Rate And Regulatory Matters	9 Months Ended
Rate And Regulatory Matters	Sep. 30, 2015
Rate And Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. Entergy Mississippi Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans sought authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In June 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement regarding the power purchase agreement, and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in June 2015. The City Council’s resolution approves, subject to certain conditions, the Union power purchase agreement as prudent and in the public interest and deems the costs of that power purchase agreement as eligible for recovery, with capacity costs being recoverable through a rider and energy-related costs being recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause. Long-term service agreement costs are recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause initially, but are subject to possible realignment to base rates in the next base rate case. The City Council approval also requires Entergy New Orleans to credit customer bills $4.8 million annually once the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3 occurs. In July 2015, Entergy Texas, together with other parties, filed a motion with the PUCT to dismiss Entergy Texas’s CCN application to acquire one of the four 495 MW power blocks at the Union Power Station. On July 30, 2015, the PUCT granted the motion to dismiss the CCN case. The power block originally allocated to Entergy Texas will be acquired by Entergy New Orleans, subject to City Council approval and the satisfaction of other conditions to close the transaction. The acquisition by Entergy New Orleans would replace the power purchase agreement with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that the City Council approved in June 2015. In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of the power block and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. The City Council advisors filed testimony in October 2015 supporting the transaction. There have been no interventions in the docket. In October 2015 the remaining procedural schedule was suspended while the parties work towards resolution of the issues. A City Council decision is expected in November 2015. Entergy Texas In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from the net of Entergy Texas’s then current fuel balance, bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period, and bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement this refund for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014. Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015. In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs. In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. That recommendation is scheduled to be considered by the PUCT in December 2015. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. A public evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin in January 2016. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. In connection with a status conference held in July 2015, a procedural schedule was established that calls for testimony to be filed in November 2015 and January 2016 and a hearing to be held in March 2016. In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates shall be implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. Retail Rates - Gas In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Filings with the PUCT In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. A hearing was held in November 2015, and a decision is expected from the PUCT by mid-February 2016. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony will be filed in November 2015, with a hearing on the merits scheduled in December 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In third quarter 2015 a deferral of $14 million for these external costs was recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination. The FERC has issued orders authorizing the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination. On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC”. With the completion of the business combination, New Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The financial statements of Entergy Louisiana included herein do not reflect the completion of the business combination. See Note 10 to the financial statements herein for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $58.7 million, including a final true-up in October 2015, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the FERC’s October 2011 order that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and an initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2009 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2008 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. In October 2015 the FERC denied LPSC’s request for rehearing of the October 2013 order addressing the 2009 rate proceeding. Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the FERC accepted the 2007 and 2008 comprehensive recalculation compliance filings. As a result, the 2007 and 2008 rate filing proceedings have concluded. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2009 comprehensive recalculation compliance filing. As a result, the 2009 rate filing proceeding has concluded. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of these proceedings. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings are scheduled to commence in November 2015. 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. The Entergy defendants have filed a waiver of their right to respond to the petition, subject to request, and await action by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Entergy Arkansas [Member]
Rate And Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. Entergy Mississippi Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans sought authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In June 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement regarding the power purchase agreement, and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in June 2015. The City Council’s resolution approves, subject to certain conditions, the Union power purchase agreement as prudent and in the public interest and deems the costs of that power purchase agreement as eligible for recovery, with capacity costs being recoverable through a rider and energy-related costs being recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause. Long-term service agreement costs are recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause initially, but are subject to possible realignment to base rates in the next base rate case. The City Council approval also requires Entergy New Orleans to credit customer bills $4.8 million annually once the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3 occurs. In July 2015, Entergy Texas, together with other parties, filed a motion with the PUCT to dismiss Entergy Texas’s CCN application to acquire one of the four 495 MW power blocks at the Union Power Station. On July 30, 2015, the PUCT granted the motion to dismiss the CCN case. The power block originally allocated to Entergy Texas will be acquired by Entergy New Orleans, subject to City Council approval and the satisfaction of other conditions to close the transaction. The acquisition by Entergy New Orleans would replace the power purchase agreement with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that the City Council approved in June 2015. In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of the power block and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. The City Council advisors filed testimony in October 2015 supporting the transaction. There have been no interventions in the docket. In October 2015 the remaining procedural schedule was suspended while the parties work towards resolution of the issues. A City Council decision is expected in November 2015. Entergy Texas In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from the net of Entergy Texas’s then current fuel balance, bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period, and bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement this refund for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014. Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015. In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs. In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. That recommendation is scheduled to be considered by the PUCT in December 2015. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. A public evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin in January 2016. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. In connection with a status conference held in July 2015, a procedural schedule was established that calls for testimony to be filed in November 2015 and January 2016 and a hearing to be held in March 2016. In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates shall be implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. Retail Rates - Gas In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Filings with the PUCT In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. A hearing was held in November 2015, and a decision is expected from the PUCT by mid-February 2016. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony will be filed in November 2015, with a hearing on the merits scheduled in December 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In third quarter 2015 a deferral of $14 million for these external costs was recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination. The FERC has issued orders authorizing the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination. On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC”. With the completion of the business combination, New Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The financial statements of Entergy Louisiana included herein do not reflect the completion of the business combination. See Note 10 to the financial statements herein for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $58.7 million, including a final true-up in October 2015, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the FERC’s October 2011 order that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and an initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2009 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2008 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. In October 2015 the FERC denied LPSC’s request for rehearing of the October 2013 order addressing the 2009 rate proceeding. Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the FERC accepted the 2007 and 2008 comprehensive recalculation compliance filings. As a result, the 2007 and 2008 rate filing proceedings have concluded. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2009 comprehensive recalculation compliance filing. As a result, the 2009 rate filing proceeding has concluded. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of these proceedings. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings are scheduled to commence in November 2015. 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. The Entergy defendants have filed a waiver of their right to respond to the petition, subject to request, and await action by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Entergy Louisiana [Member]
Rate And Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. Entergy Mississippi Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans sought authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In June 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement regarding the power purchase agreement, and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in June 2015. The City Council’s resolution approves, subject to certain conditions, the Union power purchase agreement as prudent and in the public interest and deems the costs of that power purchase agreement as eligible for recovery, with capacity costs being recoverable through a rider and energy-related costs being recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause. Long-term service agreement costs are recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause initially, but are subject to possible realignment to base rates in the next base rate case. The City Council approval also requires Entergy New Orleans to credit customer bills $4.8 million annually once the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3 occurs. In July 2015, Entergy Texas, together with other parties, filed a motion with the PUCT to dismiss Entergy Texas’s CCN application to acquire one of the four 495 MW power blocks at the Union Power Station. On July 30, 2015, the PUCT granted the motion to dismiss the CCN case. The power block originally allocated to Entergy Texas will be acquired by Entergy New Orleans, subject to City Council approval and the satisfaction of other conditions to close the transaction. The acquisition by Entergy New Orleans would replace the power purchase agreement with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that the City Council approved in June 2015. In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of the power block and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. The City Council advisors filed testimony in October 2015 supporting the transaction. There have been no interventions in the docket. In October 2015 the remaining procedural schedule was suspended while the parties work towards resolution of the issues. A City Council decision is expected in November 2015. Entergy Texas In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from the net of Entergy Texas’s then current fuel balance, bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period, and bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement this refund for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014. Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015. In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs. In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. That recommendation is scheduled to be considered by the PUCT in December 2015. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. A public evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin in January 2016. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. In connection with a status conference held in July 2015, a procedural schedule was established that calls for testimony to be filed in November 2015 and January 2016 and a hearing to be held in March 2016. In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates shall be implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. Retail Rates - Gas In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Filings with the PUCT In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. A hearing was held in November 2015, and a decision is expected from the PUCT by mid-February 2016. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony will be filed in November 2015, with a hearing on the merits scheduled in December 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In third quarter 2015 a deferral of $14 million for these external costs was recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination. The FERC has issued orders authorizing the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination. On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC”. With the completion of the business combination, New Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The financial statements of Entergy Louisiana included herein do not reflect the completion of the business combination. See Note 10 to the financial statements herein for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $58.7 million, including a final true-up in October 2015, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the FERC’s October 2011 order that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and an initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2009 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2008 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. In October 2015 the FERC denied LPSC’s request for rehearing of the October 2013 order addressing the 2009 rate proceeding. Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the FERC accepted the 2007 and 2008 comprehensive recalculation compliance filings. As a result, the 2007 and 2008 rate filing proceedings have concluded. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2009 comprehensive recalculation compliance filing. As a result, the 2009 rate filing proceeding has concluded. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of these proceedings. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings are scheduled to commence in November 2015. 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. The Entergy defendants have filed a waiver of their right to respond to the petition, subject to request, and await action by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Entergy Mississippi [Member]
Rate And Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. Entergy Mississippi Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans sought authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In June 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement regarding the power purchase agreement, and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in June 2015. The City Council’s resolution approves, subject to certain conditions, the Union power purchase agreement as prudent and in the public interest and deems the costs of that power purchase agreement as eligible for recovery, with capacity costs being recoverable through a rider and energy-related costs being recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause. Long-term service agreement costs are recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause initially, but are subject to possible realignment to base rates in the next base rate case. The City Council approval also requires Entergy New Orleans to credit customer bills $4.8 million annually once the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3 occurs. In July 2015, Entergy Texas, together with other parties, filed a motion with the PUCT to dismiss Entergy Texas’s CCN application to acquire one of the four 495 MW power blocks at the Union Power Station. On July 30, 2015, the PUCT granted the motion to dismiss the CCN case. The power block originally allocated to Entergy Texas will be acquired by Entergy New Orleans, subject to City Council approval and the satisfaction of other conditions to close the transaction. The acquisition by Entergy New Orleans would replace the power purchase agreement with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that the City Council approved in June 2015. In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of the power block and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. The City Council advisors filed testimony in October 2015 supporting the transaction. There have been no interventions in the docket. In October 2015 the remaining procedural schedule was suspended while the parties work towards resolution of the issues. A City Council decision is expected in November 2015. Entergy Texas In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from the net of Entergy Texas’s then current fuel balance, bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period, and bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement this refund for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014. Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015. In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs. In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. That recommendation is scheduled to be considered by the PUCT in December 2015. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. A public evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin in January 2016. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. In connection with a status conference held in July 2015, a procedural schedule was established that calls for testimony to be filed in November 2015 and January 2016 and a hearing to be held in March 2016. In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates shall be implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. Retail Rates - Gas In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Filings with the PUCT In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. A hearing was held in November 2015, and a decision is expected from the PUCT by mid-February 2016. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony will be filed in November 2015, with a hearing on the merits scheduled in December 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In third quarter 2015 a deferral of $14 million for these external costs was recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination. The FERC has issued orders authorizing the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination. On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC”. With the completion of the business combination, New Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The financial statements of Entergy Louisiana included herein do not reflect the completion of the business combination. See Note 10 to the financial statements herein for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $58.7 million, including a final true-up in October 2015, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the FERC’s October 2011 order that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and an initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2009 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2008 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. In October 2015 the FERC denied LPSC’s request for rehearing of the October 2013 order addressing the 2009 rate proceeding. Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the FERC accepted the 2007 and 2008 comprehensive recalculation compliance filings. As a result, the 2007 and 2008 rate filing proceedings have concluded. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2009 comprehensive recalculation compliance filing. As a result, the 2009 rate filing proceeding has concluded. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of these proceedings. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings are scheduled to commence in November 2015. 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. The Entergy defendants have filed a waiver of their right to respond to the petition, subject to request, and await action by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Entergy New Orleans [Member]
Rate And Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. Entergy Mississippi Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans sought authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In June 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement regarding the power purchase agreement, and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in June 2015. The City Council’s resolution approves, subject to certain conditions, the Union power purchase agreement as prudent and in the public interest and deems the costs of that power purchase agreement as eligible for recovery, with capacity costs being recoverable through a rider and energy-related costs being recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause. Long-term service agreement costs are recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause initially, but are subject to possible realignment to base rates in the next base rate case. The City Council approval also requires Entergy New Orleans to credit customer bills $4.8 million annually once the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3 occurs. In July 2015, Entergy Texas, together with other parties, filed a motion with the PUCT to dismiss Entergy Texas’s CCN application to acquire one of the four 495 MW power blocks at the Union Power Station. On July 30, 2015, the PUCT granted the motion to dismiss the CCN case. The power block originally allocated to Entergy Texas will be acquired by Entergy New Orleans, subject to City Council approval and the satisfaction of other conditions to close the transaction. The acquisition by Entergy New Orleans would replace the power purchase agreement with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that the City Council approved in June 2015. In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of the power block and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. The City Council advisors filed testimony in October 2015 supporting the transaction. There have been no interventions in the docket. In October 2015 the remaining procedural schedule was suspended while the parties work towards resolution of the issues. A City Council decision is expected in November 2015. Entergy Texas In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from the net of Entergy Texas’s then current fuel balance, bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period, and bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement this refund for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014. Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015. In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs. In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. That recommendation is scheduled to be considered by the PUCT in December 2015. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. A public evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin in January 2016. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. In connection with a status conference held in July 2015, a procedural schedule was established that calls for testimony to be filed in November 2015 and January 2016 and a hearing to be held in March 2016. In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates shall be implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. Retail Rates - Gas In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Filings with the PUCT In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. A hearing was held in November 2015, and a decision is expected from the PUCT by mid-February 2016. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony will be filed in November 2015, with a hearing on the merits scheduled in December 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In third quarter 2015 a deferral of $14 million for these external costs was recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination. The FERC has issued orders authorizing the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination. On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC”. With the completion of the business combination, New Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The financial statements of Entergy Louisiana included herein do not reflect the completion of the business combination. See Note 10 to the financial statements herein for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $58.7 million, including a final true-up in October 2015, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the FERC’s October 2011 order that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and an initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2009 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2008 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. In October 2015 the FERC denied LPSC’s request for rehearing of the October 2013 order addressing the 2009 rate proceeding. Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the FERC accepted the 2007 and 2008 comprehensive recalculation compliance filings. As a result, the 2007 and 2008 rate filing proceedings have concluded. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2009 comprehensive recalculation compliance filing. As a result, the 2009 rate filing proceeding has concluded. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of these proceedings. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings are scheduled to commence in November 2015. 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. The Entergy defendants have filed a waiver of their right to respond to the petition, subject to request, and await action by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Entergy Texas [Member]
Rate And Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. Entergy Mississippi Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans sought authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In June 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement regarding the power purchase agreement, and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in June 2015. The City Council’s resolution approves, subject to certain conditions, the Union power purchase agreement as prudent and in the public interest and deems the costs of that power purchase agreement as eligible for recovery, with capacity costs being recoverable through a rider and energy-related costs being recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause. Long-term service agreement costs are recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause initially, but are subject to possible realignment to base rates in the next base rate case. The City Council approval also requires Entergy New Orleans to credit customer bills $4.8 million annually once the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3 occurs. In July 2015, Entergy Texas, together with other parties, filed a motion with the PUCT to dismiss Entergy Texas’s CCN application to acquire one of the four 495 MW power blocks at the Union Power Station. On July 30, 2015, the PUCT granted the motion to dismiss the CCN case. The power block originally allocated to Entergy Texas will be acquired by Entergy New Orleans, subject to City Council approval and the satisfaction of other conditions to close the transaction. The acquisition by Entergy New Orleans would replace the power purchase agreement with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that the City Council approved in June 2015. In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of the power block and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. The City Council advisors filed testimony in October 2015 supporting the transaction. There have been no interventions in the docket. In October 2015 the remaining procedural schedule was suspended while the parties work towards resolution of the issues. A City Council decision is expected in November 2015. Entergy Texas In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from the net of Entergy Texas’s then current fuel balance, bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period, and bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement this refund for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014. Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015. In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs. In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. That recommendation is scheduled to be considered by the PUCT in December 2015. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. A public evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin in January 2016. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. In connection with a status conference held in July 2015, a procedural schedule was established that calls for testimony to be filed in November 2015 and January 2016 and a hearing to be held in March 2016. In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates shall be implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. Retail Rates - Gas In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Filings with the PUCT In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. A hearing was held in November 2015, and a decision is expected from the PUCT by mid-February 2016. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony will be filed in November 2015, with a hearing on the merits scheduled in December 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In third quarter 2015 a deferral of $14 million for these external costs was recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination. The FERC has issued orders authorizing the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination. On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC”. With the completion of the business combination, New Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The financial statements of Entergy Louisiana included herein do not reflect the completion of the business combination. See Note 10 to the financial statements herein for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $58.7 million, including a final true-up in October 2015, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the FERC’s October 2011 order that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and an initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2009 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2008 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. In October 2015 the FERC denied LPSC’s request for rehearing of the October 2013 order addressing the 2009 rate proceeding. Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the FERC accepted the 2007 and 2008 comprehensive recalculation compliance filings. As a result, the 2007 and 2008 rate filing proceedings have concluded. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2009 comprehensive recalculation compliance filing. As a result, the 2009 rate filing proceeding has concluded. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of these proceedings. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings are scheduled to commence in November 2015. 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. The Entergy defendants have filed a waiver of their right to respond to the petition, subject to request, and await action by the Supreme Court of Texas.
System Energy [Member]
Rate And Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. Entergy Mississippi Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans sought authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In June 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement regarding the power purchase agreement, and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in June 2015. The City Council’s resolution approves, subject to certain conditions, the Union power purchase agreement as prudent and in the public interest and deems the costs of that power purchase agreement as eligible for recovery, with capacity costs being recoverable through a rider and energy-related costs being recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause. Long-term service agreement costs are recoverable through the fuel adjustment clause initially, but are subject to possible realignment to base rates in the next base rate case. The City Council approval also requires Entergy New Orleans to credit customer bills $4.8 million annually once the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3 occurs. In July 2015, Entergy Texas, together with other parties, filed a motion with the PUCT to dismiss Entergy Texas’s CCN application to acquire one of the four 495 MW power blocks at the Union Power Station. On July 30, 2015, the PUCT granted the motion to dismiss the CCN case. The power block originally allocated to Entergy Texas will be acquired by Entergy New Orleans, subject to City Council approval and the satisfaction of other conditions to close the transaction. The acquisition by Entergy New Orleans would replace the power purchase agreement with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that the City Council approved in June 2015. In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of the power block and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. The City Council advisors filed testimony in October 2015 supporting the transaction. There have been no interventions in the docket. In October 2015 the remaining procedural schedule was suspended while the parties work towards resolution of the issues. A City Council decision is expected in November 2015. Entergy Texas In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from the net of Entergy Texas’s then current fuel balance, bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period, and bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement this refund for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014. Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015. In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs. In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. That recommendation is scheduled to be considered by the PUCT in December 2015. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. A public evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin in January 2016. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. In connection with a status conference held in July 2015, a procedural schedule was established that calls for testimony to be filed in November 2015 and January 2016 and a hearing to be held in March 2016. In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for pre-combination Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates shall be implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. Retail Rates - Gas In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Filings with the PUCT In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. A hearing was held in November 2015, and a decision is expected from the PUCT by mid-February 2016. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony will be filed in November 2015, with a hearing on the merits scheduled in December 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In third quarter 2015 a deferral of $14 million for these external costs was recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination. The FERC has issued orders authorizing the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination. On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC”. With the completion of the business combination, New Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The financial statements of Entergy Louisiana included herein do not reflect the completion of the business combination. See Note 10 to the financial statements herein for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $58.7 million, including a final true-up in October 2015, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the FERC’s October 2011 order that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and an initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2009 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2008 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision. In October 2015 the FERC denied LPSC’s request for rehearing of the October 2013 order addressing the 2009 rate proceeding. Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015 the FERC accepted the 2007 and 2008 comprehensive recalculation compliance filings. As a result, the 2007 and 2008 rate filing proceedings have concluded. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2009 comprehensive recalculation compliance filing. As a result, the 2009 rate filing proceeding has concluded. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of these proceedings. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings are scheduled to commence in November 2015. 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. The Entergy defendants have filed a waiver of their right to respond to the petition, subject to request, and await action by the Supreme Court of Texas.