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.