2023 RFP: Frequently Asked Questions


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.