2023 RFP: Frequently Asked Questions

Stakeholder Meetings

STM 00003
Published On: 08/14/2023

Question: Can you please post the PowerPoints from the Pre-solicitation Bidders Conference?

Answer: The Pre-solicitation presentation has been posted on the Stakeholder Materials page at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/StakeholderMaterials.

STM 00002
Published On: 06/16/2023

Question: Section VII (B) 1 of the Draft RFP lays out market participant requirements that mostly but do not fully align with Asset Transfer requirements, stating "in the case of PPA and Utility Ownership Track Proposals, [MPs] have completed or directly managed the completion of the development, engineering, equipment procurement, and construction of >50 MW or 3x the nameplate capacity of the Proposal, whichever is greater, of solar facilities, including at least one project of comparable size to the proposed facility within the United States or Canada." Is a market participant that can meet all bid and eligibility requirements with the exception of previously completing EPC requirements eligible to advance an Asset Acquisition proposal for as Asset Transfer bid without EPC? Is the text in Section VII (B) 1 evaluated on a spectrum relative to each bid submitted, or is it an absolute requirement for all market participants?

Answer: The market participant’s experience requirements in Section VII(B) shall match the scope of the bid type being submitted. For example, an Asset Transfer bidder would be required to demonstrate experience associated with the scope of an Asset Transfer bid (project development but excluding construction).

STM 00001
Published On: 06/12/2023

Question: Has the stakeholder meeting to discuss market participant feedback on RFP documents been scheduled?

Answer: Yes, the stakeholder meeting has been scheduled for June 20 9:00am-11:30am EDT. To attend, register at https://duke-energy.webex.com/weblink/register/rf74c4dcdb8be755731d99399ae54747a.


GEN 00105
Published On: 05/30/2024

Question: Please confirm Duke's requested Credit Support amounts [for Finalist projects] and until when each amount would need to be posted.

Answer: This information will be shared by Duke Energy's PPA team. As stated in the PPA the customer will have 5 business days to post pre-COD security.

GEN 00104
Published On: 05/30/2024

Question: (i) We understand per the email that Proposal Securities will be released when the Companies’ and Independent Evaluator have established that no further projects will be invited forward as Finalists, (ii) We would like to confirm a general estimate as to when that will occur, and related, (iii) We plan to keep our second RSC "initial security" deposits (paid as cash in January 2024) in place in order to maintain that optionality, but would appreciate knowing as soon as possible when this evaluation will be concluded so that can we recycle our cash and bonding capacity to other projects in our pipeline.

Answer: This holds for Proposals not selected as Finalists; Step 2 proposal security will be released by June 28 for projects not selected.

GEN 00103
Published On: 05/23/2024

Question: Please confirm the process to receive approval for a design change of the MW DC size of the facility (leaving the POI MWac unchanged).

Answer: Design changes should be submitted to the Renewable Integration team (Mark.McKeage@duke-energy.com) and to the RFP Manager (DukeEnergyRFPCarolinas@crai.com) for review. Duke Energy will review the change with the RFP Manager and communicate with the customer if it triggers a Material Modification.

GEN 00102
Published On: 05/22/2024

Question: On section J.3 of the 23_RFP_Document_7-31-23_corrected_1-8-24.pdf (Page 21), footnote 22 says that the performance assurance is calculated based on the Part A or Part C of the bid price. Can you confirm this is still true for the 2023 RFP Winners?

Answer: Yes, and for SPS projects performance insurance includes the fixed energy rate of $25/MWh and the Part C bid price. Please review FAQ GEN 00097.

GEN 00101
Published On: 05/21/2024

Question: We are not on the Finalist or Reserve List for the 2023 RFP. Can we expect to have our bid bond released middle of June? Is that correct?

Answer: Step 2 proposal security will be released for projects not selected as Finalists or Reserve List by June 28, 2024.

GEN 00100
Published On: 05/21/2024

Question: 1. In the case the project is selected as a Finalist in Step 2 of the RFP, when is the System Upgrade Cost deposit due? 2. Once we make the deposit, and then we decide to withdraw the project for any reason, what portion of the above deposit would be refundable? Would this refundability change over time e.g., after signing GIA?

Answer: Duke Energy understands the question to be for a North Carolina state jurisdictional project. Under the NCIP, the M4 deposit is due 10 business days following issuance of the Facilities Study Report to the Interconnection Customer. If the Interconnection Customer has a Ready project that withdraws after the M4 deposit is made but before signing the Interconnection Agreement, NCIP Section applies and caps the withdrawal penalty to $2M. Yes, refundability changes over time; NCIP Section governs the calculation of the withdrawal penalty for projects with executed Interconnection Agreements.

GEN 00099
Published On: 05/20/2024

Question: Per the PPA, Pre-COD Performance Assurance is to be calculated by the Buyer in its reasonable discretion. When will Duke provide the Pre-COD Performance Assurance amount for selected Finalist proposals?

Answer: Duke Energy’s PPA team expects to provide the Pre-COD Performance Assurance amount by 05/24/24. Questions about the PPA can also be sent to PPA@duke-energy.com

GEN 00098
Published On: 05/17/2024

Question: If a project selected as Finalist is withdrawn for any reason, how much of the Pre-COD deposit would be refunded?

Answer: A PPA Finalist that withdraws after executing a contract and providing their Pre-COD Performance Assurance is not eligible for any refunds of the Pre-COD Performance Assurance, unless termination is specifically permitted under Section 20.1.2 of the PPA.

GEN 00097
Published On: 05/16/2024

Question: Now that the Finalists are being notified, we would really appreciate your confirmation at your earliest convenience that the 2023 RFP Winners’ performance assurance is only a calculation of Part A or Part C of the bid price i.e., it does not include Part B or D (NU adders).

Answer: Per Section V.J(3) of the RFP, performance assurance for PPAs will be calculated based on the Part A for Solar-only contracts and Part C (as well as the fixed energy price) for SPS contracts.

GEN 00096
Published On: 04/29/2024

Question: If the project is selected as 2023 RFP Winner, will the Step 2 Proposal Deposit be credited towards the Pre-COD deposit?

Answer: The pre-COD PPA performance assurance is separate from the Step 2 proposal security, it will not be credited toward the Pre-COD deposit. Once the PPA performance assurance has been reviewed and approved, the Step 2 proposal security will be released by Duke Energy’s credit risk team. Additional details are included in the 2023 RFP document, Section J Step 2 Proposal Security, 3. Step 2 Proposal Security Releases, available here: 23_RFP_Document_7-31-23_corrected_1-8-24.pdf (dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com).

GEN 00095
Published On: 03/25/2024

Question: Will the solar integration service charge be applied to solar only projects that become winners in the RFP?

Answer: No, the solar integration service charge is not applicable for the 2023 RFP.

GEN 00094
Published On: 03/06/2024

Question: We have a Solar-only project that has progressed through DISIS Phase 3 study and is now waiting for its Facility Study report. Likely will execute the Interconnection Agreement if all proceeds on time by mid-August 2024. Will this asset be able to participate in RSC/ RFP 2024? If yes, will there be any constraints?

Answer: Although the 2024 RFP is still under development, it is highly unlikely this project would be eligible to participate in the 2024 RFP assuming the project executes an Interconnection Agreement by mid-August 2024. As currently contemplated, projects in the proposed 2024 RFP will need to meet similar requirements to those outlined in the 2023 RFP. For details on the requirements for projects with an existing Interconnection Agreement to participate in the 2023 RFP, see “Requirements Specific to Solar Only Facilities” in Section III, Subsection B of the 2023 RFP, available at www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.

GEN 00093
Published On: 02/28/2024

Question: How will pre-COD security be calculated for projects selected for asset transfer?

Answer: Upon execution of the definitive agreement (an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”)), for selected asset transfer proposals, the security requirements will be established in the APA. Generally, considering the form APA’s payment terms and closing conditions, the Seller does not have to provide any security. However, any deviation from the form closing conditions or payment terms may require a Seller to provide security, on a case by case basis.

GEN 00092
Published On: 02/27/2024

Question: Bowman Consulting Group does not hold a MSA with Duke and is not listed on the UOT land surveyor approved vendor list. Should we be awarded a UOT bid, we would be required to get an exception from DEST (Duke Energy Survey Team) for Bowman as stated in the RFP – UOT survey requirements, and to avoid a future scenario where completed survey work is not acceptable under UOT requirements, we are hoping to reach out to our respective DEST to negotiate project-specific exceptions at this time. Would this be advisable and allowed at this stage in the RFP process?

Answer: The Duke Energy Survey Team (“DEST”) is in the process of renewing master services agreements (“MSA”s) with approved vendors and is considering the addition of several additional vendors, Bowman Consulting Group being one. Bowman is not an approved vendor at this time. Should a project be selected in which Bowman was used to perform surveying work, the DEST will review the work and consider exceptions on a case by case basis.

GEN 00091
Published On: 02/27/2024

Question: As a solar-only project goes through final designs and optimization in the future, the project DC capacity could change, while keeping the POI interconnection capacity the same and meeting the P50 MWh submitted in the Offer Form. The RFP form had requested bidders to submit both MWac and MWdc ratings for the facility and hence seeking clarity if this would be a problem. Thanks.

Answer: Bidders should provide the MWAC and MWDC ratings of the facility when new.  Bidders should also be accounting for degradation in their year by year projection (MWh). Any changes in design will need to be reviewed by the interconnection team and evaluated on a case by case basis.

GEN 00090
Published On: 02/20/2024

Question: This question is regarding the upcoming 2024 RFP. Will Duke permit projects on local coop infrastructure to wheel power to them in this RFP?

Answer: Facilities must be located in the Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC) or Duke Energy Progress (DEP) North Carolina or South Carolina service territory and will physically interconnect with the DEC or DEP transmission system.

GEN 00089
Published On: 02/07/2024

Question: To confirm understanding of the announcement regarding Bidder’s PPA Part B or Part D bid price options for assigned system upgrades, please confirm if the following statements are true. (1) If the Companies elect to have the proposal fund the applicable upgrades, then the Part B bid price will be used to determine the final contract price. (2) However, if the companies elect to fund the upgrades themselves, then the Part B bid price will not be used to determine the final contract price. (3) This prevents 'double counting' of network upgrades in the event the Companies choose to fund any upgrades themselves. (4) In both scenarios, the project should be indifferent to the election as either (A) the Part B bid price compensates the project for network upgrades allocated or (B) the Companies fund the network upgrades and they are not the responsibility of the project.

Answer: Confirmed.

GEN 00088
Published On: 02/05/2024

Question: Can you please clarify how performance assurance will be calculated for SPS projects? The SPS PPA advises 4% of total projected revenue based on Part C pricing. Part C pricing does not include the solar revenue at $25/MWh. Should the solar revenue at $25/MWh be included for purposes of the performance assurance calculation?

Answer: The performance assurance for Solar paired with Storage PPAs will include both the energy revenue and Part C capacity revenue.

GEN 00087
Published On: 01/30/2024

Question: Based off the 2022 DISIS Phase II results and the 2023 DISIS Phase I results, the average lead time for network upgrades is currently around 70 months. How will the projects in the 2023 RSC be able to meet a COD before December of 2027 knowing these upgrades will need to happen before any 2023 RSC project can come online?

Answer: Section III.A.c of the RFP notes the requirement that a facility must “be capable of completing Facility construction (not completion of interconnection) within three years following the end of the contract phase (“Commercial Operation Date”). Duke Energy may decline to acquire a Facility under the Utility Ownership Track or decline to enter into a PPA with any Proposal under the Controllable PPA Track if, in the opinion of Duke Energy, System Upgrades required to interconnect the Facility cannot be constructed in time to achieve Commercial Operation by November 30, 2028.”

Accordingly, the 2023 RFP grants the Companies the flexibility to acquire a UOT facility or enter into a PPA with a COD beyond that date due to network upgrade construction timing.

GEN 00086
Published On: 01/29/2024

Question: If not shortlisted after Step 1 of the RFP, do MPs need to manually withdraw the projects from the Duke Interconnection Customer Portal or are these projects automatically withdrawn/ terminated from the Interconnection Customer Portal by Duke? If we need to manually withdraw, is there a deadline to withdraw without incurring withdrawal penalties? If it will be automatically withdrawn/ terminated by Duke, when would this happen and when would the MPs be notified?

Answer: If your project(s) did not receive an invitation to Step 2 of the RFP on or before January 23, 2024, these projects are no longer under consideration for this RFP. There is no need to request to withdraw from the RFP and your project will be withdrawn from the Resource Solicitation Cluster. A courtesy email to your account manager Kelly.Duke@duke-energy.com and Loriael.Joyner@duke-energy.com is helpful but not required.

Please review FAQ GEN 00073 for the refund of deposits.

GEN 00085
Published On: 01/19/2024

Question: Given that the Encompass Model “curtails the excess generation and reports the total amount on a monthly and annual basis” (Anchor Power Solutions) and that Standalone Solar Dispatchability was set to “Fully Curtailable Down” (Appendix C, Table C-22 of Duke's Carbon Plan IRP filed on 8/17/2023), we expect that some curtailment occurred within final Duke IRP Encompass Model. Can you please provide these results, broken out by Year and Scenario? If possible, some commentary on the dispersion of curtailment across different locations would be appreciated.

Answer: All solar-only PPAs will be subject to the 5%/10% economic curtailment rights as specified in the PPA. Other possible curtailment events include reliability curtailments for transmission events (these are infrequent and impact resources local to the transmission constraint that are exacerbating the constraint), and reliability curtailments for excess energy (these will presumably grow as more solar is on the system). From the modeling work that supports the Companies, 2023 Carolinas Resource Plan filed on 8/17/2023 for Portfolio 3, we are providing year over year solar curtailment estimates due to excess energy (as a percent of the total solar generation). See file Annual Solar Curtailment Estimates Due to Excess Energy.

Please note that these figures are modeled assumptions and outputs based upon a snapshot in time as of when the modeling was produced and numerous factors can impact the need for curtailment in the future. Resource Solicitation/Procurement participants should review the terms of the applicable solar-only PPA for terms and conditions related to resource curtailment.

GEN 00084
Published On: 01/19/2024

Question: Can you please let us know what the 2022 Solar Reference Cost is for the 2023 RFP? I am referring to the Volume Adjustment Mechanism section and the footnote on page 30 of the RFP Protocol document. Thanks in advance.

Answer: The 2022 Solar Reference Cost for the 2023 RFP is $58.73/MWh.

GEN 00083
Published On: 01/16/2024

Question: We are trying to understand how we would get the RFP Step 2 Proposal Security back in the case of withdrawal for some reason and the timing of that as the description on page 21 and page 22 of the RFP document does not clearly define that process.

Answer: Once a project has posted Step 2 Proposal Security, voluntary withdrawal does not release the security. Step 2 Proposal Security is released for projects that are not selected as Finalists in Step 2 or for projects selected as Finalists that sign a PPA and post the required performance security as outlined in the PPA.

For additional details see the 2023 Solar and Solar Paired with Storage RFP document: V. RFP Process, Section J “Step 2 Proposal Security”, subsection 3 “Step 2 Proposal Security Releases”.  

Also reference FAQ GEN 00082. 

GEN 00082
Published On: 01/11/2024

Question: We would like to confirm whether, in the event of project withdrawal, the PPA security will be fully forfeited. If not, could you please specify the percentage that would be lost and provide details on how this calculation is determined?

Answer: We understand this question to be referring to Proposal Security, which is required to enter Step 2, and not “PPA Security” which is required later with PPA execution. Section V.J.3 of the RFP describes the circumstances under which Step 2 Proposal Security is Released or drawn upon, including, “DEC/DEP will be entitled to draw on the full amount of the Step 2 Proposal Security in the event that the MP withdraws its Proposal during Step 2 of the Evaluation Process; (b) if the Proposal is selected as a Finalist but the MP fails to execute the contract or relevant agreement (for UOT); or (c) if the Proposal is not selected as a Finalist but elects to continue to the RSC Phase 2 through participation in GSA and does not successfully execute a GSA PPA in the required timeframe and post security as required in the GSA PPA.”  Section VII.F of the RFP also states “If any Finalist fails to execute the relevant contract or agreement and post relevant security in the allotted 30 calendar days after their notification, then their offer to sign a contract may be revoked and DEC/DEP will be entitled to draw on the full amount of the Step 2 Proposal Security.”

Please also review FAQs GEN 00073 and INT 00006, available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/FAQ.

GEN 00081
Published On: 01/11/2024

Question: For projects that were selected to proceed through shortlisting and projects that were not selected, will the scorecards based on the grading criteria be available to share to their respective developers?

Answer: Please see FAQ GEN 00079. Scorecards for individual projects do not get released as part of the RFP process.

GEN 00080
Published On: 01/10/2024

Question: For the RFP Step 2 Security deposit, do you require an operating agreement between the project and the entity posting the Letter of Credit?

Answer: No.

GEN 00079
Published On: 01/10/2024

Question: If a MP is not selected to move forward in the RFP, will they receive individual feedback on their proposal? Will a report be issued at this stage in the process? Will bid pricing be made public? Is there an option to move forward with an interconnection study?

Answer: Individual feedback on proposals submitted in the RFP is not typically provided to MPs.

A post-solicitation report is scheduled to be issued after the conclusion of the RFP process, around July 31, 2024.   Some aggregate bid price information will be included in that report.

MPs in the 2023 RFP that are not invited to Step 2 may not move forward with an interconnection study in the 2023 RSC; however, they may enter the 2024 DISIS interconnection cluster.  That enrollment window is currently open and closes June 28, 2024.        


GEN 00078
Published On: 01/10/2024

Question: Aside from the bid security, can you provide the due date for the M1 security and notice of selection to Phase II to enter the RSC?

Answer: The due date for the M1 security is listed in FAQ INT 00006, available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/FAQ

The 2023 RFP winners will continue to be studied in the RSC and proceed to Phase 2. As stated in Appendix O, the Pre-Phase 2 Customer Engagement Window is scheduled for 05/15/2024 – 06/13/2024.

GEN 00077
Published On: 01/09/2024

Question: If a project is not selected to proceed through the shortlisting process, is that project able to proceed through queue with the standard "non-ready" milestone requirements?

Answer: No, for Phase 1 of the RSC, projects must be invited to Step 2 and post the required Step 2 Proposal Security. As noted in Section VII Proposal Evaluation, C – Step 1: After Proposals are invited to the Step 2 “short list”, they will have 10 business days to post their Proposal Security. If any Proposals fail to post security or elect to withdraw at that time, the Companies may elect to invite additional Proposals to the short list. A Proposal that has bid on both Tracks or both resource types may not withdraw from one track or resource type (if the Proposal chooses to withdraw, it must withdraw from all tracks and resource types). Any Proposals not invited to the short list for Step 2 evaluation will not be included in the RSC Phase 1 study and will be released from the RSC.  

GEN 00076
Published On: 01/09/2024

Question: Can Duke confirm that we will only need one bid security posting per project? I.e. If a project was bid as a PV Only and SPS in both UOT and PPA tracks, we would only have to pay one security for that project correct? Additionally, how/when will it be determined whether a project is chosen for the PPA track or UOT track if it was bid into both tracks?

Answer: The Step 2 Proposal Security is assesed once per project. A project may be active in the RFP under both tracks (PPA and/or UOT) and resource types (Solar-only and SPS).

If your project was submitted under both the UOT and PPA track, it is considered invited to Step 2 under both RFP tracks. Similarly, a project submitted as both Solar Only and Solar Plus Storage is considered invited to Step 2 under both resource types. 

At the conclusion of Step 2 of the RFP, the RFP finalists will be announced, and that announcement will establish which track (UOT or PPA) and resource type (Solar-only or SPS) it was selected for.

GEN 00075
Published On: 01/09/2024

Question: Hello- I have some questions regarding Duke's general RFP/Process: 1. Does Duke usually announce their RFP on an annual basis? If so, is there a general time of year when RFPs are announced and reviewed? 2. Is a 2024 RFP anticipated and, if so, when? 3. Does Duke Carolinas have preferences in terms of siting considerations, solar v. solar + storage, standalone storage, or anything else worth noting?

Answer: DEC and DEP will be issuing a 2024 RFP. Stakeholder meetings to discuss and finalize the terms and conditions of the 2024 RFP will be held in Q1 of 2024.  The 2024 RFP is currently anticipated to be for both solar-only and solar paired with storage configurations; details of target quantities will be discussed during the Q1 stakeholder meetings and finalized by Q2 of 2024.  Details regarding the 2024 RFP stakeholder meetings and timeline will be forthcoming.

GEN 00074
Published On: 12/21/2023

Question: We would like to clarify that the draft LCs we circulated last week for the Step 2 Proposal Security were inclusive of the M1 Security to enter RSC phase 1. If we were to be shortlisted, can you advise the timing and process for posting of the M1 security payment? Can/should we back out the M1 from our Step 2 Proposal Security posting?

Answer: Please review FAQs GEN 00055, GEN 00072, and INT 00006. These FAQs are available at www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/FAQ.

GEN 00073
Published On: 12/11/2023

Question: Is there a withdrawal penalty for MPs that withdraw before posting the security deposit? Or will the MP just receive the unused study deposit back?

Answer: Projects that withdraw before the RSC Phase 1 begins will be refunded their study deposit minus any pre-Phase 1 costs incurred. Please also review FAQs GEN 00049 and INT 00006.

GEN 00072
Published On: 11/20/2023

Question: If a project with storage is selected into Step 2, will the required proposal security at that step be based on the nameplate capacity at the POI or the total project size with solar & storage included?

Answer: The Step 2 Proposal Security will be calculated as noted in the RFP Section J Step 2 Proposal Security. Proposal security in the amount of $20/kW for Solar-Only facilities and $28/kW for SPS facilities, minus the M1 security to enter RSC Phase 1, (based on the Facility’s interconnection request capacity) must be posted by all third party MPs that are invited to the “short list” and elect to move into Step 2 of the evaluation process (“Step 2 Proposal Security” or “Proposal Security”). If a Proposal is invited forward as both resource types (Solar-Only and SPS), then their Step 2 Proposal Security will be the higher of the two Proposal Security calculations above.

GEN 00071
Published On: 11/02/2023

Question: The following are follow-up questions regarding the request that bidders confirm whether the ‘MWh-AC at Solar Inverter (EOutInv)’ values provided in the SPS UOT and/or SPS PPA input forms include energy prior to clipping. Can Duke confirm that ‘AC-coupled clipping capture’ is a functionality that is valued highly from an operational perspective? If so, the MP can adjust the facility design for each project to provide it, and then re-run the PVSysts to provide the EOutInv values you are requesting. However, it is worth noting that in doing so, it would likely trigger required updates to the SLDs for each project, as well as the Interconnection Requests. Is this something that you are requesting that we do? Lastly, in thinking through this issue, our analysis indicates that the energy available for clipping capture declines in a non-linear fashion over time. Despite this, does Duke still want us to apply the same degradation curve to the energy values to arrive at the values for the later years in the 15-year term? If not, please provide guidance on how best to account for the reduction in energy available for clipping capture.

Answer: The values of “MWh-AC at Solar Inverter (EOutInv)” are meant to indicate what energy comes from the Solar AC side of the inverter before any step up transformer or gen tie losses. This number, less path losses, can exceed the POI, as long as the battery is able to absorb the power that would exceed the POI limit (AC Clipped Energy). Oversizing the AC solar inverters above the POI is not a required part of the design; it is the choice of each bidder.

As described in the Pre-Solicitation Bidders Conference deck (slide 36), the economic evaluation is based on LCOE and “SPS LCOE will assume the battery is solely charged from the available solar energy and will charge most days of the year, including days without clipped energy” and “Total POI MWh serves as the denominator in calculation of the LCOE”, and each bidder determines their own optimization strategy for sizing the facility.

Bids cannot be re-designed and resubmitted at this time; however, if there was a misinterpretation of “MWh-AC at Solar Inverter (EOutInv),” bidders may clarify what the output would be at the solar inverter as specified above. This data field was also described in the Pre-Solicitation Bidders Conference deck (slide 37), and it is up to the bidder to determine how degradation will impact “MWh-AC at Solar Inverter (EOutInv)” over the 15 years of the PPA .

GEN 00070
Published On: 10/30/2023

Question: Under the main DEC/DEP RFP document, there is a section on bat surveys, but there are no details regarding specific scope of work details. It simply says that a habitat assessment and acoustic survey are required, but no further details. Our goal is to understand what scope any bat surveys need to include to ensure we are meeting Duke’s requirements.

Answer: Please refer to GEN 00007 for additional background. As provided in the RFP, all Utility Ownership Track (“UOT”) proposals were provided instructions to plan for habitat assessments and onsite acoustic surveys as being a part of their scope, in light of the anticipated listing of species that will affect projects in the Carolinas. As such, all UOT proposals (Asset Transfer or BOT) will be responsible for completing this scope, if selected.

GEN 00069
Published On: 10/19/2023

Question: Are Emerson controllers absolutely necessary, as they have been sold to a company that is a competitor to the approved inverters?

Answer: Please see the responses to GEN 00008, GEN 00040, GEN 00047, GEN 00051 and GEN 00059 regarding the Approved Vendor List (AVL). These are available on the FAQ section of the RFP website, linked here: Duke Energy RFP Carolinas > FAQ.

GEN 00068
Published On: 10/19/2023

Question: If Duke Energy Progress staff provides us with a deficiency, how much time do customers have to reply with responses? Will additional time be provided to respond, if our initial response is not deemed sufficient by Duke staff?

Answer: Please see the response to FAQ INT 00014, posted at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/FAQ.

If the deficiency came from the Independent Evaluator (IE) and RFP Manager (Charles River Associates), per the RFP rules, during initial Step 1 evaluation, the IE/ RFP Manager may allow a Market Participant (MP) an opportunity to modify or clarify its Proposal to cure a non-conformance or non-substantive deficiency that would otherwise require elimination of the Proposal. The IE will provide the MP with written notice of the deficiency and the MP shall then have five (5) business days after receiving the written notice to cure the deficiency, where failure to cure the deficiency may result in withdrawal of the Proposal from further consideration.

Additional time to respond may be granted to the MP if the IE receives such a request and the proposed timeline for resolution of the deficiency is deemed acceptable by the IE.

If the deficiency is from Duke Energy’s Renewable Interconnection team, they will provide clear instructions to the customer on both the requirement to cure the deficiency and the timeline.

GEN 00067
Published On: 09/28/2023

Question: While making the payment for the interconnection study deposit and bid fee, the portal displays 'Please use ACH for payments over $1000.' Could you please clarify the payment method (Speedpay or ACH)? If ACH is the recommended method, please provide the wire details.

Answer: Please use Speedpay. Additional information about Speedpay is included in the 8/7 Pre-solicitation Bidders Conference presentation posted at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/StakeholderMaterials.

GEN 00066
Published On: 09/28/2023

Question: Can you please share the Duke Energy Fire Safety Design Criteria? Additionally is required that our BOT project must be NFPA 855 Compliant?

Answer: Fire Safety Design Criteria is provided in the Appendix L – 2023 SPS RFP Exhibits zip file, uploaded to the RFP Documents section of this website on August 14, 2023; specifically see two documents, Template_EPC Agreement - Exhibit A-1-2B - Attachment - Energy Storage Safety 2016 and Template_EPC Agreement - Exhibit A-1-2B - Attachment - Fire Safety Design Criteria. Section 1.1 of the 2nd document addresses NFPA 855 compliance.

GEN 00065
Published On: 09/25/2023

Question: If we are submitting a Solar-Only and SPS project to the PPA Controllable track, do we need to fill out two separate interconnection applications? Or just the SPS application? If there are two separate applications needed, how would the payment work?

Answer: Please see the response in FAQ GEN 00064.

GEN 00064
Published On: 09/25/2023

Question: We are submitting two applications for the same POI, one with just solar and one with solar plus storage. When submitting the interconnection application in the portal, is there a way to duplicate the application rather than entering the same information again?

Answer: Do not submit two interconnection requests for a bid with the same POI that is offering solar-only and SPS. Please see Appendix O, Section I -  New Interconnection Request during 2023 RSC Bid Window part b, i. Multiple bid forms will need to be submitted to CRA, depending on which tracks you are entering into the RFP; one for each configuration.

GEN 00063
Published On: 09/22/2023

Question: Please confirm if the Bidder should include auxiliary power at retail rates or wholesale rates for the PV-Only PPA options.

Answer: Market participants should assume all site auxiliary power for the solar generating facility will be supplied through a separate retail rate, per the PPA Section 4.3 where only Station Power is excluded from the Contract Quantity.

GEN 00062
Published On: 09/21/2023

Question: Our team has examined your list of approved vendors, and we would like to propose the inclusion of the following merchants. We have extensive experience with the vendors and are confident their products will meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the 2023 RSC. PV Modules: • First Solar • Sumec • Yingli • Vikram • Sunpower • Talesun • Risen • Astronergy / CHINT Batteries: • SK • Tesla • Panasonic • BYD • Lishen • Gotion • Eve • REPT • Energy Vault • Powin PCUs/Converter: • Power Electronics • Sungrow • Chint • Ingeteam • Tesla • Parker • EPC • Fimer • GE • SolarEdge • Siemens Gamesa GSU: • Starkstrom Geratebau GMBH • SPX (Waukesha or Goldsboro locations) • Pennsylvania Transformer (PTTI) Tracker: • GameChange Solar • TerraSmart • FTC • Trina • PV Hardware • Soletec • Valmont Appreciate your consideration.

Answer: Please review the response in FAQ GEN 00051. To review module manufacturer requests, Duke Energy requires relevant spec sheets, PAN files and other relevant product information. For storage equipment, please provide all relevant technical and business materials.

GEN 00061
Published On: 09/21/2023

Question: We have a site which has potential POIs on a 115 or 230kv line. We will be submitting one lines for the 115kv, but during the RFP process will Duke provide feedback to suggest that the 230kv line would be a better option?

Answer: No, the Duke Energy team will not provide POI recommendations for projects in the RFP.

GEN 00060
Published On: 09/21/2023

Question: As per the PVSyst Guidance, we must use TMY P50 weather data for the simulation. Is this a requirement? Or is acceptable to use SolarGIS weather data?

Answer: For UOT proposals please refer to FAQ GEN 00028; for PPA proposals see FAQ GEN 00030.

GEN 00059
Published On: 09/21/2023

Question: We would like to request that the following vendors be considered for addition to the AVL. For battery cells: Hithium/EVE. For BESS PCS: Power Electronics. For PV inverters: Sungrow.

Answer: Please review the response in FAQ GEN 00051. To review module manufacturer requests, Duke Energy requires relevant spec sheets, PAN files and other relevant product information. For storage equipment, please provide all relevant technical and business materials.

GEN 00058
Published On: 09/20/2023

Question: To capture the effects of degradation, Duke is requesting a PVSYST batch simulation with a 0.5%/yr degradation rate. Do you require this rate to be applied in a linear or non-linear fashion? A standard non-linear assumption would be (1-0.005)^n where n is the years since COD.

Answer: Yes, for UOT proposals, a linear degradation of 0.5% per year should be applied to the PVSyst modeling.

GEN 00057
Published On: 09/20/2023

Question: A. What are the mandatory prerequisite that the project has to satisfy to execute the GIA (e.g., CPCN)? B. Can you confirm the following are the only payments to apply a 75MWac project to RFP and RSC by the 29th Sep: - $125,000 for the RCS - $15,000 for the RFP as Bid Fee Totaling $140,000?


  • A: Please review the relevant procedures for the jurisdiction you are planning to interconnect into, for North Carolina state jurisdictional projects see section 5.2 of the NC Interconnection Procedures. For a South Carolina state jurisdictional interconnection see Appendix CS Section 5.5. For a FERC project please review the Joint OATT Attachment J on the OATI OASIS site Joint_OATT.pdf (duke-energy.com)
  • B: The dollar amounts listed in the question are correct for a project that will be required to submit a Proposal Fee of $15,000. Please review FAQ GEN 00039 on this page for details on which projects may be required to post a $10,000 Proposal Fee instead of a $15,000 Proposal Fee.

GEN 00056
Published On: 09/18/2023

Question: Should the payment for the RSC deposit and the RFP Bid Fee for a single project be submitted in the same transaction, or two separate transactions?

Answer: If submitting the payments for a single project via the Interconnection Customer Portal, it is one transaction through SpeedPay. 

Please review the instructions in the 8/7 Pre-solicitation Bidders Conference (starting with slide 14) posted at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/StakeholderMaterials.

Projects with an executed Interconneciton Agreement should not submit the Proposal Fee with any other Fees.

If your Company is unable to make payments via the portal, please explain the situation in an email to the IE at DukeEnergyRFPCarolinas@crai.com. Instructions will be provided by the IE.

GEN 00055
Published On: 09/15/2023

Question: Would you please confirm the proposal security calculation method for SPS facilities? We understand that the amount is $20/kW for Solar-Only facilities and $28/kW for SPS facilities (minus the M1 security to enter RSC Phase 1). The question we would like to clarify is are we multiplying $28/kW by just the PV capacity or the PV+BESS system capacity. For example, the proposal security for an 80MW(AC) SPS facility is $2,240,000 if we multiply by the PV capacity only but it is $3,024,000 if multiplied by 108MW (80MW PV + 28MW BESS). Can you please confirm which is correct?

Answer: For projects calculating the Step 2 proposal security for an SPS with a max output of 80MW, please see the example calculation for a North Carolina State jurisdictional request. The Step 2 proposal security is based on the RFP Section V.J “Step 2 Proposal Security”.

80,000kW*$28/kW = $2,240,000; then subtract M1 for an 80MW max output facility.

M1 = $50,000 + 80,000kW *$1/kW = $130,000

$2,240,000 - $130,000 = $2,090,000 Step 2 Proposal Security

For projects with an existing interconnection agreement that are not submitting an interconnection request in the Resource Solicitation Cluster, M1 is considered to be $0.

GEN 00054
Published On: 09/15/2023

Question: Does curtailment apply to Solar plus Storage configurations? Or, does it only apply to Solar-Only configurations?

Answer: The curtailment (or Dispatch Down) for the 2023 RFP is limited to 5% DEC / 10% DEP for Solar-Only Facilities. For additional information, please see the “DEC and DEP 2023 RFP" document, Section IX (Additional Information), part D (Control Instructions in Controllable PPAs). The document is available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.

GEN 00053
Published On: 09/15/2023

Question: What is the correct way for us to indicate we wish to submit our project for evaluation as both a PV and PV+S resource? When uploading the single line diagrams, should we upload two separate files; one for the PV and one for the PV+S, or would the PV+S single line only be sufficient?

Answer: If you plan to submit a project as PV-only and PV+S (also known as Solar Plus Storage, or SPS), you must submit both the Solar-Only and SPS bid input forms for the relevant track(s) (UOT and/or PPA). Thus, if the project is offered in one track only, you will be submitting two (2) bid forms; if the project is offered in both tracks as SPS, you will be submitting all four (4) bid input forms, etc. To clarify, each proposal (UOT Solar-Only, UOT SPS, PPA Solar-Only, and/or PPA SPS) must be accompanied by its own bid input form. The bid input forms are available on the RFP Documents page of this website.

For projects bidding as both SPS and Solar-Only, both single line diagrams are needed (one for the PV and one for the PV+S).

GEN 00052
Published On: 09/12/2023

Question: The answer to question GEN 00033 states that we should assume a separate retail rate for the site auxiliary power for the storage facility. Can you please provide this retail rate ($/kWh) or point us to the schedule containing this rate?

Answer: There are multiple rate options available to general service customers depending on their size.  Rate schedule tariffs can be found on the Company’s website at https://www.duke-energy.com/home/billing/rates.

GEN 00051
Published On: 09/11/2023

Question: We would like to request to add some additional vendors to the Duke AVL. For modules: Boviet, VSUN, Waree. We would like to use the best module available based on final trade case decisions and tariffs. For storage: BYD, Gotion, Tesla, Narada, EVE, LG Chem, SYL, SK

Answer: Please see the response to Gen 00040. It should be noted that Appendix H (AVL) only applies to Utility Ownership Track (“UOT”) proposals. As provided in the Gen 00040 response, a thorough and complete review is not able to be performed prior to the 9/29/23 bid submittal deadline. For module manufacturer requests, please provide relevant spec sheets, PAN files and other relevant product information. For storage equipment please provide all relevant technical and business materials.

All UOT proposals must use equipment from the AVL and submit a conforming bid. If a bidder wishes to provide a bid price reduction by substituting a non-AVL equipment provider, they can do so using the notes section of the bid form.

Duke Energy reserves the right to make changes to the AVL.

GEN 00050
Published On: 09/11/2023

Question: It is our understanding that if a project is submitted under the UOT track (specifically as Asset Transfer) and the project is awarded a contract through the RFP that some terms of the Asset Transfer Agreement are subject to further negotiation. If the company and the developer are not able to reach terms under the Asset Transfer Agreement (excluding costs), how is the shortlisting bond handled?

Answer: Considering the lengthy stakeholder engagement process and pro forma Asset Purchase Agreement provided, Duke Energy expects parties will be able to resolve contracting negotiations with limited changes. As described in Section J “Step 2 Proposal Security”, the Step 2 proposal security is not refundable, or released in the case of a letter of credit, if the parties are not able to negotiate an agreement.

GEN 00049
Published On: 09/08/2023

Question: It is our understanding that if a project is not invited to Step 2 and is withdrawn [from the RSC], thus not participating in RSC Phase 1, that project's study deposit would be refunded minus any attributable administrative costs Duke has incurred while processing the project's IR. Is that correct? This scenario does not seem to be explicitly addressed in the NC/SCIP nor in Appendix O so we wanted to confirm.

Answer: Yes, projects that withdraw before the RSC Phase 1 begins will be refunded their study deposit minus any pre-Phase 1 costs incurred.

GEN 00048
Published On: 09/08/2023

Question: If a project that went through the serial interconnection process with a signed IA, has a signed PPA, but the project has not been placed in service yet and is looking to submit into the SP 2023, would the project be required to terminate the PPA before submitting into the SP 2023? Or, would the PPA be required to be terminated before the updated PPA would need to be signed (if awarded)?

Answer: Projects with an executed PPA as of the date the bid window closes are not considered to be “new” projects, as described in Section II “Resources Solicited in the 2023 RFP”, and would not be eligible for the 2023 RFP.  

GEN 00047
Published On: 09/08/2023

Question: Are SPS facilities on the PPA track required to utilize the Emerson power plant controller listed in the SCADA section of the 'Storage Facility' portion of the AVL? Also, please confirm if SPS facilities on the PPA track are allowed to utilize EMS software of the developer's choice.

Answer: Yes, SPS facilities on the PPA track need to use the Emerson power plant controller listed in the SCADA section of the 'Storage Facility' portion of the Approved Vendor List. The RFP does not specify an EMS software for PPA track proposals, however the SPS facility must be capable of receiving and responding to specific direction concerning all operational decisions from Duke Energy Battery Storage fleet asset management staff.

GEN 00046
Published On: 09/08/2023

Question: In the PPA Bid Form it says "Provide Landowner(s) Consent and Status". What exactly are you looking for here? Is there a form that they need to execute?

Answer: We are asking bidders to provide acknowledgement of site control; this is a field on the PPA Bid Form.

GEN 00045
Published On: 09/07/2023

Question: Regarding the 5%-10% curtailment allowed for in the PPAs, is there information that can be provided on historical curtailment at different nodes or other system curtailment data?

Answer: DEP and DEC file quarterly curtailment reports with the NCUC in Docket Nos, E-2, Sub 1178 and E-7, Sub 1175.

GEN 00044
Published On: 09/07/2023

Question: The OEM of the inverters we are using does not have v33 of the user defined psse models out yet. Can we just submit v34 models and provide v33 models once those files are available from the OEM?

Answer: Yes.

GEN 00043
Published On: 09/07/2023

Question: In Appendix I, there is a site layout guidance for asset transfer and build-own-transfer proposals. Does this guidance requirements apply to PPA Track projects?

Answer: Please review FAQ GEN 00022.

GEN 00042
Published On: 09/07/2023

Question: Follow up question to FAQ INT 00009: If a Project is bidding as Solar-Only and Solar plus Storage, do we need to provide two PSSE models? Or is one model showing the PV+BESS configuration sufficient?

Answer: For projects bidding as both SPS and Solar only, both PSSE models are needed.

GEN 00041
Published On: 09/01/2023

Question: After reviewing the response to FAQ GEN 00009, it’s still not clear to us that for an AC-coupled Solar plus Storage project, if it’s an 80 MW AC max output at POI solar plant with 32 MW / 128 MWh AC Coupled storage (40%) max output at the POI, would the max export Duke studies be 80 MW or 112 MW? The later would not qualify as a QF, but in your answer below you could be assuming the BESS nameplate plus solar nameplate is low enough to still qualify as a QF.

Answer: For the Solar plus Storage projects Duke Energy will use the max output of the solar facility in the cluster study, for this example, 80MW. The generating facility’s max output at the POI should not exceed 80 MW, because in the study assumptions made by Duke Energy, the storage will not discharge when the solar generation is at its full capacity. For more information on how Duke Energy studies hybrid plants see the OATI Oasis posting “Duke Energy Business Practice: Studying Storage Interconnection Requests in DEC and DEP”at Storage_Studies_-_Duke_Energy_Business_Practice_2022-10-26.pdf (oati.com).

GEN 00040
Published On: 09/01/2023

Question: We would like to request a vendor to be added to Duke's AVL. We are requesting to use Talesun Bipro TD7G72M 530-550W Bifacial Dual Glass Panels for our project site.

Answer: The Utility Ownership Team will initiate a review of Talesun and their Bipro TD7G72M 530-550W Bifacial Dual Glass product, although a thorough and complete review is not able to be performed prior to the 9/29/23 bid submittal deadline. It should be noted that Appendix H (AVL) only applies to Utility Ownership Track proposals.

For an Asset Transfer bid, all bidders must use the module options provided in Appendix I1 for the development of site layouts and PVSyst, this ensures consistency across all Asset Transfer projects.

For a BOT bid, bidder should use an approved module provider on Appendix H (AVL). Duke Energy reserves the right to make changes to the AVL; if additional vendors are approved, a BOT bidder may change their equipment at such time, subject to interconnection application modification approvals and maintaining the annual energy production profile as bid.

GEN 00039
Published On: 08/31/2023

Question: We are planning on submitting several projects in a solar and solar plus storage track. (1) Is this considered a separate bid for each meaning each bid fee is 10k or if we submit both hybrid and solar would that be a 15k bid? (2) Separately on the narrative do we need to make 2 different hybrid narratives or can we consolidate them into one? (3) Regarding our interconnection can we do one request in the RSC or do we have to do multiple for the studies?

Answer: (1) One Proposal Fee is to be submited for each project entered in the RFP:

  • The fee per project is $10,000 if the project is bid as Solar-Only (without storage) and in one RFP Track only (PPA or UOT)
  • The fee per project is $15,000 in all other cases:
    • If the project is offered as Solar Plus Storage, and/or
    • If the project is bid in both Tracks (UOT and PPA)

(2) You may consolidate documents if you clearly identify the projects, resource types, and RFP Tracks that each document applies to.

(3) The Interconnection Request submitted into the RSC is for one generating facility and the facility can elect to bid as both solar only and SPS. One facility cannot bid multiple solar only and multiple SPS sizes or configurations. For additional information related to submitting an Interconnection Request in the RSC, please see Appendix O, Section I – “New Interconnection Request during 2023 RSC Bid Window”.

GEN 00038
Published On: 08/31/2023

Question: For the BOT case, a significant overbuild on day 1/COD will be required if the project nameplate and storage capacity must be maintained for the first 15 years of asset life without the ability to augment, and this does not allow Duke to take advantage of future battery cost curve reductions. Please confirm you are asking bidders to overbuild the BOT option to include enough extra batteries to cover degradation over the first 15 years of the asset life.

Answer: Yes, as provided in RFP Appendix Q1 (Energy Storage Requirements), BESS should be oversized to account for degradation such that the battery capacity is maintained through the full 15 year period.

GEN 00037
Published On: 08/31/2023

Question: Can you confirm if PPA track proposals for solar-only and solar-plus-storage will be allowed to change equipment/vendors after the bid is submitted as long as the new equipment can meet performance requirements and would not cause a material modification in the Interconnection process?

Answer: Yes, PPA track proposals for solar-only and SPS may make a “like and kind” modification to their equipment after the bid is submitted, subject to the “Material Modification” regulations contained in the applicable Interconnection Procedures.

GEN 00036
Published On: 08/30/2023

Question: If we plan on submitting a SPS project into both the PPA track and UOT track, would we need to fill out just the SPS PPA bid form and the SPS UOT bid form or would we need to also fill out the Solar Only PPA and Solar Only UOT bid forms as well?

Answer: Solar-Only proposals are required of every project in the RFP, and each proposal must include the relevant Solar-Only bid form. Thus, if you are submitting a project with an SPS option into both the UOT and PPA tracks, all four (4) bid input forms (Solar-Only UOT, Solar-Only PPA, SPS UOT, and SPS PPA) must be submitted.

GEN 00035
Published On: 08/30/2023

Question: Can a bidder unilaterally choose to downsize a project within the limits of the IX procedures after submitting it, or does Duke have to agree to any downsize once the bid has been submitted?

Answer: No, both parties need to agree on any changes in size.

GEN 00034
Published On: 08/29/2023

Question: Can you please tell me what it would cost to submit a proposal for a PV+S facility for both the PPA track and the BOT track? Would it be $15,000 or $30,000?

Answer: The non-refundable Proposal Fee for a facility offered in both tracks (UOT and PPA) and/or offered with a Storage option is $15,000.

GEN 00033
Published On: 08/28/2023

Question: Please confirm if the Bidder should include auxiliary power at retail rates for the PPA options, and if yes which rate should bidders utilize for such calculations?

Answer: Market participants should assume all site auxiliary power for storage facility will be supplied through a separate retail rate, per the PPA Section 4.3 where only Station Power is excluded from the Contract Quantity.

GEN 00032
Published On: 08/28/2023

Question: In relation to FAQ GEN 00028, can PPA bids use alternatives to SolCast?

Answer: SolCast is the preferred irradiance source, but the Companies will accept other data sources.

GEN 00031
Published On: 08/25/2023

Question: Is there flexibility within the interconnection request and/or bid format for a project submitting multiple bids to be studied at separate AC capacities for each bid? For example, could a project submit a UOT bid under one AC capacity, and a PPA bid under a different AC capacity?

Answer: No, the MWac size of a project must remain the same if bid under both tracks.

GEN 00030
Published On: 08/25/2023

Question: Can PPA Track bidders use SolarAnywhere weather file?

Answer: SolCast is the preferred irradiance source, but the Companies will accept other data sources.

GEN 00029
Published On: 08/24/2023

Question: Will Duke accept an Assignment Agreement of the site control evidence (and all other documents) from a parent company to a project LLC?

Answer: Yes, Duke Energy accepts an Assignment Agreement for evidence of site control.

GEN 00028
Published On: 08/23/2023

Question: Would Duke accept us using SolarAnywhere 3.6 rather than SolCast for the PVSyst weather file?

Answer: The RFP requires all UOT proposals to use SolCast weather files, this ensures consistency across all UOT projects and across energy forecasts. Unless a bidder demonstrates a material issue in obtaining SolCast weather files, the requirement will remain.

GEN 00027
Published On: 08/23/2023

Question: Will Storage-only bids be accepted during this RFP?

Answer: No.

GEN 00026
Published On: 08/23/2023

Question: Can you confirm that there is no Inverter Loading Ratio requirement for Solar-Only or Solar plus Storage PPA track proposals?

Answer: Confirmed, there is not a requirement for the Inverter Load Ratio for Solar-Only or SPS PPA track proposals.

GEN 00025 (revised 08/23/2023)
Published On: 08/23/2023

Question: Could you kindly provide the account information/wire details required for submitting the bid proposal fee?

Answer: Proposal fees are to be submitted through the Interconnection Customer Portal. Please review the instructions in the 8/7 Pre-solicitation Bidders Conference (starting with slide 14) posted at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/StakeholderMaterials.

If your Company is unable to make payments via the portal, please explain the situation in an email to the IE at DukeEnergyRFPCarolinas@crai.com. Instructions will be provided by the IE.

GEN 00024
Published On: 08/22/2023

Question: Previous Q&A (GEN 00004) states that the Approved Vendor List is only applicable to UOT proposals, but the PPA Bid Input Form requests information on whether major equipment (modules, inverters, racking equipment) will be provided by a Vendor on Duke's AVL. If this is not a requirement for Controllable PPA track projects, how will it factor into the scoring under Technology and Operational Risk?

Answer: The AVL is not a requirement for PPA track proposals, but scoring does consider the equipment and reliability.  PPA track proposals that use equipment from the AVL will receive more points in this category.

GEN 00023
Published On: 08/22/2023

Question: For the pre-COD security that is defined in the Solar plus Storage PPA, how should the pre-COD security be calculated given that developers are bidding in a capacity payment with a set energy rate. Will this amount be calculated using the $/kWh for storage that is bid in or the $25/MWh energy rate?

Answer: The pre-COD security calculation will be based on both the expected energy payment and the expected capacity payment of the facility.

GEN 00022
Published On: 08/22/2023

Question: It is our understanding that for UOT track proposals, Duke wants to use conservative design assumptions and wants bidders to assume the Hanwha Q cells 570W based on the Q&A and updated Appendix I1. However, if a bidder is submitting a PPA proposal and elects to use a higher wattage module that is being sold and produced today (670-700W) for their PPA design, will Duke view that negatively in the “Technology & Operational Risk” category of the score card and will that impact the bidders score negatively?

Answer: Yes. UOT proposals should use the guidance provided in the RFP, and specifically Appendix I to the RFP, to develop their site layouts and bids. Note the referenced requirements only apply to UOT bids and will not be the basis for PPA bids, unless otherwise provided in the RFP. Thus, a bidder can use two different module technologies and wattage assumptions between their UOT and PPA bids. It should further be noted that the MWac size of a project must remain the same if bid under both tracks.

GEN 00021
Published On: 08/22/2023

Question: If the MP decides to go with the utility ownership track (UOT), there is no security that will need to be posted? The PPA track has the pre/post COD security.

Answer: Security requirements are laid out in the RFP Document. All proposals selected to advance to Step 2 must post the Step 2 Proposal Security, see section V.J of the RFP for details. Separate security is required under the Resource Solicitation Cluster process. For selected winning UOT proposals, Step 2 Proposal Security will be released upon execution of a definitive agreement, see section J.3. Separate security may also be required under the definitive agreement and will be evaluated for selected proposals. Asset Purchase agreements generally have not required security from the Seller, due to the payment milestone structure applicable to those projects. Build Transfer agreements generally will require security, at a minimum to cover liquidated damages.

GEN 00020
Published On: 08/22/2023

Question: For BOT options, please confirm if Bidders should assume all site auxiliary power for HVAC/cooling etc. on battery systems will be supplied via offsite service from Duke, or if such service will be provided through the transmission POI.

Answer: For BOT bids, market participants should assume that all site auxiliary power for HVAC/cooling etc. on battery systems will be supplied through the transmission POI.

GEN 00019
Published On: 08/21/2023

Question: I've confirmed that POI Site Control is not required in the RSC until the end of the customer engagement window. Can you confirm that for the RFP, lack of POI site control would be viewed as a development risk and not disqualifying?

Answer: Site control is part of the developmental risk score for a project, therefore it will impact the ranking for both PPA and UOT evaluations.

GEN 00018
Published On: 08/21/2023

Question: Does the customer want O&M services for the UOT (BOT case)? If so, for how long?

Answer: Duke Energy self performs O&M services for all UOT projects; Market Participants should not include the cost for O&M services.

GEN 00017
Published On: 08/18/2023

Question: During the 6/20 stakeholder engagement session, Duke confirmed non-economic scoring criteria would include point reductions for parent companies that have previously terminated a contract. However, on the bid sheets and in the scoring criteria, it appears to list both terminated contracts and contracts which declined to execute a contract. Could you provide clarification and the rationale behind this change? Additionally, how will the reasons for termination be considered? Will a site that was unable to continue for macroeconomic reasons be treated the same as a site which was unable to continue due to site-specific developer faults such as zoning?

Answer: As described in Appendix F – Sample Scoring Sheet, the “Default risk based on PPA defaults/ terminations and/or declines of RFP wins” category is worth 20 points out of 1,000.   Similar to the “Number of MW of solar facilities completed, number of projects completed, experience of principal team members, Appendix E financial information” category, which is worth 30 points, this information is part of the broader assessment of the likelihood that a proposed project will achieve commercial operations if it is selected.  Developers with a record of terminating contracts or declining awards will have this information considered in their evaluation.

The scoring applied in this category will reflect the extent to which the factors leading up to the cancellation of the contract or award are within the control of the developer, and the point at which the cancellation was received by the Companies. Developers that declined a win will not have as many points deducted as one that terminated an executed contract.  If the reason for the cancellation of an award is cited as macroeconomic conditions, this condition is/was shared by other developers, and may have been accounted for through other means that are/were within the control of the developer and was effectively managed by other developers.  Therefore, a project that had cancelled an award or contract due to a denial of a permit would typically score higher than an award cancelled for macroeconomic reasons, unless the reason for the denial of the permit was due to an oversight made by the developer.

GEN 00016
Published On: 08/16/2023

Question: You stated that CPCN was not required for the RFP however, when we were filling out the IX application, step 12 says "the NCUC docket Number is required for all NC interconnection applications." Please clarify, do we need to have a CPCN or not? Do we just skip over it or put N/A?

Answer: A CPCN is not required at the time of application. Please use “N/A” for the CPCN docket number requested in the application if there is no CPCN. 

GEN 00015
Published On: 08/16/2023

Question: When will the Exhibits from "Appendix L - Solar_BESS EPC Agreement" become available? Currently (08/07/2023), they are not posted in the "RFP Documents" RFP website and they are not part of the "Appendix L" document either. Thank you in advance!

Answer: Duke Energy has added the Appendix L documents at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.

GEN 00014
Published On: 08/15/2023

Question: Does the Company have a preference for AC-Coupled or DC-Coupled?

Answer: No, DEP and DEC are accepting both AC-coupled and DC-coupled systems.

GEN 00013
Published On: 08/15/2023

Question: For the PPA track, given it will not utilize a FERC jurisdictional IA (and therefore is not entitled to receive network upgrade refunds under FERC order 845), what interconnection costs should we use in our bid?

Answer: For standard cost estimates please see “DEC/DEP Standard Interconnection Cost Estimates” document posted July 3, 2023. The standard interconnection facilities costs do not include the network upgrade costs.

GEN 00012
Published On: 08/12/2023

Question: In the case of a North Carolina-located facility, will the BESS coupling method determine the view of a solar+storage facility's total capacity and how it is studied? Does the answer change between tracks (Utility Ownership vs. PPA Track)?

Answer: Both UOT and PPA resources will be evaluated using an LCOE framework rather than a determination of the capacity value;  this applies to projects in North Carolina and South Carolina.   The capacity of the resource is a combination of the solar production and the potential production from the energy storage measured at the point of interconnection, regardless of the energy coupling method of the BESS.


GEN 00011
Published On: 08/09/2023

Question: Per the RFP, MPs must have submitted Form 556 to FERC on or before the date of submission of a Proposal to obtain qualifying facility (“QF”) certification, despite not intending to enter into a PURPA PPA contract with either of the Companies. Is the MP still required to submit Form 556 to FERC?

Answer: The term “PURPA PPA” is used broadly, and historically has often been used in the Carolinas to refer to what is also known as a “standard offer” or “negotiated” PURPA contract in which the contract rate is set at the applicable administratively calculated avoided cost.  While this 2023 RFP is not capped at the administratively calculated avoided cost, the pro forma contracts used in this RFP for PPA Track proposals do qualify as PURPA PPAs.

GEN 00010
Published On: 08/09/2023

Question: 1) Do you have any design guidance on the physical size of DEP and DEC’s Switching Station based on Interconnection voltage so we can ensure that we leave adequate room on our designs? 2) Do you have any Geotechnical Report specifications for DEP and DEC for the Switch Stations? 3) Do you have any guidance on the Civil work that will be required to clear and grade the area for the DEP and DEC switch station and build access roads?


  1. Design guidance is available for DEC and DEP.
    1. For DEP, see the Substation Guidelines document titled “GDLP-STD-TRM-00011-Rev. 000”, available in the FAQ Documents folder on the RFP website.
      1. Generally, 200 ft by 200 ft is needed for a 230kV substation, 140ft by 140 ft is needed for a 115kV substation. Multi-breaker switching stations are larger and will require more property than the 230kV substation.
    1. For DEC, see the document titled “Design Requirements for Transmission Interconnection Facilities”, available in the FAQ Documents folder on the RFP website. This document specifies the area needed (145’ by 145’ cleared site) for a standard Interconnection substation for both 44kV and 100kV. DEC also has, on the OASIS website at the following link, OATI OASIS a document titled “Substation Configuration Guideline for Transmission Inverter Based Interconnections - GDLF-EGR-TRM-00004” which provides guidance on whether a single breaker or multi-breaker station is needed.

2) Geotechnical information is included in the GeoTech Spec document titled “TECP-EGR-TRM-00066-Rev.000”, available in the FAQ Documents folder on the RFP website. Geotechnical information is the same for both DEP and DEC.

3) Design guidance is available for DEC and DEP:

                a. For DEP, see the documents titled “65426s1.pdf” and “65461s1.pdf”, available in the FAQ Documents folder on the RFP website.

                b. For DEC, see the document titled “Substation Site Development Design Requirements for Customers, GDLP-STD-TRM-00006”, available in the FAQ Documents folder on the RFP website.

GEN 00009
Published On: 08/01/2023

Question: Please confirm that designing the Battery Energy Storage System as AC-coupled, given the stated requirement for the system to be able to charge from both the collocated solar generation and the grid, will not affect the project's QF status when the project size is 74.9MWac.

Answer: Duke Energy agrees that the PPA Track RFP SPS resources it is seeking for the RFP (which may be AC-connected, grid-charging capable, and up 80 MW of grid export) will meet the definition of a QF.

GEN 00008
Published On: 07/27/2023

Question: How do we request approval for other manufacturers to be added as approved vendors on Appendix H – Approved Vendor List? Can this type of request be reviewed and approved prior to the Proposal Submittal Deadline on September 29, 2023? If not, is there any defined timeline for when a review and approval can be made for new vendors?

Answer: The Approved Vendor List (“AVL”) as provided represents the current list of approved equipment suppliers. The AVL is only applicable to Utility Ownership Track Proposals. If additional vendors are added to the AVL prior to the Utility Ownership Proposal’s commercial operation date, the Utility Ownership Proposal may opt to utilize such new vendors so long as such utilization adheres to the Facility Interconnection Requirement and does not trigger a material modification under the Interconnection Agreement.

The process for adding a vendor to the AVL is complex and requires thorough review. To add a vendor to the AVL, Duke must evaluate, for example, the safety, reliability, operational experience, maintenance history, and serviceability of the proposed vendor. In some instances, information technology (“IT”) security issues and grid stability functions must also be evaluated prior to adding a new vendor to the AVL.

To request a vendor be added to the AVL, please send the request to the IE via email DukeEnergyRFPCarolinas@crai.com and include the vendor name, requested equipment, type of equipment, all applicable and relevant equipment information, and the equipment specifications/qualifications. The request will then be considered and a response provided in a timely manner.

GEN 00007
Published On: 07/18/2023

Question: For projects bidding in the Utility Ownership Track, are acoustic bat surveys required for the gen-tie area as well or just the project area (within fences or under panels)?

Answer: The habitat assessment and onsite acoustic survey requirements established in Section IV.A applies to the entire project site, including but not limited to the solar array areas, BESS areas, generation and transmission substation areas, overhead/underground powerlines, etc (i.e. the entire project site). It should be noted this requirement only applies to Utility Ownership Track projects.

GEN 00006
Published On: 07/11/2023

Question: I would just like further confirmation that an acoustic survey for bats is only required for projects bidding in the Utility Ownership Track.

Answer: Correct, the habitat assessment and onsite acoustic survey requirements estimated in Section IV.A only apply to Utility Ownership Track projects.

GEN 00005
Published On: 06/29/2023

Question: With the recent passage of HB130, should projects submitting into the 23 RFP plan to comply with the requirements established in this bill and the yet to be issued rules by NCDEQ?

Answer: Yes, projects submitting into the 2023 RFP, pursuant to the guidance in Section III.A(d), should plan to comply with HB 130 and any other applicable future regulations.


GEN 00004
Published On: 06/22/2023

Question: Please clarify who should be using the Approved Vendors List, all projects or just the Utility Ownership track projects?

Answer: The Approved Vendors List only applies to proposals submitted to the Utility Ownership Track.

GEN 00003
Published On: 06/19/2023

Question: Can two projects interconnecting on separate transmission lines be in close proximity to each other? Each project individually meets the minimum size requirements.

Answer: Two projects interconnecting on separate transmission lines does not alleviate the requirements of the FERC 1 mile rule, which does not distinguish between same transmission line or not. Projects owned by the same Interconnection Customer shall be in compliance with the FERC guidelines for the projects to be considered as qualifying facilities.

GEN 00002
Published On: 05/15/2023

Question: We have a project located in Kershaw County and interconnected to Santee Cooper transmission. Would it be considered for the RFP?

Answer: Facilities must be located in the Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC) or Duke Energy Progress (DEP) North Carolina or South Carolina service territory and will physically interconnect with the DEC or DEP transmission system. Facilities interconnected to Santee Cooper transmission will not be considered in this RFP.

GEN 00001
Published On: 05/08/2023

Question: We would like to add a company’s SCADA and Switchgear to Duke Energy’s approved vendor list for utility ownership track projects. Can they be added?

Answer: Duke Energy has developed a list of approved vendors for various components and control systems across our generation fleet. We have standardized a limited number of designs from established suppliers to enable site technicians and O&M teams to effectively and efficiently support remote sites, develop leverageable expertise, facilitate safe operations, and simplify inventory management across our generation fleet.

Duke Energy does periodically scan the market to see if any products are available that are more adept at meeting an unfilled commercial or technical need relative to the currently approved vendors. However, the timing of that market search is driven by the relative priority of needs across all areas of the generation supply chain and, as there is not a current refresh of SCADA and switchgear approved vendors, these approved vendors for these types of equipment will not change before the 2023 RFP. If you have additional documentation on this vendor that you would like to provide so that Duke has it readily available when a future market search for these pieces of equipment may arise, we would be happy to receive that information. Other types of equipment may be eligible to be reviewed and added to the 2023 RFP approved vendor list.


DOC 00060
Published On: 05/30/2024

Question: We received an award in both the APA (UOT) and PPA tracks in this year’s RFP. After reviewing the documents, we are not clear on what would happen if we submitted a partially executed LOI (UOT) or PPA in advance of the 6/13 deadline, but Duke Energy fails to countersign by 6/13 at 12PM ET. Is Duke Energy given a grace period to complete their countersigning process? If so, how long is that grace period? Or would that scenario jeopardize that project’s ability to move forward?

Answer: Yes, there is a grace period for the Companies to complete the countersignature process. If the Companies need additional time beyond the 6/13 date to countersign, the Companies will communicate their need for additional time with the Interconnection Customer as soon as possible, and the Companies’ need for additional time to countersign will not jeopardize the project’s ability to move forward.

DOC 00059 (revised 05/31/2024)
Published On: 05/30/2024

Question: It appears the solar plus storage PPA [for the 2023 RFP] does not establish a maximum limit to delivered Product, or a limit after which compensation is not due. Please would you confirm that Duke will purchase any amount of product generated by the facility and delivered to the POI?

Answer: There is no maximum limit in the PPA, as long as the nameplate capacity rating of the project does not exceed the rating established by the PPA (Section 19.11). Duke will purchase any amount of product generated by the facility and delivered to the POI in accordance with the PPA, which provides that DEC/DEP have full charging and discharging rights of the battery.

DOC 00058
Published On: 05/29/2024

Question: Can you please point me to the RSC requirements and process?

Answer: Refer to Appendix O, available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.

DOC 00057
Published On: 05/29/2024

Question: Can Duke please share Exhibit B10 Form EPC Agreement that is noted in the LOI for BTA/Asset Proposals? Our team did not see this Form in Appendix L.

Answer: The EPC Agreement has been posted to the documents section for the 2023 RFP as “Solar_&_BESS_EPC Agreement_(2023)–Carolinas_RFP_Final”.

DOC 00056
Published On: 03/28/2024

Question: This question is regarding the Renewable Power Purchase Agreement (Appendix A1 in the RFP Documents). Referring to Section 5, the language in 5.3 states, “If Seller is Creditworthy and is not in default of any provisions under this Agreement the Seller shall be excused from the requirement to post Performance Assurance as required under Sections 5.1 and 5.2 above, as long as it remains Creditworthy." However, Section 5.1 says “For purposes of clarity, Seller shall not be permitted to provide a Guaranty as Performance Assurance for purposes of satisfying Seller’s obligations under this Section 5.1.” Can you please clarify if a Guaranty from a creditworthy seller is acceptable for Pre-COD Performance Assurance?

Answer: If Seller is required to post Performance Assurance as described under Sections 5.1 (Pre-COD) and 5.2 of the aforementioned document, such Performance Assurance shall be in the form of cash or a Letter of Credit. For post-COD Performance Assurance under Section 5.2, a parent company guaranty meeting the requirements under the PPA will be considered.

DOC 00055
Published On: 02/27/2024

Question: I am reaching out for additional information concerning required practice for ALTA surveys for projects that may be selected as UOT or asset transfer in the Duke 2023 RFP and would like to confirm that only Duke approved vendors may be used for these services. If this is the case, can you please provide information regarding the process for adding a surveying company to the AVL?

Answer: Additional information concerning surveys can be found in Appendix P, which includes a list of approved survey vendors (see attachment 2). The RFP encourages bidders to use survey vendors from the provided list. Should a bidder seek to request additional vendors be added, those requests can be submitted to the RFP Manager.


DOC 00054
Published On: 01/23/2024

Question: Can Duke confirm is Fortune Electric is an approved equipment vendor? We have been in discussions with them regarding GSUs and they are saying they've been approved by Duke, but we did not see them on the AVL.

Answer: Fortune Electric is not an approved equipment vendor, and is not listed in the AVL at this time.

DOC 00053
Published On: 01/19/2024

Question: 1) Do we need to leave the contract no., contract date and surety bond effective date on page 1 of the Surety Bond blank for the Step 2 Security submission on 1/22/24? It is my understanding that Duke would provide the contract no. and date. 2) If we leave the dates blank on page one, I assume we leave the signed and sealed date blank? Please advise?


  1. For the contract number please use the project’s 6 digit unique ID, the same one used on the bid forms. For the contract date please use TBD, or a blank is also acceptable; if the project has a signed interconnection agreement the execution date of that contract should be used. The surety bond effective date will be the date it is submitted but should be no later than January 22, 2024.
  2. The signed and sealed date (on page 4 of the surety bond form) should coincide with the effective date and shall be no later than January 22, 2024.  

DOC 00052
Published On: 01/18/2024

Question: Is there any flexibility on CODs for projects that were bid into this RFP? For example, would Duke be open to discussion regarding adjusting COD dates if we were to reach commercial operations earlier/later than what was originally bid, assuming it was prior to final PPA negotiations/execution?

Answer: Please see FAQ DOC 00015.

DOC 00051
Published On: 01/16/2024

Question: We have a few questions on the mechanics of posting the Surety as Step 2 Proposal Security: (1) Are Wet Signatures required for Appendix D (Form of Surety Bond)? (2) What date should go in section C of Appendix D? Should it be the RFP issuance date or the RFP award date? (3) If wet signatures are required, are there ways we can protect around unforeseen winter delays such as storms to avoid being excluded? For example in addition to putting in the mail, email over a tracking number, scanned documents, and/or a docusign for Appendix D?


  1. Electronic signatures are acceptable.
  2. For item c. of Appendix D, please use 06/28/2024.  
  3. Refer to FAQ DOC 00049 - hardcopies of the Surety Bond are not required. Please send the electronic documents to PPA@duke-energy.com.

DOC 00050
Published On: 01/11/2024

Question: Our treasury team would like to confirm to make sure that we just need to physically deliver the LC and we can just electronically deliver. Can you please confirm?

Answer: The response in FAQ DOC 00049 applies to Letters of Credit as well. Hardcopies of Step 2 Proposal Security documents are not required. 

DOC 00049
Published On: 01/10/2024

Question: We are intending to provide a Surety as Step 2 Proposal Security substantially in the form provided in the RFP documents. Do you require a hard copy be provided in addition to the electronic copy?

Answer: No, an electronic copy is acceptable.

DOC 00048
Published On: 12/11/2023

Question: We requested that Duke issue invoices to facilitate a cash posting for the Step 2 security. We would like to preserve the optionality to post in the form of a surety bond or a Letter of Credit. Can you please confirm that we have the option to select a different form of security through January 5th? We will provide any requested redlines to the letter of credit or surety forms by December 8th.

Answer: Confirmed, projects invited to Step 2 of the RFP will have 10 business days to post an acceptable form of Proposal Security. For details on what forms of security are acceptable to the Companies, see Section V. RFP Process, J. Step 2 Proposal Security.

DOC 00047
Published On: 12/07/2023

Question: I had a quick question regarding the Step 2 Proposal Security. I understand the form of Surety Bond can be found in Appendix D. For clarity of posting process, will Duke be providing a Word version of the Bond From that is acceptable in order for participants to fill in required information? Or will Duke be providing fully-populated bonds specific to each project with dollar amounts and project detail in PDF to just have blanks be filled in and signed/notarized by surety?

Answer: A fillable pdf will be posted for use by bidders once or before the Step 2 invitations are sent for bidders to update with all project-specific information.

DOC 00046
Published On: 12/07/2023

Question: Can you confirm that there have not been any changes to the surety bond form that will be used for [Step 2] bid security? I didn't see any redlines. We used that form successfully last year, and if there haven't been any changes, we'd prefer not to spin up any surety providers with a draft form until we know if we've been selected or not.

Answer: The surety bond form did not change for the 2023 RFP.

DOC 00045
Published On: 12/07/2023

Question: As requested in the correspondence from 11/27 ‘ Announcement regarding Step 2 Proposal Security’, we are working to prepare a draft of the surety for CRAI review in advance of the 12/8 response deadline. Our surety provider was wondering what should be listed in the “Contract Number” section of the bond form. Can you confirm what that refers to, specifically in the context of Step 2 proposal notifications?

Answer: Please use the project's Unique ID or queue number for the "Contract number."

DOC 00044
Published On: 12/02/2023

Question: A follow up question on DOC 00043. When does a Bidder submit Appendix E? By Dec 8th? Or, is there a time or process milestone that triggers its submission?

Answer: The information requested in Appendix E was also requested in the Bid Input Forms under the Required Financial Information section. This information was to be submitted by the proposal due date, September 29, 2023.

DOC 00043
Published On: 11/30/2023

Question: Is it appropriate to assume that information requested in Appendix E applies only to the Asset Transfer or Build Own Transfer bids and the associated evaluation of the credit support for those bids?

Answer: Appendix E (Required Financial Information) is applicable to all bids, not just Asset Transfer and Build Own Transfer.

DOC 00042
Published On: 09/28/2023

Question: Can you please provide clarification on what ratio you are looking for on line 51 in the SPS PPA Bid Input form that requests the “DC/AC Ratio: (Inverter Loading Ratio)”? Is this referring to the DC/AC ratio at the project’s POI (MWdc/MWac) or at the inverter terminals (MWdc/MWac)? If this is specifying the inverter terminals do you want it to represent the ratio of MWdc over Inverter Nameplate (MWac)?

Answer: Please use the installed nameplate MWdc divided by the MWac rating at the point of interconnection.

DOC 00041
Published On: 09/28/2023

Question: When is the interconnection request agreement due? The agreement says it is available to Oct. 28th 2023. I do not know if we should sign this agreement as soon as possible or wait for Duke feedback on any potentially identified deficiencies.

Answer: The Interconnection Request Agreement is your filled out Interconnection Application. It needs to be signed and dated for the Interconnection Request to be considered complete by the due date – September 29, 2023, at 12:00 pm EDT (noon) for third-party market participant-sponsored proposals; there should be an AdobeSign email in the Inbox of the primary contact listed on the Interconnection Portal.

DOC 00040
Published On: 09/28/2023

Question: Following up on FAQ DOC 00038. In the “Appendix_Q1-UOT_Energy_Storage_Requirements_6-20-23.pdf” file, what is meant by “8. Aux Consumption” for the time series output? This is unclear as this does not represent a location.

Answer: Aux consumption represents the summation of auxiliary loads for battery containers, inverters, DC/DC converters (if applicable) and site control center (IT/telecom racks, relays, power plant controller racks etc.).

DOC 00039
Published On: 09/26/2023

Question: The Solar + Storage Additional Questions from Row 479 to Row 538 (BESS Facility, Battery Degradation), Row 555 to Row 579 (BESS Enclosure), and Row 590 to Row 606 (Power Conversion System PCS) of the SPS UOT Bid input form do not seem necessary for an Asset Transfer proposal, especially in light of answer DOC 00030 that many rows that are similarly detailed questions about the BESS will be answered "N/A". Can you confirm that Row 479 to Row 538, Row 555 to Row 579, and Row 590 to Row 606 of the SPS UOT Bid input are also "N/A" for Asset Transfer proposals?

Answer: Please reference DEC 00030. For SPS UOT proposals submitting as an Asset Transfer, rows 479 to 538 (Battery Degradation) are required, rows 555 to 579 (BESS Enclosure) are required and rows 590 to 606 (Power Conversion System PCS) are required.

DOC 00038
Published On: 09/26/2023

Question: In regard to RFP pg. 9 Section C. Requirements Specific to Solar Paired With Storage Facilities, it states "For SPS Facilities that bid into the UOT Track, the sponsor must demonstrate the initial storage capacity amount relative to the minimum guaranteed capacity complies with its battery system warrantees, as described in Section IV. A of this RFP and Appendix Q". Can you clarify what we are expected to submit for this - is the expectation that we will fill out Appendix Q2 UOT Bess Profile? If so this excel sheet only has a single time series on it, whereas Appendix Q1 asks bidders to provide a time series profile at 8 separate locations. Additionally, our understanding is that Duke would be controlling the dispatch of the battery, we aren't clear what Duke is looking for with the discharge schedule if that is the case. Clarification on what's expected with our bid submission would be helpful.

Answer: The expectation is that bidders will follow the requirements provided in Appendix Q1 and Q2 to size battery energy storage systems (BESS). Simply describing the operating characteristics of the cycle for proper sizing 365 cycles/year and duration are not enough, the type of cycle (depth of discharge, average SoC, max/min SOC, etc.) all have significant impact on degradation and impact battery sizing decisions. Duke Energy has provided guidance on parameters for sizing in Appendix Q1 and Q2. Appendix Q1 provides information about modeling assumptions and Appendix Q2 provides guidance on the dispatch profile, which should be used for sizing. Duke Energy expects bidders to follow these guidelines to deduce and provide the battery energy capacity degradation over 15 years. Bidders are expected to submit a time series profile similar to the guidance provided in Appendix Q2. Appendix Q2 shows the power profile at Point of Interconnect (POI), whereas Appendix Q1 establishes the power profile needs at seven (7) other locations. These details will help Duke Energy verify the BESS design and losses from the battery terminal all the way up to the POI.

DOC 00037
Published On: 09/25/2023

Question: For projects submitting both UOT and PPA proposals, understanding that both forms need to be submitted, do sections that are duplicated in both forms need to be filled out in each form? For example, does site control need to be filled out with the same information in both the UOT and the PPA form for the same project?

Answer: Each bid input form will only apply to the respective proposal type it is meant for. If certain information across PPA and UOT proposals is identical, it still needs to be included in each bid input form. 

DOC 00036
Published On: 09/25/2023

Question: Please provide the template for the SPS 8760s which is requested in the bid sheet.

Answer: Please use the guidelines in Appendix I1 – Site Layout and PVSyst Guidance in lieu of a template.

DOC 00035
Published On: 09/25/2023

Question: Appendix Q1, page 3 requests a "time series profile" at 8 identified locations. Can Duke elaborate on the meaning of "time series profile" in this context or share an example?

Answer: The “time series profile” refers to a profile similar to what is provided in Appendix Q2- UOT_BESS_Profile, posted at Duke Energy RFP Carolinas > RFP Documents on June 21, 2023.

DOC 00034
Published On: 09/25/2023

Question: Could you link to the 8760 template or confirm it is the same as what was used last year? It doesn't seem to be on your RFP documents section.

Answer: For PPA proposals, you may use the 8760 Production Profile Template from the 2022 RFP, now available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents. Please also review the response in FAQ DOC 00023, which states that UOT proposals shall include an 8760 hourly production profile for all years of operation.

DOC 00033
Published On: 09/25/2023

Question: Regarding the S+S PPA, section 8.8 refers to tax credit losses but also notes "except as set forth in section 8.9", and section 8.9 refers to compensation for energy value but is not explicit about lost tax credits. Would you please confirm whether or not there is compensation for lost tax credits caused by a Dispatch Down due to compliance with Control Instructions, assuming not related to the limitations in 8.9.2?

Answer: The Seller will not receive compensation for lost tax credits due to a Dispatch Down Control Instruction. Section 8.9.1 defines the compensation the Seller shall receive for a Dispatch Down Control Instruction as the “Contract Price times the amount of Energy that could have been generated but was not generated due to compliance with and implementation of the Control Instruction”. The Contract Price does not include the value of tax credits so this value will not be included in the compensation for control instruction dispatch down.  

DOC 00032
Published On: 09/22/2023

Question: I had a question about line 287 on the UOT SPS RFP response form. "Provide a Description of the Project's Access to Distribution Power for Construction, Transmission Interconnection Facilities, and O&M Facilities. Provide Map of Infrastructure." I have been having trouble trying to obtain this information from other departments within Duke Energy. It seems to cause some confusion when requested, unfortunately. I was wondering if you had any guidance or recommendations on who at Duke Energy to contact for this information. Can I call one source, or will it be different for DEP projects and DEC projects?

Answer: It’s typical that when constructing a solar or SPS facility, that distribution power will be needed for construction efforts, such as providing power to construction trailers and back-up power to the substation. Thus, the question seeks to understand what investigation the bidder has done to understand and confirm that distribution power is available to the project site. It should be noted that Duke Energy is not the distribution provider for every local area around company-owned transmission lines and could be served by a municipality or co-op.

DOC 00031
Published On: 09/20/2023

Question: Can you clarify the requirement in the Offer Form referring to "Details related to the Bidder's Banking Relationships or Liquidity" required in the Offer Form?

Answer: Please provide any bank letters or statements that demonstrate your company’s ability to finance a large Transmission Connected Generating Facility.

DOC 00030
Published On: 09/20/2023

Question: Is the Solar + Storage Additional Questions section beginning Row 479 of the SPS UOT Bid Input form required for Asset Transfer proposals?

Answer: For SPS UOT proposals submitting as an Asset Transfer, the following SPS bid form lines can be responded to with “N/A”: Battery Racks & Cells (rows 540-552), Battery Collection System (rows 582-584), BMS (rows 586-588), Codes & Standards (rows 621-623), Fire Safety (rows (625-627), Controls (629-633) and Battery Recycling/disposal (rows 635-636).

DOC 00029
Published On: 09/19/2023

Question: For the Offer Form, what type of files would serve as evidence of qualifying for the Prevailing Wage Requirements?

Answer: Please provide any and all relevant documentation to support the bidder’s claim that the project will or plans to qualify for the Prevailing Wage Requirements; examples include - signed contracts, language from proposed contracts or a file describing the bidder’s plan to qualify, etc.

DOC 00028
Published On: 09/19/2023

Question: Do UOT proposals required a full project schedule? Row 170 of the Bid Input Form is labeled Project Developement Schedule/Anticipated COD but unclear as to whether the full schedule is requested or only the information specified in Row 171 (all activities taken to advance the project to construction).

Answer: Row 171 of the Solar-Only UOT bid form requesting a document describing all activities taken to advance the project to construction is required of all UOT proposals. The same question is asked on the SPS UOT bid form as row 159 and is also required. The Key Milestone Schedule rows 174-195 on the Solar-Only bid form and rows 160-184 on the SPS UOT bid form are required of all Build-Own-Transfer (BOT) proposals only.

DOC 00027
Published On: 09/18/2023

Question: Can you expand on line 288 of the of the UOT SPS bid input form: "Provide the Project's Investigation into the Availability of Communications Required for Transmission, Such as OPGW, Fiber (Dedicated or Third-Party)"? Specifically, which speeds, and which internet types should we screen our project areas for? Are you only looking for fiber for instance? Is DSL relevant? Is it relevant if fiber is not on site, but is adjoining the property?

Answer: For projects submitting interconnection requests into the 2023 RSC,the response to line 288 on the bid form should be “project being studied in the 2023 RSC”. For projects not submitting into the 2023 RSC and that have instead executed interconnection agreements, please address the project’s plan for communications including transmission transfer trip. Additional information for inverter based resources is available on OASIS www.oatioasis.com/duk in the folder “Generator Interconnection Information\IBR Interconnection”.

DOC 00026
Published On: 09/15/2023

Question: Is the expectation that the production values provided in the PPA bid submission are from the PVSyst modelling requirements? Or are the PVSyst modelling requirements used for validation, should bidder choose to include production values from an internal energy modelling source?

Answer: The 8760 Generation Profile (P50) requested for PPAs is to be from PVSyst, and the intent of this information is for validation purposes, if needed. The Annual Plant Production requested should represent the bidders P50 estimate of the annual energy volumes, which possibly did not use PVSyst, and will be the basis for the LCOE calculation, and quantities that go into the PPA. 

DOC 00025
Published On: 09/13/2023

Question: In the Appendix I1 for Soiling Loss it says to use the PVUSA Dust profile and Duke Energy Soiling tool V11. Where can this soiling tool be found?

Answer: Bidders should follow the guidance for preliminary models and use 0% for all months in the soiling profile.

DOC 00024
Published On: 09/12/2023

Question: It appears that there are no .OND files in the provided zip folder for Appendix I. Can you please provide the approved inverter .OND files?

Answer: Please see the 'PVsyst OND Files' zip folder added to the Documents section of the RFP website on September 12, 2023. Linked here: https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.

DOC 00023
Published On: 09/08/2023

Question: Under the "Other" section in the Bid Input Form, a 8760 Generation profile for Year 1 is requested for Solar-Only and SPS project. However, on page 36 of the RFP Protocol, it says that "Solar-Only (and SPS) Facility Proposals shall include an 8760 hourly production profile for all years of operation as part of their Proposal. Should these be submitted in the same document or separately?

Answer: For PPA Track proposals, an 8760 hourly production profile for all years of operation is not required; bidders shall provide all data requested in the bid form.

For UOT proposals, pursuant to Section IX.C (Production Estimates) of the RFP, all proposals shall include an 8760 hourly production profile for all years of operation, in accordance with Appendix I. Row 236 of Solar-Only UOT bid form requests “Provide PVSYST Project Files (.zip archive).”  Row 225 of Solar Plus Storage UOT bid form requests “Provide PVSYST Project Files (.zip archive).”

DOC 00022 (revised 09/07/2023)
Published On: 09/07/2023

Question: As our team has been filling out the UOT bid forms, we noticed a few issues and wanted to get guidance on how to address the items below.

Duplicative rows for Geotech:

  • Solar-Only UOT Bid Form: Rows 128-129 are duplicates of rows 108-109.
  • SPS UOT Bid Form: Rows 112-113 are duplicates of rows 92-93.

Row requires file name but can only input Yes/No:

  • Solar-Only UOT Bid Form: Row 131 (Wetlands Report) and row 135 (Additional Site Specific Studies).
  • SPS UOT Bid Form: Row 115 (Wetlands Report) and row 120 (Environmental Liabilities).

Answer: Thank you for your feedback.

  • Duplicative rows for Geotech: Please provide the Geotech info in the duplicate rows as well.
  • Row requires file name but can only input Yes/No: Use the Notes section (to the right of each field) to provide the file names.

DOC 00021
Published On: 09/04/2023

Question: Will Duke Energy be accepting any redlines that are submitted with the NDA?

Answer: Duke Energy declines to adopt proposed changes to the NDA/Confidentiality Agreement; the NDA contains commercially reasonable, standard contract provisions that are applicable to all Market Participants and used by the Companies in similar transactions. Duke Energy is committed to treating confidential Market Participants appropriately and in accordance with the NDA.

DOC 00020
Published On: 09/04/2023

Question: Can you clarify this question in the Bid Input Form: "Has the project been evaluated for environmental justice in accordance with the Justice40 Initiative?" Is this something done at glance by the developer? Or does an EEJ assessment need to be submitted to the DOE?

Answer: This bid form question seeks to understand what, if any, environmental justice screening or due diligence the developer has completed related to the proposed project. The U.S. Government has created the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (“CEJST”), a geospatial mapping tool designed to identify disadvantaged communities that are marginalized and overburdened by pollution and underinvestment. The CEJST can be found here: Justice40 Initiative | Environmental Justice | The White House. Additionally, the EPA developed an EJ mapping and screening tool called EJScreen, a nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining environmental and demographic socioeconomic indicators. EJScreen can be found here: EJScreen (epa.gov).

DOC 00019
Published On: 08/30/2023

Question: Is there a requirement for maximum rest period for the Solar-plus-Storage PPA? It doesn't seem to be defined in Exhibit J.

Answer: There is not a requirement for the maximum rest period for the SPS PPA projects.

DOC 00018
Published On: 08/28/2023

Question: Two questions regarding Appendix I: In the "PVsyst Project Model Configuration Specifications and Settings," on page 5, for preliminary tracking models, Duke has specified Backtracking should be ON (checked) and the Use Electrical Effect option should be checked. This is not possible to do in PVSyst. The option for Electrical Effect is removed when Backtracking is on. Please clarify. On page 7, the setting for Loss Fraction at STC shows lower losses for string inverters than for central inverters. Assuming the string inverters are distributed, we would not expect a lower loss fraction. Please confirm that these values are correct.

Answer: Part 1) for unlimited trackers, The Electrical Effect option is disabled and not used when Backtracking is enabled. Electrical Effect should be selected when Backtracking is not used. Note: Per the PVsyst Guidance, “Near Shading 3D Scenes shall be implemented as part of the model or a 1.5% Net Capacity Factor reduction will be applied to ensure these losses are accounted for.”

Part 2) there is an error in the AC losses for the inverter > Loss Fraction at STC section. The values are reversed and the correct guidance is: Calculated from wire length and wire size. 1.5% for string / 0.5% for central inverters for preliminary. An updated Appendix I1 has been posted at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.

DOC 00017
Published On: 08/28/2023

Question: The response to FAQ DOC 00014 said that a 40-year total term (our form lease is currently 41 total years) does not meet Duke’s UOT site control requirements, but I am failing to understand how a lease that only contains Duke’s minimum requirements of “18 months for construction” and “35 years of operation” is preferable to having 40 (or, in our case, 41) total years. In practice, if the lease only allows 18 months for the construction term (Duke’s stated minimum), and then only 35 years of operation (again, Duke’s stated minimum), that equals 36.5 total years. There is no mention of extraordinary rights nor discrepancies in rent paid during the “construction term”, so this feels like a semantics discussion around “construction term”. Even though our form lease doesn’t explicitly call it a “construction term”, Duke would have 6 years to build the system while maintaining the required 35 years of operation. Conversely, assuming a lease conformed with the minimum requirements of an 18-month construction term and a 35-year operation term, if, for whatever reason, construction lasted longer than 18 months, Duke would have less than a 35-year operational term as the residual construction time would carry into the operational term. I am not clear on how that is a preferable structure. Can you shed some additional light on the reasoning here?

Answer: As stated in DOC 00014, Duke requires a minimum of 35 years of an operating term commencing at placed in service, it should be noted that the operating term should start at placed in service, such that the operating term aligns wholly with the 35 year asset life of the plant. To illustrate, if a lease had a 40 year term commencing at start of construction and construction lasted 17 months, the timing of when the lease ends no longer aligns with the period being 35 years from placed in service. That is the primary challenge Duke is attempting to solve with this guidance. For selected UOT winners, Duke may work with the bidder on modification needs to the site control agreements.

DOC 00016
Published On: 08/25/2023

Question: Can you please provide a checklist of all the documents required for submission by the 9/29 deadline for Solar-Only and SPS projects? It is unclear in the RFP Protocol when some documents are due. For instance, there is an NDA document among the RFP documents but there is no mention of when it should be executed.

Answer: Proposals in this RFP are expected to include the following:

All items listed above must be submitted by the Proposal Due Date - September 29, 2023 at noon ET for third-party sponsored proposals.

DOC 00015
Published On: 08/22/2023

Question: Could you please clarify whether the requested start date of 12/31/2027 listed under the BESS specifications in the SPS bid input form is the target COD for all SPS Controllable PPA track proposals (barring delays from interconnection timelines)?

Answer: The general assumption is that projects in the 2023 RSC will be able to come online by the end of 2027, but the Companies recognize that there may be certain interconnection timing issues that would push the COD to a later date. Per RFP Section III.A., the companies reserve the right to decline a proposal with a COD past 11/30/2028.

DOC 00014
Published On: 08/22/2023

Question: Several questions regarding listed UOT requirements: (1) In Q&A response DOC 00010 (revised 08/12/2023), it was stated that "Appendix I has been updated to allow crystalline bifacial 550-580W modules", however the current version of Appendix I only lists QCells 570W as an acceptable module. Can we take the Q&A response to mean that MPs can propose either 570W or 580W since QCells offers both sizes in the same module model? (2) Appendix I states that areas listed as having potential for bedrock at 150cm or less, according to NRCS, should be excluded. Is this an absolute requirement? Or can the MP propose to utilize those areas since the presence of bedrock has not yet been confirmed by geotechnical investigation, provided that a mitigation method (such as pre-drilled mechanical installation) is also explained within the bid? (3) The RFP document states that UOT projects require leases to include at least 18 months of a "construction term" and a minimum of 35 operational years. If the existing leases are structured to commence rent during construction, but include a 40-year total term, does this meet that requirement (since 35 years + 18 months = 36.5 total years, which is safely covered by the 40 available years)?

Answer: (1) Yes; however, for Asset Transfer bids, the specified module wattage of 570 W in Appendix I represents what the UOT feels most comfortable in representing on a site layout given the volatility of the module market and ensuring there is adequate space allocated for the PV array. The module restriction only applies to Asset Transfer bids and allows for a more direct initial evaluation of projects.  

(2) It is acceptable that the bidder overlays the NRCS layer on the site plan, detailing how many acres of the project fall within the specified bedrock depth in lieu of excluding all together. A cost adder for pre-drilling or other mitigation method should be included, if BOT bid, for Asset Transfer bids, the Utility Ownership Team will account for this in the cost to build the project that it submits to the RFP Manager.  

(3) No, as outlined in section IV.A of the RFP, bidders that use lease agreements for site control are expected to provide (i) a minimum of 18 months of a construction term and (ii) a minimum of 35 years of an operating term commencing at placed in service. Please note that the requirement is that the operating term commence at placed in service and be a minimum of 35 years from that milestone. Thus a lease that terminates 40 years after start of construction would not satisfy this requirement.

DOC 00013
Published On: 08/22/2023

Question: Can you please confirm that the site layout requirements (specifically the module assumptions) in Appendix I apply only to asset transfer and BOT proposals, and not Controllable PPA track proposals?

Answer: Duke Energy confirms the layout requirements apply only to asset transfer and BOT proposals.

DOC 00012
Published On: 08/18/2023

Question: Can you please provide the Canadian Solar 565W module Datasheet and PAN file?

Answer: Please see Appendix I and I1 updated August 14, 2023 and available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.

DOC 00011
Published On: 08/16/2023

Question: Under Utility Ownership Track (page 11) one of the points states the it must be designed to meet Dukes design criteria "see Appendix L EPC Agreement exhibits", that Appendix is for BESS projects. Will this EPC agreement apply to both BESS and solar only?

Answer: Duke Energy has added the Appendix L documents at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.

DOC 00010 (revised 08/12/2023)
Published On: 08/09/2023

Question: After reviewing Q&A DOC 00007, I see that Duke is open to accepting layouts with bifacial c-Si 550-580W modules. However, some of the vendors on the AVL are only supplying 650W+ modules so we believe Duke should be willing to accept layouts with this wattage class also. Would Duke be open to receiving layouts for bifacial c-Si 650W+ modules as these modules are now more common and even with the vendors on the AVL?

Answer: Appendix I has been updated to allow crystalline bifacial 550-580W modules, per stakeholder request. This module guidance for site layouts only applies to Asset Transfer proposals, whereby DEC/DEP will be procuring the modules. Understanding the c-Si module market is moving to larger wattages and sizes, DEC/DEP seek to strike a balance between forecasted module manufacturer roadmaps and establishing a reasonable basis for a site layout, a target MWdc capacity and a reasonable energy production profile. Appendix I allows Market Participants to choose from either a thin film or C-Si module option. Market Participants are required to submit a site layout that complies with Appendix I. Market Participants can also submit additional site layouts with higher bin class wattage assumptions if they so choose.

DOC 00009
Published On: 08/01/2023

Question: Section VII from the RFP states that the MP must “have completed or directly managed the completion of the development, engineering, equipment, procurement, and construction of >50 MW or 3x the nameplate capacity of the Proposal, whichever is greater, of solar or SPS (if applicable) facilities, including at least one project of comparable size to the proposed facility within the United States or Canada.” If our company does not meet this requirement in North America, but exceeds the experiential threshold in other regions (i.e., 3 countries in Europe, India, and Australia with a 12GW+ of generation pipeline) would this satisfy this requirement? Is this a minimum offer requirement or would it only reduce points on the evaluation criteria?

Answer: This Section VII excerpt is part of the non-economic scoring criteria of proposals in the RFP. Proposals will not be disqualified for not meeting these Development Risk criteria but may have points deducted in the non-economic score of their proposals. Experience outside of the United States or Canada will not fully satisfy these criteria.

DOC 00008
Published On: 07/27/2023

Question: Could you please clarify Exhibit D part 5 in the PPA? The Exhibit seems to imply that only AC coupled facilities will be accepted ("Type of Battery Storage Design" is listed as AC-Coupled), but the body of the PPA includes options for DC and AC coupled facilities.

Answer: Exhibit D, Part 5, in 'Appendix A2-PPA (SPS) Revised' will be updated to clarify that DC-coupled facilities will be acceptable in the RFP. The Appendix can be accessed at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents.

DOC 00007 (revised 07/06/2023)
Published On: 07/06/2023

Question: We are reaching out regarding a concern that we have with one of the bulleted requirements in Appendix I’s (“Site Playout and PVSyst Guidnace”) Asset Transfer section. One of the bullets on page 2 stipulates that the “module in the layout shall assume First Solar S6+ 470W,” and goes on to cite creating conservative layout as justification. However, this doesn’t seem appropriate nor reflect the current state of the solar module market. Below are some of our concerns with this requirement:

  • It appears inconsistent with many of the RFP documents. Several examples include, the AVL includes 8 vendors for c-Si modules; The PVSyst specs in Appendix A of UOT guidance reference c-Si bi-facial modules.
  • Duke cites “procurement uncertainty” as justification for this selection, but in reality, FSLR S6 modules may have the most procurement uncertainty of any product on the AVL. FSLR themselves are currently selling their Series 7 products, and beyond that, they are not readily replaced by another vendor on the AVL without redesigning the site’s layout, in the even the FSLR product is unavailable at procurement.
  • Broadly, First Solar products are also not readily available. They are effectively sold out through 2026 and, depending on what happens in Q3 and Q4, could be sold out through 2027 in EOY. Because of this dynamic, we (and other MPs may have a similar view) have to contemplate a c-Si bi-facial module in our base designs. The inclusion of this requirement creates a likely scenario where a divergence between the mandated UOT design (due to a smaller, mono-facial S6+) and the PPA track design, will be likely. For MPs interested in proposing the facility in both tracks, this makes sizing and optimizing the PV unnecessarily challenging.
  • Due to the asymmetrical R&D capital going into improving c-Si modules, the likelihood of advancement and improvement with c-Si modules over the coming years is high. Because of this, we feel the “conservative” option with the least “procurement uncertainty” is a 550-580W c-Si bi-facial module, as it is not single-vendor dependent.

We do not have an issue with Duke Energy maintaining a preference for layouts that reflect the S6+, but making it a requirement does not align with the current state of the solar module market. Would Duke Energy be willing to revise that bullet to say that inclusion of the FSLR S6+ is a preference, but not a requirement for the layouts?

Answer: Thank you for the thoughtful feedback on the module assumption for site layout development. The Company will accept site layouts utilizing bifacial c-Si 550-580W modules, and Appendix I will be updated accordingly. The Company will provide the datasheet and PAN file for a suggested AVL module for use in proposal layouts for UOT.

DOC 00006
Published On: 06/30/2023

Question: We were wondering if there will be supplemental attachments to send to Duke i.e. an offer form? Or would you like the info presented in a proposal summary?

Answer: RFP respondents will be asked to provide a proposal summary/ overview together with completed bid input form(s). Supplemental attachments will also be required and will vary based on the type of resource and contract structure.

There will be an informational session in early August for all market participants planning to bid into the 2023 RFP.

The bid input forms will be available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents prior to or at the opening of the bid submission window on August 15. The bid submission materials and process will be similar to those used in the Companies' 2022 Solar RFP.

DOC 00005
Published On: 06/29/2023

Question: If the storage facility is charged from a co-located solar facility using solar generation that would have otherwise been dispatched into the grid, would Duke be willing to pay for the associated loss in solar generation due to round trip efficiency at the PPA price instead of requiring the bidder to assume a dispatch profile and adjust the PPA price according to anticipated, but not real, losses?

Answer: Duke Energy declines to change the Delivery Point for pricing. Market participants should adjust their bid prices to account for estimated losses due to battery round trip efficiency.

Refer to FAQ DOC 00003, available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/FAQ/Documents.

DOC 00004
Published On: 06/28/2023

Question: Please provide the 2023 LOI, Term Sheet, PPAs, and APA documents in Word format to facilitate easier comparison and detection of differences vs. forms the MPs have from their participation in prior processes.

Answer: The LOI, form APA, and PPA documents are only provided in PDF. Adobe has a document comparison feature to compare two PDFs to each other.

DOC 00003 (revised 06/27/2023)
Published On: 06/27/2023

Question: During our review of the RFP’s BESS documentation, we would like some clarification on two fundamental issues pertaining to how storage roundtrip losses are treated:

  1. Storage roundtrip losses that pertain to charge coming from solar energy will be netted out of solar generation (thus reducing the solar generation number which receives the PPA rate). However, the volume (MWh) of those losses will be based on Duke’s operations of the battery, for which Seller by and large cannot control; for example, charging and discharging at very slow rates will incur proportionally higher losses, versus charging and discharging in a full-power cycle which would create lower losses. Accordingly, under the current construct, the Seller would need to assume the highest loss scenario, which will result in increased toll or PPA pricing for Duke. We recommend that either (a) Duke commits to a prescribed operational schedule or that (b) round trip losses are not netted out of solar generation (which would require a metering schematic that values the solar generation before it goes into the battery).
  2. It is unclear how Duke intends to net out the energy that was charged into the battery from grid charging when it is then dispatched back onto the grid. Can you clarify the methodology? The same issue applies above for what the application roundtrip loss factor might be under this scenario. These two issues are best addressed with the following structures that provide Duke the most flexible operations at the cheapest price: (1) meter solar generation before it goes into the battery and (2) exclude grid charging and the discharge of grid-charged energy from any settlements; provided that (3) seller conducts a roundtrip efficiency (RTE) test annually and pays RTE damages for any amounts below the guaranteed RTE schedule.

Answer: DEC and DEP decline to change the Delivery Point in the contract. The Companies retain operational flexibility to maximize the value of the Storage Facility. DEC and DEP intend to operate the Storage Facility as efficiently as possible to maximize the energy delivered to the grid, which will mean charging and discharging in a full-power cycle when possible. When grid charging, DEC and DEP will back out energy delivered to the Delivery Point that results from grid charging. To determine this amount, the Companies will multiply Grid Charging Energy obtained at the Delivery Point by the Storage Round Trip Efficiency. The Storage Round Trip Efficiency is the result of the most recent Storage Round Trip Efficiency Test, which is performed according to Exhibit M. Therefore, the Seller will not assume the risk if the Buyer inefficiently discharges the Storage Facility when grid charging. Additionally, the Seller will receive a credit for the value of the Grid Charging Energy procured pursuant to a Charging Notice.

DOC 00002
Published On: 06/21/2023

Question: Please clarify who needs to adhere to the PVSyst guidelines? Is it only those proposals that fall into the Utility Ownership track?

Answer: Both PPA and UOT projects shall follow the PVSyst guidelines. The PVSyst guidelines are included in Section IX Additional Information, subsection C. Production Estimates on page 28 of the RFP Plan Draft posted on April 21, 2023.

DOC 00001
Published On: 05/11/2023

Question: Appendix I states that SolCast must be used as the irradiance source for PVSyst, but the RFP document has a footnote that SolCast is preferred but other data sources are accepted. Is SolCast required or just preferred?

Answer: The footnote in the RFP document is an error and will be updated. SolCast is the required irradiance source, as described in Appendix I.


INT 00034
Published On: 06/14/2024

Question: Given the recent edit to the 2023 FAQs (INT 00022) confirming that there is no cost for the M2 or M3 deposits in the NC state process, can you confirm that the M4 deposit is equal to 100% of the project's assigned Network Upgrades? We also understand that this will be due 10 business days following the receipt of the Facilities Study (6/30/2025). For projects that intend to transfer from the state to the FERC process following the execution of the LGIA (as instructed by our Duke RFP contact), can you confirm that the M4 deposit will be due prior to transferring to the FERC LGIA?

Answer: Projects that will be transferring into the FERC queue are expected to follow the applicable procedures up to the time of the transfer. Projects selected in the Asset Transfer path under the Utility Ownership Track of the RFP, selling a fully developed project, are responsible for meeting all closing conditions pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, which includes completion of all interconnection studies and execution of its Interconnection Agreement. The MP is responsible for funding and maintaining the Interconnection Agreement until the agreement is assigned to the Buyer pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement.

For more information about the M4 payment required for North Carolina State projects, please see the North Carolina Interconnection Procedures section Readiness Milestone 4 (M4).

INT 00033
Published On: 06/05/2024

Question: For projects going through the RSC process and selected as Finalists. Do they have the ability to reject their winning proposal but still continue through to RSC Phase 2 with a GSA agreement?

Answer: No, a project selected as a Finalist may not decline their win and still stay in the RSC as a GSA project.  Appendix O of the RFP states:

“The Companies are also allowing short-listed Proposals with a completed RSC Phase 1 study that have not withdrawn from the RFP and are not selected as Finalists to also proceed to RSC Phase 2 if the Interconnection Customer can demonstrate definitive commercial readiness by providing either (i) a fully executed Green Source Advantage (“GSA”) Program PPA; or (ii) an executed GSA term sheet and Application, with the requirement that a GSA PPA then be executed within 90 days of term sheet execution.” 

A project that declines their win has withdrawn from the RFP; however, that project may decline their win (and forfeit their proposal security) and be withdrawn from the RSC, but proceed as a GSA project through the 2024 DISIS for interconnection (which has its cluster enrollment window open until June 28, 2024). 

INT 00032
Published On: 05/30/2024

Question: Can Duke confirm if finalists will need to make the M2 or any other type of payment by 6/13 if they plan on moving forward with Phase 2 in the RSC?

Answer: M2 readiness is shown by executing the contract with the Companies, either an LOI or PPA. No payment is due for the selected RFP projects. If any Finalists decline, the Companies may invite additional projects forward, and those projects will be given additional time to both execute their agreement and to demonstrate M2 readiness for interconnection.

INT 00031
Published On: 05/29/2024

Question: (1) Can you please provide details on how to transfer our state interconnection request to a FERC jurisdictional interconnection request? (2) Additionally, could you please discuss the deposits as they relate to the readiness milestones for the FERC jurisdictional projects? At what point is 100% of the network upgrades costs due?

Answer: To make changes to your Interconnection Request, a new application must be completed and submitted to the Companies; please reach out to the Renewable Integration Team via email at: Mark.McKeage@duke-energy.com . Regarding readiness, please see the 2023 RFP and in particular, Appendix O detailing the Resource Solicitation Cluster utilized for purposes of the RFP.   Generally, “readiness” is established for 2023 RFP projects by being invited forward in the RFP process, and thus Security in lieu of Readiness is not an option for the Phase 1 or Phase 2 RSC cluster studies. Deposits for FERC-jurisdictional projects are outlined in the Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) available on Duke Energy’s OATI OASIS page www.oasis.oati.com/. Under the FERC process, full security is required after the Interconnection Agreement is signed; additional details can be found in the pro-forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures included as Attachment J to the OATT.

INT 00030
Published On: 05/20/2024

Question: 1. Can Duke publish or provide the pre loading % for their NRIS evaluation? It looks like they published the post only. 2. Is there a minimum DFAX to be assigned any cost allocation?

Answer: Response to part 1 - This information is not available. Duke does not perform a pre-cluster base study before each cluster study.

Response to part 2 - Projects are subject to cost allocation for thermal upgrades if 1) the loading is >=95 % and 2) the DFAX is >=3% or the Loading Impact is >= 1%.

INT 00029
Published On: 05/09/2024

Question: Since the release of the RSC Phase 1 report in 2023, which includes facility and network upgrade costs for all projects, there's a question about whether the Part B price adder automatically adjusts based on the actual network upgrade cost or if bidders have the opportunity to adjust that price themselves.

Answer: The Part B Price adjuster is denominated on a $/MWh basis for every $1 million in System Upgrades identified in the Interconnection Agreement. As stated in the RFP Section VII.F, “the Contract Price will be adjusted to include both Part A/Part C (as applicable) and the Contract Price Adder (which is Part B/Part D multiplied by the millions of dollars of system upgrades in the Interconnection Agreement). In order to effectuate the Contract Price Adder, the Proposal shall provide written notice to the Companies together with a copy of the executed Interconnection Agreement documenting that the System Upgrade costs are being charged to the Proposal, as soon as reasonably possible after the execution of the Interconnection Agreement.”

While the ultimate PPA calculation is based on the total System Upgrade costs identified in the IA, the information in the RSC Phase 1 report and from further interconnection assessment will be used for the RFP evaluation as it is the best available cost estimate at the time.

INT 00026
Published On: 02/22/2024

Question: When will the updated queue report reflecting status after the end of the Customer Engagement Window be posted to OASIS for Duke Energy Carolinas?

Answer: The queue report will be updated by February 23, 2024.

INT 00025
Published On: 01/19/2024

Question: Can you please confirm whether the 'RSC Initial Security' and 'M1 Security' are the same or two separate security postings? What is the due date for RSC Initial Security and, if separate, the M1 Security?

Answer: M1 security and RSC Initial Security are one and the same. Please see Appendix O - IV.RSC “M1” Security to enter Phase 1 Study. It is due prior to the close of the customer engagement window, January 28, 2024.

INT 00024
Published On: 01/19/2024

Question: What is the process for making the M1 payment? Will this need to be payed in the Duke IC portal or will bidders receive an invoice for the payment after we sign the DISIS Agreement?

Answer: The Interconnection Study team will send information for projects invited to Step 2 to make the M1 payment and sign the DISIS Agreement. This will need to be paid by the end of the customer engagement window 1/28/2024.

INT 00023
Published On: 01/17/2024

Question: Does Duke plan on sending to bidders a DISIS Agreement for execution to continue with Phase 1 of the RSC once we post Step 2 Security for our project?

Answer: Yes, study agreements will be sent out by January 23, 2024. A signed DISIS study agreement and M1 initial security are due for projects going into the Phase 1 study for the Resource Solicitation Cluster (RSC) prior to the close of the Customer Engagement window.

INT 00022 (revised 05/31/2024)
Published On: 12/21/2023

Question: Thank you for your previous explanations of the Milestone Deposits. I understand the projects will be subject to the withdrawal penalties of the NCIP if withdrawn after paying the milestone deposits, but could you provide more information on the refundability of the deposits themselves? Are M1 (1x the study deposit) and M3 (2x the study deposit) refundable? If the project withdraws after posting, does the project both lose the deposit AND become subject to the withdrawal costs of the NCIP?

Answer: For projects participating in the RSC, there is no payment for M2 or M3; readiness is established by participating in the 2023 RFP. See below for applicability and calculation of the withdrawal penalty.  

Applicability for withdrawal penalty:

  1. Duke FERC LGIP 4.7.1: An Interconnection Customer shall be subject to a Withdrawal Penalty if it withdraws its Interconnection Request from the Queue or the Generating Facility does not otherwise reach Commercial Operation unless the Transmission Provider determines consistent with Good Utility Practice that (1) the withdrawal does not negatively affect the timing or cost of equal or lower queued projects; [or] (2) the cost responsibility identified for that Interconnection Customer in the current study report associated with new Network Upgrades to the Transmission Provider’s System increased by more than twenty-five percent (25%) compared to the costs identified in the previous report; or (3) if the customer withdraws after the Interconnection Facilities Study report is published and before providing M5, and the cost responsibility for that Interconnection Customer identified in the Interconnection Facilities Study report increases by more than one hundred percent (100%) compared to the Phase 2 report.
  2. NCIP and SCGIP are similar.

Calculation of Withdrawal Penalty

State Jurisdictional:

  1. If Readiness WAS demonstrated at M2, and the Interconnection Customer withdraws now (after M2, but before M4), the Withdrawal Penalty shall be the higher of the study deposit or one (1) times the Interconnection Customer’s actual allocated cost of the Definitive Interconnection Study Process.
  2. If Readiness WAS NOT demonstrated at M2 and the Interconnection Customer withdraws now (after M2, but before M3), the Withdrawal Penalty shall be the higher of the study deposit or two (2) times the Interconnection Customer’s actual allocated cost of the Definitive Interconnection Study Process. This amount shall be capped at $1.5M.
  3. See NCIP 6.3.5 and SCGIP Appendix Duke CS 5.7.3 for subsequent scenarios

FERC Jurisdictional:

  1. If Readiness WAS demonstrated at M3 and the Interconnection Customer withdraws now (after M3, but before M4), the Withdrawal Penalty shall be equal to the higher of the study deposit or one (1) times its actual allocated cost of the Definitive Interconnection Study Process.
  2. If Readiness WAS NOT demonstrated at M3 and the Interconnection Customer withdraws now (after M3, but before M4), the Withdrawal Penalty shall be the higher of the study deposit or five (5) times its actual allocated cost of the Definitive Interconnection Study Process. This amount shall be capped at $2M.
  3.  See FERC LGIP 4.7.1 for subsequent scenario

INT 00021
Published On: 12/08/2023

Question: Could you please confirm whether a PSCAD is required for projects in the 2023 Resource Solicitation Cluster? If this is the case, can you please inform us of the deadline for providing this and point us to the location in the tariff that discusses this requirement?

Answer: The PSCAD information is not required for RSC projects. If additional information is needed for the Phase 1 study, the account manager will reach out to the interconnection customer.

INT 00020
Published On: 11/09/2023

Question: Can you please provide instructions to make a modification to the Interconnection Request?

Answer: To modify an Interconnection Request (IR), update the PDF files of you Interconnection Request Applications and send them to DukeEnergyRFPCarolinas@crai.com. You will not be able to update the applications in the Interconnection Portal since the projects are beyond the IR Review phase.

INT 00019
Published On: 11/08/2023

Question: What is the difference between rated discharging power and rate to discharge in the interconnection request?

Answer: In the interconnection request application form "rated discharging power" and "rate to discharge" are considered the same. 

INT 00018
Published On: 10/19/2023

Question: What are the Phase 1 costs? Is this different from the Milestone 1 costs? If we withdraw past 1/29/2024, but prior to completion of the study, can any unspent funds be refunded?

Answer: For projects in the FERC and State queue, the Phase 1 costs are the costs to complete the Phase 1 interconnection study. The M1 security or Milestone 1 payment is a payment made by all customers that are invited to Step 2 of the RFP and will be studied in Phase 1. Withdrawal penalties apply if a project withdraws after the study begins 1/29/2024; withdrawal penalties are described in the NC, SC and FERC Interconnection Procedures.

INT 00017
Published On: 10/18/2023

Question: Can Duke Energy Progress tell us the points of interconnection and net MW output/capabilities of the projects that entered the RFP?

Answer: The individual points of interconnection and the net MW output of each bid in the RFP are not public information at this time; however, related interconnection information is available in the OATI OASIS Cluster Reports, available at the following links: DEC OATI OASIS and DEP’s OATI OASIS . Navigate to the “Generator Interconnection Information Folder,” then select “Cluster Queue.”  

More information will be available in the Phase 1 RSC report later in the process as well as in the IE’s post-solicitation report.

INT 00016
Published On: 09/25/2023

Question: What is the form of payment for the network upgrades listed in Section 2 of the DEC/DEP Standard Interconnection Cost Estimate Document? Cash, or Letter of Credit?

Answer: Payment of Network Upgrades is different for DEC and DEP and also for both State and FERC jurisdictions. The payment details are established after the Facilities Study is complete. Please work with your interconnection account manager for additional questions.

Related information is included in FAQ INT 00010.

INT 00015
Published On: 09/25/2023

Question: When does Duke anticipate executing interconnection agreements?

Answer: For projects that are selected in the 2023 RFP, Interconnection Agreements are expected sometime in Q1-Q2 2025. The project timeline to an Interconnection Agreement is not exact due to several factors, including but not limited to, the timeline for discussions between the customer and Duke Energy.

INT 00014
Published On: 09/20/2023

Question: If a deficiency is found by Duke in the interconnection application after the application deadline, how long do we have to cure said deficiency?

Answer: As stated in Section VII.A. of the RFP, after the bid window ends and all proposals are received, the Duke Evaluation Team and IE review the completeness of proposals in a “cure period”. If there is a deficiency, “The IE will provide the MP with written notice of the deficiency and the MP shall then have five (5) business days after receiving the written notice to cure the deficiency, where failure to cure the deficiency shall result in withdrawal of the Proposal from further consideration.”

However, if a proposal has a deficiency only in the interconnection request that does not affect the bid itself, the interconnection procedures allow for 10 business days to cure the deficiency (e.g. Section 1.5.4 of NCIP: If the Interconnection Request Application Form and/or the initial supporting documentation or any other information requested by the Utility is incomplete, the Utility shall provide, along with notice that the information is incomplete, a written list detailing all information that must be provided. The Interconnection Customer will have ten (10) Business Days after receipt of the notice to submit the listed information. If the Interconnection Customer does not provide the listed information or a written request for an extension of time, not to exceed ten (10) additional Business Days, within the deadline, the Interconnection Request will be deemed withdrawn.)

INT 00013
Published On: 09/19/2023

Question: If we are submitting the NC or SC state Interconnection Application (to go with the PPA Track), are we required to submit the Protection and Control schematics and their operation documents along with the Interconnection Application? Or can we submit these at a later time?

Answer: The one-line diagram for the project must be submitted at the time the interconnection request is submitted.  If additional time is needed, the Protection and Control schematics, operation documents, and settings can be provided at a later time; this information becomes important as the project moves closer to interconnection.  The interconnection team for the Companies will let you know when and/if that information is needed.

INT 00012
Published On: 09/12/2023

Question: In relation to FAQ INT 00003, can projects that have withdrawn from the 2023 DISIS participate in the 2023 RFP and RSC?

Answer: Yes. 

INT 00011
Published On: 08/18/2023

Question: Will the interconnection customer be required to fund any portion of redzone-specific network upgrades, or will these be rate based?

Answer: For the 14 red-zone expansion plan projects in the approved 2022 – 2032 Transmission Planning Collaborative Plan, where 2023 Interconnection Studies for solar and solar paired with storage projects bidding into the 2023 RFP are shown to have impact on one or more of the 14 RZEP projects, a cost proxy will be assigned to those interconnection customer projects for the RFP evaluation, but those costs will not be assigned to the generators in their ultimate interconnection agreements.

(For any projects that have dependencies on one or more of the 14 RZEP projects, the RZEP project(s) will be shown as contingent facilities in Study results and in the Interconnection Agreement(s). For the 2022 solar procurement and 2022 DISIS, the direct upgrade cost allocation(s) for any of the 14 RZEP project upgrades to a project bidding into the 2022 RFP were applied per the original criteria set forth at the beginning of the 2022 procurement cycle.  The 14 RZEP projects that have approval from the Transmission Planning Collaborative are part of the 2022 DISIS results and are shown as contingent facilities.)

INT 00010
Published On: 08/18/2023

Question: Are all network upgrades refundable in the Controllable PPA Track, and if so, will we have to fund those network upgrades until we reach COD? What should our assumption be for facility upgrades/direct assigned costs?

Answer: Network upgrades are not refundable for state jurisdictional projects (which all PPA proposals will be) the way that they are for FERC projects. However, the Part B (or Part D) adder to the bid price is meant to offset the network upgrade costs of a PPA bid, as it is a price adder per million dollars of network upgrades that are assigned. For standard cost estimates please see “DEC/DEP Standard Interconnection Cost Estimates” document posted July 3, 2023 at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents. The standard interconnection facilities costs do not include the network upgrade costs.

INT 00009
Published On: 08/16/2023

Question: Can you confirm the following: A project entering into the controllable PPA track only needs to submit a state jurisdictional IR for the RSC. Are a PSCAD and PSSE model needed for an IR in the RSC?

Answer: A project entering into the controllable PPA track only should submit a state jurisdictional interconnection request, (for the NCIP see Section 1.5 Interconnection Request). PSCAD models are not required for an Interconnection Request in the Resource Solicitation Cluster.  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 Phase 2 study performed by Transmission Planning.

INT 00008
Published On: 08/16/2023

Question: Could you please provide more details about the Readiness Milestone 2 (M2) payment and deadlines?

Answer: Please refer to the response for question INT 00007. 


INT 00007
Published On: 08/09/2023

Question: Please clarify the amount and timing of the required M2 security.

Answer: M2 readiness is established through participation in the RFP.  At the time of the M2 milestone, Market Participants chosen as Finalists will be notified (which notification occurs after Phase 1).  At that time, to continue participating in the RFP, Finalists will have to execute the relevant agreement (e.g. PPA or LOI), which actions will constitute readiness and the completion of the M2 milestone.  Thus, no additional payment is required at M2.  A Finalist’s continued participation in the RFP will be verified during the pre-Phase 2 customer engagement window.


Note if a Market Participant’s project is not a Winner of the 2023 RFP, pursuant to Section VIII of Appendix O, the project may elect to proceed as a Green Source Advantage project, as the project will no longer be a part of the 2023 Resource Solicitation Cluster.

INT 00006 (revised 06/12/2024)
Published On: 08/09/2023

Question: With respect to the Resource Solicitation Cluster (RSC) process, please see the following questions:

  • A. Is the Study Deposit calculated as follows, $50,000 + $1/kW?
  • B. Is the Study Deposit paid at the same time as the Bid Fee (by 9/29/23)?
  • C. Does the M1 Security Deposit equal 1x study deposit?
  • D. If MP is not selected as a Finalist, how would the withdrawal penalty be calculated? Is the answer M1 minus actual study costs?
  • E. If MP is selected as a finalist, we assume there is not an additional Security Deposit beyond already posted M1 Deposit?
  • F. Once an MP completes Phase 2 of RSC and executes a Facility Study Agreement, then the MP would need to post M3 Security Deposit of 2x Study Deposit?
  • G. Once Facility Study is complete, then MP would need to post M4 Security Deposit of 100% System Upgrades or $800,000 (whichever is higher)?


  • A: The study deposit due follows the applicable jurisdiction for the project, either North Carolina Interconnection Procedures, the South Carolina Interconnection Procedures or FERC Large Generator Interconnection Procedures. As an example a 55MW North Carolina project has a study deposit of = $50,000 + ($1/kw*55,000kw); $105,000.
  • B: The study deposit is due at the time the application is submitted via the Interconnection Portal. The proposal fee or bid fee can be paid at the time of the application but must be paid before the close of the bid window (September 29, noon Eastern time).
  • C: M1 is 1 times the study deposit. M1 is due by the end of the Customer Engagement window (which is currently scheduled for January 28, 2024); M1 readiness is demonstrated by participating in the Resource Solicitation Cluster.
  • D: The withdraw penalty follows the applicable jurisdiction for the project, either North Carolina Interconnection Procedures, the South Carolina Interconnection Procedures or FERC Large Generator Interconnection Procedures. See section in the North Carolina Interconnection Procedures for the Calculation of the Withdrawal Penalty for Ready Projects.
  • E: If a market participant is invited to be evaluated in step 2 of the RFP, Step 2 Proposal Security is due. See the DEC and DEP 2023  RFP, Section V RFP Process, J. Step 2 Proposal Security for additional information.
  • F: M3 is 2 times the study deposit. M3 readiness is demonstrated by participating and being selected in the Resource Solicitation Cluster.
  • G (revised 6/12/2024): The M4 payment for a North Carolina state project is due as noted in the NCIP section Readiness Milestone 4 (M4), and for South Carolina projects see section Readiness Milestone 4 (M4); this payment is due 10 days after receiving Facility Study results. For a FERC project please see section 10.11.4 Readiness Milestone 4 (M4) for demonstration of readiness and section 10.11.6 Security Requirements for the study deposit amount required. FERC ready projects require M4 security: M4 – 6 times the Section 4.1.2 study deposit amount. M4 readiness is demonstrated by participating and being selected in the Resource Solicitation Cluster; however, meeting readiness still requires an M4 payment.
  • The DET Study team is also available for questions related to submitting an Interconnection Request: Mark.McKeage@duke-energy.com; Kelly.Duke@duke-energy.com; Loriael.Joyner@duke-energy.com 

INT 00005
Published On: 07/07/2023

Question: Can you please provide the instructions and web links to apply for generator interconnection for this RFP?

Answer: The Interconnection Portal is linked here: https://dukeenergy.my.site.com/s/login/?language=en_US&ec=302&startURL=%2Fs%2F and will become active for the 2023 RFP Resource Solicitation Cluster at the opening of the bid window, on August 15, 2023, through September 29, 2023. 

More information about the RSC can be found in 'Appendix O – 2023 RSC Process,' available at https://www.dukeenergyrfpcarolinas.com/RFP-Documents . Instructions for submitting an Interconnection Request will also be reviewed in the Pre-Solicitation Bidders Conference to be held in early August (date TBD). 

INT 00004
Published On: 06/15/2023

Question: For clarity, when is it applicable for a proposed project to submit a state-jurisdictional interconnection request (per section IV. B) ahead of the RFP Response deadline?

Answer: Projects interested in the 2023 RFP should submit an interconnection request during the Resource Solicitation Cluster enrollment period, which is Identified in Appendix O of the 2023 RFP as August 15, 2023 – September 29, 2023.

INT 00003
Published On: 06/13/2023

Question: Section B states "Bidders submitting Controllable PPA Track proposals should submit a state-jurisdictional interconnection request under the North Carolina Interconnection Procedures or South Carolina Generator Interconnection Procedures, as applicable." Can projects that have filed Interconnection Requests into Duke's 2023 DISIS Cluster also participate in the 2023 Resource Solicitation Cluster?

Answer: No, a project cannot be in both the 2023 DISIS Cluster and the 2023 Resource Solicitation Cluster. As described in Section V.D of the RFP:  “Project Proposals offered into the 2023 RFP must have an eligible executed interconnection agreement (and have been part of the serial interconnection study process) or must participate in the 2023 RSC. For the avoidance of doubt, project Proposals offered into the 2023 RFP may not be in the 2023 or earlier DISIS Clusters.”