Installation of a GREE FreeMatch R32 2-head heat pump in Saint-Charles-sur-Richelieu (La Vallée-du-Richelieu RCM)

The program subsidizes the owner and prohibits the owner from increasing the rent as a result

On October 23 and 24, 1837, five to six thousand people, according to the sources, gathered in Saint-Charles-sur-Richelieu for the Assembly of the Six Counties—Richelieu, Rouville, Saint-Hyacinthe, Chambly, Verchères, and L'Acadie, the latter admitted that same day. Wolfred Nelson presided; Louis-Joseph Papineau, Denis-Benjamin Viger, Édouard-Étienne Rodier, and Thomas Storrow Brown spoke there. A column topped with a Phrygian cap was erected, bearing the inscription “To Papineau, his grateful compatriots, 1837.”

A village in the Richelieu Valley where people gathered to discuss who decides what. It is a somewhat easy transition, and we accept it, because the installation we carried out there raises exactly that question in a much more prosaic form: when a heat pump is installed in a rental dwelling, who decides, who pays, who maintains it, and who benefits?

This is a subject on which a great deal of outdated information circulates. We will therefore be precise about our sources and explicit about what we will not say.

What was installed

Values taken from the specification sheet X610068B from the manufacturer, read directly.

Why the 42,000 rather than the 36,000, and the argument has nothing to do with piping length

Two 18,000 BTU/h heads would fit on the lower chassis. Here is the reason for the choice, and it can be read directly in the manufacturer's table:

The modulation minimum for the 36,000 and the 42,000 is identical—2,600 W, or 8,870 BTU/h. Exactly the same figure for both models, in both cooling and heating.

In other words: moving up one capacity level costs nothing at the bottom of the range. The low-load behavior—the factor that determines comfort in May and September, as well as cycle frequency—is the same for both units. What you gain at the top end is a higher maximum capacity (54,590 BTU/h in heating versus 51,180), a 50 m pre-charge instead of 40, a maximum total length of 100 m instead of 80, and up to five indoor units instead of four.

This is reasoning we had never published before, and it deserves to be known: between two neighboring capacities, the question is not only “is it too large?” but “does the minimum modulation level change?” Here, it does not.

The two heads operating alone are located approximately 103% above this minimum, and the total of 36,000 remains well below the adjusted maximum. One point of transparency that we make systematically: the 18 + 18 configuration has already been used elsewhere in our series for other outdoor units; what is new is combining it with this capacity.

What the program actually says—and prohibits

Let’s get to the heart of the matter. The facts below are taken directly from the Hydro-Québec LogisVert program participation guides. We cite them as program conditions, which is what they are, not as legal rules.

1. A tenant alone cannot receive assistance for a heat pump

Under the general residential guide, a tenant acting on their own behalf is eligible for only two appliances: an induction range and a heat pump dryer. A heat pump is not included.

The consequence is significant, and it surprises many people: in a rented dwelling, the heat pump application is the owner’s responsibility. A tenant who wants to have a unit installed cannot submit the application alone.

2. The multi-unit housing incentive exists only when the tenant pays for their electricity

The residential guide reserves the multi-unit housing incentive for owners of an eligible dwelling “where each tenant is responsible for their electricity bill”, subject to three cumulative conditions: the building must have been built in 1995 or earlier, have a main electric heating system, and be equipped with one electric meter per dwelling.

Take a second to look at the diagram. The increased assistance does not apply where heating is included in the rent. This is not an oversight; it is a decision. Where the tenant pays for electricity, a heat pump reduces their bill. Where heating is included, the savings would go to the landlord, and the program stops providing the increase.

3. The prohibition—and this is the line that almost no one cites

In the guide intended for tenants and landlord-renters, the list of the landlord’s commitments ends with this one, word for word:

“Do not use the installation of a unit as justification for increasing the rent.”

And in the general residential guide, the rule is worded differently but points in the same direction: the landlord must comply with the rent-setting rules of the Administrative Housing Tribunal and cannot include, when calculating a rent increase, equipment or improvements that have been subsidized under the program.

The portion paid for by the program cannot be recovered through the rent. It is clear, it is written, and it changes the calculation for a landlord who thought they could do both.

4. The maintenance responsibilities are also set out in writing

The same guide divides the tasks unambiguously. The landlord agrees to carry out periodic maintenance and pay the costs, to coordinate access to the dwelling with the tenant, to inform the tenant of visits, to not prohibit the use of the unit or block access to it, and to acknowledge that the installed unit belongs to them. The tenant, for their part, is responsible for regularly cleaning the filter.

This last point deserves emphasis: it is exactly the division of responsibilities we recommend anyway, and seeing it written in a program document avoids many conversations. We add just one operational detail: the filter demonstration is given to the tenant present on the day the unit is commissioned, and the sheet stays in the dwelling—not in the landlord’s binder. Tenants change; the unit stays.

What we will not say, and why

Many online texts will tell you that a heat pump constitutes a “major improvement” within the meaning of the Civil Code, along with the notices and deadlines that this entails.

We will not make that claim. The Civil Code does not define the expression, and the qualification is decided on a case-by-case basis by the Administrative Housing Tribunal. A heat pump that replaces the heating system is not in the same situation as a unit added to air-condition a room. We cite documents; we do not make decisions, and that question should be addressed to the TAL or a lawyer, not an HVAC contractor.

Two useful reference points nonetheless, and they are verifiable:

• The regulation on rent-setting criteria has changed its number and its content. The former reference R-8.1, r. 2 was repealed in 2020; the text now appears under T-15.01, r. 2. It was also substantially rewritten effective January 1, 2026, with the new method applying to modification notices given on or after that date. Any web page that cites the old number has not been revised in at least five years—a simple and remarkably effective freshness test.
• Access for maintenance is not optional. The tenant cannot refuse access for work, provided notice is given and the work takes place within a time period set by law. We will not go into the details here—it is something to verify with the TAL—but remember that an annual maintenance contract in a rented unit is enforceable, and it is better to include it in the lease than discuss it in July.

Only one thing prevents a multi-split from serving two units, and it is not capacity

This is the question we receive from almost every duplex owner, and the answer always surprises them:

“My unit supports five indoor units. Can I put two upstairs and two downstairs, and buy only one outdoor unit?”

In terms of capacity, nothing prevents it. Electrically, everything does.

The indoor units are not powered by the room

It is stated plainly in the manufacturer's documentation, and it is probably the least understood feature of this type of system: the indoor units are powered by the outdoor unit.

A wall-mounted indoor unit does not have its own circuit. It is not connected to the panel of the unit where it is located. It receives its power and signals through an interconnection cable that runs back to the outdoor unit, which is supplied by a single circuit—here, MCA 30 A, MOCP 45 A for the entire system, including both indoor units.

The consequence, in one sentence

All the energy consumed by all the indoor units passes through a single meter: the one supplying the outdoor unit.

In a duplex with separate meters, a multi-split serving two units therefore makes a single occupant pay for the heating and air conditioning of two. This is not a billing detail: it is a design problem that cannot be fixed afterward, because the only possible solution is to separate the systems, which means buying another outdoor unit.

And this directly conflicts with what we have just read: the program’s multi-unit-building incentive requires one electrical meter per dwelling and a tenant responsible for their own bill. A system shared between two dwellings cannot meet this condition, regardless of its efficiency.

The rule we apply

One system per dwelling. One outdoor unit, one circuit, one meter, and one occupant paying for what they consume. The additional ports on a large chassis are for adding zones within the same dwelling—not for crossing the separation between housing units.

Two corollaries we systematically verify:

1. The interconnection cable and the pair of pipes belonging to the same head must terminate at the same numbered port. Crossing them causes the wrong expansion valve to be controlled, and the symptoms look like a defective unit: one room never reaches its setpoint while another exceeds it, one head freezes, or one head stops without displaying an error code. Our Hinchinbrooke page published the verification method; this is the fault we most often correct on other contractors’ multi-zone installations.
2. Before drilling, we know which panel supplies the power—and, in a rental building, which meter that panel is connected to.

The difference from our other pages about the valley

Our Beloeil page raised an occupancy question: who is in the room, and who can speak on their behalf. The Mont-Saint-Hilaire page raised a surface question: what the unit is installed on, and what that surface does with water. This one raises a meter question: who pays for what the unit consumes, and is that actually the person benefiting from it?

Three neighboring municipalities, three questions that are not alike. That is, ultimately, why we write these pages one by one instead of using a template.

At AirGreen, we install, maintain, and document HVAC systems in Saint-Charles-sur-Richelieu, Saint-Marc-sur-Richelieu, Beloeil, Mont-Saint-Hilaire, Otterburn Park, and throughout the Richelieu Valley, as well as in Montreal, Laval, Longueuil, on the North Shore, and on the South Shore. If your project involves a rental unit or a multi-unit building, mention it during the first visit: the meter issue is resolved on a plan, never on a wall that has already been drilled.