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.