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.