2025-STM 00006 Published On: 07/10/2025
Question: With the 12-month gap between executing a PPA prior to executing an IA via the RSC, is there any guidance on the earliest achievable COD that should be targeted after IA signing?
Answer: Each project has unique requirements for interconnection; the best resource is the 2024 RSC study results which include an estimated in-service date.
2025-STM 00005 Published On: 07/10/2025
Question: (1) Where is there information on the Early Winner’s Path? (2) Under the Early Winner’s Path, will there be any size limitations since the cost of interconnection is known and economics can be valued without unknown costs? (3) For Early Winner’s Path interconnection, will the state jurisdictional or FERC LGIA be required?
Answer: Additional information on the Early Winners' / Early Finalists' path will be available in the finalized RFP documents. These documents will be posted here https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/2025-RFP-Documents in mid-July 2025.
2025-STM 00004 Published On: 07/10/2025
Question: Where are the solar reference costs available to review?
Answer: The solar reference cost for the 2025 RFP will be provided in February 2026.
2025-STM 00003 Published On: 04/15/2025
Question: During the call on April 9, a “Tranche 1 report from 2024 RFP” was provided in chat. The provided pdf document actually appears to be dated 2019. Wondering if the wrong doc was attached? Is there a 2024 document that can be shared?
Answer: The link provided during the stakeholder meeting was to a 2019 CPRE report, not a 2024 RFP report. The latest RFP report from August 2024 is available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.
2025-STM 00002 Published On: 04/15/2025
Question: Is there any preference for SPS projects (hybrid vs co-located)?
Answer: Using the NERC definitions of these terms, the Companies are seeking co-located facilities.
2025-STM 00001 Published On: 04/15/2025
Question: There was a request on the 1/29/2025 stakeholder call for comments to the pro forma documents. Which documents should stakeholders be using as the baseline?
Answer: 2025 RFP documents are not yet available. The Companies plan to use the 2024 RFP documents as a starting point, these are available on the IE’s website in the 2024 documents section - www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/2024-RFP-Documents. The slide deck from the 2025 Stakeholder Engagement session is also available on the IE’s website at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/StakeholderMaterials.
2025-GEN 00027 Published On: 08/22/2025
Question: With the release of the guidance for start of construction, can Duke provide greater clarity on how it will achieve start of construction for UOT projects that choose to have Duke obtain start of construction for the project? It seems very challenging for any project not on the early decision path, including UOT projects electing to have Duke secure start of construction, to achieve start of construction between May 2026 and July 2026. If Duke fails in this case, will Duke move forward with finalists even if Duke fails to secure ITC eligibility? Is Duke reevaluating whether to issue the RFP at all, because achieving ITC eligilbity may be extremely challenging for many market participants?
Answer: The Utility Ownership Team, along with the Duke Energy Team and CRA are in the process of reviewing and digesting the recent Treasury guidance issued on 8/15/25; if any changes to the RFP need to be made, they will be communicated by the Independent Evaluator (CRA). At this time Duke Energy is moving forward with the 2025 RFP as planned.
As discussed in 2025-GEN 00022 and 2025-GEN 00020, Market Participants submitting Asset Transfer proposals are able to meet the RFP eligibility requirement to demonstrate tax credit eligibility by stating they are either (i) making plans and/or commitments to commence construction by July 4, 2026, or (ii) planning to assign that responsibility to the Companies. Duke Energy does not plan to move forward with UOT Finalists that have not demonstrated their ability to achieve start of construction requirements by the required deadlines, this includes Asset Transfer proposals and Utility-Developed proposals. As discussed during the Pre-Solicitation Bidders Conference, the Utility Ownership Team is still in the process of evaluating its ability to meet start of construction requirements and will strive to be transparent in its communication to bidders, however, this may not occur prior to the bid submittal deadline.
2025-GEN 00026 Published On: 08/22/2025
Question: For UOT projects, what obligations does Duke have under the APA to begin construction and achieve substantial completion after the closing date under the APA? Will Duke consider a modification to the APA that allows the seller to buy back the project at cost if Duke does not proceed to construction within a certain time?
Answer: Market Participants planning to submit Asset Transfer bids are encouraged to read the full RFP Documents, including the form LOI and APA. Under the APA, Duke Energy, as Buyer, is not obligated to commence construction and achieve substantial completion of the facility after Closing. As market participants can appreciate, much work goes into building a solar/SPWS facility, the majority of which occurs after APA closing. Duke Energy must still execute selected projects in a diligent and least-cost manner and factors could arrive after APA closing that render the selected project no longer prudent to execute. This has not occurred to date with any prior selected Asset Transfer proposal, but there are no guarantees that such circumstances will not arrive in the future. If such events were to take place, yes, Duke Energy is willing to include a buy back provision in the APA to allow the Seller to repurchase the development rights and assets associated with the project, for the price paid by Duke Energy plus its costs incurred to advance the project and subject to agreement on other relevant details.
2025-GEN 00025 Published On: 08/18/2025
Question: The 2024 RFP had a Build-Own-Transfer track as an option to bid. Could you tell us why it isn't an option on this 2025 RFP?
Answer: There was a limited number of BOT bids received in previous RFPs and none have resulted in an executed contract. Given the complexity of evaluating UOT bids, Duke Energy proposed to remove the BOT option for the 2025 RFP. The IE and Public Staff had no objections to this proposal.
2025-GEN 00024 Published On: 08/13/2025
Question: For avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that projects submitting into the 2025 RFP UOT track are not capped at 80MWac? Is there an alternative cap?
Answer: There is no upper limit on the size of UOT proposals for projects only offered under the UOT. A project offered as both UOT and PPA must comply with the 80 MW upper limit because the project size under the PPA and UOT proposals must be identical.
2025-GEN 00023 Published On: 08/08/2025
Question: Response 2025-GEN 00020 stated, "Considering that there are multiple ways to achieve start of construction, MPs should describe their plans, actions taken and how those actions, such as equipment orders, etc. will be transferred to the Utility, if selected, or if the MP is relying on the Utility to qualify the project for start of construction." How will applications be evaluated on these criteria? For example, will a project that relies on the Utility to qualify the project for start of construction receive fewer points than a project that purchases equipment for transfer to Duke? If the latter, will Duke provide a pro-forma template or amendment to the Asset Purchase Agreement to provide reimbursement for those expenses?
Answer: Projects who have taken steps to qualify for clean energy tax credits (i.e., safe harbor) will be awarded additional points in the Development scoring category, as outlined in Appendix F – Sample Scoring Sheet.
The Bid Input Form will include additional fields/questions asking for information from the MP regarding start of construction activities, and the price of any included safe harbored equipment.
At this time, Duke Energy has not prepared any modifications to the form LOI or APA as the form APA already contemplates that equipment, components, and other tangible personal property to be used in construction of the Project constitute Personal Property and part of the transferred Project Assets. Any purchase orders or similar contracts for equipment orders would qualify as Assumed Contracts and transferred Project Assets. Duke Energy will evaluate the necessity and prudence of drafting supplemental provisions related to this approach after evaluating the bids submitted, as the bid process may provide insight as to what supplemental provisions would appropriately and equitably help implement this approach.
As discussed in 2025-GEN 00022 and 2025-GEN 00020, UOT projects may meet the RFP eligibility requirement to demonstrate tax credit eligibility for a UOT bid by stating they are either (i) making plans and/or commitments to commence construction by July 4, 2026, or (ii) planning to assign that responsibility to the Companies.
The Companies are also awaiting the expected Aug 18th guidance on safe harboring and assessing their own ability to meet the safe harbor requirements. At this time, it is not clear what that opportunity is and so it has not yet been determined if having the bidder secure the safe harbor or the utility secure the safe harbor will be worth different points. This is an unprecedented situation that the Companies are navigating with the IE and may change subject to market availability.
2025-GEN 00022 Published On: 08/05/2025
Question: For UOT (Asset Transfer) projects, will Duke be responsible for ensuring safe harbor standards or construction commencement at the site to allow for tax credit eligiblity?
Answer: All bidders are required to describe how they plan to meet the safe harbor requirements to achieve the tax credits. Market participants bidding UOT projects may meet the RFP eligibility requirement to demonstrate tax credit eligibility for a UOT bid by stating they are either (i) making plans and/or commitments to commence construction by July 4, 2026, or (ii) planning to assign that responsibility to the Companies. Please refer to the response provided in 2025-GEN 00020.
2025-GEN 00021 Published On: 08/05/2025
Question: Does the requirement to overbuild rather than augment storage projects in the UOT track also apply to maintenance related replacements needed to meet the guaranteed capacity?
Answer: Please see response to 2025-DOC 00011, which was revised on 08/04/2025 and clarifies that the overbuild vs augmentation requirements for BESS sizing is dependent upon the BESS size. The requirement to overbuild for all projects where the BESS MW at the POI is under 50MW, is for the initial build of the BESS to ensure that the end of life MW/MWh is equal to the capacity submitted into the RFP and interconnection request after normal degradation. As maintenance related issues during operation are unknown, an overbuild for these replacements is not needed for the interconnection request.
2025-GEN 00020 Published On: 08/05/2025
Question: The final RFP requires projects to demonstrate eligibility to obtain federal tax credits. For Utility Ownership Track (Asset Transfer) projects, construction would need to start by July 2026. That will be a difficult task for any projects that do not already have fully permitted sites with an interconnection agreement in place. Is Duke indicating that only UOT projects with an existing IA bid as Early Selection projects or are any UOT projects eligible for Early Selection?
Answer: Only projects with an existing IA as of the close of the Bid Window are eligible to bid as Early Selection Projects. Any UOT (Asset Transfer) projects that do not currently have an IA will need to be studied in the 2025 RSC and therefore are not eligible for Early Selection. As provided in the RFP, all MPs submitting Asset Transfer proposals for either Early Selection or regular Finalists will be held accountable to deliver the tax credit qualifications indicated on the bid form submitted for each Proposal (i.e. Energy Communities eligible) as well as information regarding their plans to safe harbor and achieve start of construction by July 2026.
As such, all Asset Transfer proposals are required to provide plans to achieve start of construction safe harboring. Considering that there are multiple ways to achieve start of construction, MPs should describe their plans, actions taken and how those actions, such as equipment orders, etc. will be transferred to the Utility, if selected, or if the MP is relying on the Utility to qualify the project for start of construction.
2025-GEN 00019 Published On: 08/04/2025
Question: We’re planning to submit bids to the 2025 Duke RFP. I get updates from you at my email address and attend the stakeholder calls, but I cannot login to the necessary ShareFile. Can someone help me set up a login?
Answer: ShareFile access will be granted to interested parties to upload their proposal documents after the bid window opens on August 15. Please submit the Notice of Intent to Respond (NOIR) form (available on the 2025 RFP Documents page) to request ShareFile access.
2025-GEN 00018 Published On: 08/04/2025
Question: If a project is bid into both the PPA and the UOT tracks, can it be short-listed in both tracks? If so, is Proposal Security due for each track, or would just one Proposal Security per project be due?
Answer: All active proposals for a project will be shortlisted to Step 2 of the RFP. If a project was offered into both the UOT and PPA Tracks, both of these proposals will be shortlisted (unless the PPA offer was withdrawn by the December 9, 2025 deadline). Proposal Security is assessed only once per project.
2025-GEN 00017 Published On: 08/04/2025
Question: In the RFP document, page 14/40 details "CONTROLLABLE PPA TRACK PROPOSALS". The third bullet discusses where facilities can be located relative to each other. Can we submit into the RFP for a facility to bid for a PPA(80MW) then upsize the project and resubmit into the RFP to bid for a PPA for the upsized portion(another 80MW for a total of 160MW)?
Answer: PPA proposals in the RFP must obtain qualifying facility (“QF”) certification. The described scenario would not comply with the 1-mile rule for QFs. Please see FAQ 2025-GEN 00007.
2025-GEN 00016 Published On: 07/30/2025
Question: Are bidders required to demonstrate they have already taken any specific action to commence construction in order to achieve the safe harbor requirements by September 30th when bids are due?
Answer: No, bidders are not required to show evidence of taking any specific action to commence construction in order to achieve applicable safe harbor requirements as of September 30th, however such evidence will be given points in the non-economic qualitative scoring evaluation as part of the “Development Characteristics” assessment under Section VI.C.1 of the RFP. Bidders will be required to explain their plan for how they intend to safe harbor and achieve the tax credit, assuming that the project can come online by 12/31/2030. Bidders must also verify and provide any update to this plan in the Step 2 bid refresh in March, 2026. Projects without Interconnection Agreements will not know their estimated in service date at the time they bid, and the Companies’ intention is to encourage projects to bid as if they were achieving the tax credit, knowing that if ultimately their in service date from the Phase 1 RSC study (which will be published at the end of Step 2) indicates a date beyond 12/31/2030, they would have the right to decline an award and receive their proposal security back. See Section II (addressing Duke Energy’s right to decline projects with in service dates beyond 2030) and V.B.1 (providing for release of proposal security).
2025-GEN 00015 Published On: 07/25/2025
Question: Regarding the criterion that slopes greater than 7 degrees (12.3%) will be removed from the buildable area outlined in Appendix I-1 "UOT Asset Transfer Technical Guidance", can Duke please clarify whether this standard is meant to reference acceptable post-construction slopes?
Answer: Slopes greater than 7 degrees (12.3% ) will be removed from buildable area, is in reference to pre-construction topography/slopes. Duke Energy avoids these areas, within reason, due to constructability/safety challenges.
2025-GEN 00014 Published On: 07/25/2025
Question: Will a Solar Only project with an executed IA in good standing with a completed affected system study that is pursuing the Early Selection Track need to meet the size requirements listed in Section III. A. (b)? 30 MWac for DEC and 50 MWac for DEP?
Answer: Yes, Early Selection proposals must meet the requirements listed in section III.A of the RFP, including the facility size requirements.
2025-GEN 00013 Published On: 07/22/2025
Question: Can you please clarify the PV & BESS design characteristics for DEC projects submitted into the UOT track? The RFP documents state that minimum project size is 30MW of PV and that the minimum BESS for UOT projects is 20MW, which would be greater than the 35-40% specified for the BESS sizing. Are MPs allowed to submit any DEC project that hits both those minimums?
Answer: In DEC if a project is offered as a Solar Paired with Storage (SPWS) proposal in the Utility Ownership Track, the 20 MW BESS minimum is the binding minimum constraint that would then determine the Solar facility minimum size of 50 MW ( = 20 / 0.40). If the project is only offered as a Solar facility, the minimum size is 30 MW in DEC.
2025-GEN 00012 Published On: 07/22/2025
Question: In a prior FAQ about the utility ownership track, Duke wrote: "As such, MP’s CANNOT SUBMIT A PROPOSAL to sell a project prior to it being fully developed." This seems incorrect, since the RFP document says that "the developed project assigns or transfers all assets, rights, etc. to DEC/DEP UPON SATISFACTION of all development and closing conditions." Please confirm the idea of the UOT is that a project is selected in the RFP, but asset transfer does not occur until development is complete later on.
Answer: Correct, the RFP is seeking bids to sell a fully developed project, see response to FAQ 2025-GEN 00011 on this page. The MP’s project may not be 100% developed at the time of bid submittal, but the proposal being submitted by the MP is to sell a fully developed project, not a partially developed project, so any development scope not complete must be completed by the MP, in accordance with the executed Asset Purchase Agreement, such that the MP has delivered a fully developed project. Asset Purchase Agreement closing typically can occur within one to two years after agreement execution depending on the timing of MP’s completion of the remaining development items and closing conditions. To clarify, the Asset Purchase Agreement associated with an Asset Transfer bid, is not an as-is sale, the MP is required to complete the development of the project, to bring the project to a fully developed status, before the utility will close on the acquisition agreement.
2025-GEN 00011 Published On: 07/18/2025
Question: Will the Companies consider the purchase of a development asset prior rather than a fully developed project, for a reduced price?
Answer: Section III.D.E provides eligibility requirements for Utility Ownership Track Proposal and provides that Asset Transfer proposals are “the MP is proposing to sell a fully developed project and is responsible for, but not limited to, project siting, land control, development, site investigation, environmental studies, surveying, title work, permitting, limited engineering, and all interconnection studies.” As such, MP’s cannot submit a proposal to sell a project prior to it being fully developed. The Utility Ownership Track of the 2025 RFP will be open to Utility-Developed and Asset Transfer contract structures only. Please review Appendix J on the 2025 RFP Documents page for additional information on the Letter of Intent and Term Sheets for Asset Acquisition Proposals.
2025-GEN 00010 Published On: 06/19/2025
Question: If a project site has space to accommodate a design larger than 80 MWac, is it possible to submit a PPA track proposal at 80 MW and UOT track proposal at a larger size at the same POI as long as two separate IRs are submitted for the two different designs (state-jurisdictional for the PPA track and FERC-jurisdictional for the UOT track)? Would the bid fee requirement in that case be two $10k bid fees instead of one $15k bid fee?
Answer: Market participants cannot enter more than one configuration of a project for a POI in the interconnection queue; they must select one project size for evaluation in the RSC to participate in the RFP.
2025-GEN 00009 Published On: 06/13/2025
Question: For a project submittal into the 2025 UOT, ALTA surveys that appear to meet Duke Survey requirements are completed, but were performed by a survey firm that is not listed in the "2025 RFP Appendix L-UOT Survey Requirements Attachment 2 Approved MSA Vendors". Is there a recommended course of action for remedying this in lieu of a complete resurvey?
Answer: Asset Transfer proposals are expected to comply with the provided requirements. That being said, if a market participant has an existing survey completed, Duke Energy is willing to review the survey and evaluate if acceptable and can provide comments if the survey is not satisfactory.
2025-GEN 00008 Published On: 06/13/2025
Question: I posed a previous question regarding eligibility of solar only projects sited in coop service territory able to connect directly to a DEP/DEC transmission line. I did not receive confirmation of a response to my question, but 2025-GEN 00004 appears to be a partial answer. It references special circumstances for grid charged batteries. To clarify further, are solar-only projects that pursue a utility transfer track of permitting and interconnection eligible even if the project is not in Duke service territory but connects to a Duke line and is in the Carolinas? In addition, how will auxiliary power be treated for the solar only project that is in coop service territory but connects to a DEP line? Will auxiliary power be considered a purchase by the project requiring the coop to provide service at the site or will aux power by netted out of the generation produced by the project?
Answer: Please see the response posted for 2025-GEN 00005.
2025-GEN 00007 Published On: 05/22/2025
Question: We would like to know what is Duke's policy on co-locating Qualified Facilities, where two projects are located next to each other? Would a phased approach for the two projects be possible through Qualified Facilities process? If two Qualified Facilities projects cannot be sited next to each other, could there be two adjacent projects (80 MW and 65 MW) that are not Qualified Facilities?
Answer: The FERC policy on Qualifying Facilities is that Qualifying Facilities within one mile of each other are deemed to be at the same site and their capacity is aggregated to determine whether they meet the 80 MW or less threshold for small power production QFs. Two QFs could be sited less than one mile from one another as long as the combined capacity is less than 80 MWs. If facilities are sited less than one mile from each other and the combined capacity is greater than 80 MW, then they would not qualify as QFs under FERC federal law. For facilities that would not qualify as QFs under FERC federal law, FERC has jurisdiction over their interconnections and they would be eligible for the Utility Ownership Track of the RFP. For further clarity please see the 2024 RFP, p.13-14 for explanation.
2025-GEN 00006 Published On: 05/20/2025
Question: Could you please confirm whether 100-ft setbacks are required only for UOT proposals, or for PPA proposals as well?
Answer: The technical guidance in Appendix I-1, including setback requirements, is applicable to UOT Proposals only.
2025-GEN 00005 Published On: 05/06/2025
Question: Did the site location eligibility intentionally change from the 2024 RFP? The 2024 RFP restricted projects to sites within Duke service territory. The 2025 RFP restricts projects to sites in North or South Carolina. (In both cases, the project must interconnect with a Duke transmission line.) Can you confirm a project site in South Carolina in a coop service territory is eligible IF the project physically interconnects with the DEC or DEP transmission system.?
Answer: A solar-only project located in South Carolina in another utility’s service territory is eligible for the 25 RFP if the project physically interconnects with the DEC or DEP transmission system. Pursuant to the 25 RFP solar-only PPAs, “Seller shall be responsible for arranging and obtaining, at its sole risk and expense, any station service [Station Power] required by the Facility.” However, a SPWS project must be eligible to receive service from DEP or DEC in order to grid-charge from the DEC or DEP system.
2025-GEN 00004 Published On: 04/28/2025
Question: Will projects outside Duke service territory capable of delivering into Duke be eligible for bid?
Answer: All facilities in the RFP, including facilities sited outside of Duke's service territory, must directly interconnect to the DEC or DEP transmission system. Solar paired with Storage facilities shall also be responsible for ensuring their site is eligible to receive electric service from DEP or DEC for grid-charging.
2025-GEN 00003 Published On: 04/28/2025
Question: 1. Can you confirm that Duke WILL accept Surety Bonds for Step 2 Proposal Security? 2. For the UOT track, will Surety Bonds be accepted as a final deposit and/or later in the RFP process should a Project move forward, or is there a point at which Surety is no longer acceptable and LOC is required? Any additional clarification that can be provided on Surety would be appreciated.
Answer: Surety bonds are an acceptable form of security for Step 2 proposal security for both tracks. The form acceptable is included in Appendix D. Surety bonds are not accepted for the Power Purchase Agreement’s Performance Assurance due within 5 days of signing the contract.
2025-GEN 00002 Published On: 04/15/2025
Question: We had a question regarding co-located projects submitting into the Duke RFP. If a co-located project is selected to enter the RSC, would the project need to submit two separate queue positions, or can it submit a single queue position for the entire project?
Answer: A “co-located” solar paired with storage project still has only 1 point of interconnection. A project that chooses to bid both solar-only and solar paired with storage will only submit one interconnection request, which is the same approach as the 2023 and 2024 RFPs.
2025-GEN 00001 Published On: 04/15/2025
Question: Any idea yet of what initial bid fees/ security postings will look like when the RFP is filed?
Answer: For the 2025 RFP, the Companies will share draft documents in April 2025 and as of early March, there are not yet proposed changes to the bid fee structure or security postings from the 2024 RFP. 2025 RFP Stakeholder meetings are still ongoing, the next session is planned for March 11.
2025-DOC 00020 Published On: 08/22/2025
Question: As a follow up to question 2025-GEN 00009, are we able to submit an ALTA survey now for review prior to the bid deadline? Alternatively, if a completed ALTA (by a vendor not on the approved list) is submitted into the UOT Asset Transfer Track and the ALTA is determined to be unacceptable, will the MP be given the opportunity to cure (i.e. resurvey) prior to asset transfer? Or, will the bid be considered incomplete?
Answer: As indicated in the response to 2025 GEN 00009, market participants can submit ALTA survey information prior to the bid deadline for review. Bids submitted on the UOT are agreeing to sell a fully developed project to Duke, which includes an ALTA survey in form and substance acceptable to Duke. The ALTA survey will be a deliverable required for closing under the definitive agreement and is not required at the time of bid submittal. Market Participants will have time to complete or cure any deficiencies in the ALTA survey between the time of award and the closing of the definitive agreement.
2025-DOC 00019 Published On: 08/13/2025
Question: Based on the recent NCUC docket, can you please reaffirm that Surety Bonds WILL BE accepted as a form of Proposal Security for Step 2 for the UOT track?
Answer: Surety bonds will be accepted for Step 2 Proposal Security but will not be accepted for pre-COD performance assurance.
2025-DOC 00018 Published On: 08/12/2025
Question: Is Duke Energy planning to revise the AVL to address the FEOC requirements? Is any EMS acceptable, since none are listed?
Answer: Duke is not planning to revise the AVL at this time. After full guidance on the FEOC requirements are released, Duke will evaluate the AVL and determine if any revisions will be necessary. If EMS in this context is referring to the battery management system, there are no vendor specifications.
2025-DOC 00017 Published On: 08/08/2025
Question: In the DEC DEP 2025 RFP Document (July 31, 2025 update), Section IIID(c) states that eligible Early Selection Proposals submitted into the UOT are required to terminate current offtake agreements or executed PPA’s (paying all applicable termination damages) prior to bid submittal. Will the required termination of an existing QF PPA with Duke Energy trigger bid review penalties in future Duke RFP’s as outlined in Appendix F-Sample Scoring Sheet (2. Development) criteria?
Answer: No, terminations of PURPA contracts are not considered in this scoring category.
2025-DOC 00016 Published On: 08/08/2025
Question: I am writing for the purpose of requesting clarification on Section III.D.(a), which provides that UOT proposals are required to provide site control agreement that include a minimum of 18 months of a construction term and a minimum of 35 years of an operating term commencing at placed in service (if lease agreement). Our lease agreements, as to our form leases, generally, provide for an up to 40.5 year term which begins at commencement construction. As such, while there is not a distinct "construction term", our agreements essentially provide for an unlimited construction period. It follows that so long as the time between construction commencement and PIS does not exceed 5.5 year, for which we have yet to experience, it can be said our agreements also contain a minimum of a 35 year operating term. Based on the foregoing, we believe our leases to be compliant with the above-referenced section be it that it can be said we are afforded at least 18 months of construction and 35 operating years. Could you please confirm the foregoing lease structure will not be considered non compliant with the above-referenced section. Our assumption is that Duke is interested in confirming that the project will have site control for at least 35 operating years, and that the project leases provide a sufficient period for construction. We believe strongly we are compliant in this regard.
Answer: Section III.D(a) provides MPs with the site control requirements for UOT Asset Transfer proposals. By submitting an Asset Transfer proposal, MPs are accepting these expectations/requirements. For UOT projects, the Utility requires the 35 year minimum operating term to commence at placed in-service, as prescribed in the RFP Document. The above described site control terms fails to meet the requirements laid out in the RFP Document. However, the MP can cure these deficiencies, should the proposal be selected and amendments to the site control agreements would be incorporated as closing conditions within the Asset Purchase Agreement. In the case above, the operating term needs to be adjusted to start at placed in-service, opposed to start of construction, the rationale being, the Utility wants the lease term to align with useful life of the plant.
2025-DOC 00015 Published On: 08/07/2025
Question: In Appendix I-1, the technical guidance specifies that "Fixed Tilt racking technology will be the preference if ~50% of the slopes exceed 4.5 degrees as compared to Single Axis Tracking (SAT)". Based on this guidance, will a proposal be outright disqualified if SAT technology is used on a site that exceeds 4.5 degrees for more than 50% of the site? If not, what considerations or additional details should be outlined in the proposal for SAT sites featuring slopes where over 50% is over 4.5 degrees?
Answer: UOT Asset Transfer proposed are fully developed by the MP, but constructed by the Utility. As such, the MP determines the MWac at bid submittal, however the MWdc and racking system design (fixed tilt vs SAT) are within the Utility’s decision to make. Appendix I-1 provides MPs with guidance and requirements regarding how it evaluates the buildability of an Asset Transfer proposal site. If the MP has completed a boundary and topo survey, they are encouraged to provide those files with its bid submittal so that the Utility Ownership Team can utilize during the bid evaluation process.
2025-DOC 00014 Published On: 08/05/2025
Question: I noticed the Confidentiality Agreement is not yet available, and I’m currently unable to access Appendix C_D_E – Letter of Credit and Bond Requirements. Can we reference the versions of these documents found in the archived folder, or should we wait for the updated versions to be posted in the current document list?
Answer: The link to Appendix C_D_E has now been updated. It can be accessed on the 2025 RFP Documents page. An updated Confidentiality Agreement will be available on the same webpage prior to the Bid Window opening. Please use the current version rather than the Archived versions.
2025-DOC 00013 Published On: 08/04/2025
Question: For the site control requirement under utility ownership track proposals: "Provide sufficient and satisfactory site control rights for the Facility including delivery to the POI to develop and construct the proposed Facility within the timeframe laid out in the RFP. Bidders are expected to provide valid due diligence terms through mid-2029 (July), or longer, with a minimum of 18 months of a construction term and a minimum of 35 years of an operating term commencing at placed in service (if lease agreement) or a due diligence period through mid-2029 (July), or longer (if a land purchase agreement)..." Would amendments to our existing agreements to extend our due diligence periods to 2029 be sufficient or will we also need to add in a construction term?
Answer: Yes, amendments to existing site control agreements are acceptable to extend due diligence periods terms, however, as provided in the RFP Document, section III.D.(a) UOT proposals are required to provide site control agreement that include a minimum of 18 months of a construction term and a minimum of 35 years of an operating term commencing at placed in service (if lease agreement). Refer to this section in the RFP document for additional guidance and requirements.
2025-DOC 00012 Published On: 07/29/2025
Question: The UOT RFP draft documents state that "Duke Energy, as project owner, shall have the ability to review and approve the scope of [bat studies] before authorized." Should this be interpreted as Duke wanting to review bat study plans prior to submission to US Fish and Wildlife Service, and if so who should they be sent to for review?
Answer: For Asset Transfer proposals, as part of selling a fully developed project, the MP must complete a habitat assessment and onsite acoustic survey for all listed and proposed to be listed bat species, as well as any bat species listed or proposed to be listed after the issuance of the RFP. This is included as a condition to close, as part of selling a fully developed project to the Utility. The MP should provide a copy of the both the assessment and survey plan, prior to submittal to applicable agencies. If the MP has completed said surveys, they should include them in their bid submittal, if assessment/surveys have not been completed, Duke will review them as they are provided either in context of the RFP evaluations or within the governing Asset Purchase Agreement.
2025-DOC 00011 (revised 08/04/2025) Published On: 07/29/2025
Question: Appendix M Energy Storage Requirements for all UOT SPS proposals provides guidance to bidders on BESS modeling to provide a BESS degradation profile. Can Duke please verify what assumptions bidders should account for with overbuild and augmentation strategies when accounting for their project designs and BESS degradation?
Answer: Bidders should assume 365 equivalent discharge cycles per year and either ‘no augmentations for 15 years’ or ‘two augmentations at years 5 and 10’ depending on their project’s size. For projects where the BESS POI MW is 50 MW or more, the project will use augmentation. For projects under this size, it will use a 15 year overbuild.
2025-DOC 00010 Published On: 07/21/2025
Question: The grid locational guidance was supposed to be posted on the week of 7/14/25. Is this expected to be posted sometime this week?
Answer: The finalized RFP documents are now expected to become available around July 25, 2025.
2025-DOC 00009 Published On: 07/15/2025
Question: APA Closing and Non-Discretionary Permits: For a UOT project submission, will the APA closing be contingent on obtaining non-discretionary permits, such as stormwater and erosion control permits or DOT permits?
Answer: Stormwater and erosion control or DOT permits will not be required to be obtained by Seller as closing conditions within the APA, these are construction related permits that the Buyer will be responsible for.
2025-DOC 00008 Published On: 07/15/2025
Question: Obtaining CECPCN/CPCN: In the FAQ during the 2024 RFP, question 2024-GEN 00049 was posted that outlined if a UOT project does not have an issued or pending CECPCN/CPCN, then Duke Energy would prepare and apply for the permit after definitive contract execution. In this instance, will a fully issued CECPCN/CPCN be a condition precedent/required for APA closing or would the pending application (submitted by Duke) allow for closing to take place? Furthermore, footnote 10 on page 7 of the RFP document indicates that the Market Participant (MP) is not required to obtain a CECPCN/CPCN but must establish a reasonable plan for obtaining all necessary permits (including CECPCN/CPCN). Can you elaborate on what Duke will require to be included in the reasonable plan for obtaining all permits?
Answer: A CECPCN/CPCN is not required to be approved and in hand at the time of bid submittal, i.e. a project without an approved CECPCN/CPCN can bid into the RFP, however, for selected UOT bids, an approved CECPCN/CPCN (as applicable), will be a closing condition to the APA.
2025-DOC 00007 Published On: 07/15/2025
Question: Scope of Hydrology Study in LOI and Term Sheet: For a project submitting on the UOT track, what is the scope of the hydrology study required as part of the LOI and Term Sheet? Can the hydrology study rely on preliminary data derived from desktop analysis or publicly available topographic data, or are there specific requirements for field-based data collection?
Answer: A Hydrology Scope of Work document has been uploaded to the 2025 RFP Documents section of this website to provide guidance on what will be required. The hydrology study should utilize the data from the boundary and topographical surveys, geotechnical investigation, and wetlands delineation to produce the most accurate results.
2025-DOC 00006 Published On: 07/15/2025
Question: Site Control Boundary KMZ Requirements: Please confirm the KMZ for the Site Control Boundary should contain polygons for the site control boundary AND polygons for “keep out” areas.
Answer: Yes, site control boundary and keep out areas files, if applicable, should be separate files and should be polygon type. Boundary file should only include the polygon(s) that are under site control with no additional layers/information, and the Keep out file should only include polygon(s) that are keep out areas within the Site Control Boundary. Bidder should also provide a narrative explanation describing the keep out areas within the bid form as well.
2025-DOC 00005 Published On: 07/10/2025
Question: When will the final RFP document be posted?
Answer: The finalized RFP document is expected to become available on the 2025 RFP Documents page of this website the week of July 14. To receive a notification when the finalized RFP document becomes available, follow the instructions on the Registration page.
2025-DOC 00004 Published On: 05/12/2025
Question: Where can we find the grid locational guidance as noted in Sec. VIII(C)? I do not see it in the 2025 RFP: Documents. Please advise.
Answer: The grid locational guidance document is expected to become available on the RFP website at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/2025-RFP-Documents in mid-July.
2025-DOC 00003 Published On: 05/05/2025
Question: Looking to clarify something in the April 23rd document: Section III.A. suggests all facilities in DEP must be sized 50MWac, but III.F. seems to imply that only Controllable Track facilities must be sized at 50MWac. What is the minimum size in DEP for Utility Owned Track?
Answer: Section III.A of the RFP applies to all proposals in the RFP, including UOT and PPA track proposals. Section III.F reiterates the minimum facility sizes and lists additional requirements only applicable to PPA proposals. The minimum size in DEP for UOT and PPA proposals is 50 MW. UOT projects offered as SPWS must have a minimum storage size of 20MW (Section III C. REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO SOLAR PAIRED WITH STORAGE FACILITIES).
2025-DOC 00002 Published On: 04/25/2025
Question: Will Duke be providing redlines of the 2025 documents (RFP, PPA, etc.) for bidders to review against previous years?
Answer: No, there will not be redlines posted for draft documents.
2025-DOC 00001 Published On: 04/15/2025
Question: When will 2025 RFP documents be released?
Answer: The bulk of the draft 2025 RFP documents will be posted by April 23, 2025.
2025-INT 00012 Published On: 08/18/2025
Question: We have a few FERC jurisdictional projects we would like to submit to the 2025 RFP. Will these be submitted to Duke's usual portal shown here?: https://dukeenergy.my.site.com/s/interconnection-request If not, could you please send me the correct website?
Answer: Yes, that is the correct portal link for both State and FERC jurisdictional projects to submit their Interconnection Requests for the 2025 RFP. Bidders are strongly advised to submit their Interconnection Request ahead of the Proposal Due Date (September 30, 2025) to ensure no technical or other issues would prevent them from qualifying for participation in the RFP. Additional instructions on how to submit an Interconnection Request are included in the Bidders Conference deck from August 13, 2025, available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/StakeholderMaterials.
2025-INT 00011 Published On: 08/18/2025
Question: Thanks for changing the IA termination requirements in the 2025 RFP. A few questions to understand it better: a. Is the IA termination eliminated? b. What is the 60-day window for alternative offtake arrangement, if not selected as a Finalist? Is this the GSAC RAO option? c. Or instead of immediate termination of the IA, the developer now has a 60-day window to find an alternative offtake before the IA is terminated? d. It was mentioned that this requirement will be addressed as part of a termination agreement of an existing PPA or an IA amendment. Can you please elaborate more on the process of this requirement? When will this happen? Before the MP participates in the RFP?
Answer: For projects with IAs that participate in the RFP and are not chosen in Early Selection, their IA will not automatically be terminated, so long as it is still progressing and meeting IA milestones. However, a project with an executed IA that seeks to amend the IA milestones will also have the amendment include a clause requiring that within 60 days of RFP Early Selection being announced, an offtake agreement must be established. A GSA contract would be one option, or a negotiated PURPA contract is another option. In order to participate in the RFP, a bidder may not have an active PPA at the time of bid submission. When a counterparty requests termination of a PPA, Duke Energy will provide a Mutual Termination Agreement for review. The contract termination must be complete prior to the close of the bid window for the project to qualify.
2025-INT 00010 Published On: 08/15/2025
Question: We’ve been reviewing the 2025 RSC Q&A and wanted to confirm - for avoidance of doubt - our understanding of QF co-location guidelines. Could two sub 80-MW projects be sited under common ownership and bid in the PPA Track if they’re over 1-mile apart (measured from electrical generating equipment)?
Answer: Two sub 80-MW facilities could be considered separate QFs if they do not share physical characteristics or ownership characteristics outlined in Part 8b of FERC Form 556, are each registered separately as QFs via filed Form 556s, and are more than 1 mile apart from each other. When the projects are submitted into the RFP, they will be subject to review by CRA and by the Renewable Integration Team to ensure compliance.
2025-INT 00009 Published On: 08/08/2025
Question: Section III.D.(c) of the 2025 RFP document states that only projects with a fully executed Interconnection Agreement (IA) from the legacy serial study process, Transitional Cluster Study Process, or 2022 DISIS Process are eligible to submit an Early Selection Proposal. Should these IAs need to be FERC or State-jurisdictional, or will both types of IAs be eligible for the Early Selection?
Answer: If the project is bidding into the RFP as UOT only, the Interconnection Agreement can be either FERC- or State-jurisdictional. Projects bidding into the PPA track must be State-jurisdictional and the project must be a Qualifying Facility (QF).
2025-INT 00008 Published On: 08/05/2025
Question: What is the expected construction timeline for projects in the 2025 RSC?
Answer: At this time Duke Energy is not able to predict the timeline for projects entering into the 2025 RFP or the RSC. This information will become available once the 2025 RSC Phase 1 study is completed.
2025-INT 00007 Published On: 08/05/2025
Question: Can you please confirm that Solar-Only PPA bids are limited to 80MWac size each? Can you please explain the reasoning for this project size limitation, if so? Thank you
Answer: For a power purchase agreement (PPA) track project, the maximum size is up to and including 80 MWac (based on the interconnection request) in both DEC and DEP. However, projects bidding into the Utility Ownership Track (UOT) of the RFP can be larger than 80 MWac (and any project greater than 80 MWac would be submitting their interconnection request as a FERC jurisdictional project).
2025-INT 00006 Published On: 07/07/2025
Question: Would you please clarify if both user written models and generic models are required for both 2025 RFP and RSC submittals or will providing the recommended generic model be sufficient for submittals?
Answer: PSSE models are required. If the PSSE models are not included with the initial Interconnection Request submission, the interconnection study team will request them during the Customer Engagement Window as this information is required for the Resource Solicitation Cluster study performed by Transmission Planning. Sections 7h and 8h of the Inverter Based Resource Data Request form located on the OASIS site (Duke_Energy_Inverter_Based_Resource_Data_Request_Form_(DEC,DEF,DEP).pdf (oati.com)) provides guidance for inverter and reactive power PSSE modeling.
2025-INT 00005 (revised 07/08/2025) Published On: 06/13/2025
Question: Will projects with an executed interconnection agreement resulting from the serial interconnection process be allowed to enter the 2025 RFP?
Answer: Initially, the draft 2025 RFP did not anticipate allowing projects with executed interconnection agreements resulting from the serial interconnection process to participate. However, in response to stakeholder feedback, these projects may now be considered for inclusion in the 2025 RFP. Additional details will be provided when the finalized RFP is released at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/2025-RFP-Documents. To receive a notification when the finalized RFP documents become available, register at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/Registration.
2025-INT 00004 Published On: 05/28/2025
Question: Is a developer allowed to connect two Solar facilities at the same point of interconnection and file one application as a phased project?
Answer: No. The RFP and PPA do not contemplate “phased” projects, as there is one date that begins the term of the PPA and the facility is expected to perform at its as-bid MW and MWh. See Section III (Facility Eligibility Requirements and Proposal Tracks) for additional details.
2025-INT 00003 Published On: 05/15/2025
Question: After reading Appendix O, it looks like we post a study deposit to enter the RSC cluster of $35,000 + $1/kWac. Then, to enter Phase I, we post 1X the study deposit. There is guidance on refundability / withdrawal penalties for those that withdraw after Phase I, but there’s no guidance on refundability / withdrawal penalties on the initial study deposit posted to enter the cluster. What happens to that study deposit our project is not selected to the “Short List” on 1/6/26?
Answer: If the interconnection request is withdrawn, any refunds of unspent deposit will be processed in accordance with the applicable procedures (Sections 6.3.3 of the NCIP; or Section 6.3.3 of the SCGIP ; or Section 4.7 of Attachment K to the LGIP).
2025-INT 00002 Published On: 04/24/2025
Question: We are trying to understand all the financial requirements and corresponding refundability for the Resource Solicitation Cluster that will take place in parallel with the bid process. • What are the study costs / fees to enter Phase 1? • What is the refundability, if any, of the study costs during Phase 1? • How are the study costs remitted to Duke Energy. Is that cash? LOC? Bond? • As we understand it, if our project is invited to Short List, we enter Phase 2. Are there are additional study costs / deposits required to remain in RSC into Phase 2? o If so, what is the refundability of these additional study costs? • We understand that if our project is invited to Short List, we are to post a security in connection with the RFP. o How is that calculated? o What is the refundability of the security? o If Duke accepts our project, but requires us to offer a PPA price that is lower than we originally submitted, are we able to withdraw and keep our security? • Other than Network / Facility upgrade costs, are there any other financial requirements on the project to continue on through the RSC or the bidding process (other than what’s stated above)?
Answer: Please refer to the RFP Guidance document for the solicitation along with the applicable interconnection procedures for details regarding the financial requirements. The North Carolina Interconnection Procedures, the South Carolina Appendix CS and the Large Generator Interconnection Procedures are all available online. The LGIP is part of the Open Access Transmission Tariff and is posted on OATI OASIS.
2025-INT 00001 Published On: 04/15/2025
Question: Can you confirm that the pending FERC approval interconnection service procedures dated 1/9/25 is the applicable procedure for the 2025 RFP/RSC? If not, can you please confirm the applicable rules and tariff?
Answer: The currently effective LGIP can be viewed here.