2024-DOC 00035 Published On: 11/08/2024
Question: The options outlined in the new document “Summary of Extra Facilities (2024 RFP).pdf” are different from what we have seen in the past. Specifically, on all previous Interconnection Agreements we have seen, the Standard Option in each service area is based on a multiplier of the full estimated cost of Interconnection Facilities (to be updated based on actual cost at the time of delivery), rather than being based on a Cost Difference, as stated in your document. Can you confirm how the Cost Difference is calculated? Additionally, in all previous Interconnection Agreements, both the Standard Option and Prepayment Option in all service areas were calculated to approximately equal a NPV of 1.6 X the full estimated cost of Interconnection Facilities (to be updated based on actual cost at the time of delivery). Can you confirm the target NPV and discount rate for the current Standard and Prepayment Options?
Answer: The ‘cost difference’ referred to in the question and the Summary of Extra Facilities (2024 RFP).pdf document corresponds to how the Standard Option is calculated and applied in the Interconnection Agreements. Cost difference refers to the difference between the installed costs for the facilities necessary to meet the Interconnection Customer’s request and the installed cost of facilities which would be furnished for standard delivery. When applied to Interconnection Agreements, cost difference is equal to the full estimated cost of Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection Facilities.
As an example, assuming the projects in question are located in DEC’s North Carolina service territory, both the Standard Option and Prepayment Option are calculated to approximately equal a NPV of 1.6 X the full estimated cost of Interconnection Facilities (to be updated based on actual cost at the time of delivery). Note the NPV is subject to change based on the utility’s latest rate case filed in the applicable state and service territory. As your project progresses, feel free to reach out to the Renewable Integration Team to see what payment options are available.
2024-DOC 00034 Published On: 10/01/2024
Question: One of the CPs for the Asset Purchase Agreement is that "Seller shall have obtained all Permits required for the siting and construction of the Project". Does this include non-discretionary permits, or is this only referring to discretionary permitting? Because the Buyer would ultimately be responsible for the final design and construction under the Asset Purchase structure, it would make more sense for administerial, non-discretionary permitting to be obtained after closing by the Buyer.
Answer: The bidder is responsible for all local discretionary permitting and any permitting requirements that predate detailed design and engineering (i.e. final site plan and stormwater permits).
2024-DOC 00033 Published On: 09/23/2024
Question: Could Duke clarify whether the liquidated damages that Seller owes if it fails to achieve COD by the Second COD Date (i.e., 75% of the Default Liquidated Damages) are in addition to, or instead of, the Per Diem Liquidated Damages?
Answer: The 75% of the Default Liquidated Damages are in lieu of the per diem Liquidated Damages for a total of 100% of the Default Liquidated Damages. In no event would Buyer be entitled to collect more than the full Default Liquidated Damages under Section 20.5.
2024-DOC 00032 Published On: 09/23/2024
Question: Could Duke clarify its intent with the Second COD Date liquidated damages provisions in the PPA? As drafted, it is possible that liquidated damages may equal 4% of the total projected PPA revenues (i.e., the Default Liquidated) even if the Facility reaches COD by the date that is 180 days after the First COD Date. Is this the intent?
Answer: The intent is to incentivize the Seller to achieve COD as quickly as possible. If the Seller fails to achieve COD by the First COD Date, they would have the option to continue performance under the PPA. Upon payment of 25% of the Default Liquidated Damages, Seller would be provided with up to an additional 180 days to reach COD and would incur liquidated damages at a per diem rate (75% x Default Liquidated Damages ÷ 180). If Seller is unable to reach COD until the 180th day of the extension, then the entirety of the Default Liquidated Damages would have accrued (25% + 75% = 100%), but the PPA would remain in effect. If the Seller fails to achieve COD by the 181st day after the extension, the PPA would terminate and Seller would owe the remaining 75% of the Default Liquidated Damages in lieu of the per diem LDs for a total of 100% of the Default Liquidated Damages.
2024-DOC 00031 Published On: 09/23/2024
Question: In the Solar Only PPA The First COD Date is 90 days following the in-service date of the interconnection facilities and system upgrades and can be extended on a day-for-day basis due to Force Majeure. However, the Operational Milestone Schedule exhibit references the First COD Date being subject to day-for-day extension “for any delays not caused by the Seller”. This extension is not referenced elsewhere in the PPA. Cold Buyer please clarify Seller’s First COD extension rights (i.e., when is Seller entitled to First COD schedule relief)?
Answer: The First COD Date as referenced in Section 20.5.1 (Failure to Achieve First COD Date), means the deadline for Commercial Operation Date specified in Exhibit 3 (Operational Milestone Schedule) as extended (if applicable) in accordance with the Operational Milestone Schedule. I.e., if the COD deadline is extended in accordance with the operational milestone provision, the Seller would not owe liquidated damages unless and until the extended date was missed.
2024-DOC 00030 Published On: 09/23/2024
Question: The Operation Milestone Schedule EOD in the Solar Only PPA (Section 19.8) allows for “extensions pursuant to the terms of Section 20.5”, though the Operational Milestone Schedule exhibit states that the First COD Date is subject to day-for-day extension “for any delays not caused by the Seller”. Could Duke please clarify whether the Operation Milestone Schedule EOD is subject to the extensions referenced in the Operational Milestone Schedule exhibit?
Answer: The deadline for the Commercial Operation Date, as specified in Exhibit 3 (Operational Milestone Schedule), has a built-in extension provision for delays not caused by the Seller. If the COD deadline is extended in accordance with the operational milestone provision, the Seller would not be in default unless and until the extended date was missed.
2024-DOC 00029 Published On: 09/23/2024
Question: The covenants in Section 6.2 of the Solar Only PPA are subject to indemnification by Seller in addition to being EODs of Seller, but it is not clear whether the limitation of liability against consequential damages is applicable to these covenants. Could Duke please clarify whether the limitation of liability against consequential damages is applicable to the covenants in Section 6.2?
Answer: Section 22.2 makes clear that where no measure of damages is expressly provided, the obligor’s liability is limited to direct actual damages and that neither party is liable for consequential damages. Section 6.2 does not specify a measure of damages and therefore the limitations set forth in Section 22.2 are applicable.
2024-DOC 00028 Published On: 09/20/2024
Question: To clarify based on the response to 2024-DOC 00024, an Asset Transfer bid is able to leave the entire SOLAR PROJECT SPECIFICS (Technology) section blank?
Answer: 2024-DOC 00024 clarified that Asset Transfer proposals do not need to provide the 35 year energy (MWH) forecast and PVSyst report (rows Solar Only Bid form 281-318). Asset Transfer proposals are still required to provide answers to the inverter equipment included in the interconnection application, all other SOLAR PROJECT SPECIFICS (Technology) section inputs can be answered with “N/A” per the bid form instructions. BOT proposals are instructed to provide responses to all bid form cells within this section.
2024-DOC 00027 Published On: 09/19/2024
Question: Can you expand on line 210 of the of the UOT SPS bid input form: "Provide the Project's Investigation into the Availability of Communications Required for Transmission, Such as OPGW, Fiber (Dedicated or Third-Party)"? Specifically, which speeds, and which internet types should we screen our project areas for? Are you only looking for fiber for instance? Where can this information be obtained from?
Answer: For UOT projects specifically, DEC and DEP Transmission no longer accept third party telecommunications solutions and instead require all UOT projects to utilize Duke Energy-owned telecommunications, regardless of the project having an executed Interconnection Agreement or not at the time of bid submittal. For projects submitting interconnection requests into the 2024 RSC, the response to line 210 on the bid form should be “project being studied in the 2024 RSC”. For projects not submitting into the 2024 RSC and that have instead executed interconnection agreements, please address the project’s plan for communications including transmission transfer trip. Additional information for inverter based resources is available on OASIS https://www.oasis.oati.com/duk/index.html in the folder “Generator Interconnection Information\IBR Interconnection”.
2024-DOC 00026 Published On: 09/19/2024
Question: In the General section of the bid forms, does "Current Project Owner" refer to the ultimate parent owner(s) of the project?
Answer: Correct, as well as the direct owner.
2024-DOC 00025 Published On: 09/19/2024
Question: Our team had a question about the credit support requirements as it relates to the UOT bid track, please see below: Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2 of Appendix J contemplate the terms of required Credit Support due by the Seller under following execution of either the APA or BTA. Conversely, Appendix K (APA) does not contemplate any such Credit Support requirements (whereas Article 9 of Appendix M (BTA) does include Credit Support for the BOT). Can you confirm that under the BOT, Credit Support will be required to be posted by the Buyer, but under the UOT, no such Credit Support will be required by the Seller following the execution of the APA? Alternatively, if there is Credit Support requirements for the Seller under the APA agreement, please provide the details of those requirements including the proposed language that would be included under the APA.
Answer: Under the APA, the Company does not require the Seller to post any credit support, whence executed. Under the BTA, the Company reserves the right to fully evaluate the credit worthiness of the Seller and any Parent entities to determine the credit support requirements, typically credit security under the BTA, whence executed will not be less than 35% letter of credit or parent guaranty. Under the BTA, typically Buyer credit support is not needed, considering the Buyer is the regulated utility (DEC or DEP).
2024-DOC 00024 Published On: 09/19/2024
Question: Can you confirm that Asset Transfer bids should leave the annual production part of the bid form blank since the Utility Ownership Team will develop and provide the IE with the proposal's energy production profile?
Answer: Correct, the Annual Plant Production (P50) subsection of the UOT Bid Input Forms can be left blank for Asset Transfer proposals. It is part of the SOLAR PROJECT SPECIFICS (Technology) section, which is not required for Asset Transfer bids.
2024-DOC 00023 Published On: 09/17/2024
Question: In the UOT Bid Form there is a space for confirmation of transmission interconnection station design. Can you clarify whether this is referring to the facility side of the POI or if this is referring to the utility side of the POI?
Answer: Bidders should provide detail whether the transmission interconnection station design is a tap station, ring-bus station, or an existing substation. The Utility Ownership Team needs to understand the design of the transmission substation so that a proper cost estimate can be developed and included in the Companies’ cost estimate to construct the proposed project.
2024-DOC 00022 Published On: 09/12/2024
Question: To clarify based on the updates to the PPA track bid forms made recently: The PPA PVsyst guidance sheet sets availability losses to 0%, but planned outage impacts still need to be included in PPA proposal production profiles despite not being contemplated in the guidance sheet, correct?
Answer: Correct.
2024-DOC 00021 Published On: 09/12/2024
Question: Item 9 in Exhibit A-2 of the LOI states that “Additional credit support, either in the form of a parent guarantee or letter of credit, will be required to secure the obligations of Seller under the APA…” Can Duke please provide more details on the amount and form of an acceptable parent guarantee or letter of credit referenced in this section of the LOI? Is this section referring to the LOI security of 3% of the asset price or is this an additional security amount?
Answer: The same letter of credit guidance is applicable to all 2024 RFP security requirements, although different letter of credit and parent guarantee templates may be appropriate based on the particular type of security required (i.e. security required pursuant to the RSC study process, PPA, or otherwise).
2024-DOC 00020 Published On: 09/12/2024
Question: Can you please provide a checklist of all the documents required for RSC and RFP submission for Solar-Only and SPS projects - specifically to PPA track? I could not locate an NDA document among the RFP document.
Answer: Please reference the Bid Input Forms, the documents required for the RFP submission are listed there. The NDA document is now posted at 2024-RFP-Documents (dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com).
2024-DOC 00019 Published On: 09/12/2024
Question: Is there an NDA that should be signed for this year's RFP? The 2023 RFP had a specific NDA in the documents and there does not appear to be one for the 2024 RFP.
Answer: Yes, the 2024 NDA is now posted in the 2024 Documents linked here 2024-RFP-Documents (dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com).
2024-DOC 00018 Published On: 09/11/2024
Question: Exhibit A-4 is called "PPA guidance PVsyst Parameters and Modeling Assumptions on the 2024 RFP: Documents page of the CRA website, but this document is only referenced in the UOT Bid Input Form. Should this guidance be used for the production profiles of PPA track bids as well? Furthermore, can you clarify whether planned outage impacts should be included in the PVsyst files for all bids, whether PPA track or UOT track, and if so, why is the availability loss set to 0% on the Exhibit A-4 guidance document (unless that guidance is only for UOT bids, indicating that UOT bids should not include planned outage impacts in their PVsyst files)?
Answer: All proposals must provide an energy production forecast. See RFP Document Section IX.C. As provided in 2024-DOC 00012, the PVSyst guidance provided in Appendix I (EPC Exhibit A-4) applies to both PPA Track and UOT projects. PPA Track bidders are expected to include their own outage assumptions into their energy forecasts; the energy forecast provided in the bid submittal will be used as the energy forecast in the PPA, if selected. Note also that UOT projects must ensure compliance with EPC Exhibit A-4, which will then be reviewed and evaluated by the Utility Ownership Team.
2024-DOC 00017 Published On: 09/10/2024
Question: In the Financial Information section of the RFP response form, there is a line for a Dunn and Bradstreet Identification Number. Does this number need to be tied to the specific project entity or would a Dunn and Bradstreet number from the project's parent company be sufficient?
Answer: If the project entity does not have a Dunn and Bradstreet number, such number should be provided for the project's parent company.
2024-DOC 00016 Published On: 09/10/2024
Question: In the UOT Bid Input Form, for the line item "Describe any Applicable Timber Rights and Impact to Construction," does this item pertain to 3rd party or non-landowner timber rights or claims that are of public record? Or, is this specific to any timber rights in the specific landowner agreements?
Answer: Any and all timber rights, whether held by a third party or granted to the landowner under a site control agreement, should be disclosed.
2024-DOC 00015 Published On: 09/10/2024
Question: In the UOT Bid Input Form, would you please elaborate on what is meant by "Are Any Site Control Agreements Contingent in Any Way?"
Answer: The Companies are looking for any site control agreement information and if it is contingent in any way. For example, contingent upon any specific events, or consents, or other series of events, including approvals, or milestones, pursuant to said site control agreement. Any and all information related to those contingencies should be disclosed.
2024-DOC 00014 Published On: 09/09/2024
Question: What is the target date for Asset Transfer track proposals to have fully executed acquisition agreements? The RFP document states the target date is December 31, 2024, but I am assuming that is a typo. The form Asset Purchase Agreement lists an executed IA as a Condition Precedent to closing, so it seems like the target date could not be before August of 2026.
Answer: The contracting deadline for Asset Transfer proposal is December 31, 2025. RFP Document section VII.F (first paragraph on page 31), should read “The Utility Ownership Track acquisition Proposals will have 30 calendar days to execute a LOI (provided as Appendix J), with a target date of fully executed asset acquisition agreements by December 31, 2025.” Not 2024. Yes, all UOT acquisition Proposals are required to have fully executed Interconnection Agreements as a closing condition under the definitive agreements.
2024-DOC 00013 Published On: 09/06/2024
Question: Could you please clarify if Solar Anywhere is acceptable for any of the proposal tracks?
Answer: Solar Anywhere is not acceptable. Please refer to guidance provided in FAQs 2024-DOC 00009 & 2024-DOC 00004. Meteonorm or SolCast are acceptable.
2024-DOC 00012 Published On: 09/06/2024
Question: Could you please clarify which proposal tracks these modeling requirements apply to: Exhibit A-4 – PPA guidance PVsyst Parameters and Modeling Assumptions?
Answer: The modeling assumptions document provides guidance for the PPA proposals and is required for the UOT proposals.
2024-DOC 00011 (revised 08/30/2024) Published On: 08/28/2024
Question: Can you confirm that production model meteorological data must be sourced from Meteonorm? Are alternate sources such as Solar Anywhere acceptable? Does this requirement apply to all tracks (PPA, UOT, BTO)?
Answer: Please refer to guidance provided in FAQs 2024-DOC 00009 & 2024-DOC 00004, available at www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/2024-FAQ/2024-Documents. Meteonorm or SolCast are acceptable. Solar Anywhere will not be acceptable.
2024-DOC 00010 Published On: 08/22/2024
Question: Is an electrical model required with the proposal submission? Where can I find more information on the model requirements?
Answer: For PPA proposals, review the "PPA guidance PVsyst Parameters and Modeling Assumptions" document, available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/2024-RFP-Documents.
2024-DOC 00009 Published On: 08/21/2024
Question: For the PVsyst requirements, is there a reason why the Meteo File Data Source changed from SolCast (DEC & DEP 2023 RFP) to Meteonorm (DEC & DEP 2024 RFP)? Last year, some bidders subscribed to SolCast solely to participate in the DEC & DEP 2023 RFP.
Answer: For Exhibit A-4 – Attachment – PVsyst Parameters and Modeling Assumptions: Based on Market Participant feedback from the 2023 RFP regarding the requirement to use a Meteo File Data Source service that requires a fee, Duke Energy reevaluated suppliers and found Meteonorm acceptable. Meteonorm weather files are available within PVsyst and require no additional subscription or financial burden. However, Duke Energy will still accept Solcast as an alternative weather source for purposes of the 2024 RFP.
2024-DOC 00008 Published On: 08/19/2024
Question: Regarding the UOT technical guidance discussed in Appendix I-1, can Duke confirm if the 100' project boundary setback includes the fence?
Answer: The 100’ setback is intended to denote a setback from the property line where equipment is typically not permitted or for general good practice not advisable to site. Project fencing is generally assumed to be allowable within this 100’ setback guidance.
2024-DOC 00007 Published On: 08/19/2024
Question: Are SLDs required to be stamped by a PE?
Answer: Yes, the single line diagram (SLD) provided should be a signed, stamped drawing.
2024-DOC 00006 Published On: 08/13/2024
Question: The Approved Vendor List (AVL) says that Sungrow inverters "may be considered if submitted as a cost alternative line item." Can you please explain what this means and how it should be done?
Answer: Sungrow inverters are currently an acceptable inverter supplier on the AVL on a project by project exception basis.
For Asset Transfer proposals, Market Participants are able to submit Utility Ownership Track proposals utilizing Sungrow inverters; however, the Utility Ownership Team reserves the right to require the Market Participant to change the inverter supplier to an AVL compliant supplier upon request.
For BOT proposals, Market Participants must submit a proposal utilizing an AVL compliant supplier (TMEIC or SMA); however, they may also provide a bid alternative with Sungrow as a “separate cost alternative line item.” Only one bid form is required, and the price difference should be clearly noted by the Market Participant. The Utility Ownership Team then has discretion to accept the bid alternative with Sungrow or not.
2024-DOC 00005 Published On: 08/12/2024
Question: Is a site plan required for projects submitting into the UOT Asset-Transfer track? If so, what are the site layout requirements? Are they all included Appendix I1? Will there be any forthcoming site layout requirements as seen in the '23 RFP Appendix I1?
Answer: Minimum technical deliverables for Asset Transfer proposals are provided in Appendix I-1. A site plan is not required, however, Market Participants are encouraged to include one in their proposal submittal if one is available.
2024-DOC 00004 Published On: 08/09/2024
Question: On subsection "C. PRODUCTION ESTIMATES" of section "IX. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION" of the "DEC DEP 2024 RFP Document", it is mentioned that all Proposals should see Appendix I in connection to the PVSyst requirements or specifications. However, on the RFP's website (https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com > 2024 RFP: Documents), there is no such Appendix I. Could you please clarify which exact document Market Participants have to review in connection to the PVSyst requirements or specifications? Thank you!
Answer: For PPA track bids, the MP is responsible for the development and submittal of a proposal’s PVSyst production profile in accordance with the guidance included in the Appendix L – Solar BESS EPC Agreement Exhibits. Please see the 2024 RFP Document titled “PPA guidance PVsyst Parameters and Modeling Assumptions.pdf” taken from the Appendix L – Solar BESS EPC Agreement Exhibits and now available for MPs on the 2024 RFP Website.
Appendices I1-I4 apply to UOT bids only. For Asset Transfer bids, the Utility Ownership Team will develop and provide the IE with the proposal’s energy production profile. For BOT projects, the MP is responsible for developing and providing the PVSyst production profile in accordance with the guidance of Appendix I2.
2024-DOC 00003 Published On: 07/29/2024
Question: In the 2024 RFP, the title "C. REQUIREMENT TO BID SPS RESOURCES AS NEW SOLAR-ONLY" implies that SPS projects are required to also bid as solar-only. Is this interpretation correct?
Answer: Correct, all projects submitted in the 2024 RFP will be required to submit a solar-only proposal and may opt to also submit a solar-plus-storage proposal. This requirement is unchanged from the 2023 RFP.
2024-DOC 00002 Published On: 07/24/2024
Question: Will projects that failed to submit a NOIR by August 15 be disqualified from participating in the RFP?
Answer: No, respondents for projects will not be disqualified if they failed to submit the Notice of Intent to Respond form by August 15. Respondents are encouraged to submit this non-binding form by the due date.
2024-DOC 00001 Published On: 07/16/2024
Question: The RFP mentiones "Grid locational guidance identifying transmission constraints" will be available on the IE webiste. Where can I find that?
Answer: The grid locational guidance document is now available on the IE's website, https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/2024-RFP-Documents