from the sun or the wind or through anaerobic digestion of organic matter is greater than 0.5 megawatts and if the land would be classified in a class other than the industrial class, but for the installation of the machinery or equipment, the land remains classified, in part, in that other class and is classified, in part, in the industrial class. The proportion of the land that remains classified in that other class is determined using the ratio,
0.5/A
in which,
“A” is the installed capacity of the machinery or equipment, expressed in megawatts.
O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
(8) The current value of land to which this section applies shall be determined based on its classification, but the current value of land that is determined under subsection 19 (5) of the Act continues to be determined under that subsection as if the land was used for farm purposes only. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
42.3 (1) If machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from the sun or the wind or through anaerobic digestion of organic matter is an ancillary installation on the rooftop of a building or other structure, the classification of the land is not changed and the current value of the land is not increased as a result of the installation or use of the machinery or equipment. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
(2) For the purposes of subsection 3 (8) of the Act, the sun, the wind and the anaerobic digestion of organic matter are prescribed as renewable energy sources and if machinery or equipment used to produce electricity from such a source is installed on the rooftop of a building or other structure on land that would otherwise be exempt from taxation, the land remains exempt from taxation, regardless of whether the generation is performed by the owner or a tenant of the property. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
42.4 If machinery or equipment used to produce electricity through anaerobic digestion of organic matter is located on land whose current value is determined under subsection 19 (5) of the Act,
(a) the classification of the land is not changed as a result of the installation or use of the machinery or equipment; and
(b) the current value of the land continues to be determined under subsection 19 (5) of the Act as if the land was used for farm purposes only. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
Wind Turbine Towers
42.5 (1) Wind turbine towers are prescribed as generating station structures for the purposes of section 19.0.1 of the Act. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.
(2) For the purposes of subsection 19 (2.1) of the Act, the current value of a wind turbine tower for the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years is determined by multiplying $50,460 by the installed capacity in megawatts of the generator attached to the wind turbine tower. O. Reg. 397/16, s. 4.
(3) For the purposes of clause 19.0.1 (1) (b) of the Act, the assessed value for the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years of a generating station structure that is a wind turbine tower is determined by multiplying $50,460 by the installed capacity in megawatts of the generator attached to the wind turbine tower. O. Reg. 397/16, s. 4.
(4)-(6) Revoked: O. Reg. 397/16, s. 4.
Systems for Energy Conservation or Energy Efficiency
42.6 The following rules apply if an active solar heating or cooling system or a ground-sourced geothermal heating or cooling system has been installed on, erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to land:
If the system would result in an increase to the value of the land, the current value of the land shall not reflect that increase and the land must be instead assessed as if it contained a non-renewable energy system that is typically found in similar lands in the vicinity.
If the system would result in a decrease to the value of the land, the current value of the land shall reflect that decrease and the land must be assessed at the lesser value. O. Reg. 1/12, s. 3.