{¶ 1} Appellee, the Ohio Power Siting Board, approved the application of intervening appellee, South Branch Solar, L.L.C., for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need
View Details
The Court ruled that the cables and substation, which were to be shared by Hulam and Sheraton did not form part of a “generating station” as per the Electricity Act 1989 (“EA 1989”); they were simply
View Details
at an agree of 25 years. The fact that in view of the play of market forces, there has been a fall in the price of solar power and it would be open to the appellant to procure solar power at a cheaper rate
View Details
The court clarified that solar power stations, including their modules, are movable assets. Although attached to civil foundations embedded in the earth, the attachment is not for the beneficial
View Details
The government has itself acknowledged that the land use conversion process is a long and arduous one, which led it to deem conversion for solar power projects under the present scheme. However,
View Details
I write separately to discuss in more detail what exactly an applicant must provide to appellee, the Ohio Power Siting Board, to meet its burden in order for the board to issue a certificate of environmental
View Details
Get free access to the complete judgment in Fermi Solar Farms Private Limited v. State Tax Officer on CaseMine.
View Details
The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the supply of a solar power generating station is a composite supply and not a works contract. This decision confirms the
View Details
COLUMBUS, Ga. (AP) — A federal jury has awarded a Georgia couple $135.5 million for damages to their property by a Tennessee-based solar
View Details
The Court differentiated between composite supply and works contract, stating that the supply of solar power plants, if considered movable property, would be taxed at 5%.
View DetailsPDF version includes complete article with source references. Suitable for printing and offline reading.
